Not completely: There's also the matter of precedent. Once they can force this, have no doubts they'll be into everything, "To serve and protect." BS. To pry and coerce, closer to the truth.

The Bible was used as justification to a populace that was kept intentionally ignorant by restricting it's print to a language none of them could read.  The only thing that compares to the general tenor of the second half of the Qur'an, is Leviticus 20:13.  Homosexuals are executed as a matter of course in the Islamic world, so on this one point Islam is no better and actively engaging in it today.  Calls to violence such as the conquest of Canaan are event specific, later writings of past history, or at least what they considered to be history.

The author of the Qur'an, on the other hand, told the faithful to kill polytheists, subjugate monotheists, and generally advocated raiding and conquering anyone that didn't recognize Allah once he held power.  This was said in advance of conquering his peaceful neighbors in Mecca that he'd negotiated a ten year truce with a couple years earlier.  He practiced what he preached, waging war and raiding throughout his rule in Medina.  There are far more wars in a short period of ten years in the Qur'an and Hadith, than are mentioned in the entirety of the Bible, a collection of documents covering an incomparably vast time frame.

His successors made him look tame, factions within his own family spent the next generation or so slaughtering and conquering each other, and their neighbors, beginning the fractures that resulted in the Sunni and Shia sects.  Meanwhile, they were writing most of the accompanying religious texts they use today, a great many justifications for killing and enslaving pervade them as a result.

For Christianity to be similar to Islam in this respect, Jesus and the Apostles would have needed to call on the faithful to wage war on the unbelievers.  Instead, they were only called to spread the word in a somewhat more literal sense, by preaching.

No it shouldn't be easier. It should fall under the exact same rules. If all they need to do is arrest you first to make it easier, why bother ever getting a search warrant the appropriate way?

The only way it would work they way you think is if they required some sort of evidence to place you in custody in the first place. Which they do not. Granted they can't hold you forever, but if all they need is to have you in custody for the time it takes to get a warrant, that is all they will do.

That would be a blatant end-around on the laws in place regarding search warrants.

Thanks for your post and the above portion in particular.  What is missing from the conversation is the extent to which the "West's" exploitation of the middle east has made it a target for terrorism.  If we were really willing to stop the meddling and meet our own energy needs it would become possible for the situation to change.

The "problem" is that alternative energy is a commie pinko liberal plot... [rolling eyes smiley]

At least the majority of the people on this board believe that.

The day that fusion become a cost effective reality, is the day that the Middle East becomes irrelevant.

I would love to be alive when that happens, and watch all them fight over sand dunes and worthless viscous liquids.

Taking a wild guess, this report is more important than the current situation in Syria. (SARCASM!"!!!)
Now i ask myself why not buy bunch of new crapphones and try to crack/jailbreak the shit out them. 
Once a hack is successful, try with another new phone with some random data stored on it, before attempting the same hack on the device in question?

The funny thing is that one guy already said, that leaking data from the device could be done with simple tricks...but the FBI was trying to break it for years you say without success - hilarious once again. Ohh and did they or did they not change the SID?  Must has been a breakthrough!
The story just doesnt fit together very well
same like this image


I doubt that this is about personal rights or the ultimate goal to take those away from anyone, nor is it to mass control all of the Iphone users.
The purpose of this is surely much greater nature.

In reference to the first line, Nah better make a huge fuzz about cracking a single device, people will love it and Donald "Duck" can use the opportunity to score some Duffy points. All neat but even that does not seem like the center stage atm?
 

Not to mention out of touch with basic common sense.

We actually have access to all the fossil fuels we need now.  We even export.  We're effectively in the midst of a test of wills with the Saudi's to see who blinks first.  They are keeping production high and prices low enough to make our energy industry suffer.  It's the only card they can play at the moment, quite unlike when they had a stranglehold on supply and could dictate the price.

The Donald tweeted his call for an Apple boycott... from his iPhone.  He uses iPads as Square terminals for selling his swag on the road.

At least he wears his hypocrisy on his sleeve for all to see, unlike the rest of the potential Presidents who try to hide it.

While that is certainly possible, the situation hadn't changed for the thousands of years before oil was being used commercially. And frankly Muslims as a whole don't seem particularly interested in stopping their quest to be the one true religion, by any means possible. Sure there are some great Muslim people out there, but they do little to anything to help change the path of Islam in any meaningful way on a global scale.

Guys...the thread was really about our right to privacy.

While things usually do go afield, the religion/politics thing can make some feel uncomfortable...so please, let's end that stuff here, especially since frogboy has stated that stuff should not appear in Forums.

Thanks.

Politics is (should be) fair game in the 'Politics' section of the Forum.  The topic 'Right to Privacy' could easily be considered a political topic as opposed to a personal computing topic.  So maybe the whole thread should be over there?

You see the difficulty in purifying discussions, no?

Agreed, I apologize for joining that, and if you'd like I'll delete my previous post if you request it.

Np i changed my comment 

Thanks to the folks who understood.

Privacy, IT, passwords...have to do with several fields...but mentioning specific candidates/religions...well, they have nothing really to do with the topic besides them hypocritically using it to their own jingoistic ends.