![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
that would require a gun to validate the user's identity before it would fire. Such guns, if stolen, would need to be modified or hacked in order to be used or sold. In cases that require knowledge of whether a specific weapon was used via ballistics test, this could require some creativity or a back door made available by the manufacturer that would only be released to certain authorities. More job security for hackers and lawyers would surely come from this.
Apple's own statement reads that their product has become essential. It's a tool that can be, and is actually being used as a weapon in both a physical and virtual sense. I suppose the question to be asked is whether or not a manufacturer has any responsibility in cases where their product can be deliberately used to cause harm. Didn't Alfred Nobel face this same dilemma?
It was used to communicate with others. This may be the test of whether we get privacy in communications for all of us.
Backup and here's the issue. "the All Writs Act, and what it basically says is “courts can order anyone to do anything”." More at link.
While the All Writs Act doesn't in itself mean the end of security or privacy it will force the discussion.
and try to get a mandatory recall of the devices based on personal and public threat of harm. I've seen a few recalls for which some of the lamest reasons were given. I can't register an opinion on this one but there's nothing unusual about our government wanting to punish the majority for the sins of the few.
As long as a person doesn't suffer any consequences from what someone else (the Government) knows....
How is a person "punished"?
The fear of wondering WHEN...NOT IF.... they will suffer consequences?
which appears to be about the government searching for a way to impose itself when there's no clear mandate?...only an old phrase of law that was never tweeted between the those who first drew it up? Care to speak to that before challenging another person's response?
What's the difference between a "clear mandate" and a 'mandate"?
THAT'S the rub.
War on Terror
Speaking of Scalia...
Justice Scalia and the War on Terror
How to interpret the Constitution’s directives in regard to fighting America's war with Islamists?
So getting the real number is guessing. I read numbers from 50 and more billion dollars.
Anyhow, I hope folk watch the NSA Chief interview.