Judge: No, feds can’t nab all Apple devices and try everyone’s fingerprints

"Such Fourth Amendment intrusions are [not] justified based on the facts articulated."

Read the whole story

 

[jandrese]

Wow, I thought the courts were going to go along with the IMHO insane notion that just because they're allowed to collect fingerprints for identification they are allowed to bypass biometric locks on devices. Especially since the Constitution already states that you can't be forced to give up passwords.

I would say that I'd want this to go up to the supreme court, but given the current composition of the court I'd probably be disappointed in the results.

 

[fishbait]

Awesome!

But the NSA is still listening to whomever, whenever they want and furthermore archiving the info to form a profile of your behavior.

You can thank former US president Barack Obama for that.

no thank the patriot act for enabling them to do exactly that under the guise of terrorist prevention measures.

 

[carldjennings]

Awesome!

But the NSA is still listening to whomever, whenever they want and furthermore archiving the info to form a profile of your behavior.

You can thank former US president Barack Obama for that.

no thank the patriot act for enabling them to do exactly that under the guise of terrorist prevention measures.

While that was the legal footing he used, Obama proposed, and then signed the order into action, and even worse added drone strikes on US citizens for good measure 8(

Proof that Obama signed it into action?

As for drone strikes against US Citizens...if those US Citizens are in the Middle East plotting with known terrorists and helping with recruitment efforts, I'm all for killing him with a drone. What are we supposed to do? Try to take him alive?

On US soil bud.

Drone strikes on US citizens, on US soil.

When and where?

 

[Sugarland]

Proof that Obama signed it into action?

"As a senator, Obama condemned the Patriot Act for violating the rights of American citizens. He argued that it allowed government agents to perform extensive and in-depth searches on American citizens without a search warrant. He also argued that it was possible to secure the United States against terrorist attacks while preserving individual liberty.[1] Yet, In 2011, Obama signed a four-year renewal of the Patriot Act, specifically provisions allowing roaming wiretaps and government searches of business records. Obama argued that the renewal was needed to protect the United States from terrorist attacks. However, the renewal was criticized by several members of Congress who argued that the provisions did not do enough to curtail excessive searches.[2] Obama also received criticism for his reversal on privacy protection.[3]"

Thats from wikipedia, however, i encourage you to research the topic yourself and not take my word, or wikipedia's word for it.

Unfortunately, Obama not only wound up being a proponent of the patriot act, he expanded it.

 

[fishbait]

Awesome!

But the NSA is still listening to whomever, whenever they want and furthermore archiving the info to form a profile of your behavior.

You can thank former US president Barack Obama for that.

no thank the patriot act for enabling them to do exactly that under the guise of terrorist prevention measures.

While that was the legal footing he used, Obama proposed, and then signed the order into action, and even worse added drone strikes on US citizens for good measure 8(

Proof that Obama signed it into action?

As for drone strikes against US Citizens...if those US Citizens are in the Middle East plotting with known terrorists and helping with recruitment efforts, I'm all for killing him with a drone. What are we supposed to do? Try to take him alive?

On US soil bud.

Drone strikes on US citizens, on US soil.

when and where and what evidence did they use to authorize said strike.

 

[Sugarland]

Awesome!

But the NSA is still listening to whomever, whenever they want and furthermore archiving the info to form a profile of your behavior.

I hate to burst your bubble, but frankly you're not that important.

Until you have a friend that is a member of a suspected terrorist cell, and you need to be checked out.

 

[Sugarland]

Proof that Obama signed it into action?

"As a senator, Obama condemned the Patriot Act for violating the rights of American citizens. He argued that it allowed government agents to perform extensive and in-depth searches on American citizens without a search warrant. He also argued that it was possible to secure the United States against terrorist attacks while preserving individual liberty.[1] Yet, In 2011, Obama signed a four-year renewal of the Patriot Act, specifically provisions allowing roaming wiretaps and government searches of business records. Obama argued that the renewal was needed to protect the United States from terrorist attacks. However, the renewal was criticized by several members of Congress who argued that the provisions did not do enough to curtail excessive searches.[2] Obama also received criticism for his reversal on privacy protection.[3]"

Thats from wikipedia, however, i encourage you to research the topic yourself and not take my word, or wikipedia's word for it.

Unfortunately, Obama not only wound up being a proponent of the patriot act, he expanded it.

wikipedia isnt a good source find another! one that cant be readily altered over charged topics!

Get off your lazy ass and do it yourself, like i said, i don't want you to take my word for it...educate yourself.

Your hero Obama did a lot of nasty shit and got away with it because the focus has been on trump.

Get off you lazy ass and find a source that isnt readily alter able for discussions over charged topics.

Ok fuckwit, here you go:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/22/the-cont ... igned.html

And ignored for trolling

 

[fishbait]

Awesome!

But the NSA is still listening to whomever, whenever they want and furthermore archiving the info to form a profile of your behavior.

I hate to burst your bubble, but frankly you're not that important.

Until you have a friend that is a member of a suspected terrorist cell, and you need to be checked out.

i hate to burst your bubble but thats how terrorism is supposed to be investigated.

 

[carldjennings]

Proof that Obama signed it into action?

"As a senator, Obama condemned the Patriot Act for violating the rights of American citizens. He argued that it allowed government agents to perform extensive and in-depth searches on American citizens without a search warrant. He also argued that it was possible to secure the United States against terrorist attacks while preserving individual liberty.[1] Yet, In 2011, Obama signed a four-year renewal of the Patriot Act, specifically provisions allowing roaming wiretaps and government searches of business records. Obama argued that the renewal was needed to protect the United States from terrorist attacks. However, the renewal was criticized by several members of Congress who argued that the provisions did not do enough to curtail excessive searches.[2] Obama also received criticism for his reversal on privacy protection.[3]"

Thats from wikipedia, however, i encourage you to research the topic yourself and not take my word, or wikipedia's word for it.

Unfortunately, Obama not only wound up being a proponent of the patriot act, he expanded it.

He signed a renewal of the Patriot Act, which means he isn't the one that "signed it into action". And what did Obama do specifically that allowed drone strikes against US citizens?

 

[Rosyna]

Under both operating systems, the fingerprint unlock stops working after your phone has been unlocked for 48 hours

Not only does iOS disable TouchID if the device is rebooted or 48 hours pass, as mentioned in the article, it also disables TouchID if there are 5 incorrect attempts.

While I am glad there's a precedent now, this technical issue means the government's initial request was doomed to failure anyways unless they had a very specific suspect in mind. And even then, you'd have to guess the correct finger. You can't try them all.

This especially becomes a problem because if the angle is wildly off or there's too much gunk on the finger/sensor, TouchID will reject even the correct finger.

(You also don't need to use a finger tip, you can use any skin patch with a unique pattern)

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Awesome!

But the NSA is still listening to whomever, whenever they want and furthermore archiving the info to form a profile of your behavior.

I hate to burst your bubble, but frankly you're not that important.

Until you have a friend that is a member of a suspected terrorist cell, and you need to be checked out.

Yes.

And?

 

[Sugarland]

Proof that Obama signed it into action?

"As a senator, Obama condemned the Patriot Act for violating the rights of American citizens. He argued that it allowed government agents to perform extensive and in-depth searches on American citizens without a search warrant. He also argued that it was possible to secure the United States against terrorist attacks while preserving individual liberty.[1] Yet, In 2011, Obama signed a four-year renewal of the Patriot Act, specifically provisions allowing roaming wiretaps and government searches of business records. Obama argued that the renewal was needed to protect the United States from terrorist attacks. However, the renewal was criticized by several members of Congress who argued that the provisions did not do enough to curtail excessive searches.[2] Obama also received criticism for his reversal on privacy protection.[3]"

Thats from wikipedia, however, i encourage you to research the topic yourself and not take my word, or wikipedia's word for it.

Unfortunately, Obama not only wound up being a proponent of the patriot act, he expanded it.

He signed a renewal of the Patriot Act, which means he isn't the one that "signed it into action". And what did Obama do specifically that allowed drone strikes against US citizens?

I do not accuse Obama of signing it into action.

I suggest to you that he is held accountable for using it as a legal foothold to enable much, much uglier reforms.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... ance-trump

Read it and weep,

while you were afraid of Trump ....Obama was up to some seriously nasty shit.

 

[Quisquis]

Awesome!

But the NSA is still listening to whomever, whenever they want and furthermore archiving the info to form a profile of your behavior.

I hate to burst your bubble, but frankly you're not that important.

Until you have a friend that is a member of a suspected terrorist cell, and you need to be checked out.

i hate to burst your bubble but thats how terrorism is supposed to be investigated.

Awesome!

But the NSA is still listening to whomever, whenever they want and furthermore archiving the info to form a profile of your behavior.

I hate to burst your bubble, but frankly you're not that important.

Until you have a friend that is a member of a suspected terrorist cell, and you need to be checked out.

Yes.

And?

Or a friend of a friend.

Or a friend of a friend of a friend.

This is all using a very liberal definition of a friend.

Wanna know a secret guys: I have a friend of a friend.

Where does that put all of you?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/inter ... coded-hops

You don’t need to be talking to a terror suspect to have your communications data analysed by the NSA. The agency is allowed to travel “three hops” from its targets – who could be people who talk to people who talk to people who talk to you.

And considering Snowden frequented Ars Technica, this isn't some anonymous place avoiding all scrutiny.

 

[fishbait]

None yet, Obama just made it legal to do so.

oh so you have no proof of this being enacted all you have is your own conjecture about what might happen and you call me a troll go home and work on your tinfoil hat that protects against nsa mind probing.

*comment manually truncated to one nested quote due to 6 nested quote limit having been reached.

 

[fishbait]

Awesome!

But the NSA is still listening to whomever, whenever they want and furthermore archiving the info to form a profile of your behavior.

I hate to burst your bubble, but frankly you're not that important.

Until you have a friend that is a member of a suspected terrorist cell, and you need to be checked out.

i hate to burst your bubble but thats how terrorism is supposed to be investigated.

Awesome!

But the NSA is still listening to whomever, whenever they want and furthermore archiving the info to form a profile of your behavior.

I hate to burst your bubble, but frankly you're not that important.

Until you have a friend that is a member of a suspected terrorist cell, and you need to be checked out.

Yes.

And?

Or a friend of a friend.

Or a friend of a friend of a friend.

This is all using a very liberal definition of a friend.

Wanna know a secret guys: I have a friend of a friend.

Where does that put all of you?

thats how its supposed to uncover terrorist cells by tracing the people they associate with from the outside in.

 

[Quisquis]

Awesome!

But the NSA is still listening to whomever, whenever they want and furthermore archiving the info to form a profile of your behavior.

I hate to burst your bubble, but frankly you're not that important.

Until you have a friend that is a member of a suspected terrorist cell, and you need to be checked out.

i hate to burst your bubble but thats how terrorism is supposed to be investigated.

Awesome!

But the NSA is still listening to whomever, whenever they want and furthermore archiving the info to form a profile of your behavior.

I hate to burst your bubble, but frankly you're not that important.

Until you have a friend that is a member of a suspected terrorist cell, and you need to be checked out.

Yes.

And?

Or a friend of a friend.

Or a friend of a friend of a friend.

This is all using a very liberal definition of a friend.

Wanna know a secret guys: I have a friend of a friend.

Where does that put all of you?

thats how its supposed to uncover terrorist cells by tracing the people they associate with from the outside in.

Well, I hope you enjoy knowing the government is monitoring your dick pics.

Not a hypothetical you. Actually you.

 

[fishbait]

Well, I hope you enjoy knowing the government is monitoring your dick pics.*

enjoy the show if someone is conducting loveint on me id love to meet them and possibly more

*comment 6 nested qoutes truncate bla bla bal.

 

[Quisquis]

Well, I hope you enjoy knowing the government is monitoring your dick pics.*

enjoy the show if someone is conducting loveint on me id love to meet them and possibly more

*comment 6 nested qoutes truncate bla bla bal.

Some people actually care about their privacy.

Not you, obviously. The specter of the in reality vanishingly small threat of terrorism seems to be enough for you to be comfortable with the government reading your emails and messages and phone records.

But some people.

 

[Quisquis]

Well, I hope you enjoy knowing the government is monitoring your dick pics.*

enjoy the show if someone is conducting loveint on me id love to meet them and possibly more

*comment 6 nested qoutes truncate bla bla bal.

Some people actually care about their privacy.

And others care about not being shot or blown up. Funny old world, isn't it?

There's incredibly more effective things to do to avoid being shot or blown up (even the NSA admits that it's not terribly effective to be buried under so much data).

I bolded the relevant bit:

Not you, obviously. The specter of the in reality vanishingly small threat of terrorism seems to be enough for you to be comfortable with the government reading your emails and messages and phone records.

 

[fishbait]

Well, I hope you enjoy knowing the government is monitoring your dick pics.*

enjoy the show if someone is conducting loveint on me id love to meet them and possibly more

*comment 6 nested qoutes truncate bla bla bal.

Some people actually care about their privacy.

Not you, obviously. The specter of the in reality vanishingly small threat of terrorism seems to be enough for you to be comfortable with the government reading your emails and messages and phone records.

But some people.

as someone else said three hops and thats what im fine with if i happen to be associated with someone who knows someone who is a suspected domestic terrorist and get caught in such a net so be it because that is a reasonable balance based on the effective implementation limit of that method of terrorism prevention.

 

[fishbait]

Well, I hope you enjoy knowing the government is monitoring your dick pics.*

enjoy the show if someone is conducting loveint on me id love to meet them and possibly more

*comment 6 nested qoutes truncate bla bla bal.

Some people actually care about their privacy.

And others care about not being shot or blown up. Funny old world, isn't it?

There's incredibly more effective things to do to avoid being shot or blown up (even the NSA admits that it's not terribly effective to be buried under so much data).

I bolded the relevant bit:

Not you, obviously. The specter of the in reality vanishingly small threat of terrorism seems to be enough for you to be comfortable with the government reading your emails and messages and phone records.

i reiterate i am not fine with a total us dragnet as its unnecessarily large nor am i fine with the nsa having to get a warrant every bloody time they need to so much as google a persons name. a 3 hop limit is a fine balance.

 

[Quisquis]

Well, I hope you enjoy knowing the government is monitoring your dick pics.*

enjoy the show if someone is conducting loveint on me id love to meet them and possibly more

*comment 6 nested qoutes truncate bla bla bal.

Some people actually care about their privacy.

Not you, obviously. The specter of the in reality vanishingly small threat of terrorism seems to be enough for you to be comfortable with the government reading your emails and messages and phone records.

But some people.

as someone else said three hops and thats what im fine with if i happen to be associated with someone who knows someone who is a suspected domestic terrorist and get caught in such a net so be it because that is a reasonable balance based on the effective implementation limit of that method of terrorism prevention.

It doesn't require the person to be a "suspected domestic terrorist". For example, in my case it's because I know people who live in Gaza; they have friends/associates who are affiliated with Hamas (it's pretty much impossible to live there and not have that be the case). That's not a domestic threat, but it is an organization listed by the US as being a terrorist group, and so is enough to enable the three hops rule.

It's really not a reasonable balance. The amount of connections made by three hops is enormous (go play with that slider in the link I provided). And that's just a logistical perspective, without even touching on the Constitutional issues.

 

[Quisquis]

Well, I hope you enjoy knowing the government is monitoring your dick pics.*

enjoy the show if someone is conducting loveint on me id love to meet them and possibly more

*comment 6 nested qoutes truncate bla bla bal.

Some people actually care about their privacy.

And others care about not being shot or blown up. Funny old world, isn't it?

There's incredibly more effective things to do to avoid being shot or blown up (even the NSA admits that it's not terribly effective to be buried under so much data).

I bolded the relevant bit:

Not you, obviously. The specter of the in reality vanishingly small threat of terrorism seems to be enough for you to be comfortable with the government reading your emails and messages and phone records.

i reiterate i am not fine with a total us dragnet as its unnecessarily large nor am i fine with the nsa having to get a warrant every bloody time they need to so much as google a persons name. a 3 hop limit is a fine balance.

By "google someone's name", you mean search their hacked database of google data for a person's name, right?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24751821

 

[fishbait]

By "google someone's name", you mean search their hacked database of google data for a person's name, right?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24751821

no i mean a literal google search its meant to be the extreme example of too strictly controlled since a google search of a name will at best turn up public records information and maybe a facebook, if you can wade through a sea of "X names info only 9.95!" links, of course i meant only a search not the ability to click on any links found in it.

*cthulhus tits the 6 nest limit again!