If You Encrypt Your Cellphone the Terrorists Win
Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 12 months ago to Government
These guys never stop. If we don't give up our privacy and our 4th Amendment, the terrorists win. Do these guys go to a secret 'Newspeak' school or are they just idiots? Or are we?
"If you value privacy and want to encrypt your cellphone to keep hackers and other snoops from rifling through your personal business then you are aiding terrorists. At least that's what the top prosecutor in New York City said recently when discussing new encryption software released by Apple and Google that is specifically for the operating systems on cellphones."
"If you value privacy and want to encrypt your cellphone to keep hackers and other snoops from rifling through your personal business then you are aiding terrorists. At least that's what the top prosecutor in New York City said recently when discussing new encryption software released by Apple and Google that is specifically for the operating systems on cellphones."
Outrageous. A clear violation of the 4th amendment. Your cell phone is the modern equivalent of your desk drawer. The founders were not stupid. They knew technology would change, but the principle should not.
Respectfully,
O.A.
+1
Of course the New York City Prosecutor may have a different definition of "new"
I reject even the word "terrorism". The word hardly has any meaning, and it's used as an excuse to take extraordinary action. Once we use the excuse, it's a short road to taking the same action to fight other crimes like murder and rape. Not much farther down the road are drugs, campaign finance violations, tax evasion, illegal guns, etc.
The fact that politicians use it incorrectly is not the fault of the word, but the person using it.
Assassinating a political figure, such as a head of state is politically motivated violence but not terrorism.
Detonating a series of bombs along a Marathon route without regard to who is killed is terrorism with no direct political motivation.
Can terrorism be conducted by nations at war? For example, if a general plans an attack calculated to foment terror in enemy soldiers, can that be terrorism? What if the general attacks civilian infrastructure to demoralize the enemy? Are any and all attacks that are calculated to cause fear or terror "terrorism"?
That sounds about right. :)
Are they using terror as a method against military or military related targets or random civilians.
Against random civilians it is automatically terrorism. Against valid military targets, the lines get fuzzy.
Another example.....
Targeting a non-military facility where military members and/or their families gather off-duty would almost certainly be classified as terrorism. A restaurant for instance.
Hitting a military target that might have civilians close by would not be considered terrorism because the civilians were not the target. Hitting a military vehicle staging area for example. In some cases there would be civilians in the area or perhaps even working on the equipment...not terrorism.
Then you have the truly ugly "gray areas" for example.
Hitting a military field hospital...
Is that a legit military target?
Or is that terrorism since it is full of non-combatants?
Not making excuses, but I have to point out that during the Vietnam war, target identification was one of the difficulties of that war.
Thank you for bringing that up Zen.
World War 2 has the best illustration of one nation state using terror as a methodology against another.
Specifically our use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Those two attacks were conducted to terrify Japan and force them to surrender and end the war.
There were military targets in the cities that were attacked, but the attacks were conducted to terrify the Japanese into surrendering. And it worked.
On a side note, I actually had the opportunity to meet and have a long discussion with Paul Tibbets. At the time he was Colonel Paul Tibbets, United States Army Air Corps, and pilot in command of the Enola Gay. The aircraft that dropped "Little Boy" on Hiroshima.
It was a rare opportunity. He had written a book about the Hiroshima mission, among other aspects of WW2 and was having a book signing at a vintage aircraft show. Military history has always been an interest of mine, and I was able to get a bit of insight into that time.
If you want to have a discussion on that, let's make it another thread.
It is a methodology, not an ideology, or political process.