Active shooter at Baptist Church

[satx78247]

It's almost like you've never heard of warrantless wiretapping, Echelon and IMSI catchers.

Kar98,

When those FEW unlawful actions happened, the unlawful information wasn't allowed as evidence in nearly every case.

I ask you the same question that I asked another member: What other protections would you give to KNOWN violent criminals & terrorists to assure that they cannot be convicted/punished for their crimes against innocent people??

yours, satx

 

[Kar98]

You're building a strawman argument here, but the Constitution gives them the same protections as everyone else.

Also, as far as evidence obtained to through warrantless wiretapping and such goes, agencies were of course instructed to "create an alternative narrative" as to how it was obtained, like the buttdialing stories, to make it admissable in court.

Anyway, read on:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/07/the-fbi-can-t-unlock-the-texas-church-shooter-s-phone/

 

[TheDan]

TheDan,

NOPE. I just don't believe that corporate interests (Read: MONEY!) trump public laws.
Pardon me for saying that I think your opinion is HYSTERICAL, silly & not in consonance with FACTS and/or natural/Constitutional RIGHTS.

Your opinion is the one that is hysterical and reactionary. You are failing to see the totality of the situation, and are refusing to acknowledge any unintended consequences to what you are proposing.

Tell me: What other protections would you allow terrorists & violent criminals to protect the thugs from the just consequences of preying on you/me??

That question is ridiculously loaded. I'm not going to "allow" anything to anyone.

Revisiting the San Bernardino case specifically, the court order that Apple successfully fought off was requiring them to build a tool that would break the security of a system they designed to be highly secure in the first place. Even if you fail to see the consequences of such tools existing (remember our government relies heavily on encrypted systems, too), then hopefully you can at least see the error in forcing people to design and build something against their will.

 

[Younggun]

I don't think he will.

 

[zincwarrior]

It's almost like you've never heard of warrantless wiretapping, Echelon and IMSI catchers.

Or the NSA recording every email or electronic correspondence ever sent.

 

[satx78247]

Your opinion is the one that is hysterical and reactionary. You are failing to see the totality of the situation, and are refusing to acknowledge any unintended consequences to what you are proposing.

That question is ridiculously loaded. I'm not going to "allow" anything to anyone.

Revisiting the San Bernardino case specifically, the court order that Apple successfully fought off was requiring them to build a tool that would break the security of a system they designed to be highly secure in the first place. Even if you fail to see the consequences of such tools existing (remember our government relies heavily on encrypted systems, too), then hopefully you can at least see the error in forcing people to design and build something against their will.

TheDan,

For starters, anytime/place that I see anybody saying "reactionary", I automatically presume that I'm dealing with a LEFTIST extremist & likely with a FOOL. - One hopes that you're just "running your mouth & are NEITHER a leftist moron nor a fool.

My question to you is NOT loaded inasmuch as we are talking about a company failing to provide needed information on a DEAD mass murderer to our much respected TX DPS (Corpses do NOT have a right to anything, much less privacy.) & that may well be critical to unraveling this MESS. = For starters, the DPS needs to know if there may be other people that the murderer was corresponding/talking by phone with that MAY be planning other mass murders. - His deleted FB page indicated that he was involved with several leftist (and perhaps) terrorist groups like BLM & the so-called "Antifas".

yours, satx

 

[DarkwingDuck]

List of victims has been released.

https://www.dps.texas.gov/director_staff/media_and_communications/pr/2017/1108b

Robert Scott Marshall 56, M
Karen Sue Marshall 56, F
Keith Allen Braden 62, M
Tara E. McNulty 33, F
Annabelle Renae Pomeroy 14, F
Peggy Lynn Warden 56, F
Dennis Neil Johnson, Sr. 77, M
Sara Johns Johnson 68, F
Lula Woicinski White 71, F
Joann Lookingbill Ward 30, F
Brooke Bryanne Ward 5, F
Robert Michael Corrigan 51, M
Shani Louise Corrigan 51, F
Therese Sagan Rodriguez 66, F
Ricardo Cardona Rodriguez 64, M
Haley Krueger 16, F
Emily Garcia (died at the hospital) 7, F
Emily Rose Hill 11, F
Gregory Lynn Hill 13, M
Megan Gail Hill 9, F
Marc Daniel Holcombe 36, M
Noah Holcombe 1, F
Karla Plain Holcombe 58, F
John Bryan Holcombe 60, M
Crystal Marie Holcombe (pregnant*) 36, F
*Carlin Brite "Billy Bob" Holcombe (unborn) 0, Unknown

DWD

 

[satx78247]

I don't think he will.

Younggun,

I certainly do NOT agree that "company policy" may violate the laws that apply to everyone AND when the MAJOR reason for refusal is to protect corporate PROFITS, especially when such refusal will SHIELD vicious criminals/terrorists from being punished for their crimes against the innocents of society.
(Maybe those of you, who seem to automatically distrust the LEOs/judges so easily, should join the "hands up, don't shoot" crowd and/or BLM??)

yours, satx

 

[Younggun]

TheDan,

For starters, anytime/place that I see anybody saying "reactionary", I automatically presume that I'm dealing with a LEFTIST extremist & likely with a FOOL. - One hopes that you're just "running your mouth & are NEITHER a leftist moron nor a fool.

My question to you is NOT loaded inasmuch as we are talking about a company failing to provide needed information on a DEAD mass murderer to our much respected TX DPS (Corpses do NOT have a right to anything, much less privacy.) & that may well be critical to unraveling this MESS. = For starters, the DPS needs to know if there may be other people that the murderer was corresponding/talking by phone with that MAY be planning other mass murders. - His deleted FB page indicated that he was involved with several leftist (and perhaps) terrorist groups like BLM & the so-called "Antifas".

yours, satx

You've admitted in a previous post that you have little understanding of how how data encryption/security work. Yet you are unwilling to believe you might be incorrect in your assumption that what you want done in regards to such is bad.

Very similar to people who have little/no understanding of firearms wanting them banned.

 

[Younggun]

Younggun,

I certainly do NOT agree that "company policy" may violate the laws that apply to everyone AND when the MAJOR reason for refusal is to protect corporate PROFITS, especially when such refusal will SHIELD vicious criminals/terrorists from being punished for their crimes against the innocents of society.
(Maybe those of you, who seem to automatically distrust the LEOs/judges so easily, should join the "hands up, don't shoot" crowd and/or BLM??)

yours, satx

What laws were violated via company policy?


Your straw man arguments and attempts at character defamation are worse than those of BLM and Antifa.

 

[satx78247]

You've admitted in a previous post that you have little understanding of how how data encryption/security work. Yet you are unwilling to believe you might be incorrect in your assumption that what you want done in regards to such is bad.

Very similar to people who have little/no understanding of firearms wanting them banned.

Younggun,

PITY that you are trying to equate the LEFTIST MORON position on "gun control" to crime control.

Moreover, I presume that you know that Apple finally admitted in a sworn court document that their GOAL was solely to protect their "corporate secrets" (read: PROFITS) & that another company DID decrypt the San Bernardino terrorists cellphones. = Thus the decryption was unlikely to have been that difficult to do.

Fwiw, a person need NOT be an expert on computers/similar systems to know that Apple was LYING when they claimed that they had "no ability to comply with" a federal judge's court order, given the admission that was made in a different sworn document that was filed in another appearance.
(Long ago, I was "fair to middling investigator" & could tell when I was being lied to 90+% of the time.)

yours, satx

 

[Kar98]

Wanna ease up a little on the name calling and hyperbole, satx? And how do you not see that "people shouldn't have un-decryptable phones!" is the same as "people shouldn't have high capacity assault glock rifles"?

 

[Vaquero]

4th amendment.
As much as the 2nd.

If I buy a safe for my documents, or firearms, should the company that made it supply a back door for Barney Fife to usurp my rights. Be I alive or dead?

 

[satx78247]

What laws were violated via company policy?


Your straw man arguments and attempts at character defamation are worse than those of BLM and Antifa.

Younggun,

Pardon me for LOL at your nonsensical post # 410. - Stupid you are NOT, though your post makes you LOOK silly.
(Out of idle curiosity, are you "just having us on", so that you have something to argue about??)

IF anyone here sounds like BLM & Antifa nitwits, it is those few here who don't think that the cell carrier shouldn't be required to open their records on the (thankfully) DEAD mass murderer to the DPS.

My old "cop's nose" tells me that the mass murderer didn't act alone. - Very likely, only a full disclosure of the dead criminal's phone records & computer contents will reveal the TRUTH about what a lot of us "LE-types" believe.
(I "drink coffee with" a group of current/retired LEOs regularly & our "group opinion" last PM was that the murderer did not LIKELY act alone.)

yours, satx

 

[Vaquero]

This shit's getting old.

 

[satx78247]

Wanna ease up a little on the name calling and hyperbole, satx? And how do you not see that "people shouldn't have un-decryptable phones!" is the same as "people shouldn't have high capacity assault glock rifles"?

Kar98,

You may want to write the following on the palm of your hand, so that you won't forget that: When a person starts complaining about "name -calling" that "the complaining person" KNOWS that they have irretrievably LOST the argument & that they aren't big enough to admit (often even to themselves) that they are simply: dead wrong.

Btw, such complaints are a "patented" technique of the MORON LEFT to try to shut down conversation & to try to cover-up their KNOWING spewing of foolishness & "leftist talking points".

yours, satx

 

[satx78247]

4th amendment.
As much as the 2nd.

If I buy a safe for my documents, or firearms, should the company that made it supply a back door for Barney Fife to usurp my rights. Be I alive or dead?

Vaquero,

IF you were a VICIOUS CRIMINAL (especially a DEAD mass murderer!), YEP I would want the DPS, bearing a valid court order, to seek out evidence of vicious crimes in your safe or elsewhere.
(WORRY NOT, as you are neither a mass murderer NOR a corpse. = Nobody is looking to violate the RIGHTS of the innocent, "Henny Penny", as the sky is not falling.)

yours, satx

 

[Brains]

younggun,

Per a 9-0 decision of the SCOTUS from the 1980s, there is NO "Right of Privacy to commit a felony".
(Offhand, I cannot remember the case citation but it was in a huge marijuana dealing case, where the police wanted to access the criminal's phone records.)

yours, satx

You're not seeing the big picture. Think about how this can be MISUSED and ABUSED, rather than how it may or (more likely) may not help provide some more context in this particular case. It's like a really, really awesome impenetrable lock that can only be opened if you have the exact key. The key died with the owner, but that doesn't change the fact it's a really good lock. You have an identical lock protecting your personal information on your phone, things you may really want (and have the legal right) to keep 100% private.

But surprise, there's a super-secret master key that can be used "if there is a sufficient need."

Question: What, and more appropriately WHO, decides what "sufficient" means?
Question: What happens if someone who is charged with protecting this master key decides to share it?
Question: What happens when the key is used, if it isn't properly protected?
Question: What happens if somehow the key is found and publicly disseminated, quietly and without common knowledge, and is used to collect yours and millions of others' sensitive data?

These reasons (and more) are why Apple outright refuses to implement a skeleton key of sorts. It's a ride down a slippery slope with a really unpleasant stop at the bottom. There's a lot of things I disagree with Apple on, but they get it right with privacy protections.

 

[satx78247]

This shit's getting old.

Vaquero,

Pardon me for pointing out that NOBODY is forcing you to read anyone's posts to this or any other thread/forum. = That's what the "OFF-button" is for.

yours, satx

 

[Brains]

Kar98,

Getting such records from the phone manufacturer would require a federal court order, so "every Tom, Dick & Harry" would NOT have access absent that order.

Good thing for APPLE that I'm not a federal judge, as their "big shots" would be under court order to comply or head off to jail until they complied.
(I just don't get the current notion that "corporate policy" trumps federal laws & a VALID court order.)

yours, satx

FWIW - you don't understand the technology, which is exactly why it's a good thing you aren't a federal judge and on any cases like this.