Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.


Thread: Encrypted Chat Service Cryptocat Rejected for the iPhone by Apple

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by exNavy View Post
    How about saying Mohammed Damnit instead?
    Seconded.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Amazing Atheist View Post
    Keep your religion out of this please, thanks.
    The problem is that others always bring it up. The world opts for equal treatment unless it's Christianity... then it's fair game.

  2. #22
    My iPhone is a Part of Me buggsy2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Sacramento, California
    Posts
    664
    Thanks
    694
    Thanked 152 Times in 110 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by stulaw11 View Post
    What do you have to hide?

    Second, it is a slippery slope argument. What happens when drug dealers, criminals, potential terrorists, rapists, etc start using this and no one can back track the user? ...
    In the real world, I think it unlikely the NSA and corporations are going to reduce their snooping much. We are inevitably headed towards a society where the few will know a lot about everybody.

    What bothers me is that right now, in spite of the apparently massive snooping by the NSA, FBI, CIA, and all the corporations that gather personal data, we get no benefit from it. Why aren't busloads of "drug dealers, criminals, potential terrorists, rapists" mentioned, plus all the child pornographers, extortionists, etc., being rounded up everyday in the US and brought to trial? Because in spite of the billions of dollars spent every year on these spy programs, they're useless. They don't prevent a d*mn thing. It's just like the TV show "Person of Interest".

    Since the spying is going to happen, at least make society a little better for it. Instead, lots of dollars wasted.

    Quote Originally Posted by nesamone View Post
    no, it's not, please talk only about yourself
    Fair enough. I do wonder what the real reasons are behind denying this app, though. Just the left hand not knowing what the right hand already did with the Mac Apps? Quite possible. Or did the feds tell Apple to not allow this sort of app? Also possible.
    Last edited by buggsy2; 2013-12-29 at 05:34 PM.

  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to buggsy2 For This Useful Post:

    Airwaves182 (2013-12-29), dsg (2013-12-29), menard_00 (2013-12-30)

  4. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Al226 View Post
    What's the problem here? What if info is being tracked and checked, WTF do people have to keep so secret? People make me sick with all this NSA stuff, who cares if your mundane texts or emails are checked? Geez!!
    +1

    NSA can read listen in all they want, I have nothing to hide. People are to damn paranoid! I don't see the big deal....

  5. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Al226 View Post
    What's the problem here? What if info is being tracked and checked, WTF do people have to keep so secret? People make me sick
    it's like having somebody following you round looking over your shoulder, everybody has the right to privacy; why do you have a problem with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by A1226
    with all this NSA stuff ,who cares if your mundane texts or emails are checked? Geez!!
    I care, because they wouldn't like me monitoring what they text!

    Edit: why do they want to read everybody's text, are they paranoid that were talking about them?
    Last edited by dsg; 2013-12-29 at 06:26 PM.
    privacy isn't about having something to hide, another view here

    look here all grammar police, indulge me.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dsg For This Useful Post:

    *T* (2013-12-29), Airwaves182 (2013-12-29)

  7. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by buggsy2 View Post
    In the real world, I think it unlikely the NSA and corporations are going to reduce their snooping much. We are inevitably headed towards a society where the few will know a lot about everybody.

    What bothers me is that right now, in spite of the apparently massive snooping by the NSA, FBI, CIA, and all the corporations that gather personal data, we get no benefit from it. Why aren't busloads of "drug dealers, criminals, potential terrorists, rapists" mentioned, plus all the child pornographers, extortionists, etc., being rounded up everyday in the US and brought to trial? Because in spite of the billions of dollars spent every year on these spy programs, they're useless. They don't prevent a d*mn thing. It's just like the TV show "Person of Interest".

    Since the spying is going to happen, at least make society a little better for it. Instead, lots of dollars wasted.



    Fair enough. I do wonder what the real reasons are behind denying this app, though. Just the left hand not knowing what the right hand already did with the Mac Apps? Quite possible. Or did the feds tell Apple to not allow this sort of app? Also possible.
    Fair analysis unlike the rest of the complete crazies who replied. I still stand firm that whether the system works or not you need to have some type of way in for safety. Whether the system works or not with current tech isnt the question, but what happens when the criminals KNOW that there is absolutely no way to decrypt the messages? What's to stop that 45 year old sex offender from logging in and finding your 12 year old daughter for a meetup? Yes, I get it this could happen on facebook or anywhere on the web or regular text message, but at least there IS a way to figure out who that guy is by normal modes of communication- phone, text, internet (IP etc).

    The crazies say, oh terrorists dont use iphones, drug dealers dont use iphones. Really? Im glad the posters intimately know or dont know what phones criminals and terrorists use! And you don't think if it becomes public knowledge this app exists in the app store that these people wont just go out and purposely buy an iphone just for an unpenetrable ecrypted app? Cmon now use a tiny bit of your brain.

    For all you r-tards talking about freedom and how you wouldn't trade it for security, I hope one day that is your daughter being solicited by the child predator on an encrypted chat app, or kidnapped by a predator, or sold drugs that harm your kid/significant other/family member or put them in the hospital or dead, and you go running to your "gubment" aka the police for help and they can't help you because no one can backtrack who sent the message due to app encryption. I hope your "freedoms" were worth it then. I get freedoms but that is the stupidest argument I have ever heard towards not having an encrypted chat app.

    Again, what do you have to hide that needs to be in an ecrypted chat app that cannot be said over texts or a phone call?

    Quote Originally Posted by dsg View Post
    it's like having somebody following you round looking over your shoulder, everybody has the right to privacy; why do you have a problem with that.



    I care, because they wouldn't like me monitoring what they text!

    Edit: why do they want to read everybody's text, are they paranoid that were talking about them?
    Please show me the Constitutional Amendment or case law where you are guaranteed the right to privacy on your cell phone transmissions in the air. Right, there are none. So everyone stop quoting your rights to privacy as you have no clue what you are talking about. You have a right to privacy on stuff ON your physical device from governmental intrusion, NOT once it is in the airwaves. There is no backing for such a claim.

    Furthermore, if you want privacy write a letter. USPS will not open it an read it as a governmental agency without a warrant.

    ATT, TMo, Verizon, etc are private companies and you are using THEIR towers. Your contract with them gives them rights to use your data and communications for basically anything they want, including letter including letting the feds collect your data for safety reasons.

    Additionally, the FCC, aka the GOVERNMENT, owns (or originally owned and sold to your private company carrier) and definitely regulates the spectrum your carriers uses.

    Either way, you have zero legal right to privacy of your cell communications once off your device and in the airwaves.

    You have a problem with collection of calls and texts? Stop using a cell phone completely or set up your own towers and buy spectrum.
    Last edited by stulaw11; 2013-12-29 at 06:54 PM.

  8. #26
    Edit: it's still your data when it's in the airwaves, so nothing changes in my opinion.

    parents should be the one's checking to see if their kid is safe, not the government; you go to the government when you have proof of anybody like that, hoping that somebody's child gets raped is fecking lousy in my book.
    Last edited by dsg; 2013-12-29 at 07:08 PM.
    privacy isn't about having something to hide, another view here

    look here all grammar police, indulge me.

  9. #27
    My iPhone is a Part of Me buggsy2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Sacramento, California
    Posts
    664
    Thanks
    694
    Thanked 152 Times in 110 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by stulaw11 View Post
    I hope one day that is your daughter being solicited by the child predator on an encrypted chat app,
    Guy, really? Re-read what you wrote here.

    Furthermore, if you want privacy write a letter. USPS will not open it an read it as a governmental branch without a warrant.
    Somewhere I recently read that all USPS mail is scanned and saved, so, like emails and phone calls, the Feds are saving the metadata but not the contents.

    All this snooping and nothing to show.

  10. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by nesamone View Post
    +1, totally agree with you, security and safety of people is top priority
    Completely disagree. Safety of people should be number two priority. Freedom should be the number one priority.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gamemaster77 For This Useful Post:

    Airwaves182 (2013-12-29), BennyPR (2013-12-30)

  12. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by dsg View Post
    Edit: it's still your data when it's in the airwaves, so nothing changes in my opinion.

    parents should be the one's checking to see if their kid is safe, not the government; you go to the government when you have proof of anybody like that, hoping that somebody's child gets raped is fecking lousy in my book.
    Not literally but the shock factor snapped some sense into people arguing stupid points how them texting their mother or bf/gf is more important than the ability of the police/government to do their job for the greater good of people overall.

    Yes parents should check but you get the point. Substitute child for teen or adult buying drugs, weapons, bombs etc. The point being is encryption leads to shady people using it with no way of going back and tracking.

    Im not sure what you mean by "you go to the government when you have proof of anybody like that." It is the police's duty to investigate crimes, not yours. The police, FBI etc have the ability to get phone records, texts messages, even imessages through Apple and the contents. They can track the user who sent the message by cell towers and IP address and find the criminal and go arrest him/her.

    What can the police/FBI do if an encrypted chat app was used? Oh hey sorry guy we cant find the perpetrator for you due to heavy encryption, and have no proof any message was ever sent, so have a nice day? What happens when the next Columbine/Sandy Hook happens and the people start asking why isnt the government stopping this? Oh sorry well the kids were talking about it to friends using this encrypted chat app otherwise we would've been able stop it? What about the next rape at a teenage/college party people are talking about, and the police could easily get the name of the person and arrest them in about 30 seconds, but oh wait encrypted messages?

    You may think these are stupid examples, but definitely more than possible and do happen. Criminals are dumb and like to talk. How many times have you heard of crimes being blabbed about on things like Facebook? A heck of a lot.

    The point is using the data AFTER the fact. We're not talking NSA tin foil hat crap like the rest of the people here are spewing. That is irrelevant to the point here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gamemaster77 View Post
    Completely disagree. Safety of people should be number two priority. Freedom should be the number one priority.
    I'm sure that is comforting to the families of victims of murders and crimes that you think safety is secondary to crazy/mentally ill/deranged/sadistic peoples' privacy for their crimes that could have been prevented or perpetrators brought to justice who were not. If you were in their place your tune would likely change.

    I'm guessing that a lot of the people who think they are so-called "freedom fighters" have little real world/real life exposure and have no clue how things in life really work. No clue that in the real world freedoms are violated every minute of every day for the greater good or to benefit someone in trouble; and no one blinks twice when its done. No clue that police regularly track cells phones and computer IP addresses thousands of times a minute in the US to catch criminals.

    Instead though, they only see their own little paranoid world where everyone is watching or even cares what they are doing. They don't care that in the bigger picture there are thousands of necessary privacy violations every minute of the day benefiting a lot of people.
    Last edited by stulaw11; 2013-12-29 at 08:06 PM.

  13. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by stulaw11 View Post
    I'm sure that is comforting to the families of victims of murders and crimes that you think safety is secondary to crazy/mentally ill/deranged/sadistic peoples' privacy for their crimes that could have been prevented or perpetrators brought to justice who were not.

    If you were in their place your tune would likely change. I guess a lot of the people who think they are "freedom fighters" have little real world/real life exposure and have no clue how things really work. no clue that freedoms are violated every minute of every day for the greater good or to benefit someone in trouble.

    As a side note, anyone who thinks they actually have any true protectable freedoms is simply in denial.
    Notice that I never said that it's secondary to privacy. I said that it is secondary to freedom. Sure, let the NSA monitor whatever they want. We should have the freedom to use whatever encrypted communications we please though.
    Last edited by Gamemaster77; 2013-12-29 at 08:36 PM.

  14. #31
    I was going to write a lot on this but I will just make the point that I don't think it's for a US company to dictate to me whether or not I can keep my conversations private.

    All those haters that will say 'then just go to android': personally I will stick with my iPhone but anybody that requires privacy will go and find it, it's incredibly naive to think that rejecting this app will somehow make people safer, it will just do what these things always do.. it will drive those people to find more legitimate means of private communication. For example the USA was outsmarted by Bin Laden for 10 years because he decided to use a pen and paper.

    I imagine that if you are planning a terrorist attack and you have to spend months planning it by writing notes back and forth you will make sure that you make it a good one.. How much safer does that really make you?

    The PRISM program started in 2007. Take a look through Wikipedia, terrorist attacks between 1970 & 2009 have a page each for each year, from 2011 onwards they are split into two or more pages per year, looks like the number is increasing not decreasing.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Comedy For This Useful Post:

    buggsy2 (2013-12-29)

  16. #32
    He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. -Ben Franklin

  17. #33
    Grumpy *T*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Turn around slowly...
    Posts
    670
    Thanks
    122
    Thanked 48 Times in 39 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by stulaw11 View Post
    What do you have to hide?

    Second, it is a slippery slope argument. What happens when drug dealers, criminals, potential terrorists, rapists, etc start using this and no one can back track the user? This can lead to discussions of crimes, buying/selling of drugs, and even soliciting or preying on little girls without any ability to track either/any user. What happens when crimes start being committed due to encrypted communications on this app that no one can back track?

    You only think of your paranoid uses to avoid the NSA (as if they care about you or what you text really); no the other side of the coin how this could be used for not so good things.

    Apple has to stick to guidelines about these types of apps and think of the potentially negative ways it can be used if it is putting it in its public app store. If it goes on Cydia then it is what it is as hosted by the developer. There is a liability and PR difference if Apple hosts it and promotes it in its app store.
    Whenever I see "what do you have to hide" I die a little inside. You throw away your freedoms like they're worthless trash.

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to *T* For This Useful Post:

    buggsy2 (2013-12-29), dsg (2013-12-29), iH85CH001 (2013-12-30)

  19. #34
    iPhoneaholic iH85CH001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    332
    Thanks
    393
    Thanked 18 Times in 16 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by realism View Post
    yep.
    How about Kik

  20. #35
    Default What do I have to hide?
    It is not what do I have to hide. It is what reason does the government/Apple/whoever have to believe that my messages, information, meta-data are needed for the public safety. And if they believe that they need this data, why cannot they use the US Court system to acquire it?

    If you give up liberty for safety you will have neither.

    And really, meta-data? Tell me - do you think that all the phone numbers, etc. that the NSA is collecting - do you think that the terrorists have the 2 year plan with Verizon? If they were to use phones to pass information, that phone number would be a one or two use item and go back to the pre-paid company that distributed it. I don't think a terrorist or drug smuggler is going to be saying, "can you hear me now?"

    Short wave - yes. Coded messages in a newspaper - yes. Blind drops through 5 or 10 or 20 people - yes. As recent court findings noted, there have been no actions that this spying program has stopped or prevented.



    Quote Originally Posted by stulaw11 View Post
    What do you have to hide?

    Second, it is a slippery slope argument. What happens when drug dealers, criminals, potential terrorists, rapists, etc start using this and no one can back track the user? This can lead to discussions of crimes, buying/selling of drugs, and even soliciting or preying on little girls without any ability to track either/any user. What happens when crimes start being committed due to encrypted communications on this app that no one can back track?

    You only think of your paranoid uses to avoid the NSA (as if they care about you or what you text really); no the other side of the coin how this could be used for not so good things.

    Apple has to stick to guidelines about these types of apps and think of the potentially negative ways it can be used if it is putting it in its public app store. If it goes on Cydia then it is what it is as hosted by the developer. There is a liability and PR difference if Apple hosts it and promotes it in its app store.

  21. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by stulaw11 View Post
    Additionally, the FCC, aka the GOVERNMENT, owns (or originally owned and sold to your private company carrier) and definitely regulates the spectrum your carriers uses.

    Either way, you have zero legal right to privacy of your cell communications once off your device and in the airwaves.

    You have a problem with collection of calls and texts? Stop using a cell phone completely or set up your own towers and buy spectrum.
    I have some issues with these statements.

    1.) the FCC aka the GOVERNMENT, does not own the spectrum. The people own the spectrum and the government leases it to the highest bidder for the good of the people.

    2.) There are no "rights" to privacy. But we do have an expectation of privacy. And this expectation would be legitimate in these cases. Here is how: Pen registers record the phone numbers that you call, while trap & trace devices record the numbers that call you. The Supreme Court of the United States decided in 1979, in the case of Smith v. Maryland, that because you knowingly expose phone numbers to the phone company when you dial them (you are voluntarily handing over the number so the phone company will connect you, and you know that the numbers you call may be monitored for billing purposes), the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect the privacy of those numbers against pen/trap surveillance by the government. The contents of your telephone conversation are protected, but not the dialing information. That's fine. That info is available to companies that we do contracted business to, and part of that contract, if you look at it, is to not reveal our information to anyone without legal cause. We often agree on those contracts to let the provider share our info with an advertising partner or one of their own subsidies.

    Luckily, Congress decided to give us a little more privacy than the Supreme Court did but not much more by passing the Pen Register Statute to regulate the use of "pen/trap" devices. Under that statute, law enforcement does have to go to court for permission to conduct a pen/trap tap and get your dialing information, but the standard for getting a pen/trap order is much lower than the probable cause standard used for normal wiretaps. Law enforcement doesn't even have to state any facts as part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 they just need to certify to the court that they think the dialing information would be relevant to their investigation. If they do so, the judge must issue the pen/trap order (which lasts for sixty days rather than a wiretap order's thirty days). Also, unlike normal wiretaps, law enformcement isn't required to report back to the court about what they intercepted, and aren't required to notify the targets of the surveillance when it has ended.

    See that underlined part? "Relevant to their investigation." But as far as I know, there is no investigation of the hundreds of millions of cell phone users that are having their "meta-data" tracked and stored. There has been no warrant. The data is being recorded for a lot longer than 60 days.

    3.) And as far as setting up your own towers and buy spectrum... that won't stop the feds. You stated above it that the "government owns the spectrum."

    What I see is that you are missing the bigger picture. If the courts had approved this, I for one wouldn't have so much of an issue with it. But this is the people that we have put into power using more power that WE THE PEOPLE have given them. This is people, that we have elected, acting illegally. If they are doing this illegally, what else are they doing? It is not a hard stretch to go from big brother spying to illegal detainment camps to death squads. No, I'm not paranoid. I'm saying that our government is acting illegally and we do not know the extent to their illegal activities.

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to webpager For This Useful Post:

    buggsy2 (2013-12-30), dsg (2013-12-30)

  23. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Comedy View Post
    I was going to write a lot on this but I will just make the point that I don't think it's for a US company to dictate to me whether or not I can keep my conversations private.

    All those haters that will say 'then just go to android': personally I will stick with my iPhone but anybody that requires privacy will go and find it, it's incredibly naive to think that rejecting this app will somehow make people safer, it will just do what these things always do.. it will drive those people to find more legitimate means of private communication. For example the USA was outsmarted by Bin Laden for 10 years because he decided to use a pen and paper.

    I imagine that if you are planning a terrorist attack and you have to spend months planning it by writing notes back and forth you will make sure that you make it a good one.. How much safer does that really make you?

    The PRISM program started in 2007. Take a look through Wikipedia, terrorist attacks between 1970 & 2009 have a page each for each year, from 2011 onwards they are split into two or more pages per year, looks like the number is increasing not decreasing.
    Sure they can, when its their App Store the app is being hosted in. Completely different than a third party in stall like on Android or jailbroken iOS device. Hosting the app and promoting it for download makes Apple have potential legal liability. THIS is likely the main reason why is was rejected.

    Also that is a logical fallacy. Just because an anti-terrorism program was enacted and terrorism went up, does not logically equate to the program wasn't/isn't working. Perhaps something simple like the rate of terrorism went up?

    Quote Originally Posted by webpager View Post
    I have some issues with these statements.

    1.) the FCC aka the GOVERNMENT, does not own the spectrum. The people own the spectrum and the government leases it to the highest bidder for the good of the people.

    2.) There are no "rights" to privacy. But we do have an expectation of privacy. And this expectation would be legitimate in these cases. Here is how: Pen registers record the phone numbers that you call, while trap & trace devices record the numbers that call you. The Supreme Court of the United States decided in 1979, in the case of Smith v. Maryland, that because you knowingly expose phone numbers to the phone company when you dial them (you are voluntarily handing over the number so the phone company will connect you, and you know that the numbers you call may be monitored for billing purposes), the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect the privacy of those numbers against pen/trap surveillance by the government. The contents of your telephone conversation are protected, but not the dialing information. That's fine. That info is available to companies that we do contracted business to, and part of that contract, if you look at it, is to not reveal our information to anyone without legal cause. We often agree on those contracts to let the provider share our info with an advertising partner or one of their own subsidies.

    Luckily, Congress decided to give us a little more privacy than the Supreme Court did — but not much more — by passing the Pen Register Statute to regulate the use of "pen/trap" devices. Under that statute, law enforcement does have to go to court for permission to conduct a pen/trap tap and get your dialing information, but the standard for getting a pen/trap order is much lower than the probable cause standard used for normal wiretaps. Law enforcement doesn't even have to state any facts as part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 — they just need to certify to the court that they think the dialing information would be relevant to their investigation. If they do so, the judge must issue the pen/trap order (which lasts for sixty days rather than a wiretap order's thirty days). Also, unlike normal wiretaps, law enformcement isn't required to report back to the court about what they intercepted, and aren't required to notify the targets of the surveillance when it has ended.

    See that underlined part? "Relevant to their investigation." But as far as I know, there is no investigation of the hundreds of millions of cell phone users that are having their "meta-data" tracked and stored. There has been no warrant. The data is being recorded for a lot longer than 60 days.

    3.) And as far as setting up your own towers and buy spectrum... that won't stop the feds. You stated above it that the "government owns the spectrum."

    What I see is that you are missing the bigger picture. If the courts had approved this, I for one wouldn't have so much of an issue with it. But this is the people that we have put into power using more power that WE THE PEOPLE have given them. This is people, that we have elected, acting illegally. If they are doing this illegally, what else are they doing? It is not a hard stretch to go from big brother spying to illegal detainment camps to death squads. No, I'm not paranoid. I'm saying that our government is acting illegally and we do not know the extent to their illegal activities.
    If you think the people really own anything than that is just naivety. The people truly own nothing. Again, if you owned the spectrum you could use it at will which you cannot. In theory you pay taxes which pays these people and agencies, but in the end you have zero right to walk in and use these resources at will; thus you really own nothing.

    All of that is good and well, but again, there is no case where the NSA program has been deemed unconstitutional. You mention many cases where that evidence was excluded from a criminal prosecution as illegally obtained without a warrant. Again, once it is used against you then you may have a remedy.

    These cases are also pre-Patriot Act, the Dewine Bill, the Specter Bill, and FISA which grant a LOT more leadway for warrantless wiretaps and searches, and many exclusions the government can use.

    In ACLU vs NSA in 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the ACLU and the others who brought the case, including academics, lawyers and journalists, did not have the legal standing to sue because they could not demonstrate that they had been direct targets of the clandestine surveillance.

    You will have a tough time bringing a constitutional challenge when you cannot prove you have standing, ie were a target of surveillance and were intercepted/recorded by the NSA to sue and get any opinion. It is a vicious circle as you want to show you were recorded/watched, request records, and those records are state secrets and protected, and thus you cannot prove your standing.

    Logistically, you are not going to get a ruling by a federal court or US Supreme Court (appointed judges remember) against the NSA to make a blanket statement that what the NSA is doing is bottom line unconstitutional.
    Last edited by stulaw11; 2013-12-30 at 02:43 AM.

  24. #38
    Wow! Slippery slope? That was the Patriot Act. That was all communication going into government computers during the Bush years (Obama did not start this stuff) to "keep us safe." You'd rather have all communications "open" so that drug dealers or other lawbreakers can be caught? "What do I have to hide," you say?

    This is not the point. You give up rights, you never get them back. You open the door slightly for what seems to be a good reason, and the FBI flings it all the way open; see Bush's wiretapping during his years in office- the idea was "to keep us safe," by looking at the communications of a few people, but the FBI decided to look at everything by everybody. Why not, in for a penny in for a pound.

    No, I'm doing nothing "wrong" on my phone, or computer, or in my life. I'm not selling drugs, or cheating on my wife, or fomenting treasonous acts, or plotting to blow up a Planned Parenthood office. But I do expect a level of privacy in my life and in my communications. It's MY life, and I don't want some government functionary "listening" in to it. The police can not peek in my windows, and I prefer that they not listen in to/read my private communication. This is not paranoid. This is what, before selfies and amateur porn and sexts used to be called the expectation of privacy. I want mine, as much as possible. Because it is mine, and I do not want to willingly give it up. If you think that giving the government more power keeps you safe, read some history. That's what totalitarian regimes start with. It ends with you in chains, or in a gulag.

  25. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mr117 For This Useful Post:

    buggsy2 (2013-12-30), dsg (2013-12-30)

  26. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by stulaw11 View Post
    What do you have to hide?

    Second, it is a slippery slope argument. What happens when drug dealers, criminals, potential terrorists, rapists, etc start using this and no one can back track the user? This can lead to discussions of crimes, buying/selling of drugs, and even soliciting or preying on little girls without any ability to track either/any user. What happens when crimes start being committed due to encrypted communications on this app that no one can back track?

    You only think of your paranoid uses to avoid the NSA (as if they care about you or what you text really); no the other side of the coin how this could be used for not so good things.

    Apple has to stick to guidelines about these types of apps and think of the potentially negative ways it can be used if it is putting it in its public app store. If it goes on Cydia then it is what it is as hosted by the developer. There is a liability and PR difference if Apple hosts it and promotes it in its app store.
    The chance of anyone getting hit by these kind of crimes you described above is much much slimmer than anyone being hit by the corrupted and unrestricted NSA agents. More importantly, I can train myself to reject the at temptation from the drug dealers, but there is nothing I could do by myself to defend myself when I become a target of these unrestricted NSA agents.

  27. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by mr117 View Post
    Wow! Slippery slope? That was the Patriot Act. That was all communication going into government computers during the Bush years (Obama did not start this stuff) to "keep us safe." You'd rather have all communications "open" so that drug dealers or other lawbreakers can be caught? "What do I have to hide," you say?

    This is not the point. You give up rights, you never get them back. You open the door slightly for what seems to be a good reason, and the FBI flings it all the way open; see Bush's wiretapping during his years in office- the idea was "to keep us safe," by looking at the communications of a few people, but the FBI decided to look at everything by everybody. Why not, in for a penny in for a pound.

    No, I'm doing nothing "wrong" on my phone, or computer, or in my life. I'm not selling drugs, or cheating on my wife, or fomenting treasonous acts, or plotting to blow up a Planned Parenthood office. But I do expect a level of privacy in my life and in my communications. It's MY life, and I don't want some government functionary "listening" in to it. The police can not peek in my windows, and I prefer that they not listen in to/read my private communication. This is not paranoid. This is what, before selfies and amateur porn and sexts used to be called the expectation of privacy. I want mine, as much as possible. Because it is mine, and I do not want to willingly give it up. If you think that giving the government more power keeps you safe, read some history. That's what totalitarian regimes start with. It ends with you in chains, or in a gulag.
    Again, you are twisting my words to beyond what I have said. I have never once said real-time recording of communications is condoned.

    I HAVE said that the ability to look back after the fact, with a warrant, is necessary to trace criminals and crime. Encryption and anonymity in apps like this prevent that.

    This is my sole problem with the criminal aspect of this type of app. And whether you like it or not the NSA is collecting calls and texts and people will continue to call and use texts; regardless of preaching of the people here.

    Quote Originally Posted by tongxinshe View Post
    The chance of anyone getting hit by these kind of crimes you described above is much much slimmer than anyone being hit by the corrupted and unrestricted NSA agents. More importantly, I can train myself to reject the at temptation from the drug dealers, but there is nothing I could do by myself to defend myself when I become a target of these unrestricted NSA agents.
    You think being affected by the types of crime I listed are much slimmer than a corrupt NSA agent? What kind of Tom Clancy novel are you living in? I feel like I'm arguing with a bunch of irrational paranoid schizophrenic tin-foil hat wearers here.

    When is the last time you heard of a NSA agent in your area? Never. A rogue/corrupt one? Even lower odds than than that. A rouge/corrupt one out to get you Mr./Mrs. nobody special. Even lower than lower odds.

    Go sit at your local courthouse, or nearest big town/city courthouse and see how many cyber predators and criminals who used digital communications are arraigned or trials just that one day. Many.
    Last edited by stulaw11; 2013-12-30 at 06:17 AM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •