He knows it doesn't take long to check someone's page for pedophilia, he says he's not going to do it because he has no evidence or "reason" to look at people's personal profiles, and for some reason he defends them with no evidence that they're not a pedophile.
He’s mad because apple didn’t like the government using a loop hole against them in regards to their security. I might be miss understanding this but it should be obvious why they would be mad. Sure the government having access to back doors might bring good, but if we listen to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange we sort of can see why that might not be a net good.
Nah I'm more jaded that Apple went full "Rules for Thee but not for Reee." Moreover, I understand the need for privacy. Truly. I also know of murderers/sexual offenders who are walking free because we're still waiting to crack into their devices. I know everyone isn't going to agree with me, and I respect that, but yeah, I'm not an Apple fan in the slightest lol.
@@BroSydePhil o no don’t miss understand me, Tim Cook isn’t protecting me because he can’t stop thinking about me, no Tim Cook is protecting my data. The wall isn’t there to prevent anyone from coming in (just so happens to) as much as it is to prevent me from going out. That said in my books there will always be murders, s offenders and worse. We should always strive to stop them but accept that we will never reach 100 percent and thus we should not hastily give up our privacy due to fear. I’m sure you know given your profession just how dangerous digital data can be in the wrong hands (governments). Multiple world agencies/corporations 100 percent already have my data stored somewhere on a server and they don’t even know about it because how much they can collect these days. While I’m not Schitzo enough to think my data holds much value outside of marketing, I would be concerned if the police could with extreme ease (if a back door is given to them) know every personal detail about me, not that I would have any legal issues but you must know such power yields certain corruption. Just because you may have been a noble cop, doesn’t mean the rest were.
True, and I understand that, but if such an exploit was locked behind large amounts of legal requirements (such as obtaining a Search Warrant) it offers a level of accountability if such a measure is abused. I always compare it to a safe that can be bought for $1000. This safe is absolutely impenetrable from the outside, but (metaphorically speaking) could contain a nuclear device. Now, how are we supposed to stop the metaphorical bomb from detonating, if we're unable to access the safe? Let's say for the sake of argument, the "Safe" contains detailed plans of a terror attack, or a plan to kidnap a small child by parties other than the phone holder. There should be no way to obtain that data? I get every point you're making, and if there was ever a time in which Apple's backdoor was used maliciously, I'd be more apt to agree. But since that never happened, it makes me wonder why they "fixed" something that had never been broken.
@@BroSydePhil without arguing back and forth in a comment section (not that I am suggesting this is a negative exchange), I’ll try and keep this one short. I would actually be fine with this hypothetical safe even if it had a nuke in it. I feel there should be guaranties in life. There should be plans for what to do in such a situation where such a hypothetical safe exists. Now at the end of the day, if the Americans wish to break this safe, they can. If your iPhone had documents for nukes, the USA can brute force the security even if it’s 256 bit encrypted. I’m more so talking about police, on a scale such that law enforcement on any scale could break into phones. That is worrying, the police will always be necessary, but the police will always have corruption given their nature. Giving such a group practically unlimited surveillance power is akin to the KGB in the Soviet Union knowing things about their citizens their own citizens didn’t know about themselves.
The question...that quite frankly is never far from my own mind..... DID... YOU.... GET.... THAT...THING....... DIDYOUGETTHATTHIIIIIIIIING.................THAT!!!......................................isentcha.......
He doesn't need to wash his hands after picking at everything.... cat licks him, needs to wash hands instantly.... make it make sense Phil!!!!!!
Honestly I'm just hyped that a second person knows what Phantom Crash was.
He knows it doesn't take long to check someone's page for pedophilia, he says he's not going to do it because he has no evidence or "reason" to look at people's personal profiles, and for some reason he defends them with no evidence that they're not a pedophile.
He’s mad because apple didn’t like the government using a loop hole against them in regards to their security. I might be miss understanding this but it should be obvious why they would be mad. Sure the government having access to back doors might bring good, but if we listen to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange we sort of can see why that might not be a net good.
Nah I'm more jaded that Apple went full "Rules for Thee but not for Reee."
Moreover, I understand the need for privacy. Truly. I also know of murderers/sexual offenders who are walking free because we're still waiting to crack into their devices.
I know everyone isn't going to agree with me, and I respect that, but yeah, I'm not an Apple fan in the slightest lol.
@@BroSydePhil o no don’t miss understand me, Tim Cook isn’t protecting me because he can’t stop thinking about me, no Tim Cook is protecting my data. The wall isn’t there to prevent anyone from coming in (just so happens to) as much as it is to prevent me from going out. That said in my books there will always be murders, s offenders and worse. We should always strive to stop them but accept that we will never reach 100 percent and thus we should not hastily give up our privacy due to fear. I’m sure you know given your profession just how dangerous digital data can be in the wrong hands (governments). Multiple world agencies/corporations 100 percent already have my data stored somewhere on a server and they don’t even know about it because how much they can collect these days. While I’m not Schitzo enough to think my data holds much value outside of marketing, I would be concerned if the police could with extreme ease (if a back door is given to them) know every personal detail about me, not that I would have any legal issues but you must know such power yields certain corruption. Just because you may have been a noble cop, doesn’t mean the rest were.
True, and I understand that, but if such an exploit was locked behind large amounts of legal requirements (such as obtaining a Search Warrant) it offers a level of accountability if such a measure is abused.
I always compare it to a safe that can be bought for $1000. This safe is absolutely impenetrable from the outside, but (metaphorically speaking) could contain a nuclear device.
Now, how are we supposed to stop the metaphorical bomb from detonating, if we're unable to access the safe? Let's say for the sake of argument, the "Safe" contains detailed plans of a terror attack, or a plan to kidnap a small child by parties other than the phone holder. There should be no way to obtain that data?
I get every point you're making, and if there was ever a time in which Apple's backdoor was used maliciously, I'd be more apt to agree. But since that never happened, it makes me wonder why they "fixed" something that had never been broken.
@@BroSydePhil without arguing back and forth in a comment section (not that I am suggesting this is a negative exchange), I’ll try and keep this one short. I would actually be fine with this hypothetical safe even if it had a nuke in it. I feel there should be guaranties in life. There should be plans for what to do in such a situation where such a hypothetical safe exists. Now at the end of the day, if the Americans wish to break this safe, they can. If your iPhone had documents for nukes, the USA can brute force the security even if it’s 256 bit encrypted. I’m more so talking about police, on a scale such that law enforcement on any scale could break into phones. That is worrying, the police will always be necessary, but the police will always have corruption given their nature. Giving such a group practically unlimited surveillance power is akin to the KGB in the Soviet Union knowing things about their citizens their own citizens didn’t know about themselves.
Harvey birdman is underrated.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
The question...that quite frankly is never far from my own mind.....
DID...
YOU....
GET....
THAT...THING.......
DIDYOUGETTHATTHIIIIIIIIING.................THAT!!!......................................isentcha.......