Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Other Tech Companies Sign Letter Backing Bills for Transparency in Government Surveillance
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Corporations do not inherently want transparency. Why do you think that Google, Facebook, and countless data mining and tracking companies aren't telling consumers in any way that is clear and obvious about their information gathering?
They will want transparency if they know that their customers are on to their evil ways, and the only way to reassure their customers is to stop the spying and then prove they have stopped by being transparent. It's all about the bottom line and happy customers provide a happy bottom line.
I have a deal for you. I'll loan you some money, no payment will be due the first 18 months but after that interest will accrue at 30%. Use the money to stockpile supplies for your bunker.
Of course if the government fails you will never have to pay me back. I've made this offer to everyone who predicts the end of the world. They can have all the money they want and don't have to pay it back until 6 months AFTER the world ends, no one takes me up on it. We all know why. They don't believe their own prediction and look at that 30% rate and know they will stuck paying (or defaulting and loosing their collateral.)
They will want transparency if they know that their customers are on to their evil ways, and the only way to reassure their customers is to stop the spying and then prove they have stopped by being transparent. It's all about the bottom line and happy customers provide a happy bottom line.
If two large political parties are both equally bad, then people will keep voting for both of them anyway. The surveillance practice at hand is supported by the authorities no matter which party has the larger "market share" in the United States.
The same goes for Google, Facebook and Apple. People will use their services anyway, surveillance or not.
So it's a no win situation? We are doomed no matter what? I like your lose/lose
attitude it will take you far in life. Public ignorance is the problem, you are right about that. Giving up because you think it's a lost cause is not the solution.
I'll take it. $20K. I'll pay you back before the 18 months are up if the government still exists.
Some obviously yes, some obviously no. Which part concerns you? The fact I'd like to be prepared for a worst case scenario, the fact I care about my family, or the fact that I can imagine such a scenario, or is there some other part that I'm missing?
Most of the stuff our government does is against our constitution as of late (NDAA, Monsanto Protection Act, NSA)
But the government is run by the people who want to do these illegal things, and their the ones that decide whether its legal or not.
Therefore, our government needs to be replaced.
This is the sort of letter I'd have liked to see years ago, before it became bad for PR. I suppose better late than never?
Oh no, I never said that. I'm just saying that the people who oppose this practice should vote for other parties than the GOP or Democrats, and also encourage others to do the same. As for e-mail and Facebook, I go by the "postcard principle" anyway, which I think everyone should, surveillance or not.
But I like your creative way of reading other people's postings and jump to conclusions, it will take you far in life.
Last edited:
Since you left out everything you have just stated here in your original posting, it's pretty easy for anyone to jump to conclusions. So I take it you are a "Libertarian" of sorts. Rand Paul will certainly get more votes than his father ever did. Are you pumped about him running in 2016? I doubt he will come close to getting elected though. People need to be educated before any real change will occur. PS. You go by the "Postcard Principle" except that you post on MacRumors.
PS. You go by the "Postcard Principle" except that you post on MacRumors.
Yeah, I'll have a hard time explaining that one.
But seriously, I'm more careful what I write here now than before, even though I'm not using my real name. With Google and Facebook, I am using my real name, even. Not that I care if the NSA knows what I've written on MR, even here in the PRSI section, but I'd hate it if they told my boss.It seems that the American constitution is being pulled apart bit by bit which is a crying shame. I'm not American but I always thought the American constitution was a great institution and after looking at it in detail the guys who wrote it were obviously really sharp. Unfortunately its now being shredded by successive governments at the behest of the lobbyists for big business and other vested interest.
There was freedom of speech in the U.S.S.R too. That is, according to the constitution which also protected the citizens' privacy w.r.t telephone communication and mail correspondence. Too bad that part of the constitution was nothing but a piece of paper.
Haha, I was thinking that. 18 months no interest is better than you'll find anywhere. I'll take him up on it too. You could make some good investments with that.
----------
It is incredibly sad and it weighs on me heavily.
----------
Since you left out everything you have just stated here in your original posting, it's pretty easy for anyone to jump to conclusions. So I take it you are a "Libertarian" of sorts. Rand Paul will certainly get more votes than his father ever did. Are you pumped about him running in 2016? I doubt he will come close to getting elected though. People need to be educated before any real change will occur. PS. You go by the "Postcard Principle" except that you post on MacRumors.
I'm in that camp. Also I think Rand has an excellent chance. It's not like Obama will end his second term with a bang and Rand does a good job with making sense to regular people.
Also, one posting on macrumors or even facebook isn't necesessarily giving away valuable private information. As long as you know that everyone can and will read it, there's not harm in posting with that in mind.
For instance, I have no qualms posting that I'm a fan of the Constitution and I think it's being trampled by those who want to "interpret" what I consider to be abundantly clear writing.
Apart from things like the second amendment, which isn't clear at all what it actually means. And apart from the whole slavery and 3/5ths of a person stuff.
The Second Amendment is quite clear. Let's go through it bit by bit.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The first clause is a statement identifying the need of the people to be familiar with arms to maintain a free state. The second clause identifies the need of the people to be able to own and carry arms in order to fulfill the needs of the first clause. Thus, as they affirmed in the Heller decision, the right is an individual right and one of the reasons is to maintain a free state, but it is not the sole reason.
It could also be written in slightly more modern phrasing as:
As a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
According to the Heller decision, this would be a correct reading of the Second Amendment.
As for slavery, since 1865 every person is considered a free person so your argument there is useless. No one said the Constitution was perfect (especially at it's ratification as you suggest) but the Amendments have made it closer.
If they intended it to be perfect, they would not have made it amendable. Additionally, Jefferson actually disliked slavery, despite owning slaves, and he wrote that we would have to contend with it in the future because it was too important to their economy at the time.
Also, the irony of a Brit deriding our Constitution for having slavery in it, isn't lost on me.
Last edited:
But do they have to be a member of the militia to be allowed to bear arms, even if they don't belong to a militia do they have to be trained? And are any restrictions on which arms they are allowed to bear constitutional? What about if they made buying a gun more expensive?
And then there is a question of who is allowed to limit people keeping and bearing arms - are businesses allowed to? Are the states? Or is it only the federal government?
All of these things are left very much unanswered by the text - and yet people claim some of those restrictions would be unconstitutional.
I would say even in 2013 that not every person is free, as gay marriage isn't legal in every state. And certainly in a civil rights sense blacks weren't equal until the 1960's.
That said I was thinking that the founding fathers who wrote the constitution and the bill of rights were really the authors
.Although unlike Washington he never freed any significant number of them
.----------
We outlawed the slave trade in 1807, and slavery in the 1830's - which was significantly before the Americans
.And we never had official segregation.
Shall not be infringed, means unencumbered in any fashion. Though that is not how the Supreme Court has found in certain cases. Personally, I'd say if you can afford it, you should be able to own it until you prove you are unable to properly maintain that right (like you're noted as mentally ill, or a felon). Being innocent until proven guilty should be echoed with respect to things you can own as far as I'm concerned. That said, making a mistake with a nuclear weapon could be quite catastrophic, while making a mistake with a pistol might have no casualties. There was an interesting take I read somewhere that talked about it in a weapon's utility to defend yourself. You can't defend yourself with a nuke (though you can defend a country with the threat of nuclear attack), but you can with an automatic rifle for example.
As far as militias go, the point is moot for most American males. As a citizen of the state of Florida between 17 and 45, I actually belong to two militias automatically—the US militia as defined in 10 USC § 311 and the Florida militia per Article X, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution. That's a fine point most people miss.
I wholeheartedly agree, however for the purposes of voting as it is defined in the Constitution, they are considered free people.
Although unlike Washington he never freed any significant number of them
Yep. He did foster children with them though.
Last edited:
We outlawed the slave trade in 1807, and slavery in the 1830's - which was significantly before the Americans
And we never had official segregation.
It ended significantly before the Americans because the English had quite the head start since the concept of African slavery originated with the British. And until the actual division in 1776, we were still considered English. So we only had slaves for around 100 years.
The Atlantic slave trade existed from the 16th through the 19th century. So, 2/3s of it was yours.
Also, the economy of the South was highly dependent upon slave labor and had far less time to mature than the ages old British empire.
That interpretation would mean restrictions on private ownership of machine guns would be unconstitutional - as would any taxes on guns etc etc.
I understand your reading, but it is different from what the supreme court has ruled.
OK, but I guess that varies state-by-state, and it doesn't include women or men over 45.
Well the blacks weren't de-facto free to vote until the 1960's, but otherwise I accept your point.
I said that. I think the Supreme Court found those incorrectly.
17-45 covers all American males regardless of state. Not all states define a militia. The point is just that people think no one belongs to a militia, or that it's only a militia right.
Yes, but those restrictions were not legal. Women couldn't vote until the 20s either.
Eventually we right the wrongs.