Always.. On Feb 20, 2016 10:14 AM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wear your seat belt. My wife is still with me due to a seat belt. > > *From:* Sean Heskett <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, February 20, 2016 10:12 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT Apple > > Too bad we don't give as much attention, publicity, and funding to prevent > ways that people actually die. > > http://m.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html > > Way more likely to die from heart disease, cancer or a car accident. > Terrorist attack didn't even register on their list, it's lumped in with > "all other" > > If we could only improve car safety a little bit we would instantly save > more lives then all terrorist attacks on US soil ever! > > But it's way more exciting for our government to rule by fear :-/ > > -Sean > > On Friday, February 19, 2016, Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The flip side of this coin is the FBI trying this in the court of public >> opinion. >> >> I say it's a publicity stunt by the FBI. >> >> Fear Fear Fear. >> >> That's what they're selling these days, and I haven't been buying tehy >> b**sh*t since 9/11. >> >> bp >> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >> >> >> On 2/19/2016 6:58 PM, Mathew Howard wrote: >> >> True, getting it decided in the courts is the best outcome. >> >> I'm still not convinced that this is anything more than a publicity stunt >> on Apples side. If Apple has the ability to create a way to unlock it, and >> they haven't said that they can't do it, how is that any different from >> them already having it? And why is it any better for Apple to have the >> ability to crack iPhones than the FBI? Now, I certainly don't trust the >> government, but they've pretty much always had the ability to look at >> anything and everything we have in this sort of an investigation. >> >> This is basically the equivalent of the FBI finding a safe with a built >> in safe that has a built in self destruct feature and telling the company >> that built it to disable the self destruct, so they can try cracking it... >> they aren't asking them to put a camera in every safe they build so that >> they can look inside whenever they want, which is what a lot of people seem >> to be making this out to be. >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Chuck Macenski < >> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> wrote: >> >>> WIthout taking a public position one way or the other, this need to be >>> settled in the courts so that we all have some idea of what rights we do or >>> do not have; we should not be required to guess about what the government >>> can and can't do; if we can't be trusted to know what the government can >>> do, then it can be argued that we have no rights. I am reminded of the >>> national security letters which are arguably unconstitutional, but, any >>> attempt to present that argument to the judicial branch can result in your >>> imprisonment. >>> >>> my 2 cents >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Brian Webster < >>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> wrote: >>> >>>> Ok I will bite to keep the thread moving. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ponder this thought: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Executive branch has the ability to direct the NSA to do domestic >>>> spying, may not be legal but they do it anyway. This includes spying on >>>> members of congress. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We know politicians all have skeletons in their closets, makes them >>>> ripe for extortion and such. Executive branch uses the NSA to gather all >>>> these bits of juicy data that incriminates ANY and ALL politicians. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Every time a critical vote in congress comes up, they study where the >>>> swing votes may be, then all you do in threaten to disclose any of these >>>> juicy details the NSA has gathered. End result is the vote goes the way you >>>> need it to. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As the executive branch you use this power and tactic very carefully >>>> and sparingly so as not to raise suspicions or to cause legislative revolt. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The public does not worry about this because they have the protection >>>> of the Supreme Court and the balance of powers. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Then you think, but what if the executive branch does this to the >>>> judges too………………… >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This level of power is something that once discovered would never be >>>> given up, it’s just too handy and powerful, no matter which party the >>>> executive may be from. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Absolute power corrupts absolutely. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank You, >>>> >>>> Brian Webster >>>> >>>> www.wirelessmapping.com >>>> >>>> www.Broadband-Mapping.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Af [mailto:javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');] >>>> *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown >>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 9:03 PM >>>> *To:* javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]'); >>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT Apple >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah, I was being a troll when I started the thread. I knew it would >>>> get some traction. Tushar was right, I was bored. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Jaime Solorza >>>> >>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 7:01 PM >>>> >>>> *To:* Animal Farm >>>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT Apple >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hire a high school get to open phone. Geezh >>>> >>>> On Feb 19, 2016 3:45 PM, < >>>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> wrote: >>>> >>>> Treason? >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>
