tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post184318883018932079..comments2023-09-17T08:45:50.720-04:00Comments on Stuff Out Loud: Privacy vs. Life and the “Dilemma” of AppleLarryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-44920206933668979622016-02-18T12:02:22.213-05:002016-02-18T12:02:22.213-05:00On further thought, allow me to modify my last tho...On further thought, allow me to modify my last thought experiment.<br /><br />Because of the way in which a modern smartphone is used, it seems to me that a closer metaphor to government access to a phone, on demand (with warranted suspicion), would be (almost) akin to having a device installed in my home that records all conversations, to which the government demands access. Obviously, this is an imperfect analogy; for most (sane) people, not <i>every</i> word they communicate is done by phone. For some, however, it is close.<br /><br /> The other challenge with this analogy, of course, is that possession of the recording device in the home is, in some measure, voluntary (as is ownership of a cell phone). Some might object that having a cell phone is a necessity. If it were <i>truly</i> a necessity to have such a device that records so much personal data, giving the government the keys to it would be dicey. But perhaps the same cannot be said if we have voluntarily acquired such a device. So consider this a hedge in my current position.<br /><br />Granted that the scale of access, and the intrusiveness of the access, is significant, the question for me really does go back to the scope of access (whether this is a one-time event, or the creation of an accessible back door). But if Apple (and I'm no fan of Apple products) creates the ability to circumvent encryption, <i>someone</i> has that access (even if it is not the government). Even if the government needs a warrant, and thus private citizens are protected, the private company having such access remains a concern.<br /><br />I'm not coming to any firm conclusions here, but I still object to the construction "issues of life always and in every way trump issues of privacy."Michael Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15889763917241705813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-56025709307129944162016-02-18T11:37:40.769-05:002016-02-18T11:37:40.769-05:00I question your sanity but for reasons entirely di...I question your sanity but for reasons entirely disconnected from this. By the way, I saw your video of your son. I think mickelson learned to play from his dad who was right handed by standing opposite of him and facing him. Having a lefty might be your ticket to the good life.<br /><br />My back yard is public to at least some degree. I know that neighbors and people in the ballfield can see everything that goes on. It is only semi-private.<br /><br />Back to the drone, it is not limited in its usage. It is an open ended just in case thing. I don't know how it is substantively different than a police officer walking the beat aside from the area that can be covered. But I am not in favor of a general tracking. <br /><br />Which goes to the last question. Is there a reason? Would a reasonable person with the facts conclude there is something to be concerned about? Of course I am not sure there are any reasonable people aside from me and you (and I have my doubts about you sometimes). The argument about preserving life would indicate that life is in danger. If there is no reasonable suspicion that life is in danger, then there is no basis for action. In both scenarios above, there is reasonable suspicion of danger.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-22546775073839089242016-02-18T10:36:00.186-05:002016-02-18T10:36:00.186-05:00By the way, I understand that by entering this con...By the way, I understand that by entering this conversation, I'm implicitly asking you to question my sanity and parenting skills. I'm hoping that I can make my points without creating greater doubts about me. :)<br /><br />On the camera (and then I'll drop it, as it isn't the point of your post): it would be watching you even when you are not in public, assuming that there is some reasonable expectation of privacy (for instance) in your own backyard.<br /><br />I do think that the question of whether this is a back door is an important one, and I'm not entirely sure whose word is good on this point. In my estimation, the government has already shown its tendency to overreach its boundaries in the Snowden leaks.<br /><br />At least one article that I read noted that China is watching this case closely, to see whether it would be able to force Apple to give it similar access to encrypted devices (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/apple-fbi-encryption-san-bernardino-russia-china).<br /><br />Clearly, the San Bernardino case is a particularly sharp one, because there are (obviously) good and defensible grounds for getting access in this case. Whether the government ought to be able to conscript a private company into its service is a slightly different matter, but again, I see your point.<br /><br />Just to press the argument: is there a point at which you believe that you can rationally stop a reductio on your argument? If there is the potential to save a life using some means that would trump concerns of privacy, does life always win? I'm thinking of crazy stuff, like everyone being required to wear a tracking device at all times. It seems to me that such measures would be useful in preserving life; should they be pursued? Or, similarly, if they are proposed, do we have an obligation not to object?Michael Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15889763917241705813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-66602260758405797942016-02-18T10:05:25.516-05:002016-02-18T10:05:25.516-05:00I am not particularly troubled by such a camera, a...I am not particularly troubled by such a camera, at least in principle. When a person is in public, a person is in public. We have no reasonable right to privacy in public. Which is not to say I am in favor of it. I think the cost of it is prohibitive with respect to the benefit of it. <br /><br />In this case, the FBI would not have an unfettered back door, and it wouldn't be (or shouldn't be) consolidated in a single power. It would still have to go through a court process to obtain a search warrant. <br /><br />My main argument is over the relationship between a right to privacy and a right to life. Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-16576911367308721082016-02-18T09:46:44.820-05:002016-02-18T09:46:44.820-05:00Larry,
If you have the time/inclination, I'd ...Larry,<br /><br />If you have the time/inclination, I'd be interested in whether you'd have the same opinion on something like this:<br /><br />http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/<br /><br />Short version: it is an airplane based security camera that can keep watch over a whole city, so that if a crime is committed, the criminal could be tracked from the crime scene to his current location.<br /><br />Of course, it is also tracking every other innocent person simultaneously.<br /><br />For me, this is the issue with the iPhone case. If this were a one-off request, as the White House claims, it is less of an issue. If, however, the FBI would like access to a perpetual backdoor that gives them entry to any phone as they wish, I am much less sanguine. In my estimation, the consolidation of such immense power/access in the a single entity is too dangerous, even if there would be cases in which it could be helpful.Michael Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15889763917241705813noreply@blogger.com