The FBI needs a new director. Or at the very least, those authorized the filing of the lawsuit to compel Apple to provide a means to defeat its own iOS security, need to resign. Because they have shown a lack of considered judgment, a lack of long term vision for what law enforcement requires, and a lack of understanding of our form of government and the constitutional guarantees it affords.
First, these folks lack considered judgment because the same tool they require Apple to produce, can and will be used by criminals, terrorists, foreign intelligent agents, not just by the FBI. And that risk is greater many times over compare to the benefits.
Second, these folks lack the long term vision for what law enforcement in the 21st century requires. Law enforcement does not require lock makers like Schlage or Kwikset to produce a master key for every lock they have ever produced. Even with a warrant, law enforcement still has to either pick the lock or use a battering ram. Law enforcement does not lobby Congress to pass legislation to outlaw battering ram proof doors. The same should be for digital property and privacy as it is for physical property and privacy.
Finally, these folks lack the understanding of our form of government and the constitutional guarantees it affords. Our government governs by the consent of the governed. Our constitution guarantees that the right of the people to be secured in their papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. The government acts within those powers the people consented to give the government for the people's common defense and security. We do not expect absolute security from the state. We do not consent to the government violating our civil liberties to protect us. After all, the founding fathers sacrificed their lives, properties, and sacred honors, to secure freedom. It is give me liberty or give me death. It's not security at all cost.
The president, the champion of civil liberties, should appoint folks who have the necessary considered judgment, the long term vision for what law enforcement requires, and the clear understanding of our form of government and constitutional guarantees.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Thursday, January 14, 2016
The 2016 Republican Primary
I am so glad to finally see some sanity prevail in the latest poll numbers.
Despite the fact that Donald Trump has widen his lead from 5 points to 13 points since December, and in a three-way match up, he would get 40% to 31% for Ted Cruz and 26% for Marco Rubio, when goes head to head against Ted Cruz, he loses 43% to 51%. Trump would beat Rubio 52% to 45% in a head to head. Most of Marco Rubio supporters would support Ted Cruz when Rubio drops out. On top of that, 71% of Republican primary voters can see themselves supporting Cruz while it's 65% for Trump. So it's great for Ted Cruz over all.
Trump, who is 69, has the highest net worth overall among the three at 4.5 billion, despite the four bankruptcies in the last 25 years. I was really turned off at the four bankruptcies. But on closer look, they were not personal bankruptcies, and were all chapter 11, not chapter 7. Still, he is a little too bombastic and too much of a showman for me to take seriously. But I could vote for him if he were the nominee, though I hope he won't be.
I had very favorable view of Marco Rubio when I first heard about him from governor Jeb Bush over ten years ago. He was a first generation American of Cuban descent who was speaker of the Florida House at the time. But his at best mixed feelings about gay marriage leaves me much to desire. And most of all, his financial mismanagement is well documented. At 44, his net worth is at $100,000. Among all the twenty 2016 presidential candidates from both parties, he is second from bottom. Only Martin O'Malley is doing worse, at zero, because the former Maryland governor took on debts to send all his four kids to college. I would vote for him if he were the nominee, though I hope he won't be.
Ted Cruz, at 45, has a net worth of 3.5 million, is pretty decent. His lack of disclosure of the Goldman Sachs loan at the time of his Senate run isn't much of a big deal to me. Because I have seen it much worse what candidates will do when it's crunched time and they cannot match their opponent's spending. It's been disclosed plenty of time since then, specifically in his personal financial disclosure. The loan was backed by his assets. And they have been paid back in full. He did not get a break.
Despite the fact that Donald Trump has widen his lead from 5 points to 13 points since December, and in a three-way match up, he would get 40% to 31% for Ted Cruz and 26% for Marco Rubio, when goes head to head against Ted Cruz, he loses 43% to 51%. Trump would beat Rubio 52% to 45% in a head to head. Most of Marco Rubio supporters would support Ted Cruz when Rubio drops out. On top of that, 71% of Republican primary voters can see themselves supporting Cruz while it's 65% for Trump. So it's great for Ted Cruz over all.
Trump, who is 69, has the highest net worth overall among the three at 4.5 billion, despite the four bankruptcies in the last 25 years. I was really turned off at the four bankruptcies. But on closer look, they were not personal bankruptcies, and were all chapter 11, not chapter 7. Still, he is a little too bombastic and too much of a showman for me to take seriously. But I could vote for him if he were the nominee, though I hope he won't be.
I had very favorable view of Marco Rubio when I first heard about him from governor Jeb Bush over ten years ago. He was a first generation American of Cuban descent who was speaker of the Florida House at the time. But his at best mixed feelings about gay marriage leaves me much to desire. And most of all, his financial mismanagement is well documented. At 44, his net worth is at $100,000. Among all the twenty 2016 presidential candidates from both parties, he is second from bottom. Only Martin O'Malley is doing worse, at zero, because the former Maryland governor took on debts to send all his four kids to college. I would vote for him if he were the nominee, though I hope he won't be.
Ted Cruz, at 45, has a net worth of 3.5 million, is pretty decent. His lack of disclosure of the Goldman Sachs loan at the time of his Senate run isn't much of a big deal to me. Because I have seen it much worse what candidates will do when it's crunched time and they cannot match their opponent's spending. It's been disclosed plenty of time since then, specifically in his personal financial disclosure. The loan was backed by his assets. And they have been paid back in full. He did not get a break.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)