Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 22, 2016 -> 12:05 PM) Nobody should be in favor of the government forcing a company to make your personal data more easily accessible to the wrong people. It's not "everyone." It's a dead terrorist operating within the US. The subject phone being his employer phone. He had no privacy expectations on it anyway.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Feb 22, 2016 -> 11:57 AM) Nope, the phone company does not have to modify anything in order to tap a line, that's how the technology was built from the ground up. There were also strict rules in place on taps, which do not exist in this case. You can't just tap a line and listen to every conversation, you can listen in for a few seconds, and unless the conversation pertains to the court order, you have to turn it back off. Keep in mind, they're leveraging the all writs act in order to compel Apple here, and that act specifically states it cannot place undue burden...having to recode an OS to function exactly how they do not want it function is pretty burdensome. Then Apple should have led with that argument. Instead they're going the privacy route, which means it's not a burden to them at all. And like I said, whether it's more difficult to do or not, the same concerns were made or could have been made with phone companies or ISP's, but it's not much of an issue now. The order was extremely limited and it was still provided by a judge. It's not like the FBI called up Apple and told them to do it. They went through the justice system. Yeah, again, slippery slope on a very specific, limited case is not a good argument. You still have privacy rights. The government still has to obtain a warrant or something similar in order to access the data. I don't see how it's any different than the process of obtaining a wire tap. All you're doing is asking Apple to create a key versus just opening the door they already have a key for. In the end it's still the same - hey company X, help me look into Y. Sure they could, they can pass a law tomorrow. They can threaten to ban Apple from the country. Apple still has to abide by Chinese law, so if the Chinese really wanted to do this, they could.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Feb 19, 2016 -> 06:36 PM) Yes, they're absolutely asking to make it easier, so again, I repeat -- you do not know what you're talking about. You can't create software for "that specific phone", that cannot be altered to work on a host of others. If it's created it can be used and reused/tweaked/altered to work on ANY other iPhone. Would it be easy? Nope. Could it be done? Yes. And that's the problem. There is no "this specific device" when it comes to software, because it can be recoded, VERY easily. With a proper crack/tweak, you can install Windows on ANY PC...but how is this possible?! I KNOW that at some point in your life, you've installed Windows on a computer it wasn't made for...because when altered, it's THAT easy to do. This precedent, which you claim exists (it doesn't), which is exactly why Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, the ACLU, Amnesty International, and a HOST of others stepped forward to publicly back Apple BECAUSE the precedent the government is trying to establish does not exist. ALLLLLLL those companies, and the legal experts working for those companies disagree with you, because if said precedent existed, you wouldn't be reading about it in the news. This isn't the government asking Apple to open a door to which they have the keys to open. This is the government asking Apple to take the locks on that iPhone, to which they DO NOT have the keys, and make them incredibly easy to pick by removing or circumventing the security measures in place that stop them from being picked in the first place. The problem is, Apple used that SAME lock mechanism on ALLLLLLL the doors on every iPhone with iOS 9 installed on it...which is hundreds of millions of them. So stop talking about what you don't understand. (1) I feel like telephone companies could have made these arguments (and probably did) decades ago, and yet wiretaps and surveillance via phone and phone records are absolutely key to our justice system. Same with ISP's and internet search histories and data. It all works without a big "OMG it's 1984!" reaction. Just because it's more difficult to do than plugging in a wire (or checking computer records), the concept and privacy concerns are the exact same. (2) The hacker stuff is a non-issue to me. If Apple can't protect and/or destroy a single piece of software it's using in one single instance, then we should have zero faith that any of our data can ever be kept secret and private. That's all they have to do here - create that software, install it on this phone, and then immediately delete it. There is no fear from hackers if they do that. The only fear would be that an Apple techie could be bought out by a hacker to replicate the software program. Fine, but that fear still exists today before the new software can be written. (3) The only argument I can get behind is that other governments, like China, would repeatedly ask for this to be done going forward. I still think that brings up the telephone company argument (the government will have 24/7 monitoring if we allow them to do it!) which is just a bad slippery slope argument. This is a very, very specific case. This phone involves a dead guy, a terrorist, on a company phone, and the company has given the OK to break into it. This isn't some politician in China that the communist government wants to investigate. And guess what, if China wants to have Apple do that, they already can. They can tell Apple to do the same thing and Apple can decide whether or not to continue doing business there. Just like every other country. Just because they do it once doesn't mean the flood gates are suddenly open. Apple has basically acknowledged already that it CAN do this, but it just doesn't want to. This, to me, has Silicon Valley hype written all over it.

I think it's unfair to blame him for things out of his control, especially if you're also not going to give him the excuse that he's had the worst luck with injuries. Based on the fact that he's a bad to not great coach who didn't recruit a D1 caliber PG for 4 years, he should be fired. The rest is just noise and IMO irrelevant.

You sure? That seems highly unfair to the player.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 19, 2016 -> 10:29 AM) If somehow this were true, than Pace needs to go immediately. I can't possibly believe this is true. This would be beyond stupid. Franchise him and move on. If you don't want to sign him, than use the leverage and trade him for picks. That seems like it would be against the rules, applying the franchise tag and then removing him from the franchise.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Feb 19, 2016 -> 10:10 AM) Have to think that seals Groce's fate. Which I think is really unfair. Why is that Groce's fault that a player makes a stupid decision? Groce should be fired for his results on the court, not some random act by a player in the middle of the night. He has no control over that.

Ha, dumpster fire continues: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/201...r-arrested.html

He'll be safe if he can get some of those top 2017 recruits in.

QUOTE (AustinIllini @ Feb 19, 2016 -> 07:07 AM) Blackhawks/Cubs 1, 1A 3) Bears 4) Bulls 5) White Sox Bears are no where close to winning a title. I'd still take the Bulls 3rd, White Sox 4th then the Bears.

I like the hire. We'll see if he succeeds, but at least he's young, energetic, positive and loves Illinois. He's a more polished Dee Brown basically, and hopefully Dee continues to be a big part of the AD's office. I have a feeling there will be a honeymoon period ala Groce. Everything will seem great. As always, though, it comes down to who he can hire for football and basketball. But I like the direction. I like that alumni are behind him. I feel like Thomas and even Gunther were pretty s***ty about building that Illinois alumni family with ex-players/coaches. Hopefully that's something Whitman can do.

I want no part of Okafor. He's pretty awful on defense, he isn't a good rebounder, and he's slow. I can buy that the 76ers are shopping him though if they think Embiid is coming back.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 17, 2016 -> 12:19 PM) Bill Simmons new website venture: http://news.yahoo.com/bill-simmons-reveals...WQDBHNlYwNzYw-- I'm somewhat excited. Grantland was definitely part of my bored-at-work rotation. Hopefully his show isn't a talk show like the Grantland Basketball Hour. That was pretty terrible. It should be like his Jalen Rose NBA preview videos - taped, edited and spliced with animations. That's his zone. Hosting a TV show is not.

Isn't there a way that Apple could write this OS specifically for this one phone, via a device ID or something, that would prevent its use on other phones? Or would that be a simple hack - "replace device ID" in the coding

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Feb 17, 2016 -> 01:24 PM) That's the thing, there is no current capability to hack, the FBI is saying to create this method for the future. I still don't see the problem. If Apple can do it, and it's important, why not have them do it? Again, if we can't expect them to keep some software they're installing on a single device out of hacker's hands, then we shouldn't be confident they can keep other personal data secure. Gizmodo's article also brought up that his phone was an older iphone. If it had been a new iphone, this wouldn't even be a possibility. So i'm not sure if the "going forward" argument works.

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Feb 17, 2016 -> 01:21 PM) Reading through the comment sections of that article and others, there isn't really anything more that FBI needs from the phone itself. This is being looked at as more of a setting the bar for the future kind of deal. That doesn't seem to be accurate. The whole point is they haven't yet gotten into the phone. They want to make sure it doesn't auto-delete once they start trying a billion passwords to open it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 17, 2016 -> 01:12 PM) I mean I can't even begin to have the expertise to talk intelligently about this, but what do you say to the argument that once the backdoor is created, that it will be exploited by others? I'm in the same boat as you, obviously we're talking in layman terms here. But I don't see it as being any different than any other security protocol that big companies like Apple create. I'm sure hackers already try to exploit this stuff. They either have or haven't thus far. I'd rather Apple crack the code than Dimitri in the Ukraine. According to Cook the FBI wants Apple to create a different operating system and put it on this one phone. If we can't trust Apple with keeping this new OS safe, how can we feel secure that the private data they do have isn't safe?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 17, 2016 -> 01:07 PM) But the Bulls have only make the conference finals 1 time since 1998. That's pretty weak. I think the fanbase has a right to be upset. They have reached a certain level, but haven't been able to take the next step. Now it looks like they will probably be retreating for a season or two. Expecting the return of the Jordan era when it was 8 conference finals in 10 years, and one Hugh Hollins call from being 9 out of 10, and one MJ retirement from being 10 years in a row, is crazy. But this team leads the league in attendance. The fans deserve better than the totally conservative route this team has taken in regards to player moves, and reluctance to pay luxury tax. Reinsdorf has said he all he wants his baseball team to do is break even. If that was the same with the Bulls, I think they would have been far more aggressive over the years. I don't disagree, but you gotta draft/sign a superstar. They did, but he got hurt. I think that's just the reality of the situation.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 17, 2016 -> 01:01 PM) So what is your response to this? The government is asking Apple to do it. I haven't read anywhere that the FBI wants to be present or the FBI wants to get the key after it has been completed. They want to make sure that once they start trying to break into the phone the phone isn't going to do an auto-delete and/or that some data isn't encrypted.

Brian WindhorstVerified account ‏@WindhorstESPN Source fight!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 17, 2016 -> 12:43 PM) Im' with you. How many teams are a Pau Gasol away from perhaps winning a title who really have a spot for him? Not too many. Maybe OKC. But the Bulls need to trade him. They aren't going anywhere. I don't know why a team would give up a 1st rounder for a couple of months of him. If the Bulls really are willing to pay him $20 million a year, he can always come back. If they trade him, and even just get some athletic tape for him, I will applaud GarPax for at least being realistic. That's the problem with the NBA. There are maybe 4 teams with a legit shot of winning, and if GS stays healthy, probably fewer than that. Which is why it's unrealistic when fanbases (like Chicago) get upset when they don't win a title. Getting to the ECF or Finals is a legit accomplishment in the NBA. Only a few teams really have enough talent to win it all, and that's proven true year after year. Superstars win titles. If you don't have one, you aren't winning one.

I don't see the issue with it. This is a pretty narrow case - terrorists that are already dead. I think the government has a reasonable need to look at that phone and look for other would-be terrorists out there. From that link, here's what the order says: It's all tailored to that one specific phone, so it's not like Apple has to post the instructions to the internet for all to see.

QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 17, 2016 -> 12:24 PM) Clips would take him if they deal Blake Griffin. I thought Doc came out last night and said he wouldn't be traded.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Feb 17, 2016 -> 12:15 PM) Bulls are aggressively shopping Gasol according to Woj. Wonder if they'd get a 1st rounder for him with his expiring contract, Toronto could be a potential fit, they're after a 4. Doesn't have a full no-trade? I wonder what teams he'd be willing to go to. Not many make much sense. Would the Bulls really trade him to a playoff rival? Or anyone in the East? He's too slow for the Warriors. Clips don't need him. San Antonio doesn't need him. Thunder maybe? Durant really wanted him during his last FA.

In fairness, those were for circuit court positions. A bit different from the SC. But still, they should at least consider the name before coming out and saying they'll reject anyone.