[M65c02]

That's interesting, I wonder if that is not at least in part due to general political rejection by US government of any international standards applying to its citizens.

Actually, yes, this is almost exactly the point ... whether good, bad, or indifferent.

My observation has been that the USA, at least in recent decades, has repeatedly rejected the authority of any international body to adjudicate the actions of US citizens (especially when it comes to military and governmental crimes), while turning around and wagging its finger at other nations over supposed violations of international law.

Your point has merit as well as the point that a U.S. citizen is not granted standing in an international court to bring an action against the U.S. In fact, under many circumstances get permission from the fed/state govt to bring an action even within the U.S. It's just the U.S. brand of jurisprudence, as it has evolved over 250 years from common law and the Constitution. Again, however, the U.S. is in compliance with its international treaties for which they are a signatory: they just haven't signed many that subject it to the intl court(s).

The day of an all-encompassing, inexpensive international type number is almost upon us. There may soon be no need even to have a service domestic to the country we live. Then, where it gets interesting relative to communication is where the boundaries of "local communication" become broadened across international borders. Now, what law will govern? What law should govern? When there is a conflict of (international) laws, will the broadest of rights apply or the most restrictive?? When there is dual citizenship--as somewhat common in the U.S. although not much of Europe--and a person has a cell service located, for example, outside of the U.S., how clear is what applicable law is to be applied??

Okay, now mix in a liberal dose of our/the fingerprint sensor discussion with some GA action and let simmer ... potential for some pretty volatile "stuff".

Senator Al Franken of Minnesota (head of the US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law) has sent a . . . letter to Apple asking questions ... [and also stating]:

"I'm looking forward to hearing Apple's responses to this, and I sure hope people in the federal government are not just going to "roll over" because Apple coos "Oh don't worry, everything's fine."

Excerpt:

---

"But there are reasons to think that an individual's fingerprint is not "one of the best passwords in the world," as an Apple promotional video suggests.

Passwords are secret and dynamic; fingerprints are public and permanent. If you don't tell anyone your password, no one will know what it is. If someone hacks your password, you can change it--as many times as you want. You can't change your fingerprints. You have only ten of them. And you leave them on everything you touch; they are definitely not a secret. What's more, a password doesn't uniquely identify its owner--a fingerprint does. Let me put it this way: if hackers get a hold of your thumbprint, they could use it to identify and impersonate you for the rest of your life."

---

Can't say I agree with the new Senator from Minnesota on everything BUT I do think that he is well spoken to raise questions on this topic. Now let's see what follow through transpires.

[jh07]

Yes but if you want to have an informed answer to your prior question, maybe you should read the thread... the fact that the fingerprint scanner of the iPhone raises issues for some people, as expressed in the thread (some of them of general legal aspects as well, not of personal preference, so not 'if you like it fine if not, do not use it - this has also been discussed in the thread)

The threas is not "about the iPhone", it is about fingertip scanning implementation on the latest iPhone and again, if you read the thread you will understand what are the concerns some people have about it ( to answer your initial question)

"Hey that is my Q... 10... via CB10

The OP just simply asked if people think with it being in the IPHONE, if BlackBerry will implement this in future devices. Didn't asked about privacy issues and government and Al Franken. You go to the opening and see what this thread started at.
People high jacked a simple thread and made it political.

Posted via CB10

[Omnitech]

What I'm I missing then?

Stances that differ from your own.

The OP just simply asked if people think with it being in the IPHONE, if BlackBerry will implement this in future devices. Didn't asked about privacy issues and government and Al Franken. You go to the opening and see what this thread started at.
People high jacked a simple thread and made it political.

Actually he asked if ppl thought BlackBerry would implement it, along with calling the feature "mindblowing" - which unsurprisingly led to criticism of his overwrought characterisation.

Since the subject itself revolves PRIMARILY around privacy and technology, which is is intertwined with the legal landscape especially given the recent revelations about various US agencies in recent months, I think it's not a surprise whatsoever that people will end up debating those points, because those things are on LOTS of people's minds right now, especially people who are keen followers of Blackberry, the smartphone market in particular, and the technology industry in general. (ie: Crackberry subscribers)

[Omnitech]

Again, however, the U.S. is in compliance with its international treaties for which they are a signatory: they just haven't signed many that subject it to the intl court(s).

Yep.

When there is dual citizenship--as somewhat common in the U.S. although not much of Europe...

If I'm not mistaken the USA requires people to renounce their US citizenship if they become citizens of other countries, and vice-versa. It may be only one or the other however, I would have to check.

[currentodysseys]

The OP just simply asked if people think with it being in the IPHONE, if BlackBerry will implement this in future devices. Didn't asked about privacy issues and government and Al Franken. You go to the opening and see what this thread started at.
People high jacked a simple thread and made it political.

Posted via CB10

The original question sprung the discussion. If threads were to be a simple "yes or no" to original questions there would be no point in coming to the forums. The discussion that evolved I think is total relevant, as omnitech points out.

At the end of the day I think it is more constructive to discuss the issues along with their premises. In the same manner one could simply state that :"since the op or any other commenting in this thread is not deciding or would not disclose if the were deciding on BlackBerry's production ans design features, this thread is pointless and not possible to answer"... maybe you would like that better as a relevant answer?

I do not see why after so many pages discussing this -imo a natural outcome of the thread- you find it so "bad" as to suggest what we can discuss and what not? Also it seems to be that you contradict yourself, since in your first "recommendation" to me you said the thread was about the i-phone, now you change your perception?

Anyway enough said and pardon me but last I remember people have the right to express their opinions. And since you seemed to be a fan of the slogan before I will answer you with your own words: " I do not see what the problem is, if you do not like it, do not read it".

Can we now please stop the "forum police" thingy? If you have something to contribute to the conversation I would like to read your thoughts. That of course, is your prerogative.
Have a good day.


"Hey that is my Q... 10... via CB10

[wolf_clan]

Yep.





If I'm not mistaken the USA requires people to renounce their US citizenship if they become citizens of other countries, and vice-versa. It may be only one or the other however, I would have to check.

I was born in the states but lived most my life in Canada and eventually became a Canadian citizen. I was able to keep my US citizenship. But if it was the other way (to become an American) I would have lost my Canadian status.

Posted via CB10

[Omnitech]

I was born in the states but lived most my life in Canada and eventually became a Canadian citizen. I was able to keep my US citizenship. But if it was the other way (to become an American) I would have lost my Canadian status.

Thanks for the clarification.

[currentodysseys]

Come to think of it, my family in the states has both citizenships and both passports.

It may be that for the US government you have a singular US citizenship status but as long as the other country is not obliged by agreement or does not need you to renounce and maintains your status, I think you can have both.

Another issue I imagine is, what applies legally when you need to address issues towards the US government. Maybe in such case the US only recognizes your US status and do not treat you or you cannot use the capacity of a foreign to the US citizenship even though that country recognizes it?

(I think I just made it more complex than it was, but I was pondering on it and decide it to just go on and share the thought. I will be looking into it at some point I guess but have to go for now... have a great Sunday all!).

[M65c02]

The OP just simply asked if people think with it being in the IPHONE, if BlackBerry will implement this in future devices. Didn't asked about privacy issues and government and Al Franken. You go to the opening and see what this thread started at.
People high jacked a simple thread and made it political.

Agreed in part, but I think that we've been over this ground a few pages back. OVER-RULED. The question NEITHER requests nor supports an answer of Yes or No and it definitely deserves more attention than the typical blip poll (or numbered responses) taken from the same 50 CB bloggers. Here, we have a genuine topic and some actual intellectual conversation relevant to the future of not only BB--whose relevance has admittedly been curtailed in the recent past--and Apple but the entire industry. In this instance, a credible answer--of necessity--must examine pertinent political/legal issues of the day. This thought, in turn, should go into any future decision that BB may make in this regard. So, we're really not too far afield, if at all, from the content of this thread.

Therefore, consider and weigh the comments as either supportive, or against, whether BB will (or should) move in the direction of (1) duplication of a print scanner or (2) to avoid the Apple route--for privacy/freedom issues--and perhaps seek to denigrate Apple's efforts with this feature. If not already, I think that one should find this thread, as many, one that can actually make people think about the nature and future of smart phones . . . or maybe just think period. Moreover, in these BB times that unquestionably evoke more reflection on its heritage, than looking forward to a promising future, it is a good opportunity to reflect on the philosophical and moral overtones that shape our industry in light of supposed (decay in) ideals of basic freedom.

Besides, these posts are now so buried into this thread few take the time to read anyway.

[M65c02]

7579

. . .
It may be that for the US government you have a singular US citizenship status but as long as the other country is not obliged by agreement or does not need you to renounce and maintains your status, I think you can have both.

Another issue I imagine is, what applies legally when you need to address issues towards the US government. Maybe in such case the US only recognizes your US status and do not treat you or you cannot use the capacity of a foreign to the US citizenship even though that country recognizes it?

(I think I just made it more complex than it was, but I was pondering on it and decide it to just go on and share . . ..

No you didn' make it more complex and glad your shared. Indeed, what should be simple, or is thought to be simple today, will/has become more complex. This alone is reason to address some of these issues that are inextricably intertwined with implications of the (Apple) finger print scanner.

Now, it is the policy of the other country that controls whether they allow another citizenship--albeit many country's until recently did not have means to even record such fact and, BTW to this day, the U.S. is one of the few countries that has yet to implement immigration exit controls. This difference was felt to be required--and as manifested in the change of law in the mid-1960's--to add countless new immigrants that fuel an economy hungry for cheap labor, greater consumption, and to attract some of the more brilliant minds that otherwise wouldn't relinquish allegiance to the country of their birth. (Strangely, the U.S. also stands almost alone, as a major economic power, in allowing dual citizenship--enough said down this road.)

AND, yes, there is a potential conflict of laws but the U.S. will usually seek to apply its laws over anyone that carries its passport regardless of other allegiances pledged to a second country--and especially when in violation of a more restrictive U.S. law. A conflict of laws question may occur when such a violation of U.S. statute is not in violation of international law or, for example, EC law/treaty, or the law of the "alternate" citizenship, or the law where the infraction occurred. But the more perplexing situation is where a conflict involves a legal act under U.S. statute but that is otherwise illegal under broadened civil rights laws for countries outside the U.S. (We might spice things up even more by reminding that this is digital data and inserting several cooperating GA's of different countries--get the idea?)

Okay, now with that picture, how may the finger print scanner potentially be more dangerous to our (U.S. and elsewhere) freedoms versus its negligible increase in individual phone security. BB shouldn't go in this direction but, instead, it should start a discourse through advertisement such as discussed elsewhere in this thread--whether for altruistic reasons or simply lack of capital to do much else doesn't matter. (I don't think that BB has to define this stance: If presented properly, people will figure it out ... and a considerable chunk of IPhoners will be disturbed (imo) at where Apple may be leading all of us.)

NOTE: The smart phone gods only know, and history has shown, that BB hasn't a history of accurate long-term planning. But to bring the focus of this post back to BB, the "trick" is to somehow turn analysis into a positive for sales--assuming BB still has an ability to change its course--rather than automatically follow the leader and hope for a slice of the pie. After all, neither BB nor Apple found their (original) greatness through imitation of current industry leaders.

[Omnitech]

The Touch ID sensor on the iPhone 5S has been circumvented/tricked/hacked by a hacker group, the day after it became available, using a 10-year-old technique:

Hackers claim to have defeated Apple's Touch ID print sensor | Apple - CNET News

---

"We hope that this finally puts to rest the illusions people have about fingerprint biometrics," CCC spokesperson Frank Rieger said in a statement. "It is plain stupid to use something that you can�t change and that you leave everywhere every day as a security token."

---

[M65c02]

The Touch ID sensor on the iPhone 5S has been circumvented/tricked/hacked by a hacker group, the day after it became available, using a 10-year-old technique:

---

"We hope that this finally puts to rest the illusions people have about fingerprint biometrics," CCC spokesperson Frank Rieger said in a statement. "It is plain stupid to use something that you can�t change and that you leave everywhere every day as a security token."

---

I haven't even finished the monologue and someone's already shouted the punch line from the audience. Yes, this one was so painfully easy to see even through Apple tinted lenses. Like posters said: An Apple function used to market sales without any increase in functionality of security. It appears, however, that the posters were wrong. It is a function designed by Apple indeed to increase sales but with a decrease in the security (and worse, a false security) for its new IP5 models.

Darn, a few posters insisted that this new Apple feature could be used against Apple and to assist in BB sales ....if not simply reinforce BB as a provider of security while also supporting human rights, freedom, etc. ... Now a part of the cat is out of the bag. . . .Nevertheless, and as ever aware that BB has its hands nearly full with other matters of the week, BB should still move aggressively on an anti-print scanner from several different angles. ....

BB must push ahead and establish a (new) name with the consumer. Such opportunities come few and far between even for a (financially) healthy company. .... Hey, this could finally be a victory worthy of Blackberry's Waterloo namesake--and for the industry as a whole. BUT, look for info on this topic to start moving even faster and make note of the counter-intelligence (or counter-remarks) from the Apple PR machine as it moves into position to keep churning 5-10+mm unit sales a week . ...

Our Thanks to the ever vigilant Omnitech for an update that answers, in part, some questions posed earlier

[Note: Again, suggestions relative to BB strategy assumes that behind the scenes the cuffs haven't been applied which, admittedly, is 40/60 at best. But w/o such assumption what are we doing on CB today anyway.]

[Disfunktion]

If BB want a fingerprint sensor they can just replace their trackpad with a biometric trackpad from the same supplier as thier optical trackpad.

Crucialtec

[jh07]

If BB want a fingerprint sensor they can just replace their trackpad with a biometric trackpad from the same supplier as thier optical trackpad.

Crucialtec

I hope they do? Very convenient! Phone rings, hold my thumb down and hello, what up! Great!

Posted via CB10

[Sheaner19]

This has been hacked with a fake finger. All over news. I knew it was a farce!

Posted via CB10

[currentodysseys]

One last comment on this thread from my part.

I think that up to this point some solid concerns have been voiced (as well as all over the news and internet) regarding the fingerprint scanning.

To the general realm about tech and biometric data usage, this last iphone feature, raises questions of private biometric data perception and their legal extensions. Also it has to find its way into the global agenda of personal data legislation debate by relevant experts, while it creates room for existing law application in possible cases that will be involving its use, as there has been for instance the 5th amendment right evocation in the US (just as an example).

The very fact that the phone is of popular culture and trend marker, I think only increments the seriousness of such agendas prior to its use and makes the tech qualify for political and social, legislative debate as to where the trends are going and how this impacts on personal data and privacy concession. In that sphere the "if you like it do it, if not do not" argument I think is clearly not so straight forward as its perception and application on individual level can potentially "institutionalize" its use and general use of biometrics in the social arena, which then will reflect on the legislative and human rights agenda, which will have to face it as "given fact". For those considering this to be an over-reaction I would recommend they checked the changes occurring in our societies of similar impact since the late 90s as result of similar cases. I would point to facebook and youtube as two prime examples of such.

Finally, I think that it has been demonstrated just a few days in, that the very feature is not about security as much as about convenience. Thus using biometrics that are identity specific unaltered personal data, for convenience is the deal in this case. This alone for me does not qualify as a step forward but rather as a bad deal with no essential gain aside from "anti-laziness" masked as "tech innovation on security". Bio scanning is in popular culture perceived as "high security" but the application in the iphone is nowhere close (as proven). In marketing terms it is indeed very impressive and nice but in essence I think it really fails.

Ask yourself if you would give total access to your finances and private information on your phone with the sole use of fingertip scanning. If you really answer yes to that question, then by all means feel free to have the illusion of security. I am not saying other phones are more secure, I am saying this iphone fingertip is not. I can only see it solving problems for people that have memory problems or otherwise impaired to use or remember a password and provides them with a clear solution. In this I find it a god sent feature for this kind of demographics. Otherwise I sincerely think it creates more questions than it really solves.

to close this, If I am not mistaken, pass 48 hours the scanner is deactivated and the 4 digit pass process is needed to unlock the phone. That alone makes the system silly in its supposed principle, since all someone has to do is wait 48 hours so that they can crack the 4 digit code. That alone (if the info is accurate) dismisses the very premise on security.

Real security lies in encrypted well structured codes that are to be often changed. I think that if we reach the point of not even wanting to use that, then we really are more concerned about comfort than we are about security. And that, is ok. No problem with that really but lets not mascarade it as "secure" just to give the illusion of security.

I bet, any of you that have to access real high security areas or equipment really do know that. In order to enter the server room in my company you need to go through so many clearance levels and security tech that you really think twice if you need to get in there... that ought to tell us something.

The question therefore is, would you like to give away part of your personal biometric data (with what that means for use and perception of this type of info in the future), on a digitized form (which is important in my opinion as compromise), for easier access and convenience without essential increment on security? It does look cool, I ll give you that but the potential "price" in shaping common perception about personal biometric data management does really surpass in importance that convenience and "cool" factor.

End of rant to each their own, just some considerations out there for each to take with them if they will. Freedom always entails the acceptance of the consequences of free choices, thus in life, nothing is really "for free" (not in a monetary concept).

Cheers all!

[jpaulo604]

New article from Caroline Gabriel at Rethink Wireless: "BlackBerry latest victim of Apple fantasy"

BlackBerry latest victim of Apple fantasy - Rethink Wireless

"(...)There are many instances of mismanagement, over-confidence and poor execution in BlackBerry's downfall, but the one big error was the pursuit of the grail, of producing a smartphone that would outdo the iPhone(...)

(...)BlackBerry is not the only one to make the mistake, of course. After all, the iPhone has never been that good, by traditional device criteria.(...)

(...)A 'new Apple' will emerge, but it will not be any company trying to beat the iOS maker at its own game.(...)"

--------
A few quotes from a interesting article, in my opinion.

JP

[M65c02]

A great thread and the OP is to be commended. The topic of indiscriminate electronic eavesdropping and a George Orwell future is here. You can bet (much more than you should on BB stock), however, that this topic runs much deeper and that the temptation/revelation of gov't encroachment and further debate has barely begun. To be sure, there are important philosophical topics buried in these topics but for BB there may be a potential to market its deep concern/reputation for security and personal privacy over that offered by Apple. With so many excellent posts herein, I only provide a few points missed from, or lost in, earlier posts as an extension of other summaries in the dozen, or so, posts immediately above.

Whether it's offensive or not, it's reality. It's not within my power as a single individual to change it. It is factually correct. Whether or not it's defeatist, you are welcome to change the reality.

Some have observed the near futility relative to an individual’s ability to foster change. In so doing, we step into the common trap of misconception. We must avoid the confusion of a truth as necessarily constituting reality. Convinced on a set of facts we may find a truth or temporary truth. But the exactness/completeness of these facts, of course, can always be challenged and potentially disproved —as some on CB passionately intend. Notwithstanding how “factual” something might appear and barring an absolute proof, it takes time for a realty to become a truth. How long it takes for reality to show itself as a truth lies in the hands of a person with both a desire and an ability to establish the truth in a reality.

When we speak of freedom we are speaking of natural law. Natural law that can be molded and twisted out of shape but will always seek to return to its natural form. The reality of which you try to convince is nothing but (maybe) a truth for the times. This was the point of earlier quotes and use of analogies noting past political regimes. Many, if not most, posts were speaking from the "Truth of the Times" based on the facts as they knew them to be. (And from their perspective it was survival, or based on some sort of survival, much grander than the survival we infer today.)

We may say people steal because they are hungry; therefore stealing is a truth, okay, and a reality of life if one is hungry. We might say people steal because they are hungry and it is part of the truth of life….therefore it is a reality of life. WRONG!! It’s a truth of the times, the reality of stealing remains unchanged.

The key to unlocking the mystery of a reality lies equally in recognizing that one may have taken the wrong path in supposing a truth. Some people need more time than others to see the real truth in a long since existed reality. Power is derived from such an ultimate truth.

The point is that reality is forever, unchangeable and uncontestable as in natural law (whether natural law of physics or the rights of a human). A truth then may be only for a moment in time and erroneously confused as reality. We should hope for all the World the eventual reality of freedom even as temporary truths convenient for the times may impose excuses to suppress our freedom. For example, we may venture down a path misaligned with basic rights of privacy but, nevertheless, be fooled by those that would call it a new reality. We should all think about what the origin of such a (new) truth before using it to redefine privacy or freedoms, let alone reality. This is what inspires one toward working toward an ultimate truth that confirms reality rather than a temporary trust that forestalls it.

We can deal with what is the truth for BB, perhaps even call it realty, but when we are brought up within a strong democracy U.S. we believe in the basic tenets of freedom, or the system collapses (as some might infer it is/has). That is the difference between optimism and defeatism for personal convictions—versus business realities. I would think this attitude to be redoubled for anyone taking a govt check.

Sounds great.
So change the laws and change the country and change every other country. Because while the NSA is the focus, I can guarantee you with absolute certainty that the US is not alone in surveillance practices amongst other world democracies.
And no, I said factually correct because everything I said is a fact, not an opinion, not an emotion, not a reaction, not an idea.

Okay, this is a bit plebian. Actually, the (U.S.) laws do address most of the encroachments on civil liberties. But for the record, the real issue is relaxed enforcement outside the public interest that causes problems. For example, there should be more strict liability laws that would force prosecutors out of conflicts of interest in actions involving government officials, or govt collusion with the private sector. Laws might be changed/relaxed to allow broader civil actions w/o immunity against govt or its employees (but for another discussion).

Therefore, we may speak to issues of protection of basic freedoms from time to time as nearly futile and maybe even scorn certain principles of capitalism as possibly being in conflict. But surely we should never openly reply/submit to a parting of ideals and, therein, attempt to redefine for the times a new reality of freedom/democracy.

I am under the impression that simplistic argumentation is being fostered of the kind of "personal choice" i.e., if you so not like it, do not use it. At the same time if many people use it and the trend starts to deploy in everyday related services you finally end up having to use some things if you want to be able to get things done, so at the end there is no choice. For instance if non US citizens want to enter the U.S., biometric data is something obligatory. . . .

If the biometrics use for bank payments, etc. become wide spread and applied, there will be a moment that you will have to use it to practically do anything (from payments to public office consultation). Bit by bit, privacy is getting hammered and it is done by fragmenting and passing changes in small tiny sectors and bits that finally become widespread and all together take a chip away every time.
. . . I am not saying I am overly worried as to be obsessed about it but neither will I cheer. I will defend my stance on my walk of life and practices as well as discussing the issue with people willing to engage.

Personal data is becoming more and more a mockery and I think that this is offensive and limiting the personal freedom and choice of the individual . . . to "choose" giving in a bit on our privacy. This to me is no choice at all, it sounds more like subtle obligation.

Exactly, as we pursue a “truth” as a reality without test, we move down a path to accepting truths and realities as equal when they may not be. Not saying the IPhone does that but I am saying that popular culture that comes with the phone is a very tempting medium for some interested parties to embrace towards this direction. . . . I would definitely say that having an eye on how the user license is structured and how current laws are handling relevant extensions of such tech on ones phone, is a field that should be looked at in order to make sure that tech develops in harmony with personal data protection.

Excellent comments (apologies for edits). Some people need more time than others to see the real truth in a long existed reality. The power is derived only from such an ultimate truth. The key to unlocking the mystery of reality lies equally in recognizing that one may have taken the wrong path in supposing a truth.

Related to my soliquy on philosophy/logic: One can accept today a truth that may change the direction away from what is an actual reality. Hardly unique to issues of privacy or democracy, this means that when pressed to go blindly down a path while clinging to the thought that there is no alternative, or that it is progress, to this fabricated truth , we may find a dead end. That is nearly the entire point about earlier—and current--political regimes, as well as many scientific theories … and, of course, smart phone tech developments.

These are basics found in logic and argumentation but not often in justification of a govt.

Fresh out of university, when I sent out a blitz of job applications, the most attractive in terms of salary and benefits was the federal government. . . . I did concern myself with . . . the best package was . . . offered by the feds. To be hired, I underwent an extensive background check. First thing were my fingerprints. . . . I now undergo an extensive background check every three years. So my introduction to the loss of privacy was straight out of college. I have lived with the fact that my personal information is in an extensive dossier that keeps being revisited. Every life event, every personal choice.

Everyone is now focusing on the NSA. They forget that every single year each person in the U.S. gives up personal information down to the last detail of financial habits, events and information to the IRS. Anyone who has ever been audited has experienced extreme scrutiny. I can say this has been happening and has increased in detail for several decades and folks may choose to see my words as endorsement of this system. . . . I am pointing out a fact . . . It doesn't change the facts as they are.

As far as travel, each country protects its own sovereignty and creates its own laws for non citizens. . . .[soliilquoy on ICE and State Dept. procedure]
By the way, you might not be aware...I am not U.S. born. [CB not confined to U.S. born and appreciates well traveled posters.]
I have yet to see the implementation of the iPhone 5S fingerprint solution, of course. But I am leaning towards using it. . . . [But I trust Apple and the Government.]

Please tell me that you also chose (to work for) the govt because you wanted to perform a service for the country, ostensibly work for its citizens rather than for a better salary, pension, healthcare, travel and other benefits that the private sector wasn’t willing to offer. [I might not have gone in such detail.] I’m not doubting the truth in your motivation but the reality of Govt employment is, after all, supposed to be for the good of the country (maybe state or locale)--even as the truth, for now, is that the pay/benefits is inverted to that of the private sector. I can appreciate the background checks but what does that have to do with the average Apple owner, or BB owner. … Okay, I know, then change it.

A few--likely too few--w people are focusing on the NSA, but also the IRS/FBI and perhaps, the CIA and other law enforcement/intelligence services. I’m cringing when I read down to the last detail of financial habits, events, and information to the IRS in light of recent revelations therein. The average person, of course, has no income and files no tax return. Of the 60mm?!? that file returns, the vast, vast majority are filing short forms or are retired. The IRS has little, if any, handle on the mega cash economies of the big city and rarely does a prosecutor refer for prosecution white collar criminals for tax evasion. But this thread is more—or evolved in the late going—about principle and adverse trends that deteriorate privacy/freedom than the actual practices today. Even so, it is hard to refute that the ability to learn of or invade one’s personal life has increased with each technological generation.

Some of this has come to a head, given the recent convincing evidence of scandals involving the NSA (originally chartered only for foreign surveillance) and its “illlict” testimony before congress, profiling within the IRS, non-chalance or incompentence of FBI investigations, recent botched background checks in military, CIA, other GA …. etc.

Then change it.
Change the laws.
Several people in history have championed change. Rise to the challenge and change what you feel should change.
It's not sarcasm, it's prompting you to do what you believe in. Be the catalyst.

The laws are mostly fine. Some could be changed to be strict liability in nature with equally strict penalties at the upper end of the present range. This would keep prosecutors, public officials, from using their discretion when prosecuting other public officials. By far this is the weakest point of our form of democracy, as it was for the Romans, and most others is the inevitable decadence and arrogance displayed by the govt.

yah, I get you. To say that the loss of privacy is in fact a reality does not mean that there is an endorsement of it. And as far as change, if Mohandas K. Gandhi could get the British Empire out of India without ever firing a shot, if Rosa Parks could begin the process of bringing down segregation in the South, and if Nelson Mandela could spearhead the end of apartheid from a prison cell, then anyone who feels that strongly about the loss of privacy can create the change. To quote Ghandhi, "Be the change you want to see in the world." If in one breath one says that it's defeatist and accepting status quo to bring up reality, then that person would have the idea of how to change it. So, there is a large segment of the forum who feels very strongly about the loss of privacy.....take action to reverse it. If the feelings are that strong that someone who points out the reality of today's loss of privacy is called a fail monkey who rolls over and accepts, then there must be the idea of how to change it. Much has been said, then one would assume that such strong feelings would compel someone to take action to change that which is offensive.

As far as the prints, it would be interesting to see how the tech is executed. Personally, I will make use of it.

I wrote back in March when someone had mentioned, and it came up again recently, “how great it would be for BB to get what appeared to be a sizable govt contract.” In a vacuum yes, but in reality (or truth anyway) it would be the beginning of the end (or “the end of the end” ) for BB. Govt contracts, often on the surface lucrative, almost always lead to inefficiencies and breed an inability to address concurrent private sector demands. And, somewhat related, I have yet to meet a former govt employee that could transition to the private sector, save to consult/interact back with the govt. If anything, the gap between public and private sector has grown in recent years—albeit we've become cockeyed with higher pay/benefits going to govt employees than the private sector. … Certainly, nothing in theses posts has convinced me otherwise. About half the U.S. work force now drink the Kool Aid--also half in many European countries.

One thing I try not to do outside of my closest relationships is give personal opinion on some hot topics. Surveillance and monitoring I discuss in terms of their practice and their reality without getting into a discussion of "I think this is wrong." I stick to "This is happening" or "This has happened." Beyond that, it's every person's personal opinion as to how to respond.

H'mm, telling comments, but I think that you did provide many personal opinions (on this hot topic)!! Surely in a democracy we must respond--at least on paper--with beating-back the urge to conform with our employer (govt or otherwise) when it challenges (what should be) fundamental principles. Perhaps, at least, we (CBers) can pretend to espouse the virtues of freedom and privacy and the almost certain inherent dangers of the Apple fingerprint scanner. But, pushing the veil of altruism aside, attacking the print scanner—especially in the short run—may be a strategy for BB that capitalizes on a civil rights belief held by many. In turn, this will avoid a path of cloning Apple (and BB's certain destruction) for its near-term phones while assuring a broader user base and financial survival for BB. I still see some oppty. for BB under new mgmt. but resting mostly on a theme of security (perhaps BB's only unique quality) but mixed with the marketing of respect for human privacy rights and natural law offers a plausible solution for BB to remain in business. …. Sigh, where has the idealism formerly found in the "20/30 somethings" gone for these last two generations. ... Okay, Edward Snowden, right or wrong ?!?
9/30/2013

[Z30Man]

A good trap for Police, and law enforcement or other spy agencies. Free database for them.

Posted via my BlackBerry Z30.

[Wiki Cydia]

A good trap for Police, and law enforcement or other spy agencies. Free database for them.

That band broke up years ago. Sting's got a solo career.

[Omnitech]

we've become cockeyed with higher pay/benefits going to govt employees than the private sector.

That has more to do with globalization, labour mobility and the increasingly successful capitalist war against labour than anything else. Increasingly, the guv'mint jobs are the only ones paying a living wage because the decent paying career-worthy blue-collar private-sector jobs are quickly disappearing.

[Z30Man]

Three cheers for the NSA and finger scanning!

Posted via my BlackBerry Z30.

[M65c02]

That has more to do with globalization, labour mobility and the increasingly successful capitalist war against labour than anything else. Increasingly, the guv'mint jobs are the only ones paying a living wage because the decent paying career-worthy blue-collar private-sector jobs are quickly disappearing.

Interesting perspective and a large amount of economic history supports you here. Further, and mostly in the same vein, with each economic trough--and especially each economic collapse, the private sector is forced to streamline to a profitability standard whereas the government sector (for a multitude of reasons) hasn't always been simultaneously exposed to such pressures. Unfortunately, the Western World has taken the easy--though history will prove temporary--short-cut for recovery through elimination of labor (typically the largest expense (wage/salary/benefits) on an income statement and, often, liability (benefits) found on a balance sheet)--as you mentioned ... which really isn't a true recovery. In this muddled economic quagmire, even with partial govt freezes on wage hikes, without a proportional cut in the public sector and/or inflation, it will take years (or even decades) to return private sector pay above that of govt. ... A sad state of affairs indeed. Should we move on further to the pension debacle or leave that for another time again: Okay, another time. So, yes I agree also that more than one govt has their fingerprints on the tipping toward an economic morass and, unfortunately, political history has shown that once unbalanced it is hard to return w/o further hardship and collapse.

[Meaty123]

Picture password will do for me. At least it is unique. I'll welcome the fingerprint scanning but won't be disappointed if it is not there.

Sent from the best touch keyboard, the Z.