Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 3690 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator
Posted

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

Thoughts?

Basically, the FBI wants Apple to hack its own product (by creating a new version of iOS) and Apple is refusing to do so for reasons stated at the URL above. The iPhone (a 5C) belonged to one of the dead San Bernardino terrorists.

I - along with the EFF and ACLU - support Apple in this and think that the FBI is once again reaching and attempting to use PR to set a precedent that will make it substantially easier to subvert privacy.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
3 minutes ago, iacas said:

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

Thoughts?

Basically, the FBI wants Apple to hack its own product (by creating a new version of iOS) and Apple is refusing to do so for reasons stated at the URL above. The iPhone (a 5C) belonged to one of the dead San Bernardino terrorists.

I - along with the EFF and ACLU - support Apple in this and think that the FBI is once again reaching and attempting to use PR to set a precedent that will make it substantially easier to subvert privacy.

I'm on Apple's side on this, very slippery slope here. What I've been reading:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/18/why-you-should-side-with-apple-not-the-fbi-in-the-san-bernardino-iphone-case/

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/san-bernardino-shooter-apple-iphone-encryption-technology

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-iphone-encryption-ted-lieu-fbi-court-order/

https://tidbits.com/article/16210#.VqBNGn5GsCI.twitter

 

Steve

Kill slow play. Allow walking. Reduce ineffective golf instruction. Use environmentally friendly course maintenance.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I'm sympathetic to the cause of catching terrorists, but firmly on Apple's side. 

In my bag:

Driver: Titleist TSi3 | 15º 3-Wood: Ping G410 | 17º 2-Hybrid: Ping G410 | 19º 3-Iron: TaylorMade GAPR Lo |4-PW Irons: Nike VR Pro Combo | 54º SW, 60º LW: Titleist Vokey SM8 | Putter: Odyssey Toulon Las Vegas H7

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
1 minute ago, jamo said:

I'm sympathetic to the cause of catching terrorists, but firmly on Apple's side. 

Quote

Today I walked by a television showing CNN. The sound was off, but I saw an aerial scene which I presume was from San Bernardino, and the words "Apple privacy vs. national security." If that's the framing, we lose. I would have preferred to see "National security vs. FBI access."

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/02/judge_demands_t.html

Steve

Kill slow play. Allow walking. Reduce ineffective golf instruction. Use environmentally friendly course maintenance.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

How is this different than a warrant that allows the FBI to search through a house and file cabinets and listen voicemails and look at emails etc.?  It seems that the law already allows this by extension of current laws.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
12 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

How is this different than a warrant that allows the FBI to search through a house and file cabinets and listen voicemails and look at emails etc.?  It seems that the law already allows this by extension of current laws.

No. It's not really the same type of thing at all.

The FBI is welcome to search what they can on the phone. That's well within their legal rights to do so at this point.

That's not what they're asking, though.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted

Doesn't the FBI already have access to the meta data from the service provide? They know the numbers the phone called. Not sure what else they want. The phone doesn't store calls. Maybe texts?

Scott

Titleist, Edel, Scotty Cameron Putter, Snell - AimPoint - Evolvr - MirrorVision

My Swing Thread

boogielicious - Adjective describing the perfect surf wave

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I understand the hesitancy, but at the same time not helping the FBI to access the information just is hard to get behind... 

KICK THE FLIP!!

In the bag:
:srixon: Z355

:callaway: XR16 3 Wood
:tmade: Aeroburner 19* 3 hybrid
:ping: I e1 irons 4-PW
:vokey: SM5 50, 60
:wilsonstaff: Harmonized Sole Grind 56 and Windy City Putter

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
Just now, boogielicious said:

Doesn't the FBI already have access to the meta data from the service provide? They know the numbers the phone called. Not sure what else they want. The phone doesn't store calls. Maybe texts?

Texts they could get from telecom. iMessages I think they could get by hacking the iCloud account (like the celeb nude selfies).

Just now, Jeremie Boop said:

I understand the hesitancy, but at the same time not helping the FBI to access the information just is hard to get behind... 

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I don't think it's hard to get behind. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here - you may not know what this actually requires Apple to do.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I am opposed to what the FBI is trying to do here.  It sounds like Apple has cooperated with the information held on their end, as they should.  For them to build a back door into every phone would open up all kinds of liability to them and their customers.  I hope they can defeat this.

 

Quote

The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor.

 

Nate

:tmade:(10.5) :pxg:(4W & 7W) MIURA(3-PW) :mizuno:(50/54/60) 

 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
3 minutes ago, iacas said:

Texts they could get from telecom. iMessages I think they could get by hacking the iCloud account (like the celeb nude selfies).

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I don't think it's hard to get behind. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here - you may not know what this actually requires Apple to do.

Locked phone = essential liberty? Really is this much different than having a computer locked with possible information on it. There are all sorts of ways to get into locked/secured information on computers. Like I said, I understand the hesitancy to do this, the possibility of the tool or whatnot getting out. I was actually a little surprised that Apple didn't already have a way to get into a phone if necessary. 

KICK THE FLIP!!

In the bag:
:srixon: Z355

:callaway: XR16 3 Wood
:tmade: Aeroburner 19* 3 hybrid
:ping: I e1 irons 4-PW
:vokey: SM5 50, 60
:wilsonstaff: Harmonized Sole Grind 56 and Windy City Putter

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
2 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Locked phone = essential liberty?

Liberty is liberty. It comes in many forms. Why do you get to draw the line?

2 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Really is this much different than having a computer locked with possible information on it.

It is.

2 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

There are all sorts of ways to get into locked/secured information on computers.

And nobody is saying the FBI is not allowed to try all of those methods.

2 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I was actually a little surprised that Apple didn't already have a way to get into a phone if necessary. 

Then you don't understand Apple very well. Or the EFF. Or the ACLU.

Did you read the URL I linked to?

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, iacas said:

Liberty is liberty. It comes in many forms. Why do you get to draw the line?

It is.

And nobody is saying the FBI is not allowed to try all of those methods.

Then you don't understand Apple very well. Or the EFF. Or the ACLU.

Did you read the URL I linked to?

I did not read the link. I read through something earlier today about how it would require Apple to write a whole new version of iOS or something. I was originally surprised, because you are correct, I don't know Apple very well, or the EFF. However, I don't really see how information on a cell phone is all that much different from information on a computer. To me an electronic storage device is the same as any other. Generally speaking, I've never much been one to worry about anyone going through my stuff, which I guess is why I feel how I do about this subject. Basically, what this essentially is going to show is, if you want to keep something out of the hands of the FBI or law enforcement keep it on an iPhone. I'm not saying that Apple should give in, because I do believe they have every right to refuse to do what's being asked. I just don't necessarily think I'd refuse if I was the one in charge. Which, I'm sure, many of you are quite happy about. 

Edited by Jeremie Boop

KICK THE FLIP!!

In the bag:
:srixon: Z355

:callaway: XR16 3 Wood
:tmade: Aeroburner 19* 3 hybrid
:ping: I e1 irons 4-PW
:vokey: SM5 50, 60
:wilsonstaff: Harmonized Sole Grind 56 and Windy City Putter

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
18 minutes ago, iacas said:

Liberty is liberty. It comes in many forms. Why do you get to draw the line?

In my opinion, liberty shouldn't be absolute.  Should citizens have the liberty to own and operate a fully loaded F-18 hornet, weapons and all?  A line has been drawn and theoretically it is the citizens that draw that line.  So, yes, @Jeremie Boop does get to take part in where to draw the line.

And I consider myself a libertarian.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
2 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I did not read the link. I read through something earlier today about how it would require Apple to write a whole new version of iOS or something. I was originally surprised, because you are correct, I don't know Apple very well, or the EFF. However, I don't really see how information on a cell phone is all that much different from information on a computer.

That has nothing to do with it.

And an iPhone is a computer.

2 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

To me an electronic storage device is the same as any other. Generally speaking, I've never much been one to worry about anyone going through my stuff, which I guess is why I feel how I do about this subject.

So the quote still applies: you're willing to give up essential liberties (like your own privacy) for safety. That hasn't worked out very well for people. Governments always seem to reach and take as much power as they can, and these checks and balances are important.

It's not even necessarily about that, though, because in committing the terrorist acts, the terrorists gave up their rights. Apple, however, did not, nor should Apple be forced to create a back-door to their own product.

2 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Basically, what this essentially is going to show is, if you want to keep something out of the hands of the FBI or law enforcement keep it on an iPhone.

If you want to keep something out of the hands of the FBI, there are way better ways to do it than putting it on your iPhone. Like… don't write it down. Don't store it anywhere.

This case isn't about that.

Just now, No Mulligans said:

In my opinion, liberty shouldn't be absolute as your statement implies.  Should citizens have the liberty to own and operate a fully loaded F-18 hornets, weapons and all?  A line has been drawn and theoretically it is the citizens that draw that line.  So, yes, @Jeremie Boop does get to take part in where to draw the line.

He doesn't get to draw it for everyone. He doesn't even get to draw it for himself because he has to follow the laws everyone else has to follow, too.

And again, Apple didn't commit the terrorist acts.

Quote

“We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them,” the company declared. “But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create… Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software—which does not exist today—would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.”

 

The FBI is asking Apple to create something which is dangerous, compromises the privacy of ALL users, and which does not exist right now (for those very reasons).

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
3 minutes ago, iacas said:

He doesn't get to draw it for everyone. He doesn't even get to draw it for himself because he has to follow the laws everyone else has to follow, too.

As I said, "theoretically"... "he gets to take part in where to draw the line"... by voting, by writing his representatives etc.

I didn't say or imply he single handily can draw the line for everyone.  And, he has not done so anymore than you in this thread, neither of you have by expressing opinions.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
1 minute ago, No Mulligans said:

As I said, "theoretically"... "he gets to take part in where to draw the line"... by voting, by writing his representatives etc.

I didn't say or imply he single handily can draw the line for everyone.  And, he has not done so anymore than you in this thread, neither of you have by expressing opinions.

Okay, anyway, back to the actual topic…

Quote

“If you allow people to be conscripted in this way, as investigative arms of the government,” Julian Sanchez observes, “not just to turn over data, but to help extract data, where the only connection to a case is that they wrote some software the suspect used or made a device the suspect used, you're effectively saying that companies are going to have to start a sideline in helping the government with surveillance.” He adds: “Do we want to accept that courts may compel any software developer, any technology manufacturer, to become a forensic investigator for the government, whether or not the investigation is intrinsically legitimate?"

 

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
10 minutes ago, iacas said:

That has nothing to do with it.

And an iPhone is a computer.

So the quote still applies: you're willing to give up essential liberties (like your own privacy) for safety. That hasn't worked out very well for people. Governments always seem to reach and take as much power as they can, and these checks and balances are important.

It's not even necessarily about that, though, because in committing the terrorist acts, the terrorists gave up their rights. Apple, however, did not, nor should Apple be forced to create a back-door to their own product.

If you want to keep something out of the hands of the FBI, there are way better ways to do it than putting it on your iPhone. Like… don't write it down. Don't store it anywhere.

This case isn't about that.

He doesn't get to draw it for everyone. He doesn't even get to draw it for himself because he has to follow the laws everyone else has to follow, too.

And again, Apple didn't commit the terrorist acts.

 

The FBI is asking Apple to create something which is dangerous, compromises the privacy of ALL users, and which does not exist right now (for those very reasons).

And I specifically said they have every right to refuse to do so. Just because I don't necessarily agree with them doesn't mean I think they should be forced to do it.

KICK THE FLIP!!

In the bag:
:srixon: Z355

:callaway: XR16 3 Wood
:tmade: Aeroburner 19* 3 hybrid
:ping: I e1 irons 4-PW
:vokey: SM5 50, 60
:wilsonstaff: Harmonized Sole Grind 56 and Windy City Putter

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 3690 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Day 610 - 2026-06-03 Got some work in between lessons today. Rare late day, teaching until 7:30pm.
    • Let's continue on… Cool. The thing is, nobody's claiming par is "reliable" and par's inclusion piggy-backs in the course rating, which is awfully close to par and, thus, brings par in to make it make sense. Once again, for those in the back… (CR - Par) just makes it really easy to know what kind of score you need to shoot to best, match, or play worse than your handicap index. Yes, when par is different, the players from the higher par tees get an extra stroke (72 vs. 71, the 72s get an extra stroke. That makes sense and is a small complication (more info at https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Committee%20Content/USGA/LG_R6d.htm). However, most of the time, this adjustment will not be needed, as many courses play to the same par for the same genders from all sets of tees. And, the rare times it is needed, par (measured in whole numbers, integers) and strokes (also whole numbers/integers) map easily and the idea is easily grasped. Dean seems to be unaware of the fact that most every golfer carries something orders of magnitude more powerful than the highest end desktop computers available the last time he consulted with the USGA in their pockets. While it is quaint that his club puts printouts by the first tee… get with the times, Dean. Look up your handicap index and course handicap in the GHIN app and get on with it. It's a better system than the one that didn't account — at all — for a difference in the playing conditions (via an algorithm, not a judgment). Dean's assertions about the "less precise system because of par" continues to make absolutely zero sense. Right, it still changed tee to tee. Now it just changes differently… and in a way that more accurately reflects the score you need to shoot to play to your handicap. Previously, a 1.1 index would get 1 stroke on a 66.7/122 par-72 course. Now they give four strokes back to the course and must shoot 68 to play to their handicap. This makes way more sense. The 18-shot difference is a pretty extreme example. Maybe a long course that also offers a par-three set of tees could play that long, but… man, that's not going to be super common. Sensationalistic much, Dean? Also, once those unhappy (complete assumption) golfers realize a) what the change shows them (playing to net par = playing to your index) and b) realizes that their differential is going to be the same… I think they'll get over their initial questions. No. And yet… if he shoots the same scores, he'll get the same handicap index he has now. But he'll know on each course what score he needs to shoot to "play to his handicap." Sheesh, Dean. This stuff isn't that hard to figure out. Enough with the sensationalistic stuff. I don't find it "unacceptable" at all. Then again, I'm not nearly 80 and seemingly incapable of doing basic math these days. No. This literally makes no sense, as that part of the differential calculation and the course handicap calculation remains identical. Good! No. Categorically wrong. They should have been adjusting their handicaps all along. Previously it was by subtracting the course ratings. Which… is still basically what's done, with the addition of the course rating being "baked in" to the course handicap calculation. Dean is wrong here, or doing some math heretofore unknown by the world. When par is the same, what determines the difference in handicaps? The course rating, which Dean loves! Sheesh! You had to things when players were in situations like this before, too. This is getting exhausting. He keeps using words like "less precise" and "unfair" but does not seem to understand what they mean. This is like the Princess Bride meme: "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The caps reduce upward movement. Committees have reign to reduce a player's handicap, and there's still an automatic Exceptional Score Reduction. I'm going through these more quickly now because… well, it's silly how badly Dean misses the mark with this blog post. Dean is literally confusing the upward movement (with the soft and hard caps) here with the exceptional score reduction which is used when lowering handicaps due to an exceptionally good score. The creators of the WHS are handicap experts. They know more about the current state of handicaps/handicapping than the Pope Emeritus. It's been shown to have almost no effect across all handicaps. Yes, some 36s under the old system are now 35s under the new system. Yawn. He should have stopped there. It's easier to apply and makes more sense. This makes no sense. It's "not complex" but players will have to guess? And, for men or women, the stroke index of each hole doesn't change because they play a different set of tees. They get a different number of strokes, but it's always been true that when you get 14 strokes you apply a stroke to stroke index holes 1-14, and when you get 11, to just holes with a SI of 1-11. Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Dean's just out here continuing to make shit up about "the inaccuracy of par" and ignoring that with Par (an integer) came the Course Rating, which he agrees is precise and accurate. No. No, this is inaccurate. Also, as noted, you can randomly assign stroke indexes, and so long as all the low numbers or all the high numbers are not clumped together at the beginning or ends of the 18 holes, matches generally work out the same. This is inaccurate. It is an algorithm that looks at scores. That's it. Also, this is better than a system like the prior one where no such thing existed at all. Wildly inaccurate and off-base. Did they do actual testing? No need. They have millions and millions of rounds and ran many, many, many simulations. That's testing. Dean seems to continue to be unaware of the fact that computers are more powerful now than they were in 2002. But, he's nearly 80, so we can understand if not going so far as to give him a pass on how much he gets wrong. Cool. Noted. For the most part that was because many countries haven't been able to rate enough of their courses. :sigh:
    • Day 3 (3 Jun 26) - More work on keeping arms connected today - hard foam balls with 7i and 5w…..
    • Day 274 6-3 flow drill getting chest through, arms in front. Arms get a little pinned to the side, not as much in front as I want them when I add speed. 
    • Shot 48 yesterday.  For me bogey golf is good.  I was 10 over through 7 and figured with a Par 3 and 4 coming on all I needed was birdie / par to get my 45. I had a great tee shot on #8 and sunk  a 5 footer for birdie, game was coming together, now just needed par on #9. Had a great tee drive and the green was within range for a hoped GIR or nGIR.  But I pulled the shot left into tall weeds and needed to take a drop.  So much for par, but a bogey for 46 is still good for me. I hit my lob wedge to get over a small tree and saw the ball riding nicely  on line to the pin when my club hit the ball a 2nd time on my follow through causing the ball to change directions and ended up @ pin high but along the same tall weeds I just took an unplayable out of.  had no room for a backswing, Just hacked at it and it shot across the green to the rough on the far side.  Needed a chip & 1 putt got a triple bogey. you can see the hole fall apart in the screenshot below.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.