Apple is about to start scanning iPhone users' devices for banned content

originally posted by: Klassified
Oddly enough, these same folks would be furious if the government stepped in and interfered with their right to enter into such an agreement with another party. Yet they want the government to step in after the fact and revoke that agreement when it suits their purpose. Can't have it both ways folks.

The irony with all of this is exceedingly comical.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Klassified
I have repeatedly tried to explain the concept of End User License Agreements and contracts to clients who ask. Most fail to grasp the concept of entering into a contract with another party when they tap agree.

I'm sure it doesn't help when people get Constitutional law confused with contract law.

Contract law that violates the COTUS:
IS null and void.

Maybe not to you but it is to people who believe we will be following the COTUS.

I know I am right, but I do acknowledge the application of the law today is as you say. But, that is a violation of my right to privacy and being hoodwinked into doing so changes nothing about the COTUS. We will use this AM and we will win but not in the current environment if that is your point, you are right.

originally posted by: Justoneman
Contract law that violates the COTUS:
IS null and void.

When you click 'AGREE' and give them permission to go through your data what law is Apple violating?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Klassified
I have repeatedly tried to explain the concept of End User License Agreements and contracts to clients who ask. Most fail to grasp the concept of entering into a contract with another party when they tap agree.

I'm sure it doesn't help when people get Constitutional law confused with contract law.

This right here!.... Thank you for pointing this out.
Sad that many do not or refuse to understand this.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm sure it doesn't help when people get Constitutional law confused with contract law.

It seams like corporate law has taken over the constitution here in Australia. lots of dates vary for when it actually happened, the progression of the Australia Act has been a big one. As for what the Queen of Australia actually refers to is a hazy one. If I had to put some money on it, maybe the privy council in the city of London? How it is also registered in Washington DC is a big WHAT?

Our constitution is a mess. there have been 8 lawful amendments since 1901. As for the rest of the changes that have been implemented since? Fox guarding the hen house?

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
This right here!.... Thank you for pointing this out.
Sad that many do not or refuse to understand this.

Frankly many people don't have a grasp of basic civics and misapply the Constitution due to a fundamental misunderstanding of its scope.

originally posted by: kwakakev
It seams like corporate law has taken over the constitution here in Australia.

I cannot comment on your country's laws and constitution, I'm not familiar with them.

The only things I know about Australia is that the water runs backwards down the toilet and the place is infested with deadly reptiles and insects.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
This right here!.... Thank you for pointing this out.
Sad that many do not or refuse to understand this.

Frankly many people don't have a grasp of basic civics and misapply the Constitution due to a fundamental misunderstanding of its scope.

I think the confusion is one of autonomy and its role in the legal process.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Frankly many people don't have a grasp of basic civics and misapply the Constitution due to a fundamental misunderstanding of its scope.

How can anyone reasonably follow the law these days with so many volumes and libraries of the stuff? Basic right or wrong is not that hard. But if you are a criminal in power, obfuscation is a common tactic. Electric and telecommunication companies do it all the time making things more complicated than what is should be, easier to rip people off when they are just left scratching their heads.

a reply to: Klassified

Great point, I cannot disAGREE.

originally posted by: kwakakev
How can anyone reasonably follow the law these days with so many volumes and libraries of the stuff? Basic right or wrong is not that hard. But if you are a criminal in power, obfuscation is a common tactic. Electric and telecommunication companies do it all the time making things more complicated than what is should be, easier to rip people off when they are just left scratching their heads.

None of this Apple stuff has to do with Constitutional law. If you click 'AGREE' the onus is on you to have read it first.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The only things I know about Australia is that the water runs backwards down the toilet and the place is infested with deadly reptiles and insects.

The water flows anti clockwise here. Most reptiles are not that deadly, got some crocodiles in the north end and snakes around the place that could mess up you day when out of the city. Might kill a few, not as much as our compromised politicians.

originally posted by: Justoneman
Contract law that violates the COTUS:
IS null and void.

Maybe not to you but it is to people who believe we will be following the COTUS.

I know I am right, but I do acknowledge the application of the law today is as you say. But, that is a violation of my right to privacy and being hoodwinked into doing so changes nothing about the COTUS. We will use this AM and we will win but not in the current environment if that is your point, you are right.

These same people would have gas pains, if the Apple agreement stated Apple could come and throw acid in your face. "Why, that would be against the law!" But they can violate the highest law in the land, even be an organized proxy for warrantless government searches, violating the 4th Amendment of the highest law of the land.

Bottom line, though, you can't argue with these people. The definition of Fascism is corrupt government and the private sector in league, to execute the corrupt government's agenda. Anybody alright with that? You're probably wasting your breath, trying to reason with Nazis, Communists, or just mindless, un-American riffraff that plague the nation. They're the sorts of people that are alright with the pigs going out at night and changing the laws, written on the barn wall, that pigs are more equal, and immune from any laws they don't choose to adhere to. The only way they will learn anything is when they come for the Jews first, and they're alright with that, but then come for them, because their gullible, sorry rears had no understanding that their freedom was at stake, no understanding the devil comes as an angel of light.

The generation that fought the likes of WWII, for that Constitution, must be turning over in their graves.

The Q idiots should be pleased. They won’t be, tho , cuz they’re all projection:

To me it sounds like a bad idea, which sucks cuz my pops has loads of apple stock. From what I’m reading people aren’t happy, I wonder if they’ll change their minds on this.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

None of this Apple stuff has to do with Constitutional law. If you click 'AGREE' the onus is on you to have read it first.

What just exactly do we agree to when part of that TOS is they can change the conditions at any time? All Rights Reserved is part of that legal game. If Apple want to call out some pedos, I am good with that. Happy to see some company finally stand up against this. As for where it could lead, take it as it comes I guess?

a reply to: Scrutinizing

Here is a contract that was voided. The one where young women were sex slaves and signed on with a brand.

Judge Orders Nxivm Cult Leader Keith Raniere To Pay Almost $3.5M In Restitution🚨

🔹On top of a 120-year jail sentence, Keith Raniere, 60, has been ordered to pay $3.5M to 21 of his victims.
🔹Raniere, who routinely abused “slaves” he branded like cattle & forced them to sleep with him, had already been ordered to pay a $1.75M fine at his sentencing in October.
🔹In terms of restitution, the largest amount $508K, was reserved for a victim identified as Camila. Camila said in testimony at Rainere’s trial that she met him at age 13 in her native Mexico & was a 15-year-old virgin when Raniere raped her in 2015.
🔹Raniere also had sex with her 2 sisters. All 3 sisters eventually got pregnant by him. Raniere forced them to get abortions, the woman testified.

a reply to: Scrutinizing
No one is saying your anger is unjustified, it is misplaced. This is not a constitutional issue, it is a civil issue. You do have recourse. You can file a lawsuit against Apple and try to prove Unconscionability among other infractions. Such as those listed here.

Constitutional law puts limits and restraints on government. The 4th amendment you mentioned being one of those.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is a restraint on government to keep it from over-stepping its constitutional authority and violating the rights and autonomy of the people.

a reply to: Justoneman

None of that has to do with the Constitution, that is all criminal or civil statutes.

a reply to: Klassified

No one is saying your anger is unjustified, it is misplaced. This is not a constitutional issue, it is a civil issue. You do have recourse. You can file a lawsuit against Apple and try to prove Unconscionability among other infractions.

What do think is a bigger right? Saying whatever you want or abusing who ever you want? For some that have become dependent on the Apple services they may try some legal challenges. Justice John Roberts might entertain these arguments more than most.

If you want to keep raping kids, get of Apple.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: Klassified

No one is saying your anger is unjustified, it is misplaced. This is not a constitutional issue, it is a civil issue. You do have recourse. You can file a lawsuit against Apple and try to prove Unconscionability among other infractions.

What do think is a bigger right? Saying whatever you want or abusing who ever you want? For some that have become dependent on the Apple services they may try some legal challenges. Justice John Roberts might entertain these arguments more than most.

If you want to keep raping kids, get of Apple.

The unfortunate part is that we allowed ourselves to become dependent on technology owned and operated by unscrupulous companies. Supply and demand is where the power of the people is manifested. Want to punish the likes of Apple and other corrupt corporations? Stop buying and using their product en masse. Low demand and high supply cuts heavily into to profits.