OT: Apple says screw you law enforcement!

[makolber]

Well then that is exactly where we fundamentally disagree.

[makolber]

[Don Y]

Exactly. No such thing as "just this once" and "just THIS particular hack". The spooks are afraid that a ruling AGAINST them will close the doors, forever!

When PGP was written, technically illegal to take it out of the country. OTOH, nothing prevents publishing it in book form and carrying the BOOK out of the country (1st Amendment). "Hey, let's use this really AWFUL typeface -- that happens to be very easy to recognize with OCR. And, let's include a hash of each page's contents *on* each page..."

IIRC, the FOSS world now *imports* the encryption algorithms -- to ensure access while remaining within the letter of the law.

Perhaps Apple needs to become a *foreign* company to escape US laws?

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Don Y:

Charlie Rose had him on for a half-hour the other night - speaking in part about the Apple phone situation.

In light the implied "We're the government, trust us..." in Clapper's spiel, I was mildly disappointed that Charlie didn't politely/non-confrontationally call him on his lying to congress.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per [e-mail]:

I would think it depends on which government, which branch of that government, and when.

McCarthy, for instance....

[Don Y]

Charlie Rose is an entertainer. He's no better at "journalism" than Johnny Carson was.

It's sort of like catching a witness in a lie during a trial: "Well, now that we KNOW you are a liar, why should we believe ANY of your testimony? You've provided a rock solid alibi for the defendant, in this case. But, when we asked you if you've ever used the N-word, you said 'No', under oath. Yet, here's a video of you saying just that... (detective furman)"

The sad thing is Clapper could have just been honest KNOWING that, sooner or later, we'd have to have that discussion, as a society. Instead, he took the easy (sleazy?) way out.

As a result, he complicates the work of those folks who are really

*trying* to do a good job -- in spite of obvious hurdles!

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Don Y:

Not sure what "Journalism" is, but my gut says I disagree with that.

To me, Charlie Rose is an absolute master at getting into people's heads. He loves to do it and he is really, really good at it.

The fact that he does it in a respectful and civil manner means that

*Everybody* and *Anybody* seems willing to go on with Charlie Rose.

But, politeness and respect aside, he still keeps boring in.... Occasionally he lets something slide, but it's rare - usually when the interviewee tries to slip a punch or dance away he's right back at them. He had Putin on for two separate hours awhile ago and it seemed to me like he pissed Putin off a couple of times just by (politely) calling him out on the same point several times in a row.

He is also the best-prepared interviewer I have ever seen. Once he had France's Finance Minister on the show and the minister stopped him midway through the conversation to blurt out something like "Charlie, you *really* know this stuff."

I used to think maybe he had a half-dozen quick, smart people Googling away on computer terminals and whispering in his ear, but his reactions are too fast for that to be the case. I think he's just mentally gifted in some way..... total recall, maybe...

[Don Y]

There's a point where you have to just be really blunt and say, "So, just to be clear for our viewers, you don't want to answer that question?" You can't be all friendly and chuckling and expect folks to realize you've just been stonewalled.

I recall Kopel interviewing Ted K many years ago. Teddy kept dancing around the question, generating lots of verbiage but still not answering what was being asked of him. Eventually, Kopel said, "So, you're NOT going to answer my question? OK, we'll move on (no, you don't get a chance to add something else unless it's an answer to the question -- my staff can edit this as much as they choose...)"

At the end of the interview, RECAP what was said and NOT said. Leave viewers to judge the quality of the interview based on those facts, not a flurry of back-and-forths that at least one participant is EXPECTING will obfuscate the issue!

Journalists are supposed to ask the questions "you and I" WANT asked. Not just hob-nob with celebrities.

[The other thing that diminishes CR in my book is all the time he spends with "actors" giving them free publicity, etc. Is this *really* worth your time? *Our* time?? (in my case, "no")] [[Would you really want to ask ANY question of some "movie star"?]]

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Don Y:

I would agree that "Charlie Rose" show on PBS got significantly "Softer" after he took the job at "CBS This Morning" and started "Charlie Rose: The Week".

Makes sense to me: one person can only handle so much and I don't even want to think about what kind of hours he must keep to do all 3 shows.

Also, it seems to me like he is so good at what he does because he loves it - and he is a Man For All Seasons: interested in stuff that I could care less about as well as the stuff that interests me. His social life and his professional life probably overlap a great deal.

Most of the time I just fast-forward the actors, poets, and the like... and that has become more frequent since CBS... in fact, I find myself sometimes just deleting whole shows without watching them.

That being said, my only hope is that he doesn't work himself to death before I die. Once I kick the bucket, the hell with him.... but until then, he is a significant part of my incoming information bandwidth.

The New Yorker Magazine, The Economist, PBS News Hour, Foreign Affairs Mag, Charlie Rose.... I know there is lots more, but I simply don't have the grey matter to handle any more.... in fact, I am about 3 weeks behind on both The New Yorker and The Economist...

[Don Y]

He's an entertainer. That;s the case with most "journalists", today. They need to MAKE reasons for people to watch/read their "product".

No doubt he has a staff that does most of the heavy lifting. He's just the "pretty face".

But how *deep* is that interest? Is it just cursory? Is he truly willing to let his guests NOT answer those questions? Does he then shrug his shoulders and think, "Oh, well... I tried!" -- even for his OWN curiosity?

I watch very few. I know he'll let anyone "determined" to squirm out of a question do so. As a result, they'll only answer the "easy" questions.

If it's a scientist(s), then I can always go chase down the rest of the research/theory on my own -- ask the questions that he FAILED to consider (or, that might not have been of interest to him).

I count on journalists to use their access and notoriety to get to the things (people/issues) that I *can't*.

I spend a lot of time rummaging around looking for information. And, have a fair number of friends/colleagues that feed me with things that I might find interesting. Sometimes to elicit comment; other times just as an FYI.

I can't afford to wait for someone to decide that something that

*I* find interesting is "interesting enough" to warrant a TV show/interview/etc.

E.g., we previously had automated enforcement of speeding and red light violations, here. Ballot initiative asked voters to decide if these should be permitted, in town (county had already dumped the "vendor").

Media was completely ineffective in addressing this issue. They just acted as a mouthpiece for wanted to get their message out. "Stories" were literally 4 or 5 sentences in a newscast. Never CHALLENGING the point that was being expressed.

So, I had to go looking for information and doing my own assessment of the validity of those claims. What value is the local media outlet -- beyond the editorial policies of its ownership?

Make sure you're looking at "both sides" -- too easy to just hear what you want (prefer) to hear. This is a common question I have for friends addicted to talk radio: "Who ELSE are you PAYING to do your thinking?"

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Don Y:

Have you actually seen him in action?

I would say he is anything *but* a pretty face.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Don Y:

That's one of my obsessions. I think that too many people nowadays clog up their limited bandwidth with extreme/biased sources.

Nobody's perfect and everybody has a slant - but there's no excuse for polluting one's mind with the likes of Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh. If we all had unlimited ability to internalize information, it would be no problem but as it is, we can only handle so much and it's on us to make sure what comes in is not overly biased.

I like to think that The New Yorker and The Economist balance each other out.

[Don Y]

People tend to want to hear what they already believe. And, will go to often elaborate rationalizations to NOT hear things that challenge those beliefs.

Note how often *moderators* are booed for asking questions that challenge (or RISK challenging) their beliefs about their respective candidates.

Beck/Limbaugh/etc. are just entertainers. If you keep that in mind and think of them in the same light as reading _The National Enquirer_ or The Evening News...

I am always suspicious of folks who want to *do* something for me (e.g., THINK!). "What axe does this entity have to grind? What are they trying to GET from/through me?"

We have lots of "ballot initiatives" here -- things that we, the electorate, can put into law without the consent of those we've elected to govern us. As a result, there are often folks out collecting signatures for various "issues".

All try to present their issues as "just". I always ask, "Who's pulling your strings? Who's behind this initiative? Some fancy named 'Citizens for Wonderful Laws' -- which means a little less than NOTHING?"

Invariably, I decline the petitioners: "Get it on the ballot and THEN I'll research it -- seeing the REAL language as well as the public comments (along with their associated 'interests') for and against!"

I guess it depends on what the issue might be.

[Don Y]

Yes, I saw a bit of his "exchange" with Gates the other night. While he kept "repeating the question" (re: Apple), he always tried to do so with a smiley face -- instead of making a REAL issue of Gates' squirming.

[Muggles]

Just like you went off on an elaborate rationalization to NOT hear things that challenged your beliefs about the existence of God.

HA!

[SeaNymph]

That is funny, especially considering the fact that there was no challenge, or at least not one that contained actual information. Do keep in mind it was you who refused to answer direct questions about what you had posted. Heck, you wouldn't even elaborate.

[trader_4]

You know, I thought exactly the same thing. Also interesting that you know who chose to interject that bitter thread into this one. I was about to post the same thing, but then considered that it's exactly what the village idiot/troll wants to do, ie restart that whole thing. But it is probative of the real situation and what M is all about.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Don Y:

Yes.... but being overly-confrontational has it's costs when it comes time to sign up the next person for an interview. Charlie's way leaves the viewer knowing perfectly well that the interviewee is dodging the question - but he doesn't offend the interviewee.

Somewhere, sometime I read a discussion of this general issue and it seems like there are two recognized schools of journalistic/interview thought: one is Charlie Rose's and the other is Dan Rather's.

Remember when Dan Rather mouthed off to the ayatollah and the old guy just said "You have violated the pre-interview agreement", got up and walked out?

I guess "You pays your money and you takes your choice.".

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Don Y:

Now I think you have brushed up against Charlie Rose's methodology - as opposed to somebody more confrontational....

[Don Y]

But I have no problem confronting! Make a claim? Back it up! I ask a question? Let's both be clear that I KNOW you have avoided it (and that can't reflect well on you, in the context of this "discussion")

OTOH, I'm not *paid* to round up new guests each week! :>