Apple didn't create the database of hashes of child sex abuse images. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children did. Apple just compares hashes of images uploaded to their servers to hashes from known images of child sex abuse. So no - Apple is not and was never in illegal possession of illegal images, at least not for the purposes of creating this database.

That's not how the software works. It doesn't identify genitals that appear to be those of underage kids. The software uses indexing (or "fingerprinting") technology that identifies known images of child sexual abuse. If you're going to throw out hypotheticals, it's probably a good idea to read up on what it is that you're talking about and how it works.

Remember when Microsoft bid $44 billion to buy Yahoo in 2008? Yahoo absolutely should have taken that deal. I suspect that this isn't much different. I'm not an industry expert, but I have serious doubts about whether Discord will ever be worth that much. After all, the service that they provide has been pretty well commoditized - is there really anything special about it other than their user base? It seems like Discord is easily replaceable as a service, and it likely will.

To take it a step further, I feel that suggesting driving is a privilege is not only inaccurate, but tends to be pretty intellectually lazy. The fact is that most of our freedoms are a privilege - at least by that standard. For example, even though many believe that we have a right to life, liberty, and prosperity; using the "privilege" standard, our right to not be incarcerated is a privilege. Breaking the law will land one in prison (assuming due process of law). Further, assuming that driving a car is a privilege suggests that a drivers license can be revoked for arbitrary reasons and without any sort of due process. The fact of the matter is that it cannot. Just like being a licensed electrician isn't a privilege, rather, it's an activity that generally requires government licensure. Said licensure is not a privilege given to a select few, but a license to perform a profession issued by a sanctioning body to anyone who meets certain qualifications and cannot be revoked without cause or due process. I would argue that anything that is merely considered a privilege doesn't hold up to that standard. It's time to drop this lazy idea that so many have just accepted as fact.

Getting back to the root of the issue, whether or not driving is a right or privilege should not dictate that a person's movements are subject to government monitoring...that's what this is really all about, and this is what is at the heart of the court's ruling.

I'm curious - why are you so quick to call anyone who questions your comment or respectfully disagrees with you stupid (or other ad hominem insults that aren't germane to the discussion )?

Makes sense, and you are certainly not the first person to make the comparison. Sure, if people stop believing in the currency and try to sell all at once, its value will collapse. That goes for any currency. In this case, the main difference between a cryptocurrency and a fiat currency is that the latter has the backing of a government. However, a fiat currency can still drop to near zero value as well. I read a good quote about this a few years ago - "a real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion."

It sounds like you do not understand what a Ponzi scheme is. Read up, my friend. It may be a bubble, but it's not a Ponzi scheme by any definition that I've ever heard of.

Yeah, but imagine a Beowulf cluster of three-digit users!

Hah!

It's been some time since I've used IRC. Has the protocol been updated to include group VoIP? Discord is quite good in this regard (although I find TeamSpeak's client better for gaming for several reasons).

Take one down and another will certainly pop up in its place. Maybe one of these days, admins will use local crypto to make honeypotting difficult (or impossible) for law enforcement.

How is it any different than a defendant refusing to reveal where he hid the tools of his crime? The police suspect that he killed Colonel Mustard in the LIbrary with a lead pipe, but without the pipe, they are unable to prove it. The police could spend millions of dollars combing through many square miles of land looking for the weapon (just like they could spend millions of dollars trying to hack into the device), but can they compel the defendant to reveal exactly where he buried it, even if the defendant claims he forgot?

I'm not a lawyer, but in my opinion it isn't any different. My understanding of the fifth amendment is that for police absolutely cannot compel a suspect to reveal the location of a murder weapon (or incriminate themselves in any way). If investigators can demonstrate probable cause, they can obtain a search warrant to locate said weapon (and other things can be compelled, such as DNA or fingerprints). However, compelling a suspect (who is innocent until proven guilty) to reveal the location of a murder weapon would be a textbook case of self-incrimination, and a violation of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.

I'm sorry, maybe there is something that I'm not understanding here, but I do not believe that you answered my question.

You don't explicitly say this, but I am going to make an assumption from context that you are trying to lead me to what you believe is an obvious conclusion that Rice is the only possible person with access to this information and therefore must have been the source of the leak. If this is your logic and the only evidence that you are providing, it's easily falsifiable since more than one person (Susan Rice) knew that she requested that the names be unmasked, and more than one person had access to the intelligence report (e.g. members of the intelligence agency/agencies briefing her). Certainly, it's possible that she leaked classified information, but it's just as possible that anyone else with access to this information leaked classified information. I apologize in advance if I'm putting words mouth here, I'm just trying to find meaning in your response. Did I read this wrong?

If I'm reading this right, what actual evidence exists suggesting that Susan Rice leaked classified information in this case (again, remembering that there is no equivalence between unmasking and leaking)?

What evidence exists suggesting that Susan Rice leaked classified information in this case? Before you answer, please remember there is no equivalence between unmasking and leaking.

XD - you don't have a single citation to refute my comment beyond wild conjecture. Try again, please.