Apple’s dangerous game, part 2

Re:Apple’s dangerous game, part 2 by jeswin on Monday September 22, 2014 @05:47AM (#8349860)

The naïveté in the articles was a surprise to me. If Orin Kerr, professor of law and scholar in internet crime and surveillance, is enlightened* by the suggestion "If Apple can decrypt, so can others", how much would the average lawmaker or judge know?

Keep things like encryption out of regulation; because it can't be.

* edit: was "amused", which was incorrect.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple’s dangerous game, part 2 by fulafel on Monday September 22, 2014 @06:00AM (#8349896)

By my reading he took it seriously, what do you mean by amused?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple’s dangerous game, part 2 by jeswin on Monday September 22, 2014 @06:11AM (#8349922)

Sorry my bad, language issues. I meant "fascinated, by the idea". What would be a good word here?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple’s dangerous game, part 2 by patio11 on Monday September 22, 2014 @06:19AM (#8349936)

I think "enlightened" might be the word you're looking for. It means both that the hypothetical conveys new information to him and that, as a result of the new information, he comes to a new (and improved) understanding of the larger picture.

The sentence doesn't strike me as 100% native phrasing with that substitution, by the way, but it would be clearly comprehensible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple’s dangerous game, part 2 by jeswin on Monday September 22, 2014 @06:25AM (#8349954)

Enlightened is indeed what I was looking for. Thank you.

[ Parent | on HN ]