Will the Apple fall?

An apple, an order, and freedom

A federal court has ordered Apple to develop software to decrypt the cell phone of a terrorist. Apple is opposed to this order, citing larger privacy concerns. Many have said that Apple is wrong and we need the information to understand what happened on that fateful day in San Bernardino.

Apple’s concern is that by creating the technology / software in this case will end up having it available not only to Apple, but the government in general, and the “black hats” of the coding world. They feel that creating this key creates a bigger risk to all users than any possible benefit in this single case.

I can’t help but think about it this way: The government has a search warrant for a house but don’t have a key. They have tried but failed at breaking in the door. A court orders the local locksmith to create a key to the lock. There is no known way of doing this, so the locksmith will have to spend time and money to figure out a way. Since it is a court order, even if he doesn’t want to, he will be compelled to do so, despite the fact that he had no part in any crime. He also knows that once he creates this new key, it will be able to open any house in the world. He is somewhat reluctant to have to create such a key.

Many in government have said that a person should not be made to do something against their moral or religious code, and we know from the “Citizens United” decision that corporations are people, how can those same government officials ask a “person” (Apple) to go against their ethical code without being hypocritical?

Where do ethics and security meet and where do they diverge? Is it better to risk many to save a few? Is it better to lock up many, including innocents, to be sure you don’t miss any of the guilty? Share your thoughts

How do we learn to be "good"?

While out to dinner with a number of people who I have known for a long time, the dreaded issue of religion arose. One of the more vocal and passionate folks at the table started to discussing the need for religion for kids, otherwise they will never be able to learn the difference between good and evil, or learn the basics of being a good person.

At the table were many scout leaders, and I simply raised my right hand, gave the scout sign and said “A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful…”. At which point the discussion shifted to others and their experiences with religion and their upbringing.

It struck me in that moment that as we look at those things we hold dear, we often miss the forest through the trees. A fine, caring, smart man, who is both a product of, and contributor to, scouting, missed the most basic tenet of one the guiding forces of his life while trying to explain why religion was the only route to becoming a good person.

What have your experiences been? Can a person be “good” without a belief in a spiritual higher power or without organized religion? Is it possible to be “good” for the sake of being “good” without the promise of some great reward in the future? Can the lessons of “good” be taught without the context of “G-d”?

(For those unfamiliar with the Scout Law, it is the 12 basic guiding principles for scouts, “A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent”)

A lifetime of observations, one post at a time

I have spent most of my adult life as a healthcare provider, as such, I have learned and seen more than most people can dream. I have realized that through all these experiences, the most significant thing that I have learned is that we are all damaged in our own ways. How each of us learn and manage our own types of damage is what makes us unique.

My goal in this blog will to be to explore my experiences as well as the events of the day, and explore how my viewpoint changes my understanding.

I hope you will be patient and will use it a s a catalyst to review your worldview and how we all fit together in the universe.