Jump to content

Apple's Fight With the Feds


Recommended Posts

Apple's Fight With the Feds

 

Apple will be writing its own malware if it complies with this order. It would be creating the best tool to break into its own (older) devices.

 

“Essentially, the government is asking Apple to create a master key so that it can open a single phone,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote in a statement supporting Apple. “And once that master key is created, we’re certain that our government will ask for it again and again, for other phones, and turn this power against any software or device that has the audacity to offer strong security.”

 

 

Pretty much the same problem as I had with the Clipper Chip. Any encryption that features a special government key is no encryption at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not this one.

Do you understand how a forum works?  Or do you just think it's your own personal blog to keep replying to yourself?  Usually you want responses to your posts, but judging from this thread you seem to

But, there's a valid subpoena here, right? I understand that a locksmiths tools could be used to access any door, but if subpoenas are required to open the door, what's the issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The subpoena was specific to this device. Apple is using this as a publicity stunt to promote their security.

 

Simple solution let Apple have the phone open it up change the code to 1234 in some lab. Give the phone back to the FBI. You know they have that ability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Straw man argument from Apple. Does anyone believe they do not have the ability to get around a password on their own product?

Not sure. Had an employee with an iPhone who had a massive stroke and could not remember his passcode. When it became clear that he would not recover, I asked Verizon to do a wipe and reset so I could reissue the phone. 2 days later, Verizon waived the upgrade fee and issued a new phone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Straw man argument from Apple. Does anyone believe they do not have the ability to get around a password on their own product?

Actually, this is the strawman argument. The issue (& case) isn't around whether Apple itself has the ability to get around a password in their own product. It's whether the FBI has the right to demand Apple make and provide to the FBI a tool that opens ALL iPhone5c devices to FBI searches. As the article points out, the difference is the same as that between asking a safe manufacturer to open a specific safe (for which the FBI has a warrant) or asking the safe manufacturer to provide a tool to the FBI that opens ALL safes they make (for which they may not have a warrant).

 

Apple is probably going to milk this for all they can get because, frankly, they are well-known for being terrible agents for privacy & giving end-users full control over their own device. However, their legal claim does have merit. What gives the FBI the legal right to demand a master-key to any & all locks made by a company?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that from a service provider. I'm talking the manufacturer. The user of the phone was a terrorist. He is dead along with his terrorist wife and the victims. Apple needs to do whatever it takes to allow the FBI access. There are laws in place that prevent phones from being built untappable by law enforcement is data exempt?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that from a service provider. I'm talking the manufacturer. The user of the phone was a terrorist. He is dead along with his terrorist wife and the victims. Apple needs to do whatever it takes to allow the FBI access.

 

The "safe manufacturer" argument in the article addresses that. It doesn't matter who the owner of this particular phone happens to be as the FBI is asking for Apple to build them a tool that opens ANY iPhone5C (running iOS9). The special iOS version being demanded of Apple could be used by the FBI to circumvent security features on anyone's iPhone5C. Warrant or no warrant. Terrorist or tea party activist.

 

Correction: Apparently Apple gets to keep the special version of their cracking tool. The issue revolves around whether making a cracking tool for the FBI constitutes an "undue burden" on Apple. I'd say it does, but it is a fuzzier legal argument than I initially thought.

 

FWIW, I am a software developer in the business of bespoke enterprise software for deployment on Apple phones. I can say from experience that Apple does not habitually create tools to unlock their phones. They wash their hands of all security concerns like that because providing it to even one client means they need to provide it for all.

 

There are laws in place that prevent phones from being built untappable by law enforcement is data exempt?

 

I would say so, yes. Tapping a phone allows law enforcement to intercept messages sent during a given time period (generally specified in the warrant). Data on the phone is not restricted to that time period. Data on the phone can (& does) consist of material that was not ever transmitted/received in such a way it could be tapped. The laws applying to using the phone as a computing device are not covered by the anti-tap laws. There are other laws for dealing with data on a generic computing device.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daily Beast is now reporting that Apple has cracked open seventy other phones for law enforcement in the past. And one of those was just the phone of some meth dealer. Interesting....

 

Cracking open an individual phone for the FBI is one thing. Changing the phone so that all are open to the government is the issue here and I would side with Apple. It will create an exploitable security vulnerability in every phone and would be attacked by everyone, not just the FBI.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I get that from a service provider. I'm talking the manufacturer. The user of the phone was a terrorist. He is dead along with his terrorist wife and the victims. Apple needs to do whatever it takes to allow the FBI access.

 

The "safe manufacturer" argument in the article addresses that. It doesn't matter who the owner of this particular phone happens to be as the FBI is asking for Apple to build them a tool that opens ANY iPhone5C (running iOS9). The special iOS version being demanded of Apple could be used by the FBI to circumvent security features on anyone's iPhone5C. Warrant or no warrant. Terrorist or tea party activist.

 

Correction: Apparently Apple gets to keep the special version of their cracking tool. The issue revolves around whether making a cracking tool for the FBI constitutes an "undue burden" on Apple. I'd say it does, but it is a fuzzier legal argument than I initially thought.

 

FWIW, I am a software developer in the business of bespoke enterprise software for deployment on Apple phones. I can say from experience that Apple does not habitually create tools to unlock their phones. They wash their hands of all security concerns like that because providing it to even one client means they need to provide it for all.

 

There are laws in place that prevent phones from being built untappable by law enforcement is data exempt?

 

I would say so, yes. Tapping a phone allows law enforcement to intercept messages sent during a given time period (generally specified in the warrant). Data on the phone is not restricted to that time period. Data on the phone can (& does) consist of material that was not ever transmitted/received in such a way it could be tapped. The laws applying to using the phone as a computing device are not covered by the anti-tap laws. There are other laws for dealing with data on a generic computing device.

I'll go with your opinion. I just think Apple would want to help because of whose phone it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the Apple letter, yeah, the FBI is seriously overstepping.

Asking them to crack the phone is one thing.

The letter doesn't say but kinda sez that they've already done that.
But then demanding that Apple puts in a backdoor is another thing altogether.

Apple should fight this tooth and nail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go with your opinion. I just think Apple would want to help because of whose phone it is.

From the sounds of things, the issue isn't cracking this phone - it's the step further that the FBI wants which would affect everyone's iPhone.

 

Think of it this way, you have no problems taking the guns off terrorists. You do have problems with policies that extend beyond that into taking guns off non-terrorists. What the FBI are asking is for Apple to do the same thing, put into place something that affects more than the terrorists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apples letter says one thing. NPR and the NYT said this

 

Earlier on Tuesday, Judge Sheri Pym of U.S. District Court in Los Angeles said that Apple must provide "reasonable technical assistance" to investigators seeking to unlock the data on an iPhone 5C that had been owned by Syed Rizwan Farook.

 

That assistance includes disabling the phone's auto-erase function, which activates after 10 consecutive unsuccessful passcode attempts, and helping investigators to submit passcode guesses electronically

 

So it looks like Apple does not have to crack the phone simply turn off the auto erase.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the Apple letter, yeah, the FBI is seriously overstepping.

Asking them to crack the phone is one thing.

The letter doesn't say but kinda sez that they've already done that.

But then demanding that Apple puts in a backdoor is another thing altogether.

Apple should fight this tooth and nail.

 

I agree, but I don't think the Fed has the ability to force the issue in the first place.

 

Good on Apple and their response.

 

Olsonist and I agree for the first time in a couple years.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it looks like Apple does not have to crack the phone simply turn off the auto erase.

And provide a means by which someone can plug the phone in and brute force the passcode. The iOS9 passcode is only six digits long. The only reason it is "secure" is because one cannot brute force it as too many failures destroys the data you are trying to access. By turning off the auto-erase and adding the ability to try million combinations at computer speed - ANY iPhone5C will be cracked in minutes.

 

That is, in today's day & age, providing a master key that any kid with a laptop and USB connection could use to break any iPhone5C in less time than it takes to cook a bacon sandwich.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So it looks like Apple does not have to crack the phone simply turn off the auto erase.

And provide a means by which someone can plug the phone in and brute force the passcode. The iOS9 passcode is only six digits long. The only reason it is "secure" is because one cannot brute force it as too many failures destroys the data you are trying to access. By turning off the auto-erase and adding the ability to try million combinations at computer speed - ANY iPhone5C will be cracked in minutes.

 

That is, in today's day & age, providing a master key that any kid with a laptop and USB connection could use to break any iPhone5C in less time than it takes to cook a bacon sandwich.

 

 

Agreed. The Fed should be asking tech companies to help secure their own data using technology like Apple employs instead of demanding tech companies make their platforms easy targets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the Apple letter, yeah, the FBI is seriously overstepping.

Asking them to crack the phone is one thing.

The letter doesn't say but kinda sez that they've already done that.

But then demanding that Apple puts in a backdoor is another thing altogether.

Apple should fight this tooth and nail.

 

Agree. As someone said earlier, if Apple can unlock the phone in their lab and hand it back to the FBI, then fine. Asking apple to create an IOS that allows any phone to be unlocked is total BS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a legal maxim; Sol can back me up on this. Great cases make bad law. This is one such bad case and 9/11 was another.

 

It's not that I'm a Silicon Valley guy jealously guarding the perquisites of a tech company. I know enough dirt on ALL of these companies and people to have little love for them. They suck. And it sucks that they're right.

 

But they are right and this is a terrible solution that would weaken their products and endanger their customers. The only reason it is on the table at all is the SB case. And there are more moderate and better solutions.

 

The FBI is wrong, wrong, wrong on this. It isn't even about freedom. It's just a really bad idea. This 'solution' is immediately worse than the problem itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a legal maxim; Sol can back me up on this. Great cases make bad law. This is one such bad case and 9/11 was another.

 

It's not that I'm a Silicon Valley guy jealously guarding the perquisites of a tech company. I know enough dirt on ALL of these companies and people to have little love for them. They suck. And it sucks that they're right.

 

But they are right and this is a terrible solution that would weaken their products and endanger their customers. The only reason it is on the table at all is the SB case. And there are more moderate and better solutions.

 

The FBI is wrong, wrong, wrong on this. It isn't even about freedom. It's just a really bad idea. This 'solution' is immediately worse than the problem itself.

 

They've been wanting this for a while. SB was just an easy way to get their foot in the door by hopefully using sympathy and outrage to further the gov't cause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Great cases make bad law but usually great cases happen randomly. You can't plan on an OJ Simpson case. But you can practically set your watch by terrorism cases. They happen.

 

Again, I don't even buy the freedom argument on this. I just think it's a really stupid 'solution' which would get laughed at in normal circumstances. So it needs a good crisis to sell it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the courts issue a proper warrant and Apple is capable of opening the phone, and Apple is paid appropriately for its services then maybe I would be OK with Apple opening the phone in the one specific case.

For all future cases BEGINNING IMMEDIATELY, no phone may be opened by a manufacturer unless that manufacturer has warned the purchaser that Manufacturer may have the capability and under EXACTLY what circumstances that manufacturer will comply with a court order to participate in a search of the purchased property .

 

There is absolutely no way in hell I would support giving the technology to open phones to the government.

 

And there should be SEVERE penalties for anyone who participates in any unwarranted search at any time always and forever

 

The rules have served us well for 233 years and we have consistently fought off new government officiaks and their stories about new technologies being DIFFERENT than previously envisioned and therefore not worthy of Constitutional protection

There is a pledge taken by most government officials including the words defend, enemies, and domestic.

These are exactly those sort of enemies against whom our officials must defend

Link to post
Share on other sites

this just shows...once again...how both big business AND the Govt. are a bunch of fucking jerkasses. The govt. wants the master key to all the tool sheds and Apple (it has NOTHING to do with privacy...think $$$$$$) doesn't want to give that up.

 

Isn't there a middle ground ANYFUCKINGWHERE IN AMERICA? OR DOES IT ALWAYS HAVE TO BE A GODDAMN FUCKING FIGHT, ARGUMENT ,BATTLE ?

 

ps...I love my Driod :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the Apple letter, yeah, the FBI is seriously overstepping.

Asking them to crack the phone is one thing.

The letter doesn't say but kinda sez that they've already done that.

But then demanding that Apple puts in a backdoor is another thing altogether.

Apple should fight this tooth and nail.

 

I'm in complete agreement. Start a petition, I'll sign it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A discussion with no party lines!!! This is beautiful!!

It may be worth visiting SA Again!!

 

 

Anyway

 

it is the cops mindset "We are the good guys."

 

And most are

 

The Constitution ( actually the bill of rights) is there to

Protect the unpopular and defend us all against those who would abuse power.

Warrants are hard to obtain.

On the other hand, I prefer we have an impassionate judge between my private stuff and the well intentioned vigilante.

 

I hope impassionate is the right word

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Reading the Apple letter, yeah, the FBI is seriously overstepping.

Asking them to crack the phone is one thing.

The letter doesn't say but kinda sez that they've already done that.

But then demanding that Apple puts in a backdoor is another thing altogether.

Apple should fight this tooth and nail.

 

I'm in complete agreement. Start a petition, I'll sign it.

 

 

Truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that from a service provider. I'm talking the manufacturer. The user of the phone was a terrorist. He is dead along with his terrorist wife and the victims. Apple needs to do whatever it takes to allow the FBI access. There are laws in place that prevent phones from being built untappable by law enforcement is data exempt?

 

I am unaware of any such laws. Cite?

 

 

this just shows...once again...how both big business AND the Govt. are a bunch of fucking jerkasses. The govt. wants the master key to all the tool sheds and Apple (it has NOTHING to do with privacy...think $$$$$$) doesn't want to give that up.

 

Isn't there a middle ground ANYFUCKINGWHERE IN AMERICA? OR DOES IT ALWAYS HAVE TO BE A GODDAMN FUCKING FIGHT, ARGUMENT ,BATTLE ?

 

ps...I love my Driod :)

 

Privacy and $$$ have a great deal to do with each other. I'll pay more for a secure phone or computer and encryption is necessary for the online economy. Just as with Al Gore's Clipper Chip, American companies competing in a global market don't want to have to say to international customers, "By the way, your data is secure from everyone except the US government, but you trust them, don't you?"

 

That's why I don't believe TMSail will provide a citation of any law saying they have to make devices breakable by US law enforcement. We've been through this a couple of decades ago. Bad idea then, bad idea now.

 

PS: all tech companies get this kind of pressure from governments and all have received secret subpoenas and complied with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both sides seem to be playing the PR game here.

 

The FBI is asking Apple to create software that would enable entire class of phones to be hacked. Because of the limited number of passcodes possible turning off the autoreset feature and allowing passcodes to be electronically entered renders the security feature of any phone thus changed worthless. The computer trying to crack it will quickly and without fail stumble across the right password. The FBI is asking for Apple to create a master key.

 

But as far as I can tell, the FBI isn't asking for the master key to be turned over to them. Apple is saying that if they create it, it will get out (from Apple), or the government will abuse their rights and ask Apple to crack phones all the time, or I guess that perhaps once the government is given a cracked phone someone can reverse engineer or otherwise steal the code that enables the changes to be made.

 

I think Apple's worries are as much from a marketing standpoint as from a legal standpoint. Who wants to have "the phone the government can crack" label attached to their products.

 

If I am mistaken and the FBI is demanding that Apple create the "hackware" and turn it over to the FBI, I fully support Apple's resistance to that demand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anybody think about putting his prints onto the phone activation button?

 

Just wondering if he had fingerprint ID activated, 10 tries, what could go wrong???

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I get that from a service provider. I'm talking the manufacturer. The user of the phone was a terrorist. He is dead along with his terrorist wife and the victims. Apple needs to do whatever it takes to allow the FBI access. There are laws in place that prevent phones from being built untappable by law enforcement is data exempt?

 

I am unaware of any such laws. Cite?

 

 

this just shows...once again...how both big business AND the Govt. are a bunch of fucking jerkasses. The govt. wants the master key to all the tool sheds and Apple (it has NOTHING to do with privacy...think $$$$$$) doesn't want to give that up.

 

Isn't there a middle ground ANYFUCKINGWHERE IN AMERICA? OR DOES IT ALWAYS HAVE TO BE A GODDAMN FUCKING FIGHT, ARGUMENT ,BATTLE ?

 

ps...I love my Driod :)

 

Privacy and $$$ have a great deal to do with each other. I'll pay more for a secure phone or computer and encryption is necessary for the online economy. Just as with Al Gore's Clipper Chip, American companies competing in a global market don't want to have to say to international customers, "By the way, your data is secure from everyone except the US government, but you trust them, don't you?"

 

That's why I don't believe TMSail will provide a citation of any law saying they have to make devices breakable by US law enforcement. We've been through this a couple of decades ago. Bad idea then, bad idea now.

 

PS: all tech companies get this kind of pressure from governments and all have received secret subpoenas and complied with them.

This is what I was referencing. https://www.privacyrights.org/content/wiretapping-and-eavesdropping-telephone-calls

 

In 1994 Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, also known as the Digital Telephony Act (18 USC 2510-2522). The Act's purpose is to provide law enforcement officials with assurance that they will be able to "tap" or have access to the content of any communications incorporating new digital technology. These digital transmissions include both voice communications transmitted in digital format as well as transmissions of text and data between computers using a modem.

 

Traditionally, law enforcement agents accessed telephone communications by tapping the line and simply listening in on the conversation. However, digital communications services generally convert telephone conversations and other transmissions to a digital code that is impossible to "listen in" on. The Digital Telephony Act requires all telephone companies to make digital communications available to law enforcement officials in the same way that traditional voice transmissions are currently accessible.

 

This law specifically states that it does not alter or expand the current ability of investigators to conduct a wiretap. It merely allows them to access digital communications in the same manner as voice communications once a legal wiretap has been authorized. Furthermore, telephone companies are not required to decrypt encrypted (i.e. scrambled) communications unless the telephone company itself provides the encryption service. Finally, the federal government must reimburse the telephone companies for many of the modifications necessary for compliance with the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I get that from a service provider. I'm talking the manufacturer. The user of the phone was a terrorist. He is dead along with his terrorist wife and the victims. Apple needs to do whatever it takes to allow the FBI access. There are laws in place that prevent phones from being built untappable by law enforcement is data exempt?

I am unaware of any such laws. Cite?

 

 

this just shows...once again...how both big business AND the Govt. are a bunch of fucking jerkasses. The govt. wants the master key to all the tool sheds and Apple (it has NOTHING to do with privacy...think $$$$$$) doesn't want to give that up.

 

Isn't there a middle ground ANYFUCKINGWHERE IN AMERICA? OR DOES IT ALWAYS HAVE TO BE A GODDAMN FUCKING FIGHT, ARGUMENT ,BATTLE ?

 

ps...I love my Driod :)

Privacy and $$$ have a great deal to do with each other. I'll pay more for a secure phone or computer and encryption is necessary for the online economy. Just as with Al Gore's Clipper Chip, American companies competing in a global market don't want to have to say to international customers, "By the way, your data is secure from everyone except the US government, but you trust them, don't you?"

 

That's why I don't believe TMSail will provide a citation of any law saying they have to make devices breakable by US law enforcement. We've been through this a couple of decades ago. Bad idea then, bad idea now.

 

PS: all tech companies get this kind of pressure from governments and all have received secret subpoenas and complied with them.

This is what I was referencing. https://www.privacyrights.org/content/wiretapping-and-eavesdropping-telephone-calls

 

In 1994 Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, also known as the Digital Telephony Act (18 USC 2510-2522). The Act's purpose is to provide law enforcement officials with assurance that they will be able to "tap" or have access to the content of any communications incorporating new digital technology. These digital transmissions include both voice communications transmitted in digital format as well as transmissions of text and data between computers using a modem.

 

Traditionally, law enforcement agents accessed telephone communications by tapping the line and simply listening in on the conversation. However, digital communications services generally convert telephone conversations and other transmissions to a digital code that is impossible to "listen in" on. The Digital Telephony Act requires all telephone companies to make digital communications available to law enforcement officials in the same way that traditional voice transmissions are currently accessible.

 

This law specifically states that it does not alter or expand the current ability of investigators to conduct a wiretap. It merely allows them to access digital communications in the same manner as voice communications once a legal wiretap has been authorized. Furthermore, telephone companies are not required to decrypt encrypted (i.e. scrambled) communications unless the telephone company itself provides the encryption service. Finally, the federal government must reimburse the telephone companies for many of the modifications necessary for compliance with the law.

 

 

That's about networks, not devices.

 

I'd say it authorizes them to listen in on any communications to/from the subject phone.

 

It will be pretty boring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a legal maxim; Sol can back me up on this. Great cases make bad law. This is one such bad case and 9/11 was another.

 

It's not that I'm a Silicon Valley guy jealously guarding the perquisites of a tech company. I know enough dirt on ALL of these companies and people to have little love for them. They suck. And it sucks that they're right.

 

But they are right and this is a terrible solution that would weaken their products and endanger their customers. The only reason it is on the table at all is the SB case. And there are more moderate and better solutions.

 

The FBI is wrong, wrong, wrong on this. It isn't even about freedom. It's just a really bad idea. This 'solution' is immediately worse than the problem itself.

 

Ironic. Scalia passes and we have this argument.

 

This is a huge issue in the upcoming election. I'm all for letting the next president replace him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is a legal maxim; Sol can back me up on this. Great cases make bad law. This is one such bad case and 9/11 was another.

 

It's not that I'm a Silicon Valley guy jealously guarding the perquisites of a tech company. I know enough dirt on ALL of these companies and people to have little love for them. They suck. And it sucks that they're right.

 

But they are right and this is a terrible solution that would weaken their products and endanger their customers. The only reason it is on the table at all is the SB case. And there are more moderate and better solutions.

 

The FBI is wrong, wrong, wrong on this. It isn't even about freedom. It's just a really bad idea. This 'solution' is immediately worse than the problem itself.

 

Ironic. Scalia passes and we have this argument.

 

This is a huge issue in the upcoming election. I'm all for letting the next president replace him.

 

Irony indeed. A huge constitutional issue raises it's head and the response is to prevent a SCOTUS justice from being appointed so it can have a final resolution. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There is a legal maxim; Sol can back me up on this. Great cases make bad law. This is one such bad case and 9/11 was another.

It's not that I'm a Silicon Valley guy jealously guarding the perquisites of a tech company. I know enough dirt on ALL of these companies and people to have little love for them. They suck. And it sucks that they're right.

But they are right and this is a terrible solution that would weaken their products and endanger their customers. The only reason it is on the table at all is the SB case. And there are more moderate and better solutions.

The FBI is wrong, wrong, wrong on this. It isn't even about freedom. It's just a really bad idea. This 'solution' is immediately worse than the problem itself.

 

Ironic. Scalia passes and we have this argument.

 

This is a huge issue in the upcoming election. I'm all for letting the next president replace him.

Irony indeed. A huge constitutional issue raises it's head and the response is to prevent a SCOTUS justice from being appointed so it can have a final resolution. :rolleyes:

Didn't you get the memo? The founding fathers only wanted conservative presidents to appoint justices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Irony indeed. A huge constitutional issue raises it's head and the response is to prevent a SCOTUS justice from being appointed so it can have a final resolution. :rolleyes:

Didn't you get the memo? The founding fathers only wanted conservative presidents to appoint justices.

 

 

Obama must have finally gotten the memo and that's why he now regrets his filibuster of the Alito nomination.

 

Getting back to the topic of the thread, Cruz Supports The Feds on this one.

 

The author of that article brings up a point no one has mentioned here as yet:

 

Cruz didn't mention that the iPhone of the attacker belonged the county health department, because the attacker was a government health inspector. A discussion about whether local (and larger) governments should be handing out phones to their employees that they can't access when necessary seems a lot more appropriate in this instance than one about whether the government should get a way in to everyone's phones.

 

 

Interesting point. There was discussion of a widow who wanted Apple's help in accessing her deceased husband's iPad over in GA. In this case, the owner of the phone wants it unlocked AND has a court order.

 

But Apple is saying it can't unlock only one.

 

Apple's argument, however, may not be as clear as it sounds either. Shane Harris at The Daily Beast reports that Apple has unlocked phones for authorities on at least 70 occasions in the last eight years. The feds, Harris reported, had also admitted to having developed a method to get through the encryption of one version of the iPhone iOS. That appears to undercut the government's use of the All Writs Act of 1789, which requires such an order as Apple received to be a last resort for method.

 

Harris also brought up a New York case involving a meth dealer's iPhone that Apple is also resisting. There, Apple is arguing, among other things, that the "reputational harm" caused by breaking into the phone for the government "could have a longer term economic impact beyond the mere cost of performing the single extraction at issue." Apple didn't start positioning itself as a guardian of privacy, Harris noted, until Edward Snowden's disclosures about the scale of the government's Internet surveillance activities.

 

Customers want their data to be secure, and will seek out service providers that can offer that. Ted Cruz acknowledged that an encryption backdoor is a legitimate concern because of hackers and cyber criminals that could try to break into people's phones. But people are also concerned about the government doing so, hence the reputational pressure felt by Apple.

 

 

Speaking of Snowden, he's one of the main reasons we are even having this discussion. He supports Apple on this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There is a legal maxim; Sol can back me up on this. Great cases make bad law. This is one such bad case and 9/11 was another.

 

It's not that I'm a Silicon Valley guy jealously guarding the perquisites of a tech company. I know enough dirt on ALL of these companies and people to have little love for them. They suck. And it sucks that they're right.

 

But they are right and this is a terrible solution that would weaken their products and endanger their customers. The only reason it is on the table at all is the SB case. And there are more moderate and better solutions.

 

The FBI is wrong, wrong, wrong on this. It isn't even about freedom. It's just a really bad idea. This 'solution' is immediately worse than the problem itself.

 

Ironic. Scalia passes and we have this argument.

 

This is a huge issue in the upcoming election. I'm all for letting the next president replace him.

 

Irony indeed. A huge constitutional issue raises it's head and the response is to prevent a SCOTUS justice from being appointed so it can have a final resolution. :rolleyes:

 

 

Why can't it have a final resolution? There is a provision for ties if that's your problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

There is a legal maxim; Sol can back me up on this. Great cases make bad law. This is one such bad case and 9/11 was another.

 

It's not that I'm a Silicon Valley guy jealously guarding the perquisites of a tech company. I know enough dirt on ALL of these companies and people to have little love for them. They suck. And it sucks that they're right.

 

But they are right and this is a terrible solution that would weaken their products and endanger their customers. The only reason it is on the table at all is the SB case. And there are more moderate and better solutions.

 

The FBI is wrong, wrong, wrong on this. It isn't even about freedom. It's just a really bad idea. This 'solution' is immediately worse than the problem itself.

Ironic. Scalia passes and we have this argument.

 

This is a huge issue in the upcoming election. I'm all for letting the next president replace him.

 

Irony indeed. A huge constitutional issue raises it's head and the response is to prevent a SCOTUS justice from being appointed so it can have a final resolution. :rolleyes:

 

Why can't it have a final resolution? There is a provision for ties if that's your problem.

 

That provision is that the decision reached is not a final resolution on the issue, simply lets the lower court's decision stand whilst leaving the constitutional issue up in the air. That's why.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

There is a legal maxim; Sol can back me up on this. Great cases make bad law. This is one such bad case and 9/11 was another.

 

It's not that I'm a Silicon Valley guy jealously guarding the perquisites of a tech company. I know enough dirt on ALL of these companies and people to have little love for them. They suck. And it sucks that they're right.

 

But they are right and this is a terrible solution that would weaken their products and endanger their customers. The only reason it is on the table at all is the SB case. And there are more moderate and better solutions.

 

The FBI is wrong, wrong, wrong on this. It isn't even about freedom. It's just a really bad idea. This 'solution' is immediately worse than the problem itself.

Ironic. Scalia passes and we have this argument.

 

This is a huge issue in the upcoming election. I'm all for letting the next president replace him.

 

Irony indeed. A huge constitutional issue raises it's head and the response is to prevent a SCOTUS justice from being appointed so it can have a final resolution. :rolleyes:

 

Why can't it have a final resolution? There is a provision for ties if that's your problem.

 

That provision is that the decision reached is not a final resolution on the issue, simply lets the lower court's decision stand whilst leaving the constitutional issue up in the air. That's why.

 

 

So first you have to assume the decision is a tie.

 

How do you think the split would go? Who would be on the side of liberty?

Link to post
Share on other sites

people donny has pissed off:

 

John McCain

Veterans

Megyn Kelly

Mexicans

The Pope

Catholics

Democrats

Republicans

Muslims

Tim Cook

Iphone Users

 

 

 

who's next??

Link to post
Share on other sites

So first you have to assume the decision is a tie.

 

How do you think the split would go? Who would be on the side of liberty?

 

You asked why it cannot have a final resolution. You then pointed out that a provision exists for a tied result. You concede a tied result is a possibility, so the fact that "provision" doesn't necessarily sort out the problem is something you accept can happen. Not my fault that possibility cropped up. Look to the GOP Senate Leader for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anybody think about putting his prints onto the phone activation button?

 

Just wondering if he had fingerprint ID activated, 10 tries, what could go wrong???

 

Yeah, I wondered about that too. Which leads to another question..... could you lift someone's fingerprints and then use that to unlock a phone from the stolen print? I have fingerprint enabled on my iPhone, but if I lost my phone, my finger prints are all over it. If a fingerprint cold be lifted off the phone and then used to open it, not good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Reading the Apple letter, yeah, the FBI is seriously overstepping.

Asking them to crack the phone is one thing.

The letter doesn't say but kinda sez that they've already done that.

But then demanding that Apple puts in a backdoor is another thing altogether.

Apple should fight this tooth and nail.

 

Agree. As someone said earlier, if Apple can unlock the phone in their lab and hand it back to the FBI, then fine. Asking apple to create an IOS that allows any phone to be unlocked is total BS.

 

 

Murder case evidence? Where is the line? There's an argument to be made that there isn't one. ALL the murderer's personal effects are belong to the judge.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

this just shows...once again...how both big business AND the Govt. are a bunch of fucking jerkasses. The govt. wants the master key to all the tool sheds and Apple (it has NOTHING to do with privacy...think $$$$$$) doesn't want to give that up.

 

Isn't there a middle ground ANYFUCKINGWHERE IN AMERICA? OR DOES IT ALWAYS HAVE TO BE A GODDAMN FUCKING FIGHT, ARGUMENT ,BATTLE ?

 

ps...I love my Driod :)

 

I'm sort of with decapo on this one..... sort of. I think there has to be a middle ground somewhere where the FBI gives apple a phone, hands them a court order, says please unlock this phone and we'll be back in a week to get the data. I would then have apple destroy the phone in their labs while in the presence of the FBI once they've extracted the necessary data to prevent the gov't from having anyway of being able to reverse engineer the hack.

 

The flip side of that is that if a hack existed at Apple, its just a matter of time before it was stolen or leaked and then ALL phones are at risk.

 

I also see Apple's side of the fence where if the USG is successful at forcing them to open it - then China, Russia, Iran, Egypt, and all the other shithole despotic countries of the globe force apple to do the same.

 

A really good summary here: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/17/467096705/apple-the-fbi-and-iphone-encryption-a-look-at-whats-at-stake

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is obscenely stupid on the part of whatever dickhead idiot at the FBI did this. This is beyond stupid.

 

First, Apple is obscenely rich and successful and powerful. Apple has a market cap of half a trillion dollars. It has $200B in cash. Second, and you just have to trust me on this, Apple is very willing to do this thing for the US of Fucking A. Very willing to do this thing. Remember, ATT was very willing to do that thing. Same thing.

 

The trouble is that Apple doesn't like getting ordered to do this thing and they really really don't like getting ordered to do this thing in public. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, Apple is obscenely rich and successful and powerful. Yeah, I think I covered that already. What's the point of being big and successful if they have to listen to Barney Fife? Another thing is that Apple cares dick about their customers. Fuck all. They sell their customers out left and right. But keep that shit on the down low please. If the FBI had come in the back door like every other corporation Apple sells their customers out to, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead the FBI walked in the front door with a piece of paper like they own the place. What was Apple to do?

 

Apple would have cracked this phone instantly if they were asked nicely AND discretely. But ordering them and ordering them to put a hack into IOS makes the FBI sound like they're Microsoft circa Bill Gates which they aren't.

 

Apple has an army of lawyers that allows them to break pretty much any law they want. They lose occasionally but the other side pays a huge price. The FBI wants to go up against Apple when they could have gotten what they reasonably wanted for free? That's just stupid.

 

BTW, the media conflates cracking the phone (reasonable request) and putting in a trap door (deeply stupid). These are very different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FBI is feeding the bears.

The FBI behavior is so foul here that it justifies typical libertarian fears.

I hate like hell to say it, but this reflects on our government.

 

Go Apple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading too much Tom Ray, I think.

The FBI behavior is so foul here that it justifies typical libertarian fears.

I hate like hell to say it, but this reflects on our government.

They will mumble about tyranny down at the NGS trailer park tonight.

Go Apple.

Really? So let me get this straight..... You value 4th amendment rights to privacy over the concept of protecting society and preventing deaths. Even though the ability for the gov't to be able to read out texts, email and access all that data stored on our phones would have a very measurable effect on crime and murder.

 

Yet you have zero issue taking away people's 2A rights even though those propsals have been shown to have very little effect on crime and murder.

 

The irony here is off the scale. YCMTSU!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

BTW, the media conflates cracking the phone (reasonable request) and putting in a trap door (deeply stupid). These are very different.

 

Yep, one of the local radio talkers was spouting off about how easy it would be and the yeah mans ()ever notice how close to a homonym that is for a-me) were calling in in droves.

 

I said very early here that cracking an individual phone for a specific purpose is one thing. Letting the FBI in on anybodies phone whenever they want is a whole nuther matter.

 

I've been reading too much Tom Ray, I think.

The FBI behavior is so foul here that it justifies typical libertarian fears.

I hate like hell to say it, but this reflects on our government.

They will mumble about tyranny down at the NGS trailer park tonight.

Go Apple.

Really? So let me get this straight..... You value 4th amendment rights to privacy over the concept of protecting society and preventing deaths. Even though the ability for the gov't to be able to read out texts, email and access all that data stored on our phones would have a very measurable effect on crime and murder.

 

Yet you have zero issue taking away people's 2A rights even though those propsals have been shown to have very little effect on crime and murder.

 

The irony here is off the scale. YCMTSU!

 

 

You could make it up but with JoCal and friends you don't need to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Trump is urging a boycott of Apple until they comply.

 

Trump uses an iPhone. I wonder if he understands what this could mean if Apple were to give the Feds what the request/demand?

 

My list of reasons I could never vote for him continues to grow.

 

 

 

Agree, Trump is completely on the wrong side of this. I was trying my best to like they guy's "outsiderness", but with him siding with the Feds on this issue, I'm done.

 

Truck Fump.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Trump is urging a boycott of Apple until they comply.

 

Trump uses an iPhone. I wonder if he understands what this could mean if Apple were to give the Feds what the request/demand?

 

My list of reasons I could never vote for him continues to grow.

 

 

 

Agree, Trump is completely on the wrong side of this. I was trying my best to like they guy's "outsiderness", but with him siding with the Feds on this issue, I'm done.

 

Truck Fump.

 

 

With subpoena in hand, the FBI has every right to the info on the phones of those jihadists. They do not have the right to a backdoor to everyone's iPHONE.

 

Even if this didn't violate the Fourth Amendment, which I think it does, do you really want to trust a government capable of using the IRS and other agencies to punish political opponents with that kind of access to information? Not me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Trump is urging a boycott of Apple until they comply.

 

Trump uses an iPhone. I wonder if he understands what this could mean if Apple were to give the Feds what the request/demand?

 

My list of reasons I could never vote for him continues to grow.

 

 

 

Agree, Trump is completely on the wrong side of this. I was trying my best to like they guy's "outsiderness", but with him siding with the Feds on this issue, I'm done.

 

Truck Fump.

 

It is another example of Trump calling for a plan that is unreasonable. Forget whether or not you support Apple of the Feds. How do you boycott Apple? People depend on their Apple products and you can't easily and quickly (or cheaply) replace them.

 

Calling for a boycott of Apple is more empty rhetoric from the king of empty rhetoric. Shortly after he made his call for the boycott, his vendors selling his merchandise at the rally were using ipads to process credit card transactions for people who wanted to buy his crappy hats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Trump is urging a boycott of Apple until they comply.

 

Trump uses an iPhone. I wonder if he understands what this could mean if Apple were to give the Feds what the request/demand?

 

My list of reasons I could never vote for him continues to grow.

 

 

 

Agree, Trump is completely on the wrong side of this. I was trying my best to like they guy's "outsiderness", but with him siding with the Feds on this issue, I'm done.

 

Truck Fump.

 

 

With subpoena in hand, the FBI has every right to the info on the phones of those jihadists. They do not have the right to a backdoor to everyone's iPHONE.

 

Even if this didn't violate the Fourth Amendment, which I think it does, do you really want to trust a government capable of using the IRS and other agencies to punish political opponents with that kind of access to information? Not me.

 

 

Yeah that's the thing: if the Feds were asking Apple to decrypt just that one specific iPhone, fine, I'd have no problem with it and I'd think Apple was the asshole for not complying.

 

But a universal back door? Fuck you, feds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've been reading too much Tom Ray, I think.

The FBI behavior is so foul here that it justifies typical libertarian fears.

I hate like hell to say it, but this reflects on our government.

They will mumble about tyranny down at the NGS trailer park tonight.

Go Apple.

Really? So let me get this straight..... You value 4th amendment rights to privacy over the concept of protecting society and preventing deaths. Even though the ability for the gov't to be able to read out texts, email and access all that data stored on our phones would have a very measurable effect on crime and murder.

 

Yet you have zero issue taking away people's 2A rights even though those propsals have been shown to have very little effect on crime and murder.

 

The irony here is off the scale. YCMTSU!

 

No, the irony is if it weren't for the 2A, there wouldn't be the carnage in the homes and on the street in the US today. It is the 2A responsible for the proliferation of weapons causing all of this carnage. The true off the scale irony of the whole situation is there has never been a time in the history of the country since the 2A was ratified that the right to bear arms saved the US from any enemies, foreign or domestic, only in the fantasies of the rabid supporters of unlimited gun ownership. Perhaps the 2A is an anachronism and needs to be repealed. YCMTSU!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on Apple

You know that is the first time in history anyone has ever typed those 3 words.

Apple are a pack of cunts. Why all the paranoia about someone looking at what's in your phone?

The only thing they will find in mine that I am not proud is participating in discussions on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've been reading too much Tom Ray, I think.

The FBI behavior is so foul here that it justifies typical libertarian fears.

I hate like hell to say it, but this reflects on our government.

They will mumble about tyranny down at the NGS trailer park tonight.

Go Apple.

 

 

Yet you have zero issue taking away people's 2A rights even though those propsals have been shown to have very little effect on crime and murder.

 

 

 

You are welcome to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

 

Gun murders went up 24% in Missouri when they cancelled background checks in 2007. That is not "very little effect."

General murder rates went up 16% there, for the same reason. That is not "very little effect."

Using Uniform Crime Reporting data from police through 2012, the law’s repeal was associated with increased annual murders rates of 0.93 per 100,000 (+16 %). These estimated effects translate to increases of between 55 and 63 homicides per year in Missouri.

Pasted from <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-014-9865-8>

Right-to Carry states have higher aggravated assault figures, and higher rates of rape.

 

In all fields of scientific progress, measurable variances of a few percentage points are considered significant.

The differences with guns are HUGE.

 

 

Cheng and Hoekstra 2015

Conclusion: The Castle Doctrine Effect

In recent years, more than 20 states have strengthened their self-defense laws by 28 adopting castle doctrine laws. These statutes widen the scope for the justified use of lethal force in self-defense...

Results presented indicate that expansions to castle doctrine do not deter crime.

...there is always evidence within the four estimates for each of the seven crime categories that RTC laws are associated with higher rates of crime. In six of the seven crime categories, the finding that RTC laws increase crime is statistically significant at the .05 level, and for robbery, it is statistically significant at the .10 level. It will be worth exploring whether other methodological approaches and/or additional years of data will confirm the results of this panel-data analysis.

Pasted from <http://www.nber.org/papers/w18294>

Furthermore, our estimates are sufficiently precise as to rule out moderate-sized deterrence effects. More significantly, results indicate that castle doctrine laws increase total homicides by around 8 percent. Put differently, the laws induce an additional 600 homicides per year across the 21 states in our sample that expanded castle doctrine over this time period. This finding is robust to a wide set of difference-in-differences specifications…

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300964

 

Donahue I

Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from both the state and the county panel data models conducted over the entire 1977–2006 period with and without state trends and using three different models is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime. It will be worth exploring whether other methodological approaches and/or additional years of data will confirm the results of this panel data analysis. (JEL K49, K00, C52)

<http://works.bepress.com/john_donohue/89/>

Donahue II

"Our analysis of the year-by-year impact of RTC laws also suggests that RTC laws increase aggravated assaults," they wrote.

The evidence is less strong on rape and robbery, Donohue noted.

The data from 1979 to 2010 provide evidence that the laws are associated with an increase in rape and robbery.

http://news.stanford...s-study-111414.

 

Fleegler 2009

States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390>

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anybody think about putting his prints onto the phone activation button?

Just wondering if he had fingerprint ID activated, 10 tries, what could go wrong???

What happens when a Muslim gets caught stealing an iPhone and gets his hand cut off for it?

See. The goat fuckers are way ahead of the Feds on this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is obscenely stupid on the part of whatever dickhead idiot at the FBI did this. This is beyond stupid.

 

First, Apple is obscenely rich and successful and powerful. Apple has a market cap of half a trillion dollars. It has $200B in cash. Second, and you just have to trust me on this, Apple is very willing to do this thing for the US of Fucking A. Very willing to do this thing. Remember, ATT was very willing to do that thing. Same thing.

 

The trouble is that Apple doesn't like getting ordered to do this thing and they really really don't like getting ordered to do this thing in public. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, Apple is obscenely rich and successful and powerful. Yeah, I think I covered that already. What's the point of being big and successful if they have to listen to Barney Fife? Another thing is that Apple cares dick about their customers. Fuck all. They sell their customers out left and right. But keep that shit on the down low please. If the FBI had come in the back door like every other corporation Apple sells their customers out to, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead the FBI walked in the front door with a piece of paper like they own the place. What was Apple to do?

 

Apple would have cracked this phone instantly if they were asked nicely AND discretely. But ordering them and ordering them to put a hack into IOS makes the FBI sound like they're Microsoft circa Bill Gates which they aren't.

 

Apple has an army of lawyers that allows them to break pretty much any law they want. They lose occasionally but the other side pays a huge price. The FBI wants to go up against Apple when they could have gotten what they reasonably wanted for free? That's just stupid.

 

BTW, the media conflates cracking the phone (reasonable request) and putting in a trap door (deeply stupid). These are very different.

 

Apple handing private info from a private phone without a subpoena to the Feds on the QT? After all but swearing in public they never do that? Seems if word of that got out it would really screw their company rep to me, and they would have to worry about that. The techie nerds gab like a bunch of hens and have a known tendency of narcissistic Snowdenism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is obscenely stupid on the part of whatever dickhead idiot at the FBI did this. This is beyond stupid.

 

First, Apple is obscenely rich and successful and powerful. Apple has a market cap of half a trillion dollars. It has $200B in cash. Second, and you just have to trust me on this, Apple is very willing to do this thing for the US of Fucking A. Very willing to do this thing. Remember, ATT was very willing to do that thing. Same thing.

 

The trouble is that Apple doesn't like getting ordered to do this thing and they really really don't like getting ordered to do this thing in public. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, Apple is obscenely rich and successful and powerful. Yeah, I think I covered that already. What's the point of being big and successful if they have to listen to Barney Fife? Another thing is that Apple cares dick about their customers. Fuck all. They sell their customers out left and right. But keep that shit on the down low please. If the FBI had come in the back door like every other corporation Apple sells their customers out to, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead the FBI walked in the front door with a piece of paper like they own the place. What was Apple to do?

 

Apple would have cracked this phone instantly if they were asked nicely AND discretely. But ordering them and ordering them to put a hack into IOS makes the FBI sound like they're Microsoft circa Bill Gates which they aren't.

 

Apple has an army of lawyers that allows them to break pretty much any law they want. They lose occasionally but the other side pays a huge price. The FBI wants to go up against Apple when they could have gotten what they reasonably wanted for free? That's just stupid.

 

BTW, the media conflates cracking the phone (reasonable request) and putting in a trap door (deeply stupid). These are very different.

 

Apple handing private info from a private phone without a subpoena to the Feds on the QT? After all but swearing in public they never do that? Seems if word of that got out it would really screw their company rep to me, and they would have to worry about that. The techie nerds gab like a bunch of hens and have a known tendency of narcissistic Snowdenism.

 

 

The problem with any technical capability is that it WILL be exploited.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Did anybody think about putting his prints onto the phone activation button?

Just wondering if he had fingerprint ID activated, 10 tries, what could go wrong???

What happens when a Muslim gets caught stealing an iPhone and gets his hand cut off for it?

See. The goat fuckers are way ahead of the Feds on this one.

 

 

That's why Arabs have that hooked nose. It's a bugger putting your PIN in with one hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Good on Apple

You know that is the first time in history anyone has ever typed those 3 words.

Apple are a pack of cunts. Why all the paranoia about someone looking at what's in your phone?

The only thing they will find in mine that I am not proud is participating in discussions on here.

 

 

Sounds like no one needs to look at your phone. And no one needs to look at mine. Here, that means they can't. Which leads to the answer to your question:

 

Mostly because we know our government has lied to us about collecting our information absent a specific need. We think they might do it again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I've been reading too much Tom Ray, I think.

The FBI behavior is so foul here that it justifies typical libertarian fears.

I hate like hell to say it, but this reflects on our government.

They will mumble about tyranny down at the NGS trailer park tonight.

Go Apple.

Really? So let me get this straight..... You value 4th amendment rights to privacy over the concept of protecting society and preventing deaths. Even though the ability for the gov't to be able to read out texts, email and access all that data stored on our phones would have a very measurable effect on crime and murder.

 

Yet you have zero issue taking away people's 2A rights even though those propsals have been shown to have very little effect on crime and murder.

 

The irony here is off the scale. YCMTSU!

 

 

No, the irony is if it weren't for the 2A, there wouldn't be the carnage in the homes and on the street in the US today. It is the 2A responsible for the proliferation of weapons causing all of this carnage. The true off the scale irony of the whole situation is there has never been a time in the history of the country since the 2A was ratified that the right to bear arms saved the US from any enemies, foreign or domestic, only in the fantasies of the rabid supporters of unlimited gun ownership. Perhaps the 2A is an anachronism and needs to be repealed. YCMTSU!

 

 

Fuck off, jocal Jr. How do you account for the fact that the "proliferation of weapons" is at all time highs, including millions of scary, evil black assault rifles - while "this carnage" you speak of is at historic lows?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The password for the San Bernardino shooter's iCloud account associated with his iPhone was reset hours after authorities took possession of the device.

The Justice Department acknowledged in its court filing that the password of Syed Farook's iCloud account had been reset. The filing states, "the owner [san Bernardino County Department of Public Health], in an attempt to gain access to some information in the hours after the attack, was able to reset the password remotely, but that had the effect of eliminating the possibility of an auto-backup."

Apple could have recovered information from the iPhone had the iCloud password not been reset, the company said. If the phone was taken to a location where it recognized the Wi-Fi network, such as the San Bernardino shooters' home, it could have been backed up to the cloud, Apple suggested.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-bernardino-shooters-apple-id-passcode-changed-government/story?id=37066070

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what would be nice? Just one thread that touches on a Constitutional legal issue that doesn't have fuck knuckles like Jocal & Tom Ray start on about guns. Again.

 

I know it's never going to happen, but it sure would be nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what would be nice? Just one thread that touches on a Constitutional legal issue that doesn't have fuck knuckles like Jocal & Tom Ray start on about guns. Again.

 

I know it's never going to happen, but it sure would be nice.

 

This post would make more sense if I had mentioned or even alluded to guns in this thread.

 

But much like this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and many others, I have not brought up the gun issue in this thread.

 

Lots of examples of something that's "never going to happen" wouldn't you say?

 

Anyway, plenty of blissful, gun-free reading at those links for you. You're welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I've been reading too much Tom Ray, I think.

The FBI behavior is so foul here that it justifies typical libertarian fears.

I hate like hell to say it, but this reflects on our government.

They will mumble about tyranny down at the NGS trailer park tonight.

Go Apple.

Really? So let me get this straight..... You value 4th amendment rights to privacy over the concept of protecting society and preventing deaths. Even though the ability for the gov't to be able to read out texts, email and access all that data stored on our phones would have a very measurable effect on crime and murder.

 

Yet you have zero issue taking away people's 2A rights even though those propsals have been shown to have very little effect on crime and murder.

 

The irony here is off the scale. YCMTSU!

 

 

No, the irony is if it weren't for the 2A, there wouldn't be the carnage in the homes and on the street in the US today. It is the 2A responsible for the proliferation of weapons causing all of this carnage. The true off the scale irony of the whole situation is there has never been a time in the history of the country since the 2A was ratified that the right to bear arms saved the US from any enemies, foreign or domestic, only in the fantasies of the rabid supporters of unlimited gun ownership. Perhaps the 2A is an anachronism and needs to be repealed. YCMTSU!

 

 

Fuck off, jocal Jr. How do you account for the fact that the "proliferation of weapons" is at all time highs, including millions of scary, evil black assault rifles - while "this carnage" you speak of is at historic lows?

 

When the opening of your rebuttal is an insult you have already lost the argument. The first step in fixing a problem is acknowledging there is a problem in the first place. Just because gun sales are up and fatalities are down doesn't mean that thousands of people aren't dying needlessly because a vocal minority insist on their antiquated rights granted under a constitution written more than 200 years ago. First world countries other than the US manage just fine without an openly armed citizenry parading up and down their streets. America has a terrible gun violence problem. It is not due to mental health issues, the amount of gun deaths caused by mentally ill people is very small. It is caused by the sheer amount of guns in the country. If there weren't so many guns available then the people that shouldn't have them wouldn't. The idea that the citizens of a country need to be armed to protect themselves from invasion by others or from the abuses of their own government is an idea that became outdated about 100 years ago. How many Japanese or Germans did US citizens gun down on the shores of America? When was the last time disgruntled citizens bearing scary black guns marched on Washington demanding the government change? The answer is to reduce the amount of weapons, confiscate and destroy weapons that are possessed illegally, increase the penalties for illegal possession and use of guns, restrict gun usage to weapons registered for the purpose of hunting and target shooting after appropriate screening and licensing for the individuals that desire to engage in these activities and to ban handguns completely. With reasonable measures such as this, the problem may actually start to diminish. Until such a time, the streets of America will continue to be awash in the blood of many innocent victims of gun violence and the blind, deaf and dumb (in the "stupid" sense of the word) defenders of the antiquated and ridiculous 2A will continue to lobby for unrestricted access to the weapons of their choice. You and your elk choose to be part of the problem, I would rather be part of the solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Good on Apple

 

You know that is the first time in history anyone has ever typed those 3 words.

Apple are a pack of cunts. Why all the paranoia about someone looking at what's in your phone?

The only thing they will find in mine that I am not proud is participating in discussions on here.

Sounds like no one needs to look at your phone. And no one needs to look at mine. Here, that means they can't. Which leads to the answer to your question:

 

Mostly because we know our government has lied to us about collecting our information absent a specific need. We think they might do it again.

Why do you think the government would be interested in you Tom? Apart from your time spent selling Mac 26's you have been an upright citizen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Good on Apple

 

You know that is the first time in history anyone has ever typed those 3 words.

Apple are a pack of cunts. Why all the paranoia about someone looking at what's in your phone?

The only thing they will find in mine that I am not proud is participating in discussions on here.

Sounds like no one needs to look at your phone. And no one needs to look at mine. Here, that means they can't. Which leads to the answer to your question:

 

Mostly because we know our government has lied to us about collecting our information absent a specific need. We think they might do it again.

Why do you think the government would be interested in you Tom? Apart from your time spent selling Mac 26's you have been an upright citizen.

Might have something to with his obsession with pot and guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom only has one gun to uphold the 2A. And one for Ilk. And one for varmints. And one for bears. And one for cougar. And one for his fanny pack. And several for self protection. As for the pot, well he only smokes that before posting on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This post would make more sense if I had mentioned or even alluded to guns in this thread.

Imagine I said you had changed the subject to guns here instead of a fuck knuckle like you having changed the subject in this thread.

 

Your obsessions are well-known and the resulting behaviour quite tedious (even for those that agree with you). It's good you've managed to refrain from doing it in this thread so far. Based on past history, I'm not taking that as an indication you've managed to cure yourself of that behaviour going forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sounds like no one needs to look at your phone. And no one needs to look at mine. Here, that means they can't. ...

Why do you think the government would be interested in you Tom? Apart from your time spent selling Mac 26's you have been an upright citizen.

 

 

I doubt they are, but you missed the point.

 

Here, if the government can show that it has a need to look at any of my electronic devices, it can get a warrant.

 

Apple is saying that they're asking for a way around that requirement by asking for the means to unlock phones other than the one that is subject to a warrant.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fibbie Director Comey says this case is not intended to set a precedent

That's a good sign that setting this precedent is exactly the intent

The problem with treating Comey’s claim credibly is that we all know full well that the White House, the executive branch, federal law enforcement, and intelligence are all united in a concerted effort to do pretty much the opposite of what Comey says: to find ways to break through encryption. Bloomberg got its hands on a memo from a strategy meeting from last Thanksgiving that showed that what Comey is doing here is exactly the White House’s plan:

The approach was formalized in a confidential National Security Council "decision memo," tasking government agencies with developing encryption workarounds, estimating additional budgets and identifying laws that may need to be changed to counter what FBI Director James Comey calls the "going dark" problem: investigators being unable to access the contents of encrypted data stored on mobile devices or traveling across the Internet. Details of the memo reveal that, in private, the government was honing a sharper edge to its relationship with Silicon Valley alongside more public signs of rapprochement.

 

...

 

Cook is sticking to his guns, sending an email out to Apple employees telling them "Apple is a uniquely American company. It does not feel right to be on the opposite side of the government in a case centering on the freedoms and liberties that government is meant to protect." He wants the government to form a tech commission to discuss the privacy implications of what the FBI wants. And he reminds everybody of the obvious that Comey is hoping we’ll ignore: That if the government is successful in forcing Apple to help them here, they can come back to the courts again and again and again to order them again and again and again. Comey’s counterargument can be best paraphrased as "No, we won’t," even though everybody knows full well they have a mission to defeat encryption.

 

In some other news related to the encryption fight, Donald Trump said that people should boycott Apple, which tells you everything you need to know about what Trump thinks of civil liberties (if you didn’t already know he doesn’t give a damn about them).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This post would make more sense if I had mentioned or even alluded to guns in this thread.

 

But much like this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and many others, I have not brought up the gun issue in this thread.

Imagine I said you had changed the subject to guns here instead of a fuck knuckle like you having changed the subject in this thread.

 

Your obsessions are well-known and the resulting behaviour quite tedious (even for those that agree with you). It's good you've managed to refrain from doing it in this thread so far. Based on past history, I'm not taking that as an indication you've managed to cure yourself of that behaviour going forward.

 

 

If you really think I'm like jocal, find a dozen threads he has started that have nothing to do with guns. Or at least find a dozen posts of his that have nothing to do with guns.

 

You can't because I'm not obsessed with guns like he is.

 

Have you visited all those threads that you said "would be nice" if they existed, which you said would "never happen" yet?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This post would make more sense if I had mentioned or even alluded to guns in this thread.

Imagine I said you had changed the subject to guns here instead of a fuck knuckle like you having changed the subject in this thread.

 

Your obsessions are well-known and the resulting behaviour quite tedious (even for those that agree with you). It's good you've managed to refrain from doing it in this thread so far. Based on past history, I'm not taking that as an indication you've managed to cure yourself of that behaviour going forward.

 

 

The issues are not unrelated. In each case, the government is attempting to strip Americans of a fundamental right.

 

With each of these political and economic issues discussed here, whether having to do with privacy, the 2A, Obamacare, minimum wage or cake-baking, the question you should always be asking is where it takes us. Is it toward greater individual freedom or to a loss thereof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fibbie Director Comey says this case is not intended to set a precedent

 

That's a good sign that setting this precedent is exactly the intent

 

 

The problem with treating Comey’s claim credibly is that we all know full well that the White House, the executive branch, federal law enforcement, and intelligence are all united in a concerted effort to do pretty much the opposite of what Comey says: to find ways to break through encryption. Bloomberg got its hands on a memo from a strategy meeting from last Thanksgiving that showed that what Comey is doing here is exactly the White House’s plan:

 

The approach was formalized in a confidential National Security Council "decision memo," tasking government agencies with developing encryption workarounds, estimating additional budgets and identifying laws that may need to be changed to counter what FBI Director James Comey calls the "going dark" problem: investigators being unable to access the contents of encrypted data stored on mobile devices or traveling across the Internet. Details of the memo reveal that, in private, the government was honing a sharper edge to its relationship with Silicon Valley alongside more public signs of rapprochement.

 

...

 

Cook is sticking to his guns, sending an email out to Apple employees telling them "Apple is a uniquely American company. It does not feel right to be on the opposite side of the government in a case centering on the freedoms and liberties that government is meant to protect." He wants the government to form a tech commission to discuss the privacy implications of what the FBI wants. And he reminds everybody of the obvious that Comey is hoping we’ll ignore: That if the government is successful in forcing Apple to help them here, they can come back to the courts again and again and again to order them again and again and again. Comey’s counterargument can be best paraphrased as "No, we won’t," even though everybody knows full well they have a mission to defeat encryption.

 

In some other news related to the encryption fight, Donald Trump said that people should boycott Apple, which tells you everything you need to know about what Trump thinks of civil liberties (if you didn’t already know he doesn’t give a damn about them).

 

 

 

 

I think someone needs to explain to Mr. Trump that as soon as Apple creates a backdoor into its iPhone, it is the Chinese who will be the first ones walking through it. That is the practical side.

 

On the legal side, it is just like eminent domain. The government wants to force Apple to work for it, and in so doing, essentially strip Apple of certain of its property rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites