Law is the law and Apple isn't in Congress. Are you supporting the Kentucky clerk who's in jail right now?
There is no obvious comparison between Apple and Microsoft, private companies, which under U.S. law, can invoke the Business Judgment Rule for their decisions on product attributes, and Kim David, a taxpayer-funded employee.
Apple will obviously have to obey subpoenas and give the government whatever it has, but if there's something specific to an individual, and Apple cannot access that information, the government apparatus will have to go after the individuals directly (as it always has done).
Incorrect. Learn about CALEA which has been law for 20 years and applies to phone, VOIP like Skype, Internet and cell phone providers. Simply, all of those communication providers must have lawful intercept (wiretap) capabilities. Hardly unconstitutional when it applies after a warrant is obtained.
Incorrect. The law on wiretap applies only to telecommunications companies, not companies like Apple or Microsoft.
I'm a retired police officer, and the problem, as I see it, is the doctrine of 'plain sight' meaning that anything seen (in plain sight) while executing a warrant is validly collected. My question would be, assuming valid search warrants are ultimately granted and enforceable (with the cooperation of Apple and others), is how do you limit the scope of such search warrants to the targets? Once access to unencrypted iMessage is granted all communications are exposed.
As to whether Apple should surrender iMessages when directed under a valid search warrant, I can see both sides. The mission (what they are legally bound to do, and for which they are paid) is to enforce the law. Search warrants have been a very important tool in the fight against crime. Without them the number of arrests and convictions drop, maybe to the point of anarchy.
On the other hand, the average law abiding citizen wants to be secure in their person from unreasonable search and seizures. Since the Bill of Rights was first adopted the Courts have defined what is reasonable, especially since the 1960s.
From a personal point of view, I don't worry about government searches of my property and/or person for two reasons: first, I know I have committed no crimes and, second, the process of obtaining a valid search warrant is very precise. Even after being granted and executed some are found (due to defects in the warrant) to be unlawful, resulting in the evidence collected being inadmissible.
So, even if a valid warrant is granted to search my person and/or property, I have nothing to fear (beyond the intrusion into my privacy) as I have committed no crime.
Seems to me, after rereading my post, is that those objecting the loudest are of two categories, those that have committed crimes, and those that have a general dislike of authority.
Incorrect. The law on wiretap applies only to telecommunications companies, not companies like Apple or Microsoft.
That's not what I said. The issue is simply that law enforcement wants a CALEA type law to apply to Apple and Microsoft. People are making the flawed argument that such a law would be unconstitutional, when in fact it clearly isn't. People don't even know how the current law on wiretap applies, and act like there can be no such law that forces law enforcement backdoors, when such laws already exist.
What is the legal basis for making a company weaken its encryption? Do companies have to facilitate investigations? I'm not a lawyer. I haven't seen an article that suggests why Apple or Microsoft need to do this. I do know that it is a fact that the tools most forensic analysts use can't crack the current iPhone encryption. A buddy of mine in that field tells me Backberrys are very easy BTW.
US constitutional rights come at a cost. The cost in not just soldiers lost defending the country. The cost is hindered or thwarted time-sensitive criminal investigations. That isn't a problem with the Constitution, that is necessarily how it is. I know how it feels the data is so close, maybe in the investigator's hand but s/he can't get to it.
If they're made to weaken it (and presumably this will be public knowledge too), criminals, terrorists, will use something else. If you can just keep a lot of those folks using Android, I assume the investigators will have all they need.
Out of control government is capable of anything if the people allow them that power.
I think that if there is a damn good reason to spy on someone's messages, they are a suspect in breaking a law in a big way and the information could save lives (terrorism etc) then I think that a joint Apple and government team should be able to work together to view this info but not take it with them. However, I don't think that the government should be able to access anything they like, whenever they like. That'd just get abused.
Out of control government is capable of anything if the people allow them that power.
This is correct. The purpose of the Constitution is to establish limits on the government.
And with regard to my previous post, I know that companies have to cooperate if they receive a subpoena, etc. The question is whether they have make the product so it can be searched and seized. I know with regard to a laptop theft or loss, if it's properly encrypted then it is not considered a data breach. If someone gets that hard drive, they don't get your data. Seems to me that with end-to-end encryption, the company (Apple, whoever) doesn't have constructive possession of the data. If they want it, they need to go after the one of the ends where it gets converted from plain to cipher text.
Backup data can be recovered with your password. You can reset your password if you forget it. Put those two facts together.
Wrong. That's not the issue here. Apple couldn't get real time data even if you did have a warrant. It's going to end up like Bill Clinton's CALEA which mandates backdoors, a.k.a law enforcement access.
That's EXACTLY the issue here or do you not know what the 4th Amendment says? They want the iMessages. If they want them they need to get a specific warrant (not blanket demands) otherwise THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW. Period.
I think that if there is a damn good reason to spy on someone's messages, they are a suspect in breaking a law in a big way and the information could save lives (terrorism etc) then I think that a joint Apple and government team should be able to work together to view this info but not take it with them. However, I don't think that the government should be able to access anything they like, whenever they like. That'd just get abused.
And thanks to Ed Snowden, we now know that it has been abused and it continues to be abused.
This is correct. The purpose of the Constitution is to establish limits on the government.
And with regard to my previous post, I know that companies have to cooperate if they receive a subpoena, etc. The question is whether they have make the product so it can be searched and seized. I know with regard to a laptop theft or loss, if it's properly encrypted then it is not considered a data breach. If someone gets that hard drive, they don't get your data. Seems to me that with end-to-end encryption, the company (Apple, whoever) doesn't have constructive possession of the data. If they want it, they need to go after the one of the ends where it gets converted from plain to cipher text.
Also, these government agencies demanding access to our Apple devices should know that what they want will also weaken their already lousy record of protecting their own data!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
That's EXACTLY the issue here or do you not know what the 4th Amendment says? They want the iMessages. If they want them they need to get a specific warrant (not blanket demands) otherwise THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW. Period.
You are completely wrong. Read the first line of the linked NY Times article
Quote:
WASHINGTON — In an investigation involving guns and drugs, the Justice Department obtained a court order this summer demanding that Apple turn over, in real time, text messages between suspects using iPhones.
You are completely wrong. Read the first line of the linked NY Times article
That's a good observation. Now, does Apple have an obligation to create a system that would allow Apple access to a person's encrypted messages? As I understand it, the current system doesn't give Apple that capability. Just because a court demands something, does not mean it is possible to comply.
That's a good observation. Now, does Apple have an obligation to create a system that would allow Apple access to a person's encrypted messages? As I understand it, the current system doesn't give Apple that capability. Just because a court demands something, does not mean it is possible to comply.
Quite true. Although they could conceivably see nearly unlimited fines for failing to comply with a court order. Should that happen, I'd rather they took the high road and fought back with every dollar in their war chest.
You are completely wrong. Read the first line of the linked NY Times article
That's a good observation. Now, does Apple have an obligation to create a system that would allow Apple access to a person's encrypted messages? As I understand it, the current system doesn't give Apple that capability. Just because a court demands something, does not mean it is possible to comply.
I think you're exactly right. It goes to whether Apple and Microsoft have the capability to do this, given the inherent attribute of the product being sold. If so, it's tantamount to the government saying, effectively, that such a product cannot be sold.
I think that's where the Business Judgment Rule comes in. Of course, the Congress can pass (and the SC uphold) a law that says such a product is illegal in the U.S., but we have to see whether and how it gets there. In the meantime, Apple and Microsoft are entirely within their rights to produce and sell such a product.
So, even if a valid warrant is granted to search my person and/or property, I have nothing to fear (beyond the intrusion into my privacy) as I have committed no crime.
Seems to me, after rereading my post, is that those objecting the loudest are of two categories, those that have committed crimes, and those that have a general dislike of authority.
Ah, got it. "Valid warrant" = Criminal or Nihilist/Anarchist.
You might want to re-read that Constitution you -- implicitly or explicitly -- swore to defend and protect.
Comments
There is no obvious comparison between Apple and Microsoft, private companies, which under U.S. law, can invoke the Business Judgment Rule for their decisions on product attributes, and Kim David, a taxpayer-funded employee.
Apple will obviously have to obey subpoenas and give the government whatever it has, but if there's something specific to an individual, and Apple cannot access that information, the government apparatus will have to go after the individuals directly (as it always has done).
Incorrect. The law on wiretap applies only to telecommunications companies, not companies like Apple or Microsoft.
As to whether Apple should surrender iMessages when directed under a valid search warrant, I can see both sides. The mission (what they are legally bound to do, and for which they are paid) is to enforce the law. Search warrants have been a very important tool in the fight against crime. Without them the number of arrests and convictions drop, maybe to the point of anarchy.
On the other hand, the average law abiding citizen wants to be secure in their person from unreasonable search and seizures. Since the Bill of Rights was first adopted the Courts have defined what is reasonable, especially since the 1960s.
From a personal point of view, I don't worry about government searches of my property and/or person for two reasons: first, I know I have committed no crimes and, second, the process of obtaining a valid search warrant is very precise. Even after being granted and executed some are found (due to defects in the warrant) to be unlawful, resulting in the evidence collected being inadmissible.
So, even if a valid warrant is granted to search my person and/or property, I have nothing to fear (beyond the intrusion into my privacy) as I have committed no crime.
Seems to me, after rereading my post, is that those objecting the loudest are of two categories, those that have committed crimes, and those that have a general dislike of authority.
Incorrect. The law on wiretap applies only to telecommunications companies, not companies like Apple or Microsoft.
That's not what I said. The issue is simply that law enforcement wants a CALEA type law to apply to Apple and Microsoft. People are making the flawed argument that such a law would be unconstitutional, when in fact it clearly isn't. People don't even know how the current law on wiretap applies, and act like there can be no such law that forces law enforcement backdoors, when such laws already exist.
Law is the law and Apple isn't in Congress. Are you supporting the Kentucky clerk who's in jail right now?
The law is the law in North Korea- does that make it right? The law was the law in Germany under Hitler- did that make it right?
Attach a gift card with this message:
Get a warrant, or go away.
What is the legal basis for making a company weaken its encryption? Do companies have to facilitate investigations? I'm not a lawyer. I haven't seen an article that suggests why Apple or Microsoft need to do this. I do know that it is a fact that the tools most forensic analysts use can't crack the current iPhone encryption. A buddy of mine in that field tells me Backberrys are very easy BTW.
US constitutional rights come at a cost. The cost in not just soldiers lost defending the country. The cost is hindered or thwarted time-sensitive criminal investigations. That isn't a problem with the Constitution, that is necessarily how it is. I know how it feels the data is so close, maybe in the investigator's hand but s/he can't get to it.
If they're made to weaken it (and presumably this will be public knowledge too), criminals, terrorists, will use something else. If you can just keep a lot of those folks using Android, I assume the investigators will have all they need.
Out of control government is capable of anything if the people allow them that power.
Law is the law and Apple isn't in Congress. Are you supporting the Kentucky clerk who's in jail right now?
"Never believe a leftist who tells you they believe in democracy. The Kentucky constitution, that’s what democracy looks like."?
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/09/christopher-cantwell/an-atheist-for-kim-davis/
Out of control government is capable of anything if the people allow them that power.
This is correct. The purpose of the Constitution is to establish limits on the government.
And with regard to my previous post, I know that companies have to cooperate if they receive a subpoena, etc. The question is whether they have make the product so it can be searched and seized. I know with regard to a laptop theft or loss, if it's properly encrypted then it is not considered a data breach. If someone gets that hard drive, they don't get your data. Seems to me that with end-to-end encryption, the company (Apple, whoever) doesn't have constructive possession of the data. If they want it, they need to go after the one of the ends where it gets converted from plain to cipher text.
I think that if there is a damn good reason to spy on someone's messages, they are a suspect in breaking a law in a big way and the information could save lives (terrorism etc) then I think that a joint Apple and government team should be able to work together to view this info but not take it with them. However, I don't think that the government should be able to access anything they like, whenever they like. That'd just get abused.
And thanks to Ed Snowden, we now know that it has been abused and it continues to be abused.
This is correct. The purpose of the Constitution is to establish limits on the government.
And with regard to my previous post, I know that companies have to cooperate if they receive a subpoena, etc. The question is whether they have make the product so it can be searched and seized. I know with regard to a laptop theft or loss, if it's properly encrypted then it is not considered a data breach. If someone gets that hard drive, they don't get your data. Seems to me that with end-to-end encryption, the company (Apple, whoever) doesn't have constructive possession of the data. If they want it, they need to go after the one of the ends where it gets converted from plain to cipher text.
Also, these government agencies demanding access to our Apple devices should know that what they want will also weaken their already lousy record of protecting their own data!
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2935357/cybercrime-hacking/us-now-fears-second-major-breach-exposed-more-employee-data.html
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Just as a reminder...
That's EXACTLY the issue here or do you not know what the 4th Amendment says? They want the iMessages. If they want them they need to get a specific warrant (not blanket demands) otherwise THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW. Period.
You are completely wrong. Read the first line of the linked NY Times article
You are completely wrong. Read the first line of the linked NY Times article
That's a good observation. Now, does Apple have an obligation to create a system that would allow Apple access to a person's encrypted messages? As I understand it, the current system doesn't give Apple that capability. Just because a court demands something, does not mean it is possible to comply.
That's a good observation. Now, does Apple have an obligation to create a system that would allow Apple access to a person's encrypted messages? As I understand it, the current system doesn't give Apple that capability. Just because a court demands something, does not mean it is possible to comply.
Quite true. Although they could conceivably see nearly unlimited fines for failing to comply with a court order. Should that happen, I'd rather they took the high road and fought back with every dollar in their war chest.
I think you're exactly right. It goes to whether Apple and Microsoft have the capability to do this, given the inherent attribute of the product being sold. If so, it's tantamount to the government saying, effectively, that such a product cannot be sold.
I think that's where the Business Judgment Rule comes in. Of course, the Congress can pass (and the SC uphold) a law that says such a product is illegal in the U.S., but we have to see whether and how it gets there. In the meantime, Apple and Microsoft are entirely within their rights to produce and sell such a product.
Ah, got it. "Valid warrant" = Criminal or Nihilist/Anarchist.
You might want to re-read that Constitution you -- implicitly or explicitly -- swore to defend and protect.
Love my Country, despise my Government
Meh on my country, love the gov. It's better than all of the alternatives.