We're all very lucky, as free people. Apple is "Too big to control." Apple has the power and customer base to take a stand here, thus defining the legal and philosophical parameters of personal privacy as a universal civil right for all people. It could have been a different, less conscientious company, but it's not. The original personal computer dream of free/affordable information and communication for all is nigh and Apple's stand for personal privacy is nothing less than a stand for personal freedom. Any human future that includes access to knowledge, collective exploration of novel ideas and moving the species forward via technology, requires privacy. This is huge.
While I agree on the importance of the issue, I think you are giving both Apple and Microsoft more Credit than they deserve on the Human rights issue. As I recall, it was Microsoft, not Apple, that took the first stand .. and the reason has more to do with their international commercial interests than with privacy per se. Note that the two cases are not entirely the same. The MS case involves also the question of whether US law applies extraterritorially and takes precedence over contradictory foreign law in foreign countries. This is a much more complex issue than privacy protection in the US alone. (Which in my view does not exist at all). The difference in the legal concepts is really fundamental since in the EU privacy is one of several fundamental human rights, whereas in the US it is not.
For MS at least, the issue was clear that the company (correctly) fears that capitulation to the US Government demands to violate the legal protection that exists in the EU to prevent foreign governments from obtaining personal information without legal restraint, would seriously impair the company's ability to maintain their present business model in the EU.
In the end MS sees itself faced with the choice of violating US law or of violating EU law. On Privacy, the two legal environments are fundamentally incompatible. MS does not want to lose the EU market. The essence of their legal argument is that US law must be subservient to national law in foreign companies. But you are right on one aspect ... THIS issue is huge. I rather doubt that the AI crowd really appreciates what is at stake because the majority of subscribers here are from the US and not familiar with foreign culture and foreign legal systems. On a side note : Neither Apple nor Microsoft enjoy the reputation in the EU of being knights in shining Armour with respect to privacy and human rights that Apple is trying to sell to US customers as a defining quality. To give you a hint: Apple makes a great issue of their "Safe Harbor" compliance ... which is universally rejected in the EU as meaningless and ineffective, and incapable of delivering meaningful privacy protection. Many, if not all, EU privacy professionals reject safe harbor out of hand and focus on the Standard contractual clauses.
It will be interesting, and of wide ranging impact on the future of human rights under law, to see how this one pans out. I don't hold any hope that Apple will prevail, but even if they do, it will not be the end of the story. If you read the Apple privacy policy with a trained eye you will note that it is carefully worded bullshit designed to protect Apple against its customers and not to protect the privacy rights of the Apple users.
Actually, the problem is, the Law is inferior to International Agreements. Those agreements are negotiated between governments, outside of the rule of the People, often under a cloak of secrecy, and with "involved parties", which means Big Business.
It's a problem that all modern countries face, or more accurately decline to face, and most likely one of the bigger political issues to be addressed by courageous people in the current century.
In this particular case I believe the US court is taking the position that International agreements are inferior to local statutes. There is an international agreement between the US and Ireland whereby the US Justice department should have submitted a request to the Irish authorities for the requested information but decided they couldn't be bothered and thought they would be clever and circumvent that process with a local search warrant served on Microsoft.
In this particular case I believe the US court is taking the position that International agreements are inferior to local statutes. There is an international agreement between the US and Ireland whereby the US Justice department should have submitted a request to the Irish authorities for the requested information but decided they couldn't be bothered and thought they would be clever and circumvent that process with a local search warrant served on Microsoft.
Well, the US could lock down their borders and leave all international trade organisations, and go in autarky, but it does sound rather unlikely. I do hope the officials who tried to game the system get what they deserve though.
In any case, it's always the same game: agree to common rules and then try to abuse the rule for your own benefit, whether it's the UK or the USA, or Russia or China... as long as you have some kind of power position, you try to abuse it. I'm pretty sure there is a page out of "International Affairs 101" dedicated to that
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.
MAn, you're really reaching here, police state reaching, in your last sentence.
Shocking considering I could follow your previous line's argument; though didn't agree with it fully.
You might as well have added that those against this are for terrorists and child molesters...
(the usual law and order leitmotiv for increased surveillance and given up privacy)
A general dislike of authority is something sane to have when you're a minority of any kind BTW.
There's plenty of historical and current proof of this
You're protected against self-incrimination and if Apple doesn't own the key to access the data (they just pass it along), the government needs to force you to give up this key if they want your messages. Apple's stance is that those messages don'T belong to Apple, they are your personal property and it has no means to get in even if it wanted to.
IF "bad guys" know that those messages are not protected, you'll have them use privately encrypted channels, or simply even only use burner phones with coded messages. The government has truly no way to stop "bad guys" from communicating if they really want to do it. Only physical surveillance/bugging/filming and infiltration of the "bad guys" can stop them. That's more expensive; but that's how it has to be.
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.
The USA abandoned the constitution when American fascism was installed in the White House in 2000. Any adherence at this point is just coincidental, because it doesn't conflict too much with the imperial aims of global dominance. Their hand is forced. The economic system is bankrupt and we are just waiting for whatever is next to replace it. They anticipate this will be decided militarily, and that requires total surveillance of their liberty loving population. All of the reasons for supporting the USA in the cold war have been turned on their head. No communist totalitarian state had this kind of monitoring power over their population. It's only the libertarian traditions of the USA that force it, in its particular nationalism, to give lip service to constitutional civil rights, but every true right-winger knows deep down that democracy has to be rolled back. Communism (especially in the most developed country on Earth) would have been infinitely preferable to fascism and nuclear war. The intransigence and totalitarianism of the Soviet Union was justified as a temporary emergency in order to prevent this very situation. It wasn't a necessary component of every planned economy. Just like North Korea is militarized as a consequence of being bombed by the USA, and people here think it is some inherent feature of their culture or political system. Hello... they are a tiny country in the crosshairs of the most aggressive nation on the planet. Of course they are militarized and starving. Oh well. I guess better dead than red. Don't think too much. It'll make you a nerd. Ewwww.
Cars are stolen in spite of locks of door and steering wheel, and alarm systems. Does that mean we should abandon them altogether?
You're missing the point, which is that you cannot unring the technology bell. If Apple acquiesces we will always have a replacement encryption algorithm.
Edit: I am not advocating this acquiescence, but clarifying the earlier post and agreeing with its prediction.
Send law enforcement an Ed Snowden t-shirt and a bottle of sand to pound.
Attach a gift card with this message:
Get a warrant, or go away.
The problem is that there is a court called the FISA court. They are the ones who issue the warrants for the NSA and will do so at the drop of a hat. They were the ones who allowed the NSA to say that they have only requested 13 warrants (or whatever that actual number was) till it came out that each warrant covered millions and millions of people and the 13 warrants covered damn near everyone so getting a warrant is no problem for them and legally they can say that they are not violating anyones rights.
The problem is that there is a court called the FISA court. They are the ones who issue the warrants for the NSA and will do so at the drop of a hat. They were the ones who allowed the NSA to say that they have only requested 13 warrants (or whatever that actual number was) till it came out that each warrant covered millions and millions of people and the 13 warrants covered damn near everyone so getting a warrant is no problem for them and "legally" they can say that they are not violating anyones rights.
There are other methods of encryption. Apple didn't invent it. A quick search turned up about 50 encryption products. If our government were to successfully force a back door into Apple or MSoft's encryption, the criminals would simply turn to other methods. Then it all boils down to the government demanding the passphrase from the person being investigated. But the 5th ammendment doesn't force that turnover.
Forcing a backdoor into Apple and MS products would accomplish nothing but to make our communication less secure and more ripe for hacking.
Again, I think the main issue for companies like Apple and Microsoft is having a comprehensive and consistent approach to due process for digital communication access. They don't want to be treated like a shortcut around due process by government agencies, which is a perfectly legitimate stance to take.
"What is the legal basis for making a company weaken its encryption?"
The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994, during the presidency of Bill Clinton (Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, codified at 47 USC 1001-1010).
CALEA's purpose is to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in surveillance capabilities, allowing federal agencies to wiretap any telephone traffic; it has since been extended to cover broadband internet and VoIP traffic. Some government agencies argue that it covers monitoring communications rather than just tapping specific lines and that not all CALEA-based access requires a warrant.
-------------------------
I dont agree with this law, but it is the Law and could be construed to apply to iMessages
"What is the legal basis for making a company weaken its encryption?"
The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994, during the presidency of Bill Clinton (Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, codified at 47 USC 1001-1010).
CALEA's purpose is to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in surveillance capabilities, allowing federal agencies to wiretap any telephone traffic; it has since been extended to cover broadband internet and VoIP traffic. Some government agencies argue that it covers monitoring communications rather than just tapping specific lines and that not all CALEA-based access requires a warrant.
I dont agree with this law, but it is the Law and could be construed to apply to iMessages
Thanks a lot, Clinton. ????
Incidentally, just downloaded the AdBlock Plus browser for iOS and it rocks (it could use some improvement with bookmark management, but in exchange for the ad blocking feature, I can abide): https://appsto.re/us/spAI8.i
"What is the legal basis for making a company weaken its encryption?"
The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994, during the presidency of Bill Clinton (Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, codified at 47 USC 1001-1010).
CALEA's purpose is to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in surveillance capabilities, allowing federal agencies to wiretap any telephone traffic; it has since been extended to cover broadband internet and VoIP traffic. Some government agencies argue that it covers monitoring communications rather than just tapping specific lines and that not all CALEA-based access requires a warrant.
I dont agree with this law, but it is the Law and could be construed to apply to iMessages
That applies to telecom carriers and Apple is not one. Even if that applies to Apple by classifying them as telecom carrier, that same CALEA says (47 USC §1002(b)(3)):
"A telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government’s ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication."
Oh the Federal Government overstepped it's powers YEARS ago!!! It's been taking away state rights for many, many years and the states let it happen. Generally because they are bribed. States can't print their own money, the Federal Government can and then hands it out for allowing them to take over in whatever way they want.
I'm a Atheist also and I'm on her side. The Federal Government has no businesses in this. This is a state right. It's really almost getting to the point of why do we even have Local and State Governments anymore if the Federal Government is just going to take over everything?
It used to be Bad law's a Local or State Government did, you could at least MOVE, FLEE from it. When it's the Federal Government doing it, there's no where to flee to. Bad laws, other states wouldn't do it. Good laws, other states would adopt. Bad Federal laws? They are there forever for everyone.
Government, Local, State or Federal, especially federal, shouldn't even be involved in Marriage one tiny bit. Then it doesn't matter who marries who. All the Legal stuff, can be done with a lawyer. Hell it already can be for a gay couple. That in the end is what really needs to be fixed. Do away with Government in Marriage in the first place. Return that back to the Church and whoever else wants to do it other then Government. Even if it's just the 2 of you saying we want to be married and that's it. It's all part of Government control and taxes.
Actually, a simple correction. Kim Davis used RELIGIOUS arguments for not following the law. Please don't confuse that with morality.
She is following the law!! Kentucky law!!! The Federal Government had ZERO businesses to override a State law in this matter. It's yet another Federal Government power grab.
You realize this argument goes beyond U.S. Interests. Apple is an international organization. If back doors are created, they can either be abused by U.S. Government to spy on foreign citizens, innocent or otherwise. Or if you're a more self centred American, allow foreign interests to spy on Americans or even its government.
Anyone who thinks creating a back door for one party won't be exploited by other parties is naive.
Even worse, my understanding of what the U.S. Government really wants is the ability to access that data WITHOUT going through Apple. They want a back door so that Apples lawyers can't even review and either challenge or whistleblow. A back door could allow bulk scraping of data.
Be careful Americans. This is a slippery slope.
If there's a back Door created for the U.S. to gain access, guess what, most other countries would request the same access!!!
The classic argument is if you have nothing to hide then why are you worried? A private citizen should be afforded the ability to keep secrets.
If you are breaking the law and using the tools available to do so, then it's up to the Government and law enforcement to catch you. Should they have back doors built-in to do so? Maybe they should outlaw the guns and cars that are being used to break more laws than encryption does.
As far as terrorism goes I don't think the Government is going to save enough lives on the margin versus the impact it has on every single member of society. If we let the Government spy on us all then the terrorists have won.
As far as drugs go I say legalize drugs and let Darwinism do it's work.
I'm all for Legalizing drugs. Let anyone have whatever they want!!! It's their own body. People who want drugs are going to get them no matter what. If you legalize it, you can tax it. Prices will drop. The Criminal organizations will disappear because there's really no money to be made in it anymore. Crime would greatly drop. Jails would empty out. Oh wait, Unions wouldn't like that. I could drink up a storm at any time if I wanted, and yet, I drink very little. Far more people are hurt, killed by Alcohol then drugs by a mile. Some people have no self control and legal or otherwise won't change anything.
Comments
We're all very lucky, as free people. Apple is "Too big to control." Apple has the power and customer base to take a stand here, thus defining the legal and philosophical parameters of personal privacy as a universal civil right for all people. It could have been a different, less conscientious company, but it's not. The original personal computer dream of free/affordable information and communication for all is nigh and Apple's stand for personal privacy is nothing less than a stand for personal freedom. Any human future that includes access to knowledge, collective exploration of novel ideas and moving the species forward via technology, requires privacy. This is huge.
While I agree on the importance of the issue, I think you are giving both Apple and Microsoft more Credit than they deserve on the Human rights issue. As I recall, it was Microsoft, not Apple, that took the first stand .. and the reason has more to do with their international commercial interests than with privacy per se. Note that the two cases are not entirely the same. The MS case involves also the question of whether US law applies extraterritorially and takes precedence over contradictory foreign law in foreign countries. This is a much more complex issue than privacy protection in the US alone. (Which in my view does not exist at all). The difference in the legal concepts is really fundamental since in the EU privacy is one of several fundamental human rights, whereas in the US it is not.
For MS at least, the issue was clear that the company (correctly) fears that capitulation to the US Government demands to violate the legal protection that exists in the EU to prevent foreign governments from obtaining personal information without legal restraint, would seriously impair the company's ability to maintain their present business model in the EU.
In the end MS sees itself faced with the choice of violating US law or of violating EU law. On Privacy, the two legal environments are fundamentally incompatible. MS does not want to lose the EU market. The essence of their legal argument is that US law must be subservient to national law in foreign companies. But you are right on one aspect ... THIS issue is huge. I rather doubt that the AI crowd really appreciates what is at stake because the majority of subscribers here are from the US and not familiar with foreign culture and foreign legal systems. On a side note : Neither Apple nor Microsoft enjoy the reputation in the EU of being knights in shining Armour with respect to privacy and human rights that Apple is trying to sell to US customers as a defining quality. To give you a hint: Apple makes a great issue of their "Safe Harbor" compliance ... which is universally rejected in the EU as meaningless and ineffective, and incapable of delivering meaningful privacy protection. Many, if not all, EU privacy professionals reject safe harbor out of hand and focus on the Standard contractual clauses.
It will be interesting, and of wide ranging impact on the future of human rights under law, to see how this one pans out. I don't hold any hope that Apple will prevail, but even if they do, it will not be the end of the story. If you read the Apple privacy policy with a trained eye you will note that it is carefully worded bullshit designed to protect Apple against its customers and not to protect the privacy rights of the Apple users.
Actually, the problem is, the Law is inferior to International Agreements. Those agreements are negotiated between governments, outside of the rule of the People, often under a cloak of secrecy, and with "involved parties", which means Big Business.
It's a problem that all modern countries face, or more accurately decline to face, and most likely one of the bigger political issues to be addressed by courageous people in the current century.
In this particular case I believe the US court is taking the position that International agreements are inferior to local statutes. There is an international agreement between the US and Ireland whereby the US Justice department should have submitted a request to the Irish authorities for the requested information but decided they couldn't be bothered and thought they would be clever and circumvent that process with a local search warrant served on Microsoft.
In this particular case I believe the US court is taking the position that International agreements are inferior to local statutes. There is an international agreement between the US and Ireland whereby the US Justice department should have submitted a request to the Irish authorities for the requested information but decided they couldn't be bothered and thought they would be clever and circumvent that process with a local search warrant served on Microsoft.
Well, the US could lock down their borders and leave all international trade organisations, and go in autarky, but it does sound rather unlikely. I do hope the officials who tried to game the system get what they deserve though.
In any case, it's always the same game: agree to common rules and then try to abuse the rule for your own benefit, whether it's the UK or the USA, or Russia or China... as long as you have some kind of power position, you try to abuse it. I'm pretty sure there is a page out of "International Affairs 101" dedicated to that
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.
MAn, you're really reaching here, police state reaching, in your last sentence.
Shocking considering I could follow your previous line's argument; though didn't agree with it fully.
You might as well have added that those against this are for terrorists and child molesters...
(the usual law and order leitmotiv for increased surveillance and given up privacy)
A general dislike of authority is something sane to have when you're a minority of any kind BTW.
There's plenty of historical and current proof of this
You're protected against self-incrimination and if Apple doesn't own the key to access the data (they just pass it along), the government needs to force you to give up this key if they want your messages. Apple's stance is that those messages don'T belong to Apple, they are your personal property and it has no means to get in even if it wanted to.
IF "bad guys" know that those messages are not protected, you'll have them use privately encrypted channels, or simply even only use burner phones with coded messages. The government has truly no way to stop "bad guys" from communicating if they really want to do it. Only physical surveillance/bugging/filming and infiltration of the "bad guys" can stop them. That's more expensive; but that's how it has to be.
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.
The USA abandoned the constitution when American fascism was installed in the White House in 2000. Any adherence at this point is just coincidental, because it doesn't conflict too much with the imperial aims of global dominance. Their hand is forced. The economic system is bankrupt and we are just waiting for whatever is next to replace it. They anticipate this will be decided militarily, and that requires total surveillance of their liberty loving population. All of the reasons for supporting the USA in the cold war have been turned on their head. No communist totalitarian state had this kind of monitoring power over their population. It's only the libertarian traditions of the USA that force it, in its particular nationalism, to give lip service to constitutional civil rights, but every true right-winger knows deep down that democracy has to be rolled back. Communism (especially in the most developed country on Earth) would have been infinitely preferable to fascism and nuclear war. The intransigence and totalitarianism of the Soviet Union was justified as a temporary emergency in order to prevent this very situation. It wasn't a necessary component of every planned economy. Just like North Korea is militarized as a consequence of being bombed by the USA, and people here think it is some inherent feature of their culture or political system. Hello... they are a tiny country in the crosshairs of the most aggressive nation on the planet. Of course they are militarized and starving. Oh well. I guess better dead than red. Don't think too much. It'll make you a nerd. Ewwww.
K
You're missing the point, which is that you cannot unring the technology bell. If Apple acquiesces we will always have a replacement encryption algorithm.
Edit: I am not advocating this acquiescence, but clarifying the earlier post and agreeing with its prediction.
I'll drink to that.
Send law enforcement an Ed Snowden t-shirt and a bottle of sand to pound.
Attach a gift card with this message:
Get a warrant, or go away.
The problem is that there is a court called the FISA court. They are the ones who issue the warrants for the NSA and will do so at the drop of a hat. They were the ones who allowed the NSA to say that they have only requested 13 warrants (or whatever that actual number was) till it came out that each warrant covered millions and millions of people and the 13 warrants covered damn near everyone so getting a warrant is no problem for them and legally they can say that they are not violating anyones rights.
The problem is that there is a court called the FISA court. They are the ones who issue the warrants for the NSA and will do so at the drop of a hat. They were the ones who allowed the NSA to say that they have only requested 13 warrants (or whatever that actual number was) till it came out that each warrant covered millions and millions of people and the 13 warrants covered damn near everyone so getting a warrant is no problem for them and "legally" they can say that they are not violating anyones rights.
Land of the "free".
There are other methods of encryption. Apple didn't invent it. A quick search turned up about 50 encryption products. If our government were to successfully force a back door into Apple or MSoft's encryption, the criminals would simply turn to other methods. Then it all boils down to the government demanding the passphrase from the person being investigated. But the 5th ammendment doesn't force that turnover.
Forcing a backdoor into Apple and MS products would accomplish nothing but to make our communication less secure and more ripe for hacking.
The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994, during the presidency of Bill Clinton (Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, codified at 47 USC 1001-1010).
CALEA's purpose is to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in surveillance capabilities, allowing federal agencies to wiretap any telephone traffic; it has since been extended to cover broadband internet and VoIP traffic. Some government agencies argue that it covers monitoring communications rather than just tapping specific lines and that not all CALEA-based access requires a warrant.
-------------------------
I dont agree with this law, but it is the Law and could be construed to apply to iMessages
Thanks a lot, Clinton. ????
Incidentally, just downloaded the AdBlock Plus browser for iOS and it rocks (it could use some improvement with bookmark management, but in exchange for the ad blocking feature, I can abide): https://appsto.re/us/spAI8.i
That applies to telecom carriers and Apple is not one. Even if that applies to Apple by classifying them as telecom carrier, that same CALEA says (47 USC §1002(b)(3)):
"A telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government’s ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication."
"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/
Oh the Federal Government overstepped it's powers YEARS ago!!! It's been taking away state rights for many, many years and the states let it happen. Generally because they are bribed. States can't print their own money, the Federal Government can and then hands it out for allowing them to take over in whatever way they want.
I'm a Atheist also and I'm on her side. The Federal Government has no businesses in this. This is a state right. It's really almost getting to the point of why do we even have Local and State Governments anymore if the Federal Government is just going to take over everything?
It used to be Bad law's a Local or State Government did, you could at least MOVE, FLEE from it. When it's the Federal Government doing it, there's no where to flee to. Bad laws, other states wouldn't do it. Good laws, other states would adopt. Bad Federal laws? They are there forever for everyone.
Government, Local, State or Federal, especially federal, shouldn't even be involved in Marriage one tiny bit. Then it doesn't matter who marries who. All the Legal stuff, can be done with a lawyer. Hell it already can be for a gay couple. That in the end is what really needs to be fixed. Do away with Government in Marriage in the first place. Return that back to the Church and whoever else wants to do it other then Government. Even if it's just the 2 of you saying we want to be married and that's it. It's all part of Government control and taxes.
Actually, a simple correction. Kim Davis used RELIGIOUS arguments for not following the law. Please don't confuse that with morality.
She is following the law!! Kentucky law!!! The Federal Government had ZERO businesses to override a State law in this matter. It's yet another Federal Government power grab.
You realize this argument goes beyond U.S. Interests. Apple is an international organization. If back doors are created, they can either be abused by U.S. Government to spy on foreign citizens, innocent or otherwise. Or if you're a more self centred American, allow foreign interests to spy on Americans or even its government.
Anyone who thinks creating a back door for one party won't be exploited by other parties is naive.
Even worse, my understanding of what the U.S. Government really wants is the ability to access that data WITHOUT going through Apple. They want a back door so that Apples lawyers can't even review and either challenge or whistleblow. A back door could allow bulk scraping of data.
Be careful Americans. This is a slippery slope.
If there's a back Door created for the U.S. to gain access, guess what, most other countries would request the same access!!!
I am not so sure about that.
The classic argument is if you have nothing to hide then why are you worried? A private citizen should be afforded the ability to keep secrets.
If you are breaking the law and using the tools available to do so, then it's up to the Government and law enforcement to catch you. Should they have back doors built-in to do so? Maybe they should outlaw the guns and cars that are being used to break more laws than encryption does.
As far as terrorism goes I don't think the Government is going to save enough lives on the margin versus the impact it has on every single member of society. If we let the Government spy on us all then the terrorists have won.
As far as drugs go I say legalize drugs and let Darwinism do it's work.
I'm all for Legalizing drugs. Let anyone have whatever they want!!! It's their own body. People who want drugs are going to get them no matter what. If you legalize it, you can tax it. Prices will drop. The Criminal organizations will disappear because there's really no money to be made in it anymore. Crime would greatly drop. Jails would empty out. Oh wait, Unions wouldn't like that. I could drink up a storm at any time if I wanted, and yet, I drink very little. Far more people are hurt, killed by Alcohol then drugs by a mile. Some people have no self control and legal or otherwise won't change anything.
No, that’s literally the only thing I ever said. Please read posts before replying to them.
also, you should be advised that when a democratic country wants to spy on its citizens without their knowledge, it is not really a democracy.
We’re not a democracy, nor should we be.