Minor detail, but perhaps you could just clarify which bit of the Constitution is being violated here.
Right to privacy for starters. And Apple's right of free speech (can't force them to write code/weaken software).
Privacy may be overridden by a properly approved court order - just like any search warrant. Free speech does not enter into it, and Apple, as a corporation, is not protected by the Constitution anyway. Requiring a corporation, or even an individual, to disclose data, or a password, is entirely legal.
The real issue is surely the extent to which Apple can reasonably be required to create a tool that does not currently exist, especially if it jeopardizes the security of data storage for millions of people. The request seems to me to go well beyond a reasonable expectation of cooperation, and the latter is potentially a reason to refuse no matter how simple a task it may (or may not) be.
The court should throw Tim Cook into jail for contempt of court, and fine apple for refusing to comply with a court order.
Tim has been complying to all requests. The San Bernardino country fcuked up the phone by changing the Apple ID password. Use your brain next time to think...2 shooters' personal phones were destroyed and also their computer hard drives. What the fck do you think they left behind in the damn work phone which they well knew that would be tracked by their company? Besides, there's no such backdoor access at this point to the phone. FBI want Apple to CREATE a backdoor to this phone...that may not be even possible to do.
The Apple ID passcode was changed by the San Bernardino IT people following the fools at the FBI: now the only way in is through the iPhone passcode which is never transmitted to Apple, it stays on the phone. As users of iPhones know there's a ten try and auto-wipe selection. If that's set an FBI brute force password attack and ten failed tries and the phone wipes itself empty.
Apple le has already turned over all the data saved to the phone's iCloud account. This is a fishing trip to see if there's anything else on the phone. Low to zero odds since the terrorists crushed their two personal phones and didn't bother with this work one. Probably leaving it for work expecting the county IT people to have easy access.
Here's the thing, though: if it's not a DoD wipe, ie alternate 0's and 1's are scanned across the entire storage drive multiple times in succession, then it's meaningless. I've been able to recover once-thought lost items from a reformatted hard drive using nothing but open-source consumer tools to find the ghost files. I would imagine the FBI would be able to get the information they needed even after wiping it.
They don't seem to think so and neither does Apple or they'd just have let it wipe itself and go from there. But here's the thing, feel free to give the FBI, NSA and Apple the benefit of your expertise. .
The court should throw Tim Cook into jail for contempt of court, and fine apple for refusing to comply with a court order.
Haven't heard of the 14th and 5th Amendments eh? Due process means no "throw Tim Cook into jail". Writs are appealable.
"AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensatio"
That due process means Apple gets to respond to and appeal the magistrate's ruling. No snap of her fingers and Cook is jailed and Apple fined as you want.
Right to privacy for starters. And Apple's right of free speech (can't force them to write code/weaken software).
Privacy may be overridden by a properly approved court order - just like any search warrant. Free speech does not enter into it, and Apple, as a corporation, is not protected by the Constitution anyway. Requiring a corporation, or even an individual, to disclose data, or a password, is entirely legal.
The real issue is surely the extent to which Apple can reasonably be required to create a tool that does not currently exist, especially if it jeopardizes the security of data storage for millions of people. The request seems to me to go well beyond a reasonable expectation of cooperation, and the latter is potentially a reason to refuse no matter how simple a task it may (or may not) be.
The Supreme Court would disagree with your statement that corporations don't have rights... Citizens United, corporations are people, etc. you don't remember all that mumbo jumbo?
Frankly, the FBI and US Government are being quite stupid here. They are opening the pandora's box so to speak. If/when apple complies with this request, they would not be able to reject any such request from other countries like China. The US is going to lose a lot more here than gain. Think they are harming themselves.
Are the majority of commenters really believing what you are saying. The FBI is trying to prevent further episodes like this, and Tim Cook is only interested in protecting his bottom dollar
Then it would be much SAFER for Cook to go with the flow and not to raise the concerns, wouldn't it? I mean, how his free-speech-protection remark was going to give him or the company more money?
Could you use your brains for once before posting this nonsense?
Understood that victims families take FBI side but Apple helping to open this iphone would not have stopped such terrorists act.
There must be lot more hidden or future impact that we can not imagine that Apple see. As Tim Cook said, once you create a window in IOS where specially created code can open encrypted data than bad people will do just that like jailbreak. Will plant malware through such window and retrieve stored info to do unimaginable bad,bad things hurting(blackmail,kill,etc) people every day. When that happens than all these people on FBI side will flip on Apple side. Now will complain Apple's IOS has flaws. People now do you see bigger picture ?
Are the majority of commenters really believing what you are saying. The FBI is trying to prevent further episodes like this, and Tim Cook is only interested in protecting his bottom dollar, the entire worth of Apple is not worth the single life of any of those of who died. Come to reality people we do not protect these people, and the only ones concerned in their protection, are obviously doing something, they have to protect. I guess the people who side with Apple on this will not care until it someone they care, or love, that gets killed.
I;m guessing you're for the god damn death penaly too, and putting people in prison for life for 3 strikes, seems like reactionary weesels like you come out of the woodwork with your so called concerns when it's clear you have no idea of the consequences of what you advocate.
But hey, mob rules hey! Everything should be done in grief and anger that's after all the "christian" way (sic)
If anything , someome who exploits grief for their own political agency are the lowest kind of humans.
The overall county was already paying for and using management software that had the health department bothered would have allowed routine access to the work phone. An opportunity lost.
"They were targeted by terrorists, and they need to know why, how this could happen," said Stephen Larson, who served as a federal judge before going private.
Answer: under direction by the Executive branch of the U.S. government, the INS consciously chose to ignore public, pro-ISIS Facebook postings made by Tashfeen Malik before letting her immigrate to the U.S. It was possibly promoted by the government issuing an iPhone to its employee Syed Farook without first installing mobile management software. It was definitely promoted by lax gun laws enacted by Congress.
Maybe someone can answer this question for me. If every Apple software engineer refuses to write a backdoor code how can it get done. Furthermore what if the task were to take 5 years of 50% man power working on the problem? Can the government bankrupt Apple in pursuit of something impossible. I think someone already said it. The FBI is afraid of Apple and it's followers and power, but I believe Tim is trying to do what he thinks is right and constitutional.
When was the last time the FBI said we are sorry we made a mistake? This is a clear indication that they don't care one bit about these people they are just pawns for an end goal.
The FBI is trying to prevent further episodes like this
That's true. However it's important to note that what's on this particular phone isn't what they're really after. We already know that the chances of finding anything useful on it are almost nil. What the FBI is seeking is the ability to access ANY iPhone, and they're using an emotionally charged situation as leverage. Read the article quoted above from a forensics analyst for an explanation of how that will happen.
So the question isn't whether or not the FBI should have access to this phone, it's whether the potential benefits outweigh the cost of giving up another level of personal privacy. I believe the risk of bullying and errors by law enforcement is exponentially greater than the chance of me or anyone I know ever being affected by terrorism, so I'm prepared to accept the comparatively MUCH lower risk of being blown up rather than provide carte blanche access to my personal information and communications.
[...] the only ones concerned in their protection, are obviously doing something, they have to protect.
It's not just criminals who need to be concerned though.
In Canada, outspoken opponents of government policy have been labelled "enemies" of the country at least as recently as 2014. For all I know there may even be more recent cases, that's just one that caught my eye. Perhaps the U.S. government is more tolerant of activists, but I doubt it.
1933 Germany and 1942 Japanese Americans are both examples of people doing what they thought was right to "protect" themselves. If you fall on the wrong side of a policy argument, allowing law enforcement and bureaucracy access to your personal communications could turn out badly for you, not because you're doing anything wrong, but because the sentiment of the time puts you at odds with those who think they're doing what's right -- or worse, trying to protect their own interests in wealth and power -- and since they have power and you don't, you lose.
There's also the risk of a mistake by law enforcement getting you into hot water. Like your device ID being erroneously associated with a terrorist plot, or some inattentive clerk putting you on a no-fly list after seeing "Da Bomb" in your iTunes playlist. Silly examples, I know, but one must recognize that mistakes DO happen, and you shouldn't be compelled to increase your own chances of being caught up in one.
[...] I guess the people who side with Apple on this will not care until it someone they care, or love, that gets killed.
I understand what you're saying, and I can't imagine how awful it must be for the victims' families. It's horrifying. We just can't let that horror drive us to create a world we don't want. The suffering for those who've been affected is immense, but remember that they're, thankfully, a small group. The chances of you being one of them is vanishingly small.
Even if that wasn't the case, and the risk was on the order of World War proportions, who do you want to be: the person who interred Japs in the name of security, or the French resistance fighter who opposed collusion?
Don't let fear of the boogeyman turn your country into a police state.
Comments
The real issue is surely the extent to which Apple can reasonably be required to create a tool that does not currently exist, especially if it jeopardizes the security of data storage for millions of people. The request seems to me to go well beyond a reasonable expectation of cooperation, and the latter is potentially a reason to refuse no matter how simple a task it may (or may not) be.
Besides, there's no such backdoor access at this point to the phone. FBI want Apple to CREATE a backdoor to this phone...that may not be even possible to do.
"AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensatio"
That due process means Apple gets to respond to and appeal the magistrate's ruling. No snap of her fingers and Cook is jailed and Apple fined as you want.
I can can only imagine if it was my family.
Yet grief can be blinding. And shame on the FBI for exploiting that grief.
Apple already tried to help. But the incompetence at the county got in the way.
There are two issues here:
1) the mass murder case.
2) the availability of encryption to protect EVERYONES privacy.
You cannot run roughshod over one to do the other. Especially considering how far reaching the one is.
This whole case is a government backdoor into destroying our right to privacy.
It it used to be the government had to get a warrant to spy on you. Now they want carts Blanche access.
That's asking for trouble. This is AMERICA. Not China. Not Russia. Not Iran.
Come on already.
But hey, mob rules hey! Everything should be done in grief and anger that's after all the "christian" way (sic)
If anything , someome who exploits grief for their own political agency are the lowest kind of humans.
I think someone already said it. The FBI is afraid of Apple and it's followers and power, but I believe Tim is trying to do what he thinks is right and constitutional.
When was the last time the FBI said we are sorry we made a mistake? This is a clear indication that they don't care one bit about these people they are just pawns for an end goal.
That's true. However it's important to note that what's on this particular phone isn't what they're really after. We already know that the chances of finding anything useful on it are almost nil. What the FBI is seeking is the ability to access ANY iPhone, and they're using an emotionally charged situation as leverage. Read the article quoted above from a forensics analyst for an explanation of how that will happen.
So the question isn't whether or not the FBI should have access to this phone, it's whether the potential benefits outweigh the cost of giving up another level of personal privacy. I believe the risk of bullying and errors by law enforcement is exponentially greater than the chance of me or anyone I know ever being affected by terrorism, so I'm prepared to accept the comparatively MUCH lower risk of being blown up rather than provide carte blanche access to my personal information and communications.
It's not just criminals who need to be concerned though.
In Canada, outspoken opponents of government policy have been labelled "enemies" of the country at least as recently as 2014. For all I know there may even be more recent cases, that's just one that caught my eye. Perhaps the U.S. government is more tolerant of activists, but I doubt it.
1933 Germany and 1942 Japanese Americans are both examples of people doing what they thought was right to "protect" themselves. If you fall on the wrong side of a policy argument, allowing law enforcement and bureaucracy access to your personal communications could turn out badly for you, not because you're doing anything wrong, but because the sentiment of the time puts you at odds with those who think they're doing what's right -- or worse, trying to protect their own interests in wealth and power -- and since they have power and you don't, you lose.
There's also the risk of a mistake by law enforcement getting you into hot water. Like your device ID being erroneously associated with a terrorist plot, or some inattentive clerk putting you on a no-fly list after seeing "Da Bomb" in your iTunes playlist. Silly examples, I know, but one must recognize that mistakes DO happen, and you shouldn't be compelled to increase your own chances of being caught up in one.
I understand what you're saying, and I can't imagine how awful it must be for the victims' families. It's horrifying. We just can't let that horror drive us to create a world we don't want. The suffering for those who've been affected is immense, but remember that they're, thankfully, a small group. The chances of you being one of them is vanishingly small.
Even if that wasn't the case, and the risk was on the order of World War proportions, who do you want to be: the person who interred Japs in the name of security, or the French resistance fighter who opposed collusion?
Don't let fear of the boogeyman turn your country into a police state.