Formal those apple supporters answer this.
Would you continue to allow all terrorists, organized criminals, hitmen, and drug dealers to do business with absolute certainty, that because they are using apple products that they cannot be detected regardless what attempts are legally made by law enforcement through the courts. We are not saying that at whim law enforcement would have to write an order detailing their reasons for invading such privacy, but they would have to take this order to a judge and convince this person who in most cases are elected by the general public and convince this judge of their reasons and if this person agree's then and only then they would get permission.
Stop the fear mongering, your comments are utter exaggeration and no one has even implied any such thing, the government is by the people and for the people. If you don't like the government then you have every right to attempt to change it, but suggesting the above is absolutely ridiculous.
Would you allow the USA government to put a tracking device on the wrist of every single person on USA soil? That would decrease crime and terrorism in the US. But at what cost?
Whats the point of fighting terrorism if you lose all your freedom, privacy, and liberty?
And the FBI did not need to have access to an iPhone to stop these terrorist. The damn terrorist posted on Facebook in 2012 and 2014 she supports the terrorist. Yet the government still allowed her on US soil in 2014.
The failure and blame is not on Apple but the US government for allowing her here in the first place. They are simply trying to pass the blame on Apple.
Do you damn job and you won't need to hack into people's iPhones.
For all those who support the FBI answer this question:
Would you allow the USA government to put a tracking device on the wrist of every single person on USA soil?
The device would have to be worn 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The device would be locked on your wrist and almost impossible to take off by a regular citizen. If you take it off you can be sent to jail. It would track everywhere you go, everyone you speak to, and even record conversations. But such a device would decrease crime and probably would have stopped this recent terrorist attack in California. We should do everything to stop terrorism right? Even if it means giving up some liberty and privacy?
Isn't that right FBI supporters?
Nope. You ignore the fact that a court order would be required to do this. Also, putting a tracking capability in a phone is not part of this FBI request, nor is any requirement to where any such tracking device. Sounds like you're engaging in fear mongering.
Other than a laptop (which could change as well by future laws), what other device is prohibited from divulging it's contents upon a court order?
Apple may win this battle but lost the war. Apple's stance may cause Congress to pass a law requiring Apple to disable the requested 10-attempt wipe and go much further.
Not really. Apple can change the process of iCloud back up which allows devices to continuously send backups to iCloud even with old password up to a week later. It will not change iOS at all. "Here, FBI... You can get a copy of the iCloud backup with court warrant but you ain't crack iOS with Brute Force or whatever method...said Apple..." That's what Apple will do. What next for FBI? They will wait longer than a week to go back to Apple for the same demands and this matter repeats...FBI won't quit until they can track everyone!
Maybe Cook should ask for a token development fee of One Trillion US to create the back door - destroying it each time. That would force Congress into appropriation. Then we would see who really supports this wild ass screw of the constituents.
They should charge the government for the development of this and they should destroy it each time. However I doubt that it would cost a trillion dollars to develop. If it does... we really need a Tim Cook as Dr. Evil meme.
Hey, if the government can pay $430.00 for a claw hammer and $640.00 for a friggin toilet seat, seems like a trillion to "save the world" from a perceived threat is a deal. Of course you destroy it each time - it is a trillion per use.
Tim Cook basically said in the ABC interview that Apple would follow the law if they lose.
But what if they didn't or were found in contempt.
This is where the whole "corporations are people" fiction breaks down. An individual is deterred from being in contempt of court with the threat of jail time. And if a person is convicted, they lose their freedoms, and ability to earn income, or otherwise participate with society. Companies are fined. And yes theoretically they could be fined out of existence, effectively jailing them, but that has never happened. It's ridiculous that companies principle executives do not have to individually answer for their actions, when it's their actions that guide to course of the company.
To make some fun on the issue, so if Tim Cook theoretically can be arrested and put in jail, so the board of directors too, al least if they support him or put a new CEO that do the same and ends in jail too. So the Obama administration would put in jail Al Gore, maybe arrest him in the democrat party convention this summer, for a dramatic effect, the one that probably would back Hillary Clinton, whose husband endorsed Gore candidacy in 2000. Wow, Shonda Rhymes must be prying for it. The next season will write itself. and not look fictitious by any means.
In this whole battle of opening smartphone by FBI, where is Android ? Why FBI is not asking the same to Google. Could it be that why bother Android as it is so open that FBI or any hacker can hack any android phone ?
In this whole battle of opening smartphone by FBI, where is Android ? Why FBI is not asking the same to Google. Could it be that why bother Android as it is so open that FBI or any hacker can hack any android phone ?
The FBI is using the San Bernadino case and "terrorism" as a pretext to force Apple to undermine its security features. The FBI is counting that once they succeed with the Apple case, this will set the precedence to go after Google and everybody else. I suppose that if the phone was an Android phone, that it would have been easier to hack, but I do not know. Maybe if Farook's phone was an Android phone, then they would be going after Google or Samsung or both.
So if it's Apple "at risk" and not an individual at Apple, then that suggests the issue is between the government and a corporation, not the government and a person or group of persons. What "rights" does a corporation have with regard to privacy and freedom of speech? Does the Declaration of Independence apply to companies?
I lean in Apple's favor in this case, but I also find the trend of "companies are people, too" to be a part of the problem in the direction the country is heading. Where a company's "rights" trump and individual's rights.
The government shouldn't be able to force unreasonable cooperation in executing a court order. But I also believe that reasonable assistance should be expected. The request of Apple seems unreasonable to me, but Apple will need to demonstrate that in their appeal. So, can a company's constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of speech be violated if company's aren't covered by the Declaration of Independence?
For all those who support the FBI answer this question:
Would you allow the USA government to put a tracking device on the wrist of every single person on USA soil?
The device would have to be worn 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The device would be locked on your wrist and almost impossible to take off by a regular citizen. If you take it off you can be sent to jail. It would track everywhere you go, everyone you speak to, and even record conversations. But such a device would decrease crime and probably would have stopped this recent terrorist attack in California. We should do everything to stop terrorism right? Even if it means giving up some liberty and privacy?
Isn't that right FBI supporters?
Very well said. thats exactly what's at stake here.
Tim Cook basically said in the ABC interview that Apple would follow the law if they lose.
But what if they didn't or were found in contempt.
This is where the whole "corporations are people" fiction breaks down. An individual is deterred from being in contempt of court with the threat of jail time. And if a person is convicted, they lose their freedoms, and ability to earn income, or otherwise participate with society. Companies are fined. And yes theoretically they could be fined out of existence, effectively jailing them, but that has never happened. It's ridiculous that companies principle executives do not have to individually answer for their actions, when it's their actions that guide to course of the company.
You cannot be found in contempt for appealing a court ruling. Period.
Here's what I don't get about this. According to ABC News (Dec 3, 2015), the terrorist smashed all their digital footprints prior to the event as stated below:
"Sources say mobile phones, hard drives, virtually anything with digital memory that was associated with the alleged shooters -- Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik -- was smashed. FBI computer forensics analysts in Orange Co. California and at the FBI lab in Quantico, Virginia will try to reconstruct and extract any digital information they can, however, sources said it will be painstaking work."
So why was Syad's "work" phone left intact? 1) As a present to the FBI with all his terrorist buddies and future ISIS attacks nicely packaged in one container? 2) To Tease the FBI knowing how difficult it would be to gain access to the phone only to find out nothing was on it except work related content? 3) Because he accidentally forgot this one phone? 4) Because the FBI knows that there is nothing of value on this given their actions with the other devices and are using it as an excuse to strip yet another right away from the American public?
For all those who support the FBI answer this question:
Would you allow the USA government to put a tracking device on the wrist of every single person on USA soil?
The device would have to be worn 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The device would be locked on your wrist and almost impossible to take off by a regular citizen. If you take it off you can be sent to jail. It would track everywhere you go, everyone you speak to, and even record conversations. But such a device would decrease crime and probably would have stopped this recent terrorist attack in California. We should do everything to stop terrorism right? Even if it means giving up some liberty and privacy?
Isn't that right FBI supporters?
Nope. You ignore the fact that a court order would be required to do this. Also, putting a tracking capability in a phone is not part of this FBI request, nor is any requirement to where any such tracking device. Sounds like you're engaging in fear mongering.
Other than a laptop (which could change as well by future laws), what other device is prohibited from divulging it's contents upon a court order?
Apple may win this battle but lost the war. Apple's stance may cause Congress to pass a law requiring Apple to disable the requested 10-attempt wipe and go much further.
Right now, if someone has someone else's locked iPhone, and there's no way to get the code out of the owner (because owner is dead, you don't want the owner to know you want in, or the owner is refusing to cooperate), there's no way into it. Maybe, technically and legally, Apple can be told to put a team together and a month or so later have a tool that can be used to get into it, but it's a high bar for a government to do so (hopefully high enough that it's not legal) and just not a question for anyone else.
If Apple loses, then Apple will be known to have a tool that can unlock phones with numeric touchpads quickly. Anyone wanting a court order, go for it, the precedent has been set that Apple will unlock that phone with the tool - it'll be fast and no fuss. If you're someone who can't use a court order, well, all you need to do is find one person with access to the tool and apply pressure until yo get a copy of the tool.
Even more important, the precedent is set, a court order (not a law, just a court order using a very old very vague law that is being interpreted as "we boss you work for us when we say so") can require Apple or anyone else write code to change the way a device works no matter how opposed the company is to having devices work that way. So yes, the precedent is set that the FBI could say "we need a version of the OS for suspected gang members that always broadcasts location and sends all audio it hears" and Apple would have no standing to say "We don't want our phones to be turned into bugs".
What other device is prohibited from divulging its contents upon a court order? A safe. A paper shredder. Yes, there are ways to break into a safe and with ridiculous amounts of work put shredded documents back together - but the manufacturer isn't required to make it easy to get at the data. So basically, you're saying "The American Public has the right to protect their private information poorly. They won't be allowed to protect it well."
So if it's Apple "at risk" and not an individual at Apple, then that suggests the issue is between the government and a corporation, not the government and a person or group of persons. What "rights" does a corporation have with regard to privacy and freedom of speech? Does the Declaration of Independence apply to companies?
I lean in Apple's favor in this case, but I also find the trend of "companies are people, too" to be a part of the problem in the direction the country is heading. Where a company's "rights" trump and individual's rights.
The government shouldn't be able to force unreasonable cooperation in executing a court order. But I also believe that reasonable assistance should be expected. The request of Apple seems unreasonable to me, but Apple will need to demonstrate that in their appeal. So, can a company's constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of speech be violated if company's aren't covered by the Declaration of Independence?
I think the whole "companies are people" thing is not in fact the case. It's a sarcastic exaggeration that some journalist made in response to reading a document - probably from the IRS - which states something like "for the purpose of this specific thing" - or even "for these specific things" - corporations shall be treated as if they were people.
Certainly there are a lot of similarities in rights and responsibilities - but I doubt very much if the government has officially declared that corporations are in fact people. If that were literally the case - shareholders would be in a position in which they "own" people which would be tantamount to slavery - and there are probably at least a hundred other equally ridiculous things that would be true if corporations were "actually" people.
But if I'm wrong and corporations really are people, I'm going to create a couple hundred corporations in which I'm the only shareholder, and for the next 18 years, I'll deduct them as dependants on my tax returns - after that, I guess I'll be the one who decides how they vote. /s
So if it's Apple "at risk" and not an individual at Apple, then that suggests the issue is between the government and a corporation, not the government and a person or group of persons. What "rights" does a corporation have with regard to privacy and freedom of speech? Does the Declaration of Independence apply to companies?
I lean in Apple's favor in this case, but I also find the trend of "companies are people, too" to be a part of the problem in the direction the country is heading. Where a company's "rights" trump and individual's rights.
The government shouldn't be able to force unreasonable cooperation in executing a court order. But I also believe that reasonable assistance should be expected. The request of Apple seems unreasonable to me, but Apple will need to demonstrate that in their appeal. So, can a company's constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of speech be violated if company's aren't covered by the Declaration of Independence?
I think the whole "companies are people" thing is not in fact the case. It's a sarcastic exaggeration that some journalist made in response to reading a document - probably from the IRS - which states something like "for the purpose of this specific thing" - or even "for these specific things" - corporations shall be treated as if they were people.
Certainly there are a lot of similarities in rights and responsibilities - but I doubt very much if the government has officially declared that corporations are in fact people. If that were literally the case - shareholders would be in a position in which they "own" people which would be tantamount to slavery - and there are probably at least a hundred other equally ridiculous things that would be true if corporations were "actually" people.
But if I'm wrong and corporations really are people, I'm going to create a couple hundred corporations in which I'm the only shareholder, and for the next 18 years, I'll deduct them as dependants on my tax returns - after that, I guess I'll be the one who decides how they vote. /s
For all those who support the FBI answer this question:
Would you allow the USA government to put a tracking device on the wrist of every single person on USA soil?
The device would have to be worn 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The device would be locked on your wrist and almost impossible to take off by a regular citizen. If you take it off you can be sent to jail. It would track everywhere you go, everyone you speak to, and even record conversations. But such a device would decrease crime and probably would have stopped this recent terrorist attack in California. We should do everything to stop terrorism right? Even if it means giving up some liberty and privacy?
Isn't that right FBI supporters?
We already carry it in our pockets...it is called a phone.
That was the point. He gave a theoretical situation to cause people to think outside of this issue.
In principle everyone with a working brain would obviously say no to such a draconian monitoring scheme which is equivalent to being on house arrest.
Yet this his is exactly what we are facing with the government demanding from Apple.
Comments
What do you think ankle bracelets are for?
"Here, FBI... You can get a copy of the iCloud backup with court warrant but you ain't crack iOS with Brute Force or whatever method...said Apple..."
That's what Apple will do. What next for FBI? They will wait longer than a week to go back to Apple for the same demands and this matter repeats...FBI won't quit until they can track everyone!
As practiced by Islam? Mohammad set that as standard practice sometime in the early 600's A.D.
Of course you destroy it each time - it is a trillion per use.
This is where the whole "corporations are people" fiction breaks down. An individual is deterred from being in contempt of court with the threat of jail time. And if a person is convicted, they lose their freedoms, and ability to earn income, or otherwise participate with society. Companies are fined. And yes theoretically they could be fined out of existence, effectively jailing them, but that has never happened. It's ridiculous that companies principle executives do not have to individually answer for their actions, when it's their actions that guide to course of the company.
I lean in Apple's favor in this case, but I also find the trend of "companies are people, too" to be a part of the problem in the direction the country is heading. Where a company's "rights" trump and individual's rights.
The government shouldn't be able to force unreasonable cooperation in executing a court order. But I also believe that reasonable assistance should be expected. The request of Apple seems unreasonable to me, but Apple will need to demonstrate that in their appeal. So, can a company's constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of speech be violated if company's aren't covered by the Declaration of Independence?
thats exactly what's at stake here.
Like every American being on HOUSE ARREST.
Dumbest thing I'e read on this.
"Sources say mobile phones, hard drives, virtually anything with digital memory that was associated with the alleged shooters -- Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik -- was smashed. FBI computer forensics analysts in Orange Co. California and at the FBI lab in Quantico, Virginia will try to reconstruct and extract any digital information they can, however, sources said it will be painstaking work."
So why was Syad's "work" phone left intact?
1) As a present to the FBI with all his terrorist buddies and future ISIS attacks nicely packaged in one container?
2) To Tease the FBI knowing how difficult it would be to gain access to the phone only to find out nothing was on it except work related content?
3) Because he accidentally forgot this one phone?
4) Because the FBI knows that there is nothing of value on this given their actions with the other devices and are using it as an excuse to strip yet another right away from the American public?
If Apple loses, then Apple will be known to have a tool that can unlock phones with numeric touchpads quickly. Anyone wanting a court order, go for it, the precedent has been set that Apple will unlock that phone with the tool - it'll be fast and no fuss. If you're someone who can't use a court order, well, all you need to do is find one person with access to the tool and apply pressure until yo get a copy of the tool.
Even more important, the precedent is set, a court order (not a law, just a court order using a very old very vague law that is being interpreted as "we boss you work for us when we say so") can require Apple or anyone else write code to change the way a device works no matter how opposed the company is to having devices work that way. So yes, the precedent is set that the FBI could say "we need a version of the OS for suspected gang members that always broadcasts location and sends all audio it hears" and Apple would have no standing to say "We don't want our phones to be turned into bugs".
What other device is prohibited from divulging its contents upon a court order? A safe. A paper shredder. Yes, there are ways to break into a safe and with ridiculous amounts of work put shredded documents back together - but the manufacturer isn't required to make it easy to get at the data. So basically, you're saying "The American Public has the right to protect their private information poorly. They won't be allowed to protect it well."
Certainly there are a lot of similarities in rights and responsibilities - but I doubt very much if the government has officially declared that corporations are in fact people. If that were literally the case - shareholders would be in a position in which they "own" people which would be tantamount to slavery - and there are probably at least a hundred other equally ridiculous things that would be true if corporations were "actually" people.
But if I'm wrong and corporations really are people, I'm going to create a couple hundred corporations in which I'm the only shareholder, and for the next 18 years, I'll deduct them as dependants on my tax returns - after that, I guess I'll be the one who decides how they vote. /s
In principle everyone with a working brain would obviously say no to such a draconian monitoring scheme which is equivalent to being on house arrest.
Yet this his is exactly what we are facing with the government demanding from Apple.