Maybe so but the patriot act allows the Government to arrest and ship someone off to Bulgari who provides aid to enemies of the United States.And I'm not just saying
Define 'enemies of the US'.
How an FBI head using his position to undermine the constitution?
And I think the 'ship-to' location is much closer to home. There's no way Bulgari(a) would accept US garbage!
"For its part, the government maintains that its motion to compel relates to one iPhone -- Farook's -- and does not in any way represent a "master key" to iOS." This strikes me as a rather naive comment to make bearing in mind that if they produce software which opens the phone,it is the OS that the software changes not the particular phone...so writing software to open one phone, does indeed produce a kind of master key that can be used on any other iPhone in any country, for any reason. In the wrong hands, that could open the floodgates of abuse, by anyone who can obtain the software either by pressure from a government or by more nefarious means. Also,who ever believes the phrase," Just this one time". ? Especially coming from a government with a proven track record of spying on its own citizens!
A Federal magistrate is the lowest ranking federal judicial officer. His ruling is not precedent and not binding outside of the specific case. Such opinions are usually not even published, except in the media.
BS. If you bother to read the 50-page opinion and somehow manage to comprehend its contents, you'll recognize that it's a highly detailed and thoroughly reasoned exposition of the many of the same fundamental issues appearing in the San Bernardino investigation. Obviously it's not precedent because it is not a trial judgement but merely a denial of an investigatory motion sought by the government.
As motion denials go, though, its conclusions represent a huge bitch slap at DOJ's and the FBI's contentions. In clear and harsh language, it vigorously rejects the government's several muddleheaded arguments contained in its motion. It suggests that the remedy in this and other cases lies with legislative action, which Congress has expressly denied in the past and which FBI Director Comey said as recently as last week that the government would not pursue (an irony which was not lost on the court).
Judge Orenstein sliced and diced the government's several arguments and left them in smaller pieces than Ron Popeil's Chop-O-Matic. Many of the judge's conclusions echo the points that Tim Cook has been making and that no doubt we'll hear again this week when Apple General Counsel Bruce Sewell testifies in a congressional hearing on Wednesday. An increasingly good look at the government's entire legal strategy is revealing it to be a weak, utter fiasco.
As to the rank of a federal magistrate - magistrates are essential figures in the federal district courts and they are highly capable jurists, especially in a top urban setting like New York. Don't try to diss what you know nothing about.
For its part, the government maintains that its motion to compel relates to one iPhone -- Farook's -- and does not in any way represent a "master key" to iOS.
Doesn't the existence of another - substantially similar - request, pre-dating the San Bernardino case, prove that is completely untrue? Do they actually expect that claim to stand up to scrutiny? The Government appears to be attempting to have it both ways in its argument. They are claiming that they only require this to be done "one time", to deflect the criticism that they are seeking a precedent and a standing backdoor. But they are also implicitly claiming that compelling Apple to do this work is not unreasonably burdensome. Under a face value reading of their claim about these cases being individual, that is patently ridiculous since it would mean compelling Apple to repeatedlyengage its staff in performing work (The same work, over and over) to undermine its own products against its will. Even if you accept doing it once isn't unreasonably burdensome (Which is itself pretty incredible), the implicit requirement to potentially repeat the work should similar instances arise later definitely is. And Apple has a perfectly reasonable justification to point to for destroying the work after it is used once: they do not want a vulnerability for their product to exist at all, even in their own hands. They have even publicly stated they sell devices with security even they can't break, so they are arguably legally compelled to destroy it as retaining it might render them vulnerable to false advertising or bad faith claims. The government hasn't got a leg to stand on, aspects of its own case invalidate other aspects of itself.
This is a lengthy and well-reasoned opinion. Although it is not binding in the San Bernardino case, I am sure that the legal reasoning will be the same.
It will be hard, although not impossible, for the FBI to prevail.
It's worth noting that this application was made ex parte, that is - a one-sided application. The Judge recognized the issues, denied the initial order and directed that it be presented for oral argument, with both sides present. We now have an analysis of both sides of the argument, something missing in the San Bernardino order.
The Government appears to be attempting to have it both ways in its argument.
Clearly you understand how the Government works. The Founding Fathers knew it requires constant vigilance by the citizens to keep this from becoming the default status.
Comments
How an FBI head using his position to undermine the constitution?
And I think the 'ship-to' location is much closer to home. There's no way Bulgari(a) would accept US garbage!
Also,who ever believes the phrase," Just this one time". ? Especially coming from a government with a proven track record of spying on its own citizens!
As motion denials go, though, its conclusions represent a huge bitch slap at DOJ's and the FBI's contentions. In clear and harsh language, it vigorously rejects the government's several muddleheaded arguments contained in its motion. It suggests that the remedy in this and other cases lies with legislative action, which Congress has expressly denied in the past and which FBI Director Comey said as recently as last week that the government would not pursue (an irony which was not lost on the court).
Judge Orenstein sliced and diced the government's several arguments and left them in smaller pieces than Ron Popeil's Chop-O-Matic. Many of the judge's conclusions echo the points that Tim Cook has been making and that no doubt we'll hear again this week when Apple General Counsel Bruce Sewell testifies in a congressional hearing on Wednesday. An increasingly good look at the government's entire legal strategy is revealing it to be a weak, utter fiasco.
As to the rank of a federal magistrate - magistrates are essential figures in the federal district courts and they are highly capable jurists, especially in a top urban setting like New York. Don't try to diss what you know nothing about.
It will be hard, although not impossible, for the FBI to prevail.
It's worth noting that this application was made ex parte, that is - a one-sided application. The Judge recognized the issues, denied the initial order and directed that it be presented for oral argument, with both sides present. We now have an analysis of both sides of the argument, something missing in the San Bernardino order.
The Founding Fathers knew it requires constant vigilance by the citizens to keep this from becoming the default status.