Government says Apple arguments in encryption case a 'diversion,' presents point-by-point rebuttal

24567

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 122
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Urei1620 said:

    The government’s response fills me with rage. I had to stop reading it. But here are some quotes that just made me fume.

    “By Apple’s own reckoning, the corporation—which grosses hundreds of  billions of dollars a year—would need to set aside as few as six of its 100,000 employees for perhaps as little as two weeks.”

    Go back and read Apple’s response to original court order. The work requested would require 10 employees and up to 4 weeks. And the 100,000 are not all engineers. The government thinks that we are a bunch of idiots like they are.

    “This burden, which is not unreasonable,”

    How do you fknn know? Do you have the source code????

    “ is the direct result of Apple’s deliberate marketing decision to engineer its products so that the government cannot search them, even with a warrant.”

    Blame it on Apple for competing and constantly innovating. For staying ahead of the game. Or do you want Russia or China to be in the lead on technological innovation? This again is stupid and a reflection of the low IQ level of our courts.

    “The Court’s Order is modest.”

    How in the fk do you know again? Just because you paraphrase it several times, does it make it true?

    “ It applies to a single iPhone, and it allows Apple to decide the least burdensome means of complying. Apple and its amici try to alarm this Court with issues of network security, encryption, back doors, and privacy, invoking larger debates before Congress and in the news media. That is a diversion. Apple desperately wants—desperately needs —this case not to be “about one isolated iPhone.”

    At the risk of Comey purgering himself, he did affirm that it was not about 1 phone. That this case would be used as precedence for future cases. Someone is lying and should go to jail for it.

    “Apple deliberately raised technological barriers”

    It is called INNOVATION. Dumb Govt!

    “Apple intentionally and for commercial advantage retains exclusive control over the software that can be used on iPhones, giving it monopoly-like control over the means of distributing software to the  phones.”

    Again, It is called competition and innovation. Dumb Govt!

    “Apple cannot now pretend to be a bystander, watching this investigation from afar.”

    Yes it can. This needs to be decided by a higher court like the SCOTUS.



    This is why you NEVER get into an argument over cost with government. Apple has billions, but our illustrious government owns the money supply. The case must be argued on the basis of constitutionality.
    jamesj91384chiadamn_its_hot
  • Reply 22 of 122
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,912member
    Snowcrash begins.

  • Reply 23 of 122
    This really is about the government going after an opportunity, as they did with ndaa, the Patriot act and many other countless examples. If apple wins this case, the fbi/doj can then go to Congress with a strong case for legislation for backdoors. This is often called evil genius or crazy like a fox. They have been advocating Congress take up the issue of encryption and backdoors for a long time, and just like the Patriot act being passed in secret and upon fear, this is the perfect opportunity.
    SpamSandwichmattinozfrankiechia
  • Reply 24 of 122
    They only need 6 people? Fine, take 6 Specialists from random Apple Stores and give em two weeks. See what happens 
    baconstangradarthekatmattinoztallest skilewtheckmandamn_its_hot
  • Reply 25 of 122
    The legal argument should never be "you should help us because you can afford to help us." If that was the criteria then courts should be able to compel the rich to feed the hungry or build houses for the homeless. I have a friend that I helped move 4 times over the last few years. This weekend I decided I didn't want to help for a 5th time. Am I somehow legally obligated to help because I own a truck and helped in the past?
     What a red herring. This was in direct response to Apple claiming "undue burden" which is a farce. Should Apple provide you with tech support because they offered it in a warranty? Yes, claiming undue burden would be a farce. Should they re-engineer the entire device's software and internal components to meet your personal wants under warranty? No, that would be a significant burden. Got it now?
  • Reply 26 of 122
    They only need 6 people? Fine, take 6 Specialists from random Apple Stores and give em two weeks. See what happens 
    if it were for me, I would brick the phone. Ooops, we screwed up, just like you did FBI.
    damn_its_hoticoco3
  • Reply 27 of 122
    "... the letter says, adding that the company is to blame for being in the position it currently finds itself." No you got it wrong- if anybody then that is FBI to blame to put Apple into this position. Do not apply incorrect and political logic. Apple has point and FBI has point, but that's FBI who put Apple into this position so do not make stupid statements like that.
    The FBI did not coerce Apple into resisting a lawful court order. Corporate oligarchs asserting that transnational companies are above American law put them there.
  • Reply 28 of 122
    "... the letter says, adding that the company is to blame for being in the position it currently finds itself." No you got it wrong- if anybody then that is FBI to blame to put Apple into this position. Do not apply incorrect and political logic. Apple has point and FBI has point, but that's FBI who put Apple into this position so do not make stupid statements like that.
    The FBI did not coerce Apple into resisting a lawful court order. Corporate oligarchs asserting that transnational companies are above American law put them there.
    The FBI coerces and bullies everyone. Everyone. This case is no exception. It would be better for America if the FBI did not exist.
  • Reply 29 of 122
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    I started reading the governments response and I still can't believe they are still pushing the single iPhone lie. Here is a quote from the document filed in court:

    "The Court’s Order is modest. It applies to a single iPhone, and it allows Apple to decide the least burdensome means of complying. As Apple well knows, the Order does not compel it to unlock other iPhones or to give the government a universal “master key”or “back door.”

    How stupid do they think we are? The government has already admitted it has a bunch of iPhone's they are waiting to unlock. Of course this order would compel Apple to unlock other iPhone's. If Apple loses, every law enforcement agency in the country is going to cite this case in legal filings to make Apple comply with their unlock request using GovOS. 

    baconstangstevehewtheckmanchia
  • Reply 30 of 122
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,922member
    "... the letter says, adding that the company is to blame for being in the position it currently finds itself." No you got it wrong- if anybody then that is FBI to blame to put Apple into this position. Do not apply incorrect and political logic. Apple has point and FBI has point, but that's FBI who put Apple into this position so do not make stupid statements like that.
    The FBI did not coerce Apple into resisting a lawful court order. Corporate oligarchs asserting that transnational companies are above American law put them there.
    What law did Apple break? Strong encryption isn't illegal. 
    ration alchiaicoco3
  • Reply 31 of 122
    Maybe the FBI needs to work closer with the DIA, CIA, NSA, DEA, and all the other alphabet agencies which are suppose to keep us safe. They STILL ARE NOT SHARING DATA. When has anyone ever seen the FBI, CIA or any of them admit it screwed up? They are all employed by humans, and humans FBI or not, are far from perfect. I know many alphabet people (you name it), and they are as screwy as anyone else. In many cases, weird. You give a guy a FED badge and a gun, they think they own the world, and you and I. It's true, but it's not true. They are servants to the people - ha ha - that's also a joke - they protect the STATE. That's the fact. That is their purpose. The Serve and Protect the State. And they have too. But that doesn't mean they deserve to decrypt the world.
    baconstang
  • Reply 32 of 122
    Despite despicable support for Apple from Libertarian corporate toadies, this whole case has set back legitimate concern for true free speech and reasonable balance regarding law enforcement. Software is not "free speech" ipso facto. IOS is not a statement of personal belief. Corporate programmers do not have the right to speak for themselves, at will employment makes a joke out of that. Corporate programmers do what they do under compulsion and threat of punishment. Anybody who ever worked for a week in Corporate America knows that, self-professed Libertarian kept "professionals" notwithstanding. The EFF bring shame on itself. For once I stand resolutely opposed to what should have been a decent organization. Nobody using IOS is in danger of being locked up because they express an unpopular position. Enough with the fanboy, knee jerk positions. How about a little more concern these global companies serving global oligarchs are destroying our real privacy and ultimately our real freedoms? The EFF and that rotten bunch of fellow transnational oligarchs is defending a one of the worst of the privacy rapist from ever answering to the law, any law.
  • Reply 33 of 122
    1984 will never be like 1984. Those parasites in the FBI will abuse abuse abuse. Point that out to the court... the agency is a lawless and grotesque organization of thugs and parasites.
  • Reply 34 of 122
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    I think Apple screwed up in this chess match with the FBI. They should have said in the beginning, that iOS was so secure that unlocking it was beyond even their own capabilities. There is no backdoor nor is there any way to create one. End of argument.
    baconstangUrei1620chiaicoco3
  • Reply 35 of 122
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Urei1620 said:
    The FBI did not coerce Apple into resisting a lawful court order. Corporate oligarchs asserting that transnational companies are above American law put them there.
    The FBI coerces and bullies everyone. Everyone. This case is no exception. It would be better for America if the FBI did not exist.
    It might be better if they were absorbed into the military and were strictly held to following the Constitution. They operate as an extralegal entity, or rogue organization as it is.
    edited March 2016
  • Reply 36 of 122

    *cough
  • Reply 37 of 122
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Despite despicable support for Apple from Libertarian corporate toadies, this whole case has set back legitimate concern for true free speech and reasonable balance regarding law enforcement. Software is not "free speech" ipso facto. IOS is not a statement of personal belief. Corporate programmers do not have the right to speak for themselves, at will employment makes a joke out of that. Corporate programmers do what they do under compulsion and threat of punishment. Anybody who ever worked for a week in Corporate America knows that, self-professed Libertarian kept "professionals" notwithstanding. The EFF bring shame on itself. For once I stand resolutely opposed to what should have been a decent organization. Nobody using IOS is in danger of being locked up because they express an unpopular position. Enough with the fanboy, knee jerk positions. How about a little more concern these global companies serving global oligarchs are destroying our real privacy and ultimately our real freedoms? The EFF and that rotten bunch of fellow transnational oligarchs is defending a one of the worst of the privacy rapist from ever answering to the law, any law.
    "Libertarian corporate toadies"? Goodbye. Welcome to the Block.
    stevehewtheckman
  • Reply 38 of 122
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 1,394member
    The FBI is trying to make it seem like Apple did something bad by making highly secure devices. 

    Was it illegal to do so?

    no. 

    So...end of story, FBI. 

    People want and need security. Especially in this age of ransomware, id theft, stolen naky pics, etc. 

    actung like its it's ok for Apple to spend money just because they EARN much is ridiculous. 

    Then em trying to act like Apple marketing their superior security is a bad thing? We operate in s system with a FREE MARKET. Of course you market it!

    the FBI has no facts. They've been exposed. So instead they cry and try to attack the character of the company trying to discredit them. It's the oldest trick in the book. When you can't come back with an itelkifible defense, take a swing at the person. 

    Too ok bad that they will likely have corrupt judges in league with them. 

    This isn't communism. This isn't socialism. This is a free country where individuals actually have rights. 

    Enough with this overreach, FBI. 

    scary that this case can even get this far. 
    edited March 2016 SpamSandwichtallest skilewtheckmanchia
  • Reply 39 of 122
    volcan said:
    I think Apple screwed up in this chess match with the FBI. They should have said in the beginning, that iOS was so secure that unlocking it was beyond even their own capabilities. There is no backdoor nor is there any way to create one. End of argument.
    I would have given them an estimate for completing the work of 100 engineers, 8 months, or 288,000 man-hrs for 1 phone at the cost to the US Govt. of $1 billion USD.
    edited March 2016 icoco3
  • Reply 40 of 122
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,035member
    The legal argument should never be "you should help us because you can afford to help us." If that was the criteria then courts should be able to compel the rich to feed the hungry or build houses for the homeless. I have a friend that I helped move 4 times over the last few years. This weekend I decided I didn't want to help for a 5th time. Am I somehow legally obligated to help because I own a truck and helped in the past?

    The socialist mindset would say yes, you should be legally obligated to help. From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.
    ration al
Sign In or Register to comment.