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

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 122
    The next terrorist attack would only help the FBI'S agenda.
  • Reply 102 of 122
    foggyhill said:
    steevyweb said:
    Yes, and I would say again - make that lofty argument to the mother of a dead son or daughter.  Our society wont come to a halt because of this, now will it if it happened 1000 times.  And by the way, Apple is not your friend.  Its a giant corporation that, like others, uses its money and power to rewrite our laws in their favor.  So spare us all the "save our constitution" garble.   Is your current life so terrible that you would not even consider the plight of others?  
    WTF are you about you talking about!
     You do fracking know that these people would have died regardless of this, just like the thousands who die each year in mass murders in the US.
     That over the air non encrypted SMS with info on the god damn Paris attack didn't stop it from occurring, just like open communications didn't stop the London attacks, the Madrid attacks and 911.

    As for the "plight of others", this is a god damn red herring, then would die anyway and the supreme court has already sided that the off chance of catching a murderer is not enough to give up everything the constitution stands for. 

    Seems the terrorist have already won for people like you, since destroying your own country seems to now be your goal.
    So, please go to Russia and lick Putin's ass since you love police states so much and are ready to sacrifice everything for an illusory security.

    I may be wrong, sorry if I am, but I believe it's "Lick his BALLS and KISS his ass".
    Carry on.
  • Reply 103 of 122
    brakkenbrakken Posts: 687member
    I learned in high school that slander, even by inference, is 'poisoning the well' - a fundamentally flawed tactic. 

    I'm very happy Apple keeps to facts. 
    I'm disgusted the Powers That Be have repeatedly bothered to resort to such a low standard. 
    Are none of them capable of rational analysis?
    Why the hell do they still have those positions??

    I get the impression there is so much more at stake than simply the fbi crowd making a fuss about a phone they tampered with. It seems to me hat the integrity of all Americans is at stake. 
    Paranoia?
    Has the financial industry started repaying that one trilliion back, yet? Has Bush jnr been charged of crimes against humanity, yet?

    Good luck, USA - if you fall, it won't end there. 
  • Reply 104 of 122
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    steevyweb said:
    I would say again - make that lofty argument to the mother of a dead son or daughter.
    Hokay.

    Me: I have a right to drive on the roads.
    You: Tell that to the mother of a son or daughter whose guts are spilled over somebody's fender!!
    Me: I have a right to own a firearm.
    You: Tell that to the mother of a son or daughter whose brains got blown out by a bullet!!!!
    Me: I have a right to practice my religion.
    You: Tell that to the mother of a son or daughter who got their throat slit on an alter by some weirdo cultist!!!!!!
    Me: I have a right to drink liquor.
    You: Tell that to the mother of a son or daughter who got their liver turned to swiss cheese by alcohol poisoning!!!!!!!!




    Me:I have the right to eat fatty food.
    Him: Tell that to the mother of a son who has died from heart disease....

    The good ol' trotting out children like trained seal to make a so called "point".... Oh, my it's tired/

    Of course, doesn't mean there should be no regulation of any of those areas, and there are;
     but the over the top "for the god damn children" argument that attempts to ram everything down our throat on the guise of "saving the children" (tm) is a ripe trope and complete non starter.


    ration al
  • Reply 105 of 122
    talexytalexy Posts: 80member
    What I do not understand, that all these government officials seem to wage a holy war against data encryption and apple on one side, and doing NOTHING AT ALL against the thousands that fall victim to the right of bearing arms in your country, by people running amok, simply by mistake, or for whatever reason. This is crazy!
    baconstang
  • Reply 106 of 122
    metrixmetrix Posts: 256member
    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. 

    The government thinks you are very stupid, that's why they have manipulated the truth like telling you the unemployment rate is only 5% when there are over 90 million people out of the workforce and not looking for work. Only an idiot would believe the current unemployment numbers. All you need is this example for incontrovertible proof they don't think - but know most people never question their lies.
    Look! Both Bush Jr and Obama exercised executive orders that blatantly took away our rights as citizens and I could argue that the Patriot Act was the worst. I don't blame Bush Jr because I'm not sure he was smart enough to now anything, his father on the other had was very intelligent as you might expect the Director of the CIA to be. Please give it a rest about the unemployment. The only people not looking for work are Republicans wanting to make a point. I went to 5 retail stores today and they all had signs looking to hire. You sound ridiculous arguing that 2 more people out of 100 aren't working because they quit looking while there are jobs in retail, manufacturing, housing .
    Many Republicans spending all day listening to Fox just repeat what they hear. The same thing over and over. "Ignore the numbers" . How about the number that the country is has spent on two wars from Bush Jr? Don't you think 1 trillion dollars has something to do with inflation? There was never any weapons of mass destruction but it was the last thing Bush used after coming up with excuse after excuse. Now 250,000 enemy dead and probably 10,000 US men and women dead and number just keeps growing. We are fighting the children of the the enemy now one generation later. Because every one we kill there brother, sister, uncle, nephew wants revenge on the killer. They don't say to themselves, "oh but he was a terrorist to the US so let's not follow in their footsteps" be real. I believe in this country but honestly if we are choices are Trump or Clinton we are in serious trouble. The White House is being bullying into doing the things that are happening. Trump is without morals or character. 


    baconstang
  • Reply 107 of 122
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member
    It doesn't matter if it would take 6 people 2 weeks to create the fix or if it would take 1 person half a day to do it, or if it would take 1,000 people 6 months to do it.  

    The issue is that the government does not have the right to compel a corporation to create a specific new thing.  Or do they?  Really that's the only question that needs to be answered, isn't it?

    edited March 2016 radarthekatbaconstangicoco3
  • Reply 108 of 122
    jidojido Posts: 119member
    I am not sure showing the source code for the changes would do much harm. The code would still need to be signed by Apple to be put on the phone, after all. 

    Releasing the entire iOS source code could be bad in the sense that it would be easier to find vulnerabilities in it. The open source movement embraces it though, they consider it helps patch vulnerabilities quickly. 

    If Apple were to create that software, they would need to:
    1) revoke the private key used to sign it
    2) avoid by any means to retain copies of it outside the targeted phone

    It should keep most people's privacy protected, until the next court order... Since this would undoubtedly set a precedent. 

    Revoking the signing certificate is no small burden and will likely leave out many devices that don't get regular software updates. 

    radarthekat
    said:
    This would effectively require a company like Apple to create a new division that builds and maintains forensic tools for law enforcement.  The version of iOS will need to be entered into evidence and will be demanded to be inspected (likely at the source code level) by defense attorneys who will claim that they need access to ensure that the tool functions without altering the evidence it uncovered against their client.  Yes, this will get out into the wild, via a number of channels.  Apple, and everyone supporting Apple's position, understands this situation far better than those who are emotionally reacting to a terrorist act.
  • Reply 109 of 122
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    Apple needs one final notch for its iOS security (letting the secure enclave handle the passcode requests, and randomnizing its hardware design for different chip iterations) and it cannot comply in any way to the request at hand.
    Apples current problem is that it appears that they can comply.

    One nice side effect from this power struggle is that it makes the nature of the US government very clear.
    Maybe enough for people to start fighting for freedom again, or flee the country like they did in Germany in 1933.
  • Reply 110 of 122
    cincyteecincytee Posts: 376member
    jungmark said:
    Do you frakkers also require journalists to turn over their sources 'cause terrorism?
    In fact, there is no federal-level shield law for journalists, nor even do such laws exist in all states, so, yes, journalists may legally be required to reveal their sources, and some go to jail for contempt when they refuse.
    edited March 2016
  • Reply 111 of 122
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    Certainly the FBI could have used back channel connections to achieve the breaking into of this phone and avoided the total media circus. Because they decided to make a public federal case out of it, they clearly have a different goal in mind.
    baconstangration al
  • Reply 112 of 122
    farmboyfarmboy Posts: 152member

    The government thinks you are very stupid, that's why they have manipulated the truth like telling you the unemployment rate is only 5% when there are over 90 million people out of the workforce and not looking for work. Only an idiot would believe the current unemployment numbers. All you need is this example for incontrovertible proof they don't think - but know most people never question their lies.
    90 Million unemployed, huh? Stop repeating ancient right wing "factoids". Of the 90 million Americans who do not work, 9 million are high school age, 21 million are enrolled in college, and 40 million are retired--you know, from WORKING. That leaves 20 million who would be likely in the job market. Source: Politifact.com, numbers from 2013.
    baconstang
  • Reply 113 of 122
    damn_its_hotdamn_its_hot Posts: 1,193member
    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.
    Huh?
  • Reply 114 of 122
    JeffA2JeffA2 Posts: 82member
    Appleinsider writes:

    Creating a specialized forensics tool also acts as a proof-of-concept that iOS is vulnerable to attack.

    This makes no sense. Apple does not deny that the FBI's concept for the attack is feasible and that iOS is vulnerable. There is no "proof of concept" required. All parties have already acknowledged that the concept is proven.
  • Reply 115 of 122
    JeffA2JeffA2 Posts: 82member
    mengel925 said:
    If this is a marketing decision by Apple (and I'm not saying it is or isn't), should Apple not have the right to protect their brand? 
    I think this hits the crux of the matter. My take is that they do have the right to protect their business, but that right is subordinate to a legally issued court order. Others may disagree which is why this may go to the Supreme Court for a final hearing. But this is about business first, not privacy. Many of the privacy concerns voiced here and elsewhere seem to be from people who have a) not read the original court order and b) have little technical knowledge.

    There is a valid argument that the DOJ has constructed a narrowly targeted request that is sufficient to carry out this one warrant. While it's true that the same request could be used in the future for another phone (and it surely will be), each request must be in response to a valid warrant issued by the court. When this is pointed out, the rejoinder is often that 'warrants are meaningless' or 'judges have too much power'. But I've always wondered why the strongest self-proclaimed defenders of 'our constitutional rights' are the first ones to dismiss the very protections that document provides. Namely democratically elected representatives, judicial review, warrants and due process. No where in the constitution of the United States does it even hint that a private corporation can trump that process.
  • Reply 116 of 122
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    farmboy said:
    Stop repeating ancient right wing
    Stop using genetic fallacies.
    Source: Politifact.com, numbers from 2013.
    But do have an actual source. And no, that’s not a genetic fallacy. Politifact is just not correct, and they have a history of not being correct. Saying that macosrumors.com can’t be used as a citation for Apple rumors, for example, is the same thing. They just invent lies for the hits and edit their articles after the real products come out. Though they seem to have changed format after being caught too many times.
    icoco3
  • Reply 117 of 122
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,922member
    JeffA2 said:
    mengel925 said:
    If this is a marketing decision by Apple (and I'm not saying it is or isn't), should Apple not have the right to protect their brand? 
    I think this hits the crux of the matter. My take is that they do have the right to protect their business, but that right is subordinate to a legally issued court order. Others may disagree which is why this may go to the Supreme Court for a final hearing. But this is about business first, not privacy. Many of the privacy concerns voiced here and elsewhere seem to be from people who have a) not read the original court order and b) have little technical knowledge.

    There is a valid argument that the DOJ has constructed a narrowly targeted request that is sufficient to carry out this one warrant. While it's true that the same request could be used in the future for another phone (and it surely will be), each request must be in response to a valid warrant issued by the court. When this is pointed out, the rejoinder is often that 'warrants are meaningless' or 'judges have too much power'. But I've always wondered why the strongest self-proclaimed defenders of 'our constitutional rights' are the first ones to dismiss the very protections that document provides. Namely democratically elected representatives, judicial review, warrants and due process. No where in the constitution of the United States does it even hint that a private corporation can trump that process.
    Valid warrant. Today it's terrorism, tomorrow it's protestors and the media. Besides you can't force a private entity to create a tool for your use. If Apple had the tool already, they would've used it. It's not Apple's property so it has done all it can to assist the Feds. 
    ration alicoco3baconstang
  • Reply 118 of 122
    JeffA2JeffA2 Posts: 82member
    jungmark said:
    JeffA2 said:
    I think this hits the crux of the matter. My take is that they do have the right to protect their business, but that right is subordinate to a legally issued court order. Others may disagree which is why this may go to the Supreme Court for a final hearing. But this is about business first, not privacy. Many of the privacy concerns voiced here and elsewhere seem to be from people who have a) not read the original court order and b) have little technical knowledge.

    There is a valid argument that the DOJ has constructed a narrowly targeted request that is sufficient to carry out this one warrant. While it's true that the same request could be used in the future for another phone (and it surely will be), each request must be in response to a valid warrant issued by the court. When this is pointed out, the rejoinder is often that 'warrants are meaningless' or 'judges have too much power'. But I've always wondered why the strongest self-proclaimed defenders of 'our constitutional rights' are the first ones to dismiss the very protections that document provides. Namely democratically elected representatives, judicial review, warrants and due process. No where in the constitution of the United States does it even hint that a private corporation can trump that process.
    Valid warrant. Today it's terrorism, tomorrow it's protestors and the media. Besides you can't force a private entity to create a tool for your use. If Apple had the tool already, they would've used it. It's not Apple's property so it has done all it can to assist the Feds. 
    As for valid warrant -- how else would you have a civil society decide the rights and limits of search by the state? Are you seriously suggesting that we do away with warrants and judicial review? Replaced by what? This is the best system we (and British Common Law) have.

    As for not forcing a private entity to create a tool -- that may be your opinion but the law says otherwise. There is ample legal precedent for this and the current court order is by no means out of the mainstream. If Apple relies soley on their opposition to the All Writs Act, they will lose. I know it's on appeal in the Brooklyn case, but most legal scholars expect that ruling to be vacated.
    edited March 2016
  • Reply 119 of 122
    JeffA2 said:
    As for valid warrant -- how else would you have a civil society decide the rights and limits of search by the state? Are you seriously suggesting that we do away with warrants and judicial review? Replaced by what? This is the best system we (and British Common Law) have.


    Are you saying that if Apple doesn't crack this phone, warrants and judicial review go away?
    Get a valid warrant to unburn a document, see how far that gets you - even if you get the paper company on board.
    icoco3baconstang
  • Reply 120 of 122
    JeffA2JeffA2 Posts: 82member
    JeffA2 said:
    As for valid warrant -- how else would you have a civil society decide the rights and limits of search by the state? Are you seriously suggesting that we do away with warrants and judicial review? Replaced by what? This is the best system we (and British Common Law) have.


    Are you saying that if Apple doesn't crack this phone, warrants and judicial review go away?

    Why would you think that? Have you read the remark I was responding to? The short answer is no, I've never said such a thing. jungark questioned the value of a warrant as a civil protection: "Valid warrant. Today it's terrorism, tomorrow it's protestors and the media."

    The point is that a valid warrant is how we protect citizens from unlawful search and seizure. That's the system. You can challenge the validity of a particular warrant (which Apple is doing) but dismissing the entire system is foolhardy.

    I'm not able to follow the logic of your other comment: "
    Get a valid warrant to unburn a document, see how far that gets you - even if you get the paper company on board." 
    edited March 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.