Apple to argue First Amendment rights in FBI decryption battle

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 41
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,024member

    They have cracked it open, probably by day 2 since the IT guy of China may have been not available that day. they need apple to do it "legally" so they can proceed with prosecution of more muslim terrorists. If Apple-jacks around,the alternative will be star chamber abductions and executions without the bother. If you think apple is somehow impervious to having somebody hack a phone, you are insane. A Chinese or Indian 3rd grader could do it.


    Actually it was by day 3. On day 4 they purposely bricked the iPhone, by changing the password, because they came up with an idea of how to use this iPhone to obtain something they want, since it didn't yield any useful data when they forced the back up into their own server. They are now using this high profile iPhone as a means to force Apple to create a back door for them, by using public sentiment. Otherwise, if they were afraid of a remote wipe, why did they wait 4 days to change the password? 
    ration aldtidmoresteveh
  • Reply 22 of 41
    fracfrac Posts: 480member
    mike1956 said:
    The elephant in the room is the incompetent foreign policy of the U.S.  The wife of the terrorist had a Facebook page that showed her terrorist beliefs, but due to the politically correct insanity of U.S. immigration policy, the immigration check was forbidden from looking at her FB page! 
    Can this be even remotely true?
    williamlondonsteveh
  • Reply 23 of 41
    Screw San Bernardino!!! You can't see past a 227 year old piece of paper. They are trying to solve a domestic terrorism crime and you are all more worried about Apple. Herein lies the problem of the US. The FBI won't suffer. The money for attorneys comes from the people. Genius. BTW, vote TRUMP.
    Trump is a domestic political terrorist. There were 300+ mass murders in the US last year that had nothing to do with terrorist. Which is the greater threat? This encryption battle is moot because it just tells smart criminals how to evade capture. There are dozens of high level encryption programs that real terrorist can and do use and they know it. This just makes the public come over to their side. 

    birkoration alcnocbui
  • Reply 24 of 41
    ireland said:
    In Apple's case, however, there is no existing technology or forensics tool that can fulfill the FBI's ask

    Do you know this? The NSA, CIA or FBI could break into a single iPhone?
    Actually, there is a tech, albeit I cannot tell how practical this is: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sps32/mcu_lock.html
  • Reply 25 of 41
    irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,616member
    If Apple are forced to do this they should say, fine, its going to cost 50 billion dollars per request as this is the cost of data recovery plus the public impact to our business.  
  • Reply 26 of 41
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,208member
    The whole "corporations are people" thing is stupid, but sometimes you have to fight stupid with stupid. 
  • Reply 27 of 41
    Screw San Bernardino!!! You can't see past a 227 year old piece of paper. They are trying to solve a domestic terrorism crime and you are all more worried about Apple. Herein lies the problem of the US. The FBI won't suffer. The money for attorneys comes from the people. Genius. BTW, vote TRUMP.
    "Solve a domestic terrorism crime"?  Really, the crime happened and hacking the phone will solve nothing.  The FBI is simply trying to find other people connected to the two, whether there is any other connectivity or not.  And it seems like the FBI must not have anything else to go on, other than this iPhone, which shows just how little the FBI has been able to "protect" us from domestic terrorists.  Maybe what the FBI should get the right to do, is to collect every American's smart phones, hack into them, and determine who is a terrorist and who is not.  Isn't that the only way to do be "safe"?
  • Reply 28 of 41
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,261member
    Imagine a serial killer copying the murders he read about in a series of books. Imagine then a stupid judge ordering the author to write a sequel so the FBI could figure out what the killer would do next. The court can't order somebody to create something out of the blue.
    palominebestkeptsecret
  • Reply 29 of 41
    josujosu Posts: 217member
    genovelle said:
    Screw San Bernardino!!! You can't see past a 227 year old piece of paper. They are trying to solve a domestic terrorism crime and you are all more worried about Apple. Herein lies the problem of the US. The FBI won't suffer. The money for attorneys comes from the people. Genius. BTW, vote TRUMP.
    Trump is a domestic political terrorist. There were 300+ mass murders in the US last year that had nothing to do with terrorist. Which is the greater threat? This encryption battle is moot because it just tells smart criminals how to evade capture. There are dozens of high level encryption programs that real terrorist can and do use and they know it. This just makes the public come over to their side. 

    Wise words. On the other hand, can we start to speak about Apple products and left this thing in court, where it will be for years.
  • Reply 30 of 41
    cwscws Posts: 59member
    Apple is not "flouting" the judge's order.  Apple is "appealing the judge's ruling" in a very principled way in accordance with the law. 
    ration alflaneur
  • Reply 31 of 41
    davidw said:
    The better argument is the 4th Amendment, unreasonable seizure (of property). It takes employee (highly paid employee) time to produce a workaround for each of 17000 phones, and we are not going to give you the keys to our kingdom......
    The 4th Amendment is not an issue if the government has a legal search warrant or (as in this case) is the owner of the phone. The better argument is whether the government can force Apple to assist in the search by forcing Apple to create a tool that will diminish the value of the products they sell, as soon as it's known that they created it, to assist the government to do the search.
    It may also be some kind of violation of Apple's rights (their people's rights) against self-incrimination? Creating software to destroy one's own secure effects puts them in jeopardy.
  • Reply 32 of 41
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,693member
    OK I jest ...

    Maybe Apple should take a poll to see if Joe Public like's the idea of a new iOS-Open, a new version that you must sign a waiver before using with zero assurance from Apple that your data is safe.   iOS-Open would have a back door especially for the Police, CIA, FBI ... add your own country's security service, Government departments etc.. Of course any terrorist using it would also have no security.

    Lets' see how many people would really buy an iPhone like that.

    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 33 of 41
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,693member

    mike1956 said:
    The elephant in the room is the incompetent foreign policy of the U.S.  The wife of the terrorist had a Facebook page that showed her terrorist beliefs, but due to the politically correct insanity of U.S. immigration policy, the immigration check was forbidden from looking at her FB page!  Moreover, the terrorists destroyed their other phones--how likely do you think it is that they left valuable info on the remaining work phone?  Finally, the FBI screwed up their handling of the phone.  To summarize, several U.S. government agencies screwed up royally, but now want to make this Apple's problem!...?  Will hacking the phone help with the FBI's "investigation"?  Extremely unlikely.  Will creating a backdoor severely damage the most successful U.S. business, and compromise the security of hundreds of millions of Apple users, and empower other governments to also force backdoors into additional electronics?  Absolutely, 100% yes!  Screw the FBI!  Hurray for Tim Cook and Apple!
    I could be wrong, but I read that that was a bogus story that became an internet hit with no fact checking.  In fact, I read, here was no such rule forbidding them looking.  That problem was she posted under another name and they just missed it.  Now, should there be some super computer trolling through every word on FaceBook looking for any warning signs ...?  I actually assumed there was! 
  • Reply 34 of 41
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,693member
    ireland said:
    In Apple's case, however, there is no existing technology or forensics tool that can fulfill the FBI's ask

    Do you know this? The NSA, CIA or FBI could break into a single iPhone?
    Isn't that the whole point of the fuss.. ?  That they can't.  
  • Reply 35 of 41
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,294member
    ireland said:
    In Apple's case, however, there is no existing technology or forensics tool that can fulfill the FBI's ask

    Do you know this? The NSA, CIA or FBI could break into a single iPhone?
    If the NSA, CIA or FBI can break into a iPhone, why aren't they? This trying to force Apple to write new code to do it by force through the court shouldn't be needed!!!
  • Reply 36 of 41
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,294member
    frac said:
    foggyhill said:
    The better argument is the 4th Amendment, unreasonable seizure (of property). It takes employee (highly paid employee) time to produce a workaround for each of 17000 phones, and we are not going to give you the keys to our kingdom......
    They're going to use a whole plethora of means, Apple could put a mountain of lawyers on this one and make the FBI suffer.
    Hope so. I'd like to see them play hardball with the FBI whose incompetence possibility set back their own investigation by several months.
    This is the Government you're fighting against. They have all the money they need from the Taxpayer's. Luckily this is Apple with their own large pile of money to fight this. Most any other company would just cave in.
  • Reply 37 of 41
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,024member
    davidw said:
    The 4th Amendment is not an issue if the government has a legal search warrant or (as in this case) is the owner of the phone. The better argument is whether the government can force Apple to assist in the search by forcing Apple to create a tool that will diminish the value of the products they sell, as soon as it's known that they created it, to assist the government to do the search.
    It may also be some kind of violation of Apple's rights (their people's rights) against self-incrimination? Creating software to destroy one's own secure effects puts them in jeopardy.

    I would think, but not sure, that if there were evidence in your phone that you committed a crime and law enforcement have reasonable proof of this, they can request that you tell them the passcode. But you can refuse under the 5th Amendment protection of self incrimination. However, if law enforcement gets  a search warrant for your phone, they can use what ever method they want to access that evidence in your phone. And when they do, they would not have violated your 5th Amendment rights because you never had to incriminate yourself by revealing your passcode to them.
  • Reply 38 of 41

    The substantive portion of the All Writs Act of 1789 states that: “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”

    Notice that the Act's application must be compatible with the principles of existing law.  A law passed in 1865 invalidates that portion of the All Writs Act that would have allowed courts to force Apple to do work in support of government objectives.  It reads: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”  

    When Apple finally reaches the ultimate jurisdiction responsible for applying and defending principles of the Constitution, the rights established under the 13th Amendment will result in a majority opinion favoring Apple, until such time as Apple is found guilty of a crime and is punished by being force to cough up a modified operating system.


    williamlondonSpamSandwich
  • Reply 39 of 41
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    Seems a silly argument: code is speech and speech is free, so Apple will make this for free and it's open source?
    Maybe better to just call it what it is, namely, when implemented, a violation of human rights.

  • Reply 40 of 41
    This government needs a lot of work all right.  Wherever one is on the political spectrum, I bet most would agree that congress has stalled and is incapable of legislating much of anything, the Presidency has become frustrated and unable to seek any change, and now the Supreme Court is minus a judge and is likely stuck in a tie as well.             Is this a Constitutional crisis?

    i don't know the way out and it will likely be a long time before this is settled. The Justice Dept sure seems to have it in for Apple...

    Meanwhile, I've got to wonder what effect this governmental snafu is having on the stock?  
    I have to ask this, forgive my paranoia, but is there a chance the GOVT itself has contacts on Wall Street and are able to strangle the price at will? 

    Maybe we will know in 100 years.
Sign In or Register to comment.