I am not a fan of Apple or Tim Crook. However, any true conservative, any one who actually believes that the Constitution means something, any one who understands that exceptions has consequences would not support the FBI in their request. If you buy something, it belongs to you, does it not? If you support this request, you are essentially saying no, only so far as the government "allows" you to own it. Apple does not have a right to do what they are being asked to do. If they do, they are essentially hacking what belongs to someone else. This would be similar (albeit not exactly the same) to selling a car but retaining the keys and using it anytime you think you should be able to use it. We call that stealing. By their response, neither Cruz nor Rubio have any claim to the description of "conservative". They are not if they support this stealing of anthers property on the say-so of some government employee. That kind of thinking, held by the British Crown, is what founded this country.
... The Constitution DOES guarantee privacy and protection from an overreaching government. However, the Fourth Amendment allows the government to perform reasonable "search and seizure." As we move to a digital world, we're going to have to figure out how this concept fairly applies. ...
The Constitution does not say we are required to assist them in that search, nor inform them where to search, nor assist them unlocking anything they find.
We do need to get this figured out, but because we're having the debate after an extremely horrific event that draws out heavy emotions, the debate is unlikely to be civil and objective.
The Constitution DOES guarantee privacy and protection from an overreaching government. However, the Fourth Amendment allows the government to perform reasonable "search and seizure." As we move to a digital world, we're going to have to figure out how this concept fairly applies.
If this were a proactive debate, instead of a reactive one, it would be much easier to come to common ground. My thought at least. But, we're seeing a ton of polarity in the debate (thanks to politicians preying on emotions) and, as a result, there is little chance of an amicable resolution.
I don't agree with the FBI's first pass at trying to solve the problem, but I do think they need to be able to access critical evidentiary data that could put disgusting criminals away for life, or that could save many innocent lives. We've got to figure out how to effectively compartmentalize information to limit access when a Constitutionally-appropriate warrant is granted by the judiciary.
"search and seizure" with an appropriate warrant yes, but in this case the court has directed, at the request of the FBI, that Apple create a new software set that they "deliver" to the FBI under the All Writs Act of 1789. A two sentence piece of legislation. And the communications precedent is, IIRC, a 1977 case on landline telephone records where the phone companies had to simply turn over what they ALREADY maintained for their own business uses: not divert engineers from their actual work to spend weeks creating something for the government. Which is where the Feng Broooklyn case judge Ornestein is ruling on will be critical.
Is it any surprise at all that politicians of either party are supporting the FBI (and increasing government powers in general)? No politician is a leader any longer - just a spinner that will say anything to get elected, and then anything to get re-elected.
The effects of this won't be seen fully for many years, but we have seen for some time now that the self-proclaimed "defenders of freedom" (e.g. the US Gov't in all its branches) are actually becoming more & more committed to finding ways to circumvent freedom in order to increase their powers. The FBI, CIA, and NSA spend more time fighting & obstructing each other than they do trying to actually solve & prevent crime/terrorism.
The entire GOP is for 'small' government in name only, while in practice using fear to balloon the military budget and government power grab higher than ever.
Unreal how ignorant these guys are about technology and the constitution.
You are the ignorant one. This is a matter that all candidates agree must be resolved by courts, or by legislation. There is nothing in the constitution that even references this sort of thing, the vast majority of Americans understand that and support the FBI on this matter. Apple is only being asked to allow the FBI to log into one phone, a phone that was used by a mass murderer, end of story. Your telephone conversations with your girlfriend are still going to be private.
Actually there's NO evidence it was "used" for any such thing and there IS evidence it wasn't: hence the two private phones of the terrorists were crushed by the murderers and they disposed of their computer hard drive. That evidence that they destroyed their devices they knew were connected to their crimes shows that San Bernardino County issued work phone is irrelevant.
Well in an age when financially backed lobbying is the norm, all these candidates have done is just lay out their open envelope-invitations.
What do you mean "financially backed lobbying"? All lobbying is done in order to receive preferential treatment. All of it. And none of it is free. The alternative to lobbying is getting railroaded by a competitor or special interest whose interests conflict with your own. Look at what has happened to the technology sector in the absence of concerted lobbying efforts. It's all been bad.
Lobbying is destroying the entire country and any imaginary ideas of 'Freedom' anyone thinks they may have.
When only 158 families are donating 99% of ALL the BILLIONS upon BILLIONS donated to BUY our future presidential candidate you can guarantee they have THEIR interests WAY ahead of mine and yours. And look no further than the GOP and their support for Citizen's United to make things much much worse for 99% of the country.
The entire GOP is for 'small' government in name only, while in practice using fear to balloon the military budget and government power grab higher than ever.
Again, that simply is an inaccurate assessment. The "entire GOP" is not in favor of small government, nor are they pro-freedom, pro-free speech, pro-individual. There are small pockets of resistance, but they are certainly not in the majority. The majority in both reigning parties are statist warmongering power seekers.
I agree with this approach. Also, do dead guys have privacy rights?
Why, are you dead?
Tashfeen Malik was very much alive and hadn't yet entered the U.S. when she posted pro-ISIS comments on Facebook. She didn't have a right to privacy anyway, as far as the U.S. Constitution was concerned, because she wasn't a citizen and wasn't even on U.S. soil. But INS chose to ignore those postings and let her in. The government-issued iPhone given to her husband didn't have mobile management software installed on it... and why not?
That first paragraph of yours is one of the most incredibly selfish, unwarranted, and ignorant comments I've ever read on this board. Not one sentence in the Constitution makes your right to privacy or security more important than a life-and-death situation for someone else. Not one. The Constitution protects you from an unreasonable search and seizure, not from having to be a part of society.
Pick up the Constitution and read it sometime and stop just listening to politicians or talking heads. I'm a conservative, but your statement blew my mind.
The Constitution is an agreement between the states. The Bill of Rights is WHOLLY designed to protect the rights of individuals. "Society" has no rights. Individuals have rights.
Where in my post did I even remotely suggest that 'society has rights?'
The whole point of having an agreement among individuals is to establish a society.
At the last Republican debate before the "Super Tuesday" primaries, the remaining candidates for U.S. president said they believe Apple should help the FBI unlock the iPhone 5c used by one of the San Bernardino shooters.
Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Ben Carson were all asked about the iPhone encryption debate at a debate hosted by CNN and Telemundo Thursday night, and all four of them sided with the FBI. Frontrunner Donald Trump was not questioned on the issue, though he has already called for a boycott of Apple until it complies with government requests to help unlock the handset.
Perhaps most surprising was Rubio's response, given that the senator from Florida had previously said that the complex issue required thoughtful debate. But on Thursday, he took a more hardline approach against Apple.
"Apple doesn't want to do it, because they think it hurts their brand," Rubio said. "Well let me tell you, their brand is not superior to the national security of the United States of America."
Sen. Cruz of Texas said he agrees with Apple's "broad policy" that there should not be backdoor access to any iPhone. But he believes that the company should do everything it can to gain access to the iPhone 5c involved in the San Bernardino shooting.
"We should enforce the court order, and find out everyone that terrorist at San Bernardino talked to on the phone, texted with, emailed," Cruz said. "And Apple absolutely doesn't have a right to defy a valid court order."
Moderate candidate and former Ohio governor Kasich took a softer approach, laying blame on President Barack Obama for not brokering a deal in private.
"Where has the president been? You sit down in a back room, and you sit down with the parties, and you get this worked out," Kasich said. "You don't litigate this on the front page of the New York Times, where everybody in the world is reading about their dirty laundry out here."
Finally, retired neurosurgeon Carson said he believes Apple will ultimately be compelled to unlock the iPhone for the FBI.
"I would expect Apple to comply with the court order," Carson said. "If they don't comply with that, you're encouraging chaos in our system."
A U.S. magistrate judge has ordered Apple to comply with FBI requests to help extract data owned by one of the shooters involved in the December terrorist attack. The device in question is a passcode-protected iPhone 5c the FBI seeks to unlock.
Apple, however, has fought back, saying the only way to unlock the handset would be to create a backdoor to iOS --?something that does not currently exist. Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook has said creating such a tool would set a bad precedent and potentially expose mobile devices to security issues.
Still siding with the far right wing... nothing learned from Romney's loss. Instead of staying conservative on core issues and moderate on everything else, these losers will probably lose another race. Wonder how many they'll lose until they finally realize what it is that Donald Trump is calling "the new republican party" and why it's leaving these crazies in the dirt.
The entire GOP is for 'small' government in name only, while in practice using fear to balloon the military budget and government power grab higher than ever.
Again, that simply is an inaccurate assessment. The "entire GOP" is not in favor of small government, nor are they pro-freedom, pro-free speech, pro-individual. There are small pockets of resistance, but they are certainly not in the majority. The majority in both reigning parties are statist warmongering power seekers.
how do we know what the actual split of GOP factions looks like and what is a majority? It may be even more fragmented than Andriod releases.
The Constitution is an agreement between the states. The Bill of Rights is WHOLLY designed to protect the rights of individuals. "Society" has no rights. Individuals have rights.
Where in my post did I even remotely suggest that 'society has rights?'
The whole point of having an agreement among individuals is to establish a society.
No it isn't. It's to protect the rights of individuals from the will of the government and from the majority (aka "society"). It's the opposite of what you've stated.
Again, that simply is an inaccurate assessment. The "entire GOP" is not in favor of small government, nor are they pro-freedom, pro-free speech, pro-individual. There are small pockets of resistance, but they are certainly not in the majority. The majority in both reigning parties are statist warmongering power seekers.
how do we know what the actual split of GOP factions looks like and what is a majority? It may be even more fragmented than Andriod releases.
Unreal how ignorant these guys are about technology and the constitution.
You are the ignorant one. This is a matter that all candidates agree must be resolved by courts, or by legislation. There is nothing in the constitution that even references this sort of thing, the vast majority of Americans understand that and support the FBI on this matter. Apple is only being asked to allow the FBI to log into one phone, a phone that was used by a mass murderer, end of story. Your telephone conversations with your girlfriend are still going to be private.
Again, that simply is an inaccurate assessment. The "entire GOP" is not in favor of small government, nor are they pro-freedom, pro-free speech, pro-individual. There are small pockets of resistance, but they are certainly not in the majority. The majority in both reigning parties are statist warmongering power seekers.
how do we know what the actual split of GOP factions looks like and what is a majority? It may be even more fragmented than Andriod releases.
By their votes ye may judge them. There is rhetoric, and then there are their unarguable voting records.
Hilarious to see all the antigovernment nuts supporting a private company who collects and sells every bit of private information in can on its customers. Apple and google track where you shop, what you shop for, what routes you take to work, what entertainment you prefer, where you eat, how much you spend, etc. etc. all to sell you even more... and people are delusional enough to think they care about protecting privacy. Apple was a massive campaign contributor to Obama, of course he isn't going to oppose them vocally.
"the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police."
so I got to wonder. Who's acting like a terrorist on the topic?
how do we know what the actual split of GOP factions looks like and what is a majority? It may be even more fragmented than Andriod releases.
By their votes ye may judge them. There is rhetoric, and then there are their unarguable voting records.
How would votes for GOP candidates show us this split? I agree more records and less rhetoric is needed. Therefore, more information please. Do you have a link showing the make up of the GOP party?
The US justice system is a fake. The shooter's iPhone is a work phone from the county. He destroyed his private phone. With common sense there is no chance the iPhone will have any information that can lead to a terrorist. But FBI wants to investigate everything possible. A couple years ago my son and his wife went to work. A burglar parked his pickup outside his house. He went into the house from the side door of garage. He ransacked all my daughter-in-laws jewelry worth more than ten thousand dollars. When the burglar is doing the work, a neighbor saw the pickup and copied the license plate number. He gave the police the number. The police later told my son. The police can not talk to the pickup owner. The police needs more evidence. Two years later, a police in another city called. He said there is a robbery. Someone copied the license plater number which happens to be my son's car. He wants to talk to my son. Of course my son was not there. Further, the person copied the number must have a description of the car. Right? What is the chance that car matches exactly with my son's car?
Comments
The effects of this won't be seen fully for many years, but we have seen for some time now that the self-proclaimed "defenders of freedom" (e.g. the US Gov't in all its branches) are actually becoming more & more committed to finding ways to circumvent freedom in order to increase their powers. The FBI, CIA, and NSA spend more time fighting & obstructing each other than they do trying to actually solve & prevent crime/terrorism.
Actually there's NO evidence it was "used" for any such thing and there IS evidence it wasn't: hence the two private phones of the terrorists were crushed by the murderers and they disposed of their computer hard drive. That evidence that they destroyed their devices they knew were connected to their crimes shows that San Bernardino County issued work phone is irrelevant.
Tashfeen Malik was very much alive and hadn't yet entered the U.S. when she posted pro-ISIS comments on Facebook. She didn't have a right to privacy anyway, as far as the U.S. Constitution was concerned, because she wasn't a citizen and wasn't even on U.S. soil. But INS chose to ignore those postings and let her in. The government-issued iPhone given to her husband didn't have mobile management software installed on it... and why not?
The whole point of having an agreement among individuals is to establish a society.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism
"the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police."
so I got to wonder. Who's acting like a terrorist on the topic?