At one point, I was subpoenaed to testify as an expert witness in a case that was scheduled to last two days in court (I am a physician). The subpoena had a check attached to it, which was to be my pay for whatever preparation time was involved, and the two days of attending court, my time on the stand, etc.
That check was made out for just under $18.00. I doubt it would have been enough to pay for the parking. Also, I had duties at the hospital... they didn't care. There were patients scheduled that would have to be rescheduled on an already full schedule... they didn't care. Had they gone through traditional channels and hired a physician expert witness, the cost would have been significant. This is probably why they chose simply to subpoena someone instead (although I cannot imagine what made them think I would not *destroy* the case of the requesting attorney - because I would have).
Obviously, I didn't roll over and take that. My own attorney made the issue messy enough for them that they dropped me from the list of expert witnesses. But the total cost in dealing with that was several thousand dollars.
But I was only one of many physicians that were subpoenaed in that case. All they needed was one physician not to fight it.
The point is, Apple might ask for a trillion dollars to unlock a phone, but a judge would never grant that. In reality, if they are ordered to do something by the court, and they cannot get it overturned on appeal, they have to do it. With regard to reimbursement, they can't just charge whatever they want.
What if nobody at Apple wants to work on it, what do they do? Hold the company in contempt, the employees; this could happen.
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch weighed in on Apple's fight with the FBI on Tuesday, saying she would prefer that Apple comply with the recent court order directing the company to unlock the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone.
...
"It is still our hope that they will see their way clear to complying with that order as thousands of other companies do every day," Lynch said, as noted by Reuters. The comment comes ahead of a scheduled appearance at a Silicon Valley cybersecurity conference.
...
With rumors floated that President Obama may submit er to be Justice Scalias replacement on the SCOTUS, I do believe she just disqualified herself.
"US Attorney General 'hopes' " That says it all right there. It almost smells like a veiled threat.
Keep on hoping, we already see where "hope" got us over the last 7 years.
Obama appointed another idiot to this important government post to prove diversity.
It's not like OBAMA has any skill at anything. He's never run anything in his life. Community Organizer,..What a joke of a whatever. This is how things are now. Lower standards to get someone into that job. The whole White Standard or White TEST and that's why they fail, what the hell does that even mean? The questions literally are Black & White on more then one level? Just so I'm not picking on the black guy, the Clinton's butts, both should be thrown in jail for their criminal acts over the years.
That what you get for electing mostly Lawyers to Political Office. They've never done a hard days work in their life. Ask yourself this question:- Why would a Lawyer when elected into Political Office pass laws that make LESS work for their Lawyer bretherin?
Obama appointed another idiot to this important government post to prove diversity.
It's not like OBAMA has any skill at anything. He's never run anything in his life. Community Organizer,..What a joke of a whatever. This is how things are now. Lower standards to get someone into that job. The whole White Standard or White TEST and that's why they fail, what the hell does that even mean? The questions literally are Black & White on more then one level? Just so I'm not picking on the black guy, the Clinton's butts, both should be thrown in jail for their criminal acts over the years.
You are aware that President Obama had to beat Hillary Clinton in the Primaries in 2008, and then he had to beat the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin (the Governor of Alaska that left after only two years of a four year term in office) in the general election, both of which he did. You also should be aware that there wouldn't be a sitting President who would give up National security for Citizen privacy; the downsides of failure in National Security are too massive for a President not to. So this is a perfect case of how the balance of power works for the three branches of government. I would add that FBI Director Comey was appointed by President George W. Bush.
So, complaining about a President's skills in the final year of a two term Presidency really doesn't make much sense does it. He's a Lame Duck. Perhaps you might want to consider the race that will decide the next President which will be between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton;
There's a lot of things not to like about Hillary Clinton especially her Wall Street connections and her hawkish views, but compared to Donald Trump, she has pretty solid credentials for President. One wonders when the media will get over the entertainment value of Donald Trump, and turn to journalism to vet him for the American voter.
... You also should be aware that there wouldn't be a sitting President who would give up National security for Citizen privacy; the downsides of failure in National Security are too massive for a President not to. So this is a perfect case of how the balance of power works for the three branches of government. I would add that FBI Director Comey was appointed by President George W. Bush. ...
Be aware that the Constitution belongs to the People of this country and defines the limits of Government and what they can and can't do. The "balance of power" has nothing to do with the rights held by the people and rights not conferred on the Federal Government by the people.
I can only hope the FBI, and Attorney General motives are pure and are just misguided. Looking through history you see cases where people have regretted what they did, or their failure to foresee how their efforts would be misused.
The building of the atomic bomb was fraught with misgivings by Einstein and Oppenheimer
Creation of Africanized honeybees to increase honey production
Bringing the Mongoose to Hawaii to control the rat population
Numerous instances where insects are brought in to control pests only to wreak havoc of their own
and, I'm sure everyone here can add to this list as there is no shortage of things society has rushed into only to regret at a later time.
While the goal of national security is good, this push by the government is ill thought out and filled with the typical incomplete thinking that has plagued them for decades. As many have said, it's too easy for the "bad guys" to circumvent with their own security layer, and the negatives of this path are plentiful.
I've always believed before running for any position at a federal level - be it congress or DOJ - that all of them should be required to take a test in regards to the actual constitution. If they can't pass they're not qualified. Every other job in the world requires experience or physical test beit typing or whatever the job requires. Why don't we require this? It would keep politics out of it if people actually knew what the law was.
Yes I know most of these people are lawyers, etc but the test would show if they actually KNOW (remember) what the law is. Especially the House of Representatives. Those sheep just do whatever the oldest sheep tell them to do.
I truly believe if this woman had to take this test she would fail.
In fact, like someone else on here mentioned. They should all be forced to take a computer security course for the basics (You too Hilary!). If you're going to actually discuss a thing you should know something about a thing
... You also should be aware that there wouldn't be a sitting President who would give up National security for Citizen privacy; the downsides of failure in National Security are too massive for a President not to. So this is a perfect case of how the balance of power works for the three branches of government. I would add that FBI Director Comey was appointed by President George W. Bush. ...
Be aware that the Constitution belongs to the People of this country and defines the limits of Government and what they can and can't do. The "balance of power" has nothing to do with the rights held by the people and rights not conferred on the Federal Government by the people.
You are aware the the Constitution is a piece of paper that is open to interpretation, and in times of crisis, is easily avoided/manipulated, and history proves that over and over. This is a case where the Director of an Agency under the umbrella of the Department of Justice under the current Administration is now seen in overreach by Congress, and at least one Federal Magistrate. That is how our system of government survives and evolves. There isn't any Constitutional purity simply for temporal reasons; the Founding Fathers wouldn't have any idea of the future beyond at most a vague few decades.
Be aware that the Constitution belongs to the People of this country and defines the limits of Government and what they can and can't do. The "balance of power" has nothing to do with the rights held by the people and rights not conferred on the Federal Government by the people.
You are aware the the Constitution is a piece of paper that is open to interpretation, and in times of crisis, is easily avoided/manipulated, and history proves that over and over. This is a case where the Director of an Agency under the umbrella of the Department of Justice under the current Administration is now seen in overreach by Congress, and at least one Federal Magistrate. That is how our system of government survives and evolves. There isn't any Constitutional purity simply for temporal reasons; the Founding Fathers wouldn't have any idea of the future beyond at most a vague few decades.
Yikes! Really? So the Ten Commandments are really old and up for interpretation to all Christians just because it's old and written in stone?
Regading the constitition: A law is a law. They didn't write it in the abstract. They wrote it in such a basic way that only people trying to skirt around it try to "interpret" it. If followed to the tee and not allowed for the "variations on a theme" approach, we would not have such a mess of things now. It's because judges started trying to "interpret" it rather than follow it that's created these "precedences" - they use those to justify even further perversion of the actual written law.
may said: [John Alfihar (because he cares so much about surname origin) YouTube link]
Since you’ve decided to post slander, I’ll post the refutation thereof.
1) Trump isn’t self funding his campaign
He is self funding. Getting a few extra dollars from his website is fucking nothing. He has no lobbyists or donors backing him other than the American people–the people whose interests he should be representing.
2) Trump is a failed businessman
He's successful overall and only had a few bad business ventures. Shit happens, that’s why Chapter 11 bankruptcy exists–to restructure and refinance a company. He is clearly not a failed businessman. He's a billionaire with hundreds of successful ventures. Some of them fail, yes–even ones that were once successful–but he just picks up and goes on to the next thing, and usually comes out ahead.
3) Trump isn’t as rich as he claims he is
He released forms that show his wealth. Go look at those, you limey bastard.
4) Trump is a liar
Pot calling the kettle black.
5) Trump is obsessed with lawsuits and lying about them
He does love lawsuits. Like the time Palm Beach said his property’s American Flag was “15 times” too large, and he sued them for $25 million because they were infringing on his First Amendment rights. When they settled 96 days later, instead of paying the $120,000 fine they wanted, he agreed to give $100,000 to a veteran’s charity.
Whatever kind of man he is, he’s a man who cares about America first, doesn’t want to take your rights or guns away, and wants to kick out illegal Mexicans and put up a wall. That alone makes him better than every other candidate currently running.
Going dark is not a new concept for the Government to deal with when fighting crime and such. Why do you think why the government is unable to catch large drug dealer and such and prosecute them on drug charges. Hell they put Al Capone in jail on tax violations verses all the other bad things he did. He went dark on them and avoid doing and using stuff which allow the government to track what he was doing.
They trying to make this into a new issue they never had to deal with. The only difference it they running into the issue with small time crooks.
Al this talk of going dark, when in fact the opposite is true!!! While the phone may get more encrypted, people are installing more and more other electronic devices into their house that the Government could use. From Amazon Echo, and Xbox Kinect, to Wifi Camera's, and so many other things if they wanted. Most of this stuff has pretty weak security.
So true. The only way to have a secure smart home would be for Apple to get involved and offer a secure encrypted smart home system since everyone else who is offering smart home devices seems to not care about our safety and security.
You are aware the the Constitution is a piece of paper that is open to interpretation
Nope. Not a “living document”.
There isn't any Constitutional purity simply for temporal reasons; the Founding Fathers wouldn't have any idea of the future beyond at most a vague few decades.
How does that translate to not having any purity? Do only words that existed and were in use in the 1790s fall under the protection of “freedom of speech”? Are you potentially not allowed to use, say, the word ‘quiz’ because it was invented afterward?
Are you not allowed to be protected from the search of your electromagnetic physical safe because they didn’t exist when the 4th amendment was approved?
Is Texas not allowed to preserve its state sovereignty because it became a state after the 10th amendment was approved?
Has anyone said whether Apple and other companies are gathering information for free or whether the police/FBI pay them for their time? I would like to see the law that says they have to do it for free otherwise I agree with @james, they should make sure it hurts to keep the frivolous requests to a minimum.
Of course, Lynch needs to take a basic class in computers to keep from making misguided comments.
Don't know about other incidents but Pym's ruling included payment language that had the feel of boilerplate, so at least when court ordered payment might be usual practice.
Comments
It's no surprise when your basically a big ass prosecutor that you will side with the prosecution... Well, duh!
"US Attorney General 'hopes' " That says it all right there. It almost smells like a veiled threat.
Keep on hoping, we already see where "hope" got us over the last 7 years.
Ask yourself this question:-
Why would a Lawyer when elected into Political Office pass laws that make LESS work for their Lawyer bretherin?
So, complaining about a President's skills in the final year of a two term Presidency really doesn't make much sense does it. He's a Lame Duck. Perhaps you might want to consider the race that will decide the next President which will be between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton;
There's a lot of things not to like about Hillary Clinton especially her Wall Street connections and her hawkish views, but compared to Donald Trump, she has pretty solid credentials for President. One wonders when the media will get over the entertainment value of Donald Trump, and turn to journalism to vet him for the American voter.
- The building of the atomic bomb was fraught with misgivings by Einstein and Oppenheimer
- Creation of Africanized honeybees to increase honey production
- Bringing the Mongoose to Hawaii to control the rat population
- Numerous instances where insects are brought in to control pests only to wreak havoc of their own
- and, I'm sure everyone here can add to this list as there is no shortage of things society has rushed into only to regret at a later time.
While the goal of national security is good, this push by the government is ill thought out and filled with the typical incomplete thinking that has plagued them for decades. As many have said, it's too easy for the "bad guys" to circumvent with their own security layer, and the negatives of this path are plentiful.Yes I know most of these people are lawyers, etc but the test would show if they actually KNOW (remember) what the law is. Especially the House of Representatives. Those sheep just do whatever the oldest sheep tell them to do.
I truly believe if this woman had to take this test she would fail.
In fact, like someone else on here mentioned. They should all be forced to take a computer security course for the basics (You too Hilary!). If you're going to actually discuss a thing you should know something about a thing
Regading the constitition: A law is a law. They didn't write it in the abstract. They wrote it in such a basic way that only people trying to skirt around it try to "interpret" it. If followed to the tee and not allowed for the "variations on a theme" approach, we would not have such a mess of things now. It's because judges started trying to "interpret" it rather than follow it that's created these "precedences" - they use those to justify even further perversion of the actual written law.
1) Trump isn’t self funding his campaign
He is self funding. Getting a few extra dollars from his website is fucking nothing. He has no lobbyists or donors backing him other than the American people–the people whose interests he should be representing.
2) Trump is a failed businessman
He's successful overall and only had a few bad business ventures. Shit happens, that’s why Chapter 11 bankruptcy exists–to restructure and refinance a company. He is clearly not a failed businessman. He's a billionaire with hundreds of successful ventures. Some of them fail, yes–even ones that were once successful–but he just picks up and goes on to the next thing, and usually comes out ahead.
3) Trump isn’t as rich as he claims he is
He released forms that show his wealth. Go look at those, you limey bastard.
4) Trump is a liar
Pot calling the kettle black.
5) Trump is obsessed with lawsuits and lying about them
He does love lawsuits. Like the time Palm Beach said his property’s American Flag was “15 times” too large, and he sued them for $25 million because they were infringing on his First Amendment rights. When they settled 96 days later, instead of paying the $120,000 fine they wanted, he agreed to give $100,000 to a veteran’s charity.
Whatever kind of man he is, he’s a man who cares about America first, doesn’t want to take your rights or guns away, and wants to kick out illegal Mexicans and put up a wall. That alone makes him better than every other candidate currently running.
So true. The only way to have a secure smart home would be for Apple to get involved and offer a secure encrypted smart home system since everyone else who is offering smart home devices seems to not care about our safety and security.
How does that translate to not having any purity? Do only words that existed and were in use in the 1790s fall under the protection of “freedom of speech”? Are you potentially not allowed to use, say, the word ‘quiz’ because it was invented afterward?
Are you not allowed to be protected from the search of your electromagnetic physical safe because they didn’t exist when the 4th amendment was approved?
Is Texas not allowed to preserve its state sovereignty because it became a state after the 10th amendment was approved?
Come on.