That would be AppleInsider submitting a locked iPhone to them for their service, followed by a complete analysis of what actually happened, if the claims are true, and if there any “yeah but” conditions that must be met first. How about a pole to encourage AppleInsider to do just that?
Rather than a poll how about a collection plate? Since it's a $3900 service maybe all those interested AI members will pony up a couple hundred each towards it to make it happen?
Anyway this looks like it's geared more towards someone who's suffering dementia, comatose, or passed away and family members need access to that person's phone. There's a whole bunch'a hoops to jump thru proving the need (ex. Death certificate for a deceased, several forms of personal ID for the living, etc) before the device is accepted.
I’m sure they’ll be quite willing to work with law enforcement even if provided a flimsy excuse.
I worked in IT for a couple of decades.
I am exceedingly dubious of any tech firm that claims 100% success on anything. First rule of IT: no matter how good you are s*** happens.
I attended a presentation once where the company sales director said his development team could guarantee their software was 100% bug free.
We didn't partner with him because he was obviously lying.
Yeah, but he was the sales director. You knew he was lying before he opened his mouth.
According to the article, they are going to “Validate legal rights.” If a police department has a valid search warrant then they have every legal right to unlock & decrypt the phone.
Something I don’t understand about a lot of the posters here is the unspoken sentiment or assumption that we have an absolute right to privacy and that any time any government agency accesses our private data it’s abusing our rights. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure. As a citizen, I want the police to be able access a phone when legally necessary. I just don’t want the NSA to be doing it constantly behind everyone’s back or any random person do do it if I lose my phone.
According to the article, they are going to “Validate legal rights.” If a police department has a valid search warrant then they have every legal right to unlock & decrypt the phone.
Something I don’t understand about a lot of the posters here is the unspoken sentiment or assumption that we have an absolute right to privacy and that any time any government agency accesses our private data it’s abusing our rights. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure. As a citizen, I want the police to be able access a phone when legally necessary. I just don’t want the NSA to be doing it constantly behind everyone’s back or any random person do do it if I lose my phone.
That's just it. It's a problem when the government is unilaterally deciding a search is "reasonable".
According to the article, they are going to “Validate legal rights.” If a police department has a valid search warrant then they have every legal right to unlock & decrypt the phone.
Something I don’t understand about a lot of the posters here is the unspoken sentiment or assumption that we have an absolute right to privacy and that any time any government agency accesses our private data it’s abusing our rights. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure. As a citizen, I want the police to be able access a phone when legally necessary. I just don’t want the NSA to be doing it constantly behind everyone’s back or any random person do do it if I lose my phone.
Let’s say someone murder the mayor in an isolated area.
10 people were there and no one admits the murder. There is no physical evidence. But there is 10 personal smartphones that belongs to the 10 suspects.
Should police force to search all the 10 phones for evidence while violating 9 people’s privacy?
According to the article, they are going to “Validate legal rights.” If a police department has a valid search warrant then they have every legal right to unlock & decrypt the phone.
Something I don’t understand about a lot of the posters here is the unspoken sentiment or assumption that we have an absolute right to privacy and that any time any government agency accesses our private data it’s abusing our rights. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure. As a citizen, I want the police to be able access a phone when legally necessary. I just don’t want the NSA to be doing it constantly behind everyone’s back or any random person do do it if I lose my phone.
That's just it. It's a problem when the government is unilaterally deciding a search is "reasonable".
As opposed to every random citizen getting to decide for him/herself?
Our current system using a judge to review a search warrant and then giving defendants the opportunity to challenge the admissibility of evidence may not be perfect, but it at least has checks and balances and balances privacy with the needs of society to find and prosecute criminals. The utopian ideal of absolute privacy for everyone that some seem to espouse doesn't exist.
I attended a presentation once where the company sales director said his development team could guarantee their software was 100% bug free.
We didn't partner with him because he was obviously lying.
Well technically it is possible. Especially if the software was an inconsequential one-liner like "Hello World".
More complicated software can be bug-free in the sense of having a deterministic outcome given foreseeable inputs. TLA was invented by Lamport for this reason.
According to the article, they are going to “Validate legal rights.” If a police department has a valid search warrant then they have every legal right to unlock & decrypt the phone.
Something I don’t understand about a lot of the posters here is the unspoken sentiment or assumption that we have an absolute right to privacy and that any time any government agency accesses our private data it’s abusing our rights. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure. As a citizen, I want the police to be able access a phone when legally necessary. I just don’t want the NSA to be doing it constantly behind everyone’s back or any random person do do it if I lose my phone.
That's just it. It's a problem when the government is unilaterally deciding a search is "reasonable".
As opposed to every random citizen getting to decide for him/herself?
Our current system using a judge to review a search warrant and then giving defendants the opportunity to challenge the admissibility of evidence may not be perfect, but it at least has checks and balances and balances privacy with the needs of society to find and prosecute criminals. The utopian ideal of absolute privacy for everyone that some seem to espouse doesn't exist.
We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights which protect the rights of the individual, not the “needs of society”.
According to the article, they are going to “Validate legal rights.” If a police department has a valid search warrant then they have every legal right to unlock & decrypt the phone.
Something I don’t understand about a lot of the posters here is the unspoken sentiment or assumption that we have an absolute right to privacy and that any time any government agency accesses our private data it’s abusing our rights. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure. As a citizen, I want the police to be able access a phone when legally necessary. I just don’t want the NSA to be doing it constantly behind everyone’s back or any random person do do it if I lose my phone.
That's just it. It's a problem when the government is unilaterally deciding a search is "reasonable".
As opposed to every random citizen getting to decide for him/herself?
Our current system using a judge to review a search warrant and then giving defendants the opportunity to challenge the admissibility of evidence may not be perfect, but it at least has checks and balances and balances privacy with the needs of society to find and prosecute criminals. The utopian ideal of absolute privacy for everyone that some seem to espouse doesn't exist.
We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights which protect the rights of the individual, not the “needs of society”.
What does "promote the general welfare" mean to you?
According to the article, they are going to “Validate legal rights.” If a police department has a valid search warrant then they have every legal right to unlock & decrypt the phone.
Something I don’t understand about a lot of the posters here is the unspoken sentiment or assumption that we have an absolute right to privacy and that any time any government agency accesses our private data it’s abusing our rights. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure. As a citizen, I want the police to be able access a phone when legally necessary. I just don’t want the NSA to be doing it constantly behind everyone’s back or any random person do do it if I lose my phone.
That's just it. It's a problem when the government is unilaterally deciding a search is "reasonable".
As opposed to every random citizen getting to decide for him/herself?
Our current system using a judge to review a search warrant and then giving defendants the opportunity to challenge the admissibility of evidence may not be perfect, but it at least has checks and balances and balances privacy with the needs of society to find and prosecute criminals. The utopian ideal of absolute privacy for everyone that some seem to espouse doesn't exist.
We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights which protect the rights of the individual, not the “needs of society”.
What does "promote the general welfare" mean to you?
This gets easier every time someone repeats this mistake:
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."
The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate JusticeJoseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.
According to the article, they are going to “Validate legal rights.” If a police department has a valid search warrant then they have every legal right to unlock & decrypt the phone.
Something I don’t understand about a lot of the posters here is the unspoken sentiment or assumption that we have an absolute right to privacy and that any time any government agency accesses our private data it’s abusing our rights. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure. As a citizen, I want the police to be able access a phone when legally necessary. I just don’t want the NSA to be doing it constantly behind everyone’s back or any random person do do it if I lose my phone.
That's just it. It's a problem when the government is unilaterally deciding a search is "reasonable".
As opposed to every random citizen getting to decide for him/herself?
Our current system using a judge to review a search warrant and then giving defendants the opportunity to challenge the admissibility of evidence may not be perfect, but it at least has checks and balances and balances privacy with the needs of society to find and prosecute criminals. The utopian ideal of absolute privacy for everyone that some seem to espouse doesn't exist.
We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights which protect the rights of the individual, not the “needs of society”.
What does "promote the general welfare" mean to you?
This gets easier every time someone repeats this mistake:
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."
The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate JusticeJoseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.
Thank you! I’ve read it but have never been able to find the section that says the government(s) own your body and your thoughts and have the right to do whatever they want with your body and can tell you what you can and cannot do with your own body when it does not affect anyone else’s well being.
According to the article, they are going to “Validate legal rights.” If a police department has a valid search warrant then they have every legal right to unlock & decrypt the phone.
Something I don’t understand about a lot of the posters here is the unspoken sentiment or assumption that we have an absolute right to privacy and that any time any government agency accesses our private data it’s abusing our rights. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure. As a citizen, I want the police to be able access a phone when legally necessary. I just don’t want the NSA to be doing it constantly behind everyone’s back or any random person do do it if I lose my phone.
That's just it. It's a problem when the government is unilaterally deciding a search is "reasonable".
As opposed to every random citizen getting to decide for him/herself?
Our current system using a judge to review a search warrant and then giving defendants the opportunity to challenge the admissibility of evidence may not be perfect, but it at least has checks and balances and balances privacy with the needs of society to find and prosecute criminals. The utopian ideal of absolute privacy for everyone that some seem to espouse doesn't exist.
We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights which protect the rights of the individual, not the “needs of society”.
What does "promote the general welfare" mean to you?
This gets easier every time someone repeats this mistake:
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."
The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate JusticeJoseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.
First off what is this mistake you speak of? While you were avoiding your personal opinion, which is what I was more interested in, your selected web-clipping you offered instead accepts it has meaning beyond what you might imply it does, noting that your taxation does not have to personally benefit you as an individual but instead can be for the benefit of the public-at-large or in other words "the needs of society". Heck it goes beyond that.
For instance on what basis are "eminent domain" laws deemed legal? Well, to promote the public's (general) welfare. The general understanding that makes the taking of private property (with recompense) for public use legal under the Constitution extends as well to police protection and enforcement laws that enable the seizing of your personal property (without recompense) under certain conditions in order to protect the rights of the general public. The rights conferred in the Constitution protect more than the rights of you as an individual, quite plainly disproving your claim that the "needs of society" don't matter and are not protected.
So the rights of the public can trump the individual under certain scenarios. Surely you recognize that public needs do have protections conferred under the Constitution even if sometimes you may not like it when you aren't personally benefiting but instead contributing to the "general welfare" of the public.
You're welcome. Anyway, apologies to the admins for sliding the discussion off-topic. Back to the original discussion there's nothing illegal about Drivesaver's cracking service AFAICT and the price for doing so keeps this from being anything the scammer, a legitimate owner, or even policing agencies would have any interest in except in extreme cases.
According to the article, they are going to “Validate legal rights.” If a police department has a valid search warrant then they have every legal right to unlock & decrypt the phone.
Something I don’t understand about a lot of the posters here is the unspoken sentiment or assumption that we have an absolute right to privacy and that any time any government agency accesses our private data it’s abusing our rights. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure. As a citizen, I want the police to be able access a phone when legally necessary. I just don’t want the NSA to be doing it constantly behind everyone’s back or any random person do do it if I lose my phone.
That's just it. It's a problem when the government is unilaterally deciding a search is "reasonable".
As opposed to every random citizen getting to decide for him/herself?
Our current system using a judge to review a search warrant and then giving defendants the opportunity to challenge the admissibility of evidence may not be perfect, but it at least has checks and balances and balances privacy with the needs of society to find and prosecute criminals. The utopian ideal of absolute privacy for everyone that some seem to espouse doesn't exist.
Unfortunately, however, in practice the checks and balances don't work.
Getting a search warrant is easier than it should be. And there are a number of exceptions to the search warrant requirement. So law enforcement officers can often get away with warrantless searches. Further, even when they make mistakes of law or mistakes of fact which provide the bases for their actions, sometimes the exclusionary rule isn't applied. In other words, they can do things they aren't allowed to do - things that a court says there weren't allowed to do - and evidence resulting from those mistakes might still be admissible.
When it comes to holding government actors accountable for actions which violate people's rights, they are greatly protected. Even qualified immunity - which is a form of immunity enjoyed by law enforcement officers and which is more penetrable than that which is enjoyed by, e.g., prosecutors - provides a pretty strong shield for government actors when they behave egregiously. In practice - and I'm being just a bit hyperbolic here - it means that unless courts had previously said that the exact actions they took were wrong, they can't be held accountable for their actions even if those actions are easily identifiable as wrong - e.g., as violating people's constitutional rights. You hit the handcuffed suspect in the head with a baseball bat? Well, no court has ever said that would violate someone's rights. Courts have said that hitting them with a baton would, but not that hitting them with a bat would. So... you get a pass.
That, in my view, gets it backward. Government actors, able to wield the power of government in ways which can greatly affect people's lives, should be more rigorously held accountable for their improper actions than private actors are - not less rigorously. They shouldn't, when making decisions about how to wield their power, be allowed to think... is there any way to argue that what I"m about to do is allowed such that I might get away with it? Instead, they should be thinking... am I absolutely sure that what I'm about to do is allowed, because otherwise I shouldn't do it.
I worked in IT for a couple of decades.
I am exceedingly dubious of any tech firm that claims 100% success on anything. First rule of IT: no matter how good you are s*** happens.
I attended a presentation once where the company sales director said his development team could guarantee their software was 100% bug free.
We didn't partner with him because he was obviously lying.
Yeah, but he was the sales director. You knew he was lying before he opened his mouth.
Yeah, but to implicate other employees like that. I bet none of the software team told him their software was 100% bug free.
According to the article, they are going to “Validate legal rights.” If a police department has a valid search warrant then they have every legal right to unlock & decrypt the phone.
Something I don’t understand about a lot of the posters here is the unspoken sentiment or assumption that we have an absolute right to privacy and that any time any government agency accesses our private data it’s abusing our rights. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure. As a citizen, I want the police to be able access a phone when legally necessary. I just don’t want the NSA to be doing it constantly behind everyone’s back or any random person do do it if I lose my phone.
That's just it. It's a problem when the government is unilaterally deciding a search is "reasonable".
As opposed to every random citizen getting to decide for him/herself?
Our current system using a judge to review a search warrant and then giving defendants the opportunity to challenge the admissibility of evidence may not be perfect, but it at least has checks and balances and balances privacy with the needs of society to find and prosecute criminals. The utopian ideal of absolute privacy for everyone that some seem to espouse doesn't exist.
We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights which protect the rights of the individual, not the “needs of society”.
According to the article, they are going to “Validate legal rights.” If a police department has a valid search warrant then they have every legal right to unlock & decrypt the phone.
Something I don’t understand about a lot of the posters here is the unspoken sentiment or assumption that we have an absolute right to privacy and that any time any government agency accesses our private data it’s abusing our rights. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure. As a citizen, I want the police to be able access a phone when legally necessary. I just don’t want the NSA to be doing it constantly behind everyone’s back or any random person do do it if I lose my phone.
That's just it. It's a problem when the government is unilaterally deciding a search is "reasonable".
As opposed to every random citizen getting to decide for him/herself?
Our current system using a judge to review a search warrant and then giving defendants the opportunity to challenge the admissibility of evidence may not be perfect, but it at least has checks and balances and balances privacy with the needs of society to find and prosecute criminals. The utopian ideal of absolute privacy for everyone that some seem to espouse doesn't exist.
We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights which protect the rights of the individual, not the “needs of society”.
Yes, and if you read the constitution, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Please tell me where it says you have an absolute right to privacy.
Comments
Something I don’t understand about a lot of the posters here is the unspoken sentiment or assumption that we have an absolute right to privacy and that any time any government agency accesses our private data it’s abusing our rights. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure. As a citizen, I want the police to be able access a phone when legally necessary. I just don’t want the NSA to be doing it constantly behind everyone’s back or any random person do do it if I lose my phone.
10 people were there and no one admits the murder. There is no physical evidence. But there is 10 personal smartphones that belongs to the 10 suspects.
Should police force to search all the 10 phones for evidence while violating 9 people’s privacy?
Our current system using a judge to review a search warrant and then giving defendants the opportunity to challenge the admissibility of evidence may not be perfect, but it at least has checks and balances and balances privacy with the needs of society to find and prosecute criminals. The utopian ideal of absolute privacy for everyone that some seem to espouse doesn't exist.
More complicated software can be bug-free in the sense of having a deterministic outcome given foreseeable inputs. TLA was invented by Lamport for this reason.
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."
The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause
For instance on what basis are "eminent domain" laws deemed legal? Well, to promote the public's (general) welfare. The general understanding that makes the taking of private property (with recompense) for public use legal under the Constitution extends as well to police protection and enforcement laws that enable the seizing of your personal property (without recompense) under certain conditions in order to protect the rights of the general public. The rights conferred in the Constitution protect more than the rights of you as an individual, quite plainly disproving your claim that the "needs of society" don't matter and are not protected.
So the rights of the public can trump the individual under certain scenarios. Surely you recognize that public needs do have protections conferred under the Constitution even if sometimes you may not like it when you aren't personally benefiting but instead contributing to the "general welfare" of the public.
You're welcome. Anyway, apologies to the admins for sliding the discussion off-topic. Back to the original discussion there's nothing illegal about Drivesaver's cracking service AFAICT and the price for doing so keeps this from being anything the scammer, a legitimate owner, or even policing agencies would have any interest in except in extreme cases.
Getting a search warrant is easier than it should be. And there are a number of exceptions to the search warrant requirement. So law enforcement officers can often get away with warrantless searches. Further, even when they make mistakes of law or mistakes of fact which provide the bases for their actions, sometimes the exclusionary rule isn't applied. In other words, they can do things they aren't allowed to do - things that a court says there weren't allowed to do - and evidence resulting from those mistakes might still be admissible.
When it comes to holding government actors accountable for actions which violate people's rights, they are greatly protected. Even qualified immunity - which is a form of immunity enjoyed by law enforcement officers and which is more penetrable than that which is enjoyed by, e.g., prosecutors - provides a pretty strong shield for government actors when they behave egregiously. In practice - and I'm being just a bit hyperbolic here - it means that unless courts had previously said that the exact actions they took were wrong, they can't be held accountable for their actions even if those actions are easily identifiable as wrong - e.g., as violating people's constitutional rights. You hit the handcuffed suspect in the head with a baseball bat? Well, no court has ever said that would violate someone's rights. Courts have said that hitting them with a baton would, but not that hitting them with a bat would. So... you get a pass.
That, in my view, gets it backward. Government actors, able to wield the power of government in ways which can greatly affect people's lives, should be more rigorously held accountable for their improper actions than private actors are - not less rigorously. They shouldn't, when making decisions about how to wield their power, be allowed to think... is there any way to argue that what I"m about to do is allowed such that I might get away with it? Instead, they should be thinking... am I absolutely sure that what I'm about to do is allowed, because otherwise I shouldn't do it.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Please tell me where it says you have an absolute right to privacy.