tenly

sog35 said:

Both are guilty.

Netflix for not informing customers what they are doing. This is like McDonalds giving you only one beef patty in your BigMac because they are trying to 'protect' their customers from heart disease. Give me a break. Netlfix throttled streaming because it SAVED THEM MONEY. PERIOD.

AT&T and Verizon are guilty for charging ridiculous penalties for going over your cap. Pure evil. There should be a law if companies charge massive fines for OVERUSE the customer should get massive refunds for UNDER USE.

Solution?  Get T-mobile.

wood1208 said:

While fixing this bug, Apple can also add able to create/save multiple draft text/message before send option in iMessage App. Missing since it’s inception against android stock message app. iPhone users say create multiple draft using Notes App and cut/paste into imessage when ready to send your text. I say why ? why not build into imessage/text app like android stock text app. Even every email app on every platform does it when you leave draft, it automatically saves.

designr said:

dorkus maximus said:

Suppose the  court compels Apple. A month goes by and the engineers report, "I got nothin'." Another month and "Sorry, can't crack this nut." Another month and it's "I don't know where to start on this one!" How does the government force a group of programs to produce something if the programers say they don't know how to produce it? 

I was suggesting that a "passive rebellious" approach that would look very much like this could be Apple's final ace up their sleeve on this.

How do you prove that they just aren't trying hard (or smart) enough?!

Elspeth said:

But I struggle to understand the sanctity of the phone versus every other form of information storage. With proper judicial review your personal information has always been searchable. That includes bank accounts, phone records, computer hard drives, tax records, business records, email, written correspondence, photographs -- virtually anything. In the US, the only thing that stands between you and a search of any of these items is the 4th amendment which requires probable cause for the issue of a warrant.

So why is a photo stored on my phone unsearchable under warrant, while the same photo in an old-fashioned slide-carousel in my basement can clearly be searched for cause? The only plausible difference between a phone and other media is that modern phones amalgamate a wide variety of information in the same place. But so does my house and, given probable cause, the government can get a warrant to search that. So why not my phone? 

The ability of the government to search -- given probable cause and judicial review -- is not despotism. It's the basis of law enforcement. It's how we catch rapists and killers and financial fraudsters and terrorists too. It's always true that such powers can be seen as targeting the law-abiding as well as the criminal but it's not possible to avoid that. That's why it's always a balancing act between personal privacy and civil society. Advocates for absolute privacy in the digital domain seek to fundamentally alter that balance in ways that are unprecedented.

It is incredibly frustrating to hear people making this specious argument over and over.  Search warrants are used to seize property during criminal investigations.  They also give judicial permission to the law enforcement agency seizing the property to examine the property and use the property as evidence against a criminal defendant.  A search warrant was not even required in this case because the phone is not owned by the criminal...the phone is owned by a government agency.  That agency simply consented to the seizure of the property and the search of the seized property.  Search warrants are IRRELEVANT to this case.

A photo stored on your phone is NOT unserchable under a warrant (Riley v. California) if the police can access it the police can search it once they have a warrant.  However, YOU cannot be compelled to unlock your phone...not even with a search warrant...because that violates the 5th Amendment (the case law is all over the place on why, but lets just say it boils down to the act of entering a password on a phone or any device as being equivalent to making a statement that you own the phone and its contents...which is a statement of self-incrimination you cannot be compelled to make.)

A photo stored on an encrypted phone is not the same as a photo slide stored in a carousel in your basement...the photo carousel is not encrypted.  Now, if you had a safe in your basement that was impossible to open under any circumstances without your personal passcode and the photo carousel was inside that safe you start to get equivalent.  If you were dead and there was no way to open the safe, then the police can seize the safe they just cannot open it...cause you are dead and the information needed to open it died with you.  If they, law enforcement, figure out how to open the safe without the passcode, they are allowed to do so...through what ever means they deem necessary, including destroying the darn thing.  What they cannot do is unilaterally force another person, against their will, to open the safe just because the police have a warrant.  Warrants do not, and cannot, compel a person to do a thing they do not want to do, warrants are limited to allowing the police to physically collect and inspect evidence.

I simply do not understand why people cannot comprehend that this is not about whether the police can seize the photo in the first place.

Lets put it in more simply terms.  You are a terrorist.  You want to write secret notes to your co-conspirators that no one but you and they can read.  To do this, you devise a wholly new language that no one but you and your co-conspirators know (lets call the new language gibblefritz).  You write your diabolical plans down on paper in this new language.  You send unencrypted emails in this new language to you co-conspirators.  The police figure out you and your co-conspirators are a terrorists and they decide to arrest you, however, during the attempt to arrest you, all of you are killed.  When the police search your corpse and your conspiracy hang-out, after getting a search warrant, they find your written diabolical plans in your pockets and in filing cabinets in the hang-out.  They also find the emails on your computer. 

There ends the power of a search warrant.

The police are desperate to read your missives to learn whether they killed all the terrorists or if there are others they don't know about...but they cannot because everything is in gibblefritz and the police don't read gibblefritz...no one reads gibblefritz.  Now the police know that over at the University of  Apulosi, Dr. MacIntosh is really really good at deciphering dead languages.  So they take your gibblefritz writings to Dr. MacIntosh and they say "Dr. MacIntosh, please help us, please translate these writings."  Dr. MacIntosh says "I am so sorry, but I just cannot.  I don't have time.  I'll have to write a whole new program for my deciphering computer.  I don't have resources to do that and it will take a really long time to do.  Helping you will sully my reputation.  Helping you will undermine all my other work.  No one will trust me if I help you.  I don't want to learn to read the evil language of gibblefritz, anyway."  So, the police go to to court and the beg the judge "Please, you honor, make Dr. MacIntosh help us read these diabolical writings.  Don't listen to his excuses.  The people are in danger, there may be other terrorists out there.  The world will end if we do not find them.  The world will end if we don't learn how to read gibblefritz.  Give us a Writ to make Dr. MacIntosh do as we want."

This case is not about search warrants.  Never has been, never will be. Its about whether a court can order a person (corporations are people too, Citizens United v FEC) to make something, from scratch, that they don't want to.  The All Writs Act has never before been used in such a manner and the cases cited by the USDOJ do not support their position that it does (those cases required the phone company -the Bell Telephone Co, i.e. Ma Bell, and later ATT - to given the police the "pin registry" they already had in their possession for billing purposes so the police could see who the criminals were calling, or required the phone company to allow the police to install government owned listening devices on the lines for certain telephone numbers.)  Now if the feebs have software in their possession already that they want to install on the phone themselves, but need Apple's help to do so, the AWW *might* reach far enough to force Apple to help, to the best of their ability, with the installation.  But the feebs don't have the software, they want to turn Apple in to a slave to their desires that such software be created.  If they are allowed to do that with Apple, then every person in the country can be conscripted against their will to do the bidding of the government no matter how much it will harm us personally.