manfred zorn

About

Username
manfred zorn
Joined
Visits
74
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
134
Badges
1
Posts
28
  • Government says Apple arguments in encryption case a 'diversion,' presents point-by-point rebuttal

    The fact is, the case isn't about who can shout loudest or come up with the most damning insult.  It's about whether the government has a right to force a private citizen, in this case a corporation, to act against its will in service of a government investigation to which the private citizen is not a direct party.

    Some have suggested that this is no different than the government asking the manufacturer of a safe to help crack the safe.  Lets say the smartphone as safe argument has merit.  To crack a safe, you call a safe cracker, perhaps with some technical details provided by the safe manufacturer.  Apple, the iPhone manufacturer, has already provided the technical details of how passwords are protected. The FBI has no authority, in my view, to demand that Apple weaken those protections. No more than they have the authority to tell safe manufacturers to redesign their safes so that they can be cracked; ones they build in the future or ones they've already built and sold.  It's up to the FBI's safecracker, or one they hire who voluntarily takes that employment, to crack the safe/iPhone.
    It's like blaming a shredder manufacturer for developing a paper shredder that even they cannot reassemble the document from the pieces. Or a match manufacturer for being unable to reassemble the paper from the burnt ashes.
    radarthekatVisualSeedewtheckmanchiahlee1169
  • Apple lead attorney Bruce Sewell to testify before US Congress on encryption debate March 1

    Looks like the 5th amendment should apply to your iPhone: you have the right to remain silent to avoid incriminating statements. Since your iPhone contains a lot of information about you, where you were, what restaurants you like, what pictures you take or save, your contacts, your messages, etc., I would suggest that the 5th amendment should apply. It's more than your property safe from unreasonable search and seizure by the 4th amendment.
    lostkiwilatifbp