VisualSeed
About
- Banned
- Username
- VisualSeed
- Joined
- Visits
- 21
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 465
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 217
Reactions
-
Apple counsel Bruce Sewell calls DOJ filing 'cheap shot' that seeks to 'vilify'
What I'm having a hard time understanding is what the DOJ hopes to gain going the the FUD route in this case. They have a very finite legal argument that seems to be pretty much in Apple's favor at the moment. It would take some extraordinary re-interpertation of the law for the court to side in favor of the DOJ and it would almost certainly be overturned on appeal given the New York ruling. Unless they think that somehow giving Apple some bad press will make them comply I don't see the advantage to all the public statements and poo flinging. Anyone that knows Apple knows they rarely (almost never) give in to public pressure. They also just took a nearly half a billion dollar hit to appeal the ebook case just on principle. From what I see, almost every attempt the DOJ makes to further their case makes them less likable in the publics' eyes. As an American, I'm actually embarrassed that my government partakes in this level of unprofessionalism. Then again the head of the FBI was once known for dressing in drag and stalking celebrities while letting our atomic secrets get passed onto the Soviets right under their noses, so it hasn't exactly been the shining example of professionalism it makes itself out to be.jakeb said:I am impressed / depressed at the incredible amount of shade being thrown here.
Is this a normal thing? The DOJ is using Appeal to Emotion rather than arguing for the legal correctness of their position
-
Government says Apple arguments in encryption case a 'diversion,' presents point-by-point rebuttal
Not many year before the Constitution was written many thousands of people gave their lives so we may enjoy the liberties that they died having never enjoyed themselves. It's always nice to say think of the families, the dead, or the children, but if we can't stand by the principles that founded our nation then we have no basis for civl society. Nothing will be sacred. Not even life and we become lawless in the worst way.steevyweb said:While I support the principal Apple is putting forward, I would also challenge you all to think about the families of the dead, killed by the owner of that phone. This isn't just some nebulous government intervention on rights and freedoms. People died and the authorities are trying any means to find out how it happened. Look at what you have stored on your own device. You've gotta believe there might be something on that phone that may help the investigation or perhaps alert us to other threats. So yes, its a damn slippery slope, but lets remember the tragic reason behind the governments ask and the victims who want answers. Tell me you could look at the mothers and fathers and children of those who were massacred by terrorists and say "sorry, but its the principal of the thing, ya know? wish I could help but..". Thats basically what Apple is saying to these families. Its a true moral dilemna, not just a privacy issue.
-
Government says Apple arguments in encryption case a 'diversion,' presents point-by-point rebuttal
The correct response by the DOJ to Apple claiming a burden would be "it's only a tiny change to the source code to remove a few restrictions" not attempting to publicly shame a company with hundreds of billions of dollar in revenues and 100K employees into doing what they want. The undue burden defense was an answer to the scope of the all writs act. The argument by Apple, against the DOJ compelling speech or servitude to assist is a constitutional argument. Skills or resources play not part in that.PineTreeWest said:
What a red herring. This was in direct response to Apple claiming "undue burden" which is a farce. Should Apple provide you with tech support because they offered it in a warranty? Yes, claiming undue burden would be a farce. Should they re-engineer the entire device's software and internal components to meet your personal wants under warranty? No, that would be a significant burden. Got it now?VisualSeed said:The legal argument should never be "you should help us because you can afford to help us." If that was the criteria then courts should be able to compel the rich to feed the hungry or build houses for the homeless. I have a friend that I helped move 4 times over the last few years. This weekend I decided I didn't want to help for a 5th time. Am I somehow legally obligated to help because I own a truck and helped in the past? -
Apple counsel Bruce Sewell calls DOJ filing 'cheap shot' that seeks to 'vilify'
The number one function of our society is not to catch criminals or 'terrorists". There is no reason for law enforcement to have rights to access our private data that are greater than our right to secure it. Law enforcement is subservient to society not the master of it. If I have to accept that criminals have access to firearms because law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms, then we all must accept that some evidence of criminal activity may be aggregated on an encrypted device in exchange for our personal, financial and health information being equally encrypted.ration al said:
I vehemently disagree. Unbreakable encryption is not yet illegal. The decision as to whether or not your phone can be accessed by LEO's can be made individually by your not creating a PIN or password.Emericus said:Based on these latest documents, I'm starting to see this a bit differently than before. Each side is attempting to prevent a certain kind of precedent from being set. For Apple, we all know what the precedent is because the media has covered it to death: Apple wants to avoid even implicitly supporting the idea that a governing body can compel it to hack and undermine the security of its own devices. But for the FBI it's a different precedent they want to avoid, a precedent set in motion by the release of iOS8 in 2014: the FBI wants to avoid supporting the idea that it's okay and legal for any tech company to design devices that thwart all attempts at entry by law enforcement or anyone else. While such devices and the networks they operate on will naturally keep my own legal emails and bank account numbers secure, they will certainly also become the haven for all manner of illegal behavior. And if allowed to be used freely in private and public, as iPhones are now, such devices over time could render many forms of law enforcement perpetually ineffective (perhaps they already are). Now, I don't work for law enforcement, and I'm not necessarily siding with the FBI here, but I'm starting to the see the bigger picture how they see it, and it does make some sense without being too paranoid. The issue is that so many people use smartphones and cellphones (just like so many people use roads, airspace, and building enclosures), it may not be in the public's best interest that these things be designed to thwart all law enforcement activities always. On that account, it might be worth the government's best legal efforts to basically force Apple to dismantle iOS8 and thus, in the bigger picture, teach all tech companies a basic lesson: so many people use these devices and networks, it is in the public's best interest that they all have some form of backdoor, even if the downside is increased likelihood of opportunistic hacking.
History has proven that it is never in the public's best interest to give government and law enforcement unlimited powers, that's why we have the Bill of Rights. I for one would like the right to disagree with the government on issues without them being able to plant evidence on my phone to strong-arm me into compliance.
-
Apple counsel Bruce Sewell calls DOJ filing 'cheap shot' that seeks to 'vilify'
That famous quote in Tora! Tora! Tora! about awaking a sleeping giant really applies here. Apple has a massive war chest and has never really spent much of it lobbying Washington. I think that's about to change.
