Apple v the FBI

[imprimis]

Government using a 227 year old law to force Apple to open the cell phone of the San Bernardino terrorist.

http://gizmodo.com/the-227-year-old-statute-being-used-to-order-apple-into-1759736160

 

[TPOKE]

In this case I see no problem with it.

 

[long-duc-dong]

If this phone were used by some cracker who had gone on a shooting rampage at a LGBT rally or a black lives matter event, and killed 14 people, would Tim Cook even require an order from a judge?

 

[NeekReevers]

I have no problem with a judge compelling Apple to help the FBI unlock this specific phone because there is obviously plenty of evidence to legally justify the search of the phone. It sounds to me that they are asking Apple to give them the ability to unlock any and every phone. I have a major issue with that.

 

[Inky29]

Just give the phone to apple and ask them to unlock. The gov. doesn't need a back door into my iphone. Don't see why it needs to be so difficult.

 

[imprimis]

I have no problem with a judge compelling Apple to help the FBI unlock this specific phone because there is obviously plenty of evidence to legally justify the search of the phone. It sounds to me that they are asking Apple to give them the ability to unlock any and every phone. I have a major issue with that.

That's my concern because we know the government doesn't stop at the minimum request. And I don't use anything Apple.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Apple CEO did the right thing in this case IMO.

 

[imprimis]

Apple CEO did the right thing in this case IMO.

He probably did but will lose in the long run. Apparently, the FBI wants the "key" to the vault so they can open up any iPhone they seize in the future. It won't stop with the FBI.

 

[MegaPoke]

Apple CEO did the right thing in this case IMO.

I agree - in the end he will lose, but it won't matter. He's made a case for protection of privacy in doing this and in the end will assist the investigation. Solid PR move in the long run IMO.

 

[ctdub]

How can the FBI force a company to create something that doesn't exist (so Apple says)? It would be one thing if Apple had the ability already to do this. They are saying they will have to create a back door to hack the encryption.

 

[Ostatedchi]

As a cyber-security analyst I applaud Apple. (And I generally do not like their products)

There is no way in hell that the law enforcement agencies in America won't abuse this. Also, once they break their own security model, China, Iran, and Russia will all reverse engineer it and your mobile life will become hell.

Also, the onus is on the guy's employer to provide that data. Not the manufacturer. From a legal ruling it is just baffling.

Lastly, lets assume you are a safe manufacturer and you create a safe that is impenetrable. Are you telling me that the governement can compel the company to open it after they sold it to someone? Where does that end? If a gun manufacturer sells a gun and it is used in a crime, is it on the manufacturer to do ballistics? No, that's the government's job. Figure it out.

 

[imprimis]

It's my understanding that Apple wasn't in the courtroom when this was argued or decided. Sort of like the FISA kangaroo courts. The Obama Administration doesn't escape blame. They have placed an embargo on intelligence agencies from surveilling Mosques---you know, the place where these people talk about and plan their terror attacks and store their weapons.

 

[Inky29]

Folks can hack into the Icloud to get nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence but the FBI can't crack this phone, sad.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Folks can hack into the Icloud to get nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence but the FBI can't crack this phone, sad.

Humorous.. but not really the same thing. One was just poor password management and complexity; the other is true 256 bit encryption algorithm.

 

[MegaPoke]

Is the fbi trying to crack this phone specifically for this investigation or are they trying to have a permanent back foot into iPhones?

Big dif.

 

[Ostatedchi]

In my opinion Mega, one leads directly into the other.

 

[MegaPoke]

Getting more interesting...

 

[NeekReevers]

Getting more interesting...

I wondered as well why the FBI doesn't employ people that are capable of this. My guess is they probably do they are just using an emotionally charged case to achieve their real objective which is an open back door to every phone that they can access with ease.

 

[imprimis]

their real objective which is an open back door to every phone that they can access with ease.

And to get the "key" to give to every law enforcement and intelligence organization on the planet.

 

[MegaPoke]

And to get the "key" to give to every law enforcement and intelligence organization on the planet.

Yep.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

In my opinion Mega, one leads directly into the other.

Exactly.

 

[JonnyVito]

Folks can hack into the Icloud to get nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence but the FBI can't crack this phone, sad.

Well most hackers like smoking pot and snorting coke so they are unemployable by the federal government. I guess they should cover up rapes and lie and cheat causing Americans to lose their lives if they want to be hired by this administration. I honestly could give two craps about what someone puts in their body if they are helping protect the safety of Americans. If they want to stay up all day and night blowing coke and hacking China more power to them.

 

[cableok]

I guess I don't know enough of the story. Why doesn't or why can't Apple quietly just unencrypt the specific phone of the SB terrorists?

 

[CowboyJD]

I have no problem with a judge compelling Apple to help the FBI unlock this specific phone because there is obviously plenty of evidence to legally justify the search of the phone. It sounds to me that they are asking Apple to give them the ability to unlock any and every phone. I have a major issue with that.

I don't see anywhere in the 4th Amendment that says a private entity can be compelled to execute a search warrant on behalf of the state....which is what we are talking about.

Just give the phone to apple and ask them to unlock. The gov. doesn't need a back door into my iphone. Don't see why it needs to be so difficult.

Because we're talking about a principle of compelling private citizens and entities to become investigate arms of the state.

Is the fbi trying to crack this phone specifically for this investigation or are they trying to have a permanent back foot into iPhones?

Big dif.

I don't think there is one bit of difference. The 4th Amendment says that the state can't search or seize property without a warrant. It doesn't say they can compel private entities to involuntarily provide them the means to execute and perform the search. This, in my opinion, comes very close to an involuntary servitude situation. This is statism in it's purest form....compelling individuals and private entities to perform involuntarily on the behalf of a state organization.

Also, if they establish a precedent that they can force Apple to crack open this phone specifically for this investigation.....they have their permanent back foot into IPhones. They just go get one of these orders anytime they want to get in.

 

[CowboyJD]

I guess I don't know enough of the story. Why doesn't or why can't Apple quietly just unencrypt the specific phone of the SB terrorists?

The operating system on the phone in question has a feature that can set to to destroy the data on the phone if the wrong password entry is put in ten times so the FBI can't hack it their usual way....brute force submission of password combinations.

The order requires Apple to develop and install a new iOS that eliminates that feature so they can crack it without fear of erasing the data.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

I don't see anywhere in the 4th Amendment that says a private entity can be compelled to execute a search warrant on behalf of the state....which is what we are talking about.



Because we're talking about a principle of compelling private citizens and entities to become investigate arms of the state.



I don't think there is one bit of difference. The 4th Amendment says that the state can't search or seize property without a warrant. It doesn't say they can compel private entities to involuntarily provide them the means to execute and perform the search. This, in my opinion, comes very close to an involuntary servitude situation. This is statism in it's purest form....compelling individuals and private entities to perform involuntarily on the behalf of a state organization.

Also, if they establish a precedent that they can force Apple to crack open this phone specifically for this investigation.....they have their permanent back foot into IPhones. They just go get one of these orders anytime they want to get in.

Perfectly stated.

 

[JonnyVito]

The operating system on the phone in question has a feature that can set to to destroy the data on the phone if the wrong password entry is put in ten times so the FBI can't hack it their usual way....brute force submission of password combinations.

The order requires Apple to develop and install a new iOS that eliminates that feature so they can crack it without fear of erasing the data.

Unreal the government is out of control.

 

[imprimis]

Just saw where the DOJ is considering going after the FBI for allegedly trying to pay a ransom for Bergdahl's release.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ay-probe-alleged-bergdahl-ransom-payment.html

Perhaps this is the DOJ's way of communicating to the FBI that they don't want to get an indictment referral on Hillary and have to make a decision whether to indict.

 

[Inky29]

Um this guy is dead, IF you can talk to him then ask him, but since he's dead then give it to apple and have them open it. Different scenario if you are asking a live person. I completely get that, this doesn't have to be difficult but yet it is. Like I said before, they dont' need to build a back door for the FBI and eventually others to to access but this should be fairly simple by both parties to fix. I could be wrong but I don't believe the phone was actually his, wasn't it given to him by the people he killed to use for work? I

 

[CowboyJD]

Um this guy is dead, IF you can talk to him then ask him, but since he's dead then give it to apple and have them open it. Different scenario if you are asking a live person. I completely get that, this doesn't have to be difficult but yet it is. Like I said before, they dont' need to build a back door for the FBI and eventually others to to access but this should be fairly simple by both parties to fix. I could be wrong but I don't believe the phone was actually his, wasn't it given to him by the people he killed to use for work? I

If he was alive, the court and the FBI would have no authority/ability to compel him to give up the password. That would be a violation of the 5th Amendment prohibition against self incrimination.

The Writ compels them to write a new iOS without the feature, replace the iOS on the phone and then provide the phone with the new iOS back to the FBI to brute force crack the password.

That's the very definition of a back door, IMO. It's also the very opposite of simple to fix.

 

[CowboyJD]

http://www.cato.org/publications/co...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

There are tons of privacy implications beyond this one phone.

 

[Ostatedchi]

I spoke to Rep. Bridenstine this morning about this very topic. Not that he can do much.

 

[ctdub]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Why is it that I hear the Benny Hill theme music when I read this?


http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-bernar...passcode-changed-government/story?id=37066070

 

[CowboyJD]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html

So?

It's a big leap to say because an entity voluntarily cooperated with assisting the government in the past the government should be able to compel the against their will to do so.

 

[ctdub]

So?

It's a big leap to say because an entity voluntarily cooperated with assisting the government in the past the government should be able to compel the against their will to do so.

I agree with you.

I just found it interesting that Apple has assisted many times before.

 

[Ostatedchi]

I can't see how anyone would think that the government having the ability to compel someone to act as an agent of the government against their will. What is even more baffling is that they got a judge to agree to it. Where did that idiot study law and the Constitution?

Let's put it a different way.

Say you are a landlord of a rental house (very common). The government thinks a terrorist is living there. So instead of kicking the door in themselves; they get a judge to force you to go do it yourself instead of the FBI? It is great for the government since all the risk is on you.

No way in hell this ruling stands judicial review.

 

[davidallen]

I agree with you.

I just found it interesting that Apple has assisted many times before.

Apple has never done this bit before... online backups are subject to subpoena and Apple has provided access to backups when required to do so. This is the physical device, to which Apple has no means of access. They would by necessity need to create that access. To the analogy above - they aren't asking the land lord for keys, they are asking the land lord to build an entirely new ingress to the dwelling.

 

[CowboyJD]

Apple has never done this bit before... online backups are subject to subpoena and Apple has provided access to backups when required to do so. This is the physical device, to which Apple has no means of access. They would by necessity need to create that access. To the analogy above - they aren't asking the land lord for keys, they are asking the land lord to build an entirely new ingress to the dwelling.

The analogy I've been using is probably a little overwrought, but I like it.

"Hey local militia patriot, we hear you're pretty good clearing houses with a semi-auto rifle and have your own body armor....congratulations, you're point on this no knock, door busting search warrant we're serving tomorrow."

 

[CowboyJD]

Is the fbi trying to crack this phone specifically for this investigation or are they trying to have a permanent back foot into iPhones?

Big dif.

In my opinion Mega, one leads directly into the other.

I guess I don't know enough of the story. Why doesn't or why can't Apple quietly just unencrypt the specific phone of the SB terrorists?

It's already NOT about just this one phone.

http://gawker.com/justice-wants-apple-to-unlock-at-least-twelve-other-iph-1760772528

A report for my liberal friends, and.....

http://www.wsj.com/articles/justice...t-data-from-about-12-other-iphones-1456202213

For my more conservatively inclined ones,