Judge forces Apple to unlock iPhone

[Darwin333]

Source?

He's talking about the Icloud password which the Feds got caught in a lie.

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

 

[Kwatt]

Bu,bu,but they only want it for this one phone right?


What they are saying out loud is "When we are in control we will be fair and just". The part they leave out is "At first".

If there weren't so many cases of Law Enforcement killing people for trivial stuff and not being punished for it. Some might look at this differently.

Not me, because I don't think Apple should be forced to do it.


.

 

[Rakehellion]

Their would need to be a way for government to access the safe when necessary. Safety >>> Privacy

Privacy is safety.

 

[bozack]

Private companies don't set precedent. Just because they did something once doesn't mean that they must do it again unless they are under some sort of contractual agreement.

This would be akin to me saying "You sucked my dick three times therefore you set a precedent and must continue sucking my dick whenever I please". Do you realize how absurd that is?

They were under court order and they complied with the order, what part of that don't you get? they set the precedent of complying with court orders for data discovery...if they had an issue with this then they should have dealt with it initially, when ordered to do so the first time....not now after 70 or more times of producing data.

Regardless it is now up to the courts to determine the outcome....all we can do is wait.

 

[bozack]

He's talking about the Icloud password which the Feds got caught in a lie.

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

the Feds clarified this...the password reset was suggested by the county and approved by the feds and executed by county techs..

 

[Victorian Gray]

the Feds clarified this...the password reset was suggested by the county and approved by the feds and executed by county techs..

And the FBI info:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2716811-Statement-from-the-FBI-Feb-20-2016.html

 

[Kwatt]

They were under court order and they complied with the order, what part of that don't you get? they set the precedent of complying with court orders for data discovery...if they had an issue with this then they should have dealt with it initially, when ordered to do so the first time....not now after 70 or more times of producing data.

They complied with a court order to provide the data they had access to.

Now they are being ordered to gain access to something they don't currently have access to.

.

 

[lopri]

I am curious what people might say here if it was Huawei, not Apple, that the court subpoenaed. Same deal? If not, why not?

People worry about a precedent being set in favor of the government, but the converse is also true. If the precedent is set in Apple's favor, there is nothing stopping foreign corporations or shadow corporations to take advantage of a favorable precedent. I am sure some of the folks here will speak in a different tune when that happens. It should be noted here that we are not talking about privacy of a citizen, but a 3rd party's desire to shield a person's privacy for commercial reasons.

Apple will lose in court if the court follows the laws and the precedents - I am 90% confident about it. Between All Writs Act and United States v. New York Telephone Co. the result is almost preordained. And that is the reason why Apple went public with the fight - because they know they cannot win in the court they want the public to weigh in and put pressure on FBI. Legally, only ways out for Apple is that they prove what FBI ask is unreasonably burdensome (e.g. beyond Apple's competence), or appeals court (or more appropriately SCOTUS) create a new doctrine that will work in favor of Apple. And no, an argument that FBI is violating the 13th Amendment is not going to be made by Apple's lawyers (lol)

I am in favor of changing the laws and policies to strengthen privacy of all citizens, although past discussions do not instill much optimism. In my observation American people are more often than not willing to give up privacy in exchange of security. Take, for example, the Guantanamo Bay that president Obama today proposed closing. The Guantanamo Bay serves purely symbolic function yet the backlash is almost immediate and fierce.

Changing the law in favor of Apple is something I am open to discuss. But I have a feeling that many presently-outraged citizens will have a second thought when they learn the all the ramification of such laws, since the law will have to apply to everyone equally. I would oppose to such a legislation if it privileges a select few individuals or corporations.

 

[Darwin333]

They were under court order and they complied with the order, what part of that don't you get? they set the precedent of complying with court orders for data discovery...if they had an issue with this then they should have dealt with it initially, when ordered to do so the first time....not now after 70 or more times of producing data.

Regardless it is now up to the courts to determine the outcome....all we can do is wait.

So if a girl sucks my dick X amount of times she must continue to suck my dick whenever I demand?

Like I said, people and private companies do NOT set precedent in the context of this discussion, courts do. I'm used to eating when I go to a restaurant but just because they served me once doesn't mean they owe me a steak whenever I demand. OTOH if a court rules a certain way on a specific issue I can and do expect them to follow the precedent that they set.

What part of this don't you get?

 

[JSt0rm]

I like how conservatives think the federal government can force you to make something.

 

[nickqt]

I like how conservatives think the federal government can force you to make something.

Well, they can clearly force you to purchase broccoli, as the great mind of Justice Scalia once noted.

 

[BoberFett]

I like how conservatives think the federal government can force you to make something.

Pssssst... The FBI and DoJ are a part of the executive branch. Who heads that again?

 

[lopri]

Those who are wondering where median Americans' attitude is in this matter, look no further than with which side the presidential candidates stand. Last time I checked, even the Democratic candidates equivocate. Trump went ballistic against Apple. I am pretty certain Rubio is also on FBI's side.

That tells you about what majority of Americans think and how much work needs to be done to persuade your fellow citizens if you want more robust privacy protection.

 

[MrPickins]

Those who are wondering where median Americans' attitude is in this matter, look no further than with which side the presidential candidates stand. Last time I checked, even the Democratic candidates equivocate. Trump went ballistic against Apple. I am pretty certain Rubio is also on FBI's side.

That tells you about what majority of Americans think and how much work needs to be done to persuade your fellow citizens if you want more robust privacy protection.

People are short-sighted and overly willing to give up rights when the government scares them with talk of terrorism?

Who would have thunk???

Besides, that's just an appeal to majority.

 

[JSt0rm]

Pssssst... The FBI and DoJ are a part of the executive branch. Who heads that again?

Socialist propaganda coffee exporters?

 

[Darwin333]

I am curious what people might say here if it was Huawei, not Apple, that the court subpoenaed. Same deal? If not, why not?

Yes, same exact deal.

People worry about a precedent being set in favor of the government, but the converse is also true. If the precedent is set in Apple's favor, there is nothing stopping foreign corporations or shadow corporations to take advantage of a favorable precedent. I am sure some of the folks here will speak in a different tune when that happens. It should be noted here that we are not talking about privacy of a citizen, but a 3rd party's desire to shield a person's privacy for commercial reasons.

It would be trivially easy to prevent this sort of backdoor in the first place. It's as simple as making the phone wipe the data if any non-user agreed (or any for that matter) updates are pushed to it. Bam, they can't compel them to help cracking it because the manufacturer simply won't have the ability. I guarantee that companies are already looking into something like this because of this case. It would take an act of Congress to prevent this trivially easy security feature from being sold in the US just like it should take an act of Congress to require manufacturers to do things like the Justice Department is trying to force Apple to do.

Besides, the above is completely irrelevant because we are supposed to be a society that believes in the rule of law. It doesn't matter what we "think", it matters what the law allows.

Apple will lose in court if the court follows the laws and the precedents - I am 90% confident about it. Between All Writs Act and United States v. New York Telephone Co. the result is almost preordained. And that is the reason why Apple went public with the fight - because they know they cannot win in the court they want the public to weigh in and put pressure on FBI. Legally, only ways out for Apple is that they prove what FBI ask is unreasonably burdensome (e.g. beyond Apple's competence), or appeals court (or more appropriately SCOTUS) create a new doctrine that will work in favor of Apple. And no, an argument that FBI is violating the 13th Amendment is not going to be made by Apple's lawyers (lol)

This is the second time you referenced that case and it is so far away from what we are talking about it's silly. First and foremost the argument that the telco put forward is that the government did in fact have the legal authority to require them to install the pen registers but the government needed to provide them with a wiretap warrant. Secondly the government did not demand that they create an entirely new product. As a matter of fact the government provided the product that they wanted installed. The only way this case would be remotely similar is if the FBI's own people wrote the new version of IOS and they needed Apple to help install it.

You can change the wording but it's the same argument that you failed to defend previously.

As far as making it public, again we are supposed to be a nation governed by the rule of law. Publicity should have zero effect on how the courts rule and usually don't. As proof I submit the dozen or so additional Iphones that the government has demanded Apple create and install this backdoor for. Rather funny when they were literally saying that this was something they wanted designed specifically to work only on a single device just a few days ago.
I don't buy that they are doing it for publicity either, they had an absurdly easy out by just complying with the court order. All they had to say is that we had no choice, talk to your legislators. I highly doubt that they are going up against the "rah rah terrorist" theme the government is throwing at them and the retardedly high costs of fighting this in the courts for publicity. They are pissing off the sheeple and at least from my experience the vast majority of the people that are happy they are fighting this don't use their products. A publicity stunt that costs you a ton of capital, pisses off way more people that do or might use your products and appeases mostly people that don't and will not use your products just isn't very smart.

I am in favor of changing the laws and policies to strengthen privacy of all citizens, although past discussions do not instill much optimism. In my observation American people are more often than not willing to give up privacy in exchange of security. Take, for example, the Guantanamo Bay that president Obama today proposed closing. The Guantanamo Bay serves purely symbolic function yet the backlash is almost immediate and fierce.

Changing the law in favor of Apple is something I am open to discuss. But I have a feeling that many presently-outraged citizens will have a second thought when they learn the all the ramification of such laws, since the law will have to apply to everyone equally. I would oppose to such a legislation if it privileges a select few individuals or corporations.

"Changing the law in favor of Apple"??? There is no law that makes encryption illegal, there is no law that requires Apple to leave their devices in a way that allows them to install backdoors on them that makes it easier for the government to brute force them. There is no law that requires Apple to design and provide a way for the government to break something that they spent a ton of resources designing to be unbreakable. Exactly which law are you talking about changing? If you think that if the government gets away with using a friggen 18th century law to force modern companies to modify an operating system that the government will repeal said law.... I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[Darwin333]

Pssssst... The FBI and DoJ are a part of the executive branch. Who heads that again?

The DOJ nor the FBI is forcing anyone to do shit. A judge is who is part of the judicial branch. I'm not sure why this matters but it's a rather important distinction.

 

[lopri]

People are short-sighted and overly willing to give up rights when the government scares them with talk of terrorism?

Who would have thunk???

Then you should persuade people to realize that they are shortsighted. That is how democracy works. Again, let me say again that is what I used to do! I kind of gave up doing it myself, but I will support efforts to raise awareness in privacy.

Besides, that's just an appeal to majority.

I think you misunderstood what I said. Ad Populum means you decide on rightness/wrongness to the mass preferences. I did not argue what people prefer is a (morally) right answer. I argued what people want tend to become laws.

An appropriate example is right in the page you linked:

Nine out of ten of my constituents oppose the bill, therefore it is a bad idea.

This is a logical fallacy. But the following is not:

Nine out of ten of my constituents oppose the bill, therefore I represent their will in opposing it.

It is a description, not a normative judgment.

 

[MrPickins]

Then you should persuade people to realize that they are shortsighted. That is how democracy works. Again, let me say again that is what I used to do! I kind of gave up doing it myself, but I will support efforts to raise awareness in privacy.

Isn't that exactly what Darwin333 and others are doing in this thread? I call BS on you being concerned about privacy, though. Your posts in this thread clearly indicate on which side of the issue you stand.

I think you misunderstood what I said. Ad Populum means you decide on rightness/wrongness to the mass preferences. I did not argue what people prefer is a (morally) right answer. I argued what people want tend to become laws.

An appropriate example is right in the page you linked:



This is a logical fallacy. But the following is not:



It is a description, not a normative judgment.

My mistake, then. I did misunderstand what you meant.

 

[BoberFett]

Socialist propaganda coffee exporters?

That's what you call Obama? Interesting. What do you call Hillary?

 

[BoberFett]

The DOJ nor the FBI is forcing anyone to do shit. A judge is who is part of the judicial branch. I'm not sure why this matters but it's a rather important distinction.

Seriously? So as long as a judge OKs it, the FBI gets to wash it's hands of THEIR request to force Apple to produce a hacked OS?

 

[lopri]

Isn't that exactly what Darwin333 and others are doing in this thread?

I am afraid not. Privacy does not concern Darwin333 very much. Darwin333's beef is that Apple is being "forced" into "involuntary servitude."

 

[MagickMan]

Pssssst... The FBI and DoJ are a part of the executive branch. Who heads that again?

Some ignorant, jug-eared twat.

 

[BoberFett]

Some ignorant, jug-eared twat.

Thanks for bringing that down to gutter politics

 

[Darwin333]

Seriously? So as long as a judge OKs it, the FBI gets to wash it's hands of THEIR request to force Apple to produce a hacked OS?

I wouldn't exactly say that but the fact of the matter is the FBI is free to request whatever they want. It takes a judge, or more specifically the judicial system, to demand it. That's just the way the law works and I've been arguing that this entire thread, I have no intention on changing now regardless of which side of the issue you fall on.