Judge forces Apple to unlock iPhone

[MrPickins]

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

Don't mistake legal justification for his arguments with his underlying concerns.

(Yes, I'm making assumptions, but Darwin33 is free to correct me)

 

[Darwin333]

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

Actually that would be my legal argument not my "beef", the two tend to vary from time to time.

If you would like to know my personal beliefs, which you have yet to ask, I believe highly in a persons right to privacy as guaranteed by the 4th amendment. Frankly I believe in all of our rights regardless of which number is in front of said amendment. This isn't really a 4th amendment issue though since the asshole that shot a bunch of innocent people obviously no longer has any rights regardless if he's dead or not. My issue has, and remains, that Apple did not give up its rights when said asshole decided to start shooting people. This has been upheld in the courts numerous times and is why the manufacturer of the gun said asshole used isn't fighting court cases. I think that we can all agree that the gun had a bit more to do with making people dead then his Iphone did.

I'm sorry but I personally don't buy your bullshit "I believe in our rights to privacy but I think that Congress needs to pass a law to ensure them" line. There is already a law in place that protects our privacy and it's supposedly the "supreme law in the land" that all elected officials swear to defend and uphold.

You have yet to tell me what law needs to be changed to not allow a judge to force a company to provide labor for the government and I seriously doubt that you will tell me what new laws need to be penned to protect our privacy.

 

[Darwin333]

Don't mistake legal justification for his arguments with his underlying concerns.

(Yes, I'm making assumptions, but Darwin33 is free to correct me)

It's three "3's" behind my name, other than that no correction necessary.

 

[MrPickins]

It's three "3's" behind my name, other than that no correction necessary.

There is a reason behind my sig. Typos are in my nature.

 

[lopri]

Don't mistake legal justification for his arguments with his underlying concerns.

(Yes, I'm making assumptions, but Darwin33 is free to correct me)

You are making assumptions in favor of Darwin333 yet you cannot take my words for it and accuse me of bad faith? That is amazing. Please do not mistake my legal explanations with my personal views.

I suggest you go back and read Darwin333's posts. Why assume when the evidences abound?

P.S. How about this?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38045521&postcount=255

 

[DCal430]

FYI companies like Apple and Google do not care about your privacy. They use your phones GPS to track your every movement and sell this information to private companies.

 

[Remobz]

FYI companies like Apple and Google do not care about your privacy. They use your phones GPS to track your every movement and sell this information to private companies.

Apple only cares about profits in the end. Screw them.

 

[PokerGuy]

FYI companies like Apple and Google do not care about your privacy. They use your phones GPS to track your every movement and sell this information to private companies.

Apple only cares about profits in the end. Screw them.

Of course that's true. Neither apple nor google cares about you or your privacy, beyond how it can enhance their bottom line.

That's not the point though, the reason for their actions or their reason behind their perspective doesn't change that they are fundamentally correct in their argument in this case.

"Screw them!" in this case actually means screw you and all other citizens.

 

[3chordcharlie]

FYI companies like Apple and Google do not care about your privacy. They use your phones GPS to track your every movement and sell this information to private companies.

It's true that they are not altruistic, but that does not mean they are wrong at all.

Besides valuing their own privacy rights for purely selfish reasons, there are plenty of commercial reasons not to want this BS to exist at all, let alone the risk of it escaping into the wild.

 

[Remobz]

Of course that's true. Neither apple nor google cares about you or your privacy, beyond how it can enhance their bottom line.

That's not the point though, the reason for their actions or their reason behind their perspective doesn't change that they are fundamentally correct in their argument in this case.

"Screw them!" in this case actually means screw you and all other citizens.

In other words, you see no scenario that Apple could get the info while still protecting it's reputation for lack of a better word. NO OTHER POSSIBLE scenario exists for this specific case?

 

[Darwin333]

In other words, you see no scenario that Apple could get the info while still protecting it's reputation for lack of a better word. NO OTHER POSSIBLE scenario exists for this specific case?

Since Apple can't get the info as it is, no I don't see ANY possible scenario in which they could. Hell the FBI might not be able to get the data for years, maybe more than a decade, even if Apple does install this backdoor for them.

Edit: And it is not their reputation that I, and the vast majority of people arguing against this, are concerned about. I have said before, I don't like Apple's products and I don't care for the company much in general. With that said, I'd be making the same exact argument if it was any other company. I find it rather ironic that this is the first time I've ever defended Apple and one of the few times I've ever had anything good to say about them at all.

Let me reiterate, I couldn't care less about Apple's reputation.

 

[PokerGuy]

In other words, you see no scenario that Apple could get the info while still protecting it's reputation for lack of a better word. NO OTHER POSSIBLE scenario exists for this specific case?

What on earth makes you think I give a ratts butt about apple and their reputation?

That's not what this is about, at all. I don't care about apple, nor do I care if their motives are altruistic or self serving. The point remains the same: setting a precedent that the company has to weaken security and/or remove safeguards so that some agency can get to it inherently compromises everyone's security. There's simply no getting around that.

 

[Rakehellion]

Thanks for bringing that down to gutter politics

Coming from the guy who gets banned constantly for childish namecalling.

 

[Rakehellion]

Apple only cares about profits in the end. Screw them.

You mean like literally every corporation in the country because it's required by law for them not to squander company funds. What point are you making exactly?

 

[BoberFett]

Coming from the guy who gets banned constantly for childish namecalling.

Coming from the guy who says such stupid things that the only response he deserves is the be mocked and called names.

 

[Meghan54]

In other words, you see no scenario that Apple could get the info while still protecting it's reputation for lack of a better word. NO OTHER POSSIBLE scenario exists for this specific case?

I'm still wondering why anyone continues to put forth the trope bolded above.....because this not about this one specific case, esp. since the FBI and DoJ have already admitted there are at least 9 other phones they want unlocked using the software they want Apple to create.


Add to that this:

At a news conference last week after the debate erupted in California, the New York City police commissioner, William J. Bratton, and the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., said they had collected about 175 iPhones, in investigations, that they have been unable to unlock.


Mr. Vance rejected the notion that Apple should be forced to cooperate only in certain prominent crimes.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ju...nlock-nine-more-iphones/ar-BBpU3G7?li=BBnb7Kz



So, now you have a DA essentially saying Apple should be forced to create software to defeat any device Apple's made in any case, not just the Cali. case nor just the Brooklyn case.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm still wondering why anyone continues to put forth the trope bolded above.....because this not about this one specific case, esp. since the FBI and DoJ have already admitted there are at least 9 other phones they want unlocked using the software they want Apple to create.


Add to that this:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ju...nlock-nine-more-iphones/ar-BBpU3G7?li=BBnb7Kz



So, now you have a DA essentially saying Apple should be forced to create software to defeat any device Apple's made in any case, not just the Cali. case nor just the Brooklyn case.

That's been the painfully obvious play by the govt all along. It's unfortunate that most of the general public is dumb and continues to fall for the "it's just this one case, why is apple helping terrorists?" ruse.

 

[Fern]

I'm still wondering why anyone continues to put forth the trope bolded above.....because this not about this one specific case, esp. since the FBI and DoJ have already admitted there are at least 9 other phones they want unlocked using the software they want Apple to create.
.

I've recently heard a number of lawyers and judges argue it.

What the FBI/aw Enforcement wants is irrelevant. What is relevant is the specific wording in the judge's order; that's what's in dispute. Someone in the media should just ask the judge to clarify his meaning. If I get a copy of the judge's order I can identify the exact sentence everyone is arguing over.

Furthermore, the FBI etc saying they want the ability to hack all phones is nothing new. They've (FBI officials etc) have been on TV saying so since the outset (and actually quite a bit before). Some here act like this is some kind of an "Ah ha!" moment.

I'm waiting to see what the judge says, and for all the misinformation to fall away.

Fern

 

[PokerGuy]

I've recently heard a number of lawyers and judges argue it.

What the FBI/aw Enforcement wants is irrelevant. What is relevant is the specific wording in the judge's order; that's what's in dispute. Someone in the media should just ask the judge to clarify his meaning. If I get a copy of the judge's order I can identify the exact sentence everyone is arguing over.

Furthermore, the FBI etc saying they want the ability to hack all phones is nothing new. They've (FBI officials etc) have been on TV saying so since the outset (and actually quite a bit before). Some here act like this is some kind of an "Ah ha!" moment.

I'm waiting to see what the judge says, and for all the misinformation to fall away.

Fern

The point apple (and others) have made is that this simply isn't possible for this to be a "do it once and only for this case" type endeavor. Once it's done, the genie is out of the bottle.

 

[Fern]

The point apple (and others) have made is that this simply isn't possible for this to be a "do it once and only for this case" type endeavor. Once it's done, the genie is out of the bottle.

I'm not a tech guy, so IDK. But this sort of thing is the type of info/misinfo that needs to settle down. I keep hearing what sounds like conflicting info. And Apple seems to want to call every solution a "backdoor", as if that is a super scary word.

I thought as regards the law everyone was in agreement that the govt cannot force Apple to create something they don't yet have. I.e., the govt cannot Force Apple to create a (dreaded) "back door". So, I see no need at this point for all the anguish etc.

Fern

 

[Paratus]

The point apple (and others) have made is that this simply isn't possible for this to be a "do it once and only for this case" type endeavor. Once it's done, the genie is out of the bottle.

I'm not a tech guy, so IDK. But this sort of thing is the type of info/misinfo that needs to settle down. I keep hearing what sounds like conflicting info. And Apple seems to want to call every solution a "backdoor", as if that is a super scary word.

I thought as regards the law everyone was in agreement that the govt cannot force Apple to create something they don't yet have. I.e., the govt cannot Force Apple to create a (dreaded) "back door". So, I see no need at this point for all the anguish etc.

Fern

As part of their defense, Apple looks like it will be claiming violations of the 1st and 5th amendments.

The first because they can argue software as speech, which the government cannot compel.

The 5th amendment because besides the famous right to not self-incriminate it also has prohibitions against the government depriving a citizen of life or property without due process. Effectively the government would be conscripting Apples employees without just compensation.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...apple-to-plead-the-5th-in-iphone-crypto-flap/

I don't know if either argument will find traction in court but it's an interesting legal defense.

I'm also interested in just how far this Writs act could be pushed if the government wins. Could it compel more than a firmware update? Could it be used to compel creation of difficult or expensive software or hardware? What if what the court wants is technically impossible?

 

[Paratus]

Actually it looks like they did file a number of motions including ones based on the first and fifth:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/apple-fires-back-at-doj-this-is-not-a-case-about-one-isolated-iphone/

Based on US vs NY Telephone 1977

• First they are only tenuously related to the case and crime
• Second conscripting 6-10 engineers for weeks or months to write govtOS (FBiOS ?)is burdensome
• Third Apple is not a necessity as the government hasn't shown its exhausted its own capabilities (think three letter agencies)

In addition they also filed motions based on the 1st and 5th amendments

 

[CZroe]

I'm not a tech guy, so IDK. But this sort of thing is the type of info/misinfo that needs to settle down. I keep hearing what sounds like conflicting info. And Apple seems to want to call every solution a "backdoor", as if that is a super scary word.



I thought as regards the law everyone was in agreement that the govt cannot force Apple to create something they don't yet have. I.e., the govt cannot Force Apple to create a (dreaded) "back door". So, I see no need at this point for all the anguish etc.



Fern

Well, it would be a backdoor. It's a way around the security mechanisms that bypasses the normal, secure, entry point.

 

[fskimospy]

As part of their defense, Apple looks like it will be claiming violations of the 1st and 5th amendments.

The first because they can argue software as speech, which the government cannot compel.

The 5th amendment because besides the famous right to not self-incriminate it also has prohibitions against the government depriving a citizen of life or property without due process. Effectively the government would be conscripting Apples employees without just compensation.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...apple-to-plead-the-5th-in-iphone-crypto-flap/

I don't know if either argument will find traction in court but it's an interesting legal defense.

I'm also interested in just how far this Writs act could be pushed if the government wins. Could it compel more than a firmware update? Could it be used to compel creation of difficult or expensive software or hardware? What if what the court wants is technically impossible?

I find the 5th amendment argument to be pretty compelling. If the government is going to require them to make this then they should be paying the cost at a minimum.

I think the 1st amendment argument is stupid though. Apple isn't making firmware for the iphone in an attempt to communicate an idea to people or to further an opinion on something. If software is by its nature speech what isn't? Why couldn't making a car be speech in the same way making a sculpture is?

 

[Paratus]

I find the 5th amendment argument to be pretty compelling. If the government is going to require them to make this then they should be paying the cost at a minimum.

I think the 1st amendment argument is stupid though. Apple isn't making firmware for the iphone in an attempt to communicate an idea to people or to further an opinion on something. If software is by its nature speech what isn't? Why couldn't making a car be speech in the same way making a sculpture is?

Well the article says there's already been jurisprudence that says software can be speech. So if that's true then it makes sense for Apple to try that argument.

As for is a car speech? I don't know. It seems possible that any act of creation could be construed to be speech. Whether it's a car, art, music or speech.

If any of this holds up in court remains to be seen.