Judge forces Apple to unlock iPhone

[Darwin333]

What is not irrelevant? The 13th Amendment was ratified to abolish slavery. Your contention is that requiring citizens (or corporations) to co-operate in criminal investigation violates the 13th Amendment, because such a compulsion amounts to involuntary servitude, i.e. slavery. Your semantics distinguishing the two (slavery v. involuntary servitude) unfortunately has no bearings on my rebuttal because there is no involuntary servitude going on in this instance; Apple is free to not engage in regulated conducts.

Except what the government is asking them to do is not regulated in any law or regulation. Therefore it is coercing them to do provide labor for something that they are not legally required to do. I don't know how to make that any clearer for you. If you would kindly show me the law that Congress passed and was signed into law that requires them to make a backdoor to their products I will retract everything I have said. Furthermore until such a law exists, Apple is free to design an operating system that even they couldn't get into. Frankly if I was Apple my very next release would be one that wipes the data if any sort of upgrade or OS/firmware change happens without user permission. That would solve this entire issue and is perfectly legal as of right now.

Ford is culpable if it sells cars without GPS and criminals take advantage of it to hide their criminal activities. Ford is culpable if it sells cars without air bags and passengers are killed or injured because of it, even if it was you who drove the car to the tree. Ford is culpable if it sold cars that do not meet the advertised MPG and might be subject to a class-action suit, even though individual consumers made presumably competent purchase decisions.

Ford sells cars all day long without GPS in them. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that all cars must be equipped with GPS in them and the .gov must have access to that information.

Settled by the courts? Can you explain 1) what is settled by 2) what case?

Do a quick google search for gun manufacturers sued for the use of their products. It's nothing obscure so this is easy.

Contrary to your assertion, the new encryption is precisely what this controversy is all about. Different encryption technologies existed prior to iOS 8, yes, but new security challenges emerged along with new, wide-spread uses of encryption.

PGP is far superior and has been around for quite a long time. If Apple does comply, willingly or not, and he used PGP to encrypt his email or whatever data is on the phone (assuming he uses a very strong passphrase) the FBI is truly fucked.

You are correct that this is about subpoena, but I am not sure what distinction you are trying to make in this context. The force of law apply to equally to both the law and the subpoena. ("Is it legal to pass a law..?" is an incoherent sentence, please think about it)

Now you are the one playing semantics. Obviously I meant "is the law legal regardless if it has been passed and signed into law". The very existence of the Supreme Court shows that not all laws or interpretations of said laws are legal hence the requirement for a Supreme Court to make rulings.

I do agree, however, that there is a limit, pursuant to the Constitution's requirement of reasonableness, to how far the government can go infringing on citizenry's liberty interests. And I believe that is where the discussion should take place, i.e. where to draw the line. Your argument that you are effectively a slave whenever you have to follow the law against your self-interest is a familiar Tea Party slogan, which might be a respectable anarchist argument if it were not so nakedly hypocritical and devoid of self-awareness. ("Keep your government hands off my Medicare!")

I am not really making the argument that they shouldn't have to comply because it would be against their self interests despite the truth in that statement. I do not believe it's reasonable to demand that a company lose millions of dollars when they have broken no law. With that said that is not the argument that I have put forward at all. My entire argument has been based on the fact that I don't think the Feds have the legal authority to force Apple to comply and neither does Apple's huge team of absurdly high priced lawyers so frankly I think that I'm in good company. I highly doubt that this is a publicity stunt because of all the negative attention they are getting from it. Most Americans (this is my opinion) are far more ingrained to be afraid of the evil boogyman than they are concerned about their rights and the rule of law.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41

I am REALLY glad that you posted this and I appologize to everyone else for the length of this post.

(1) a magistrate judge with authority in the district—or if none is reasonably available, a judge of a state court of record in the district—has authority to issue a warrant to search for and seize a person or property located within the district;

(2) a magistrate judge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property outside the district if the person or property is located within the district when the warrant is issued but might move or be moved outside the district before the warrant is executed;

(3) a magistrate judge—in an investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorism—with authority in any district in which activities related to the terrorism may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property within or outside that district;

(4) a magistrate judge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant to install within the district a tracking device; the warrant may authorize use of the device to track the movement of a person or property located within the district, outside the district, or both; and

(5) a magistrate judge having authority in any district where activities related to the crime may have occurred, or in the District of Columbia, may issue a warrant for property that is located outside the jurisdiction of any state or district, but within any of the following:


Again, the government may issue a warrant for property as the law you linked to states. HOWEVER THE "PROPERTY" THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS DOES NOT EXIST. Something that does not exist is not considered "property" nor is it considered a "person" and as such they have don't have the authority to force it into existence via the labor of people that have committed no crime and created a product that abides by all laws and regulations.

That is where reasonableness comes into play. I acknowledged that there is a limit, and it is something that we need to balance by finding common grounds. So yes, if what FBI ask Apple to do were beyond Apple's competence or otherwise unreasonable, then that would be the end of the story. But at the same time I do not think a corporation should be able to unilaterally thwart law enforcement effort for its own benefit.


Thank you.

They are not "thwarting" law enforcement. They made a product that was and remains perfectly legal to make, sell and use. They did not make a tool to intentionally break said product. The government is free to make a product that DOES break it but they can not compel the company to do so unless the company already has in it's possession something that will do what they ask. That is the legal issue. They are perfectly free to pay Apple to make such a tool but Apple is, and should remain, perfectly free to tell them to pound sand. They are also free to seek a 3rd party to make such a tool or to make it themselves.

It's no different if they were demanding, by force of law, some uninvolved 3rd party security company to build something they don't possess to break into the phone. They just can't, and should not be able to, force a person or entity that has committed no crime to produce something that does not exist. They are allowed to demand that they produce "people or property" but in this case there simply isn't any property to produce, it really is that simply. I fail to understand why you are having such a hard time comprehending this. It's not like Apple has the password or a copy of the data they want and they are refusing to hand it over. You technically could produce a pound of gold if you spent X amount of time panning for it but if you have committed no crime the government doesn't have the authority to demand that you produce it even if that pound of gold would help them in a criminal investigation. On the other hand the government is perfectly free to attempt to produce that pound of gold their self. The distinction might seem trivial but it isn't.

The fact that so many people think it's ok for the government to force people that have committed no crimes to basically become employees of the government who must do their bidding at gunpoint is rather scary.

PS For the record, I despise Apple, their products and almost all of their business practices.

PPS Please don't insinuate that I am some Tea Partier or right wing or left wing or any other of the retarded political groups. I actually look at each issue independently, let it roll around in my head, think about it and come up with my own opinion regardless of what any political party says I should think.. We've had a very civil debate so I doubt you meant it this way but it's just downright insulting to me. Thanks.

 

[lopri]

^ You are evading and switching gears, which tells me it's time for me to get out.

Ford sells cars all day long without GPS in them. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that all cars must be equipped with GPS in them and the .gov must have access to that information.

Evasion by nitpicking. You did not answer the point I made.

They are not "thwarting" law enforcement. They made a product that was and remains perfectly legal to make, sell and use. They did not make a tool to intentionally break said product. The government is free to make a product that DOES break it but they can not compel the company to do so unless the company already has in it's possession something that will do what they ask. That is the legal issue. They are perfectly free to pay Apple to make such a tool but Apple is, and should remain, perfectly free to tell them to pound sand. They are also free to seek a 3rd party to make such a tool or to make it themselves.

You try to move the goal post but actually the bolded part (originally by you) comes close to concession.

 

[Darwin333]

This is for the court to decide. The precedent that Apple set was assisting the government with data discovery on their devices, and it wasn't until another magistrate raised a flag did they start to object:

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?

 

[lopri]

Let me explain how your arguments change. The one position you take is that it is unjust when the government requires a corporation to do something, indeed, anything including lifting a finger, because it is akin to involuntary servitude. Another position you take is that it is unjust when the government requires a corporation to do something unless there is a law that spells out exactly what it is in detail. Finally, you say that the government can require a corporation to do something only if it is something the corporation has been doing all along.

None of the position conforms to the prevailing laws or coheres with each other. More to the point, none of the argument you make has anything to do with national security. But they have a lot in common with Tea Party arguments that taxation is theft and Obamacare is slavery.

 

[Darwin333]

^ You are evading and switching gears, which tells me it's time for me to get out.

Evasion by nitpicking. You did not answer the point I made.

I am not evading anything, it appears that you are. Apple did not sell anything that was against the law or violated any regulation. Apple did not leave out any features that were required by law or regulation.

All of your examples are regulated and/or required by law. Furthermore that law isn't retroactive meaning all the cars ford produced without airbags before airbags were mandated remain perfectly legal. I can show you what legally compels Ford to include airbags in their vehicles. Can you show me the law that compels Apple to create and produce a backdoor into any encryption that they make? No, you can not and you will not be able to until such time that Congress passes a law. I am using your analogies bud so you should understand them.

Please try again and elaborate more on exactly what I am evading and nitpicking?

You try to move the goal post but actually the bolded part (originally by you) comes close to concession.

Now I'm moving goalposts? You can look back to some of my very first posts, including the fist ones that I responded to you in, and I have maintained that Apple can't be forced to create something that does not exist. Saying that they can't be compelled to produce something that is not in their possession is basically the same thing. Exactly where have the goalposts moved? Both statements say that the government wants something that Apple does not currently have, again which has been my assertion this entire thread. Please point out exactly where I have asserted otherwise.

 

[lopri]

^ See above. I cannot answer when you make confused arguments or you willfully change your positions back and forth.

 

[Darwin333]

Let me explain how your arguments change. The one position you take is that it is unjust when the government requires a corporation to do something, indeed, anything including lifting a finger, because it is akin to involuntary servitude.

Factually incorrect.

I object to the justice department forcing a person or entity quite literally at gunpoint to provide labor that is not supported by any law or regulation. You see there is a huge difference between Congress passing a law that is then signed by the President (or his veto overridden) and a judge demanding something. That is why, using your examples, that airbags are required by law and not by a judge. You see in our constitutional republic we have this thing called separation of power and the judicial system isn't allowed to make up their own laws because it fits their needs. That is up to the legislative branch of our government.

Another position you take is that it is unjust when the government requires a corporation to do something unless there is a law that spells out exactly what it is in detail.

Umm, yeah that's something we like to call the "rule of law". Beyond that we have laws in place that protect against the government just making shit up as they go as they are trying to do here and yes I do "believe" that exists too.

Finally, you say that the government can require a corporation to do something only if it is something the corporation has been doing all along.

I have never said that. I said they can demand something that a person or entity has in their possession. They can not demand that a person or entity who has not been convicted nor accused of any crime to create something that does not exist. You might see that as a small difference but it is not.

None of the position conforms to the prevailing laws or coheres with each other. More to the point, none of the argument you make has anything to do with national security. But they have a lot in common with Tea Party arguments that taxation is theft and Obamacare is slavery.

Oh please, I have not once said that taxation is theft. Taxation is something that is required and necessary in a civilized and decent society. And you're really going to throw Obamacare in here, I have a whole box of straws in the cabinet I can send to you because it appears that you are grasping at your last one.


edit:

^ See above. I cannot answer when you make confused arguments or you willfully change your positions back and forth.

I have not once changed my position which is evident by your inability to show which positions I have changed. As far as confused, I'm not the one that brought taxation and friggen Obamacare into this argument.

 

[lopri]

I rest my case.

 

[LPCTech]

^^You dont know what you are talking about and Darwin cant explain it to you cuz you refuse to understand or just cant.

Apple wins, the average citizen wins, the FBI loses and those who supported them blindly and never understood this issue still dont understand and never will.

the end.

 

[Darwin333]

I rest my case.

If you had one to begin with you did a very poor job of making it. Besides, you haven't even brought the EPA up yet or some other completely unrelated drivel.

 

[Meghan54]

Well, so much for the argument that it's "just this one phone":

DOJ seeks to force Apple to extract data from dozen other iPhones: WSJ

The U.S. Justice Department is looking at court orders forcing Apple to help investigators extract data from iPhones in about a dozen undisclosed cases across the country, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing sources.


This move comes on the heels of the San Bernardino, California, shooting case.


The other phones, which were seized in a variety of criminal investigations, are involved in cases where prosecutors are compelling the company to help them bypass the passcode security feature of phones that may hold evidence, the Journal added.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-idUSKCN0VW0BM

 

[LPCTech]

^^^ yes indeed
Everyone with grey stuff in their skulls realize this is to set a precedent to break encryption by forcing all companies to put backdoors in their software. They targeted apple because of their good security and because they are one of the largest, if they fall, they all fall. No one else would dare fight the Gov.

 

[72Threads]

Wow hog boy got tossed in this thread, LOL. Good show.

Lopri, Lurk more you pro surveillance shill. IDK what mod acct you hacked to give you "elite" status but you've burned through that credulity and now look like the idiot you clearly always were. Come back later for another entertaining verbal beating though, it's always fun to watch you flail around and then say "I can't argue anymore because xxxx" .

 

[Meghan54]

^^^ yes indeed
Everyone with grey stuff in their skulls realize this is to set a precedent to break encryption by forcing all companies to put backdoors in their software. They targeted apple because of their good security and because they are one of the largest, if they fall, they all fall. No one else would dare fight the Gov.

I swear it almost sounds like the DOJ & FBI had already screwed up a bunch of iphones trying to unlock them for evidence, when this "gift horse" of a terrorist's iphone was handed to them. Otherwise, why didn't they already go this route of having Apple defeat their own security for those other dozen phones? Maybe because public sentiment for coercing Apple to defeat its own phone security wouldn't have been so readily forthcoming if it were to investigate securities fraud or tax evasion?

 

[PokerGuy]

Well, so much for the argument that it's "just this one phone":

DOJ seeks to force Apple to extract data from dozen other iPhones: WSJ




http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-idUSKCN0VW0BM

Anyone who thought this had anything to do with this one particular phone or this one particular instance is delusional and stupid. It's a ruse by the govt that some idiots believe, but the reality is that the gov wants access to devices in general, not a particular single device. That's what this is about. They are simply exploiting a single high profile incident to 'win' in the court of public opinion and force apple to comply with their long standing demand for complete access. Kind of like pushing for gun control after Sandy Hook, exploiting a high profile incident to push an agenda.

Had this been an android phone it would not have been any different.

 

[Ryland]

Factually incorrect.

I object to the justice department forcing a person or entity quite literally at gunpoint to provide labor that is not supported by any law or regulation. You see there is a huge difference between Congress passing a law that is then signed by the President (or his veto overridden) and a judge demanding something. That is why, using your examples, that airbags are required by law and not by a judge. You see in our constitutional republic we have this thing called separation of power and the judicial system isn't allowed to make up their own laws because it fits their needs. That is up to the legislative branch of our government.

I think the point you are trying to make is that Apple makes devices, not decryption equipment thus by the justice department trying to force them to make decryption equipment for nothing they are forcing them into slavery. It does bring up a point of how can the government try to coeerce a company into doing something that they dont do?

 

[waggy]

Well, so much for the argument that it's "just this one phone":

DOJ seeks to force Apple to extract data from dozen other iPhones: WSJ




http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-idUSKCN0VW0BM

well duh. only idiots thought this was about just one phone.

 

[Cr0nJ0b]

Hey Everyone,

Thought I would ask a couple questions...

First to clarify something -- I think that the court is asking apple to disable the wipe function. at least that's what was reported in the post.
++++++++++++++++++++
Ellen Nakashima, at the Washington Post, has a more detailed report that notes that Apple is actually required to do something a little different:
The order does not ask Apple to break the phone’s encryption, but rather to disable the feature that wipes the data on the phone after 10 incorrect tries at entering a password. That way, the government can try to crack the password using “brute force” — attempting tens of millions of combinations without risking the deletion of the data.

The order, signed by a magistrate judge in Los Angeles, comes a week after FBI Director James B. Comey told Congress that the bureau has not been able to open one of the killers’ phones. “It has been two months now, and we are still working on it,” he said.
+++++++++++++++++++++++

This doesn't seem like a backdoor but and more like a more relaxed security policy. It would allow the DOJ to brute force someone's password, which they can do today on even the most powerful encryption tools. There is, however, no guarantee of success and the time it would take would be dependent on the strength of the password.

In addition, it doesn't seem like Apple has this version of IOS just laying around, so they would have to adjust a version of IOS that has this feature removed or somehow deactivated.

Like someone said in an earlier post, that's essentially telling Apple to make something for the government to help them with their investigation.

What I'm wondering is this.

What if the Courts finally force Apple to do this...What does apple do next?

1) Do they have to force their employees to work on this? and if they refuse do they have to fire them?
2) What if the employees decline to work on this project? Does the government compel them? Which ones?
3) if the employees, any of them, continue to resist, does the govt put them in jail for contempt? for not speaking (writing)?

People are saying that this is a "little" issue for Apple and it's a "one time" thing, but I can see this setting a wide precedent for the government forcing companies to do the work of the DOJ.

 

[realibrad]

Hey Everyone,

Thought I would ask a couple questions...

First to clarify something -- I think that the court is asking apple to disable the wipe function. at least that's what was reported in the post.
++++++++++++++++++++
Ellen Nakashima, at the Washington Post, has a more detailed report that notes that Apple is actually required to do something a little different:
The order does not ask Apple to break the phone’s encryption, but rather to disable the feature that wipes the data on the phone after 10 incorrect tries at entering a password. That way, the government can try to crack the password using “brute force” — attempting tens of millions of combinations without risking the deletion of the data.

The order, signed by a magistrate judge in Los Angeles, comes a week after FBI Director James B. Comey told Congress that the bureau has not been able to open one of the killers’ phones. “It has been two months now, and we are still working on it,” he said.
+++++++++++++++++++++++

This doesn't seem like a backdoor but and more like a more relaxed security policy. It would allow the DOJ to brute force someone's password, which they can do today on even the most powerful encryption tools. There is, however, no guarantee of success and the time it would take would be dependent on the strength of the password.

In addition, it doesn't seem like Apple has this version of IOS just laying around, so they would have to adjust a version of IOS that has this feature removed or somehow deactivated.

Like someone said in an earlier post, that's essentially telling Apple to make something for the government to help them with their investigation.

What I'm wondering is this.

What if the Courts finally force Apple to do this...What does apple do next?

1) Do they have to force their employees to work on this? and if they refuse do they have to fire them?
2) What if the employees decline to work on this project? Does the government compel them? Which ones?
3) if the employees, any of them, continue to resist, does the govt put them in jail for contempt? for not speaking (writing)?

People are saying that this is a "little" issue for Apple and it's a "one time" thing, but I can see this setting a wide precedent for the government forcing companies to do the work of the DOJ.

It becomes an effective back door, because this feature is needed to stop brute force cracks. The government has access to enough power to try millions of passwords quickly. Computing power is becoming cheap, so even small groups could brute force phones if it did not have this feature.

 

[PokerGuy]

What if the Courts finally force Apple to do this...What does apple do next?

1) Do they have to force their employees to work on this? and if they refuse do they have to fire them?

I don't understand this question. Do they "force" their employees to do anything? Management would simply put together a project team and say "go get this done", the same as they would for any initiative the company wants to undertake.

2) What if the employees decline to work on this project? Does the government compel them? Which ones?

The court doesn't care which employees do what, it doesn't matter. The court is simply telling Apple to get it done, and Apple can do that however they see fit to align their resources internally.

3) if the employees, any of them, continue to resist, does the govt put them in jail for contempt? for not speaking (writing)?

The govt doesn't care what employees "resist", it's not their problem. They are directing (though the court) Apple to get it done, apple figures out what resources to use. It's not different than any other project, if some resource says "no, I ain't doing that" when you tell them to work on a project, you handle it as insubordination based on company policies. It has nothing to do with the court case per se.

People are saying that this is a "little" issue for Apple and it's a "one time" thing, but I can see this setting a wide precedent for the government forcing companies to do the work of the DOJ.

No, it's not that they are setting a precedent for forcing companies to do the work of the DOJ, it's that they are trying to lay the groundwork for forcing companies to build in back doors into their systems so government always has access in the future without requiring the company to do anything.

 

[Darwin333]

^^^ yes indeed
Everyone with grey stuff in their skulls realize this is to set a precedent to break encryption by forcing all companies to put backdoors in their software. They targeted apple because of their good security and because they are one of the largest, if they fall, they all fall. No one else would dare fight the Gov.

While I agree with your sentiment I disagree with the last two sentences. They are targeting Apple because the perfect situation fell into their laps and they got to use the "rah rah terrorist" card. It's why they didn't use the previous criminal cases to try and force Apple to program a backdoor, they would have virtually zero support trying to set this kind of precedent over a common criminal. This is the best scenario possible for them and gives them at least some public support as everyone can see here.

As I said before, if I was Apple I would be working as fast as I could to release an update that wipes all data if a non-user agreed update is forced on to the phone. Then if they are forced to open these phones at least the technique can never be used again and they will have a truly secure OS that not even they can hack into. Seems like it would be something Apple could implement rather easily.

 

[JSt0rm]

apple lawyer-ed the fuck up and are gonna take it to the supreme court.

 

[Darwin333]

I think the point you are trying to make is that Apple makes devices, not decryption equipment thus by the justice department trying to force them to make decryption equipment for nothing they are forcing them into slavery. It does bring up a point of how can the government try to coeerce a company into doing something that they dont do?

Even beyond that, I run a construction company. That's what I do for a living. I have previously worked on projects for the government so does that mean the government, or specifically a judge, can force me to work on some future construction project? Sure they can demand that I produce documents that I have in my possession that relate to a criminal case and they can even compel me to testify about something that is relevant to a criminal case. But can they force me to build them something that doesn't currently exist, regardless of my ability, even though I have committed no crime? No, they can not and to do so would be forcing me and my company into involuntary servitude. I fail to see the difference between the judge forcing Apple to create software and the same judge forcing me to work on a construction project.

Imho this is a rather simple issue. The government can compel you to produce something that you have in your possession. The government can not compel you to produce something that you don't have and has never existed.

 

[Rakehellion]

Apple just discovered that the password was changed while in government custody.

Source?

 

[Darwin333]

I don't understand this question. Do they "force" their employees to do anything? Management would simply put together a project team and say "go get this done", the same as they would for any initiative the company wants to undertake.

The court doesn't care which employees do what, it doesn't matter. The court is simply telling Apple to get it done, and Apple can do that however they see fit to align their resources internally.

The govt doesn't care what employees "resist", it's not their problem. They are directing (though the court) Apple to get it done, apple figures out what resources to use. It's not different than any other project, if some resource says "no, I ain't doing that" when you tell them to work on a project, you handle it as insubordination based on company policies. It has nothing to do with the court case per se.

I think what he's getting at is hypothetically if Apple has only 5 engineers that are able to create this code and all 5 of them refuse Apple no longer has the ability to comply. If the Government can't or won't use force then their warrant is meaningless so what does the government do in this hypothetical.

No, it's not that they are setting a precedent for forcing companies to do the work of the DOJ, it's that they are trying to lay the groundwork for forcing companies to build in back doors into their systems so government always has access in the future without requiring the company to do anything.

It does both in my opinion since they are effectively forcing a private company that committed no crimes to work for the DOJ to create a new product/tool. If they can do this with Apple then what's to stop them from doing this to any company? Keep in mind that very few companies have the resources to fight this like Apple does. If Apple loses the question becomes what can't the government force a person or entity to do?