Reply With Quote
This isn't a privacy issue as Apple would like to portray.....Apple isn't being asked to crack its encryption code...they are being asked to kill the code that erases the data in the phone after 10 failed password attempts....
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passc...ts-free-speechIs the software code a company chooses to write a form of speech or expression?
And, by that logic, is forcing a company to write a specific program it believes violates its principles akin to compelling a student to recite the Pledge of Allegiance against his beliefs? Or forcing an organization to espouse policies it does not believe in?
That's one key question at the center of the high-profile legal battle over the San Bernardino iPhone.
Apple is making the case that the US government's attempt to force the company to write new software that would help the FBI override security protections on an iPhone recovered from terror suspect Syed Rizwan Farook is a form of compelled speech.
"The court's order discriminates on the basis of Apple's viewpoint," the company's lawyers argued in a lengthy legal brief for a California district court.
This isn't a privacy issue as Apple would like to portray.....Apple isn't being asked to crack its encryption code...they are being asked to kill the code that erases the data in the phone after 10 failed password attempts....
You aren't even addressing the argument they are making in court. Is computer code speech or not?
Pffftt.....Look...If any one of us was in the same position as Apple we could try and drag it out with powerful lawyers, but eventually we would have to crack the phone because of National security...eventually, its gonna happen under court order because as we've seen, national security trumps all..including intellectual property.....Apple is just buying time till they have to crack the phone and upgrade all Iphones.....seriously, give the phone to Apple, let them crack it using their code..in conditions where they control...
WWSD
What Would Scalia Do?
STill cannot do it. If you cannot understand the significance for asking for code to be given first amendment protection that is on oyu. That is still the actual argument they are making and you cannot even address it directly.
IP is a completely different issue than this and you have no cons utional right beyond what article 4 lays out.
I addressed it in my first comment...this is not a first amendment or any amendment issue...Till cannot do it. If you cannot understand the significance for asking for code to be given first amendment protection that is on oyu. That is still the actual argument they are making and you cannot even address it directly.
Apple Is Said to Be Working on an iPhone Even It Can’t Hack
Read more: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/24/apple...cant-hack.htmlThe only way out of this back-and-forth, experts say, is for Congress to get involved. Federal wiretapping laws require traditional phone carriers to make their data accessible to law enforcement agencies. But tech companies like Apple and Google are not covered, and they have strongly resisted legislation that would place similar requirements on them.
"We are in for an arms race unless and until Congress decides to clarify who has what obligations in situations like this," said Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Ins ution.
Read more: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...223-story.htmlIn Apple's fight to knock down a court order requiring it to help FBI agents unlock a killer’s iPhone, the tech giant plans to argue that the judge in the case has overreached in her use of an obscure law and infringed on the company’s 1st Amendment rights, an Apple attorney said Tuesday.
Theodore J. Boutrous -- one in a pair of marquee lawyers the technology company's has hired to wage its high-stakes legal battle -- outlined the arguments Apple plans when it responds to the court order this week.
At the heart of Apple’s response, Boutrous said, will be an objection to the use of the All Writs Act as the legal basis of the order compelling the company to assist the FBI. The act, which was first passed by Congress in 1789 and updated periodically, is a sweeping legal tool that allows judges to issue orders if other judicial avenues are unavailable.
In seeking the order, prosecutors said the act provided legal grounds to force Apple to write new computer software that would allow FBI agents to discover the phone's four-digit security passcode.
Apple must have free speech rights, because it's a corporate person and not a lowly human....
that is not for you to decide. thanks for your meaningless unexpert opinion.
And so you bring up a 14th amendment issue given the court's definition of 'persons.' Logical consistency is not your strong suit.
They are a corporation, are they supposed to assert their rights as citizens? I dislike corporate 14th amendment interpretations as much as the next guy but I see little difference from being compelled to write a book against your will and writing a string of code against your will. They don't even know if it will actually help them. Wishcasting a\doesn't justify a utilitarian ethic. There is no clear and present danger.
If it is, then what difference would it be from being subpoenaed.
Compelling someone to write something against their will is what it is. If you want to make an argument about habeas corpus then make one. Begging the question is quite popular around here yet posits nothing.
It absolutely is. It's being asked to create software that allows cracking it's encryption. Furthermore, once that code exists and precedent is set, there's no stopping other courts from issuing similar orders.
At the end of the day, the final result is encryption on the device being foiled, and the promise of privacy through encryption broken.
It's even debatable that the FBI or NSA isn't already able to decrypt that phone. People that have worked in hardware and specifically chip security (I've done that for quite a few years), know there's there's plenty of techniques you can use to compromise and extract the information they need (decapsulation + electron scanning microscope, microscopic bus probes, side channel attacks, voltage and clock glitching, etc).
But that's not what this is about. All those techniques are time consuming, costly, some of them destroy the chip while extracting the information. What the FBI wants is a set precedent in court so they can do this in a massive scale and quickly.
Yup. And good for Apple giving them the finger.
Excellent post. And they chose this case specifically because they knew how sympathetic it would make their case look to the stupid plebs. "It's just this one phone" is not how precedent in court cases and law enforcement work.
This is about $$$...nothing more.
While it defies U.S. government, Apple abides by China's orders — and reaps big rewards.
http://www.latimes.com/business/tech...226-story.html
Tim Cook gets on my last nerve.
Lots of ignorance in that article, tbh. Apple is just as accommodating to the FBI and US government, since it provides exactly the same information from their servers as it does to China. They even provided an iCloud backup of that phone to the FBI already.
The problem is that if the phone isn't backing up data to their servers (the problem with this particular phone was it stopped backing up 2 weeks before the attack), then you can only get that data from the phone itself.
Unfortunately, this is a relatively complex topic, and it's difficult to just 'water it down' for mass consumption. The media coverage has been pretty lame in general due mostly to that.
YOU LIE. GFY.
I didn't understand that it was the same services rendered locally. The article certainly paints it differently. Ive read many techblogs that make pretty much the same agreements as the times tho.
Servers run by Apple can be subpoenaed and the information provided to authorities. Backups stored there are encrypted, but Apple does have that key. From those backups you can dump iMessages, App data, Facetime call logs, etc.
The whole hoopla of Apple moving their iCloud servers to china for the chinese market raised eyebrows because nobody trusts China's government or legal system, and because hacking in China goes pretty much unfettered. But, for all intents and purposes, that's just complying with each country's laws and regulations, much like they do here in the USA.
It's funny because the argument over not having the servers there would be that such data would be better "protected" from hacking or government snooping here in the US (being we're a great country with a solid legal system, etc), but this particular case highlights what a bunch of BS that is. The FBI trying to apply a law from the 1700's to force a third party to unlock a high tech gadget. If that's not an absurd malfeasance of the law, I don't know what it is.
Who is the conspiracy theorist now? Funny how tables turn..
more ...The Obama administration told a U.S. magistrate judge on Friday it would be willing to allow Apple Inc. to retain possession of and later destroy specialized software it has been ordered to design to help the FBI hack into an encrypted iPhone used by the gunman in December's mass shootings in California.
The government made clear that it was open to less intrusive options in a new legal filing intended to blunt public criticism by Apple's chief executive, Tim Cook, who said the software would be "too dangerous to create" because it would threaten the digital privacy of millions of iPhone customers worldwide.
"Apple may maintain custody of the software, destroy it after its purpose under the order has been served, refuse to disseminate it outside of Apple and make clear to the world that it does not apply to other devices or users without lawful court orders," the Justice Department told Judge Sheri Pym. "No one outside Apple would have access to the software required by the order unless Apple itself chose to share it."
Meanwhile, the legal fight continued to reverberate on the presidential campaign trail as Republican candidate Donald Trump called on Americans to boycott Apple until it complies with the court order.
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-apple-s...ck-iphone.html
What do you mean? Hacking hardware isn't anything new... Apple CPUs are not even deemed secure devices...
smh, you still don't get it. When the next court comes around and orders the same thing, based on the precedent set that this order is legal, Apple has to comply.
From what you posted:
...and make clear to the world that it does not apply to other devices or users without lawful court orders...
IOW, every time a court raises the All Writs act and compels Apple, it has to unlock the phone. That effectively means the software cannot be "destroyed", since it has to be reused over and over again.
For all intents and purposes, this is effectively a "government backdoor"...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
