Prosecutors Ask Judge to Review Pro-Apple Ruling in New York Case

[hiddenmarkov]

Wow. Not even national security. They want to kill our rights over a drug dealer?!

Yep. And the tin foil hat punchline is I'd not be surprised if DEA was working this at the same time. And the DEA probably has some of the missing pieces they need. But won't share...because of no sharing policies. Can't give up their guy/woman on the inside. Not a one way street...FBI would do the same. Or local LE....

The tin foil says on many of these cases if they dropped inter organization BS...after a few meetings all the pieces to the puzzle would be brought, placed and scumbags goes away to jail. Instead in one drug ring you can find several undercovers not even knowing of each other all shooting to bring the bad guy down. Need more evidence...when between a few undercovers its already there.

If only someone would say this ego crap is not working. Combine evidence, whoever can put this guy in the worst prison sentence possible gets to prosecute and we put all you all on the credits so you can say your 100K in operations cost panned out. E-peen satisfied, bad guy/girl in jail....win win for all.

 

[jlc1978]

That all depends on the SCOTUS bench and how they interpret the constitution, it could still go both ways.

True, but both sides get to make their best argument and then SCOTUS decides.

 

[ChazSch]

 

[Command]

MacRumors is special in every way and they can moderate their forum however they want. Count of postings is the easiest way to narrow down the number of participants in a potentially contentious discussion and the idea is that long time members should have learned how to behave, thanks to prior reminders from moderators.

Agreed. Keeps people from just signing up to post their position and leave, which clearly happens in other forums. The reasoning is simply experience. Additionally, as noted here, it's their forum, their rules. You're just playing along. Or don't. Whatever.

 

[rdlink]

Yeah... the 4-4 Supreme Court...

I don't think it will matter. I'd be very surprised with anything more than 2 dissenters.

 

[LizKat]

These goons are not going to give up until the Supremes say it once and for all.

Yeah... the 4-4 Supreme Court...

I don't think it will matter. I'd be very surprised with anything more than 2 dissenters.

I do hope you are correct. In 2016 I hardly count on anything past sunrises and sunsets!

The FBI is going to be embarrassed if they ever get in to this phone and find nothing.

The FBI is already embarrassed. How to stop digging bottomless pit is not in the manual.

 

[gorskiegangsta]

"Apple is not being asked to do anything it does not currently have the capability to do."

So their argument it the govt should have the capability to forcefully compel/recruit 3rd parties to do their bidding (i.e. against those parties' will and interest) as long as those 3rd parties has the capability to do so? Are they at all aware of this thing called "The Fifth Amendment" in that other thing called "The US Constitution", which expressly forbids the govt from doing these kinds of things?

 

[BeefCake 15]

The FBI is going to be embarrassed if they ever get in to this phone and find nothing.

What you talking about embarrassed! We went to war with Iraq with millions of casualties over WMDs and found nothing, no one was embarrassed...just another day, no biggie

 

[MasterRyu2011]

Who will prevail first? Apple or Tom Brady?

 

[techwhiz]

YES..

I wish govenments and tech companies can work together to rech a solution without needing this much cause from a court...

You do live in Australia, right?
So commenting on what my government should or should not do is kind of, well, pointless.
Just an observation.

Also they did work together.
Both California and New York got exactly what they asked for.
A couple of years ago they asked, no demanded, that Apple and Google make a phone useless if lost by the original owner.
They in turn, implemented encryption (SHA256 -> NSA helped develop), added a limitation on the number of times you could try to unlock the phone, etc.

This is what they wanted.
Ca, New York and FBI -> "Oh, it keeps us out too??"
Apple -> "Well yes."
Ca, New York, and FBI -> "Let's make them give us the keys."

I do agree, nothing has changed in the law, and its only Apple sticking its nose in now because they have a "case" because they just suddenly care about security this much from iOS8 onward... which before,, wasn't even an issue.

Read above, the government through pressure made them care.
Apple is not sticking it's nose in.
The government here is trying to make Apple develop a back door that does not exist.
When they could just unlock the phone, they had to by court order.
This sin't about "unlocking the phone or retrieving the data".
This is about trying to use a 200+ year old law to force Apple to develop something that currently does not exist.
The answer Apple gave is, "We do not feel that developing this software is the correct thing to do."

Even the NSA and others have concerns about this.
The Presidential administration has not even taken a stance.

However, i still agree privacy is more important, but maybe i'm just getting sucked into the Apple ecosystem.

I bet All the Adrroid people are having a really good laugh say "Apple is pushing too hard for nothing."

Wrong.
Since Android 5.1 encryption has been an option.
Since 6.0, it's been on by default.
Samsung will brick a phone when you try to bypass the bootloader while locked.
Google is in the same boat as Apple.

Judging by Apple's strong point standing in this,,, anyone would reckon that Apple has been doing this all along with iOS, which is NOT the case. and that will always be evidence however u try and think it's not.

Huh?
Operating systems evolve.
It was not always possible to have strong encryption and performance.
So what's next for the government? My Macbook Air that I type this on is encrypted.
I also have a firmware password.
If I don't unlock the computer, it's a brick.
It doesn't shoot itself in the head, but decryption is impossible without the key or recovery key.

 

[You are the One]

It's good the psychopathic organised crime racket in Washington goes bananas over meeting resistance and challenge to their never ending effort to destroy whatever remains of individual freedom and liberty in the US.

The snake is hissing and people start seeing it for what it really is.

 

[kemal]

I think a 5s with iOS 7 will not have the 5 second or more bad passcode guess delay built into the L4 OS / firmware of the Secure Enclave. The SE is also the AES crypto engine on 64-bit chips. Thus an Apple signed special RAM disk OS could be used to brute force the passcode on the phone. Once iOS 8 or later is put on a 64-bit phone, the Secure Enclave is updated and will make it take *forever* to brute force the passcode unless the Apple signed RAM disk upgrades (downgrades) the Secure Enclave to turn off the bad guess delay.

I think a 5C running any iOS could have a 4 or 5 digit passcode brute forced by Apple in under three hours. I do not believe the AES crypto engine on 32-bit chips can do anything more than an 80ms delay in hardware.
-----

 

[Glideslope]

"Apple may perform the passcode-bypass in its own lab, using its own technicians, just as it always has, without revealing to the government how it did so. Therefore, granting the application will not affect the technological security of any Apple iPhone nor hand the government a 'master key'."

These two sentences show they have absolutely no ****ing idea whatsoever what they're talking about. You ask them to do that while under some obscure and old-as-**** law while you could've just ask nicely since it was running iOS 7.

Absolutely. Very scary situation. We are facing a Police State. People need to rise up and fight.

 

[dk001]

So let me get this right, it's all about the procecution's use of law from 1789, had they used another law the judge would have ordered Apple to provide the data and the company would have complied like it did in dozens other cases involving iPhone 5s running iOS 7.

Seems like the FBI doesn't want to convict a suspected drug dealer.

The suspect already plead out so that case is closed. However... wait for it... it might have additional information that pertains to other suspects.

 

[CFreymarc]

This has become a free-for-all in law school lecture halls across the country. Some of the arguments I have read are the First Amendment not only gives the right to free speech but includes the right to abstain from speech. Also, it has been ruled the act of software development is free speech and not a "manufactured work" that goes under regulation. One other is Apple could "Take the 5th" where they refuse to act in accordance with the order to avoid self incrimination.

 

[thermodynamic]

They will keep on trying until one gets through. Once they've got their foot in the door it will set a precedent for future cases.

All they need is one.

And vice-versa.

 

[dk001]

The point isn't about capability. The point is about authority. Can the government draft a private company to do its bidding? That's the core question.

I think the legal term is "conscript".

 

[macs4nw]

To the gov, "no" means yes.

Is Joe public about to get 'raped'?...... trust us, you'll be safer......

 

[hiddenmarkov]

So their argument it the govt should have the capability to forcefully compel/recruit 3rd parties to do their bidding (i.e. against those parties' will and interest) as long as those 3rd parties has the capability to do so? Are they at all aware of this thing called "The Fifth Amendment" in that other thing called "The US Constitution", which expressly forbids the govt from doing these kinds of things?

They aren't even offering payment for this. this will need R&D. Apple at this point can't even guarantee 100% success rate no issue upgrade on our iOS upgrades. the ones for paying customers. And they are being asked this do this for just a smallhandful of phones. For free. 100% no issue guarantee. Because lacking this...this a pointless venture as defence brings in special technical people to put on the stand to make sure the jurors know everything there is to know about data corruption that can occur. They do this for even DNA...is the FBI thinking they won't do this here?

Apple to me is being asked to come in as consultant. Usually this requires some form of payment. This isn't the 50's where the government is telling the auto industry to put in seat belts and safer glass in cars.

 

[Renzatic]

The snake is hissing and people start seeing it for what it really is.

Hey, my dad's a Freemason. He said the lodge quite sacrificing babies to Baphomet back in the 90's.

Also, is that a Zippo lighter in the top left there?

 

[chown33]

Apple to me is being asked to come in as consultant.

If they're not allowed to decline, then it's not "asking".

Compulsory consultancy is compelled.

 

[balamw]

"posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts." MR has got to explain this. I spout total garbage all the time and I can comment while some newcomer who is lucid, balanced and perceptive can't. Does MR imagine it is "special" in any way. If so I would dearly like to know just how they come to that particular conclusion. Maybe it's just an "Apple" thing and they are all totally "Cooked" up.

MacRumors is special in every way and they can moderate their forum however they want. Count of postings is the easiest way to narrow down the number of participants in a potentially contentious discussion and the idea is that long time members should have learned how to behave, thanks to prior reminders from moderators.

It's a good way of weeding out political activists. In the UK, which is currently having a debate about leaving the European Union, some forums have been swamped by lobbyists, who tend to be well organised.

MOD NOTE: This discussion is off topic in this thread and has been covered in depth in a couple of recent threads in the appropriate forum. Please continue discussion in one of those threads.

Yet another 100 post min rant ;-)
(You have insufficient privileges to post here.)

For every well intentioned rational newbie, there are lots more that fall in the category of astro-turf (as noted by @LV426) or simply drive by trolls that would register just want to post "Bababooey" or something else and never ever come back.

Hard as it may seem to believe, these types of threads are NOT the site's focus. If you want to discuss politics, etc... there are plenty of other fora where that is the principal focus and you may be able to post in similar threads as a new user.

B

 

[hindmost]

They will keep on trying until one gets through. Once they've got their foot in the door it will set a precedent for future cases.

All they need is one.

[doublepost=1457577709][/doublepost]You are right. They are basically 'cops'. They have the 'gumshoe' mentality of never stopping an ongoing investigation..even if it takes decades. When they socialize with their own cohorts the bar talk is often 'famous cases I have cracked'. They also play tough ball....example: saying Apple won't share the backdoor because it's all about money. They keep hammering and hammering. It's in their DNA. Hoover ruled by fear and had to die before anybody would fess up he was totally nuts, a cross-dresser and whatever.

Frankly, I hope they do not force conscription of Apple folks to do their bidding in the current situation. However, on the whole......I do have respect for the working stiffs at 'the Bureau'. They put their lives on the line to protect the country. And we do know there is an endless supply of crazies out there.

 

[You are the One]

In the mean time...

FBI quietly changes its privacy rules for accessing NSA data on Americans

 

[Cartaphilus]

I just don't get common law, it's reliance on precedent as a legal foundation and courts to effectively write legislation. Lex civilis all the way babe.

Yeah, we already decided that question several centuries ago. Turned out your side lost, mostly because you can't write a law for every possible situation; somebody needs to interpret a broad law and apply it to a particular case. This system has been working pretty well in most of the world since biblical times, and if you want to better appreciate its merits you may want to take some evening courses in legal theory.
[doublepost=1457595371][/doublepost]

So their argument it the govt should have the capability to forcefully compel/recruit 3rd parties to do their bidding (i.e. against those parties' will and interest) as long as those 3rd parties has the capability to do so? Are they at all aware of this thing called "The Fifth Amendment" in that other thing called "The US Constitution", which expressly forbids the govt from doing these kinds of things?

I don't think the Fifth Amendment applies here. If someone used a public/private key encryption to encode data, he could refuse to yield the private key to avoid supplying evidence against himself. Apple isn't refusing to produce or help others obtain evidence against Apple, but against a third party. Your doctor can be required to produce his records for a prosecutor, and the agency investigating the San Bernadino affair is engaged in a similar activity. The real question is just how much can be asked of an expert who can, uniquely, obtain information that has been encoded. A closer analogy would be forcing a DNA sequencing expert to analyze evidence that may contain identifiable DNA when his testimony may require him to divulge secret know-how that is essential to his livelihood.

The government has every right to ask a court for aid in obtaining evidence or information for the purpose of prosecution or prevention of a crime. Where there are others involved whose rights may be infringed it's the job of the judicial branch to find the right balance. No right--not even a Constitutional right--is absolute.