I am trying to bring this back on track with Privacy, Apple etc. And to some degree it has, but this will be my last response to these silly accusations. If you don't understand or want to stay bull headed on this, go your hardest. But do it alone. I'm not interested in being insulted any more, or taken out of context, have you think you know what my motivations are or just being misquoted.
Basically, privacy is at the heart of this other matter you keep bringing up and I will weave it into my response, because I want to stay on topic. Apple will provide assistance where it is required to by law, but ensuring they don't just give the privacy away when it is not required. So these things need to be tested in court, otherwise any request that goes through the court will not be challenged and privacy will be eroded. I am sure you understand that.
In this particular case, they just settled. It happens every day. Whether there was motivation behind it like some have suggested or whether it was purely a way to get rid of a distraction, who knows?
Yes a court order and a warrant are two separate things you are splitting hairs here though and clearly were trying to imply that the FBI were asking Apple for data without just cause.
Describing evidence gathering in the case where 16 people were murdered and another 24 were injured as a 'Without specific suspicion' is obviously ludicrous. 40 years hasn't done much for you there. They had obvious good reason to ask for it.
You're grisling about being misquoted but your claim that the Apples CSAM measures were not open to abuse was just silly. Apple themselves even admitted the criticism had merit.
Stop projecting. I wasn't trying to imply any such thing. I have never doubted that they had the right motivations for asking for the phone. Just the way they bumbled through it trying to circumvent the way the law stands. That’s not how the law works and that's why they went the way they did. Maybe if they had laws that allowed them, then all good.
You say splitting hairs, I say it's a very important distinction in that case. "Just Cause" isn't a thing btw. I blame too many TV dramas like "Law and Order" for this.
To obtain a warrant you need to have a specific suspicion that justifies that warrant. You can’t get a warrant to search someone’s phone on a hope to find something that might help you with something else not
directly a part of the charge. So when you have no permission to obtain that information, and you want to get it, you have to apply for it. Apple denied that request because the permission wasn't given by the owner and Apple do not have the right to hand it over.
In my job, when I had to go to court for an arrest, and I had executed a warrant or conducted a search, the first thing I would be asked was, What was your suspicion. How did you develop that suspicion. What were you attempting to find in that search. All particularly relevant and needed to be tested. Every single time. It had nothing to do with a crime having been committed by
that person rather than circumstances that arouse suspicion.. It had to be in relation to the search and the relevancy of that search. You are not trying to find evidence to convict THAT person, you are trying to find evidence and if it incriminates them, which it often did, all good.
So don't try and insult me by denigrating my past please.
Maybe that's why Apple have settled in this current case. Because they don't want to answer certain questions, or they don't want to be tested. Or maybe it's just easier??? I don't know, and neither do you.
The fact that Apple declined there but happily complies with what the Chinese and Russians ask of them and was going to press on with this poorly thought out plan is reason enough to raise an eyebrow at their privacy claims.
Complying with the law is not okay now? Because it’s outside of the United States?
In this specific case they could've defended their practices in court. If they've got nothing to hide right? But they just broke off the thick end of $100 million instead
I don’t know what there actual reasons were. Neither do you. Feel free to speculate, make your own projections. Evidence based is nice, but clearly that’s optional.
www.theguardian.com
