Those arguing for "individual liberties" here should read more on the facts. Here, the owner of the phone consented to the search. The issue is thus not one of individual liberties, but rather whether it was within the magistrate's power to demand that Apple create a software product that Apple believes will be harmful.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Campaigners Rally to Support Apple's Stance on Government Backdoors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
If you believe politians and police and judges can be bribed, why is it you don't think some Apple employee can't be bribed? The keys to digitally sign iOS exists right now at Apple HQ.
What court orders do you contend the president has ignored? I can't think of any.
What are we discussing about if the owner "consented" to the search (wasn't he dead???) then he can "put the pin number" (even if he is dead ,.... i mean he consented it right????????????)and no need for a backdoor......or have i Missed something
This has nothing to do with who owns the phone and everything to do with the fact that building the software the FBI wants would put every iOS device on the planet at risk.
And whether the FBI can force Apple to develop something that Apple would otherwise not build.
Maybe they can, maybe they can't, but Apple doesn't completely swap out it's employees and board memmbers every four years.
What are we discussing about if the owner "consented" to the search (wasn't he dead???) then he can "put the pin number" (even if he is dead ,.... i mean he consented it right????????????)and no need for a backdoor......or have i Missed something
You did miss something -- this phone is owned by the County, not the phone's user.
It sounds more like the dire and shrill conspiracy theories a few years back telling us our government was illegally spying on us.
Oh wait those turned out to be true...
Not really, they might have custody, but the ownership is not theirs, or you live in a country where the County can grab what it is yours and claim ownership just because!
Imagine, in theoreticaland, all houses were safe from intruders. You didn't have to worry about someone breaking into your house and taking your stuff.
The government needs access to a criminal's house for information. The only way for the government to get the criminal's information was to make every house in the world easy to break into. The government gets the info they need for a singular case, but at the expensive of hundreds of millions of houses around the world.
This is the U.S. government's logic on phone privacy.
Forgetting your privacy and rights for a second, the idea itself is illogical because of the ramifications that come with having the ability to obtain the criminal's information.
'Merica
(Proud American living in 'Merica)
The government needs access to a criminal's house for information. The only way for the government to get the criminal's information was to make every house in the world easy to break into. The government gets the info they need for a singular case, but at the expensive of hundreds of millions of houses around the world.
This is the U.S. government's logic on phone privacy.
Forgetting your privacy and rights for a second, the idea itself is illogical because of the ramifications that come with having the ability to obtain the criminal's information.
'Merica
(Proud American living in 'Merica)
Last edited:
Well... when your daughter is possibly getting raped in a dark parking lot, I promise not to stop the perpetrator with my guns. I'll keep walking by. Hope that makes you sleep better at night.
Personally I sleep very well at night knowing my country doesn't allow Joe Public to buy a firearm like it was a McDonalds Happy Meal.
Same old argument (your daughter /wife being raped)..... but i do not need a gun to try and help and / or call the police, and if the rapist has a gun too your gun account only for 50% as he too can shoot and kill you...
The issue most people are concerned with, for good reason, is the one you state. However, as a legal matter, the ownership of the phone is a highly relevant concern. The case wouldn't be situated this way and the magistrate might never have ordered what he did absent the owner's consent. Thus, my comment is intended to help people keep their eye on the ball. If you are arguing this one as a violation of "individual liberties," you have the wrong rubric, as the order does not affect an individual liberty issue (from a legal perspective). Rather, the issues here are the proper scope of a magistrate judge's power and whether a company should be ordered to create a harmful software product. We're on the same side, but there is a winning argument and a losing one.
Actually, they start with "weapons of mass destruction should be banned." Aren't nuclear weapons "arms", and doesn't the Constitution say that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
If you really believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, you have to support private citizens owning nuclear weapons. If you want to limit the definition of Arms to what the framers had in mind, then you look at the kinds of Arms that were available at the time.
Everything else is in the middle.
Slippery slope arguments don't really work, because at any given point, you're at the tip of the mountain with the slope going down both ways. If you allow automatic guns then soon everyone will have nuclear weapons. See what I mean? If you think it's silly to go from automatic guns to nuclear weapons, you have to understand that it's also silly to go from assault weapon bans to "no rights at all". Neither is an inevitable conclusion.
Here's a picture of a my late mother visiting a relative who moved to the Ozarks in the 1950s because he didn't like the way the government was abridging his rights. The "cigar" she is holding is ammo for the gun.
Yes, and to help the FBI listen in on conversations that suspected terrorists are having with each other, the FBI is looking to get legislation passed that will require homebuilders to install listening devices within all homes.
Do you think they buy guns from a legit shop? Do you think preventing everyone from buying guns will stop them from getting as much guns as they need from the black market?
I buy guns and keep them in my house bc if there's a home invasion, it takes the police at least 5 mins to be on site and my family will be death by the time they got here. With guns, I will at least have a fighting chance of protecting my family.
Yes, and to help the FBI listen in on conversations that suspected terrorists are having with each other, the FBI is looking to get legislation passed that will require homebuilders to install listening devices within all homes.
Well you're not far off.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31296188
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25018225
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/microsoft-backtracks-xbox-one-camera-amid
So people can just choose what laws or court orders they want to obey if they think the government and judicial system is corrupt? So all those who think the Supreme Court wrongly decided the SSM case can just not issue marriage licenses If they don't want to? I'm sorry that's not how things work. You think the government and judicial system are corrupt? Then vote in better congressmen, presidents and judges.
How is it creating a backdoor on every device when only Apple has access to the firmware and only Apple can sign it?
Well, I actually agree that a company, given a court order, should be compelled to supply the government with any personal data that the company might have on you. That is entirely different than the government compelling a company to design a product that will allow them to access data you personally stored either on a physical device or in the cloud.
- Status