Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I'm pretty sure there are other ways to catch child kidnappers and kitten murderers that sitting in your office chair running carnivore queries on everyone's iPhone. Remember when investigators were called "gum shoes". This was because they were always on the feet thinking of new and inventive ways to catch the bad guys. Now they just sit like a blob and suck up everyone's personal data. Lazy bastards, no donut for you!
 
Saudi Arabian (and UAE, I think) governments both have the same issue few years back with Blackberry's BBM.

Really man? Gonna pull their tricks too now?
 
Mr. Obama, I would like to see Mr. Comey's resignation in the morning. Thank you.

If a CEO of a company were to make such outrageous (or even mildly controversial) statements the whole world would be calling for their head on a platter. Yet the most powerful law enforcement official in the US government is publicly assaulting the 4th amendment, and the President is not asking for his resignation? Ridiculous.

What's next? Does he want to prevent me from using the format command? No privately owned shredders or incinerators?
 
I wonder how the little matter of the Supreme Court's (unanimous) decision in Reily v. California has escaped everyone's attention.

Taking it to its absurd extreme, if we someday invent a device to read people's minds, presumably one could get a warrant to use it on someone and bypass the Fifth amendment. I think at some point there will have to be a classification of "possessions" (e.g. thoughts, memories) that are inherently personal in nature and fall under this protection. I don't think it's absurd to argue that a personal device with private thoughts, photos, etc. falls under this definition. It goes back to the original question of whether the law should be written and interpreted to assume that the government or law agency is likely to be in error or have ill intent and the protection of the individual is paramount.
 
Mr. Obama, I would like to see Mr. Comey's resignation in the morning. Thank you.

If a CEO of a company were to make such outrageous (or even mildly controversial) statements the whole world would be calling for their head on a platter. Yet the most powerful law enforcement official in the US government is publicly assaulting the 4th amendment, and the President is not asking for his resignation? Ridiculous.

What's next? Does he want to prevent me from using the format command?

A perfect PSRI comment. Ignores facts, goes straight for the political and ideological rant.
 
I would be interested to hear what legal experts say on this subject.

Every lawyer I've ever heard talking on the subject says never cooperate with a law enforcement investigation. Keep your mouth shut, doesn't matter how innocent you are, and do nothing at all to help them. Certainly don't hinder them in any way, or resist what they are doing to you, but you have no legal obligation to assist a police investigation (at least in the US, overseas you are pretty much screwed if you don't make an affirmative defense at the start, which is terrible for a lot of logical reasons). Don't slam the door in their faces when they come to serve you a warrant, but absolutely do not give any indication you know anything about anything, or have access to anything.

From the moment you have law enforcement coming to talk to you, you need to think only about avoiding a successful prosecution. Trained, experienced interrogators are trying to put you in prison or possibly execute you. They have bosses above them yelling at them to close the case, the prosecutor you'll have accusing you in court likely has political ambitions, everything in the system is set up to get a conviction, and nobody is particularly interested in convicting the right person. It is not about determining the truth or facts in a case, it is about convicting you.

So, if you show the police where your computer or iPhone is, they'll be able to prove in a court of law that it belongs to you. If you unlock it, they'll be able to prove in a court of law that you had access to it. If there really is something on there, even accidentally or as a frame job, you're now halfway convicted. Even if there's nothing incriminating on there, but it creates some kind of circumstantial pattern, you're screwed in court. Don't give the police anything that they can use against you. Demand a lawyer, keep your mouth shut, and do absolutely nothing.

The sad truth is we have so many laws now, everybody is guilty of something whether they know it or not. And even if you're not guilty of the thing they're looking for, they can still ruin your life once you start cooperating and they start finding things. Even your truthful denials can be used against you, when they find some witness who is mistaken about something that contradicts something you say. Think: Defendant claimed he was out of town at the time of the murder, but Witness A thought he saw Defendant in town across the parking lot of the grocery store. If Defendant lied about his whereabouts at the time of the murder, Defendant must be lying about other things, like how he didn't kill that person. It doesn't matter that Defendant in this scenario was really out of town, all that matters is what can be proved by the prosecution. If Defendant had kept his mouth shut and made no statements, Witness A's statements about seeing the Defendant at the grocery store across a parking lot wouldn't help convict the Defendant.

Just don't say or do anything, and let your lawyer do the talking in court about the lack of evidence and how the prosecution failed to make its case.
 
no clear decision

And if you can't remember your code?

I don't believe that this has been fully explored in Court. There was a case a couple of years ago where someone refused to provide a decryption key and the issue started up the chain of appeals. But I think the police cracked the code and rendered the issue moot. I'm not certain, but that's what I remember.

I can imagine that law enforcement was somewhat relieved as this wasn't a great case for them. And had they lost it there would be a very bad precedent.

The situation in U.K. is very different. There it specifically required that you provide the key/password/whatever and you go to gaol if you refuse.
 
Taking it to its absurd extreme, if we someday invent a device to read people's minds, presumably one could get a warrant to use it on someone and bypass the Fifth amendment. I think at some point there will have to be a classification of "possessions" (e.g. thoughts, memories) that are inherently personal in nature and fall under this protection. I don't think it's absurd to argue that a personal device with private thoughts, photos, etc. falls under this definition.

I don't follow, perhaps because you don't either. Just this year, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that cell phone data is protected from warrantless search. The real concern at issue here is whether an individual can prevent a search even after a search warrant is issued by a court.
 
i have nothing to hide...

Yes you do. If not, please post private photos of your wife or kids, give us your creditcard number, bank account number, pin codes. Have someone install a camera in every room of your house, including bedrooms, bathrooms and toilets and stream the video directly to the internet. With microphones of course, cause we want the audio to go with the video. Similarly for your cars.

Think that's a good idea? Feeling slightly uncomfortable with the idea? I guess you do have something to hide.
 
If the FBI/Police are really concerned about this, then he should've thought about that before abusing/violating the laws in this country that led people to DEMAND protection from them.
 
Well, it is pretty much a guarrentee that if you have the police at your house with a warrant that you are probably going to jail, regardless of if you unlock your phone or not.

The difference would be, without the evidence on the phone provided to them, they may not have anything to hold you on for longer than a few days.

Once you unlock the phone and they have access to that information, they may have enough to hold you as long as they want.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but if you're served a warrant and refuse to follow it can't they hold you indefinitely until you allow them access?
 
So the US government wants companies to make their devices more secure but of course the FBI still want access to them, can't have it both ways guys.
 
Comey is being disingenuous. He knows the NSA and even the FBI snoop on people all the time without warrants.

Good for Apple (and Google) for protecting us (somewhat) from Homeland Security snooping.
 
I wonder how the little matter of the Supreme Court's (unanimous) decision in Reily v. California has escaped everyone's attention.
Meaning?

They upheld the requirement of having a search warrant to search a phone.


No one here, that I've read, is against a valid search warrant.




_
 
I don't follow, perhaps because you don't either. Just this year, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that cell phone data is protected from warrantless search. The real concern at issue here is whether an individual can prevent a search even after a search warrant is issued by a court.

Your reply had nothing to do with that poster's argument btw.
 
Government pressure for a backdoor....

I have no respect for the Government's argument. They can still get a warrant for the device and they can work to crack it.
 
Technology is not going to bend to the laws arbitrarily set by governments.

The physical world is built the way it is built and therefore technology is an extension. If the laws of physics and maths mean your data is secure from prying eyes that is the way it will be! It's not a case of the fbi saying jump.

No one can force thoughts from your mind. The fbi can intercept your data when transmitted just like when you talk but it depends if they speak your language. This is an issue ruled not by governments but the physicality of the world itself.
 
Taking it to its absurd extreme, if we someday invent a device to read people's minds, presumably one could get a warrant to use it on someone and bypass the Fifth amendment. I think at some point there will have to be a classification of "possessions" (e.g. thoughts, memories) that are inherently personal in nature and fall under this protection. I don't think it's absurd to argue that a personal device with private thoughts, photos, etc. falls under this definition. It goes back to the original question of whether the law should be written and interpreted to assume that the government or law agency is likely to be in error or have ill intent and the protection of the individual is paramount.

I often wonder about this myself. I don't want to be alive when that day comes.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.