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.
FBI Didn't Ask Apple for Help Unlocking Texas Shooter's iPhone in First 48 Hours [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The NRA executives and the arms industry are infamous for paying and rewarding their lackey congressmen to ensure there is minimal funds for the enforcement of existing laws and regulations. They are against anything that will interfere with and reduce the sales of their products.
Yes, the military staff members are ignoring their job responsibilities of submitting their criminals' names to the NICS system. The identity of the individuals that have those responsibilities needs to be called out and they need to be discharged/fired (something Trump claims to be very good at), since they clearly are not doing their jobs.
[doublepost=1510244531][/doublepost]
The FBI has a very large division of employees who have the job of analyzing the motivations of criminals (including mass murderers) so they can learn and prevent future events (watch the Netflix series "Mindhunters"). Saving lives is never a waste of money (except for the selfish).
[doublepost=1510244656][/doublepost]
Its possible the answers are on the phone. That is why the FBI wants to see what is on it. If motivations are learned then they think that can reduce the chances this will happen again.
[doublepost=1510245971][/doublepost]
Apple executives brag that they encrypt iMessages end-to-end. That means they don't have the content of text messages that can be shared with law enforcement. They do have data about what phone numbers were contacted using iMessages.
https://www.recode.net/2016/9/28/13098244/apple-iphone-imessage-privacy-data-police-carriers
First thing, the NRA is a nonprofit organization 501 (c) (4). The myth that they profit off of gun sales is false.
Yes, a percentage of it's funding does come from donations by some manufacturers. Those donations are used for local safety and education training programs, sporting events, and equipment purchases. (Eddie Eagle, for example) Remember, they're a nonprofit. They cannot use those corporate donations for political action work. It's simply against the law for them to do so. The bulk of the NRA's money comes from it's individual members.
http://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/index.html
Second, the NRA is the one who pushed for the NICS system. They pushed for it and are pushing for it to be strengthened. The bills to fix it have been sitting in congress for YEARS, but they keep getting shelved for political reasons.
I've never seen a single report where the NRA was pushing for current laws not be enforced. Never.
I have seen them fight against unconstitutional ones (the original Brady Act had unconstitutional components that SCOTUS later threw out). The original Brady Act had a 5 day waiting period on purchases and no centralized background check system.
Their call has been to enforce what we have before adding to the pile of over 20,000 current gun laws in the U.S. that are currently on the books.
Lying on a 4473 form is a felony, yet less than 1% of NICS rejections are investigated, let alone prosecuted.
Want to see just how little the NRA actually gives to members of Congress? Here's a great article that breaks it down.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/5/16430684/nra-congress-money-no
It's not the money that influences politicians on guns, it's the fear of losing re-election over them.
They aren't even in the top 10 or even top 15 group of donors to politicians.
And to further the point, Bloomberg's "Everytown" group has spent more money than the NRA on lobbying efforts.
Bloomberg has put up close to $500 million of his own cash for gun control efforts and he's failing.
Just further pushes the point that money is not the primary driver behind pro or anti gun control efforts.
It's the voters.
The NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) is the one that makes money off of gun sales. But they're all to happy to let the NRA take the heat.
[doublepost=1510249189][/doublepost]
False... see above.
Look at the size of the paychecks the NRA executives and its obvious that they are in fact making a great deal of money.
The NRA is as much of a non-profit as the NFL.
The paid off lackeys in congress have made sure that there is no money to enforce and prosecute those that lie on those forms.
Its always about the money.
How the NRA Hobbled the ATF
Rules pushed by the gun lobby and its allies on Congress have left the agency unable to enforce the law.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/atf-gun-laws-nra/
Last edited:
Standard salaries given the size of the organization.
Skills come at a cost. You want to know why the NRA is effective? Look at the people they hire.
And no, you seriously cannot compare the NRA to the NFL.
The NFL is also not a tax exempt non-profit. They gave that up in 2015.
And Roger Goodell makes $44 million a year. Wayne LaPierre makes about $1 million.
Hell when I worked at the American Cancer Society back in the early 90's, the President of the Arizona chapter made more than a million per year. And yes, they're a nonprofit.
I refuse to read MotherJones. Not an impartial news source.
So you refuse to read and learn about things that do not align with your preconceived notions. That says a great deal about you.
I believe you just described yourself.
I stay away from heavy right leaning (Brietbart, InfoWars, Daily Caller, etc.) and heavy left leaning (Mother Jones, HuffPo, The Guardian, etc.) news sources.
It’s alright, it’s America, there’ll be another shooting next month where you can all argue over the FBI and Apple.
How many has it been this year? 10? 15?
You should be arguing over gun controls. Or lack off.
How many has it been this year? 10? 15?
You should be arguing over gun controls. Or lack off.
What exactly would you like Trump to do? My understanding of this sad situation is that the shooter's name should have been placed in the system that would have stopped him from legally purchasing a gun. Systems were put in place to stop the purchase but the process was not followed. What didn't Trump do here that would have made a difference? We all want violence to stop as it diminishes our society. What would you like our country to do moving forward?
I sat in on an expert testimony at my state capitol about a year ago. The testimony and Q&A was provided by a triple-certified forensic psychiatrist (Benjamin Todd Thatcher) who works with dangerous people. During the testimony, and following Q&A with the lawmakers, he made some notable comments. 1) That less than 50 people, on average, are killed by mentally ill persons using firearms annually in the USA and; 2) The only accurate predictor for violence in a person is a history of violence. Even those who threaten violence or threaten to kill people rarely do. Incredibly rare, he said.
That being the case, it's obvious that the Texas shooter fit all of the criteria for being prohibited ownership, or even touching, a firearm of any sort. He fit every psychological profile for a person that shouldn't be allowed a weapon. And he likely should have been institutionalized.
As another commenter said, this is absolutely the fault of the Air Force. They should be paying for all of the funerals and probably a lot more than just that.
I think the point the OP was trying to make is that Trump was being an absolute hypocrite in bashing Apple over encryption. Trump is an unabashed supporter of gun rights. Last year, he bashed Apple for fighting a court order to provide assistance for the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone and said that if he was in charge, he would have come down on Tim Cook so hard his head would be spinning all the way to Silicon Valley. To this day, I am not able to figure out what he actually meant by that statement because there was nothing the government could have done to Apple in that case but I digress.
The same arguments against gun control can be used against backdooring encryption. Trump and anti-gun control types hate it when gun control supporters use these mass shootings to further their agenda yet Trump was doing the same thing with encryption.
That's would "should" happen, but due to Apple's security, "won't" happen.
Security triumphs that Apple stands up for, but FBI knows better.... hence,, Apple misses the boat because of security. for their users.
Can't blame them, but that's the trade u get.
Oh please excuse me. Perhaps our posts were separated by and update to the article. My bad
Yes. Because it's still registering an electric pulse through the medium in question. It doesn't actually map your "fingerprint" persay. It doesn't matter what part of your body you use since it's not scanning your fingerprint specifically. Try unlocking your phone without touching the metal ring and it won't unlock. The ring is a crucial part of the sensor.
Wow! That seems like a big read into what was said by the person I asked for clarification.
If memory serves, the San Bernardino shooter was using a work iPhone so it was not his phone and therefore does not garner the same protection as personal property. Had the business put in management software the police would have been able to get into the phone. Had the shooter's employer submitted his name into the database the shooter wouldn't have been able to legally buy a gun. Both are failures. We don't need new/more laws just implementing the ones we have would be a nice start. Tell me, what "common sense" gun law(s) would you like to see that would have stopped this senseless violence?
I wasn't calling for gun control. I fully agree that gun control wouldn't have prevented this massacre. The existing laws already prevented the perpetrator from getting his hands on a gun. It's the Trump administration though that's not being consistent here. The Trump administration is against gun control and vilifies people who would use incidents like this one to garner knee-jerk reaction but the same administration has no qualms about taking advantage of this situation to further its anti-encryption agenda and bash companies who have broken no laws.
Someone screwed up in entering this guy's information into the database. If his information were properly entered into the records, he wouldn't have been able to buy a gun. You and I are both in agreement that gun control laws couldn't have stopped this massacre but the same should go for encryption. Then how come the administration is leveraging this incident to bash tech companies on their encryption and ask for legislation to curtail encryption? The logic just doesn't add up.
my understanding is that it gets reported by the military to the fbi who then enters it into nics so we need to see who failed in this. regardless he still illegally purchased the firearms when he lied on form 4473 in three places question 11 f (Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?) 11 g (Have you ever been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?) and 11 i (Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?). what needs to happen is discover which agency was responsible for this information not being added to nics and go from there.
I think we are pretty much agreement on this. Politics get inserted into tragedies far too often. I have been so turned off by politics as of late so I have not been following the news as far as Trump pushing a anti-encryption line. Can you point me to a story I could get some info regarding this agenda?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...eakened-encryption-as-responsible-encryption/
https://9to5mac.com/2017/11/10/iphone-encryption-rod-rosenstein/
https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/17/11031910/donald-trump-apple-encryption-backdoor-statement
There really isn't a lot to say that the administration per se has an anti-encryption agenda. My evidence is indirect. It's DOJ officials who are against encryption. The DOJ is part of the executive branch of the US, of which the POTUS is the head. I grant that the DOJ is independent but I have to wonder what the result would have been if the same DOJ officials bashing encryption started calling for gun control laws. They'd be out of a job pretty soon or they'd never have had that job in the first place.
In my book, these DOJ officials represent the views of the administration.
Here is a question that perhaps yourself or some other can answer.
If I wear vinyl gloves, I can still unlock my iPhone. How can that be possible?
Please note, these are very thin as examination gloves and very smooth with no texture.
Thanks for the articles. I'll have a read. It would seem there is a lot of carry over from one admin to the next especially in the first year or two. Probably a good thing to preserve some continuity. I think this applies to the State Department as well. If I am not mistaken these jobs are not political appointments so they can't just be replaced on a whim. Not that I know for a fact, but I would suspect that all DOJ policy makers want things set up to make their job easier regardless of what administration is currently in office. I am old enough to remember what the ATF has done in previous administrations as an example of government entities wanting to function unfettered by what they would consider roadblocks in "getting the job done." These things seem to happen regardless of what political party is in power. Maybe this is what some refer to as the deep state.
Anyway, thanks again for the articles.
AND the 'war on encryption' is all about US having no encryption, and the government, such as it is, and their minions having unbreakable (except by Russia?) encryption.
The same crap happened under the last 'x' number of administrations.
I seem to remember that under Bill Clinton, they tried to outlaw hard encryption, and under one of the Bush's they got a 'backdoor' in the algorithms inserted. 'All for me, and none for thee' isn't a good place to go. No one stomping around demanding we 'trust this government' remembers the days of COINTELPRO. Whatever you did, or often didn't do, they could make you guilty of. They swept peoples houses and apartments! If they found anything incriminating, it was 'fair game'. Ever heard of the question 'So, when did you stop beating your wife?'? Yeah...