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.
Justice Department Wants Apple to Extract Data From 12 Other iPhones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One thing for sure a lot of people watching this all over the world,are laughing at the USA.
Since this story is about an Apple product.....
I don't agree that this story is about an Apple product. It's about freedom and rights.
[doublepost=1456253761][/doublepost]
I'm saying it is a start. Obviously, a petition presented to a politician is about the lowest level of movement you can get on an issue. But it is the easiest to do, and a starting point. And if you can't even get yourself to do that, then you certainly won't pick up a phone and call someone, or write a letter directly to your local politician, or drive to a rally....
If you read the Wikipedia page on the All Writs Act itself, it has the text as well as a ruling on how it is to be tested to see if it applies to a particular party.
It may be the court ultimately does not have sufficient jusrisdiction over Apple given the previous tests enacted or affirmed by a SCOTUS ruling.
It is also obviously true it imposes an undue burden on Apple for two reasons:
- The time and resources to make a special version OS, whether compensated or not
- The reputation cost of making a special data disclosure OS. Given Apple's brand value this could be very significant.
Interesting . . . .
FBI/DoJ seem to be going on media stating once they died their rights died with them. I disagree. Further, they are investigating a crime that has been solved. There is no evidentiary value in this order.
The theory they are hanging their hat on is that somehow it might be possible to determine co-conspirators, but since they only had the phone for a couple hours and it belonged to a colleague they shot, it is unlikely they would contact a terror cell or someone else to implicate them. They were probably just checking the news and mapping their path. The FBI/DoJ case is so weak on all levels.
I think it is entirely fair to compare the time and resources and public facing comments to another case in their portfolio: HRC. The differences in treatment and behaviors so publicly makes FBI/DoJ have very low credibility and public confidence.
Apple is neither the perp, nor the victim, nor a witness. It is a supplier of a product and that product was not even used to commit the crime, although gun companies have been given legal exemption in other cases.SCOTUS ruling said:
It may be the court ultimately does not have sufficient jusrisdiction over Apple given the previous tests enacted or affirmed by a SCOTUS ruling.
It is also obviously true it imposes an undue burden on Apple for two reasons:
- The time and resources to make a special version OS, whether compensated or not
- The reputation cost of making a special data disclosure OS. Given Apple's brand value this could be very significant.
Interesting . . . .
FBI/DoJ seem to be going on media stating once they died their rights died with them. I disagree. Further, they are investigating a crime that has been solved. There is no evidentiary value in this order.
The theory they are hanging their hat on is that somehow it might be possible to determine co-conspirators, but since they only had the phone for a couple hours and it belonged to a colleague they shot, it is unlikely they would contact a terror cell or someone else to implicate them. They were probably just checking the news and mapping their path. The FBI/DoJ case is so weak on all levels.
I think it is entirely fair to compare the time and resources and public facing comments to another case in their portfolio: HRC. The differences in treatment and behaviors so publicly makes FBI/DoJ have very low credibility and public confidence.
Last edited:
Sorry but nothing I wrote is inconsistent with the history of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Read it really closely. If you truly understand that history you'll understand all the details I left out because I only wanted to write a couple sentences and didn't feel the need to go on ad-infinitum about the Federalists vs Anti-Federalist, Ratify then Amend, Amend then Ratify groups.
I was only trying to make a point that the discussion of "distrusting government power" was happening even as the country was being founded.
What if I told you that terrorism was just a myth? What if I told you that it's true purpose is to convince you to give up your rights?
And yet, this story is STILL about Apple and an iPhone and not Android as the person I responded to brought into the discussion.
[doublepost=1456254536][/doublepost]
And you know it wasn't....how?
Sadly in this day and age, most news organizations are tied to one political aspect or another and sensationalize news in an effort to draw readers. Accuracy, being neutral, nor completeness are requirements. In most cases you have to watch several versions to get even close to the full detail.
Then, there is also the weight the government can bring down on the different networks.
True news reporting has become an endangered art. It has become... entertainment.
Well, true. But then, what place would there be in the discussion to mention Facebook's support of the issue, or Twitter, or all of the other companies that have voiced their support? None of them are central to the case or involved.
I thought it was just "one device" and they weren't trying to set a precedent? Oh that's right, they're lying.
If Apple wants to sell products in any foreign country, it has to obey their laws and abide by their court decisions. Remember how many European countries force Apple to offer longer Applecare protection than we get in the US? Apple has trouble opening stores in many countries, as they require local ownership... and they have to get exceptions. They obey, or they stop doing business there.
I can voluntarily share what I want. Voluntarily.
I do what I want, according to law.
The government does what it wants, according to law. The law, as it stands right now, does not allow the government to force a company to create a product, especially if this product undermines personal security.
The Constitution was ratified with the express understanding that they were going to create the Bill of Rights. That was a day and age that people stood by their word and did what they promised to do.
why should they? it's a legal case, with some implications for local laws. It's just the normal way of doing stuff in a democracy, especially if compared to stuff like the way Merkel tried to convince Zuckerberg to censor FB posts on refugees.
This phone was the SHOOTERS phone, not the victims. Not sure what you are talking about.
While law enforcement agencies frequently employ locksmiths to open locks, it is well-settled law that you can't force a locksmith to work for you. Apple is the locksmith in this example.
Note this is about way more than 12 phones. FBI is asking for Apple's signing key. With that they can unlock any phone by installing a hacked os on it, and they won't need Apple's help to do it.
Note this is about way more than 12 phones. FBI is asking for Apple's signing key. With that they can unlock any phone by installing a hacked os on it, and they won't need Apple's help to do it.
Agreed. This was so obvious, a blind man could see it coming.
That's what's stated in the article. What the government can compel an individual, or company to do is another matter.
The bigger issue for me is that Apple has stated previously that they had no means to bypass the security of their software, yet now they are saying they do have a means of updating the software such that information previously locked on a device, that it may now be accessed. That's a huge backdoor. And for me raises the issue of whether or not only Apple can do it, or could some third party do it as well given enough resources, or even unauthorized access to Apple's source code?
Why?
1. Some state this "effort" is strictly about the data on the phone.
2. Others state it is more about setting a precedent on how to handle or garner information on locked / encrypted devices.
If we accept that statement 1 is accurate then it is all about the data and a tool may not exist (the NSA wouldn't say anyway). If we accept that statement 2 is accurate then it doesn't matter if a tool exists. They don't want to use it. Either way, we don't know.
We still are only guessing about the end goal. The WSJ story does push the precedent angle.
Well, don't worry. Relax. Everything is under control.
Remember that, as Bill said, "there were benefits to governments having some access to information, but that there would have to be rules in place to limit how they can access that information."
So the Government will respect the rules.
...That is, until an "extraordinary" situation comes and forces the Government to changes their minds and says that they do not need to respect those rules anymore.
Give it 18 to 24 months...