Judges are the only ones who should decide the outcome. Any real, clean judge has no political motivation and does what law states.
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.
New York Judge Rules U.S. Government Can't Force Apple to Unlock an iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Judges are the only ones who should decide the outcome. Any real, clean judge has no political motivation and does what law states.
Wouldn't an MDM solve this entire thing from the get go? From what I know it is an employer owned iPhone. What employer would NOT deploy iPhones with an MDM?
No one disagree on this part. However, if FBI cannot open the envelope / safe, it should not have the power to ask all envelope / safe manufacturer to give it master keys to all safes / envelops.
Even just from the financial viewpoint, if the weapon companies should freely tag the price for their products, why should all other companies be forced to sacrifice heavily without compensation?
Different jurisdictions. If appealed, this case (NY) would feed into the 2nd Circuit while California feeds into the 9th Circuit. If both Circuits disagree with each other it is likely on to SCOTUS.
After reading the entire Order by Magistrate Orenstein, I am seriously impressed with how well written this is and can see it having too be seriously considered by any other Judge/Magistrate who is presiding over an AWA case.
Providing the FBI and the US Attorney continue on with the SB writ, this will make the FBI's position a bit difficult. Would not surprise me if they (FBI) continue or withdraw, either way.
Last edited:
Nice political diatribe; but maybe you should actually familiarize yourself with the law that was cited, the "All Writs Act."
And thanks the weapon companies for allowing you to scare the women, also to stop the police for the short while you needed to escape.
That is good to know. I hope the judge doesn't consider the NY case as an isolated incident, and takes it in context.
The government is the entity that forced Apple (and others) to make the phones become bricks if they are stolen, in order to reduce crimes. Now they want the phones to be accessible, in order to solve crimes. Make up your damn mind.
Ah, so that's partly where the FBI got their claim that Apple was resisting for consumer marketing reasons.
Sounds sensible, except that companies are sometimes ordered to collect any and all information they have about someone. Whether that takes hours of secretarial time, or hours of engineering time, is moot. Especially if the government pays for it each time.
Also, being a big corporation does not give it a pass to ignore warrants.
I agree with others: Congress should step up to the plate here.
In the NY case, Congress already said no to "back doors" in encryption in line with what was being sought. Read the Magistrate's Order and it will give you a better overall in what he decided.
It bears nothing near to "corporations be above the law", instead, it's a carefulness needed to prevent the law enforcement agents from having an unbalanced power and abusing it.
Eventually, strong encryption will get back to Congress, who would rather grandstand and spout buzzwords than fully understand the nuances of an issue.
At that time, it will become illegal to offer products--hardware or software--that include strong encryption, to anyone in the US except the government themselves (police and military).
Criminals will continue to protect themselves with encryption, of course--installing illegal apps or services.
But law-abiding opponents of the next President? And the one after that? Whistleblowers who uncover corruption in their local police or the national military? Middle-income women being stalked by men with money? Small companies looking to protect their plans from major rivals? They will have no such protection.
And the rest of the world will look on in amazement as they march into the future without us.
At that time, it will become illegal to offer products--hardware or software--that include strong encryption, to anyone in the US except the government themselves (police and military).
Criminals will continue to protect themselves with encryption, of course--installing illegal apps or services.
But law-abiding opponents of the next President? And the one after that? Whistleblowers who uncover corruption in their local police or the national military? Middle-income women being stalked by men with money? Small companies looking to protect their plans from major rivals? They will have no such protection.
And the rest of the world will look on in amazement as they march into the future without us.
You are an AMAZING criminal!!!!! =)
CSI showed me that people ALWAYS make a little mistake... some teeny slip up... got caught on camera somewhere, a print somewhere, a hair follicle, blood splatter, a witness, an accomplice, etc.
Yet your ONLY possibility of being convicted whatsoever lies on your phone???!!!!
Wow!!!! While most people would think that sounds soooooooooooooooo clearly sloppy, and that you MUST have left some more evidence somewhere... I don't think that! I'm your number one fan.
Keep on committing the "perfect" crimes with NO evidence whatsoever, but then taking photos on your iPhone or whatever.
Oooooooh, but I heard that you're actually ALSO going to have to rely on the FBI mishandling your case & trying to change your iCloud password before consulting Apple. Or else, from what I understand, it is fairly trivial for Apple to capture "auto backup" data for the Feds & they don't mind, since it doesn't ruin the privacy of millions.
*sigh* Nice try though... keep fighting that good fight criminal!
Considering the Magistrate in SB and the US Attorney in Cali are both his.... doubtful.
Would be nice though.
Yes! Just like your own chosen lawyer's brand reputation in protecting all the legal rights of his/her clients (especially should you be falsely, or even accurately accused, by the feds). A very high priority indeed.
I did read its a couple of times. It reads more like he is saying that since the legislature said no to back doors and then faulted the government for not defining a limit it felt was applicable. It was an attempted end run around current legal definitions.
A good read.
True, but this can be introduced as a legal precedent in the CA case. And in the event of an appeal which is upheld, the present state of the SCOTUS would result in the appeals court decision standing, so either way a win for Apple.
Maybe your complete lack of understanding of the principles at stake and childish posts ticked him off... just a guess.