President Obama: 'You Cannot Take an Absolutist View' on Encryption Issue

[duffman9000]

There has to be a way to get in through the backdoor without looking into everyone else's phones. Just require a warrant.
You're the one who is paranoid about the Government. No fan of the Feds at all but I think they should have access when needed.

It's not paranoia when the government has proven to be untrustworthy with National Security Letters, stingrays, and over reaching warrant-less surveillance. Did you forget about that?

The NSL abuse is real and documented by said government, but always after the fact and few people, if any, ever get punished for overreach.

 

[hiddenmarkov]

If it is possible for this backdoor to leak into bad guys hands, why is it not possible for the iOS source code to also leak to the bad guys? The iOS source code exists right now.

Its alleged to exist. Apples stance as far as I know says its not possible at this time. They designed this one way as far as I know. Any ideas of FBIOS as I recall is programmers speculating. Which is not a great source. thinking of code or a method is one part of the process. having it work correctly is another.

Programmers tend to have over optimistic views on projects. As they also tend to have god complexes, nothing is out of their abilities. Just ask them. then ask the sys admins like me how much comp time/overtime we get when that god writes crap code that messes up servers and we get to clean up the mess.



But if it does exist for arguments sake, its only a matter of time. Or money. The data snowden leaked was always there, its just took him to have a desire/conscience/whatever motivations to release it. Several others saw the same data....snowden was just the one to drop that on that web.


Maybe apple hired some good people. Maybe they haven't been offered enough to drop some dimes yet. Maybe they haven't had that bad year yet, work sucks, cheap ass Tim cut bonuses for the year, I am not appreciated so now I will get him back moment yet.

Or Like I keep saying details will be given in trial. Defense will ask for details with this process. Paid lots of money, their client fries or goes to jail for life, or its the ACLU pro bono'ing a case for someone they believe is getting railroaded....its just voodoo techno magic that got the info and we can't talk about it is not going to fly. Clearly the NSA has steered clear of this. These phone cases won't be sealed courtrooms reserved for National security issues based trials. Bit much for busting dr feel good the local dealer and the 100's others like him with a locked iPhone.

 

[Snoopy4]

you say you're zero against backdoors yet you want them to be able to snoop on terrorists because (on their employee supplied phone - for WORK - the phone they KNEW was being monitored), they 'probably' have ties to other terrorists because 'they're terrorists'...

which is like saying 'i'm zero in support of the death penalty, but people should probably die at the hands of the government if they deem it a capital offense.' no logical cohesiveness.

If you're a dead terrorist, what does it matter. Further, it's a company phone. There is no expectation of privacy.

 

[Mr. Donahue]

That is amazing, your wit and originality are off the charts sir! I hope you jumped up from your chair, did a two-finger gun gesture at your screen and shouted "Booyah!" after that gem. Moments before strutting off toward the kitchen for another Bud Light - forgetting your headphones were still connected from an extended Eurodance listening marathon, promptly yanking yourself backwards into the air and rendering yourself unconscious from the impact of head upon your wipe-clean linoleum flooring.

It was a serious question. I heard nimrod before and I know it's biblical. I just thought maybe it's a rapper name. Sorta like how Dr. Dre named himself after famous philly 76'rs player Dr. Jay
So... Yeah. Maybe not? Never mind.

 

[sir1963nz]

I have about zero support for a back door on my phone for the government, but once I'm dead I couldn't care less what they know about me. There needs to be a balanced solution here where the government can access a dead terrorists phone through a warrant.

These were terrorists, not some guy walking down the street that got hit by a car. Terrorists typically know other terrorists and contact them.

The software will not distinguish if you are the owner or not, nor if you are alive or not.

Many people WILL care, even after death about what may be on their phones/computers.

The shooter at SandyHook killed 20 children, apparently not a terrorist. What if it was his phone, or is it OK to kill people if you are not a terrorist ?
So, how about then we track all gun owners, 14,000 american shot each year.
What about rapists, violent offenders and other criminals. We should track all of them too now I guess.
And of course anyone they know, friends, family, neighbours, co-workers, school friends.
The of course those people maybe acting as go betweens, so its anyone they know too.

Oh wait a minute, we are now probably monitoring 90% of americans daily, but hey, we got to protect people.

So yeah, that backdoor should be on YOUR phone apparently
[doublepost=1458019877][/doublepost]

If you're a dead terrorist, what does it matter. Further, it's a company phone. There is no expectation of privacy.

So the LEOs should only be able to access phones of dead people ?

Perhaps we should allow LEOs to access phones of live people too, after dead terrorists can't hurt anyone, live ones can.

But then, to get a better picture, friends, family, neighbours, work colleagues, school friends, people who go to the same Gym, church of those people who are a risk should be monitored too.....just to be safe. But then we should add in anyone who owns a gun, guns are dangerous, thousands of Americans are killed by them every year. Best do the friends etc of those gun owners too.
After all, we must make everyone safe and if you are a risk, there should be no expectation of privacy.
Afroamerican's should be monitored because they have high crime stats, hispanics too I guess.

Now we are monitoring everyone, but just to be safe.........

 

[Snoopy4]

The software will not distinguish if you are the owner or not, nor if you are alive or not.

Many people WILL care, even after death about what may be on their phones/computers.

The shooter at SandyHook killed 20 children, apparently not a terrorist. What if it was his phone, or is it OK to kill people if you are not a terrorist ?
So, how about then we track all gun owners, 14,000 american shot each year.
What about rapists, violent offenders and other criminals. We should track all of them too now I guess.
And of course anyone they know, friends, family, neighbours, co-workers, school friends.
The of course those people maybe acting as go betweens, so its anyone they know too.

Oh wait a minute, we are now probably monitoring 90% of americans daily, but hey, we got to protect people.

So yeah, that backdoor should be on YOUR phone apparently
[doublepost=1458019877][/doublepost]

So the LEOs should only be able to access phones of dead people ?

Perhaps we should allow LEOs to access phones of live people too, after dead terrorists can't hurt anyone, live ones can.

But then, to get a better picture, friends, family, neighbours, work colleagues, school friends, people who go to the same Gym, church of those people who are a risk should be monitored too.....just to be safe. But then we should add in anyone who owns a gun, guns are dangerous, thousands of Americans are killed by them every year. Best do the friends etc of those gun owners too.
After all, we must make everyone safe and if you are a risk, there should be no expectation of privacy.
Afroamerican's should be monitored because they have high crime stats, hispanics too I guess.

Now we are monitoring everyone, but just to be safe.........

Let's try this again. It's a dead terrorist (probable cause) and it's not even his phone. If your employer gives you a phone, it's their phone, not yours. If you text and/or look at inappropriate material on your phone you can be fired, this is no different. He just happens to be a dead terrorist. If he had shot up the work place and was not a terrorist, it's still not his phone and if the employer want LEOs to access it, then that's their call. There is zero expectation of privacy on an employer provided phone. Period.

And no, many people won't care what people find on their phone once they are dead, because they are dead. As I explained, I'm not interested in blanket access, but if probable cause is found or circumstances such as a terrorist attack warrant it, then there needs to be balance in extracting evidence.

 

[jettredmont]

Let's try this again. It's a dead terrorist (probable cause) and it's not even his phone. If your employer gives you a phone, it's their phone, not yours. If you text and/or look at inappropriate material on your phone you can be fired, this is no different. He just happens to be a dead terrorist. If he had shot up the work place and was not a terrorist, it's still not his phone and if the employer want LEOs to access it, then that's their call. There is zero expectation of privacy on an employer provided phone. Period.

And no, many people won't care what people find on their phone once they are dead, because they are dead. As I explained, I'm not interested in blanket access, but if probable cause is found or circumstances such as a terrorist attack warrant it, then there needs to be balance.

Just as an FYI, any conversations recorded on that phone will by definition involve someone besides this particular dead terrorist, who may or may not have known they had given up their right to privacy by texting the guy on this phone number which happens to have been owned by his employer.

That said, legally, they already gave up those rights, but just want you to think about maybe other people who conversed with this loser not expecting their interaction to be released to the public domain.

 

[Snoopy4]

Just as an FYI, any conversations recorded on that phone will by definition involve someone besides this particular dead terrorist, who may or may not have known they had given up their right to privacy by texting the guy on this phone number which happens to have been owned by his employer.

That said, legally, they already gave up those rights, but just want you to think about maybe other people who conversed with this loser not expecting their interaction to be released to the public domain.

So don't hang out with a terrorist. Again, it's a company phone and in California where multiple employees public and private have been fired for things like sexting.

 

[Tech198]

I'm trying to gauge why we are all upset over a "back-door" on a personal device, where there are plenty of "other back-doors" in lots of stuff we may or may not know.... Information stored (or how much) is irreverent, as we are just using that to hide behind the true nature of a 'back-door'

If my phone didn't have personal info stored on it, i still wouldn't want a backdoor either.... Lets face the facts on this one. So who are we really attacking here... Since we use the 'terms' personal info and Apple or iPhone together.

 

[sir1963nz]

Let's try this again. It's a dead terrorist (probable cause) and it's not even his phone. If your employer gives you a phone, it's their phone, not yours. If you text and/or look at inappropriate material on your phone you can be fired, this is no different. He just happens to be a dead terrorist. If he had shot up the work place and was not a terrorist, it's still not his phone and if the employer want LEOs to access it, then that's their call. There is zero expectation of privacy on an employer provided phone. Period.

And no, many people won't care what people find on their phone once they are dead, because they are dead. As I explained, I'm not interested in blanket access, but if probable cause is found or circumstances such as a terrorist attack warrant it, then there needs to be balance in extracting evidence.

But heres the point, the tool will eventually give the FBI blanket access.
And with that tool they will want to use it.

Think of this as being a Stingray device, LEOs have used it thousands and thousands of times without a warrant.

However, based on your point of view, the French are entitled to access, Indonesians, Australians, Germans, Turks and so on. They have ALL had citizens killed by terrorists. So have the Chinese, Indians, Russians, Ukrainians, Somalis , Kenyans, Nigerians.

These countries have LEOs, they too then have right to this kind of tool.

If the US says "No" then what are they saying ?, that terrorism is only significant when its Americans who get killed ?
Its ok to shoot people, blow people up so long as they are not Americans ?

Just remember too that 96% of the worlds population is not American.
Some of us live in countries more democratic than the US
Have greater freedoms of the press than the US
Are less corrupt than the US
[doublepost=1458028765][/doublepost]

While mostly any citizen in US can go and buy a gun and then commit a crime, it looks weird to chase after the phones.

Yes but the 14,000 or so shot by Americans were not killed by terrorists. /sacasm

 

[AnthonyHarris]

Not legally, and definitely not admissible in a US (non-military) court of law. The fifth amendment specifically addresses the fact that you can not be forced to reveal any incriminating information or information which you believe might be incriminating or really, any information you can claim with a straight face might be incriminating from a practical perspective.

It is also worth noting that people who actually have worked with waterboarding and other forms of torture know that torture rarely exposes the truth, but rather exposes what the tortured person thinks the torturer wants to hear. So even there it isn't a good counter to "your mind is not visible to law enforcement".

I was half joking when I said it to be honest. I'm aware of the laws surrounding that particular method of torture, but also not blind to the fact that the law with regards to human rights is frequently overlooked in America... Well, If you're a minority, anyway.

 

[felt.]

I thought it was funny...

 

[teslo]

If you're a dead terrorist, what does it matter. Further, it's a company phone. There is no expectation of privacy.

what aren't you understanding here? because i'm almost thinking you're trolling since you don't actually respond to the technological aspects of this, you keep bringing up a worn, tired meme about how 'subjective' privacy is (in a country that constitutionally protects privacy - objectively).

access to 'dead terrorists employee phone" = access to any iPhone.

by removing the brute-force deterrent of 10 wrong tries, then ANY iPhone can be brute forced.

this has NOTHING to do with whether someone is a terrorist or if they're dead and 'deserve' privacy posthumously. it's about disabling our technological safeguards for EVERYONE - including our own politicians and leaders.

 

[tgara]

It's not paranoia when the government has proven to be untrustworthy with National Security Letters, stingrays, and over reaching warrant-less surveillance. Did you forget about that?

The NSL abuse is real and documented by said government, but always after the fact and few people, if any, ever get punished for overreach.

Serious question: Leaving aside whether this surveillance is legal or not, can you point to any examples of where the information gathered during the surveillance was used by the government in an nefarious or abusive way against citizens of the US? These programs have been going on for a long time, overseen by the Congress, judges, and law enforcement, and I have not heard of any abuse. My position is that until I do hear about abuse of this data (which I'm sure will be splashed across all the headlines), I'm comfortable with the government doing this. The surveillance is against those who wish to do us harm, not ordinary citizens.

Let's try this again. It's a dead terrorist (probable cause) and it's not even his phone. If your employer gives you a phone, it's their phone, not yours. If you text and/or look at inappropriate material on your phone you can be fired, this is no different. He just happens to be a dead terrorist. If he had shot up the work place and was not a terrorist, it's still not his phone and if the employer want LEOs to access it, then that's their call. There is zero expectation of privacy on an employer provided phone. Period.

And no, many people won't care what people find on their phone once they are dead, because they are dead. As I explained, I'm not interested in blanket access, but if probable cause is found or circumstances such as a terrorist attack warrant it, then there needs to be balance in extracting evidence.

Exactly. (1) The phone was owned by the county of San Bernardino, not the terrorist, and (2) the county consented to the FBI's request to search the phone. There are NO 4th amendment or privacy problems here with respect to this situation.

what aren't you understanding here? because i'm almost thinking you're trolling since you don't actually respond to the technological aspects of this, you keep bringing up a worn, tired meme about how 'subjective' privacy is (in a country that constitutionally protects privacy - objectively).

access to 'dead terrorists employee phone" = access to any iPhone.

by removing the brute-force deterrent of 10 wrong tries, then ANY iPhone can be brute forced.

this has NOTHING to do with whether someone is a terrorist or if they're dead and 'deserve' privacy posthumously. it's about disabling our technological safeguards for EVERYONE - including our own politicians and leaders.

I think it's you who don't understand the legal positions here, which are crucial. Privacy in this country is not absolute. Never has been. The 4th amendment protects you from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, not ALL searches and seizures. Under the current law, a reasonable search must be based on probable cause, be specific in the thing or places to be searched, and reviewed and approved by a neutral judge.

So "access to dead terrorists employee phone = access to any iPhone" is just wrong. Each situation where the FBI or other law enforcement wants to search is evaluated on its own merits and must go through all the safeguards and constitutional checks I outlined above. There is no guarantee that just because one iPhone is searched in one particular case that another one can be searched as well.

So, to your technological point, just because the software is developed to disable the passcode lock doesn't mean that it can or will be used willy-nilly on the whim of some cop. There are plenty of pretty strong legal and constitutional safeguards in place that must be met first before any search can happen.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

I think it's you who don't understand the legal positions here, which are crucial. Privacy in this country is not absolute. Never has been. The 4th amendment protects you from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, not ALL searches and seizures. Under the current law, a reasonable search must be based on probable cause, be specific in the thing or places to be searched, and reviewed and approved by a neutral judge.

So "access to dead terrorists employee phone = access to any iPhone" is just wrong. Each situation where the FBI or other law enforcement wants to search is evaluated on its own merits and must go through all the safeguards and constitutional checks I outlined above. There is no guarantee that just because one iPhone is searched in one particular case that another one can be searched as well.

So, to your technological point, just because the software is developed to disable the passcode lock doesn't mean that it can or will be used willy-nilly on the whim of some cop. There are plenty of pretty strong legal and constitutional safeguards in place that must be met first before any search can happen.

While that's true (at least in theory as there's no guarantee that they won't abuse it), I think Apple is more concerned about the backdoor (once created) falling in the wrong hands like hackers rather than authorities.

 

[tgara]

A terrorists aim is to make people scared. To make them loose quality of life through restrictions of freedoms.
YOU are enabling the terrorists, because you are scared.

But please feel free to go to your local law enforcement office and ask them to place a tracking bracelet on your leg so that they can KNOW that you have not been involved in any crimes...... after all, if you are not tracked, how can anyone know for certain.

I'm not scared, but I think you are. You are scared that the government will come snooping on your phone like back in Soviet-era East Germany, pull you out of your house, and take you to a rendition site in some third world country. That isn't going to happen.
[doublepost=1458051527][/doublepost]

While that's true (at least in theory as there's no guarantee that they won't abuse it), I think Apple is more concerned about the backdoor (once created) falling in the wrong hands like hackers rather than authorities.

Everyone says this, but I do not understand Apple's concern here. They keep the most vulnerable parts of the iOS system (the source code to iOS and Apple’s electronic signature) secured from hackers. Why can't they do the same with this software requested by the FBI?

 

[AdonisSMU]

I have about zero support for a back door on my phone for the government, but once I'm dead I couldn't care less what they know about me. There needs to be a balanced solution here where the government can access a dead terrorists phone through a warrant.

These were terrorists, not some guy walking down the street that got hit by a car. Terrorists typically know other terrorists and contact them.

That doesn't exist and is impossible to create safely. Stop thinking in terms of terrorism and start using logic. We went into the Iraq and Afghan wars based on terrorism and look where that got us...trillions of dollars in debt and a worse situation with ISIS as there is a power vacuum in the region. Secondly, the government is just shifting the encryption around. There are about a gazillion other companies who can provide encryption if Apple isn't allowed to that isn't subject to US law. You have the government just making law abiding citizens less safe and succeptible to attacks from foreign interests, criminals and terrorists while gaining nothing in return because terrorists and other criminals will use encryption on their phones regardless of what the Feds are doing.

 

[macfacts]

Its alleged to exist. Apples stance as far as I know says its not possible at this time. They designed this one way as far as I know. Any ideas of FBIOS as I recall is programmers speculating. Which is not a great source. thinking of code or a method is one part of the process. having it work correctly is another.

Programmers tend to have over optimistic views on projects. As they also tend to have god complexes, nothing is out of their abilities. Just ask them. then ask the sys admins like me how much comp time/overtime we get when that god writes crap code that messes up servers and we get to clean up the mess.



But if it does exist for arguments sake, its only a matter of time. Or money. The data snowden leaked was always there, its just took him to have a desire/conscience/whatever motivations to release it. Several others saw the same data....snowden was just the one to drop that on that web.


Maybe apple hired some good people. Maybe they haven't been offered enough to drop some dimes yet. Maybe they haven't had that bad year yet, work sucks, cheap ass Tim cut bonuses for the year, I am not appreciated so now I will get him back moment yet.

Or Like I keep saying details will be given in trial. Defense will ask for details with this process. Paid lots of money, their client fries or goes to jail for life, or its the ACLU pro bono'ing a case for someone they believe is getting railroaded....its just voodoo techno magic that got the info and we can't talk about it is not going to fly. Clearly the NSA has steered clear of this. These phone cases won't be sealed courtrooms reserved for National security issues based trials. Bit much for busting dr feel good the local dealer and the 100's others like him with a locked iPhone.

If you are a sys admin, how is it you don't know about digital signitures and electronic signing keys? Iphones are designed by Apple to only allow software to be installed only if it has been digitally signed by Apple.

If the details of how the backdoor was made are revealed in an open court, that info is useless because the FBI or bad guys still won't have a copy of the signing keys.

 

[citi]

You may not be aware of this, but this is an election year. By the time this is settled, none of the power will go to Obama. We don't have "regents" in this country (or if we do, they are not the ones who sit in the Oval Office). And we don't have "regimes". By this time next year, another person will occupy the White House for a four-year term. If the U.S. public like the job they are doing (or like them better than we like any potential challengers) then we give them at most one more term. More than two terms is prohibited by an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I voted for President Obama twice. I don't regret those votes, considering who his opponents were in 2008 and 2012. I think overall he had done a good job. By most measures I am far better off now than I was when he took office. I think the country is better off, too, by most measures, and I doubt a "President McCain" or a "President Romney" would have been better.

I knew when I voted for him that there would be times when I disagreed with his words, or his actions, or his inactions on various issues.

No one who claims the President's position on this issue (which I strongly disagree with) means he is incompetent for the job can have any credibility if they are planning to vote for someone who says essentially the same thing.

This is how you write an opinion post. Take note everyone.

 

[sir1963nz]

I'm not scared, but I think you are. You are scared that the government will come snooping on your phone like back in Soviet-era East Germany, pull you out of your house, and take you to a rendition site in some third world country. That isn't going to happen.
[doublepost=1458051527][/doublepost]

Everyone says this, but I do not understand Apple's concern here. They keep the most vulnerable parts of the iOS system (the source code to iOS and Apple’s electronic signature) secured from hackers. Why can't they do the same with this software requested by the FBI?

Why is it not going to happen ?
You have the FBI threatening to take the source code for IOS off Apple.
based on the number of people freed from Death Row, about 10% of those executed were most probably innocent
Police shootings are also extremely high in the US
The US has the world highest prison population
The US runs forced labour camps in prisons
The US has used torture
Its not going to happen today, but step by step that is the direction the US is heading.

Simple, the code will be on the phone
The FBI will have the phone so they can try and crack the PIN code
The FBI will want that code for their own purposes, so they WILL copy it so they can weaponise it
The FBI will "share" it with experts to help them weaponise it.

As fro Apples solution, its simpler
You run an intranet, you make all the tools required to write build verify, therefore you don't need internet.

If its disconnected, it can NOT be hacked.

 

[teslo]

I'm not scared, but I think you are. You are scared that the government will come snooping on your phone like back in Soviet-era East Germany, pull you out of your house, and take you to a rendition site in some third world country. That isn't going to happen.

that's a very limited and nearly insulting summation of our fears. what good is a private business when someone could steal the office iPhones and sell their intellectual property? stock market info? world leaders' classified info stored on THEIR iPhones?

point is, there's a good possibility that this court order could HINDER national security rather than strengthen it. and with judges (and philosophers) questioning where the line crosses from private thoughts to digitally stored information on private property, this isn't just some 'terrorists are dead and the FBI has ALWAYS been able to search and seize' argument doesn't cut it. there's more at stake than pre-smartphone concepts that served a niche and understandable/useful purpose at the time. there are much broader nuanced concepts being discussed now.

 

[2984839]

I have about zero support for a back door on my phone for the government, but once I'm dead I couldn't care less what they know about me. There needs to be a balanced solution here where the government can access a dead terrorists phone through a warrant.

These were terrorists, not some guy walking down the street that got hit by a car. Terrorists typically know other terrorists and contact them.

You can't have a backdoor that only works after you're dead. It's either exists always or not at all.

 

[sir1963nz]

Serious question: Leaving aside whether this surveillance is legal or not, can you point to any examples of where the information gathered during the surveillance was used by the government in an nefarious or abusive way against citizens of the US? These programs have been going on for a long time, overseen by the Congress, judges, and law enforcement, and I have not heard of any abuse. My position is that until I do hear about abuse of this data (which I'm sure will be splashed across all the headlines), I'm comfortable with the government doing this. The surveillance is against those who wish to do us harm, not ordinary citizens.



Exactly. (1) The phone was owned by the county of San Bernardino, not the terrorist, and (2) the county consented to the FBI's request to search the phone. There are NO 4th amendment or privacy problems here with respect to this situation.



I think it's you who don't understand the legal positions here, which are crucial. Privacy in this country is not absolute. Never has been. The 4th amendment protects you from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, not ALL searches and seizures. Under the current law, a reasonable search must be based on probable cause, be specific in the thing or places to be searched, and reviewed and approved by a neutral judge.

So "access to dead terrorists employee phone = access to any iPhone" is just wrong. Each situation where the FBI or other law enforcement wants to search is evaluated on its own merits and must go through all the safeguards and constitutional checks I outlined above. There is no guarantee that just because one iPhone is searched in one particular case that another one can be searched as well.

So, to your technological point, just because the software is developed to disable the passcode lock doesn't mean that it can or will be used willy-nilly on the whim of some cop. There are plenty of pretty strong legal and constitutional safeguards in place that must be met first before any search can happen.

You mean like the use of Stingray devices sucking up everyones phone information, all done without a warrant ?
How about the NSA sucking up everyones "meta-data" then lying about it in congress.
How about the number of shootings the LEOs do that they then lie about to protect the officer against conviction
Go look at the number of FBI agents convicted of serious crimes, its a simple google search.

If these have a tool, they WILL use it, and they will self justify why and when they can use it without a warrant, without regard for the constitution.

The ONLY way to ensure something is not abused, is never to make it.

 

[tgara]

You mean like the use of Stingray devices sucking up everyones phone information, all done without a warrant ?
How about the NSA sucking up everyones "meta-data" then lying about it in congress.
How about the number of shootings the LEOs do that they then lie about to protect the officer against conviction
Go look at the number of FBI agents convicted of serious crimes, its a simple google search.

If these have a tool, they WILL use it, and they will self justify why and when they can use it without a warrant, without regard for the constitution.

The ONLY way to ensure something is not abused, is never to make it.

Calm your paranoia, hoss. The part you said that was kinda relevant to my question was:

You mean like the use of Stingray devices sucking up everyones phone information, all done without a warrant ?
How about the NSA sucking up everyones "meta-data" then lying about it in congress.

There's a difference between merely surveilling and actually USING the collected information in an abusive way. So, again, is there any evidence that the information that was "sucked up" was used by the government for nefarious or abusive purposes against citizens of the US?
[doublepost=1458070003][/doublepost]

that's a very limited and nearly insulting summation of our fears. what good is a private business when someone could steal the office iPhones and sell their intellectual property? stock market info? world leaders' classified info stored on THEIR iPhones?

point is, there's a good possibility that this court order could HINDER national security rather than strengthen it. and with judges (and philosophers) questioning where the line crosses from private thoughts to digitally stored information on private property, this isn't just some 'terrorists are dead and the FBI has ALWAYS been able to search and seize' argument doesn't cut it. there's more at stake than pre-smartphone concepts that served a niche and understandable/useful purpose at the time. there are much broader nuanced concepts being discussed now.

I think you're confused. Instead of keeping our valuable papers and personal information in a metal box in a safe at the bank, we keep them on an encrypted phone. However, the same long-standing legal principles apply regarding reasonable searches and seizures and 4th amendment protections, whether we are talking about an encrypted iPhone or a safe deposit box. Despite what you think you know about the tech or the law, there are no "nuanced concepts" here.

 

[teslo]

I think you're confused. Instead of keeping our valuable papers and personal information in a metal box in a safe at the bank, we keep them on an encrypted phone. However, the same long-standing legal principles apply regarding reasonable searches and seizures and 4th amendment protections, whether we are talking about an encrypted iPhone or a safe deposit box. Despite what you think you know about the tech or the law, there are no "nuanced concepts" here.

sometimes nuance is overlooked thanks to a limited field of view, so i'll keep it short incase you still don't follow: we live in a society that (thankfully) doesn't treat Law as it does the tenets of the Constitution. we elect people to draft and legislate laws that pertain to our current circumstances in the here and now. it appears you've taken "law" to mean "infallible".

look, do you think search and seizure as it exists in the pre-digital/current age would have passed the both houses and signed into law if searching one house meant that every other house in the nation was susceptible to unmonitored search and seizure by anyone with the proper connections and tools? of course not. now we're dealing with how decades old laws 'fit' into today's world. your approach is absolutist and dangerous in my opinion.