Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
. One of it's customers phones ?????? How about when that customer becomes a killer that has used that device to conduct terrorist plots and used terrorist contacts on that device probably ? Open the phone already, and then trash the backdoor in which the company would only know about, and would insure the same classification as top security information in which is protected by the government as well as Apple would be in such a caseWhere does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?
Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?
I didn't know all the Republican candidates sided with the FBI, do you have a source for that?Where does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?
Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?
. One of it's customers phones ?????? How about when that customer becomes a killer that has used that device to conduct terrorist plots and used terrorist contacts on that device probably ? Open the phone already, and then trash the backdoor in which the company would only know about, and would insure the same classification as top security information in which is protected by the government as well as Apple would be in such a caseWhere does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?
Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?
I didn't know all the Republican candidates sided with the FBI, do you have a source for that?Where does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?
Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?
I think the phone was hacked long ago and this is all a show. I don't believe Apple has to write anything they don't already have.
. Nope I'm saying that once an individual commits a henious crime, and becomes the subject of an intense investigation, then everything will be investigated including their Phone. Computer, house, cars etc. Yes their friends should be questioned as well. Now whose to say that Apple hasn't already checked the contents of the phone from a stand off position somhow, are they hiding something ? You see because the phone was a part of the investigation, then it best Apple open it before Apple itself becomes a suspect in the investigation also, and this instead of it being just a helpful corporate participant that is poised to do the right thing. If it becomes a suspect who is attempting to obstruct and hide information in a very important investigation, then under court order the government can order Apple to get in the phone after deemed also a suspect in the investigation.. One of it's customers phones ?????? How about when that customer becomes a killer that has used that device to conduct terrorist plots and used terrorist contacts on that device probably ? Open the phone already, and then trash the backdoor in which the company would only know about, and would insure the same classification as top security information in which is protected by the government as well as Apple would be in such a caseWhere does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?
Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?
So are you saying that whenever an individual commits a heinous crime the government suddenly acquires the authority to trample the rights of anyone who is associated in any way with that individual?
. Nope I'm saying that once an individual commits a henious crime, and becomes the subject of an intense investigation, then everything will be investigated including their Phone. Computer, house, cars etc. Yes their friends should be questioned as well. Now whose to say that Apple hasn't already checked the contents of the phone from a stand off position somhow, are they hiding something ? You see because the phone was a part of the investigation, then it best Apple open it before Apple itself becomes a suspect in the investigation also, and this instead of it being just a helpful corporate participant that is poised to do the right thing. If it becomes a suspect who is attempting to obstruct and hide information in a very important investigation, then under court order the government can order Apple to get in the phone after deemed also a suspect in the investigation.. One of it's customers phones ?????? How about when that customer becomes a killer that has used that device to conduct terrorist plots and used terrorist contacts on that device probably ? Open the phone already, and then trash the backdoor in which the company would only know about, and would insure the same classification as top security information in which is protected by the government as well as Apple would be in such a caseWhere does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?
Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?
So are you saying that whenever an individual commits a heinous crime the government suddenly acquires the authority to trample the rights of anyone who is associated in any way with that individual?
Apple becomes an accomplice or suspect by not cooperating in an investigation wherefore it is assisting or aiding and abedding a murdering criminal who killed Americans in a most heinus act of violence by obstructing the investigation as they are. Matters not about our fears that go beyond what the government has requested of Apple, but only that we should be watchful to make sure that all involved honor their word in this. The government stated it only wants the info, and not the phone or the knowledge of how it is obtained for them by Apple. I think in this case Apple has over played it's hand. They should be a willing participant under the guidelines given it, instead of being an unwilling participant where as the government next orders them to participate in a more transparent way to give them what they want. If the government orders them to do so, then it may go to far under the court order, and that's when it may learn things it doesn't need to know. In the hold out situation, Apple loses and we lose, but the government wins big because it may seek to not let that happen again. Is Apple willing to give terrorist comfort in knowing that they would have a way to hide their activities in their phones, because it stood up to the government in this specific case?. Nope I'm saying that once an individual commits a henious crime, and becomes the subject of an intense investigation, then everything will be investigated including their Phone. Computer, house, cars etc. Yes their friends should be questioned as well. Now whose to say that Apple hasn't already checked the contents of the phone from a stand off position somhow, are they hiding something ? You see because the phone was a part of the investigation, then it best Apple open it before Apple itself becomes a suspect in the investigation also, and this instead of it being just a helpful corporate participant that is poised to do the right thing. If it becomes a suspect who is attempting to obstruct and hide information in a very important investigation, then under court order the government can order Apple to get in the phone after deemed also a suspect in the investigation.. One of it's customers phones ?????? How about when that customer becomes a killer that has used that device to conduct terrorist plots and used terrorist contacts on that device probably ? Open the phone already, and then trash the backdoor in which the company would only know about, and would insure the same classification as top security information in which is protected by the government as well as Apple would be in such a caseWhere does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?
Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?
So are you saying that whenever an individual commits a heinous crime the government suddenly acquires the authority to trample the rights of anyone who is associated in any way with that individual?
That's just crazy! Apple is a suspect because they've created a phone that has a high level of security and they don't want to compromise that security??? Once the government acquires the right to order a company to compromise one of their products in order to support some government agenda, where does it stop? Can they then order Apple to build something into their phones that allows the government to spy on the users of their products?
Apple becomes an accomplice or suspect by not cooperating in an investigation wherefore it is assisting or aiding and abedding a murdering criminal who killed Americans in a most heinus act of violence by obstructing the investigation as they are. Matters not about our fears that go beyond what the government has requested of Apple, but only that we should be watchful to make sure that all involved honor their word in this. The government stated it only wants the info, and not the phone or the knowledge of how it is obtained for them by Apple. I think in this case Apple has over played it's hand. They should be a willing participant under the guidelines given it, instead of being an unwilling participant where as the government next orders them to participate in a more transparent way to give them what they want. If the government orders them to do so, then it may go to far under the court order, and that's when it may learn things it doesn't need to know.. Nope I'm saying that once an individual commits a henious crime, and becomes the subject of an intense investigation, then everything will be investigated including their Phone. Computer, house, cars etc. Yes their friends should be questioned as well. Now whose to say that Apple hasn't already checked the contents of the phone from a stand off position somhow, are they hiding something ? You see because the phone was a part of the investigation, then it best Apple open it before Apple itself becomes a suspect in the investigation also, and this instead of it being just a helpful corporate participant that is poised to do the right thing. If it becomes a suspect who is attempting to obstruct and hide information in a very important investigation, then under court order the government can order Apple to get in the phone after deemed also a suspect in the investigation.. One of it's customers phones ?????? How about when that customer becomes a killer that has used that device to conduct terrorist plots and used terrorist contacts on that device probably ? Open the phone already, and then trash the backdoor in which the company would only know about, and would insure the same classification as top security information in which is protected by the government as well as Apple would be in such a caseWhere does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?
Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?
So are you saying that whenever an individual commits a heinous crime the government suddenly acquires the authority to trample the rights of anyone who is associated in any way with that individual?
That's just crazy! Apple is a suspect because they've created a phone that has a high level of security and they don't want to compromise that security??? Once the government acquires the right to order a company to compromise one of their products in order to support some government agenda, where does it stop? Can they then order Apple to build something into their phones that allows the government to spy on the users of their products?
OK then I've gotten different info than you from the MSM. I was watching a news briefing that stated the government doesn't even want or have to touch the phone, but for Apple to just unlock it for them, and then give it to them... Apple only has the defeat the security, and then hand it over, but not reveal to the government how it was defeated.Apple becomes an accomplice or suspect by not cooperating in an investigation wherefore it is assisting or aiding and abedding a murdering criminal who killed Americans in a most heinus act of violence by obstructing the investigation as they are. Matters not about our fears that go beyond what the government has requested of Apple, but only that we should be watchful to make sure that all involved honor their word in this. The government stated it only wants the info, and not the phone or the knowledge of how it is obtained for them by Apple. I think in this case Apple has over played it's hand. They should be a willing participant under the guidelines given it, instead of being an unwilling participant where as the government next orders them to participate in a more transparent way to give them what they want. If the government orders them to do so, then it may go to far under the court order, and that's when it may learn things it doesn't need to know.. Nope I'm saying that once an individual commits a henious crime, and becomes the subject of an intense investigation, then everything will be investigated including their Phone. Computer, house, cars etc. Yes their friends should be questioned as well. Now whose to say that Apple hasn't already checked the contents of the phone from a stand off position somhow, are they hiding something ? You see because the phone was a part of the investigation, then it best Apple open it before Apple itself becomes a suspect in the investigation also, and this instead of it being just a helpful corporate participant that is poised to do the right thing. If it becomes a suspect who is attempting to obstruct and hide information in a very important investigation, then under court order the government can order Apple to get in the phone after deemed also a suspect in the investigation.. One of it's customers phones ?????? How about when that customer becomes a killer that has used that device to conduct terrorist plots and used terrorist contacts on that device probably ? Open the phone already, and then trash the backdoor in which the company would only know about, and would insure the same classification as top security information in which is protected by the government as well as Apple would be in such a case
So are you saying that whenever an individual commits a heinous crime the government suddenly acquires the authority to trample the rights of anyone who is associated in any way with that individual?
That's just crazy! Apple is a suspect because they've created a phone that has a high level of security and they don't want to compromise that security??? Once the government acquires the right to order a company to compromise one of their products in order to support some government agenda, where does it stop? Can they then order Apple to build something into their phones that allows the government to spy on the users of their products?
You are not correctly representing what the government wants. They have not asked Apple to get the information from the phone. They have asked Apple to modify the phone's operating system so that the FBI can hack into it and get the information that they want. Once that modified OS exists then it is possible that other hackers can acquire it.
That's not really my point, however. My main concern is that Apple's acquiescence to this order sets a very dangerous precedent that basically allows the government to make demands on tech companies to compromise the integrity of their devices. It is extremely unlikely that the particular device in question contains any information that will really be useful so I have to believe that the FBI has a bigger agenda than this particular case.
Where does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?
Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?
Where does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?
Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?
Red:
The All Writs Act of 1789.
- Annotation 6 - Article III - FindLaw
- A judge used a 227-year-old law to force Apple to hack the iPhone's security
Blue:
Because folks who hold great power, or who have a reasonable expectation of soon holding it, recognize damn well that they too will want to have a means of exacting their influence in a court of law when circumstances arise for which there is no other legal guidance or precedent pertaining specifically to the situation.
The idea of the All Writs Act is consistent with the principle of representative democracy, with what it means to be a republic. In a republic, citizens choose other citizens and empower them to make the best decisions they can on the electorate's behalf. Republicans and Democrats both understand that and neither wants to see constrained their ability to do so, regardless of which party holds sway at any given moment, merely because our legal system is silent on a specific matter.
It is unreasonable for law enforcement to want to get into that phone ? The burden on Apple to get into that phone is very reasonable and very critical.Where does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?
Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?
Red:
The All Writs Act of 1789.
- Annotation 6 - Article III - FindLaw
- A judge used a 227-year-old law to force Apple to hack the iPhone's security
Blue:
Because folks who hold great power, or who have a reasonable expectation of soon holding it, recognize damn well that they too will want to have a means of exacting their influence in a court of law when circumstances arise for which there is no other legal guidance or precedent pertaining specifically to the situation.
The idea of the All Writs Act is consistent with the principle of representative democracy, with what it means to be a republic. In a republic, citizens choose other citizens and empower them to make the best decisions they can on the electorate's behalf. Republicans and Democrats both understand that and neither wants to see constrained their ability to do so, regardless of which party holds sway at any given moment, merely because our legal system is silent on a specific matter.
The key issue:
"The All Writs Act only applies if compliance is not an unreasonable burden."
It seems to me that Apple can make a very good case that this is an unreasonable burden.
Where does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?
Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?
Red:
The All Writs Act of 1789.
- Annotation 6 - Article III - FindLaw
- A judge used a 227-year-old law to force Apple to hack the iPhone's security
Blue:
Because folks who hold great power, or who have a reasonable expectation of soon holding it, recognize damn well that they too will want to have a means of exacting their influence in a court of law when circumstances arise for which there is no other legal guidance or precedent pertaining specifically to the situation.
The idea of the All Writs Act is consistent with the principle of representative democracy, with what it means to be a republic. In a republic, citizens choose other citizens and empower them to make the best decisions they can on the electorate's behalf. Republicans and Democrats both understand that and neither wants to see constrained their ability to do so, regardless of which party holds sway at any given moment, merely because our legal system is silent on a specific matter.
The key issue:
"The All Writs Act only applies if compliance is not an unreasonable burden."
It seems to me that Apple can make a very good case that this is an unreasonable burden.
It is unreasonable for law enforcement to want to get into that phone ? The burden on Apple to get into that phone is very reasonable and very critical.Where does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?
Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?
Red:
The All Writs Act of 1789.
- Annotation 6 - Article III - FindLaw
- A judge used a 227-year-old law to force Apple to hack the iPhone's security
Blue:
Because folks who hold great power, or who have a reasonable expectation of soon holding it, recognize damn well that they too will want to have a means of exacting their influence in a court of law when circumstances arise for which there is no other legal guidance or precedent pertaining specifically to the situation.
The idea of the All Writs Act is consistent with the principle of representative democracy, with what it means to be a republic. In a republic, citizens choose other citizens and empower them to make the best decisions they can on the electorate's behalf. Republicans and Democrats both understand that and neither wants to see constrained their ability to do so, regardless of which party holds sway at any given moment, merely because our legal system is silent on a specific matter.
The key issue:
"The All Writs Act only applies if compliance is not an unreasonable burden."
It seems to me that Apple can make a very good case that this is an unreasonable burden.
. In the war on privacy. People like those with Apple are always trying to compete in that what they create or have created is impenetrable. They may have achieved this, and now the government needs their help to get into the phone because it's hackers like you suggest can't crack the system on the phones they purchased for experimenting on. Apple may be so proud of the fact that they have created such a thing, that they ain't giving it up so easily. It could be that if it is cracked, and it is handed back to the government, then the system could be studied to see how it was defeated. Not sure about if a trail to follow is left after something is cracked or not. This might be why the report I saw said that the government did not want the phone, but only the information off of it.It is unreasonable for law enforcement to want to get into that phone ? The burden on Apple to get into that phone is very reasonable and very critical.Where does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?
Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?
Red:
The All Writs Act of 1789.
- Annotation 6 - Article III - FindLaw
- A judge used a 227-year-old law to force Apple to hack the iPhone's security
Blue:
Because folks who hold great power, or who have a reasonable expectation of soon holding it, recognize damn well that they too will want to have a means of exacting their influence in a court of law when circumstances arise for which there is no other legal guidance or precedent pertaining specifically to the situation.
The idea of the All Writs Act is consistent with the principle of representative democracy, with what it means to be a republic. In a republic, citizens choose other citizens and empower them to make the best decisions they can on the electorate's behalf. Republicans and Democrats both understand that and neither wants to see constrained their ability to do so, regardless of which party holds sway at any given moment, merely because our legal system is silent on a specific matter.
The key issue:
"The All Writs Act only applies if compliance is not an unreasonable burden."
It seems to me that Apple can make a very good case that this is an unreasonable burden.
Frankly, the U.S. Government doesn't much talk about it's computer prowess and "cyber-war" endeavors, but there's no denying that it, like China and other world powers, has among the best hackers on the planet. Why they haven't hacked the damn thing already is beyond me. How much can it take to go buy an iPhone or two to "mess with" and figure out how to hack the things before using the actual one they want to access?
If you ask me, I think the government has already done that and hacked the darn phone. I suspect, however, that the info they obtained is of a nature that were the FBI to use the information they gained, it would become obvious that they have hacked it. I think the FBI feel that it's in their interest to let the general public believe that the iPhone is inaccessible. Forcing Apple to give them the "hack" eliminates the presumption that the government has already gotten what they want. I suspect that if "push comes to shove," and events warrant the FBI use the info they ostensibly already have, they'll use it, but in the interim they'll proceed with their legal front.
Another thing that may be "in play" is that the FBI have identified a one-off sort of "hack" for the phone they have from the San Bernardino event, but they want a solution that is more general and that at the very least they can use (or enhance) on any iPhone rather than having to "re-invent the wheel," as it were, each time they encounter a need to do so. The most efficient means to the end is to get the code/technique from Apple and, if need be, enhance it themselves; Apple will know what is "general" with regard to all iPhones and what is specific to each iPhone. The FBI would otherwise have to figure that out on their own, which may be no mean feat.
Given my speculative thoughts above, my question would not be why or whereof do the FBI obtain the authority to demand Apple "hack" the phone. It'd be why does the FBI want or need that in the first place. I know ostensibly they cannot crack the phone they want to. I just don't buy that. The NSA built and got a major "hack/worm" implemented in Iran's nuclear enrichment systems. That they don't collaborate with the rest of the U.S. national security community -- FBI, CIA, etc. -- is just preposterous and naive to believe.
"Where does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?"
Article VI, US Constitution.
And it's not 'hacking' anyone's phone – it's being instructed to give the FBI access to the phone pursuant to a lawful court order.
"Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?"
The government's request to access the phone is consistent with 4th and 5th Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by a neutral magistrate, based on the facts and evidence of the request, where no rights are being 'violated.'
. Apple was asked to defeat the security on that specific phone right, and this is not a request thrown at Apple to invade the privacy of it's good customers, but to cooperate in a criminal investigation instead right? Now yes Apple should understand carefully what the government might want, and if it wants more than the investigation of the one phone calls for, then a public outting of that request should be publisized and scrutinized in order that privacy standards of Apple are protected. Negotiations should take place that insures that Apple isn't requested to give up anymore than is nessesary. The government if trying to go beyond what they should in the case, ought to be shamed before the public that they have tried such a thing."Where does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?"
Article VI, US Constitution.
And it's not 'hacking' anyone's phone – it's being instructed to give the FBI access to the phone pursuant to a lawful court order.
"Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?"
The government's request to access the phone is consistent with 4th and 5th Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by a neutral magistrate, based on the facts and evidence of the request, where no rights are being 'violated.'
The FBI already has access to the phone. The request violates Apple's right to protect the privacy of the users of their products and the rights to privacy of those users. Apple is being asked to modify the operating system of the phone so that the FBI can use standard hacking methodologies to access the information on that phone.
Where does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?
Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?
