CDZ Apple vs FBI

[RoccoR]

alang1216, et al,

A requirement for either a "subpoena" or a "warrant" is --- in itself --- a legal protection.

(COMMENT)

Data Storage on the "cloud" is no more accessible by the FBI (which has very small and very limited surveillance capabilities --- I think you mean NSA) than to anyone else.

The same same legal protections (less what is approved in the terms of service) that cover leased or rented server space --- cover the cloud.

Most Respectfully,
R

Quite wrong. Data stored in the iCloud in the USA is subject to US subpoenas just like any other document storage system. Apple has the means in place to access any and all data stored there. In fact the FBI has already subpoenaed the data and Apple complied.

(COMMENT)

That's correct. (Just because a federal law enforcement activities has used a subpoena --- does not mean Constitutional Safeguards have not been observed.)

The protection is in the law (Fourth Amendment). Requirement for the judicial review protects your privacy, from unreasonable government intrusion (search and seizure). BUT the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are reasonable upon the presentation of "probable cause" (particular circumstances justify the subpoena or warrant).

Protections are not put in place to facilitate the privacy of criminal behaviors or provide a screen to the visibility of illegal activity.

If there is a question on the matter of warrants, subpoenas, and other seizures --- it may be challenged in an Evidentiary Hearing; a step of the judicial process is meant to uphold laws against unlawful and unwarranted search and seizure; where the prosecutor and defense make their case before the judge.

Protections are not meant to shield the criminal from prosecution, but rather to protect ALL citizens privacy in cases where there is no reasonable cause to believe criminal activities were involved.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[candycorn]

When you start gunning people down, I think a reasonable jurist would conclude that your rights to privacy are trumped by the public's right to continue breathing.

Not according to existing US laws. If you confided in a priest or a doctor your privacy is NOT trumped. There may be some caveats to that but at any rate it is not automatically trumped.

Eric and Lyle would argue differently.

 

[SingleVoyce]

When you start gunning people down, I think a reasonable jurist would conclude that your rights to privacy are trumped by the public's right to continue breathing.

Not according to existing US laws. If you confided in a priest or a doctor your privacy is NOT trumped. There may be some caveats to that but at any rate it is not automatically trumped.

Eric and Lyle would argue differently.

None of this has anything to do with the Apple case. Individual privacy is not the issue. Where does the government get the right to order a company to make their product more easily hackable?

 

[candycorn]

When you start gunning people down, I think a reasonable jurist would conclude that your rights to privacy are trumped by the public's right to continue breathing.

Not according to existing US laws. If you confided in a priest or a doctor your privacy is NOT trumped. There may be some caveats to that but at any rate it is not automatically trumped.

Eric and Lyle would argue differently.

None of this has anything to do with the Apple case. Individual privacy is not the issue. Where does the government get the right to order a company to make their product more easily hackable?

It's like Apollo 13 when one engineer argues that crew safety wasn't the priority

 

[SingleVoyce]

When you start gunning people down, I think a reasonable jurist would conclude that your rights to privacy are trumped by the public's right to continue breathing.

Not according to existing US laws. If you confided in a priest or a doctor your privacy is NOT trumped. There may be some caveats to that but at any rate it is not automatically trumped.

Eric and Lyle would argue differently.

None of this has anything to do with the Apple case. Individual privacy is not the issue. Where does the government get the right to order a company to make their product more easily hackable?

It's like Apollo 13 when one engineer argues that crew safety wasn't the priority

I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion but, if crew safety was the priority, they would never have launched. The crew would be much safer on the ground.

 

[beagle9]

When you start gunning people down, I think a reasonable jurist would conclude that your rights to privacy are trumped by the public's right to continue breathing.

Not according to existing US laws. If you confided in a priest or a doctor your privacy is NOT trumped. There may be some caveats to that but at any rate it is not automatically trumped.

Eric and Lyle would argue differently.

None of this has anything to do with the Apple case. Individual privacy is not the issue. Where does the government get the right to order a company to make their product more easily hackable?

. Is that what they were asking or is that what was assigned to what they were asking by Apple ?

 

[alang1216]

When you start gunning people down, I think a reasonable jurist would conclude that your rights to privacy are trumped by the public's right to continue breathing.

Not according to existing US laws. If you confided in a priest or a doctor your privacy is NOT trumped. There may be some caveats to that but at any rate it is not automatically trumped.

Eric and Lyle would argue differently.

Do we really want to live in a world where NO risk is acceptable? Ain't gonna happen.

 

[SingleVoyce]

When you start gunning people down, I think a reasonable jurist would conclude that your rights to privacy are trumped by the public's right to continue breathing.

Not according to existing US laws. If you confided in a priest or a doctor your privacy is NOT trumped. There may be some caveats to that but at any rate it is not automatically trumped.

Eric and Lyle would argue differently.

None of this has anything to do with the Apple case. Individual privacy is not the issue. Where does the government get the right to order a company to make their product more easily hackable?

. Is that what they were asking or is that what was assigned to what they were asking by Apple ?

That is exactly what the government asked Apple to do.

 

[beagle9]

When you start gunning people down, I think a reasonable jurist would conclude that your rights to privacy are trumped by the public's right to continue breathing.

Not according to existing US laws. If you confided in a priest or a doctor your privacy is NOT trumped. There may be some caveats to that but at any rate it is not automatically trumped.

Eric and Lyle would argue differently.

None of this has anything to do with the Apple case. Individual privacy is not the issue. Where does the government get the right to order a company to make their product more easily hackable?

. Is that what they were asking or is that what was assigned to what they were asking by Apple ?

That is exactly what the government asked Apple to do.

. Otherwise it's the same ole standard the Obama administration used in not letting a good crisis go to waste eh ? That is the fear that is being felt by everyone these days about cooperating with this government, because the Obama administration can't be trusted right ?

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

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.

Well, well, well, now. Surprise, surprise....

The FBI have now done the old "Oh...Never mind. We got this," claiming that "third party hackers" have figured it out for them. Yeah, sure...whatever. I had little doubt that the FBI wasn't going to get what it wanted: the data the phone contains. And lookee there, they got it. The only question in my mind is how long they've actually had it. I seriously doubt they got it "all under control" just yesterday. Be that as it may, it's unlikely the FBI will anytime soon disclose who helped them, when the phone was actually hacked, or how.

Why postpone the case now? Well, duh! Because if they lose, it establishes a precedent that weakens the potential value of the All Writs clause for all instances in which the government may want to force action of some sort. Better to leave those waters unsailed for now and until there truly is no choice but to forge onward into them.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

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.

Well, well, well, now. Surprise, surprise....

The FBI have now done the old "Oh...Never mind. We got this," claiming that "third party hackers" have figured it out for them. Yeah, sure...whatever. I had little doubt that the FBI wasn't going to get what it wanted: the data the phone contains. And lookee there, they got it. The only question in my mind is how long they've actually had it. I seriously doubt they got it "all under control" just yesterday. Be that as it may, it's unlikely the FBI will anytime soon disclose who helped them, when the phone was actually hacked, or how.

Why postpone the case now? Well, duh! Because if they lose, it establishes a precedent that weakens the potential value of the All Writs clause for all instances in which the government may want to force action of some sort. Better to leave those waters unsailed for now and until there truly is no choice but to forge onward into them.

And the best case scenario finally plays itself out (minus the set precedent). The FBI gains the info they needed (as we always knew they would) and we still have rights intact.