Should the Feds be able to force Apple to cooperate?

[rightwinger]

bullshit

you want to throw out the 13th amendment



. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Dig your hear out of your ass.

NATIONAL SECURITY

the action is unconstitutional according to the 13th amendment

pull your head out your ass

Your 13th amendment defense is comical

why do you say that idiot

Slavery?

You are such an ass

obviously you are oblivious to what involuntary servitude is

No, seriously
You are an ass

 

[rightwinger]

I still don't see how the government can force you to help them investigate

Apple should have simply unlocked the phone, as they have scores of times before for law enforcement.

The court order is based on evidence that the phone might contain relevant information with regard to the FBI's investigation, that no rights are being violated or jeopardized, and that the search is consistent with 4th and 5th Amendment jurisprudence.

Consequently, Apple isn't being forced to help with the investigation, instead they're hindering it, contrary to a lawful court order, where to comply would in no way adversely effect Apple or the users of their phones.

How is Apple hindering anything?

The Feds have the phone, they can do what they want with it. It's like searching a house and insisting that the builder of the house help you search it

They're not complying with the court order.

And Apple isn't conducting the search, the FBI is.

It's no different than a bank opening a safe deposit box of a criminal suspect pursuant to a court order, where the bank alone has the key or combination to the box.

They are not complying with a lower court order
We have a 4-4 Supreme Court to decide

Interesting case. Can the government force you to help them investigate a crime? Can they force Apple to create a product without compensation?

 

[jon_berzerk]

the action is unconstitutional according to the 13th amendment

pull your head out your ass

Your 13th amendment defense is comical

why do you say that idiot

Slavery?

You are such an ass

obviously you are oblivious to what involuntary servitude is

No, seriously
You are an ass

so the fuck what

i dont care what the fuck you think

however

that still does not change the fact that you are clueless as to what

the 13th amendment actually says

 

[rightwinger]

Your 13th amendment defense is comical

why do you say that idiot

Slavery?

You are such an ass

obviously you are oblivious to what involuntary servitude is

No, seriously
You are an ass

so the fuck what

i dont care what the fuck you think

however

that still does not change the fact that you are clueless as to what

the 13th amendment actually says

Sorry pal....Government requiring you to do something doesn't meet the threshold for slavery

 

[jon_berzerk]

why do you say that idiot

Slavery?

You are such an ass

obviously you are oblivious to what involuntary servitude is

No, seriously
You are an ass

so the fuck what

i dont care what the fuck you think

however

that still does not change the fact that you are clueless as to what

the 13th amendment actually says

Sorry pal....Government requiring you to do something doesn't meet the threshold for slavery

we will leave it at you do not know what the hell you are talking about

btw involuntary servitude is exactly that

--LOL you are just so stupid

 

[jon_berzerk]

INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE & PEONAGE
A condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.

Legal Definition of 'Involuntary Servitude & Peonage'

thanks to the 13th amendment it is unconstitutional to do so

unless as punishment for a crime

 

[Fang]

YES without a doubt. I may agree with Apple on a lot of this. But the law is the law. You and I could not ignore a court order, neither can any company no matter how big.

we certainly can ignore the law

if it the was the law that you had to smear dog poop on your face would you do it

it is absurd i know

but the law is the law after all

what if the government said you had to

make artillery shells for the army or you would go to jail

would you do it

So your debate tactic is to hypothesize about completely absurd examples (that you admit to) and ask me if I'd follow the law? It's clear you've lost the debate.

 

[HenryBHough]

Still waiting....

For those taking the regime side of this to post their real names, social security numbers and bank account numbers. Hey, why not, you have NOTHING to hide, right?

 

[TimothysAlaska]

Apple should just say we tried to create a back door but couldn't do it, our encryption method is just too good. Courts can't do anything then and neither could the FBI.

 

[jon_berzerk]

YES without a doubt. I may agree with Apple on a lot of this. But the law is the law. You and I could not ignore a court order, neither can any company no matter how big.

we certainly can ignore the law

if it the was the law that you had to smear dog poop on your face would you do it

it is absurd i know

but the law is the law after all

what if the government said you had to

make artillery shells for the army or you would go to jail

would you do it

So your debate tactic is to hypothesize about completely absurd examples (that you admit to) and ask me if I'd follow the law? It's clear you've lost the debate.

there is nothing absurd about involuntary servitude

which clearly you are clueless about

 

[jon_berzerk]

Still waiting....

For those taking the regime side of this to post their real names, social security numbers and bank account numbers. Hey, why not, you have NOTHING to hide, right?

dont hold your breath

--LOL

 

[Jarlaxle]

I don't believe that Apple doesn't already have this ability.

So u think apple snoops on people?

I've no idea, but there's no reason to believe they can't break into their own products.

Then you do not know how encryption works. Yes, it's that simple.

 

[Rustic]

What say you? I say no.

Hell no

 

[Jarlaxle]

1. The owner of the phone is dead. No one's liberties are being violated.

Actually, the owner of the phone is their EMPLOYER. (San Bernadino County, IIRC.)

2. The phone possibly contains information and evidence vital to National security and identifying other participants.

Unsupported speculation.

3. Apple's refusal to cooperate is obstruction of justice. The DOJ asking for access to to the phone is no different than asking for access to a residence.

Idiotic statement. The DOJ is not asking for access. The DOJ is demanding that Apple create something that does not exist and may not be possible to create, destroying their own business in the process.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If you think the feds cant crack an Iphone then we've already lost as a nation. They can tell you anything.

We have drones that go across the world but....This Iphone is really tough wink wink

So, you don't know how encryption works, either.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

1. The owner of the phone is dead. No one's liberties are being violated.

Actually, the owner of the phone is their EMPLOYER.

2. The phone possibly contains information and evidence vital to National security and identifying other participants.

Unsupported speculation.

3. Apple's refusal to cooperate is obstruction of justice. The DOJ asking for access to to the phone is no different than asking for access to a residence.

Idiotic statement. The DOJ is not asking for access. The DOJ is demanding that Apple create something that does not exist and may not be possible to create, destroying their own business in the process.

The former owner of the phone is pushing up dasies.

 

[Jarlaxle]

"Should the Feds be able to force Apple to cooperate?"

This exhibits a complete lack of understanding of the issue.

Apple is subject to a lawful court order to unlock the phone, the company has been afforded full and comprehensive due process and must now comply with that lawful court order; Apple's 'argument' not to comply is devoid of merit.

The government is within its rights to unlock the phone

Can Apple be forced to do it for them? It is no longer Apples phone, it belonged to the terrorists. Can the police force you to participate in an investigation?

it was actually his employers phone the county he worked for

they got all the information off of his private phone

Actually, I recall that they DESTROYED their private phones.

 

[Ravi]

I don't believe that Apple doesn't already have this ability.

So u think apple snoops on people?

I've no idea, but there's no reason to believe they can't break into their own products.

Then you do not know how encryption works. Yes, it's that simple.

I have a general idea. I also know tech and encryption changes at a rapid pace. In Six months that phone's encryption will be obsolete .

 

[Jarlaxle]

The issue is corporate interests vs. national security.

No, it's not. Stop posting in threads about subjects you do not understand...you look dumber than usual when you do.

 

[boedicca]

1. The owner of the phone is dead. No one's liberties are being violated.

Actually, the owner of the phone is their EMPLOYER.

2. The phone possibly contains information and evidence vital to National security and identifying other participants.

Unsupported speculation.

3. Apple's refusal to cooperate is obstruction of justice. The DOJ asking for access to to the phone is no different than asking for access to a residence.

Idiotic statement. The DOJ is not asking for access. The DOJ is demanding that Apple create something that does not exist and may not be possible to create, destroying their own business in the process.

The former owner of the phone is pushing up dasies.

Actually, the owner of the phone in question is the county for which the dead terrorist worked.