CDZ Apple vs FBI

[Pop23]

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?

The government has unlimited resources. They have the ability to hire and fund the best in the business.

Hey Government. YOU DO YOUR OWN DIRTY WORK.

 

[jon_berzerk]

"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.

The FBI already has access to the phone

they do and they locked the phone

and can not remember the pass code

--LOL

the government wants a software package to be developed

that overrides or disables the pass word protection program

and allows the phone to be "picked" by electronic means

they (the government) will do the picking through electronic means

until the get the correct combination out of millions of possible codes

if it is 2 layered then billions of possible combinations

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

they have made that case

Motion-to-Vacate-Brief-and-Supporting-Declarations

 

[SingleVoyce]

"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.

. 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.

One of the problems for Apple is that, once they have developed software that allows the FBI to defeat security on this particular phone, there is the potential for other people to get access to that software and use it to hack any iphone

 

[Pop23]

"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.

. 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.

One of the problems for Apple is that, once they have developed software that allows the FBI to defeat security on this particular phone, there is the potential for other people to get access to that software and use it to hack any iphone

And because they will need to preserve a chain of evidence, any indictments that would come from this would be available through discovery.

That's how it works.

No one will buy an apple product after that.

 

[beagle9]

"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.

. 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.

One of the problems for Apple is that, once they have developed software that allows the FBI to defeat security on this particular phone, there is the potential for other people to get access to that software and use it to hack any iphone

. Even if Apple retains the secrets itself ? Are we getting away from the exact request by the FBI directed @ Apple ? Again what exactly was the request, because I may have gotten the wrong info per the MSM.

 

[beagle9]

"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.

. 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.

One of the problems for Apple is that, once they have developed software that allows the FBI to defeat security on this particular phone, there is the potential for other people to get access to that software and use it to hack any iphone

And because they will need to preserve a chain of evidence, any indictments that would come from this would be available through discovery.

That's how it works.

No one will buy an apple product after that.

. And did Apple blow this thing up bigger than it should have been, therefore bringing about all the unwanted exposure in which will be seen as a negative for Apple anyway ?

 

[jon_berzerk]

"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.

. 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.

One of the problems for Apple is that, once they have developed software that allows the FBI to defeat security on this particular phone, there is the potential for other people to get access to that software and use it to hack any iphone

And because they will need to preserve a chain of evidence, any indictments that would come from this would be available through discovery.

That's how it works.

No one will buy an apple product after that.

. And did Apple blow this thing up bigger than it should have been, therefore bringing about all the unwanted exposure in which will be seen as a negative for Apple anyway ?

actually the doj went to court and got the order through an exparte motion (apple was not present to present their case)

 

[Pop23]

"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.

. 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.

One of the problems for Apple is that, once they have developed software that allows the FBI to defeat security on this particular phone, there is the potential for other people to get access to that software and use it to hack any iphone

And because they will need to preserve a chain of evidence, any indictments that would come from this would be available through discovery.

That's how it works.

No one will buy an apple product after that.

. And did Apple blow this thing up bigger than it should have been, therefore bringing about all the unwanted exposure in which will be seen as a negative for Apple anyway ?

Which has little or nothing to do with my post.

Apple CANNOT break just one phone. If there is evidence of wrong doing in the phone, the way the phone was broken into becomes part of the case.

Everyone with an apple phone will be vulnerable to a hack.

 

[Jackson]

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 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?

Whose rights are they trampling on?

 

[Jackson]

So when companies grow large, they are allowed to ignore a court order? It's a matter of national security and Apple is not giving up anything. Tim Cook should be in jail for Contempt of Court.

 

[SingleVoyce]

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 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?

Whose rights are they trampling on?

Apple's and Apple's customers.

 

[SingleVoyce]

So when companies grow large, they are allowed to ignore a court order? It's a matter of national security and Apple is not giving up anything. Tim Cook should be in jail for Contempt of Court.

You should read Apple's response:

Motion-to-Vacate-Brief-and-Supporting-Declarations

It is not a matter of national security in any case. It is extremely unlikely that there is anything of value on that phone. It's just a massive power grab attempt by the FBI.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's like the worst science fiction movies where the creators and inventors are all arrested until they finally come up with what the government demands. I expect it of Kim Jong Un. It's disgusting to see it happening here,

 

[jon_berzerk]

So when companies grow large, they are allowed to ignore a court order? It's a matter of national security and Apple is not giving up anything. Tim Cook should be in jail for Contempt of Court.

that court order was granted exparte meaning

apple did not have a say apple was not even present for the order

 

[oldsoul]

Look, for me it's really quite simple. If Apple can be forced to hack into their own system (or modify the OS so the Feds can), then nothing is safe anymore. The Feds can force a Safe manufacturer to crack a safe of a "suspect", they can force Google to hack into your g-mail, they can force any tech company to hack into any system they can get a warrant for. Do the Feds force Master Lock Company to create a key that will unlock any of their padlocks? No, the Feds need to provide their own way of opening those locks. Does Kwikset have to make all keys to their locks available to the Feds? No, the Feds have to come up with their own means of gaining entry to a room/home. Does Microsoft have to make a "back door" available for the Feds to hack into a PC? No, the Feds have to find it (if it exists) themselves. How is this any different? Just because it's tough? This would set a dangerous president, if Apple is forced to provide this "hack", there is nothing stopping the Feds from forcing anyone to do anything they want, as long as they have a warrant. A warrant only "forces" the owner/occupant to comply, not the manufacturer of a good, otherwise they could force your local home builder to break into a home they built. Same thing, different tech.

 

[oldsoul]

So when companies grow large, they are allowed to ignore a court order? It's a matter of national security and Apple is not giving up anything. Tim Cook should be in jail for Contempt of Court.

Would it be a matter of national security to grope your grandma before she can board a plane? According to the patriot act it is, does that make it so, or even right?
Fact is it is not a matter of national security, it is a law enforcement matter.

 

[320 Years of History]

So when companies grow large, they are allowed to ignore a court order? It's a matter of national security and Apple is not giving up anything. Tim Cook should be in jail for Contempt of Court.

The fact of the matter is that everyone is free to ignore a court order. Doing so has consequences, just as not ignoring one has consequences. They just happen to be different consequences. Nevertheless, one, large company or irrelevant individual, need not comply with a court order. If one does so out of stupidity, ignorance or principle is of no matter; the consequences ignoring the court order are likely to be the same, or at least they should be.

 

[jon_berzerk]

So when companies grow large, they are allowed to ignore a court order? It's a matter of national security and Apple is not giving up anything. Tim Cook should be in jail for Contempt of Court.

The fact of the matter is that everyone is free to ignore a court order. Doing so has consequences, just as not ignoring one has consequences. They just happen to be different consequences. Nevertheless, one, large company or irrelevant individual, need not comply with a court order. If one does so out of stupidity, ignorance or principle is of no matter; the consequences ignoring the court order are likely to be the same, or at least they should be.

apple could not ignore the order

they responded

they made a motion to vacate

since they did not get their day in court from the first order the judge writ

 

[320 Years of History]

So when companies grow large, they are allowed to ignore a court order? It's a matter of national security and Apple is not giving up anything. Tim Cook should be in jail for Contempt of Court.

The fact of the matter is that everyone is free to ignore a court order. Doing so has consequences, just as not ignoring one has consequences. They just happen to be different consequences. Nevertheless, one, large company or irrelevant individual, need not comply with a court order. If one does so out of stupidity, ignorance or principle is of no matter; the consequences ignoring the court order are likely to be the same, or at least they should be.

apple could not ignore the order

they responded

they made a motion to vacate

since they did not get their day in court from the first order the judge writ

Your remark indicates they did not ignore the order, not that they could not.