CDZ Apple vs FBI

[Skylar]

. 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.

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.

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.

I was curious if Apple might be able to create a method of accessing the phone that was in part, mechanical. physical chip set, a series of physical switches that would have to be moved, something along those lines. With the methodology, program and access information kept locally in a single site at apple. A site with no externally accessible network, no internet, nothing. You'd physically have to be there.

The FBI could send the phones to Apple. Apple could walk the phones in.....and unlock them. Then send them back to the FBI.

That way the odds of a 'hacker' gaining access would be astronomically low.

I can see that as certainly possible.

The question in my mind really is not if such is possible. The real question is weather or not the government should have the power to compel them to do so. I think the answer is a resounding no.

Dunno. I haven't decided yet.

 

[beagle9]

QUOTE="FA_Q2, post: 13644782, member: 21905"]

. 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.

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.

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.
That is the entire point of the case. The FBI really could give a rats ass about the phone in question - what they want is to create the precedence that requires tech companies to do the FBI's dirty work for them. It takes a lot of resources and know how to hack devices. It would be a lot simpler if the FBI could simply order someone else to do it for them whenever they decided they wanted access to a device. More importantly, it would essentially force manufacturers to build in back doors for their products as they could become liable should they not be able to break into a device.This
case is used because the extraordinary powers that people are ready to simply hand over to the government out of a bizarre fear of terrorism in any shape or form. We allowed the NSA to set up a nation wide monitoring network that made anything before it look like child's play without a peep. I believe they felt this was the perfect time to grab this particular extraordinary and unconstitutional power from the people. Fortunately it seems to have failed.

Ok, but can Apple or anyone else for that matter "GUARANTEE" that their products won't be used against this nation by terrorist ? Will they insure that the security that they create, won't be used without consequence of the law ? Not sure how the quotes above got tangled up, but oh well..

No they can't. Just like the manufacturers of an AR cannot guarantee that their weapons will not be used in a terrorist act. Just like those manufacturers, Apple is not liable for the illegal use of their product nor should they be.

Is it right that anything created here, can actually be used against this nation from within without consequence ? The sad thing is that under any other circumstance Apple may have a case, but unlucky for them the terrorist just happen to have one of their products in their possession, and worse it is a product that can hide their secrets from an investigation into a terrorism case. Again Apple should be willing to work with the investigation, but have it's lawyers ready to go.

Apple not only has a case - they already won.

. Do they become liable if they try and interfer with the investigation of a product that was used by a criminal, and are they aiding and abetting that criminal by not cooperating with the law in concerns of such an important case ? Do you think that a gun manufacturer or a gun store that sold a weapon that is used in a criminal case, could refuse to cooperate in an investigation if asked or ordered to do so ? Uhh I don't think so, and there may even be precident that says they would have to agree to the court order. If the feds wimp out, then they are now idiots who won't be able to solve anything up against a corporation if that corporation chooses it's self interest over our national security. They've already won eh, so did we the people lose ?

 

[FA_Q2]

QUOTE="FA_Q2, post: 13644782, member: 21905"]

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.

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.
That is the entire point of the case. The FBI really could give a rats ass about the phone in question - what they want is to create the precedence that requires tech companies to do the FBI's dirty work for them. It takes a lot of resources and know how to hack devices. It would be a lot simpler if the FBI could simply order someone else to do it for them whenever they decided they wanted access to a device. More importantly, it would essentially force manufacturers to build in back doors for their products as they could become liable should they not be able to break into a device.This
case is used because the extraordinary powers that people are ready to simply hand over to the government out of a bizarre fear of terrorism in any shape or form. We allowed the NSA to set up a nation wide monitoring network that made anything before it look like child's play without a peep. I believe they felt this was the perfect time to grab this particular extraordinary and unconstitutional power from the people. Fortunately it seems to have failed.

Ok, but can Apple or anyone else for that matter "GUARANTEE" that their products won't be used against this nation by terrorist ? Will they insure that the security that they create, won't be used without consequence of the law ? Not sure how the quotes above got tangled up, but oh well..

No they can't. Just like the manufacturers of an AR cannot guarantee that their weapons will not be used in a terrorist act. Just like those manufacturers, Apple is not liable for the illegal use of their product nor should they be.

Is it right that anything created here, can actually be used against this nation from within without consequence ? The sad thing is that under any other circumstance Apple may have a case, but unlucky for them the terrorist just happen to have one of their products in their possession, and worse it is a product that can hide their secrets from an investigation into a terrorism case. Again Apple should be willing to work with the investigation, but have it's lawyers ready to go.

Apple not only has a case - they already won.

. Do they become liable if they try and interfer with the investigation of a product that was used by a criminal, and are they aiding and abetting that criminal by not cooperating with the law in concerns of such an important case ? Do you think that a gun manufacturer or a gun store that sold a weapon that is used in a criminal case, could refuse to cooperate in an investigation if asked or ordered to do so ? Uhh I don't think so, and there may even be precident that says they would have to agree to the court order. If the feds wimp out, then they are now idiots who won't be able to solve anything up against a corporation if that corporation chooses it's self interest over our national security. They've already won eh, so did we the people lose ?

Apple is not interfering with the investigation. They are refusing to write code - otherwise known as working - for the feds as part of the investigation.

 

[alang1216]

Do they become liable if they try and interfer with the investigation of a product that was used by a criminal, and are they aiding and abetting that criminal by not cooperating with the law in concerns of such an important case ? Do you think that a gun manufacturer or a gun store that sold a weapon that is used in a criminal case, could refuse to cooperate in an investigation if asked or ordered to do so ? Uhh I don't think so, and there may even be precident that says they would have to agree to the court order. If the feds wimp out, then they are now idiots who won't be able to solve anything up against a corporation if that corporation chooses it's self interest over our national security. They've already won eh, so did we the people lose ?

Apple has fully cooperated. They handed over everything they had. They are just refusing to change their product to satisfy the Feds. Guns have no memory so the analogy is flawed but if the Feds asked gun manufacturers to alter all existing and future weapons to store info on who used them, when and where they were used, to aid future investigations would anyone support them?

 

[Skylar]

QUOTE="FA_Q2, post: 13644782, member: 21905"]

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.

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.
That is the entire point of the case. The FBI really could give a rats ass about the phone in question - what they want is to create the precedence that requires tech companies to do the FBI's dirty work for them. It takes a lot of resources and know how to hack devices. It would be a lot simpler if the FBI could simply order someone else to do it for them whenever they decided they wanted access to a device. More importantly, it would essentially force manufacturers to build in back doors for their products as they could become liable should they not be able to break into a device.This
case is used because the extraordinary powers that people are ready to simply hand over to the government out of a bizarre fear of terrorism in any shape or form. We allowed the NSA to set up a nation wide monitoring network that made anything before it look like child's play without a peep. I believe they felt this was the perfect time to grab this particular extraordinary and unconstitutional power from the people. Fortunately it seems to have failed.

Ok, but can Apple or anyone else for that matter "GUARANTEE" that their products won't be used against this nation by terrorist ? Will they insure that the security that they create, won't be used without consequence of the law ? Not sure how the quotes above got tangled up, but oh well..

No they can't. Just like the manufacturers of an AR cannot guarantee that their weapons will not be used in a terrorist act. Just like those manufacturers, Apple is not liable for the illegal use of their product nor should they be.

Is it right that anything created here, can actually be used against this nation from within without consequence ? The sad thing is that under any other circumstance Apple may have a case, but unlucky for them the terrorist just happen to have one of their products in their possession, and worse it is a product that can hide their secrets from an investigation into a terrorism case. Again Apple should be willing to work with the investigation, but have it's lawyers ready to go.

Apple not only has a case - they already won.

. Do they become liable if they try and interfer with the investigation of a product that was used by a criminal, and are they aiding and abetting that criminal by not cooperating with the law in concerns of such an important case ? Do you think that a gun manufacturer or a gun store that sold a weapon that is used in a criminal case, could refuse to cooperate in an investigation if asked or ordered to do so ? Uhh I don't think so, and there may even be precident that says they would have to agree to the court order. If the feds wimp out, then they are now idiots who won't be able to solve anything up against a corporation if that corporation chooses it's self interest over our national security. They've already won eh, so did we the people lose ?

Apple is not interfering with the investigation. They are refusing to write code - otherwise known as working - for the feds as part of the investigation.

In this case, I think you're right. If Apple had the hack and wouldn't turn it over, that's one thing. But the hack doesn't exist. And the FBI is demanding that Apple *make* a hack.

That's way above and beyond a search warrant.

This issue is going to become more prevalent as encryption expands across the US. I don't think the FBI should be able to force Apple to build a hack for existing products that Apple doesn't have. But I think it would be reasonable (and lawful) for Congress to pass a law to require that any new phones to have that capacity in order to be sold in the US.

 

[FA_Q2]

QUOTE="FA_Q2, post: 13644782, member: 21905"]

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.
That is the entire point of the case. The FBI really could give a rats ass about the phone in question - what they want is to create the precedence that requires tech companies to do the FBI's dirty work for them. It takes a lot of resources and know how to hack devices. It would be a lot simpler if the FBI could simply order someone else to do it for them whenever they decided they wanted access to a device. More importantly, it would essentially force manufacturers to build in back doors for their products as they could become liable should they not be able to break into a device.This
case is used because the extraordinary powers that people are ready to simply hand over to the government out of a bizarre fear of terrorism in any shape or form. We allowed the NSA to set up a nation wide monitoring network that made anything before it look like child's play without a peep. I believe they felt this was the perfect time to grab this particular extraordinary and unconstitutional power from the people. Fortunately it seems to have failed.

Ok, but can Apple or anyone else for that matter "GUARANTEE" that their products won't be used against this nation by terrorist ? Will they insure that the security that they create, won't be used without consequence of the law ? Not sure how the quotes above got tangled up, but oh well..

No they can't. Just like the manufacturers of an AR cannot guarantee that their weapons will not be used in a terrorist act. Just like those manufacturers, Apple is not liable for the illegal use of their product nor should they be.

Is it right that anything created here, can actually be used against this nation from within without consequence ? The sad thing is that under any other circumstance Apple may have a case, but unlucky for them the terrorist just happen to have one of their products in their possession, and worse it is a product that can hide their secrets from an investigation into a terrorism case. Again Apple should be willing to work with the investigation, but have it's lawyers ready to go.

Apple not only has a case - they already won.

. Do they become liable if they try and interfer with the investigation of a product that was used by a criminal, and are they aiding and abetting that criminal by not cooperating with the law in concerns of such an important case ? Do you think that a gun manufacturer or a gun store that sold a weapon that is used in a criminal case, could refuse to cooperate in an investigation if asked or ordered to do so ? Uhh I don't think so, and there may even be precident that says they would have to agree to the court order. If the feds wimp out, then they are now idiots who won't be able to solve anything up against a corporation if that corporation chooses it's self interest over our national security. They've already won eh, so did we the people lose ?

Apple is not interfering with the investigation. They are refusing to write code - otherwise known as working - for the feds as part of the investigation.

In this case, I think you're right. If Apple had the hack and wouldn't turn it over, that's one thing. But the hack doesn't exist. And the FBI is demanding that Apple *make* a hack.

That's way above and beyond a search warrant.

This issue is going to become more prevalent as encryption expands across the US. I don't think the FBI should be able to force Apple to build a hack for existing products that Apple doesn't have. But I think it would be reasonable (and lawful) for Congress to pass a law to require that any new phones to have that capacity in order to be sold in the US.

The first part is exactly what I have been saying.

I don't agree that it should be legal for the government to demand that all future devices be built with a back door for the government though. However, that is not as clear an issue as this one is to me. I simply do not see the government having the power to order Apple to create a product.

 

[beagle9]

Do they become liable if they try and interfer with the investigation of a product that was used by a criminal, and are they aiding and abetting that criminal by not cooperating with the law in concerns of such an important case ? Do you think that a gun manufacturer or a gun store that sold a weapon that is used in a criminal case, could refuse to cooperate in an investigation if asked or ordered to do so ? Uhh I don't think so, and there may even be precident that says they would have to agree to the court order. If the feds wimp out, then they are now idiots who won't be able to solve anything up against a corporation if that corporation chooses it's self interest over our national security. They've already won eh, so did we the people lose ?

Apple has fully cooperated. They handed over everything they had. They are just refusing to change their product to satisfy the Feds. Guns have no memory so the analogy is flawed but if the Feds asked gun manufacturers to alter all existing and future weapons to store info on who used them, when and where they were used, to aid future investigations would anyone support them?

Yes, the people who are stand up clear minded citizens would, because they have nothing to hide, and they would see that the tech would work to keep them safe from those who would have something to hide, otherwise if had committed a crime with the gun. The whole problem with all of this, is that people flat out hate, and they don't trust this agenda riddled government. The whole thing has become a protest against the government that goes above and beyond the security of this nation..

 

[RoccoR]

beagle9, alang1216, et al,

I think our friend "beagle9" makes a compelling statement.

Do they become liable if they try and interfer with the investigation of a product that was used by a criminal, and are they aiding and abetting that criminal by not cooperating with the law in concerns of such an important case ? Do you think that a gun manufacturer or a gun store that sold a weapon that is used in a criminal case, could refuse to cooperate in an investigation if asked or ordered to do so ? Uhh I don't think so, and there may even be precident that says they would have to agree to the court order. If the feds wimp out, then they are now idiots who won't be able to solve anything up against a corporation if that corporation chooses it's self interest over our national security. They've already won eh, so did we the people lose ?

Apple has fully cooperated. They handed over everything they had. They are just refusing to change their product to satisfy the Feds. Guns have no memory so the analogy is flawed but if the Feds asked gun manufacturers to alter all existing and future weapons to store info on who used them, when and where they were used, to aid future investigations would anyone support them?

Yes, the people who are stand up clear minded citizens would, because they have nothing to hide, and they would see that the tech would work to keep them safe from those who would have something to hide, otherwise if had committed a crime with the gun. The whole problem with all of this, is that people flat out hate, and they don't trust this agenda riddled government. The whole thing has become a protest against the government that goes above and beyond the security of this nation..

(COMMENT)

Ten or 15 years ago, I probably would have said that a lack of cooperation with the FBI is an strong indicator of nefarious activity. But now, not so much.

In my opinion (for what its worth) there is a growing impression that the FBI has a tendency to push people around (very authoritarian) and plays the national security card all too often. And that impression has set into motion a backlash in cooperation.

BUT, this is not what the case is about. By compelling Apple to cooperate, the FBI and Federal Prosecutors, set a legal precedent which they intent to use in other similar cases. And that is a hidden agenda.

• The wants to force Apple to bypass the security of an iPhone 5S that was seized from a drug dealer in New York. If it is considered legal for law enforcement to get a phone dump on other phones and use it as evidence or criminal intelligence, then it should be so with the iPhone 5S.

• Apple has articulated that the lack of cooperation of the type the FBI is asking for, is based on a commercial interests. Commercially --- Apple is marketing a phone that the FBI cannot break-into --- making it the cell phone of choice for crooks, criminals, and other persons of interest. One Federal Judge pointed out that Apple’s marketing the iPhone with enhanced security encryption.

• HOWEVER; if it is the case that the Government is asking Apple to create a backdoor by writing software that allow entry into any iPhone, that becomes a different matter. That become the case of, reimbursement for the cost of development and introduction --- and future sales. IF we are talking about commercial costs and the potential loss in revenue, THEN that is something all together different.
​

Two important questions to ask...

∆ Does the government have the right to compel manufactures to alter their software for the governments convenience, at no cost.

∆ Do manufacturers have the right to decline cooperating with law enforcement, in part, to protect its market share of sales to crooks, criminals, and other persons of interest?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[alang1216]

Yes, the people who are stand up clear minded citizens would, because they have nothing to hide, and they would see that the tech would work to keep them safe from those who would have something to hide, otherwise if had committed a crime with the gun. The whole problem with all of this, is that people flat out hate, and they don't trust this agenda riddled government. The whole thing has become a protest against the government that goes above and beyond the security of this nation..

I think this is a fantasy, the NRA and their supporters would never go for it. As for "this agenda riddled government", every gov't is agenda riddled. I certainly didn't trust Bush any more than many conservatives trust Obama today.

 

[alang1216]

Two important questions to ask...

∆ Does the government have the right to compel manufactures to alter their software for the governments convenience, at no cost.

∆ Do manufacturers have the right to decline cooperating with law enforcement, in part, to protect its market share of sales to crooks, criminals, and other persons of interest?
​

No and Maybe (Apple provided all the data the FBI asked for, as they should, but declined to alter their product for them, within their rights)

Keep in mind the gov't solution would be temporary, the terrorists would find another way to communicate, the cost to Apple would be permanent. This phone might belong to a terrorist but the next might belong to a journalist or a priest.

 

[beagle9]

Two important questions to ask...

∆ Does the government have the right to compel manufactures to alter their software for the governments convenience, at no cost.

∆ Do manufacturers have the right to decline cooperating with law enforcement, in part, to protect its market share of sales to crooks, criminals, and other persons of interest?
​

No and Maybe (Apple provided all the data the FBI asked for, as they should, but declined to alter their product for them, within their rights)

Keep in mind the gov't solution would be temporary, the terrorists would find another way to communicate, the cost to Apple would be permanent. This phone might belong to a terrorist but the next might belong to a journalist or a priest.

. Should this nation allow a device to be used or created that can be used by criminals, terrorist, and bad people, where as the criminal, terrorist or bad people can gain total anomitity from the law all because of ? Take the phone already Apple, open it, and give it back... Do not create any additional tech for the government unless they pay for it, and next be there for them, and us in cooperating with the law, but of course doing it within reason in order to help solve such an important terrorism case.

 

[FA_Q2]

Two important questions to ask...

∆ Does the government have the right to compel manufactures to alter their software for the governments convenience, at no cost.

∆ Do manufacturers have the right to decline cooperating with law enforcement, in part, to protect its market share of sales to crooks, criminals, and other persons of interest?
​

No and Maybe (Apple provided all the data the FBI asked for, as they should, but declined to alter their product for them, within their rights)

Keep in mind the gov't solution would be temporary, the terrorists would find another way to communicate, the cost to Apple would be permanent. This phone might belong to a terrorist but the next might belong to a journalist or a priest.

. Should this nation allow a device to be used or created that can be used by criminals, terrorist, and bad people, where as the criminal, terrorist or bad people can gain total anomitity from the law all because of ? Take the phone already Apple, open it, and give it back... Do not create any additional tech for the government unless they pay for it, and next be there for them, and us in cooperating with the law, but of course doing it within reason in order to help solve such an important terrorism case.

The bold does not exist nor does the encryption Apple has created lead to any such thing.

 

[alang1216]

Should this nation allow a device to be used or created that can be used by criminals, terrorist, and bad people, where as the criminal, terrorist or bad people can gain total anomitity from the law all because of ?

That describes the guns used by the terrorists too.

 

[beagle9]

Should this nation allow a device to be used or created that can be used by criminals, terrorist, and bad people, where as the criminal, terrorist or bad people can gain total anomitity from the law all because of ?

That describes the guns used by the terrorists too.

. Guns can be traced, and if illegal then the guns need to be aprehended, traced and the irresponsible taken to task on the matter.... No one should have guns that can't be traced or tracked if were somehow used in a crime. Now there are many good citizens who have many guns, and many are probably not registered or traceable, but as long as those guns are in the possession of good people, then they are no threat and safe. However, if such guns are stolen from the good people, and they are used in a crime, then the citizens end up losing big time in that type of situation.
An untraceable, and unregistered gun if stolen or sold on the black market is a traggic situation.
Death caused by muder and mayhem needs no place of refuge, comfort or peace among us. We are smarter than that.
A phone that can't be traced, studied or investigated in light of a murder or murders, is also a traggic situation. How long will we allow corporations to keep killing us for profits, without us having a defense against these sort of things ?

 

[FA_Q2]

Should this nation allow a device to be used or created that can be used by criminals, terrorist, and bad people, where as the criminal, terrorist or bad people can gain total anomitity from the law all because of ?

That describes the guns used by the terrorists too.

. Guns can be traced, and if illegal then the guns need to be aprehended, traced and the irresponsible taken to task on the matter.... No one should have guns that can't be traced or tracked if were somehow used in a crime. Now there are many good citizens who have many guns, and many are probably not registered or traceable, but as long as those guns are in the possession of good people, then they are no threat and safe. However, if such guns are stolen from the good people, and they are used in a crime, then the citizens end up losing big time in that type of situation.
An untraceable, and unregistered gun if stolen or sold on the black market is a traggic situation.
Death caused by muder and mayhem needs no place of refuge, comfort or peace among us. We are smarter than that.
A phone that can't be traced, studied or investigated in light of a murder or murders, is also a traggic situation. How long will we allow corporations to keep killing us for profits, without us having a defense against these sort of things ?

How long will we allow corporations to keep killing us for profits, without us having a defense against these sort of things ?

What hyperbolic bullshit.

No one has died because of encryption.

 

[beagle9]

Should this nation allow a device to be used or created that can be used by criminals, terrorist, and bad people, where as the criminal, terrorist or bad people can gain total anomitity from the law all because of ?

That describes the guns used by the terrorists too.

. Guns can be traced, and if illegal then the guns need to be aprehended, traced and the irresponsible taken to task on the matter.... No one should have guns that can't be traced or tracked if were somehow used in a crime. Now there are many good citizens who have many guns, and many are probably not registered or traceable, but as long as those guns are in the possession of good people, then they are no threat and safe. However, if such guns are stolen from the good people, and they are used in a crime, then the citizens end up losing big time in that type of situation.
An untraceable, and unregistered gun if stolen or sold on the black market is a traggic situation.
Death caused by muder and mayhem needs no place of refuge, comfort or peace among us. We are smarter than that.
A phone that can't be traced, studied or investigated in light of a murder or murders, is also a traggic situation. How long will we allow corporations to keep killing us for profits, without us having a defense against these sort of things ?

How long will we allow corporations to keep killing us for profits, without us having a defense against these sort of things ?

What hyperbolic bullshit.

No one has died because of encryption.

. Isn't that what this case embodies now ? Isn't this why the feds can't break the phone and access the info on it ? Didn't people die in which is the reason for this case that is being brought now ? Hyperbolic eh ?

 

[alang1216]

Guns can be traced...

A phone that can't be traced...

Exactly wrong. Both can be traced back to a point of sale but only a phone can have a record of who/what/where it was used. If a gun is sold privately there may be no record of it's current owner, not so for a phone that always needs to connect to a network. Way more people are killed in this country by guns than by phone-toting terrorists.

 

[beagle9]

Guns can be traced...

A phone that can't be traced...

Exactly wrong. Both can be traced back to a point of sale but only a phone can have a record of who/what/where it was used. If a gun is sold privately there may be no record of it's current owner, not so for a phone that always needs to connect to a network. Way more people are killed in this country by guns than by phone-toting terrorists.

. Both need to be allowed to be studied in an investigation, especially when connected to the murder of human beings. Not cooperating is aiding and abetting a crime or criminal.

 

[beagle9]

Guns can be traced...

A phone that can't be traced...

Exactly wrong. Both can be traced back to a point of sale but only a phone can have a record of who/what/where it was used. If a gun is sold privately there may be no record of it's current owner, not so for a phone that always needs to connect to a network. Way more people are killed in this country by guns than by phone-toting terrorists.

. Interesting that you speak of a record being kept by networks, and this being of people's accessing & activity upon the networks. Now in the spirit of freedom and privacy, I think that the networks should scrub their servers of anything that is not criminal related (two years old or older), from the networks. Networks should have standards in which are gone by or in place that captures any criminal activity that is used upon the network of course, and that activity should be saved for possible investigation by law enforcement by way of a warrant or supeona if it is requested or called for. The innocent citizens doing business or conducting themselves in a legal and ethical manor upon the networks, should not have their activities or history saved beyond two years max on the networks.

 

[alang1216]

Interesting that you speak of a record being kept by networks, and this being of people's accessing & activity upon the networks. Now in the spirit of freedom and privacy, I think that the networks should scrub their servers of anything that is not criminal related (two years old or older), from the networks. Networks should have standards in which are gone by or in place that captures any criminal activity that is used upon the network of course, and that activity should be saved for possible investigation by law enforcement by way of a warrant or supeona if it is requested or called for. The innocent citizens doing business or conducting themselves in a legal and ethical manor upon the networks, should not have their activities or history saved beyond two years max on the networks.

An absurd idea. In practice who determines what texts are about criminal activity? Do you want Verizon to read every text or email you send and some intern flagging you as a criminal? Who would pay for it?