Fedgov vs Apple : In re Iphone "backdoor"

[Contumacious]

Tim Cook: Apple Won't Create 'Backdoor' to Help FBI Access San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone

Cook concludes Apple's open letter by saying the company's opposition to the order is not an action they took lightly and that they challenge the request "with the deepest respect for democracy and a love for our country." Ultimately, Apple fears these demands would "undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect."


Contumacious applauds Mr. Tim Cook.

What the government is asking for will destroy Apple.

Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) Apple had rights protected by the 4 and 5th Amendments. It also had a right to Judicial Review.

That is no longer available. Mr Cook is own his own.

An Article III Judge would have demanded that the government stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations.

A scumbag spineless impostor pretending to be a judge will simply comply with the FBI's request.


.For shame.

 

[Timmy]

Go apple !

This makes for a GOP candidate quandary . They are so pro patriot aft and cry "terror" at every turn .

Do they go the terror route or privacy/freedom?

 

[Contumacious]

Go apple !

This makes for a GOP candidate quandary . They are so pro patriot aft and cry "terror" at every turn .

Do they go the terror route or privacy/freedom?

Trump the typical fascist corporatocrat favors the state.

.

 

[hangover]

The FBI may charge Apple with aiding terrorists.

 

[Contumacious]

The FBI may charge Apple with aiding terrorists.

True.


The constitution of the gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state does not recognize Apple's right to resist.


.

 

[Borillar]

Tim Cook: Apple Won't Create 'Backdoor' to Help FBI Access San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone

Cook concludes Apple's open letter by saying the company's opposition to the order is not an action they took lightly and that they challenge the request "with the deepest respect for democracy and a love for our country." Ultimately, Apple fears these demands would "undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect."


Contumacious applauds Mr. Tim Cook.

What the government is asking for will destroy Apple.

Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) Apple had rights protected by the 4 and 5th Amendments. It also had a right to Judicial Review.

That is no longer available. Mr Cook is own his own.

An Article III Judge would have demanded that the government stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations.

A scumbag spineless impostor pretending to be a judge will simply comply with the FBI's request.


.For shame.

I'm Surprised that republicans aren't calling for water boarding Mr Cook.

 

[Contumacious]

Tim Cook: Apple Won't Create 'Backdoor' to Help FBI Access San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone

Cook concludes Apple's open letter by saying the company's opposition to the order is not an action they took lightly and that they challenge the request "with the deepest respect for democracy and a love for our country." Ultimately, Apple fears these demands would "undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect."


Contumacious applauds Mr. Tim Cook.

What the government is asking for will destroy Apple.

Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) Apple had rights protected by the 4 and 5th Amendments. It also had a right to Judicial Review.

That is no longer available. Mr Cook is own his own.

An Article III Judge would have demanded that the government stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations.

A scumbag spineless impostor pretending to be a judge will simply comply with the FBI's request.


.For shame.

I'm Surprised that republicans aren't calling for water boarding Mr Cook.

Give them time.


.

 

[Valerie]

True.


The constitution of the gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state does not recognize Apple's right to resist.


.

so where does the corporate RIGHT to resist government warrant exist?

 

[bendog]

Apple's had judicial review of the govt's request. They can appeal. I think they are wrong, and Cook's position is based more on Apple's best interest than the nation's, though I'm not for more than very infrequent judicial orders. But, more interestingly, if Apple's in civil contempt, how big a financial penalty would it take to compel their following a court order?

 

[Contumacious]

True.


The constitution of the gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state does not recognize Apple's right to resist.


.

so where does the corporate RIGHT to resist government warrant exist?

Under the OLD Constitution (1787-1935) the 4th and 5th Amendments.


Under FDR's Fascist Constitution of 1935 whatever the government wants whenever it wants it they get. Their powers are unlimited and unreviewable”

 

[Contumacious]

Apple's had judicial review of the govt's request. They can appeal. I think they are wrong, and Cook's position is based more on Apple's best interest than the nation's, though I'm not for more than very infrequent judicial orders. But, more interestingly, if Apple's in civil contempt, how big a financial penalty would it take to compel their following a court order?

Listen xxxxxxxxxxx

The best interest of the nation requires that the fedgov cease and desist intervening in the internal affairs of other nations. That is it. Over and out.

If apple allows the motherfuckers a back door to their cell phones then customers will be buying cell phones made overseas.

,

 

[Valerie]

True.


The constitution of the gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state does not recognize Apple's right to resist.


.

so where does the corporate RIGHT to resist government warrant exist?

Under the OLD Constitution (1787-1935) the 4th and 5th Amendments.


Under FDR's Fascist Constitution of 1935 whatever the government wants whenever it wants it they get. Their powers are unlimited and unreviewable”

the scotus decision regarding nsa surveillance, which preceded snowden btw, the scotus decision noted that no one can claim to be harmed by a policy based solely on paranoia...

so how is anyone harmed by the government having the key that apple holds?

they actually aren't.. it's just the same 'slippery slope' paranoia of possibilities.

should we trust corporations more than our own government, to protect our privacy?

 

[Valerie]

btw the nsa surveillance everyone was so upset about in retrospect with snowden, was already well known.

how did all that scary invasion of privacy work out for the boston bombers under that system?

 

[bendog]

True.


The constitution of the gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state does not recognize Apple's right to resist.


.

so where does the corporate RIGHT to resist government warrant exist?

Under the OLD Constitution (1787-1935) the 4th and 5th Amendments.


Under FDR's Fascist Constitution of 1935 whatever the government wants whenever it wants it they get. Their powers are unlimited and unreviewable”

the scotus decision regarding nsa surveillance, which preceded snowden btw, the scotus decision noted that no one can claim to be harmed by a policy based solely on paranoia...

so how is anyone harmed by the government having the key that apple holds?

they actually aren't.. it's just the same 'slippery slope' paranoia of possibilities.

should we trust corporations more than our own government, to protect our privacy?

Ah, well Snowden was publicizing warrantless spying on people with no know ideology or suspicion. In the Apple case, the only "spying" is of a known, and dead, terrorist's phone. I'd ask what right to privacy a person could have after they are killed committing mass murder, and the phone likely has some information of their intent and possibly of accomplices?

But don't expect rationality, let alone civility, from the count of muncus. LOL

 

[Contumacious]

True.


The constitution of the gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state does not recognize Apple's right to resist.


.

so where does the corporate RIGHT to resist government warrant exist?

Under the OLD Constitution (1787-1935) the 4th and 5th Amendments.


Under FDR's Fascist Constitution of 1935 whatever the government wants whenever it wants it they get. Their powers are unlimited and unreviewable”

the scotus decision regarding nsa surveillance, which preceded snowden btw, the scotus decision noted that no one can claim to be harmed by a policy based solely on paranoia...

so how is anyone harmed by the government having the key that apple holds?

they actually aren't.. it's just the same 'slippery slope' paranoia of possibilities.

should we trust corporations more than our own government, to protect our privacy?

Here's Why Apple Is Going To War Over FBI 'Backdoor' Order

Apple CEO Tim Cook said his company will fight a court order, granted to the FBI on Tuesday, that would compel the manufacturer to build what it calls a “master key” for the data held on iPhones.


Before you respond with the paranoia bullshit defense try, do try, to understand the ramifications

We should trust no one.

This is mot a matter of trusting , this is a matter of the government interfering in the internal affairs of other nations and we paying the consequences, ie, 09/11, TSA, "terrorists attacks and now the war against Apple.

 

[Valerie]

the iphone of the san bernadino mass murderer is a matter concerning other nations?

 

[Borillar]

Apple's had judicial review of the govt's request. They can appeal. I think they are wrong, and Cook's position is based more on Apple's best interest than the nation's, though I'm not for more than very infrequent judicial orders. But, more interestingly, if Apple's in civil contempt, how big a financial penalty would it take to compel their following a court order?

Listen stupid fuck

The best interest of the nation requires that the fedgov cease and desist intervening in the internal affairs of other nations. That is it. Over and out.

If apple allows the motherfuckers a back door to their cell phones then customers will be buying cell phones made overseas.

,

Apple phones are made overseas. In fact, they probably all are.

 

[Contumacious]

btw the nsa surveillance everyone was so upset about in retrospect with snowden, was already well known.

how did all that scary invasion of privacy work out for the boston bombers under that system?

Do you ever investigate anything?

Or are you the typical government supremacist who must accept the government version as the gospel truth?

The Truth About the Boston Bombing


The US government’s latest report on the Boston Marathon bombing is so full of revealing information buried in plain sight, it seems as if an insider is imploring someone—anyone—to dig deeper. It reads like the work of an unhappy participant in a cover-up.

Properly contextualized, the particulars in the report point to:

• A Boston FBI agent seemingly recruiting and acting as Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s control officer, interacting personally with him, preventing on multiple occasions serious investigations of Tsarnaev’s activities, and then pleading ignorance to investigators in the most ludicrously improbable manner.

• The likelihood that the blame game between the US and Russia over who knew what, and when, regarding Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his activities, masks a deeper geopolitical game which may very well point to the sine qua non of most such struggles—the battle for the control of precious natural resources.

• The sheer inability of well-meaning US government officials—who either may know or suspect that the “official” account of the Boston bombing, with the Tsarnaev brothers as lone wolf terrorists, is utterly false—to come out and state their true beliefs. The most recent report is an example of the necessity of reading between the lines.

 

[bendog]

There are two issues. First the terrorist had a right to an expectation of privacy to areas we all expect privacy - our homes, our cars as we go about daily life, what we say in private conversations on our phones, for example. Once the gummit has a rational reason to believe we are committing crimes in our homes, cars or on phones, traditionally it can get a warrant to discover what we are up to. The terrorist gave up her right to privacy concerning phone calls back in Dec. So, this has absolutely no comparison to Snowden.

The second issue is Apple's right. Apple sells a product that has as one feature an ability to defeat the gummit's ability to see what's in it, that is who called and any data stored on it. The purchaser, the terrorist, no longer has any claim to privacy. Where does Apple derive any right to not allow the gummit access to that PARTICULAR phone? Seriously. I'm asking. Is it just that Apple thinks if it allows access then it's products will not be as appealing to purchasers?

 

[Tom Horn]

I see both points of view. The solution is simple; Apple had a tool they could pry open prior i-phones with but are claiming not for the new model. I don't believe that. When you write the code you can unwrite the code. So they take possession of the terrorist phone, open it, and hand it over to the FBI. They keep their proprietary patent and the FBI gets into the phone. Readers might remember Toyota never revealed the software glitch that made some of their vehicles accelerate out of control a few years back....Instead they paid a huge fine and promised it would stop and it has. Apple should cooperate instead of playing games and the FBI should be satisfied.