Should the Feds be able to force Apple to cooperate?

[jon_berzerk]

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.

Apple should have simply unlocked the phone,

that is not what the government is demanding apple do

 

[Disgruntled_American]

NO....But watch these so called Patriots spread their cheeks because Govt spooks them into believing they'll be a victim if you dont give them the powa!

Its Obamas federal government trying to force this by the way.

And it's cons that are agreeing with him on it then. Fascists like yourself.

 

[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

 

[OnePercenter]

No. Here's why....

- The government shouldn't be able to force you to buy any private product or force you to PRODUCE any product or perform any labor (that's slavery btw)
- The law enforcement community is ways underfunded and it's past time that changes. If Apple can afford to hire 23 year old tech wizards and the FBI/CIA cant....that's the FBI/CIAS problem...not Apples.



I wish Apple would've volunteered to do it.

But the government being able to FORCE a private business to perform a service for them....a line I can't cross to support. The slippery slope....a city governments public works garage can't fix the Ford fire/police vehicles....so they get a court order to force a local mechanic at the Ford dealership to come fix them. See? It's fucked up.

Apple should be warrant proof?

the issue is to force apple to make a product that does not exist

then the government can try and break the code

the issue is to force apple to make a product that does not exist

then the government can try and break the code

The issue is corporate interests vs. national security.

 

[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

 

[jon_berzerk]

No. Here's why....

- The government shouldn't be able to force you to buy any private product or force you to PRODUCE any product or perform any labor (that's slavery btw)
- The law enforcement community is ways underfunded and it's past time that changes. If Apple can afford to hire 23 year old tech wizards and the FBI/CIA cant....that's the FBI/CIAS problem...not Apples.



I wish Apple would've volunteered to do it.

But the government being able to FORCE a private business to perform a service for them....a line I can't cross to support. The slippery slope....a city governments public works garage can't fix the Ford fire/police vehicles....so they get a court order to force a local mechanic at the Ford dealership to come fix them. See? It's fucked up.

Apple should be warrant proof?

the issue is to force apple to make a product that does not exist

then the government can try and break the code

the issue is to force apple to make a product that does not exist

then the government can try and break the code

The issue is corporate interests vs. national security.

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.

 

[OnePercenter]

No. Here's why....

- The government shouldn't be able to force you to buy any private product or force you to PRODUCE any product or perform any labor (that's slavery btw)
- The law enforcement community is ways underfunded and it's past time that changes. If Apple can afford to hire 23 year old tech wizards and the FBI/CIA cant....that's the FBI/CIAS problem...not Apples.



I wish Apple would've volunteered to do it.

But the government being able to FORCE a private business to perform a service for them....a line I can't cross to support. The slippery slope....a city governments public works garage can't fix the Ford fire/police vehicles....so they get a court order to force a local mechanic at the Ford dealership to come fix them. See? It's fucked up.

Apple should be warrant proof?

the issue is to force apple to make a product that does not exist

then the government can try and break the code

the issue is to force apple to make a product that does not exist

then the government can try and break the code

The issue is corporate interests vs. national security.

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.

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

 

[jon_berzerk]

No. Here's why....

- The government shouldn't be able to force you to buy any private product or force you to PRODUCE any product or perform any labor (that's slavery btw)
- The law enforcement community is ways underfunded and it's past time that changes. If Apple can afford to hire 23 year old tech wizards and the FBI/CIA cant....that's the FBI/CIAS problem...not Apples.



I wish Apple would've volunteered to do it.

But the government being able to FORCE a private business to perform a service for them....a line I can't cross to support. The slippery slope....a city governments public works garage can't fix the Ford fire/police vehicles....so they get a court order to force a local mechanic at the Ford dealership to come fix them. See? It's fucked up.

Apple should be warrant proof?

the issue is to force apple to make a product that does not exist

then the government can try and break the code

the issue is to force apple to make a product that does not exist

then the government can try and break the code

The issue is corporate interests vs. national security.

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.

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

 

[rightwinger]

Apple should be warrant proof?

the issue is to force apple to make a product that does not exist

then the government can try and break the code

the issue is to force apple to make a product that does not exist

then the government can try and break the code

The issue is corporate interests vs. national security.

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.

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

 

[jon_berzerk]

the issue is to force apple to make a product that does not exist

then the government can try and break the code

the issue is to force apple to make a product that does not exist

then the government can try and break the code

The issue is corporate interests vs. national security.

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.

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

 

[rightwinger]

the issue is to force apple to make a product that does not exist

then the government can try and break the code

The issue is corporate interests vs. national security.

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.

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

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

the issue is to force apple to make a product that does not exist

then the government can try and break the code

The issue is corporate interests vs. national security.

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.

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

Because it's idiotic, ignorant and wrong – it fails as a false comparison fallacy; complying with a lawful court order is not 'slavery.'

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

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

Because it's idiotic, ignorant and wrong – it fails as a false comparison fallacy; complying with a lawful court order is not 'slavery.'

whats up whackadoddle

how is the pretend lawyering going for ya --LOL

obviously you do not have a clue as to what your saying

i would be surprised if you have even read the order

 

[jon_berzerk]

and frankly i am embarrassed for you

not even knowing the wording of the 13th amendment

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

The part you refuse to accept is Apple doesn't have the key. There is no key. The FBI wants Apple to invent a key.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

The part you refuse to accept is Apple doesn't have the key. There is no key. The FBI wants Apple to invent a key.

apple says it will take six dedicated engineers and a whole new lab

i posted motion to vacate by apple

 

[jon_berzerk]

also interesting the feds filed the motion and was granted under an ex parte plea

which is really shitty