Bill Gates Sides With FBI In Apple Spat (ft.com)

Fudge Factor 3000 writes: Bill Gates has now publicly stated that Apple should cooperate with the FBI in the San Bernadino terrorist's phone unlocking case. He states that it is for this specific case, but seems to miss the point that there are other law enforcement officials waiting on the wings with their requests should this precedent be set. The war against privacy escalates. Setting aside the actual practicality of unlocking the San Bernadino phone, the teams that are emerging on this issue include some pretty strange bedfellows: John McAfee and Bill Gates on the pro-unlocking side, and Woz, Edward Snowden and even some of the victim's families on the con.

Comments

Is that

[Anonymous Coward]

the same Bill Gates who's companies latest offering backs up everly last secret it can find on your computer to server in the US?
Bend over more Bill, it's not quite far enough yet.

Re:Is that

[kruug]

First off, Bill hasn't been involved with Windows for quite some time. Secondly, it does back anything up that you don't tell it to...

Re:Is that

[bondsbw]

Indeed, the company that uploads the entire contents of your device to its cloud service and calls it a "backup feature".

Oh wait, I thought you were talking about Apple for a minute. Carry on.

Re:Is that

[kruug]

Windows 10 does send information back to Microsoft, but nothing personal aside from anonymous telemetry data. It's not stealing documents, it's not stealing photos, it's doing the same thing OS X does, it's doing the same thing Android does, it's doing the same thing Ubuntu did.

Re:Is that

[shaitand]

There is nothing anonymous about meta-data it compiles into a very unique and identifiable fingerprint. Can we all cut the crap please.

Re:Is that

[shaitand]

"Indeed, just show them all the evidence that their personal files are being sent to Microsoft. That should shut them up."

Since I didn't make such a claim, I'm not sure why I'd present evidence for it. But since the EULA authorizes them to do so and you are claiming they are not taking advantage of what you agree to in the EULA. I trust that YOU are prepared to provide evidence they aren't exercising the legal rights they are requiring. Otherwise it's like you are just repeating things that others have said with no real substance to back it up.

"and not just the telemetry that MS claims, right"

Begging the question much? My argument was that the telemetry that MS claims is actually harmful data.

Re:Is that

[bondsbw]

Since I didn't make such a claim

Then what did you mean by "that doesn't eliminate the backdoor or all the data going back"? You made a claim that they have a backdoor and "all the data" is going back to them, certainly you or someone else here can prove it so that it's clear how MS is in the wrong.

Look, I'm not arguing against you. I just am sick and damn tired of hearing this argument against MS come up every time a tech company is mentioned in a Slashdot post, but nobody has the decency to show that something more harmful than anonymous telemetry gets sent. Telemetry might provide a means for identification, but how is that significantly different from kind of data that gets sent to advertisers in non-MS web browsers on non-MS operating systems?

I'm not trying to justify it as acceptable behavior, but can we for once have a conversation about one of the other tech companies that much more blatantly gather data? The companies that are directly the subject of this post and several other recent posts which admit they would freely give the FBI cloud backup data if the FBI hadn't screwed up by changing the password?

Re:Is that

[Ol Olsoc]

Windows 10 does send information back to Microsoft, but nothing personal aside from anonymous telemetry data. It's not stealing documents, it's not stealing photos, it's doing the same thing OS X does, it's doing the same thing Android does, it's doing the same thing Ubuntu did.

Oh fucking bullshit.

If you can actually read, Microsoft very plainly and explicitly says that they scrub your identifying data after thy get your telemetry. So why would they tell you they scrub it if they do not have it?

Seriously, how much to you get paid to lie about this shit? It's to the hpoint where the shilss are denying What Microsoft says they do.

Re: Is that

[tsa]

Finally someone who talks sense about the Cloud.

Re:Is that

[shaitand]

"Telemetry might provide a means for identification, but how is that significantly different from kind of data that gets sent to advertisers in non-MS web browsers on non-MS operating systems?

I'm not trying to justify it as acceptable behavior"

Okay, so we have found a bit of common ground. You will not see this kind of data sent from typical Linux desktops. You can take measures to prevent it in browsers as well. You can allegedly turn off some kinds of data but not all, according to MS. Your desktop/laptop was really the last potential bastion of privacy, mobile and everything running a mobile OS is completely compromised, and this last bastion is an important battle ground.

There is only one way for a communication to be private. You generates a key, the contact on the other end generates a key and the public side of that key is exchanged. No third party certifies or has access to either key, they must be generated at the client. This is the only manner in which absolutely no trust of other parties is required. If the client device is compromised prior to key generation then the whole thing is just wasted extra cycles. The desktop and private servers are the only place you have left that there is any potential to generate and use a key for internet communications that aren't compromised.

MS is requiring you grant permission to do the same on windows 10, not just for your mobile but for your desktop. They are sending a stream of data back but only they know for certain what that data contains. Nobody can "prove" they are lying, yet. But they have a long standing anti-consumer anti-privacy stance and a long history of lying about these things. They purchased Skype which securely worked in the manner I outlined and completely re-engineered it for the sole purpose of making the system "tappable."

MS Windows is a near monopoly on the desktop and the company has a long track record of bad behavior but believe me you will see commentary opposing this kind of thing no matter what company it comes from. Not too far back a story came to light with Intel sending data back from a modified Linux distribution.

Re:Is that

[Zaelath]

That's the same theory that says OpenSSL was never full of security holes because it was open source and everyone in the world could check it. Any vulnerabilities you have seen of late are just products of your fevered imagination.

In any case, that's an awfully tall straw man you've set up. You're asking "someone" to do a lot of work to find out what MS are collecting at the moment, far beyond "decency".

People are, generally, likely to think MS are trustworthy because they have skin in the game (as do I). However, they see more value in making discovering what telemetry they're interested in difficult, than in shutting down the conspiracy theorists by being open about it. I find that in itself interesting.

But hey, I don't really care. Not only did I opt out of what I could, but block the servers they collect telemetry on entirely via an external firewall they can't control, since opting out doesn't opt out. That's interesting too.

I think the decency hurdle is MS's to fall over, and describing yourself as sceptical is deliciously ironic.

Of course he does.

[Anonymous Coward]

See, the billionaire class wants to make sure that we little people can be monitored and tracked.

Re:Of course he does.

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Donald Trump wants everyone to bend over.

And you are surprised?

[thaylin]

The man is the founder of a company with a terrible privacy record and you are surprised? I am more surprised that he does not realize you cannot create a specific solution for this that is not also a general solution for all phones.

Re:And you are surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

MS also earns hundreds of millions, if not billions, per year from government contracts.

As Upton Sinclair wrote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Re:And you are surprised?

[Jeremi]

I am more surprised that he does not realize you cannot create a specific solution for this that is not also a general solution for all phones.

Err, can't you? Since only Apple has the private key necessary to sign iOS firmware updates, AFAICT that means that Apple could release a nerfed firmware that would run only on an iPhone 5c with Sayed Farouk's phone's hardware ID, and refuse to run on any other device, and nobody would be able to modify it without breaking its signature.

I understand there is also a principle of legal precedent to consider, but from a technical standpoint I don't see how it's impossible.

Re:And you are surprised?

[tlhIngan]

Err, can't you? Since only Apple has the private key necessary to sign iOS firmware updates, AFAICT that means that Apple could release a nerfed firmware that would run only on an iPhone 5c with Sayed Farouk's phone's hardware ID, and refuse to run on any other device, and nobody would be able to modify it without breaking its signature.

I understand there is also a principle of legal precedent to consider, but from a technical standpoint I don't see how it's impossible.

It's more of a barrier to entry.

Right now, Apple has to develop the firmware. And while it's easy to disable the 10 PIN check, the FBI wants additional development to be able to programmatically guess the PIN.

Once that is done, you have basically a master key. It doesn't matter that the FBI has a nerfed version that only works on one phone. One it's out, the barrier to developing it for other phones Is a lot lower - "We just want what you have given the FBI, just with this hardware ID". And so on.

And then there's a whole case of cyberattackers wanting to look at the firmware and find ways to break it - through jailbreaking if need be. Imagine the havoc caused if this firmware was released as part of a jailbreak tool for iOS.

In fact, the precedent for the All Writs Act is if something is already done, then law enforcement can ask for it to be done as well. Since the telephone company already uses pen registers for their own internal investigations (fraud, etc), then the FBI, local LEOs and others asking the phone company to put on a pen register on a specific line can do so as well. After all, the difference between the phone company and LEOs is who the data goes to in the end.

And the FBI doesn't want static data. They want live data. Let's say they used GMail and other services - they could ask Google for the data, but that requires a warrant. They could ask Apple, then use the GMail app on the phone in question and get the data without a warrant. Sure, it's probably not admissible, but if you really needed to know, you could either subpoena Google later for an "official" copy of the evidence, or just find other evidence.

And one final note - if you're comfortable with LEOs accessing your phone, then why bother putting a PIN on it? Or do you have crap on your phone that you don't want others to see?

Tim Cook knows about privacy - if nothing more than to protect those who have yet to come out of the closet. Which even in these modern times still brings up punishments as severe as the death penalty in many countries. Even in the first world many people are unable to cope with learning their son/daughter is gay.

So yeah, the phone owner's life could literally be on the line.

Bill Gates was always about controlling people

[QuietLagoon]

From his time as Microsoft CEO, Bill Gates was all about removing choice, and making computer users use Windows software by making deals with PC OEMs.

.
It comes as no surprise that Bill Gates gives privacy so little weight, with less privacy users have less choice and control.

Re:Bill Gates was always about controlling people

[chispito]

From his time as Microsoft CEO, Bill Gates was all about removing choice, and making computer users use Windows software by making deals with PC OEMs.

. It comes as no surprise that Bill Gates gives privacy so little weight, with less privacy users have less choice and control.

I'm shocked, shocked to find someone on Slashdot that taking the chance to dump on Bill Gates.

I don't really care who comes out on what side here. I'm more interested in how Apple and Google move forward with their OSes to prevent this from even being a question next time.

McAfee?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Not that his opinion matters nearly as much as the others(he's still loaded; but he's more busy playing the Hunter S. Thompson of tech than being a tech leader these days); but I thought that McAfee's position wasn't so much 'pro unlock' as "Me and my hacker posse will hack the shit out of it!"; which is a vote in favor of getting the contents of the phone(not that anyone is really against that, if there were some non-problematic way to do it); but not obviously a vote in favor of the feds having the right to force Apple to make it so.

Re:McAfee?

[OzPeter]

I thought that McAfee's position wasn't so much 'pro unlock' as "Me and my hacker posse will hack the shit out of it!";

I thought McAfee's position was more along the lines of "Look at me! Look at me!" with the idea that he could say any old shit, get the attention he craves and then not have to deliver anything as no-one in their right mind would let him near that phone.

Re:McAfee?

[Rob Y.]

Off topic a bit, but does anybody but me think the 'erase phone after 10 bad password tries' feature takes 'security' too far? I'm not nuts about a feature that lets any arbitrary malicious person with physical access to my phone wipe the whole thing by simply entering 10 bad passwords. How about just making them wait a few hours after 10 bad passwords - perhaps increasing that delay after each 10 bad tries until the correct password has been entered. That'd make a brute force crack impossible, but still protect my phone from a nasty prankster - which is a more likely scenario, after all, than the FBI with a search warrant.

Re:McAfee?

[squiggleslash]

It's a phone, a small, losable, stealable, breakable, device you normally store in your front pocket. If you're storing valuable information on your device and not backing it up anywhere else, you're doing it wrong.

NBC poll 52% for FBI, 38% for Apple

[peter303]

Main street is viewing it differently than tech world. People fear security more than privacy.

Re:NBC poll 52% for FBI, 38% for Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

and this is why America is no longer the land of the free, its the land of the afraid.

Re:NBC poll 52% for FBI, 38% for Apple

[sbaker]

The biggest problem is that people are reacting to the headline - not the back story.

1) This was the terrorist's WORK phone. He tried (and failed) to destroy his personal phone - and the FBI have all of the data from that. If he didn't destroy the work phone, there probably wasn't anything important on it.
2) The FBI already have his texts, IP address lookups, voicemails and phonecall meta-data from the telco's - so this is only stuff like photos and documents stored inside the phone.
3) The FBI already have an iCloud backup from 6 weeks before the attack.
4) If they hadn't screwed up and changed the iCloud account's apple id - they'd have a recent backup too - and this would be a moot point. They screwed up.
5) If this was so important - why didn't they demand it back in December when they first got the phone? Any information on it now will be horribly outdated.
6) We already know that this was not a big ISIS plot or anything like that. It was a 'lone gunman' kind of a thing...so it's unlikely that there is anything on the phone that would incriminate anyone else who isn't already incriminated.
7) If they succeed - you can bet that Apple's next phone will make it impossible to circumvent the security with an OS upgrade by putting more stuff in ROM.

Knowing those things makes it very clear that they are using a high-profile case to demonstrate a capability (both on behalf of Apple - and on the behalf of the legal system to compel Apple).

The reason to do this is to provoke a debate that they hope will produce either laws or a legal precedent that they can apply to future cases - there is no other reason to fight Apple and public opinion.

The reason MOST people are agreeing with the Fed is that they didn't take the time to look at the facts.

Re:NBC poll 52% for FBI, 38% for Apple

[youngatheart]

How I wish the question asked had been "Should Apple be forced to write software to enable government hacking?"

Re:NBC poll 52% for FBI, 38% for Apple

[Fire_Wraith]

Yes. The problem with this (and many other polls) is in how you phrase the question, and the degree to which you explain the issue (or not).

For instance, if I asked people, "Should Apple comply with a legally issued search warrant?" most people will answer yes. If I instead ask them, "Should Apple give the U.S. Government unfettered access to everyone's iPhone?" people will likely answer more negatively (I wish I could say all would, but I don't have that much faith in humanity anymore).

Beyond that though, I think part of the problem is that the average person doesn't understand why "unlocking a terrorist's phone, with a warrant" is a problem. Apple has no problem (morally speaking, technical challenges are another matter) with unlocking a single iPhone. What Apple objects to is giving the government a key to disable security on ANY iPhone, because past evidence shows that they'll start using it anywhere they want to, not just on this one particular case.

Sure, Billy Boy.

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yeah we all know that once law enforcement gets access to something they NEVER ask again. The disengenuousness of people claiming this is only about one phone is astounding.

All for Nothing

[MailtoDelete]

This argument is a sham and a shameless power grab by the powers that be. We are talking about someone who had the forethought to destroy his personal phone and computer hard drive to avoid the collection of incriminating evidence, yet he did nothing to obscure the $0.99 iPhone 5c that was issued to him from the local government. Does anyone really think he left any evidence at all on that device? Highly unlikely. He knew this device had no expectation of privacy (issued/controlled by government) and he made no attempt to destroy it (not like he fear the consequences of destruction of gov't property), so why would he have used it for any purpose related to illegal/questionable activities?

The US is not the only country.

[gurps_npc]

Anything Apple does for the US, it will be required to do in all countries it sells. That includes China.

I am sure that China will wait till they have a clear terrorism/criminal case, ask Apple to give them the same software they give the FBI, then make a copy of it and use it on every single dissident.

The San Bernidino phone SHOULD be cracked - by the government, not a private company. Apple should have nothing to do with the cracking.

Re:The US is not the only country.

[bobbied]

You don't think China doesn't already have the capacity? Something tells me that they fully understand how to do this. Remember they BUILD these things nearly exclusively and can easily obtain or reverse engineer these devices sufficiently to do anything they want.

Re:The US is not the only country.

[phishybongwaters]

Well this simply doesn't make any sense. Apple can't even offer the same encryption they offer here in the US in some countries that they consider markets, so I'd say your statement is not based in facts. And again, even Apple can't undo what they government did itself, the GOVERNMENT reset the phone, making it impossible to recover at this point, this is all nonsense but hey, it's working. How you ask? Well the average Joe Asshat now thinks the government can't crack into his phone (when they totally can) and is probably willing to side against encryption more now than before, you know, to stop terrorists and catch child predators. Essentially they are asking Apple do rework the entire update delivery system so they could remote jailbreak/root the device with a firmware upgrade. Even if Apple could do this (it's not really certain they could) it wouldn't have any effect on the device they have right now. This entire charade is designed to get Joe Asshat to side against encryption, and sadly it's working.

Re:I don't get it ...

[tranquilidad]

Perhaps Apple doesn't want to divert their resources off of the products and product lines that are important to them as a company.

Perhaps Apple doesn't want the liability if they mistakenly delete all the data the FBI wants.

Perhaps Apple doesn't want to set a legal precedent that companies will result in ever increasing demands to break their products in the way the government desires.

Perhaps Apple is taking a principled stand.

Thank you sir! May I have another?

[Tolvor]

I sure it is a coincidence that Microsoft is forcing Win 7/8 users to upgrade to Windows 10, which touts its higher security. Don't worry, if you have private information you can use the Microsoft recommended product BitLocker, made in the USA and subject to US laws. I'm certain there aren't any backdoors. I'm glad that Microsoft will share Office 365 users info with government agencies to protect us. After all, the FBI would never be abuse its power, like sharing accessing info on political opponents to discredit them. Pay no attention that Microsoft was somehow vulnerable to 'FREAK' encryption flaw (http://www.cnet.com/news/windows-vulnerable-to-freak-encryption-flaw-too/#!) - nothing to worry about here. I'm sure glad Microsoft is providing free email services like Hotmail. I'm sure Microsoft has the highest standards in protecting Hotmail users info and the times it has shared private information has been completely justified besides "you agreed to the service agreement".

No, he doesn't...

[sumiciu]

He disputes so in a video in Bloomberg..

Bill Gates, co-founder at Microsoft and co-chair at Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, addresses his view of Apple's battle against an FBI court order to unlock an iPhone belonging to a shooter involved in the San Bernardino, California terror attack and the need for a balance between privacy and government access.

Way to Embrace the Dark Side Billy!

[Irate Engineer]

Clippy: Hey! It looks like you are trying to violate U.S. citizen's Constitutionally-protected rights! Would you like help?

I'm starting to see their point.

[mark-t]

I can see merit in Apple cooperating, but the biggest concern I would have about it is what happens if they are unsuccessful? What of a bug causes unexpected data loss? This isn't exactly a situation where they can get multiple chances because the crack is only supposed to be for one specific iPhone. What happens if developing this tool takes really long? Does Apple get paid for their time while this is being developed or do they only get paid upon completion? If the latter, if they find nothing on the allegedly decrypted phone, will the Feds refuse to pay? If the former, will they sue Apple because Apple cannot necessarily prove that their effort was entirely bug free?

I completely understand Apple not wanting to do this, because there are far more ways it can end badly for them than positively, but I ultimately suspect that the only way they will ever see the end of this is if they try.

Microsoft gets huge payments from the NSA?

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears to me that Microsoft is selling itself to secret U.S. government agencies. Who tried to kill the excellent TrueCrypt? The old original TrueCrypt web site pushes people toward a Microsoft product.

Can Microsoft be trusted? Here are some articles:

Windows 8: NSA Backdoor Exploit in Windows 8 Uncovered (Aug. 22, 2013)

Windows: NSA "backdoor" mandates lead to a computer-security FREAK show Quote: "Microsoft Windows OS vulnerable to hackers, thanks to National Security Agency requirements." (March 6, 2015)

Windows: NSA Built Back Door In All Windows Software by 1999 (June 7, 2013)

Windows 10, Microsoft hiding what it is doing: Microsoft has no plans to tell us what's in Windows patches. Quote: "Each update is a black box, and it's going to stay that way." (Aug 21, 2015)

Windows 10, Microsoft takes even more control: Windows 10 is spying on almost everything you do -- here's how to opt out But, of course, Microsoft can change the spyware to avoid blocking. (July 31, 2015)

Microsoft can't be trusted: How Can Any Company Ever Trust Microsoft Again? (June 17, 2013)

Microsoft releases EXTREMELY buggy software: Microsoft Kills Many Critical Flaws, Some 0-Days, Un-Trusts One Wildcard Cert It is likely that there are many bugs Microsoft hasn't yet found. Are Microsoft products intentionally made insecure? (December 9, 2015)

Re:It's not Tech v. Main Street

[MachineShedFred]

It's not conspiracy and conjecture, it's "legal precedent" and it's an actual thing. Once it's happened in a single instance, that single instance can be pointed to in future cases until it's refuted by a higher level judge. Which, in this case, would mean either the Federal Appeals Court, or the United States Supreme Court.

It's how the whole legal system has worked for 225+ years. And you can bet that there are hundreds of phones in evidence lockers with assistant District Attorneys and assistant US Attorneys lining up to get a court order to have Apple unlock them, depending on how this plays out.

Re:you people are idiots

[SecurityGuy]

Nice argument, but that's not what happened. Apple already made the contents of the iCloud account available to investigators, as they were ordered to. This is entirely different. They're being asked to build software that doesn't exist to subvert a security feature in iOS.

It's more like going to a safe company and asking them to build you a key that unlocks every safe. It's more complex than that, really, but it's less wrong than your analogy.

Taking sides: problem solved! [Re:Is that]

[Geoffrey.landis]

"...some pretty strange bedfellows: John McAfee and Bill Gates on the pro-unlocking side..."

Actually, John McAfee is not on the side of forcing Apple to unlock the phone-- he's against that. He is on the side of don't force them to do it because he and his elite crew of hax0rz will do it for free with no need to bother Apple or use that all-writs thing.

And this solves the problem, doesn't it? Give it McAfee, he will screw up and erase all the data on the phone, problem solved.

Re:Taking sides: problem solved! [Re:Is that]

[Austerity Empowers]

FBI doesn't want to ask for volunteers or buy a zero-day/jailbreak/exploit. It wants the power to compel a manufacturer's engineers to break their own security. "Break this phone or go to jail."

Which is why the summary is so wrong that it hurts the brain, and while I understand slashdot editors aren't exactly professionals, they should have the dignity to remove that comment. Bill Gates wants cooperation with big brother, McAfee wants policework. There's a huge difference between them.

And that

[mitcheli]

is why I don't have any Microsoft products in my home. And that I must begrudgingly use them at work.

Says he's misinterpreted

[Geoffrey.landis]

He's refuting he said that he supports the FBI.

He has very slightly backed off, claims that people have misinterpreted his position:
(see the "update:" in this gizmodo article: http://gizmodo.com/bill-gates-... )

But here is Gates' actual quote from the Financial times article; what do you think-- was he misinterpreted?
  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3559...

“This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information. They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case,” Mr Gates told the Financial Times.

“It is no different than [the question of] should anybody ever have been able to tell the phone company to get information, should anybody be able to get at bank records. Let’s say the bank had tied a ribbon round the disk drive and said, ‘Don’t make me cut this ribbon because you’ll make me cut it many times’.”

Re:Conspiracy and Conjecture

[Geoffrey.landis]

The point that you are missing is that the precedent to be set is that the government can make Apple write software.

This isn't about breaking into a phone, it's about exactly how much the court can compel them to do It's not "use your key to unlock this door". It's "write new software to this exact set of specifications that the FBI has written."

can the court compel Apple to write code? If they can, what else can they compel people to do?

So all you Microsoft users

[JustNiz]

Are you REALLY still feeling warm and fuzzy about putting everything into Microsofts cloud, and believing Windows 10 isn't really spying on you, and that Microsoft aren't fundamentally aligned to sell out your private data at the first opportunity?

Already destroyed the actual phones used

[Geoffrey.landis]

The biggest problem is that people are reacting to the headline - not the back story.

1) This was the terrorist's WORK phone. He tried (and failed) to destroy his personal phone - and the FBI have all of the data from that. If he didn't destroy the work phone, there probably wasn't anything important on it.

Close, but no.

He tried, and succeeded, in destroying his personal phones:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016...

  The couple took pains to physically destroy two personally owned cellphones, crushing them beyond the FBI's ability to recover information from them. They also removed a hard drive from their computer; it has not been found despite investigators diving for days for potential electronic evidence in a nearby lake.

Farook was not carrying his work iPhone during the attack. It was discovered after a subsequent search.

So, the question is: given that they went to great lengths to destroy the phones and hard drives that they used in planning the attack, why in the world would anybody think that this phone they didn't think were worth bothering to destroy would have anything on it?

SPAT?

[lexlthr]

Spat - a petty quarrel. This legal battle may set precedent that determines the course of security for the foreseeable future. It is hardly a "spat".

Re:FBI is violating the Federal Aquistion Regualti

[bobbied]

No, a good lawyer plays ALL his cards UPFRONT. This Matlock style last second cropping up of evidence to get your client off you see on TV is not how these things work.

If you are making a motion or responding to something you put ALL of your arguments into your filings because each of these arguments must be individually dealt with by the court and you won't have the chance to go back and amend your response without a good reason. Your best chance at prevailing is at the first strike, going back later and trying to add additional arguments when your previous ones have failed is usually not allowed.

Re:Conspiracy and Conjecture

[Jason Levine]

Usually companies served with a warrant can be compelled to provide something they already have. If the FBI needed the e-mails that someone sent via GMail, they could compel Google to serve them up. However, the question is can the government require a company to create something entirely new just to further an investigation? The FBI wants Apple to write software to remotely apply to the iPhone that would remove the "10 attempts and phone is wiped" restriction and that would let them try PINs in an automated fashion. This software doesn't exist right now in any form. The danger is that if Apple can be compelled to weaken their products "just this one time," then they'll be told to weaken them further for other investigations and they'll be told to write other software because the government demands it (and without compensation for their efforts).

Re:Change of Argument

[Geoffrey.landis]

Yes, the government can compel Apple to write code. The government can compel Ford to make a truck that gets 30MPG, compel a mining company to dig another shaft to let air into a mine, and make me pay for health insurance I do not want.

No, they can't; no, they can't; and no, they can't do that either.

They can enact regulations that include penalties if Ford's truck doesn't get 30 MPG, but if Ford says "no, we're not going to build that truck," a court writ can't force them to make trucks. They can enact safety regulations that mean mines have to have adequate ventilation, but if the company doesn't want to drill the draft, a court writ can't make them operate a mine. They can enact a tax to make you pay the costs incurred by your not having health insurance (even if they don't call it a tax), but, so far at least, they can't actually make you pay for health insurance.

They can, however, make you pay tax. That power turns out to be written in the constitution.

If you think the direction the country is going in is to have more freedom than the past, you are sorely wrong.

In some ways we are getting more freedom, in some ways less.

But that's always been the case.