Slashdot Mirror
New Legislation Would Ban US Government From Purchasing Apple Products (arstechnica.com)
HughPickens.com writes: Cyrus Farivar reports at ArsTechnica that Congressman David Jolly has introduced the "No Taxpayer Support for Apple Act," a bill that would forbid federal agencies from purchasing Apple products until the company cooperates with the federal court order to assist the unlocking of a seized iPhone 5C associated with the San Bernardino terrorist attack. "Taxpayers should not be subsidizing a company that refuses to cooperate in a terror investigation that left 14 Americans dead on American soil," said Jolly, who announced in 2015 that he's running for Senate, joining the crowded GOP primary field to replace Sen. Marco Rubio. "Following the horrific events of September 11, 2001, every citizen and every company was willing to do whatever it took to side with law enforcement and defeat terror. It's time Apple shows that same conviction to further protect our nation today." Jolly's bill echoes a call from Donald Trump last month to boycott Apple until it agrees to assist the FBI. Not to fear, GovTrack gives Jolly's bill a 1% chance of being enacted.
I have an ever better reason the Government should be banned from buying Apple (or Microsoft): It ain't Open. You are "buying" a walled garden full of security holes and endless paid upgrades. The Government should only be purchasing truly Open systems.
We should ban them.
No sir I dont like it.
I really wish people like this got booted out of office by the fed up constituency. How much tax payer money was just wasted on drafting this piece of worthless paper? I fully realize how fed up and cynical I have become.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
That is a bill of attainder and is unconstitutional.
Ironically, if Apple does comply with the federal request, they should be banned on grounds that their hardware is no longer secure.
Since our money could be put to such better use subsidizing corrupt, power-hungry politicians.
The stupidity is strong here.
Don't step on the baby.
The honorable Representative in question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://jolly.house.gov/
A real trailblazer in his concern for Veterans, The Economy, Healthcare, and Beaches.
Well, maybe the government will be their only client then. And if Apple does come out, then the government will mandate that we all buy one so they can keep an eye on us.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Instead of all this grandstanding and rhetorical faggotry, if you've got a dispute with Apple or anyone else, you can duke it out in court. Apple decided too, but the blowhards in the US government, trained their entire lives to win through with bullshit and denial, simply cannot fathom the idea of winning an argument in a court of law. It would demand a level of philosophical, let alone legal rigor which they have trained their entire lives to bypass, shortcut and avoid.
I don't even like Apple, but this faggotry and bullshit from the media and the government over this data issue goes above and beyond even the Cult of Mac's insufferable superiority complex. These mental midgets need to be told to shut up, sit down and fuck off at every available opportunity. Our society needs to listen to the adults in the room, and needs to swear more at the children.
One thing the govt can always do, whether we like it or not, is revert to the control of encryption that was common in the 1990s and earlier. They could, by law, restrict encryption for export, etc. One reason Apple should not push to hard, but then again Apple has no problem providing all kinds of decryption support in China.
Close all offices and manufacturing in the US and go. The US does not need all those jobs and taxes.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Don't think for a minute that you have privacy with iPhone. Apple only wants to be able to legally say no to requests from USA govt. In Peoples Republic of China, Apple must comply, or they cannot do business there. Tech companies must provide PRC with source code (under SLA), just as Microsoft did with Windows.
The stupidity is strong here.
The stupidity is strong where? Do you need to be reminded that these are elected officials?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I prefer not to have the walled garden, but I'd like to protest this stupid rule more than I want to protest Apple!
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
I guess that's one way a politician can announce their retirement. Oh, and why would US government buy products which can be broken into by foreign governments? Is he trying to make America less safe?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
With so many blatantly unconstitutional laws passed, it would be nice if the people that wrote & passed them could be held accountable somehow. I suppose we can all dream.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
All tech products sold with poor encryption should have the following warning in a large font:
WARNING:
This data is stored on a US server, using INTENTIONALLY WEAK ENCRYPTION which is EASILY BYPASSED.
Users are advised NOT to store anything PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE.
Users assume ALL RISK for any IDENTITY THEFT.
Users are ENCOURAGED to purchase IDENTITY THEFT PROTECTION INSURANCE. Note that this insurance may also be hosted in the US and may be INEFFECTIVE.
Users are requested to use a CREDIT CARD for ALL PURCHASES and review statements monthly for suspicious activity.
Tax payer money shouldn't be wasted on rounded corners anyway.
Government computers are supposed to be utilitarian and beige.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Should rename himself Jolly-Roger.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Apple admit it. The government owns the phone in the first place, and the people whose privacy is being violated are dead and evil. Let the government win this one because Apple has no chance of winning it. Pick a different case.
The US was founded upon fear of an excessively powerful central government, as the British crown was seen massively abusing their power. So strong protections were built-in that weakened law enforcement for the benefit of civil liberties. There have always been other systems of government that are slightly more effective at catching or prosecuting criminals, but Americans knew, for hundreds of years, those trade-offs weren't worth it.
The limiting of government power was so ingrained that the US seems to be the only major nation without a state broadcaster. Outside the US, everybody in the world knows the VOA, but they are NOT allowed to operate inside the US at all. We believed the ability of the current government to directly influence the electorate, was too much power and control to give to our representatives, and settled on allowing only operation on foreign soil, with aggressive protections against even incidental domestic operation.
A warrant, today, gets the FBI exactly the same information it did 50 years ago... They can tap and record all the calls that occur after the warrant is issued, get a log of all previous calls that were made, etc.
Computers have made US law enforcement lazy. They expect they can get a warrant and will automatically be handed an archive with the contents of ALL of your communications for the past several YEARS. The information they got with a warrant decades ago is no longer good enough for them, and they're going to insist on the power they've gotten accustomed to, and refuse to allow privacy to make a comeback.
Remember, it was only a year ago that the entire contents of your phone were siphoned off by the police whenever you were pulled over just for speeding. This was done under the laws that allows them to look for weapons in the vicinity that you might be able to reach for, and which got extended to allow into evidence incriminating documents that just happened to be found in the process of searching for weapons.
And what did the police do with their gigabytes of all your personal information they siphoned off your phone? Maybe look for patterns of terrorism and drug dealing? No. Why they instead they thought it would be a good idea to look for any nude photos you might have, and share them with their friends. Hooray for law enforcement keeping us all safe!
The San Bernardino case is pretty damn obviously worthless, too. The FBI has already FAILED to protect the public. The shooters already carried out their attacks, and were shot dead. FBI and Homeland Security failed miserably to identify them as threats, despite there being ample publicly available information to identify them as ISIL sympathizers. It's the same story as the 9/11 attacks all over again. Homeland Security had MORE INFORMATION than they were able to process and deal with, yet they use attacks as a lame excuse to expand their power, their budget, and get access to much more information, which again, they don't have any hope of being able to process in a timely manner.
Homeland Security has become better and better at revealing details after the fact, but is still useless at identifying individuals who pose a threat before they can carry out their plans to murder people. Apple unlocking iPhones for the FBI is more of the same... It won't possibly help identify future threats, it'll just be a little bit more information the FBI can publish about their past.
This was settled back in the early 90s with the PGP case. Code for encryption programs falls under the constitutional protections of freedom of speech. A new federal law or court ruling cannot override constitutional rights, and there's absolutely no hope of
It's a shame Homeland Security has gone so far the wrong way. Part of the NSA's purview is to help IMPROVE our domestic security against attack and interception by foreign governments. Under a cloud of p
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
That is a bill of attainder and is unconstitutional.
Not only is it unconstitutional, it is a fraud on the voters. It is a proposed law that he knows is unconstitutional, so it would have no effect even if it were passed. And it is a proposed law he knows will never even be seriously voted on, much less pass, but will be referred to a subcommittee in order to die--it is a cheap campaign stunt.
The classic example of a do-nothing politician lying about doing something. Even if you agree with his position, this is basically a fraud on the voters.
If there is a way to be an asshole in public, someone in the GOP will do it. And the rest will follow, otherwise they might get kicked out of the pack for being "too librul".
Heck, Trump just told the public he is well hung during a presidential debate. For the Republicans a "big tent" means that any level of stupid is allowed. The fact that so many Republicans hold elected office is a measure of the blind idiocy of the American public.
Why is Snark Required?
Don't do it!
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Sadly an elected official is only accountable to the people who vote for them. Therefore doing something which 98% of the world's population regards as stupid, but which will play well in your constituency, is not a sign of stupidity, it's a sign of being in tune with your electorate. It's for this reason that democracy is quite such a painful process. The reality is that most of our elected representatives aren't stupid, they just know exactly what will get them reelected.
Why are we paying people to ponder such things??
Article I of the US Constitution.
Don't do it!
...frig. Thanks for the annoying earworm just before bedtime! >:(
I can see why it was banned...
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Why should government funds be used to enrich a company that will not comply with a legal order
It may be a legal order, but is it constitutional?
"what more is there to say"
"The terrorists who committed the crime are already dead so what the fuck is all this bullshit really about?"
sorry, does a question count?
Would it be a bill of attainder if the Hyde Amendment were amended to deny funding for abortions to Planned Parenthood, but allowed for other abortion providers?
First I read about seized iPhone may hold “dormant cyber pathogen” http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... , and now, this new idiot.
The stupidity is strong here.
That iPhone may also hold the latitude/longitude of Jimmy Hoffa's body, and the identity of the Zodiac Killer.
What it does to that entity is completely irrelevant. The legislation passed a few years ago to defund ACORN was also one such bill, and it entailed no seizure of assets as well.
I was wondering something. Why would the government want to use Apple phones if they are back doored and it is known that spies and others could access information on them?
It seems to me they would want it the other way around. Don't use if there is a back door instead of if there isn't any.
I'm sure all those celebs who got their nude pics leaked agree with you. Because clearly "being secure" is one all-encompassing thing that you can use to bullshit your iPropaganda.
lucm, indeed.
Why are we paying people to ponder such things??
Article I of the US Constitution.
According to Wikipedia:
Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress.
I suspect that you're talking about the first amendment instead, which is not the same thing at all. Maybe you should learn the basics before quoting the Constitution.
lucm, indeed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's like Apple, the FBI, and Congress are vying for the title of "most harmful to personal privacy and security in 2016". I guess the year is still young; maybe others will still get into the game.
Yeah, like those rich slaves that Abraham Lincoln fought for. The bastard.
lucm, indeed.
Kabuki!
The idea is to convince the public that only the police should have these tools. The theatrics are actually working to a certain extent. Many people are on the side of the FBI. A few more attacks and it will be an easier sell every time. We've come a long way since the Church Committee
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
publicly execute David Jolly
I've seen idiotic behavior from fanbois before but that's up there for sure.
This whole situation is hilarious. The same people who were crying for more gun control from the feds are now crying because the feds want Apple to unlock the iPhone of a known dead terrorist. Cognitive dissonance much?
lucm, indeed.
I suspect you missed the original question...the legislature is the body that we pay to think about what the laws ought to be and then write, review, and (maybe) pass them. And if we're lucky, they do it in that order.
I only cited the Constitution, I didn't quote it. I meant simply that getting rid of Congress (as opposed to its current members) would require amending the Constitution. As this requires Congressional approval, I'm not holding my breath.
The reality is that most of our elected representatives aren't stupid, they just know exactly what will get them reelected.
Yes well, this is exactly the point I try to get across. There is a very high level of stupidity and antipathy. Since it is not in the elected officials, we need to go quite a bit further upstream, to a place very few people will acknowledge or accept. Hence the question, even if rhetorical.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Well, there is a bit of difference between stopping charitable grants to an organization versus a boycott.
Not being a US citizen I have no idea how this might work in practice, but... The gentleman who has just called for the government to blacklist Apple products was presumably elected to his post to represent a geographic area of the US. Can those same citizens vote him out of office if they decide that he is not representing his constituents properly? Obviously this is a broader question related to the democratic process, but it occurs to me that a process that allows this bill to be put forward could be used to do something much more sinister, or even outright dangerous. How does the process protect the People from a rogue elected official. What happens if someone is elected claiming to act one way and then does the opposite?
I'm certainly not an Apple fanboy. But apparently Apple didn't break any law. Perhaps it would actually break a law by complying to the request.
There are enough security agencies and services that could have done their homework by gathering and processed intelligence. But they didn't. And now they go around begging others for answers. Much like cheating on your tests. Do your homework and stop whining, I'd say.
Much along the lines of VW cheating at benchmarks. Coming with an absolutely crap emissions test, missing the point that engines suddenly perform well and then be dismayed that the tests were so easy to cheat on. It doesn't take a scientist to point out the stupidity of the tests.
To all governments: Wake up! Do you homework. And stop bullying others to do it for you!
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
1776.
Next!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I'm proposing my own new legislation, the No Exploitation of 9/11 Act. According to this act, any politician who tries to justify their legislation by invoking the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001 will be immediately removed from, and forbidden from ever again holding, any public office. Goddamned vultures.
Thomas Galvin
I meant simply that getting rid of Congress (as opposed to its current members) would require amending the Constitution.
It could also be done with Stormtroopers. It has been done at least once, a long time ago.
lucm, indeed.
Lol.....you're funny.....you think the American civil war was about freeing slaves ??? Hahahhah.....ahhh.....you're cute :)
If the Democrats had been on the good side in that war, you'd say that yes, it was. But since it was the Republicans who did the right thing, you're obviously looking for other explanations. That's typical liberal; always one more step closer to Baghdad Bob.
It's like when Apple can no longer lie about being a market leader (now that Samsung alone sells more smartphones than Apple, not counting all other droids) so they start claiming to be leaders using some twisted metric, like "longest time spent playing Candy Crush while taking a shit". #1 #1 #1
lucm, indeed.
...wouldn't the government want to stop using Apple products because they aren't secure?
When you weaken encryption, you have to imagine what the *bad guys* will do - steal the right government iphone, and now you've got classified intel that can kill people.
Security, liberty, something something, lose both...?
You can thank Bill Clinton for that. Once he made a joke of the Presidency with his sex scandals, the religious right (which had always stayed away from politics until then) got mad and got organized, and see what they brought in the oval office.
But now there's an opportunity to bring things in balance, and believe it or not it's Trump. Elect a Republican that doesn't cater to the Bible crowd and the party will cleanse itself real quick of that religious stain. Plus, if you want to see the foreign policy simplified and the country be less involved in other countries affairs, he's the man for the job.
If five years ago you'd have told me that I would be pro-Trump today, I would have laughed. But back then there was still some illusion that honest GOP candidates like Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson still existed.
Well, at least the New Jersey guy who looks like the mob guy in the Simpsons is out of the picture.
lucm, indeed.
Proposed amendment have to come from Congress and get a 2/3 vote from both houses before it can go to the states.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate
Evidently, yes...
Don't step on the baby.
that makes politicians dumber than shit?
Fair enough, but I'm still not holding my breath. We have not had a Constitutional Convention since 1787.
That's all this legislation really is, and it is completely legal.
No it's not. Passing a purchasing requirement providing vendors to provide weak or backdoored encryption to the government purchasers would be constitutional (But stupid); however, passing such law, and saying it only applies to Apple by name would be unconstitutional.
Legitimate purchasing regulation treats all vendors equally under the law.
You can pass regulations requiring certain activities or prohibiting certain activities from vendors, but you cannot have a regulation requiring certain activities of vendor X but not vendor Y for the same product or service.
In other words: THE LAW AS WRITTEN would have to require the same conditions for purchases from ANY COMPANY meeting legal criteria that stand up to 14th amendment scrutiny as necessary discrimination; not just Apple.
Gov't: "Help us break into the iPhone, or we will never buy your products again!" Apple: "Go fuck yourselves" Me: (actualy respecting Apple for growing a pair, and telling the arrogant brownshirts to go stick it where the sun don't shine)
What you wrote was intended to be funny? My condolences.
Actually, my condolences are with you. If you don't like the joke, fine. But the trouble you have taken to first take it seriously, then feeling compelled to throw in a gratuitous and untrue "my condolences"? Seriously. I mean Poe's law wasn't even in effect. Pee not on mine Wheaties, cold fjord.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.