Slashdot Mirror
Apple Files Final Response In San Bernardino iPhone Case (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader writes: In its final briefing before a court showdown next week, Apple said, "The court must consider the national debate surrounding the issue of mandating a backdoor or the dangers to the security and privacy of millions of citizens. According to Apple, the government also believes the courts can order private parties "to do virtually anything the Justice Department and FBI can dream up. The Founders would be appalled." In response to the government, Apple said, "the catastrophic security implications of that threat only highlight the government's fundamental misunderstanding or reckless disregard of the technology at issue and the security risks implicated by its suggestion." According to TechCrunch, Apple made an interesting change in its strategy in the court on Tuesday. From its article, "The tone of today's filing and subsequent call was much more cold and precise. Apple got some time to consider the best way to respond and went with dissecting the FBI's technical arguments in a series of precise testimonies by its experts. Where the FBI filing last week relied on invective, Apple's this week relies on poking holes in critical sections of the FBI's technical narrative." Edward Snowden also made a remark about the hearing. He tweeted, "Today I learned that "#Apple has way better lawyers than the DOJ."
"We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram."
The FBI/DoJ will force the technology industry to move outside of the United States if their request is granted. Moreover, the US government will be on the hook when Apple says 'you owe us an eleven-figure settlement for the loss of our operating system'.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
#Apple has way better lawyers than the DOJ.
People cost money.
Better people cost more money
Lawyers are people.
Apple has more money than the DOJ.
Therefore Apple has better Lawyers than the DOJ.
Can you find the flaw in this reasoning? Can you suggest an additional statement that would correct that flaw?
Correct! The flaw is in the third statement. Lawyers are not people. The correction is to add the following statement:
In the context of The Judicial System, a suit filled with human shaped excrement, counts as people.
In the meantime Apple is working on doubling down on their encryption by also encrypting the iCloud data based on the key on the device.
I've never owned an Apple product in my life, but I'm thinking about it now. It's good to see someone standing up to the growing police state, even if the only presidential candidate that even hinted at opposing it just dropped out.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The keyboard cache in iOS 9 does not contain a list of keystrokes typed by the user, or anything similar."
Shouldn't that be ", nor anything similar"?
I'm used to slashdot instructing us on why to hate Obama and democrats in general, but this story is a bit of a stretch. Yeah, there is politics involved but this is not simply a democrat-republican issue.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
>> Apple: The court must consider the national debate surrounding the issue
I'm not sure Apple understands how courts work then, or they're grasping at straws. (Ideally, courts work off of law, legal precedent, etc. and they don't just listen to the "mob on the street"; that's a key differentiator between a "nation of laws" and dictatorships.)
Even if the DOJ has the best lawyers on the planet - how would you ever measure it? - maybe the DOJ just has the weaker position.
Apple is a corporation and shouldn't have rights.
Just because you feel it should not in no way negates the legal precedent in the US which explicitly grants it such protection.
You are awfully SJW-esque here, confusing feelings with facts.
Totally agree. I guess that, if they haven't had ads before about their device security (as the article mentions) then the next versions of their products certainly should have. And I'm sure the iPhone 7 will have closed as much as possible the possible holes regarding the upgrading of the OS without the user password. Hopefully that's something they can do in some next iteration of the iOS for the current versions. And I can see a lot of people upgrading from pre-5S to more current devices because of the somewhat better security (in theory, at least, the method proposed by the FBI shouldn't work there).
Rodrigo Gomez
http://photoblog.rodrigog
They say this because the All Writs Act is only supposed to be used to fill a gap that Congress has not addressed. If there is national debate about something, and Congress refuses to take up the issue, it can be said that Congress has addressed the issue and has rejected a law mandating backdoors, meaning the All Writs Act could not be used.
Apple is a corporation and shouldn't have rights.
The New York Times is a corporation and shouldn't have rights. Therefore the government should be able to compel them to print only pro-government articles and editorials.
right, because listening to the people is what dictators are know for...
Hey, Apple (and the FA) seem to think "The Founders would be appalled." is an incisive legal argument. Give them a break, here.
It's not like Apple uses the EULA to prevent you from doing what you want with the phone and software you bought, then turns around and claims in a court filing that they neither own nor control any of it. Why, that would be lying in court!
Plus, Apple is defending the morally reprehensible position of not letting device owners install whatever software they want whenever they want.
What? If the FBI releases a data-snooping or encryption-weakening iOS app, anyone who knowingly "wants" it can go ahead and install it.
To correct your statement: 'Apple is defending the position of letting device owners not install whatever software they don't want.'
(Obvious exception: Apple can force their own Apple software on Apple products. Users knowingly accept this.)
On top of that, iOS isn't fully open sourced, and Intellectual Property is Imaginary Property Anwyay, so forcing Apple to give up iOS to the world doesn't matter since it's worth nothing.
Again, What? Where has anyone claimed that it is OK for software to be broken or backdoored if it's closed-source?
that's what the government will owe Apple when they lose.
and they will lose.
time for a settlement... DOJ whimpers off to its cave, and if they wish, its employees will have the option to purchase at retail list price the iThingies of their choice.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Liberals object to the Corporate Shield, not corporations having rights.
Anarchists are the ones that say there is no such thing as IP.
If you are going to slander someone, learn the differences. That's like saying Christian Conservatives love Atlas Shrugged and think hot Howard Roark Rape is swell.
I've already asked about what happens to Apple if England passes its bill requiring a backdoor (currently under discussion?)
Will Apple stop selling hardware in England? or will they give the government the required backdoor? The government is really making it an either/or.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Loved reading Apple's briefs
Same here. I have never liked Apple or their products, but with the insane shit that Microsoft started pushing with the released of Spyware 10 and Apple vigorously defending privacy, I think my next computer and/or phone may just be one of theirs.
and their briefs make cogent legal and technical arguments. besides which, the judges and prosecutors don't want random wackos and suspects reading their email and collecting their photos for dissemination later.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Apple's been unlocking phones behind the scenes for the government for years. This is just theatrics for Apple's public image.
Plus, Apple is defending the morally reprehensible position of not letting device owners install whatever software they want whenever they want.
On top of that, iOS isn't fully open sourced, and Intellectual Property is Imaginary Property Anwyay, so forcing Apple to give up iOS to the world doesn't matter since it's worth nothing.
For someone who pretends to worry about people's rights, you sure disregard their right to purchase the product they choose, with the software restrictions they choose.
And I am DAMNED sure that if you spent a couple of tens-of-thousands of person-hours on writing software as complex as a Mobile Operating System, and wanted to not give it away, you'd be the first to bitch if someone started reselling it without your permission.
Now go away, whiney-ass-bitch.
Yeah I want to see that code too...
Hey, Apple (and the FA) seem to think "The Founders would be appalled." is an incisive legal argument. Give them a break, here.
It's not like Apple uses the EULA to prevent you from doing what you want with the phone and software you bought, then turns around and claims in a court filing that they neither own nor control any of it. Why, that would be lying in court!
The USA has a strong tradition of lying in court being totally legal.
Look at plea bargaining. You know you are innocent, you agree to plead guilty to avoid a long and costly court case, thereby perjuring yourself. And its all legit.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Whilst you are theoretically correct, actual nor, like whom, are largely extinct in the English spoken today. As this excellent article reminds us, things move on. A lot. http://www.economist.com/news/...
If all the precedents went one way, then there wouldn't be a need for a judicial decision. The fact that precedents are going in a variety of directions is where higher courts - and this is almost bound to go to the Supremes - have to decide which way to jump.
I think they'll make a UK version that's crippled. Of course people will try to import the US version so I guess they will have to have some sort of draconian penalties for possessing secure phones.
So Apple has gone the technical points route.
Time will be spent trying to argue with them, maybe enough time.
App for full wipe is needed.
Apps for encryption needed.
App for random messaging needed.... user-added keywords...
App for tracking other Apps....
App for geolocation spoofing.... ( I think I'll visit Namibia or Barcelona tonight ).
Any volunteers?
I've never owned an Apple product in my life, but I'm thinking about it now. It's good to see someone standing up to the growing police state...
What if the FBI already easily broke into the iPhone...what if this whole court battle is a ruse?
Picture this: the FBI loses, but very, very publicly. It will be a huge win for privacy and the public. Apple will be our champion. People will switch to Apple products, thinking they will be safe from government intrusion, "terrorists" and those wishing to do us harm will use Apple products. All while the FBI knows how to break in, giving everybody a false sense of security. Apple wins, the FBI wins, privacy loses.
We're no strangers to security theater. Just look at Homeland Security for that: they accomplish nothing, but (try to) put on a good show.
Wouldn't it make more sense for the FBI to QUIETLY admit they cannot break into something? Perhaps they did start quietly, but then Apple made it public.
Why, then, would the FBI let it remain so loud and public? Wouldn't they want to sweep their failure under the rug? Say, "We already cracked it, but just want a simpler way."
I'm not a conspiracy theorist (although it can be argued that's what I'm doing here), but this whole thing doesn't make sense to me. The FBI has basically invited anyone who wants to hide anything from them to put in on Apple devices. That can't possibly be conducive to their goals.
Just food for thought.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Picture this: the FBI loses, but very, very publicly. It will be a huge win for privacy and the public. Apple will be our champion. People will switch to Apple products, thinking they will be safe from government intrusion, "terrorists" and those wishing to do us harm will use Apple products. All while the FBI knows how to break in, giving everybody a false sense of security. Apple wins, the FBI wins, privacy loses.
Dude, I don't know what you're smoking, but that's some good shit.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
(Ideally, courts work off of law, legal precedent, etc. and they don't just listen to the "mob on the street"
So they work off the law until 'the mob on the street' is so loud that one judge does 'The Right Thing' and that becomes legal precedent ...
Stop trying to pretend that it isn't within the judge's realm to do the right thing and ignore the law, that is what they do ALL THE TIME, EVERY FREAKING DAY.
Right or wrong, its what they do, because the rest of our government is too fucking incompetent to do so.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
They also need to highlight the severe economic consequences this would have to the American technology industry. If it becomes the case that no US company can be trusted with secrets both domestically and internationally, then we're fucked.
Shockingly, it is possible to be wrong about one issue and still be right about another.
Then why would they make this massive fight against a backdoor in the US?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Apple is a corporation and shouldn't have rights.
What does that even mean? Should they have obligations? Should they have employees? Should they even exist?
I'm not sure Apple understands how courts work then, or they're grasping at straws. (Ideally, courts work off of law, legal precedent, etc. and they don't just listen to the "mob on the street"; that's a key differentiator between a "nation of laws" and dictatorships.)
I'm pretty sure Apple understands how courts work having won and lost multiple cases. The next few sentences say as much:
But to determine whether this is an issue capable of judicial resolution under the All Writs Act and the Constitution, the Court not only can consider this broader context, it must do so. Indeed, the Justice Department and FBI are asking this Court to adopt their position even though numerous current and former national security and intelligence officials flatly disagree with them.
Apple isn't asking the court to weigh the opinion of the "mob on the street" as that is a mis-characterization of their argument. It's almost a strawman argument. Apple is pointing out that former national security and intelligence officials disagree with the FBI's position. Apple didn't even mention the arguments of other tech giants on the matter (which supplied amicus briefs themselves).
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Apple is a corporation and shouldn't have rights.
Plus, Apple is defending the morally reprehensible position of not letting device owners install whatever software they want whenever they want.
On top of that, iOS isn't fully open sourced, and Intellectual Property is Imaginary Property Anwyay, so forcing Apple to give up iOS to the world doesn't matter since it's worth nothing.
Oh, wait, I'm sorry is this not the regular SJW thread but the special thread where all of those talking points are intentionally thrown out the window because Apple is doing something that is emotionally appealing to the mob?
1. You're correct about a lot of people misunderstanding what corporate rights are, so no criticism from me there.
2. I'd be happy if Apple let you unlock the bootloader and attain superuser access. But that's totally irrelevant to this case. If you unlock the bootloader of an Android phone, it wipes all the data. That's the only thing the FBI is (putatively) interested in.
3. I would also be happy if iOS went fully open source. Nobody cares about that part though. What the DOJ is trying to swindle is Apple's signing keys.
Apple is a corporation and shouldn't have rights.
The New York Times is a corporation and shouldn't have rights. Therefore the government should be able to compel them to print only pro-government articles and editorials.
I've made this same argument numerous times when arguing about the "Citizens United" decision. People opposed to the ideas that "corporations" can "have rights" are really throwing out the baby with the bath water. The corporation itself really does not have the rights--it's the people who form that corporation (stakeholders, employees/volunteers, what have you). Arguing "corporations shouldn't have rights" is to argue that people, when acting in concert, lose rights that they have individually.
I cannot support that notion.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Apple says that DOJ misquotes the previous court opinion, and then gives what it claims is the correct quote. One of them is deliberately misquoting, and that should be cause for disbarment and further sanctions.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
The FBI isn't used to being told "no". At least not by anyone who isn't easily intimidated into changing their mind.
As I understand it they (quietly) asked Apple to unlock the phone and Apples said "that's impossible" so the FBI more loudly said "then make it possible, or else.", and Apple responded with "HELP HELP I"M BEING OPRESSED, COME SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERINT IN THE SYTEM".
It's more likely that we're seeing the governmental equivalent of when a parent says "I will turn this car around" and the unruly child says "yeah? do it then". Than that there's a conspiracy to make people think Apple hardware is more secure than it is in order to promote use of a compromised system. Especially when teh security of iPhones is public knowledge and the principles behind it quite sound.
This is exactly why my "windows 10 upgrade" was a Mac. Why should I allow a third party full access to what I'm doing? Even if MS is legit, a hacker can compromise the telemetry receiving and use that data for bad things.
I'm not an Apple lover either. The 2015 MBP I bought, even with 16 GB RAM and an i7, is quite anemic for gaming, and it has to spin its fans at full tilt. It was not cheap either. Mac Minis are pretty much worthless with the dual-core (formerly quad core) CPUs, and limited RAM.
However, it gives me a UNIX shell prompt, and with HomeBrew, I can cron up backup jobs and use a backup utility (am using zbackup, but may change to Borg Backup because zbackup hasn't gotten much love recently, compared to Borg Backup's daily pulls.) OS X is a lot more private by default, and even though OS X being attacked, there is relatively little malware on the platform. Apple does a good job keeping their ecosystem clean.
If I need Windows, it can easily and happily run in a VM.
Corrollary: HP is a corporation and shouldn't have rights. The government should force them to install backdoors (clipper chips) on their PCs so that the government can bypass security or eavesdrop at any time.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
If you read the sequence of briefs from Apple (and the Assistant US Attorney) since the middle of February (when Apple brought on former Solicitor General Ted Olson, heavy firepower), the gap in legal analysis and writing capabilities is painfully obvious.
In the previous govt brief (all of the briefs history on this site as well), it is outright embarrassing how the govt's legal team (or maybe summer intern) has sunk to having to accuse Apple of marketing tactics, unpatriotic behavior, and reductio ad absurdum examples to support its position. Honestly, if I were the judge, I'd be calling the govt into chambers to rebuke them for such shoddy arguments and telling them to put more skilled people on the task, given the importance.
For those who didn't read the previous Apple one or this one (which are both quite similar), in reply to the govt Apple cleanly and convincingly dissects each of the govt's arguments point by point, and an outsider reading this for the first time would be easily convinced about the merits.
-----------
By the way, I add a few points here for other commenters/readers so that some baseline facts are easily available. Just for your reference, the reason the encryption keys are so important / secret is that:
-- All recent Apple iPhones have built-in encryption-dedicated processing hardware
-- This hardware has firmware burned-in with Apple public encryption keys that validate that any code has come directly from Apple without modification, on startup
-- This key validation structure is designed to ensure that only code signed by Apple's private key can run on the phone
-- Every iPhone has the same public keys burned on it, because that's how public keys work.
So if Apple is forced to give its private keys to the FBI (assuming the remote likelihood they even knew what to do with it), the FBI would have the ability to encrypt and sign software for any of these iPhones. The idea (legal argument-wise or technically) that "this is about one phone" is laughable.
Forcing someone to disclose encryption keys would be a huge violation of the First Amendment. If there is anything that qualifies as speech and knowledge, it is an encryption key / industry trade secret. Then on top of this, there is the question of whether the people at Apple who are in charge of the encryption keys (yes, individuals) would even voluntarily turn it over if given such a blatantly unconstitutional order.
Plus, Apple is defending the morally reprehensible position of not letting device owners install whatever software they want whenever they want.
IBM didn't allow you to install whatever OS you wanted on their mainframes. Technically you could but it would void the warranty and IBM would never help you again. (This was the same position as HP, Digital, just about every other mainframe and mini-computer maker).
On top of that, iOS isn't fully open sourced, and Intellectual Property is Imaginary Property Anwyay, so forcing Apple to give up iOS to the world doesn't matter since it's worth nothing.
This factually, a lie. Intellect Property being imaginary property worth nothing means that all artists have nothing of worth. Their work is worth nothing according to you. Authors, songwriters, screenwriters: their work is meaningless.
Oh, wait, I'm sorry is this not the regular SJW thread but the special thread where all of those talking points are intentionally thrown out the window because Apple is doing something that is emotionally appealing to the mob?
No, it's because Apple is making sound legal arguments. Based on your comments this might be beyond your reasoning.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Didn't Apple provide just exactly this to China (where China can flash whatever modified iOS version they so choose with public keys that work?) I hope I'm mistaken, but remember reading that.
Then why would they make this massive fight against a backdoor in the US?
1) Because they are a US-based company.
2) Because that is an actual matter of law. What's being discussed in this little mini-thread is just supposition.
#DeleteChrome
I'm not sure Apple understands how courts work then, or they're grasping at straws.
Yeah, it's difficult for a company with billions of dollars in the bank to pay for good lawyers who understand stuff like "how courts work".
Or, you're a moron.
Hmm, which is more likely?
Do you have ESP?
See my other post. That's not how it works. Lawyers put a spin on pass judgements and then the judge decides who more accurately interpreted past judgements or how well it applies to the case at hand. It's not lying, it's reframing the facts to suit their argument. Of course it's absolute horseshit but it stops short of outright lying. The law system does not work the way you think it works.
. . . do not necessarily mean the document is a good legal document, or that Apple's lawyers are better.
Offered without opinion as to which side is right, legally or morally, or any other -ly.
Similar to what the Israelis do in their prisons to record unguarded conversations and gather intel: plant an easily discoverable camera/microphone, which gets disabled; the prisoners think they're safe and talk freely, not seeing the expertly hidden cameras/mics that can then gather up all their juicy intel.
The question is: are the FBI that smart?
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Actually, that would violate the first amendment of the Constitution.
Freedom of the Press.
Don't need to treat them as people when they are not people and we already have protections in place to prevent your hypothetical. Just need to enforce the laws already there.
No. The private key is not in China's possession.
any company that CARES about preserving your privacy via their software should be considering a plugin-style architecture where the crypto code is fully decoupled from normal software development and is done entirely outside of US (and UK and oz and ...) control.
eventually, some day, the feds ARE going to do a raid of US companies and they will storm the place, take what they want (robber barons, anyone?) and any company that has NOT pushed its critical modules offshore will be in a sad and sorry situation. and us users, too!
its clear the might of the US government wants what it wants, just like a baby. they have no idea what they are really asking, but like a baby, it does not care, it simply feels a need an cries to anyone who is in earshot that it NEEDS something.
the only defense is to move the critical modules offshore and in no ONE SINGLE PLACE. any one place can also be raided.
in fact, I would take a lesson from the pirate bay! they seem to have worked out a strat where they are sufficiently distributed and no take-downs really affect them anymore.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
IBM has not supported Apple directly but did so as part of the BSA. If they bring the Nazgul, the DOJ might have larger issues.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Yes, because all news media has to be produced by Corporations and not Sole Proprietorship's...
All while the FBI knows how to break in, giving everybody a false sense of security.
Judge: What was the source of this information?
FBI: Uhm... a hunch?
Yeah, you see, they'd have to admit the ability in open court for it to be useful. Otherwise, they have to explain to the court how they got information that only existed in one place: on the phone. And if they make up some bullshit, while the court may buy it in isolation, that bullshit does not live in isolation, it lives in a world where the defense attorney can point out that the data the FBI claims to have only exists on the device the FBI claims they can't access, so the data is inadmissible as evidence because either the FBI is lying about the content (e.g. they made the data up because they couldn't actually get at it) or lying about how they got it.
Our legal system has its flaws; this is not one of them.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Honestly if you are concerned about security then you probably shouldn't be using the OS written by an advertising company....
Not supposition.
Google "Investigatory Powers Bill" which is under discussion in England.
Here's one hit:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
one of the numerous (also draft) Codes of Practice attached to the complex bill – in this case, the one concerning 'equipment interference' – stipulates that CSPs (communication service providers) must "provide a technical capability to give effect to interception, equipment interference, bulk acquisition warrants or communications data acquisition authorisations."
Note the word MUST.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Because they're a US company, so what happens here affects all phones they sell, and not just the ones they sell in the UK.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Pleading 'not guilty' isn't a statement of 'I didn't do it,' it's a statement of 'I claim my rights, and you now have the burden of proving me guilty.'
Pleading 'guilty', on the other hand, *is* a statement of 'I did it.' Which is why pleading 'no contest' or 'nolo contendre' is sometimes a thing; "I'm going to be found guilty, so I'm not going to bother fighting it." If you plead guilty, however, that can be used against you civilly. If they accept NC, it isn't.
Some other countries also have a third determination beyond 'guilty' and 'not guilty' which is 'not proven.' I.e. 'We know you did it, but good for you, not enough evidence.' You can also get, in some cases, a declaration of factual innocence.
It's all very complicated.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Technically, it's Apple's lawyers and the DOJ's lawyers; and they're the ones who would be facing sanctions and disbarment, leaving Apple and the DOJ to find new lawyers.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Yes, I know. I was arguing that point against Amiga3D.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Sorry for the misunderstanding, the sarcastic tone didn't come through in your text.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Uh, Apple admitted in their briefs to the court that they can be hacked, especially older OSes.
But they've also said they're working toward encryption that even they cannot access. ie a warrant-proof phone.
http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
You might have read that. But only ignorant trolls have actually said it.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Didn't Apple provide just exactly this to China (where China can flash whatever modified iOS version they so choose with public keys that work?) I hope I'm mistaken, but remember reading that.
No.
There has been iOS targeting in China, but the way it's implemented is by using an enterprise enrollment key to redirect the App purchases to a pirate version of the App store that supplies the enterprise enrollment certificate to the iPhone, and which then gives you access to pirate content, which is basically a bunch of Apps that were purchased, and then re-signed with the enterprise key for the iPhone enrollment.
Because these Apps are res-signed, the original signature doesn't matter, and so along with the pirate App itself, they tend to stuff malware into the App bundle.
There's another Slashdot story today that talks about "installing malware without jailbreaking", and it comes down to precisely this: You enterprise enroll the iPhone, and then get third party (read: pirated content with malware attached) for the Chinese "App Store", which is running the enterprise certificate.
Apple shuts down these certs (and bad actor developer signing keys) any time they find Malware. But it's hard, in a country of 1.5B people, to shut down everyone who happens to be buying the next cert so that these bad actors (and state actors) can stay in business.
NB: It's actually *worse* than alluded to by the other article, since they can include certificate authority certs as well, which allows the vendor -- or the Chinese government -- to MITM attack SSL connections, by re-signing the certs for the site with the signing cert for the authority cert, and then just monitor all the SSL using a transparent proxy that decrypts all the traffic for analysis. This is, by the way, the reason you do not want to use a BYOD iPhone, if the company forces you to participate in enterprise enrollment of the device.
Off-topic, but reminds me of some pranksters at my old company. They were constantly fucking with each other and seeing who could one-up the next guy. They pulled a similar move with bologna sandwiches. They planted one in the light in a coworkers cubicle that was relatively easy to find. The placed another in a location that was much harder to locate. His cubicle started to stink as the sandwich spoiled, and he dug around and found the first sandwich. His cube continued to stink for days, however, until he realized there was a second one.
proper link.
http://www.techradar.com/news/...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Similar to what the Israelis do in their prisons to record unguarded conversations and gather intel: plant an easily discoverable camera/microphone, which gets disabled; the prisoners think they're safe and talk freely, not seeing the expertly hidden cameras/mics that can then gather up all their juicy intel.
The question is: are the FBI that smart?
Yes, that's trivial compared the the stuff the any of FBI agents who grew up wanting to be Fox Moulder saw on TV in the 90's.
Having read significant chunks of Apple's response: Either Apple is lying to the court about legal precedents or DOJ is lying to the court about those precedents, and it should be a simple matter to determine which one is the liar. And lying to the court should be cause for disbarment and for further sanctions.
FWIW.
They seem to be engaging in a bit of legal/PR spin on the technical side too, trying to frame things in a way that approaches misrepresentation. Which is what one expects from lawyers. Consider:
That wildly overstates things to the point of misrepresentation. The FBI needs an alternate iOS that avoid the passcode entry delays and automatic wiping on failed passcodes. That is a very focused change to existing code. Given this alternate version of iOS' intended role it doesn't need the full review and test process that a public iOS update would. Apple further misrepresents the "global" threat. As they make the passcode related changes they could add code to check the device's UDID and lock this version of iOS to one particular device. The FBI, hackers and criminals could no more tamper with this alternate version of iOS than they could the real iOS. Its all digitally signed by Apple. I don't recall where but I think Apple's own estimate was a month or two of work and that is likely heavily padded with procedures only necessary for a real iOS update.
Now Apple is absolutely correct that this is not a one time event. There will surely be other court orders if this one succeeds.
one of the numerous (also draft) Codes of Practice attached to the complex bill – in this case, the one concerning 'equipment interference' – stipulates that CSPs (communication service providers) must "provide a technical capability to give effect to interception, equipment interference, bulk acquisition warrants or communications data acquisition authorisations."
Note the word MUST.
Note that Apple is only a CSP under that definition when it comes to FaceTime and iMessage, and that Google is only a CSP as far as GMail and Google Hangouts and Google Voice.
The obvious thing to do is to withdraw those services from the UK market, and if people in the UK use them anyway, when the servers are not sited in the UK, then that's the UK's problem to deal with. Perhaps they can license draconian firewall technology from China.
IBM has not supported Apple directly but did so as part of the BSA. If they bring the Nazgul, the DOJ might have larger issues.
This is funny!
Not the least of which because, when I was working for IBM, we also called them "The Nazgul"...
But can they sell phones that have FaceTime/iMessage in the UK? Even if the services aren't available (via geoIP fencing or something like that).
Otherwise, it's still make a UKOS and a restOfWorldOS.
Or just don't sell in the UK.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Perhapz its only for the chinese version of iDevices? I could bet. The priv k from ios that gets purged to the web is always from chinese versions.
No, per Apple's legal brief yesterday. submitted to a federal court, they explicitly said they have never done that.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
If the FBI requires access they can get a court order forcing the owner to give up their PIN, the device manufacturer should have nothing to do with it. Cases where the owner is dead will be few and far between - and mostly irrelevant. The fact that the FBI is so aggressive in this case indicates that they want access without a court order and we all know where that leads. I hope Apple does not cave.
As I understand it they (quietly) asked Apple to unlock the phone and Apples said "that's impossible" so the FBI more loudly said "then make it possible, or else.", and Apple responded with "HELP HELP I"M BEING OPRESSED, COME SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERINT IN THE SYTEM".
The FBI/DoJ should never had made the request public. They expected to shame Apple into complying (because of terrorism) and the opposite happened.
The sad thing is that Apple has a better reputation of trust when it comes to trust the our government.
When every single employee, board member, shareholder, etc agree, THEN corporations can be a person. When the CEO just decides to give the company's money to a politician as a bribe...errrr... contribution, that's just garbage.
And I am DAMNED sure that if you spent a couple of tens-of-thousands of person-hours on writing software as complex as a Mobile Operating System, and wanted to not give it away, you'd be the first to bitch if someone started reselling it without your permission.
Ironic considering iOS is heavily based on other people's work.
Apple allows you to install whatever you want for iOS nowadays - you just need a Mac to compile and build the software. It's a regular feature of XCode and iOS 9, and there are emulators and other stuff for iOS.
Apple is enforcing it as open-source - the f.lux guys tried to do it with a binary and Apple asked them to stop abusing it. So there's something to give RMS a headache - a proprietary OS that allows/enforces open-source programs. Granted, you have to build them yourself as they don't allow binaries, but it's open source/free software so you can do that.
As for IBM - most mainframes IBM provided are leased, not sold. IBM will provide you with a mainframe, and depending on what you leased, is what you got. The hardware itself was often overprovisioned - if you asked for 32GB of RAM, IBM would give you 128 or 256GB of RAM in the unit. (The extra could be used in case a module went bad, for example). Or if you asked for 4 processors, IBM would have 8 or 16 in what you actually got. They could be used as spares ready to take over, or if you need it, you call up IBM, pay the upgrade fee, and magically your mainframe has the updated capabilities instantly.
All this is part of the lease. In fact, if you violate the lease by installing unauthorized OS software, IBM would immediately claim back their computer because it wasn't your computer to begin with - you paid IBM to lease the computer from them.
Of course all news does not have to be produced by corporations. You've built a strawman there, though, and you've neatly dodged the point I replied to: in your world, "The New York Times" does not enjoy the rights afforded by the freedom of the press. I'd LOVE to hear your thoughts on how this passes constitutional muster (much less the smell test)?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Who said anything about corporations being a person? I sure didn't. You're completely ignoring the point that, in your world, "The New York Times" is not protected by the freedom of the press.
"zOMG! Teh corporations are bads!!!!1111one" may, in fact, be a reasonable position to hold. "So let's gut the bill of rights!" is not a reasonable course of action in light of that position.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
And perhaps we'd actually believe you if you weren't anonymous, and could type a complete sentence.
Posting anonymous for irony.
Pleading 'not guilty' isn't a statement of 'I didn't do it,' it's a statement of 'I claim my rights, and you now have the burden of proving me guilty.'
Pleading 'guilty', on the other hand, *is* a statement of 'I did it.' Which is why pleading 'no contest' or 'nolo contendre' is sometimes a thing; "I'm going to be found guilty, so I'm not going to bother fighting it." If you plead guilty, however, that can be used against you civilly. If they accept NC, it isn't.
Some other countries also have a third determination beyond 'guilty' and 'not guilty' which is 'not proven.' I.e. 'We know you did it, but good for you, not enough evidence.' You can also get, in some cases, a declaration of factual innocence.
It's all very complicated.
Surely pleading guilty for a plea bargain, stating that you did something that you did not do, ie lying under oath, is perjury.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Sadly, you'll never know the extent of your privacy until it's challenged in the court of law.
There have been plenty of cases, such as Hushmail, where it was only reveled until after being legally challenged that they...flat out lied.
That's the risk you take with leaving your data in the hands of others, always research their legal responses to legal threats.
They'll probably make a weakened UK version, and then anyone who knows the difference will hop some form of transport over the channel to buy the secure version somewhere else in the EU.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
If the facts are on your side, Dershowitz says, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.
Apple is pounding the table with all this appeal to emotion, appeal to irrelevant authority, and appeal to popularity BS.
This is not good lawyering, this is good PR - as evinced by the fact that you fell for it.
Why ironic? Did Apple start reselling it without the permission of those other people?
I'm pretty sure they didn't.
Yeah, because I'm sure they just have some guy named Chet in the basement who bangs out these court filings, and have absolutely no lawyers on the payroll or on retainer.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Firstly, you're not under oath when you enter a plea. You're not testifying. If you were, nobody would ever enter a plea; they'd invoke the Fifth.
You're simply stating if you are invoking your right to a judicial proceeding (i.e. a trial) or if you want to accept guilt and move straight to sentencing.
No, the main problem I have with plea bargaining is from the prosecutorial side; if you charge, then bargain down to a lesser crime, you're either a) making a knowingly false charge, b) charging where there is insufficient evidence to convict, which is tantamount to (a), or c) knowingly letting a criminal get away with something.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
You mean the only candidate who voted against the Patriot Act, the only one who opposed NSA spying, the only one who recommends leniency for Edward Snowden? No, Bernie hasn't dropped out yet.
I've never owned an Apple product in my life, but I'm thinking about it now.
Ah haaa... my plan is working perfectly. Next, you will all wear black turtlenecks
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Because Apple is bitching about software that isn't even theirs.
Judge: What was the source of this information?
FBI: Uhm... a hunch?
Yeah, you see, they'd have to admit the ability in open court for it to be useful.
Because the FBI would never use parallel construction in order to have a pat answer that had nothing to do with the real source of information.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
I think the one the shooter used was the last one the exploit would work on - current iPhone versions would be immune. Of course, Apple is still going to try to close down future versions even more.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
So how did their trousers do?
So, you're no longer talking about Citizens United, then. What exactly are you talking about? A fantasy problem?
Citizens United held that since a closely held corporation is just a kind of partnership, the rights of the partners aren't lost merely because they chose "inc" vs "llc". it has nothing to do with publicly traded corporations. Nor does it have anything to do with "corporations are people".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I hadn't seen the NYT analogy before, I'll have to remember that. I usually go with non-profit corporations like the ACLU, but news is also a good one. I agree that people shouldn't lose rights when acting as a group that they have individually - that doesn't make sense.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
is that they're biased. They're written on both sides as if nothing the other side wants has any validity whatsoever. That's fundamentally dishonest, but the court's supposed to take two dishonest arguments and pick the one that is least untrue.
Let's look at this like engineers for a moment, as opposed to debating like lawyers. Let's look at the facts and implications in a balanced way.
The phone in question almost certainly contains no useful information. What the government is looking for is a precedent saying that vendors have to provide them with a way into their products that is convenient enough to be used speculatively. This is the reason for the overheated rhetoric from the FBI; they're reluctant to admit exactly what it is they're looking for, because it has obvious and enormous potential for abuse.
But while Apple is right to focus on these potential abuses, I think they've overstated their case in several respects. Mainly, I think they've overstated the technical difficulty of providing the FBI with what it wants. Does anyone really think it would take man-months to change the number of PIN tries or the timeout between them? And I think they've conflated the security of the device with the security of the user's information -- which they have no problems handing over to the FBI if it's on the user's iCloud and the FBI has a court order.
Now here's what this all suggests to my mind a reasonable compromise. Apple could furnish the FBI with the data from the device, but not the tool used to extract the data. They can maintain a secure facility on their campus where Apple personnel extract the data; they would ten furnish the data to the FBI, along with the PIN and the device, restored to the software it had when they received it. The FBI would pay all expenses incurred along with a reasonable overhead fee. Now it's true the government could steal this version of iOS. But by the same token they could steal the iOS source code and Apple's signing key. So short of a black bag job, this would provide the government with data it was legally entitled to, and only such data.
And here's what I think the FBI would make of that proposal: they wouldn't like it. Because it'd be a hell of a lot more convenient to be able to break into any phone they wanted without having to pay anything (as we all know government employee time is free).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You clearly have not heard of the concept of parallel construction.
"Government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington
Then we will litigate in the shade!
Strawman arguments are lies.
No, the main problem I have with plea bargaining is from the prosecutorial side; if you charge, then bargain down to a lesser crime, you're either a) making a knowingly false charge, b) charging where there is insufficient evidence to convict, which is tantamount to (a), or c) knowingly letting a criminal get away with something.
However, since prosecutors don't have infinite resources, they will always have to make decisions that "knowingly let a criminal get away with something". That should be obvious to anyone who no longer thinks like a child. Deciding not to send every case to a jury to get the maximum possible penalty is a smart and wise choice and saves tax payers a fortune.
Because Apple is bitching about software that isn't even theirs.
So, you're of the opinion that iOS is NOTHING BUT F/OSS packages?
Riiiiiight.
I address that in the part of my comment you didn't quote.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
You clearly made the same mistake the other poster made and failed to read my entire comment before posting.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Seems all they can do is pitch a Gay Fit.
Ha ha
Nah, I read it, but I was also being sarcastic.
The problem would be where the FBI presents evidence via parallel construction only where it was attainable by some other means, and they omit the evidence elsewhere. The ability to break into everyone's phone would allow this - it would give the feds access to information they don't otherwise have, and they then choose to present before the court only that information which could plausibly have been obtained elsewhere. It happens regularly (but I can't source that. It's a hunch :p)
"Government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington
This tinfoil insanity is +4 Insightful and not Funny?
The issue is, if the data exists elsewhere, they don't need access to my phone to get it. It's called performing an actual investigation and it's their job. You're right, though, it does happen regularly; just not with strong encryption.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Why is there all this freaking commentary and NO URL for the actual text of the response? Some of us want to read it ourselves. Get with it slashdot!
If the facts are on your side, Dershowitz says, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.
Apple is pounding the table with all this appeal to emotion, appeal to irrelevant authority, and appeal to popularity BS.
This is not good lawyering, this is good PR - as evinced by the fact that you fell for it.
Fell for it? I haven't even looked at it.
I don't have to read it to know that they have good lawyers.
Do you have ESP?
The would be a win for an intelligence agency (ie, spies). It would not be a win for law enforcement agencies as none of the evidence they acquire this way could be used in court, and they would be unable to share these techniques with other law enforcement agencies (ie, the idiot DA in New York).
Corporations should have rights. To solve for their excess of power, lobbying by corporations should be banished, and replaced. The people at the company should have to use their personal funds and not corporate funds to push their agendas. Those funds should be severely capped.
Except for the government has tried very hard to not afford bloggers the protections conferred to journalists.
Except the decision of a corporation isn't a group act. If given a choice in any company there would be dissent on the lobbying and other political choices made by the board. There is no collective think in a corporation, and employees of said companies shouldn't be forced to give voice to lobbying they don't agree with.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist (although it can be argued that's what I'm doing here)[...]
Ancient wisdom says: those wearing tinfoil hats should not post on public forums about their tinfoil hats.
The trousers mostly just tried to muffle the sounds coming from the briefs.
Oh, obviously, after all, they did write a Constitutional amendment that said "The People shall not be subject to searches and seizures for any reason, and the Federal Courts shall not have any power to order searches or seizures. The right of the People to refuse to disclose evidence to the Federal Courts shall be Absolute." --Love, Legal.Troll
I think the FBI's actions make perfect sense from the standpoint of trying to leverage a scary event into a useful precedent that gives them more power.
Are you saying this is somehow implausible?
er it's a well known and old nickname, dating from the late 60's I believe
I guess you've never heard of Parallel Construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But can they sell phones that have FaceTime/iMessage in the UK? Even if the services aren't available (via geoIP fencing or something like that).
Steak knives are occasionally used to commit murder in the UK. Are they allowed to sell steak knives, which *might* be used in the commission of a crime? It's the same thing.
Pretty sure that "forcing the owner to give up their PIN" would fall foul of a 5th Amendment challenge.
Err Bernie hasn't dropped out?
IANAL, but from what I understand, court orders to provide a password to a device is in conflict with the 5th amendment in regard to self-incrimination, unless the order also includes immunity for any evidence revealed as a result of the provided password.
The FBI lying is pretty plausible.
The FBI being smart enough to bypass the hardware security on an iphone, not so much.
That would be a very expensive exercise for Apple, given that the encryption we're talking about is baked right into the silicon.
What seems more likely is that they would just stop selling iphones on UK soil. They can still sell all their other stuff, macs and apple TVs and so-on, even though they do use 'unbreakable encryption' to some extent. And then, when the UK government aren't able to buy new iphones anymore, I suspect the law might be quietly changed.
Note that it's not just iphones that are at issue in the UK situation. There are several Android devices that have similar levels of security, not to mention every HTTPS connection on the planet. Every private key anywhere owned by anyone that qualifies as a "communication service providers" under the bill is forfeit to the UK government.
Fellas. Good luck with that.
Either: some people pronounce it "EE-ther," while others say "EYE-ther." Personally, I think orther one is correct.
All true, with one oversight - if they can break the encryption on your phone, they don't even care if the information exists elsewhere - which is why we need strong encryption on mobile phones. I think we agree on that.
Think something like, once they know which cloud file storage provider I use, it's easy enough to construct an investigation path to plausibly lead them to that conclusion by other means, even though they'd never have known without breaking my phone - and then get a warrant for DropBox or Box or Amazon or whoever I use.
"Government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington
I wondered about this. If Apple is forced to produce software with a backdoor built in, can they still approve apps that create real security?
Headline: Apple endorses privacy app, this app changes the private keys in your phone and re-encrypts it so that nobody, hackers or governments, can decrypt the data on your phone without your password. The app is available for download now from the creators in Elbonia which is outside US jurisdiction.
There's dissent within political parties too. The board, for the most part, makes decisions for the company. If you'd prefer to look at it like this, the owners of the company - whoever they are - are electing the board to decide things for them, including lobbying.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Correct. Anso upheld by SCOTUS.
That wasn't an oversight, it was never a point under argument to begin with. Of course they don't care if the information exists elsewhere if they can decrypt your phone; my point was, if the only place the information exists of your lhone, they must admit the ability to do so in order for it to be admissable in court. If you keep potentially incriminating information behind strong encryption, they can't successfully carry out parallel construction.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Anyone else want to jump in and say this before they read the rest of the thread? At least this one was smart enough to do it anonymously.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Do you know what's in iOS? cuz I don't. It's mostly closed source.
No, you're just a dumb ass. Corporations should NOT be able to toss money around to buy politicians... PERIOD.
No, you're just a dumb ass.
Touche, sir. I had not considered this issue from that particular perspective. Your inspired conversation and appeal to logic have won me over. Truly, you are a master of debate, and all would benefit from learning your ways. Though, really, I can see you're just like the crybullies: anyone who does not share your position isn't worth talking to and should just be shouted down, amiright?
Corporations should NOT be able to toss money around to buy politicians... PERIOD.
Oh, you actually had a point that doesn't involve childish name calling? I'd question why you single out corporations, when the "1%" have the resources to go out and buy their politicians without using corporate money? That said, I do agree politicians should not be for sale. The outright sale of power should have drastic consequences (20-life is a good start) for the so-called public servant who dares to do so. That said, there is an, unfortunately, very fine line between "legitimate lobbying" and "politician buying." I do not believe that attacking the first amendment is the solution to that particular problem (while it may be A solution, it has all sorts of unfortunate side effects).
Which brings me back to my point: I never claimed corporations were or should be people (you brought that up). I never claimed that politicians should be for sale (that, too, was your strawman). I am still waiting to hear your reasoning on why "corporate entities should not enjoy the same rights of the people who compose them" and how you work around the problem that when you go down that rabbit hole, you've eviscerated any semblance of a free press, at the very least.
I'm sure I'll get another non-sequitur, or some other childish name calling response, as your comments thus far have indicated an individual who has poorly developed critical thinking skills and no ability to cogently argue a point, but hey, maybe I'll get lucky and you'll surprise me.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Corporations should have rights. To solve for their excess of power, lobbying by corporations should be banished, and replaced. The people at the company should have to use their personal funds and not corporate funds to push their agendas. Those funds should be severely capped.
Thought experiment: You, I, and some of our friends and neighbors decide that we don't like the budding police state that our nation has become. Being good citizens, we elect to start our campaign to change this with the first box of liberty (the soap box). Obviously, we need resources to do this--none of us can afford to take out a full page ad in the New York Times on our salaries--so we're going to have to collect money.
To enable our project, we set up "The Patriot Act Fucking Sucks, Incorporated." PAFSI is the label we're going to use to solicit our funds, how we're going to establish bank accounts to keep the money in, make sure all of the IRS reporting is handled properly, make sure none of the people we appoint to run this operation are robbing us blind, by having yearly audits of our books, and pay the New York Times, the Washington Post, and everyone else we can use to carry our message.
But wait--because "corporations do not have rights" PAFSI has no right to free speech, or a free press, so we cannot give our dirty corporate money to the New York Times to carry our message. Alas! We are thwarted! End of thought experiment.
That's the problem with the position you're taking. While it has a noble aim (I'm making assumptions about your aims, but I'm reasonably certain those assumptions are accurate) it intersects messily with the real world, and is decidedly at odds with the notion of liberty. I do not have solutions to offer to the general problem you're trying to eliminate, and am completely sympathetic to your aims--indeed, we share those. I can only say that "this is not the way to go about solving this problem, because the cure is worse than the disease."
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
The political party structure is a equally appalling, That the popular vote doesn't mean a thing is one of the primary reasons people are losing faith in their parties and the government as a whole.
There were centuries where lobbying wasn't considered free speech. Now that corporations have gotten it to be considered protected the solution set is limited. We can either stop lobbying in it's tracks, or to place a serious cap on amounts from an entity or single person. Corps are 1 entity, and cannot contribute more than an individual person. The third alternative, leave things as they are is to me not a viable approach if citizens are to have a voice.
No, it's not. pay attention to the thread.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
My PAFSI example above is a perfect example of "citizens having a voice." Your solution would silence that voice. Those full page ads along the lines of "xxx scientists all agree that global warming is a massive threat?" Gone. Move On's 2007 ad, "General Betray Us?" Gone. In the end, that's all "corporate speech" because a corporation is, in the end, footing the bill.
A "corporation" is a group of people. You are threatening the civil liberties of those people with your position. If you're ok with that, let's just agree to disagree.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
That might be true; however, the country was never set up for the popular vote to mean anything, and that people think it was is a failure of our educational system. I think it's more likely that people are losing faith because a) the population keeps getting bigger so each individual vote counts for less, and b) the primary system sucks.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
No the shooter was using the newer version of iOS. The FBI became unable to access the device because they accidentally asked the company that issued the phone to change the password. There is another trial case going on in New York that is revolving around an earlier version of the operating system.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
The FBI was the one that filed the public briefing against the wishes of Apple, and without giving time for a response from Apple's legal team. You theory kind of breaks down in the face of that little detail.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
He was using a 5C. The iPhone 6 and later have a different hardware architecture that wouldn't be susceptible to the brute force attack that the FBI wants to do, I think. Yeah, the FBI really shot themselves in the foot with that one.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
I agree. It's like democracy; it's a bad idea; just not as bad as all the other ones.
Getting some minor criminal off the street, or giving somebody who just did something stupid a lighter sentence and some probation is all well and dandy. It's more when they use the plea as the carrot to get a conviction and appear to be DOING SOMETHING and clear the docket that it's a problem.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Not really - saying that a corporation may not make political donations is not the same as saying the CEO, employees, board members, stockholders, etc., may not make political donations. I have stock in 3M, so I'll use that as an example. It's none of my business whether the CEO of 3M wants to contribute to a political campaign, and it's none of his business whether I do. We both have that freedom. However, there is money in 3M's bank accounts, and a really teeny slice of that is mine in a sense, and Citizen's United means the CEO can use that money on political campaigning, whether I like it or not. I happen to think that that's a really bad thing overall.
A corporation is a specific legal construct, not a human. It needs certain rights in order to function (like the right to sign contracts, and the right to own things), but doesn't need others.
I know that this opens up a can of worms, but I think it's a can of worms worth looking at. The New York Times is in the business of publishing, and we'd all be in trouble if it didn't have the freedom of the press. I contribute to some political organizations with the specific intent that they use the money I send them for political campaigning, among other things, and I'd like to see that continue to be possible.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Exactly which protections are we talking about? We're all free to publish what we like (mostly, anyway), and that's what the Constitution covers. Journalists sometimes get some protection from having to reveal their sources, but most bloggers don't go around talking to people whose identities they have to conceal. I'd like to see specifics here.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Just glanced through the Wikipedia article. I didn't see any limits there on type of corporation. I'd be reasonably happy with the decision if it didn't apply to publicly traded corporations.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Back when I worked on one of the dinosaurs, we had lots of third-party OS stuff running. OS/VM was not from IBM originally, but was written by customers and adopted by IBM. We used a program called HASP to mean we didn't have to dedicate physical card readers and printers to individual processes.
It was very much like the Open Source community is now, open and free to anyone who could afford a computer. The big difference is that computers are a lot cheaper now.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Reading through the opinion I see you're right, and it is broader: the court was focused on the fact that media corporations are still corporations, and any such ban on speech could be used to ban newspapers etc from political speech. (I think I was confusing this with the Hobby Lobby case.) Note that direct contributions from corporations and unions to politicians are still banned, what's allowed is for the corporation to spend money to get its opinion heard, as every newspaper and news TV show does.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
SCOTUS has not ruled directly on this yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Not really - saying that a corporation may not make political donations is not the same as saying the CEO, employees, board members, stockholders, etc., may not make political donations. I have stock in 3M, so I'll use that as an example. It's none of my business whether the CEO of 3M wants to contribute to a political campaign, and it's none of his business whether I do. We both have that freedom. However, there is money in 3M's bank accounts, and a really teeny slice of that is mine in a sense, and Citizen's United means the CEO can use that money on political campaigning, whether I like it or not. I happen to think that that's a really bad thing overall.,
You're conflating "free speech" and "corporate governance." If you, as a shareholder of 3M do not want your CEO using corporate funds to lobby politicians, then why are you allowing him to? You don't need a LAW to control that, you need to change your corporate charter. If, on the other hand, a majority of shareholders DO want the CEO to do that, well, that's their view of how your shared investment should operate. If you can't change their minds, maybe you should invest in a different company? "This is too hard for me to bother with, so the government should outlaw it" is not a defensible position.
A corporation is a specific legal construct, not a human. It needs certain rights in order to function (like the right to sign contracts, and the right to own things), but doesn't need others.
I know that this opens up a can of worms, but I think it's a can of worms worth looking at. The New York Times is in the business of publishing, and we'd all be in trouble if it didn't have the freedom of the press. I contribute to some political organizations with the specific intent that they use the money I send them for political campaigning, among other things, and I'd like to see that continue to be possible.
With the first part, I agree completely. Corporations are certainly NOT people. As far as rights go, that's a harder argument to make, and your second paragraph illustrates why: The NYT, WaPo, CNN, FoxNews, etc, need to publish. The Republican Party, The Democratic Party, The Tea Party, MoveOn, etc need to campaign. General Electric, 3M, Pfizer, etc, need to own capital equipment and pay taxes and enter into contracts. But you don't want 3M to campaign or publish, you don't want FoxNews to campaign, and you don't want the Tea Party to sell consumer goods.
You're very right that this is a giant can of worms, and you're even right that this can of worms is worth looking at, but at some point, you are going to end up giving the government (i.e. that group that the constitution places limits on) the power to decide who gets to exercise which constitutionally protected rights, and when. That's a VERY dangerous road to be going down. Who makes these rules that control who gets to do what, when? How do we keep THOSE people from being corrupt? Recent history shows that we can't keep tax bureaucrats from messing with various organizations whose politics they may disagree with. Is it desirable that we open up even more organizations and more speech to these kinds of obstructions?
"Sorry, NYT, but that story you wrote last November is too much like political campaigning to us, you'll need to be fined/shutdown/etc." "Sorry, Pfizer, but you can't ask the county government to rezone that property from agricultural to commercial to build your new office complex." That's where i see this eventually leading.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
It's an interesting theory to be sure. It may be DoJ's way of rewarding Apple for bending over quietly.
To be sure, if the FBI wanted this handled quietly, they could certainly have served Apple with a National Security Letter and Apple would be unable to speak of the matter at all.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
IANAL, but from what I understand, court orders to provide a password to a device is in conflict with the 5th amendment in regard to self-incrimination, unless the order also includes immunity for any evidence revealed as a result of the provided password.
The immunity issue is traditional in the same sense as slavery was once traditional.
Forcing people to give up passwords or pins for personal devices certainly violates fundamental rights arising under the 9th Amendment. Unfortunately, the US legal profession is in a position of multiple (!!!) ethical conflicts of interest regarding the 9th Amendment, which is why they rarely bring this sort of thing up. Government officials have additional ethical conflicts of interest with respect to the 9th Amendment, so as one would expect, it's difficult to get the judges to do the right thing.
(... just as it was difficult to get lawyers to recognize that slavery was inconsistent with the concept of a nation founded to protect the rights of man, as Morris so aptly put it in 1787, and hence unethical practice of law...)
Land of the free, home of the brave, except when confronted with the unethical lawyer.
Except people have responsibilities and corporations don't.
Thing is that the PIN is protected by the 5th amendment, as providing it proves that you are the owner of the phone.
I think there has been some jurisprudence on this point.
The reason 3M can politically campaign against my interests is that I de facto have no corporate governance. I don't mean "very little, in proportion to the amount of stock I hold" (I' own maybe about $30K against a market cap of about $100G, very roughly about how much of a share I have in one of my Senators), but "none". Due to the fact that so much stock is not held by individual investors, but by organizations who will rubber-stamp the Board recommendations, the individual investors have no control. This is one reason for the incredible rise in top executive pay.
This is not a legal thing, but it is part of the environment we must consider. Unless I squirrel my money away in the form of dollars, rather than stocks and bonds and funds, which is not a good thing for my retirement, some of my money is going to be used in the political interests of CEOs and board members and against mine.
Perhaps we need to have stricter corporate charters, that restrict how money can be spent for political purposes. That way, a corporation like the EFF or ACLU could have a charter that allows politics, and 3M would have one that wouldn't. I'd be happy with that, but applying it across the country to existing corporations would be difficult.
Where I see this eventually going is even greater political dominance by the 0.1%, which would become a really, really big problem.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I address that in the part of my comment you didn't quote.
Let me help you with a little definition of parallel construction. Feel free to compare it with what you said and hopefully notice the difference..
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
And, again, if you admit the data exists (it does, they found it, and unless you can get it thrown out, you're going away), but clarify that the data only existed on your encrypted phone, you force the FBI to either admit they can crack the encryption, or withdraw the evidence as erroneous. They can't make up the source of the information if you can make it clear that only a single source exists for the information.
This is a common defense when parallel construction is used as the basis for a prosecution. If the defense knows, and can prove, that the prosecution (or law enforcement) obtained evidence illegally, or through means they wouldn't want brought up in open court, they lay that information on the table and, suddenly, the evidence disappears. Failing that, after it is explained (in open court and as a matter of public record) how the evidence was really obtained, the judge throws it out.
I'm proud of you for knowing what parallel construction is. I really am. But I'm a bit concerned that you think it's bulletproof.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.