Slashdot Mirror
The Law Is Clear: the FBI Cannot Make Apple Rewrite Its OS (backchannel.com)
An anonymous reader cites a post by Susan Crawford, Harvard Law Professor and former Obama Special Assistant: From her column at Backchannel, "Barack Obama has a fine legal mind. But he may not have been using it when he talked about encryption last week. [...] The problem for the president is that when it comes to the specific battle going on right now between Apple and the FBI, the law is clear: twenty years ago, Congress passed a statute, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) that does not allow the government to tell manufacturers how to design or configure a phone or software used by that phone -- including security software used by that phone.
The problem with this whole debate, is assuming making a system that is secure is beyond the means of mortal men. And will need a big organization to make such a system.
The truth is. If Apple are shown to be insecure, the bad guys will not use apple, they may make their own OS, which doesn't have the back doors. It may not be a fancy but secure for what is needed.
So Apple is loosing business, and the bad guys are still going under the radar.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
...can do what ever the hell he pleases. It isn't the first time he basically said screw the laws and precedents and tried to ram rod his way down everyone's throats.
The USA is in perpetual war and illegal acts are justified by the wartime status, terrorism, the children, etc.
Give them another week or to... they'll butcher the law, renege the whole thing. Make modifications so that they can do whatever the fuck they want... and there's nothing any of us can do about it. We pay them taxes, they use that money in return to fuck us over again.
When has this, or the previous, administration really cared about what the law says when the law disagrees with what the administration wants to accomplish?
Like it matters what the law says, for the good of our children you must!!!!.......
The government doesn't care about following the law when it comes to "national security." They'll ignore this law just like they've ignored all the other laws protecting our privacy. And even if they lose this court case, it's almost guaranteed that Congress will pass some "temporary" provision in a random, unrelated bill that makes what they are trying to do now "legal."
--------
I long to live in a country where I don't have to put those words in quotes.
It's not enough that FBI can't force Apple to do it.
Apple should not be allowed to do it voluntarily.
When you buy a product from a company they should not be allowed to randomly change it without your consent and you constitutional rights should not depend on what the company feels like today.
Lawyers are hired to find holes that sound good. It's as much sales pitch as anything else. Lawmakers are there to convincingly sell an agenda. And if the law doesn't exist yet, they will find a way to politically sell a new one. 911 got used to shove a bunch a new policies like "The Patriot Act" (ironic isn't it) that undermined privacy unless cause can be show, that paved the way to where we are now when members of the FBI feel they can flippantly say "The constitution doesn't matter". But it's good to know that Apple has a solid legal foot to stand on, even if the DOJ/FBI tries to pull out the rug that foot is standing on.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
This
It is unwise to ascribe motive
A law professor who believes that the federal government is seriously constrained by the law. Given the ability of local police to get away with killing people at will, it's clear that this is not a good assumption...
But they are a "manufacturer of telecommunications equipment" aren't they?
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
When the government asks me "But what if terrorists kill you!!1!"
Then I'll reply "at least I died on my feet instead of dying on my knees, which I probably would anyway because you have a shitty track record"
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Yet the government did it anyway. I wouldn't put too much faith in laws when the government really wants to do something.
Maybe.
They could have a reasonable argument to be a de-facto communications carrier due to iMessage. Whether that would be sufficient protection is another question - I don't know the law, so perhaps you have to be registered under some category for the protection to kick in.
Physicists get Hadrons!
From the desk of the FBI director, the memo reads as follows:
I AM ABOVE THE LAW!
...but, like most people in government, he just doesn't give a shit. The law only applies to the people, not to government.
If the government wishes to break there's no oversight to stop it. Hacking is illegal, except when it's the government. Murder is illegal, accept when the government wants somebody dead. Theft is illegal, accept when the government decides it's entitled to a portion of your income.
Whenever a body has a monopoly they always end up abusing it, whether it's Microsoft and their OS monopoly or telecommunications companies with their local monopolies. No monopoly is more abused than the government monopoly, which is why it is best that power is spread around instead of being left in the hands of an overreaching government. Unfortunately we live in a society where the government holds most of the power and the citizens are in no position to object to anything the government does. The only option we have is to vote for the other party, who are equally bad as the first.
fwiw, I expect they would qualify as a communications carrier when it comes to iMessage... but I agree that this won't apply for iPhone unlocking.
"Barack Obama has a fine legal mind."
To be blunt, this is unsubstantiated. For someone who has as many degrees and has held as many academic positions as Obama has, his scholarly writings are strangely absent.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
More Calea info. CALEA applies to manufacturers of equipment. However, it's unclear to me if handset manufacturers are considered telecom equipment manufacturers or not. Also, if Apple claims CALEA I would assume they they would already be abiding by the provisions in CALEA.
What the FBI is asking for, though, goes way beyond CALEA, in that they're trying to compel Apple to do a specific action that goes beyond wiretapping and communications intercepts.
http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/CA...
When you turn off your 4G data connection on your iPhone and communicate only using WiFi, then who *IS* the communications carrier?
They did iot before when it was a different operating system that was encrypted in the same way. So has Apple done this before for an iPhone with the same version of iOS on it? The answer to that question is the relevant one.
OK. I too was confused by the applicability of CALEA here.
I mean, I can understand the SPIRIT of the article. I can understand the way CALEA works and how boundaries are defined.
But it does seem to apply much more to telephony infratructure manufacturers and telephony service providers.
Nontheless, the article states that the FBI has specifically pointed to CALEA to create the claim that once they get a warrant they can compel.
So, it seems based on that alone that we can continue to debate what CALEA does and does not permit.
The thing is the FBI is asking for the first thing.
The smarter approach would be. Take the iPhone apart, take out the SDD, mount it in a standard computer, Copy the data, and have a NSA supercomputer decrypt the data.
I am sure Apple would be far more open towards helping people fix the problem that way. However what they want it a way to patch the OS so they can load an intact iPhone. and see what is in it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
But can Apple break the laws of physics (or math)? A judge can order me to levitate but, at least for now, this is not possible due to the laws of physics.
The default status is that the people have the right to do, or not to do, anything. The government has no rights, except as stated in the Constitution.
Therefore, passing a law preventing the government from doing something is oxymoronic. The government cannot force Apple to do anything - no legislation required. Any attempt to compel Apple must pass constitutional muster.
I get annoyed when the media reports something like "a law to legalize marijuana", or "a law to legalize abortion", or " a law to legalize gun ownership." The correct framing is "a law prohibiting...has been repealed/found unconstitutional."
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
You haven't been reading the news. The FBI says that it wants certain security measures removed from one particular phone. It wants Apple to write a modified version of iOS to be used only by the FBI in a secured environment to flash the iOS of this one phone, so the FBI can brute force the password (and use software to assist) without risking the encryption key being destroyed (there is a possibility that a feature on the phone is turned on that would disable unlocking of the phone altogether after 10 wrong guesses (though there are methods around this as well, but still it would be slow)).
That is what the DOJ said anyway. But then other district attorneys said that they are in the same situation with something like 112 other iPhones. They said this to support the DOJ's need for the modified software, but obviously it damaged the government's argument that this is a one time thing.
This is very different from Apple's earlier assistance to the government because this is the first time the DOJ has demanded that Apple actually create a modified, inherently less secure version of iOS. Apple would have to actually pay engineers to write code to create a version of iOS that must, must, must not ever be released to the public. It would have to be used only in a contained environment on Apple's campus not connected to the outside world--which Apple would have to build just for this purpose. Otherwise it would have to rely on the government to not accidentally release the modified iOS to bad actors.
The government is trying to use something called the "All Writs Act" to say that it can basically force anyone to do anything.
Congress has no power to pass a law allowing the commandeering of a company or person.
Congress has no power to pass a law dictating forced weakness in the complexity of passwords, forced weakness in keys, or forced weakness in ciphers.
Congress has no power to pass a law dictating forced vulnerability in our ability to be secure in our selves and our possessions.
This entire topic is pure fallacy, begging that a law "banning it" and a law "allowing it" has any validity in the first place. Such topic is not within scope of Delegated Federal Power. The entire premise being considered is unlawful.
LOLWUT? There is no such thing as "pick and choose". The law is explicit:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
The FBI is in check. Find some other law that authorizes law enforcement agencies to tell Apple how to make a phone.
From 47 U.S.C. Â1002, these are the exclusions mentioned in TFA (my highlighting):
That's precisely how TFA describes the deliberate legal limitations imposed by CALEA. Apple doesn't have to be a 'communications carrier', as it's protected by being a 'manufacturer of equipment'. This section excludes Apple from being directed to implement "specific design of equipment".
Actually, with facetime & imessage, they are a communications carrier.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The former, even if they think it's the latter. There's no such thing as a back door for "just this one phone".
Does the FBI want a back door to use on any iPhone or just this phone in particular unlocked?
If it's the first, fuck the FBI.
If it's the second, fuck Apple...unlock it, they've apparently done it before.
The two cases are equivalent as Apple does not have the ability to unlock the phone. They first need to make it possible to unlock a phone with this hardware and OS configuration by developing a new iOS build with stripped security.
So in order to unlock this phone Apple must create a hacking tool that can bypass the security on all phones of this model. Only a simpleton would think that once such a tool exists it will remain controlled only by the FBI or used only with Apple's permission.
Is this even relevant when the DOJ is threatening to just seize the code and signing keys? At this point, Apple is no longer being required to write code.
From the Slashdot story: "Barack Obama has a fine legal mind. But he may not have been using it when he talked about encryption last week."
Reality: Barack Obama often acts like a leader while saying or doing nonsense. One example: The ACA, "Affordable Care Act" gives money to the medical companies and takes it from citizens. Those who profit from people being sick got everything they wanted.
You packed a lot of wrong into such a small post.
Unfortunately Apple isn't a 'communications carrier'.
The CALEA subchapter in question that prohibits the feds from mandating a particular design explicitly mentions manufacturers (quoting the relevant bit: "This subchapter does not authorize any law enforcement agency [...] to require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features, or system configurations to be adopted by [...] any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment [...]"), which would refer to Apple in this case, since cell phones are considered telecommunications devices. Neither the summary nor the article mention anything about CALEA being limited to just carriers, nor is that the case, since it applies to manufacturers, support service providers, and communications service providers, among others, so I have no clue where you got the incorrect notion that it only applied to carriers.
If this was a viable out then Apple would have used it. It isn't.
You are talking out of your ass, since this is exactly the line of argumentation Apple has been using in its briefs for the last several weeks. Here's Apple's latest brief, where they explicitly mention CALEA and its relevance to applying the All Writs Act. Where do you think this law professor got the idea? It's been the core of Apple's argument ever since their initial appeal of the order in February, since it undermines the very foundation on which the FBI is basing its demand. There have been multiple discussions here at Slashdot over this exact topic in the last few weeks alone. Apple has been arguing that the All Writs Act, which the FBI is using in order to conscript Apple's assistance, is inapplicable in situations where Congress has passed laws that provide more specificity. 200 years of legal precedent agree with that understanding. And, contrary to your assertions, CALEA clearly provides a higher degree of specificity that's directly applicable in this case, since it explicitly states that law enforcement cannot make these sorts of demands of manufacturers.
How your comment got +5 Insightful when it is such utter and complete rubbish is beyond me.
iMessage and FaceTime are communications, which are central to the use of an iPhone. Which part of those falls outside of communications? What else would you categorize the daily 50 billion or more of communications messages and voice/video calls they handle annually?
But can Apple break the laws of physics (or math)? A judge can order me to levitate but, at least for now, this is not possible due to the laws of physics.
If the Court gives you a lawful order and you do not do as directed, physics or math be damned, the judge can still throw you in jail.
In the case of ordering you to levitate the order would be found not to be reasonable, therefore not a lawful order, so you could appeal (though probably from your jail cell) and get out. But consider the case of a court ordering a person to enter a password on a device which the person claims they don't know. That person could spend a long time locked up as a result on failing to perform an act he is incapable of performing. The Court is the one who gets to decide what it feels is "reasonable", and only a higher court is allowed to override it. If the Court thinks you can perform the action(s) in the order, then it can penalize you if you do not comply.
Correct - they can't tell Apple how to design the equipment. However, there is a section that demands specific features that the device must offer.
"by requiring [that equipment manufacturers]...design and modify their equipment...[to] have the necessary surveillance capabilities"
Law enforcement can't tell them How to do it, only What they must provide.
I ain't about to read the whole thing - but from the paragraphs I have read one might argue that Apple was supposed to provide this functionality in some way.
This is sadly just another chapter in the most overturned, lawless administration in history. King Obama's administration gets kid gloves from the media for 99% of his coverage so, even though he knows the law full well, being a "constitutional scholar" and law professor, he shits on the constitution and law of the land which is the contract between the people and the government, and tries to do whatever the hell he wants. This is yet another reason why supreme court justices are so important. Liberal appointees are political hacks who want to legislate from the bench, rather than uphold their oath to faithfully interpret the law...
> Congress passed a statute, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) that does not allow the government to tell manufacturers how to design or configure a phone or software used by that phone
Can someone please point out exactly where it says that in CALEA?
I love it! CALEA...the law that basically mandates that Carnivore be built-in to our telecommunications infrastructure, and which has probably made the warrantless wiretapping/metadata collection by the NSA far more technically simple to accomplish, is what ends up backfiring on the FBI. Priceless.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
I love it! CALEA...the law that basically mandates that Carnivore be built-in to our telecommunications infrastructure, and which has probably made the warrantless wiretapping/metadata collection by the NSA far more technically simple to accomplish, is what ends up backfiring on the FBI. Priceless.
Exactly. The irony is unending with this one. Who would have ever thought it would have been this that would have stopped them.
Changing the value of two variables, to something greater than 10,000 is not a rewrite.
The article quotes the following
But in exchange, in Section 1002 of that act, the Feds gave up authority to “require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features or system configurations” from any phone manufacturer.
It misses the preceding clause;
This subchapter does not authorize any law enforcement agency or officer
Notice that it "does not authorize" rather than "prohibits" and it only applies to law enforcement agencies or officers. There is nothing in it that prohibits another agency like the the Office of the President, as it is not a law enforcement agency from requiring it.
Also, the term "specific design" is questionable. A specific design would be something like "must use SHA2". It could easily be argued that "access to encrypted data" is not a "specific" design but a "general" design as it can be implemented in several ways and therefore the clause does not apply.
I am not saying a back door is a good idea but this law does not prohibit the requirement.
According to the FBI's public statements it's the second ... but once that door is opened, the FBI's going to want to walk through it a second time, and a third, and a fourth, etc. [Authorities in New York are already calling for the door to be held open for them.] Having opened the door once, Apple will be in a much weaker position to keep the door closed those subsequent times.
Asking for the second would yield the first regardless of whether or not the FBI is formally asking for it. Break one phone and you can break any phone with a similar set up. Had they asked for Apple's help early on, they could have gotten the data they wanted without breaking into the phone. But, because the password was reset, the phone wasn't able to back up that last bit of data to Apple's cloud where Apple could have unlocked it without any problems.
It's specifically the handset that needs to be broken into now if anybody wants to see what data is on it. And breaking that would require software or hardware that isn't currently developed that would allow them to break into any other iPhone they wanted to.
How is changing the maximum number of logins considered "rewriting" an operating system? If a parameter's hard wired it shouldn't magically become different in relation to the operating system's functionality than parameters that aren't. In other words, if I change the Windows account lockout threshold I don't consider it as rewriting Windows.
under socialism, the government can because they are in charge of everything
All it takes to make a civilization dumb is for the education system to keep people so busy with bullshit that there is no real time or merit to education and critical thinking.
When we look at all of the special students on College campuses protesting their own personal micro aggression and squashing any opposing speech we see that this is really not that difficult to do. Video games, Facebook, "Reality" TV, and Sports are more important than silly wastes of time like "Math".
The "Common Core" addition method of dashes, boxes, and bigger boxes takes 100 times longer to do than simple addition, but simple addition will get a kid marked WRONG and the school threatening the parents with legal action if they interfere with the Government mandated system.
Half a century ago without computers we were able to land men on the moon. We had people like Milton Friedman and MLK to look up to. Today, we have nothing close, at least in public view.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Apple has been arguing that the All Writs Act, which the FBI is using in order to conscript Apple's assistance, is inapplicable in situations where Congress has passed laws that provide more specificity. 200 years of legal precedent agree with that understanding. And, contrary to your assertions, CALEA clearly provides a higher degree of specificity that's directly applicable in this case, since it explicitly states that law enforcement cannot make these sorts of demands of manufacturers.
Well in this case I think Apple's logic is a little weak. The law says CALEA doesn't require it. It doesn't explicitly prohibit some other law from requiring it. Say you run a restaurant and you're up to all health codes. That doesn't protect you from a negligent manslaughter charge under the penal code if one of your customers die from food poisoning. Or it turns out that one of your exotic dishes was an endangered species under the Lacey act. The general rule is that you must obey all the laws, simultaneously. Like the fun with search warrants and national security letters, you can't claim that because you respond to one you don't have to respond to the other, that's not a legal theory that would fly.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
'"This subchapter does not authorize any law enforcement agency [...] to require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features, or system configurations to be adopted by [...] any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment [...]"'
It seems like a weak argument though. A law that says in effect "this law doesn't mean the government can do X" is not the same as a law that says "the government can't do X".
I am unsure the subchapter you quote applies in this case because the FBI is not compelling a pre-market system change. They are compelling assistance after the fact for an individual device. I personally think it would be better for us all if Apple loses because it should be made abundantly clear that a device that is vulnerable to a firmware replacement attack is not secure, even if the manufacturer is the only entity that can sign a new firmware. As far as technically possible, the device owner's data security should not depend on the manufacturer's ability to resist legal action (or their ability to resist a well-resourced hacker, which is much more dangerous).
Agreed, two laws can cover the same topic, but that's not what's going on here. In fact, the All Writs Act itself says that writs issued under it must be "agreeable to the usages and principles of law", i.e. that it cannot be used in contradiction to other laws on the books. More or less, the All Writs Act itself was designed such that it could never override a more specific law created to address a topic. It's only ever applicable if nothing else is applicable. In this case, something else is applicable, so the All Writs Act cannot be used.
Easiest way to unlock the phone is to vote for Trump. He will get Bill Gates working on that and will make the Mexicans pay for it.
I think the FBI knows it will not win this case in the courts. What they are attempting to do is when the court of public opinion.
IANAL, but it's my understanding based on the various briefs, summations, and analysis I've been reading these last few weeks that because Congress chose to directly address the topic, and because the whole point of CALEA was to grant authority to law enforcement, Congress' specific limitation on that authority with regards to this topic is no different than denying that authority. I.e. Law enforcement doesn't have that authority by default, Congress has the power to grant it to law enforcement, but Congress explicitly chose not to grant it, which is functionally and legally the same as denying it.
You are right that it's not as strong as an outright ban, but it's FAR stronger than it would be if Apple was arguing "Congress never talked about this so you can't do it to us", since if Congress had never addressed it at all, the All Writs Act absolutely would apply.
Oh it is to laugh. As if the FBI or any part of the government actually follow laws. The laws are for the little people, not them.
Remember to pick up that can citizen.
They want to set a precedent for this case (because "Ter'ism"!), then they can use the same technique to force Apple to crack all those other phones from drug dealers, child molesters, polluters, litterers, and jay-walkers.
They spell out what they expect pretty specifically right in the order.
Oh, and by the way, they have recently up'd the ante on the whole thing by claiming that they don't want to have to do it, but if Apple doesn't want to cooperate, next they'll just demand the source code for iOS so they can modify it themselves.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I am unsure the subchapter you quote applies in this case because the FBI is [...] compelling assistance after the fact for an individual device.
The subchapter is titled "Assistance capability requirements" and makes no distinction between pre-market and after-the-fact changes. The only special distinction it seems to make is for emergency situations, but as far as I can tell, nothing about that applies in this particular case. So, yes, the subchapter is applicable.
That's problematic for 2 reasons.
1. Other laws have been passed since then. Timeline-wise this was before even the telecom deregulation, before DMCA, even before the Patriot Act.
2. The last thing you'd want is leave this hanging over as a legislative prerogative. The legislature changes every 2 years. The FBI would just have to wait until the right set of unrelated circumstances gives them a Congress willing to give them this power. This is why you want this to be declared squarely unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. Which makes the key nomination so crucial right now.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
How many of the Mathematicians and Engineers working on those programs had computers at their disposal? How many of the trajectories were calculated by computer, how many models were made on a computer? The people did not have calculators in their brief cases, they had slide rules in their brief cases. They did not attend classes on programming in college, they had to do the work manually.
The ship having a couple of processors with less computer power than a hand calculator does not mean the people did.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Section 103
(b) LIMITATIONS-
(1) DESIGN OF FEATURES AND SYSTEMS CONFIGURATIONS- This title does not authorize any law enforcement agency or officer--
(A) to require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features, or system configurations to be adopted by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services; or (B) to prohibit the adoption of any equipment, facility, service, or feature by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services.
I'd love to read more about this... but I thought this was somewhat relevant in preventing "we need the key in the future" nonsense. Unless of course the FBI manages to convince Congress that CALEA needs updating again.
... has the government ever let things like the law, the Constitution, or basic human morality get in its way?
I'm sure this won't get much visibility, but for what it's worth...
Apple has smart lawyers, which made it odd for me to read when they were basing their primary objection on first amendment grounds, rather than the more obvious undue burden defense (and/or reference to this law, and the lack of statute which would compel them to rewrite the OS). But more recently, the government made their real strategy more clear (ie: rewrite it, or give us the code), which made Apple's strategy make more sense. Although the government cannot necessarily compel Apple to rewrite the OS code, they have much better legal footing to compel Apple to give them the OS code, and presumably could write GovOS themselves fairly trivially.
That's where the freedom of speech argument comes in: although the government can, in effect, steal Apple's code (legally), it's much more clearly established that they cannot compel Apple to "say" that it's coming from Apple (in technical terms, sign the code). Without the code signature, GovOS cannot be pushed onto, or run on, iOS devices. In essence, Apple was countering the more legally persuasive argument that the DOJ was holding back as their would-be trump card, if Apple fought the initial ruling. Well played, indeed.
For the sake of everyone in the US (and not to mention all the principles the country is founded on), I sincerely hope Apple prevails. Their forethought in legal argument gives me some hope that all is not lost, privacy-wise.
To examine the danger of green house gas emissions. The had no choice but to regulate. In that they were being lawful.
...that's what they tell themselves, and then they go and do what they want...
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
What mathematical principle says they can't hand over their private key?
This isn't about physics or math. This is about law.
Even before those district attorneys chimed in, did anyone really believe it was for this one phone and only this one phone - no precedent set?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
The white house supposedly operates separately from the Justice Department. Im pretty sure Barack's sharp legal mind has absolutely nothing to do with this.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
Good points. There is a long list of things they got. I need to go somewhere and don't have time to make another comment.
1) The law is whatever the Supreme Court decides it is. I think it is doubtful this argument will win the day. But who knows.
2) I believe the Supreme Court has clearly recognized a difference between the powers of a court in enforcing an order and what government agencies are allowed to do directly.
3) The court ordered Apple to unlock a phone by producing an alternative operating system that will allow a forced defeat of their encryption. Its not clear that producing that operating system requires modification of any existing or future phone by Apple.
4) The real problem is Apple created an encryption system that it can easily defeat while portraying themselves as a champion of privacy. What we needed was a law that prevented them from doing that. To ensure privacy we need laws requiring universal secure encryption that makes our privacy off limits regardless of how badly someone behaves. That means letting even ISIS and child molesters communicate in private. So there is your trade off.
Not overly intelligent, are you?
Sigh.
Indeed.
However, there is a section that demands specific features that the device must offer.
"by requiring [that equipment manufacturers]...design and modify their equipment...[to] have the necessary surveillance capabilities"
Link or citation? I've scoured all of the relevant sections I could think of from U.S. Code Title 47 and haven't found any text yet that matches your quote. I don't doubt that you're quoting it from somewhere, but I'd like to see your quotation in context to see when it applies and if it specifies that it's subject to Title 47 Section 1002, which is where the limitations being discussed here are stipulated.
That is not even remotely how law works. Legal interpretations come from lawyers and the judge weighs how they apply those legal interpretations to the law. Nothing in any language is cut and dry and "just all fits" In this case there are tens of cases regarding the all writs act and tens of case around CALEA. Nothing is identical, so lawyers and judges interpret how to apply or not apply a law.
(3) Encryption A telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government’s ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication. if apple possesses the information they need to decrypt
The era of "low information voter" , "low information consumer", "low information anybody" is really at an end. The only people who aren't informed are those who don't have the desire to know.
When any government entity tries to bullshit their way on almost any subject the "internet" community will quickly point out the inconsistent nature of their ways. Really, didn't the lawyers think they would be fact checked? Our government has been less than trustworthy on many subjects and they continue to dig their hole deeper... The famous quote " If you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING" comes to mind.
Even as a kid decades ago, I taught myself how to add and subtract using what today people would call the common core way.
It made no sense to me, when given the question, what is 999 + 2001 to start the process in the one's column, carrying one, etc. I started with the most significant digit and worked left to right. It scales beautifully, and it gave me a sense of the size of the numbers. If I made a mistake, I'd be off by one or two. I'd love to see the example cited in your post.
There are bad math teachers. Perhaps your third grader has one. Perhaps the teacher doesn't have a good grasp on what they're teaching. Perhaps they're like you and don't want to change.
It's possible that kids learn differently and some love math while others don't. Some kids probably grasp the common core method slowly but would have excelled at the old way. Teach them the old way.
And have your kids take "high stakes testing." Only parents think of these tests as high stakes. The kids' lives don't change based on any single test. Even the SAT can be retaken. As for me, I had my kids take the SAT when they were in middle school. They did ok. But they did a lot better the next time, and the time after that.
Exactly which laws against spying on Americans did the government definitely break? I don't like the interpretations of the law I've heard from the NSA, but they have some reasoning behind them.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That applies to communication services. All communications systems in the US must be tappable. This applies to any Apple messaging services, but not to the actual iPhones themselves.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly ...
There are 11 million illegal immigrants in the US. What exactly is your plan to deport them? To round them up? Where are you going to house and feed them while you do? Are you going to build some sort of colossal prison-city?
It's all very well to talk about deportation, but it's not a practical idea at this point, and to even attempt to do so would be both ruinously expensive and necessitate the vast expansion of police numbers and powers. We would destroy our society in this vain and foolhardy attempt.
For my part, I have been an illegal immigrant before, staying on a tourist visa in Central America for several years*. I would still be there today, building a better life for myself, if I could have managed it. I was far from the only gringo there trying to do so. I can say from personal experience that it takes an exceptional kind of person to pack up and leave their entire family and try to settle in a new country, and many American families are also proud to attest to this. As far as I can tell, there is no economic or social argument to be made against the free flow of labor other than simple racism. I see no reason why this latest group of immigrants should not be granted the same opportunities our ancestors were. I believe that it is a moral imperative to do so, as well as patriotic. And not to belabor the point, but there really isn't an alternative: a wall might keep some people out, but the immigrants in the country now are here to stay.
* My reasons were complicated and not worth getting into.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
I'm sorry to say this, but everyone is missing the point. Even "Susan Crawford, Harvard Law Professor and former Obama Special Assistant".
The problem here isn't the law and it never was. Seeking a legal solution to a problem that isn't legal in nature is attempting to workaround the real problem. The workaround will fail because it implies respect for the law when such respect is absent.
Has no one noticed that the Three Letter Agencies have been abusing the Constitution? If they are willing to contravene that, why should we put our faith in law-based remedies? I mean lots of /. commenters have talked plenty about the Constitutional abuses but they aren't connecting the dots here.
The problem here is a security establishment run amok. They have power, money and political support and they want more. They are on an epic power trip and need to get their chain jerked. The President could do this but has not. What needs to happen to change this?
There needs to be a political price paid by supporters of the current behaviour of the Three Letter Agencies. Eventually this results in some politicians, and later some Directors/executives of the TLAs losing their jobs. Others need to be publicly chastised, in open testimony before Congress. This is what finally sends the message: You got your way for too long and you took advantage. Now go to the penalty box and think about what you've done.
This can then lead to the TLAs begin to respect the Constitution again and stop asking for security steps that can only diminish security. Stop asking for backdoors that will inevitably be discovered and exploited by the very people you claim to protect us against. Stop asking for a free pass to spy on people with minimal/no accountability or oversight. Stop asking for innocent civilians to surrender privacy and civil rights. Stop asking for a free society to become rather like the police state the terrorists already claim it is.
When the TLAs stop asking for powers that undermine the very basis of a free society, and do so because they know what principles support a free society, and the costs of failing to defend those principles, then freedom will have won. And not before then.
Hello. I'm a math teacher, licensed to teach in two states, currently teaching algebra 2 and AP calculus. What are you talking about? I'm familiar with the common core state standards (CCSS). I've never heard of a "common core addition method." Care to enlighten me?
Please give a link to the online version of the CCSS that describes this algorithm. If, instead, you're seeing this algorithm described in some crap textbook your school district got from the lowest bidder, well, that's too bad. The publishers don't have their books vetted by common core. They are completely independent.
"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." - Schiller
The Government has restrictions. But SCOTUS has ruled that where the Gov't HAS power, its powers are broad.
So, it is UNREASONABLE for the Gov't to ask for backdoors? No. The 4th goes away once granted a warrant (aka the search is deemed REASONABLE).
Is it an UNDUE BURDEN to put in a back door? No. A simple OTA patch and POW! All your devices are now backdoored.
The liberal leaning SCOTUS would most definitely agree with this.
Why do you think the NSA has been illegally gathering route and frame data on every call for so long?
The goal is to make sure there is never another successful revolution after the teagagger one.
Controlling your access to secrets is how they can put any of you out of business.
What is really happening is "Herd immunity" to day to day surveillance. If enough people have enough protection, the minor conspiracies we all live with, like underreporting income from gig work, to overreporting the value of donations, will be invisible to the States.
And you having the same rights as megabankers is just unacceptable.
Does the FBI want a back door to use on any iPhone or just this phone in particular unlocked?
The request is for a gov computer ready master key method to get into a generation of phones at a federal level and for federal help with states telco needs.
Every phone in that generation will then be open to any gov worker, contractor, other govs workers, contractors, ex staff, former staff, anyone who can pay for the services to get the same method.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The US gov has always had all the surrounding call data, logs, calls made. Thats the designed in telco surveillance capabilities side.
A new idea might be to extend CALEA putting big gov ready code inside every US networked product by design.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
How your comment got +5 Insightful when it is such utter and complete rubbish is beyond me.
Obligatory: You must be new here.
did anyone really believe
Yes. There's someone out there willing to believe anything. There are still people who believe that they only want this for this one phone and this one phone ever. There are still people who do not think this is about precedent. There are still people who believe all sorts of things - some of which are outlandish things to believe. They come from both sides of the debate - the people who believe the outlandish things. Some of them, from this very site, have been shown the errors in their beliefs but return in a latter thread to demonstrate that they still believe the things they were previously shown were erroneous.
You probably knew that and meant "did anyone with a working brain in their head really believe" but took the shortcut. ;-) I knew what you meant (I am pretty sure) but I figured I'd respond because there are people who will, in fact, believe all sorts of silly things. I figured it best to make it clear. You never know...
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Hence the law is wrong. Nothing can go against the will of our great Leader, President Barack Hussein Obama, defender of this Great Nation and protector of the Free World. Who dares to oppose Him? Have them arrested immediately!
Actually, I think I'm wrong on iMessage being covered by CALEA, since it doesn't actually communicate. If I'm using Facetime with my wife, we're talking via a TCP/IP connection, and that must be tappable.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so if you relied on my opinion earlier you were being stupid then too.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm aware of the Fourth, thanks, but it doesn't say the NSA can't look at mail headers, for example. Is that "reasonable"? Is it like looking at something in public view? If I maintain a copy of something and don't let it be accessed until somebody has a warrant, is that a "search"? You have opinions on those, and they're fine. Can you establish that there is no other reasonable interpretation than yours?
It's possible that the NSA has done something clearly against the Fourth, as interpreted by later law, but I don't know if it has or what it would be.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Do you really believe the NSA was only looking at headers?
Enough about the fucking phone! Someone step on it already... Jeez
For some values of "looking", with the exception of unauthorized access, which we know happens, quite possibly. The NSA pushes their interpretations of laws hard, and might not normally be going over those lines. I really don't know. Now, if you were to ask me how confident I was the NSA wasn't overstepping its idea of legal bounds on a regular basis, I'd say I wasn't confident at all.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Sure - it was one of the OP links...
"Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)" https://www.fcc.gov/public-saf...
Thanks! And from what I can tell, the FCC's summarization, which is what you linked to, unfortunately leaves out some crucial details that pertain to the case at hand and that are part of the actual law that's in the U.S. Code.
I previously read through all of the relevant bits from Chapter 9, and in every place where requirements like the ones you cited from the FCC's page were mentioned, they came with the caveat that they are only applicable inasmuch as they complied with Section 1002, which is where the limitations that prevent the FBI from doing this sort of thing are spelled out.
Granted, IANAL, but from what I could tell, while the FCC's oversimplified summarization is open to interpretation with regards to whether or not the surveillance capabilities needed to be baked in, the actual law on the books is not open to that same interpretation.