Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Feds Used 1789 Law To Force Apple, Google To Unlock Phones 63 Times (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the two-can-play-that-game dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The FBI has been citing a 1789 law, the All Writs Act, to compel Apple to assist the authorities in unlocking the iPhone 5c belonging to San Bernardino killer, Syed Farook. The law allows for judges to issue orders for people or companies to do something despite Congress not passing laws to cover specific instances. According to the Civil Liberties Union, the U.S. government has cited the All Writs Act in 63 cases since 2008 to compel Apple or Google to assist in accessing data stored on an iPhone or Android device. Most of the orders involved Apple. "To the extent we know about the underlying facts, these cases predominantly arise out of investigations into drug crimes," said Eliza Sweren-Becker, an ACLU attorney.

101 comments

  1. Well that proves it by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

    Apple is the choice of terrorists!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Well that proves it by harrkev · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple is the choice of terrorists!

      So, phones should be insecure so that the government (and criminals) can get into them?

      The same encryption that protects terrorists protects YOUR credit card info and naughty pictures on your phone.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    2. Re:Well that proves it by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Ah, now we know why she turned you down.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:Well that proves it by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      which means Android is a leaky pile of [bleep]?

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:Well that proves it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Something to think about, if the terrorists use it, it is because it works. If you somehow think that having the government able to unlock devices at will somehow stops terrorists, well... Obviously you don't understand encryption.

      Encryption is just math, anyone with enough understanding in mathematics and app development can implement encryption. The government will need to go after each encrypting entity to prevent easy access to easily encrypted data. But here the kicker, the government is limited in what they can do. For example: a custom side loaded app that encrypts the terrorists data, will never be decryptable by the government. (well at least not easily) Anyone who knows anything about how encryption actually works knows that this whole court case is utter BS. In fact downloads to 3rd party encryption apps have skyrocketed in part because of this case. The good thing about this whole case was that apple had the ability to fight back and make a stand and show that the government was wrong here.
      However the government knew they were going to loose so they went behind their backs to solve it, and now the government is expected to drop the case without a ruling, why because they knew they were in the wrong, they knew that they would eventually loose, and they knew that if the court made a decision that was favorable to apple it would hurt them.

      Now do us a favor before you use inflammatory keywords like "terrorism", "for the children", etc... Make sure you actually have an idea about that which you speak. Because as someone who actually understands how encryption works, i want the same grade encryption, protection, and security that terrorists, pedophiles, the government, and my neighbors have. Because once those protections are gone we cant get them back. Now excuse me, while I go brush up on elliptic curve cryptography, so that I can make an app I know that no one can break, not even the government. Not to protect the terrorists, or pedophiles, but to protect us from the government. Because like most people I don't like Joe Shmoe looking over my shoulder, not as I type, not as I read, and definitely not in a way that can cause me to be profiled in some database. Because more often than not, the ends don't justify the means.

    5. Re: Well that proves it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your sexuality is defined by the gadgets you use???

    6. Re: Well that proves it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It didn't say that. It said, Apple please, and they did. Now, why not do the same on a known terrorists? Sounds more like materially supports terrorists. There is a difference. Aiding and abetting, but what drone would you use to take out this abettor.
      But more interesting, we should classify drugs, as a more henious crime then terrorism? Interesting argument.
      Apple, Android argument, now secure? Illogical argument, both are phones, operate as phones, and have the ability to make and receive calls. Phone technology has been broken since the first wiretap after Bell discovered transmission over wires. Wiretap laws were instituted then, they didn't have to go all write act, basic wiretap rules. Computer, as at home, a simple seizure order. All write imply speed, have to do this now, and need your assistance. So not having a judge sign multiple orders. Saves maybe two seconds. The brussles thing, will Apple help them? The Malay thing, will Apple help them? But in the land of the free, they refused.

    7. Re:Well that proves it by phuonglinh9 · · Score: 0

      tai phim sex min phí

    8. Re: Well that proves it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They *did* provide a copy of the data to the FBI already, you dope. That's not what the FBI wanted though; they specifically requested to compel Apple to write custom software to get past security features (ie. a back door). Being forced to do labor against your will is quite akin to slavery, don't you think?

  2. What is this All-Writs stuff about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When is it used, and why would it be used in particular cases in lieu of other warrants, court orders, etc?

    1. Re:What is this All-Writs stuff about? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Basically it means the government always holds the trump card. They will always get their way no matter what.

    2. Re: What is this All-Writs stuff about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are online, why are you asking us?
      You could have typed that question verbatim into Google or whatever and gotten the answer.

    3. Re:What is this All-Writs stuff about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me google that for you

    4. Re:What is this All-Writs stuff about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Basically, it means the government doesn't give a fuck about the rule of law, and will do anything they can to expand what should be wartime powers to apply it to anything they can fucking think of.

      Wake up America, and stop telling the fucking rest of the world you're the champions of liberty and freedom ... you're living in a police state, and most of your idiot citizens think this is a good fucking idea.

      Fuck you, America. You have abandoned all of your principles domestically, and have already demonstrated that internationally you will do anything you see fit.

      Congratulations. You're not only the enemy of your freedom, but you're the enemy of ours.

      America, you are pretty much the enemy of everybody on the fucking planet who does not wish to submit to some horrible state police which is allowed to do anything they wish.

      So shut the fuck up, stay the fuck out of our countries, and wallow in your own shit. But we don't give a fuck about what you assholes do anymore. Because you've given up on all semblance of everything you have ever claimed to be.

      America is fucked. So just fuck off and stay the hell away from us as you decline into the shithole you've been aspiring to be for the last few decades.

      You are now EVERYTHING you used to stand against, and stop fucking pretending otherwise.

      Fuck America. If you're going to be some third world banana republic in which the state police can lie cheat and make up laws, you all fucking deserve what you get.

    5. Re:What is this All-Writs stuff about? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      As an American, not that I disagree that collectively as a nation, we're our own worst enemy with regards to the erosion of civil liberties. But lets keep this honest shall we? European nations never have been a bastion of liberty either, specifically the UK (an example of 1984 in action). With regards to the East and Middle Easter nation, South America, Africa..etc. Yeah, they've had problems going back thousands of years.

      Me? I'd just assume let Texas become a Republic again once the Union implodes under the 20+ TRILLION in debt. I mean, it shouldn't have come to this, and I don't wish it, but it is what it is. What cannot go on forever, won't. File this under 'sad but true'.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:What is this All-Writs stuff about? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      America has never lived up to the ideals and principals we espouse. From the Alien and Sedition act, to the genocide we committed against Native Americans and Filipinos, the McCarthy hearings. None of this is really new.

    7. Re:What is this All-Writs stuff about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      third world banana republic

      The US will never be a third world anything. The definition of first world is that a country be the US or one of its allies. Thus, as the definition of first world, the US will always be first world.

      Stop using "third world" as a code phrase for "bad". There are a lot of perfectly okay third world countries. There are also a lot of first world shitholes. Like the country you probably live in.

      TL;DR: You suck at life.

    8. Re:What is this All-Writs stuff about? by DuckDodgers · · Score: 2

      With respect to the national debt - other countries have carried far higher debts for far longer.

      And remember too that solving the national debt using tax levels that this country had from 1941 through 1980, including when Republican Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford were in office would work. Tax levels on the rich were literally more than twice what they are today, and nobody called Eisenhower, Nixon, or Ford a socialist.

    9. Re: What is this All-Writs stuff about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is fucked. Violent, drug addled, poor and fucked.
      Truth hurts, huh ?

    10. Re: What is this All-Writs stuff about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all know that's never going to happen, though...America is fucked, because we can't learn to share.

    11. Re:What is this All-Writs stuff about? by cellocgw · · Score: 2

      Basically it means the government always holds the trump card. They will always get their way no matter what.

      And soon, Trump will hold the government card (or maybe In Soviet Russia...)

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    12. Re:What is this All-Writs stuff about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think WE can do about it?

      We rely on a bunch of old stubborn coots to make decisions for us. And although I go do my due dilligence, there's not enough buy in for us in the general populace to truly influence these decisions.

      Someone once told me that the only thing our representatives care about is votes. They do what gets them votes. But what if the thing we all voted for was for age limits on our senators, or reasonable term limits? What if we decided that we need to put measures in place to cut the influence of corporations over our politicians. All of a sudden, acquiescing to our votes means cutting their influence and cash flow. Would they REALLY vote that in? And would enough people care if they didn't?

      Trust me, If they listened to ME, we'd be out of everybody's fucking business as much as possible, and trying to fix the broken shit in our own country.

    13. Re:What is this All-Writs stuff about? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Trust me

      Not a chance.

      But what if the thing we all voted for was for age limits on our senators, or reasonable term limits?

      Term limits is a great idea. Corruption is a monotonic function of time in office.
      There is already an age limit for U.S. Senators: the minimum age is 30, an attempt to get some maturity, wisdom, and stability of character. ... Oh, you mean a maximum age? While it's a good idea to remove people who have lost their mental abilities, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? No offense, not you. Not anybody.
      A "stubborn old coot" is a man sure in his principles, as opposed to an inexperienced young fool who'll fall victim to logical fallacies or a few dollars.

      What if we decided that we need to put measures in place to cut the influence of corporations over our politicians.

      I can't see any way of doing that short of keeping our presidents and governors and judges and legislators is prison, naked, and under audio-video surveillance every second of their term of office. Even at that, I'm sure anyone who tries can figure a way to get bribes through. The problem is not solvable, and the only dependable way to reduce the magnitude of corruption is to reduce the magnitude of government. Nobody is going to try to spend 100 million in bribes to swing a 50 billion dollar deal, when there aren't any deals bigger than 1 billion being made.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  3. The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by Steve1952 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Personally, I think that the main reason why the Feds backed off is that they realized that if the all writs act ever gets to the Supreme Court, it is going down. Ironically a different part of the same 1789 judiciary act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803). This was the classic case where the Supreme Court struck down an act of Congress for the first time. Apple is an organization with enough power and credibility to take this case to the Supreme Court. So it made sense to back off and preserve the "validity" of the all writs act for future use.

    1. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why would it be unconstitutional? I'm not saying it isn't unconstitutional, just curious what the violation would be here.

      On the other hand, I am very sick of hearing this "1789 Law" crap in the media. The Constitution is pretty old too, but we still consider it good law, yet this statute is considered trash simply because of its age? Talk about idiocracy.

    2. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes it would have been interesting to see the demand to be conscripted per phone to having to create gov ready software for all phones of a generation within a brand.
      The gov ready master key that gave a gov worker or contractor access to any phone in a generation from any gov computer.
      http://nypost.com/2016/03/02/f... (March 2, 2016)
      "“The request we got from the government in this case is, ‘Take this tool and put it on a hard drive, send it to the FBI,’ and they’d load it onto their computer,” "

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by Eristone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The All Writs Act is basically a blank check for the Courts to order someone (individual or company) to do something. It has not been challenged to the Supreme Court yet, so it is still in force. If it is challenged to the Supreme Court, the challenging party will cite it violates the 14th Amendment (Due Process) and possibly the 13th Amendment (Involuntary Servitude).

    4. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple's power and credibility is nothing compared to the power the government can bring to bear. The last thing Apple wants is a bunch of obnoxious and idiotic politicians bad mouthing them at every turn. When Apple took their case to Washington the Senators chairing the meeting told the FBI and Apple representatives to try and work things out because if Congress were to get involved neither party would like the outcome. Apple's commitment to security is wholly dependent on their market share and bottom line. They get high and mighty over trivial bullshit in the US yet hand over every thing China asks for just to gain access to the Chinese market. If NK was not under UN sanctions Apple would be bowing and scraping to the NK government so they could enter the NK marketplace. Apple is a rich and powerful corporation not a social movement.

    5. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      Anything Apple could have done, could have also been done by the FBI hiring another company and by obtaining Apple's source code through a subpoena. Getting Apple to do the work is just simpler and faster.

    6. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

      I knew James Madison. I worked with James Madison. James Madison was a friend of mine. Believe me when I tell you, James Madison envisioned encrypted electronic devices back then and argued extensively for protection from government decryption of private devices.

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    7. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen the composition of the Supreme Court lately? Here's a hint, check the majority deciders on Kelo v. City of New London and compare it to the current court.

    8. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The constitution doesn't matter. It's unimportant. Stop bringing it up.

    9. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The All Writs Act is basically a blank check for the Courts to order someone (individual or company) to do something. It has not been challenged to the Supreme Court yet, so it is still in force. If it is challenged to the Supreme Court, the challenging party will cite it violates the 14th Amendment (Due Process) and possibly the 13th Amendment (Involuntary Servitude).

      Sure it has, just not for phone encryption (yet):

      United States vs New York Telephone Co

    10. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      The constitution has been amended many times and interpreted many times. It's not the same thing that it started as. And yes, it needed interpretation because it is not clear and unambiguous.

      Read the original, it is clunky and disjoint and just plain bad in places. It's a barely workable compromise between groups of people who didn't want to cooperate, federalists and anti-federalists. Two of the original colonies hadn't even signed it when the first congress met, and there were quite a few who felt that since the Articles of Confederation required a unanimous decision to amend it that the Constitution should also require a unanimous decision by the states before it could overturn the Articles of Confederation. So it's been on somewhat shaky grounds from the beginning. It only holds together out of inertia and the will of the people to abide by it, not because it's special or sacred.

      The All Writs Act was written to cover necessary things that the government overlooked. Basically it allowed the courts to actually make decisions when there was no law guiding the courts. Ie, they can issue court orders. When there is actual law that is supposed to take precedent. The current All Writs Act however was issued in 1911 and has been amended since and comes with conditions that must be met, it's not really that ancient anymore. This was the law that was used to compel telephone companies to assist with wiretapping, in 1977, which was not difficult or time consuming for the telephone company instead it was very easy to do the wiretapping, and the Supreme Court upheld this district court ruling. This precedent was being re-used to try and get Apple to unlock it's phones, even though it is much more difficult and requires a lot more work and expense on Apple's part; so when it was relatively easy I suspect Google and Apple complied but when it got harder then Apple pushed back.

      Why is it unconstitutional? Probably because it's akin to conscription which is a common argument. A company is being forced to do labor on behalf of the government. There is some debate about whether or not conscription or the draft is legal for various reasons so calling it unconstitutional is still vague on those grounds. The emotional argument is probably better since the constitution is all about rights and liberties andn restrictions on the government, whereas being forced to work for the government feels quite the opposite.

    11. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Informative

      The current all writs act was from 1911 though and supercedes the original. It also has conditions for when it applies. It was used to enable wiretapping and was then upheld by the Supreme Court. The modern cases with Apple and Google use that wiretapping as a precedent.

    12. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Which is fine because that is how the law is designed to work. The headline could've easily read "Feds use the Law to enforce their interpretation of the Law", but that wouldn't sell as many clicks...

    13. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last thing Apple wants is a bunch of obnoxious and idiotic politicians bad mouthing them at every turn.

      Are you sure? Apple can say "we stick it to the obnoxious idiotic politicians" and be as popular as Trump.

    14. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Informative: Story checks out

    15. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      "“The request we got from the government in this case is, ‘Take this tool and put it on a hard drive, send it to the FBI,’ and they’d load it onto their computer,” "

      Except, that is entirely a lie. The court order is available to be read, why would anyone believe that dribble?

      https://www.documentcloud.org/...

      The court order specifically asks for a one off keyed to a single phone, and signed with Apple's key. This isn't something that can be reverse engineered and modified, the signing certificate protects the software from being modified. They also asked them to load it on the phone, in RAM, not on any permanent storage, so it isn't like they wanted access to the actual hack.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    16. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Would you rather the FBI asked for the source code and the signing key, or asked Apple to provide the patch? There seem to be many conspiracy nuts on Slashdot nowadays, so imagine what they would have said if the FBI asked for the code and keys first.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    17. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by phuonglinh9 · · Score: 0

      xem phim sex online trên in thoi

    18. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if i recall that law just says you have to provide the govt with any information you have in your posession. it is a lot more narrow than how the FBI is trying to use it and mentions specific circumstances for its use.

      so this would likely apply to iCloud backups, which Apple has already provided them. but Apple doesn't have the phone or pin for the phone in their possession, or even the software that the FBI is asking for. that is where the FBI is stepping outside of precedent.

    19. Re:The all writs act is probably unconstitutional by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      That quote was as testified in public.
      The statement given was for the creation of a method as in "Take this tool and put it on a hard drive". A harddrive ready tool can then be used on any phone of that generation.
      Access was the whole idea, a portable, state and federal ready master key to decrypt any generation of phone before any public state or federal court.
      The tool that was going to be created was a master key able to decrypt generations of cell phones.
      That was the request was for conscripted software was on a federal computer ie well beyond any quote about a phone.
      Apple Is Right: The FBI Wants to Break Into Lots of Phones ( Feb 23, 2016 )
      http://www.theatlantic.com/tec...
      "Meanwhile, there are a whole lot more devices waiting in the wings, in the hands of state and local law enforcement."
      "...it would be much easier for the judges overseeing these other, similar cases to compel Apple to comply."
      The federal gov might only feel like be seen requesting help on one phone in public, but the conscripted tool set would open all other phones of that generation. The end result is decryption via a US gov mandated and conscripted masterkey and ensuring junk crypto over an entire product range. A masterkey in the hands offering data access to any generation of phone from an easy to use harddrive tool at a state and federal level.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  4. From Good Will Hunting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where, apparently, you defended yourself and had the case thrown out by citing free property rights of horse and carriage from 1798...

    1. Re:From Good Will Hunting? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The laws against murder go all the way back to Moses, should we stop using those laws because they are sooo old?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  5. The US government... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...are the real terrorists.

  6. EFF and the All Writs Act by caferace · · Score: 2

    The EFF has covered this extensively, and long ago. Read up: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

  7. All Writ All Writ All Writ by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    says the FBI Buyers Club

    1. Re:All Writ All Writ All Writ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what I love about underage cam girls? I keep getting older, they stay the same age.

    2. Re:All Writ All Writ All Writ by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Using the All Writs Act doesn't get you things for free, they still would have had to pay Apple just as they pay for other things like wiretaps.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  8. When no one was looking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When no one was looking, Feds
    used 1789 law to force Apple and Google to unlock phones 63 times . They unlocked 63 phones.
    That’s as many as seven nines.
    And that’s terrible.

  9. VILOS KOHAGEN MUST BE STOPPED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    KUATO LIVES...

    1. Re:VILOS KOHAGEN MUST BE STOPPED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. He looks like (late) Rodney Dangerfield on steroids http://www.blogcdn.com/www.man...

  10. Slavery Still Legal by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    What other wonderful laws from back then can we follow? Fucking idiots.

    1. Re:Slavery Still Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can think of several that still apply.
      When you also grow older, you will notice not all old things are bad. Before that we just have to hope someone mods you down.

    2. Re:Slavery Still Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire constitution (in theory) you fucking moron.

    3. Re: Slavery Still Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you reach a certain age you discover your parents don't know everything. The pendulum of outrage swings kinda wide, so for a time you think nobody knows more than you. Most grow out of this phase by their late twenties.

    4. Re:Slavery Still Legal by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      How about we make murder legal, it after all dates back to at least Moses.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    5. Re:Slavery Still Legal by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

      Murder is legal. It is called an abortion. Or it is called an Army drone kill. Or it is called a State execution. And murder dates back to Cain and Abel. Unless you are stupid enough to be believe you came from a masterbating mudskipper, or some other evolutionary tale of bullshit.

    6. Re:Slavery Still Legal by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I agree, but I was making a point about the age of laws not being really material to how they are used.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    7. Re:Slavery Still Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Murder is never legal. It is, by definition, an unlawful killing.
      If the killing is lawful, then it isn't murder.

  11. makes sense by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    I mean, to be fair had the founding fathers had any idea of just how terrible drugs are they probably wouldn't have bothered writing the Constitution, right? They were more concerned about petty matters like tyranny, which totally don't even apply today.

    --
    Do you have ESP?
    1. Re:makes sense by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

      You mean the drugs the drug companies sell? Or the drugs they were using at the time like cocaine, marijuana, heroin and opium?

    2. Re:makes sense by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      You mean the drugs the drug companies sell? Or the drugs they were using at the time like cocaine, marijuana, heroin and opium?

      Come now, the DEA says that marijuana is 500000000000000000 times more potent now than 10 years ago! This isn't George Washington's marijuana, this is *dangerous stuff*.

      And you know the DEA wouldn't lie to you to justify their unneeded jobs, right?

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    3. Re:makes sense by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

      FUCK the DEA with a rusty chainsaw. And FUCK the assholes who keep it in play.

  12. Under this law, can you be compelled... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... to divulge your own password? Or to at least be compelled to give access to law enforcement?

    If so, what happens when they have security systems that evaluate the state of mind of the person entering, and refuses access if they are under any certain kinds of stress, such as if they were being coerced or forced by someone else to let them in. Could this act be interpreted that a person is compelled to *feel* a certain way about assisting law enforcement, and if they didn't feel that way, they could be thrown in jail?

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:Under this law, can you be compelled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... to divulge your own password? Or to at least be compelled to give access to law enforcement?

      IANAL, but from what I've read it depends. If it's a password stored in your head and they don't already have sufficient evidence from other channels that link you to the device/system/files/etc. the password is ostensibly for, then no -- the 5th Amendment should prevail because you're effectively being ordered to testify against yourself that you had access to the thing in question.

  13. Criminalizing drugs does more harm than good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give up your rights to arrest for drugs. Verges on retardation.

  14. Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From a point of an European national living in a "police state" this is ridiculous. Why haven't the Congress enacted laws regulating communications companies related to warrants, national security and emergency circumstances, and technical monitoring made by the police under warrant? Is avoiding public discussion so important for the law enforcement that the rule of law and democracy are starting to rot?

    1. Re:Ridiculous by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Not sure what you are asking, but that is the law you seem to be asking about.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  15. I am sad ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has nothing to do with Apple or Google

    The object of contention is the Slimy Fed

    They will use an old law, circa 1789 to enforce their view on others, and in the same time, they throw away other old laws - specifically the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights - when they've become inconveniencing

    1. Re:I am sad ... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      What does it matter how old the law is? Does the prohibition against murder somehow expire because the law is old?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:I am sad ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, laws should expire after 17 years like patents.

  16. Even if All Writs isn't unconstitutional... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if All Writs isn't unconstitutional it can't negate anything in the Constitution.
    Apple should have asked the court to assess just compensation under the "takings clause".
    That could easily run in the billions of dollars - not just the technical costs of hacking their phone, but also the loss of customer good will and future sales.

  17. Unlock Apple iPhone by Gussington · · Score: 1

    I swear Slashdot should change it's name to 'Unlock Apple iPhone'. At least half the content on Slashdot seesm to be devoted to this one topic, in which the entire comments section tells us how fucked up it is. Ok we get it, it's fucked up, can we hold off any more comments until someone has anything new to say?

    1. Re:Unlock Apple iPhone by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the Department of Redundancy Department.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    2. Re:Unlock Apple iPhone by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      This article is about the All Writs Act being used 63 times to force unlocking of phones. You either didn't read the article, or are to simple to understand that this is entirely relevant to technology. In fact slashdot has a section dedicated to your rights online. If this doesn't belong here then why would they have a YRO section? Your ID# indicates you haven't been here long enough to learn how to read the articles, or know that people on slashdot actually do care about rights and liberties getting eroded around technology. Perhaps many of them have moved on to elsewhere, but if it sort of content doesn't interest you either learn how to set up your feed list or go back to endgadget with the rest of your ADHD consumer tech fanboys.

    3. Re: Unlock Apple iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new owners of Slashdot just need more revenue. The paid slashvertisement channel: "apple.Slashdot.org" hasn't been paying the bills.

    4. Re:Unlock Apple iPhone by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Your ID# indicates you haven't been here long enough to learn how to read the articles

      It'd be extremely naive to think that some people don't have more than one account...

  18. subrogation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know the law here, but it seems like it would be fair for the FBI et al. to be able to "step into the shoes" of the owner of the device, i.e., Apple's customer, and make demands that the customer could have, kind of like subrogation. However, the FBI went too far when it made demands that went beyond what Apple would provide to a normal customer. A normal customer can ask Apple to reset the password, but Apple refuses to hack phones for their customers. Compelling Apple to do so would be akin to involuntary servitude.

  19. 'give the devil the benefit of the law' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Apple is the choice of terrorists!

    So, phones should be insecure so that the government (and criminals) can get into them?

    The same encryption that protects terrorists protects YOUR credit card info and naughty pictures on your phone.

    I'm reminded of a the 'give the devil the benefit of the law' scene from "A Man for All Seasons":

    * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqReTJkjjg

  20. drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course it is used to find drug users, dealers and manufacturers.
    llegal ones, to be certan. Not the worst offenders : the legal drug companies...
    And the legacy of the McCarthy era echoes through the halls of time...
    How long are the people ( us included ) going to put up with the Feds ( and state and local, by proxy ) snooping so much?
    When are they going to start looking for corporate crime? ( AT&T and 12 Bllion dollars in the 1990s, most major corporations and tax maneuvering, nowadays )
    When are they going to investigate the corruption in government at all levels?
    Back room deals?
    Buildings and bridges and nuclear reactors built with corners being cut?
    Inspectors retiring as millionaires?
    The religious scams?
    Internet throttling schemes and contract mysteries?

    Enough. Too much. Time to do some math....

    1. Re:drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long are the people ( us included ) going to put up with the Feds ( and state and local, by proxy )

      People as a whole? Forever. Those with political power are happy with the status quo and will continue to live large off of graft. Everyone else is numbing themselves with ever-increasing doses of mass-media and alcohol.

      Welcome to the future. It looks a lot like feudalism, except that the modern serf's labor is practically worthless.

  21. Use 1789 tools! by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    Well, if the law is from 1789, clearly they should have to unlock the phone using tools available at the time the law was written. After a few whacks with a hammer, they could have confidently reported back that they were unable to unlock the device.

    1. Re:Use 1789 tools! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After a few whacks with a hammer, they could have confidently reported back that they were unable to unlock the device.

      But it would definitely be cracked!

    2. Re:Use 1789 tools! by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      We used wooden mallets back then you insensitive clod!.

    3. Re:Use 1789 tools! by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      I was a blacksmith in those days. I had a hammer, you insensitiver clod.

    4. Re:Use 1789 tools! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Did you hammer out danger?
      Did you hammer out a warning?
      Did you hammer out love between your brothers and your sisters all over this land?
      (Apologies to Lee Hayes & Pete Seeger.)

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  22. Worked in GoodWill Hunting by TTL0 · · Score: 1

    " There is a lengthy legal precedent, Your Honor, going back to 1789, whereby a defendant may claim self- defense against an agent of the government where the act is shown to be a defense against tyranny, a defense of liberty"

    --
    Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
  23. Bill of Rights is from 1791 by mi · · Score: 1

    Well, if the law is from 1789, clearly they should have to unlock the phone using tools available at the time the law was written

    By that logic, your speech is only protected if printed or actually spoken — the only means available, when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

    And the Second Amendment only applies to muskets (but not to knives and swords for some reason).

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Bill of Rights is from 1791 by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      I'm okay with that. It could be argued that word on a screen is considered printed. And Muskets are far less deadly than assault rifles and pistols...

    2. Re:Bill of Rights is from 1791 by mi · · Score: 1

      It could be argued that word on a screen is considered printed. And Muskets are far less deadly than assault rifles and pistols...

      Muskets are much closer to today's rifles, than a web-server is to a printing press.

      The "deadliness" is irrelevant — the Second Amendment makes no mention of the scale of a weapon. Swords, muskets, and cannon are equally protected by it. But if you insist on using "deadliness" as the criteria for applicability of the Bill of Rights, consider the following:

      Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

      — Joseph Stalin

      He is right, you know. Should we ban certain ideas, dispensing with the First Amendment the way you just dispensed with Second?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Bill of Rights is from 1791 by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      And Muskets are far less deadly than assault rifles and pistols...

      Far less deadly for the one who stands where the gun is pointing, far more deadly for anyone else.

    4. Re:Bill of Rights is from 1791 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be argued that "word on a screen" is a large pink elephant too, and be just as accurate.

      By your logic, the First Amendment only protects handwritten texts or hand-powered ink presses, and direct speech. Radio, television, internet, any type of printer more advanced than ink + movable type, microphone and speakers - these can all be banned, because they didn't exist back in 1789.

  24. let Texas go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and take Ted Cruz with them

  25. New laws are not necessarily better than old ones by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    Laws that speak in terms of general principles are much more effective than those that are very specific. The more specific the law, the more loopholes there are, and the easier it is to circumvent them with a slightly different technology. Laws that deal with principles might lead to more court interpretation where principles seem to disagree, but they also are longer-lasting in their usefulness.

  26. Not 1st Amendment by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    FIFTH amendment.
    Per all suspicions, the purpose of these "warrants" is to gather individuals speech to one another in order to prosecute them (yes, that's texts and emails too says SCOUTS) thus vitiating the right against compelled testimony against ones interests!!
    Who would have thunk the Patriot act meant easier DRUG PROSECUTIONS?

    Pretty much anyone with a brain.
    Thanks Republican'ts!!!

    1. Re:Not 1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are obviously not a lawyer.
      This has nothing to do with the Fifth Amendment at all, and anyone with a fraction of a brain understands this. Evidence created by the suspects is not, and never has been, considered "testimony".
      The All Writs Act also has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. This is also obvious to anyone with even 1% of a function brain, as they were created several apart and serve entirely different purposes.

      Finally, I'm disappointed you couldn't find a way to blame "M$" for something in this post. Were you not aware of /. regulation 10T, which requires all incoherent ranters to make at least one inane assault on Microsoft?

  27. Government is wearing too many hats by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

    Tech companies used to have no problem complying with reasonable intercept requests. The reason was because they knew those intercepts were used for actual law enforcement. Sometime in the last 15 years that changed. Government employees concerned with information awareness now wear two hats: a law enforcement hat, and a geopolitical dominance hat. Until the 21st century, the people wearing those hats worked in different offices. Not anymore. Hayden and Comey have both said essentially the same thing: that when you're in the job, it's a moral obligation to use every tool at your disposal. There is no practical difference between lawful intercept and foreign intelligence intercept. If the NSA knows the FBI has lawful intercept capability into any phone, they are morally obligated to gain access to it. If the FBI knows the NSA has a fiber access capability, they are obligated to apply for access. The marriage of military and police means every tool of one is available to the other. Given how quickly US arms fall into the hands of "freedom fighters" like FSA, how long do you think it would take before iPhone intercept capability was being used by Colombian political candidates and Mexican cartels? At least a mortar round actually has to be manufactured. Copying code requires no material components at all. I believe that's the heart of this debate that no one wants to talk about.