Slashdot Mirror
Feds Used 1789 Law To Force Apple, Google To Unlock Phones 63 Times (arstechnica.com)
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.
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."
Ah, now we know why she turned you down.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Basically it means the government always holds the trump card. They will always get their way no matter what.
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.
which means Android is a leaky pile of [bleep]?
Table-ized A.I.
The EFF has covered this extensively, and long ago. Read up: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
says the FBI Buyers Club
What other wonderful laws from back then can we follow? Fucking idiots.
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.
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?
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'
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
" 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
Yes, laws should expire after 17 years like patents.
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.
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!!!
Not a chance.
Term limits is a great idea. Corruption is a monotonic function of time in office. ... 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.
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.
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.
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
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.