Slashdot Mirror
iPhone Encryption Hampers Investigation of Texas Shooter, Says FBI (chron.com)
"FBI officials said Tuesday they have been stymied in their efforts to unlock the cellphone of the man who shot and killed at least 26 people at a church here on Sunday," reports the Houston Chronicle. Slashdot reader Anon E. Muss writes:
The police obtained a search warrant for the phone, but so far they've been unable to unlock it. The phone has been sent to the FBI, in the hope that they can break in... If it is secure, and the FBI can't open it, expect all hell to break loose. The usual idiots (e.g. politicians) will soon be ranting hysterically about the evil tech industry, and how they're refusing to help law enforcement.
FBI special agent Christopher Combs complained to the Chronicle that "law enforcement increasingly cannot get in to these phones."
A law professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology argues there's other sources of information besides a phone, and police officers might recognize this with better training. As just one example, Apple says the FBI could've simply just used the dead shooter's fingerprint to open his iPhone. But after 48 hours, the iPhone's fingerprint ID stops working.
FBI special agent Christopher Combs complained to the Chronicle that "law enforcement increasingly cannot get in to these phones."
A law professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology argues there's other sources of information besides a phone, and police officers might recognize this with better training. As just one example, Apple says the FBI could've simply just used the dead shooter's fingerprint to open his iPhone. But after 48 hours, the iPhone's fingerprint ID stops working.
Does Face ID work with corpses? Do you have to have eyes open?
If only there was some sort of Police Work that could be done to solve these crimes without taking away everyone rights of privacy...
Guy busted his kid's skull. Guy took weapons on base. Guy spent a year in the brig. Guy got dogs off Craigslist to shoot for target practice.
Guy was a major asshole with huge red flags over his head who should have been found and neutralized years ago. If only the Air Force had followed existing laws that would have prevented him from buying guns. But no, we need more gun control and backdoor encryption.
The phone? The fibbies knew there was a 48 hour timeout on the fingerprint thing. The fibbies knew without that they didn't stand a chance of getting into the phone (or they have a way in they don't want us to know about).
This is just the government narrative of "we have to have backdoor encryption cuz this dude".
We know the USAF gave him a minimum sentence for cracking his babies skull, did not give him a dishonorable discharge, and chose to protect this baby beater by not entering his information into the criminal database. If there is anything to investigate, it is whey the USAF protect wife and kid heaters. The USAF, in fact, could have put him in jail for fiver years, given him a dishonorable discharge, and made his crime public record. The reason that dozens of people are dead is because they chose not to.
The iPhone thing is just another effort to continue to erode our rights to privacy. It is not going to bring the dead back. It is not going to prevent the air force from releasing another trained killer, maybe this time a baby killer, back into society to murder even more people.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
And we have the right to keep and bear arms. So sayeth the Fourth Amendment.
So the FBI better come up with a different strategy than needing to be able to unlock everyone's phones. What do they think is on that phone anyway? I rather doubt Kelley kept anything interesting on his phone; maybe his Contact list? Then subpoena his call records from his phone company. If it was an iPhone it was probably sync'ed to the cloud; subpoena it from Apple.
FBI agents swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Maybe they need to take an annual refresher oath to remind them of that.
The reaction of the right bothers me greatly when these incidents happen. It's incredibly illogical and harmful.
The fact is, the shooter managed to buy guns because he didn't disclose information for the background check, and that information wasn't otherwise available. He should have been unable to purchase guns on the basis that he had mental health issues, had escaped from a mental health facility, and had a history of violent behavior. Universal background checks are partly about requiring all firearm transfers and sales to be subject to the checks, and to expand the data used in conducting these checks. Those on the right complain loudly that this somehow violates their second amendment rights, even though these are reasonable measures to prevent gun violence. Plenty on the right refuse to consider any measure that would impose any type of additional restrictions on firearms because of their position that the second amendment is absolute.
Yet when it comes to our fourth and fifth amendment rights, and the right to privacy recognized by court decisions and justified by the ninth amendment, there's virtually no objection from the right. If you're so concerned about the second amendment, why the lack of any concern about the fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments being infringed? These demands by law enforcement are FAR more serious and infringing than universal background checks, banning bump fire stocks, or even extending many of the restrictions on fully automatic firearms to semi-automatic firearms. However, the right is mostly silent, minus the few libertarians who speak up on these issues.
If you're so concerned about any additional firearm restrictions infringing upon the second amendment, why the silence about infringing the fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments? The demands by law enforcement about encryption are far more dangerous and sweeping than any serious gun control proposals that have been put forth in the United States.
...that a well-regulated militia would have denied this stone-bonker a gun.
This sig left unintentionally blank.
for israeli security companies.
don't even start with the theatrics and posturing and trying to enrage the public.
just go straight to the source. fly a couple of agents, with the phone and a blank check, to israel. they can get it unlocked while their plane refuels for the return trip. they won't even have time to stop for falafel.
First of all, a search warrant is not required to search the property of someone who is dead, because a dead person is not a natural person with defensible rights.
Second of all, Apple encryption is not hampering the investigation, because there is nothing new to be learned from whatever is on the iPhone. We know he did it. Why he did it is completely irrelevant and immaterial. It is not necessary to rummage through whatever personal data he left behind. The reason motive is unimportant is because he is dead, with no chance of committing any further crimes.
So, this is really just another "encryption is evil" hit piece by the state-run media. Nothing more.
I'm just wondering here...
If strong public/private key crypto is used, and lets presume it cannot be broken...
So what if Apple stored your private key locally on your phone a second time, encrypted with Apple's public key, and accessible (in encrypted form) from the phone in some manner.
The encrypted version of your private key is useless without Apple's private key, and inaccessible without access to your physical phone...
But if you have the phone, and a court order, Apple could access it... Kind of like a grandmaster key.
Anyways, just a thought.
The iPhone encryption is to protect innocent people from tyrants. Only a psychopath would suggest that we flush the US constitution down the toilet.
I'm sending the FBI my thoughts and prayers at this difficult time.
There's nothing of value on that phone. NOTHING.
There must be no access possible under any conditions
Because we already KNOW they do illegal search and seizure on a daily basis.
THEY can not be trusted therefore:
Bulletproof and invulnerable encryption is our only recourse to force police to act within the law
As it is coming out that their Infineon backdoor has been discovered, as well as the ease of exploit of their Intel ME backdoors.
Curious thought: Does that NSA hardening flag in the ME11+ bios/firmware image also stop this debugger exploit from working?
Why do they feel the need to break into this guys phone ?
Do they honestly think he left some sort of manifesto behind on his PHONE ? Is it really common practice for today's whack-a-doo to leave behind some sort of movie-plot trail of breadcrumbs on their GD phone ?
Tip:
If you want to continue to use everyone's phones as a surveillance device ( before or after the fact ) you should probably cease putting the damn things under the spotlight. The more you harp on them, the more folks will realize what a goldmine of information they keep on them and will modify their behavior accordingly.
Much like how so many modified their behavior after Snowden showed the world just how untrustworthy you really are.
Manufacturers should understand that if they go along with Govt pressure and put them in all sneaky like, you should know you've basically just lit the fuse on your own company. Because when it becomes known that you played along, your company will cease to exist within a week. Folks won't be able to get rid of your product fast enough.
Or both?
I've seen both terms used in regards to this phone and I don't trust the media not to use these terms interchangeably. I don't even know that the FBI has stated one way or the other.
If it's encrypted though, the government is on its own to brute force it and Apple can't help decrypt it even if they wanted to, so this is a debate about nothing.
Apple can theoretically unlock the device by flashing it with new signed firmware, but I didn't understand in the San Bernardino case either why the FBI didn't just disassemble the phone and directly download the data from the flash memory chip.
Phone encryption is the problem here, not how easy it is for any lunatic to get a gun in the US. Sounds like just another distraction from the real issue.
Here is the 2nd Amendment:
Back in the day, the word "well regulated" mean "well equipped". The revolutionaries had just finished fending off the well equipped military of the King of England, and they did so because men of fighting age had arms.
In order to keep the new American State free, it's necessary to protect the State's freedom with a well equipped group of fighters. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because not only is that an inalienable right endowed by the Creator (as indicated in the Declaration of Independence), but keeping and bearing arms allows The People to be ready to fight for their freedom—especially against a distant, intractable, Tyrannical power, as the Federal government increasingly seems to be.
Look, the American theory of government is that rights existed before the government; it is not the government that grants rights, but rather the "Creator" (i.e., rights are an inherent aspect of sentient beings). A government gets its authority from the fact that The People collectively agree to delegate some of their own authorities to the Government; yet, the founders thought that the right to bear arms is so fundamental and important to a Free society, that they decided to enshrine that right explicitly in the 2nd Amendment (rather than leave it as one of the implicit, "unenumerated" rights), and in doing so, the founders forbade the government from even accepting from The People any delegation of the associated authority—as the Constitution is currently written, it's not even possible for The People to delegate away their right to keep and bear arms.
If the governments of the United States ever did get rid of the Second Amended, there would be a lot of people who would cry "Tyranny!"; those people would deny ever having legitimately delegated their right away, and there would be—without any doubt—a second Civil War.
Maybe a 48 hour cooling off period and a criminal background check should be required before you are able to buy an iPhone.
The phone is in their possession.
Want a gun? Fine. But you better show up every two weeks for militia training. Can't do it? Then no gun for you.
The FBI wants to take our rights away because they didn't think to get a fingerprint to login in within 48 hours? I suppose it would be too much to ask for them to do their job next time since this is the same FBI that had Zacarias Moussaoui in custory in August 2001 and noted that he seemed to want to fly a plane into the World Trade Center.
It works.
I like it just the way it is: where only I can access it.
There's no reason to repeal the second amendment. There are restrictions on speech, religion, and the press. The Constitution doesn't explicitly allow these restrictions, but it's implicitly understood that reasonable restrictions on freedom are necessary to prevent anarchy. If the second amendment was absolute, the existing restrictions on firearms would be unconstitutional. People should be allowed to own guns, and I support the right to self defense, even if lethal force is necessary. I don't want to repeal the second amendment, because it doesn't prohibit reasonable restrictions needed to reduce gun violence.
Regardless of whether there's a militia, the 2nd Amendment prohibits the governments of the United States from restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
This guy nailed it. Read that, and learn what it means to be an American.
what exactly are they hoping to learn? This sort of thing has been going on for ages and we've done fuck all about it. No sign of gun control since it's a complete losing issue politically. No expansion of mental health services. Hell, this guy was kicked out of the church by the pastor.
There's nothing to investigate here. A depressed loon ball with access to high power killing equipment who'd been shit on a bit too much said 'fuck it'. Case closed. What, you think you're gonna find the illuminati are behind it all? This is just another excuse to get decryption keys and back doors from manufactures. Fortunately it'll go nowhere since the more we discuss it the more we have to bring up universal medical care (which nobody wants to pay for) or gun control (which is DOA).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
> He shouldm't have been unable to purchase guns on the basis that ...and had a history of violent behavior.
> expand the data used in conducting these checks. Those on the right complain loudly that this somehow violates their second amendment rights
You're totally unaware that you're advocating for exactly the same things the NRA is saying. Under existing federal law, his attempts to purchase should have been blocked because he had plead guilty to intentionally attacking his toddler stepson so bad that he broke the baby's skull. But some people in government don't want to follow the law, they want to keep passing and ignoring more laws. Had the authorities followed existing federal laws, the purchases would not have been allowed.
Do you think the guy should have served serious prison time for intentionally breaking a kid's skull? How about for the numerous domestic assault cases? If you do, and if you actually believe what you said about actually DOING background checks, rather than passing and ignoring another pretend law, than you ARE "the right".
They know who, what, where, and when: What can a iPhone possibly tell them? Maybe he wrote a manifesto that will explain "why" and hid it where no-one can see it. Or FBI agents 'need' to spy on his friends and accomplices.
'Why' is easy: The USAF didn't want to admit they chose a violent sociopath. Institutionalized poverty guarantees a supply of young men ready to gamble with their lives. Unfortunately, that doesn't provide "the best of the best". In this case, the recruit was well below average and the USAF chose to hide their mistake.
Gun control isn't more laws: Honest attorneys have been saying for 20 years, there are 30,000 gun-control laws in the USA, another one won't fix everything. Gun control is enforcing the laws that already exist. It's creating the attitude that violence with guns must be punished. It's strange that a culture of 'tough on crime' excuses so much gun violence. Guns are so accepted that in many states, an accidental discharge isn't a crime, while equal negligence with a vehicle, is.
Don't make the mistake of thinking we live in a land where people agree with restrictions that have been imposed on the right to keep or bear arms, or especially on Free Speech.
Keeping Tyranny in check requires constant vigilance; I mean, FFS, at one point in time, even beer was outlawed in the so-called "Land of the Free"! Just because the government gets away with some restriction for a long period of time does not mean that it's "reasonable".
Instead of handing over the encryption keys to the government why not just employ some simple investigation instead? If they need to know what calls were made from the phone find out which carrier was used and get that info from them. If they want to see what emails were sent that can be found out too.
The FBI and the cops don't want to do this because it means having to get one of those pesky warrants. And that requires just cause, etc. No, they would rather just invade our privacy and trample on our 4th amendment rights along the way.
Does anyone know if the FBI considered the acoustic analysis that was offered in response to their pleas for help to the public?
It's worth the 30 minutes, the analysis presented some compelling information, was well explained and reasoned.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Why would the FBI be all panicky about being unable to get into the murderer's phone? Are they looking for signs of involvement with ISIS or the Russians? Who helped him get the guns? Well, other than the Air Farce, in failing to inform the NCIC of his court martial or his Bad Conduct Discharge or his conviction for domestic violence. Had the Air Force done that, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. On the other hand, most law enforcement agencies can't be bothered to actually arrest and prosecute criminals who try to buy guns.
It's quite likely that the FBI is ginning up a panic merely to muddy the waters and make this seem like's an actual problem, when it probably is not.
Aliens in the moon.
Liberal thought - âoeI donâ(TM)t trust the government enough to allow them to remove my encryption just because some bad things have happened in the past/present. They arenâ(TM)t trustworthy and frankly are dangerous tyrants.â
Now take the word âoeencryptionâ and replace it with âoegunsâ and anyone who would utter such a thing is viewed as completely nuts.
Reminds me of the liberal view of Islam. If you built the perfect anti-pattern to liberalism, you would have a theocracy bent on capitalistic corruption and the utter subjugation or extermination of LGBT/other religious flavors or atheists, and you would have to do it in a way that completely derided women.
AKA Islam.
It's bull. What really hampered that investigation was cops waiting over an hour before going in, even after the shooting stopped. Nothing about removing privacy protections has ever, is ever nor would ever, EVER be used to prevent or even prosecute crimes. If they cared about "getting bad guys", they wouldn't make sure the bad guys have a chance to do order pizza and do their dishes after finding out there's a shooting in progress.
There is a single goal, a sole intent behind this, as always: The worst possible and potential abuses that could theoretically be done by any new violation of our freedoms, the ones they tell us "they would totally never get caught doing". Those are the only things they want to go about their day enacting.
That FBI spokesman is a terrorist, and should be Guantanamo'd with his associates and family accordingly.
Make Timmy Cook Accomplice To Murder!
Then make Apple Inc. Accomplice To Murder!
The guy is dead and wont be shooting anyone else and if he wasn't, they would have more enough physical evidence to send the guy to Huntsville for lethal injection.
What exactly are they hoping to find by getting into this guy's phone that they cant get through physical evidence at the crime scene?
... Ineptitude Hampers Investigation of Texas Shooter, Says Common Sense.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Those pesky laws, constitutions, and amendments, we should just do away with them since they're interfering with investigations, right? Bring back the Writ of Assistance too I suppose?
Methinks they're just lazy, they need to relearn how to do investigations without relying on the crutch of stealing all our rights away to make their jobs easier. This is just a technological barrier, and has done far less to "interfere" with their work than has the constitution. If every time they ran into an investigative challenge they changed a law, we'd have no rights left inside a week.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
to break down laws and tools protecting everyone else that's done nothing wrong. You don't need phone records to prove a murder when you have dna, fingerprints, cameras, witnesses, etc.
Self stated "not good enough at their job" should be replaced by competent workers.
I'm pretty sure I read it in a few places when Touch ID was new -- it needs a life finger to work. It won't work with a cadaver.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
How can we have the device accurately and securely track time over such long periods? Keeping track of 48 hours is trivial, most cell phone batteries will last that long if not used, even a "dead" battery will keep an internal clock running for a couple days. If the battery truly runs dead then it assumes the 48 hour timeout period has passed.
About the only way I can think of on how to enforce a month or year long timeout is some kind of atomic battery, like those used in pacemakers until the material used for the power source got too expensive (even for a medical device) and batteries improved. Time can be tracked not just by keeping a clock running but by measuring the decay of the radioactive material that runs the power source.
Even that's not above being hacked by a determined person or group with sufficient resources. Cracking open the phone and doing things like modifying the clock and/or swapping out the power supply could defeat this.
I will say that owning a phone, or similar portable computing and communications device, that has an internal atomic clock and multi-year battery life would be totally awesome.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
How did the FBI investigate cases when most people didn't carry small computers on them all the time? I'm not really that concerned about what is effectively a blip of about 20 years where where personal devices were valuable evidence. We still solved crimes before this and we'll still solve crimes after this.
The alternative to encrypting every phone is rampant identity theft, and given that the government is happy to bail out credit agencies and banks but not help your average taxpaying victim has already drawn the lines for this battle.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
God forbid those incompetent, donut-gobbling jack-offs actually have to do some real police work.
Hey, FBI: If you care about the dead people, prosecute the Air Force personnel who apparently didn't think this scumbag's record of abuse warranted a call to the people who might have made it more difficult for him to get a gun. But you don't really care about the dead people, so quit whining about stripping away what little privacy law-abiding citizens have left because you're too lazy and too stupid to do your job without having everything handed to you on a plate.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
After reading this article, the next Slashdot in my feed describes a security bug with super-easy exploit, that can subtly control all your devices and read all your data regardless of encryption status. And "nobody important" (aka US gov't) seems to be up in arms about it.
But I suppose the device has to be powered on and based on Intel CPU.
https://it.slashdot.org/story/...
1. was it enabled?
2. did they really want to unlock it that easy and not have a high profile case against encryption?
Ten years ago, that shooter would have had a Nokia phone. With no information stored on it. I can't remember the FBI complaining that phones didn't store enough information, and were hindering their efforts back then?
This could be fake news. Hitting so many birds with one stone.
First, there are so many old news about bypassing security features of iPhones including fingerprint bypass and documented backdoors on iPhones.
Like this one, https://readwrite.com/2014/07/22/apple-ios-security-backdoor-iphone-ipad-surveillance/
Claiming iPhones cannot be decrypted is just plain false!
-This is just to give false sense of security to all iPhone users
-Increase sales of Apple because its encryption is industrial strength
-Push politicians to approve backdoors on all devices
Since easy to reset & wipe a device, chances are if someone plans ahead to kill a bunch of people fair chance they did not leave anything useful on their phone, especially since this subject gets significant publicity after a few incidents. Yeah would be nice if they could access but practically there is nothing to suggest anything useful on it if they got access.
Police and government have no business entering our private places. I truely hope that we come up with an unbreakable encryption system that forever locks them out.
You've got facts precisely backward again. EXISTING federal law is that if you have a criminal background, like the attacker did, you can't purchase or possess firearms. Unfortunately, when he was convicted in 2012, and purchased the guns a few years ago, the federal government was operating in a mode where the executive branch was ignoring the laws. The president at the time actually said he "had" to set a policy of breaking the law because chose not give him the law he wanted.
What the liberals want is the "may issue with good reason" law they passed in Washington DC and other places. It says the police "may issue" a firearm permit if the applicant shows that they have "good reason" to need to be able to exercise their Constitutional rights. Obviously, under that law anyone may be denied, simply because the cop doesn't feel like issuing a license at the moment because they'd rather go to lunch. The DC law has had been struck down as unconstitutional FOUR separate times. Each time it was struck down, the liberals kept passing it again because following the Constitution is less important to them than following Al Gore.
So the president is absolutely correct, under the laws that liberals want (and keep passing again after it's struck down), anyone may be denied their Constitutional rights for any reason or no reason. The police "may issue" the permit if they feel like it.
What "may issue" ends up being in practice is "issue if your dad is a sheriff, or your husband is a judge". When I was in a "may issue" state I once ran right through a red light and got pulled over. I couldn't find my driver's license (the bank had put it in the envelope with my cash). The cop said he was going to take me to jail until he could verify I had a valid DL. That's when I showed him my gun permit. He apologized for pulling me over and sent me on my way - no ticket for running right through a red light, or not having my DL with me, because obviously I was somebody important - the police chief had issued me a gun license, and not just anyone can get a license in a "may issue" state.
read this entirely for a classified document on how they decrypt any phone - FBI is lying
US DOJ staffers engaged in warrantless surveillance against me using psi weaponry then had my body irradiated and hit with parakinesis to cover it up. The original site of use was Oregon State Hospital now have
been targeted for 9 years of rape, torture, and murder attempts. I am best friends with top NSA/CIA whistleblowers and am one myself. I contacted DOJ before just to be disrespected multiple times. I witnessed DOJ fuck up and hide the truth from the American people. The government is not made up of nice people, they are into eugenics and population control. They kill over 500,000 citizens annually using psych drugs alone- more citizens have been executed than in the holocaust. 1000s are executed by the police directly via quite deliberate shootings on the street. Others are assassinated in secret. Others get put in prison for life times with no due process. All the government's crimes are always hidden. Now I am here to provide the classified documents on a space based weapon they have used to beam radiation into countless citizens brains forcing them to kill themselves and others. Countless cars have been driven off cliffs and planes downed with this technology. They could have easily used the brain scans of entrapment victims to learn how to help them but instead they walk the people to their death/demise.
I have endured irradiation, torture and murder attempts for over 9 years here in Oregon and other states to bring you this Intel. The documents will fully expose a satellite and ground based radar/cell tower/laser network to remotely access our brains, bodies, environments, electronics- allowing full quantum remote control from great distances and for any state of matter or energy to be accessed from any distance. They can even influence a brain to make it do a bombing unwitting to the individual as may have been done to Mohammed Mohomed- he would not even know they reprogrammed him to do it. The documents confirm the FBI and local law enforcement have full access to this weapon and will kill and discredit citizens before taking criminal actions against its use which is why no official has done anything to shut this down for decades. Countless lawyers and advocates use the tech warrantlessly and in secret getting Intel for parallel construction and gaining the upper hand. Congress letter included confirms they know about it and kept it secret from the public. Secret law has made this secretly legal. This technology predates UPSTREAM and PRISM programs. The technology dates back to 1920s. By 1950s it was fully deployed in space over many citizens homes and today is deployed globally. NSA data centers store brain scans of citizens and scan data of environment and effects- the brain is fully decrypted to their memories, thoughts, images, sound, emotions, vital signs etc.
4th amendment and Kyllo v United States fully subverted- for this tech to work illegal searches with through wall and off wall laser/radar scans must take place. To seize control over someone's brain/body/environment is like taking them into custody. It is also a 1st amendment violation by preventing the generation of free speech and by preventing citizens from developing who they are and want to be. NSA/CIA whistleblowers standing by to testify in court.
Here's some emails from my friends, NSA whistleblowers, psychologist, confirming I'm a victim and going into the details on how the President's have tortured me, tried to kill me, but I survived maimed. I have had the full set of Neuropsychological and Electronic No Touch Torture used on me described in a document below. My body has been hit with directed energy from the governments space capability. I've been spied on, memories and thoughts monitored, and movements tracked for over 9 years in battles with the government. I have even been raped over 1000 times, as the directed energy massages my genitals forcing orgasms, in a futuristic 'virtual sex' method. It's like fucking an in
Hero in quotes... so the guy that ran barefoot to the scene, and DROVE OFF the shooter (as attested by the shooters 'to be next' victim), read again: STOPPING THE SHOOTING IN PROGRESS, and then chased him down before he could get to the NEXT place (because you always leave guns/ammo/running vehicle behind when making a last stand, right?)... you're not sure he's a hero? Why, because he didn't come out as gay on tv like 'real heros'?
Personally I'd take it as the fact the hero used an AR-15...which is the gun media and california whine about as being super evil and only used to kill defenseless immigrant schoolchildren that have cancer. Especially with chainsaw attachments. So yes, if certain idiots had their way, our NRA-certified trainer that does Santa-Claus for impoverished children, he'd not have had his gun that day - and the shooter would have at the very least claimed one more victim.
Yeah:
* https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1820163660
You don't need armed civilians to stop a shooter:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Thalys_train_attack
An FBI study found that between 2000 and 2013 more "active shooters" were stopped by unarmed civilians (21; 13%) versus armed civilians (5; 3%):
* https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf
* https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents
The good-guy-civilian-with-gun argument is not supported by historical data. Are there instances where this happens? Yes. But it is uncommon.
I also ran across a one-off study that showed:
Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).
Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.
* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/
I don't know of any follow-up studies, so take the one-off with a grain of salt.
The cops had two days to use the dead shooter's fingerprint to unlock his phone. Are they claiming ignorance of the technology?
Try ignorance of the law as a defense next time you get into trouble with the police - see how well that goes for you.
His argument is supported by the first 100 or so years of case law on the subject. The idea that it was a collective vs an individual right only came about after the civil war, when southern lawmakers were looking for ways to keep newly freed blacks disarmed. Prior to this time it was never interpreted that way, including the time when the people who wrote the amendment were still alive and active in government.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
For someone with resources of a Nation state or the FBI, it is totally possible to get into an encrypted Android or iPhone. All one has to do is desolder the SOC and brute force the password, which is likely a crappy one easily found using a rainbow table. Even a 16 char random password can be brute forced in a few days with modern cracking rigs.
This whole process was illustrated by a contractor the last time this was in the news.
Really, I know people need work but isn't it enough to simply say that a person with a severe emotional problem murdered a bunch of people. One can investigate the purple, flying Jesus out of it all and in the end it will come down to a mentally ill man acting out with great rage and hatred. Do we really need to spend millions to come to that conclusion?
How many more cases could be solved if we just gave authorities access to everything. They would never abuse this, no matter what the current political climate is.
I am sorry, but I simply do not care. No real purpose is served in finding out the motives of these men.
From the 2nd Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" (the comma doesn't change anything, and wasn't really meant to be left in the final document, anyway; go read about the history of its passage and ratification).
Furthermore, your own example from the Virginian constitution doubles down on this idea. It says that a well-equipped group of fighters, composed of the body of the people (that is, every individual), such that those people are familiar with arms and how to use them, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State. I mean, it explicitly says "composed of the body of the people" and scoffs at standing armies in time of peace. Your idea of a governmental agency called a "militia" composed of official militiamen would be a.... wait for it.... STANDING ARMY.
Come on, man. COME ON! It's right there.
What happens if the person does not own a phone. Law enforcement going to say "No phone, nothing to do guys, wrap it up...... joe your turn to buy the donuts"
Police having been solving crimes for hundreds of year by using their brains, I know its an old fashioned idea, but try it.
I hate to say this but we have to modify metal detectors to sense that someone is carrying big weapons in any buildings. Maybe have door locks automatically trapping the suspect in the foyer. Have small windows so he can't shoot his way out. Even if you don't want to stop them. Keep the dam cameras on them at the very least! Then you will know their locations. Churches and Schools almost have to have sharp shooters above since the EN ARE EH can't keep their hands off of big weapon money! ..White House update: The rifle butt stock modification bill died in the White House because one side of the $$$ aisle would not vote no. $$$
My right to privacy is more important than what law enforcement wants.
My right to possess firearms is more important than the lives of victims killed by guns.
MAGA.
The shooter had FAS face, & .: FAS & w/axs to guns he killes people.
There. I explained. No need to hack anything. Fucking morons.
You would learn nothing important from an iPhone user trust me on this.
FBI killed Ian Murdoch for not giving backdoor access in Debian Linux (e.g.. QNAP NAS's). I suggest they remove Tim Cook and stop being homophobic about data mining moles work ethics.
There is no private key in Apple's possession. Their system does not work that way.
His argument is supported by the first 100 or so years of case law on the subject.
Leaving aside the near non-existence of federal law regarding civil rights in that time period(And that you don't think I know that, or that you don't know that, is a terrible shame either way that you can't win), you didn't name a single case either yourself, so nope, you have not supported it, just like the failed post above.
Which in case you didn't notice, even contradicted itself, by relying on the 2nd Amendment, then turned back to claim it was a pre-existing right.
An intelligent person would then realize that arguments based on phrasing the 2nd Amendment are thus irrelevant, and refrain from them, since they would serve no purpose, the actual 2nd Amendment is not controlling.
The idea that it was a collective vs an individual right only came about after the civil war, when southern lawmakers were looking for ways to keep newly freed blacks disarmed.
And? This has nothing to do with what we were talking about, I believe your reading of the above post is incorrect, they weren't concerned about that at all, but instead advancing an argument from another direction.
This is especially so since many of the people who fought for the Secession were the ones declaring "Tyranny" when it came to arming the Blacks and the Federal government preventing them from suppressing the political rights of the then newly-freed slaves.
That should show how bad their argumentation is, even aside from the well acknowledged failures from that era, which pre-date the Civil War, including a certain recognized opinion by one Roger Taney.
Prior to this time it was never interpreted that way, including the time when the people who wrote the amendment were still alive and active in government.
The people who wrote the Amendment were still alive and active in government when they were suppressing three separate rebellions(Whiskey, Shays and Fries), passing laws meant to deter immigrants getting citizenship because of partisan bias (Naturalization Act), censoring the public (Sedition Act), and that's not even getting into their treatment of the Cherokee, the suppression of Nat Turner's Rebellion (against slavery), and even the benighted invasion of Canada.
What's the point of making them the crux of your argument?
Look, you want to make an argument? Do what I suggested already, make it de novo, on its own merits and principles, don't cloak yourself in falsehood, tedium, and pedantry, let alone by associating yourselves with the fools who created the Electoral College.
Be a morally courageous person, and stand up for your rights on their own.
You'll be much more respectable.
What does it matter what is/isn't on his phone? The perp is dead, the justice systems options are pretty much at an end. I highly doubt there is anywhere near enough on that phone, or any phone in the history of crime, to justify building exploits into devices used by millions that will be used for both good and ill (probably mostly the former). Not being able to track people impedes plenty of investigations too, why not force all people to get tracking chips implanted.
Locks on doors and curtains on windows hamper investigation inside square building with 3 walls.
Why do so many killers have iPhones?
I'm not doing your homework for you. Case law is public. Go look it up. All of your other arguments have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Just a bunch of strawmen.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
One did.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Back in the day, the word "well regulated" mean "well equipped".
*citation needed
Not mentioned is that the police and FBI waited too long, and the phone locked itself up (as a security and safety measure). If they'd brought the phone into Apple, Apple could have gotten the data still. Apple explicitly reached out to both FBI and police to offer this but they waited too long and the phone went into "deep freeze".
The FBI at least but also police should be living in the 21st century and should already know the general features of the dominant smart phones to know this. They are NOT doing their job at all if they claim this isn't important. On top of this the vendor came to them proactively to explain this time criticality and offer of help. They fucked that up by laziness, incompetence or arrogance. If their case is damaged that's 100% on them!
I don't want security on iPhones changed just because the FBI and police are incompetent fucks. Perhaps especially because they demonstrate that they are exactly that.
Bulletproof encryption isn't the only recourse left: Bullets are. Bullets, and, if we're lucky, our military completely loaded with 'democracy'm to deal with the military gear the LEO crime gangs now have at their disposal. The justice system has utterly collapsed. The founding fathers warned us it would need doing eventually.
Wrong.
The founders saw that INSURRECTION against the state appointed leaders (Police, judges) would be a danger to the status quo, and made ALL OF YOUR (militia) liable to be drafted to "putting down insurrections" in ARticle 1.
As for the Military, they do not serve democracy, as noted by the enthusiastic volunteering to kill in Afghanistan and Iraq on the orders of a NOT elected leader (bush v. Gore stopped the count of legal votes)
Great! So the FBI is again trying to put a backdoor in iPhones? I thought this bullshit was settled several years ago. I seriously doubt that Apple is going to comply, and they will also most likely find some legal loophole around it.