I've used a gun for self-defense. I was sitting in a BBQ joint minding my own business when someone decided to start beating the hell out of the woman who was with him. He didn't take kindly to me telling someone to call 911 and turned his attention to me. I never had to fire a shot but I did need to be prepared to do so.
I wasn't in a bad part of the country, or state or city. I was with a number of other people in a nice little BBQ restaurant minding my own business. While I didn't expect violence, I was prepared for it. Are you?
The fantasy world is the one in which you reside where one can control their environment to the point that they have nothing to worry about. Chances are that you'll never have to defend yourself or anyone you're with or a complete stranger. But if you do what will you use?
And before you say that you'll wait for the police, the entire incident was over before the police ever answered the phone.
The average gun owner is more likely to defend themselves with a gun than to use it to hurt anyone.
It's not always necessary to fire a shot in order to use a gun for self-defense. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, guns are used for self-defense over 225 times per day. This study is on the more conservative side of most such studies: Firearm Violence, 1993-2011.
The statistic "more likely to kill themselves or a family member" is a purposeful manipulation of the statistics. Nobody has to be killed in order to successfully use a gun for self-defense.
Not sure where you got that, but it was Maryland's Court of Special Appeals; Maryland's second highest court. Its decision is binding on the entire state.
The government can ask for an en banc hearing from the Court of Special Appeals or appeal to Maryland's highest court, The Court of Appeals.
The original opinion was written by a trial judge and the first sentence of TFA states, "The Maryland Court of Special Appeals on Wednesday upheld a historic decision by a state trial court that the warrantless use of cell-site simulators, or Stingrays, violates the Fourth Amendment."
The opinion has not yet been filed but here's the order.
Apple said they're designing their systems so even they can't break them. That doesn't mean every iPhone generation out there can't be broken. Recognizing that older model iPhones like the 5c have limited physical capabilities (no secure enclave), they built certain capabilities into the O/S.
We all know, those of us paying attention anyway, that an O/S written and signed by Apple can be installed on this particular model of iPhone that can bypass erasure of the data when too many wrong passcode entries are attempted.
Apple is not getting paid to test their own security. Apple is being forced, via this court order, to write and sign a new version of the O/S that will bypass erasure of the data and allow passcode entries via a connected peripheral device rather than the touchscreen.
Even someone as thick as I can see that writing and signing a new O/S with undesirable features isn't part of "testing their security." Surely you can see this as well.
"How is getting paid for something you should already be doing anyway a horrible intrusion onto your liberty?"
How is building a new O/S that bypasses their security capabilities "something [they] should already be doing?"
It's an intrusion onto [my/Apple's/your] liberty when the government forces [me/Apple/you] to do something [I/Apple/you] don't want to do regardless of whether or not compensation is involved.
You seem to be stuck on the fact that Apple is simply being asked to test their security, they're not, they're being told to bypass their security by building a new O/S. Here is the wording from the court order:
Apple's reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish the following three important functions: (1) it will bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled; (2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT DEVICE and (3) it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware.
Apple's reasonable technical assistance may include, but is not limited to: providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File ("SIF") that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the device's flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade ("DFU") mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 2. The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter, Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE through a computer allowing the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis.
If Apple determines that it can achieve the three functions stated above in paragraph 2, as well as the functionality set forth in paragraph 3, using an alternate technological means from that recommended by the government, and the government concurs, Apple may comply with this Order in that way.
Even if all they were doing was attempting to break the security of the installed O/S it's up to Apple to decide how best to do that, not government orders.
If you can't see the difference then, frankly, there's no hope you'll understand the liberty implications either.
It is not a win-win when Apple, or any other company, or you or I are forced to work on things we don't want to work on even if we're compensated.
Apple doesn't have unlimited resources. The FBI isn't asking Apple to perform more security audits. They are attempting to force Apple to write software that will allow the FBI to break into the iPhone.
Take that single phrase, "force Apple to write software." Perhaps you believe that Apple should write that software anyway to enhance the security of their products.
Do you not think that Apple may disagree with your conclusion.
Your argument is that as long as the government compensates them it shouldn't matter that Apple disagrees.
Here's a simple question for you, from where do the resources to write that software come?
If those resources are working on other projects that Apple more highly values then Apple loses the opportunity to deliver those other projects. If multiple products depend on those projects then Apple has multiple products that are delayed. Is that not a loss for Apple? Is it not a loss for Apple when the government dictates to them how to use their resources? What difference does it make if the government compensates them for their labor?
I assume that Apple does have as one of their top priorities the security of the iPhone and already have whole teams of people working on it internally.
I'm stumped by your position, though. How do you not see the problem when the government can dictate how a private entity deploys their resources, in effect, reaching into a company and setting their development priorities?
Apple did nothing wrong, they do not own the phone, the government screwed up when they took possession of the phone and now the government believes it can set Apple's development priorities and you think it's O.K. as long as the government pays them for their labor.
Look at the latest story where the U.S. Department of Justice now has 12 additional iPhones they want unlocked. What if they all require different methods in order to be unlocked? You seem to be saying, "Well, that's too bad for Apple's product and development plans but, after all, the government is compensating them for their labor."
Then again, as you've previously stated, "Screw Apple."
""Perhaps Apple doesn't want to divert their resources off of the products and product lines that are important to them as a company." Yeah, the iPhone is such an ancillary product for Apple. I agree!/s"
I didn't claim the iPhone was an ancillary product for them. I presume that building the software the FBI wants is not on Apple's current product plan. What products should Apple put on hold in order to fulfill the FBI's request?
"the govt. has not mandated any particular kind of exploit. They just want the info off of this phone. Great! Work to crack it on the govt's dime and if they are successful, then they've identified security holes to be patched in future versions. It's win-win all around."
How is it win-win if Apple has to divert resources off of Apple's desired work-plan in order to work on the government's wish list? The government is seeking to re-prioritize Apple's product road map and development resources to favor the government. Doing it on the "government's dime" doesn't change the fact that the government is dictating to Apple how they allocate their internal resources. Perhaps if the government thought you could be helpful they could divert you from your plans and get you to solve one of their problems. As long as it's on their dime why would you care whether or not you wanted to participate.
Perhaps you believe that Apple has unlimited resources and can continue with their current product plans un-interrupted and still satisfy the government's request.
"They are just trying to protect their brand." - Is it not Apple's right to protect their brand?. Is that not a liability that Apple should protect? The very same type of liability you dismiss because they're a "multi-billion dollar company."
Perhaps Apple doesn't want to divert their resources off of the products and product lines that are important to them as a company.
Perhaps Apple doesn't want the liability if they mistakenly delete all the data the FBI wants.
Perhaps Apple doesn't want to set a legal precedent that companies will result in ever increasing demands to break their products in the way the government desires.
That's certainly an interesting question and raises others:
- Can the FBI, with a warrant for one case, use it as justification to take property (the O/S) from someone unconnected to the case (Apple)?
If the answer is yes, then let's extend it to a hypothetical. Let's say that there are only two left of a highly-prized collector's car. One is used in a crime and you own the other. If the FBI has a warrant in the case to determine how the crime-related car was used, could they use that warrant to seize your car in order to perform experimentation? Could the FBI use its warrant to compel you to explain how your car works or to assist them in determining how the car was used, given your expertise? Even if assisting the FBI would cause damage to your reputation, or interfere with your plans for your life or you just didn't want to participate?
- Assuming that the FBI is able to get some legal order compelling Apple to deliver its software so another company is able to examine it and build what the FBI wants, is that a taking under the U.S. Constitution requiring that Apple be reimbursed?
This is the slippery slope that, I believe, creates many, many problems. As Apple's CEO wrestles with finding a compromise so as to avoid a legal precedent, I think it's in the government's best interest to find a compromise as well. It's unfortunate that one of the reasons we're in this mess is because the government screwed up handling the iPhone once it gained possession.
What the government is asking is that Apple divert its private resources away from Apple's priorities in order to develop a product for the government.
In United States v. New York Telephone, which may be the closest Supreme Court precedent related to this case, the Supreme Court ruled that New York Telephone needed to install a pen register for the government because it wasn't a burden on New York Telephone. It wasn't a burden because New York Telephone owned the equipment and already installed pen registers for their own, internal use.
In this case Apple does not own or control the equipment and does not already create software to perform this type of unlock. It seems to me that this is a burden.
The FBI has been asking for encryption backdoors for some time and Congress, rightly or wrongly depending on your perspective, has not created legislation to do that. The FBI then gets a sympathetic case and decides to go through the courts to force a company to build a product in order to "unlock" a phone. If the government succeeds in creating this precedent then what's to prevent them from forcing any company to "unlock" a phone; whether it's via building a new OS version or creating a method to "backdoor" the encryption?
This becomes even more complex given the other discoveries that the county government changed the passcode after taking possession of the phone but are now unable to use the new passcode to unlock the phone. Also, don't forget, the county could have purchased a service that would have given them centralized control of their iPhones but chose not to, presumably because of cost.
If the government succeeds and can force Apple to build an OS they don't want to build and there's a bug in the code that causes erasure of the data then will Apple be held in contempt of court? What will help Apple recover whatever reputation they would lose as a result?
If the government succeeds in their effort to deputize/reprioritize/commander private resources to "create an OS version" of their liking against the will of the creators then you've created a real mess with liberty.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
The article says that Apple sent engineers to get the iPhone to connect to a known Wi-Fi network "and triggering an iCloud backup." It doesn't say if they were hoping it would do it on its own or if they had a method to trigger the backup.
A known way around the encryption, if you backup to iCloud, is to reset the password on the iCloud account and restore the iCloud backup to a new device.
Creating a mechanical solution to a behavioral problem can also have it's problems.
As a firearms-safety instructor I'm very concerned about loaded-chamber indicators. They're there to "solve" the problem of people "accidentally" shooting themselves. As a result you end up creating a generation of folks who think that ALL guns have loaded-chamber indicators and the rather apparent problem that's created when said person picks up a gun that doesn't have one. The loaded-chamber indicator is a "feel-good" solution to the wrong problem.
There might be many reasons to have so-called "smart" guns but don't be too quick to assign the feature of safety upon people who live otherwise unsafe lives. My biggest concern about a "smart" gun is it won't work when I need it to. My other concern is it will work when it's not supposed to work. Reliance on such technology for safety merely transfers liability from the gun-owner to the manufacturer.
- Vehicles don't need to be registered if used on private property - No government permission is needed to transfer ownership of an automobile - There are no restrictions on who may purchase an automobile - Background checks aren't needed in order to purchase an automobile - Anyone can travel to another state and rent an automobile for local use - To operate a vehicle on public roads one only needs to pass a test and carry insurance - I can go to any other state and purchase any automobile I can afford - No license to purchase an automobile - No waiting period to take ownership of an automobile - No limit on how frequently I can purchase an automobile - No legal restriction on how much fuel my automobile can carry, how many cylinders in my engine or how fast it is capable of being driven - My driver's license is recognized by all the states and D.C.
The claim that automobile regulations are stricter than gun regulations can only be made by someone who doesn't understand gun regulations, car regulations or both.
Someone from California can not travel to any other state and legally purchase a firearm. If they're going to break the law to get a gun why would they bother traveling to do it?
"Over two years ago, the department claimed that 'no records responsive to your request were located' - a baffling assertion, given Reine's well-documented correspondence..." "Last last week, however, the State Department came up with a very different answer: It had located an estimated 17,000 emails responsive to Gawker's request."
It took a lawsuit to uncover the State Department's illegal response to a Freedom of Information Act request. In this case, "20 boxes" of official emails were found on the personal account of Reines.
Philippe Reines was the former deputy assistant secretary of state and "aggressive defender" of Hillary Clinton.
The choices of what's going on are easily reduced to a small number:
- Clinton and her top aides simply care nothing about protocol because they're going to do things their way and screw what everyone thinks about it
- Clinton and her top aides willfully violated the law on multiple occasions and don't care what anyone thinks of it
- Clinton and her top aides were consistently incompetent in executing their statute-mandated responsibilities
- It's a vast, right-wing conspiracy to bring down the Clintons.
Now, which of the first three choices leads anyone to believe that Clinton deserves to be President?
If you still think it's a vast, right-wing conspiracy then I guess you have to throw the federal district courts and Clinton-appointed judges into the mix.
I don't know if the numbers will ever be in the gazillions. It is a good fit for me though. I used to wear watches which were as much jewelry as functional timepieces. I stopped wearing them when I retired and would simply pull my phone out of my pocket to see what time it was.
However, I do a lot of hiking and play a lot of golf where I walk the course.
I was looking at the purpose-built devices from Garmin and others to do distance and fitness tracking but was hesitant to spend the money to get the features I wanted. I went with the Apple watch because the price point was not much different from the purpose-built devices and could provide additional functionality.
There are a ton of features I don't care about and the non-Apple applications tend to suck right now.
As with many general-purpose devices, the features that fit in either my desired or undesired sets are probably different than the sets of other people. The fact that purpose-built devices such as those you list were growing in the market leads me to believe that a general purpose device should find a market.
The fact that analysts either want the watch to be wildly successful or a complete failure is of no importance to me. The analyst opinions are generally mirroring what I see from people who've tried the watch - they either love it or hate it. I tend to be in the middle, it delivers functionality I desire and I don't care about the additional functionality I choose not to use.
It doesn't take much of a Google search to find examples of suppression of free speech in Iran.
I'm sure the Iranian regime has deserved "better press [than] they have tended to get since Khomeiny toppled the puppet shah." "Better press" would have made the pure evilness of the regime much better known.
The "demented ravings of some of their past leaders?" How about the demented ravings of their current leaders (and here)?
- The west is plotting to "arouse the sexual desires" in Islamic Iran - Israel is run by sub-human leaders - Death to America - Israel is the sinister, unclean rabid dog of the region - Every Muslim who does not want to fight Israel is violating religious law - The destruction of Israel... is one of the pillars of the Iranian Islamic regime
"After Mr. Gruber helped the administration put together the basic principles of the proposal, the White House lent him to Capitol Hill to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation."
YouTube video of Jonathan Gruber from January 18, 2012. Starting at about the 31 minute market Gruber specifically states that the law was designed so that if a state doesn't establish an exchange then that state's citizens would not receive a subsidy.
Dennis Hastert was 6 years old when the current version of the law making it illegal to lie to the FBI was created. It's origin goes back to the False Claims Act of 1863, long before the FBI existed.
His big issue, as was Martha Stewart's and a bunch of other folks, was lying about it.
The secondary issue of reporting financial transactions is based on a law from 1970, the Bank Secrecy Act. The requirement of the bank to report suspicious activity was part of the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act from 1992.
While it might be nice to claim that Hastert was hoisted by his own petard with the Patriot Act, the fact is the Patriot Act's expansion of these previously existing money laundering and bank secrecy acts were related, primarily, to international money transfers. In fact, the title of that section is, "International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001."
Although the Patriot Act expanded the reporting requirements of a structured transaction, the banks were already required to report such structured transactions to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network by the 1992 law as part of a Suspicious Activity Report. The IRS already had authority to seize monies given a warrant based on Suspicious Activity Reports.
The big changes found in the Patriot Act were related to making it easier to recognize structured transactions, the expansion of the definition of a financial institution and a number of changes to the infrastructure and reporting mechanisms related to the reporting requirements.
What Hastert did was illegal long before the Patriot Act.
(There is a section of Wikipedia that claims that the Patriot Act made it illegal to to structure transactions in a manner that evades reporting requirements. However, that was already illegal and the wording in Wikipedia is more probably related to the structuring of foreign transactions or transactions that involve foreign currency and coin.)
I won't defend either Hastert or the Patriot Act - they both suck. But the fact is, these reporting requirements go back a long way and they sucked just as much before 2001 as they do now. This case is another example of why you don't answer the FBI's questions about anything without an attorney.
Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Department of Justice says guns are used over 200 times a day for self-defense.
I've used a gun for self-defense. I was sitting in a BBQ joint minding my own business when someone decided to start beating the hell out of the woman who was with him. He didn't take kindly to me telling someone to call 911 and turned his attention to me. I never had to fire a shot but I did need to be prepared to do so.
I wasn't in a bad part of the country, or state or city. I was with a number of other people in a nice little BBQ restaurant minding my own business. While I didn't expect violence, I was prepared for it. Are you?
The fantasy world is the one in which you reside where one can control their environment to the point that they have nothing to worry about. Chances are that you'll never have to defend yourself or anyone you're with or a complete stranger. But if you do what will you use?
And before you say that you'll wait for the police, the entire incident was over before the police ever answered the phone.
The average gun owner is more likely to defend themselves with a gun than to use it to hurt anyone.
It's not always necessary to fire a shot in order to use a gun for self-defense. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, guns are used for self-defense over 225 times per day. This study is on the more conservative side of most such studies: Firearm Violence, 1993-2011.
The statistic "more likely to kill themselves or a family member" is a purposeful manipulation of the statistics. Nobody has to be killed in order to successfully use a gun for self-defense.
Not sure where you got that, but it was Maryland's Court of Special Appeals; Maryland's second highest court. Its decision is binding on the entire state.
The government can ask for an en banc hearing from the Court of Special Appeals or appeal to Maryland's highest court, The Court of Appeals.
The original opinion was written by a trial judge and the first sentence of TFA states, "The Maryland Court of Special Appeals on Wednesday upheld a historic decision by a state trial court that the warrantless use of cell-site simulators, or Stingrays, violates the Fourth Amendment."
The opinion has not yet been filed but here's the order.
Apple said they're designing their systems so even they can't break them. That doesn't mean every iPhone generation out there can't be broken. Recognizing that older model iPhones like the 5c have limited physical capabilities (no secure enclave), they built certain capabilities into the O/S.
We all know, those of us paying attention anyway, that an O/S written and signed by Apple can be installed on this particular model of iPhone that can bypass erasure of the data when too many wrong passcode entries are attempted.
Apple is not getting paid to test their own security. Apple is being forced, via this court order, to write and sign a new version of the O/S that will bypass erasure of the data and allow passcode entries via a connected peripheral device rather than the touchscreen.
Even someone as thick as I can see that writing and signing a new O/S with undesirable features isn't part of "testing their security." Surely you can see this as well.
"How is getting paid for something you should already be doing anyway a horrible intrusion onto your liberty?"
How is building a new O/S that bypasses their security capabilities "something [they] should already be doing?"
It's an intrusion onto [my/Apple's/your] liberty when the government forces [me/Apple/you] to do something [I/Apple/you] don't want to do regardless of whether or not compensation is involved.
You seem to be stuck on the fact that Apple is simply being asked to test their security, they're not, they're being told to bypass their security by building a new O/S. Here is the wording from the court order:
Apple's reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish the following three important functions: (1) it will bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled; (2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT DEVICE and (3) it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware.
Apple's reasonable technical assistance may include, but is not limited to: providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File ("SIF") that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the device's flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade ("DFU") mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 2. The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter, Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE through a computer allowing the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis.
If Apple determines that it can achieve the three functions stated above in paragraph 2, as well as the functionality set forth in paragraph 3, using an alternate technological means from that recommended by the government, and the government concurs, Apple may comply with this Order in that way.
Even if all they were doing was attempting to break the security of the installed O/S it's up to Apple to decide how best to do that, not government orders.
If you can't see the difference then, frankly, there's no hope you'll understand the liberty implications either.
It is not a win-win when Apple, or any other company, or you or I are forced to work on things we don't want to work on even if we're compensated.
Apple doesn't have unlimited resources. The FBI isn't asking Apple to perform more security audits. They are attempting to force Apple to write software that will allow the FBI to break into the iPhone.
Take that single phrase, "force Apple to write software." Perhaps you believe that Apple should write that software anyway to enhance the security of their products.
Do you not think that Apple may disagree with your conclusion.
Your argument is that as long as the government compensates them it shouldn't matter that Apple disagrees.
Here's a simple question for you, from where do the resources to write that software come?
If those resources are working on other projects that Apple more highly values then Apple loses the opportunity to deliver those other projects. If multiple products depend on those projects then Apple has multiple products that are delayed. Is that not a loss for Apple? Is it not a loss for Apple when the government dictates to them how to use their resources? What difference does it make if the government compensates them for their labor?
I assume that Apple does have as one of their top priorities the security of the iPhone and already have whole teams of people working on it internally.
I'm stumped by your position, though. How do you not see the problem when the government can dictate how a private entity deploys their resources, in effect, reaching into a company and setting their development priorities?
Apple did nothing wrong, they do not own the phone, the government screwed up when they took possession of the phone and now the government believes it can set Apple's development priorities and you think it's O.K. as long as the government pays them for their labor.
Look at the latest story where the U.S. Department of Justice now has 12 additional iPhones they want unlocked. What if they all require different methods in order to be unlocked? You seem to be saying, "Well, that's too bad for Apple's product and development plans but, after all, the government is compensating them for their labor."
Then again, as you've previously stated, "Screw Apple."
""Perhaps Apple doesn't want to divert their resources off of the products and product lines that are important to them as a company." Yeah, the iPhone is such an ancillary product for Apple. I agree! /s"
I didn't claim the iPhone was an ancillary product for them. I presume that building the software the FBI wants is not on Apple's current product plan. What products should Apple put on hold in order to fulfill the FBI's request?
"the govt. has not mandated any particular kind of exploit. They just want the info off of this phone. Great! Work to crack it on the govt's dime and if they are successful, then they've identified security holes to be patched in future versions. It's win-win all around."
How is it win-win if Apple has to divert resources off of Apple's desired work-plan in order to work on the government's wish list? The government is seeking to re-prioritize Apple's product road map and development resources to favor the government. Doing it on the "government's dime" doesn't change the fact that the government is dictating to Apple how they allocate their internal resources. Perhaps if the government thought you could be helpful they could divert you from your plans and get you to solve one of their problems. As long as it's on their dime why would you care whether or not you wanted to participate.
Perhaps you believe that Apple has unlimited resources and can continue with their current product plans un-interrupted and still satisfy the government's request.
"They are just trying to protect their brand." - Is it not Apple's right to protect their brand?. Is that not a liability that Apple should protect? The very same type of liability you dismiss because they're a "multi-billion dollar company."
Perhaps Apple doesn't want to divert their resources off of the products and product lines that are important to them as a company.
Perhaps Apple doesn't want the liability if they mistakenly delete all the data the FBI wants.
Perhaps Apple doesn't want to set a legal precedent that companies will result in ever increasing demands to break their products in the way the government desires.
Perhaps Apple is taking a principled stand.
That's certainly an interesting question and raises others:
- Can the FBI, with a warrant for one case, use it as justification to take property (the O/S) from someone unconnected to the case (Apple)?
If the answer is yes, then let's extend it to a hypothetical. Let's say that there are only two left of a highly-prized collector's car. One is used in a crime and you own the other. If the FBI has a warrant in the case to determine how the crime-related car was used, could they use that warrant to seize your car in order to perform experimentation? Could the FBI use its warrant to compel you to explain how your car works or to assist them in determining how the car was used, given your expertise? Even if assisting the FBI would cause damage to your reputation, or interfere with your plans for your life or you just didn't want to participate?
- Assuming that the FBI is able to get some legal order compelling Apple to deliver its software so another company is able to examine it and build what the FBI wants, is that a taking under the U.S. Constitution requiring that Apple be reimbursed?
This is the slippery slope that, I believe, creates many, many problems. As Apple's CEO wrestles with finding a compromise so as to avoid a legal precedent, I think it's in the government's best interest to find a compromise as well. It's unfortunate that one of the reasons we're in this mess is because the government screwed up handling the iPhone once it gained possession.
What the government is asking is that Apple divert its private resources away from Apple's priorities in order to develop a product for the government.
In United States v. New York Telephone, which may be the closest Supreme Court precedent related to this case, the Supreme Court ruled that New York Telephone needed to install a pen register for the government because it wasn't a burden on New York Telephone. It wasn't a burden because New York Telephone owned the equipment and already installed pen registers for their own, internal use.
In this case Apple does not own or control the equipment and does not already create software to perform this type of unlock. It seems to me that this is a burden.
The FBI has been asking for encryption backdoors for some time and Congress, rightly or wrongly depending on your perspective, has not created legislation to do that. The FBI then gets a sympathetic case and decides to go through the courts to force a company to build a product in order to "unlock" a phone. If the government succeeds in creating this precedent then what's to prevent them from forcing any company to "unlock" a phone; whether it's via building a new OS version or creating a method to "backdoor" the encryption?
This becomes even more complex given the other discoveries that the county government changed the passcode after taking possession of the phone but are now unable to use the new passcode to unlock the phone. Also, don't forget, the county could have purchased a service that would have given them centralized control of their iPhones but chose not to, presumably because of cost.
If the government succeeds and can force Apple to build an OS they don't want to build and there's a bug in the code that causes erasure of the data then will Apple be held in contempt of court? What will help Apple recover whatever reputation they would lose as a result?
If the government succeeds in their effort to deputize/reprioritize/commander private resources to "create an OS version" of their liking against the will of the creators then you've created a real mess with liberty.
The sixth amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
The article says that Apple sent engineers to get the iPhone to connect to a known Wi-Fi network "and triggering an iCloud backup." It doesn't say if they were hoping it would do it on its own or if they had a method to trigger the backup.
A known way around the encryption, if you backup to iCloud, is to reset the password on the iCloud account and restore the iCloud backup to a new device.
Creating a mechanical solution to a behavioral problem can also have it's problems.
As a firearms-safety instructor I'm very concerned about loaded-chamber indicators. They're there to "solve" the problem of people "accidentally" shooting themselves. As a result you end up creating a generation of folks who think that ALL guns have loaded-chamber indicators and the rather apparent problem that's created when said person picks up a gun that doesn't have one. The loaded-chamber indicator is a "feel-good" solution to the wrong problem.
There might be many reasons to have so-called "smart" guns but don't be too quick to assign the feature of safety upon people who live otherwise unsafe lives. My biggest concern about a "smart" gun is it won't work when I need it to. My other concern is it will work when it's not supposed to work. Reliance on such technology for safety merely transfers liability from the gun-owner to the manufacturer.
- Vehicles don't need to be registered if used on private property
- No government permission is needed to transfer ownership of an automobile
- There are no restrictions on who may purchase an automobile
- Background checks aren't needed in order to purchase an automobile
- Anyone can travel to another state and rent an automobile for local use
- To operate a vehicle on public roads one only needs to pass a test and carry insurance
- I can go to any other state and purchase any automobile I can afford
- No license to purchase an automobile
- No waiting period to take ownership of an automobile
- No limit on how frequently I can purchase an automobile
- No legal restriction on how much fuel my automobile can carry, how many cylinders in my engine or how fast it is capable of being driven
- My driver's license is recognized by all the states and D.C.
The claim that automobile regulations are stricter than gun regulations can only be made by someone who doesn't understand gun regulations, car regulations or both.
The United States ranks 50th for rate of suicide. Japan, with very strict gun laws ranks 17th. (List of countries by suicide rate)
Guns may make it easier, having tons of guns may result in having more suicides by guns but where's your evidence that guns mean more suicides?
Someone from California can not travel to any other state and legally purchase a firearm. If they're going to break the law to get a gun why would they bother traveling to do it?
Maybe because it's part of a pattern of "willful" coverup under her tenure?
http://gawker.com/state-department-finds-thousands-of-philippe-reines-ema-1724560491
"Over two years ago, the department claimed that 'no records responsive to your request were located' - a baffling assertion, given Reine's well-documented correspondence..." "Last last week, however, the State Department came up with a very different answer: It had located an estimated 17,000 emails responsive to Gawker's request."
It took a lawsuit to uncover the State Department's illegal response to a Freedom of Information Act request. In this case, "20 boxes" of official emails were found on the personal account of Reines.
Philippe Reines was the former deputy assistant secretary of state and "aggressive defender" of Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps you don't like Gawker. Well, how about the Associated Press which is also suing the State Department to force the release of email correspondence and documents because of their unresponsiveness to FOIA requests: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/11/ap-sues-state-department_n_6847146.html.
The choices of what's going on are easily reduced to a small number:
- Clinton and her top aides simply care nothing about protocol because they're going to do things their way and screw what everyone thinks about it
- Clinton and her top aides willfully violated the law on multiple occasions and don't care what anyone thinks of it
- Clinton and her top aides were consistently incompetent in executing their statute-mandated responsibilities
- It's a vast, right-wing conspiracy to bring down the Clintons.
Now, which of the first three choices leads anyone to believe that Clinton deserves to be President?
If you still think it's a vast, right-wing conspiracy then I guess you have to throw the federal district courts and Clinton-appointed judges into the mix.
Interestingly, the company that builds that particular door appears to offer a back door:
http://www.adlo-securitydoors.com/en/security-doors-breakdown-service
From their web site, one of the services they provide is "emergency opening of locked security doors"
They can't deny a permit based on the content of the speech.
Here's an excellent analysis and explanation by Eugene Volokh.
I don't know if the numbers will ever be in the gazillions. It is a good fit for me though. I used to wear watches which were as much jewelry as functional timepieces. I stopped wearing them when I retired and would simply pull my phone out of my pocket to see what time it was.
However, I do a lot of hiking and play a lot of golf where I walk the course.
I was looking at the purpose-built devices from Garmin and others to do distance and fitness tracking but was hesitant to spend the money to get the features I wanted. I went with the Apple watch because the price point was not much different from the purpose-built devices and could provide additional functionality.
There are a ton of features I don't care about and the non-Apple applications tend to suck right now.
As with many general-purpose devices, the features that fit in either my desired or undesired sets are probably different than the sets of other people. The fact that purpose-built devices such as those you list were growing in the market leads me to believe that a general purpose device should find a market.
The fact that analysts either want the watch to be wildly successful or a complete failure is of no importance to me. The analyst opinions are generally mirroring what I see from people who've tried the watch - they either love it or hate it. I tend to be in the middle, it delivers functionality I desire and I don't care about the additional functionality I choose not to use.
A functional democracy?
Are you fucking kidding?
A democracy requires a free and open market of ideas. Do you really believe such a market exists in Iran?
Iranian Chain Murders
Internet Censorship in Iran
Blogger jailed for "propaganda against the state"
It doesn't take much of a Google search to find examples of suppression of free speech in Iran.
I'm sure the Iranian regime has deserved "better press [than] they have tended to get since Khomeiny toppled the puppet shah." "Better press" would have made the pure evilness of the regime much better known.
The "demented ravings of some of their past leaders?" How about the demented ravings of their current leaders (and here)?
- The west is plotting to "arouse the sexual desires" in Islamic Iran ... is one of the pillars of the Iranian Islamic regime
- Israel is run by sub-human leaders
- Death to America
- Israel is the sinister, unclean rabid dog of the region
- Every Muslim who does not want to fight Israel is violating religious law
- The destruction of Israel
From the New York Times:
"After Mr. Gruber helped the administration put together the basic principles of the proposal, the White House lent him to Capitol Hill to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation."
YouTube video of Jonathan Gruber from January 18, 2012. Starting at about the 31 minute market Gruber specifically states that the law was designed so that if a state doesn't establish an exchange then that state's citizens would not receive a subsidy.
Name one.
Dennis Hastert was 6 years old when the current version of the law making it illegal to lie to the FBI was created. It's origin goes back to the False Claims Act of 1863, long before the FBI existed.
His big issue, as was Martha Stewart's and a bunch of other folks, was lying about it.
The secondary issue of reporting financial transactions is based on a law from 1970, the Bank Secrecy Act. The requirement of the bank to report suspicious activity was part of the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act from 1992.
While it might be nice to claim that Hastert was hoisted by his own petard with the Patriot Act, the fact is the Patriot Act's expansion of these previously existing money laundering and bank secrecy acts were related, primarily, to international money transfers. In fact, the title of that section is, "International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001."
Although the Patriot Act expanded the reporting requirements of a structured transaction, the banks were already required to report such structured transactions to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network by the 1992 law as part of a Suspicious Activity Report. The IRS already had authority to seize monies given a warrant based on Suspicious Activity Reports.
The big changes found in the Patriot Act were related to making it easier to recognize structured transactions, the expansion of the definition of a financial institution and a number of changes to the infrastructure and reporting mechanisms related to the reporting requirements.
What Hastert did was illegal long before the Patriot Act.
(There is a section of Wikipedia that claims that the Patriot Act made it illegal to to structure transactions in a manner that evades reporting requirements. However, that was already illegal and the wording in Wikipedia is more probably related to the structuring of foreign transactions or transactions that involve foreign currency and coin.)
I won't defend either Hastert or the Patriot Act - they both suck. But the fact is, these reporting requirements go back a long way and they sucked just as much before 2001 as they do now. This case is another example of why you don't answer the FBI's questions about anything without an attorney.