Trusted, past tense. That's why he's still on Windows 7 instead of Windows 10.
Actually, in my particular case, it is "Trusted", NEVER-Tense! I work in a MS-oriented shop, Developing s/w for MS products. But I don't like them (or it, generally), and I sure as HELL don't trust them!
Even though my work Win 7 laptop is on a Domain, I still shut off updates completely when all this started. I don't trust MS to, well, let's just leave it at that...
If it's not illegal here, the government won't extradite. It's not illegal here to disobey a US judge's orders. That's been proven time and again.:-) So, test away.
Hmmm. Interesting... I guess all those Vietnam-War protesters were right to choose Canada after all!
Plus, Apple is defending the morally reprehensible position of not letting device owners install whatever software they want whenever they want.
On top of that, iOS isn't fully open sourced, and Intellectual Property is Imaginary Property Anwyay, so forcing Apple to give up iOS to the world doesn't matter since it's worth nothing.
For someone who pretends to worry about people's rights, you sure disregard their right to purchase the product they choose, with the software restrictions they choose.
And I am DAMNED sure that if you spent a couple of tens-of-thousands of person-hours on writing software as complex as a Mobile Operating System, and wanted to not give it away, you'd be the first to bitch if someone started reselling it without your permission.
As for disobeying a court order to hand over the key, what's the worst the government can do to someone not under the jurisdiction of a US court?
Want to test the Extradition Agreement between Canada and the U.S.? While I most certainly agree that there should be no repurcussions, I'm pretty damned sure that if you tried that, it would not end nicely for you...
The reason Blackberry went under is because their devices looked increasingly antiquated compared to iPhone / Android devices and even after they produced a smartphone platform it still flopped because it lacked the apps.
IOW, they violated one of the Prime Directives of a Tech-based Company: "Innovate or Die".
Making a binary isn't a statement, pretending it is = lying.
So, you're saying that even if Source Code is "speech", that the minute it goes into a Compiler and a "binary" pops out the other side, then that is somehow not a continuation and versioning of that same speech by the speaker?
So, if I paint a picture in oils, then that is speech; but if I scan that picture (which I created) and then apply a "Charcoal Pencil"-type filter and then print that out, it isn't?
However *** IF *** the court forces Apple to comply then Apple should make the modified iOS. This way they can lock this modified iOS to the one device in question. [emphasis added]
I must have missed the Press Release where Apple stated that that was even possible. I really wish people would stop parroting and perpetuating that canard.
I would generally be happy if Apple were to take a flying fuck in a rolling doughnut, but they are 100% right on this issue — that is to say, they are right in every way in which it is possible for them to be right. Economically, morally, logistically, they can not create this software.
And aren't we all glad that, unlike Microsoft (and others), they have the frickin' backbone to stand up and say "No"?
In neither of your examples is the non-government actor violating another's Constitutional Rights.
Uh, that is what I said, and that is what I was trying to demonstrate. "Many of our Constitutional Rights only protect us from the government, not from individuals.":-)
I apologize. I realized that was what you meant after I Posted my Reply.
Apparently, it is words that are "far more complicated". Glad to see we're on the same page, buddy!;-)
I understand you're not from the U.S., but only the Government can "break" (deny you) (your) Constitutional Rights. A Person (including a Corporate "Person") cannot affect another's Constitutional Rights, period.
Actually yes a private person/organization can. Many of our Constitutional Rights only protect us from the government, not from individuals. Slashdot could censor this conversation, government could not. If a private person searches through your stuff and finds something illegal, calls the police, then the police now have probable cause to get a warrant... so long as the person was not originally acting as an agent of the police. Things are far more complicated than you suggest.
Actually no, they aren't.
In neither of your examples is the non-government actor violating another's Constitutional Rights.
In the first example, Slashdot is not run by the Government; rather, it is a Privately-Owned website. Therefore, Slashdot has every right to "Censor" anything and everything. It could use an automated Thesaurus, and replace every other word in only your posts with its Antonym. Their site, their rules.
In the second example, you may have a Civil Suit against the "private person" for Trespassing and/or theft; but they did not violate your 4th Amendment Rights by snooping in your stuff nor by their snitching on you for telling the Police about the Meth Lab they stumbled across.
Apple isn't morally obliged to break constitutional rights, any more than they are morally obliged to break into your house and go through your sh*t.
I understand you're not from the U.S., but only the Government can "break" (deny you) (your) Constitutional Rights. A Person (including a Corporate "Person") cannot affect another's Constitutional Rights, period.
It's a difficult concept even for most U.S.-ians to understand; so I really don't blame you at all for your statement.
Well, since the one device in question won't be updated, there's no reason to say "obstruction of justice." Also, there is no proof that the phone in question even has any evidence. Their arguments are FAR FAR from probable cause.
In addition, forcing Apple to do work for the government against its will is a Thirteenth Amendment violation. We haven't had one of those for some time.
I thought of this immediately. However, I think that actually has to do with "Doing labor without compensation.", and I heard that the Federal Bureau of Incineration originally told Apple to keep track of their costs, presumably to compensate them, in order to defeat a 13th Amend. argument.
Apple can either say the previous request is now possible, or the new, slightly lesser request. But it can't have both. It must capitulate.
Wrong.
They can argue (and rightfully, so) that the Gummint has no Standing to force a non-party (Apple) to disclose their trade secrets. This is not "Records kept in the regular course of business"; but rather the very heart and soul of Apple's work-product.
IANAL, but I would bet that as a non-party, the Gummint's subpoena powers are quite limited when it comes to Intellectual Property.
Also, there is the question of relevance: Apple's Source Code and Signing Keys are not "Relevant to the Case", and it is arguable as to whether that Source Code and Signing Key, in and of itself "may lead to the Discovery of other, admissible information.". It's kind of a weird concept; but I think that it is a stretch to say "Give us your trade secrets, so we can use them against essentially anyone, even outside this case.", because the Gummint could at that point NEVER convince a Judge that "they only want it for this particular case." Even Judges aren't that stupid (well, at least not usually).
If you could go back in time and expose J. Edgar Hoover as a cross-dressing sadomasochist BEFORE he managed to seize control of the FBI, would it still be the same kind of power-mad agency?
Yes. See, e.g., all the rest of the Power-Mad Agencies, that didn't have a sexually-repressed Paranoid at the helm.
Slashdot Mirror
Trusted, past tense. That's why he's still on Windows 7 instead of Windows 10.
Actually, in my particular case, it is "Trusted", NEVER-Tense! I work in a MS-oriented shop, Developing s/w for MS products. But I don't like them (or it, generally), and I sure as HELL don't trust them!
Just look at my Username for a clue...
You earn your living from using Microsoft software, but you don't trust Microsoft? That doesn't make any sense.
You're trolling, right? You can't POSSIBLY be THAT stupid...
Which is why I shut off updates completely
Even though my work Win 7 laptop is on a Domain, I still shut off updates completely when all this started. I don't trust MS to, well, let's just leave it at that...
If it's not illegal here, the government won't extradite. It's not illegal here to disobey a US judge's orders. That's been proven time and again. :-) So, test away.
Hmmm. Interesting... I guess all those Vietnam-War protesters were right to choose Canada after all!
Even if the DOJ has the best lawyers on the planet - how would you ever measure it? - maybe the DOJ just has the weaker position.
Howabout if they have both the worse lawyers and the weaker position? Because, it sure looks like that is the case (pun intended).
Plus, Apple is defending the morally reprehensible position of not letting device owners install whatever software they want whenever they want.
On top of that, iOS isn't fully open sourced, and Intellectual Property is Imaginary Property Anwyay, so forcing Apple to give up iOS to the world doesn't matter since it's worth nothing.
For someone who pretends to worry about people's rights, you sure disregard their right to purchase the product they choose, with the software restrictions they choose.
And I am DAMNED sure that if you spent a couple of tens-of-thousands of person-hours on writing software as complex as a Mobile Operating System, and wanted to not give it away, you'd be the first to bitch if someone started reselling it without your permission.
Now go away, whiney-ass-bitch.
The keyboard cache in iOS 9 does not contain a list of keystrokes typed by the user, or anything similar."
Shouldn't that be ", nor anything similar"?
That is a common mistake, and it chafes at me, too.
Yes, it should technically be "nor"; but almost nobody uses that word at this point.
As for disobeying a court order to hand over the key, what's the worst the government can do to someone not under the jurisdiction of a US court?
Want to test the Extradition Agreement between Canada and the U.S.? While I most certainly agree that there should be no repurcussions, I'm pretty damned sure that if you tried that, it would not end nicely for you...
The reason Blackberry went under is because their devices looked increasingly antiquated compared to iPhone / Android devices and even after they produced a smartphone platform it still flopped because it lacked the apps.
IOW, they violated one of the Prime Directives of a Tech-based Company: "Innovate or Die".
Making a binary isn't a statement, pretending it is = lying.
So, you're saying that even if Source Code is "speech", that the minute it goes into a Compiler and a "binary" pops out the other side, then that is somehow not a continuation and versioning of that same speech by the speaker?
So, if I paint a picture in oils, then that is speech; but if I scan that picture (which I created) and then apply a "Charcoal Pencil"-type filter and then print that out, it isn't?
However *** IF *** the court forces Apple to comply then Apple should make the modified iOS. This way they can lock this modified iOS to the one device in question. [emphasis added]
I must have missed the Press Release where Apple stated that that was even possible. I really wish people would stop parroting and perpetuating that canard.
I would generally be happy if Apple were to take a flying fuck in a rolling doughnut, but they are 100% right on this issue — that is to say, they are right in every way in which it is possible for them to be right. Economically, morally, logistically, they can not create this software.
And aren't we all glad that, unlike Microsoft (and others), they have the frickin' backbone to stand up and say "No"?
Exactly. Unfortunately /. is publishing a lot of faked news about the Apple vs DOJ case which are only an opportunity for Apple groupies to show off
Yeah, because Slashdot is such a Pro-Apple site [rollseyes].
In neither of your examples is the non-government actor violating another's Constitutional Rights.
Uh, that is what I said, and that is what I was trying to demonstrate. "Many of our Constitutional Rights only protect us from the government, not from individuals." :-)
I apologize. I realized that was what you meant after I Posted my Reply.
;-)
Apparently, it is words that are "far more complicated". Glad to see we're on the same page, buddy!
I understand you're not from the U.S., but only the Government can "break" (deny you) (your) Constitutional Rights. A Person (including a Corporate "Person") cannot affect another's Constitutional Rights, period.
Actually yes a private person/organization can. Many of our Constitutional Rights only protect us from the government, not from individuals. Slashdot could censor this conversation, government could not. If a private person searches through your stuff and finds something illegal, calls the police, then the police now have probable cause to get a warrant ... so long as the person was not originally acting as an agent of the police. Things are far more complicated than you suggest.
Actually no, they aren't.
In neither of your examples is the non-government actor violating another's Constitutional Rights.
In the first example, Slashdot is not run by the Government; rather, it is a Privately-Owned website. Therefore, Slashdot has every right to "Censor" anything and everything. It could use an automated Thesaurus, and replace every other word in only your posts with its Antonym. Their site, their rules.
In the second example, you may have a Civil Suit against the "private person" for Trespassing and/or theft; but they did not violate your 4th Amendment Rights by snooping in your stuff nor by their snitching on you for telling the Police about the Meth Lab they stumbled across.
Apple isn't morally obliged to break constitutional rights, any more than they are morally obliged to break into your house and go through your sh*t.
I understand you're not from the U.S., but only the Government can "break" (deny you) (your) Constitutional Rights. A Person (including a Corporate "Person") cannot affect another's Constitutional Rights, period.
It's a difficult concept even for most U.S.-ians to understand; so I really don't blame you at all for your statement.
Well, since the one device in question won't be updated, there's no reason to say "obstruction of justice." Also, there is no proof that the phone in question even has any evidence. Their arguments are FAR FAR from probable cause.
Right on all points!
In addition, forcing Apple to do work for the government against its will is a Thirteenth Amendment violation. We haven't had one of those for some time.
I thought of this immediately. However, I think that actually has to do with "Doing labor without compensation.", and I heard that the Federal Bureau of Incineration originally told Apple to keep track of their costs, presumably to compensate them, in order to defeat a 13th Amend. argument.
Punctuation: it's your friend.
Capitalization: It's your friend.
After he died that rat-bastard Deng Xiaoping hijacked the people's revolution onto the capitalist road, and China has been fucked ever since.
But we all get Teh Shiny at bargain-basement prices; so it's all good! (ducks) [/sarcasm]
You say that as a joke
Actually, not.
...They sure are Capitalistic.
Apple can either say the previous request is now possible, or the new, slightly lesser request. But it can't have both. It must capitulate.
Wrong.
They can argue (and rightfully, so) that the Gummint has no Standing to force a non-party (Apple) to disclose their trade secrets. This is not "Records kept in the regular course of business"; but rather the very heart and soul of Apple's work-product.
IANAL, but I would bet that as a non-party, the Gummint's subpoena powers are quite limited when it comes to Intellectual Property.
Also, there is the question of relevance: Apple's Source Code and Signing Keys are not "Relevant to the Case", and it is arguable as to whether that Source Code and Signing Key, in and of itself "may lead to the Discovery of other, admissible information.". It's kind of a weird concept; but I think that it is a stretch to say "Give us your trade secrets, so we can use them against essentially anyone, even outside this case.", because the Gummint could at that point NEVER convince a Judge that "they only want it for this particular case." Even Judges aren't that stupid (well, at least not usually).
it's demonstration of Apple opportunism: turn a legal case in to a GIGANTIC AD
That doesn't even deserve a response.
If you could go back in time and expose J. Edgar Hoover as a cross-dressing sadomasochist BEFORE he managed to seize control of the FBI, would it still be the same kind of power-mad agency?
Yes. See, e.g., all the rest of the Power-Mad Agencies, that didn't have a sexually-repressed Paranoid at the helm.