Sigh.
The court order is contestable, as you say it won't be settled quickly. However, to reiterate, this is more expansive issue than many in here are making it out to be, and I have made that demonstrative. Granted those links and information are overlooked, and although I do NOT think it is because they are inconvenient to the stances of several posters in here, it is pretty disappointing to see them neglected.
Furthermore, you keep referring to this as a search warrant, and it's not a search warrant. I have explained that thoroughly as well. The search warrant grants the FBI access to the phone and its contents. It does not grant access to Apple unlocking the phone, it's data, in any way, shape of form. This is why a order, from a magistrate, had to occur. That order is a great place to start analysis on the issue.
1. As Apple says, this is an unprecedented move. The FBI is not asking for the data but a tool in which they can brute force the phone. This alone negates the comparison between a wire-tapping or phone records issue of legality.
2. Doing so creates an issue where such an action can give the ability to do so in the wrong hands. People scoff at this, they have not really presented a strong reason as to why, but I will again address it. If Apple does it the risk is in house. If the FBI does it, or gets the information, the risk is obvious. If a third party does it, the risk is also obvious. Some people have argued that this already exists, and while that might be true, it exists or could exist at the behest of the companies and illegal hackers. So saying that a company could do it is just stating the obvious, and saying that hackers can do it is meaningless in the sense that of course illegal actors can do illegal things, duh. Yet we don't tend to stoop to their level, so I'm glad this is going to Court.
3. The notion that this is about one single phone is already debunked. I posted that information earlier. To those who think I'm some tin-foil wearing conspiracy theorist, well, sorry. If anything it shows that law enforcement agencies want to use the tools that they have, and the always want to get new tools. It is definitive, self-evident, and I'm not sure why people tend to 'forget' that in these discussions. Whenever you have an issue like this you have to be careful that you look at all the realistic possibilities.
It's hard not to tunnel vision when a subject is so emotional that it speaks to the heart of our country. Bearing in mind, a large part of that heart, of what defines us as a country, is codified in the Bill of Rights. This precedence speaks to both law enforcement agencies having the ability to command companies to do their bidding as well as offering another tool to an already extensive array of strengths and possibilities. But what is getting lost in the shuffle is not this is not just about one phone. As mentioned earlier, the DA in a related case already said that if the courts said yes he is going to keep using it.
The issue is fresh and a governmental employee has already proven the FBI to be incorrect. That should make you raise your eyebrows, especially when what is at stake here happens to be a technology that everyone is using, more or less. In normal times the FBI would have just asked for the information from Apple. Were that to be the case I would want Apple to get that information to the FBI with great speed, and make no mistake, I want them to have it. I just want them to get it in the right way.
Since this will be my last post in the thread - I think I'll resolve a few issues, peacefully.
Turftoad - you took a shot at me mocking my vigor for debate and issues; the implementation was to take a shot at my education. Well the education I have which you think makes for a great punchline will put me into a strong law school. And I promise that when I am a practicing attorney I will still value your rights in this country, even if you would not make such a comment to other posters who argue with as much vigor as I do. It would behoove you to act better.
Carol - Do not ever speak to me in such a manner again. When you speak to someone who has seen his family members treated poorly because of terrorism and their race, it would behoove you to use a little class. 9/11 happened and my country was attacked. My father's life became worse because of his appearance. If anything else, I have more skin in the game than you, I care enough about my country to be concerned with terrorism and civil liberties simultaneously. You seem to be a mostly nice person, but that was a horrible indictment of your character, and the fact that you are in the majority opinion on this board will not make that any less true.
These issues are far reaching and complex. They should be treated as such.
Chaz you are right, its not about one phone or this single case, even though some continue to repeat it over and over.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/c...tory/80844720/
“I hacked your email on the plane and read everything you sent and received. I did it to most people on the flight.” He had verbatim detail of a long email that he repeated back to me essentially word for word.
In fact, as Steve Nolan, GoGo’s vice president of communications, told me, the service is “public” and “operates in the same ways as most open Wi-Fi hotspots on the ground.” He cautioned against “accessing sensitive materials while in flight.”
One of my emails was pretty explicit about the focus of my story and I had emailed Bruce Schneier, a security expert who had previously written in the Washington Post about this very issue.
"The current case is about a single iPhone 5c, but the precedent it sets will apply to all smartphones, computers, cars and everything the Internet of Things promises," Schneier wrote.
"The danger is that the court’s demands will pave the way to the FBI forcing Apple and others to reduce the security levels of their smart phones and computers, as well as the security of cars, medical devices, homes, and everything else that will soon be computerized. The FBI may be targeting the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter, but its actions imperil us all."
That’s what my privacy-busting stranger had read. Back to my conversation:
“That’s how I know you’re interested in the Apple story,” he continued. “Imagine if you had been doing a financial transaction. What if you were making a date to see a whore?” My mind raced: What about my health records? My legal documents? My Facebook messages?
And then the kicker:
“That’s why this story is so important to everyone,” he told me. “It’s about everyone’s privacy.”
Abdo made it clear why this matters to ordinary consumers like me — to all of us. “The risk is that it makes it more likely that individuals’ devices with no connection to any investigation will become less secure because companies will have established back doors …. that will fall into the wrong hands.” For emphasis, he added: “No back door is secure.”
But really, I pushed him, who is in actual danger here? The answer, apparently, is pretty much all of us. “Anyone who relies on the security of their devices,” he told me.
It should be up to each of us to decide what to make public, and what to keep private, he continued. For me, I felt as though the stranger on the plane had robbed me of my privacy—as was explicitly his intent. He took the decision of what to share out of my hands. He went in through the back door of the GoGo connection.
Last edited by ShaneFalco; 02-24-2016 at 06:36 PM.
In fact, go back and look at the first page of this thread. Where i stated the precedent.
And people were willing to give the backdoor over then, before even they started rehearsing the "single phone" lines over and over. The excuse at the first page was "its a different world" and bunch of other ridiculousness.
See, even when faced with the idea of a backdoor being accessed on every single phone out there.... they were ok with it.
So for some to continue to pretend now, 30 pages later, that its "only one phone, only one case" when even back on page 1, they were okay with the blanket surveillance.... you know they support backdoors, regardless if it effects others or not.
And this may be wrong of me, but i narrow it down to two premises.
1. They are so afraid of terrorists they could care less about privacy.
2. They have no understanding of the scope of this case and what this will do to modern technology if it is allowed.
#2 is somewhat understandable because it is a complex subject.
#1 is not.
Last edited by ShaneFalco; 02-24-2016 at 07:36 PM.
You should probably let King (aka Keeper) make your arguments. You really aren't offering anything of substance. I still contest you have no idea what is actually being discussed, nor do you understand this particular case.
The amount of misinformation in this thread is mind boggling.
Sure thing Trump.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)