Posted on 02/19/2016 12:56:20 PM PST by big'ol_freeper
Donald Trump on Friday urged a roomful of voters to boycott the tech giant Apple so long as its chief executive, Tim Cook, refuses to comply with a court order to assist the FBI with hacking into the cell phone of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook.
"First of all Apple better give the security for that phone," the Republican presidential hopeful said during a campaign rally in Pawleys Island, S.C. "What I think you ought to do is boycott Apple until such time they give that security number. How do you like that?"
"I just thought of it," Trump noted, drawing applause.
"Boycott Apple," he repeated.
"Here's the thing, the phone's not even owned by this young thug that killed people," Trump said, claiming that the cell phone used by Farook is instead "owned by the federal government."
The billionaire suggested that Cook "is looking to do a big number... to show how liberal he is."
"We gotta get to the bottom of it, but we're not going to get to the bottom of it unless we use common sense," Trump said. "So I like the idea of boycotting Apple until such time as they give that information – I think that's a great idea."
That’s it ! I’m out.
I put up with everything else, but you start messing with my 2 Mac Pros, Macbook Pro, iPad Air, iPad 2, iPad mini, iPhone 6s, and two iPhone 6s, and you’re asking for it!
Mr. Trump is still Tweeting from his Apple iPhone...I am sure he could afford to buy an Android phone immediately...perhaps he values his privacy/security?
Is there some reason that Apple cannot do something with this phone to make it possible for the FBI to continue their investigation?
I view it the same as a search warrant - they need to get into this phone, and if Apple can do something to the phone to make that possible, why not?
If, on the other hand, Apple is being requested to give them something that will give the FBI entry to ALL phones, then I agree with Apple.
Apparently Apple has done this with 70 separate I phones.
Why are they not doing it with this one?
You can say that about government having an atom bomb, too.
The threshold of the Constitution is to declare war, which we have kind of soft pedaled as hostilities, but so far we still know what we mean.
We are looking at the wrong set of issues. We shouldn’t be looking at the how, but at the what.
Not a bait at all: who is here defending Cruz on this?
Issues are bigger than candidates. Both guys can be wrong on an issue. They are on this one.
When you defend a candidate unconditionally, you have lost your objectivity. The true goal is to support the one who is most in alignment with your personal convictions.
Well if you want to use a valid issue to go filth Trump, I would complain just as much as if you want to use it to go filth Cruz... not because I am banding with either one, but because the filthing is wrong.
Get it now?
And no, Trump lovers have winced at a lot of what he’s done and still deem him worth the boosting as candidate. To call that boosting his whole agenda is to fall for the perfectionistic lie.
Shame on you for telling us what is going to happen with this:
Don’t jump ship just yet.
I believe Trump is saying this because he already KNOWS that Cook is going to stand his ground and go head to head with the Government.
Simply put: Trump appears to be ANTI-TERRORIST.
Cook will appear to SUPPORT TERRORISTS by standing his ground.
This happened before when everyone looked askance at what Trump said about ILLEGALS and a few days later the Kate Steinle murder occurred.
NYC is already complaining that they have a lot of phones that they want to have opened. Also, what about the terms of service? Any entity - municipality - that tampers with the software is in violation and should be sued.
I think that both Trump and Cruz believe that the "unlocking" solution can be applied to just this one phone. Cruz has said as much. Trump would probably say as much after being briefed by his "this is conservative and that isn't" team.
From what I've read, any solution would be applicable to all Apple phones, and the government, or anyone else, could apply the same solution, disable the data eradication functionality, and work as long as they like on cracking the password on any Apple phone.
I really don't think that Apple is trying to protect the terrorists. If there was a solution that would allow access to JUST THIS ONE PHONE, they'd provide it.
I believe Trump believes that the government, as yet, still isn’t at war with any old thing it chooses to be. Even him.
I am not “filthing” Trump on this. I am stating he is wrong...and dealing with the pushback from his supporters for daring to say it.
Get it now?
. . . go ahead - bite the Big Apple . . . don't mind the maggots . . . uh huh . . .
I understand the situation. The issue is that the tool does not currently exist. They want Apple to create a version of iOS that eliminates certain crucial security features of the iphone - namely, the features that (1) wipe the phone upon ten incorrect password attempts, (2) prevent password attempts by any means other than the phone's touch screen, and (3) imposing a series of time delays for incorrect password attempts (leading up to the tenth attempt, which wipes the phone). The purpose of eliminating these features would be to enable the feds to use brute force techniques to unlock the phone.
The problem (as I and others have explained repeatedly) is that the moment Apple creates this version of iOS (which, again, does not currently exist), the feds will know that they have done so. So, the next time the feds want to unlock a phone--be it for a terrorist, a drug dealer, a white collar criminal or a rancher--they will simply tell a judge about the version of iOS that Apple has created, and ask the judge to require Apple to use that software to open the phone.
The idea that this is a one time thing, and that the feds would just forget that Apple can do this the next time, is simply preposterous.
Apple only needs to give the government a read out of what is in the phone.
If the phone yielded to saying supercalifragilisticexpialidocious over it, Apple wouldn’t need to tell anyone about that.
And fine, Apple would challenge up to the USSC.
We should be dealing with issues of what. Not of how.
Thanks, that is a helpful and critical differentiation.
The prior “70 times” was before iOS ver. 8...after ver. 8 all data on an iPhone is encrypted with 256 bit AES...even Apple cannot get the data without the password. The FBI is asking Apple to write software to disable built-in “brute-force” password hacking protections so they can attempt to get the terrorists’ password thru “brute-force” super-computer methods (thousands & thousands of guesses).
I commented on the “70 times” thread here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3398556/posts?page=40#40
Ted Cruz
“I think Apple has serious argument that they should not be forced to put a backdoor in every cell phone everyone has. ... So I think Apple has the right side on the global don’t make us do this to every iPhone on the market. But I think law enforcement has the better argument, this concerns the phone of one of the San Bernardino hackers. And for law enforcement to get a judicial search order, that’s consistent with the Fourth Amendment. That’s how the Bill of Rights operates, to say Apple, open this phone, not Anderson’s phone, not everyone’s here, open this phone.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.