Posted on 02/17/2016 6:13:36 PM PST by AlienCrossfirePlayer
An Open Memo To Lou Dobbs
As CEO, Tim Cooks obligation is to execute the corporate mission. Briefly stated, a corporation must deliver product to customers and return on investment to shareholders. It is not his job to make the nation secure from geo-political terrorism. Your suggestion that Mr. Cook will be culpable when another attack occurs was a stinking cheap shot. Obama has the job of making us secure and is failing us. Today on the sister network Fox News Channel, Obama was heard calling for improved cyber security. Do you see an irony?
By resisting encroachment by the courts, Mr. Cook is executing the corporate mission. Apples customers dont want their data to be made less secure. Apples investors dont want their research dollars to be wasted. In short courts are demanding that Apple degrade its very excellent product. Leave Apple alone. American citizens want their private data to remain secure.
Ben Franklin: He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
“If they were using a PKI system and produced a key, then it’d be applicable to that phone only. But that’s not the case here, nor is it what’s being asked for.”
The warrant is quite clear.
“You might be right, of course, but as I understand it, Apple will have to produce an iOS that can be installed on a locked phone. “
Apple could write an IOS that unlocked the phone, and then restore the original IOS.
“The technology needs to be changed to conform to the law”
I think you’d like it in the DPRK.
“Ok, it’s still pretty amazing that a phone protected by such a simple-seeming 4-digit pass code can thwart the resources of the U.S. Government.”
It’s not the 4 digits that are thwarting them. It’s the automatic erasure if they make 10 wrong guesses.
No matter how smart you are and how much technology you have, basically it is a guessing game.
Look I got the info I needed to understand the situation from knowledgeable people . you are a know nothing. A no nothing cannot be dismissive because they are too stupid to form a cognitive phrase. That would be you.
It wasn’t all that long ago that the outlandish thought of: The opposition between Apple and Spooks is a grand spectacle for the plebs, behind the closed doors the project is already under way.... would not of seemed a plausible scenario.
I can’t as easily dismiss such notions today.
“By resisting encroachment by the courts, Mr. Cook is executing the corporate mission.”
If the Corporate mission was the same as ISIS, you would be correct. No corporate mission includes defying the law. Building a product does not confer any such luxury.
“I think you’d like it in the DPRK.”
I think you would like it in the backside, but that’s beside the point. What I said is true. Insulting me makes it no less true.
Correct, the FBI wants Apple to bypass the “brute force attack” protections (10 tries & the “timers”) so that the FBI can try and “brute-force” the password/key to the 256-bit AES encryption on the phone. If Johnny-Jihad used a long alpha-numeric password then the FBI is out of luck. If the perp used a 4 or 6 digit numeric only password they could potentially crack it fairly fast with govt. super-computer power.
https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1279619
Blackberry caved to India awhile ago. Not too tough for U.S. to snag it clandestinely from India.
If iPhone breaks into India, you can pretty much guarantee something happened:
Of course, but I think Apple’s point is that once the unlocking iOS is in existence, Apple can be called on to provide it whenever the government thinks it needs it. If the governments (remember, lawmakers in two states, NY & Cal, have introduced legislation outlawing the sale of phones that don’t have ‘back doors’) cross their hearts and hope to die that they will only use the special iOS on terrorism cases, do you think they’ll keep their word?
Maybe I’m becoming a cynic in my advancing years.
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
(b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction.
_________________________________________________________________________
mrsmith wrote: I would be very surprised if Apple successfully defies the All Writs Act written and passed by the Founders of this nation.
Apple doesn't have anything to be searched or seized, so what are they going to issue a Warrant or Writ for? As I understand it, Apple has been ordered by a federal judge to build something that doesn't exist yet.
How does the AWA make that agreeable to the law?
“Maybe I’m becoming a cynic in my advancing years.”
That may be, but it has nothing to do with the laws. If we don’t like them, we should change them. If we can’t (or won’t) change them, then we will need to live with them. This is a legal request to be able to tap into the phone of a mass murderer. If not now, when do you use a warrant?
“Insulting me makes it no less true.”
True in what country?
If you don’t mind living in a police state, I guess that’s your opinion.
It’s certainly not mine.
And no, I don’t like it in the backside anymore than I like the idea of being fondled by some TSA agent at the airport.
But I guess you’re comfortable with that stuff too, in the name of security.
So that’d make the backside remark more apropo for you, as long as it’s performed by “authorized personnel”.
“No corporate mission includes defying the law.”
Which law? Apple says that they don’t have the technology to comply with the court order. If they can prove that the court order places an undue burden on them, they will likely win.
There is talk that congress might step in with new legislation but it hasn’t happened yet. Apple broke no laws.
“Apple can be called on to provide it whenever the government thinks it needs it.” And has convinced a judge to issue a warrant.
Just like has been done since before the founding of our nation.
But, despite the clarity of this issue to me I’m glad a rich company like Apple has the resources to resist an overreaching by the government on this new matter of “un-openable safes”.
I certainly don’t want the Fourth Amendment made useless as Apple wishes, but neither do I want a solution that gives government power to do more than has historically been done.
“True in what country?”
In the US, where I live. I don’t know here you are, but the concept of recovering information of a mass murderer and terrorist off his cell phone using a legal warrant is not a police state. It’s a Nation of Laws, something to which we used to aspire. Old fashioned notion. You appear to be against legally obtaining information from a mass murderer, so I can only guess whaere you are from, but I wish you would return.
” If the perp used a 4 or 6 digit numeric only password they could potentially crack it fairly fast with govt. super-computer power.”
Only has a 4 digit password. Don’t need a supercomputer.
Even hand entry would take at most a week.
“This is a legal request to be able to tap into the phone of a mass murderer.”
I don’t want to be picking on you, but you seem to be missing the point that what the warrant will provide is the ability to “tap” everyone’s phone.
So those that don’t believe the gov’t will behave and not use that technology in that way are those on the side of Apple.
Sort of like asking for a warrant that taps a particular land line to a house, but puts the tap on the whole central office, so it picks up everything in the town.
Not the best analogy, but somewhat describes the point you’re missing.
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.