Posted on 02/17/2016 9:53:55 PM PST by TroutStalker
I have never said it wasn’t plausible. I said it was not something I believed was true. No communication business would or should be able to produce such lethality without no way to comply with this type of demand. Meanwhile the trail of mass murderers gets colder. I guess we’ll know in the next 5 days what they will do. My guess is there is a solution, but as you say, they may have created Pandoras box. We just don’t know. It could lead to some fascinating forensics. They are not immune to search, plausible or not. Sorry, the encription can’t be broken is an answer, but not a compliant one. Too bad Justice Scalia wont be around for this donnybrook, if Apple persists.
That is a chilling statement, especially given the relative ease of creating encryption.
Apple should comply or leave the country.
“That is a chilling statement, especially given the relative ease of creating encryption.”
Chilling? Complying with a specific court issued warrant needs to be changed then? I don’t believe that the Constitution should be changed, do you?
No communication business would or should be able to produce such lethality without no way to comply with this type of demand.
This statement says that businesses should not "be able" to create systems they cannot break into on government demand. Not that they should not comply "if able", but rather they must specifically engineer their systems to enable it.
THAT is what I find chilling.
And the point is that at this point, they CAN'T comply, because the tool the FBI wants does not exist.
“they must specifically engineer their systems to enable it.”
Well of course they must. Otherwise you are handing a lethal tool of mass destruction to anyone who wants to buy it with no repercussion...and creating a firewall against the Constitution. That would put these into the hands of jihadists who could mass murder and their trail be covered....oh wait. That’s what happened, huh? I almost forgot that part because you “defenders of freedom” continue to ignore it.
The idea that one can have communications that the government cannot break into is against the constitution? Please cite the text that says one cannot have unbreakable communications.
Also, you keep using the word “lethal” referring to a commercial network access device. Hammers are lethal if used in a certain manner, yet they are commonplace and there are no requirements that they be redesigned to prevent their use in lethal crimes.
You profoundly disagree with Benjamin Franklin in your pursuit of temporary security.
“The idea that one can have communications that the government cannot break into is against the constitution? Please cite the text that says one cannot have unbreakable communications.”
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
I’m guessing there is probable cause to believe that mass murderers may have valuable information on their captured phone. Just a guess.
Americans have never had the right to absolute privacy from government intrusion. That’s why courts can issue search warrants in accord with the Constitution. The warrant was specific to the information stored on a mass murderers phone. Apple believes the Fourth doesn’t apply to them and is unwilling to cooperate in the obtainment of the information that they created.
What else is new?
“You profoundly disagree with Benjamin Franklin in your pursuit of temporary security.”
There is nothing about believing in the Constitution that would cause an affront to Mr Franklin.
You on the other hand, do not believe in a company’s moral and ethical responsibility to work within the laws of the country in which it profits. Either that or you do not understand that Apple is blocking the information being sought because they want to. That is disturbing. It should guarantee banner sales of those encripted phones to cartels, jihadists and any one who is interested in doing away with the drudgery of burner phones.
Where in the fourth amendment does it indicate that a form of communication cannot be used that is not readable by the authorities upon application of a warrant? The fourth protects people from government intrusion except on issuance of a valid warrant.
It does not obligate anyone to record their data in a form accessible.
Again, where does the constitution say that the people shall not be able to keep a secret from government agents? That is what you are arguing - that no form of electronic communication should be readable upon application of a warrant.
We agree on the probable cause issue.
But, Apple is not saying that they will withhold the information being sought from the phone - they are saying that they do not have access, and are resisting creating a workaround to bypass the security they developed, if such a bypass is even possible. From the publicly available descriptions of the system, they appear to have a solid technical argument.
Apple did not create the data being sought. The perp did. Apple does not have possession of it. The government does. Apple states they do not possess a version of the OS that bypasses security protocols (which you disbelieve, but that is what they state).
I am not arguing for absolute privacy from government, but it appears you are arguing for absolute lack of privacy.
Your understanding of the fourth amendment is seriously flawed, FRiend.
“Your understanding of the fourth amendment is seriously flawed, FRiend.”
Oh? How? All of the requirements have been met. You still, curiously, avoid the issue of capturing Jihadists. But, anyway. In what way is my understanding flawed? We want the information. Specific warrant issued for information, duly served and we are on the trail of mass murderers. Apple is blocking us. Which part of this don’t YOU understand? Easy to say I don’t understand without saying how. FRiend.
You assert that, upon issuance of a warrant, there is a responsibility for the data to be made *readable* by the government, and that people and companies are compelled to act in furtherance of the government being able to read and understand the information. That is the flaw in your reasoning.
The fourth amendment is a protective measure for the people against government overreach, and does not require the translation of information into a form more convenient to the government.
Yes, I am ignoring the specific circumstances of this case because they are immaterial to the issue.
There is no constitutional provision that information cannot be encrypted in a manner that prevents access under a warrant - only that the information cannot be withheld from government possession. There is no law, nor case law that I am aware of, that forces companies to cripple their security protocols on devices owned by a perpetrator, when the ability to decrypt on part of the device manufacturer does not exist.
“You assert that, upon issuance of a warrant, there is a responsibility for the data to be made *readable* by the government, and that people and companies are compelled to act in furtherance of the government being able to read and understand the information. That is the flaw in your reasoning.”
I assert nothing of the sort. I STATE that a product produced by an American company is keeping the information contained in a warrant from being handed over so we can apprehend mass murderers.
Your stance is we should protect the Jihadists, even though we know the information was placed there by them and could MORE than meet the level of probable cause. But you don’t want to address that.
“... when the ability to decrypt on part of the device manufacturer does not exist.”
Totally unproven that it doesn’t exist. Only a nitwit would believe they created something they have no key to. What if they just want those Jihad and Cartel sales?
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE OR DON’T HAVE.
You are devolving into ad hominem and strawman arguments. I see no reason to try and continue debating with you.
It is my understanding that the correct agency to handle this matter would be the NSA, the code breakers.
#109
“The idea that one can have communications that the government cannot break into is against the constitution? Please cite the text that says one cannot have unbreakable communications.â€
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.â€
They did make the argument that the All Writs Act of 1789 allows them to demand that Apple do something. This says ...
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.
But what is the principle of law that allows a court to demand that a 3rd party do something that is not encoded in law. There is no current law that requires any encryption technique included in a product have a back door decryption available if a warrant is issued.
The FBI would like such a law, and Congress has not yet decided to pass one. So the FBI is trying an end run around Congress to get the same effect by Court Order based on a law that says writs can be issued as long as they are based on a principle of law.
I hate lawyers who are too cute by half -— these are probably the same lawyers who came up with the trick of getting asset forfeiture by accusing the money of committing a crime, thus avoiding all those pesky 4th and 5th amendment rights.
What the FBI wants is not the data off of the phone — what they want is a precedent which they can apply to other terrorists, then drug dealers, then rapists, and finally any patriot they accuse of being a terrorist because they believe the government is over reaching.
“What the FBI wants is not the data off of the phone — what they want is a precedent which they can apply to other terrorists, then drug dealers, then rapists, and finally any patriot they accuse of being a terrorist because they believe the government is over reaching.”
Your paranoia does not override the Constitution. A warrant was prepared in the course of capturing mass muderers who had a phone in their possessio. In that phone may be unmeasurable in defense. The locking mechanism to get to the information requested is blocked by a proprietary piece of software. The warrant was specific, the single unit described and it is entirely within the scope of the law to request it and expect it to be provided. That is why th amendment exists. To protect us against enemies foreign and domestic as well as safeguard the people. The process was described with precision. Your paranoia does not entitle people end to end unrecoverable information, whether you like it or not. Revoke the law if you think it unreasonable. The idea that unobtainable records can be allowed to exist without due cause ... SUCH AS THE MURDER OF MORE THAN A DOZEN PEOPLE ... is against everything we are supposed to stand for in a society and a nation of laws.
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.