Second U.S. Bid to Force Apple to Unlock Phone Ends in a Whimper (Link only due to Copyright)

Bloomberg | April 22, 2016 | By Christie Smyth

[Swordmaker]

Second U.S. Bid to Force Apple to Unlock Phone Ends in a Whimper . . . a source came forward and provided the passcode. It appears to me that the FBI/DOJ doesn't want to get a precedent from an Appellate Court that does not support their position. Link only due to Bloomberg Copyright;

Second U.S. Bid to Force Apple to Unlock Phone Ends in a Whimper

[Swordmaker]

I was thinking more of this being a presidential year and Trump so anti-China.

There you might have a point, but a President doesn't have that kind of power. . . contrary to Obambi's thinking.

[Cyberman]

I never saw this as a "privacy issue."

I presume that you don't see taxes as an "economic issue", don't see open borders as a "security issue", and don't see obesity as a "health issue". If you're going to be invincibly ignorant, you might as well be consistent about it.

I always saw this as a refusal by a big corporation to Obey a constitutional law requirement.

Even the judges with their magickal Penumbral Emanation Spectacles[tm] cannot find any such "constitutional law requirement". The only requirement that exists, either in the actual Constitution or the current legal interpretations thereof, is to stand aside and allow the police to take a look if they show you a warrant. There is no obligation to actively assist.

At that point, people need to OBEY THE SEARCH WARRANT.

Apple did obey the search warrant. They left the Feds in possession of the phone and did not interfere with their efforts to get into it.

Apple should have helped to open the dead terrorist's cell phone.

An incorrect argument, and an irrelevant one since the point of the exercise was to establish an anti-privacy precedent, not to get into one specific phone.

[Cyberman]

D@mn mosquitos! I wish they would quit buzzing around here. They are a D@mn nuisance.

Are you laying the groundwork for presenting a Zika-virus defense for your inability to present an incoherent argument?

[Cyberman]

If FR wanted people to post self-portraits, they’d add a “user avatar” feature.

[Cyberman]

It is also an example of how a Corporation thinks it is so big that it doesn't have to obey the law, and doesn't have to concern itself with a civic and moral duty

Power To The People! Eat The Rich! Feel the BERN!!
--the political philosophy of DiogenesLamp

[DiogenesLamp]

If you are just going to push a lot of Strawmen, non sequiturs, and slogans, I'll just pass.

If you want to debate like an adult, let me know.

[ReignOfError]

There are no forth amendment issues to deal with.

Fair enough. This must be one of those other areas of constitutional law. You know, the ones that begin and end with magistrate judges. Such as ...?

There are potential future threats to the lives of innocent people to deal with,

If it's too important to go through the customary legal process, why didn't the FBI ask for an expedited review? Appeals are part of due process.

[DiogenesLamp]

Fair enough. This must be one of those other areas of constitutional law. You know, the ones that begin and end with magistrate judges. Such as ...?

I would suggest that the FBI thought the judge they put this before was adequate to the task. If they missed a step in the procedural dance, it is hardly relevant to the overall point. Apple should not have been abetting dead murderers in any effort to obscure potentially useful information that might save lives, nor should they have been legally allowed to continue doing so.

The further point is that Apple deliberately engaged in a campaign of deceit and lies to mislead the public as to what was actually happening in this case.

As it should turn out, the "back door" which Apple consistently lied about, actually was created as a result of Apple trying to avoid complying with what the FBI really requested. This whole campaign of lies blew up in their face, and so they themselves created the very danger to which they claimed they were afraid.

Good going Apple. Now *ALL* your Iphones of this vintage are broken.

[ReignOfError]

I would suggest that the FBI thought the judge they put this before was adequate to the task.

Adequacy isn't the point. Appeals are part of the due process of law. It does not begin and end at the lowest rung of the federal judiciary.

Apple should not have been abetting dead murderers in any effort to obscure potentially useful information that might save lives, nor should they have been legally allowed to continue doing so.

They should not have been afforded due process of law? On what basis do you deny Apple the constitutional rights guaranteed to everyone else?

The FBI did not share your sense of urgency. They could have filed for an expedited appeal, or they could have moved that Apple be held in contempt of court. They did neither. They were content to let the due process of law run its course. Why aren't you?

The further point is that Apple deliberately engaged in a campaign of deceit and lies

Yes, I get that repeating that is your most favoritest thing ever. I'm not interested in relitigating it for the thousandth time.