Posted on 02/17/2016 8:40:52 AM PST by redreno
Arrest the baker until he sells wedding cakes to homosexuals. Arrest the photographer until they are willing to photograph homosexuals shacking up. Arrest the publisher until he agrees to publish whatever is demanded of him.
Apparently slavery is alive and well in the US.
So you think the state actually already knows what is on the phone?
Freegards
Good for Apple
At least there is push back against a government that wants control over everything
I disagree.
But the software as I understand still belongs to Apple because it was only licensed to the dead muzzie and unlike the hardware is not sold. Therefore the software is still theirs. The data related to the individual is the individuals and is what the LEs really want. They are trying to use the case to obtain the property of Apple when what the warrant is likely for is just the data of the individual.
I agree that there should be a middle ground where Apple, if they have the ability, has a technician uses their property to obtain the data for LE - provided LE have properly executed a search warrant for the data.
Apple should not have to hand over their keys indefinitely since that is their property and they have done no wrong.
The data is what should have a warrant placed on it.
Some people forget just how many people around the world are protected from their corrupt governments by our constitution. Say Apple created this, and then said that they'd ONLY unlock phones which were part of capital crimes cases. How much of the Islamic world would use it to convict people for such things as sending a message of 'praise Jesus!'? Or use it to murder a woman for daring to drive a car? Or China using it to find out who else should have their family billed for the bullet used to execute a political dissident?
“Thanks for the condescension, have a nice day. Goodbye.”
Just the facts, ma’am. :-)
The FBI did NOT ask Apple to decrypt the phone or provide back doors.
The FBI/NSA will do the actual decrypting of this terrorist asset.
What the asked apple for help on is a phone feature that bricks the phone after some fixed number of failed attempts.
Elsewhere on this topic, I have noted that tyranny is a greater threat than terrorism.
Who's warrants would you accept? Just the United States? Would you deny UK's? Germany's? Iran's?
Apple is saying they don't want to create the crippled version of the OS in the first place, knowing full well that what happened to create the encrypted phones would immediately follow - warrants for just about any and every case where an iPhone is included, from everywhere in the world.
I guess that would create jobs; an entire division of Apple dedicated to hacking iPhones to comply with warrants.
I agree with Apple, they shouldn't have to create the crippled version which would permit high speed brute force hacking of the passcode.
Just create an entirely new version of the OS with all prevention of brute force hacking disabled.
The FBI/NSA will do the actual decrypting of this terrorist asset.
Let's be honest, disabling the security features is Apple decrypting the phone. Someone else typing the numbers in doesn't really change that.
What the asked apple for help on is a phone feature that bricks the phone after some fixed number of failed attempts.
Create an OS which makes it possible for the FBI to hack the phone. And Iraq. And Cuba. And China.
True, and if it was some other gov’t making the request. A gov’t that would kick them out if they didn’t comply. But I still prefer to live here.
So a CEO can be thrown in jail for refusing to write a program for the FBI? Why can’t the FBI figure it out themselves?
I'm saying that I have confidence that, if the NSA really wanted to find out what was on the phone, they could do it. I'm not saying they already know.
I'm also not sure that the investigators are really eager to find out where the rabbit-hole leads, in case it would prove embarrassing to Obama.
I'm not sure they have the ability at the moment. They're not confident that, if they devise a method for cracking the phone, that the techniques won't shortly thereafter find their way into the possession of multiple governments (and gangs)
Or by our own regime to imprison the political opposition.
Really. Nevermind Iran or China, worry about Washington DC first.
It seems to me if they actually have the tech already, the smart law enforcement/national security thing to do would be to not bring it up at all, and just let everyone think it is unbreakable encryption when it really isn’t.
Freegards
Hi redreno! Your comment at #4 above:
“I don’t know. However, pulling articles off Freerepublic without a simple notice to the sender is the main reason why I’ll never donate $ to operate this site.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It is frustrating to have an article pulled. I hope my explanation will help give FR posters the means to access the reasons.
The Moderator’s notice giving the reason for removal is found at the URL of the removed article. The URL remains after an article is pulled.
Each article posted has a number, for example, 3398255 in the URL of the article in which we are now commenting...http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3398255/posts ...and the URL can be found by checking for the number of the article posted immediately before or after an article that was removed. Or if you still have the FR Main page open where the article title is shown, hover your mouse over the title and look for the URL to appear in a bar at the bottom of the browser page.
The most common reason for articles being pulled is violation of copyright and posting rules: e.g. posting an excessive amount of the article; including copyrighted photos in the body of the article post; continuing to post additional material from the article in a comment; failing to give a link to the source of the article, etc.
This opens up FR to the risk of being sued on the issue of copyright (which has happened more than once) and another lawsuit could lead to the site going out of business.
Here’s the notice for the article that was pulled [Apple Turns Down FBI...]
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3398222/posts
For national security, yes.
For law enforcement, it means that the contents of the phone cannot be used as evidence, without compromising the secret.
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.