The gold colored version of the new iPhone 5S is seen after Apple Inc's media
event in Cupertino, California, September 10, 2013. REUTERS/Stephen Lam
Posted on 04/08/2016 2:15:51 PM PDT by Swordmaker
(Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department on Friday said it would keep fighting to force Apple Inc to open an iPhone in a New York drug case, continuing its controversial effort to require Apple and other tech companies to help law enforcement authorities circumvent encryption.
Just two weeks ago, the government dropped its effort to require Apple to crack an iPhone used by one of the shooters in the December attacks in San Bernardino, California, saying it had unlocked the phone without Apple's help.
Some observers thought the government would back away from the New York case too, since the suspect has already pleaded guilty. But in a letter filed in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, the Justice Department said, "The government continues to require Apple's assistance in accessing the data that it is authorized to search by warrant."
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Don’t trust the Ninth Circus, eh?
“The government continues to require Apple’s assistance in accessing the data that it is authorized to search by warrant.”
“We need to make Involuntary Servitude Legal again”
that is the real question they are asking.
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
This will be in the Federal 2nd Circuit in New York.
This week FBI Director Comey stated their hacking tool only works on iPhone 5C and probably the iPhone 5 that uses the same Apple A6 processor with the Encryption Engine built in. Most likely it would work with iPad Air (first generation) and the first generation iPad Mini which were released with the A6X processor which also had the Encryption Engine technology.
Technically, they did not "crack the encryption." They cracked the front door locking system which protected the way to get to the key to get the encryption unlocked. The result is the same, but it is technically different.
incidentally, the defendant in the New York case pled guilty in February. He will be sentenced this month. The criminal case itself no longer needs the evidence in the iPhone rendering it a fishing expedition trying to find more with which to charge the guilty party.
Just how do *you* define "unreasonable",Little Timmy Cook?
Why doesn’t the government just use the same entity that got into the County phone used by the San Bernardino terrorist? The Feds still haven’t reported what they found, or didn’t find on it, have they?
You do realize that no one is arguing that the FBI should not have seized or searched the phone seized from the San Bernardino terrorists, don't you? Apparently not. That has NOTHING TO DO WITH APPLE and the argument they are disputing in the courts.
Also, I love how you haters take that Fourth Amendment phrase out of context.
Just how do you define the RULE OF LAW, little fascist Gay State Not-So-Conservative, who pulls a single phrase out of context from the Constitution to justify the breaking of a LAW specifically prohibiting the FBI from doing (Communications Assistance Act for Law Enforcement of 1994) what they were attempting to get the COURT to do for them, and repeatedly focuses only on that exceptional POWER of the government, which was ceded by the PEOPLE, to the exclusion of all else in your delusions?
I define the Rule of Law as applying the laws constructed by legislation, interpretation, and precedent so that abuse of power by a power law enforcement agency, or by its ignorant agents, cannot take place and they cannot ride roughshod over our RIGHTS. I expect those agencies to know the laws, especially those that control their actions and restrictions, to respect them, to observe the letter AND spirit of this laws, and to not try to subvert those very laws limiting their jurisdictions, regulatory powers, and the rights of those who may fall under their jurisdiction and respect those, because they find those limitations restrictive or inconvenient. I expect those utilizing the Rule of Law to be truthful, and never to perjure themselves or their agencies before a court of law in the pursuit of their goals, as was the case multiple times in this case—referencing the startling and severe disparity between the sworn statements presented to the Magistrate judges and FBI Director Comey's sworn testimony before the United States Senate on the same subjects, where one can only conclude that one, or the other, presented perjury. That demonstrates the lack of honesty, or a commitment to the Rule of Law, and an astonishing arrogance, from our supposed premier law enforcement agency in the United States.
Let's look at the TENTH Amendment. I have seen so many ignorant posters on FreeRepublic talking about how the government and the Department of Justice and the FBI all have the "Right" to seize the iPhone and the "Right" to compel Apple to unlock the seized iPhone for them under the All Writs Act. I have also seen ignorant police officers telling people in video recorded stops that the officer has the "right" to do this or that, such as dis-arming the person stopped who is exercising his or her right to open carry. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let's see what the Tenth Amendment actual says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. — Tenth Amendment from the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America
Does anyone see the word "Right" in there anywhere? You will not find it. The government of the United States, or any of the Several States, have no "Right" to do anything in reference to the People of the United States or the citizens of the States. Our governments only have "powers" which we, the people have delegated from those held by natural Right as the sovereign people of this nation. The police powers are delegated deputized power resident in the badge we the people recognize as delegated from the government through our elected officials and their authority to that agent by our consent. He has NO RIGHT to do what he does, only the power delegated to him to do it. Rights have nothing to do with it. RIGHTS are held only by the people.
From reading the papers of the Founding Fathers, it is apparent that a government servant has actually ceded some of his RIGHTS to be a government servant. For example, a government servant is NOT considered a member of the Militia while serving in that position.
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." — George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
Ergo, our government bodies and its agents have no RIGHT to do anything to a person stopped. They may have the power to do it, but a power is always delegated from those granted from the very people who they may be applied against. . . and any power is always enforced with a weapon, which is why the Second Amendment is so important and intended that those delegating power to the government would always have more arms than the delegated recipients of those ceded powers.
Methinks this is actually the FBI trying to violate the 3rd Amendment:
A secondary reason for “quartering soldiers” was/is to overtly keep an eye on subjects precisely to discourage subversive activities.
By forcing security system makers to install back doors, the potentially subversive will hesitate, knowing the FBI can peek at what they write & doc not too different from having a soldier watching their every move.
I actually contemplated including the the Third Amendment in my thesis for those very reasons. Thanks for adding it.
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.