I May Just Have to Buy an iPhone Now

PPC1052 said:
Then why have warrants at all? If you think you cannot trust the police to tell the truth, even under oath, then no warrants should ever issue, period.
Click to expand...

I think we've seen enough evidence that a police officer that lies under oath is very rarely ever prosecuted for perjury, so there's no real reason to believe that they'd never do it....unless you want to believe that a police officer is less likely to lie than a citizen. The point behind the warrant is that at least someone else has reviewed their evidence before granting the search. Still ripe for abuse, but better than just telling the officers to "use their judgment."

It is sad that it has come to this, but in this day and age, the police have abused their power enough, and other officers have looked the other way enough, that your opinion is shared by a lot of people. And I find it hard to fault people for having it.
Click to expand...

Yep. People wouldn't feel the way they do if there was no reason to feel that way.
 
Whenever the terrorism discussion comes up I often wonder if I'm the only one out there who doesn't feel like a 1 in 10million chance of getting blown up by a terrorist is sufficient reason to give an inch on my constitutional protections... or even basic dignity/convenience(TSA) for that matter.

The danger should be all too obvious. Look at all the shenanigans going on with the upcoming election right now. Remember what Nixon did? Imagine if Nixon was the president now and he had the presidential power to look into people's cell phones. Think he wouldn't be taking a look at the opposition?

How about when the FBI tailed Martin Luther King and attempted to blackmail him into silence?

These aren't conspiracy theories, this is stuff our government did in the not too distant past with far fewer tools and powers than they have now. Sure, most people in government are good folks trying to do good things to keep us safe, but if we give them the tools they WILL use use them and someone WILL use it for something nefarious if they haven't already. It's happened before.

Government's power is supposed to be limited, that's the very basis of our system of government. We must not just hand it over so willingly.
 
James331 said:
First off, 50 bucks says he isn't a "terrorist" anymore than that little nutty kid with a bowl cut was. Just a nut job with a different fictional God and a different skin tone.

Second they don't need his phone to fry him, not like they need more proof in this case.
Click to expand...


Mass murdering Muslims who have pledge allegiance to ISIS isn't "terrorist"enough for you?

Yeah, I don't think dead terrorists need to be accorded any right to privacy.
 
jimson said:
Mass murdering Muslims who have pledge allegiance to ISIS isn't "terrorist"enough for you?

Yeah, I don't think dead terrorists need to be accorded any right to privacy.
Click to expand...

Do you think that either you or I do? If so, you'd be against the dead terrorist's violation as well, because you damn sure know that the government would use whatever argument they could against you or me if they thought they could get away with it (and had precedence).
 
jimson said:
Yeah, I don't think dead terrorists need to be accorded any right to privacy.
Click to expand...

Nobody is trying to protect the dead terrorist's privacy- clearly by now they have or can get a valid warrant.

The issue at hand is that there is no way to enable anyone to get into a terrorist's phone in the future without compromising the security on ALL phones. I'm unwilling to make my phone more hackable to make counter-terrorist's jobs easier. Is that clear enough?
 
Kritchlow said:
They don't have a need to know on this one??
I respectfully disagree.

I don't like government intrusion, but in this case there is a court order. That's good enough for me. It's basically a search warrant.
Click to expand...

I was responding to the question "why the obsession with privacy from government?"

Our government, the police in particular, have an obsession with power and control. I simply don't trust them to do the right thing 100% of the time any more than I trust private companies. Things I disagree with:

* Civil asset forfeiture w/o even being charged with a crime, much less convicted. That's nothing short of outright theft.

* Eminent Domain to condemn middle-class neighborhoods because casinos and shopping malls produce more tax revenue. When did collecting more taxes become more important that protecting our way of life?

* Police using Stingray (cell-tower cloning) extensively w/o warrants, even though it was illegal. Even used legally the product collects call info from innocent bystanders - which should NOT be legal.

I could go on, but you get the point. Like others have said, it's a loose thread that once snagged will be abused beyond anything we can comprehend today.
 
Oh for anyone who wants it
https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/

Here you go, free rock solid encryption with no backdoors for the FBI/CIA/NSA no matter how many warrants or demands the government issues. There are many other apps out there.

Nobody including the feds can break it without months or years time on a supercomputer.
 
SkyHog said:
Do you think that either you or I do? If so, you'd be against the dead terrorist's violation as well, because you damn sure know that the government would use whatever argument they could against you or me if they thought they could get away with it (and had precedence).
Click to expand...

The government can get a warrant to invade my home and look through everything I own.

What makes this so different?
 
I am SHOCKED the NSA multi billion dollar, top secret..:rofl::rofl::rofl: Computer center in Utah cannot break the code...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:.........:mad2:
 
cowman said:
Whenever the terrorism discussion comes up I often wonder if I'm the only one out there who doesn't feel like a 1 in 10million chance of getting blown up by a terrorist is sufficient reason to give an inch on my constitutional protections... or even basic dignity/convenience(TSA) for that matter.

The danger should be all too obvious. Look at all the shenanigans going on with the upcoming election right now. Remember what Nixon did? Imagine if Nixon was the president now and he had the presidential power to look into people's cell phones. Think he wouldn't be taking a look at the opposition?

How about when the FBI tailed Martin Luther King and attempted to blackmail him into silence?

These aren't conspiracy theories, this is stuff our government did in the not too distant past with far fewer tools and powers than they have now. Sure, most people in government are good folks trying to do good things to keep us safe, but if we give them the tools they WILL use use them and someone WILL use it for something nefarious if they haven't already. It's happened before.

Government's power is supposed to be limited, that's the very basis of our system of government. We must not just hand it over so willingly.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you think Nixon did??

There is no right to privacy in the constitution. (I only know this from the recent news watching clips of Scalia).

Bottom line, I'm not only looking out for myself (the 1 in 10m), I don't want anyone to die at the hands of the terrorists.
 
JGoodish said:
Apple is not saying that they can't access data on the phone, or can't modify the software to make accessing that data easier. They're saying that they're opposed to creating any type of backdoor, because the existence of one would compromise device security, which is an argument with merit. Apple has publicly expressed this position for a long time.

In this particular case, there is no imminent threat. There was a threat, and nothing was done to stop it from being executed, and access to the phone was not a factor in the outcome. The perpetrators are dead and both of their personal phones have been destroyed. It is highly unlikely that the employer's phone contains significant information, or it would not have survived. Furthermore, it has been reported that law enforcement was granted access to backups from that phone, which have yielded little information. The reality is that the bar for the court order appears to be very low in this case, as it surely would be in any case where the government may be interested in data from your phone, regardless of the actual "threat" that you may present to anyone.

I don't think that law enforcement and the intelligence community has a serious argument that smartphone encryption prevents them from doing their jobs. Instead, I think they're really arguing that such encryption makes it more difficult for them to do their jobs, which in my opinion is not a sufficiently powerful argument for me to voluntarily surrender civil liberties. I will submit that the lack of political willpower presents a greater threat to acting on gathered intelligence, than the lack of intelligence data from encrypted mobile devices.

The bottom line is that either you trust the government 100%, or you don't; you can't walk both sides of the fence. If you believe that the government (or any other entity) MIGHT potentially abuse a backdoor privilege, even under court order, then it is quite reasonable to desire a way to protect yourself against such a potential abuse. You can't unring the bell just because you win on appeal.


JKG
Click to expand...

Exactly. Look at the court order as a proxy for the ongoing battle in Congress over device encryption and backdoors. This is a way to change the requirements without dealing with the legislative process.
 
Kritchlow said:
What exactly do you think Nixon did??
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal


There is no right to privacy in the constitution. (I only know this from the recent news watching clips of Scalia).
Click to expand...

A lot of people would say the 4th Amendment applies to data on your phone or computer. I would be one.

Bottom line, I'm not only looking out for myself (the 1 in 10m), I don't want anyone to die at the hands of the terrorists.
Click to expand...

What about the rights of everyone in that 10m who value their privacy and constitutional rights over the questionable safety this provides?

What if I say most of these new powers and programs we've given to the government haven't made us the least bit safer anyway.
 
Kritchlow said:
There is no right to privacy in the constitution. (I only know this from the recent news watching clips of Scalia).
Click to expand...

Wrong. Try the Ninth Amendment for a start.
 
cowman said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal




A lot of people would say the 4th Amendment applies to data on your phone or computer. I would be one.



What about the rights of everyone in that 10m who value their privacy and constitutional rights over the questionable safety this provides?

What if I say most of these new powers and programs we've given to the government haven't made us the least bit safer anyway.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand watergate, do you?
 
Kritchlow said:
You really don't understand watergate, do you?
Click to expand...

Uh Nixon's administration got caught amongst other things spying on their political rivals? Seems pretty darn relevant to this conversation...
 
cowman said:
Uh Nixon's administration got caught amongst other things spying on their political rivals? Seems pretty darn relevant to this conversation...
Click to expand...

Nixon's Administration.... I do realize the top man is ultimately resposible, but Nixon himself knew little until the end.

Bowing out of the politics... Don't want to get scolded.
 
SkyHog said:
This will be as abused as dog searches are if the government succeeds. Just imagine the day where a traffic stop is followed by "We have reason to believe that you were using your cell phone to purchase drugs. You must unlock it, or we will call Apple and get the master keys to unlock it ourselves..."

Its about as sane as "here, doggie, bark here..." followed by "OMG! he barked! tear the car apart, that's probable cause!"
Click to expand...

That.

The dog thing has become a never ending search warrant on a leash, just search YouTube


Kritchlow said:
What exactly do you think Nixon did??

There is no right to privacy in the constitution. (I only know this from the recent news watching clips of Scalia).

Bottom line, I'm not only looking out for myself (the 1 in 10m), I don't want anyone to die at the hands of the terrorists.
Click to expand...

Uh yes there is, the fourth admendemnt of the constitution of the United States of America.

And frankly, you know statistically you're more likely to be falsely murdered by a police officer than murdered by a "terrorist", more likely to drown in your own bathtub, lest we even get started on the number one killer, heart diease, maybe you want your police to seize red meat and fatty foods too? Send drones up to search out and bomb fast food joints Make those foods illegal for your "safety".

Secondly what is a terrorist? I have no idea, no one really does, but the government could declare you or I one without ever showing their evidence or reasoning.

And yes, it is OK for some people to die for my rights and I'm willing to accept any additional risks needed to keep my rights.

The moment you hand over your rights, you loose the war and undo everything the founding fathers and every person who gave their life for this country has done to protect your rights.

America isn't her military
America isn't her president
America isn't her flag

America is a idea and thar idea resulted in the constitution

The constitution is the tool the fabric of this country was woven with, to take the constitution apart is to take the country apart, you destroy to edit the constitution you're no longer living in America. On behalf of the people who like America I would ask those people to simply immigrate to another country which shares their personal values instead of trying to change America.

Funny thing is it isn't the jihadist who are invading to destroying the country, it the drooling masses who will burn the constitution for a governments hollow and false promise of "safety" and "security".

You can have your "safety" and "security" I'll keep my rights and constitution.
 
James331 said:
That.

The dog thing has become a never ending search warrant on a leash, just search YouTub



Uh yes there is, the fourth admendemnt of the constitution of the United States of America.

And frankly, you know statistically you're more likely to be falsely murdered by a police officer than murdered by a "terrorist", more likely to drown in your own bathtub, lest we even get started on the number one killer, heart diease, maybe you want your police to seize red meat and fatty foods too? Send drones up to search out and bomb fast food joints Make those foods illegal for your "safety".

Secondly what is a terrorist? I have no idea, no one really does, but the government could declare you or I one without ever showing their evidence or reasoning.

And yes, it is OK for some people to die for my rights and I'm willing to accept any additional risks needed to keep my rights.

The moment you hand over your rights, you loose the war and undo everything the founding fathers and every person who gave their life for this country has done to protect your rights.

America isn't her military
America isn't her president
America isn't her flag

America is a idea and thar idea resulted in the constitution

The constitution is the tool the fabric of this country was woven with, to take the constitution apart is to take the country apart, you destroy to edit the constitution you're no longer living in America. On behalf of the people who like America I would ask those people to simply immigrate to another country which shares their personal values instead of trying to change America.

Funny thing is it isn't the jihadist who are invading to destroying the country, it the drooling masses who will burn the constitution for a governments hollow and false promise of "safety" and "security".

You can have your "safety" and "security" I'll keep my rights and constitution.
Click to expand...

Yup... Just watch the dogs handler coach the dog into scratching the crap out the kids hood on a bogus stop....

Oh yeah... And when the cam goes dead once found by the "law abiding" officers...:mad2::mad2::mad2:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
 
I'd have to agree that the facade of "right to privacy" in the constitution only serves to protect a persons privacy on the surface. You are completely discounting the one word that nullifies the entire amendment rendering it useless.



Unreasonable



If the intrusion is reasonable, you have nothing to stand on. Period. Upon presentation of evidence to a bonified court, if it is found reasonable to believe someone committed a crime and evidence of that act will most likely be found in the area to be intruded upon, it is reasonable to go and take the evidence and the order is given.

It's really a simple concept. This false understanding that the 4th gives absolute protections is nothing more than a horseless chariot. It's something to stand on, but it has nothing to propel it.
 
There is no right to privacy in the constitution. The SCOTUS in Griswold v Connecticut ruled that the "spirit" of the first, third, fourth, firth, ninth amendment (all incorporated by the 14th ) protects a person's right to privacy (later used in Roe v Wade) but the right to privacy is not in the constitution.

Just had this for an AP Gov free test question.

See this for more info
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_griswold.html
 
Last edited:
oregonboy109 said:
There is no right to privacy in the constitution. The SCOTUS in Griswold v Connecticut ruled that the "spirit" of the first, third, fourth, firth, ninth amendment (all incorporated by the 14th ) protects a person's right to privacy (later used in Roe v Wade) but the right to privacy is not in the constitution.

Just had this for an AP Gov free test question.

See this for more info
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_griswold.html
Click to expand...

The case we're talking about here isn't really "privacy" though it's about seizure of property... or more relevantly "papers" of a digital sort.

See:
http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/12/united-states-v-ganias/

Your files are still protected by the 4th amendment. An iphone is just a computer with data stored in files for all intents and purposes.

Now, there's a new issue going on here that's not addressed by any rulings that I know of. The government can of course get a warrant for your papers/possessions and seize them and that's fine. I'm sure they did that in this case with the terrorists.

BUT what's on the iphone is encrypted. Apple has in fact built the phone in such a way that it isn't possible to retrieve the data from it. The question that's in fact on the line here is whether the government can compel a private company to redesign their product to make it possible for the government to access the data in these cases.

I would assert that they shouldn't be able to as it weakens the functionality of the product in question. A government backdoor is also a hacker's backdoor.
 
RJM62 said:
I don't know much about Apple devices, but in general, it is in fact possible (and not at all difficult) to devise user-level encryption that is so strong that not even the author can decrypt it. It's also possible to put the self-destruct capability behind that wall so that even the device manufacturer couldn't disable it. I don't know if Apple has done that.

Suspected terrorists and jihadists aside, I admire Apple for not lying down and allowing civil rights to be trampled without a fight. They're being asked to build a backdoor into their devices which almost certainly would be misused eventually, possibly by government, but also possibly by criminals / terrorists / hackers / crackers / identity thieves / ISIS / the Bratva / or whatever other miscreants may arise. They absolutely should be fighting that.

Rich
Click to expand...
There's another reason that Cook refuses. In the letter posted on Apple's website, he also points out that it's an economic issue...this can seriously jeopardize future sales overseas (EU in particular) where countries have substantially different privacy rules protecting the citizens. It aint all altruism.
 
cowman said:
The case we're talking about here isn't really "privacy" though it's about seizure of property... or more relevantly "papers" of a digital sort.

See:
http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/12/united-states-v-ganias/

Your files are still protected by the 4th amendment. An iphone is just a computer with data stored in files for all intents and purposes.

Now, there's a new issue going on here that's not addressed by any rulings that I know of. The government can of course get a warrant for your papers/possessions and seize them and that's fine. I'm sure they did that in this case with the terrorists.

BUT what's on the iphone is encrypted. Apple has in fact built the phone in such a way that it isn't possible to retrieve the data from it. The question that's in fact on the line here is whether the government can compel a private company to redesign their product to make it possible for the government to access the data in these cases.

I would assert that they shouldn't be able to as it weakens the functionality of the product in question. A government backdoor is also a hacker's backdoor.
Click to expand...

I should have made it clear that my other post was a response to post 53. In terms of this case I agree that apple shouldnt be forced to make the phone accessible to the FBI. I still find it amazing that the FBI can't get into the phone themselves.
 
jimson said:
The government can get a warrant to invade my home and look through everything I own.

What makes this so different?
Click to expand...
For one, They want to order a non-participating third party private company to do it for them.
 
And don't forget, more iPhones are sold overseas than in the US so the "government key" will be held by nearly every government in the world. How could that go wrong?
 
jbarrass said:
And don't forget, more iPhones are sold overseas than in the US so the "government key" will be held by nearly every government in the world. How could that go wrong?
Click to expand...

Yeah they're manufactured in China too so, the Chinese will have the full specs of every new phone months before they are even released. Brilliant idea! :mad2:
 
cowman said:
The case we're talking about here isn't really "privacy" though it's about seizure of property... or more relevantly "papers" of a digital sort.

See:
http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/12/united-states-v-ganias/

Your files are still protected by the 4th amendment. An iphone is just a computer with data stored in files for all intents and purposes.

Now, there's a new issue going on here that's not addressed by any rulings that I know of. The government can of course get a warrant for your papers/possessions and seize them and that's fine. I'm sure they did that in this case with the terrorists.

BUT what's on the iphone is encrypted. Apple has in fact built the phone in such a way that it isn't possible to retrieve the data from it. The question that's in fact on the line here is whether the government can compel a private company to redesign their product to make it possible for the government to access the data in these cases.

I would assert that they shouldn't be able to as it weakens the functionality of the product in question. A government backdoor is also a hacker's backdoor.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, the government sets safety standards for vehicles and compels manufactures to comply. Cars and boats and airplanes. Same deal with housing codes. Food safety? Check. Drugs and medical devices. Things governed by the CPSC. And now the consumer financial protection bureau.

We have a very long - and growing - track record of government forcing manufacturers to design products in a certain way, or change the, to comply. It reaching the point where one almost has to get government approval before bringing something to market.
 
I lost my iPhone 6+ at the grocery store yesterday. Tried calling it but it has been turned off by whoever found it. This morning I replaced it with another Apple 6+.

So, as long as the finder never guesses my 4 digit code, all my data is extremely safe from discovery?
 
The simple fact I see so many references to 'the government' and not 'our government' puts me squarely in Apple's corner.
 
murphey said:
There's another reason that Cook refuses. In the letter posted on Apple's website, he also points out that it's an economic issue...this can seriously jeopardize future sales overseas (EU in particular) where countries have substantially different privacy rules protecting the citizens. It aint all altruism.
Click to expand...

Frankly, if the government succeeds in forcing them to redesign their phones to make them less secure and to provide less privacy protection, I'd find it hard to fault Apple for moving their corporate headquarters to somewhere like The Netherlands and reincorporating there. This same sort of heavy-handedness is why many European companies are abandoning U.S.-based hosting and Web technology providers for companies in more privacy-friendly nations.

The real kicker is that there isn't even a valid exigency argument here. The phone belonged to the terrorist's employer, was issued for work purposes, and was not destroyed like the other phones were. All of those factors (plus the fact that we're talking about something that already happened) mitigate against the argument that there's something incredibly important to national security on that phone that might justify an exigency exception, were that the case.

I see this as the FBI trying to use the courts to force Apple to give them access that Congress refused to give them, and I'm glad Apple is pushing back, regardless of their reasons.

Rich
 
jbarrass said:
For one, They want to order a non-participating third party private company to do it for them.
Click to expand...

Ok but is that what everyone is really objecting to?

The cops can currently get a search warrant and search someone's computer. Do you object to that as well?
 
jimson said:
Ok but is that what everyone is really objecting to?

The cops can currently get a search warrant and search someone's computer. Do you object to that as well?
Click to expand...

The cops can also kick a door down if they have a warrant or exigency to justify doing so. What they're seeking here is more like having a master key to everyone's houses that we'll have to just trust them to use only when authorized to do so.

Rich
 
arkvet said:
What I read was that apple doesn't even currently have the software that would be able to unlock the encrypted data on the phone. The FBI wants Apple to write a version of software that will enable them to find the password without the phone deleting all of it's data after that handful of unsuccessful attempts.

Apple's concern is that if they write this software and it somehow gets leaked (almost certainty) then it can and will be abused.
....
Click to expand...

Bingo! I'm all for catching and convicting anyone who conspires to murder and/or commit acts of terror.

However, I agree with Apple on this one. The benefits do not out weigh the potential for further harm in this case.

I fully expect that our "elected" officials can and will eventually prevail on this issue. If not this particular phone, then possibly in future cases. "We're from the government we're here to help!":mad2::mad2:
 
Last edited:
Apple's concern is that if they write this software and it somehow gets leaked (almost certainty) then it can and will be abused.
Click to expand...

I would imagine they should be able to keep that secret under wraps and not worry about being forced to divulge it.
 
jimson said:
Ok but is that what everyone is really objecting to?



The cops can currently get a search warrant and search someone's computer. Do you object to that as well?
Click to expand...


They can, and the data in that computer they seize may then be encrypted. They shouldn't be able to compel someone to unlock the computer for them. Certainly not a third party.

Sadly, a number of new laws have surfaced that are making their way through our courts that say if a person does not willingly unlock the encryption, the government may legally assume they're guilty of the crime and proceed as such at trial, and a failure to do so will also result in automatic additional obstruction of justice charges being made.

"Stop resisting." The magic words that destroy the presumption of innocence from the beat cop all the way to the top of Executive and Judicial now. Comply.
 
1RTK1 said:
I would imagine they should be able to keep that secret under wraps and not worry about being forced to divulge it.
Click to expand...


They wouldn't be able to keep the fact that it exists a secret. That's the thing that damages them and their product irrevocably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top