Should Big Govt. force Apple to unlock iPhone of San Bernardino mass-murderer ?

[exotix]

Today

Judge Forces Apple to Help Unlock San Bernardino Shooter iPhone

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/judge-forces-apple-help-unlock-san-bernardino-shooter-iphone-n519701

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Apple to give investigators access to encrypted data on the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, assistance the computer giant "declined to provide voluntarily," according to court papers.

In a 40-page filing, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles argued that it needed Apple to help it find the password and access "relevant, critical … data" on the locked cellphone of Syed Farook, who with his wife Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people in San Bernardino, California on December 2.

"Despite … a warrant authorizing the search," said prosecutors, "the government has been unable to complete the search because it cannot access the iPhone's encrypted content.

Apple has the exclusive technical means which would assist the government in completing its search, but has declined to provide that assistance voluntarily."

http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_51/1330521/151207-farook-malik-mn-1320_3c0a1903db42551bac3f206e17fc3609.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg

[Dr. Who]

So, they can't serve a warrant on Apple ordering them to provide assistance? I find that hard to believe.

[Crepitus]

It wouldn't be a warrant, but a court order of some sort.

[Cletus]

If Apple refuses to cooperate, arrest the CEO.

[Safety]

LoL, Edward Snowden who?

[Quest7]

The judge ruled Apple had to provide technical help, which includes removing the limit on the number of passwords one can enter on the iPhone and bypassing the device's auto-erase function. The order also says the company could be asked to write custom software to do so if it does not have the current ability to bypass those features. Apple has five days to respond to whether the order would be "unreasonably burdensome." The company was not immediately available for comment.

It's unclear what Apple may be able to do here considering the company has said in the past that 90 percent of devices running iOS 8 or higher cannot be forcibly unlocked. The company stopped storing encryption keys after that version of its mobile OS was released in September 2014. Even if Apple removes the password limit and auto-erase function, it would still take standard decryption software more than five years to crack the six-digit passcode, according to The Washington Post. The only timely way for the FBI to crack the code on Farook's iPhone, which is running iOS 9, is with a supercomputer and the iPhone's hardware key. Apple says it does not keep a copy of the key.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/16/11027732/apple-iphone-encryption-fbi-san-bernardino-shooters

[OGIS]

Today

Judge Forces Apple to Help Unlock San Bernardino Shooter iPhone

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/judge-forces-apple-help-unlock-san-bernardino-shooter-iphone-n519701

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Apple to give investigators access to encrypted data on the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, assistance the computer giant "declined to provide voluntarily," according to court papers.

In a 40-page filing, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles argued that it needed Apple to help it find the password and access "relevant, critical … data" on the locked cellphone of Syed Farook, who with his wife Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people in San Bernardino, California on December 2.

"Despite … a warrant authorizing the search," said prosecutors, "the government has been unable to complete the search because it cannot access the iPhone's encrypted content.

Apple has the exclusive technical means which would assist the government in completing its search, but has declined to provide that assistance voluntarily."

Somebody at Apple is being an asshat dick. I have zero problem with them having to unlock the phone.

[Peter1469]

Today

Judge Forces Apple to Help Unlock San Bernardino Shooter iPhone

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/judge-forces-apple-help-unlock-san-bernardino-shooter-iphone-n519701

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Apple to give investigators access to encrypted data on the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, assistance the computer giant "declined to provide voluntarily," according to court papers.

In a 40-page filing, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles argued that it needed Apple to help it find the password and access "relevant, critical … data" on the locked cellphone of Syed Farook, who with his wife Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people in San Bernardino, California on December 2.

"Despite … a warrant authorizing the search," said prosecutors, "the government has been unable to complete the search because it cannot access the iPhone's encrypted content.

Apple has the exclusive technical means which would assist the government in completing its search, but has declined to provide that assistance voluntarily."

Somebody at Apple is being an asshat dick. I have zero problem with them having to unlock the phone.

I am not sure that they can. As said above they made them that way.

[FindersKeepers]

This is an odd request by the Court, and Apple is wise to refuse. This isn't just about the terrorist's phone, this is ultimately about every phone in the US and how much, if any, privacy, the American people deserve.

It's a slippery slope.

[Standing Wolf]

This is an odd request by the Court, and Apple is wise to refuse. This isn't just about the terrorist's phone, this is ultimately about every phone in the US and how much, if any, privacy, the American people deserve.

It's a slippery slope.

I'm at least as concerned with privacy as the next citizen, but if a dead killer's phone can provide evidence of criminal conspiracy or other wrongdoing, I have no problem with that. I'm certain, without having read it, that the judge's decision very clearly took into account that the phone's owner is dead, and that a legitimate law enforcement interest in this case far outweighs any privacy considerations for the corpse; if the killer were still alive, it would be a very different situation.

[Adelaide]

A lot of tech companies try to resist being ordered around or told to do something for the government. I believe all of the major tech companies are now cooperating on the issue but it was true for them when it came to helping with surveillance programs, at least.

[Crepitus]

This is an odd request by the Court, and Apple is wise to refuse. This isn't just about the terrorist's phone, this is ultimately about every phone in the US and how much, if any, privacy, the American people deserve.

It's a slippery slope.
I think if you murder more than a dozen people while screaming "allahu-akbar" you've pretty much forfeited your right to privacy.

[Matty]

Apple says it does not have the technology! So, let the government do it.

[exotix]

Just In


http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/apple-fights-order-unlock-san-bernardino-shooters-iphone-n519881


Apple is fiercely opposing a court order to unlock the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/judge-forces-apple-help-unlock-san-bernardino-shooter-iphone-n519701), accusing the federal government of an "overreach" that could potentially breach the privacy of millions of customers.

CEO Tim Cook published a bullish open letter late Tuesda (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/full-text-apple-ceo-tim-cook-s-open-letter-fbi-n519886)y, pledging to fight a judge's ruling that it should give FBI investigators access to encrypted data on the device.

"The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals," Cook wrote, calling the ruling a "dangerous precedent."

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles argued the FBI needed Apple to help it find the password (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/judge-forces-apple-help-unlock-san-bernardino-shooter-iphone-n519701) and access "relevant, critical … data" on the locked cellphone of Syed Farook, who with his wife Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people in San Bernardino, California, (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting) on Dec. 2.

Apple has five days to respond to the court if it believes that compliance would be burdensome.


Video Inside

http://i65.tinypic.com/j8nmdi.png

[FindersKeepers]

I'm at least as concerned with privacy as the next citizen, but if a dead killer's phone can provide evidence of criminal conspiracy or other wrongdoing, I have no problem with that. I'm certain, without having read it, that the judge's decision very clearly took into account that the phone's owner is dead, and that a legitimate law enforcement interest in this case far outweighs any privacy considerations for the corpse; if the killer were still alive, it would be a very different situation.

As I understand it my old friend, the judge's order concerns forcing Apple to create a method by which the FBI, or anyone who has the technology, can "backdoor" into anyone's cell phone.

It's obviously desirable to obtain the killers' cell phone data, but the cost, in this specific case, is just too steep. For me. I don't think the threat from Muslim terrorist attacks rises to the level of justifying this type of loss of privacy.

I think Apple is doing the honorable thing. I don't like the idea of punishing everyone for the sins of a few.

[FindersKeepers]

Apple says it does not have the technology! So, let the government do it.

That would be more to my liking. The idea of forcing a company to create something that would undoubtedly decrease their product's desirability and sales, doesn't sit will with me.

[Standing Wolf]

As I understand it my old friend, the judge's order concerns forcing Apple to create a method by which the FBI, or anyone who has the technology, can "backdoor" into anyone's cell phone.

If that is the case, then I am absolutely opposed to it.

[exotix]

Notice how Apple creates a product directly responsible for the spread of terrorism through social media and communication ... made in China.

[Cletus]

Marshals need to take Cook into custody and keep him locked up until he complies with the lawful order issued by the Court.

[MisterVeritis]

Today

Judge Forces Apple to Help Unlock San Bernardino Shooter iPhone

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/judge-forces-apple-help-unlock-san-bernardino-shooter-iphone-n519701

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Apple to give investigators access to encrypted data on the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, assistance the computer giant "declined to provide voluntarily," according to court papers.

In a 40-page filing, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles argued that it needed Apple to help it find the password and access "relevant, critical … data" on the locked cellphone of Syed Farook, who with his wife Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people in San Bernardino, California on December 2.

"Despite … a warrant authorizing the search," said prosecutors, "the government has been unable to complete the search because it cannot access the iPhone's encrypted content.

Apple has the exclusive technical means which would assist the government in completing its search, but has declined to provide that assistance voluntarily."


No. A company cannot be forced to build a product to satisfy the federal government.

[MisterVeritis]

Marshals need to take Cook into custody and keep him locked up until he complies with the lawful order issued by the Court.
Nope. A company cannot be forced to build a product just because the federal government wants it.

[MisterVeritis]

Notice how Apple creates a product directly responsible for the spread of terrorism through social media and communication ... made in China.
Living inside your mind must be an interesting experience. Do you sometimes feel like it is crowded in there?

[MisterVeritis]

So, they can't serve a warrant on Apple ordering them to provide assistance? I find that hard to believe.
The judge is ordering Apple to create a product. That product would end Apple. This is going to the Supreme Court. If Apple loses they may move entirely offshore. It would also mean that the Constitution has finally been tossed out. We would have no more right to be secure.

The desire for a rebellion is growing stronger with every new government outrage against its citizens and businesses. One of these outrages will be the final straw...

[exotix]

Living inside your mind must be an interesting experience. Do you sometimes feel like it is crowded in there?I notice you didn't post on the Terrorism Budget thread ... http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/58607-Obama-300mil-cut-to-the-terror-budget


I wonder why.

[Cletus]

Nope. A company cannot be forced to build a product just because the federeal government wants it.

Cook is claiming they can't unlock the phone.

Do you really believe that bullshit? Security on Apple products has always sucked. That is why anyone who carries sensitive data on his phone, including the President of the United States uses Blackberry. Apple can unlock the phone. I have little doubt of that.

I am certainly not saying they should the technology to do so over to the government, but when faced with a court order to assist with an ongoing criminal investigation that may have international connections, they need to comply.

[MisterVeritis]

I notice you didn't post on the Terrorism Budget thread ... http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/58607-Obama-300mil-cut-to-the-terror-budget


I wonder why.
Do you believe I must be interested in every message thread? I wonder why?

[MisterVeritis]

Cook is claiming they can't unlock the phone.

Do you really believe that bull$#@!? Security on Apple products has always sucked. That is why anyone who carries sensitive data on his phone, including the President of the United States uses Blackberry. Apple can unlock the phone. I have little doubt of that.

I am certainly not saying they should the technology to do so over to the government, but when faced with a court order to assist with an ongoing criminal investigation that may have international connections, they need to comply.
If you believe it can be done step up and do it.

Nope. This demand is unconstitutional on its face. We do not need to throw out what is left of the Constitution to satisfy the Federal government.

[Cletus]

If you believe it can be done step up and do it.

Two things... I am not a phone geek and I haven't been ordered by the court to do it. Apple has.


Nope. This demand is unconstitutional on its face. We do not need to throw out what is left of the Constitution to satisfy the Federal government.

It violate what article of the Constitution?

[AeonPax]

`
`
I support Apple and the right to privacy. As there is not a "clear and present danger" to this country contained on that phone, this is just another excuse for government intrusion.

[MisterVeritis]

Two things... I am not a phone geek and I haven't been ordered by the court to do it. Apple has.
It is an unlawful order and must be resisted. It will go to the Supreme Court.


It violate what article of the Constitution?
This is a backdoor attack on everybody.

I invite your attention to a portion of the Bill of Rights:

Amendment IV

The 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.

[leekohler2]

So, they can't serve a warrant on Apple ordering them to provide assistance? I find that hard to believe.

I do too. Of course it should be unlocked.

[Cletus]

`
`
I support Apple and the right to privacy. As there is not a "clear and present danger" to this country contained on that phone, this is just another excuse for government intrusion.

So, you know what is on the phone. Okay, maybe the court should subpoena you to, so you can share that information.

Whose privacy is being violated by opening that phone?

[MisterVeritis]

I think if you murder more than a dozen people while screaming "allahu-akbar" you've pretty much forfeited your right to privacy.
Do you believe that if you murder someone the federal government has the right thereafter to spy upon every other American? That is what the federal government is demanding.

[MisterVeritis]

So, you know what is on the phone. Okay, maybe the court should subpoena you to, so you can share that information.

Whose privacy is being violated by opening that phone?
Everyone who uses Apple products. Everyone. The Feds want a backdoor built into every Apple product.

I hope Apple fights this and wins. It will be a huge blow to the rapid advancement of Big Brother government.

[Cletus]

It is an unlawful order and must be resisted. It will go to theSupreme Court.


This is a backdoor attack on everybody.

I invite your attention to a portion of the Bill of Rights:

Amendment IV

The 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.

A warrant has been issued. There is nothing unreasonable about seeking information on the communication of terrorists who murdered Americans. I don't see why you would invoke the 4th Amendment when the actions of the government in this case are completely in accordance with it.

They are not asking to unlock YOUR phone, nor are they Apple to provide them with the technology to unlock phones at will. This is an order to unlock one specific phone in a case that may have national security implications.

Do you have another Article of the Constitution you would like to apply here?

[Common]

This is an odd request by the Court, and Apple is wise to refuse. This isn't just about the terrorist's phone, this is ultimately about every phone in the US and how much, if any, privacy, the American people deserve.

It's a slippery slope.

Your privacy is gone, never to return get used to it

[MisterVeritis]

Two things... I am not a phone geek and I haven't been ordered by the court to do it. Apple has.
It is an encryption issue. The data at rest is encrypted, as it should be. The federal government does not have an open-ended right to everyone's data just because they would find it to be more convenient.

[Cletus]

Do you believe that if you murder someone the federal government has the right thereafter to spy upon every other American? That is what the federal government is demanding.

They are not demanding anything of the sort. If they were, I would be standing with you on this issue.

They are requesting that Apple unlock one, ONE, specific phone in connection to a specific ongoing criminal investigation.

[MisterVeritis]

Your privacy is gone, never to return get used to it
Apparently not. But that is what the federal government is working toward.

[Crepitus]

Do you believe that if you murder someone the federal government has the right thereafter to spy upon every other American? That is what the federal government is demanding.
No it isn't. That's what the lawyer for apple is extrapolating from their request.

[AeonPax]

So, you know what is on the phone. Okay, maybe the court should subpoena you to, so you can share that information. Whose privacy is being violated by opening that phone?
`
The device was designed for end-user security on the level that even the maker, cannot access their device. I'm sure Apple would silently cooperate IF it was a matter of "a clear and present danger" to the US...But it isn't, and is going through the court system because the government is pushing private industry to allow them access to all codes and devices in the US.

[MisterVeritis]

They are not demanding anything of the sort. If they were, I would be standing with you on this issue.

They are requesting that Apple unlock one, ONE, specific phone in connection to a specific ongoing criminal investigation.
You really do not get it do you? It cannot be done for just one phone. A tool created to decrypt one phone is a tool to decrypt all data protected by their algorithm. This is an attack on everyone who currently uses encryption to secure their information.

[Crepitus]

Anyone really doubt for a second that apple already has a back door into all those phones?

[Private Pickle]

`
The device was designed for end-user security on the level that even the maker, cannot access their device. I'm sure Apple would silently cooperate IF it was a matter of "a clear and present danger" to the US...But it isn't, and is going through the court system because the government is pushing private industry to allow them access to all codes and devices in the US.

A warrant was issued. Apple doesn't get to decide what is and what isn't "a clear and present danger".

[MisterVeritis]

A warrant has been issued. There is nothing unreasonable about seeking information on the communication of terrorists who murdered Americans. I don't see why you would invoke the 4th Amendment when the actions of the government in this case are completely in accordance with it.

They are not asking to unlock YOUR phone, nor are they Apple to provide them with the technology to unlock phones at will. This is an order to unlock one specific phone in a case that may have national security implications.

Do you have another Article of the Constitution you would like to apply here?
A warrant has not been issued against every citizen in the United States.

Building an ability to decrypt one person's data is an ability that can be used against every person's data. The government does not like that you and I can keep them in the dark.

One Amendment is sufficient.

[AeonPax]

A warrant was issued. Apple doesn't get to decide what is and what isn't "a clear and present danger".
`
A warrant means nothing other than to appear in court.

[Bo-4]

The judge is ordering Apple to create a product. That product would end Apple. This is going to the Supreme Court. If Apple loses they may move entirely offshore. It would also mean that the Constitution has finally been tossed out. We would have no more right to be secure.

The desire for a rebellion is growing stronger with every new government outrage against its citizens and businesses. One of these outrages will be the final straw...

Why would said back door to an iPhone "end Apple"?

It's not technology that they're going to release to the general public.

Virtually all of their manufacturing and money is offshore as it is.

Empty threats (and i'm an iPhone iMac guy).

[MisterVeritis]

A warrant was issued. Apple doesn't get to decide what is and what isn't "a clear and present danger".
The Federal government cannot compel a company to build something that does not exist. The warrant is an unlawful warrant. The government does not have, nor should it have that power. Apple does get to decide. We all do.

[Private Pickle]

`
A warrant means nothing other than to appear in court.

Incorrect. That's a subpoena.

[MisterVeritis]

Why would said back door to an iPhone "end Apple"?

It's not technology that they're going to release to the general public.

Virtually all of their manufacturing and money is offshore as it is.

Empty threats (and i'm an iPhone iMac guy).
I do not own any current Apple products. If Apple builds a tool that will allow them to decrypt a user's data that tool will work on every person's data. That will eliminate a major part of Apple's business advantage. Once it is clear that such an ability exists others will find a way to replicate it. They should not comply. If they are forced they should leave the country and stop selling their products here.

I did not say they would take manufacturing offshore. I mean move everything out of this evil country.

[Private Pickle]

The Federal government cannot compel a company to build something that does not exist. The warrant is an unlawful warrant. The government does not have, nor should it have that power. Apple does get to decide. We all do.

Incorrect. The warrant can be contested in court but while that is true, if that warrant were against an individual that individual would be forced to comply or suffer legal repercussions.

Given this is Apple they will sick their lawyers on it simply for the free publicity and end up giving the Feds the information prior to having to pay the substantial fine that they will incur.

[MisterVeritis]

Anyone really doubt for a second that apple already has a back door into all those phones?
I do.

[Cletus]

You really do not get it do you? It cannot be done for just one phone. A tool created to decrypt one phone is a tool to decrypt all data protected by their algorithm. This is an attack on everyone who currently uses encryption to secure their information.

Of course I get it, and yes, it can be done for just one phone. That is all the government is asking.Unlock ONE phone. They are not asking to take possession of the technology to do it. They are asking Apple to unlock one, single phone. The court has issued a warrant, in accordance with the Constitution, permitting the government to access and examine the contents of that one, specific phone. You are acting as though the act of unlocking that onbe phone is going to unlock the phones of everyone in the country.

That is not the case.

[Cletus]

`
A warrant means nothing other than to appear in court.

Uh... no.

[Bo-4]

I do not own any current Apple products. If Apple builds a tool that will allow them to decrypt a user's data that tool will work on every person's data. That will eliminate a major part of Apple's business advantage. Once it is clear that such an ability exists others will find a way to replicate it. They should not comply. If they are forced they should leave the country and stop selling their products here.

I did not say they would take manufacturing offshore. I mean move everything out of this evil country.

They'll abandon their largest single market?

Fat chance - open the damn phone!

https://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/163107/applechart1_ZLS3m8R_large.JPG

[MisterVeritis]

Of course I get it, and yes, it can be done for just one phone. That is all the government is asking.Unlock ONE phone. They are not asking to take possession of the technology to do it. They are asking Apple to unlock one, single phone. The court has issued a warrant, in accordance with the Constitution, permitting the government to access and examine the contents of that one, specific phone. You are acting as though the act of unlocking that onbe phone is going to unlock the phones of everyone in the country.

That is not the case.
Based on your comments you do not get it.

The ability to decrypt user data does not exist today. Creating a software tool to decrypt a user's data can be used against every user's data. No exceptions. That is what the government is after.

This will go to the supreme court.

[Matty]

Why is it okay to force Apple to make access to everyone's phone okay, but it's not okay to surveillance mosques?

[Cletus]

Anyone really doubt for a second that apple already has a back door into all those phones?

I have no doubt they do. Cook is stonewalling and needs to be locked up until he complies with the lawfully issued order of the court.

[MisterVeritis]

They'll abandon their largest single market?

Fat chance - open the damn phone!

https://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/163107/applechart1_ZLS3m8R_large.JPG
If Apple builds a tool to decrypt user data they will lose the advantage in the North American market. It will harm them substantially. It is not one phone. It is all data encrypted by users in all Apple devices that use that technology. This is an attack on everyone who prevents the government from prying into affairs that are none of its business.

[Crepitus]

I do.
Then you are extremely trusting and gullible.

[Cletus]

A warrant has not been issued against every citizen in the United States.

That is correct and the government is not seeking to unlock the phones of every citizen of the United States.


One Amendment is sufficient.

One amendment would indeed be sufficient. Try to find one that is applicable to this case.

[Matty]

That is correct and the government is not seeking to unlock the phones of every citizen of the United States.



One amendment would indeed be sufficient. Try to find one that is applicable to this case.


Once Apple is forced to develop the technology to open one they all are vulnerable.

[AeonPax]

Incorrect. That's a subpoena.
`
What kind of warrant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_(law)) was issued?

[Bo-4]

If Apple builds a tool to decrypt user data they will lose the advantage in the North American market. It will harm them substantially. It is not one phone. It is all data encrypted by users in all Apple devices that use that technology. This is an attack on everyone who prevents the government from prying into affairs that are none of its business.

As Antonin might have said: Pure Jiggery-Pokery, applesauce and Argle-Bargle.

They already have the technology to decrypt that data. No new device will be necessary.

[Cletus]

Once Apple is forced to develop the technology to open one they all are vulnerable.

Matty, I have little doubt the technology already exists. Apple phones have always been weak and vulnerable. That is why the Government doesn't use them to store sensitive data. It is also one of several reasons why I would never own one.

Of course, the other option here would be to declare accessing the phone to be a national security issue and turn it over the NSA to crack... and they would crack it. The problem there though, is that then, the technology to do so would definitely be in the hands of the federal government.

The owner of that phone was a terrorist. There is reason to believe he communicated with other terrorists. It is reasonable to believe there is information on that phone that may help prevent future attacks on the citizens of this nation. The government is not asking to look at any phone but that one. It is not an unreasonable or unlawful request.

[Private Pickle]

`
What kind of warrant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_(law)) was issued?

Search

[Mac-7]

Why would obumer want to unlock the iphone of a poor mistreated muslim?

[MisterVeritis]

Incorrect. The warrant can be contested in court but while that is true, if that warrant were against an individual that individual would be forced to comply or suffer legal repercussions.

Given this is Apple they will sick their lawyers on it simply for the free publicity and end up giving the Feds the information prior to having to pay the substantial fine that they will incur.
Apple has made a big deal over the fact that they do not have a way to decrypt the user's data. Creating a tool that allows them to do so would eliminate one of the important selling features to their products. Apple has to fight this. I believe they should for all of our sakes.

[FindersKeepers]

Of course I get it, and yes, it can be done for just one phone. That is all the government is asking.Unlock ONE phone. They are not asking to take possession of the technology to do it. They are asking Apple to unlock one, single phone. The court has issued a warrant, in accordance with the Constitution, permitting the government to access and examine the contents of that one, specific phone. You are acting as though the act of unlocking that onbe phone is going to unlock the phones of everyone in the country.

That is not the case.

You are correct in that the Court has asked Apple to create the backdoor so they can access this single phone, but, if I understand Tim Cook correctly, once the backdoor is created -- it's a Pandora's Box:


In today's digital world, the "key" to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.
The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that's simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.
The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.


http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/full-text-apple-ceo-tim-cook-s-open-letter-fbi-n519886

Maybe it's just me -- but if Cook is telling the truth -- it's too big of a risk. To me anyway.

[Matty]

Matty, I have little doubt the technology already exists. Apple phones have always been weak and vulnerable. That is why the Government doesn't use them to store sensitive data. It is also one of several reasons why I would never own one.

Of course, the other option here would be to declare accessing the phone to be a national security issue and turn it over the NSA to crack... and they would crack it. The problem there though, is that then, the technology to do so would definitely be in the hands of the federal government.

The owner of that phone was a terrorist. There is reason to believe he communicated with other terrorists. It is reasonable to believe there is information on that phone that may help prevent future attacks on the citizens of this nation. The government is not asking to look at any phone but that one. It is not an unreasonable or unlawful request.


I own one. Have for years. Never had a problem. Terrorist communicate with terrorists daily in the mosques yet we are forbidden that access. True? Hell, we can! t even water board a known terrorist.

[MisterVeritis]

Then you are extremely trusting and gullible.
It should be easy for you to prove. That sort of capability would leak.

Just point me to the leaks.

[Cletus]

You are correct in that the Court has asked Apple to create the backdoor so they can access this single phone, but, if I understand Tim Cook correctly, once the backdoor is created -- it's a Pandora's Box:

Cook is being dramatic, no doubt in an attempt to boost Apple sales.

[Matty]

You are correct in that the Court has asked Apple to create the backdoor so they can access this single phone, but, if I understand Tim Cook correctly, once the backdoor is created -- it's a Pandora's Box:


http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/full-text-apple-ceo-tim-cook-s-open-letter-fbi-n519886

Maybe it's just me -- but if Cook is telling the truth -- it's too big of a risk. To me anyway.




Nope! It isn't just you.

[FindersKeepers]

The owner of that phone was a terrorist. There is reason to believe he communicated with other terrorists. It is reasonable to believe there is information on that phone that may help prevent future attacks on the citizens of this nation. The government is not asking to look at any phone but that one. It is not an unreasonable or unlawful request.

What I want to know is why they're not going the route of recovering wiped data instead of building a back door.

If they can recover old wiped, and re-wiped, data from Hillary's server, I have a hard time believing they couldn't recover wiped data from a simple iPhone. Someone, somewhere, knows how to do it -- I'd think.

[FindersKeepers]

Cook is being dramatic, no doubt in an attempt to boost Apple sales.

That could be. He does have a flair for the dramatic.

[MisterVeritis]

No it isn't. That's what the lawyer for apple is extrapolating from their request.
A software tool able to decrypt one user's data can, and will, be used to decrypt any other user's data.

[Private Pickle]

Apple has made a big deal over the fact that they do not have a way to decrypt the user's data. Creating a tool that allows them to do so would eliminate one of the important selling features to their products. Apple has to fight this. I believe they should for all of our sakes.

Its a valid point. I'm gonna dig into this more.

[MisterVeritis]

That is correct and the government is not seeking to unlock the phones of every citizen of the United States.

One amendment would indeed be sufficient. Try to find one that is applicable to this case.
You are behaving as if Apple can create software that can only decrypt a single user's data. I am a little bit surprised.

Once the tool is created, assuming it works, it can be used to decrypt every users data.

[MisterVeritis]

What I want to know is why they're not going the route of recovering wiped data instead of building a back door.

If they can recover old wiped, and re-wiped, data from Hillary's server, I have a hard time believing they couldn't recover wiped data from a simple iPhone. Someone, somewhere, knows how to do it -- I'd think.
They may be able to recover the data but it would still be encrypted.

[MisterVeritis]

As Antonin might have said: Pure Jiggery-Pokery, applesauce and Argle-Bargle.

They already have the technology to decrypt that data. No new device will be necessary.
Who, in your opinion, are they?

What proof do you have that "they" can already decrypt the data?

[Private Pickle]

What I want to know is why they're not going the route of recovering wiped data instead of building a back door.

If they can recover old wiped, and re-wiped, data from Hillary's server, I have a hard time believing they couldn't recover wiped data from a simple iPhone. Someone, somewhere, knows how to do it -- I'd think.

The data isn't wiped its encrypted.

[Matty]

Am I reading this wrong? What every apple phone has is a means of blocking access by giving the owner access to a four digit code. That locks everyone else from accessing the phone. The phone does not record conversations. But don't the phone companies i.e. Verizon keep lists of all numbers called and received? Or are they looking for access to get to text messages?

[Cletus]

You are behaving as if Apple can create software that can only decrypt a single user's data. I am a little bit surprised.

I never suggested that.


Once the tool is created, assuming it works, it can be used to decrypt every users data.

The operative word there is CAN. You are assuming it WILL.

As standard parts of my daily kit, I carry a pistol, a lock pick set, a wrecking bar, and a vehicle lockout kit. With those tools in my possession I CAN shoot a bunch of people, break into many houses and pop open just about any car I want.

I CAN, but I DON'T, and I WON'T unless there some lawful reason to do so.

[MisterVeritis]

Matty, I have little doubt the technology already exists. Apple phones have always been weak and vulnerable. That is why the Government doesn't use them to store sensitive data. It is also one of several reasons why I would never own one.

Of course, the other option here would be to declare accessing the phone to be a national security issue and turn it over the NSA to crack... and they would crack it. The problem there though, is that then, the technology to do so would definitely be in the hands of the federal government.

The owner of that phone was a terrorist. There is reason to believe he communicated with other terrorists. It is reasonable to believe there is information on that phone that may help prevent future attacks on the citizens of this nation. The government is not asking to look at any phone but that one. It is not an unreasonable or unlawful request.
You have little doubt...that means nothing. The company has based its business model on not having a capability to break into and decrypt a user's data. If your allegation that Apple products are easily broken into then why does the FBI need any help whatever?

This does not appear to be about phone records. The metadata is on the servers of the phone company, not Apple.

The government's demand that Apple create software to decrypt a user's data is unreasonable and, I believe, unconstitutional.

[valley ranch]

Sweet looking couple aren't they~

http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_51/1330521/151207-farook-malik-mn-1320_3c0a1903db42551bac3f206e17fc3609.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg

[Matty]

I never suggested that.



The operative word there is CAN. You are assuming it WILL.

As standard parts of my daily kit, I carry a pistol, a lock pick set, a wrecking bar, and a vehicle lockout kit. With those tools in my possession I CAN shoot a bunch of people, break into many houses and pop open just about any car I want.

I CAN, but I DON'T, and I WON'T unless there some lawful reason to do so.





Please, Cletus. Tell me you trust Obama. Seriously?



http://www.inquisitr.com/2263827/obama-is-secretly-amassing-sensitive-personal-data-on-americans-for-an-orwellian-race-database-report/

[MisterVeritis]

You are behaving as if Apple can create software that can only decrypt a single user's data. I am a little bit surprised.

I never suggested that.
This is progress. You admit that Apple, if it is forced to write software that can decyrpt one user's data can be used to decrypt ANY users data.

Once the tool is created, assuming it works, it can be used to decrypt every users data.


The operative word there is CAN. You are assuming it WILL.

As standard parts of my daily kit, I carry a pistol, a lock pick set, a wrecking bar, and a vehicle lockout kit. With those tools in my possession I CAN shoot a bunch of people, break into many houses and pop open just about any car I want.

I CAN, but I DON'T, and I WON'T unless there some lawful reason to do so.
You are not the federal government. I shall assume that you are not corrupt. The federal government is corrupt. Yes, I assume that once the federal government knows that Apple can break into and decrypt a user's data the Federal government will use a top secret order to compel Apple to use that tool time and time again.

[Cletus]

You have little doubt...that means nothing. The company has based its business model on not having a capability to break into and decrypt a user's data.

No, it hasn't. Most people with Apple phones are clueless about that capability. The only reason they are even beginning to tout that feature is because they want to expand their market into government and take away Blackberry's niche


If your allegation that Apple products are easily broken into then why does the FBI need any help whatever?

I suspect it is because of legal issues surround the proprietary nature of Apple products. Apple is notorious for that.

[Crepitus]

It should be easy for you to prove. That sort of capability would leak.

Just point me to the leaks.
Ah, I forgot that to conservatives big companies can do no wrong. Very naive.
Siri offers the latest backdoor into your iPhone – just ask nicelyLINK (https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/09/25/siri-offers-the-latest-backdoor-into-your-iphone-just-ask-nicely/)

[Crepitus]

A software tool able to decrypt one user's data can, and will, be used to decrypt any other user's data.
You trust them when they say they haven't got this tool already, why wouldn't you trust them not to use it once they admit they have it?

[MisterVeritis]

No, it hasn't. Most people with Apple phones are clueless about that capability. The only reason they are even beginning to tout that feature is because they want to expand their market into government and take away Blackberry's niche
I do not own one but the data-at-rest encryption was one of my considerations. I knew about it and cannot tell you how I knew. I decided not to pay the premium because I have never lost a phone. Ever.


I suspect it is because of legal issues surround the proprietary nature of Apple products. Apple is notorious for that.
Nonsense.

[MisterVeritis]

You trust them when they say they haven't got this tool already, why wouldn't you trust them not to use it once they admit they have it?
Because they would be unable to withstand a top secret order to use that tool on behalf of the federal government or to secretly give the tool to the feds. Are you done asking gotcha questions?

[MisterVeritis]

Ah, I forgot that to conservatives big companies can do no wrong. Very naive.
Siri offers the latest backdoor into your iPhone – just ask nicely

LINK (https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/09/25/siri-offers-the-latest-backdoor-into-your-iphone-just-ask-nicely/)
If it works why doesn't the FBI just use it?

[Private Pickle]

If it works why doesn't the FBI just use it?

Doing so would probably break the law...

[AeonPax]

Search
`
Not a bench warrant or arrest warrant. More government intruding into the private lives of citizens....but that's OK with you because it makes you feel safe?

[MisterVeritis]

Doing so would probably break the law...
More nonsense.

[Bo-4]

Who, in your opinion, are they?

What proof do you have that "they" can already decrypt the data?

I know what the techies at Apple are capable of .. don't be naive.

[MisterVeritis]

I know what the techies at Apple are capable of .. don't be naive.
In other words you haven't a clue. Thanks.

[Private Pickle]

`
Not a bench warrant or arrest warrant. More government intruding into the private lives of citizens....but that's OK with you because it makes you feel safe?

Huh? What are you talking about?

[Private Pickle]

More nonsense.

If you say so...

[Cthulhu]

I think if you murder more than a dozen people while screaming "allahu-akbar" you've pretty much forfeited your right to privacy.
After due process.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

[MisterVeritis]

If you say so...
I do.

[Private Pickle]

I do.

Well then it must be so...

[MisterVeritis]

Well then it must be so...
It is. The phone is legitimately in the FBI's possession. It is wholly legitimate for them to exploit anything they can find on the phone. If they could use a brute force attack against the phone they would do so. If they could use an incorrectly configured system to get in they would have. And no laws would have been broken.

So claiming that using an exploit based on a poor choice for a default setting would break a law is nonsense.

You should stop. I promise I will. This is not the issue.

In my opinion, the issue is the security features in the phone that make it unusually difficult to run a successful brute force attack on the phone.

I stand with Apple. I stand against the Federal government's coercion.

[Common]

In the end it wont matter if apple gives it up or not. The govt is quite capable of gathering people capable of cracking apple Iphone security, its just alot easier and less costly and time consuming for them to give it up.

[MisterVeritis]

In the end it wont matter if apple gives it up or not. The govt is quite capable of gathering people capable of cracking apple Iphone security, its just alot easier and less costly and time consuming for them to give it up.
Then the government should get on with the task and do it.

All they have to do is write a new operating system and upgrade the phone. Oh, except that requires unlocking the phone.

[Matty]

In the end it wont matter if apple gives it up or not. The govt is quite capable of gathering people capable of cracking apple Iphone security, its just alot easier and less costly and time consuming for them to give it up.



They can't. They don't have it.

[Crepitus]

After due process.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.
OK.

[Peter1469]

I think if you murder more than a dozen people while screaming "allahu-akbar" you've pretty much forfeited your right to privacy.

A back door created to open that Apple could be used for any Apple. That is what the CEO of Apple said in his letter to Apple Users over the issue.

[Peter1469]

Matty, I have little doubt the technology already exists. Apple phones have always been weak and vulnerable. That is why the Government doesn't use them to store sensitive data. It is also one of several reasons why I would never own one.

Of course, the other option here would be to declare accessing the phone to be a national security issue and turn it over the NSA to crack... and they would crack it. The problem there though, is that then, the technology to do so would definitely be in the hands of the federal government.

The owner of that phone was a terrorist. There is reason to believe he communicated with other terrorists. It is reasonable to believe there is information on that phone that may help prevent future attacks on the citizens of this nation. The government is not asking to look at any phone but that one. It is not an unreasonable or unlawful request.

The judge could allow Apple's engineers to crack the phone and then mirror it, and hand the copy off to the FBI. That way Apple could protect its proprietary data and the FBI couldn't use it to hack into any other Iphone.

[MisterVeritis]

The judge could allow Apple's engineers to crack the phone and then mirror it, and hand the copy off to the FBI. That way Apple could protect its proprietary data and the FBI couldn't use it to hack into any other Iphone.
Once the ability has been created do you have any doubts that the government will direct, via a top secret order, that Apple becomes part of the government's espionage apparatus? The government has done so before. It is far better that Apple NOT create the technology.

[MisterVeritis]

The judge could allow Apple's engineers to crack the phone and then mirror it, and hand the copy off to the FBI. That way Apple could protect its proprietary data and the FBI couldn't use it to hack into any other Iphone.
By what constitutional authority can a judge direct a company to create something that does not exist?

[Dr. Who]

The judge is ordering Apple to create a product. That product would end Apple. This is going to the Supreme Court. If Apple loses they may move entirely offshore. It would also mean that the Constitution has finally been tossed out. We would have no more right to be secure.

The desire for a rebellion is growing stronger with every new government outrage against its citizens and businesses. One of these outrages will be the final straw...
I'm not sure why they would have to create a product. They created the encryption protocol, so if you know how to encrypt, you by default know how to unencrypt. That would have been part of the development process.

[Peter1469]

By what constitutional authority can a judge direct a company to create something that does not exist?

They likely can't. It would be an agreement between the FBI and Apple and the judge would have to agree to it.

[MisterVeritis]

I'm not sure why they would have to create a product. They created the encryption protocol, so if you know how to encrypt, you by default know how to unencrypt. That would have been part of the development process.
The difference is that they did not create the means to recover the key. That is what assures data privacy. Security of the data relies upon security of the key. No one has the key. The one who had the key is dead.

[Dr. Who]

The difference is that they did not create the means to recover the key. That is what assures data privacy.
That's what they say, but I find it rather hard to believe. Developers don't work that way. There is a developer out there that knows how to unencrypt it. I believe that national security trumps reticence to admit that there is a means to unencrypt. Rather than being stubborn about it, they should have just quietly unencrypted the phone without turning it into a 3 ring circus. No one would have been the wiser. Otherwise, the government should just offer good money to the hacker community. Some encryption hacker out there has probably already cracked it.

[donttread]

Today

Judge Forces Apple to Help Unlock San Bernardino Shooter iPhone

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/judge-forces-apple-help-unlock-san-bernardino-shooter-iphone-n519701

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Apple to give investigators access to encrypted data on the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, assistance the computer giant "declined to provide voluntarily," according to court papers.

In a 40-page filing, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles argued that it needed Apple to help it find the password and access "relevant, critical … data" on the locked cellphone of Syed Farook, who with his wife Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people in San Bernardino, California on December 2.

"Despite … a warrant authorizing the search," said prosecutors, "the government has been unable to complete the search because it cannot access the iPhone's encrypted content.

Apple has the exclusive technical means which would assist the government in completing its search, but has declined to provide that assistance voluntarily."

http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_51/1330521/151207-farook-malik-mn-1320_3c0a1903db42551bac3f206e17fc3609.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg

How's data relevant after the fact?

[MisterVeritis]

That's what they say, but I find it rather hard to believe. Developers don't work that way. There is a developer out there that knows how to unencrypt it. I believe that national security trumps reticence to admit that there is a means to unencrypt. Rather than being stubborn about it, they should have just quietly unencrypted the phone without turning it into a 3 ring circus. No one would have been the wiser. Otherwise, the government should just offer good money to the hacker community. Some encryption hacker out there has probably already cracked it.
Apple certainly knows precisely how their encryption-decryption works. I would not be all that surprised if it isn't a variation of the advanced encryption standard. The security of the data lies in the security of the key. Apple wisely did not create a key management system. If you own the phone you, and you alone, are responsible for creating, securing, and using the key. If you do not have the key, and there are no measures in place to prevent a brute force attack, you simply try every possible key until the right key is found.
Apple put measures in place to prevent successful brute force attacks. I have not checked all of the details but believe a key, used to unlock the phone, can be up to six numbers or letters. In some brute force defeat scenarios, every failed attempt increases the built in delay before you can try the next possible key. So by try number five or six you may be waiting hours between passwords.

If there are one or two trillion possible combinations, and you have to wait an hour between tries, it will take you a while to find the right key.

Also Apple, according to some people, has also built in, software to shred the data after some small number of failed attempts. If it is a military grade shredder, the data may be overwritten a dozen times by random patterns of zeros and ones. This will make it very hard to determine what data was on the phone.

If Apple could develop software able to "guess" and recover a password it would negate every user's ability to be secure against snooping by anyone who had the software.

[MisterVeritis]

That's what they say, but I find it rather hard to believe. Developers don't work that way. There is a developer out there that knows how to unencrypt it. I believe that national security trumps reticence to admit that there is a means to unencrypt. Rather than being stubborn about it, they should have just quietly unencrypted the phone without turning it into a 3 ring circus. No one would have been the wiser. Otherwise, the government should just offer good money to the hacker community. Some encryption hacker out there has probably already cracked it.
I tend to doubt it. Recovering a secret key is a very hard problem. National security does not trump the Constitution.

[MisterVeritis]

How's data relevant after the fact?
I believe they are looking for contacts, documents and photographs to identify others who assisted these two.

[Dr. Who]

Apple certainly knows precisely how their encryption-decryption works. I would not be all that surprised if it isn't a variation of the advanced encryption standard. The security of the data lies in the security of the key. Apple wisely did not create a key management system. If you own the phone you, and you alone, are responsible for creating, securing, and using the key. If you do not have the key, and there are no measures in place to prevent a brute force attack, you simply try every possible key until the right key is found.
Apple put measures in place to prevent successful brute force attacks. I have not checked all of the details but believe a key, used to unlock the phone, can be up to six numbers or letters. In some brute force defeat scenarios, every failed attempt increases the built in delay before you can try the next possible key. So by try number five or six you may be waiting hours between passwords.

If there are one or two trillion possible combinations, and you have to wait an hour between tries, it will take you a while to find the right key.

Also Apple, according to some people, has also built in, software to shred the data after some small number of failed attempts. If it is a military grade shredder, the data may be overwritten a dozen times by random patterns of zeros and ones. This will make it very hard to determine what data was on the phone.

If Apple could develop software able to "guess" and recover a password it would negate every user's ability to be secure against snooping by anyone who had the software.That's assuming that the original developer did not create a backdoor to begin with. I'd be surprised if he or she didn't.

[MisterVeritis]

That's assuming that the original developer did not create a backdoor to begin with. I'd be surprised if he or she didn't.
I just shake my head.

[Dr. Who]

I just shake my head.
It's not that unusual in the development process - it doesn't necessarily denote malicious intent. It can be easier for the developer than always having to use a key, particularly if many people are working on the same code.

[domer76]

What about the Constitution and it not being a living document? The founders, for sure, anticipated this scenario.

BTW, the objects of the search are dead. Do they have any rights?

[Peter1469]

What about the Constitution and it not being a living document? The founders, for sure, anticipated this scenario.

BTW, the objects of the search are dead. Do they have any rights?

You are toying around with the concept of the living Constitution again? That is cute.

It is like a special kid visiting the bathroom.

[Dr. Who]

You are toying around with the concept of the living Constitution again? That is cute.

It is like a special kid visiting the bathroom.
Realistically the Constitution has been amended 27 times, so it is not a static document. The option to amend is built into the Constitution. That ability to grow and adapt to societal and technological changes does make it a somewhat living document. Were it not, it would have been long since discarded when it was found incapable of responding to the needs of the country. It would then have been an anachronistic document.

[domer76]

You are toying around with the concept of the living Constitution again? That is cute.

It is like a special kid visiting the bathroom.

lol

Your "etched in stone" document doesn't have an answer, does it, Einstein?

[Peter1469]

Realistically the Constitution has been amended 27 times, so it is not a static document. The option to amend is built into the Constitution. That ability to grow and adapt to societal and technological changes does make it a somewhat living document. Were it not, it would have been long since discarded when it was found incapable of responding to the needs of the country. It would then have been an anachronistic document.

The living constitution doctrine specifically rejects the concept that the only way to change the constitution is the two methods provided for within the constitution: amendments or a convention of the states.

If we aren't using the same definitions we are not communicating.

[exotix]

Happening Now

GOP Candidates weigh-in


'Absolutely Apple needs to unlock the phone ... this is about terrorism'

http://i63.tinypic.com/2luxw1x.jpg




'The Tyrannical Govt is infringing in your freedom'

http://i68.tinypic.com/2nltg9i.jpg

[Matty]

Apple done said they don't have the technology! So?

[Crepitus]

An interesting take from my 13 yr old son: Apple refusing to open the Iphone of a criminal terrorist is basically saying "we know you bad guys buy our phones and we want you to keep buying them so we will protect you from the police".

[AeonPax]

`
`
EFF to Support Apple in Encryption Battle (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/eff-support-apple-encryption-battle)


Apple’s Fight Against FBI Backdoor Order Has Serious Implications For Privacy (http://trofire.com/2016/02/17/apples-fight-against-fbi-backdoor-order-has-serious-implications-for-cyber-privacy/)

The hardcore democrats love this because Obamas' doing it. The right loves this because despite all the guns they have, they are scared to death of Muslims.

[exotix]

``
EFF to Support Apple in Encryption Battle (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/eff-support-apple-encryption-battle)


Apple’s Fight Against FBI Backdoor Order Has Serious Implications For Privacy (http://trofire.com/2016/02/17/apples-fight-against-fbi-backdoor-order-has-serious-implications-for-cyber-privacy/)

The hardcore democrats love this because Obamas' doing it. The right loves this because despite all the guns they have, they are scared to death of Muslims. I'm waiting for these guys to come out and take Apple back from the tyrannical govt ...


http://i64.tinypic.com/34ifggl.jpg

[Mac-7]

I think obumer is demanding that apple tell the clueless feds how to crack any iPhone.

maybe a good compromise is to let Apple unlock the phone for obumer instead of telling him how to do it

[AeonPax]

I'm waiting for these guys to come out and take Apple back from the tyrannical govt ...
`
Consider me a privacy activist - Privacy Activists Rally Around Apple in 'Most Important Tech Case in a Decade' (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/18/privacy-activists-rally-around-apple-most-important-tech-case-decade)
`






National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden said Wednesday in a series of tweets, "This is the most important tech case in a decade...The FBI is creating a world where citizens rely on Apple to defend their rights, rather than the other way around."

[Peter1469]

The fascists are on the march.

They have much support here. Apple shall comply. Or be crushed by the State.

[Dr. Who]

The living constitution doctrine specifically rejects the concept that the only way to change the constitution is the two methods provided for within the constitution: amendments or a convention of the states.

If we aren't using the same definitions we are not communicating.
OK, so by what basis in the Constitution can America claim the sovereignty of its airspace? The Constitution discusses territory in terms of land only, but never discusses its airspace. If one holds to strict interpretation of the Constitution, any Acts passed regarding US airspace are really unconstitutional.

[Archer0915]

Today

Judge Forces Apple to Help Unlock San Bernardino Shooter iPhone

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/judge-forces-apple-help-unlock-san-bernardino-shooter-iphone-n519701

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Apple to give investigators access to encrypted data on the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, assistance the computer giant "declined to provide voluntarily," according to court papers.

In a 40-page filing, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles argued that it needed Apple to help it find the password and access "relevant, critical … data" on the locked cellphone of Syed Farook, who with his wife Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people in San Bernardino, California on December 2.

"Despite … a warrant authorizing the search," said prosecutors, "the government has been unable to complete the search because it cannot access the iPhone's encrypted content.

Apple has the exclusive technical means which would assist the government in completing its search, but has declined to provide that assistance voluntarily."

http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_51/1330521/151207-farook-malik-mn-1320_3c0a1903db42551bac3f206e17fc3609.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg

From what I understand the FBI wants to be able to access any phone , any time and this is not acceptable.

A per phone (per investigation) thing would be fine, with a warrant, but this is not acceptable.

[MisterVeritis]

It's not that unusual in the development process - it doesn't necessarily denote malicious intent. It can be easier for the developer than always having to use a key, particularly if many people are working on the same code.
Do you understand the difference between having a common key at some near-final stage and writing software to defeat all of your security mechanisms? The federal government wants Apple to write software to defeat Apple's built-in security features.

[MisterVeritis]

What about the Constitution and it not being a living document? The founders, for sure, anticipated this scenario.

BTW, the objects of the search are dead. Do they have any rights?
This has nothing to do with two dead murderous terrorists. I believe you know that.

This is about forcing a company to build software that can defeat its security measures. This is an attack on the rest of us, the living.

[MisterVeritis]

Realistically the Constitution has been amended 27 times, so it is not a static document. The option to amend is built into the Constitution. That ability to grow and adapt to societal and technological changes does make it a somewhat living document. Were it not, it would have been long since discarded when it was found incapable of responding to the needs of the country. It would then have been an anachronistic document.
What portions of it do you believe are defeated by technology changes?

[MisterVeritis]

lol

Your "etched in stone" document doesn't have an answer, does it, Einstein?
Do you believe the government should have a right to general warrants again? That was one reason why there was a rebellion. It can be a reason for the next one. Einstein.

[MisterVeritis]

Happening Now

GOP Candidates weigh-in


'Absolutely Apple needs to unlock the phone ... this is about terrorism'

http://i63.tinypic.com/2luxw1x.jpg




'The Tyrannical Govt is infringing in your freedom'

http://i68.tinypic.com/2nltg9i.jpg
They are both wrong. It happens.

[MisterVeritis]

An interesting take from my 13 yr old son: Apple refusing to open the Iphone of a criminal terrorist is basically saying "we know you bad guys buy our phones and we want you to keep buying them so we will protect you from the police".
Your son is very similar to you. What a shame.

[MisterVeritis]

`
`
EFF to Support Apple in Encryption Battle (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/eff-support-apple-encryption-battle)


Apple’s Fight Against FBI Backdoor Order Has Serious Implications For Privacy (http://trofire.com/2016/02/17/apples-fight-against-fbi-backdoor-order-has-serious-implications-for-cyber-privacy/)

The hardcore democrats love this because Obamas' doing it. The right loves this because despite all the guns they have, they are scared to death of Muslims.
I believe the vast majority of the people have not got a clue what is at stake.

[Dr. Who]

Do you understand the difference between having a common key at some near-final stage and wring software to defeat all of your security mechanisms? The federal government wants Apple to write software to defeat Apple's built-in security features.
Let's look at it this way, if an IPhone contained information regarding the time, date, location and origin of a nuclear strike, would you really care about whether or not Apple's built-in security features have a pass key? The key and software could be deleted from Apple's databases and kept on portable media in a vault to be accessed only in case of a dire emergency or matter of national security.

[MisterVeritis]

I think obumer is demanding that apple tell the clueless feds how to crack any iPhone.

maybe a good compromise is to let Apple unlock the phone for obumer instead of telling him how to do it
Show me that portion of the Constitution that allows the federal government to demand that a company build a tool to defeat its products' built-in security features.

The software, according to Apple, does not exist.

[MisterVeritis]

OK, so by what basis in the Constitution can America claim the sovereignty of its airspace? The Constitution discusses territory in terms of land only, but never discusses its airspace. If one holds to strict interpretation of the Constitution, any Acts passed regarding US airspace are really unconstitutional.
Defense, however, is a fundamental part of the Constitution. You will have to do much, much better.

[Dr. Who]

What portions of it do you believe are defeated by technology changes?
How about US airspace?

[MisterVeritis]

From what I understand the FBI wants to be able to access any phone , any time and this is not acceptable.

A per phone (per investigation) thing would be fine, with a warrant, but this is not acceptable.
No. The warrant is written very narrowly and very specifically. It is as if they do not know what they are asking.

Of course they have to know that developing a tool to defeat the security on one phone defeats the technology on every device that relies upon those security features.

[Crepitus]

Your son is very similar to you. What a shame.

Nice, attempting to insult my family now. Sign of a truely sick mentality. I hope you get help soon, for your sake.

[Dr. Who]

Defense, however, is a fundamental part of the Constitution. You will have to do much, much better.
How can the US claim sovereignty of airspace when it is not part of the description of US territory? I can certainly see why Congress would just assume that the space above the land should also be sovereign, but it is literally not mentioned in the Constitution. Should the Constitution have been amended to account for that limitation?

[MisterVeritis]

Let's look at it this way, if an IPhone contained information regarding the time, date, location and origin of a nuclear strike, would you really care about whether or not Apple's built-in security features have a pass key? The key and software could be deleted from Apple's databases and kept on portable media in a vault to be accessed only in case of a dire emergency or matter of national security.
We can play childish what-if games all you want. Or we can discuss whether or not you should continue to be free from government intrusions into your life because terrorism exists.

I know you are not really stupid. Why do you continue to disregard what you must, by now, know?

[MisterVeritis]

How about US airspace?
Defense is, perhaps, the second-most important Constitutional requirement. No rewrite is required because we have to defend higher.

[MisterVeritis]

Nice, attempting to insult my family now. Sign of a truely sick mentality. I hope you get help soon, for your sake.
You brought him into this. The nuts don't fall very far from the tree. Do they?

Maybe you should explain to your son that this has nothing to do with a dead terrorist's phone. And maybe you should explain that a free people have the right to be secure in their persons and papers. Why would a loving parent allow a child to go on in such obvious and dangerous error? It is almost as if you cannot wait for him to be enslaved by the all-powerful state. You might be hoping I get mine but you are ensuring he will get his. Sooner. Not later.

[MisterVeritis]

How can the US claim sovereignty of airspace when it is not part of the description of US territory? I can certainly see why Congress would just assume that the space above the land should also be sovereign, but it is literally not mentioned in the Constitution. Should the Constitution have been amended to account for that limitation?
There is no need. Defense is written into the Constitution. Try again.

[Crepitus]

You brought him into this. The nuts don't fall very far from the tree. Do they?

Maybe you should explain to your son that this has nothing to do with a dead terrorist's phone. And maybe you should explain that a free people have the right to be secure in their persons and papers. Why would a loving parent allow a child to go on in such obvious and dangerous error? It is almost as if you cannot wait for him to be enslaved by the all-powerful state. You might be hoping I get mine but you are ensuring he will get his. Sooner. Not later.

It has everything to do with one terrorists phone.

[Dr. Who]

We can play childish what-if games all you want. Or we can discuss whether or not you should continue to be free from government intrusions into your life because terrorism exists.

I know you are not really stupid. Why do you continue to disregard what you must, by now, know?
There are no absolutes in life. It is nice to think that Apple has a product where one's data is safe from all forms of hacking, but let's also keep in mind that a cell phone is still a filing cabinet of information and many other things as well. In the pre electronic data days, that information would have been kept on pieces of paper which the government would have no problems accessing with a properly executed warrant. How can you maintain the security of a nation when a business can create a place to hide potentially vital information that is beyond the reach of national security? One might as well advertise to terrorists and all wrong doers to make sure that they buy Iphones and keep all of their data there, because it is the ultimate safe and beyond the reach of any national security organization and all law enforcement. I'm sure all pedophiles are transferring all of their kiddy porn to their Iphones as I write this.

I am the last person to be in favor of all of the government busy body activities, but there are clearly situations where lives may be at stake when it is reasonable to provide access to such information and obstructing same should be against public policy.

[OGIS]

Do you understand the difference between having a common key at some near-final stage and writing software to defeat all of your security mechanisms? The federal government wants Apple to write software to defeat Apple's built-in security features.

Pretty sure Apple is lying out their a$$ on this one. I've worked with programmers, programming firms, and hardware interface firms for 40+ years, and I am not aware of a single one that did not have back doors into their products. If Apple HAS built a product with no back doors, then they will be the first.

[OGIS]

Nice, attempting to insult my family now. Sign of a truely sick mentality. I hope you get help soon, for your sake.

This may actually be part of therapy. My wife's shrink mentioned that PCs with Internet connections are now allowed in many institutions for the mentally ill.

It IS possible that all of our squicky conservative friends here are all one guy with MPD sitting in a padded room somewhere. Twice a day people shoot him up with Thorazine, and let him mess around on the computer.

[Dr. Who]

There is no need. Defense is written into the Constitution. Try again.
The idea of defense rather implies that someone is attacking you. Of course there is no impediment to attacking back, however if foreign aircraft overfly the US, they are not necessarily attacking, they are simply overflying, however as airspace has been deemed sovereign, they require permission to do so. The notion of territory has been extended vertically ever since the creation of aircraft. That vertical extension of territory has been read into the Constitution. In a discussion of the living document doctrine, this would be an example of a living document accommodation that few would challenge, however if one wishes to limit such accommodations to Constitutional amendments, then any Acts regarding sovereign airspace are currently unconstitutional.

[domer76]

You brought him into this. The nuts don't fall very far from the tree. Do they?

Maybe you should explain to your son that this has nothing to do with a dead terrorist's phone. And maybe you should explain that a free people have the right to be secure in their persons and papers. Why would a loving parent allow a child to go on in such obvious and dangerous error? It is almost as if you cannot wait for him to be enslaved by the all-powerful state. You might be hoping I get mine but you are ensuring he will get his. Sooner. Not later.

You do know that this phone was issued by his employer, don't you? It was government property to begin with.

[OGIS]

How can the US claim sovereignty of airspace when it is not part of the description of US territory? I can certainly see why Congress would just assume that the space above the land should also be sovereign, but it is literally not mentioned in the Constitution. Should the Constitution have been amended to account for that limitation?


There is no need. Defense is written into the Constitution. Try again.

And yet I see no mention of such a thing as an "Air Force" mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. You must be one of those "Living Breathing Constitution" Liebruls who believe in adjusting the meaning of the Constitution to reflect modern realities.

[Crepitus]

This may actually be part of therapy. My wife's shrink mentioned that PCs with Internet connections are now allowed in many institutions for the mentally ill.

It IS possible that all of our squicky conservative friends here are all one guy with MPD sitting in a padded room somewhere. Twice a day people shoot him up with Thorazine, and let him mess around on the computer.

Lmao! That's a whole new take!

[Mac-7]

The idea of defense rather implies that someone is attacking you.

I would call mass murder in Cal by two muslims and attack worthy of our attention.

[Dr. Who]

I would call mass murder in Cal by two muslims and attack worthy of our attention.
Yes, but I was discussing US airspace.

[OGIS]

We can play childish what-if games all you want.

Isn't that precisely what conservatives do with regards to ZOMG SOSHULIZMS! when taking about Bernie Sanders? Or, come to think of it, a HUUUUGE range of topics, from gay marriage to transgender reassignment surgery, to recognizing Cuba, etc. ad nauseam? You never have concrete facts. It's always some vague chicken-little catastrophe, just around the corner.

Pot meet kettle.

[OGIS]

There are no absolutes in life. It is nice to think that Apple has a product where one's data is safe from all forms of hacking, but let's also keep in mind that a cell phone is still a filing cabinet of information and many other things as well. In the pre electronic data days, that information would have been kept on pieces of paper which the government would have no problems accessing with a properly executed warrant. How can you maintain the security of a nation when a business can create a place to hide potentially vital information that is beyond the reach of national security? One might as well advertise to terrorists and all wrong doers to make sure that they buy Iphones and keep all of their data there, because it is the ultimate safe and beyond the reach of any national security organization and all law enforcement. I'm sure all pedophiles are transferring all of their kiddy porn to their Iphones as I write this.

I am the last person to be in favor of all of the government busy body activities, but there are clearly situations where lives may be at stake when it is reasonable to provide access to such information and obstructing same should be against public policy.

This is such a balanced, rational, and reasonable post that I am at a loss as to why any sane individual would disagree with it. As you say: there are no absolutes, and there are reasonable exceptions to all rules.

[OGIS]

The idea of defense rather implies that someone is attacking you. Of course there is no impediment to attacking back, however if foreign aircraft overfly the US, they are not necessarily attacking, they are simply overflying, however as airspace has been deemed sovereign, they require permission to do so. The notion of territory has been extended vertically ever since the creation of aircraft. That vertical extension of territory has been read into the Constitution. In a discussion of the living document doctrine, this would be an example of a living document accommodation that few would challenge, however if one wishes to limit such accommodations to Constitutional amendments, then any Acts regarding sovereign airspace are currently unconstitutional.

Out of context quote by Mac-7:


The idea of defense rather implies that someone is attacking you.


I would call mass murder in Cal by two muslims and attack worthy of our attention.


Yes, but I was discussing US airspace.

Mac-7, please try and keep up! Also, try to give more than a passing nod to the concept of context.

kay?thxbye.

[Peter1469]

OK, so by what basis in the Constitution can America claim the sovereignty of its airspace? The Constitution discusses territory in terms of land only, but never discusses its airspace. If one holds to strict interpretation of the Constitution, any Acts passed regarding US airspace are really unconstitutional.

You seem to be seeking a rule book instead of the US Constitution. The EU constitution for instance is 70,000 (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hard-look-european-constitution) words- perhaps you will find airspace minutiae there. I am sure that you will.

Our Founders were not creating a rule book. They laid down in writing timeless principles: keep governance at the lowest level possible. Give the federal government only the power needed to act on the international stage and keep the states from each other's throats.

Don't look for recycling ideas in the Constitution either. :wink:

[Dr. Who]

You seem to be seeking a rule book instead of the US Constitution. The EU constitution for instance is 70,000 (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hard-look-european-constitution) words- perhaps you will find airspace minutiae there. I am sure that you will.

Our Founders were not creating a rule book. They laid down in writing timeless principles: keep governance at the lowest level possible. Give the federal government only the power needed to act on the international stage and keep the states from each other's throats.

Don't look for recycling ideas in the Constitution either. :wink:
Yes, but where are you drawing the line? You disdain the notion of a living constitution that has new concepts read in, that were not initially contemplated. Airspace is one such concept. It wasn't an issue when the Constitution was written, but it seems to be a logical extension to the modern concept of territory. Yet if SCOTUS determines that something else is a logical extension of a constitutional precept, it is condemned as unconstitutional by some. It seems to me that the condemnation simply involves political or even religious disagreement with certain SCOTUS or Congressional decisions, because those that don't cause consternation, but are based on the same logical extensions, are accepted without question.

[MisterVeritis]

It has everything to do with one terrorists phone.
No. It doesn't. One cannot build a tool to destroy the security features of a single phone. The tool destroys the security features of every Apple device secured by those security features.

No thanks. The government is in the wrong and must be defeated.

[MisterVeritis]

There are no absolutes in life. It is nice to think that Apple has a product where one's data is safe from all forms of hacking, but let's also keep in mind that a cell phone is still a filing cabinet of information and many other things as well. In the pre electronic data days, that information would have been kept on pieces of paper which the government would have no problems accessing with a properly executed warrant. How can you maintain the security of a nation when a business can create a place to hide potentially vital information that is beyond the reach of national security? One might as well advertise to terrorists and all wrong doers to make sure that they buy Iphones and keep all of their data there, because it is the ultimate safe and beyond the reach of any national security organization and all law enforcement. I'm sure all pedophiles are transferring all of their kiddy porn to their Iphones as I write this.

I am the last person to be in favor of all of the government busy body activities, but there are clearly situations where lives may be at stake when it is reasonable to provide access to such information and obstructing same should be against public policy.
What you are saying is that citizens should not expect the government to defend our individual rights. That alone is sufficient reason to rebel and overthrow it.

[Matty]

Apple says it dosen't have the technology. They should just say "we will let ya know when we have it."

[Crepitus]

No. It doesn't. One cannot build a tool to destroy the security features of a single phone. The tool destroys the security features of every Apple device secured by those security features.

No thanks. The government is in the wrong and must be defeated.

If you don't think they already have this tool in their toolbox I believe you are sadly mistaken.

[MisterVeritis]

Pretty sure Apple is lying out their a$$ on this one. I've worked with programmers, programming firms, and hardware interface firms for 40+ years, and I am not aware of a single one that did not have back doors into their products. If Apple HAS built a product with no back doors, then they will be the first.
Cool. I am sure the fools in the government believe the same thing you do. Apple specifically developed its products with the marketing that says they cannot invade your privacy because they do not have the key. Only the user has the key. And, in this case, the user is dead.

I should make it clear that it is not just the key, it is destroying the built-in security features that make a brute force attack essentially impossible as it would require a significant fraction of the remaining useful life of our solar system.

You being "pretty sure" is pretty irrelevant.

[MisterVeritis]

If you don't think they already have this tool in their toolbox I believe you are sadly mistaken.
I am very impressed by how many leftists believe that Apple is lying. On second thought, I am not.

[Mac-7]

No. It doesn't. One cannot build a tool to destroy the security features of a single phone. The tool destroys the security features of every Apple device secured by those security features.

No thanks. The government is in the wrong and must be defeated.

I think Apple should unlock the phone for the clueless g men without telling them how they did it.

[Matty]

I am very impressed by how many leftists believe that Apple is lying. On second thought, I am not.


Well you can't get away with thwarting the gov. Unless you're Sharpton.

[MisterVeritis]

The idea of defense rather implies that someone is attacking you. Of course there is no impediment to attacking back, however if foreign aircraft overfly the US, they are not necessarily attacking, they are simply overflying, however as airspace has been deemed sovereign, they require permission to do so. The notion of territory has been extended vertically ever since the creation of aircraft. That vertical extension of territory has been read into the Constitution. In a discussion of the living document doctrine, this would be an example of a living document accommodation that few would challenge, however if one wishes to limit such accommodations to Constitutional amendments, then any Acts regarding sovereign airspace are currently unconstitutional.
Your view of defense is very shallow.

I shall not argue this further with you.

[MisterVeritis]

I think Apple should unlock the phone for the clueless g men without telling them how they did it.
Once the tool, the technology, has been invented for destroying the built-in security measures on their devices, it cannot be disinvented. If the government can compel the destruction of every user's 4th amendment protections, then the government will exploit it against any or all of us. And the government will simply make a top secret finding that says it is in the nation's interest. And the Constitution is ended. No thanks.

[Dr. Who]

What you are saying is that citizens should not expect the government to defend our individual rights. That alone is sufficient reason to rebel and overthrow it.
Doesn't that individual right also include also your right or the right of your children to protection under the law from those who would take your life or abuse and kill your offspring? Yes the government should protect your rights, except where your right to privacy is in conflict with the rights of others to be safe. Providing a safe haven for criminals and terrorists would seem to violate public policy and even the Constitution if you are preventing the exercise of the law. I understand your misgivings, but I don't think that is is a black or white issue. There is a middle ground that is based on reasonable expectations. Just because Apple has created a better vault, doesn't mean that said vault is sacrosanct and immune from the laws of the land. Do you really want criminals to have a fool proof way to avoid prosecution?

[MisterVeritis]

Doesn't that individual right also include also your right or the right of your children to protection under the law from those who would take your life or abuse and kill your offspring? Yes the government should protect your rights, except where your right to privacy is in conflict with the rights of others to be safe. Providing a safe haven for criminals and terrorists would seem to violate public policy and even the Constitution if you are preventing the exercise of the law. I understand your misgivings, but I don't think that is is a black or white issue. There is a middle ground that is based on reasonable expectations. Just because Apple has created a better vault, doesn't mean that said vault is sacrosanct and immune from the laws of the land. Do you really want criminals to have a fool proof way to avoid prosecution?
I want citizens to be secure in their persons and their 'papers'. I want the Constitution to mean something positive. One cannot hide behind potential crimes to subvert the Constitution. I know you want to. I do not understand why you want to.

[Dr. Who]

Your view of defense is very shallow.

I shall not argue this further with you.
I'm sorry that you can't see the point that I am making. It has little to do with airspace and more to do with matters uncontemplated in a 229 year old Constitution.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes, but where are you drawing the line? You disdain the notion of a living constitution that has new concepts read in, that were not initially contemplated. Airspace is one such concept. It wasn't an issue when the Constitution was written, but it seems to be a logical extension to the modern concept of territory. Yet if SCOTUS determines that something else is a logical extension of a constitutional precept, it is condemned as unconstitutional by some. It seems to me that the condemnation simply involves political or even religious disagreement with certain SCOTUS or Congressional decisions, because those that don't cause consternation, but are based on the same logical extensions, are accepted without question.
In your world view is the Constitutional defense requirement overturned or subverted when the altitude is increased above the highest point in the parabola sketched out by the round fired from a howitzer?

The necessity to defend the nation against foreign and domestic enemies is in the Constitution.

[Peter1469]

Yes, but where are you drawing the line? You disdain the notion of a living constitution that has new concepts read in, that were not initially contemplated. Airspace is one such concept. It wasn't an issue when the Constitution was written, but it seems to be a logical extension to the modern concept of territory. Yet if SCOTUS determines that something else is a logical extension of a constitutional precept, it is condemned as unconstitutional by some. It seems to me that the condemnation simply involves political or even religious disagreement with certain SCOTUS or Congressional decisions, because those that don't cause consternation, but are based on the same logical extensions, are accepted without question.



Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

If it doesn't fit there- the States have authority.

If the nation wants federal control see the previously mentioned ways to change the Constitution.

[MisterVeritis]

Yet if SCOTUS determines that something else is a logical extension of a constitutional precept, it is condemned as unconstitutional by some. It seems to me that the condemnation simply involves political or even religious disagreement with certain SCOTUS or Congressional decisions, because those that don't cause consternation, but are based on the same logical extensions, are accepted without question.
What other Constitutional requirements do you believe were logically "extended"? Much of what the Federal government has done overturns or corrupts what is Constitutional.

[MisterVeritis]

I'm sorry that you can't see the point that I am making. It has little to do with airspace and more to do with matters uncontemplated in a 229 year old Constitution.
Defending the nation is far more than simply repelling attacks by armed forces.

You are meeting resistance because your points lack substance. The purpose for the States giving up powers to a federal government was to look outward to protect the states from hostile acts by other nations. Altitude simply has no bearing on that requirement.

[Dr. Who]

If it doesn't fit there- the States have authority.

If the nation wants federal control see the previously mentioned ways to change the Constitution.
Section 8 is dealing only with the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States, but the listed items shall be uniform "but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". This does not in and of itself prescribe the reach of government, only what and how it may charge for the stated items.

[Dr. Who]

What other Constitutional requirements do you believe were logically "extended"? Much of what the Federal government has done overturns or corrupts what is Constitutional.
The FCC , the Armed Forces (plural) and the SEC to name a few.

[MisterVeritis]

The FCC , the Armed Forces (plural) and the SEC to name a few.
We can agree that we will disagree on the armed forces. Defense is clearly in the Constitution and is a major reason for a federal government.

Let's examine the Federal Communications Commission. What is it reasonable for that organization to do under the Constitution. Spectrum management which could fall under the defense requirement and the necessity for the states to get along. This tells me the vast majority of what the FCC does is not Constitutional.

The Securities and Exchange Commission? This looks like a requirement for an amendment. Abolish it while we wait for one.

[Crepitus]

I am very impressed by how many leftists believe that Apple is lying. On second thought, I am not.
You know they won't admit it, but as soon as something like that is designed people start working on cracking ti.

[MisterVeritis]

Section 8 is dealing only with the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States, but the listed items shall be uniform "but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States".
This is one of my favorite paragraphs.

What is the government allowed to do with the money it collects?
1) To pay the debts.
2) To provide for the common defense.
3) and general welfare. (this is what article 1 section 8 allows)

This tells me that nearly everything the federal government does is unconstitutional. Medicare, Social Security, the 80 some odd other welfare programs, are all unconstitutional uses of money collected by the obviously evil, criminal, Federal government.


This does not in and of itself prescribe the reach of government, only what and how it may charge for the stated items.
That is precisely what it was intended to do. How can you be so ill-informed?

[MisterVeritis]

You know they won't admit it, but as soon as something like that is designed people start working on cracking ti.
And so far no one appears to have done so. The counter-brute-force attack mechanisms are well known. They are also very effective.

[Peter1469]

Section 8 is dealing only with the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States, but the listed items shall be uniform "but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". This does not in and of itself prescribe the reach of government, only what and how it may charge for the stated items.


Incorrect. Section 8 contains the only sovereign powers the States ceded to the federal government. Under our Founder's vision, the States retained their sovereignty in all other matters.

The rest of the Constitution is administrative details to run the federal government. (Not the BoR of course).

[Dr. Who]

Defending the nation is far more than simply repelling attacks by armed forces.

You are meeting resistance because your points lack substance. The purpose for the States giving up powers to a federal government was to look outward to protect the states from hostile acts by other nations. Altitude simply has no bearing on that requirement.
I understand that you are fine with vertical territory, as am I, but nevertheless, it has been read in, of necessity, to the scope of the concept of national territoriality and sovereignty. I'm not saying that it's wrong, but it is just one of many modern realities that were not contemplated 229 years ago. Two hundred and twenty-nine years ago there was no standing army either. In fact, the nascent government had a profound fear of standing armies. Somehow there is now a federal standing army, navy and airforce. The 2nd Amendment did not actually give the federal government license to create a permanent standing army. I am merely concerned with the cherry picking of opposition to the various read-ins to the Constitution.

[Dr. Who]

Incorrect. Section 8 contains the only sovereign powers the States ceded to the federal government. Under our Founder's vision, the States retained their sovereignty in all other matters.

The rest of the Constitution is administrative details to run the federal government. (Not the BoR of course).
I'm reading it as I would read a contract. It is only discussing how the federal government may charge for these services.

[Peter1469]

I understand that you are fine with vertical territory, as am I, but nevertheless, it has been read in, of necessity, to the scope of the concept of national territoriality and sovereignty. I'm not saying that it's wrong, but it is just one of many modern realities that were not contemplated 229 years ago. Two hundred and twenty-nine years ago there was no standing army either. In fact, the nascent government had a profound fear of standing armies. Somehow there is now a federal standing army, navy and airforce. The 2nd Amendment did not actually give the federal government license to create a permanent standing army. I am merely concerned with the cherry picking of opposition to the various read-ins to the Constitution.

The Constitution is not a list of rules for the government.

It is a list of limitations on government.

[MisterVeritis]

I understand that you are fine with vertical territory, as am I, but nevertheless, it has been read in, of necessity, to the scope of the concept of national territoriality and sovereignty. I'm not saying that it's wrong, but it is just one of many modern realities that were not contemplated 229 years ago. Two hundred and twenty-nine years ago there was no standing army either. In fact, the nascent government had a profound fear of standing armies. Somehow there is now a federal standing army, navy and airforce. The 2nd Amendment did not actually give the federal government license to create a permanent standing army. I am merely concerned with the cherry picking of opposition to the various read-ins to the Constitution.
I don't think you get it. Extending the defense requirement to new domains does not require a rewrite of the Constitution. Defense of the states against foreign attack is one of the most important reasons why the states gave up a little (now all) of their sovereignty to create a federal government.

The budget requirements mitigate against a standing army. No budget. No army. The navy gets a bit more budget time because it is far less a threat to individual liberties than a standing Army. A standing Army is one that belongs to the King. Ours does not.

Who has claimed that the right to keep and bear arms provides for a standing army?

Nearly everything that has been done to us by the Congress and the Courts falls outside the Constitution. We either must have an Article V convention of states to propose amendments or a bloody rebellion to set things right again.

[MisterVeritis]

I'm reading it as I would read a contract. It is only discussing how the federal government may charge for these services.
Perhaps you should do just a bit more study.

[Peter1469]

I'm reading it as I would read a contract. It is only discussing how the federal government may charge for these services.

The States would never have agreed to that.

[MisterVeritis]

I'm reading it as I would read a contract. It is only discussing how the federal government may charge for these services.
This is why we have tyranny.

My generation failed to teach anything important about the reason for a Constitution. And the one before mine accepted that massive government might be good instead of evil (as it clearly is).

[del]

The States would never have agreed to that.

does madison visit you at night?

very cool

[Dr. Who]

This is one of my favorite paragraphs.

What is the government allowed to do with the money it collects?
1) To pay the debts.
2) To provide for the common defense.
3) and general welfare. (this is what article 1 section 8 allows)

This tells me that nearly everything the federal government does is unconstitutional. Medicare, Social Security, the 80 some odd other welfare programs, are all unconstitutional uses of money collected by the obviously evil, criminal, Federal government.


That is precisely what it was intended to do. How can you be so ill-informed?
I am just looking at the words. It first lists the scope of all things for which the federal government can charge and then there is a semicolon in that statement and it lists the items for which the charges shall be uniform throughout the United States. Why would anyone read in more than the statement discusses? If I created a lease and in that lease I itemized a specific subset of things for which I would charge and how the charges would be applied, it would not also constrain the scope of my control over the property nor of those other things not captured in the list. In Section 8, neither taxation or debt is captured in the listing and thus everything falling under the scope of taxation or debt is not discussed.

[MisterVeritis]

I am just looking at the words. It first lists the scope of all things for which the federal government can charge and then there is a semicolon in that statement and it lists the items for which the charges shall be uniform throughout the United States. Why would anyone read in more than the statement discusses? If I created a lease and in that lease I itemized a specific subset of things for which I would charge and how the charges would be applied, it would not also constrain the scope of my control over the property nor of those other things not captured in the list. In Section 8, neither taxation or debt is captured in the listing and thus everything falling under the scope of taxation or debt is not discussed.
It is very clear to me that you have no idea what is in the Constitution or what it intended. Regrets. If you wanted to know by now you would. Wouldn't you?

It is not that hard. For a slow reader, it takes about a half hour to read it. Of course, you might want to read a bit more of the voluminous information available to cement a good understanding (instead of a liberal one) of a foundational document for this nation.

[Peter1469]

does madison visit you at night?

very cool

yes

[MisterVeritis]

yes
Hey! Me too! :-)

It helps to read Madison and Jefferson.

[Dr. Who]

I don't think you get it. Extending the defense requirement to new domains does not require a rewrite of the Constitution. Defense of the states against foreign attack is one of the most important reasons why the states gave up a little (now all) of their sovereignty to create a federal government.

The budget requirements mitigate against a standing army. No budget. No army. The navy gets a bit more budget time because it is far less a threat to individual liberties than a standing Army. A standing Army is one that belongs to the King. Ours does not.

Who has claimed that the right to keep and bear arms provides for a standing army?

Nearly everything that has been done to us by the Congress and the Courts falls outside the Constitution. We either must have an Article V convention of states to propose amendments or a bloody rebellion to set things right again.
I only mention the 2nd Amendment because it is the only amendment that deals with defense. Otherwise, the creation of a standing army is an evolution without any specific Constitutional amendment. The wording of the Constitution was I believe deliberately broad to allow for changes in circumstances that time brings. I don't believe that the framers expected that every new issue would require a Constitutional Amendment. That is why they provided for SCOTUS to weigh the intent of the Constitution in the context of whatever era it finds itself.

[del]

yes

how nice for you

[MisterVeritis]

I only mention the 2nd Amendment because it is the only amendment that deals with defense. Otherwise, the creation of a standing army is an evolution without any specific Constitutional amendment. The wording of the Constitution was I believe deliberately broad to allow for changes in circumstances that time brings. I don't believe that the framers expected that every new issue would require a Constitutional Amendment. That is why they provided for SCOTUS to weigh the intent of the Constitution in the context of whatever era it finds itself.
You are about as wrong as it is possible to be.

The second amendment was not about providing for the common defense except in those cases where the militia was federalized. The army and navy were to be used for the common defense. The second amendment was intended to make sure the federal government would never try to disarm citizens.

We do not have a standing army. If there is no budget the army goes away. The Congress is responsible for the budget. If the executive branch every chose to use the Army against the people the Congress could withhold funds and the army ends. Obama, the King, does not have a separate budget to keep a standing army.

The supreme court usurped nearly all of its current powers. What they do is unconstitutional. Today's supreme court powers are not in the Constitution.

[del]

lol

[Dr. Who]

It is very clear to me that you have no idea what is in the Constitution or what it intended. Regrets. If you wanted to know by now you would. Wouldn't you?

It is not that hard. For a slow reader, it takes about a half hour to read it. Of course, you might want to read a bit more of the voluminous information available to cement a good understanding (instead of a liberal one) of a foundational document for this nation.
I read contracts for a living and so do lawyers. I am not reading this in a liberal context, I am just reading the words and they do have plain meaning. It is a well known legal concept that what you specifically itemize or define in a contract will be construed narrowly, sometimes to your own detriment. That doesn't mean that the intent of the contract is not weighed in balance, but where the contract is silent on an issue, such definitions are interpreted rather narrowly. What is the Constitution but a rather elaborate contract with the people? Yes, it requires far more contextual research than a normal contract, but when issues come up that are not in any way specifically addressed in the Constitution, then in view of its antiquity, logical extension and interpretation is required. Extraneous issues such as religious interdictions cannot be considered. Only the realities of actual law and case law can be introduced into the decision. The fact that SCOTUS judges are generally chosen from a partisan system where judges in the lower court system are affiliated with political parties creates an inherent sense of bias in SCOTUS and an impression that the judges are pandering to their political masters. Solution: stop choosing judges from the political class. Just choose academics.

[Dr. Who]

You are about as wrong as it is possible to be.

The second amendment was not about providing for the common defense except in those cases where the militia was federalized. The army and navy were to be used for the common defense. The second amendment was intended to make sure the federal government would never try to disarm citizens.

We do not have a standing army. If there is no budget the army goes away. The Congress is responsible for the budget. If the executive branch every chose to use the Army against the people the Congress could withhold funds and the army ends. Obama, the King, does not have a separate budget to keep a standing army.

The supreme court usurped nearly all of its current powers. What they do is unconstitutional. Today's supreme court powers are not in the Constitution.
There is no standing army? There is Department of Defense. That department does not disappear after each election and get recreated with the new government. That is a standing army in my book.

[Dr. Who]

We can agree that we will disagree on the armed forces. Defense is clearly in the Constitution and is a major reason for a federal government.

Let's examine the Federal Communications Commission. What is it reasonable for that organization to do under the Constitution. Spectrum management which could fall under the defense requirement and the necessity for the states to get along. This tells me the vast majority of what the FCC does is not Constitutional.

The Securities and Exchange Commission? This looks like a requirement for an amendment. Abolish it while we wait for one.
And that is the just tip of the iceberg. However would you say that these departments are unnecessary?

[Dr. Who]

The Constitution is not a list of rules for the government.

It is a list of limitations on government.
Right. Listed items are construed narrowly as in limitations.

[Dr. Who]

This is why we have tyranny.

My generation failed to teach anything important about the reason for a Constitution. And the one before mine accepted that massive government might be good instead of evil (as it clearly is).I might be older than you MV. I'm a student of legal wordings and that does affect my perspective.

[Dr. Who]

The States would never have agreed to that.
However, that is what it says.

[Dr. Who]

In your world view is the Constitutional defense requirement overturned or subverted when the altitude is increased above the highest point in the parabola sketched out by the round fired from a howitzer?

The necessity to defend the nation against foreign and domestic enemies is in the Constitution.
It is, but even in the day of the framers there were ballistics that had some vertical altitude. That is rather different than death from the skies where independent craft are dropping bombs.

[Adelaide]

Apple has a right to protect their product. Creating a "key" for one phone ultimately puts all of their products at risk.

[MisterVeritis]

I read contracts for a living and so do lawyers. I am not reading this in a liberal context, I am just reading the words and they do have plain meaning. It is a well known legal concept that what you specifically itemize or define in a contract will be construed narrowly, sometimes to your own detriment. That doesn't mean that the intent of the contract is not weighed in balance, but where the contract is silent on an issue, such definitions are interpreted rather narrowly. What is the Constitution but a rather elaborate contract with the people? Yes, it requires far more contextual research than a normal contract, but when issues come up that are not in any way specifically addressed in the Constitution, then in view of its antiquity, logical extension and interpretation is required. Extraneous issues such as religious interdictions cannot be considered. Only the realities of actual law and case law can be introduced into the decision. The fact that SCOTUS judges are generally chosen from a partisan system where judges in the lower court system are affiliated with political parties creates an inherent sense of bias in SCOTUS and an impression that the judges are pandering to their political masters. Solution: stop choosing judges from the political class. Just choose academics.
The comments above mean you brought your work baggage into a simple document. It is plainly written. It is easily understood.

Where the Constitution is silent the power belongs to the people or the states.

[MisterVeritis]

It is, but even in the day of the framers there were ballistics that had some vertical altitude. That is rather different than death from the skies where independent craft are dropping bombs.
It is not different at all. A howitzer round that goes up in a high ballistic arc and comes down is no different than a bomb dropped. I do not recall that the Constitution lays out requirements for how defense of the nation must be conducted.

[MisterVeritis]

I might be older than you MV. I'm a student of legal wordings and that does affect my perspective.
You failed to learn about your Constitution. That is clear.

[MisterVeritis]

And that is the just tip of the iceberg. However would you say that these departments are unnecessary?
Yes. Abolish them.

[MisterVeritis]

There is no standing army? There is Department of Defense. That department does not disappear after each election and get recreated with the new government. That is a standing army in my book.
A standing army would exist independent of budgeting. The Congress controls the budget. Because standing armies ( the King's Army) were/are so harmful to individual rights the Framers insisted on supplying the budget in annual increments. No budget. No army.

[MisterVeritis]

I might be older than you MV. I'm a student of legal wordings and that does affect my perspective.
The Constitution was not created by slip and fall lawyers.

[OGIS]

I don't think you get it. Extending the defense requirement to new domains does not require a rewrite of the Constitution. Defense of the states against foreign attack is one of the most important reasons why the states gave up a little (now all) of their sovereignty to create a federal government.

The budget requirements mitigate against a standing army. No budget. No army. The navy gets a bit more budget time because it is far less a threat to individual liberties than a standing Army. A standing Army is one that belongs to the King. Ours does not.

Who has claimed that the right to keep and bear arms provides for a standing army?

Nearly everything that has been done to us by the Congress and the Courts falls outside the Constitution. We either must have an Article V convention of states to propose amendments or a bloody rebellion to set things right again.

Exactly right.

[exotix]

It is not different at all. A howitzer round that goes up in a high ballistic arc and comes down is no different than a bomb dropped. I do not recall that the Constitution lays out requirements for how defense of the nation must be conducted.Probably why they drafted the 2nd Amendment ... the projectile trajectory of a flintlock wasn't what we call that of an AR-15 or WMD ...

[Ethereal]

Governments fail to stop terrorist attacks like 9/11, Boston, Paris, etc., so they try to blame encryption, even though they cannot produce any evidence that privileged access to encrypted communications would have prevented a terrorist attack of any significance.

This is nothing more than a transparent attempt by western governments to further intrude on the privacy of civilian populations. Combating terrorism is just a flimsy pretext.

[MisterVeritis]

Apple has a right to protect their product. Creating a "key" for one phone ultimately puts all of their products at risk.
In my view, there are several issues. In general, the Federal government wants the security weakened so they can spy on anyone at any time. But specifically, they want the counter brute-force attack methods to be weakened so they can determine the password to any phone.

A dead terrorist's phone is the path to the greater totalitarian good.

[MisterVeritis]

Governments fail to stop terrorist attacks like 9/11, Boston, Paris, etc., so they try to blame encryption, even though they cannot produce any evidence that privileged access to encrypted communications would have prevented a terrorist attack of any significance.

This is nothing more than a transparent attempt by western governments to further intrude on the privacy of civilian populations. Combating terrorism is just a flimsy pretext.
Phone calls and text messages are not encrypted. Are they?

The feds want the contacts list, photos (with EXIF data) and documents stored on the phone. And all of those things are reasonable for them to want.

But their desires for information do not invalidate the 4th Amendment for every other user.

[Cigar]

Governments fail to stop terrorist attacks like 9/11, Boston, Paris, etc., so they try to blame encryption, even though they cannot produce any evidence that privileged access to encrypted communications would have prevented a terrorist attack of any significance.

This is nothing more than a transparent attempt by western governments to further intrude on the privacy of civilian populations. Combating terrorism is just a flimsy, transparent pretext.

These Dudes took Flying lessons in Florida, then walked right passed Security, captured not one, but several F'cking Jumbo Jets.

My iPhone has nothing to do with National Security

[Ethereal]

In my view, there are several issues. In general, the Federal government wants the security weakened so they can spy on anyone at any time. But specifically, they want the counter brute-force attack methods to be weakened so they can determine the password to any phone.

A dead terrorist's phone is the path to the greater totalitarian good.

People should move away from passwords and start using pass-phrases. They're much more secure and they're easier to remember.

As an example:

"Chicago123!" would be a password. Somewhat secure, but difficult to remember.

"thechicagobullsarethebestteamever" is a pass-phrase. Much more secure, but easy to remember.

[MisterVeritis]

Probably why they drafted the 2nd Amendment ... the projectile trajectory of a flintlock wasn't what we call that of an AR-15 or WMD ...
If you decide to EVER post something worth responding to, I shall do so.

Given your history, I should not expect more than one message in ten thousand to have value. Best wishes to you and all of the others who live inside your head.

[OGIS]

......a simple document. It is plainly written. It is easily understood.


Right. That's why we have a panel of seven appointed-for-life judges whose primary job is interpreting it. The Constitution is vaguely worded in purpose, because the framers knew that it would have to grow, and be interpreted, with the country. It is neither plainly written, nor easily understood.

[OGIS]

In my view, there are several issues. In general, the Federal government wants the security weakened so they can spy on anyone at any time. But specifically, they want the counter brute-force attack methods to be weakened so they can determine the password to any phone.

A dead terrorist's phone is the path to the greater totalitarian good.


And so the circle is complete. And RWNJs support terrorists. Selah.

[MisterVeritis]

People should move away from passwords and start using pass-phrases. They're much more secure and they're easier to remember.

As an example:

"Chicago123!" would be a password. Somewhat secure, but difficult to remember.

"thechicagobullsarethebestteamever" is a pass-phrase. Much more secure, but easy to remember.
While interesting it is not relevant to this case. What prevents a successful break-in of the dead terrorist's phone is the counter brute-force attack method that prevents simply trying every possible password until the feds get lucky and discover it. And, if it is true that ten failed tries wipes the data, then no amount of patience will resolve the problem.

[MisterVeritis]

And so the circle is complete. And RWNJs support terrorists. Selah.
I suppose, then, left wing nut jobs support government totalitarian 24/7 surveillance states.

Why, do you think, left wing nut jobs hate the Constitution's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures? And why are you so willing for the federal government to have this enormous, unconstitutional power?

[Ethereal]

Phone calls and text messages are not encrypted. Are they?

They are typically encrypted as they travel between your phone and the cell towers. But the federal government has access to the internal networks of the cell companies where the decryption is occurring.


The feds want the contacts list, photos (with EXIF data) and documents stored on the phone. And all of those things are reasonable for them to want.

Not if it means comprising the security and privacy of everyone's I-phone in the process. They are asking for a backdoor into Apple's encryption, not just a one-time access to this particular phone's data.

[Ethereal]

These Dudes took Flying lessons in Florida, then walked right passed Security, captured not one, but several F'cking Jumbo Jets.

My iPhone has nothing to do with National Security

I agree.

[MisterVeritis]

Right. That's why we have a panel of seven appointed-for-life judges whose primary job is interpreting it. The Constitution is vaguely worded in purpose, because the framers knew that it would have to grow, and be interpreted, with the country. It is neither plainly written, nor easily understood.
Quandary. Here is the whole of Article III. Can you point out to me where the supreme court has the power to do the things you are claiming?




U.S. Constitution (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview)

Article III

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxi);--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

[Ethereal]

While interesting it is not relevant to this case. What prevents a successful break-in of the dead terrorist's phone is the counter brute-force attack method that prevents simply trying every possible password until the feds get lucky and discover it. And, if it is true that ten failed tries wipes the data, then no amount of patience will resolve the problem.

Depending on the password's strength, a brute-force attack might never work, even if they had the next hundred years to try at it.

[MisterVeritis]

They are typically encrypted as they travel between your phone and the cell towers. But the federal government has access to the internal networks of the cell companies where the decryption is occurring.



Not if it means comprising the security and privacy of everyone's I-phone in the process. They are asking for a backdoor into Apple's encryption, not just a one-time access to this particular phone's data.
We agree then that the voice and data transmissions are not encrypted. With a search warrant, or probably with a top secret order, the government can discover a very great deal about all of the phone calls and text messages from one number to all other numbers.

We agree that it is reasonable for the Feds to have the information from this specific phone. The price we must pay for the Feds receiving it, is that every Apple user loses their security in the process. And everyone from this point forward loses any future protections if the government can compel a company to create tools and methods to defeat a user's security.

[exotix]

If you decide to EVER post something worth responding to, I shall do so.

Given your history, I should not expect more than one message in ten thousand to have value. Best wishes to you and all of the others who live inside your head.What was the projection of the trajectory of a cannon-ball back when the founding fathers were taking the country back .... LOL



It is not different at all. A howitzer round that goes up in a high ballistic arc and comes down is no different than a bomb dropped.
I do not recall that the Constitution lays out requirements for how defense of the nation must be conducted.

[MisterVeritis]

Depending on the password's strength, a brute-force attack might never work, even if they had the next hundred years to try at it.
In this case the password is limited to six alphanumerics.

And after ten attempts the data is wiped.

[MisterVeritis]

What was the projection of the trajectory of a cannon-ball back when the founding fathers were taking the country back .... LOL
For high angle fire, between 45 and 60 degrees, it was probably no more than a few hundred feet high.

http://www.nps.gov/york/learn/historyculture/revolutionary-war-artillery.htm

[Ethereal]

We agree then that the voice and data transmissions are not encrypted. With a search warrant, or probably with a top secret order, the government can discover a very great deal about all of the phone calls and text messages from one number to all other numbers.

We agree that it is reasonable for the Feds to have the information from this specific phone. The price we must pay for the Feds receiving it, is that every Apple user loses their security in the process. And everyone from this point forward loses any future protections if the government can compel a company to create tools and methods to defeat a user's security.

I don't know enough about the particulars of the case to state definitively that the government has a right to access this particular phone, but I would suspect they are making a valid request. However, I am highly skeptical of their broader intentions given their utter disregard for the privacy rights of Americans. They have been looking for a backdoor into encryption systems for a LONG time and they will use any pretext they can in order to get it. But I don't see how it will help them stop terrorists. They still cannot explain how back doors into encryption would have prevented a terrorist attack like 9/11, Boston, Paris, San Bernardino, etc.

[MisterVeritis]

I don't know enough about the particulars of the case to state definitively that the government has a right to access this particular phone, but I would suspect they are making a valid request. However, I am highly skeptical of their broader intentions given their utter disregard for the privacy rights of Americans. They have been looking for a backdoor into encryption systems for a LONG time and they will use any pretext they can in order to get it. But I don't see how it will help them stop terrorists. They still cannot explain how back doors into encryption would have prevented a terrorist attack like 9/11, Boston, Paris, San Bernardino, etc.
The government has a lawful, legitimate right to the data on the phone used by a dead terrorist.

They may find photographs of other terrorists on that phone. With the embedded data they can tell when and where each photo was taken. And the phone probably contains documents that will provide clues or evidence for who else was involved in their murders.

But Apple does not have the password that unlocks the phone. Only the user has it.

[Dr. Who]

A standing army would exist independent of budgeting. The Congress controls the budget. Because standing armies ( the King's Army) were/are so harmful to individual rights the Framers insisted on supplying the budget in annual increments. No budget. No army.
The State Department also has a budget ($50.3 billion). Absent a budget, it would also cease to exist.

[MisterVeritis]

The State Department also has a budget ($50.3 billion). Absent a budget, it would also cease to exist.
True. Irrelevant. But true.

[Dr. Who]

We agree then that the voice and data transmissions are not encrypted. With a search warrant, or probably with a top secret order, the government can discover a very great deal about all of the phone calls and text messages from one number to all other numbers.

We agree that it is reasonable for the Feds to have the information from this specific phone. The price we must pay for the Feds receiving it, is that every Apple user loses their security in the process. And everyone from this point forward loses any future protections if the government can compel a company to create tools and methods to defeat a user's security.
Not if Apple doesn't give the software to the government, but reserves it for emergency decryption based on a legitimate warrant and then provides the government with an unencrypted data dump. It is really no different than serving a warrant on a hotel or apartement building for access to a unit. The building owner doesn't have to give the police the key to the unit - they just have to open the door.