Posted on 02/22/2016 2:04:17 PM PST by Tracker47
That didn’t carry the punctuation.
Did you pay the King’s Tax on this morning’s whiskey?
No, but I hunted his forest without his approval....
Paragraphs are your friend.
Now you tell me.
The Apple case is unique in that the owner of the phone is dead, and the encryption technology separates the data from Apple like a locked suitcase which only the phone owner has.
Warrants are really great things. Backdoors where potentially anyone can access without a check — not so hot.
People understand both concepts, and hopefully agree with them. The phone or warrant can go to Apple, and they take care of it. The “suitcase” never goes outside Apple, but the data inside the suitcase goes to HSA.
Apple can update its end user agreement to reflect this. However, I do understand everyone’s meta data collection, warrant flooding, etc. concerns.
Maybe a compromise would means law enforcement is limited to x number of requests at y level severity per pre-determined timeframe (and maybe geographic area for the HIGHEST level). And once the threat passes or process of elimination is complete, then a new “suitcase lock” is put back in place.
I’m no lawyer, but even I know wiretap laws on the books can cover quite a bit of this.
This looks like a job for Captain Carriage Return.
More like a safe maker being ordered to crack their own safe: their whole point in making the thing in the first place was that NOBODY could get inside without the code/key. Should the safe maker crack their own safe (under duress) customer confidence plummets; if done right, they simply can’t crack it.
Any precedent for compelling a safe maker being ordered to crack their own safe?
"As government expands, liberty contracts." - Ronald Reagan
A deal he has made with the ChiComs.
Limited use warrants vs. metadata mass storage — which do you prefer?
I agree with that. Where x=0. There are only two choices in computer security, back doors or no back doors. If we force Apple to create a back door it just means China will sell a phone with a PLA back door for the terrorists who want to avoid US snooping but are not afraid of the PLA.
The "suitcase" never goes outside Apple, but the data inside the suitcase goes to HSA.
DHS? No, they can gather data some other way. The inevitable solution, whether or not anyone likes it, is that the phone will not unlock or update without the passcode. Then Apple cannot be forced to provide an update that breaks the security. It will simply be impossible rather than difficult and counterproductive.
Didn't realize that was our choice. Seems like you left out banning Muslims, infiltrating Muslims where necessary, etc
One doesn’t have to be a Muslim to say “I spit on the Fourth Amendment! Stick your Fourth Amendment warrant where the sun don’t shine! I’ve got unbreakable encryption!”
I hope when injured parties seeking justice are denied access to information on Iphones and take the law into their own hands they are granted some clemency.
After all, without the Fourth Amendment what choice did they have?
I’m always for liberty and freedom.
1AX2A
4th Amendment.
Feds have the power to search and seize. They do NOT have the power to compel an unwilling third party to make sense of what was seized.
3rd Amendment.
Feds are expressly prohibited from positioning government agents, real or virtual, for arbitrary monitoring and intimidation of private activity.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2518
One of many. Please, I’m not talking about APPLE’S end. I’m talking about LIBERTY.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.