Posted on 02/23/2016 11:34:59 AM PST by Swordmaker
If you are going to continue acting like little childish brats who cannot weigh facts or engage in reason, then perhaps I am on the wrong website.
Yep
Clinton didn't exactly dig you up, but he did tax you after you had already died.
Well that convinces me because I know how objective you are.
Bad guys already get into everything the government stores in computers, how on earth could they ever keep anything Apples gives them secret. In fact we have so many disloyal people in government I can practically guarantee that it will be given/sold to our enemies.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.Ben Franklin
Someone who ignores my clearly stated reasons for why I believe Apple's statement to be a lie should not presume to lecture me regarding objectivity.
No, they are driven by a hatred of double standards. You know, one for the little people, and a different standard for corporate giants like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc.
I believe everyone should have to obey the same laws, unlike you who want special treatment for your buddies.
D@mn straight only political connections can do that. Clinton emails for instance.
D@mn straight only political connections can do that. Clinton emails for instance.
Notice how you flipped the premise? This is a dishonest technique of debate in which an opponent restates what someone said with a different premise. It's a form of lying.
Lack of prosecution in the Hillary situation is the result of corruption at the Justice Department, and it stems directly from Obama. This is a case where those who are tasked with enforcing the law refuse to do so.
The Apple court order is a case where those who are tasked with enforcing the law, are doing so.
No you claim no one can ignore a court order, I just showed you that they can.
What "Court Order" is being disobeyed?
I think you are confused.
or even without...
I have studied or worked on unix operating systems since 1978. I know or have met most of the primary developers.
I have not misspoken. If you think I am ignorant or an idiot, please specify exactly what I wrote indicates that and why.
If you decided that you are no longer responding to me, then reverse your decision and respond— or else suffer the verdict of your own attempted judgment of me.
I observe that you defend the government’s position sloppily but dutifully. This makes me wonder if you are a fed, or a former fed, drawing a pension.
Peace out.
I have not misspoken. If you think I am ignorant or an idiot, please specify exactly what I wrote indicates that and why.
How's this for a start?
"BFD. Everyone has access to the binary code, which is all you need if you are really good enough."
That's nuts. It is a colossal effort to reverse engineer a complex operating system. Your comment also shows no awareness of the need for a valid Apple signature for the software; Something that can only come from Apple.
If you decided that you are no longer responding to me, then reverse your decision and respond- or else suffer the verdict of your own attempted judgment of me.
I didn't say I wasn't responding. I said "That's enough of me answering your inanities." When you argue in good faith, I will respond in good faith.
I observe that you defend the government's position sloppily but dutifully. This makes me wonder if you are a fed, or a former fed, drawing a pension.
I wish. Nope. Still actively working in the Electronics/Computer field, and not for the Feds, either.
I am not specifically defending the government's position so much as i'm acknowledging it is legally valid as I understand the law, and I also observe that Apple is trying to hyperventilate and fearmonger about what it was asked to do.
I have stated several times that I am opposed to allowing the FBI (or any agency) to have software that will allow them to crack open phones without a search warrant. I have no trouble with a court requiring Apple (if they are able) to crack open phones upon the issue of a court order that they do so.
No, I answered that. You apparently didn't read my answer.
To save you trouble, I will just restate it again.
So long as the government gets a court order for every instance of Apple cracking a phone, I'm fine with it. This has always been my position.
This particular case is about this one phone, but as you said previously, it will set a precedent for all future phones. Fine. Let it set a precedent that Apple will obey court orders. That is exactly the sort of precedent that ought to be set, because Apple seems a little confused on the subject.
Let the Judges make it clear to them. Apple is not above the law.
The point we and everyone else is making is that there IS no law that allows this judge to order Apple to do what the judge is demanding. So, I understand, you are just OK with Judges legislating from the bench, when Congress has declined to write a law to do what the Justice Department wants, is that it?? I am not am not so sanguine about it. . . Or as comfortable as you seem to be with little-tin-dictators in black robes arrogating to themselves the authority to decide that when Congress declines to make a law, they can do it for them, because, obviously, it was just an oversight they did not pass such a law. Sometimes doing NOTHING is the right thing to do. Laws are not passed by doing nothing, DiogenesLamp.
You are one of the most dishonest people I have ever had the misfortune to debate on FreeRepublic or anywhere. That is why I have commented that Diogenes would be ashamed you've taken his name as your own. He'd be first to deny you.
The judge in question believes otherwise. I happen to agree with her decision so far.
So, I understand, you are just OK with Judges legislating from the bench, when Congress has declined to write a law to do what the Justice Department wants, is that it?
No, I very much hate activist judges, but I don't see that as relevant in this case. This is not a twisted interpretation of the law. This is a pretty clear legal matter as Jeffery Epstein pointed out.
You are one of the most dishonest people I have ever had the misfortune to debate on FreeRepublic or anywhere
Says the guy who keeps repeating the lie that the judge has ordered the creation of a back door that will give the FBI the power to break open everyone's phones.
No, the power to break everyone's phones will remain in the hands of Apple, and under the direction of Courts.
YOU CANNOT READ WORTH A DAMN!
Extracted word-for-word from the Magistrate Judge's Court Order to Apple re: what to do:
". . . providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle or other Software image File ("SIF") that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory ("RAM") and will not modify the i/os on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the devices’s flash memory. . . The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade ("DFU") mode, recovery mode or other applicable mode available to the FBI."
That order most likely NOT written by the Federal Magistrate Judge, but Most likely written by someone in the Department of Justice, because the Judge is highly unlikely to have any kind of technical know how to have written such specific language, is quite explicit in ordering that the work product of software developed by Apple is to be given ("providing," a legal term meaning exactly that) to the FBI. I have "provided" you with the definition of that word and it is also quite explicit, but you want to dance around and interpret it differently that its clear English language meaning and also its clear legal meaning. You also seemed to have found somewhere in the penumbra of this Court Order from the Magistrate judge that Apple was going to be allowed to KEEP the iPhone, when it is not ever even mentioned! You simply cannot comprehend what WE write, much less the explicit legal terminology of the court order.
Do even you know, exactly, what a "Magistrate" Judge is, DiogenesLamp? Again, it's obvious you do not. They are not full Federal trial judges. They are more akin to glorified Federal Court CLERKS. From a description of the Magistrate judge position from the Utah Federal District Court:
"Magistrate judges perform a wide range of duties in civil and criminal cases.
In civil cases, they will hear pre trial motions, conduct settlement and pre trial conferences, and may, on assignment, handle dispostive motions and, with the consent of the parties, may conduct the trial.
In criminal cases, they will handle most pre-trial matters, including initial appearance of a defendant before a judge, arraignment on charges, including taking a plea of guilty or not guilty, and determining whether the defendant should be detained or released pending trial. Magistrate judges handle all petty offense cases and most misdemeanor cases.
Magistrate judges also handle appeals from social security decisions and most petitions by prisoners for review of their convictions, and conditions of confinement.
In many instances, Magistrate Judges do not even have to be lawyers. It is a lot easier to get something past a Magistrate judge than a true Judge, who does know all about case law. That is why the FBI chose to go before a Magistrate Judge rather than a Federal Bench Judge for this order. Magistrate judge are NOT appointed by the President of the United States and are NOT confirmed by the United States Senate. They are not lifetime appointments, and are civil service positions held for only eight years. They are NOT district judges of the Federal District Courts and are appointed by the various judges of each district with input from Civil authorities to their terms.
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.