Posted on 02/27/2016 1:32:08 PM PST by Swordmaker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
Issa, the second of six children, was born in Cleveland, Ohio, to Martha (née Bielfelt) and William Issa, who sold trucks and ground valves.
His father was a Lebanese American of the Maronite Catholic faith and his mother is of German and Bohemian (Czech) descent.
In 2006, he was one of four Arab-American members of Congress.
If the cops think I have evidence of a crime in my possession, they get a warant, they search my home. No problem.
Apple is not involved in a crime.
The criminal is dead.
The cops can search the criminal's home. No problem.
The cops are going to a major corporation and trying to force that corporation to perform an action.
Warrants are not used in that way. Until now.
Might the police hire a locksmith to brake into a residence after the had received a search warrant?
Since San Bernardino County owned the phone, they could have had total control over it. If you are a business right now and you deploy iPhones -- and I'm gonna stick with iPhones in this case 'cause that's what I know, but it's true of any others. If you're a small business, a corporation, and you provide phones for your employees and you own those phones, there is something called Digital Device Management. It is software that allows you to control everything on their phone.
How the Government Bungled the Handling of the San Bernardino iPhone
Yes.
Should the police have the authority to require the lock manufacturer to produce a master key to their locks when none exists?
For some apparently they prefer to give up all of their rights in return for “safety & security”.
We’ll see how it works for them ;)
1 Thessalonians 5:3
No. The solution might be give the phone to Apple and ask them to unlock it.
Nope. Not at all.
Posted from my MacBook Pro.
This analogy fails. Is Apple the criminal? Is Apple being accused of terrorism? Why is your locksmith justified in breaking into Apple, even with a search warrant? Apple has done nothing wrong, so why issue a court order against Apple?
Never saw the video of postal workers ripping open Christmas cards to take out the money Granny was sending her grandkids huh?
In the country against country conflicts it is good to have companies like Apple on our side. People have noted their cooperation with China but that was relatively modest, e.g., http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/11364672/Apple-bows-to-Chinese-demand-for-iPhone-security-audit.html There will always be more demands for assurances that there are no remote back doors but there's no way to prevent that when a phone is in use. China will have to accept the risk if they want their citizens to have the best technology.
Some people also bring up the red herring of encrypted comms. Your statement is along those lines. Encrypted end-to-end text is now used by about a billion people worldwide and no country can intercept those. Secure voice is used by 100's of millions with the same result. But there are workarounds even when the channel is encrypted end-to-end, because the end points are never provably secure.
This is a data-at-rest encryption issue. It is also a case of the barn door wide open and the horses long gone. But there are a few fat cows left and phones are one. Here's a horse that left the barn a while ago::
If the dead terrorist had one of these the FBI would have absolutely no recourse. The security used in the product pictured is exactly the same as Apple: constrained passcode input, passcode hash delay, passcode guess counting, AES 256 bulk encryption, protection of the AES key by passcode and HW and deletion of the AES key if guesses exceed some threshold. The only real difference is that the key protection in Apple is tied into the HW UID and the key protection in the device pictured is via epoxy that precludes extracting the memory (can't really fill an iPhone full of epoxy).
But back to the issue of war, specifically cyber war. The iPhone is already a defensive weapon that can be used for defense by either side. The occasional dead terrorist's phone is a triviality compared to that. We know that live device use (and live terrorist device use) has no provable protection against attack, so that is where law enforcement must work. Specifically the FBI must mend the bridge to Apple.
For their part Apple must continue to improve their data-at-rest to completely preclude the data-at-rest attack, because if they don't someone else will. If someone else is a company in China and Apple is crippled by a court or legal mandate that will be very bad. The only legitimate manmade would be legal but hopefully Congress will have learned from the Clipper chip and the export ban fiascos.
Yeah, China will blow up any second now because of this....
I thought ANYTHING a member of congress wrote while in office was open source - no copyright infringement.
Apple is the locksmith for the phone.
Like the locksmith, Apple would and should help the feds open the phone as long as the feds have followed due process and got a search warrant. Apple could set the number of password retrys to unlimited which is what I heard that the feds asked for. I don’t think that the feds were asking Apple to put a hidden port in their general software release. That, I would be very worried about.
I totally agree. I think Rush Limbaugh still has his comments up at his website. Rush wrote a lengthy article about the problem, and what the owner of the phone should have done to program and protect the phone; allowing only the owner of the phone to have that access.
It seems the U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICE where the terrorists worked .. TA-DA .. issued the terrorists the phone. As the owner of the phone, the U.S. Govt Office was required to use the MDM software and program the phone for the employee. This phone was not a personal phone owned by the terrorists. It was a COMPANY PHONE OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT DEPT where the terrorists work.
Therefore, Apple is not required to program their phone for them; and Apple should not be required to design a special program to allow them to have access to the phone - which special program could allow the FBI to have access - TO EVERY IPHONE.
Now, do you see the problem ??
The ignorant Obama regime did not do their job, and because of their incompetence, they have now lost access to the phone and they’re trying to make Apple FIX it for them.
I know it probably contains terrorist info. But, if you want to find out about terrorist info - just contact the local Sheriff’s office because they have a lot of contacts regarding terrorists in that area - info involving a death, December 2014, possibly terrorist related.
What part of they are ALREADY using it as a PRECEDENT are you stupidly ignoring? Darrell Issa is only slightly wrong, it's not 12 it's now 15 additional "All Writs Act" Court Orders that have been served on Apple citing the San Bernardino Order. . . and there are dozens of other prosecutors who say they have hundreds of others they want opened too.
You are wrong about the OS. The iPhone they are demanding be unlock is running the latest iOS 9.2, the model of the iPhone is just an older iPhone. Every tech person who has looked at it concurs it would result in putting all iPhones at risk. Your conclusion is ignorant and dangerous. You literally do not know what you are talking about.
Apple does not hold any documents for a search warrant to apply. This "All Writs Act" Court Order as more akin to the police showing up at your door, telling you they suspect YOUR neighbor has the bodies of murdered children in his backyard, but they cannot go through his house to get the backhoe in to dig it up because it's the suspected crime scene and cannot be disturbed, and because YOU once owned the next door property, YOU are going to have to do the digging.
And, oh, by-the-way, the only way to get the backhoe in to the neighbor's yard, is to smash right through YOUR house, the house you just spent five years building with your own sweat and hard work. You say "I don't want to! It's not my responsibility. . . that's gonna destroy my house!"
They say, "Here's a "All Writs Act" court order! We're gonna pay you a 'reasonable' hourly rate for your work. What are you complaining about! There's the backhoe! GET TO WORK!"
No, they would not use a search warrant. They would break down the door if it was locked against them, or they would serve the warrant on the owner, tell him to open the locked door and if he refused, jail him on a contempt of court charge until he complied with the order. But you are referring to people INVOLVED in the crime. Apple is a third party.
If they bring in a third party, which is some times permissible, it will be their normal business to do what is being asked of them, and it does NOT require them to do something extraordinary which in the course of their business they would NOT NORMALLY DO, especially if that compelled act would damage their business while being forced to act for the government's interests.
Actually, it would more as if the police went to the police and demanded they INVENT a whole new system to unlock every lock they ever made to the police's specifications and then give it to them.
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.