Posted on 02/29/2016 3:56:59 AM PST by VitacoreVision
The FBI tells us that its demand for a back door into the iPhone is all about fighting terrorism, and that it is essential to break in just this one time to find out more about the San Bernardino attack last December. But the truth is they had long sought a way to break Apple's iPhone encryption and, like 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act, a mass murder provided just the pretext needed. After all, they say, if we are going to be protected from terrorism we have to give up a little of our privacy and liberty. Never mind that government spying on us has not prevented one terrorist attack.
Apple has so far stood up to a federal government's demand that it force its employees to write a computer program to break into its own product. No doubt Apple CEO Tim Cook understands the damage it would do to his company for the world to know that the US government has a key to supposedly secure iPhones. But the principles at stake are even higher. We have a fundamental right to privacy. We have a fundamental right to go about our daily life without the threat of government surveillance of our activities. We are not East Germany.
Let's not forget that this new, more secure iPhone was developed partly in response to Ed Snowden's revelations that the federal government was illegally spying on us. The federal government was caught breaking the law but instead of ending its illegal spying is demanding that private companies make it easier for it to continue.
Last week we also learned that Congress is planning to join the fight against Apple -- and us. Members are rushing to set up yet another governmental commission to study how our privacy can be violated for false promises of security. Of course they won't put it that way, but we can be sure that will be the result. Some in Congress are seeking to pass legislation regulating how companies can or cannot encrypt their products. This will suppress the development of new technology and will have a chilling effect on our right to be protected from an intrusive government. Any legislation Congress writes limiting encryption will likely be unconstitutional, but unfortunately Congress seldom heeds the Constitution anyway.
When FBI Director James Comey demanded a back door into the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone, he promised that it was only for this one, extraordinary situation. “The San Bernardino litigation isn't about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message,” he said in a statement last week. Testifying before Congress just days later, however, he quickly changed course, telling the Members of the House Intelligence Committee that the court order and Apple's appeals, “will be instructive for other courts.” Does anyone really believe this will not be considered a precedent-setting case? Does anyone really believe the government will not use this technology again and again, with lower and lower thresholds?
According to press reports, Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. has 175 iPhones with passcodes that the City of New York wants to access. We can be sure that is only the beginning.
We should support Apple's refusal to bow to the FBI's dangerous demands, and we should join forces to defend of our precious liberties without compromise. If the people lead, the leaders will follow.
Paul is on the right side of the issue (as is typical). And I'm not buying for a minute that this is only about the San Bernardino killers' phones. The government wants to be able to look at anyone's.
I wish at least 1 current GOP presidential candidate would bother to be on the right side of this issue. Even Cruz is pandering to anti-privacy advocates.
Extreme overreaction. Typical of him.
There is no liberty if there is no life.
Conversely, if there is no liberty, is life even worth living?
Enjoy life under your utopian police state.
I’m afraid that’s their game.
During the recent Oregon protest, David Fry was able to get phone calls out during the FBI siege.
Fry called when six assault vehicles rolled in on the four remaining protestors and prevented violence from the FBI since there were hundreds of thousands listening in.
Bah, monger a littler fear, and Americans give it up faster than a drunk prom date.
“Ron Paul: First They Came for the iPhones ...” then because of the valuable intelligence they got from the terrorist’s phone lives were saved and Ron Paul was angry. So what? There’s a war going on.
The saddest line in the posted article:
“We should support Apple’s refusal to bow to the FBI’s dangerous demands, and we should join forces to defend of our precious liberties without compromise. If the people lead, the leaders will follow.”
The ones being led need to lead and the leaders will then follow?
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
This tells anyone paying any attention at all exactly what they need to know about their elected officials.
THEY DON’T CAR ONE WHIT WHAT YOU THINK OR BELIEVE, THEY ARE OUR BETTERS!
——Never mind that government spying on us has not prevented one terrorist attack.-—
the man shows no evidence of government spying on ordinary Americans. To make a false point he basically just lies
What is on the killer’s phone that is not available from provider’s phone records (numbers, time duration), GPS tracking records (location over time), emails (archiving) from internet providers???? NSA is supposed track terrorists!?!
All that can be acquired without having the physical phone.
It all looks like another version of going after the gun ban after random killing.
What is left of citizen’s privacy ???
You already pay for your phone that gives the almighty government free access to your private activity.
Yeah, freedom for terrorists, spying on citizens!
Rather than violate our privacy, why don’t they get rid of the moslems who are the real problem in the first place?
What right to privacy do you have when you broadcast a radio signal?
Police state? Puh-leeease.
Well then, enjoy life under the thumb of ISIS, the mafia, serial killers, Boko Haram, corruption in every office of government, etc... If law enforcement has no ability to adequately investigate, well, then you get what you get.
I prefer ordered liberty to licentiousness disguised as liberty. Without some order, everything is reduced to the lowest common denominator and all but the worst of us are not really free. The worst are not really free either in that “their passions forge their fetters.”
By all means include all the checks and balances necessary to keep a watch on government. But don’t give cover to murders.
Not that the FBI should be allowed to force Apple to do this merely on principle (and more than one principle is involved here), but to add to that, why should we believe that they only want this to target terrorists, when every other invasion of American privacy rights and liberty they’ve been given so far, they’ve used primarily against obviously harmless Americans like grannies and soccer moms, so as not to appear to be “profiling” muzzies, the very group from which the majority of terrorists have come? They have no case to make for further encroachments on our liberty and privacy when all they do is use it against regular Americans, when profiling suspected muzzies would work far better and make far more sense.
Yes, and it’s not only the invasion of privacy, which is bad enough, it’s not only the fact that like the TSA, they will use this invasion of privacy against regular Americans (grannies, vets, etc) instead of the one group from which come the majority of terrorists-muzzies-but it’s also an abrogation of Apple’s rights to not have to be forced to do work for the government, and that against their own best interests as a company.
Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
“ISIS, the mafia, serial killers, Boko Haram, corruption”
The same old boogeymen they always try to conjure up into the imaginations of gullible minds.
If these agencies were serious about preventing terrorists/etc. they’d secure the borders and actually bother to screen the people coming in. But they don’t do that, so it’s obvious they’re not serious.
The real objective is to use these mass surveillance/data mining techniques against citizens.
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.