Posted on 03/02/2016 7:16:33 AM PST by Eric Pode of Croydon
IT isn’t the getting the warrant, it’s giving them the ability to spy WITHOUT a warrant - which Snowden revealed - that’s the problem.
I don’t know what Apple would do. I have heard they have done things like this in the past, If you did this in a secure environment ( Not that that matters after what Hillary has done ) for a one time deal only, it could be done. My point and obviously no one sees the humor in what I daid, given their political leftist bent. G-d forbid they help on the war on terrorism or potentially mess with their margins in certain parts of the world. No I am not an Apple fan boy as you can see....
“More than anything, though, the members of Congress expressed anger that the FBI director didn’t follow through earlier on his stated intention to engage in a debate in Congress and the public about the proper role for encryption in society. Instead, he decided to circumvent that debate altogether and quietly go to court to get a judge to do what the legislative branch has so far refused to do. [referring to the writ, not the warrant]”
Just to be clear, the new hardware which has the delays burned into the chips are in theory uncrackable.
Old hardware like the San Bernidino County owned phone issued to the husband of the Pakistani terrorist is old hardware with software delays.
So it would be compromising their old phones. And no, I don’t think it will ever happen via Apple. Maybe via a third party with Apple being forced to digitally sign the update.
No, the FBI is obviously following the Fourth Amendment.
Apple is selling a device that makes a valid Fourth Amendment warrant useless.
The FBI is effectively taking the position that Apple does not have the right to sell a device with unbreakable encryption. CALEA, passed by a Democrat majority Congress, explicitly rejects this position.
On the day that Obama announced that his administration would not seek a law to outlaw unbreakable encryption, the Justice Department filed application for writs against Apple to provide software to weaken their encryption scheme ... and thus have the courts do what they decided to not ask Congress to do.
I concede that there are good arguments on both sides of this issue, but lawyers twisting a 1789 law should not be the way to decide this ... this is an issue that should be decided only by Congress. And Congress, through CALEA, has explicitly rejected the Administration position that there should be no devices sold which provide unbreakable encryption.
I can’t fully support the FBI on the writ, it’s just too complicated an issue involving court procedures.
I have read the NY order and find it intelligent and thorough.
The only dispute I will make is that CALEA was written in 1994 and I don’t think ‘unbreakable’ encryption was considered by the congress. IIRC there was no such thing at the time! Certainly not in the consumer market.
Everyone should know that this is an effort by the FBI to force congress to address the issue. I think it important that they do so. This has far-ranging effects on our constitutional rights both as seekers of justice and as suspects, as defendants and as plaintiffs.
IMO ubiquitous ‘unbreakable’ encryption destroys centuries of the development of legal methods. A way to avoid that must be found- and soon.
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.