Posted on 02/25/2016 9:08:22 AM PST by Protect the Bill of Rights
It did not say much. I hit post too soon. It was to be the equivalent of what you said. :)
I believe the search warrant issued by the court is just for this one phone.
If the Feds seek a warrant to search someone's house that doesn't automatically mean they want master keys to everyone's houses.
Owning an iPhone is not evading a warrant. If the government serves a warrant, the owner is compelled to obey. If he does not, a court can compel him. If he still refuses, jail him for contempt.
Ran it through my Obama speak translator. What this says is: "Never mind, we cracked it ourselves."
Jailing for contempt” is a possibility but it runs into the Fifth Amendment limit which we don’t want perverted either.
A person can only be held for a short period for contempt.
Your question: “How hard would it be to get a search warrant on our phones “ Fits into my suggestion:
I think the answer is for the manufacturer of the encryption to hold a secure ‘back door’ accessible to warrants, which they can contest.
Along with the encryption the customer is paying for the provider to fight warrants.
The cost of fighting a warrant is a big expense that many can’t easily afford so this would be a modest increase in ‘privacy’.
Seems to me like a marketable product and , importantly, would compete with ‘hacker-criminal’ provided unbreakable encryption. Which is coming.
“..the owner, in an attempt to gain access to some information in the hours after the attack, was able to reset the password remotely, but that had the effect of eliminating the possibility of an auto-backup...”
Whoopsy! They left out something. They did not tell the Judge what really happened. The owner changed the password at the request of the FBI. The DOJ threw the IT Dept to the wolves with no qualms about making it appear as if they were fools at best, obstructing justice at worst.
Nor does it say Apple was cooperating until they discovered the password had been changed which had the effect of making it impossible for Apple to perform an auto-back up.
Why is this not included in the introduction or statement of facts? Why buried in a footnote near the end of the document?
One lie by omission and one flat out lie ( “Apple refused”).
If the DOJ makes those types of misrepresentations in a legal filing, do you honestly believe the truthfulness is anything they say? This is about one phone? No way in hell.
I'm sure the DOJ would love access to everything... they would love to install cameras in all our homes and have spies monitoring us 24X7. But, this warrant (issued by a court) appears to seek the data on this one particular phone. Given the crime involved, the the likelihood that the user of that phone was indeed involved in the shooting and possibly other planned attacks, I don't see this as being all that dangerous to our freedoms. Search warrants are done for property, cars, bank accounts and all sorts of things for far lesser offenses... so I don't see what's so horrible about this one. I don't think we need to make exceptions just to protect terrorists, even if liberals do think they're so special.
Good point.
Let's take a look at that pesky Fourth Amendment:
"... no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
What place does the government wish to search? What items does it wish to seize?
There is a proscription in the Bill of Rights against self-incrimination. When it becomes possible to scan a person's brain to reveal their thoughts or memories, will there then be nothing exempt from search and seizure?
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3401706/posts?page=13#13
An earlier post of mine on the pro or con issue concerning goobermint Apple snatchers .....:o)
Agree with ya Jeff ...good points all.
Who the f--k cares was Bill Gates sez about anything?
I guess Bill Gates is a totalitarian, apparently, because 1) Backdoors=zero security. Nobody would buy such a product, and 2) Involuntary servitude is banned under the 13th Amendment. Apple can't be forced to work as a slave to the government.
Most people just don't have a clue what "strong encryption" means.
It's ludicrous to hate Apple, inasmuch as Apple doesn't currently possess any magic wands which can supernaturally defeat strong encryption.
If people must hate something as a result of this "phoney" debate, they can hate the science of mathematics upon which strong encryption is based.
So try to ban mathematics if you'd like, authoritarian witch-hunters.
The fact that strong encryption exists, and that Islamic extremists can therefore use it, is just tough luck.
The solution is not to obliterate privacy and the 4th Amendment, but rather to obliterate Islamic extremists...
The problem with this is that the government would have to MANDATE the existence of the back door. Otherwise, competitors would create devices without back doors and the marketplace would choose the secure device over the non-secure device.
A person either has a right to withhold information from government or they have no such right. Do the makers of door locks operate under a mandate to provide keys to the government?
Our Founders explicitly protected the right to remain silent. One's thoughts and memories are not subject to search and seizure by government. Is it so unreasonable to similarly protect data outside one's physical brain, given that technology makes such protection possible?
Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. Do you consent to give up the protection of encryption knowing full well that government itself will not do so? That free people somewhere may be able to exercise such freedom despite your consent? That your future enemies will use that consent to their advantage?
It is commonly pointed out that there are some mistakes that people only get to make once. This may well be one of them.
Exactly ......... Agree with you.
IMO this is a false flag making islamakazis think their iPhone is a friggin STU III secure comm device with sequencing encryption / cryptography that would make Winthrop Diffy blush......
If some rug rat or linoleum lizard living in their parents basement is capable of stealing nekid pictures of big breasted bimbo celebrities off their eye-phones then the FiBi’s forensic foreskins should be able to peek into a mud hut dwelling murderers doings easily.
And that technology WILL be developed... for the marketplace.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all to find it exists already.
Technology will create things that make integrating unbreakable encryption into our laws seem like child’s play..
The other side of the Fourth Amendment: are you willing to accept a justice system without warrants?
The Fourth Amendment is a venerable balance of the rights of defendants, plaintiffs, and the police.
Universal unbreakable encryption - cheap and easy for any dumb thug to use- severely upsets that balance.
Yes, a problem with my “safety deposit box’ paradigm is that encryption by bad actors would have to be illegal.
Still, I think the ‘good actor’ encryption could be offered at a ‘popular price’.
“...never put fiscal, personal, sensitive information on any gadget your not willing to share with a stranger because that’s where it goes regardless of advertised encryption or data protection.”
Amen and amen my friend.
With all the capabilities they have, ANYTHING you commit to electronic comms is apt to be compromised and available as soon as it hits the wire.
People should count on it and live/act accordingly.
The NSA did not build those two huge data facilities, each about the size of the Pentagon in Utah and back east for nothing. They are for all of that data.
Bingo ! forgot about that facility.....:o)
Whatever happened to the floating google barge of BS they were making ??
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.
First, I don't think it comes down to a choice between "search and seizure with a warrant" versus "search and seizure without a warrant".
The real choice will be "a right to use existing technology to safeguard information from EVERYBODY" or "no right to safeguard information from the government or anybody else who has sufficient desire for the information".
Technology has allowed incredible decreases in the price of communication and computer hardware.
Unless the government outlaws it, I predict that Apple will produce a version of the Iphone which will have an operating system WHICH CANNOT BE UPGRADED.
Such a device might conceivably be so secure that even government would seldom if ever spend the resources to break it. My understanding of what the government is asking of Apple is that they create a new version of the operating system in order to load it onto the terrorist's Iphone. Throwaway Iphones without the ability to upgrade the software would make that attack fail.
What should we do about the "imbalance" created by DNA? Your approach to the issue would seem to suggest that we should curtail use of DNA in solving crimes in order to maintain some sort of balance.
I have long believed that our crime problem is not one of being unable to detect criminals. It is that proven criminals are allowed to roam our streets.
Our nation's inability to build a concensus regarding GITMO prisoners is another indication of our unwillingness to deal with terrorists in an effective way. Just how many times should we have to capture on the battlefield and imprison an enemy before we permanently eliminate the risk?
I see the concept of "balance" used by many who are in favor of infringing the right to keep and bear arms. Such balancing ALWAYS costs me something more and it is never enough. As soon as the Kalifornia legislature passes an anti-gun law in order to decrease crime and protect the children, I hear of yet some new law that is needed to do the same thing.
The fact that the prior law had no effect is ignored. Similarly, if Apple cracks the Iphone of the two San Bernardino terrorists, I expect that it will make no discernible change to the statistics of terrorist attacks.
Making the honoring of a warrant optional instead of mandatory is an obvious and great upset of a “venerable balance” of rights and powers achieved through centuries of the Common Law.
And that’s what unbreakable encryption does.
It’s not going away, requiring it to be like a safe deposit box is the best idea I have.
Can’t argue with your comments on the depravity of our justice system.
I would add that courts refusing to apply the death penalty is sheer barbarism.
Ann Coulter had it right this morning, “It’s not the smart phones, it’s all the Muslim immigrants” or something like that.
Any excuse to ratchet down our freedom.
GOP “Strategists” Don’t Get It About Trump Victories, It’s The Immigration, Stupid!
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.