Posted on 02/17/2016 8:49:09 AM PST by pgyanke
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump bashed the tech company Apple today for refusing to help investigators access the iPhone of a San Bernardino attacker.
"I agree 100 percent with the courts," he said on "Fox and Friends" this morning. "In that case, we should open it up."
"To think that Apple won't allow us to get into her cell phone -- who do they think they are?" Trump said. "No, we have to open it up."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
The Queeah from Massachusetts seems to have a chip implant in his neck
1. Refusing to obey a court order.
2. Just cause.
3. Law west of the Pecos. I like.
4. 10 million bail, cash only.
LOL
I wondered what that was.
See my post #97. It gives a good run down on the technical issues involved.
I have a better idea than tapping into innocent folks’ phones. Keep the damn terrorists out of the country in the first place.
LOL. Yeah right. In the meantime...
In other words, Apple is being asked to create a tool that would allow the phone's encryption to be broken using brute force techniques, when the phone was designed specifically to be protected from such brute force techniques.
The very creation of such a tool would risk compromising the security of every iphone Apple has sold.
Apple hasn’t prevented anyone from getting into that phone, they have merely said you figure it out.
5. The right to privacy dies with the owner
So terrorists will just find other ways to communicate if Apple does this. It makes us no safer.
That’s BS, Trump is right - a specific crime, court order, open up the phone Apple. The information on that phone may save lives and prevent another attack.
Who is the subject of the search warrant? The terrorists. It is their phone. Apple has neither ownership nor access. What the government wants to do is compel Apple, against their will, to help in the investigation by divining a backdoor to their customers' privacy. This will not stop with the one phone.
Apple is siding with millions of their customers to whom they have promised absolute privacy... even from Apple. Any backdoor they develop is open to abuse by government (like that ever happens!) and hackers.
What that means is that the method the FBI has requested is technically feasible--Apple could create and install a version of iOS that gets around the security features designed to protect against brute force hacking. But that doesn't mean Apple should do so, or that it can be forced to do so.
Apple's point is that ANY backdoor they develop is open to abuse... by anyone. They have removed themselves from their customers' private matters because that is what their customers want. They are protecting their customers.
Scenario: bjcoop sells his old car to a terrorist (unknowingly). The car is used in the commission of a crime. The government wants to get into the car without damaging anything to preserve evidence. They ask you for a key. You don't have a key... you didn't keep a key when you sold the car. Court orders you to find a way into the car.
This is an issue of liberty. The court is overreaching in ordering Apple to find a way they currently don't have a way to do. If Apple had the key, the court order would make sense. Lacking that, the court is saying, "Do law enforcement's job for them." No one can be so compelled in a free society.
Court orders biff to mow your neighbor's lawn. Do you comply or go to jail? This has the same weight. The court has ordered Apple to find a way to do something they currently don't have a way of doing.
Because Apple doesn't have the encryption key to the phone. The court is essentially ordering Apple to find a way to do what they currently have no way of doing.
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.