Posted on 02/19/2016 5:07:38 PM PST by rpierce
A random Federal Judge (rewarded political crony?) is not qualified to make that determination.
That's why the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure exists.
I doubt seriously that this judge from Podunk BFE invoked the special requirement of the manual on himself.
There are rare cases, when neither the judge, the jury, the witnesses and the lawyers, none of them, nor all of them are competent to grasp and understand extremely technical or scientific specialized issues. That's why the manual exists. The expertise, experience and competence of ALL "expert witnesses" in the process must be minutely established.
This is one of those cases, and this attempt by the FBI really threatens literally and permanently to gut the 4th amendment.
That’s nice, kid. I am sure you believe everything you think, like there really are skittle farting unicorns and the tooth fairy brought you a quarter.
In other words, you can’t.
It’s okay, I already know that.
Then I’m not sure why you answered ‘no’ to the question: “Is it the lock-maker’s duty to give the government a master key?” and then seemed to retract it.
Perhaps on further reflection... I can understand that. Done it myself.
Would you say now that it is the lock-maker’s duty?
For someone who codes, you sure don't say a lot about actual coding. Apple gave a coder's explanation. Why not educate me as to what's wrong with it. C'mon kid. Let's see what you've got, other than insults you picked up on the playground before you got your first xbox and vanished from the world into your mom's basement.
If it were that easy, why hasn't someone already done it? I would think the financial rewards in the black market for doing so would be enormous. People risk jail all the time for a lot less.
I answered no because a master key would not be consistent with the law. A key fitted for that specific lock...if it turns out to be a master, that is up to the locksmith...call it what you want...is all that can be ordered. I have never said differently. I’m sorry for your confusion, but I have no part in it.
The warrant would need to be specific to the lock in question. I would have been misspeaking if I said yes, but don’t believe I did. That could be an option to the locksmith if the order was simply to open the specific door. His choice of mechanism may be left to his discretion.
Thanks for your reply and patience.
I think this may be the crux of the argument:
>>>His choice of mechanism may be left to his discretion.
What if the locksmith (assume he’s being truthful) says, “We built it so there was no key that isn’t under the power of the buyer - as we promised them. The only mechanism conceivable is to build a master key that will work on all locks.”
Agreed.
Peace.
“What if the locksmith (assume he’s being truthful) says, “We built it so there was no key that isn’t under the power of the buyer - as we promised them. The only mechanism conceivable is to build a master key that will work on all locks.â€
There can be a fine line between being truthful and having an agenda. For instance, if the order was just to open the door, Locky could just use his master, keep his mouth shut and make a pretty penny for nothing. If he was in a drug infested neighborhood, he might want everyone to know his locks were uncrackable. Both victims AND perps would want them. If he knew that the only way to unlock it was to make a key that would open all locks, he would be put out of business, so he wouldn’t say that out loud. Besides, there is no such thing and maybe he doesn’t want to be bothered, so he made that up, hoping to move the warrant into an “unreasonable” category. Which is another conversation involving lawyers and courts. He would be foolish to do that though, because it was he that manipulated the degree of difficulty in complying, if the warrant was properly issued, which, after all, is said and done, must be the only result. I would say, honestly, that there was a promotional element in the refusal. That is my honest opinion. The court has done everything by the book, which Justice Scalia, bless him, would have most surely thrown at Apple. He was a bear on this stuff. He believed that the 4th amendment was the cornerstone of the Constitution and was a staunch defender, often enraging conservatives and liberals both because it was originally worded with all you need.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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.
Do you mean the unholy triad: NSA/CIA/FBI?
“That just seems incredible. “
yeah, indeed incredible if it turns out to be true that the FBI did in fact change the password themselves and then file in court that a San Berndoo IT guy in their Health Dept. did it in order to cover the FBI’s incompetent ashes.
Fricking scumbag incompetent, lying Obama government! I woulda thought that at least the FBI would have had a competent forensic IT unit. EXTREMELY scary if they don’t.
Of course, obama has directed ALL parts of the FedGov to concentrate on green energy, social justice, BS, BS, BS; EVERYTHING except their Congressionally mandated missions. Simply another way for Obama to destroy the U.S.: destroy the core competency of the every facet of the U.S. government.
Apple says it can't make a 'key' for just this one phone. It would necessarily be a master key for all the later i-phones.
Is it your argument that Apple is incorrect on that point?
Suppose Apple is correct in what they say. Do you think the govt can legitimately order them to manufacture such a master key?
Did you not read my last post? All of this is asked and answered.
I think Apple is just like the locksmith. They are driving this. They can comply the hard way or the easy way. I think they would like to be thought of as the unbreakable phone, which will be untrue in the future, but not in the minds of the public.
I think the 4th amendment is going away. I don’t think “sorry can’t do it” is an acceptable answer. This is time sensitive, too, remember. Apple will settle somehow. They can do this. I don’t now why you are so focused on the master key thing, I answered that 12 ways.
The full text of both the court order (it’s short, and fairly plain (tech) English), and Apple’s response, are below, but to us one interesting aspect of the court order is this paragraph:
Apple’s reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish the following three important functions: (1) it will bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled; (2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT DEVICE and (3) it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware.
Nope, no mention of a master Key. Don’t know who is saying that is what they want. As you can see, the court just wants to remove the part that limits passcode attempts, not all of the proram. Pretty clear.
It’s also interesting to note that what the FBI asked for, and what the court ordered, isn’t that Apple unlock the phone for the FBI, but that Apple make it possible for the FBI to keep trying to figure out the passcode without the phone reaching the self-destruct point.
Opined Whistle Blower Laureate Edward Snowden, “The FBI is creating a world where citizens rely on Apple to defend their rights, rather than the other way aroundâ€, by which we assume he meant that instead of the government defending us against big business, big business is defending our rights against the government. This is how Totalitarian governments get their start.
It’s also interesting to note that what the FBI asked for, and what the court ordered, isn’t that Apple unlock the phone for the FBI, but that Apple make it possible for the FBI to keep trying to figure out the passcode without the phone reaching the self-destruct point.
We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business. This, of cure, is true. They do NOT have a right to your information. Can Apple comply with this court order? Is it even possible?
(Note: Clearly the FBI doesn’t read the Internet Patrol, or they would already know how to avoid that time out when trying to figure out a passcode.)
While Cook never says whether or not what the government is asking, and the court is demanding, is something Apple can do, one can certainly infer from his statements that they could do it.
Do you dispute Apple's contention?
I have no idea about what they have and don’t have.
And, I’m guessing, neither do you.
I know I don’t care, if that helps you any.
If they can’t comply, they can appeal.
Once again, did you not read my last post?
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.