Posted on 02/23/2016 11:34:59 AM PST by Swordmaker
The Justice Department is pursuing court orders to force Apple Inc. to help investigators extract data from iPhones in about a dozen undisclosed cases around the country, in disputes similar to the current battle over a terrorist's locked phone, according to people familiar with the matter.
The other phones are at issue in cases where prosecutors have sought, as in the San Bernardino, Calif. terror case, to use an 18th-century law called the All Writs Act to compel the company to help them bypass the passcode security feature of phones that may hold evidence, these people said.
Privacy advocates are likely to seize on the cases' existence as proof the government aims to go far beyond what prosecutors have called the limited scope of the current public court fight over a locked iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters.
Law enforcement leaders, however, may cite the existence of the other cases as evidence that the encryption of personal devices has become a serious problem for criminal investigators in a variety of cases and settings.
(Excerpt) Read more at nasdaq.com ...
You mean I can't read between the lines and see all your fantasy bogeymen, and no, I can't.
The order clearly says Apple may retain possession of the phone. The clarification posted by Ray76 made it even more clear that the phone can remain in Apple custody, and no software need be given to the FBI.
Keep up the good work bros.
The more I read, the more I think this guy isn’t worth the trouble.
He really does belong over on DU.
But I do admire your fortitude
: )
Good call IP.
The State Department has ignored a Federal Judge who has repeatedly given deadlines for releasing all ofHillary's emails, they have delayed, delayed, delayed. The Judge has let them get away with it so far. I do believe he has now ordered all her aids to give depositions under oath and I believe he today, ordered Hillary to testify under oath.
I have no problem with your opinion but the senseless name calling of everyone that does not agree with you is disgusting. I have been on these Apple threads for 18 years and have never seen a tirade as bad as your's and I have seen plenty of them.
It does????? Please quote those words for us. PLEASE, oh please, cite those exact words for us, oh erudite reader of what is NOT THERE!
Please show us where it states that the software may be retained by Apple. Show us the WORDS, not your interpretation of those words. Show us those "CLEARLY" written words in the order. IN ENGLISH. IN THE ORDER. Not in the penumbra, not between the flipping lines, but actually WRITTEN OUT, letter by letter, word by word, in plain, explicit ENGLISH!
Please show us how a private corporation would be permitted under ANY law to retain ANY evidence from a TERRORIST ACT. Please cite the statute that would permit that. PLEASE!
You've made SO MANY claims on FR that just are JUST NOT TRUE. This is the one that is the least true. YOU ARE DELUSIONAL!
Are you going to get offended at this post, too, and have it deleted like you did for post #95? I just told the truth there as well.
We are still waiting for your posting of the explicit words in that Court Order stating that Apple can KEEP the evidence. So far all we are seeing is nothing.
At the risk of sounding like DiogenesLamp, I agree that the order has close to zero chance of having originated with a Federal Magistrate Judge, as I understand the position, for the reason that SwordMaker gave, namely, that it is exceedingly technical in detail, and in consideration that Federal Magistrate Judges are in fact (I agree) glorified legal office clerks.
This (to paraphrase a character in “Let’s Call Saul”) is like giving a loaded gun to a kid.
My understanding is also that the decisions of Magistrate Judges are subject to review by the full Federal District Judge in Federal criminal cases. This would distinction make some legal sense since criminal matters are significantly more weighty than civil matters if a judicial error is made.
It sounds IMHO like a legal hail mary move by the FBI to avoid a full judge to get such an order. It also seems very fishy. Is the FBI trying to railroad Apple? If the FBI is certain of itself, why go to a lesser judge instead of a full district judge (presuming that is under the control of the FBI)? Is it under the control of the FBI to determine by whom (full judge or magistate judge) the decision is made? (I have never heard of a federal Magistrate Judge until now and I do not know the answers.)
You yourself dismissed me with derisive namecalling, so why should anyone here give you anything better? You should be willing to take some of the medicine you dish out, girlfriend. If you can’t even do that, then yes, you should have your own sandbox to play in by yourself, or receive an intervention in some form.
Need an Apple signature?
Not true.
Just model the hardware on a CPU simulator, and run your own effing patch on the cellphone data image.
No Apple license needed. No Apple permission needed. No Apple signature needed.
No Apple anything needed.
Live free or die, girlfriend.
;-)
Not having read the actual order myself, but just some scattered press articles and selected summaries posted on FR, I would be interested in the answer to this as well (thanks).
“The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter, Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE through a computer allowing the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis.”
Bottom of page 2
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001/SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.pdf
If you didn't read them the first time, why should I bother? You don't want it to be true, so you are simply going to dismiss any quote I provide. I have better things to do.
You need to worry yourself to death about the "Phone Cancer" that Tim Cook said they might be creating.
I told you where to find them. I also happen to know Ray76's message was sent specifically to you, so you saw it first hand.
I kinda thought at the time when I saw it, that it would shut you up, but obviously it hasn't. You simply ignored it and went on screeching.
You appear to be in the throes of some sort of fanatical delusion which I am not medically qualified to treat.
Probably a necessary requirement of "procedure." The legal system is all about proper "procedure" and you are supposed to go to the lowest level court that can potentially grant relief. You never start out at a higher court than necessary.
Not going to bother demonstrating the distinctions between what I did and what others have done. You would have to virtually read the entire thread to grasp it, and it simply isn't worth the trouble necessary to correct this misimpression of events.
I resort to name calling upon receipt of same, or after someone has demonstrated that there is no further point in attempting reason with them.
I think "Inc Pen" started the conversation by saying I was on the "wrong web site." And then just kept repeating it.
And Apple's built in encryption system just won't cause you any old trouble at all? I've read up on it a bit, and it would be a real b*tch to get through.
Tell me again, why do they put that on the phones to begin with? If you could just crack it with a CPU simulator, what purpose is their encryption system serving?
And here's the court filing posted by Ray76.
The filing (by the FBI) allows Apple to use pretty much any method they like, and does not require them to give the FBI any software capable of cracking phones. It leaves the means (and all the hardware) entirely in Apple's hands.
So (point of clarification) the SIF is acting in user space as a substitute login user space application?
Is it (PoC) not (if not part of the OS itself) an OS-priveleged application?
Does this SIF already exist, or is Apple being “commandeered” by the feds to develop, test, and warrant the SIF?
Who is liable for damages if the SIF fails catastrophically, scribbles on the memory, and the data is lost forever? What happens if the SIF upon being executed by the FBI on the iphone, begins to execute, but then trips over a hitherto undetected OS bug?
How much testing should be performed to warrant the SIF as being certified to work reliably? By what standard(s) of reliability?
Seems to me that there are a host of QA and other issues here. If they have all been answered by the feds, please provide a nutshell 100 word summary and a link to the primary source(s).
Enquiring minds, etc. :-)
girlfriend!
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.