Justice Department Seeks to Force Apple to Extract Data From About 12 Other

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.

Because copyrights do not allow you to hide from a court order.

D@mn straight only political connections can do that. Clinton emails for instance.

Notice how you flipped the premise? This is a dishonest technique of debate in which an opponent restates what someone said with a different premise. It's a form of lying.

Lack of prosecution in the Hillary situation is the result of corruption at the Justice Department, and it stems directly from Obama. This is a case where those who are tasked with enforcing the law refuse to do so.

The Apple court order is a case where those who are tasked with enforcing the law, are doing so.

I have studied or worked on unix operating systems since 1978. I know or have met most of the primary developers.

I have not misspoken. If you think I am ignorant or an idiot, please specify exactly what I wrote indicates that and why.

If you decided that you are no longer responding to me, then reverse your decision and respond— or else suffer the verdict of your own attempted judgment of me.

I observe that you defend the government’s position sloppily but dutifully. This makes me wonder if you are a fed, or a former fed, drawing a pension.

Peace out.

I have studied or worked on unix operating systems since 1978. I know or have met most of the primary developers.

I have not misspoken. If you think I am ignorant or an idiot, please specify exactly what I wrote indicates that and why.

How's this for a start?

"BFD. Everyone has access to the binary code, which is all you need if you are really good enough."

That's nuts. It is a colossal effort to reverse engineer a complex operating system. Your comment also shows no awareness of the need for a valid Apple signature for the software; Something that can only come from Apple.

If you decided that you are no longer responding to me, then reverse your decision and respond- or else suffer the verdict of your own attempted judgment of me.

I didn't say I wasn't responding. I said "That's enough of me answering your inanities." When you argue in good faith, I will respond in good faith.

I observe that you defend the government's position sloppily but dutifully. This makes me wonder if you are a fed, or a former fed, drawing a pension.

I wish. Nope. Still actively working in the Electronics/Computer field, and not for the Feds, either.

I am not specifically defending the government's position so much as i'm acknowledging it is legally valid as I understand the law, and I also observe that Apple is trying to hyperventilate and fearmonger about what it was asked to do.

I have stated several times that I am opposed to allowing the FBI (or any agency) to have software that will allow them to crack open phones without a search warrant. I have no trouble with a court requiring Apple (if they are able) to crack open phones upon the issue of a court order that they do so.

So you just IGNORE that there are now MORE cases the Department of Justice is piling on, CLAIMING what YOU said would not happen, because it was only this one

No, I answered that. You apparently didn't read my answer.

To save you trouble, I will just restate it again.

So long as the government gets a court order for every instance of Apple cracking a phone, I'm fine with it. This has always been my position.

This particular case is about this one phone, but as you said previously, it will set a precedent for all future phones. Fine. Let it set a precedent that Apple will obey court orders. That is exactly the sort of precedent that ought to be set, because Apple seems a little confused on the subject.

Let the Judges make it clear to them. Apple is not above the law.

Let the Judges make it clear to them. Apple is not above the law.

The point we and everyone else is making is that there IS no law that allows this judge to order Apple to do what the judge is demanding. So, I understand, you are just OK with Judges legislating from the bench, when Congress has declined to write a law to do what the Justice Department wants, is that it?? I am not am not so sanguine about it. . . Or as comfortable as you seem to be with little-tin-dictators in black robes arrogating to themselves the authority to decide that when Congress declines to make a law, they can do it for them, because, obviously, it was just an oversight they did not pass such a law. Sometimes doing NOTHING is the right thing to do. Laws are not passed by doing nothing, DiogenesLamp.

You are one of the most dishonest people I have ever had the misfortune to debate on FreeRepublic or anywhere. That is why I have commented that Diogenes would be ashamed you've taken his name as your own. He'd be first to deny you.

The point we and everyone else is making is that there IS no law that allows this judge to order Apple to do what the judge is demanding.

The judge in question believes otherwise. I happen to agree with her decision so far.

So, I understand, you are just OK with Judges legislating from the bench, when Congress has declined to write a law to do what the Justice Department wants, is that it?

No, I very much hate activist judges, but I don't see that as relevant in this case. This is not a twisted interpretation of the law. This is a pretty clear legal matter as Jeffery Epstein pointed out.

You are one of the most dishonest people I have ever had the misfortune to debate on FreeRepublic or anywhere

Says the guy who keeps repeating the lie that the judge has ordered the creation of a back door that will give the FBI the power to break open everyone's phones.

No, the power to break everyone's phones will remain in the hands of Apple, and under the direction of Courts.

No, the power to break everyone's phones will remain in the hands of Apple, and under the direction of Courts.

YOU CANNOT READ WORTH A DAMN!

Extracted word-for-word from the Magistrate Judge's Court Order to Apple re: what to do:

". . . providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle or other Software image File ("SIF") that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory ("RAM") and will not modify the i/os on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the devicesâ€™s flash memory. . . The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade ("DFU") mode, recovery mode or other applicable mode available to the FBI."

That order most likely NOT written by the Federal Magistrate Judge, but Most likely written by someone in the Department of Justice, because the Judge is highly unlikely to have any kind of technical know how to have written such specific language, is quite explicit in ordering that the work product of software developed by Apple is to be given ("providing," a legal term meaning exactly that) to the FBI. I have "provided" you with the definition of that word and it is also quite explicit, but you want to dance around and interpret it differently that its clear English language meaning and also its clear legal meaning. You also seemed to have found somewhere in the penumbra of this Court Order from the Magistrate judge that Apple was going to be allowed to KEEP the iPhone, when it is not ever even mentioned! You simply cannot comprehend what WE write, much less the explicit legal terminology of the court order.

Do even you know, exactly, what a "Magistrate" Judge is, DiogenesLamp? Again, it's obvious you do not. They are not full Federal trial judges. They are more akin to glorified Federal Court CLERKS. From a description of the Magistrate judge position from the Utah Federal District Court:

"Magistrate judges perform a wide range of duties in civil and criminal cases.
In civil cases, they will hear pre trial motions, conduct settlement and pre trial conferences, and may, on assignment, handle dispostive motions and, with the consent of the parties, may conduct the trial.
In criminal cases, they will handle most pre-trial matters, including initial appearance of a defendant before a judge, arraignment on charges, including taking a plea of guilty or not guilty, and determining whether the defendant should be detained or released pending trial. Magistrate judges handle all petty offense cases and most misdemeanor cases.
Magistrate judges also handle appeals from social security decisions and most petitions by prisoners for review of their convictions, and conditions of confinement.

In many instances, Magistrate Judges do not even have to be lawyers. It is a lot easier to get something past a Magistrate judge than a true Judge, who does know all about case law. That is why the FBI chose to go before a Magistrate Judge rather than a Federal Bench Judge for this order. Magistrate judge are NOT appointed by the President of the United States and are NOT confirmed by the United States Senate. They are not lifetime appointments, and are civil service positions held for only eight years. They are NOT district judges of the Federal District Courts and are appointed by the various judges of each district with input from Civil authorities to their terms.

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.