Posted on 03/13/2016 1:21:37 PM PDT by Swordmaker
I support the constitution, of course. If it needs to be changed there is a stipulation inherent in the document to do just that.
But in this case you are talking about the 4th amendment which allows for the government to obtain information via warrants and court orders. I think Apple, like anyone else, has to comply with a court order, but I may be wrong. But I do know, being a lawyer myself, that defying a court order will land you in jail for contempt until you comply. It can’t be any other way if we are to accept the rule of law.
That's true. But here there is no evidence. What the FBI wants does not exist.
The law provides for a challange as far as I know.
Yes I am sure Tim Cook will not be arrested for contempt of court due to his wealth (unfortunate but true there are two legal systems one for the rich and one for the rest of us) but I do not recommend you defy a court order.
4th Amendment: 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.
Apple’s Addendum: Unless you are a liberal organization that encrypts or hides things that cannot be read or found.
You're wrong. There is a doubt. While the iPhone was in the FBI's hands, they had full access to it and changed the I.D., thereby covering up whatever information they had accessed. The FBI may or may not already know what data is in the phone, so there is a doubt as to any crime. Going after Apple is nothing more than a scam perpetuated by the FBI on the public.
“Wrong, there is a lawful warrant that Apple does not want to obey.”
No there isn’t. A search warrant gives the government the right to seize the phone, and to search it. A search warrant cannot order someone do it for them.
For example, you have a safe in your house. The FBI gets a warrant to search it. You cannot be forced to hand over a front door key, lock up your dogs, and give them the combo. The safe company cannot be ordered to come crack the combination.
The FBI can show up with saws, drills, cutting torches, and Vinnie the safecracker.
But no, search warrants do not compel anyone to do the work for them. A warrant allows the government to do it.
Frankly, as our government lips into authoritarianism, I am glad for a method to communicate they cannot get into.
“Put Cook in jail and we will see how long it takes to drill. You are siding with criminals, why”
Obama is grateful to you. And we are siding with freedom. You are siding with a domestic spying police state with no limits.
Completely incorrect. There is no authority for the government to do anything in any amendment of the Constitution. The only thing the Constitution does is put a clear boundary around the laws that Congress (and now the States) make. Congress can make a law to require Apple to put back doors in all their devices. As long as Congress puts some flowery 4th amendment language into that law, it should pass Constitutional muster. But in this case there is no such law.
I would recommend that you challenge a court order that is not based in law. Your point that there are better chances for Cook than for the rest of us is sort of true, except you are ignoring the fact that lots of lawyers would jump at the chance to take a case like this court order to the Supreme court pro bono.
“But I don’t think you’d like living in a world of ineffective courts that can’t compel evidence.”
Actually yes, yes I would. Compelled evidence. wow, you aren’t even aware that this is bad. And the 4th amendment doesn’t mean the government can access every data point out there. Would you also forbid shredders? I mean, what if the government wants all of your papers and you quickly shred them?
Yeah, the matter of the writ is different, it’s very deep though IMO. Courts have inherent powers but they’re limited by law and usage.
IMO law will have to require the ability to open encryption without the cooperation of the owner.
With strong encryption how does the court access the data in an investigation of the owner’s death or say for administrative purposes such as executing a will, when the owner isn’t even alive to open it?
Yeah, it’s the owner’s fault for not keeping the password stored safely somewhere but it’s a very common human fault.
But, obviously there’s a lot to consider.
“Apple’s Addendum: Unless you are a liberal organization that encrypts or hides things that cannot be read or found.”
Bullcrap. The founders were well aware that secret codes and cyphers existed. They did not forbid their use, and they never had the idea that the creator could be forced to decipher it for them.
I agree.
Treating the use of encryption as the same as destroying evidence with a shedder is one possible solution.
But it doesn’t address the situation where the owner is deceased.
So you would also make it illegal to routinely shred documents? Nuts. And a deceased owner has no worry for me.
I prefer encryption the government cannot get into. I am also in favor of me shredding what I wish.
Your childlike faith in the government is almost inspiring.....almost.
The original order gave Apple time to respond if they believed compliance would be unreasonably burdensome. That is exactly what Apple did.
It is illegal to destroy evidence.
Of course in your world without courts it doesn’t matter.
The Stasi was the secret police in East Germany. They were widely thought of us the post invasive government ever when it came to domestic spying. They collected between 900 million and a billion pages of data on its people. Tis was across its 40 year existence.
Your government already collects the unencrypted amount equivalent to the entire library of congress every 14 seconds. It collects the equivalent to the entire 40 years of the Stasi (literally: State Security) every 2 days.
There has never been a society in all of human history that has collected more data on its own people.
And they are -still- claiming they cannot possibly keep us safe without even more. Its ridiculous on its very face to claim that. The founders weren’t fighting for safety.
You are aware than many many people routinely burn and shred all kinds of papers? So isn’t that destroying evidence the government might want some day?
How can he be in contempt? He is challenging the order in court and a hearing is scheduled this month.
I might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to the law, but to my non-legal mind it would appear as if the legal process is moving forward.
Am I to understand anyone using available legal options to fight a court order is in contempt? Are we no longer free to exhaust whatever legal remedies are available?
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.