Posted on 03/13/2016 1:21:37 PM PDT by Swordmaker
If encryption would be illegal then FIPS 140-2 devices would be illegal instead of required by federal law in certain cases.
Let me make it simple, people died, the police want access to the phone to see who the murderers were in contact with. Time is of the essence. Tim Cook thinks he is above the law and will not provide the information. More people may die. If you are okay with this fine, I am not. Comply with the court order or go to jail.
Not to unlock the iPhone. Apple provided everything they had custody of pursuant to a search warrant. They also provided assistance with the FBI's attempt to unlock the iPhone through normal means they had available to them. Now the FBI wants Apple to create extraordinary means. That is not permissible.
It’s only illegal to destroy ‘evidence’.
Everything encrypted is not evidence.
There are many examples of ‘good’ encryption.
I believe financial firms are required to use encryption- and maintain backups.
Yes, they are and the backups must be FIPS 140-2 encrypted as well. If all the persons who have the passwords are killed in a shootout with LE, then the LE will not be able to access that data.
“they never had the idea that the creator could be forced to decipher it for them.”
I never read that. Where did you read that?
No, Kenny, you are wrong. Apple has NOT received a warrant for any search of an iPhone.
A Search Warrant is served for something for which Apple has in its possession. Apple did have the iCloud data for the terrorists in its possession, received a warrant for that, and dutifully surrendered everything they had. This is a Court Order to render assistance but even more, it's a Court Order instructing Apple to use its resources to create NEW SOFTWARE and/or hardware that will forever break its own proprietary company secret hardware/software code that's unbreakability is a primary advantage Apple's hundred billion dollar product has in the market.
That Court Order relies on a 1789 Law called the All Writs Act which compels cooperation only when it is not an undue burden on those who are being compelled. The courts have ruled that an "undue burden" only exists when that burden is doing something they ALREADY do in the course of their ordinary business. Creating something that will damage their ordinary business is NOT something any business would do in the course of their ordinary business, ergo, it meets the test for being an "undue burden."
In addition, the All Writs Act is very constrained in that it cannot be used for anything that Congress has ever, EVER, addressed with the intent of legislating, whether they took action or not. Even if they did not finally decide to act, the very act of considering taking action, the Court may NOT substitute its wisdom for that of Congress' in determining that the proper course is to do NOTHING if Congress so determined that was the course to take. However, in this case, as the article points out, Congress actually DID SOMETHING and addressed this very thing in the Communication Accessibility for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA) and prohibited Law Enforcement or its agents from requiring a company such as Apple from doing what the FBI (which the last time I looked was defined as a Law Enforcement Agency) from requiring the decryption of any device which they have manufactured, or placing any feature or software or hardware specifically on such devices for that purpose. The FBI, by using the Court, is attempting to do exactly what FEDERAL CALEA LAW, written by Congress specifically to reign in the over reach of their power, prohibits them from doing!
Apple is doing exactly what is lawful, resisting an illegal court order.
As usual, the only one being ignorantly silly here, is you. You really do not know what you are talking about.
Wrong, LE needs to access the phone to see who the murderers were in contact with, Cook should be thrown in jail until he complies, he has no defense. Lives are at stake. Time is of the essence.
Apple has complied with every valid SEARCH WARRANT in this case they've been served and turned over every single piece of data held by them relating to the case.
This is NOT about a search warrant, CodeToad. Quit raising red herrings that are irrelevant to an All Writs Act Court Order which has nothing to do with any Search Warrant not sent to or served on Apple.
Kenny500c is flat-out wrong, proven so many times. Childlike statements (I don't know if even a child would be so wrong). Wrong, wrong, wrong, but he doesn't listen.
I believe they are required to maintain the data so that it is as near impossible to be inaccessible as possible.
Not neccessarily for LE but for the sake of the clients.
Here’s an article by Orin Kerr on FINRA regs: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/20/has-apple-made-iphones-illegal-in-the-financial-industry/?tid=a_inl
If you’re a tceh person you will enjoy the shredding he gets for his lack of knowledge of the field.
Murder, you are down with that? Call me stupid all day but that is what we are dealing with here. There is no question multiple crimes have been committed, or do you deny that?
Much more than probable cause here, the police need to access the phone to see who the murderers were in contact with and Cook is resisting, if it were you or me we would be locked up, but we are not billionaires, or maybe you are.
Lives are at stake and yet you support the terrorists, why?
What don’t you understand about probable cause? The right to privacy is not unlimited.
It’s not Kerr, it’s that Baker guy.
This brings to mind a great analogy. Apricot Inc. a company makes a consumer level shredder that does both linear and cross shredding. On of Apricot's high-end shredders was used by some terrorists to destroy documents that may or may not have been used to plot their terrorist act. However, the desk next to the shredder only contained work related paperwork and the shredder was owned and supplied by the terrorist's employer. There was another room with another desk that had been stripped of all paperwork and a pristine shredder and out in the back an incinerator was filled with the ashes of paper and shredded paper ashes, soaked with water to forever destroy them. The neighbors had seen him burning lots of stuff the day before the terrorist attack and had even told him that burning was prohibited and he had yelled "Alahu Akbar" at them.
The FBI has muddied the waters a bit by hiring a six year old to try and assemble some of the bits of confetti like a jigsaw puzzle, and, since the six year old couldn't read, nothing makes any sense of his paste up, so they re-shredded his pasted up efforts.
The FBI gets a All Writs Act court order from a Federal Magistrate Judge ordering the Apricot, the manufacturer of the shredder, to invent a device that can take a basket full of the confetti from one of their shredders and re-assemble the individual pieces into completely assembled properly assembled papers so the FBI can read the shredded documents. Apricot says it would be almost impossible to devise such a machine, although perhaps techinecally feasible with lots of money and time it could be done, and files a Motion to Dismiss. The FBI calls Apricot all kinds of nasty names, saying they are just interested in their profits and sales.
Let me make it simple. This was his work phone. The police and FBI already have the complete records of every phone call, message, and email, to and from the iPhone. Except for a few during work hours from his monster wife's known personal phone, they are all accounted for as work related for the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health. These data were provided from Verizon, the carrier, as soon as it was asked for. The only thing they don't have access to would be any notes there may be still on the iPhone or any iMessages that are sent encrypted to other iPhone or iPads. However, the evidence suggests that there is nothing on that iPhone except work related data. Part of that evidence is that Syez Farouk did not bother to destroy it.
These two terrorists maintained two BURNER cell phones which, along with their own two laptop computers the throughoughly smashed and dumped into a lake. These burner phone were off the shelf untraceable phones for which the police and FBI can learn nothing because they do not even have the phone numbers or even know what carrier they were using. They can get no call, message, or email information from the unknown carrier for the simple reason they have no linking phone number to even start to look for one.
Wrong, wrong, wrong again. Why don't you listen to saner minds like ours?
The police had their shot at accessing the phone, and blew it. They had asked for Apple's help and advice. When Apple gave advice, the "authorities" ignored it and changed the I.D., thereby locking it up forever. They delivered a lawful request to Apple for access to the data in iCloud, and Apple complied fully and delivered what they had. Beyond that, there is no probable cause to make Apple deliver something they do not possess. The feds cannot force Apple to create something that does not exist, akin to a shredder manufacturer being forced to make a device to "unshred" documents (thanks to Swordmaker for the excellent analogy, suitable for children to comprehend).
As the commenters point out, it’s a bad article in every regard. The proper conclusion is the opposite of the article’s headline. A phone with unbreakable encryption for data-at-rest will be required and if Android doesn’t have that, it will be illegal.
No, you are wrong. No one is in danger, or the FBI is incompetent. The've waited over two months to take any action to compel Apple to assist. . . but Apple has been assisting them since about a week after they seized the iPhone. Had they asked earlier, or had Apple known there was an iPhone involved, they could have had data even sooner. You really do not know what you are talying about.
The authorities already HAVE all the numbers, messages, and email that were used to dial or message that iPhone which they got from the carrier, Verizon.
You said you were an attorney. I am beginning to doubt that. You've made no legal arguments at all and ignored every single legal argument I made in post 47. . . and fell back on your weak claims about "time is of the essence" now three months post the crime. That shows me you really don't know what you are talking about.
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.