Posted on 02/19/2016 5:07:38 PM PST by rpierce
The Apple ID passcode for the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone was changed less than 24 hours after authorities took possession of the device, a senior Apple executive said today.
And Apple could have recovered information from the phone had the Apple ID passcode not been changed, Apple said.
If the phone was taken to a location where it recognized the Wi-Fi network, such as the San Bernardino shooters' home, it could have been backed up to the cloud, Apple suggested. ... The auto reset was executed by a county information technology employee, according to a federal official. Federal investigators only found out about the reset after it had occurred and that the county employee acted on his own, not on the orders of federal authorities, the source said.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
You forgot one thing, this wasn’t a personal phone, it was government owned.
Does anyone believe that the IT guy actually decided to do this without orders?
“The purpose of the 4th Amendment is to protect against govt. intrusion.”
That’s a penumbra of the Fourth, as the SC said in Roe V Wade, but the Fourth is in the BOR to require the federal government to respect the balance of their power to compel evidence that was enshrined in centuries of the English Common Law: a judge’s warrant.
At the time there was fear they would not.
That balance is clearly upset by cheap, convenient encryption.
I believe, until we come to a new way to balance the rights of suspects and seekers of justice, the Fourth can only survive if encryption is not absolute.
Neither cut-n-pasting the writ, nor citing the PT Barnum of US Politics much help your case with me. I (1) believe the judge overstepped his authority in demanding something be created that doesn't exist, as opposed to providing existing methods of assistance, and (2) Trump is a shoot-from-the-hip bloviator, who specializes in populist rhetoric which is unfortunately spooned up by the same sort of wishful thinkers who bought "hope" and "change" in '08. The only difference is the starry-eyed suckers are on the Right this time, instead of the Left. You can bet all of Trump's communications are encrypted out his comb-over.
So? How does that make it Apple's responsibility?
Really? You’re citing penumbras from Roe v Wade? Didn’t you state you were an originalist and loved Scalia?
So, you got nothing?
That’s OK. I figured you for a boy with condescension in your heart and nothing in your head. There’s a lot more than cut and paste, there, Junior...let’s see what you got besides cheap off-topic bullshit.
a Court Order.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures....” is not a “penumbra”. It is the stated intent of the amendment.
YOU are taking your view of the Fourth from Roe v Wade- that it is to embody a ‘right to privacy’.
I expect you to do and say anything to keep yourself from seeing that.
As your ‘reply’ shows.
Hahahahaha...Mr. Baird keeps saying the same things like they are going to somehow become relevant if he keeps going there. Must have taken a law class last semester.
Ah. So a Judge can declare anything, and it is so.
Well, far be it from me to question the authority of the govt.
There’s a lot more than cut and paste, there, Junior...
Check the sign-up dates... Junior.
And when it is the 3rd time in the same thread, yes, it is cut-n-paste.
If that’s true, then they should be able to get in the phone by getting the password for the shooter’s e-mail account. If it’s a Yahoo or Google account then Apple wouldn’t need to be involved. There must be more to it than that though or they would’ve figured that out.
“Ah. So a Judge can declare anything, and it is so.”
In this particular case, yes. yes they can. If you had taken the time to digest all that “cut and paste” you would know that by now. So, you still got nothing, am I right, sonny?
Well, I’ve had some good discussions with people once they see the difficulty encryption brings to the Fourth Amendment.
If they’re too devoted to the liberal conception of the Fourth to see the problem- well I only wasted a few minutes.
WTF?
Or even war case... why was Barney Fife on the case?!?
Good for you. I can’t help myself. So many oblivious to the enormous mountain of wool being pulled over their heads.
No, I am taking the language of the actual 4th Amendment to mean that the People have a right to be secure in their persons, property, etc., just as it says. Strong encryption gives me that security, just as locks on my front door do. Just because criminals can also use locks does not mean mine should be compromised to make law enforcement easier. The 4th A. does not give the Govt. the power to force a third party to weaken my security to enable them so they can execute search warrants on unrelated parties.
It’s akin to the govt. demanding that an auto manufacturer create a hotwiring kit so the govt. can impound one suspect car. I don’t want that kit to be made, because once it is, anybody can use it. It lessens the security of the People to have a general intrusion tool made.
Exactly!
You are abandoning the Fourth Amendment and relying INSTEAD on an unbreakable lock to keep your papers secure from those seeking justice - even if they have a warrant.
Claiming a “right to privacy” to do so.
What’s NOT silly is what to do when everyone has unbreakable encryption- and it’s not from a reputable company subject to the All Writs Act written by the Founders of our nation and signed by President George Washington but from some hacker?
That question is what brings to these threads.
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.