Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp; DesertRhino; Cyberman; IncPen; palmer; itsahoot; ctdonath2; TheBattman
I was operating under the assumption that you were dishonest. Now I'm beginning to think you are just nuts. Yes, i've shown to you several times where the FBI allowed Apple to use any means they wished to accomplish the task. I've quoted, and linked you to Comey's statement that Apple may keep complete control of any and all software used to access the phone.

Look, idiot, Comey's statement is

NOT IN THE COURT ORDER.

Exactly how many times does such an idiot as you need to be told that if it is

NOT IN THE COURT ORDER

it has no legal existence!

Please show us where FBI Director James Comey is an IT expert who has the legal expertise who can make such a sweeping statement that "the software would only work on the jihadi's device" and know and swear that a technical fact that it would be true. You cannot, because FBI Director James Comey is NOT an IT expert and he cannot. As an IT expert, FBI Director James Comey probably didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn the previous night.

Finally, idiot, the challenge was to show, in the court order, your contention the section of the COURT ORDER where you claim it states unequivocally that Apple can keep the iPhone. You claim you have posted this section. I say it doesn't exist. Post it. Show us. You are claiming a legal impossibility! IDIOT. LIAR.

46 posted on 04/12/2016 9:44:36 AM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: Swordmaker
Look, idiot, Comey's statement is NOT IN THE COURT ORDER.

It is a statement of intent from the highest reaches of FBI authority. If Apple was under the impression that they could not petition for a clarification or modification of the court order, then they are a bunch of fools who need to fire their lawyers.

What Comey said is in fact implied in the court order. It's under that section where they said Apple could use any means they wanted to accomplish the task.

It is implicit in the order that Apple has complete control over the process, you just refuse to read it that way because this interpretation makes Apple inc look like a bunch of Screaming fit throwers, which in fact is exactly what they were.

You must, in fact, read it as narrowly as suits you to justify your screaming bitchfit.

47 posted on 04/12/2016 11:12:52 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson