Posted on 04/23/2016 11:01:39 AM PDT by Swordmaker
Second U.S. Bid to Force Apple to Unlock Phone Ends in a Whimper . . . a source came forward and provided the passcode. It appears to me that the FBI/DOJ doesn't want to get a precedent from an Appellate Court that does not support their position. Link only due to Bloomberg Copyright;
Second U.S. Bid to Force Apple to Unlock Phone Ends in a Whimper
Nor do they bring in your neighbor, the guy who runs the hardware store in the strip mall, someone who sold you what they are looking for, or some random passersby.
The dictionary definition of a troll.
They might bring in a bulldozer and flatten the place. And leave it that way.
US no longer requires Apple's help to crack iPhone in New York case
By John Ribeiro — IDG News Service Apr 22, 2016 8:54 PMThe government said "an individual" had given it the passcode to the phone.
The U.S. no longer requires Apple’s assistance to unlock an iPhone 5s phone running iOS 7 used by the accused in a drug investigation, stating that an “individual provided the passcode to the iPhone at issue in this case.”
The Department of Justice has withdrawn its application in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
DOJ had earlier appealed to District Judge Margo K. Brodie an order from Magistrate Judge James Orenstein, ruling that Apple could not be forced to provide assistance to the government to extract data from the iPhone 5s.
“Yesterday evening, an individual provided the passcode to the iPhone at issue in this case,” DOJ wrote in a filing to the court late Friday. “Late last night, the government used that passcode by hand and gained access to the iPhone.” The filing did not provide information on who the individual was and in what capacity he was acting.
Jun Feng, the accused in the methamphetamine possession and distribution investigation, provided the passcode to investigators, said The Wall Street Journal, quoting people familiar with the matter. Feng has already pleaded guilty and is due to be sentenced. He had earlier told investigators that he didn’t remember the passcode.
The filing in the New York court has parallels to another dispute between Apple and the government over assistance in cracking an iPhone 5c running iOS 9 used by one of the terrorists in the San Bernardino killings in December. In that case in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the government had demanded Apple’s assistance but later asked the court to vacate its order as it had accessed data stored on the phone, using a tool from a third party.
The tool addressed only a “narrow slice” of iPhones, Federal Bureau of Investigation director James Comey said earlier this month. While it could unlock the the iPhone 5c running iOS 9, the tool does not work on the iPhone 5s or 6, he said. Apple, meanwhile, demanded to know in the New York case whether the government had exhausted all other options to get to the data.
Judge Orenstein had ruled that Apple can’t be forced to extract data from the iPhone 5s under a statute called the All Writs Act, the same law invoked in the California case.
The government’s reading of the All Writs Act, a statute enacted in 1789 and commonly invoked by law enforcement agencies to get assistance from tech companies on similar matters, would change the purpose of the law “from a limited gap-filing statute that ensures the smooth functioning of the judiciary itself into a mechanism for upending the separation of powers by delegating to the judiciary a legislative power bounded only by Congress’s superior ability to prohibit or preempt,” Orenstein had written in his order.
The government’s withdrawal of its demand for Apple’s assistance in both the New York and California cases leaves unresolved a key legal issue whether the government can compel device makers to help break the encryption and other security in their products, which is an issue of significance both to tech companies and privacy groups.
Apple could not be immediately reached for comment.
You're not going to read his stuff because what he's saying is true, and you are either ignorance of the situation, and don't wish to be disabused of your ignorance, or are a liar.
Funny, but when I studied constitutional law, fourth amendment review didn’t begin and end with magistrate judges.
The government has no right to force. It can request, and pay a fee, and Apple can refuse. The government has acted illegally and needs to be prosecuted.
Unfortunately the corrupt government will not prosecute itself.
It’s all been gone thru in great detail here for both sides.
I’ve followed the discussion.
Like I said.
One of the things I try to point out is that the government has no RIGHTS at all. It only has POWERS granted to us, the People who created it in the first place, which we have lent to the government to use in our name.
All RIGHTS are inherent in the Individuals who make up the body referred to in our Constitution as "the People" and our founding fathers recongnized that government was an instrument of POWER, not an instrument of RIGHTS. RIGHTS are given to individuals by God, or for those who cannot humble themselves to believe in anything greater than themselves, exist in the individual by birthright as members of their inherent human condition.
Government is instituted to protect the God given or inherent RIGHTS of the People, to do those things the People deem best accomplished as a joint effort, and those things that require their shared joint POWERS granted to the various levels governments the People have seen fit to create to accomplish those things.
However, the People have never ceded any of their RIGHTS to that government for it to exercise for them. . . Nor can they, because God given or inherent RIGHTS are not transferable to any corporate or another individual. If they are God given, only God can choose who he bestows such RIGHTS upon, and if they are inherent, they are part of the definition of the individual, and removing that part would mean mean changing the whole into something entirely different.
Unfortunately, or perhaps deliberately, our government has obfuscated that use of our name in the past few years. Criminal cases used to make it plain when they announced the indictments as "The People of the State of California v. Joe Blow", or "The People of the United States or America v. Joe Blow", but now it is "The State of California v. Joe Blow" or the "The Government of the United States v. Joe Blow". The prosecutors used to say "The People rests" when completing their cases, but now it's "The government rests" or "The State rests."
It has slowly changed, court by court, creeping in over the past forty years or so, so slowly that most people have not noticed this subtle change, but I started noticing it when I was watching old Perry Mason reruns. In those reruns, it was always "The People of. . . " but modern court procedure it is always "The State. . . " or "The Government of the United States v." . . . and in cases where I have observed in person or been on a jury, it is the same subtle change in terminology of who, or rather what it is bringing the charge! I think it is an important distinction in emphasis that we have missed . . . and it was deliberate.
Thanks, DSH, you nailed DiogenesLamp with a quite succinct and truthful post.
I will not dispute that much of what he says is true. The area of disagreement is it's relevance to the issue being discussed.
A common tactic of people attempting to deceive others is to put forth an endless stream of things that are actually true, but have no bearing whatsoever on the question in dispute. Regarding the central point in dispute, whether or not the FBI was trying to get access to everyone's IPhones, is a total and complete lie that Apple has spread across the internet.
and you are either ignorance of the situation,
No, it is the people who have been regurgitating the Apple propaganda that are ignorant of the situation.
and don't wish to be disabused of your ignorance, or are a liar.
Pointing out that Apple has initiated a deceptive chicken-little-THE-SKY-IS-FALLING! dance is not lying. It is in fact, shining the light of truth on the whole matter.
Apple's screech fest was a hyperventilating act of propaganda designed to mislead people about what was happening in regards to the FBI's request for assistance in opening that locked IPhone possessed by that terrorist.
It was the consequence of Apple's Administration putting what they believe is their own companies interest ahead of what constituted a potential threat to other people's lives. It is also an example of how a Corporation thinks it is so big that it doesn't have to obey the law, and doesn't have to concern itself with a civic and moral duty to protect other people's lives.
But what should we expect from a Corporation that is run by a distinctly immoral person?
The terrorists are dead, and the phone belonged to San Bernadino county anyways. There are no forth amendment issues to deal with.
There are potential future threats to the lives of innocent people to deal with, but Apple decided to put what they thought was their own corporate best interests ahead of any potential loss of innocent life.
China says that the iWatch is out of date:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/24/leeco-ceo-jia-yueting-says-apple-is-outdated.html
The LeSee driverless car "launch", which the article implied as an actual product "launch," is not anything of the kind. What LeEco introduced was a "concept" car that exists only in a handmade model, and it is no where near production stage. Apple is far beyond LeEco in design, being at the testing stage, having built prototypes according to leaked reports.
jia's idea that a smart car could be a mere extension of the Internet such as a mobile phone is fatally flawed. He stated that the driver decisions could be made in software on the Internet in concert with all other driverless cars. The only way a smart car could possibly be an Internet extension is through a satellite connection and he is therefore ignoring LAG TIME up and back to the satellite. We are talking a quarter second transmission time up and a quarter second transmission time back plus computational time in making localized driving decisions on a main frame after locating the particular car among millions of cars. This cannot possibly handle the split second decisions necessary for those driving incidents that are NOT related to other cars in the system, such as a deer running across the road, a child darting into the street, or a wheel coming off the car in front of your car. These emergent incidents are all things that are unexpected incidents that require far faster responses than can be handled by any system with a built in communications lag.
I view Jia Yueting's puffery of his products and knocking Apple at this time as mere FUD in advance of Apple's quarterly Financial Conference Call on the results of the 2nd Fiscal Quarter of 2016 which will be made after the close of the market tomorrow. It is, after all, the normal three week FUD season in the press leading up to that quarterly conference call.
By the way, thanks for the link. . .
Again, this is the standard practice FUD preceding the Financial Conference Call which is an effort to force the price of AAPL down in advance. CNBC is notorious for such FUD coverage. . . digging for unknown commentators to make outrageous statements as this one. As a rule, I don't post these outré examples. This guy is on the extreme edge of anal-cysts as far as Apple prognostications is concerned. Five years Apple will not even be in the Chinese market? What is that? He has zero evidence to back up that claim.
China Labor Watch is not even located in Aisa, but rather in New York City and spends the vast majority of its funds on management and fund raising.
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.