search warrant [UPDATE] Apple served with warrant to unlock the Texas shooter’s iPhone SE

[captain_to_fire]

3 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

I mixed up the name of the two Js ( /)_(\

Back when I was fairly new in the forum, I thought the mods with green badges in their profile are LMG's video editors.

[Master Disaster]

It didn't work last time and it won't work this time either.

 

Apple simply cannot be compelled to unlock a phone when doing so is both illegal and impossible. Apple doesn't keep your biometric data and having a bypass undermines the entire system so they can stamp and throw their collective toys out of the legal pram all they want, it changes nothing.

 

What exactly are they going to do about it? Prosecutor Apple for failing to carry out a literally impossible task? In that case I feel like Apple probably has access to the better legal team and certainly has access to more money than the FBI.

[Master Disaster]

22 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

I though Facebook and Apple, as well as other tech companies own your information after you die... Thought this came up after some kid with cancer died and parents wanted access to the kids Facebook.

 

//Not in response to you but in general//

As far as the crazy conspiracy bullshit....

Until we have a fully flushed it and adapted legal system in regards to social and daily living aspects of technology, warrants and such NEED to happen. It's not the federal government strong arming Apple, and it isn't Apple being a jerk. It's about a repetitive situation that hasn't yet been 100% solidified in regards to legal standing. Both sides, federal law enforcement and the tech companies, need to keep pressing on this until the Supreme Court, Congress, and Senate can get off their lazy assess and make some decisions like they are paid to do.

 

Not conspiracy. I think it's action to prompt decision makers to make a damn decision.

Yeah, let's trust the rich, privileged, out of touch and old AF government appointed officials to make the right decision when it comes to modern technology, that's certainly worked out well for us so far, right?

[captain_to_fire]

4 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Yeah, let's trust the rich, privileged, out of touch and old AF government appointed officials to make the right decision when it comes to modern technology, that's certainly worked out well for us so far, right?

I'm pretty sure a lot of grumpy and old politicians are not capable of making legislations in harmony with the rapid modernization of technology. If that's the case then there would be no Anthony Weiner sexting scandals.

[captain_to_fire]

Just now, VegetableStu said:

There must be Scientists and Engineers to coach politicians for that IMO. Otherwise Pi would be 3.2 in the US, and using it would incur royalty cost (save for Indiana).

I hope so...

Unfortunately, many politicians especially would rather pander with comforting alternative facts instead of harsh, fact based scientific evidence.

[Stefan1024]

Sell weapons to everyone and then after something terrible happens rely on phone data to do the police work?!?

 

How about making effective law restricion ruels and prevention? It's a fundamental right to buy a weapon you say? Ok, then it's also a fundamental right to get shot by one of them....

 

On topic: Don't implement backdoors or hack your own product. Just give the police all the data you have access to.

[Evanair]

The guy is dead... I wouldn't have thought privacy laws extend beyond the grave. It's not a joint account, a shared residence, or legal agreement between two people.... it's their personal phone. 

 

If this person were still alive, so be it, protect privacy rights with legal process. But dead...

 

It would be a very good, and very defined line to draw legally, alive or dead is where privacy rights end.

[Ryujin2003]

5 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Yeah, let's trust the rich, privileged, out of touch and old AF government appointed officials to make the right decision when it comes to modern technology, that's certainly worked out well for us so far, right?

Wow, sarcasm much? Almost as toxic as the Tin Foil Hat club.

 

Why don't you run for a seat then???

[Ryujin2003]

4 hours ago, Tedny said:

so there is the back door 

 

1 hour ago, Stefan1024 said:

On topic: Don't implement backdoors or hack your own product. Just give the police all the data you have access to.

No one is saying there is a back door. I would assume for court, you cannot just assume Apple cannot give you info, you serve the warrant, then Apple has to respond that they don't have certain pieces of information or address. Check in the box, CYA, and if something comes out later that Apple lied, then they've falsified documents and can be held accountable for that part.

[Cookybiscuit]

12 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

No one is saying there is a back door. 

You're an idiot if you don't think there's a backdoor. 

[VFe]

It's just a power grab.

 

General rule of security; if they have physical access to the device you have no security. It's just a question of how far you want to dig, from high level OS exploit, to driver/firmware exploit, to a guy with an oscilloscope on chip leads. 

 

This is all possible, and people forget in the case of San Bernidino, a competent third party unlocked the phone with minimal effort.

 

So whenever you see these stories, they're about *power* not security. They push this false narrative to try and grab power, and sure, it would make their jobs slightly easier. But making their jobs slightly easier at the expense of everyone else is a terrible trade.

[PocketNerd]

How is it ok for them to give away iCloud data but not the internal data on the phone?

Privacy/Security people logic seems odd here..

[VFe]

1 minute ago, PocketNerd said:

How is it ok for them to give away iCloud data but not the internal data on the phone?

Privacy/Security people logic seems odd here..

 

Because Apple is in possession of the iCloud Data, they're not in possession of the data on your personal device. They have no real choice but to comply with a warrant for information in their possession(iCloud), but they don't have possession of your device, and thus are not obligated to help you get it.

[PocketNerd]

Just now, VFe said:

 

Because Apple is in possession of the iCloud Data, they're not in possession of the data on your personal device. They have no real choice but to comply with a warrant for information in their possession(iCloud), but they don't have possession of your device, and thus are not obligated to help you get it.

Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification.

[Master Disaster]

24 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Wow, sarcasm much? Almost as toxic as the Tin Foil Hat club.

 

Why don't you run for a seat then???

2 reasons, supreme court judges a generally appointed and not elected but most importantly I'm English not American.

[bcguru9384]

6 hours ago, hey_yo_ said:

What the cops could've done while the dead body is still warm is place his finger (likely the thumb) to unlock the Touch ID sensor and remove the screen time out so that it will not lock itself. From there they could already look into the shooter's contacts, texts/iMessages, call logs, emails, and camera roll. How is that tampering the evidence? Now the FBI wants Apple to unlock it for them in order to look into the iPhone. Apple contacted the FBI to unlock the iPhone within 48 hours with Touch ID but the police instead sent it to Quantico in Virginia. They don't even need to amputate the fingers.

 

isn't there a right that protects you from not self incrimination

yes its called the fifth amendment the right to keep mouth shut till you speak with your attorney

the 5th amendment is the deads favorite as it makes attorney do everything 

not like the dead can consent to any request asked of them 

apple needs to shunt this to the persons attorney and shame on the local da for not already doing this(as even if you can not afford an attorney one will be provided for you)

[kirashi]

7 hours ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

You know another time when you sign away your rights?

 

When you die.

 

Is it still an invasion of privacy if one the party no longer exists?

Actually, it is, otherwise copyright would die with the creator.

[79wjd]

43 minutes ago, bcguru9384 said:

isn't there a right that protects you from not self incrimination

yes its called the fifth amendment the right to keep mouth shut till you speak with your attorney

the 5th amendment is the deads favorite as it makes attorney do everything 

not like the dead can consent to any request asked of them 

apple needs to shunt this to the persons attorney and shame on the local da for not already doing this(as even if you can not afford an attorney one will be provided for you)

The fifth amendment doesn't apply to biometric locks; there have been numerous cases where judges decided that an individual can be forced to unlock their phone with a fingerprint scanner. 

[bobhays]

 

8 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

Biometric unlocking isn't considered a form of self incrimination. As far as I know, all cases regarding biometric locks have ended with the person being obligated to unlock the device.

I understand that past cases forced people to unlock their devices, but how is that not self-incrimination? Other than literally confessing or giving them the information they want, I feel like that's the closest thing to it.

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, bobhays said:

 

I understand that past cases forced people to unlock their devices, but how is that not self-incrimination? Other than literally confessing or giving them the information they want, I feel like that's the closest thing to it.

Yeah.....I personally feel like it should count as self incrimination and thus shouldn't be allowed under the fifth amendment, but, I'm not the judges of those cases.

[bobhays]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Yeah.....I personally feel like it should count as self incrimination and thus shouldn't be allowed under the fifth amendment, but, I'm not the judges of those cases.

Also how is this different from passwords? I know you can "forget" your password, but are they allowed to force you to unlock a device without biometric passwords? and if not, why?

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, bobhays said:

are they allowed to force you to unlock a device without biometric passwords?

No, it's "different" because you're not communicating the unlock code.

[Ryujin2003]

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

2 reasons, supreme court judges a generally appointed and not elected but most importantly I'm English not American.

I was referring to senate or Congress. But in that case... I guess most importantly,

Quote

the rich, privileged, out of touch and old AF government appointed officials to make the right decision when it comes to modern technology, that's certainly worked out well for us so far, right?

... Didn't include me since I'm not part of your "us" that your referring to.. so my apologies for the response. And interrupting your point... Carry on.

[Ryujin2003]

2 hours ago, Cookybiscuit said:

You're an idiot if you don't think there's a backdoor. 

And you're just an idiot.

[Cookybiscuit]

13 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

And you're just an idiot.

Everything is backdoored and has been for years. The PC you just posted that comment on will have a CPU with a hardware backdoor, you probably also posted it from a Windows OS which is backdoored, through which both Microsoft and the government are watching you. You sent it through a browser and ISP which don't respect your privacy. You probably did it sitting next to a backdoored "smart" TV, which you think only listens for voice commands when you speak, staring into the display below your webcam which you think is off because the light is off, with your "smart" phone in your pocket which you think isn't listening because you aren't making a call right now. Hell, maybe it's out of battery, and maybe that's enough to make you think it isn't listening.

 

The FBI already have the information they want from this guy's phone, they just need to make Apple give in to a search warrant now so they have an excuse why they have the information they have.