FBI Director Admits under Oath that iPhone Case would Set a Precedent; Wants 175 iPhones Unlocked

[Oshino Shinobu]

14 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

According to the constitution, privacy is basic right of all americans and that's what apple is using to argue with. The FBI on the other hand are bringing up terrorism and national security up and putting it all over to gain the sympathy of the public which was the initial reason why this went public in the first place

Since its democracy you can go against the government through judiciary, but the Supreme court is the last stop 

There's reports that Apple may use the first amendment to argue that writing code is akin to free speech, and the government does not have the right to order Apple's engineers to write code, just as they can't order them to say things they do not want to. There were also reports that they may use the fifth amendment, but how they'd use it is pretty vague. 

[KemoKa]

4 minutes ago, Nineshadow said:

Patriot Act?

They're not invoking the Patriot Act afaik, they're trying to get the Supreme Court to invoke the All Writs Act of 1789, which is about a thousand times more horrifying than the Patriot Act because invoking it would give the Courts and the FBI unchecked, unlimited authority to spy, harass, attack, threaten, abuse anyone they like, and however many people they like with impunity. And now we know that the FBI was lying when they said they did not want to set a precedent - we know now that the FBI is totally going to turn into the Ministry of Truth if they get their hands on a backdoor to every iPhone. And then the same thing that happened to Cisco and Juniper will happen to Apple - everyone one earth outside of the US will lose all faith in Apple products, will refuse to endorse them, and Apple will be crippled with worldwide losses in the billions.

[A/C]

Ah the US of A, land of the "free", home of the "brave". Trade your privacy in for a sense of security.

 

I side with Apple. It's obvious the goverment wants a backdoor in every phone. We all keep evrything on our phones today, pictures, position data, conversations, bank account information... everything. They want an easier access to all of that data, you don't have to be very smart to know that, they've killed for less.

 

If all they wanted was the information from that perticular phone, and ONLY from that phone, I'd have no problem with that, but, I find that hard to believe seeing what's happening over there since 9/11. *Tinfoil hat on*

 

It's easy to rationalize what the FBI is doing if you look at it from a perspective of fear, but I still refuse to give anybody in position of power a free access and insight to my life. What happens behind my closed doors is my goddamn business. I agree that when the guy did whatever he did he went outside of his private domain, and he lost the right to his privacy, and the goverment uses court-issued warrants to search peoples homes and  all the time. I've got no problem with that, but that's on a per-need-basis. This is about giving free access to anyones phone, and I just can't agree with it.

 

If they would ask Apple to unlock a phone every time someone commits a crime... well, you get the picture.

[RedRound2]

2 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

There's reports that Apple may use the first amendment to argue that writing code is akin to free speech, and the government does not have the right to order Apple's engineers to write code, just as they can't order them to say things they do not want to. There were also reports that they may use the fifth amendment, but how they'd use it is pretty vague. 

Yeah, I'm not an american so I really don't know their constitution but that what I tried to say

[Nineshadow]

Just now, KemoKa said:

They're not invoking the Patriot Act afaik, they're trying to get the Supreme Court to invoke the All Writs Act of 1789, which is about a thousand times more horrifying than the Patriot Act because invoking it would give the Courts and the FBI unchecked, unlimited authority to spy, harass, attack, threaten, abuse anyone they like, and however many people they like with impunity. And now we know that the FBI was lying when they said they did not want to set a precedent - we know now that the FBI is totally going to turn into the Ministry of Truth if they get their hands on a backdoor to every iPhone. And then the same thing that happened to Cisco and Juniper will happen to Apple - everyone one earth outside of the US will lose all faith in Apple products, will refuse to endorse them, and Apple will be crippled with worldwide losses in the billions.

Ah , I see now.

[Aytex]

I have no problem with the government on my phone, its not like i watch octopus porn or do lucid activities on my cellular device

but in the best case senerio, i'd like them out of my personal property

[Oshino Shinobu]

3 minutes ago, KemoKa said:

They're not invoking the Patriot Act afaik, they're trying to get the Supreme Court to invoke the All Writs Act of 1789, which is about a thousand times more horrifying than the Patriot Act because invoking it would give the Courts and the FBI unchecked, unlimited authority to spy, harass, attack, threaten, abuse anyone they like, and however many people they like with impunity. And now we know that the FBI was lying when they said they did not want to set a precedent - we know now that the FBI is totally going to turn into the Ministry of Truth if they get their hands on a backdoor to every iPhone. And then the same thing that happened to Cisco and Juniper will happen to Apple - everyone one earth outside of the US will lose all faith in Apple products, will refuse to endorse them, and Apple will be crippled with worldwide losses in the billions.

The fact that legislation that is over 200 years old can still be used for such a modern issue astounds me. The US (and other governments, like the UK) need a big refresh in terms of legislation to avoid outdated laws being enforced on modern issues. 

[KemoKa]

 

This outlines just how horrifying the situation is in the grands scheme of things. Because stuff like this is already happening today.

[AHaskin14]

Totally called this, stretch the rules once and others will ask for a repeat.

[suxen]

52 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

There's reports that Apple may use the first amendment to argue that writing code is akin to free speech, and the government does not have the right to order Apple's engineers to write code, just as they can't order them to say things they do not want to. There were also reports that they may use the fifth amendment, but how they'd use it is pretty vague. 

I love this, writing code is free speech.  As much as I would love this to be the case, I can't see it happening.  My degree was Software ENGINEERING.  As in code is akin to the blueprints of an office block.  If I designed an office block with a hole in the middle of it, or for the purposes of this argument - with un-openable doors, I can't see my right to "free speech" having any effect.

 

My point being - the CODE is one thing, the FINISHED PRODUCT is another.

[zMeul]

I don't know if the info was posted here, but ...

it appears that FBI had the San Bernadino case iPhone not encrypted for two days prior to this whole mess

the phone self encrypted after the idiots tried to enter the passcode 10 times in a row

 

Apple said that the phone could've been unlocked by returning it to a known WiFi - dunno exactly the procedure

 

https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-approved-hack-that-complicated-access-to-san-bernardino-shooters-iphone-data

[suxen]

43 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

The fact that legislation that is over 200 years old can still be used for such a modern issue astounds me. The US (and other governments, like the UK) need a big refresh in terms of legislation to avoid outdated laws being enforced on modern issues. 

I agree, somewhat.  However having a democratically elected (democrat :P) leader and justices in the supreme court, I do trust will lead to a fair interpretation.  Bear in mind also - there are extremely important nuances within these countries constitutions, ones which are hard to interpret other than how they are written.  These are very important to humanity and I believe constant amendments to these laws would prove more detrimental to society than productive.

[Blade of Grass]

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

Well, Apple refusing is in a waye obstruction of justice (which is very illegal). So yes, the FBI can legally demand the information, although it's also possible for Apple to refuse due to the fact that it would cause: an undue burden on apple, or some other reason/s. Yes, it can and likely will make it to the Supreme Court (at this rate).

Apple has filed an appeal, so it is in no way obstruction of justice. 

1 hour ago, Deoros said:

They can't demand it because of the right to privacy. Which applies to that phone.

That's not how it works. The court is who interprets law and the constitution, and if they say that the constitution allows it, then it does. 

1 hour ago, Deoros said:

I don't know much about it. I don't know enough to see how it would affect the case. Except to override their own right. Which I doubt considering you cant do that.

see above. 

1 hour ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

The fact that legislation that is over 200 years old can still be used for such a modern issue astounds me. The US (and other governments, like the UK) need a big refresh in terms of legislation to avoid outdated laws being enforced on modern issues. 

Keep in mind, the constitution of the United States is also older then the All Writs Act  though I would agree that it needs updating. 

[dragosudeki]

54 minutes ago, suxen said:

I love this, writing code is free speech.  As much as I would love this to be the case, I can't see it happening.  My degree was Software ENGINEERING.  As in code is akin to the blueprints of an office block.  If I designed an office block with a hole in the middle of it, or for the purposes of this argument - with un-openable doors, I can't see my right to "free speech" having any effect.

 

My point being - the CODE is one thing, the FINISHED PRODUCT is another.

Free speech applies regardless of how stupid you or your speech is. Example: Donald Trump said that he would build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it as a presidential candidate. So yes, your blueprints are also considered free speech no matter how dumb they are. Same applies to journalism (which is written works in any language), and code is the same idea (written in a language, like English/whatever, designed for communicating with machines instead of people).

[suxen]

12 minutes ago, dragosudeki said:

Free speech applies regardless of how stupid you or your speech is. Example: Donald Trump said that he would build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it as a presidential candidate. So yes, your blueprints are also considered free speech no matter how dumb they are. Same applies to journalism (which is written works in any language), and code is the same idea (written in a language, like English/whatever, designed for communicating with machines instead of people).

I get this, the CODE is free speech.  However, as with speech, if it incites violence, racism, homophobia etc - your right to free speech is no more.  

 

My point was that yes, your code is free speech.  But once your code is compiled and an application is produced, the realm of free speech is no more.

[Trik'Stari]

How was this even a question? Everything judges do sets a precedent.

 

 

[Deoros]

5 minutes ago, suxen said:

I get this, the CODE is free speech.  However, as with speech, if it incites violence, racism, homophobia etc - your right to free speech is no more.  

 

My point was that yes, your code is free speech.  But once your code is compiled and an application is produced, the realm of free speech is no more.

It can't be freedom of speech then. You should be able to say anything even if it incites violence, racism, homophobia etc. If you cant do that their is no freedom. In no way am I saying you should be racist or anything like that.

[suxen]

Just now, Deoros said:

It can't be freedom of speech then. You should be able to say anything even if it incites violence, racism, homophobia etc. If you cant do that their is no freedom. In no way am I saying you should be racist or anything like that.

I understand.  

 

No, if your words incite criminal activity, you forgo your right to free speech.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

[dragosudeki]

1 minute ago, suxen said:

I understand.  

 

No, if your words incite criminal activity, you forgo your right to free speech.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Regardless, you're still further reinforcing Apple's side still. FBI's "freedom of speech" is telling Apple to create a backdoor which can incite hacking/security breaches (which is criminal activity).

[suxen]

1 minute ago, dragosudeki said:

Regardless, you're still further reinforcing Apple's side still. FBI's "freedom of speech" is telling Apple to create a backdoor which can incite hacking/security breaches (which is criminal activity).

Haha!  I think you mean asking, but I love your vision lol.  I had not thought of that!

 

Yes, I am now firmly on the side of Apple.  Since this press release.

[Deoros]

4 minutes ago, dragosudeki said:

Regardless, you're still further reinforcing Apple's side still. FBI's "freedom of speech" is telling Apple to create a backdoor which can incite hacking/security breaches (which is criminal activity).

My mind just exploded. So they don't have freedom of speech now then? Don't want to incite criminal activity now do we .

[suxen]

3 minutes ago, Deoros said:

My mind just exploded. So they don't have freedom of speech now then? Don't want to incite criminal activity now do we .

Somebody needs to get on to Apple's law team!

[Deoros]

2 minutes ago, suxen said:

Somebody needs to get on to Apple's law team!

I would not go that far but I appreciate the comment.

[Sakkura]

The FBI deliberately locked the phone so they could attempt to force Apple to make a backdoor for all iPhones. Breaking into that single phone would have been easy, but they didn't want to go that route. They wanted to profit from terrorism, getting access to all iPhones.

[captain cactus]

Just one phone, right?

 

Nice move Federal Bureau of Incompetence. But you'll lose this one.