About the FBI's Request of Apple [Y-not]

There's quite a lot of confusion (no doubt intended) about what the government is demanding of Apple.

Here's a good round up from someone who is siding with Apple:

Put simply, the FBI wants Apple to write some code that disables the delay feature. That way they can stream passcode guesses to the device at (literally) the speed of electricity. This will clearly be much faster. But is it a good idea?
Once Apple has written this code it can be used with any iPhone. Some have proposed that the code specifically access one of the device's ID numbers. If you look at Settings/General/About you will see several unique ID numbers: a serial number, the IMEI number, the ICCID number, the MEID. Any or all of these could be used - assuming Apple knows those numbers. Remember, without knowing the passcode there's no way to access Settings/General/About. I simply don't know whether that information is included in backups to iCloud.
But it doesn't matter. Once the technology has been developed, there will be many, many demands to have other iPhones cracked. And, since the technology is mainly software, there's a good chance it will be leaked to the public. At which point hackers only need to figure out how to change those ID numbers. (Remember, this is the same U.S. government that gave away secret security information on U.S. government employees, many of whom currently or previously worked in the intelligence community.)

I tend to side with Apple, too.

The terrorists are dead. This investigation is about a (possible) collaborator, but since when has this Administration shown it is serious about stopping terror suspects even after they've been identified?

This does not appear to be a ticking time bomb scenario. Rather, it's a fishing expedition that could be readily abused.

**Hat tip @seanmdav on Twitter, by the way.**

Open thread.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 09:08 AM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 1st?

Posted by: Skip at February 20, 2016 09:12 AM (l+OuH)

2 New World Order - All Ur Data R Us to Belong.

Posted by: Anna Puma at February 20, 2016 09:12 AM (fvWBx)

3 "Open thread."

Well in that case, Fuck the GOP.

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at February 20, 2016 09:12 AM (u5gzz)

4 I would not worry if we still had rule of law in the US.

But the US has an explicitly 3rd world government that uses it's power against political opponents.

Apple is taking a principled stand I agree with.

Posted by: NaCly Dog at February 20, 2016 09:14 AM (u82oZ)

5 Rush did a pretty good explanation of this I think, but still not sure how it's national news realizing it does have national interest.

Posted by: Skip at February 20, 2016 09:14 AM (l+OuH)

6 The truth is out there
http://www.ufunk.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/selection-du-weekend-180-33.jpg

And it's disquieting.

Posted by: Anna Puma at February 20, 2016 09:14 AM (fvWBx)

7 That thing I said I won't do in your mouth?

It's just a one time accident. No chance of that ever happening again.

Posted by: GnuBreed at February 20, 2016 09:15 AM (gyKtp)

8 Somehow having control of the terrorists apartment for maybe 24 hrs isn't a problem

Posted by: Skip at February 20, 2016 09:15 AM (l+OuH)

9 I saw somewhere (yes, the ultimate in source reliability!) that the FBI has something like 82 cases where they're trying to get into iPhones. This presented itself as a case with good PR value. So camel's nose.

I have also heard (with equal reliability!) that either the FBI or the County *changed* the password on the phone and forgot what they changed it to.

There can be no doubt that the authorities have all the metadata as to whom the terrorists called and texted and when. I don't know what they think is on the phone that's worth compelling a company to create a not-currently-existing way of defeating its own security.

Also, I flat out don't trust the fuckers.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 20, 2016 09:15 AM (1xUj/)

10 Open thread, cool. Saw "The Witch" last night. Don't believe the hype. Slow burn? More like no burn. Boring as hell with muddy lighting and incomprehensible "authentic" period dialogue.

Posted by: Codec717 at February 20, 2016 09:16 AM (7y2UR)

11 The other side is they play nicer with China, but fight US. If Zuckerberg is an example, or Twitter, that rings true. If Apple is concerned the software could be leaked, it would be leaked from them.

If that is the case, just the source code could be leaked from them, and someone else will develop the hack anyway. If they don't trust their own team ... it is too late to worry about it, China/Russia probably already have the ability to hack it. (to attain whatever they couldn't get from Hillary)

http://tinyurl.com/gkpj89k

Posted by: Illiniwek at February 20, 2016 09:16 AM (eUbDe)

12 I wonder what's in this tent ?

Posted by: Joe Camel at February 20, 2016 09:17 AM (ClnSh)

13 And again metadata collection is helping to keep us safe how?

Posted by: Skip at February 20, 2016 09:18 AM (l+OuH)

14 I'm not really sure what they think they need to get off this phone.

The call logs in and out would be available from the cell provider as well as the text logs.

The more than likely got all of his Facebook history as well as his registered emails so I think this is a naked power grab.

The phone is locked and we want to get into it and we're going to force Apple to do it.

Also this is going to take time and resources to develop and implement.

If I were Apple I would do this in a very controlled way and take possession of the phone, unlock it, remove all security settings, get a dump from the phone, revert the software, hand the phone and all of the data to government and tell them to have a nice day.

Posted by: Kreplach at February 20, 2016 09:19 AM (ILoaF)

15 I'm kind of amazed this conversation is happening publicly at all. Did DOJ make their request private first but got turned down, so leaked it? Maybe apple leaked it as advertising that their phone is actually secure. Good for them.

Posted by: Rastus at February 20, 2016 09:21 AM (T7z3R)

16 IMEI, MSID are commonly known. In the provider's database and not a thing at all. Passwords are a thing lest they not be a password.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 20, 2016 09:22 AM (9ym/8)

17 There's a fairly simple way to disable the password on this one phone and make it unique. I've written enough software in my life to make that statement. It might only require the insertion of one word. Compile, link, upload to the one phone. Demand the phone not leave the Apple location. Destroy phone once information retrieved.

If this is a stunt on the part of Apple I don't think being a terrorist enabler earns them any points with a broad swath of the population.

Posted by: mega machines at February 20, 2016 09:22 AM (fbovC)

18 I always want the government to do everything possible to capture and kill terrorists, but I'm kinda siding with Y-not here...it's not like there's a ticking time bomb situation, and it's not like TFG would do anything about it anyway.

Also, did anyone here see Trump on FOX just a bit ago? He must have called Cruz a liar about 20 times in less than a minute. It's obvious he's using the same strategy he did against Yeb! (calling him "low energy" over and over again.) I've said that I would vote for Trump if Cruz didn't make it, but I'm not so sure about that anymore. I've about had it with his BS.

Posted by: IrishEi at February 20, 2016 09:22 AM (E6RIJ)

19 They've got to get the video selfies off that phone to prevent another Benghazi. Must make all the things hackable.

Posted by: steve adams at February 20, 2016 09:22 AM (0HwuL)

20 I just don't trust them with it. It was the Feds' failure that the explody bitch was in the country to begin with. Apple has already complied and given them all of the data they currently have access to. If they are so concerned about the possible third shooter, keep a close eye on the rest of the family and the wacked out neighbor.

Posted by: no good deed at February 20, 2016 09:23 AM (GgxVX)

21 Maybe they could repeatedly drizzle water on the phone, simulating the experience of drowning until the phone coughs up the information. Enhanced interrogation if you will.

Although in my limited experience (having once dropped a pager in a toilet bowl) this technique presents a high risk of killing it, rather than getting useful information.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 20, 2016 09:24 AM (NeFrd)

22 Screw the FBI in this case. This is like the IRS not knowing what an email or hard drive backup is.

Every transmission that ever emanated from that iPhone has already been captured and stored. Maybe the FBI should use that route to look for accomplices.

Posted by: Fritz at February 20, 2016 09:24 AM (BngQR)

23 20 I just don't trust them with it. It was the Feds' failure that the explody bitch was in the country to begin with.
---

Exactly.

Posted by: Y-not (@moxiemom) at February 20, 2016 09:24 AM (t5zYU)

24 I'm going dust off my sax and go on the Colbert show! That'll turn the tide!

Posted by: Bill in Chappaqua at February 20, 2016 09:24 AM (m0JA3)

25 Also, did anyone here see Trump on FOX just a bit ago?

Yes.

He was also asked about different past topics -- such as the Confederate flag controversy -- and, as he has done may times before, he says "It will be interesting to go back and see what I said about that."
This says a whole lot about him. He doesn't know how he felt about something that happened fairly recently? And he's avoids opining on it now so that he doesn't contradict something he said in the past.
If he had a true set of convictions, he'd know exactly what he thought about it at the time, because it would be exactly what he thinks about it now.
He has taken so many positions on so many topics, he can't keep them straight. He has no core values -- at least none that he is willing so share.
There is no way to know what is in his heart, or any way to trust anything he says.

Posted by: db at February 20, 2016 09:25 AM (QXiz8)

26
Apple turned over the information on the cloud long ago. The terrorist turned off cloud access from the phone a month and a half before the attacks.

Apple is now saying that the FBI themselves changed the passcode, and apparently doesnt remember what they, the FBI, changed the passcode to

The Justice department has admitted to the NYT that they are looking for ways to get around encryption. All encryption

I was previously very pro LE on this. They want to know who he was in contact with.

But then, but then

If I were the Fed and I wanted to get around ALL encryption, this is the perfect test case to do it. Terrible heinous act of terrorism. Public clamoring for the fed to do something

and now the fed is leaking that they think there is an unknown third shooter. I have no doubt they leaked this at this late date in order to make their case better. If they were looking for a third shooter they would have said so earlier and with greater urgency.

this is a test case. they picked a good one. the issue isnt only this phone. it isn't even Apple. the issue is whether the public is allowed to have fully encrypted devices.

you could argue that this is no different than the government using wire taps to listen in to phone calls in the 60s and 70s. LE would have to have reasonable cause, they would have to go to a judge, and they would have to get a warrant. there is plenty of case law on that. I think the fed will eventually win this case because of it

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 09:25 AM (zOTsN)

27 And it's disquieting.

Anna,

who knew Mulder and Scully were originally-

connected at the butt, Conjoined Twins Rhumba World Champions?

Posted by: naturalfake at February 20, 2016 09:26 AM (KUa85)

28 Surprised they can't ghost the whole thing and then brute force it. Govt is bad at tech. Thank God

Posted by: Zakn at February 20, 2016 09:27 AM (v6Osy)

29 "There is no way to know what is in his heart, or any way to trust anything he says. "

This in it's own way is the story of every politician .

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Yada, yada, yada.... at February 20, 2016 09:27 AM (WVsWD)

30 I'm not particularly comfortable, on principle, agreeing with Apple, but in this case I do. Our government has given me every reason not to trust it's competence or it's intentions.

Posted by: Weasel at February 20, 2016 09:28 AM (jyInK)

31 My general reaction is F the govt. But big tech has been as bad or worse on info security.

Posted by: Beth M at February 20, 2016 09:28 AM (kiy9d)

32 I was previously very pro LE on this. They want to know who he was in contact with.

But then, but then

---

Me, too. A lot of you know I don't consider myself a Libertarian-leaner. The old me would have reflexively sided with the FBI. But between Obama's weaponization of the government against American citizens and the MOAR GOVERNMENT tendency of much of the GOP, I'm becoming much more reluctant to support this sort of thing.

Posted by: Y-not (@moxiemom) at February 20, 2016 09:29 AM (t5zYU)

33 Posted previous thread (shortened):

...Apple responded on Friday evening saying the FBI changed the password to Farook's phone and then forgot it.... Apple could have recovered information from the iPhone had the iCloud password not been reset....
c/o Hoft, Gateway Pundit

Got this reply

mega machines: Wrong. The employer, who actually owned the phone, did the damage. The employer, by the way, was a government agency. No surprise there.

So, who'm I gonna believe? Jim Hoft or mega machines? Tough choice....

Posted by: mindful webworker - top, top men-like creatures at February 20, 2016 09:29 AM (dGKUu)

34 Although in my limited experience (having once dropped a pager in a toilet bowl) this technique presents a high risk of killing it, rather than getting useful information.

The bag of rice trick actually works. I dropped an iPhone in a toilet once and rescued it by putting it in a ziploc bag with rice for a few days.

Don't try to turn it on while it's still wet or you'll short things out permanently. If you can be patient for 2-3 days you'll probably save your phone.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 20, 2016 09:29 AM (1xUj/)

35 "There's a fairly simple way to disable the password on this one phone and make it unique. I've written enough software in my life to make that statement. It might only require the insertion of one word. Compile, link, upload to the one phone."

How does that app affect only that one phone? Number? Serial?

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 20, 2016 09:29 AM (9ym/8)

36

the government will argue it is like wire tapping phones

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 09:30 AM (zOTsN)

37 31 My general reaction is F the govt. But big tech has been as bad or worse on info security.
--

But they aren't our government. My relationship with them is voluntary.

Posted by: Y-not (@moxiemom) at February 20, 2016 09:30 AM (t5zYU)

38 "There is no way to know what is in his heart, or any way to trust anything he says. "

This in it's own way is the story of every politician .

And the main reason why #WASTF.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm kinda tired of guessing what politicians are going to do.

Besides fuck me, that is. Of that there is no question.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at February 20, 2016 09:30 AM (LUgeY)

39 The FBI has their best hacker on this problem - Lace Wigs.

Posted by: Anna Puma at February 20, 2016 09:31 AM (fvWBx)

40 Wrong. The employer, who actually owned the phone, did the damage. The employer, by the way, was a government agency. No surprise there.
--

I read that it was the terrorist's employer, a county (?) agency, that changed the password.

Posted by: Y-not (@moxiemom) at February 20, 2016 09:31 AM (t5zYU)

41 Apple is now saying that the FBI themselves changed the passcode, and apparently doesnt remember what they, the FBI, changed the passcode to...

****

Have they tried "pa55word"?

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 20, 2016 09:31 AM (NeFrd)

42 The trouble with the "Apple can do it and then hand it over to the feds" is the chain of custody issue. Someone who knows what they are doing has to maintain ownership every step of the way.

I would further remind the Horde that the government that wants this hack and promises not to tell allowed Granny Clinton's Outhouse and Server Farm, and is the reason hundreds of thousands of people got cute little letters from the OPM folks informing them their personal information was now for sale by the pound in Bulgaria.

No, I don't trust them. Of course, I don't trust Apple either

Posted by: Sabrina Chase at February 20, 2016 09:32 AM (GG9V6)

43 The story I linked to this morning said that the DOJ gave them permission to destroy the code as soon as they got into the phone.

They will just have to maintain very tight control over the code until it is destroyed.

Posted by: Vic-we have no party at February 20, 2016 09:32 AM (t2KH5)

44 Lets be specific there, not cooked sushi rice.

Posted by: Anna Puma at February 20, 2016 09:32 AM (fvWBx)

45 If he had a true set of convictions, he'd know
exactly what he thought about it at the time, because it would be
exactly what he thinks about it now.

He has taken so many positions on so many topics, he can't keep them
straight. He has no core values -- at least none that he is willing so
share.

There is no way to know what is in his heart, or any way to trust anything he says.
Posted by: db at February 20, 2016 09:25 AM (QXiz

~~~~~

Yes! I saw a bit of that part too, but admittedly, I changed the channel before he finished. Just couldn't take anymore. And I was pissed because the anchors just sat there smiling while he went on slandering ad nauseam.

Posted by: IrishEi at February 20, 2016 09:32 AM (E6RIJ)

46 17 Posted by: mega machines at February 20, 2016 09:22 AM (fbovC)

If it is so simple, why hasn't some group of hackers already done it? They luv hacking things like phones and posting their results or technique.

The new security feature has been out for a while, through at least two OS version updates.

Posted by: GnuBreed at February 20, 2016 09:32 AM (gyKtp)

47 This in it's own way is the story of every politician .

True. But some appear to be sincere, and you can't know for sure if they are genuine or not. In this case, Trump has removed any doubt.

Posted by: db at February 20, 2016 09:32 AM (QXiz8)

48 Frankly, the feds have burned up any goodwill I may have had for them. I remember when they switched how they did their security, and it was exactly because of the overreaching arm of bloated alphabet agencies.

For as insufferable as Cook is, they're the only ones that have been doing anything to help us safeguard our right to be secure in our papers.

Microsoft? Remember when they trolled through everyone's emails to find out who leaked a piece of their software (IIRC)? Google, well, c'mon, it's Google.

So, this is a 100 criminals go free than see one innocent punished moment for me.

Posted by: Chupacabra at February 20, 2016 09:33 AM (k1gv+)

49 "the government will argue it is like wire tapping phones"

Court order? Reasonable cause?

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 20, 2016 09:34 AM (9ym/8)

50 Chuoacabra, yes it is quite a big Mather this case.

Posted by: Anna Puma at February 20, 2016 09:34 AM (fvWBx)

51 "he story I linked to this morning said that the DOJ gave them permission to destroy the code as soon as they got into the phone."

That's mighty white of them.

I. Don't. Trust. Them.

Posted by: Y-not (@moxiemom) at February 20, 2016 09:34 AM (t5zYU)

52 42 Bingo.

Posted by: Weasel at February 20, 2016 09:34 AM (jyInK)

53 could do rice flour

then a quick tempura fry

Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at February 20, 2016 09:34 AM (Cq0oW)

54
Ithink the government will win this case. And its a clear shot across the bow to all service providers that they better have back doors. The fed is putting the tech world on notice they need to be ready to provide access

but after weaponizing the IRS I have ZERO doubt it will be abused. and the tech companies will eventually cooperate. See what is happening in gaming, on Facebook, on Twitter

how much intrusion is the ordinary man to endure. How regulated will his speech be

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 09:34 AM (zOTsN)

55
and now the fed is leaking that they think there is an unknown third shooter. I have no doubt they leaked this at this late date in order to make their case better. If they were looking for a third shooter they would have said so earlier and with greater urgency.

This is the same LEO that searched the apartment for 12 hours and then left it wide open to reporters.

Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at February 20, 2016 09:34 AM (oVJmc)

56 They that are willing to sacrifice a "little" privacy for a little "security" controlled by a faceless unaccountable armed bureaucracy should choose carefully.

Posted by: Ben F Hrothgar at February 20, 2016 09:34 AM (wYnyS)

57 Sidebar ransomware story. I had to clean up another one of these for a friend running Win7 this week. Microsoft Security Essentials did not detect or stop it.

Some adults (and all kids) are so gullible that they click on every shiny thing they see. I don't know how to teach them to be more skeptical. There's no point in letting kids use Windows PCs at all anymore; they _always_ get themselves infected. The bad guys are winning.

Recommended security blog: Krebs on Security.

Posted by: gp at February 20, 2016 09:35 AM (+Jpqc)

58 Unlocking every iPhone everywhere, with SW upgrades, is bullshit.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 20, 2016 09:36 AM (9ym/8)

59 Me, too. A lot of you know I don't consider myself a Libertarian-leaner. The old me would have reflexively sided with the FBI. But between Obama's weaponization of the government against American citizens and the MOAR GOVERNMENT tendency of much of the GOP, I'm becoming much more reluctant to support this sort of thing.

Posted by: Y-not (@moxiemom) at February 20, 2016 09:29 AM (t5zYU)

Same here.

Weaponized gov't courtesy of the Dims, plus the ass-up, rear-end-Criscoed, recumbent posture of the GOP on these matters-

pretty well indicates the average citizen has no champion to prevent Hijinks of the Fascist Kind from occurring, so-

Apple gets my vote on this.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 20, 2016 09:36 AM (KUa85)

60 Hrothgar, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Posted by: Anna Puma at February 20, 2016 09:36 AM (fvWBx)

61 Y-not. Yes. At least I know Facebook and Twitter and everyone else is selling any info I give them.

Posted by: Beth M at February 20, 2016 09:36 AM (kiy9d)

62 Our government is more serious about hacking a dead guy's cell phone than it's been about the national security catastrophe in Hillary's home brew server.

Posted by: Y-not (@moxiemom) at February 20, 2016 09:37 AM (t5zYU)

63 And the shitty fact is this whole thing could have been avoided if we quit letting unvetted people from terrorist countries into the US.

Posted by: Vic-we have no party at February 20, 2016 09:37 AM (t2KH5)

64 Have they tried "pa55word"?

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 20, 2016 09:31 AM (NeFrd)

Pssst, it's fbi123!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 20, 2016 09:37 AM (wYnyS)

65 I side with Apple. How many examples are needed that the government sees no position that is too invasive? Just because the government isn't at your line in the sand is only because the government hasn't made it there yet.

Posted by: dogfish at February 20, 2016 09:37 AM (0O2Lr)

66 It's interesting because if any company with paper records were to have a system that would not allow them to be retrieved based on a court order from a judge, it would be illegal.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 09:38 AM (JIElb)

67 Hrothgar, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Posted by: Anna Puma at February 20, 2016 09:36 AM (fvWBx)

It's not like I didn't tell you people you had ONE job!

Posted by: B Franklin, Printer and Man About Town at February 20, 2016 09:38 AM (wYnyS)

68 Y-Not

Has anyone served any time yet or made to forfeit their pensions for allowing the PRC unfettered access to the OPM data?

No it has not happened. So to allow the Fed to be able to crack any iPhone is akin to giving Dennis the Menace a 50 megaton nuke to use on Mr. Wilson.

Posted by: Anna Puma at February 20, 2016 09:39 AM (fvWBx)

69 apple

Posted by: phoenixgirl, i was born a rebel at February 20, 2016 09:39 AM (0O7c5)

70 10 Open thread, cool. Saw "The Witch" last night. Don't believe the hype. Slow burn? More like no burn. Boring as hell with muddy lighting and incomprehensible "authentic" period dialogue.
Posted by: Codec717 at February 20, 2016 09:16 AM (7y2UR)

Wow... that got a four star review in the paper. I really wanted to see that.

Posted by: Gem at February 20, 2016 09:39 AM (c+gwp)

71 "Just because the government isn't at your line in the sand is only because the government hasn't made it there yet." I've got no problem whatsoever with the feds penetrating jihadi murderers' communications.

Posted by: gp at February 20, 2016 09:40 AM (+Jpqc)

72 66 It's interesting because if any company with paper records were to have a system that would not allow them to be retrieved based on a court order from a judge, it would be illegal.
---

Apple is selling me a way to communicate. It does not own my communications. I give it (and apps I use) permission to use certain things for their own specific commercial purposes. I don't say "well, if I use a cell phone, everything I do on it is the business of the government."

Posted by: Y-not (@moxiemom) at February 20, 2016 09:41 AM (t5zYU)

73 The trouble with the "Apple can do it and then hand it over to the feds" is the chain of custody issue. Someone who knows what they are doing has to maintain ownership every step of the way.

I would further remind the Horde that the government that wants this hack and promises not to tell allowed Granny Clinton's Outhouse and Server Farm, and is the reason hundreds of thousands of people got cute little letters from the OPM folks informing them their personal information was now for sale by the pound in Bulgaria.

No, I don't trust them. Of course, I don't trust Apple either
Posted by: Sabrina Chase

EXACTLY they woud need one of their techs to observe the process to preserve the chain of custody

and then the fed knows exactly how to do it

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 09:41 AM (zOTsN)

74 Karl Denninger has written extensively about this:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231125

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231126

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231127

Read them all, and you'll have a better idea what's going on than anyone else.

A lot of this is over my head, but Denninger is a smart guy who knows what he's talking about here. Look around his website. He wrote that forum software himself.

Posted by: rickl at February 20, 2016 09:41 AM (sdi6R)

75 68
Y-Not

Has anyone served any time yet or made to forfeit their pensions for allowing the PRC unfettered access to the OPM data?

No
it has not happened. So to allow the Fed to be able to crack any iPhone
is akin to giving Dennis the Menace a 50 megaton nuke to use on Mr.
Wilson.

Posted by: Anna Puma at February 20, 2016 09:39 AM (fvWBx)

hahahahaha; nearly everyone in this corrupt administration has committed multiple felonies and not a damn one of them has even been charged. Also, recall the IRS head who committed felonies was charge with criminal contempt by the House, Federal law requires them to charge that person and empanel a grand jury in the DC circuit. Obama said no he would not do it. That was another violation of law.

And you why he does it? Because impeachment is off the table and so is killing his budget.

Posted by: Vic-we have no party at February 20, 2016 09:42 AM (t2KH5)

76 "It's interesting because if any company with paper records were to have a system that would not allow them to be retrieved based on a court order from a judge, it would be illegal."

There are "paper records" but the issue is what the government can demand. It is a private company operating legally under the law. They jump up and say "do something outside and above the law" the company should shut up.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 20, 2016 09:43 AM (9ym/8)

77
This investigation is about a (possible) collaborator, but since when has this Administration shown it is serious about stopping terror suspects even after they've been identified?

As they say, ^this^

Just about *all* terrorists were known wolves, and the government always chose to sit with its thumbs up its ass, until there were actual casualties, as with the Tsarnaevs.

This is just another excuse to deprive ordinary citizens of their privacy. It will result in govt abuse with 0 benefits for law abiding citizens. Just like most other government programs.

Posted by: angela urkel at February 20, 2016 09:43 AM (QV9Vt)

78 If it is so simple, why hasn't some group of hackers already done it? They luv hacking things like phones and posting their results or technique.The new security feature has been out for a while, through at least two OS version updates.Posted by: GnuBreed

Have you ever looked at machine code? It bears no resemblance to anything intelligible.

Apple creates the software using most likely a 'high level' language, which means it is very easy to read and understand. It is then compiled into machine code, which is virtually impossible to understand.

Some people are able to poke around in that stuff, but it's usually magical thinking to assume you can change a few bits around of that stuff and exact any change you would want. Trial and error, could take a century to finally figure it out.

Posted by: mega machines at February 20, 2016 09:43 AM (fbovC)

79 He has taken so many positions on so many topics, he can't keep them straight.

That's why I made such a big deal about his "Common Core" slipup in which he said in a speech that "We're going to have Common Core."

Trumphumpers called it a slipup, but the origins are much simpler. He doesn't care about Common Core, he probably doesn't know what it is. He can't remember what his positions are. He's just lying so that he can close the deal with gullible dummies and then he'll leave everybody bankrupt.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 09:44 AM (JIElb)

80 "Once Apple has written this code it can be used with any iPhone." Well yeah, if Apple is careless enough to let the software out of its sandbox. If the argument is "we can't write this code because it will inevitably escape our control" then they might as well get out of the software business.

Posted by: gp at February 20, 2016 09:44 AM (+Jpqc)

81 Bandersnatch: ...dropped an iPhone in a toilet once and rescued it by putting it in a ziploc bag with rice for a few days.

Anna Puma: Lets be specific there, not cooked sushi rice.

And to be further clear, do not then cook and consume the toilet-water-moistened rice.

Unless you are an airline? (See ONT).

Posted by: mindful webworker - eecch at February 20, 2016 09:44 AM (dGKUu)

82 Open thread, cool. Saw "The Witch" last night. Don't believe the hype. Slow burn? More like no burn. Boring as hell with muddy lighting and incomprehensible "authentic" period dialogue.
Posted by: Codec717 at February 20, 2016 09:16 AM (7y2UR)

Wow... that got a four star review in the paper. I really wanted to see that.

Posted by: Gem at February 20, 2016 09:39 AM (c+gwp)

Yeah, I couldn't quite tell about that one.

I like having a really good "scary" time at the movies, which haven't had for a long while.

But, the trailers looked a bit artsy-fartsy and a couple of the reviews mentioned this movie "takes on the Patriarchy!!!!1111!!!!".

Sooooooo, I was wondering if the movie was truly good or simply catered to low-IQ, SJW assumptions.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 20, 2016 09:45 AM (KUa85)

83 They jump up and say "do something outside and above the law" the company should shut up.

But what's illegal about a judge's order?

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 09:45 AM (JIElb)

84 Thunder B is all over this.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 20, 2016 09:45 AM (9ym/8)

85 Open threadiness:

The "owner" of my softball team has invested in a local distillery, which is hosting a cornhole tournament for charity.

It's going to be catered by someone with a good catering reputation, and did I mention it's at a distillery?

So the ticket prices are way too high, even for a charity event. Especially because in the first iteration it was a cash bar (at the distillery). So we all said belay that.

Then Dave, that's his name, Dave, said oh the hell with all a y'all, and bought a bunch of tickets. And now it's open bar. So with the changed circumstances I and a couple of my softball team besties said yes of course we'll support your charity event.

So starting at noon today I shall be playing cornhole at a distillery with catering. For charity. For free. Because I am a good person.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 20, 2016 09:45 AM (1xUj/)

86 First, yes, I do not not trust today's partisan, weaponized federal authorities.

Second, I don't trust today's partisan, progressive tech companies who have already shown a willingness to work w/the feds and WH when it assists "their" side, such as shutting down gun-related transactions, fundraisers for Christian bakers, and stifling free speech.

Third, tech and telecom companies have already been cooperating with authorities, via the subpoenas, to give them subscriber data, both on target individuals and in bulk (thanks to Snowden's leak). All of your calls (records and audio), texts, location meta data is already available to them via subpoena, in real-time if requested.

Fourth, the US has more stringent wiretapping and privacy rights than most countries, and if you think today's tech and telecom companies *aren't* already complying with whatever these governments demand in exchange for doing business in their country you are naive. I worked for a intn'l telco that (almost 20 yrs ago) had to give foreign govts full monitoring capabilities on demand to several countries in order to to business there. I wouldn't be so sure Apple *isn't* already doing this in some form or fashion for China, etc.

So, I think this is a combination of Apple grandstanding in the wake of customer fears over the Snowden leaks, using a case that fits their progressive activist worldview (we're not Islamaphobic!!), AND a case of federal government overreach.

Which I guess puts me on team 'I don't trust any of you b@stards'.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 20, 2016 09:46 AM (NOIQH)

87 I've got no problem whatsoever with the feds penetrating jihadi murderers' communications.
Posted by: gp

You do realize that to read jihadi murderer's communications, they will read yours to rule you out? Then what happens when they realize you are a 'winger, or smoker, or a Christian, or have more money than the government thinks you are entitiled to, or a pick your favorite wrong think?

Posted by: dogfish at February 20, 2016 09:46 AM (0O2Lr)

88 I don't say "well, if I use a cell phone, everything I do on it is the business of the government."

Posted by: Y-not (@moxiemom) at February 20, 2016 09:41 AM (t5zYU)

It's people like you that are delaying the full implementation of utopia, comrade citizen!

Posted by: V. I. Hrothgar at February 20, 2016 09:46 AM (wYnyS)

89 81
Bandersnatch: ...dropped an iPhone in a toilet once and rescued it by putting it in a ziploc bag with rice for a few days.

Anna Puma: Lets be specific there, not cooked sushi rice.

And to be further clear, do not then cook and consume the toilet-water-moistened rice.

Unless you are an airline? (See ONT).

Posted by: mindful webworker - eecch at February 20, 2016 09:44 AM (dGKUu)

I tried that with a Sony MP3 player I spilled beer on. It did not work.

Posted by: Vic-we have no party at February 20, 2016 09:46 AM (t2KH5)

90 "He has taken so many positions on so many topics, he can't keep them straight." Yes, that's the problem. I like what he says today about immigration, but what will he say tomorrow? Can't trust the guy.

Worst. Election. Ever.

Posted by: gp at February 20, 2016 09:46 AM (+Jpqc)

91
I think Apple loses the privacy arguments. But I dont think the Fed can require Apple to write code, let alone without compensation

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 09:47 AM (zOTsN)

92 I view this whole bruhaha as another Fast-n-Furious attempt to gin up a result they want, which in this case is for things to go back to where they can force companies to unlock any phone they sell. There have been many mentions in the press about how the DOJ/FBI is very unhappy with the new security feature, prior to this demand.

FnF wasn't an attempt to arm the cartels; it was an attempt to show the necessity of gun control sales restrictions within the US.

Posted by: GnuBreed at February 20, 2016 09:47 AM (gyKtp)

93 "But what's illegal about a judge's order?"

Judges are wrong all the time. Says other Judges.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 20, 2016 09:47 AM (9ym/8)

94 This is the sort of crap that has ultimately moved me to anti-death penalty - I just don't trust the government on any level with much power. Power will always be abused. The less power to abuse, the better.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 20, 2016 09:48 AM (Wckf4)

95 Can't trust the guy.

Show me one you can.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Yada, yada, yada.... at February 20, 2016 09:48 AM (WVsWD)

96 To hell with Tim Cook. I can't stand that fag or Apple and their pious "we be saving the earth" crap but please don't look at our Chinee slave laborers who should just be happy in their work like General Yamashita used to say.

And fuck the FBI for not dragging Hildabeast thru the streets of Mordor in chains like the Romans used to do to their captives.

It's a 2 for.....

Hop

Posted by: Hairyback Guy at February 20, 2016 09:48 AM (ej1L0)

97 But what's illegal about a judge's order?

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 09:45 AM (JIElb)

So all judges only issue Constitutional orders?

Posted by: V. I. Hrothgar at February 20, 2016 09:51 AM (wYnyS)

98 "You do realize that to read jihadi murderer's communications, they will read yours to rule you out?" If I turn Muslim and murder a few dozen innocent victims, that might give them a clue to go on.

Until then, there is nothing about me that the govt gives a sh!t about. They already know everything about me, and they've got way more important stuff to worry about. To think that the govt has time or resources to target people like me would be narcissistic paranoid vanity.

Posted by: gp at February 20, 2016 09:51 AM (+Jpqc)

99 The "owner" of my softball team has invested in a local distillery, which is hosting a cornhole tournament for charity.

It's going to be catered by someone with a good catering reputation, and did I mention it's at a distillery?

So the ticket prices are way too high, even for a charity event. Especially because in the first iteration it was a cash bar (at the distillery). So we all said belay that.

Then Dave, that's his name, Dave, said oh the hell with all a y'all, and bought a bunch of tickets. And now it's open bar. So with the changed circumstances I and a couple of my softball team besties said yes of course we'll support your charity event.

So starting at noon today I shall be playing cornhole at a distillery with catering. For charity. For free. Because I am a good person.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 20, 2016 09:45 AM (1xUj/)

Strangely enough, Apple's Tim Cook is also holding a Cornhole Tournament this weekend.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 20, 2016 09:51 AM (KUa85)

100 The FBI is completely in the wrong, for it is demanding Apple do work for the Federal government that it does not wish to do. Since work has to be done, an original effort made, there is no current existing intellectual property, therefore the government cannot conduct eminent domain proceedings. This means the demand of work and resources to do something, upon pain of being found in contempt of court, is akin to slavery, in violation of the 14th, a violation of the right of the people to be free to enter or not enter into a contract with the Federal Government, in violation of the Ninth (it can be easily shown that such affairs predated he Constitution), and since Apple has violated no law in not making the feature before hand, so to punish them for refusing to do so is effectively an ex-post-facto law, in violation of the charter (except it is not a law, it is a ruling, so there is an Article 2 violation of the charter as well).

Essentially, this ruling says the time of employees and resources of a company are the government's to condemn and convert to public use at will, and I think it is time to put a stop to this nonsense, for to so stretch is to make restrictions on government taking things pointless. There has got to be a distinction between taking my property for public use, and making myself work on something for you. And this matters to me, for if this is a growing trend it will confirm that the United States really is a new fascist land that needs to be fled.

Posted by: Horatius at February 20, 2016 09:51 AM (J3UIw)

101 " Can't trust the guy.

Show me one you can."

Ditto.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 20, 2016 09:51 AM (9ym/8)

102 You do realize that to read jihadi murderer's communications, they will read yours to rule you out? Then what happens when they realize you are a 'winger, or smoker, or a Christian, or have more money than the government thinks you are entitiled to, or a pick your favorite wrong think?

And if he has a stack of letters, he'll have some from you, too. Electronic communication should be treated the same as nonelectronic.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 09:52 AM (JIElb)

103 Me: ...And to be further clear, do not then cook and consume the toilet-water-moistened rice.

Vic: I tried that with a Sony MP3 player I spilled beer on. It did not work.

You tried to cook and consume beer-moistened rice?

Posted by: mindful webworker - hardy har har boys at February 20, 2016 09:52 AM (dGKUu)

104 >>Lets be specific there, not cooked sushi rice.

Well, it will turn back on, but it will be in Japanese and all the people in your photos will be Anime-ed.

So...pros and cons, ya know.

Posted by: Mama AJ at February 20, 2016 09:52 AM (nXeSu)

105 Judges are wrong all the time. Says other Judges.

So all judges only issue Constitutional orders?

This is Trump-level stupid here. A subpoena is, by definition, legal.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 09:53 AM (JIElb)

106 65
Just because the government isn't at your line in the sand is only because the government hasn't made it there yet.
Posted by: dogfish at February 20, 2016 09:37 AM (0O2Lr)

Bingo.

There is a certain type of law 'n order conservative who reflexively sides with Authoriteh in these situations. I won't name names, but I've seen some of them comment here. They enthusiastically supported the War on Drugs, and thought no-knock raids and civil asset forfeiture were just peachy keen. Well, those genies are certainly out of the bottle now, aren't they?

Remember how the Patriot Act was rammed through Congress after 9/11? It was one of those thousand page bills that had to be passed right fucking now because OMG terrorism! The Federal Uniparty is running the same damn scam here. What? You're against it? Are you siding with the terrorists?

Since terrorists use secure cell phones, then none of us can have secure cell phones.

Since mass murders use guns, then none of us can have guns.

That is exactly what this is about.

Posted by: rickl at February 20, 2016 09:53 AM (sdi6R)

107 The FBI is completely in the wrong, for it is demanding Apple do work for the Federal government that it does not wish to do. Since work has to be done, an original effort made, there is no current existing intellectual property, therefore the government cannot conduct eminent domain proceedings. This means the demand of work and resources to do something, upon pain of being found in contempt of court, is akin to slavery, in violation of the 14th, a violation of the right of the people to be free to enter or not enter into a contract with the Federal Government, in violation of the Ninth (it can be easily shown that such affairs predated he Constitution), and since Apple has violated no law in not making the feature before hand, so to punish them for refusing to do so is effectively an ex-post-facto law, in violation of the charter (except it is not a law, it is a ruling, so there is an Article 2 violation of the charter as well).

Essentially, this ruling says the time of employees and resources of a company are the government's to condemn and convert to public use at will, and I think it is time to put a stop to this nonsense, for to so stretch is to make restrictions on government taking things pointless. There has got to be a distinction between taking my property for public use, and making myself work on something for you. And this matters to me, for if this is a growing trend it will confirm that the United States really is a new fascist land that needs to be fled.
Posted by: Horatius a

this is actually Apples best argument. The privacy argument is a loser, believe it or not

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 09:54 AM (zOTsN)

108 Which I guess puts me on team 'I don't trust any of you b@stards'.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 20, 2016 09:46 AM (NOIQH)

And Lizzy summarizes life in the US of A in one cogent sentence!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 20, 2016 09:54 AM (wYnyS)

109 Didn't Firefox have a big battle maybe a decade ago about its 256 encryption being too strong for the Chinese to even allow in their country?

Know them by their stripes and all that.

Posted by: Chupacabra at February 20, 2016 09:54 AM (k1gv+)

110 >>I tried that with a Sony MP3 player I spilled beer on. It did not work.

Things other than water can damage stuff.

Back in the day, when people would call me and say they spilled coffee on their keyboard, the first question would be "black or with cream or sugar?"

Just coffee would dry out and be fine...

Posted by: Mama AJ at February 20, 2016 09:55 AM (nXeSu)

111 "nd is the reason hundreds of thousands of people got cute little letters from the OPM folks informing them their personal information was now for sale by the pound in Bulgaria. "

Is this where I get to mention that we got tapped for almost $10,000.00 this month by a hacker using data only available through the breach that OPM warned me about in the letter we received from them several months ago?

I should have just put all that info on Hillary's bathroom server.

At least that was secure enough that it was never hacked...

Right?

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at February 20, 2016 09:55 AM (ptqRm)

112 The FBI is completely in the wrong, for it is demanding Apple do work for the Federal government that it does not wish to do.

It's a Constitutionally legal court order and Apple has to provide the data. How it does so is immaterial.

Hell, IRS audits require people and companies to put in time they would rather not expend.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 09:55 AM (JIElb)

113 In keeping with the theme of this thread, I present another Tubes Tune:

Sushi Girl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_QGolK1oJQ

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at February 20, 2016 09:55 AM (LUgeY)

114 Show me one you can.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Yada, yada, yada.... at February 20, 2016 09:48 AM

This is where you run into the Choom Boy Syndrome, and it's not confined to Democrats.

When people choose their candidate, all his/her faults, errors, shaky thinking and misdirected energy become unimportant. "I don't care that Candidate X is/said/did, because I'm for him!" becomes their mantra.

Conversely, find the same failings in Hated Candidate Y, and they're all over them like white on rice.

It becomes a game of "My Hero!!11!!!" versus "He's a crapweasel!" Nothing anyone can say, truthful as it may be, changes the fanbois' minds.

And that's where we are in this election.

Posted by: MrScribbler at February 20, 2016 09:56 AM (D+xyy)

115 And if he has a stack of letters, he'll have some from you, too. Electronic communication should be treated the same as nonelectronic.

Posted by: AmishDude

thats why the privacy argument is a loser

this is a better unawful taking by the government case

feels wrong

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 09:56 AM (zOTsN)

116 "A subpoena is, by definition, legal. "

I'll get that info off to the supporters of Scott Walker who were targeted because they were supporters of Scott Walker right away.

If they still have enough money left to have a place to live.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Yada, yada, yada.... at February 20, 2016 09:56 AM (WVsWD)

117 FBI: We have people from the Genius Bar working on this right now.
Indiana: Who?
FBI: GENIUS. BAR.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 20, 2016 09:56 AM (VdICR)

118 Horatius at February 20, 2016 09:51 AM (J3UIw)

You should read this from Pattterico. He handles the government can't force a company to expend labor argument pretty thoroughly. Short answer, it happens all the time.

http://tinyurl.com/jbc4ma7

Everyone realizes this phone was owned be the county which means there is no right to privacy issue, right?

Posted by: JackStraw at February 20, 2016 09:56 AM (/tuJf)

119 As I said the other night, this is about changing how all of this works.

Your data is not your data, it's "our" collective security, which trumps your right to privacy.

We've all seen the future. It's been written in books and put in movies for decades now. It's not a question of if, it's not even a question of when, because when is already here. It's a question of how much, and what the consequences are when YOU are found to be standing in the government's way of protecting the chidren from the big bad scary.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 20, 2016 09:57 AM (TOk1P)

120 I saw some knucklehead DOJ guy on the TV saying there is nothing in the United States that can be "hidden" from a signed Search Warrant, but I remember reading about a case where SCOTUS or some Federal Court ruled that a person/entity can't be compelled to give law enforcement a passcode to any device. I know I am siding with Apple on this one. If the Fed gets it's way, it will be abused sooner rather than later.

Posted by: The Great White Scotsman at February 20, 2016 09:57 AM (iONHu)

121 Until then, there is nothing about me that the govt gives a sh!t about. They already know everything about me, and they've got way more important stuff to worry about. To think that the govt has time or resources to target people like me would be narcissistic paranoid vanity.
Posted by: gp

Ever heard the one about the IRS and conservative groups? Narcissistic paranoid vanity. Gotcha.

Posted by: dogfish at February 20, 2016 09:58 AM (0O2Lr)

122 the privacy issue in this case is a loser.

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 09:58 AM (zOTsN)

123 Based on what we presently know, I, too, side with Apple. There has been a lot written about this but still there are too many too eager to jump in and point fingers without having read any of it.

Everybody loves them some liberty until the government says they shouldn't.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 09:58 AM (8PbKi)

124 This is Trump-level stupid here. A subpoena is, by definition, legal.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 09:53 AM (JIElb)

A subpoena that requires you to do something you have never done before is just a tax!

Posted by: J Roberts Hrothgar at February 20, 2016 09:59 AM (wYnyS)

125 Backwards Boy or you could link to the Mark Hamill/Noah Hathaway movie called Sushi Girl.
https://youtu.be/kNjVuLkd0Go

Or perhaps even a comic
http://www.amazon.com/Sushi-Girl-Tavicat/dp/1892213257

Posted by: Anna Puma at February 20, 2016 09:59 AM (fvWBx)

126 If that is the case, just the source code could be leaked from them, and someone else will develop the hack anyway. If they don't trust their own team ... it is too late to worry about it, China/Russia probably already have the ability to hack it. (to attain whatever they couldn't get from Hillary)

****

They don't have to leak it. Every hacker in the world will target Apple tech in the hopes of finding the new code.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:00 AM (8PbKi)

127 ***"This is Trump-level stupid here. A subpoena is, by definition, legal."***

No, "stupid" would be the inability to differentiate between wrong and legal, as you have quite obviously done here.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 20, 2016 10:00 AM (Wckf4)

128 I'll get that info off to the supporters of Scott Walker who were targeted because they were supporters of Scott Walker right away.

If they still have enough money left to have a place to live.
Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Yada, yada, yada.... at February 20, 2016 09:56 AM (WVsWD)

Then you have a problem with those prosecutors and judges. I am not one to shy away from executions of lawyers, believe me.

But a legal system cannot operate if a judge says "turn it over" and people say "nah, I'll wait 3 years for it to be appealed".

Moreover, Apple isn't really contesting the merits of this case, they are saying they can *never* turn over data, even when all parties agree it's perfectly legal to do so.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:00 AM (JIElb)

129 people wonder why we are in the situation we are in? because we don't care enough about our freedom to make a stand for it.......and because you don't like the flawed person or flawed company that is making the stand ....you are willing to toss your freedom aside because apple?

Posted by: phoenixgirl, i was born a rebel at February 20, 2016 10:00 AM (0O7c5)

130 Im saying the privacy issue is a loser because of existing law on wire taps

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:00 AM (zOTsN)

131 No, "stupid" would be the inability to differentiate between wrong and legal, as you have quite obviously done here.

We have a legal system. When you become God, you get to decide what's wrong.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:01 AM (JIElb)

132 There has got to be a distinction between taking my property for public use, and making myself work on something for you. And this matters to me, for if this is a growing trend it will confirm that the United States really is a new fascist land that needs to be fled.
Posted by: Horatius a

this is actually Apples best argument. The privacy argument is a loser, believe it or not

Yes. The government is not demanding that Apple turn over an existing work product. They are demanding that Apple create a new work product which defeats one of their prime business innovations.

And with this I shall segue to Trump Is An Idiot. Yesterday he said "Apple should just give them the password. They should just turn over the number and let the government see what's in the phone."

Because he can't be bothered to learn any of the things. Whatever flashes in his brainpan is truth as of that instant, whether or not it also is tomorrow.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 20, 2016 10:01 AM (1xUj/)

133 Everyone realizes this phone was owned be the county which means there is no right to privacy issue, right?

Thanks.

So we're done here.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:02 AM (JIElb)

134 it's a fishing expedition that could be readily abused.

Like Fredo

Posted by: wooga at February 20, 2016 10:03 AM (n4Ogf)

135 "We have a legal system. When you become God, you get to decide what's wrong."

We haven't had a legal system for a long time. What we have is a system of legalities used by people for their own ends.

You seem not to understand this.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Yada, yada, yada.... at February 20, 2016 10:03 AM (WVsWD)

136 The story I linked to this morning said that the DOJ gave them permission to destroy the code as soon as they got into the phone.

They will just have to maintain very tight control over the code until it is destroyed.

****

1. "Permission"?
2. Bullshit. They will be asked to use that code over and over and over upon request.
3. Yes. Just the knowledge that it exists in any form will invite hackers everywhere to beat the giant.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:03 AM (8PbKi)

137 I'd be more empathetic with Apples case if they didn't aleays roll over to the Chinese communists on these same issues.

Posted by: TexasJew at February 20, 2016 10:04 AM (6BP4Y)

138 because of wiretaps, the SCOTUS has already ruled several years ago that their is no right to privacy in a cell phone as they used to be too easy to listen in on

that was before encryption and smart phones. this is not about who he called. they should have that already. no doubt Facebook and Twitter and Google are cooperating like crazy with the Fed

this is about a backdoor, about the darknet, about whether the public should have encrypted devices

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:04 AM (zOTsN)

139 I'm surprised Apple didn't agree to do this already.
Maybe Tim Cook is afraid they'll hack his iPhone and discover his stash of porn vidoes shot in Harry Reid's basement?

Posted by: angela urkel at February 20, 2016 10:04 AM (QV9Vt)

140 I'm of two sides on this.

On the one hand, a valid warrant is in place the government is merely trying to carry out that warrant.
Also even if apple creates this software it still requires the phone to be in the physical possession of the person trying to do the hacking.

OTOH and I understand the privacy issues.
The idea of an "uncrackable system" is a myth though. Sure something may be uncrackable now, but not forever. The key is maintain physical possession of the information.

That being said the fact that the author of this article doesn't know that cell carriers need the IMEI or that serial numbers are usually kept by the provider for warranty info, makes me wonder about his knowledge.

Posted by: tsrlbke PhD(c), rogue bioethicist at February 20, 2016 10:04 AM (tM4uk)

141 >>It's a question of how much, and what the consequences are when YOU are
found to be standing in the government's way of protecting the chidren
from the big bad scary.

Yup.

Richard Fernandez wrote an excellent column about the *real* risk in the world as we know it (post Snowden leak revealing NSA bulk data mining). Hint: it's not about you, in particular, hiding or being found, it's about the government identifying groups that influence and taking out their leaders (yeah, Breitbart and the IRS shenanigans impact on the 2012 election jumps to mind).

Worth a read if you haven't already:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/zwdhcl4

Posted by: Lizzy at February 20, 2016 10:04 AM (NOIQH)

142 We haven't had a legal system for a long time. What we have is a system of legalities used by people for their own ends.

Then you don't have Constitutional protections either.

You want anarchy, you get both ends.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:04 AM (JIElb)

143 So now that we have covered everything about the iPhone case, I see that some students are having reality issues.

http://www.browndailyherald.com/?p=2819945

And these people will become our future leaders?

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at February 20, 2016 10:05 AM (ptqRm)

144 They don't have to leak it. Every hacker in the world will target Apple tech in the hopes of finding the new code.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:00 AM (8PbKi)

I, for one, am glad Apple doesn't hire any H1B tech people with family or government ties to foreign entities!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 20, 2016 10:05 AM (wYnyS)

145 >>>>Everyone realizes this phone was owned be the county which means there is no right to privacy issue, right?

Thanks.

So we're done here.
.
.
.
.So why are the Feds bothering Apple about cracking the passcode then? seems they should be all over the County to get it.

Posted by: The Great White Scotsman at February 20, 2016 10:05 AM (iONHu)

146 Trump is a blathering clusterfuck of an outrageous bag of self-promotion.

Posted by: the littl shyning man at February 20, 2016 10:06 AM (U6f54)

147 "If I were Apple I would do this in a very controlled way and take
possession of the phone, unlock it, remove all security settings, get a
dump from the phone, revert the software, hand the phone and all of the
data to government and tell them to have a nice day."

But I think this is what feds are saying. They just want Apple to do it, keep or destroy the software to hack it, give the feds the data only.

Chain of evidence? They need someone watching that whole process? I don't think that is what they demand.

It seems Apple is concerned the leak will come from their own people, and there are rumors they already folded with China by giving them source code. Of the Apple leakers would have leaked it anyway, and the hack is already done by enemies. But the youngsters are so anti-America these days, they are like Obama on the globalization, equalize power thingy.

That is the Clinton theory of multipolarity, which Clinton used when spreading our nuke secrets around (for money) in Chinagate. Access to all phones is the new "nuke" I guess, and young kids under 30 probably think they are doing US a favor. Hard to tell the good guys and bad guys since they infiltrate everything.

Posted by: Illiniwek at February 20, 2016 10:06 AM (eUbDe)

148 Everyone realizes this phone was owned be the county which means there is no right to privacy issue, right?

****

This isn't even remotely about the privacy of one client. It's about the government forcing a private entity to labor against their own self-interest to develop a code which would create vulnerability for all clients.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:06 AM (8PbKi)

149 So why are the Feds bothering Apple about cracking the passcode then? seems they should be all over the County to get it.

I doubt the county set the passcode.

I have a computer that's owned by my university. They don't have my passwords.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:06 AM (JIElb)

150 A third shooter nobody actually saw. How conveeeenient.
Sort of how conveeeenient it was the McVeigh didn't have anybody helping him.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 20, 2016 10:07 AM (lePNR)

151 BTW I am not ready for a word in which Amish dude is siding with lawyers

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:07 AM (zOTsN)

152 You want anarchy, you get both ends.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:04 AM (JIElb)

Sadly, it's more like anarchy for me, the trappings of Constitutional government for thee!

Posted by: H Rodham Hrothgar at February 20, 2016 10:07 AM (wYnyS)

153 They don't have to leak it. Every hacker in the world will target Apple tech in the hopes of finding the new code.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:00 AM (8PbKi)

For years apple's entire security base was it's small market share.
Some of the worst viruses in the world, the hardest to find and the easiest to spread, were on Macs (many utilized Mac's "Resource fork" to hide in.)
But Macs were single digit market share then (even know they're small compared to PC) so it never became a huge problem.

Apple's had a target on it's back ever since the iPhone and by all accounts their security hasn't improved all that much.

Posted by: tsrlbke PhD(c), rogue bioethicist at February 20, 2016 10:07 AM (tM4uk)

154 ***"We have a legal system. When you become God, you get to decide what's wrong."***

Incorrect again. Are you saying that the legal system is God?

If you're so beholden to the letter of the law, then your visceral hatred for those who apply it dispassionately is even more irrational than it usually comes across.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 20, 2016 10:08 AM (Wckf4)

155 "Trump is a blathering clusterfuck of an outrageous bag of self-promotion."

Ted Cruz pushed john "tax man" roberts off on us. Who has done more damage to the Country?

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Yada, yada, yada.... at February 20, 2016 10:08 AM (WVsWD)

156 I got a Samsung Galaxy S5. I assume this change would not affect that?

Posted by: angela urkel at February 20, 2016 10:08 AM (QV9Vt)

157

if you look at what the government has compelled automobile manufacturers to do, any manufacturer for that matter, you can see the government dictates what must be in products all the time

the fed will site public safety concerns, and demand apple write code

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:09 AM (zOTsN)

158 "Ever heard the one about the IRS and conservative groups?"

OK, if I ever try to get the 501(c)(4) tax break for some nonprofit I'm forming, the IRS might put my application at the bottom of the pile. Big frickin deal.

The govt has (at the very least) my birth cert, my drivers license, my FOID, my 4473 forms, my bank and credit card transaction histories, my medical records, and all my voice and digital communications.

They have yours too. I know it hurts to think that they don't care about us, but they just don't.

Posted by: gp at February 20, 2016 10:10 AM (+Jpqc)

159 because of wiretaps, the SCOTUS has already ruled several years ago that their is no right to privacy in a cell phone as they used to be too easy to listen in on

that was before encryption and smart phones. this is not about who he called. they should have that already. no doubt Facebook and Twitter and Google are cooperating like crazy with the Fed

this is about a backdoor, about the darknet, about whether the public should have encrypted devices

***
Precisely. They've already obtained the call data and all the cloud data up until 6 weeks prior to the massacre. They've stated that they want the photos and everything else on the phone.

It's pure foolishness to suggest that the feds want this capability for this one phone only when they've admitted that there are dozens more phones, already in their possession, that they've been unable to crack.

In fact, that admission suggests otherwise. It suggests that they couldn't force Apple to do it until they had a case such as this to sway public opinion.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:10 AM (8PbKi)

160 151 BTW I am not ready for a word in which Amish dude is siding with lawyers
Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:07 AM (zOTsN)

I believe in a limited judiciary and a limited legal profession. As long as they know their place, I'm happy with them, you know, living and such.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:10 AM (JIElb)

161 So basically the FBI is pushing on Tim Cook's back door and he won't open it up?
.
Am I understanding all of this correctly?
.

Posted by: FireNWater at February 20, 2016 10:10 AM (cCDP3)

162 I have a computer that's owned by my university. They don't have my passwords.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:06 AM (JIElb)

In a properly managed enterprise environment there are ways for them to get your data though.
But it sounds like this wasn't a properly managed enterprise environment. Indeed it sounds like they just said "here's a phone, have fun."

The only reason they were able to reset the iCloud password was probably because his apple ID email was his work one.

Posted by: tsrlbke PhD(c), rogue bioethicist at February 20, 2016 10:11 AM (tM4uk)

163 The phone was owned by a government agency. Anyone using a piece of equipment owned by another has zero claim to privacy for any data on the equipment.

It's not a privacy case at all. Apple could work with the government to unlock this one single phone and demand the phone not leave its premises. Instead it's grandstanding.

Never been a fan of Apple products.

Posted by: mega machines at February 20, 2016 10:11 AM (fbovC)

164 >>>>A third shooter nobody actually saw. How conveeeenient.

Sort of how conveeeenient it was the McVeigh didn't have anybody helping him.
.
.
.
.There are at least three witnesses that I saw interviewed that claimed there were three shooters. The FBI claimed that they were confused and saw one of the two people leave and then reenter a room and that is how they "saw" three people. I guess now they may be using that story to put the pressure on Apple or something else came up and they really think there may have been a third person.

Posted by: The Great White Scotsman at February 20, 2016 10:12 AM (iONHu)

165 In a properly managed enterprise environment there are ways for them to get your data though.
But it sounds like this wasn't a properly managed enterprise environment. Indeed it sounds like they just said "here's a phone, have fun."

The only reason they were able to reset the iCloud password was probably because his apple ID email was his work one.
Posted by: tsrlbke PhD(c), rogue bioethicist at February 20, 2016 10:11 AM (tM4uk)

Right. Government should have an MDM solution like MobileIron on all of their devices.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:12 AM (AkOaV)

166 "I have a computer that's owned by my university. They don't have my passwords."

Is there any chance that comp has any software installed by the University? If so, they have all your passwords.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Yada, yada, yada.... at February 20, 2016 10:12 AM (WVsWD)

167 For years apple's entire security base was it's small market share.
Some of the worst viruses in the world, the hardest to find and the easiest to spread, were on Macs (many utilized Mac's "Resource fork" to hide in.)
But Macs were single digit market share then (even know they're small compared to PC) so it never became a huge problem.

Apple's had a target on it's back ever since the iPhone and by all accounts their security hasn't improved all that much.

***

yep. I remember all the smug from Mac users about how they never got bugs. I don't hear that anymore.

The current state of Apple tech, in that they don't build back doors, came precisely from those issues.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:12 AM (8PbKi)

168 You know, as part of the federal records act, they should dump the contents of everybody who is on the Presidential order of succession phone every month, and make it public 20 years later (or before the statue of limitations kicks in).

Posted by: James T Kirk at February 20, 2016 10:13 AM (NNYXR)

169 >>This isn't even remotely about the privacy of one client. It's about the government forcing a private entity to labor against their own self-interest to develop a code which would create vulnerability for all clients.

Which happens all the time. I worked for AT&T back in the day. When the government gets a court order for a records search or a wiretap, who do you think does the work?

Hint, it's not the government.

There are more than enough ways to insure this code stays with Apple and the government has said they don't want the code at all, just the data.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 20, 2016 10:13 AM (/tuJf)

170 It's not a privacy case at all. Apple could work with the government to unlock this one single phone and demand the phone not leave its premises. Instead it's grandstanding.

Never been a fan of Apple products.
Posted by: mega machines at February 20, 2016 10:11 AM (fbovC)

again, the software to do what the government wants does not exist. Apple would have to write it.

That's the bone of contention. Apple does not want to write a software that opens a back door to their products, as it were.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:13 AM (AkOaV)

171 Until then, there is nothing about me that the govt
gives a sh!t about. They already know everything about me, and they've
got way more important stuff to worry about. To think that the govt has
time or resources to target people like me would be narcissistic
paranoid vanity.
Posted by: gp at February 20, 2016 09:51 AM (+Jpqc)

You own guns? You drive a car? You have a house that someone would like to have to do something with? You piss off a city council member? You voice an opinion that someone doesn't like? Did you contribute to a political cause the President supported two years ago but doesn't now? Have an ex-wife with connections? Be owed a debt that someone doesn't want to pay? You dog got loose and crapped on the wrong yard a week running?

Even better, the people you expect might be targeted would be people championing your own freedom.

And finally, because security against the populace becomes an all encompassing goal, the actual functions of government are ignored, or only used as punishments. No one cares about your security in Venezuela, or did in the old USSR or Ceaucescu's Romania. Your personal security means nothing in China even if you are Chinese.

With a powerful and unlimited government the power of government is easily used for personal gain. All government is essentially low level, generally not too smart clerks with egos, needs and, if not checked, a willingness to act in personal gain, either self motivated or "because someone suggested it would be a good idea."

Posted by: Kindltot at February 20, 2016 10:13 AM (q2o38)

172 If you're so beholden to the letter of the law,

Yes. I am. The letter of the law. Absolutely. You know what isn't the letter of the law?

Living breathing Constitutions, Dear Colleague letters on Titles, Interpretations.

The law is written down for a reason. I believe in the supremacy of the legislative branch.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:13 AM (JIElb)

173 I got a Samsung Galaxy S5. I assume this change would not affect that?

Posted by: angela urkel at February 20, 2016 10:08 AM (QV9Vt)
No, but there are some great stories out there about people getting drunk then their significant others unlockign their phone with a thumbprint while they were passed out and getting access to it.

Posted by: tsrblke (on adblocker) at February 20, 2016 10:13 AM (tM4uk)

174 In fact, that admission suggests otherwise. It suggests that they couldn't force Apple to do it until they had a case such as this to sway public opinion.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse

exactly. they have been wanting a backdoor to encryption and this is the perfect test case to force it

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:14 AM (zOTsN)

175 There are more than enough ways to insure this code stays with Apple and the government has said they don't want the code at all, just the data.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 20, 2016 10:13 AM (/tuJf)

That's a lie though, and we all know it. This isn't about the terrorists phone. This is about having a backdoor to iOS. As the government has wanted since the Snowden revelations when Apple implemented new security features because their customers were so outraged.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:14 AM (AkOaV)

176 For 20 years or more concerns about nuclear waste, food production, the quality of river water, the health of our soils and seas, the fate of our forests, the impact of road-building and many other important ecological issues have been steadily marginalised, starved of resources or pushed off the agenda by climate change.

... like the water in Flint

Posted by: James T Kirk at February 20, 2016 10:14 AM (NNYXR)

177 The problem with giving the feds this kind of access is that we already know that it will never be deployed against enemies we don't know: It will only ever be deployed against enemies we already know.

Posted by: Fritz at February 20, 2016 10:15 AM (BngQR)

178 That's the bone of contention. Apple does not want to write a software that opens a back door to their products, as it were.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:13 AM (AkOaV
Then Apple best get on patching this, because it's coming whether they like it or not.

Posted by: tsrblke (on adblocker) at February 20, 2016 10:15 AM (tM4uk)

179 107 The FBI is completely in the wrong, for it is demanding Apple do work for the Federal government that it does not wish to do. Since work has to be done, an original effort made, there is no current existing intellectual property, therefore the government cannot conduct eminent domain proceedings. This means the demand of work and resources to do something, upon pain of being found in contempt of court, is akin to slavery, in violation of the 14th, a violation of the right of the people to be free to enter or not enter into a contract with the Federal Government, in violation of the Ninth (it can be easily shown that such affairs predated he Constitution), and since Apple has violated no law in not making the feature before hand, so to punish them for refusing to do so is effectively an ex-post-facto law, in violation of the charter (except it is not a law, it is a ruling, so there is an Article 2 violation of the charter as well).

Essentially, this ruling says the time of employees and resources of a company are the government's to condemn and convert to public use at will, and I think it is time to put a stop to this nonsense, for to so stretch is to make restrictions on government taking things pointless. There has got to be a distinction between taking my property for public use, and making myself work on something for you. And this matters to me, for if this is a growing trend it will confirm that the United States really is a new fascist land that needs to be fled.
Posted by: Horatius a

this is actually Apples best argument. The privacy argument is a loser, believe it or not
Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 09:54 AM (zOTsN)

Good explanation by Horatius and I agree with ThunderB.

But the result of this, if the government gets its way, will be the loss of our privacy.

Posted by: rickl at February 20, 2016 10:15 AM (sdi6R)

180 Ted Cruz pushed john "tax man" roberts off on us. Who has done more damage to the Country?
Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Yada, yada, yada.... at February 20, 2016 10:08 AM (WVsWD)

Brilliant analysis.

Yes, yes, let's make the janitor CEO. I mean, executives have to make decisions based on the best information available to them, but the janitor's decisions have never led to an undesirable outcome.

By all means, let's vote nihilisticly.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:15 AM (JIElb)

181 They have yours too. I know it hurts to think that they don't care about us, but they just don't.
Posted by: gp

You're right, the government has all that stuff. By all means we should just roll over. What was I thinking?

Posted by: dogfish at February 20, 2016 10:16 AM (0O2Lr)

182 Well, I'll let the FBI see my privates!

Posted by: Lena Dunatethewholeham at February 20, 2016 10:16 AM (+nvTC)

183 They have yours too. I know it hurts to think that they don't care about us, but they just don't.

Posted by: gp at February 20, 2016 10:10 AM (+Jpqc)

Smartypants, you seem to have this thing completely wrong. They is supposed to be us.

Ever heard of the notion of a government of, by and for the people? Do they not teach these things to you nitwits in school anymore?

Fine, you be a subject of a government. I would rather be free, thank you.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 20, 2016 10:17 AM (TOk1P)

184 BTW, Apple has not yet had an opportunity to present their side in court, which they will now have. The government went to the courts and got a court order to compel them to create the code.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find this entire situation fascinating and as being far more important than many suggest.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:17 AM (8PbKi)

185 Then Apple best get on patching this, because it's coming whether they like it or not.

Posted by: tsrblke (on adblocker) at February 20, 2016 10:15 AM (tM4uk)

...Or the tech companies can fight this kind of shit at every turn.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:17 AM (AkOaV)

186 Well AD who has done more damage to the Country so far. Trump or Cruz?

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Yada, yada, yada.... at February 20, 2016 10:17 AM (WVsWD)

187 The phone was owned by a government agency. Anyone using a piece of equipment owned by another has zero claim to privacy for any data on the equipment.

I don't think the dead have a claim to privacy either, at least, in the main.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:17 AM (JIElb)

188 the fed will site public safety concerns, and demand apple write code

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:09 AM (zOTsN)

Exactly comrade citizen, every action you take in your ~~private~~ daily life has the potential to be a threat to public safety, so you really can't complain about us putting this small unobtrusive microchip under your scalp!

Posted by: H Rodham Hrothgar at February 20, 2016 10:17 AM (wYnyS)

189 And I'm getting tired of this bearded, alternate universe evil Amishdude.

I want the old one back.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 20, 2016 10:17 AM (TOk1P)

190 this is actually Apples best argument. The privacy argument is a loser, believe it or not
Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 09:54 AM (zOTsN)

Yes, but it is the one that gets attention by the public. This is in essence both a political and a public relations issue. Principally because that is what everything has become. Cook probably has smart advisers, and they may be competent too.

Posted by: Kindltot at February 20, 2016 10:18 AM (q2o38)

191 Is there any chance that comp has any software installed by the University? If so, they have all your passwords.

They wouldn't go to the effort. And neither would the SB county government.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:18 AM (JIElb)

192 >>That's a lie though, and we all know it. This isn't about the terrorists phone. This is about having a backdoor to iOS. As the government has wanted since the Snowden revelations when Apple implemented new security features because their customers were so outraged.

You don't know anything of the kind. You are just making an assertion.

I don't support the government having the right to any new form of random searches. I do not have a problem with the government getting a warrant to do a specific search of this phone just as I didn't have a problem with them doing a search of his apartment, his car, his work area, his computers, etc. There is nothing sacred about a phone when it is part of a criminal case.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 20, 2016 10:18 AM (/tuJf)

193
" Can't trust the guy. [Trump]"

"Show me one you can."

"Ditto. "

It isn't an all or nothing proposition. It's a question of degrees of credibility. Trump has demonstrated that he has zero credibility.

There are other candidates that -- at least at this point in time -- have a great deal of credibility.

Posted by: db at February 20, 2016 10:18 AM (QXiz8)

194 exactly. they have been wanting a backdoor to encryption and this is the perfect test case to force it

***

Yes indeedy!

Has Rand weighed in on this yet?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:18 AM (8PbKi)

195 "By all means we should just roll over."

Govt penetrating the communications of mujahid murderers == rolling over.

I don't think so.

Posted by: gp at February 20, 2016 10:18 AM (+Jpqc)

196
...Or the tech companies can fight this kind of shit at every turn.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:17 AM (AkOaV
I said nothing about it coming via apple or the legal system now did I?

Posted by: tsrblke (on adblocker) at February 20, 2016 10:19 AM (tM4uk)

197 The problem with giving the feds this kind of access is that we already
know that it will never be deployed against enemies we don't know: It
will only ever be deployed against enemies we already know.

And by "enemies we already know", we of course know that means US.

H to the E to the L to the L to the NO.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, hither and yon at February 20, 2016 10:19 AM (D0J8L)

198 Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:13 AM (JIElb)

So then the courts never make mistakes? This was the core issue of the original comment. It's great that you're all about the supremacy of the legislature, but the legislature isn't involved in the warrant process.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 20, 2016 10:19 AM (Wckf4)

199 who has done more damage to the Country so far

Satan and his willing servants.

Posted by: Melissa Click your heels but you can't ever go home at February 20, 2016 10:20 AM (+nvTC)

200 Has Rand weighed in on this yet?

He's backing Apple last I saw.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, hither and yon at February 20, 2016 10:20 AM (D0J8L)

201 Speaking of "The Witch"...

What are various and sundry morons favorite slow burn horror movies?

One of my favorite slow burns is an old Dario Argento movie "Phenomena".

It does the thing I like best in horror movies- establishes a creepy, somewhat off-kilter atmosphere builds on it and then goes completely batshit crazy at the end - like a nightmare brought to life.

The story is about a serial killer who may or may not be killing girls at a girl's school in Switzerland(?)).

Our heroine is a girl(a very young Jennifer Connolly) who had the psychic power to control insects.

Annnnnnd go-

Really don't read anymore about it it or even look at the DVD/Blu-ray boxes as spoilers abound.

Here's the only version I could find, easily available on the web:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFwHZQHPOA8

I can't vouch for the quality of this one because there are a couple of different cuts. But the beginning looks fine.

Check it out.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 20, 2016 10:20 AM (KUa85)

202 I tried that with a Sony MP3 player I spilled beer on. It did not work.

Posted by: Vic-we have no party at February 20, 2016 09:46 AM (t2KH5)

Next time try pure alcohol. It's extremely hydrophilic, and will displace the water without doing the damage that water does to electrical components.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 20, 2016 10:21 AM (Zu3d9)

203 They wouldn't go to the effort. And neither would the SB county government.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:18 AM (JIElb)

As someone who sells technology to government agencies, let me just say -- wrong.

Everyone from the smallest K12 district to the biggest universities to the state Fish and Games people put MDM software on their equipment. It's for asset tracking purposes, security purposes, and to unlock machines if the employee loses his password or quits or whatever.

Now, not every agency DOES it, but it's very cheap to do and many if not most do it.

Same with companies. If you have a company issued cell phone, chances are you have maas360 or mobile iron or another MDM software.

And there are even more MDM solutions for laptops.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:21 AM (AkOaV)

204 They wouldn't go to the effort. And neither would the SB county government.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:18 AM (JIElb
Again, proper enterprise management. I think iPhone even supports this. (I'm 99.9% certain android does) But SB county was apparently too lazy to set it up.If they had set it up we wouldn't be having this conversation at all because the enterprise tools would allow someone with a higher authority account could override security settings and gain access.(Note this isn't a "back door" it's enterprise management.)

Posted by: tsrblke (on adblocker) at February 20, 2016 10:21 AM (tM4uk)

205 Apple is availing itself OF the legal system, by appealing and fighting the subpeona. Isn't that their right?

PS Congress held Holder in contempt of Congress for ignoring a subpeona issued by them; last I heard, he ain't occupying a jail cell.

Some subpeonas are better than others.

Posted by: GnuBreed at February 20, 2016 10:21 AM (gyKtp)

206 The government is not demanding that Apple turn over
an existing work product. They are demanding that Apple create a new
work product which defeats one of their prime business innovations.

...

Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 20, 2016 10:01 AM (1xUj/)

I will take that as a fact. And add to it:
They are demanding that Apple create a new
work product which defeats one of their prime business innovations IN A VERY SPECIFIC WAY.
What FBI should have done was taken an iPhone they grabbed from that goofy redneck protest on the Fed land out west and had Apple crack that as a test case.

Apple may well already have a patch they can push (whether an individual user wants it or not) that changes the password to "MACINTOSH", but that was not asked for...

Posted by: Burnt Toast at February 20, 2016 10:21 AM (T78UI)

207 186 Well AD who has done more damage to the Country so far. Trump or Cruz?
Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Yada, yada, yada.... at February 20, 2016 10:17 AM (WVsWD)

That is the fucking stupidest, most mentally retarded thing I have ever heard in my life.

Trump is a fucking fascist at best who will betray you in 20 seconds on every single thing you claim to be for.

Here's a clue: Trump doesn't give a damn about you. He also doesn't give a damn about immigration or the courts.

Except to nominate his abortion-loving Marxist sister to SCOTUS. Otherwise, he doesn't care.

He's a con artist and you're too fucking stupid to see it.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:21 AM (JIElb)

208 "I don't think the dead have a claim to privacy either, at least, in the main."

Anybody check with Buzzion on this?

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at February 20, 2016 10:22 AM (ptqRm)

209 I don't support the government having the right to any new form of random searches. I do not have a problem with the government getting a warrant to do a specific search of this phone just as I didn't have a problem with them doing a search of his apartment, his car, his work area, his computers, etc. There is nothing sacred about a phone when it is part of a criminal case.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 20, 2016 10:18 AM (/tuJf)

Jack, they executed the search warrant.

This is way beyond a search warrant.

They want Apple to write a new iOS that disables security features in the current iOS so that they can brute force hack the phone in question.

Once that software is invented, it is not uninventable.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:22 AM (AkOaV)

210 >>Until then, there is nothing about me that the govt
gives a sh!t about.

The risk isn't necessarily about individuals anymore (though obviously, government does indulge in that as needed, such as the WI John Doe cases), but about data mining to get a bigger picture - identifying groups via their methods of communication (email, comments on blogs, calls, etc.).

They care about you only as you relate to various groups in which you are a member, and can easily take out "bad" groups, like True the Vote, by harassing just the group's leaders (OSHA, ATF, IRS investigations). So they never touch you, directly, but may use you and your associations to ID a bigger target -- and then blunt your effectiveness/activities (if deemed a risk) by simply taking out the leaders of the groups in which you participate.

See this for a better explanation: http://preview.tinyurl.com/zwdhcl4

Posted by: Lizzy at February 20, 2016 10:23 AM (NOIQH)

211 107 The FBI is completely in the wrong, for it is demanding Apple do work for the Federal government that it does not wish to do. Since work has to be done, an original effort made, there is no current existing intellectual property, therefore the government cannot conduct eminent domain proceedings. This means the demand of work and resources to do something, upon pain of being found in contempt of court, is akin to slavery, in violation of the 14th, a violation of the right of the people to be free to enter or not enter into a contract with the Federal Government, in violation of the Ninth (it can be easily shown that such affairs predated he Constitution), and since Apple has violated no law in not making the feature before hand, so to punish them for refusing to do so is effectively an ex-post-facto law, in violation of the charter (except it is not a law, it is a ruling, so there is an Article 2 violation of the charter as well).

Essentially, this ruling says the time of employees and resources of a company are the government's to condemn and convert to public use at will, and I think it is time to put a stop to this nonsense, for to so stretch is to make restrictions on government taking things pointless. There has got to be a distinction between taking my property for public use, and making myself work on something for you. And this matters to me, for if this is a growing trend it will confirm that the United States really is a new fascist land that needs to be fled.
Posted by: Horatius a

this is actually Apples best argument. The privacy argument is a loser, believe it or not
Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 09:54 AM (zOTsN)

****

Yes, which is an argument I've been making for days: They want Apple to labor against their own self-interest. The response from smartasses everywhere has been that the feds can toss them a few dimes and, PRESTO!, problem solved.

No. Problem not solved. The government cannot force us to labor against our will, or at least they couldn't prior to Bake the fucking cake. BTW, those who argued for religious freedom re the bake-the-cake cases also completely forgot to use the forced labor argument.

Still, my experience has taught me that it doesn't hold nearly the same weight in most people's eyes as does the privacy argument.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:23 AM (8PbKi)

212 They have yours too. I know it hurts to think that they don't care about us, but they just don't.

Posted by: gp at February 20, 2016 10:10 AM (+Jpqc)

The Government doesn't care about you/us...

Until they need to!

Posted by: Lois L Hrothgar at February 20, 2016 10:23 AM (wYnyS)

213 "By all means we should just roll over."

Govt penetrating the communications of mujahid murderers == rolling over.

I don't think so.
Posted by: gp

You win!! We will all be safe now.

Posted by: dogfish at February 20, 2016 10:23 AM (0O2Lr)

214 Some subpeonas are better than others.

Posted by: GnuBreed at February 20, 2016 10:21 AM (gyKtp)

Paging Mr. Orwell. Mr. Orwell, to the courtesy phone.

I swear, it's like some of these people never heard of government overreach before. Where have they been living for... oh, the last several epochs.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 20, 2016 10:23 AM (TOk1P)

215 and jack -- read around. NYT, WSJ (IIRC), others have quoted govt people saying basically "this is our test case. We've wanted this tech for a long time."

They also march out "former police officers" every time there's any kind of national crime or terrorism or whatever to say "OH! If only we had backdoors to encryption... Too bad we couldnt stop this" and other bullshit.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:23 AM (AkOaV)

216 will take that as a fact. And add to it:
They are demanding that Apple create a new
work product which defeats one of their prime business innovations IN A VERY SPECIFIC WAY.
What FBI should have done was taken an iPhone they grabbed from that goofy redneck protest on the Fed land out west and had Apple crack that as a test case.

Apple may well already have a patch they can push (whether an individual user wants it or not) that changes the password to "MACINTOSH", but that was not asked for...

Posted by: Burnt Toast a

the fed has been doing that to the automobile industry and the energy industry for decades

they will say its a public safety issue. mark it

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:24 AM (zOTsN)

217 Lizzie "So, I think this is a combination of Apple grandstanding"

Did I not read elsewhere that Apple originally said "we can't do it" and then later, after it was pointed out that in fact they could do it easily without changing anything in their code or creating a "back door", changed their statement to "we won't do it"?

For all the reasons stated above about the way leftist companies do whatever the hell they want when they want, I am finding it very hard to be particularly sympathetic to Apple in this case.

"We refuse to help you catch terrorists" is what it really boils down to, especially if the reports that it could be done without risking anyone else's privacy are accurate. Goes right along with sanctuary cities and bringing known terrorist supporters into the country. The hell with the rule of law unless it advances our agenda.

Posted by: Heresolong at February 20, 2016 10:24 AM (ntIeo)

218 Once that software is invented, it is not uninventable.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:22 AM (AkOaV)

it is uninventable *

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:25 AM (AkOaV)

219 I do not have a problem with the government getting a warrant to do a specific search of this phone just as I didn't have a problem with them doing a search of his apartment, his car, his work area, his computers, etc. There is nothing sacred about a phone when it is part of a criminal case.

Yeah. Look, I'm sorry that there is a whole "camel's nose" vibe about all this, but the whole point of the 4th amendment is that you have to get a court order to do this.

And the fact that a government owned the phone and the person who operated the phone is dead, so no privacy issues.

When they come to your door and say "we have a warrant" you can't say no or wait for an appeal. The founders weren't anarchists.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:25 AM (JIElb)

220 If the Feds walked out the door with a phone modified to accept any password as valid, it would be a fairly simple task to look at the machine code before and after. Then be able to easily apply that knowledge to unlocking any phone desired.

I understand Apple's concerns. I understand how intimidating the government can be.

I guess we'll see if they can come to a compromise.

Posted by: mega machines at February 20, 2016 10:25 AM (fbovC)

221 And there goes the thread.

Lates.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 20, 2016 10:26 AM (Wckf4)

222 Posted by: Heresolong at February 20, 2016 10:24 AM (ntIeo)

No, they said in their statement on their webpage that they cannot hack their ios (can't do it) and REFUSE to create a new ios to push out to this and other phones, which would be a workaround to hacking their current ios (wont do it.)

Two separate issues.

And this has NOTHING to do with terrorism.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:26 AM (AkOaV)

223 not sticking up for anybody here. but, fuck the gummint. especially these gestapo agents. you don't need to bust a phone to know what these vermin were about. just profile these children of satan. cheap and easy. yeah, i'm rayyyysist.

Posted by: chavez the hugo at February 20, 2016 10:26 AM (ucDmr)

224 The Feds can force Apple to write code and it won't be slavery because it will just be a tax. Or a tax write-off.

Posted by: Genius Chief Justice Roberts at February 20, 2016 10:26 AM (cbfNE)

225 Second, I don't trust today's partisan, progressive tech companies who have already shown a willingness to work w/the feds and WH when it assists "their" side, such as shutting down gun-related transactions, fundraisers for Christian bakers, and stifling free speech.

Yes. If they had been any way related to any conservative group nancy boy Cook would have had no problem doing this. It's not about his back door. It's because they were members of the religion of peace. Screw everyone of the tech commies

Posted by: TheQuietMan at February 20, 2016 10:27 AM (45oDG)

226 they will say its a public safety issue. mark it

***

Which, as I stated above, is why they either didn't try the courts, or didn't succeed in their attempts, prior to this case. They will have a lot more success in arguing "public safety"when mass murder is involved.

Hell. Just look at this thread.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:27 AM (8PbKi)

227 So then the courts never make mistakes? This was the core issue of the original comment. It's great that you're all about the supremacy of the legislature, but the legislature isn't involved in the warrant process.

But what is the limiting principle here?

A judge issues a warrant to search your house and the cops are coming in. And anything they seize is lawful if it complies with the warrant.

You want metaphysically-perfect justice, go to heaven. Otherwise, judges issue warrants all the time, this one does not seem out of line at all (for all the bleating about "mistakes" I don't see anybody arguing that this is an illegal order, especially since the phone operator is dead and the owner is the government).

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:28 AM (JIElb)

228 And the fact that a government owned the phone and the person who operated the phone is dead, so no privacy issues.

When they come to your door and say "we have a warrant" you can't say no or wait for an appeal. The founders weren't anarchists.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:25 AM (JIElb)

And Apple said "here's the information we have. We don't have the passcode to his phone, either, Mr. FBI agent."

And the FBI said, "well find a way to help us defeat your encryption" and apple said "Well, suck a dick."

It's not like Apple is holding out on something. They're just not going to destroy their cash cow that is the iPhone by creating a back door and sending millions of people to open source Android where it's damned near impossible for Google to open a back door.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:28 AM (AkOaV)

229 No, they said in their statement on their webpage
that they cannot hack their ios (can't do it) and REFUSE to create a new
ios to push out to this and other phones, which would be a workaround
to hacking their current ios (wont do it.)

Two separate issues.

And this has NOTHING to do with terrorism.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:26 AM (AkOaV)

Wait... you mean the government cannot compel a company to do its spying for them???

What the heck?? I hear the government has guns. I bet if they brought some of those, there would be a bunch of geeks at Apple who could get to work on this.

I think the government has gone soft on us.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 20, 2016 10:28 AM (TOk1P)

230 I remember when investigators let me and my MSM cohorts into the San Bernadino 2's apartment shortly after the unfortunate incident. I saw the password to the phone written on the back of the used tampax. I knew then that my integrity would be called into question if I revealed my find, so I flushed it down the toilet.

Posted by: Brian Williams at February 20, 2016 10:29 AM (Moh0M)

231 A judge issues a warrant to search your house and the cops are coming in. And anything they seize is lawful if it complies with the warrant.

You want metaphysically-perfect justice, go to heaven. Otherwise, judges issue warrants all the time, this one does not seem out of line at all (for all the bleating about "mistakes" I don't see anybody arguing that this is an illegal order, especially since the phone operator is dead and the owner is the government).
Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:28 AM (JIElb)

Then what's the problem? Apple complied with the court order and turned over everything they have.

So we're done then? You're happy leaving it at that?

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:29 AM (AkOaV)

232 98
Until then, there is nothing about me that the govt gives a sh!t about.
Posted by: gp at February 20, 2016 09:51 AM (+Jpqc)

I can't believe people are still employing the old "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about" argument.

They already know everything about me, and they've got way more important stuff to worry about.

Right, like those white Christian gun owners who are always going on about the Constitution and their "rights".

Posted by: rickl at February 20, 2016 10:29 AM (sdi6R)

233 they should dump the contents of everybody who is on the Presidential order of succession phone every month

So, you're saying I've been doing this country a service? Thank you for your endorsement!

Posted by: Hillary! at February 20, 2016 10:30 AM (w/iDp)

234 A judge issues a warrant to search your house and the cops are coming in. And anything they seize is lawful if it complies with the warrant.

***

No. This is like the judge issuing a warrant to search your house then compelling you to escort the police to your hidden safe and requiring you to turn the dials with the entire neighborhood peeking through the windows and trying to get a look at the code for the safe.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:31 AM (8PbKi)

235 >>Once that software is invented, it is not uninventable.

A) they are asking for a feature to be turned off. We do not know that it involves writing a completely new IOS.

2) who gives a shit? The software will belong to Apple. For all we know they already have this software sitting in their labs but haven't released it because it is better marketing to offer only a "secure" software.

Have you gotten on a plane and checked your luggage in the last decade? Any lock on luggage now has to be TSA compliant, i.e. the TSA has a master key and they can and do open luggage whenever they want.

Now that I have a problem with. Nobody else does apparently because I don't see an avalanche of articles or blog posts about it.

But a company having a backdoor to open a phone under court order? No, I don't really have a big problem with that.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 20, 2016 10:31 AM (/tuJf)

236 What I don't get is why we're going through all this.

They have the physical hardware. Can't they make a direct clone of the whole device, emulate it 100,000 times and just run 10 passwords on each copy?

Posted by: tsrblke (on adblocker) at February 20, 2016 10:32 AM (tM4uk)

237 But SB county was apparently too lazy to set it up.

Lots of entities are.

You know what's going to happen if Apple "wins" this case?

There are going to be laws demanding that every phone, computer, tablet or USB drive that has any tangential connection to any government-related agency be equipped with such software. Including, say, the cell phones of college students. And private businesses will be pressed into doing it. And pressed into forcing their employees to do it on their private devices.

And that's a whole bunch of privacy gone.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:32 AM (JIElb)

238 Not to go all "no true conservative" here, but I simply do not see how the government being able to compel a company to compromise its security, potentially affecting hundreds of millions of bystanders, on a *hunch* that they might find something out about a dead man, can be founded on any American conservative principles.

Throwing in the fact that it was their fuck-up to begin with that got them into this mess is a nice touch, but even without this piece of information, I grew up being told this lack of restraint on government power is what the Soviets did, and that's why the Soviets are bad and I should hate them. Which I took to heart gladly, I might add. Now the Real Conservatives(TM) are insisting that we're godless commies for valuing restraint on government power?

Posted by: Prof. Fido, Ph. D. at February 20, 2016 10:32 AM (dneTB)

239 I don't understand why this is so complicated. The analogy I used on day 1 (which others have used... not saying they copied me, but...

) is a company that makes an "unbreakable safe" being handed a court order that says "you need to break this safe in question by inventing a master key that opens all of your safes. Go."

Which would most likely put that company out of business if their customers knew their unbreakable safe was very breakable and that there was a master key in existence.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:32 AM (AkOaV)

240 No. This is like the judge issuing a warrant to
search your house then compelling you to escort the police to your
hidden safe and requiring you to turn the dials with the entire
neighborhood peeking through the windows and trying to get a look at the
code for the safe.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:31 AM (8PbKi
You know except for the "peeking through the windows" part. I think the rest is legal.

Posted by: tsrblke (on adblocker) at February 20, 2016 10:33 AM (tM4uk)

241 That is the fucking stupidest, most mentally retarded thing I have ever heard in my life.

Trump is a fucking fascist at best who will betray you in 20 seconds on every single thing you claim to be for.

Here's a clue: Trump doesn't give a damn about you. He also doesn't give a damn about immigration or the courts.

Except to nominate his abortion-loving Marxist sister to SCOTUS. Otherwise, he doesn't care.

He's a con artist and you're too fucking stupid to see it.

There is no arguing with a true believer. I'll just leave it at that.

Have a good day Sir.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Yada, yada, yada.... at February 20, 2016 10:33 AM (WVsWD)

242 There are going to be laws demanding that every phone, computer, tablet or USB drive that has any tangential connection to any government-related agency be equipped with such software. Including, say, the cell phones of college students. And private businesses will be pressed into doing it. And pressed into forcing their employees to do it on their private devices.

And that's a whole bunch of privacy gone.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:32 AM (JIElb)

Dude, the majority of govt agencies and companies already do that. Every company I've worked for has MDM (tracking) software on THEIR devices.

I'm fine with that. It's their $600 iphone in my pocket. I leave it at home when I'm not at work.

If I loan someone a $600 piece of hardware, you better believe I'm using mobile device management software to make sure it doesnt disappear.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:34 AM (AkOaV)

243 One way around this is if somebody, anybody, could propose a way to protect our freedoms from hostile immigrants from countries with incompatible cultures (such as the terrorist scum who created this situation).

Posted by: Burnt Toast at February 20, 2016 10:34 AM (T78UI)

244 What I don't get is why we're going through all this.

They
have the physical hardware. Can't they make a direct clone of the whole
device, emulate it 100,000 times and just run 10 passwords on each
copy?

Posted by: tsrblke (on adblocker) at February 20, 2016 10:32 AM (tM4uk)

That would make sense. If the government employed workers who actually, you know, work.

And let's be honest, the U.S. has never been good at spying. So I guess it's not fair to call them lazy here. Just incompetent.

But they're good at lawyering. When it comes to lawyering, we're the best!

Posted by: BurtTC at February 20, 2016 10:35 AM (TOk1P)

245 He's a con artist and you're too fucking stupid to see it.

Dude, chill.

I've hated Trump since the early 80s. Attack him and his policies.

People are drawn to him for reasons and calling them fucking stupid is not persuasive and not conducing to a happy fun Horde environment.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 20, 2016 10:35 AM (1xUj/)

246 In addition I fully expect Congress write legislation, citing public safety concerns and national security, requiring a back door. Plenty of republicans will vote for it too

mark it

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:35 AM (zOTsN)

247 But a company having a backdoor to open a phone under court order? No, I don't really have a big problem with that.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 20, 2016 10:31 AM (/tuJf)

Okay, well you may not have a problem but millions of us iPhone users will, and it will cost Apple millions and millions of dollars if their customers think Apple can open a backdoor to their phone at any time.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:36 AM (AkOaV)

248 On the data side: FBI has a legit crime and grounds for a warrant. I'm cool with them going after the data.

I have a problem with a court compelling a business to effectively negate it's own security and potentially the security of hundreds of millions of devices, neither of which have anything to do with the crime.

To me, it's the same as the FBI getting a warrant to search the house of a terrorist then the court saying that Shlage locks has to make a master key for the FBI that is guaranteed to open the locks and has the potential to open up every lock Shlage ever made on every door to every house in the world while also rendering the entirely of Shlage's decades of investment in making good locks that can't be picked irrelevant.

Posted by: Damiano at February 20, 2016 10:36 AM (XItbt)

249 You look around conservative sites or just conservative twitter and it's clear most people who call themselves capitalists are just disgusting human beings who use capitalism as an excuse for their complete lack of ethics, they laugh at people who've lost their jobs to illegals or whose company has moved to Mexico and then these geniuses wonder why young people view socialism more favorably.

Posted by: All Teh Meh at February 20, 2016 10:37 AM (AfES1)

250 No way this is real. If information was sent, Big Sam has it. If information is stored Big Sam will get it off the device.

Posted by: Jefferson Davis 2016 at February 20, 2016 10:37 AM (3R1Of)

251 I don't understand why this is so complicated. The analogy I used on day 1 (which others have used... not saying they copied me, but... ) is a company that makes an "unbreakable safe" being handed a court order that says "you need to break this safe in question by inventing a master key that opens all of your safes. Go."

Which would most likely put that company out of business if their customers knew their unbreakable safe was very breakable and that there was a master key in existence.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes

pretty sure they could compell that

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:38 AM (zOTsN)

252 236 What I don't get is why we're going through all this.

They have the physical hardware. Can't they make a direct clone of the whole device, emulate it 100,000 times and just run 10 passwords on each copy?
Posted by: tsrblke (on adblocker) at February 20, 2016 10:32 AM (tM4uk)

--

McAfee offered to hack the phone for the FBI.

The FBI isn't interested in what's in this phone.
They want the skeleton key to all iPhones

Posted by: Genius Chief Justice Roberts at February 20, 2016 10:38 AM (cbfNE)

253 I don't understand why this is so complicated. The analogy I used on day 1 (which others have used... not saying they copied me, but... ) is a company that makes an "unbreakable safe" being handed a court order that says "you need to break this safe in question by inventing a master key that opens all of your safes. Go."

Not necessarily. Legally, all they have to do is open the safe when ordered to do so. If they made an unbreakable safe, that's their own problem.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:39 AM (JIElb)

254 Oops off Roberts sock

Posted by: @votermom at February 20, 2016 10:39 AM (cbfNE)

255 @240: Not a constitutional law professor and all that, but my understanding is that the courts have generally ruled that being forced to give a password to prosecutors is providing testimony against yourself; you can be ordered to give data that is password-protected, but you can't be forced to give the password itself. But on the other hand, for some bizarre reason you can be compelled to provide biometric information to unlock a device. Again, I'm not our illustrious president who is an expert on all these things, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Posted by: Prof. Fido, Ph. D. at February 20, 2016 10:39 AM (dneTB)

256 Dude, chill.

I've hated Trump since the early 80s. Attack him and his policies.

People are drawn to him for reasons and calling them fucking stupid
is not persuasive and not conducing to a happy fun Horde environment.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 20, 2016 10:35 AM (1xUj/)

I thought that was supposed to be sarcasm. It's hard to tell at times.

For the 1000000000th time: Trump is not going to make a good candidate, or if elected, a good President.

Trump is the form of the destructor. If people want to proton blast the guy, feel free, but personally I like the fact that he's destroying stuff that needs destroying.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 20, 2016 10:39 AM (TOk1P)

257 250 No way this is real. If information was sent, Big Sam has it. If information is stored Big Sam will get it off the device.
Posted by: Jefferson Davis 2016 at February 20, 2016 10:37 AM (3R1Of)

Well, and that's the other side of this.

I highly suspect that the NSA DOES have a backdoor. And that they already have most / all of the information off this guys phone.

So this is more about "inventing" a tool for domestic law enforcement than anything else.

And even IF they do find that Farhood and his lovely bride were in contact with Muslims all over the world -- they won't act on that. Islam is the religion of peace, and we can't profile.

This case has nothing to do with the terrorist, or his phone, or anything other than compelling Apple to open a back door to their operating system to be used by local LEO and the FBI

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:39 AM (AkOaV)

258 Dude, the majority of govt agencies and companies already do that. Every company I've worked for has MDM (tracking) software on THEIR devices.

No. Your experience might be with that but that is not everyone's.

Moreover, they'll not just demand it of their phone, but of yours if you work for them.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:40 AM (JIElb)

259 Supplying secure phone tech to the general public sounds great, but it is most useful to the terrorists, who also have access to this "weaponry". And the method of infiltration is the terrorists main method.

So perhaps we have to pay Apple and let them control the software, but it seems reasonable to not supply such weapons to the enemy, with no ability to access them even after they murder several people. It is about weapons control.

Feds would like access to all for surveillance, but "we" pretty much decided we don't even like them having the metadata. But setting up post-attack access is a national interest, as I see it. Sure our government is full of evil anti-America haters ... but if all decisions are based on that, we might as well go full anarchy. Acquiring data after attack, but not the back door key, is just good sense. Otherwise high tech aids and abets the enemy.

Posted by: Illiniwek at February 20, 2016 10:40 AM (eUbDe)

260 I might be more comfortable with the national security argument if I saw any evidence that the government was actually making an effort to keep terrorists out of the country in the first place.

Instead, they throw the borders wide open and then say that it's vital for government to have the ability to monitor the communications of American citizens. Because national security.

That's rather "conveeenient", isn't it?

Posted by: rickl at February 20, 2016 10:40 AM (sdi6R)

261 Is it getting me in here or is it just warm?

I've said before that, Jeb! doesn't seem like a bad guy to me, he's just... wrong on all the important issues. This compilation video is overly Trumpy, but gives me a sadz for poor li'l Jebby...

Jeb Bush Saddest Moments (2:33)
Best of ¡Yeb
https://youtu.be/7yHckRTkcZg

Posted by: mindful webworker - po' po' heb! at February 20, 2016 10:41 AM (dGKUu)

262 pretty sure they could compell that

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:38 AM (zOTsN)

At the point of a gun you can compel people to do pretty much anything.

Most people, I mean. Not all. Some people have this silly notion they are free.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 20, 2016 10:41 AM (TOk1P)

263 Not necessarily. Legally, all they have to do is open the safe when ordered to do so. If they made an unbreakable safe, that's their own problem.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:39 AM (JIElb)

Okay, well if the safe company makes a product as advertised that is unbreakable, then what? They're fucked?

That's Apples dilemma. There is no back door, they don't want to try to create one. And they have no access to a phones passcode.

So... what should they do?

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:42 AM (AkOaV)

264 1) They let the house of the terrorists go unsecured. That is a major screw-up. Major.
2) I've seen an MSM report saying they were in the phone, changed the password, and lost it. Again, that failure falls on them and no one else.
3) They want the encryption key for the communications more than anything else, because the comms they do have are unreadable as is. If apple allows this, all their customers will be at risk and they know it, so.....

4) I don't know why this "theater" is being played out in public. It seems to me that big communications companies collued with big government all the time, the better to curry favor later. They could have done it in private and nobody would know, or told the government to pound sand and let the court process play itself out, also in private.

Both sides chose to go public and make this one phone an "issue" that we all have to chose sides on, and that makes me suspicious.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at February 20, 2016 10:42 AM (kKHcp)

265 I've hated Trump since the early 80s. Attack him and his policies.

That's the problem with Trump. There are no "policies".

I do realize the tenor of the weekend threads (though this is a serious politics thread, not one of the fun ones), but Trumpsters use that to prosthelytize without opposition.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:42 AM (JIElb)

266 congress will have a hearing, declare it a public safety concern, and direct all entities doing business in the US to provide a back door that can be opened with a valid subpeoana

they got rid of the Covair, they can change your iPhone

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:43 AM (zOTsN)

267 All I see is chaos.

Posted by: Soona at February 20, 2016 10:43 AM (Fmupd)

268 Not a constitutional law professor and all that, but my understanding is that the courts have generally ruled that being forced to give a password to prosecutors is providing testimony against yourself;

Neither am I (natch) but I think dead people are allowed to testify against themselves.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:44 AM (JIElb)

269 they got rid of the Covair, they can change your iPhone

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:43 AM (zOTsN)

And again, there's that fundamental flaw in the thought process.

What's with this "they" business? What happened to we?

Posted by: BurtTC at February 20, 2016 10:45 AM (TOk1P)

270 but Trumpsters use that to prosthelytize without opposition.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:42 AM (JIElb)

Who's doing that. Your imagination because someone dare call Cruz's credibility into question?

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Yada, yada, yada.... at February 20, 2016 10:45 AM (WVsWD)

271 At the point of a gun you can compel people to do pretty much anything.

Most people, I mean. Not all. Some people have this silly notion they are free.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 20, 2016 10:41 AM (TOk1P)

whatever, the safe example does not work because they can compell that. Look the law is on hte feds side, the issue is logistics and who pays for it

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:45 AM (zOTsN)

272 Trump is the form of the destructor. If people want to proton blast the guy, feel free, but personally I like the fact that he's destroying stuff that needs destroying.

Including the Constitution and the whole idea of America itself.

But, whatever, we can't win by persuasion or ideas, so let's just turn ourselves into Venezuela so we can teach somebody a lesson.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:46 AM (JIElb)

273 Posted by: Illiniwek at February 20, 2016 10:40 AM (eUbDe)

It's not "supplying" and it's not a weapon.

Its akin to people writing hand-written letters in code. Where they use a reference book to decipher it. Unless you have that book, the letters on the paper are meaningless.

This technology exists everywhere. Apple happens to use it on their phones now, but if the govt opens a back door to Apples encryption, then normal people migrate to any number of the 1000s of third party encryption programs out there.

Which trust me, the criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists are ALREADY DOING.

Which is why I highly doubt there will be anything incriminating on this phone in the first place. The guy probably used a burner Android phone with peer to peer encryption if he had any discussions about his plans with others.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:46 AM (AkOaV)

274 266 congress will have a hearing, declare it a public safety concern, and direct all entities doing business in the US to provide a back door that can be opened with a valid subpeoana

they got rid of the Covair, they can change your iPhone
Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:43 AM (zOTsN)

And then people will buy phones on the black market made by foreign companies that don't have that requirement. Which will automatically make them criminals.

Posted by: rickl at February 20, 2016 10:46 AM (sdi6R)

275 And again, there's that fundamental flaw in the thought process.

What's with this "they" business? What happened to we?
Posted by: BurtTC at February 20, 2016 10:45 AM (TOk1P)

"they" is the government. "we" is the people. The government changes or destroys products all the time in the name of public safety, which they will do here. I dont like it, but thats reality.

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:47 AM (zOTsN)

276 @235

I'm in complete agreement with you on the TSA locks. That's complete bullshit. On a recent trip, I got home and opened my suitcase to find note in it that my checked bag had been searched because... just because. No reason, not in my presence, not with my consent or knowledge, not because there was any alarm tripped or probable cause of any kind.

My luggage at that time was full of dirty clothes. My phone, iPad, and computer however, are full of all sorts of personal and business data.

Why do you feel it's wrong for the TSA to demand access to my dirty underwear without my knowledge, consent, probable cause or a warrant but feel it's ok for the FBI to have a similar tool to access entirety of my business and personal data?

Posted by: Damiano at February 20, 2016 10:47 AM (XItbt)

277 If I were Ace I would say this phone is a McGuffin, and that what is really being played out in public is whether government should have unlimited force in the name of national security, regardless of threat level.

Politicians and the people are taking sides in this, and somebody is watching carefully to gauge the sentiments of the public.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at February 20, 2016 10:47 AM (kKHcp)

278 whatever, the safe example does not work because they can compell that. Look the law is on hte feds side, the issue is logistics and who pays for it
Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:45 AM (zOTsN)

The government can force a safe company to FIND A WAY TO BREAK IN TO THEIR SAFE that does not exist?

That thousands of bank robbers and others have been trying to do for decades? And that if the company was successful would destroy their product since no one wants to buy a safe that can be easily broken in to?

I mean, they could issue a court order, but I don't know how you can force someone to invent something.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:48 AM (AkOaV)

279 I highly suspect that the NSA DOES have a backdoor. And that they already have most / all of the information off this guys phone.

Don't go all Alex Jones on NSA. They are not as competent as you think.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:48 AM (JIElb)

280 congress will have a hearing, declare it a public safety concern, and direct all entities doing business in the US to provide a back door that can be opened with a valid subpeoana

they got rid of the Covair, they can change your iPhone
Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:43 AM (zOTsN)

And then people will buy phones on the black market made by foreign companies that don't have that requirement. Which will automatically make them criminals.
Posted by: rickl

perhaps. Or the fed will compell Apple to make all devices sold anywhere to have a backdoor

I dont like it. I am not saying its right. I am saying that is what will happen

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:48 AM (zOTsN)

281 For all of Apple vs FBI posturing on this, does anybody really doubt that if it was some Republican/Conservative's iPhone that held some sort of possibly damaging data, that Apple wouldn't be all over it like a duck on a junebug? shit, they'd have half of all Cupertino working on it if necessary.

Posted by: bob in houston at February 20, 2016 10:49 AM (b7AU3)

282 Okay, well if the safe company makes a product as advertised that is unbreakable, then what? They're fucked?

Yeah, pretty much. It's not a perfect analogy because this is not possible in the physical world.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:49 AM (JIElb)

283 he government can force a safe company to FIND A WAY TO BREAK IN TO THEIR SAFE that does not exist?

That thousands of bank robbers and others have been trying to do for decades? And that if the company was successful would destroy their product since no one wants to buy a safe that can be easily broken in to?

I mean, they could issue a court order, but I don't know how you can force someone to invent something.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes

yes they can. its called a subpeona and oppressive regulations, but they can

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:49 AM (zOTsN)

284
McAfee offered to hack the phone for the FBI.

The FBI isn't interested in what's in this phone.
They want the skeleton key to all iPhones

If this is true, then who is doing the grandstanding here?

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:50 AM (JIElb)

285 When they come to your door and say "we have a warrant" you can't say no or wait for an appeal. The founders weren't anarchists.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:25 AM (JIElb)

This is not about a warrant. It is the equivalent of J. Edgar Hoover telling ATT that they have to modify their new automatic switching system so the FBI can do wiretaps more readily, and remotely. Because SLA

Posted by: Kindltot at February 20, 2016 10:50 AM (q2o38)

286 And then people will buy phones on the black market made by foreign companies that don't have that requirement. Which will automatically make them criminals.
Posted by: rickl at February 20, 2016 10:46 AM (sdi6R)

you don't even have to do that.

Android OS is much more open source than iOS. Google can roll out whatever they want, but you can "hack" the OS to ignore updates, or to close any security holes, or to take out any back doors.

You can completely customize the OS. On any old Android phone. And use encryption that is much more strong than anything available in iOS. And on Android you can run apps that will completely anonymize everything you do.

Which is what drug dealers, nerds, criminals, terrorists, and others already do.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:50 AM (AkOaV)

287 Why do you feel it's wrong for the TSA to demand access to my dirty underwear

You wear underwear?

Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 20, 2016 10:51 AM (1xUj/)

288 There is no arguing with a true believer. I'll just leave it at that.

Exactly. Admitting your problem is the first step. Congratulations!
/

Posted by: db at February 20, 2016 10:51 AM (QXiz8)

289 280
I dont like it. I am not saying its right. I am saying that is what will happen
Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:48 AM (zOTsN)

I agree with you.

Posted by: rickl at February 20, 2016 10:52 AM (sdi6R)

290 281 For all of Apple vs FBI posturing on this, does anybody really doubt that if it was some Republican/Conservative's iPhone that held some sort of possibly damaging data, that Apple wouldn't be all over it like a duck on a junebug? shit, they'd have half of all Cupertino working on it if necessary.
Posted by: bob in houston at February 20, 2016 10:49 AM (b7AU3)

No, I don't think Apple would do it regardless. If they invent this new os and its public that its invented, it could cost them millions and millions of dollars

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:52 AM (AkOaV)

291 >>Why do you feel it's wrong for the TSA to demand access to my dirty underwear without my knowledge, consent, probable cause or a warrant but feel it's ok for the FBI to have a similar tool to access entirety of my business and personal data?

I don't. I support searching a specific phone that is covered by a specific court order and I've been pretty clear in saying that. I've also had my dirty laundry searched without a warrant or a court order of any kind.

The two situations are completely different.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 20, 2016 10:52 AM (/tuJf)

292 Seriously? Are people so naive to think that any code to disable a fricking timer is so other-worldly that once it is written then somehow it will jump the Apple confines and start infecting other Apple devices?

Puhlease!

Hello! It's just code that any grade school hacker could write given access to install it, which the FBI isn't asking for. And therein lies the BS from Apple on this.

It's not as though Apple is so concerned about user privacy that it refuses to make such data readily available to others.

Posted by: Sailfish at February 20, 2016 10:52 AM (AGAxT)

293 You know except for the "peeking through the windows" part. I think the rest is legal.

***

Somebody is welcome to tell me if I am factually wrong here, but no, it isn't.

They can have a warrant to search and may even tack on a safe once they know it exists, but they cannot compel one to open it. They can break into themselves, but cannot force the owner or occupant to open it.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:52 AM (8PbKi)

294 Oh, there's a nood.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 20, 2016 10:52 AM (1xUj/)

295 Don't go all Alex Jones on NSA. They are not as competent as you think.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:48 AM (JIElb)

Uh... I think they're more competent then you think. They hacked googles back end, which was supposed to be impossible.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:52 AM (AkOaV)

296 Not a constitutional law professor and all that, but my understanding is that the courts have generally ruled that being forced to give a password to prosecutors is providing testimony against yourself;

doesn't apply

it wasnt the dead guys phone, it was his employers

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:52 AM (zOTsN)

297
They can have a warrant to search and may even tack on a safe once they know it exists, but they cannot compel one to open it. They can break into themselves, but cannot force the owner or occupant to open it.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:52 AM (8PbKi)

there was a case where a woman was compelled to provide her bitlocker encryption key to the govt and lost her appeal on the grounds against self incrimination. I think it was in CO.

Lots of outrage on the internet.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:53 AM (AkOaV)

298 My bet is that Apple already has told the government what is in that phone and this is all for show to keep CAIR off their backs and to pretend to those who line up to buy the newest overpriced iPhone that their privacy is totes important to Apple.

What information the government wants is who sold the guns to them, and if it was the FBI or DEA who sold them the guns they want that information wiped off the phone

Either way, it's all theater and everyone has what they want. Apple keeps giving a DEM government money and rats out anti-DEMS, and the government looks the other way at laws Apple breaks and the Federal Reserve keeps buying Apple stock to keep it propped up.

Posted by: kbdabear at February 20, 2016 10:54 AM (hOuc7)

299 277 If I were Ace I would say this phone is a McGuffin, and that what is really being played out in public is whether government should have unlimited force in the name of national security, regardless of threat level.

Politicians and the people are taking sides in this, and somebody is watching carefully to gauge the sentiments of the public.
Posted by: OneEyedJack at February 20, 2016 10:47 AM (kKHcp)

Well said. I had forgotten about the McGuffin thing. Exactly.

Posted by: rickl at February 20, 2016 10:54 AM (sdi6R)

300 They can have a warrant to search and may even tack on a safe once they know it exists, but they cannot compel one to open it. They can break into themselves, but cannot force the owner or occupant to open it.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:52 AM (8PbKi)

yes but the terrorist isnt the owner of this particular "safe". For that matter neither is Apple. The owner is San Bernardino County

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 10:54 AM (zOTsN)

301 Hello! It's just code that any grade school hacker could write given access to install it, which the FBI isn't asking for. And therein lies the BS from Apple on this.

It's not as though Apple is so concerned about user privacy that it refuses to make such data readily available to others.
Posted by: Sailfish at February 20, 2016 10:52 AM (AGAxT)

Then why doesn't the FBI write the code?

Oh, right, because without Apples digital certificates they won't be able to push it to the phone.

Don't be naive, it's much more complicated then you think.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:54 AM (AkOaV)

302 For all of Apple vs FBI posturing on this, does anybody really doubt that if it was some Republican/Conservative's iPhone that held some sort of possibly damaging data, that Apple wouldn't be all over it like a duck on a junebug? shit, they'd have half of all Cupertino working on it if necessary.

***

This is a bullshit argument. You think not one of the dozens of phones that the feds have been unsuccessful in cracking has belonged to a Republican?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:54 AM (8PbKi)

303 This is much bigger than "standing on principle" for Apple.

If they create a back door to their phones, it will literally cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in their most profitable division -- iphones.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:55 AM (AkOaV)

304 Dear Citizen:

Congratulations! After decades of work and investment of your own resources and the resources of shareholders, you have invented a foolproof mousetrap!

Regrettably, your trap has caught a mouse that we want so, you must provide us with the means to render all of your work and investment irrelevant. You are hereby compelled to comply by court order, under penalty of law and additional prosecution by the DOJ.

Love and Kisses,

The Government

Posted by: Damiano at February 20, 2016 10:56 AM (XItbt)

305 Who's doing that. Your imagination because someone dare call Cruz's credibility into question?

Feel free to call Cruz's credibility into question. But this started because I pointed out that Trump continues to demonstrate that he has no credibility. See comment 25.

Posted by: db at February 20, 2016 10:56 AM (QXiz8)

306 Apple's had a target on it's back ever since the iPhone and by all accounts their security hasn't improved all that much.

The reason this is a thing is actually because iOS 8+ has really good, Bruce Schneier approved security. The user partition is encrypted with AES256 by a combination of the user password and a secret per-phone ID (not IMEI or anything externally visible). So brute forcing the password is the only way in.

Posted by: Ian S. at February 20, 2016 10:56 AM (Oy8CZ)

307 yes but the terrorist isnt the owner of this particular "safe". For that matter neither is Apple. The owner is San Bernardino County

***

This isn't a privacy issue. It is an issue of:

1. Forced labor
2. Forcing one to operate against their own self-interest

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:56 AM (8PbKi)

308 I thought a subpoena compelled you to produce records that you had in your possession but did not wish to produce voluntarily. Requiring you to produce records that you do not have in your possession is a new twist on that. The next step is since your old subpoenaed records were so interested, then you should be required to produce copies of all new future records, just in case (for the chirren and public safety, don't you know).

Preparing tax documentation is different because a tax subpoena is asking you to produce records you should already have, but just in a different format!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 20, 2016 10:56 AM (wYnyS)

309
The fed will have it's way. And once more, everyone will run to a corner, curl up, and start whimpering.

Posted by: Soona at February 20, 2016 10:57 AM (Fmupd)

310 301 Hello! It's just code that any grade school hacker could write given access to install it, which the FBI isn't asking for. And therein lies the BS from Apple on this.
Posted by: Sailfish at February 20, 2016 10:52 AM (AGAxT)

Don't be naive, it's much more complicated then you think.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:54 AM (AkOaV)

Sailfish: Read the Karl Denninger links I posted at #74.

Posted by: rickl at February 20, 2016 10:58 AM (sdi6R)

311 I've said before that, Jeb! doesn't seem like a bad guy to me, he's just... wrong on all the important issues.

Jeb will leave after SC. His spokesman was asked what Jeb would do if he had a bad showing in SC and declined to answer. They're already planning to leave.

I'd expect Carson to go too. But he isn't the one with the money-sucking superPAC.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:58 AM (JIElb)

312 This is not about a warrant. It is the equivalent of J. Edgar Hoover telling ATT that they have to modify their new automatic switching system so the FBI can do wiretaps more readily, and remotely. Because SLA

Again, a bad analogy, because wiretaps aren't a real problem physically.

It shouldn't matter, though. If Apple provides the information, the government doesn't have a demand vis-a-vis the backdoor.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 11:01 AM (JIElb)

313
Non-snarky comment. Why can't the company figure out how to do it, do it, and provide the resulting data to the feds, establishing whatever "chain of custody" procedure would pass the smell test? That way, no guvamint access to other phones. No crisis involving all these allegedly central principles.

Snarky comment. A "can they both lose?" situation. Yes, nice trinkets and toys, but cannot get too worked up about a company run by a Blackshirt and characteristically supportive of all freedom-destroying US political fads and jihads - aside, of course, from anything affecting *them*.

As for the feds, whatever. National security? Yawwn. Doesn't directly affect me, in the next 2 days, it doesn't exist. Just finally joining the overwhelming majority of all stripes whose "politics" are literally no more than that. Seems easier than having to think and know anything about the world, and all.

Posted by: rhomboid at February 20, 2016 11:01 AM (QDnY+)

314 237 You know what's going to happen if Apple "wins" this case?

There are going to be laws demanding that every phone, computer, tablet or USB drive that has any tangential connection to any government-related agency be equipped with such software. Including, say, the cell phones of college students. And private businesses will be pressed into doing it. And pressed into forcing their employees to do it on their private devices.

And that's a whole bunch of privacy gone.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:32 AM (JIElb)

This reminds me of the push a few years ago for getting Congress to pass amnesty because if *they* don't then Obama will simply do it executively. Either way, we lose.

I doubt there will ever be enough of the factual details released for me to make an informed decision one way or another about the FBI/Apple flap. Perhaps if it goes to court, those details will be made public. But, who knows when that'll happen.

The chain of custody mentioned earlier is a sticky point which may preclude Apple from handing over ONLY the data requested rather than a device with deliberately compromised security. The FBI may not be publicly and explicitly requesting the latter, but it may be implied by their internal processes. This is admittedly conjecture from my part, but that's all I've got without the icky details.

Gotta go vote for Cruz in the primary and run some errands. No-one try to get banned.

Posted by: antisocial justice beatnik at February 20, 2016 11:01 AM (jV8Mq)

315 308 I thought a subpoena compelled you to produce records that you had in your possession but did not wish to produce voluntarily. Requiring you to produce records that you do not have in your possession is a new twist on that. The next step is since your old subpoenaed records were so interested, then you should be required to produce copies of all new future records, just in case (for the chirren and public safety, don't you know).

Preparing tax documentation is different because a tax subpoena is asking you to produce records you should already have, but just in a different format!
Posted by: Hrothgar at February 20, 2016 10:56 AM (wYnyS)

Right. They are forcing Apple to find a way to turn over records that they literally don't have. On purpose. They purposely did not create a way for them to get these records, because if Apple builds a back door, ANYONE -- the US govt, the Chinese govt, any other govt, hackers, etc. will find a way to exploit it.

And Apple does not want to open that pandoras box. Understandably.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 11:02 AM (AkOaV)

316 But this started because I pointed out that Trump continues to demonstrate that he has no credibility. See comment 25.

Posted by: db at February 20, 2016 10:56 AM (QXiz

Show me where I said anyone was wrong about that? Show me where I defended Trump.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Yada, yada, yada.... at February 20, 2016 11:02 AM (WVsWD)

317 Volokh's Orrin Kerr has a two-part analysis in WashPo. Don't have the energy to read legal analysis right now, but they do tend libertarian (small l), so his analysis would probably contribute to the discussion.

Posted by: mustbequantum at February 20, 2016 11:04 AM (MIKMs)

318 Why can't the company figure out how to do it, do it, and provide the resulting data to the feds, establishing whatever "chain of custody" procedure would pass the smell test?

Here's a thought: Apple wants to build the backdoor but wants to be forced to do it by the government.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 11:04 AM (JIElb)

319 This isn't a privacy issue. It is an issue of:

1. Forced labor
2. Forcing one to operate against their own self-interest
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse a

I agree, but you were using the example of forcing the owner of a safe to open it

they can do that. Thats a different arguement than making someone write code. The fed wont do that. They got their subpeona and Apple says it cant comply because it would have to write new code. Then Federal agencies will create regulations demanding a backdoor be created

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 11:04 AM (zOTsN)

320
Again, a bad analogy, because wiretaps aren't a real problem physically.

It shouldn't matter, though. If Apple provides the information, the government doesn't have a demand vis-a-vis the backdoor.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 11:01 AM (JIElb)

It's a two step process. FBI is saying "write a new iOS that we can push to the phone via USB to disable security features. Then WE will brute force back the passcode."

Apple loses control of the code once the FBI has it.

And if Apple does it once, they will be compelled to do it all the time. In murder cases. In drug cases. In all kinds of cases. And the FBI and local LEO's will have access. And it will get out there, and everyone will access.

And again -- think about other govts. The Chinese govt could compel Apple to do the same thing. Then use that to spy on US intellectual property or whatever they want to do with it.

Once this software is invented, it cannot be uninvented. And Apple does not want it to exist.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 11:04 AM (AkOaV)

321 >>> yes but the terrorist isnt the owner of this particular "safe". For that matter neither is Apple. The owner is San Bernardino County
......

Agreed. Then demand that San Bernadino County open it. They could easily have configured the device so that they could track it and access it. If it was my business property that I loaned to an employee, I'd do it. They didn't do it.

So, rather than the government hold the government accountable, they go after a third party and demand that they invalidate decades of investment and work as well as invalidate the security of a product that makes up over 80% of it's revenue.

Just because the government let a terrorist in, ignored all common sense and signs from these people and others like them for decades, and failed in its duty to investigate suspicious activity and protect the public, it's now okay for them to go after Apple because their security actually works?

Posted by: Damiano at February 20, 2016 11:05 AM (XItbt)

322 back=hack *

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 11:05 AM (AkOaV)

323
Just because the government let a terrorist in, ignored all common sense and signs from these people and others like them for decades, and failed in its duty to investigate suspicious activity and protect the public, it's now okay for them to go after Apple because their security actually works?
Posted by: Damiano at February 20, 2016 11:05 AM (XItbt)

Right. San Bernardino county should have followed IT best practices and installed MDM software on THEIR phone. Like almost everyone else does.

But this is not about this particular phone, it's about getting Apple to create this software.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 11:06 AM (AkOaV)

324 There's one thing about the SC primary that I've found to be good. It's helped me make up my mind for whom I'm voting in March.

Posted by: Soona at February 20, 2016 11:07 AM (Fmupd)

325 Never let an opportunity to expand the surveillance state go to waste.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 20, 2016 11:08 AM (0mRoj)

326 Wait, a county provides iPhones to its employees? Geeze talk about overpaid!

Posted by: @votermom at February 20, 2016 11:09 AM (cbfNE)

327 I agree, but you were using the example of forcing the owner of a safe to open it

they can do that. Thats a different arguement than making someone write code. The fed wont do that. They got their subpeona and Apple says it cant comply because it would have to write new code. Then Federal agencies will create regulations demanding a backdoor be created

***

Okay. Then sticking with the safe analogy.

The SB owners of the safe don't have the code to the safe so the police march down the street and find the company who made the safe and force them to open it. Except, they don't know the electronic code either so the police make them go back to their offices and create a way to hack it, then come back and open it.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 11:09 AM (8PbKi)

328 Morons, the code is already written. Has been since they first put in code that you only get 10 whacks at the passcode. Apple just wants the 'positive' publicity and hence they now have convinced gullible conservatives that the issue is all about creating a Pandora's box, when it really isn't about that at all. Suckers, all of you.

Posted by: doug at February 20, 2016 11:09 AM (jJMfA)

329 326 Wait, a county provides iPhones to its employees? Geeze talk about overpaid!
Posted by: @votermom at February 20, 2016 11:09 AM (cbfNE)

my job provides me an iphone as well.

Of course it has MDM software on it.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 11:09 AM (AkOaV)

330 Show me where I defended Trump.

Show me where I said you did.

But now that you mention it, you did claim something along the lines that no candidate can be trusted. This could be construed as trying to excuse Trump's behavior with the "they all do it" defense.
I'm not saying I think that is how you meant it, but I can see where someone could take it that way.

Posted by: db at February 20, 2016 11:10 AM (QXiz8)

331 328 Morons, the code is already written. Has been since they first put in code that you only get 10 whacks at the passcode. Apple just wants the 'positive' publicity and hence they now have convinced gullible conservatives that the issue is all about creating a Pandora's box, when it really isn't about that at all. Suckers, all of you.
Posted by: doug at February 20, 2016 11:09 AM (jJMfA)

No, it doesn't exist.

It requires re-writing the code.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 11:10 AM (AkOaV)

332 Harry, are you a public servant too?

Posted by: @votermom at February 20, 2016 11:11 AM (cbfNE)

333 332 Harry, are you a public servant too?
Posted by: @votermom at February 20, 2016 11:11 AM (cbfNE)

No, I sell technology to, among others, public servants.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 11:11 AM (AkOaV)

334 Our security doesn't work and we intentionally leave gaping holes and back doors for people to exploit in everything we do. Just look at our borders, immigration policy and judicial system.

We demand the same ineptitude from you, our subjects. How dare you actually secure anything! You didn't build that! In the end, everything is belonging to us!

~The Government

Posted by: Damiano at February 20, 2016 11:12 AM (XItbt)

335 I'm just saying its not odd for a company or agency to give employees who are not sitting at a desk 8 hours a day cellphones and LTE-enabled laptops / tablets.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 11:12 AM (AkOaV)

336 If they have the right to open your mail, then they have the right to open your email/messages, etc.

Posted by: TexasJew at February 20, 2016 11:13 AM (6BP4Y)

337 Posted by: AmishDude at February 20, 2016 10:58 AM (JIElb)

Carson should go. His time came and went.

I'm not sure Jeb! or Kasich will leave until after we get into blue state primaries-

that's what both have to be banking on as neither will do much on Super Tuesday.

Money is the issue though.

It'll be interesting as Mario had yet to break out of third place, whether the GOPe will dump him and go all in on the Twitchy Postman's Boy.

If they really want Mario, the GOPe will force Jeb!, Kasich, Carson out as most of their votes will go to Mario.

Both Jeb! and Kasich are life long tax-leeches so bribery by position should be easy there.

That would give Mario a solid 33% to roughly 50% of the vote and top dog position at a deadlocked convention.

Why they haven't done this yet baffles me.

It's the easiest way to get what they want.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 20, 2016 11:14 AM (KUa85)

338 336 If they have the right to open your mail, then they have the right to open your email/messages, etc.
Posted by: TexasJew at February 20, 2016 11:13 AM (6BP4Y)

...and I have the right to write my letters in code, right? Like if I want to send a letter to my cousin that says "jhjght jhcyj syutjh" thats not illegal, right?

And if we have an "encryption" set up between us with a code book to de-code what we right, that's ok, too, right?

The government couldnt compel the USPS to hire code breakers to try to decipher what we wrote, can they?

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 11:14 AM (AkOaV)

339

wouldnt it be funny if this was all a show, that Apple already has a back door and the fed is using it

and all this is to fool terrorists and jack up Apples stock price which had been sinking ever since Cook took over

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 11:15 AM (zOTsN)

340 Morons, the code is already written. Has been since they first put in code that you only get 10 whacks at the passcode.

This is a good point. The older iOS versions didn't have the 10 wrong passwords and you're done feature.
So the next question would be, is it possible for the phone to be "downgraded" using existing tools?

Posted by: db at February 20, 2016 11:16 AM (QXiz8)

341 The argument really wasn't with you.

As far as this goes,

"This could be construed as trying to excuse Trump's behavior with the "they all do it" defense. "

You can construe it any way you want. That's your business. I won't get into it.

Trump is no Angel. Never has been, never will be. The same goes for Cruz.

That's my opinion and I am sticking with it.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Yada, yada, yada.... at February 20, 2016 11:16 AM (WVsWD)

342 The Empire is not amused that it cannot search these phones as it sees fit.

All phones.

Anytime it wants.

For any reason.

Serf.

Posted by: eman at February 20, 2016 11:16 AM (MQEz6)

343 335 I'm just saying its not odd for a company or agency to give employees who are not sitting at a desk 8 hours a day cellphones and LTE-enabled laptops / tablets.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 11:12 AM (AkOaV)

Yeah, I get it.
Just feeling some random bitterness at tax dollars going to govt perks that terrorists enjoy.

Posted by: @votermom at February 20, 2016 11:17 AM (cbfNE)

344 The government couldnt compel the USPS to hire code breakers to try to decipher what we wrote, can they?
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 11:14 AM (AkOaV)

-----------------

The tits are not calm.

I repeat: The tits are not calm.

Posted by: Soona at February 20, 2016 11:18 AM (Fmupd)

345 The tits are not calm.

Posted by: Soona at February 20, 2016 11:18 AM (Fmupd)

At last, a comment that I think we can all agree with!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 20, 2016 11:20 AM (wYnyS)

346 actually Tim Cook has really boosted the Apple stock price since he took over in 2011. But it is down signifcantly in the past year

Posted by: ThunderB at February 20, 2016 11:21 AM (zOTsN)

347 I'd take Apple's side if they didn't kowtow to the Chicoms on this very issue.

Posted by: Geoffrey at February 20, 2016 11:22 AM (LoRcb)

348 Until then, there is nothing about me that the govt gives a sh!t about. They already know everything about me, and they've got way more important stuff to worry about. To think that the govt has time or resources to target people like me would be narcissistic paranoid vanity.
Posted by: gp at February 20, 2016 09:51 AM (+Jpqc)

Ever donate to a political campaign? Read up on the "John Doe" investigation out of Milwaukee. The government can have plenty of time and resources if they want to, on all sorts of levels.

Posted by: Bete resigned to just watching the world burn at February 20, 2016 11:26 AM (Ojki1)

349 >>> The government couldnt compel the USPS to hire code breakers to try to decipher what we wrote, can they?
....

Nowadays? Yes, they can... so long as they tack on "national security interests" to it.

What they could not do, up until now, was go to your cousin and compel him to decode your letters unless your cousin had committed a crime. They also could not compel your cousin to act against his own interests.

Alas, we now live in Soviet America.

Posted by: Damiano at February 20, 2016 11:27 AM (XItbt)

350 Posted by: Bete resigned to just watching the world burn at February 20, 2016 11:26 AM (Ojki1)

I pointed that out. It was poo poo'ed.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Yada, yada, yada.... at February 20, 2016 11:27 AM (WVsWD)

351 Trump is an asshole and I think he's hurt himself in the past couple of weeks by making that apparent to everyone.

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at February 20, 2016 11:27 AM (u5gzz)

352 Another angle - feds are attacking Apple's shareholders by doing this.

Posted by: @votermom at February 20, 2016 11:28 AM (cbfNE)

353 The government couldnt compel the USPS to hire code breakers to try to decipher what we wrote, can they?
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 11:14 AM (AkOaV)

Actually, if your friend was a terrorist, the government could force you to break the code and the only way you could stay out of jail would be if you claimed the 5th amendment - then you would already be in pretty bad trouble to begin with.

Posted by: doug at February 20, 2016 11:30 AM (jJMfA)

354 >>> Just feeling some random bitterness at tax dollars going to govt perks that terrorists enjoy.
.....

I'm with you. Unfortunately it's nothing new.

Hell, I'd be happy if we bought iPhones for every terrorist on earth but stopped funding them, giving them weapons, and helping them to topple dictators that are keeping them in check.

Posted by: Damiano at February 20, 2016 11:31 AM (XItbt)

355 That's my opinion and I am sticking with it.

And you are entitled to it.

But I maintain that trustworthyness is an amount, not a yes/no.

If someone contradicts past statements over and over again, then, to me, they are less trustworthy than someone who has done it on rare occasion.

Thus, the Hildabeast, who lies nearly every time she opens her mouth, is far less trustworthy than say, Ben Carson who appears to have misspoken about a West Point scholarship offer.

It seems to me your logic lumps the two of them together.

Posted by: db at February 20, 2016 11:33 AM (QXiz8)

356 REF: http://acecomments.mu.nu/?blog=86post=361647#c24863105
<blockquote>Then why doesn't the FBI write the code?

Oh, right, because without Apples digital certificates they won't be able to push it to the phone.

Don't be naive, it's much more complicated then you think.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:54 AM (AkOaV</blockquoteMore FUD. It is much more complicated that some think.

The code is in firmware, it doesn't matter if the crack code exists if the hack can't be applied.

Posted by: Sailfish at February 20, 2016 11:33 AM (AGAxT)

357 I'm with you. Unfortunately it's nothing new.

Hell, I'd be happy if we bought iPhones for every terrorist on earth
but stopped funding them, giving them weapons, and helping them to
topple dictators that are keeping them in check.

Posted by: Damiano at February 20, 2016 11:31 AM (XItbt)
That's brilliant! Give all the terrorists cell phones pre-loaded with Candy Crush. They will spend all of their time on that stupid game that they won't be able to do jihad.

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 20, 2016 11:33 AM (uZNvH)

358 REF: http://acecomments.mu.nu/?blog=86post=361647#c24863105
<blockquote>Then why doesn't the FBI write the code?

Oh, right, because without Apples digital certificates they won't be able to push it to the phone.

Don't be naive, it's much more complicated then you think.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 10:54 AM (AkOaV</blockquote>More FUD. It is much more complicated that some think.

The code is in firmware, it doesn't matter if the crack code exists if the hack can't be applied.

Posted by: Sailfish at February 20, 2016 11:34 AM (AGAxT)

359 The government couldnt compel the USPS to hire code breakers to try to decipher what we wrote, can they?
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at February 20, 2016 11:14 AM (AkOaV)

Of course, this isn't what the government is asking. What they are seeking is Apple to get rid of the self-destruct button that they put in there that would protect communications from known terrorists.

Posted by: doug at February 20, 2016 11:35 AM (jJMfA)

360 REF: http://acecomments.mu.nu/?blog=86post=361647#c24863114

This isn't a privacy issue. It is an issue of:

1. Forced labor
2. Forcing one to operate against their own self-interest

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 20, 2016 10:56 AM (8PbKi)

More FUD. One, Apple isn't an individual, they're a corporation and, as such, are required by law to do so if given a legal ruling, which has been given and, Two, by "own self interest" I'm assuming you're referring to Apple, they are no more protected than ISPs who are required, by law, to provide user data if ordered so by the court.

Posted by: Sailfish at February 20, 2016 11:44 AM (AGAxT)

361 Way late to the thread, but has it been mentioned that Trump is calling for a boycott of Apple over this?

Thanks Y-not and other morons for helping stupid me to understand this. Yeah, I don't trust our banana-republic government anymore either.

Posted by: stace at February 20, 2016 11:48 AM (ozZau)

362 "It requires re-writing the code."

And, this, dear readers is the real issue.
The government can't compel you to labor, short of convicting you of a crime.
We already ended slavery.

Posted by: navybrat at February 20, 2016 11:49 AM (8QGte)

363 If only Tim Cook and Apple had as much respect for the religious bakers and the first amendment as they seem to have for the forth amendment. The argument was (as near as I tell) that the bakers, by choosing to conduct business publicly, waived their rights and had to obey government dictates. Don't see how that also doesn't apply here.

Posted by: lymond at February 20, 2016 11:55 AM (koywJ)

364 they are no more protected than ISPs who are required, by law, to provide user data if ordered so by the court.

But Apple does not posses the data they are looking for. They are ordering Apple to do work on something they do not own or control. They might as well be ordering Apple to write new software for the IRS's computer systems.

Posted by: db at February 20, 2016 11:57 AM (QXiz8)

365 REF: http://acecomments.mu.nu/?blog=86post=361647#c24863118

Sailfish, Read the Karl Denninger links I posted at #74.
Posted by: rickl at February 20, 2016 10:58 AM (sdi6R)

Those links contain more FUD. First, the code to disable the counter is trivial but having it enabled requires Apple to create a separate firmware version with it applied, as even those articles admit. The FBI has already agreed to allow this work to be done in Apple-specified facilities with Apple employees (even Tim Cook himself) being present to install/uninstall it; thus allowing FBI agents to use their (FBI) computer to brute force the password breakage. Then, afterward, allow Apple to remove said firmware and do with it as they, include Tim Cook himself, pleases.

Posted by: Sailfish at February 20, 2016 11:58 AM (AGAxT)

366 Comment #362 is so full of shit.

See this:

http://tinyurl.com/jbc4ma7

Posted by: Dogstar at February 20, 2016 12:07 PM (mVQNC)

367 I have been following this for the last 3 days and I have not read where the point has been made that the terrorist attacks in this country have never been traced to secure iPhones. They have been traced to government incompetence. All 9/11 attackers were in this country on Visa that had expired a serious amount of time before the attack. The 2 yahoos in California were not vetted properly. Besides trying to set a precedent maybe we can also conclude that indirectly these government guys are saying "We are incompetent and the only way we can protect the American people is to snoop on the American people." Of course it will be for our own good!

Posted by: rich at February 20, 2016 12:09 PM (jxpou)

368 Comment #362 is so full of shit.

"Hmm! Good thing we don't step in it!"

"Yah! Good thing!"

Posted by: Cheech & Chong at February 20, 2016 12:13 PM (QXiz8)

369 >>Comment #362 is so full of shit.

>>See this:

>>http://tinyurl.com/jbc4ma7

I posted that over an hour ago. It refutes a lot of the claims being made here which pretty much means it won't get read.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 20, 2016 12:14 PM (/tuJf)

370 Denninger has a brand new post up:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231139

The FBI wouldn't lie to us, would they?

Posted by: rickl at February 20, 2016 12:15 PM (sdi6R)

371 "Right, like those white Christian gun owners who are always going on about the Constitution and their "rights"."

I'm a snow-white confirmed-Lutheran gun owner. For most of my gun purchases I filled out a govt 4473 form and sent it to the govt, and the govt vetted it. So I'm pretty sure the govt knows I have guns. Guess what? They don't care. My 2A rights weren't infringed, and they won't be.

What does that have to do with cyber-post-mortems on dead jihadis?

During the Patriot Act debate, conservatives used to say "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." Not anymore. The mujahids are going to sneak nukes into the USA someday soon, and God forbid we try to penetrate their f&cking iPhones.

Posted by: gp at February 20, 2016 12:50 PM (mk9aG)

372 I side with Apple too This gov't simply can't be trusted. None of them

Posted by: Rick554 at February 20, 2016 01:20 PM (Kpctk)

373 371
The mujahids are going to sneak nukes into the USA someday soon, and God forbid we try to penetrate their f&cking iPhones.
Posted by: gp at February 20, 2016 12:50 PM (mk9aG)

How about we try keeping the jihadis OUT in the first place? Oh, no, we can't do that. That would be "discrimination".

I am damn sick and tired of being told that I have to relinquish my rights because of "national security", when the government refuses to take even the most minimal measures to protect the nation.

Because bad people do bad things with guns, then we should all have our guns taken away "for the children". This is the same damn thing.

Posted by: rickl at February 20, 2016 01:22 PM (sdi6R)

374 gp: I don't even own an iPhone, nor am I an Apple stockholder. This is about more than that.

Posted by: rickl at February 20, 2016 01:39 PM (sdi6R)

375 How about we require unvetted muz and illegal immigrants in this country to buy only government issued phones with encryption disabled from the get go?

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 20, 2016 01:53 PM (wYnyS)

376 So, right now the DOJ cannot confiscate the code to break into iPhones because it doesn't yet exist. Once Apple "invents" the new code, then the DOJ can confiscate the new code and use it anytime anywhere. I have a problem with Government forcing an entity to perform any work: writing songs, making art, backing cake, or inventing a software crack.

Posted by: Rob in Katy at February 20, 2016 02:15 PM (eYTQP)

377 So, sailfish clearly has no idea what any of this is about and thinks screeching "FUD! " like this is slashdot from 2002 will carry the argument.

Stop posting Sailfish.

Posted by: Steve at February 20, 2016 02:26 PM (rngc1)

378 Any reason Apple cannot close the hack in a future software release once the government has what it wants? Otherwise, I understand Apple's business concerns and the need for a court order to give it cover, but what expectation of privacy does a dead terrorist have using an employer provided phone? Zilch, I suspect.

Posted by: rebel flounder at February 20, 2016 02:27 PM (SzagJ)

379 This thread in a nutshell?

Everyone, and I mean EVERY FUCKING ONE, who is on Apple's side is exactly like the people who were on Trayvon Martin's side.

In other words, they have absolutely no idea what the facts of the situation actually are.

Posted by: Dogstar at February 20, 2016 02:58 PM (mVQNC)

380 Why can't they just give the fucking phone to Apple and have them hack it & change the password to "TimCook" and send it back?

Posted by: red speck at February 20, 2016 03:10 PM (9Xu0X)

381 I have a problem with Government forcing an entity to perform any work: writing songs, making art, backing cake, or inventing a software crack.

Posted by: Rob in Katy at February 20, 2016 02:15 PM (eYTQP)

....using e-verify, social security and medicare tax withholding, income tax withholding, collecting child-care payments....anything else?

Posted by: doug at February 20, 2016 03:41 PM (Y7fRE)

382 providing health insurance paperwork...employee unemployment insurance, workers comp paperwork....yeah, I bet you have a problem with government forcing any business to perform any work - only when you don't.

Posted by: doug at February 20, 2016 03:43 PM (Y7fRE)

383 I don't know if there was a Hammacher Schlemmer catalog in WW2, but I do know they weren't selling perfectly encrypted radio to the enemy. Because anybody who tried to benefit the enemy for profit got stripped to a barrel and their assets seized by the federal government. Lookit Prescott Bush, who just tried to make money that would be paid to the enemy AFTER THE WAR. Nope, not allowed.

I just bring up WW2 because we won it. The war on terror, no way. That would involve stopping phone companies from inventing a phone that deliberately frustrates the government.

Hating the current Administration is one thing. Hating the concept of government winning a war on terror, that's only helping the terrorists.

Yes I am against this liberty. Unhackable cell phones go back to what, 1999? You don't NEED an unhackable cell phone. You survived the dark ages without one. Nobody died. People are going to die if ISIS can yammer securely.

Choosing a pointless liberty over a little security is going to get other people killed. But fuck them, right? It's your PHONE. It's the LATEST. Until you trade it in next year.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 20, 2016 03:53 PM (EioIi)

384 "Rather, it's a fishing expedition that could be readily abused."

Could?

Will.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 20, 2016 04:06 PM (1CroS)

385 379 This thread in a nutshell?

Everyone, and I mean EVERY FUCKING ONE, who is on Apple's side is exactly like the people who were on Trayvon Martin's side.

In other words, they have absolutely no idea what the facts of the situation actually are.
Posted by: Dogstar at February 20, 2016 02:58 PM (mVQNC)

Go fuck yourself. You don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not on "Apple's side". I'm on the side of liberty.

Posted by: rickl at February 20, 2016 04:13 PM (sdi6R)

386 LOLZ No, you're on the side of cluelessness.

Posted by: Dogstar at February 20, 2016 10:28 PM (mVQNC)

387 Yeah, denied. If it were technology Apple already possessed, great. The court compels you. But to say you must now DEVELOP a means to do this. Nope, not happening.

And I'm sure Apple has already TOLD them this. To then turn around and try to compel them to develop something ? Oh, THE BALLS.

Posted by: deadrody at February 22, 2016 08:43 AM (kj7T1)

Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0522 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0197 seconds, 395 records returned.
Page size 260 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.