Posted on Feb 25, 2016
1
1
0
Is the REAL problem "Big Government" or "Government Micromanagement"?
I suspect that about 90+% of the people could not care less how "big" government got PROVIDED that government didn't actually intrude into their personal life.
It looks like "national security" is on the way to becoming the key to allow government to be 100% omnipresent - even though there isn't actually any way that that intrusiveness is going to be 100% effective in "protecting the nation" (or even much [if any] more effective than it was BEFORE the Pentagon/WTC mass murders.
I suspect that about 90+% of the people could not care less how "big" government got PROVIDED that government didn't actually intrude into their personal life.
It looks like "national security" is on the way to becoming the key to allow government to be 100% omnipresent - even though there isn't actually any way that that intrusiveness is going to be 100% effective in "protecting the nation" (or even much [if any] more effective than it was BEFORE the Pentagon/WTC mass murders.
Tim Cook: Protecting America from itself — and protecting Apple from America
Posted from washingtonpost.com
Terrorism
Rights
Security
Government
Privacy
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
I don't understand the problem here. The owner of the phone in question has given permission for the government to access its contents. There is sufficient evidence that the persons who used the phone committed an act of terrorism and any judge would happily sign a warrant authorizing search and seizure of their personal property including all papers, computers, etc. So, what's the problem?
BTW, at least I'm happy to learn just how good the security of my phone is (if I use it properly)
BTW, at least I'm happy to learn just how good the security of my phone is (if I use it properly)
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Jack Durish - Captain; "The problem" is that the FBI doesn't have the know how to search the iPhone.
Part of "the problem" is that the owner of the phone did not actually install the software which would allow the FBI to access the phone' memory.
Apple (which is NOT a branch of either the FBI or the US government [and which couldn't obtain a "search warrant" due to that fact]) would have to write new software to breach its own security protocols and that would make those security protocols less secure from being breached by people who WERE NOT granted permission to access Apple products.
The "secondary" problem is that there doesn't appear to be any intention on the part of the FBI to actually pay Apple for designing new software and/or for the decrease in value of the software that Apple currently owns.
As I understand it "... involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." - and forcing someone to work for free most certainly qualifies as "involuntary servitude" - but I may be wrong on that point.
If a judge signs a search warrant, then the FBI is perfectly free to conduct their own search of the iPhone which they already have (and which they don't need a search warrant to search since the owner has already given the FBI permission to search). A Judge CANNOT authorize Apple to search the iPhone (independently) and the FBI CANNOT compel Apple to work for free.
Part of "the problem" is that the owner of the phone did not actually install the software which would allow the FBI to access the phone' memory.
Apple (which is NOT a branch of either the FBI or the US government [and which couldn't obtain a "search warrant" due to that fact]) would have to write new software to breach its own security protocols and that would make those security protocols less secure from being breached by people who WERE NOT granted permission to access Apple products.
The "secondary" problem is that there doesn't appear to be any intention on the part of the FBI to actually pay Apple for designing new software and/or for the decrease in value of the software that Apple currently owns.
As I understand it "... involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." - and forcing someone to work for free most certainly qualifies as "involuntary servitude" - but I may be wrong on that point.
If a judge signs a search warrant, then the FBI is perfectly free to conduct their own search of the iPhone which they already have (and which they don't need a search warrant to search since the owner has already given the FBI permission to search). A Judge CANNOT authorize Apple to search the iPhone (independently) and the FBI CANNOT compel Apple to work for free.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Just to add on. If Apple creates this backdoor. Every government will have access to this. This include oppressive governments.
If Apple (who is not a forensics company) creates this back door, the capability has to be open for peer review and opens their proprietary technology to the world.
BL, this puts a undo burden on the company.
If Apple (who is not a forensics company) creates this back door, the capability has to be open for peer review and opens their proprietary technology to the world.
BL, this puts a undo burden on the company.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Sir - I wish more Americans understood that line of thinking. Our forefathers would be ashamed to see how large the federal government has become and how much impact they have on the daily life of an American. Alas, i believe you're right - the majority does not care about how big our federal government becomes...because bigger = safer in their eyes.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC (Join to see) - Captain; The Founding Fathers would have had a great deal of difficulty in figuring out exactly how big a government was needed for a country with a population that was 127.56 times as populace AND which occupied more than ten times the area, AND had to deal with issues that hadn't even been invented in 1776 AND in which women, Indians, and Negroes were considered to be full-fledged citizens AND which was spending around 18,462.9 times as much money per year (which is actually only about 10 times as much once you factor in inflation).
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I would be more sympathetic toward Apple if the government was asking them to compromise their security systems and run the risk of doing real harm to their company. I normally would be on the side of the company in an issue such as this. The ask is very specific and direct. The FBI needs help with access to a specific devised, used by a person that killed 14 Americans. They have the backing of the court with a warrant.
As I understand it the FBI wants Apple to allow it to override the security feature that allows them multiple attempts to enter the passcode. If you exceed the attempt number, the phone destroys the data in it. I am not sure I understand the risk to the entire world that this request is creating. If the device is not linked to the internet, they do this in a room with technicians on both sides and no one on the FBI side gets access to security structure etc. what is the risk?
You would think that people on both sides (Apple and the FBI) could get in a room and figure out how to do this.
The notion that Apple is (as the headline states) "Protecting America from Itself and Protecting Apple from America" is insulting. Apple is a corporation, they are protecting no one but themselves. They make tons of money and thanks to America and Americans they have had the success they have enjoyed.
As I understand it the FBI wants Apple to allow it to override the security feature that allows them multiple attempts to enter the passcode. If you exceed the attempt number, the phone destroys the data in it. I am not sure I understand the risk to the entire world that this request is creating. If the device is not linked to the internet, they do this in a room with technicians on both sides and no one on the FBI side gets access to security structure etc. what is the risk?
You would think that people on both sides (Apple and the FBI) could get in a room and figure out how to do this.
The notion that Apple is (as the headline states) "Protecting America from Itself and Protecting Apple from America" is insulting. Apple is a corporation, they are protecting no one but themselves. They make tons of money and thanks to America and Americans they have had the success they have enjoyed.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
COL Ted Mc Ted, there are already laws on the books that can get you in trouble for not cooperating with the feds or Law enforcement in general. There are big things like obstruction of justice, failure to comply with a warrant or they can get you in a deposition and catch you in a lie and there is a perjury charge. Then there are the hundreds of ways they can make life uncomfortable. Everything from new regulation (or the over enforcement of existing ones) to the IRS arriving for an audit, the EPA for an environmental impact assessment etc. etc. etc. You get the picture?
We will see how it turns out. I don't see Apple giving a janitor a number 2 pencil and trying to wait this thing out nor do I see the feds "contracting" with Apple and accepting an almost unlimited liability protection of them in the event something happens.
Apple really hasn't yet demonstrated how this will hurt them or their customers (of which I am one). There is mostly warm air over the vocal chords about "security" of a wireless device and not wanting to jeopardize their technology. I predict a negotiated settlement where Apple quietly does most, if not all, of what the feds need with this phone.
We will see how it turns out. I don't see Apple giving a janitor a number 2 pencil and trying to wait this thing out nor do I see the feds "contracting" with Apple and accepting an almost unlimited liability protection of them in the event something happens.
Apple really hasn't yet demonstrated how this will hurt them or their customers (of which I am one). There is mostly warm air over the vocal chords about "security" of a wireless device and not wanting to jeopardize their technology. I predict a negotiated settlement where Apple quietly does most, if not all, of what the feds need with this phone.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl Jeff N. - Corporal; To OBSTRUCT justice you must actually do something - Americans still have the right to do nothing that they inherited from their British forefathers (even though they don't know this because they aren't taught it).
If the police show up with a warrant, then you are not allowed to DO anything to obstruct/interfere with their search. Equally you are not required to DO anything to make their search easier. If you have a ton of illegal drugs locked up in a safe, you don't have to open the safe but you aren't allowed to prevent the police from blowing it open either.
Certainly the police can APPLY for a COURT ORDER permitting them to examine you by way of deposition. If they do get such an order, then you are required to attend at the appointed place and time - you are also allowed to have your lawyer present. Indeed you must provide an answer for every question asked. There is nothing whatsoever which prevents you from answering EVERY question asked by saying "On the advice of council I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that the answer may tend to compel me to be a witness against myself.".
Actually we are now going to have to wait to see how the government's appeal of the court decision dismissing their application for an order forcing Apple to conduct unpaid work and to risk damage to its proprietary software and/or corporate profits has been heard
If the police show up with a warrant, then you are not allowed to DO anything to obstruct/interfere with their search. Equally you are not required to DO anything to make their search easier. If you have a ton of illegal drugs locked up in a safe, you don't have to open the safe but you aren't allowed to prevent the police from blowing it open either.
Certainly the police can APPLY for a COURT ORDER permitting them to examine you by way of deposition. If they do get such an order, then you are required to attend at the appointed place and time - you are also allowed to have your lawyer present. Indeed you must provide an answer for every question asked. There is nothing whatsoever which prevents you from answering EVERY question asked by saying "On the advice of council I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that the answer may tend to compel me to be a witness against myself.".
Actually we are now going to have to wait to see how the government's appeal of the court decision dismissing their application for an order forcing Apple to conduct unpaid work and to risk damage to its proprietary software and/or corporate profits has been heard
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
COL Ted Mc Ted, Not exactly on Obstruction of Justice. Normally it is an act of commission but there is also an act of omission. That is to say, withholding (hiding) or not providing information at all or in a timely manner of that has been altered etc. Consider this broad definition of obstruction:
Obstruction of justice is an attempt to interfere with the administration of the courts, the judicial system or law enforcement officers. It may include tampering with or intimidating, hiding evidence or interfering with an arrest. It is something a person does to impede the administration of a court process or proper discharge of a legal duty. Interference may be with the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice. Such activity is a crime.
The crime of threatening a witness in federal cases is defined by statute at 18 U.S.C. § 1512, "Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant". The punishment for such an offense is up to 20 years if physical force was used or attempted, and up to 10 years if physical force was only threatened.
Obstruction of justice is an attempt to interfere with the administration of the courts, the judicial system or law enforcement officers. It may include tampering with or intimidating, hiding evidence or interfering with an arrest. It is something a person does to impede the administration of a court process or proper discharge of a legal duty. Interference may be with the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice. Such activity is a crime.
The crime of threatening a witness in federal cases is defined by statute at 18 U.S.C. § 1512, "Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant". The punishment for such an offense is up to 20 years if physical force was used or attempted, and up to 10 years if physical force was only threatened.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl Jeff N. - Corporal; It still requires some specific action INTENDED to "obstruct" justice. Answering a question truthfully is NOT an "obstruction" and neither is answering the actual question that is asked rather than the question which the questioner would have asked if they had known what question to ask - even if you know what that question might have been.
Since eMails (unless printed out) do NOT have any physical existence then it is somewhat difficult to say that anyone has any eMails in their POSSESSION.
Believe me, any law which was written BEFORE the advent of "non-corporeal records" is going to have so many legal and semantic flaws in it that you couldn't even use it for cheesecloth.
In any event, the whole issue is now moot so it's time for someone to invent a new scandal and run that one up the flagpole to see how it looks in the sunshine.
Since eMails (unless printed out) do NOT have any physical existence then it is somewhat difficult to say that anyone has any eMails in their POSSESSION.
Believe me, any law which was written BEFORE the advent of "non-corporeal records" is going to have so many legal and semantic flaws in it that you couldn't even use it for cheesecloth.
In any event, the whole issue is now moot so it's time for someone to invent a new scandal and run that one up the flagpole to see how it looks in the sunshine.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google