61–70 of 314 posts
I know this is going to sound crazy, but there are parallels here between Apple vs. the FBI, and Superman vs. Batman. Superman represents an unchecked power, and Batman finds this unchecked power to be unacceptable as a risk, in case the power is ever used against humanity. Is this a subtle marketing ploy from DC Comics‽
Clearly this is an agenda. I still don't understand why Apple needs to save the FBI from it's own incompetence in asking the government office that managed the iPhone to reset the password. It seems to me that unless tech companies come together to defend Apple, we may see (unregulated and unaccountable) government become very very part of all facets of computing.
I can't think of any way in which the FBI's incompetence would have legal implications for Apple's obligations. How would that work? If they're able to help, and can be compelled legally, why would the FBI having previously had the ability to get the data but losing it to a mistake change their obligation?
Their mistake shouldn't confer access through arguably illegal means (the legality of the court order compelling Apple not yet being settled).
I wish I had a timeline that showed me the frequency of stories coming out on this. I am only spitballing here, but does anyone else think the heat has risen for federal law enforcement to set some precedents on this stuff now that Antonin Scalia has died? My hunch is that with another liberal judge on the Supreme Court there may be a push to have some of this type of case heard at the highest court.
Apple does have a point. I probably won't own a device with a known vulnerability even if it was at the behest of the government.
Do you own a home? Do you own a car? The executive branch can obtain warrants from the judicial branch to "exploit vulnerabilities" and gain access to these "devices".
1. A person's "papers," memories and life details typically lives as data on their personal smartphones and other devices. Currently, a phone/laptop seems to be treated as pocket lint and other personal property, so a warrant is typically not needed to access contents, i.e., airport enhanced security screening, traffic stop, etc.
2. Important papers may reside in a home in a safe or filing cabinet. A warrant or probable cause is needed to search a home.
3. A search warrant is not needed to search a vehicle, only probable cause. All kinds of road vehicles including van conversions and RVs are considered vehicles, not homes, even for the folks whom dwell in them, and so there is currently little protection.
The fourth amendment needs an amendment to explicitly include one's personal electronic devices, hosted servers and cloud data in order to be congruent with the spirit of the law, because LEAs clearly do not respect sensible boundaries.
Furthermore, the Apple refusal is mostly a protest stance but moot considering the offensive LE tools industry jumps with glee at every opportunity to provide solutions... if the 10x-wipe retries counter is unencrypted, it will be broken by third-parties. (I hope this is not the case, and that it is an encrypted token of some sort)
Legal minds should weigh in, but I'm thinking the only effective remedy is going to be congressional action, to pass law that defines the limits of court discretion re: forcing firms' assistance breaching their carefully constructed security/privacy systems.
This news prompts me to write my representative and senators and strongly urge them to support enacting this form of protective legislation. If there's enough of an outcry from the electorate there's a far greater chance of putting sensible policies in place. The fact it's an election year can only make voicing our concerns all the more effective.
I wish I had a timeline that showed me the frequency of stories coming out on this. I am only spitballing here, but does anyone else think the heat has risen for federal law enforcement to set some precedents on this stuff now that Antonin Scalia has died? My hunch is that with another liberal judge on the Supreme Court there may be a push to have some of this type of case heard at the highest court.
I wish I had a timeline that showed me the frequency of stories coming out on this. I am only spitballing here, but does anyone else think the heat has risen for federal law enforcement to set some precedents on this stuff now that Antonin Scalia has died? My hunch is that with another liberal judge on the Supreme Court there may be a push to have some of this type of case heard at the highest court.
Scalia often ruled against law enforcement's attempts to abuse their search powers.
Examples:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-8508
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-564
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-9972
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/07-542
It's not clear to me how he would have ruled in this case, but I don't think it would have been open and shut.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incredible stretch huh? I bet any living noun knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who is a paid assassin. So heck yes we definitely should search noun's phone.
they came first for the nouns, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a noun; And then they came for the personal pronouns, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a personal pronoun; And then they came for the gerunds, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a gerund; And then . . . they came for me . . .
Note how Android unlocking demands never came up in this discussion. That's because the phones are vulnerable. I am a Nexus user.
This part is interesting... " The judge has indicated skepticism over the government’s demands. Initially, Apple agreed to a formal order to help the Justice Department gain access to Mr. Feng’s phone, but Judge Orenstein balked, questioning whether the All Writs Act could be used that way. He invited Apple’s lawyers to raise objections. "
I imagine the judge isn't oblivious to the potential weight of precedent here.