Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brooklyn Judge: Feds Can't Use All Writs Act to Force Apple's Hand [pdf]

blogs.reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 198 posts

Re: Brooklyn Judge: Feds Can't Use All Writs Act to Force Apple's Hand [pdf]

#141

Post by stickfigure »

zelcon5 wrote: post #134
kevinskii wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would you prefer we cite, if not those who wrote the laws that are being argued?

Time is relevant. It should not be treated like a footnote in considering the importance of certain laws. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, I think he would have used military force against Apple, or at the very least threatened Tim Cook to a duel. To answer your question, the judges should cite their own judgement.

That you mischaracterize Jefferson as a duelist suggests that you are not sufficiently well versed in history to judge its value.

Re: Brooklyn Judge: Feds Can't Use All Writs Act to Force Apple's Hand [pdf]

#142

Post by icebraining »

phkahler wrote: post #79
guelo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A NSL is a subpoena, meaning an order to produce information. In these cases Apple does not have the information being sought because it is encrypted on the phones and they don't have the key. The government is trying to use a dubious legal tactic to force Apple to create a hacking tool that does not exist. It's not an order to produce information, it's an order to do forced work.

>> Apple does not have the information being sought But the guy who owned the phone can unlock it. Why not have a judge force him to unlock it? Why Apple?

Isn't he dead?

Re: Brooklyn Judge: Feds Can't Use All Writs Act to Force Apple's Hand [pdf]

#143

Post by jibalt »

euyyn wrote: post #102
poof131 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure what your point is or how it contradicts the part of the opinion you quoted. Sure, the founding fathers weren’t perfect and the sedition act seems downright deplorable, but the wiki article you referenced describes how the law helped propel the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans to power at which point it was repealed. Seems like the process worked pretty well.

The judge's point is "It's absurd to think the AWA was intended to be usable in this way, because it'll mean the first Congress was undermining the principles of the Constitution that they themselves wrote". You parent's point is "The fifth Congress did in fact undermine those principles in another case, so it's not so absurd to think that the AWA was intended as the government now claims". Granted, first vs fifth.

The judge's reasoning was explicitly based on many of the Founders being members of the first Congress, so you have granted that the argument is completely bogus.

And the point of the comment you're responding to is that the quoted argument is a non sequitur, which it surely is. The fact that the fifth Congress voted for a bad, self-serving law that violated the principles of the Constitution is completely irrelevant to whether the first Congress, in passing the All Writs Act, was doing the same. The argument is really quite circular: the belief that it is not absurd that the first Congress willingly violated the principles of the Constitution is the premise, not a conclusion that can be drawn from something done by the fifth Congress or the 105th Congress.

Re: Brooklyn Judge: Feds Can't Use All Writs Act to Force Apple's Hand [pdf]

#144

Post by jibalt »

zelcon5 wrote: post #130
matsur wrote: post #16

This seems to be the core point here — the US Code is a whitelist, not a blacklist: "The government's position also produces a wholly different kind of absurdity: the idea that the First Congress might so thoroughly undermine fundamental principles of the Constitution that many of its members had personally just helped to write or to ratify. Its preferred reading of the law – which allows a court to confer on the exe…

Am I the only one who sees how blind it is to continue citing 18th century politicians in 2016? Can we finally deprecate the "founding fathers"?

Being the only one who sees something is an almost certain indication of being in error. In this case, your errors are remarkably numerous for such a short comment.

Re: Brooklyn Judge: Feds Can't Use All Writs Act to Force Apple's Hand [pdf]

#146

Post by jibalt »

zelcon5 wrote: post #134
kevinskii wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would you prefer we cite, if not those who wrote the laws that are being argued?

Time is relevant. It should not be treated like a footnote in considering the importance of certain laws. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, I think he would have used military force against Apple, or at the very least threatened Tim Cook to a duel. To answer your question, the judges should cite their own judgement.

So your argument is that, because a lot of time has passed since the All Writs Law was passed, judges should take it to mean whatever they want it to mean.

On that bit about you seeing what all others fail to see, I suggest that you look up "The Dunning-Kruger Effect".

Re: Brooklyn Judge: Feds Can't Use All Writs Act to Force Apple's Hand [pdf]

#148

Post by zardo »

anaptdemise wrote: post #139
justinmayer wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Textual originalism is a euphemistic smokescreen, invoked to justify a position as "true" to the original intent even when the justice in question hands down opinions with no Constitutional basis. Scalia was a master at this deception, vehemently excoriating "activist" judges while simultaneously making logical leaps like "corporations are people" and "money is speech". Textual originalism is largely a fraudulent mec…

Although agree, ...with your position, I disagree in your reasoning. Corporations are persons because they are an organized group of people established to carry out the intentions and express the views, i.e. speech, of their members. Citizens United didn't screw campaign finance laws, it affirmed a breakdown of the intention of campaign finance laws. If a company can say, "we make our parts from recycled materials, t…

>Although agree, ...with your position, I disagree in your reasoning. Corporations are persons because they are an organized group of people established to carry out the intentions and express the views, i.e. speech, of their members.

Is that why you invest in a company? So it can express your views for you? I do it because I would like to be able to retire some day, not because I support their polital efforts.

Re: Brooklyn Judge: Feds Can't Use All Writs Act to Force Apple's Hand [pdf]

#149

Post by alblue »

swyman wrote: post #101
alblue wrote: post #28

I've written up the piece for InfoQ here: http://www.infoq.com/news/2016/02/all-writs-denied Basically, the motions in the piece indicate that the relationship with the All Writs Act that was successfully used before are not relevant; because in the prior case, the business property was being used to commit the crime, but in this case, the property was the owner of the accused, not Apple. The Judge also highlighted "…

Great article! Friendly suggestion: in the following sentence, I'd remove "explicitly" because the judge reasons that congressional rejection can take more forms than an explicit legislative ban (ie the comprehensiveness of CALEA combined with no explicit direction on this specific issue would be an implicit rejection). > The Judge disagreed, saying that the All Writs Act cannot be used to compel companies to do thin…

Thanks for the suggestion. Will do.

Re: Brooklyn Judge: Feds Can't Use All Writs Act to Force Apple's Hand [pdf]

#150

Post by jibalt »

rqebmm wrote: post #56
matsur wrote: post #16

This seems to be the core point here — the US Code is a whitelist, not a blacklist: "The government's position also produces a wholly different kind of absurdity: the idea that the First Congress might so thoroughly undermine fundamental principles of the Constitution that many of its members had personally just helped to write or to ratify. Its preferred reading of the law – which allows a court to confer on the exe…

I could do without the originalism. His argument that The FBI's "preferred reading of the law ... would transform the AWA from a limited gap-filling statute ... into a mechanism for upending the separation of powers" is more than strong enough without trying to divine the ideas of the long-dead creators of the law. What's important is the letter of the law, the relevant preceding decisions, and the judge's reason and…

"What's important is the letter of the law, the relevant preceding decisions, and the judge's reason and conscience (which is checked by appeals). The context the law was originally written in is just fluff."

Fascinating how you contradict yourself. The judge's reason and conscience demand that he interpret the law as it was intended by those who wrote it. The notion that "the letter of the law" should prevail is completely lacking in a reasoned understanding of what language is and how it works, and the notion that judges should make decisions based on their personal prejudices is completely lacking in conscience.

Post reply on HN