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

U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 246 posts

Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

#131

Post by trill1 »

oldmanjay wrote: post #111
DanBC wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This one time, this specific case, Apple pushed back. They need to be commended for that, but let's not forget all the other times (and there are very many) when they (and all tech companies) just handed over the data when given a valid warrant.

I definitely expect Apple to comply with valid warrants to the extent possible. Is there a serious belief that Apple should flout the law? Is there a company in the world that obstructs justice in their home country?

A lot of the big tech companies had an inside look at the growing surveillance state far before the average citizen did. I think an argument can be made that the should have done more to inform the public.

Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

#132

Post by studentrob »

oldmanjay wrote: post #111
DanBC wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This one time, this specific case, Apple pushed back. They need to be commended for that, but let's not forget all the other times (and there are very many) when they (and all tech companies) just handed over the data when given a valid warrant.

I definitely expect Apple to comply with valid warrants to the extent possible. Is there a serious belief that Apple should flout the law? Is there a company in the world that obstructs justice in their home country?

Some technologists hold an anarchist view that the government is evil and should be displaced.

There are extremists within any group. These folks do not want to bother fighting the government for rights because they think the public is too dumb and the government will win that fight. In thinking this way, they become apathetic themselves.

They're not all bad. Some of them contributed a lot to free software. But some times the ideas are toxic and hold people back from their best.

For example, many believe Snowden deserves a full pardon, and anything short of that is wrong. Well, Snowden himself has said he would return to face a fair trial. So it seems we are divided on some issues, and that can weaken our side in fighting for digital rights.

Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

#133

Post by greglindahl »

uxp wrote: post #128
DanBC wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but watch how the message will change from "Company obviously hands over data when given a warrant" to "company doesn't hand over data when given a warrant; they really care about privacy".

What is the alternative available to Apple, or any other technology company, when given a valid warrant for someone's data that isn't blatantly ignoring the law? I'm honestly not sure what you are suggesting. Apple has already given them Farook's iCloud backups, just not recent ones since they don't exist. If Alice was murdered, and Bob was circumstantially implicated, but had an iPhone that had some kind of data rec…

This discussion is a bit confused. There are plenty of "valid" subpoenas or search warrants which are squashed after being opposed in court. I'm not sure if the other commenters really believe that no company should ever oppose a search warrant, or if they think "valid" search warrants can't be opposed, or what. But opposing an over-broad or otherwise screwed up "valid" subpoena or search warrant is a necessary part of the American legal system.

Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

#134

Post by ipsin »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #123
InTheArena wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be unaware, but just FYI, the strongest justice on this kind of privacy right and limited search and seizure is the one who just died, and the candidate being considered to replace him has a well deserved record of cozying up to law enforcement agencies - in particular in the way that the guy who just died found unconstitutional. This doens't make sense to me. The FBI wants this precident, and they want i…

I am aware. > The FBI wants this precedent, and they want > it badly. I don't buy for a moment that they > would back down here. They do, they are also very cognizant of the ramifications if their motion is overturned. There is a constant calculus that goes on weighing the odds. It is very common to withdraw when that calculus indicates a possible loss.

I just wish that calculation was in service of something other than maximizing federal power.

Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

#135

Post by Splines »

msbarnett wrote: post #59
nostromo wrote: post #27

I suspect that the intelligence and law enforcement communities are afraid that if this case goes to the Supreme Court the All Writs Act may be scaled back or ruled unconstitutional. The All Writs Act goes back to 1789 and is used for all sorts of things, like wire tapping, obtaining call and ISP records, etc., and now trying to force Apple to make malware for their own phone. It's definitely a risk for the FBI to fi…

> I suspect that the intelligence and law enforcement communities are afraid that if this case goes to the Supreme Court the All Writs Act may be scaled back or ruled unconstitutional. It's not that the act is unconstitutional, it's that the interpretation of it that the DoJ has been selling to magistrate judges in ex parte hearings is extremely broad and would never survive appeal. The Supreme Court has made it very…

IANAL. Why does the existence of the AWA allow such things that the FBI is trying to do? The AWA seems to be a very small piece of law, and using it in the way it's being used seems against the spirit of it.

It's frustrating enough that code impact is completely unrelated to code size. I would rather our law not be the same way, but who am I to criticize.

Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

#136

Post by brianpan »

adventured wrote: post #127
abecedarius wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Heads I win, tails we flip again" -- how can we counter this? How does it become a game they can lose?

For one, you have to try to go after the All Writs Act. If I were Apple, I'd deploy a billion dollars and buy everyone in DC as necessary. Not exaggerating. Defense contractors, conglomerates, energy companies, etc. spend in the mere millions to get their way on things. Apple should purchase the entire Congress, aggressively, and destroy the All Writs Act as far as this type of situation is concerned, and push for fa…

It's not Apple who would take down the All Writs Act, it would be a citizen who had evidence against them obtained via the All Writs Act. They would have to discover that is how the evidence against them was uncovered, argue in court that the specific application of the All Writs Act was not legal, and a court would have to address it in a ruling. The result would be a reduction in scope of the act.

Source: IANAL, but I've seen stuff on TV.

Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

#138

Post by rms_returns »

themartorana wrote: post #85
digitalchaos wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The government is the moving party. If the moving party drops it, the court drops it.

Boo. IANAL so I can't quite see where the harm may lie in requiring the "moving party" to see through what they started (if the defending party wants it, of course).

The least that should happen in this case is the courts should ask the FBI exactly how did they found an alternative method to crack the iphones. If they don't, its unfair to Apple since they were potentially about to be ordered by the state to exploit a vulnerability themselves. IANAL of course, this is just my informed view based on existing facts.

Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

#139

Post by jahmed »

msbarnett wrote: post #86
ChuckMcM wrote: post #45

I suspect this is a "Strategic Retreat" on the Justice department. The ability to reflash the phone and avoid triggering the unlock erase was a pretty obvious workaround. So after investing a lot of time and money in trying to get case law to expand the DoJ's power over corporations to conscript them into the War on the 4th Amendment, it become possible that they would see a judgement against them (especially if the…

> So after investing a lot of time and money in trying to get case law to expand the DoJ's power over corporations to conscript them into the War on the 4th Amendment, it become possible that they would see a judgement against them (especially if the Supreme court becomes more liberal with the next appointment). Scalia would have hated the DoJ's argument here, honestly. If the Supreme Court even agreed to hear the go…

Yup this would have been a continuation of Scalia's majority opinions like Jones, Kyllo, and Jardines.

Also his dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was and will be fantastically important.

Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

#140

Post by ianamartin »

digitalchaos wrote: post #73
themartorana wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They certainly got a clue they weren't going to win - so can Apple now do anything to push the case forward for judgement?

No. The government is the moving party. If the moving party drops it, the court drops it.

I understand that in principle, but is that the end of it in reality?

I'm pretty sure NewEgg was recently taken to court by a patent troll, and after the troll realized that NewEgg fights instead of paying, they backed off. Then NewEgg sued to get a judgement that would guarantee this couldn't happen to them again.

I know this is a different venue and there are topical differences. But are you absolutely certain that there is no counter-action Apple (or any company, for that matter) can pursue to get a judgment about this?

Post reply on HN