Is it normal to refer to the Justice Department as the U.S.? If I understand correctly it is part of the Government, yes, but this whole issue was promoted as FBI vs Apple, not US vs Apple.
Not a native speak, just sounds strange to me.
U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
211–220 of 246 posts
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#212Is it normal to refer to the Justice Department as the U.S.? If I understand correctly it is part of the Government, yes, but this whole issue was promoted as FBI vs Apple, not US vs Apple. Not a native speak, just sounds strange to me.
I think it's just an easier-to-read headline; there's always some oversimplification in those.
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#213Surveillance only works when people believe their communications are private and secure.
The 3rd party was probably NSA and they did not intervene up until because it would reveal the existence of a cracking technique.
What changed is that weighed against a possible court verdict that would tell every terrorist that no U.S. made device or encryption could possibly be secure, (causing targets to avoid using broken crypto) revealing the existence of a possible forensic technique was low risk.
The belief that it is possible to communicate securely is the most important thing for spies to maintain. The FBI wants to discourage people from believing it because they think it will make people less likely to commit crimes. The spies want to encourage the belief because it ensures they can collect the intelligence they need to maintain the status quo.
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Well, the USG considers Linux users to be extremists also. I think the phrase "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter" applies. There should be no moderation in freedom (outside of the absolutes of killing another or dispossessing them of their property). My response to these types of comments is precisely - when it is demonstrated that people make laws rather than governments in collusion with co…
> There should be no moderation in freedom (outside of the absolutes of killing another or dispossessing them of their property).
Why the focus on property rights? Much libertarian thought is expended on equating freedom to how you/others interact with property. It hardly gives credence to other man made rights that should be equally, if not more, recognized.
When you look at the group of people it dogmatically and absolutely resolves, and who funds think-tanks promoting the ideology, it is the well-propertied.
I find it hard to believe that all other freedom can be derived from and ensured by deifying property rights.
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#215I just want to point out that lots of HN recently has been saying "Apple would NEVER deal with the FBI, there's too much risk of a leak!".. and yet, with the example of what happened to Manning, Snowden (ETC) -- would you, with a 6 figure salary, want to tell the world of misdeeds when you could toil away comfortably? "So obvious no one will ever notice" Apple removed their warrant canary about a year ago timed with…
What? Apple are quite good with privacy. Unlike Microsoft, for example, Apple's operating systems have encryption on by default.
They removed their warrant canary. That's a giant red flag if there ever was one. Cooperation w/ governments negates encryption, no matter how good.
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it pretty possible to mess up this and brick the device though?
Bricking is on the 'flash', so if you have a copy and/or install an FPGA to replace the flash. There is nothing to 'brick'
I'm also not sure if the OS would notice if you tied the flash NAND chip's write-enable pin to ground. The OS would almost certainly notice the failed writes, but might try to make a best effort at error recovery and allow you to keep trying PINs.
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#217It seems far more likely then most of the conspiracy theories here that the FBI was simply running parallel work for breaking into the phone that has recently yielded results.
Since the All Writs Act has as a test, necessity, to stay within the law they're required to notify the courts if that changes.
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies will always comply with valid warrants for data in their possession, and it would be ridiculous to expect them to do otherwise. What made this case different was that it was not about a simple warrant for data held by Apple.
> Companies will always comply with valid warrants for data in their possession, and it would be ridiculous to expect them to do otherwise. Remember, the requirement for a warrent doesn't apply to non-US persons outside the USA. Us europeans have no protection from the 4th amendment for data held in US servers. And in fact, the US gov is trying to claim we don't have protection if it's held in a non-US server run by…
The XIV amendment says:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Which sounds like all people should have the same protection from unlawful searches ... as I'm a conditional law novice can someone briefly outline why this doesn't stand, what removed the protections for "all people" (note the preceding section refers to citizens, so all people is clearly a distinct class).
Is it that the federal nature of the FBI means they are above state law?
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm all for it. If you bring suit the other party should be allowed to cause you to have to continue if you feel like dropping it. There is some potential for abuse there though, this is not a simple matter.
What if you run out of money for lawyers and want to drop the suit because of that?
Counterpoint: if you want to sue everyone in the Unites States for pirating your porn, ask for $50 in settlement for dropping charges, and drop charges for anyone who shows up in court with legal representation, should the judge be sympathetic to you? Isn't a frivolous lawsuit a frivolous lawsuit anymore?
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#220Earlier 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.
There's the 'capable of repetition, yet evading review' exception to the mootness doctrine. But I agree this particular case is probably DoA. Maybe Apple can move for sanctions ...