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

U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 381 posts

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#161

Post by jMyles »

dpark wrote: post #141
KerryJones wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly -- because the US isn't a democracy (majority rule), it's a democratic republic.

It's not a direct democracy. That didn't mean it's not a democracy. If you redefine democracy to be the narrowest possible interpretation, you eliminate every government in the world. You also make the word pretty much useless.

It might be fair, though, to exclude governments whose founding documents and the position papers written to advance them expressly eschew and prohibit democratic rule, in favor of a limited and enumerated republic.

There are some governments who claim authority to take any action authorized by the democratic process. The US government is not among them. Ergo, it is not properly classified as a "democracy."

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#162

Post by imh »

nickff wrote: post #46
chii wrote: post #11

I feel like cases shouldn't be droppable unless both parties mutually agree, and the courts also must first agree.the courts should not agree if it's a case that could set a precedent that can have far reaching implications. What if next time, a smaller player than Apple was caught in this sort of case, and they can't fight back as easily? Then it'd be easier to setup a precedent favourable to one party. This seems l…

One of the reasons that courts do not allow cases to continue when a party loses interest in the dispute (for whatever reason) is that the court can no longer trust that party to continue making a forceful case. You can end up with situations where the party refuses to spend money on making good arguments and finding evidence, then make very bad precedent because of it.

That seems like a massive failing of our legal system when one party "refusing to spend money on making good arguments and finding evidence" can lead to bad legal precedents. Money should be irrelevant to it, especially because most parties can't afford to spend that money. But back in reality, you're absolutely right :(

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#163

Post by rayiner »

panarky wrote: post #115
snowwrestler wrote: post #101

I'm seeing a lot of comments to the effect that the government will just try again at some point. Well, welcome to life in a democracy. Nothing is ever settled with finality because there are plenty of ways for future generations to change the laws we cherish today--for good or ill. We could revoke the 13th and 14th Amendments and have slavery again--there is no legal impediment to that. That we don't do that is a re…

> Well, welcome to life in a democracy. The problem is not that things change in a democracy. The problem is that the change we get does not represent the will of the people. A majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the Patriot Act [1] yet it keeps getting renewed. A majority of Americans thinks political spending is corrupt [2] and that the political system is rigged, yet we get Citizens United to pour even more…

Your examples are all pretty disingenuous.

> A majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the Patriot Act [1] yet it keeps getting renewed.

First, what polls say is not the same as what the electorate believes. Actual voters skew older and more conservative that the general public. Second, your poll doesn't show that Americans are dissatisfied with the Patriot Act. 63% of those polled think it requires no or only minor changes. 62% think it's about right or doesn't go far enough.

Those polls also have some very interesting statistics. 30% of those polled think that the government should take all steps necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks, even if that means violating basic civil liberties. 65% think otherwise, but 55% of those polled do not think the government's programs violate civil liberties. 55% of those polled in 2006 were okay with the Bush administration's wiretaps. 53% of those polled in 2006 thought that the Bush administration was about right or did not go far enough in restricting peoples' civil liberties to fight terrorism.

> A majority of Americans thinks political spending is corrupt [2] and that the political system is rigged, yet we get Citizens United to pour even more corporate cash into the machine.

In a 2010 poll, 68% of those polled thought the government should be able to prevent the sale of violent video games to minors: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1588/children-violence.aspx. Yet in 2011, the Supreme Court struck down a California law doing precisely that (Brown v. EMA). I think few people on HN would say that was wrongly decided. Given that the Supreme Court reviews laws that have been passed by elected legislatures, it is almost guaranteed that when it strikes down a law, it will be going against popular opinion.

> A majority of Americans voted for the Democrat in 2000, but the Republican was installed instead [3].

Frankly, I think we should not only abolish the electoral college, but the states as well. But in the meantime, who the "majority of Americans voted for" is not how we decide the election of the President.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#164

Post by nodesocket »

The reality is that the FBI accessed it, so they no longer required Apple's help.

"The Justice Department said Monday it has accessed data on the iPhone used by a shooter in last year's San Bernardino, California, attacks and no longer needs Apple's help in cracking it."

Apparently a 3rd party from Israel (http://www.cellebrite.com/) helped the FBI which begs the question, how did they do it? Do they have universal access to all iOS devices or just this particular device? This really makes me start to think there is a backdoor.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#166

Post by rayiner »

nickff wrote: post #117
snowwrestler wrote: post #101

I'm seeing a lot of comments to the effect that the government will just try again at some point. Well, welcome to life in a democracy. Nothing is ever settled with finality because there are plenty of ways for future generations to change the laws we cherish today--for good or ill. We could revoke the 13th and 14th Amendments and have slavery again--there is no legal impediment to that. That we don't do that is a re…

One of the problems that many people have with what the federal government has done in the course of the 20th and 21st centuries is how they have completely ignored the 10th Amendment. I am not sure that the Constitution is an effective protection for civil liberties (or other rights), and I do not know what recourse the citizenry has when the government does ot abide by its own rules.

It's not that the federal government has ignored the 10th amendment, it's that it doesn't really mean anything.

Here is the text:

> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So take something like the ACA individual mandate. Does that violate the 10th amendment? Well, it was held to not be a valid exercise of the commerce clause power. But it was held to be a valid exercise of the taxing power. So it cannot violate the 10th amendment, because the taxing power is one of the ones "delegated to the United States by the Constitution." Say the Supreme Court had held it wasn't valid under the taxing power either. Would it violate the 10th amendment? Technically, but the Supreme Court wouldn't invoke the 10th amendment to strike it down, because a law not supported by one of the enumerated powers is invalid anyway.

The 10th amendment, by it's very language, cannot serve as any sort of independent check. If government action passes muster under one of the enumerated powers, it is by definition "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" and cannot violate the 10th amendment. If it doesn't, it's invalid by reason of not being within the government's enumerated powers--no 10th amendment necessary.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#167

Post by GraemeLion »

stcredzero wrote: post #130
snowwrestler wrote: post #101

I'm seeing a lot of comments to the effect that the government will just try again at some point. Well, welcome to life in a democracy. Nothing is ever settled with finality because there are plenty of ways for future generations to change the laws we cherish today--for good or ill. We could revoke the 13th and 14th Amendments and have slavery again--there is no legal impediment to that. That we don't do that is a re…

Well, welcome to life in a democracy. Nothing is ever settled with finality because there are plenty of ways for future generations to change the laws we cherish today--for good or ill. Some thing seem to be permanent. High priority lobbying goals for big corporations. (Examples: Disney & copyright extensions. Corn & corn subsidies. Car dealerships.)

True, but to be fair, their power has GREATLY diminished from what it was back in the days of the Robber Barons. It seems like they have a lot of control because we get to see behind the curtain now more than ever, but it's way less horrible now than then.

Remember, at one point, there was an entire plot by businesses to basically take the entire country over, and it was highly supported by members of congress and others.

So yeah. It's gotten better, but it's still way too pervasive.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#169

Post by guelo »

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #144
guelo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are at least a dozen other cases where the FBI has issued All Writs Act orders to Apple.

Citation?

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/23/new-court-filing-reveals...

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#170

Post by r0m4n0 »

cmurf wrote: post #52

Who wants to take bets on how? My bet is they copied the flash, and are iterating passcode guesses until it slows down too much (or implodes, however it's configured) and then they reflash and iterate again. And it was only a 4 digit passcode, so it was pretty easy to do this. The next bet is whether they find anything relevant? My bet is no. Next bet after that is whether they admit it? My bet is they won't. But the…

Yea I'm wondering the same thing. They should be bound by a public records request as the methods aren't related to national security (once the investigation has been deemed closed). Also, they should be required to disclose the amount of taxpayer money used for this workaround...
Post reply on HN