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

181–190 of 381 posts

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

#181

Post by woodman »

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…

> ...much better than a world in which government decisions are truly final. Beware that level of power IMO.

That is certainly a valid point in the case of laws that expand a state's authority, but I don't think that is true where explicit restrictions on the state's authority are put in place (ex: bill of rights). I doubt anybody (outside of the Brady Campaign) will ever look over the bill of rights and think that we would have been better off without the explicit restrictions made clear.

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

#182

Post by Johnny555 »

teacup50 wrote: post #126
Johnny555 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the DoJ stopped fighting. If the DoJ ultimately won the case, then it's fair that Apple should have to pay their legal costs. But since using a 200 year old law to force Apple to do work they don't want to do was a legal stretch, if the DoJ lost the case then again I'd say the DoJ should pay Apple's legal costs.

The law in question was passed the same week that congress submitted the fourth amendment. Please stop parroting "200 year old law".

Oh, you mean in 1789, 227 years ago?

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

#183

Post by panarky »

Aleman360 wrote: post #116
panarky wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The US isn't based on majority rule. No one wants that.

Certainly not! It's much better to be ruled by sociopaths and megalomaniacs.

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

#184

Post by bko »

panarky wrote: post #176
bko wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and nearly 8 in 10 Americans believe in angels [0] You're cherry-picking topics you (presumably) agree on. [0] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-be...

Is your point that people who believe in angels have no capability to govern themselves, so they should be grateful to their corporate overlords? Or is your point that people who believe in angels need to be surveilled without warrants and have their meager earnings confiscated to enrich the elite?

My point is that the current popular opinion based on a casual response to an (unbiased?) question should not necessarily be used to determine the policy of a nation.

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

#185

Post by erichocean »

panarky wrote: post #139
mtgx wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but I think Americans want a semblance of representation. When The People have close to 0% sway in Congress' opinions on bills, and corporations have like 70%, I'd say that's a pretty big freaking deal, no? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig Every time there's an argument about wanting more democracy in the US, it seems someone always appears to say "but that's mob rule!". No, nobody wants mob rule. But…

Excellent video, I hadn't seen that. Predictably, the argument devolves into one about direct democracy vs. representative democracy, and that's really not the issue at all. The issue is that the current system consistently acts contrary to the will of the people. To quote the Princeton study from your video: The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-signifi…

> The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.

That's a feature, not a bug.

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

#186

Post by tucif »

GraemeLion wrote: post #30
pavornyoh wrote: post #18

Can Apple counter sue for them to reveal how they accessed the phone? Surely, there must be a loophole in there somehow...

Nope. The government does not have to disclose investigative techniques. If Apple wanted to help the government, they could have, but they chose not to take that tact. Expecting the government to help Apple now is folly.

Would it be possible to make a FOIA request?

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

#187

Post by eridius »

breck wrote: post #147
eridius wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people believe the chances of the phone containing anything of value are very slim.

Odds may be slim of there being anything newsworthy on the phone but do you think that it wouldn't be of value to the investigative team, who probably has to chase down hundreds of leads, contacts, and so forth? Unless the phone was wiped, I would be 99% confident that the team doing the actual investigation will get immense value from this phone, even if it's just tying up many loose ends.

They already had the 6-week-old iCloud backup from the device. Don't forget as well that this was a work phone, the personal phone was destroyed, which suggests there's nothing of interest on the work phone (presumably just info related to work).

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

#188

Post by Negative1 »

Woah, wait a minute. By purposely bypassing security restrictions present on the device via some sort of exploit isn't the FBI violating the iPhone terms of use? Could Apple theoretically sue them for doing this (and most importantly, for not sharing _how_ they did this)?

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

#190

Post by studentrob »

rayiner wrote: post #163
panarky wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 min…

> Frankly, I think we should not only abolish the electoral college, but the states as well.

I was with you until this part.

States gave us a path to gay marriage, and allow people to move to different areas that hold different values than the whole nation.

I'd suggest trying instant runoff voting before moving to something as drastic as abolishing states. I think IRV would allow people to express their votes and opinions more clearly than the system we have today.

Post reply on HN