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

291–300 of 381 posts

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

#291

Post by jameshart »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #256
jameshart wrote: post #232

So in the last week, a lot of media reports around the Brussels attacks have focused on how, in the immediate aftermath of the arrest of an alleged Paris conspirator, the Belgian authorities were premature in announcing that they were learning information about his co-conspirators, which caused those people to bring forward their attack plans. Now, the FBI has just announced to the world that any information locked u…

AFAIK didn't the San Bernadino person not use their work phone for this? The iPhone the FBI wanted into was their work phone, already Government-controlled. Not their burner phone, which was destroyed.

As far as you know. Now consider that the FBI statements about what evidence they gathered from San Bernardino (evidence which is largely not part of a criminal prosecution so not subject to defense discovery) as part of a vector of information which the FBI might choose to manipulate to better enable their ability to exploit the intelligence they have. So what do you really know about work phones and burner phones?

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

#292

Post by alanwatts »

noelsusman wrote: post #201
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 American government is not supposed to be a direct representation of the will of the people, but let's go through this anyway. On the PATRIOT Act, the link you provided shows that 63% of Americans either want to keep the entire thing or make minor changes. Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible. The 200…

>There founding fathers did not believe in direct democracy.

Do you know why they didn't? Because it wasn't feasible to do so when information was traveling at the speed of the horse drawn carriage.

>In a large society, inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then, is to depute power from the many to a few of the most wise and good. But by what rules shall you choose your representatives? Agree upon the number and qualifications of persons who shall have the benefit of choosing, or annex this privilege to the inhabitants of a certain extent of ground.

-John Adams, Thoughts on Government

The limitation or assumption that "it is impossible that the whole should assemble" is no longer true.

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

#293

Post by alanwatts »

LordKano wrote: post #235
mchahn wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible. The people have nothing to do with that decision. It is just plain unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution never meant for personal rights to be applied to corporations.

The framers never intended for individuals to give up their rights just because they form corporations. I have the right to freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of speech(assuming that you're an American citizen). If you and I form a partnership with the express purpose of working together to combine our voices and speak together, we retain that right to freedom of speech. That was what Citizens United he…

>I find it so frustrating when people conflate "people" with "persons"

They are virtually synonymous. People is a plural form of person. Most people don't speak legalese.

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

#294

Post by ckozlowski »

adventured wrote: post #273
mchahn wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible. The people have nothing to do with that decision. It is just plain unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution never meant for personal rights to be applied to corporations.

The framers of the constitution never intended for the United States to become a massive welfare state, either. There's absolutely nothing in there covering programs like universal healthcare, social security, food stamps, et al. The framers very blatantly would not have supported such vast tax based subsidization of entitlements in which one citizen is forced to pay for another. They also would never have supported…

The absence of these items from the Constitution does not imply their opinions on the matter. The Constitution sets out a system of government, not a definition of how the economy should be run.

As to what you assert their opinions would be, you'd have to look at their own writings and find something to the effect; noting what many of the constructs you described wern't even being considered during that time. But that evidence won't be in the Constitution.

The Constitution lays out who's responsible for what, and who can make what decisions. It is not a bible stating the mores of the nation.

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

#295

Post by gherkin0 »

GraemeLion wrote: post #73
Johnny555 wrote: post #50

I wish Apple would be able to recoup their legal costs from the DoJ -- the government shouldn't be allowed to force a company to spend money on defending their rights (using our "unlimited" tax dollars to do so), only to drop the case at the last minute making the entire case moot. Apple should be able to recover their legal costs.

Somewhat agree, but Apple DID have a court order they were fighting. They did choose to fight this legally adjudicated and issued order. The owner of the phone and the law enforcement both wanted the phone decrypted. FWIW, I agree that privacy is ignored and should be respected, but apple chose this fight. I'm glad they did, but they knew it would cost them.

> They did choose to fight this legally adjudicated and issued order.

IIRC, but wasn't the order issued with only one side present at court (i.e. without Apple's attorneys being present to raise issues before it was issued)?

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

#296

Post by eric_h »

niccaluim wrote: post #133
eric_h wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree, the counterargument will likely be that all of Apple's lawyers are on salary and as such Apple's legal costs would be no different with or without the court proceedings.

No company on earth uses corporate counsel for this sort of thing. Apple hired two outside firms.

I know nothing about corporate law, thanks for the info.

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

#297

Post by imron »

LordKano wrote: post #235
mchahn wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible. The people have nothing to do with that decision. It is just plain unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution never meant for personal rights to be applied to corporations.

The framers never intended for individuals to give up their rights just because they form corporations. I have the right to freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of speech(assuming that you're an American citizen). If you and I form a partnership with the express purpose of working together to combine our voices and speak together, we retain that right to freedom of speech. That was what Citizens United he…

> A corporation can own property, pay taxes, sue, be sued and as a legal person

But it can't go to jail, and fines that are levied for wrongful behavior are often less than the profits obtained from said behavior and come about through settlements with no admission of wrongdoing, and without any executives being held responsible.

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

#298

Post by kefka »

LordKano wrote: post #235
mchahn wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible. The people have nothing to do with that decision. It is just plain unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution never meant for personal rights to be applied to corporations.

The framers never intended for individuals to give up their rights just because they form corporations. I have the right to freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of speech(assuming that you're an American citizen). If you and I form a partnership with the express purpose of working together to combine our voices and speak together, we retain that right to freedom of speech. That was what Citizens United he…

> Corporations are legal persons. Only persons can be parties to legal actions.

True, only due to bad precedent. "Should they be?" is a question we the people should have had a chance to argue and debate. Instead, it was by a judicial fiat that made a new type of citizenry. And honestly, they are pretty fucked up, with requiring their primary focus to be "Make money at all costs". A human with a similar 'ethics' would be called a sociopath.

Better yet, I'll believe corporations are legal people when Texas executes one.

Secondly, Patently false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...

United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film

United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency

United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins

United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls

United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola

You want more?

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

#299

Post by darkerside »

alanwatts wrote: post #292
noelsusman wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American government is not supposed to be a direct representation of the will of the people, but let's go through this anyway. On the PATRIOT Act, the link you provided shows that 63% of Americans either want to keep the entire thing or make minor changes. Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible. The 200…

>There founding fathers did not believe in direct democracy. Do you know why they didn't? Because it wasn't feasible to do so when information was traveling at the speed of the horse drawn carriage. >In a large society, inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then, is to depute power from the many to a few of the most wise and good. But…

Doesn't mean that "first necessary step" is no longer necessary or even a good idea. It just means that original assumption no longer holds.

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

#300

Post by girkyturkey »

Now does this mean that iPhones can be hacked? The government has said that in the vast majority of cases it will disclose security vulnerabilities, though in a small handful it doesn't. It would be good for everyone’s security if they disclosed, but they probably won’t
Post reply on HN