Apple Files Official Motion to Vacate Court Order, Says FBI Seeks 'Dangerous Power'

[ThisIsNotMe]

I love that so many people can just carelessly label their Constitutional privacy as a "PR stunt" ... very encouraging to see so many people just plain not care what this whole ordeal could mean to them ... to the world.

Please elaborate on this 'Constitutional' right to privacy.

Do you have a right to privacy in a safety deposit box?
Do you have an absolute right to privacy for your banking records?

No you say? Why are any of these scenarios different?
Banks help law enforcement with safety deposit boxes and bank record requests all the time with a court order.

Well then. The right to privacy is irrelevant here because

A) There is a court order
B) The actor is dead

 

[rdlink]

Serious question, how does this help Apple? What's the advantage?

9th Circuit leans very left.

 

[BaldiMac]

Please elaborate on this 'Constitutional' right to privacy.

Do you have a right to privacy in a safety deposit box?
Do you have an absolute right to privacy for your banking records?

No you say? Why are any of these scenarios different?
Banks help law enforcement with safety deposit boxes and bank record requests all the time with a court order.

Well then. The right to privacy is irrelevant here because

A) There is a court order
B) The actor is dead

No one is arguing that a dead terrorist has the right to privacy. This is about the rights of the rest of us.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Actually, I'd love to have read Scalia's writings on this. Yes, conservative and originalist - but in most cases very good for suspects and very reluctant and over-reaches by the government. I think he'd have ruled in favor of Apple.

It's a shame he's not with us.

I would have trusted his judgment in this matter; he would have stood with Apple, I think. The US is a lot poorer without his great mind.

 

[mpavilion]

No one is arguing that a dead terrorist has the right to privacy. This is about the rights of the rest of us.

The only "rights" at issue here are Apple's rights -- whether or not they can be compelled to take the steps being demanded of them. No one's privacy rights are at issue. If Apple were forced to comply (and I don't think they will be), it would suck for everyone whose iPhone security may theoretically be compromised [tho I think Apple's "the code could get out!" is the weakest part of their argument]; but there is no Constitutional guarantee to an "uncrackable iPhone."

EDIT: I guess it is also true (as Apple argues) that if they're forced to comply, it raises the question of what other elaborate steps could companies (and individuals) be forced to take to comply with court orders... so the precedent that may be set would impact "everyone's rights" in that sense.

 

[apolloa]

Its not just American corporations supporting them. Are you referencing that poll a few days ago where its almost a 50/50 split roughly?

Polling of the American people also not a good measure. See long ago when the buzzword was not terrorism but communism, many sheeple said please Mr. McCarthy and Hoover piss and crap all over my civil rights.

This is what sheeple do....buy the lines the government feeds out of ignorance. Or they do it out of fear. Had to agree with McCarthy....you were un-American otherwise and there was your name on the list too .

Years later not worried about the wrath of Hoover and McCarthy and realizing they were idiots (Spy 101.....blend in,) those polls changed and McCarthyism viewed as a bad spot in US history.

Now its new war on a new "ism" and the circle starts again.

Moral to this story....time changes polling validity.

Another moral is some Americans remember their history and some don't. The promise this won't happen again is empty. And by coincidence....one of the players in McCarthyism is making a repeat show. I know...its a new FBI and they learned from the last time. So says their PR reps....

No, I heard it on the news, remember I am English living in England, so I don't see the American news on it all. You have a VERY different attitude and it seems law on 'privacy' in America to the UK, plus your news culture is slightly different I think. In the UK I believe Cook would just be thrown in jail for obstructing justice no ifs or buts, but in America it seems not so?
It's different culture I guess and way things are done.
I've no doubt distrust in the government is well placed as you say, who does fully trust their government? but I think there needs to be leeway with your security services too, far too many sick people in this world for their not to be.
How that leeway is agreed on I guess you may well find out over the coming weeks, there should in no way be a total ban on device access, but their should be stringent controls.
But I live in a country where we have millions and millions of camera's, all you email and internet activity is recorded, all you other data is recorded like phone records, SMS messages etc, all is accessible if required, I think a court order is required to access this information and obviously due to the humongous amount of data it is, rest assured only data actually needed by security services is accessed.
So we have the controls in place and that different culture about it all, that's why I stopped fully posting my opinions on it all, because I appreciate I am not American, so will have a different view by default.

What other none American corporations are supporting them as I have only heard American ones like Google and Microsoft etc.

 

[Mac2me]

MacRumors said: ↑
Apple points towards the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, legislation that would have mandated a similar back door. It did not pass, which Apple uses as evidence Congress denied law enforcement the authority to compel companies to provide data when no decryption key is available.

Your description of CALEA is misleading at best. CALEA did pass and specifically prevents the government from demanding changes to hardware or software in telecommunications equipment.

See the quote on Daring Fireball.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/02/25/apple-fbi-motion

CALEA did pass, CALEA II did not, which was something Apple pointed out in their Response, illustrating that Congress could have intended additional restrictions but didn't. Important point to their Case objections.

 

[\-V-/]

Please elaborate on this 'Constitutional' right to privacy.

Do you have a right to privacy in a safety deposit box?
Do you have an absolute right to privacy for your banking records?

No you say? Why are any of these scenarios different?
Banks help law enforcement with safety deposit boxes and bank record requests all the time with a court order.

Well then. The right to privacy is irrelevant here because

A) There is a court order
B) The actor is dead

Those analogies aren't applicable to the situation. The banks encrypt your data. The banks aren't giving tools to the FBI that will inevitably get into the wrong hands ... putting half a billion bank accounts at the mercy of horrible people. What the FBI is requesting won't require a court order. They're requesting security circumvention be put into the Operating System itself that allows them to get into the phone ... rendering the entire Operating System vulnerable ... and open to the chaos that bad people will bring once they get their hands on this method for circumventing the phone. It is not a question of if, but of when. It's a bit shocking to me how so many of you do not comprehend the gravitas of this situation. You're not looking at the big picture here.

 

[lchlch]

No, I heard it on the news, remember I am English living in England, so I don't see the American news on it all. You have a VERY different attitude and it seems law on 'privacy' in America to the UK, plus your news culture is slightly different I think. In the UK I believe Cook would just be thrown in jail for obstructing justice no ifs or buts, but in America it seems not so?
It's different culture I guess and way things are done.
I've no doubt distrust in the government is well placed as you say, who does fully trust their government? but I think there needs to be leeway with your security services too, far too many sick people in this world for their not to be.
How that leeway is agreed on I guess you may well find out over the coming weeks, there should in no way be a total ban on device access, but their should be stringent controls.
But I live in a country where we have millions and millions of camera's, all you email and internet activity is recorded, all you other data is recorded like phone records, SMS messages etc, all is accessible if required, I think a court order is required to access this information and obviously due to the humongous amount of data it is, rest assured only data actually needed by security services is accessed.
So we have the controls in place and that different culture about it all, that's why I stopped fully posting my opinions on it all, because I appreciate I am not American, so will have a different view by default.

What other none American corporations are supporting them as I have only heard American ones like Google and Microsoft etc.

I think your wrong.

Because the order itself provide avenues for Apple to be heard. So in a sense they have not breached the order.

 

[Mac2me]

Although I stand with Apple on this (as stated in various other previous posts), I am intrigued by the argument they filed. Some of their points are substantive in that they point to prior bills that did not pass, but at other times it seems to be less legal or substantive and very much opinion. how much of that is for the judge and how much of that is for the public?

I read through the entire response (interesting read) and we should note that they are citing: All Writs Act (AWA) and the 1st and 5th Amendments as basis for their Motion to Vacate and Opposition to DOJs Motion to Compel.

The fact that prior bills did not pass does show the Government's intention. I did think the wording in general in Apple's response was in such a way that Average Joe Public could read and understand (I'm sure that was also intentional--as Average Joe Public does a have big stand in this based on cellphone usage--Apple's or not).

I kind of enjoy reading the comments made by people under various articles out there in the press. It shows that many, many of them haven't even read the response and are passing judgment. Too bad. THIS IS American jurisprudence happening and what we are founded on.

 

[dannyyankou]

I see republicans are angry at Apple on Twitter over this. They want the phone unlocked to potentially save American lives due to terrorism. I agree with them, we must save American lives!

But when it comes to gun violence...

 

[robeddie]

The proverbial shot heard around the digital world?

Either way, here we go. The only question I have for everyone:

Buttered popcorn, or nachos? Because this is going to be good.

BL.

Oh for Allah's sake, stop. Every time there's a thread like this someone on the first page drags out the 'get out of the popcorn' line. It's so worn out, and no longer even vaguely clever or funny. Can we all just agree to not use the 'popcorn' line anymore for any so-called controversial story.

 

[Mac2me]

Actually, I'd love to have read Scalia's writings on this. Yes, conservative and originalist - but in most cases very good for suspects and very reluctant and over-reaches by the government. I think he'd have ruled in favor of Apple.

I had read an article written shortly after his death that he may have surprised people on his stance on privacy on this Apple case. It basically said that as the years went by he was more pro-privacy security. Based on that, I do think his siding with Apple could have been a real possibility. Especially in light of so many former high-level government security officials coming out in support for Apple.

 

[Dammit Cubs]

LOL - Jailbreak team be like......We got this done months ago!

 

[apolloa]

I think your wrong.

Because the order itself provide avenues for Apple to be heard. So in a sense they have not breached the order.

How do you mean? Not sure I fully get your point.

 

[Mac2me]

The only "rights" at issue here are Apple's rights -- whether or not they can be compelled to take the steps being demanded of them. No one's privacy rights are at issue. If Apple were forced to comply (and I don't think they will be), it would suck for everyone whose iPhone security may theoretically be compromised [tho I think Apple's "the code could get out!" is the weakest part of their argument]; but there is no Constitutional guarantee to an "uncrackable iPhone."

EDIT: I guess it is also true (as Apple argues) that if they're forced to comply, it raises the question of what other elaborate steps could companies (and individuals) be forced to take to comply with court orders... so the precedent that may be set would impact "everyone's rights" in that sense.

For those that say well the GOVTos code would be safe at Apple, don't forget that people could be blackmailed into sharing how to write the code through a number of means and people also have sold out their country by selling secrets. Reportedly the Chinese now have all kinds of personnel data on American govt employees. Believe I read Tim say something like well things change at companies and people come and go and Apple simply doesn't want that responsibility of that kind of code.

 

[\-V-/]

LOL - Jailbreak team be like......We got this done months ago!

No, they didn't.

 

[aaronvan]

What did Obama violate?

The 4th Amendment.

 

[mpavilion]

For those that say well the GOVTos code would be safe at Apple, don't forget that people could be blackmailed into sharing how to write the code through a number of means and people also have sold out their country by selling secrets. Reportedly the Chinese now have all kinds of personnel data on American govt employees. Believe I read Tim say something like well things change at companies and people come and go and Apple simply doesn't want that responsibility of that kind of code.

I get that, I suppose... but it sounds like the code is something that would have to be the work of a team of engineers, and would take some time to get done; i.e., not something that a single individual could just be blackmailed or bribed into easily "recreating" later? (Or, if an individual could do it, then why couldn't a former or current Apple coder be blackmailed/bribed right now into writing this code from scratch?)

I completely get why Apple doesn't want to do it, I just don't see why it's so certain that the code could "escape" or be recreated once it's been written once.

 

[Mac2me]

Was listening to the FBI Director's testimony on Capitol Hill and noticed that at no time did he state to create then destroy the code. Rather that it exists at Apple which he felt was secure.
Talk about a prize target.

The whole destroy code comment by them I am sure was essentially playing to the public. As I have read early on by iPhone Foresnic scientists and as was layed out in Apple's response, that likely couldn't happen with any certainty, apart from records needing to be kept delineating what had been done for any court testimony down the road. Ooops Sorry Apple that we asked for a Roadmap to be out there. Either they were uninformed, misinformed or being misleading.

 

[dk001]

You'd be surprised. Also it's possible to be entertained, entertaining and insightful all at once #FoodForThought

I did a bit of fun earlier.
I put MSNBC, CNN, and FOX on the same screen and watched them (CC works well ).
Same topic - this one - and they were all saying it differently . The difference between them was astounding .
Entertaining even

 

[lchlch]

How do you mean? Not sure I fully get your point.

If you read the order issued by the court it specifically states that if Apple find that the order unreasonably burdensome they are allowed to make an application to court for relief within 5 business days of the receipt of the order.

 

[dk001]

They have tried that and failed. That is why the DOJ has resorted to this nonsense.

Outlawing encryption has become a non starter for legislatures

Other than a couple of draft "WTH is that" items, I am not aware of anything to come from that august group in quite some time. Now getting all together to discuss... that's a potential path forward.
[doublepost=1456451919][/doublepost]

There should be a way for Apple to get into a phone if need be.
I think the Government needs to be able to get information from terrorists and Apple is going to lose this PR war, IMO

Why?
If my external hard drive attached to my MS Surface is encrypted is MS or the hard drive maker responsible for being able to get into my hard drive?
No.
So why should Apple?

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

I love that so many people can just carelessly label their Constitutional privacy as a "PR stunt" ... very encouraging to see so many people just plain not care what this whole ordeal could mean to them ... to the world.

I have your Calvin Coolidge quote at the bottom my work e-mails. Love it!

 

[apolloa]

If you read the order issued by the court it specifically states that if Apple find that the order unreasonably burdensome they are allowed to make an application to court for relief within 5 business days of the receipt of the order.

Ah I see, I didn't know that.
When it says relief, is that in from the order entirely or just to allow some breathing space?