Who does he think he fooling? I wish I could be in the courtroom when Ted Olsen makes the government lawyers look like chumps. No doubt, it will be a thing of beauty.
1 Like
Theyâre trying to compel Apple to create software that doesnât currently exist. In effect, theyâre trying to force speech. Apple technicians have the right to say nothing, i.e., to write no code.
3 Likes
âWe know we have some witnesses that said they thought
they saw three ⌠some saw two, some saw one.
The majority said two, and the evidence we have
up to this point only supports two.â
and
a âlying-dormant cyber pathogenâ
Either is possible. Both are nigh improbable.
Jeez.
The two sh^ttiest excuses for trying to employ a heretofore-unused semi-legal backdoor.
Will there be psychics involved in the next attempt?
jw1
1 Like
Iâve seen God.
No, Iâm not ratting her out.
jw1
2 Likes
Am I missing something? Wouldnât Faroukâs phone company have a record of all incoming and outgoing calls and texts, which would, of course, have been given to the FBI? Not the contents, sure, but theyâd have the numbers and could go talk to everyone on the list.
1 Like
It may show what level Farouk reached on Candy Crush and whether he played while at work, so they could dock his pay.
2 Likes
And porn donât forget porn.
Whatâs with this logic youâre using? Whatâs wrong with you? Clearly you want the terrorists to win!!!
1 Like
Are the cops that incompetent that they canât find porn on-line themselves?
1 Like
I know this could be done because Iâve seen Mr. Peabodyâs on The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show.
2 Likes
Clearly youâve never had my grandmaâs. It includes what (and how much) to feed the chickens. Iâve already shared it with Tim Cook.
Au contraire. There is such a recipe. The secret ingredient is dill.
Seems to me itâs more an issue of Statutory interpretation, not a Free Speech issue. You are in fact compelled to give information when confronted with a Court Order. And there is a very similar precedent, in 1977, phone companies were required to set up pen registers, devices that recorded numbers called from a particular phone line. That ruling came from a SCOTUS case US v NY Telephone.
I think itâs more an issue of the extent of what is being required. At the very least Apple should be reimbursed for any expenses.
Tough call on this one, but I am not seeing it as a Free Speech issue. Just my opinion.
Was US vs NY Tel. ruled as a commerce clause issue? Didnât the phone companies already possess the requested info as a matter of billing records? Even so, that information has nothing to do with Apple, just as US vs NY Tel. had nothing to do with individual telephone manufacturers. What is on the phone itself is different from the transmitted communication records. It might be the equivalent of a personal pencil and paper notepad. Would you COMPEL a paper manufacturer to come up with method to extract coded information on one of its paper tablets?
And when calculating cost, how does the government calculate the cost of reputational value to a brand and destruction of a well crafted legal business model?
1 Like
Man jumping out window could fly if ground was not there.
Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Evernote, and nine other major tech firms have filed amicus briefs supporting Appleâs position. They emphasized the severe harm that would come from court-initiated mandate as opposed to a more considered legislative action.
1 Like
Comey admitted it in Congress this week. Both sides of the aisle treated him and his agents as incompetent boobs when it comes to technology, which they are. Today the NYTimes is reporting that the Governmentâs covert cyber side is completely against breaking into the iPhone and other back doors, mostly because they probably already have them and want no one else to have one.
1 Like
But this is information that doesnât currently exist. Apple isnât being ordered to turn over the key to the magic decoder ring.
In fact, I wonder if Apple could simply say, âYes, weâll give it a shot, but thereâs no guarantee that we can pull it off.â
If you get a judge to say there is probable cause to issue a search warrant and then to say the warrant justifies the issuance of a writ of assistance, it doesnât violate the Constitution. On the contrary, that conforms perfectly to the Fourth Amendment. Thatâs exactly how the Founders intended it to work. Thatâs how the explicit text of the Fourth Amendment provides it should work.
It was the lack of a requirement for the government to show a judge probable cause and obtain a warrant thatâs been at the root of every single brouhaha over the last decadeâBushâs illegal wiretapping program, the FISA amendments, the Snowden revelations, the whole lot.
There are a lot of reasons, good ones, to not want the government to do this or for Apple to do it for them. But âviolates the Constitutionâ isnât one if them.
Letâs leave using âThis Violates the Constatooshunâ as a synonym for âI donât like thisâ to the right wing fringe idiots, shall we?
4 Likes
Donât forget the location of the Holy Grail and the Ark of the Covenant, the Confederacyâs lost gold, the Lost Dutchman mine, the identity and location of the other Kennedy assassins, and the identity of the Zodiac Killer.
1 Like