So, like Snowden said, the FBI was lying about everything.
Yep. Iām not comfortable with this at all.
And the floodgates openā¦
Are you saying that they are lying about breaking into the iphones? Somehow I think they are telling the truth.
The police/fbi always got warrants to inspect into the homes and property of people suspected of a crime, including opening safes, bank accounts, etc. The difference is that with the digital technology people thought that they were too clever with encryption and they could use their precious iphones to store information in an unreachable way. All this shows is that they were confused about that, but nothing specifically new is going on, they are getting a warrant to inspect the suspectsā āstuff.ā
No. That they were lying about their inability to.
The clueless just donāt get it. The thing that needs to be nipped in the bud it to prevent them from accessing phones for minor crimes, etc. But for terror, homicide, rape, etc., by all means check out the phones. Iām tired of the āpot leads to heroinā attitude of a lot of liberals on this one. The goal should be to restrict this practice to certain types of crime, not to stop the practice. Fuck someone who commits murder, you have no fucking right not to be searched.
And the reality is that this is a useful tool and the FBI themselves know it should not be abused or they will be reigned in. If you get caught with weed, no, the FBI is not going to open your phone to see who the dealer is. They really couldnāt give a damn. They are after serious criminals, and if used in those scenarios, I love it. I know several FBI guys here in NYC, and they could not give a damn about weed, etc. They want the POS a-holes who hurt innocent people physically and monetarily.
Not at all, if they were they would not have dropped the suit. They just were not saying they were working on breaking into the phones themselves, and frankly I have no problem with that. When they figured it out, they no longer needed Apple.
I suspect some high tech computer geek approached the FBI and made them an offer to do it for money, and the FBI offered them a nice deal if they did it. I say good on that strategy.
Hiland said he could not discuss details of the murder case in Arkansas, but confirmed the agency had agreed less than a day after the initial request.
Why does it feel like the FBI is now just rubbing it in? Gloating even.
Isnāt it illegal under the DMCA for anybody to circumvent content or device encryption mechanisms? Wouldnāt federal, state, and local authorities be as constrained by the DMCA as private citizens? And if thatās true ā and if, moreover, the cracking of said suspectās iPhone were to yield inculpatory evidence ā canāt the defense in the Arkansas case (a) sue to force authorities to disclose how they were able to obtain otherwise encrypted information and (b) argue that information so obtained (by means that are ostensibly illegal under the DMCA) cannot be introduced as evidence in a criminal trial?
The DMCA is more a tool for copyright infringement issues, etc. There are numerous exemptions to DMCA. And certainly this would qualify, this is a Law Enforcement issue.
There are laws against breaking into someoneās home. But with a proper warrant, it can be done no problem.
Good, they should gloat if they can access info from murderers easier. Congrats. I like that much better than having to go through Apple, Apple should be reimbursed for doing that. They probably found some tech geek who did it for a price. And thatās cool. Just donāt abuse it, use it for major crimes only. That is what should be discussed, not whether the FBI should be able to use it. Of course they should. Just within parameters.
You can bet that the definition of a major crime will continually be downgraded until jaywalking can be classified as such. Yes, they have a duty to obtain information of a crime in any manner possible, it is just that LEOs seem to abuse that duty very easilyā¦ drip, drip, dripā¦90% take the job seriously, it is the 10% that I donāt trust, and I donāt trust that the 90% will police the 10%.
Iām curious whether Apple will figure out a patch on their own, or whether theyāll sue the FBI to reveal the flaw in their phone.
I personally do not have a big issue with them having the ability to crack the iPhone, etc., technology. What I would like now is for rules and laws to be put in effect immediately that would safeguard against any law enforcement doing so without first obtaining a court order AND only in cases such as rape, homicide, terrorism, etc. (including fraud cases involving very large amounts of money or wiping out peopleās savings and the like). This needs to happen now, before the practice is used for low-level crimes, non-related crimes or misused in other ways.
MrComments, I am a Progressive Liberal person and know others like me who would agree with what I just said. Even though your friends in the FBI likely are too busy to be worried about weed, I want the safeguards in the law so the ones who might be worried about it will be deterred from it.
edited to add @mrcomments.
Using that logic though, we should not have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or a Military. They all have corruption, fraud, etc.
Iād concentrate more on the fraud and corruption, not make blanket policies that impeded those programs.
Iād say the opposite. We already have a major trend toward legalizing weed, etc. No, jaywalking is not going to become a major felony. I realize you did not literally mean jaywalking, but my point is that I do not see minor crimes being classified as major ones, I in fact see the opposite as a trend.
That is already in place. The whole point of the Apple case was that the US had a warrant to access the phone, but that they were trying to get Apple to do it for them. BUT they definitely needed the warrant. Thatās already a law.
Thank you. Does the existing law address the type of crime/indictment, etc.?
edited to add: btw, many of us are not receiving notifications when someone ārepliesā to a comment ā that is why I add the @mrcomments, it helps assure the likelihood the other person receives some form of notification. I was not notified of your response, and Iām starting to not even be notified when someone uses the @. thanks.