Apple v FBI

[Midpack]

Charlie Rose had a very good interview with Max Levchin on Fri night, a more informed discussion of the issue at hand. It's not available online yet, and that interview is worth looking for, but here's an abridged version Tech CEO Max Levchin Weighs In On Apple vs FBI Fight - CBSN Live Video - CBS News

I am glad Apple is looking at the long term picture, and not listening to the knee jerk 'help the FBI' advocates. There's a lot more to it for all of us, and law enforcement will ultimately benefit as well from a public discussion, and legal boundaries from legislative and/or higher judicial bodies.

 

[NW-Bound]

...the government forces companies to do things they don't want to do all the time--and always with the stated justification that it is "in the public interest." Hey, if this proved to be the wedge that rolls back all that other stuff, I'd probably be in favor of it.

Eh, if they roll back ACA I would not like it. I did not have any pre-existing condition prior to ACA getting enacted, but unfortunately I do now. Having changed insurance, I cannot get back the old pre-ACA policy. And I kind of like being able to go from one insurer to another without worrying about that pre-existing condition.

People do not mind a government's action when it benefits them, but when they perceive that they do not get anything from it directly, they will not support it.

Have I said that I am a cynic?

 

[M Paquette]

Well, the real line being crossed here is that what the FBI wants from Apple doesn't exist yet. Apple may have the knowledge, but that actually is different from having the implementation of that knowledge in a form the FBI wants.

The FBI has gotten the Court to demand that Apple construct a new version of the iPhone operating system to the FBIs specification, what Apple's documents now refer to as GovtOS. GovtOS does not yet exist.

This is very different from a court order to turn over existing materials or information. It's a novel use of the All Writs Act to compel a business to create new materials or information to the specification of a law enforcement agency. This establishes a new legal precedent if it stands.

Establishing a new precedent is the goal of the exercise.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[ERD50]

...

I am glad Apple is looking at the long term picture, and not listening to the knee jerk 'help the FBI' advocates. ...

To keep it balanced, you probably should leave out the "knee jerk" description, or also add 'the knee jerk ' there are no limits to privacy, even with known criminals' ' advocates.

...

Establishing a new precedent is the goal of the exercise.

Speculation, your Honor!


-ERD50

 

[redduck]

Does all this mean that I no longer need to worry about Greece defaulting?

 

[NW-Bound]

Funny you brought this up. Just recently, I wondered what the Greeks been doing, but my search on the Web came up empty-handed. Not even the BBC site had anything.

Oh, could the Greek afford smartphones? How popular is the iPhone 6 over there? Does anybody know? Does the Greek police have any phone they need Apple to break into?

 

[M Paquette]

...
Establishing a new precedent is the goal of the exercise.

Speculation, your Honor!

-ERD50

Not really.

FBI director admits Apple encryption case could set legal precedent | Technology | The Guardian

This case was selected over others involving locked or secured devices because it would involve extending the All Writs Act to compel a vendor to develop a new work or customize an existing work in a novel fashion.

The intent is to provide a legal means to compel companies with detailed technical knowledge to produce hacking tools and other items as deemed necessary by the government.

Inside the FBI's encryption battle with Apple | Technology | The Guardian

The intent was first detailed in a National Security Council "decision memo" that weighed the tradeoffs between various options, including legislated mandates, explicitly deferring on legislation and compulsory actions, and officially remaining undecided on legislation and mandates while pursuing a timeline to press for resolution by various means.

The December 2 attack provided an opportunity, as unlike the Paris attacks, one phone controlled by an attacker was encrypted and locked.

Secret Memo Details U.S.’s Broader Strategy to Crack Phones - Bloomberg Business

In this case, the government wants Apple’s help in exploiting such weaknesses. But experts say they could find ways to do it themselves, and the NSC “decision memo” could lead to more money and legal authorization for a smorgasbord of similar workarounds.

 

[redduck]

So, you say you have nothing to hide?...

...You really have nothing to hide? You won't mind if we install these cameras in your bedroom and bathroom, then...

"It's better having something to hide than having nothing to expose."
redduck 02/27/16

 

[HFWR]

I usually come down on the side of privacy, and so I'm glad Apple is pushing back. And, frankly, they would be nuts not to.

I suspect, when all is said, if the SC says do it, Apple will do it. And, at that point, I'll begrudgingly accept it as well. For all the political bickering to the contrary, we have elections, we have courts, we have laws. Certainly not perfect, but...

 

[kcowan]

I just wish they had picked a better case. The cell phones of the attackers would be much more compelling than one left over, supplied by their employer, that they would have been insane to use.

 

[NW-Bound]

The attackers destroyed their own phones as I understand.

Yes, the FBI does appear to pick this case because it has nationwide attention. However, I do not have a problem with that, as it brings the issue to a head, namely how far personal privacy can trump safety, justice, and crime prevention.

In the past, there have been several cases where evidences came from videotapes and photos taken by the offenders. These sickening "souvenirs" are now taken with smartphones, and we could not get inside them. What makes a smartphone so sacred?

To people who say even crime perpetrators need to have privacy, I do not know what to say to them.

But if people worry about their privacy being invaded, or their phones getting hacked, then it is a legitimate concern and we can start to look for a solution. Congress needs to take this up and to define new rules.

 

[Ronstar]

I just wish they had picked a better case. The cell phones of the attackers would be much more compelling than one left over, supplied by their employer, that they would have been insane to use.

There probably isn't any good data to be had from phone calls or texts, since they most likely did those from their personal phones. But maybe some location data extracted from the employer phone would be helpful.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by M Paquette: ...
Establishing a new precedent is the goal of the exercise.

Originally Posted by ERD50:
Speculation, your Honor!

Not really.

FBI director admits Apple encryption case could set legal precedent | Technology | The Guardian ...

Semantics maybe, but I see a difference between saying "Establishing a new precedent is the goal of the exercise." and that "this case could set a legal precedent".

So I'll still say it is speculation that the legal precedent is the goal. It may well be one of the goals.

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

The attackers destroyed their own phones as I understand.

Yes, the FBI does appear to pick this case because it has nationwide attention. However, I do not have a problem with that, as it brings the issue to a head, namely how far personal privacy can trump safety, justice, and crime prevention.

In the past, there have been several cases where evidences came from videotapes and photos taken by the offenders. These sickening "souvenirs" are now taken with smartphones, and we could not get inside them. What makes a smartphone so sacred?

To people who say even crime perpetrators need to have privacy, I do not know what to say to them.

But if people worry about their privacy being invaded, or their phones getting hacked, then it is a legitimate concern and we can start to look for a solution. Congress needs to take this up and to define new rules.

You seem to think that the gvmt has not abused ordinary citizens.... and the Snowdens of the world has shown that to be false...

I have zero problem with them getting any and all information off of a person's phone if they are being charged with a crime... and I do not think anybody has said that a phone is off limits in this case....


This case is not about them getting into just this one phone... if it were, it would be really simple and it would have been done by now...

So in the vein of your quote... I do not know what to say to people who are willing to give away the privacy of all Americans for a perceived benefit that is probably not going to even get any results from the one phone that is the basis for the argument.... there is no evidence that they used the gvmt phone for any of their plotting... since they destroyed their phones we know they were thinking about this possibility and made the decision to not destroy this phone.... why? Because there is probably nothing on it.... so we know that the gvmt is looking to be able to look in every phone...

 

[audreyh1]

The attackers destroyed their own phones as I understand.

Yes, the FBI does appear to pick this case because it has nationwide attention. However, I do not have a problem with that, as it brings the issue to a head, namely how far personal privacy can trump safety, justice, and crime prevention.

In the past, there have been several cases where evidences came from videotapes and photos taken by the offenders. These sickening "souvenirs" are now taken with smartphones, and we could not get inside them. What makes a smartphone so sacred?

To people who say even crime perpetrators need to have privacy, I do not know what to say to them.

But if people worry about their privacy being invaded, or their phones getting hacked, then it is a legitimate concern and we can start to look for a solution. Congress needs to take this up and to define new rules.

You do realize that this is not a privacy issue, right?

The issue is forcing a company, Apple, to create a special product for the government - a GovtOS, that Apple doesn't want to create and believes it will hurt the security of their products and thus their customers.

 

[Midpack]

IME a large number of opinions on this (well over half IME) are based on limited information, but then that's often the case in today's world.

Seems like a pretty even handed assessment Really understanding Apple's legal brief in the FBI case | The Verge. Worth reading more than just the quote below, but in the spirit of ER.org...

From a distance, it's clear that the right answer here is not really for the court to glue together a bunch of old laws written before situations like this were possible and order anyone to do anything. The right answer is for Congress to write a new law that makes it very clear what Apple's responsibilities are, and what the cops can and can't ask for. And potential compromises abound: it's entirely too easy to see a world in which Apple loses this case, builds new versions of iPhones and iOS in which breaking the phone in this way isn't possible, but works with Congress on a law that allows the cops access to the data they want through iCloud anyway. All Apple has to do is increase the size of the free iCloud storage tier and require phones to backup constantly, you know? A lot of people would love that, actually. Win-win.

 

[explanade]

have 4 iOS devices and can't backup more than 2 at a time, especially if i take a lot of pics and videos with the iPhone.

Local backups are better for legal and technical reasons.

 

[NW-Bound]

You do realize that this is not a privacy issue, right?

The issue is forcing a company, Apple, to create a special product for the government - a GovtOS, that Apple doesn't want to create and believes it will hurt the security of their products and thus their customers.

This thread is getting long, and I do not blame you for not following up.

It's not about privacy, because the law never protects a criminal's privacy. There's no privacy in jail, right? It's about forcing Apple to do what it does not want to do. But let's put that aside for now...

... Now, in war time, the authorities can compel people to do things they don't want to do, and call it the draft. Perhaps we will have to wait until war is declared...

... As I wrote earlier, it is not about privacy. Criminals always lose the right to privacy. When we lock somebody up, he has no privacy. Even with suspects, currently the police with the proper warrant can search private properties for evidence. The phone is no different...

I think what bothers me more is that Apple is commandeered to write some new software against its will. I am no lawyer, but know that in war time the government can commandeer, such as ordering the draft or taking over private properties, and we are not currently at war. But recently, people are ordered to have health insurance, just because it is "good for them", or "good for society". It would not surprise me that the SC will rule that Apple must do this for the common good...

I think the FBI just uses this to force the issue to a head, to draw public attention to a can that has been kicked down the road too long.

The solution is for Congress to take up the issue, and to define new rules to deal with modern technology.

I will repeat a quote I included earlier.

The flurry of legal activity by the companies came as the F.B.I. also escalated the matter, calling on Congress to settle the question of when law enforcement should get access to citizens’ private data. Apple earlier this week had also asked for Congress to step in.

“The larger question isn’t going to be answered in the courts, and shouldn’t be,” James B. Comey Jr., the F.B.I. director, said in a hearing of the House Intelligence Committee earlier on Thursday. “It’s really about who do we want to be as a country and how do we want to govern ourselves.”

 

[audreyh1]

This thread is getting long, and I do not blame you for not following up.


I think the FBI just uses this to force the issue to a head, to draw public attention to a can that has been kicked down the road too long.

The solution is for Congress to take up the issue, and to define new rules to deal with modern technology.

I will repeat a quote I included earlier.

I have been following the thread. I just don't understand all the privacy talk when that's not the issue. But since the FIRE forum is known for it's tangents, I shouldn't be surprised. It just seems a lot of energy is being used arguing about privacy when that's beside the point in this case.

 

[MichaelB]

I have been following the thread. I just don't understand all the privacy talk when that's not the issue. But since the FIRE forum is known for it's tangents, I shouldn't be surprised. It just seems a lot of energy is being used arguing about privacy when that's beside the point in this case.

Yes, they are two separate issues - the phone, and a back door entry into the system - that seem to move together in a funny, synchronized way. Easy to mix them, especially when most media reports lump them together.

 

[NW-Bound]

It's because some people say they care about ultimate privacy and nothing else.

I say we need to use technology to find a solution that protects the privacy of the innocent and safety from hackers, while also allowing access to the criminals' phone with the proper search warrant.

 

[audreyh1]

Yes, they are two separate issues - the phone, and a back door entry into the system - that seem to move together in a funny, synchronized way. Easy to mix them, especially when most media reports lump them together.

Yes - the media reporting has been really poor. Even Krebs reported that Apple had unlocked 70 iPhones when in fact they didn't unlock those phones. They extracted certain data from the phones that was extractable even with the phones locked. Something that is not possible any more.

 

[redduck]

Could this be a Third (3rd) Amendment issue? (asks the duck)
+++

From The Free Dictionary
The Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
​

Ratified in 1791, the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution sets forth two basic requirements. During times of peace, the military may not house its troops in private residences without the consent of the owners. During times of war, the military may not house its troops in private residences except in accordance with established legal procedure. By placing these limitations on the private quartering of combatants, the Third Amendment subordinates military authority to civilian control and safeguards against abuses that can be perpetrated by standing armies and professional soldiers".

++++
(the duck is back)
So, in times of war, civilians may be required to billet solders in accordance with established legal procedures (I have no idea what they are). Anyhow, it seems to indicate that home owners can be forced by the government to turn their homes into a bed and breakfast for soldiers--housing, feeding, keeping them warm, giving them beer, etc..

Turning a house into a bnb would cause the homeowner to create something that he didn't already have (a bnb) and would also be of cost to him (which he may/may) not be reimbursed.

Please keep in mind that I am not a Third (3rd) Amendment scholar.

 

[NW-Bound]

For the Third Amendment to apply, war must first be declared. Supposedly, the Constitution says that only Congress has the power to do that. In practice, the US has mounted war many times without a formal declaration.

Caveat: I am not a lawyer, let alone a Constitution scholar. And I slept in my bed last night, not at a Holiday Inn, which might explain why I am never sure about much.

home owners can be forced by the government to turn their homes into a bed and breakfast for soldiers--housing, feeding, keeping them warm, giving them beer, etc..

Beer? One can a day each, or a case? What if they see my XO Cognac and want a taste? Can I refuse? Is it spelled out somewhere?

 

[NW-Bound]

A side note:

It is not just that the US has formally declared war only 5 times but has fought in many, it also declared some unusual wars. I can recall War on Poverty (Lyndon Johnson), War on Cancer (Richard Nixon), War on Drugs (Richard Nixon), War on Terror (George W Bush), and these were done by US presidents, not Congress.

I say somebody needs to declare War on Cellphones. Note the cellphones and not just smartphones. These things are way overrated, and we can do without them. Really. Soon, people will realize that they are more trouble than they are worth. Ban them. People can now converse face to face or on Internet forums instead of texting.