Texas Proud
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- May 16, 2005
- Messages
- 17,388
Opps... I see posted already responded...
If the Supreme court is deadlocked the lower ruling stands.From what I hear about the SC, if they do decide 4-4 they can just shelve the case and wait for a 9th justice.... IOW, not decide it right now... I also do not think that the legal process can be fast enough where they would hear it this year anyhow... lower courts and appeals can take awhile...
Assuming Apple won't be selling this new software/procedure, why would we call it a "product?"Government mandates that require a company to produce a new product to government specifications against the best interests of the company and its customers is fairly unusual.
Assuming Apple won't be selling this new software/procedure, why would we call it a "product?"
The government, using the established legal procedures, is asking Apple to perform a service. Just like it asks a bank or phone company to perform a service ("use your expertise to discover and provide all information available on your system pertaining to the activities of Mr John Smith between 1 Jan 2014 and 31 Dec 2015.") Responding to these requests is just part of the cost of doing business, as Apple has acknowledged through their past acquiescence to these requests.
I also wonder if the long-term view would mean much to a parent who had children that were in immediate danger and the information on the phone would save them. I bet those parents wouldn't be all that concerned about China's eventually taking advantage of the Iphone's backdoor situation with the FBI.
Nothing in this case or on this phone has anything to do with the live collection of metadata (who called who and for how long, etc). If people believe the features of this phone prevent the collection of metadata, then they are misinformed.I don't get why some people (here and law enforcement spokespersons) keep acting like Apple enhanced their encryption out of the blue for no reason. It was because the NSA overstepped their authority from the perspective of many, gathering metadata on everyone.
Great. Nothing has changed in this regard: If a judge issues a subpoena or a warrant, then presumably getting the information advances the cause of justice and protection of individual rights (a terrorist or criminal violates my rights when they harm/kill me. Law enforcement helps prevent that with their investigations). If we believe there's something wrong with the process the government uses to get access to information then we should fix that process (because it affects physical searches of premises, in-stream capture of communications in motion, etc as well as this "data at rest" in an iPhone or elsewhere).DA's are already lining up to break into hundreds of phones.
The Justice Department is pursuing court orders to make Apple Inc. help investigators extract data from iPhones in about a dozen undisclosed cases around the country, in disputes similar to the current battle over a terrorist’s locked phone, according to a newly-unsealed court document.
The other phones are evidence in cases where prosecutors have sought, as in the San Bernardino, Calif., terror case, to use an 18th-century law called the All Writs Act to compel the company to help them bypass the passcode security feature of phones that may hold evidence, according to a letter from Apple which was unsealed in Brooklyn federal court Tuesday.
The letter, written last week from an Apple lawyer to a federal judge, lists the locations of those phone cases: Four in Illinois, three in New York, two in California, two in Ohio, and one in Massachusetts.
If the Supreme court is deadlocked the lower ruling stands.
I don't get why some people (here and law enforcement spokespersons) keep acting like Apple enhanced their encryption out of the blue for no reason. It was because the NSA overstepped their authority from the perspective of many, gathering metadata on everyone. As a result - Apple, Google/Samsung and others didn't want that capability/responsibility - and made it much harder for anyone to break in, on themselves as well.
No one said this case involved metadata. But the NSA metadata gathering swung the privacy pendulum, and was a significant factor in how private companies subsequently treated customer privacy. I have seen people here and in the news act as if Apple just changed their encryption methodology for no reason. That's ignorant, short memory or more likely lying by omission.Nothing in this case or on this phone has anything to do with the live collection of metadata (who called who and for how long, etc). If people believe the features of this phone prevent the collection of metadata, then they are misinformed.
In November, Android’s security chief, Adrian Ludwig, wrote that Google is not able to tap open encrypted Androids even if it wanted to. And he said that inability extends to unencrypted phones where the users have entered a passcode — a statement that reads like it’s pushing back on claims from Apple that Google could readily share phone data with authorities.
Clearly it was later and not the former. Apple's encryption changes don't protect metadata.I am not totally clear on the scope of this issue. Does Apple's encryption protect against the NSA from tapping iPhone conversations/texts or only to prevent a stolen phone from being accessed? I was under the impression, it is the later case.
That is the difference between whether the SC decides to hear a case, or once heard, what the ruling is. In the former, they (the 8 Justices) can decide to delay the hearing. In the latter, once heard, the 8 justices cannot delay ruling until the 9th Justice is appointed. At least that is my thought.I saw a discussion by constitutional lawyers on the court and what would happen to 4-4 decisions.... they said that one is that they issue the tied decision and the lower ruling stands...
However, they did say that they can choose to table the case and wait for a full court... hence, no decision issued and the lower court ruling is in limbo... at least that is what they seemed to be saying...
Precedence has been set albeit not exactly in this situation. Justices have in the past recused themselves from hearing a particular case. In that situation, there are 8 justices left to vote. The last time there was a 4-4 split was in 2010 over a copyright-infringement case involving Costco and a Swatch Group unit. At least that is what Google told me.but that there is no precedence in the ruling...
Not sure why you've conflated metadata into the current Apple issue, misses the original point entirely.Clearly it was later and not the former. Apple's encryption changes don't protect metadata.
Not sure why you've conflated metadata into the current Apple issue, misses the original point entirely.
Exactly! Much of this was to reduce iPhone theft, and protect the user when a phone is stolen.Device encryption was enhanced and the user interface changed to encourage users to lock down their phones to combat a spike in phone thefts, and the abuse of technology such as the CelleBrite 'forensic data extraction device' by criminals and others.
Some background on the device:
The gadgets police use to snarf cell phone data | Ars Technica
Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
Huh? If that were possible it would have already happened.I can see a face-saving way out of this one situation. As I understand it the phone is owned by the terrorist's employer. If that is the case, then the employer could request that Apple unlock its phone. Apple, as a consumer responsive company, could accede to the customer's request and unlock the phone and the employer could then had the phone over to the FBI. Apple could then claim that it is being true to its principles of protecting the consumer and could stand its ground on situations where the owner of the phone is the suspect and live to fight another day.
That is the difference between whether the SC decides to hear a case, or once heard, what the ruling is. In the former, they (the 8 Justices) can decide to delay the hearing. In the latter, once heard, the 8 justices cannot delay ruling until the 9th Justice is appointed. At least that is my thought.
Precedence has been set albeit not exactly in this situation. Justices have in the past recused themselves from hearing a particular case. In that situation, there are 8 justices left to vote. The last time there was a 4-4 split was in 2010 over a copyright-infringement case involving Costco and a Swatch Group unit. At least that is what Google told me.