Apple Tells U.S. Judge 'Impossible' To Unlock New iPhones

[lcpiper]

He already addressed that issue. The 4th amendment doesn't mean you are not subject to any government request to view/seize your house, papers, effects, etc. Only that you are subject to a search after judicial review of the probable cause to search it.

Much better when a real lawyer says it, TY kirbyrj.

 

[lcpiper]

1. The article in the OP says the judge asked Apple for input on the issue, not that the courts forced them to comply (they were considering an attempt to force). However Apple couldn't even if they wanted to (which is why the judge inquired about it) without breaking their own encryption, which has been explained to you over and over and over and over and over, again and again. The passcode to the phone unlocks the encryption!

2. That's actually precisely what the government wants outside of the courtroom. If Apple has the 'backdoor' - key to their own encryption then the US GOV will demand it also (WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS BEFORE). You're the one with your head in your ass. As the locked phone is literally encrypted. FFS, this shit with you gets extremely old. Now I know why all similar threads have you posting most of the comments and everyone else just browsing right passed them. The problem I have with you is that too many people will not understand how crazy and distorted your views really are and actually take you seriously. It's like every morning you default back to stock. Updating you everyday is a waste of resources. Have a nice day.

The right to privacy is absolutely more important than claimed security. Especially by government.

You are not keeping up. We have two different articles going, the OP news post, and you are correct about it. And the one that someone else linked to and said was related.

It's a pain to have to dance back and forth between them but I think it's not too great a thing to overcome to recognize which is which and what someone is referring to at any given time. Anything about a court order forcing action on Apple's part is about the drug dealer case which is about an S5 and io7 that Apple can still unlock. The opinion case is also about an ios7 device and Apple stated they can technically unlock it, but they can't do that with the newer ones running the newer OS.

And I was harsher then I needed to be, my "head outa your ass" comment wasn't deserved. I apologize to you for that xJ321x.

 

[xJ321x]

You are not keeping up. We have two different articles going, the OP news post, and you are correct about it. And the one that someone else linked to and said was related.

The OP article and evilsofa's link have the same docket number = No. 15-mc-01902. IT'S right in the OP article...

The case is In re Order requiring Apple, Inc to assist in the execution of a search warrant issued by the court, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 15-mc-01902.

If you can't keep it simple then you don't know enough about it. Debating issues is more than just how many words you type out, seriously. However either way both links were about Apple and encryption/locked devices. Same topic even if different cases which it appears they weren't. No matter what though you're just typing out anything you can think of to type.

It's a pain to have to dance back and forth between them but I think it's not too great a thing to overcome to recognize which is which and what someone is referring to at any given time. Anything about a court order forcing action on Apple's part is about the drug dealer case which is about an S5 and io7 that Apple can still unlock. The opinion case is also about an ios7 device and Apple stated they can technically unlock it, but they can't do that with the newer ones running the newer OS.

Funny as it appears to be the same case. Tell me more.

And I was harsher then I needed to be, my "head outa your ass" comment wasn't deserved. I apologize to you for that xJ321x

I'm apparently not harsh enough.

 

[xJ321x]

In the OP article.

Apple told U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein it could access the 10 percent of its devices that continue to use older systems, including the one at issue in the case. But it urged the judge to not require it to comply with the Justice Department's request.

The case is In re Order requiring Apple, Inc to assist in the execution of a search warrant issued by the court, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 15-mc-01902.

In EvilSofa's link.

 

[kirbyrj]

Judge Orenstein is a clown. He's designed T-shirts capitalizing on his cell phone views in the court. This goes to a real judge on appeal and Apple will lose.

 

[xJ321x]

Judge Orenstein is a clown. He's designed T-shirts capitalizing on his cell phone views in the court. This goes to a real judge on appeal and Apple will lose.

1. I'm also betting Apple loses this specific case as well because Apple can actually unlock this specific phone but wins overall as they have a valid excuse in their newer iPhone OS and that's broken encryption is very bad for the everyone, including the US GOV. It'll just solidify the importance of encryption for the future. Breaking encryption (installing backdoors) on purpose is also ruling that the government is more important than all the people it's supposed to represent. We shall wait and see.

2. Did you know that big feet/shoes and really small cars are supposedly signs of a mans larger penis size? Therefore one must conclude that clowns have very large penises.

 

[FLECOM]

We would never be able to force anyone to produce anything if the use a third part to store their records and they are encrypted.

wow

guess we should just throw the 4th amendment out the window eh?

you are a fine american, comrade... you would have made the stasi proud

 

[evilsofa]

James Baker, the FBI General Counsel, understands the tension between security and privacy better than some people in this thread:

“There are many ways to think about the ‘going dark’ problem,” Baker said. "At the most fundamental level, it really is about the relationship between the people and the government, in particular... when it relates to surveillance by the government of the people and under what set of circumstances do the people want that to happen. What do you want us to do and what risks are you willing to take on all sides of the equation?”

That article is worthy of its own front page article.

 

[kirbyrj]

wow

guess we should just throw the 4th amendment out the window eh?

you are a fine american, comrade... you would have made the stasi proud

Once again...another person who doesn't understand the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment isn't carte blanche to keep the government out of your personal items and affairs. It just means that a judge has to approve the search and seizure of specific items based on affidavits of probable cause.

If you commit a crime using your computer, cell phone, etc. and the DoJ or any other agency wants your computer, cell phone, etc., they are going to seize it after completing a search warrant. This is completely legal. This is not an invasion of privacy.

All Icpiper is saying is that if you allow 3rd parties to encrypt data and then tell people with valid warrants that they can't access the data, you are undermining the DoJ ability to fight crime. This isn't a blanket "collect all the cell phone traffic in the area" type of operation. This is looking for specific information that is specified in a legal warrant. The NSA =/= DoJ.

 

[lcpiper]

The OP article and evilsofa's link have the same docket number = No. 15-mc-01902. IT'S right in the OP article...

If you can't keep it simple then you don't know enough about it. Debating issues is more than just how many words you type out, seriously. However either way both links were about Apple and encryption/locked devices. Same topic even if different cases which it appears they weren't. No matter what though you're just typing out anything you can think of to type.


Funny as it appears to be the same case. Tell me more.

I'm apparently not harsh enough.

All the more pertinent then. One more time.

This is simple and it's Apple making it difficult.

There is nothing about the DoJ's request that is ordinary and that Apple and any other service provider hasn't done in the past. The 4th isn't at issue here, Apple is grandstanding and the judge is taking his time being patient. In this case Apple can unlock that phone. The Prosecution has valid reason to require it and a warrant has been issued.

I can't say how long this case will run but I can say that when it's done we will know how things are going to go in the future. I can also say that it is my current opinion that Apple is wrong in what they are trying to do and that I don't think the Government will allow Apple's excuse that the data is encrypted to stand.

I think they are playing nice right now with Apple and being all touchy feely, and I think Apple is going to milk it for all they can to come off in the public's eye as a company we all can trust. But in the end they will have to submit to the Governments requests that they engineer a reasonably secure method to balance their customers privacy with the people's needs.

I do not believe that Apple's move toward full and inviolate encryption being allowed to stand in the way of the courts is in the best interest of the citizens of this country or Apple's customers.

Time will tell.

 

[lcpiper]

ahh, not ordinary.

 

[xJ321x]

It just means that a judge has to approve the search and seizure of specific items based on affidavits of probable cause.

So no part of the US government has ever searched through innocent peoples stuff without a search warrant before and they'll never do it again in the future when the CIA and NSA get ahold of the keys to encryption Apple would be forced to make? Apple can unlock this phone with less security in place but they can't unlock their newer phones with improved security which is why they're fighting this, for their future ability to protect their devices with normal functioning encryption = no backdoors - for good people that have committed no crimes.

If you commit a crime using your computer, cell phone, etc. and the DoJ or any other agency wants your computer, cell phone, etc., they are going to seize it after completing a search warrant. This is completely legal. This is not an invasion of privacy.

So broken encryption will only be used for good, never bad, because the government never does illegal shit, I got it. Just curious. If someone gets shot with a gun does the DOJ go to the gun manufacturer and ask them how the gun was used in the crime or how to take it apart?

All Icpiper is saying is that if you allow 3rd parties to encrypt data and then tell people with valid warrants that they can't access the data, you are undermining the DoJ ability to fight crime. This isn't a blanket "collect all the cell phone traffic in the area" type of operation.

No one is saying law enforcement can't access the data if they can get into themselves, what we are saying (and Apple) is that the manufacturer shouldn't be held responsible to the DOJ (or anyone) for what someone chooses to do with the product Apple sold them. Freedom of choice. Just because some people decide to run people over with their car doesn't mean all cars should now come with DidYouRunSomeOneOverToday- Spyware installed in it to make sure no one else is running people over with cars. That'd be punishing the many for the actions of a few.

The entire point of providing encrypted (actually secure) devices for the good citizens that haven't broken any laws will be ruined in the future nullifying the point of having encryption at all in the the first place if Apple is forced to make their products less secure just so the government can catch a few bad apples. Why is this so hard to comprehend? You guys seriously want to punish the majority (their privacy) for the actions of a few. It's ridiculous.

This is looking for specific information that is specified in a legal warrant.

Well yeah, the NSA/CIA isn't going to go after Apple in the courtroom and tell them their security is too good for them to crack and spy on people using Apple products. The DOJ is gonna use a good example out in public, that doesn't mean it won't be abused in the future behind the scenes. We've seen it happen too many times already with the government.

The NSA =/= DoJ

How can you say that the NSA/CIA won't use backdoors built into Apples encrypted devices that the DOJ fought to get, legally, under a good courtroom case (excuse)? You can't, period, because they will. This fight isn't just happening because of a few bad individuals, this fight is occurring now because the government as a whole has a larger agenda and that's broken encryption in the USA - by law.

Keep this shit up and in the future just having encryption that actually works as encryption was originally intended to work will get a good person made into a criminal and thrown in jail. But hey, we got a terrorist drug dealer off the streets in 2015 that had already plead guilty to the crime he got caught for doing.

 

[xJ321x]

All the more pertinent then. One more time. This is simple and it's Apple making it difficult.

Fighting for the use of proper encryption in the US isn't simple nor is Apple just making it difficult. It's actually a very serious topic.

There is nothing about the DoJ's request that is not ordinary and that Apple and any other service provider hasn't done in the past. The 4th isn't at issue here, Apple is grandstanding and the judge is taking his time being patient. In this case Apple can unlock that phone. The Prosecution has valid reason to require it and a warrant has been issued.

If Apple unlocks this phone that they can unlock the law is going to turn around and say Apple must break their currently working encryption to do the exact same thing on all of Apple's newer phones. Yes, that does mean this is extraordinary.

I can't say how long this case will run but I can say that when it's done we will know how things are going to go in the future. I can also say that it is my current opinion that Apple is wrong in what they are trying to do and that I don't think the Government will allow Apple's excuse that the data is encrypted to stand.

Big surprise here and you're a little GOV crazy and biased. You argue the governments side everyday on here no matter what. You just like pretending that you don't.

I think they are playing nice right now with Apple and being all touchy feely, and I think Apple is going to milk it for all they can to come off in the public's eye as a company we all can trust. But in the end they will have to submit to the Governments requests that they engineer a reasonably secure method to balance their customers privacy with the people's needs.

You mean break encryption in the US as we know it. Yeah, that little thing. First you said they're milking it when they're fighting it then you say they'll have to submit which means they weren't just milking it and actually fighting it....lol. Okay!

I do not believe that Apple's move toward full and inviolate encryption being allowed to stand in the way of the courts is in the best interest of the citizens of this country or Apple's customers. Time will tell.

I disagree 100% and I'm not biased having never worked for the government or a criminal. Your opinion is tainted though, that's clear. You want to punish the many for the actions of a few. You're a part of the problem in the US/world.

 

[kirbyrj]

So no part of the US government has ever searched through innocent peoples stuff without a search warrant before and they'll never do it again in the future when the CIA and NSA get ahold of the keys to encryption Apple would be forced to make? Apple can unlock this phone with less security in place but they can't unlock their newer phones with improved security which is why they're fighting this, for their future ability to protect their devices with normal functioning encryption = no backdoors - for good people that have committed no crimes.

So broken encryption will only be used for good, never bad, because the government never does illegal shit, I got it. Just curious. If someone gets shot with a gun does the DOJ go to the gun manufacturer and ask them how the gun was used in the crime or how to take it apart?

No one is saying law enforcement can't access the data if they can get into themselves, what we are saying (and Apple) is that the manufacturer shouldn't be held responsible to the DOJ (or anyone) for what someone chooses to do with the product Apple sold them. Freedom of choice. Just because some people decide to run people over with their car doesn't mean all cars should now come with DidYouRunSomeOneOverToday- Spyware installed in it to make sure no one else is running people over with cars. That'd be punishing the many for the actions of a few.

The entire point of providing encrypted (actually secure) devices for the good citizens that haven't broken any laws will be ruined in the future nullifying the point of having encryption at all in the the first place if Apple is forced to make their products less secure just so the government can catch a few bad apples. Why is this so hard to comprehend? You guys seriously want to punish the majority (their privacy) for the actions of a few. It's ridiculous.

Well yeah, the NSA/CIA isn't going to go after Apple in the courtroom and tell them their security is too good for them to crack and spy on people using Apple products. The DOJ is gonna use a good example out in public, that doesn't mean it won't be abused in the future behind the scenes. We've seen it happen too many times already with the government.

How can you say that the NSA/CIA won't use backdoors built into Apples encrypted devices that the DOJ fought to get, legally, under a good courtroom case (excuse)? You can't, period, because they will. This fight isn't just happening because of a few bad individuals, this fight is occurring now because the government as a whole has a larger agenda and that's broken encryption in the USA - by law.

Keep this shit up and in the future just having encryption that actually works as encryption was originally intended to work will get a good person made into a criminal and thrown in jail. But hey, we got a terrorist drug dealer off the streets in 2015 that had already plead guilty to the crime he got caught for doing.

1. You're making a grand assumption that since the DoJ is asking for Apple's help in this case which is limited in its scope to a specific phone with specific data that suddenly everyone's non-criminal activity is open for judgment which is not the case.

2. Your gun analogy is pointless. It doesn't even make sense in the context of this case.

3. The DoJ is not holding Apple responsible for a crime. They are asking for a legally obtained phone to be unlocked. The DoJ is not asking for assistance in spying on citizens. It is asking for a specific item to be unlocked with a legally valid warrant. A better example would be if a DoJ official went to a bank with a warrant and wanted information, but the bank said it could not give that information because the bank info is encrypted. Would that happen? No, because you sign a form saying that the bank will respond to all legally requested law enforcement requests.

4. You're making ANOTHER assumption that your cell phone data is going to get you thrown in jail as a law abiding citizen because of this by the CIA/NSA. But once again, a phone seized through a warrant in the case of criminal activity is completely different than random cell phone sweeps without probable cause. This has nothing to do with security vs. privacy. This isn't done through some secret court. This is simply a criminal investigation with a legally obtained warrant and an activist judge trying to make a name for himself.

 

[xJ321x]

1. You're making a grand assumption that since the DoJ is asking for Apple's help in this case which is limited in its scope to a specific phone with specific data that suddenly everyone's non-criminal activity is open for judgment which is not the case.

A naive lawyer, wow, cool. This case has absolutely nothing to do with this specific individual or this specific phone. It's over the future of phone encryption and time will prove me right. It's also limited in scope to this case but the ruling is not. It'll set a terrible precedent which is why Apple is fighting right now. It matters right now. I'm also positive Apple's lawyers are better than your are at law and protecting themselves, their business worth hundreds of billions. That much wealth buys tactical lawyers that think about down the road.

2. Your gun analogy is pointless. It doesn't even make sense in the context of this case.

It made perfect sense to me. Did you read it right?

3. The DoJ is not holding Apple responsible for a crime. They are asking for a legally obtained phone to be unlocked.

The DOJ is attempting to hold Apple responsible to them for unlocking all Apple products in the future because of a 'legally attained warrant' which means Apple would have to ruin their now in use encryption to comply. A 'legally attained warrant' is immaterial if Apple can't actually comply no matter what in regards to all their newer phones in use now and in the future. That's the point Apple is trying to make here in the long game. Apple sees what this will become, obviously you don't.

4. You're making ANOTHER assumption that your cell phone data is going to get you thrown in jail as a law abiding citizen because of this by the CIA/NSA.

You're making the assumption that if the NSA/CIA have a backdoor that other hackers won't as well. The only people that will be without these keys are the actual device users that forgot their own passcodes. A backdoor to encryption will set good honest people up for more victimization and identity theft.

But once again, a phone seized through a warrant in the case of criminal activity is completely different than random cell phone sweeps without probable cause.

That doesn't matter if Apple's newer phones can't be unlocked by Apple.

This has nothing to do with security vs. privacy. This isn't done through some secret court. This is simply a criminal investigation with a legally obtained warrant and an activist judge trying to make a name for himself.

It's about the future of both.

 

[DocSavage]

3. The DoJ is not holding Apple responsible for a crime. They are asking for a legally obtained phone to be unlocked. The DoJ is not asking for assistance in spying on citizens. It is asking for a specific item to be unlocked with a legally valid warrant. A better example would be if a DoJ official went to a bank with a warrant and wanted information, but the bank said it could not give that information because the bank info is encrypted. Would that happen? No, because you sign a form saying that the bank will respond to all legally requested law enforcement requests.

The better example would be if a DoJ official went to a bank with a warrant for searching a safety deposit box and those safety deposit boxes are made of adamantium and impossible to crack unless you are the owner of the key. The bank then tells them that they can't do it. Now, theoretically, they could make deposit boxes in the future with two keys, but that won't help in this pre-existing case.

Everyone here is assuming that since the device is using IOS7, and it wasn't until IOS8 that Apple removed back doors that they can still get in the old device. That is not necessarily true. What if they deleted their backdoor key(s) and/or whatever backdoor tools they had? Poof. The older phones are also secure.

 

[xJ321x]

The DoJ is not asking for assistance in spying on citizens.

It's just coincidental that their request will help with the other government agencies spying on citizens. It's not like they've cried about encryption/Apple security before, oh wait, they have. Well then maybe it's not coincidental after all. Maybe it's over something bigger than some drug dealers older iPhone.

It is asking for a specific item to be unlocked with a legally valid warrant.

A device that Apple still sells that can no longer be unlocked by Apple. Yeah, this appears to be why Apple is fighting this. Not for one guys older iPhone, that's just stupid to think that's the reason why.

A better example would be if a DoJ official went to a bank with a warrant and wanted information, but the bank said it could not give that information because the bank info is encrypted. Would that happen?

The bank actually having the passcode could just put it in and give them the information to comply? Because Apple doesn't have the passcode anymore with their newer devices and if the user with the passcode chooses to refuse to give it, well, he doesn't have to comply - further incriminate himself. Kind of a big difference.

 

[nilepez]

Once again...another person who doesn't understand the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment isn't carte blanche to keep the government out of your personal items and affairs. It just means that a judge has to approve the search and seizure of specific items based on affidavits of probable cause.

If you commit a crime using your computer, cell phone, etc. and the DoJ or any other agency wants your computer, cell phone, etc., they are going to seize it after completing a search warrant. This is completely legal. This is not an invasion of privacy.

All Icpiper is saying is that if you allow 3rd parties to encrypt data and then tell people with valid warrants that they can't access the data, you are undermining the DoJ ability to fight crime. This isn't a blanket "collect all the cell phone traffic in the area" type of operation. This is looking for specific information that is specified in a legal warrant. The NSA =/= DoJ.

The data is encrypted, AFAIK, on my device. This is the equivalent of me using truecrypt and the government wanting a way for truecrypt to decrypt my data if they have a court order. Sorry, but no. But if you prefer, maybe Apple can have an option for the user to turn off encryption, which will allow the feds to look at everything.

They have no right to see stuff encrypted on my device. This is already shown when people have had encrypted HDs and refused to decrypt the device and AFAIK, True Crypt hasn't putting in a back door for the FBI/Police.

 

[kirbyrj]

The data is encrypted, AFAIK, on my device. This is the equivalent of me using truecrypt and the government wanting a way for truecrypt to decrypt my data if they have a court order. Sorry, but no. But if you prefer, maybe Apple can have an option for the user to turn off encryption, which will allow the feds to look at everything.

They have no right to see stuff encrypted on my device. This is already shown when people have had encrypted HDs and refused to decrypt the device and AFAIK, True Crypt hasn't putting in a back door for the FBI/Police.

With all due respect, if you are using your cell phone or computer to commit crimes, then they have every right to attempt to see the "stuff" encrypted on your device as long as they have followed proper procedure for establishing the probable cause of a crime being committed and obtained warrants. If you're not using your phone or computer to commit crimes, then the DoJ doesn't care. Granted, they can't make you unencrypt it for them, but you shouldn't expect them not to try to find a way around the encryption if you're using your equipment illegally and/or hold you in contempt/jail depending on the seriousness of the crime.

 

[xJ321x]

With all due respect, if you are using your cell phone or computer to commit crimes, then they have every right to attempt to see the "stuff" encrypted on your device as long as they have followed proper procedure for establishing the probable cause of a crime being committed and obtained warrants.

And still the manufacturer shouldn't be coerced by law enforcement into making their currently very strong encryption into weak encryption with a backdoor just because bad people used Apple's great products for bad reasons. If Apple does it with this older iPhone law enforcement will turn right around and demand Apple do it with their newer iPhones (You did it before, do it again!). Bad precedent. This is literally Apples entire point here. They don't want to be harassed by law enforcement to unlock every single bad guys iPhone in the future that they now can't even do anymore, which would happen, period.

Apple Inc (AAPL.O) told a U.S. judge that accessing data stored on a locked iPhone would be "impossible" with devices using its latest operating system, but the company has the "technical ability" to help law enforcement unlock older phones.

If you're not using your phone or computer to commit crimes, then the DoJ doesn't care.

"If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" -kirbyrj Well except for the all the innocent people that will get victimized by encryption now being as weak as everything else that's a shitty excuse for security online now. How many times have you heard of data getting stolen this year? I know, a lot! Proper encryption is important, obviously.

Granted, they can't make you unencrypt it for them, but you shouldn't expect them not to try to find a way around the encryption if you're using your equipment illegally and/or hold you in contempt/jail depending on the seriousness of the crime.

So if Apple unencrypts this one guys older iPhone what does Apple tell the law next time when the bad person has a newer iPhone? I know, the same point Apple is trying to get across right now.

‘Look, if law enforcement wants something, they should go to the user and get it. It’s not for me to do that.’

“Better that the company didn’t design its products with the keys under the mat”

"We’re not Big Brother, we’ll leave that to others.”

—Tim Cook, Apple CEO

 

[kirbyrj]

And still the manufacturer shouldn't be coerced by law enforcement into making their currently very strong encryption into weak encryption with a backdoor just because bad people used Apple's great products for bad reasons. If Apple does it with this older iPhone law enforcement will turn right around and demand Apple do it with their newer iPhones (You did it before, do it again!). Bad precedent. This is literally Apples entire point here. They don't want to be harassed by law enforcement to unlock every single bad guys iPhone in the future that they now can't even do anymore, which would happen, period.
"If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" -kirbyrj Well except for the all the innocent people that will get victimized by encryption now being as weak as everything else that's a shitty excuse for security online now. How many times have you heard of data getting stolen this year? I know, a lot! Proper encryption is important, obviously.

So if Apple unencrypts this one guys older iPhone what does Apple tell the law next time when the bad person has a newer iPhone? I know, the same point Apple is trying to get across right now.

You're putting words in my mouth, and quite honestly, I'm getting tired of responding to your tinfoil hat nonsense. I never said encryption wasn't important in light of data breaches. I said that the DoJ isn't interested in your data if you're not committing crimes, and you continually bring up the NSA. They are two different organizations with two different purposes.

If Apple has the technical ability to unlock the phone and has been served with proper paperwork, then Apple is legally required to assist a court ordered request regardless of what an activist judge says. The fact that the judge is an activist judge just makes it easier to overturn at appeal. If Apple does not have the technical ability to unlock the phone, and they can prove that they don't, Apple does not have a legal requirement to assist in decrypting the phone.

Do yourself a favor and stop arguing against the straw man you've constructed. You don't see me using arguments like, "Stop trying to hide your kiddie porn from the DoJ in your encrypted phone." I understand the encryption argument. All I'm saying is that you can't expect the DoJ to just roll over and play dead because the phone is encrypted. And they shouldn't. Just because you aren't a criminal or the victim of a crime doesn't mean that there aren't real criminals and real victims out there.

/thread

 

[xJ321x]

Everything I said was fact, deal with it.


/thread

 

[lcpiper]

A naive lawyer, wow, cool. This case has absolutely nothing to do with this specific individual or this specific phone. It's over the future of phone encryption and time will prove me right.......

Maybe the media wants you to think this but it's just not correct and time will not prove you correct. Not any mor then time has proven that kim.com is going to dodge the bullet in Australian court. In both cases the parties may try to avoid the innevitable and stall as long as possible but the end results will remain the same because in both cases the laws are clear and the individuals guilty.

Be happy man, look at all the proof of how our justice system and Australia's give so much latitude and opportunity for an individual to press for a fair trial.

You may feel Apple's grandstanding is in your best interest but I think it's in Apple's financial best interest. Apple is selling iPhones with their new OS and that's all that is happening here.

 

[lcpiper]

Everything I said was fact, deal with it.


/thread

No it's not, much of what you said is based on absolute ignorance just like that other thread where you didn't understand the difference between a DHS Policy letter and Law. That local and state cops aren't under the DHS's control, and that neither is the DoD or the CIA.

You make absurd claims based on incorrect information and assumptions and neither kirbyrj nor anyone else here actually has to deal with your personal weaknesses. They are your to bare

 

[m33pm33p]

No it's not, much of what you said is based on absolute ignorance just like that other thread where you didn't understand the difference between a DHS Policy letter and Law. That local and state cops aren't under the DHS's control, and that neither is the DoD or the CIA.

You make absurd claims based on incorrect information and assumptions and neither kirbyrj nor anyone else here actually has to deal with your personal weaknesses. They are your to bare

Dude, he "/thread" 'd you...You can't respond after someone has "/thread" 'd you...

 

[xJ321x]

Maybe the media wants you to think this but it's just not correct and time will not prove you correct. Not any mor then time has proven that kim.com is going to dodge the bullet in Australian court. In both cases the parties may try to avoid the innevitable and stall as long as possible but the end results will remain the same because in both cases the laws are clear and the individuals guilty.

Be happy man, look at all the proof of how our justice system and Australia's give so much latitude and opportunity for an individual to press for a fair trial.

What are you even talking about? I think for myself icpiper and no one ever told me what to think. You get it? The rest is just...not sure.

You may feel Apple's grandstanding is in your best interest but I think it's in Apple's financial best interest. Apple is selling iPhones with their new OS and that's all that is happening here.

That was happening before this case so again, what are you even talking about? Seriously. 98% of the people buying iPhones never heard of this case, at all.

 

[xJ321x]

You're putting words in my mouth, and quite honestly, I'm getting tired of responding to your tinfoil hat nonsense. I never said encryption wasn't important in light of data breaches. I said that the DoJ isn't interested in your data if you're not committing crimes, and you continually bring up the NSA. They are two different organizations with two different purposes.

http://time.com/3437222/iphone-data-encryption/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/nsa-apple-chiefs-decode-encryption-views-1445318890

Tin foil hat facts.

 

[lcpiper]

Dude, he "/thread" 'd you...You can't respond after someone has "/thread" 'd you...

oh

Can I respond to him by replying with what I said ... to you?

 

[lcpiper]

What are you even talking about? I think for myself icpiper and no one ever told me what to think. You get it? The rest is just...not sure.

That was happening before this case so again, what are you even talking about? Seriously. 98% of the people buying iPhones never heard of this case, at all.

It's absolutely clear what I am talking about. BTW, is that 98% figure another one of your facts?

 

[lcpiper]

xJ321x, this link is in one of the articles you linked to. This is the article with something substantive in it besides a reporters rambling baseless claims.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/technology/iphone-locks-out-the-nsa-signaling-a-post-snowden-era-.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

The phone encrypts emails, photos and contacts based on a complex mathematical algorithm that uses a code created by, and unique to, the phone’s user — and that Apple says it will not possess.

The result, the company is essentially saying, is that if Apple is sent a court order demanding that the contents of an iPhone 6 be provided to intelligence agencies or law enforcement, it will turn over gibberish, along with a note saying that to decode the phone’s emails, contacts and photos, investigators will have to break the code or get the code from the phone’s owner.

You bring up the NSA, tell me yourself, would Apple's new phone's and OS prevent the NSA from doing it's thing under the bulk telephoney meta-data program?

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-metadata-nsa-loses-surveillance-power-american-phone-calls-data-about-data-1947196

Instead, intelligence analysts had access to information about phone calls. That includes the phone numbers of both caller and recipient, the number of any calling cards used, the time and duration of calls and the international mobile subscriber identity (a unique identifier embedded in a phone SIM card) number.

 

[m33pm33p]

oh

Can I respond to him by replying with what I said ... to you?

I checked the Rules of the Internet and it appears that is a loop hole that can be used. Well played.

 

[lcpiper]

By xJ321x;
Time has already proven you wrong every week or two...

Which is why the NSA's meta-data program is still running today.
And it's also why a new program is now running that places hundreds of thousands of American citizens under openly acknowledged surveillance both at work and at home.

By xJ321x;
Both work for the US government last I checked but correct me if I'm wrong...

No, I work for a civilian company under a defense contract. If you think it's the same thing then you have more to learn.

 

[Retronym]

I hope the government twists Apple's arm on this.

It will push everyone to zero knowledge open source solutions.

The more the government fights this, the sharper the fangs of the next generation of software.

 

[FLECOM]

Once again...another person who doesn't understand the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment isn't carte blanche to keep the government out of your personal items and affairs. It just means that a judge has to approve the search and seizure of specific items based on affidavits of probable cause.

If you commit a crime using your computer, cell phone, etc. and the DoJ or any other agency wants your computer, cell phone, etc., they are going to seize it after completing a search warrant. This is completely legal. This is not an invasion of privacy.

All Icpiper is saying is that if you allow 3rd parties to encrypt data and then tell people with valid warrants that they can't access the data, you are undermining the DoJ ability to fight crime. This isn't a blanket "collect all the cell phone traffic in the area" type of operation. This is looking for specific information that is specified in a legal warrant. The NSA =/= DoJ.

well you have the right to remain silent right? you think they should torture information out of people too???

 

[Krazy925]

I hope the government twists Apple's arm on this.

It will push everyone to zero knowledge open source solutions.

The more the government fights this, the sharper the fangs of the next generation of software.

It's a giant tug of war

 

[lcpiper]

I hope the government twists Apple's arm on this.

It will push everyone to zero knowledge open source solutions.

The more the government fights this, the sharper the fangs of the next generation of software.

How does that have anything to do, or have any impact at all, on the federal government's requirement that businesses must surrender business records and information when required by lawful court order?

Do you think it will have any impact at all when the fines start showing up in the mail box, when the feds show up on the doorstep to raid the data-centers and seize the equipment? Do you think it hasn't happened before?

Keep thinking there is some slick little out, and that a business, even one as successful as Apple, has the power to stand up to the Feds on something as basic as this.

And what if it's your case that is being investigated for you? What if it's you that needs the court to issue the warrant for records that support your own claims of someone else's wrongdoing?

 

[lcpiper]

well you have the right to remain silent right? you think they should torture information out of people too???

That doesn't extend to court ordered demands for records that are required by law to be kept and safely stored.

 

[nilepez]

With all due respect, if you are using your cell phone or computer to commit crimes, then they have every right to attempt to see the "stuff" encrypted on your device as long as they have followed proper procedure for establishing the probable cause of a crime being committed and obtained warrants. If you're not using your phone or computer to commit crimes, then the DoJ doesn't care. Granted, they can't make you unencrypt it for them, but you shouldn't expect them not to try to find a way around the encryption if you're using your equipment illegally and/or hold you in contempt/jail depending on the seriousness of the crime.

With all due respect, it's been litigated, and you can't force me to decrypt my data and unless a new law (bad) law is written, you can't force a company to put backdoors into encryption software. The end result of such a law is making encryption pointless, because any backdoor will eventually be found and exploited.

As for them finding a way around it, I have no problem with that. I just don't want companies I do business with to build in back doors to enable the government to spy on us (and if you think for a second that a backdoor won't be discovered by the NSA, CIA, FBI etc and abused, then you're naive).

We've already seen how the NSA abuses their position and does things without a warrant, despite the ridiculously low bar they have to pass to get one.

 

[nilepez]

What are you even talking about? I think for myself icpiper and no one ever told me what to think. You get it? The rest is just...not sure.

That was happening before this case so again, what are you even talking about? Seriously. 98% of the people buying iPhones never heard of this case, at all.

No, but I do like that they put this in to combat government spying and that they're not backing down. But you're right that most don't think about this when buying an iPhone. They buy it, because it's got a great user experience, but this is just one more reason to buy one.

 

[xJ321x]

No it's not, much of what you said is based on absolute ignorance [that coming form you] just like that other thread where you didn't understand the difference between a DHS Policy letter and Law. That local and state cops aren't under the DHS's control, and that neither is the DoD or the CIA [I never said they were]

The funniest part about this (besides it being unrelated to this current discussion) is that you still don't comprehend the valid point I had made then about that policy when the differences between it and law are clear and wasn't ever my point. Policies mean very little when they only work one way and so can easily be broken or disregarded, toilet paper. It wasn't that hard to comprehend icpiper but then again you're the same person that was just talking about the same exact case in this very thread as if it was two separate cases. At the same time telling me to keep up and to know the difference between them. Then you did this.

oh

Can I respond to him by replying with what I said ... to you?

What I said wasn't even addressed to you = your comment here is pointless. Just because someone told you it was addressed to you didn't make it anymore true. Actually reading what I wrote will show it was addressed to kirbyrj. If you actually comprehend what you read though you would've known this already and I wouldn't be explaining it to you right now like you're five years old. However some of us here know (Hint: I've seen a few others say the same exact thing) that you just love to out comment everyone else in a thread because that must mean you win in your mind. Of course ignoring the actual conversation but just keep posting dog shit.

It's absolutely clear what I am talking about.

How is it really clear what you're talking about when you don't even know what's going on in this thread?

BTW, is that 98% figure another one of your facts?

No, that's just what should be common sense. That shouldn't even need to be addressed. What percentage of the population do you think gathers around the dinner table or office discussing court cases about Apple or the future of encryption and makes their phone purchases based on that? Yes, exactly, not many. Not many was my point. Most people buy a new phone just because of the wow factor. Simple enough for you yet?

You bring up the NSA, tell me yourself, would Apple's new phone's and OS prevent the NSA from doing it's thing under the bulk telephoney meta-data program?

First let me just say that everyone should be able to bring up the NSA and spying these days and especially in these kinds of discussions without being called a tin foil hat wearer like kirbyrj did for me doing so (others brought up the NSA on page 1 FYI) but lets move on. Your question, it's a stupid question. However to answer your stupid question, no it wouldn't, and no one in this thread was ever arguing that it should from what I read. We understand that those things are now and will continue to be collected. However my personal family photos, personal documentation, or personal conversations shouldn't be though (I don't use FB, Gmail, Instagram, etc, either). It's kind of self explanatory though icpiper, seriously. Proper encryption is just reassurance that privacy is actually protected because unlike you not everyone opens up and swallows everything the government tries to put down their throats.

Which is why the NSA's meta-data program is still running today.

As no one outside of the NSA really knows what they're ever up to (even most of congress from the looks) it's just all the more reason to have proper encryption in place. Yay Apple! Simple.

And it's also why a new program is now running that places hundreds of thousands of American citizens under openly acknowledged surveillance both at work and at home.

Trial run for the future population of the entire US? I hope I'm just wearing a tin foil hat!

No, I work for a civilian company under a defense contract. If you think it's the same thing then you have more to learn.

If you go back and actually read my post you're now referencing for your comment here you'll hopefully see that I wasn't even referring to you. Hopefully. To point it bluntly icpiper you're having your own distorted conversation. So nothing new.