Government iPhone Unlock Request Is Like Forcing Lethal Injection?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I'm no law expert but this comparison is a tad bit overdramatic. Seriously, what do you think?

Referring to the US Department of Justice's request for him to order Apple to help it unlock the phone, the judge said: "What you're asking [Apple] to do is do work for you." And he compared the request to a hypothetical one in which the government was asking him to order a drug company to take part in an execution against its conscientious objection.
 
The comparison if fairly correct. You are asking/compelling Apple to kill it the encryption to unlock users phones. The comparison is like asking/compelling a drug maker to make their product kill.
 
Only Google should be subjected to stuff like this. Apple's products are generally too expensive to be in the hands of criminals anyway so there's very little need to worry about the information stored on the handset or what the owner was doing with it. On the other hand, Android devices are the phone of choice for many male gender common people and since they need to constantly be watched very closely for any illicit activities. Owning a cheap phone shows criminal intent. Then again, Google doesn't really use any security on their devices because that would prevent them from collecting data from them so the matter is sorta moot when it comes to the government getting access to the stuff on them.

TL;DR - Android = warrantless search and 24x7 monitoring & Apple = upper class/non-criminal owner
 
Yeah, a little over dramatic, but I still agree with the point. The DoJ just needs to ask the NSA, if they haven't already cracked it, they've got all the guy's emails, text, calls, etc. on file anyway.
 
It is such an ignorant request. Apple should have took a shit in a bag and mailed it back as a response. They are trying to force Apple to make a less valuable product.
 
"Right now, Apple is aware that customer data is under siege from a variety of different directions," he said.
Click to expand...

Like from the government and all the illegal shit they do. They want all privacy. They know people talk more carefully (or not at all about certain issues) when they're constantly being monitored.
 
I don't understand the point.

Cell phone used in commission of crime. Cell phone seized. Legal warrant issued to get data off of the phone. Law Enforcement seeking assistance getting data off the phone with said legal warrant. Judge being inflammatory for no good reason.

Sounds like the judge has kiddie porn on his phone.
 
kirbyrj said:
I don't understand the point.
Click to expand...
I see that.

Cell phone used in commission of crime. Cell phone seized. Legal warrant issued to get data off of the phone. Law Enforcement seeking assistance getting data off the phone with said legal warrant. Judge being inflammatory for no good reason.
Click to expand...
Apple can't get data off a phone that's encrypted (duh) and all their phones use encryption now. So what the law really wants is no more encryption.


Sounds like the judge has kiddie porn on his phone.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, he can't be smarter than you (or just paying attention), it must be the worst thing you can accuse him of being. :rolleyes:
 
Asking for the company who made the encryption to assist in breaking the encryption when there is sufficient evidence that a crime was committed doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. This isn't the DOJ asking to help them obtain naked pictures of celebrities. This is the DOJ trying to obtain evidence where A CRIME WAS COMMITTED. The warrant to obtain data off of the cell phone was obtained after a judge signs off after reading an affidavit of probable cause.

Seriously, it's like you don't want law enforcement to solve crimes.
 
I like this Judge; he understands the intent and meaning of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
 
kirbyrj said:
Asking for the company who made the encryption to assist in breaking the encryption when there is sufficient evidence that a crime was committed doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. This isn't the DOJ asking to help them obtain naked pictures of celebrities. This is the DOJ trying to obtain evidence where A CRIME WAS COMMITTED. The warrant to obtain data off of the cell phone was obtained after a judge signs off after reading an affidavit of probable cause.

Seriously, it's like you don't want law enforcement to solve crimes.
Click to expand...
Putting a backdoor in encryption defeats the entire purpose of encrypting. Breaking the law isn't the only reason to encrypt something, believe it or not. :rolleyes:
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Only Google should be subjected to stuff like this. Apple's products are generally too expensive to be in the hands of criminals anyway so there's very little need to worry about the information stored on the handset or what the owner was doing with it. On the other hand, Android devices are the phone of choice for many male gender common people and since they need to constantly be watched very closely for any illicit activities. Owning a cheap phone shows criminal intent. Then again, Google doesn't really use any security on their devices because that would prevent them from collecting data from them so the matter is sorta moot when it comes to the government getting access to the stuff on them.

TL;DR - Android = warrantless search and 24x7 monitoring & Apple = upper class/non-criminal owner
Click to expand...

WTF!? Are you ser..... oh, it's you.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Only Google should be subjected to stuff like this. Apple's products are generally too expensive to be in the hands of criminals anyway so there's very little need to worry about the information stored on the handset or what the owner was doing with it. On the other hand, Android devices are the phone of choice for many male gender common people and since they need to constantly be watched very closely for any illicit activities. Owning a cheap phone shows criminal intent. Then again, Google doesn't really use any security on their devices because that would prevent them from collecting data from them so the matter is sorta moot when it comes to the government getting access to the stuff on them.

TL;DR - Android = warrantless search and 24x7 monitoring & Apple = upper class/non-criminal owner
Click to expand...

You sound angry. And sexist.
 
kirbyrj said:
Asking for the company who made the encryption to assist in breaking the encryption when there is sufficient evidence that a crime was committed doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. This isn't the DOJ asking to help them obtain naked pictures of celebrities. This is the DOJ trying to obtain evidence where A CRIME WAS COMMITTED. The warrant to obtain data off of the cell phone was obtained after a judge signs off after reading an affidavit of probable cause.

Seriously, it's like you don't want law enforcement to solve crimes.
Click to expand...

Proper encryption security doesn't have a back door. Just because a company enables encryption absolutely does not mean that they also have the means for accessing the encrypted data. It doesn't matter if a crime was committed or not, no back door means no reasonable way to recover the data.
 
kirbyrj said:
I don't understand the point.

Cell phone used in commission of crime. Cell phone seized. Legal warrant issued to get data off of the phone. Law Enforcement seeking assistance getting data off the phone with said legal warrant. Judge being inflammatory for no good reason.

Sounds like the judge has kiddie porn on his phone.
Click to expand...

The entire argument boils down to this : Can Apple legally sell a phone that cannot be broken into by law enforcement? That is what is at stake here, the ability for a large company to deploy encryption in a way the government cant break.
 
Spire3660 said:
The entire argument boils down to this : Can Apple legally sell a phone that cannot be broken into by law enforcement? That is what is at stake here, the ability for a large company to deploy encryption in a way the government cant break.
Click to expand...

Apple should be commended for trying to avoid giving the government a back door.
 
mt2e said:
This is one of the few things I respect Apple for.
Click to expand...

Don't be so quick to praise Apple. The only reason they don't unlock it is because everyone would stop buying iPhones. It would be like Apple performing Seppuku instead of an execution.
 
Apple needs to open source distribute this encryption.

DOJ can get fucked.
 
Same reaction to CUG's initial post as many. Being that I work around the poor/lower class, I see iPhones in their hands a lot more than Android phones, I was gonna spaz on the poster...then I saw it was the Creepster...and the desire dissipated, lol.


On topic though, I think the judge is on point. Companies should not be beholden to law enforcement to maintain a backdoor on products they sell. If that were the case, gun manufacturers should have built-in protection circuitry to disable the trigger when one of their products is pointed at an officer (I know how dumb that sounds). I'm typically pretty laid back on minor government intrusions on the privacy of private citizens but, requiring a product manufacturer to work for LEO or build LEO-friendly devices is too much for me.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Only Google should be subjected to stuff like this. Apple's products are generally too expensive to be in the hands of criminals anyway so there's very little need to worry about the information stored on the handset or what the owner was doing with it. On the other hand, Android devices are the phone of choice for many male gender common people and since they need to constantly be watched very closely for any illicit activities. Owning a cheap phone shows criminal intent. Then again, Google doesn't really use any security on their devices because that would prevent them from collecting data from them so the matter is sorta moot when it comes to the government getting access to the stuff on them.

TL;DR - Android = warrantless search and 24x7 monitoring & Apple = upper class/non-criminal owner
Click to expand...

I see what you did there. :cool:
 
This is self-incriminating. No question. If this isn't a clear cut case of that I don't know what is. That said, I wouldn't QUITE put it up to par with the euphemism of putting a gun to your head, but it can be pretty damn close. And there is no doubt it CAN ruin your life depending on the situation.
 
Cyraxx said:
This is self-incriminating. No question. If this isn't a clear cut case of that I don't know what is. That said, I wouldn't QUITE put it up to par with the euphemism of putting a gun to your head, but it can be pretty damn close. And there is no doubt it CAN ruin your life depending on the situation.
Click to expand...

Self incrimination really only is applicable when it comes to giving testimony. The cops can collect a DNA sample from you against your will. They collect devices and seize items to use as evidence. This is evidence. But the lock is unbreakable (well, just very very difficult).

As far as I'm concerned, put the person in jail for contempt until they unlock the phone. If there's a warrant and an order, you've got no legs to stand on.
 
CombatChrisNC said:
Self incrimination really only is applicable when it comes to giving testimony. The cops can collect a DNA sample from you against your will. They collect devices and seize items to use as evidence. This is evidence. But the lock is unbreakable (well, just very very difficult).

As far as I'm concerned, put the person in jail for contempt until they unlock the phone. If there's a warrant and an order, you've got no legs to stand on.
Click to expand...

isnt this how it is now anyway? If they demand your phone and you refuse to release the passcode, Dont you just get thrown in jail until you do?
 
Cyraxx said:
This is self-incriminating. No question. If this isn't a clear cut case of that I don't know what is. That said, I wouldn't QUITE put it up to par with the euphemism of putting a gun to your head, but it can be pretty damn close. And there is no doubt it CAN ruin your life depending on the situation.
Click to expand...

It's no different than a warrant to search your house. The only thing the 5th amendment protects you against is incriminating yourself (e.g. you don't have to testify against yourself). It doesn't protect you from lawful 4th amendment searches of your private domain (house, computer, cell phone, bank records, etc.).
 
CombatChrisNC said:
Self incrimination really only is applicable when it comes to giving testimony. The cops can collect a DNA sample from you against your will. They collect devices and seize items to use as evidence. This is evidence. But the lock is unbreakable (well, just very very difficult).

As far as I'm concerned, put the person in jail for contempt until they unlock the phone. If there's a warrant and an order, you've got no legs to stand on.
Click to expand...
Giving the unique password would be synonomous with declaring you own/use the phone. It is a form of testomony which could lead to self-incrimination. That is aside from the password itself.
 
kirbyrj said:
It's no different than a warrant to search your house. The only thing the 5th amendment protects you against is incriminating yourself (e.g. you don't have to testify against yourself). It doesn't protect you from lawful 4th amendment searches of your private domain (house, computer, cell phone, bank records, etc.).
Click to expand...

What if your password is an admission of guilt?
 
Kueller said:
What if your password is an admission of guilt?
Click to expand...
Only if your password is "yesikilledhim". If you are a murderer with that password, maybe you should change it.

But on a serious note, it should be a form of self incrimination to give up one's own password.

I suspect in the future there'll be a few self destruction password schemes in place.
Get the right password? Get access to the data.
Get the ... left password? Delete all data.
 
USMCGrunt said:
Same reaction to CUG's initial post as many. Being that I work around the poor/lower class, I see iPhones in their hands a lot more than Android phones, I was gonna spaz on the poster...then I saw it was the Creepster...and the desire dissipated, lol.
Click to expand...

You still could have spazzed. It would have been okay.

BiH115 said:
I see what you did there. :cool:
Click to expand...

Who me? The CreepyUncleGoogle that's well known to wear a halo at all times when posting? I'm sure you're mistaking me for someone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top