Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah, if the gummit wanted the ability to read every apple phone, it'd be a totally different issue. At that point, the gummit would be taking Apple's right to build a product that people use legally with every legit expectation to privacy. (that's the Snowden angle) But no one has a right to use a product that can be legally purchased to do an illegal act. (that's like a gun)I see both points of view. The solution is simple; Apple had a tool they could pry open prior i-phones with but are claiming not for the new model. I don't believe that. When you write the code you can unwrite the code. So they take possession of the terrorist phone, open it, and hand it over to the FBI. They keep their proprietary patent and the FBI gets into the phone. Readers might remember Toyota never revealed the software glitch that made some of their vehicles accelerate out of control a few years back....Instead they paid a huge fine and promised it would stop and it has. Apple should cooperate instead of playing games.
Ah, well Snowden was publicizing warrantless spying on people with no know ideology or suspicion. In the Apple case, the only "spying" is of a known, and dead, terrorist's phone. I'd ask what right to privacy a person could have after they are killed committing mass murder, and the phone likely has some information of their intent and possibly of accomplices?True.
The constitution of the gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state does not recognize Apple's right to resist.
.
so where does the corporate RIGHT to resist government warrant exist?
Under the OLD Constitution (1787-1935) the 4th and 5th Amendments.
Under FDR's Fascist Constitution of 1935 whatever the government wants whenever it wants it they get. Their powers are unlimited and unreviewable”
the scotus decision regarding nsa surveillance, which preceded snowden btw, the scotus decision noted that no one can claim to be harmed by a policy based solely on paranoia...
so how is anyone harmed by the government having the key that apple holds?
they actually aren't.. it's just the same 'slippery slope' paranoia of possibilities.
should we trust corporations more than our own government, to protect our privacy?
But don't expect rationality, let alone civility, from the count of muncus. LOL
the iphone of the san bernadino mass murderer is a matter concerning other nations?
Yeah, if the gummit wanted the ability to read every apple phone, it'd be a totally different issue. At that point, the gummit would be taking Apple's right to build a product that people use legally with every legit expectation to privacy. (that's the Snowden angle) But no one has a right to use a product that can be legally purchased to do an illegal act. (that's like a gun)
Apple phones are made overseas. In fact, they probably all are.Apple's had judicial review of the govt's request. They can appeal. I think they are wrong, and Cook's position is based more on Apple's best interest than the nation's, though I'm not for more than very infrequent judicial orders. But, more interestingly, if Apple's in civil contempt, how big a financial penalty would it take to compel their following a court order?
Listen stupid fuck
The best interest of the nation requires that the fedgov cease and desist intervening in the internal affairs of other nations. That is it. Over and out.
If apple allows the motherfuckers a back door to their cell phones then customers will be buying cell phones made overseas.
,
I see both points of view. The solution is simple; Apple had a tool they could pry open prior i-phones with but are claiming not for the new model. I don't believe that. When you write the code you can unwrite the code. So they take possession of the terrorist phone, open it, and hand it over to the FBI. They keep their proprietary patent and the FBI gets into the phone. Readers might remember Toyota never revealed the software glitch that made some of their vehicles accelerate out of control a few years back....Instead they paid a huge fine and promised it would stop and it has. Apple should cooperate instead of playing games and the FBI should be satisfied.
Tim Cook: Apple Won't Create 'Backdoor' to Help FBI Access San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone
Cook concludes Apple's open letter by saying the company's opposition to the order is not an action they took lightly and that they challenge the request "with the deepest respect for democracy and a love for our country." Ultimately, Apple fears these demands would "undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect."
Contumacious applauds Mr. Tim Cook.
What the government is asking for will destroy Apple.
Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) Apple had rights protected by the 4 and 5th Amendments. It also had a right to Judicial Review.
That is no longer available. Mr Cook is own his own.
An Article III Judge would have demanded that the government stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations.
A scumbag spineless impostor pretending to be a judge will simply comply with the FBI's request.
.For shame.
Tim Cook: Apple Won't Create 'Backdoor' to Help FBI Access San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone
Cook concludes Apple's open letter by saying the company's opposition to the order is not an action they took lightly and that they challenge the request "with the deepest respect for democracy and a love for our country." Ultimately, Apple fears these demands would "undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect."
Contumacious applauds Mr. Tim Cook.
What the government is asking for will destroy Apple.
Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) Apple had rights protected by the 4 and 5th Amendments. It also had a right to Judicial Review.
That is no longer available. Mr Cook is own his own.
An Article III Judge would have demanded that the government stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations.
A scumbag spineless impostor pretending to be a judge will simply comply with the FBI's request.
.For shame.
once again, for the pretend constitutionalist: the 4th and 5th amendments are not limitless and, in fact, allow for "REASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE". That term has been defined ad infinitum, by caselaw.
there is no question that the phone is subject to search. the proponents of the right to be free of unreasonable serach and seizure are dead. I don't believe their family members are objecting and it is not apple's rights that are being infringed.
they are doing what they should...which is appeal and wait for the decisions of the court. they can then appeal that one as far up as the supreme court if they choose to.
and that is what they're waiting for.
for shame on whom? if it was the house of the dead terrorists, you certainly wouldn't have a problem with searching their communications.
You must bear in mind that if Apple allows a "backdoor entry" that it wont be long before a Nigerian Hacker is accessing your information.
Apple needs our support.
.
Tim Cook: Apple Won't Create 'Backdoor' to Help FBI Access San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone
Cook concludes Apple's open letter by saying the company's opposition to the order is not an action they took lightly and that they challenge the request "with the deepest respect for democracy and a love for our country." Ultimately, Apple fears these demands would "undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect."
Contumacious applauds Mr. Tim Cook.
What the government is asking for will destroy Apple.
Under the old Constitution (1787-1935) Apple had rights protected by the 4 and 5th Amendments. It also had a right to Judicial Review.
That is no longer available. Mr Cook is own his own.
An Article III Judge would have demanded that the government stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations.
A scumbag spineless impostor pretending to be a judge will simply comply with the FBI's request.
.For shame.
once again, for the pretend constitutionalist: the 4th and 5th amendments are not limitless and, in fact, allow for "REASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE". That term has been defined ad infinitum, by caselaw.
there is no question that the phone is subject to search. the proponents of the right to be free of unreasonable serach and seizure are dead. I don't believe their family members are objecting and it is not apple's rights that are being infringed.
they are doing what they should...which is appeal and wait for the decisions of the court. they can then appeal that one as far up as the supreme court if they choose to.
and that is what they're waiting for.
for shame on whom? if it was the house of the dead terrorists, you certainly wouldn't have a problem with searching their communications.
Again, the government supremacists come here with their prejudices and misidentify the issues.
The government is not merely asking to retrieve the data from the so-called San Bernardino Jihadists.
They want a backdoor entry to all iphones. Bullshit.
Apple must relocate their headquarters to where the sons of bitches have no jurisdiction over them.
.
Yes. If this was about Apple being told to hand over the code, it'd be different matter. And you are correct that Apple is hardly being the champion of little people seeking to avoid warrantless spying based on no reasonable suspicion.Yeah, if the gummit wanted the ability to read every apple phone, it'd be a totally different issue. At that point, the gummit would be taking Apple's right to build a product that people use legally with every legit expectation to privacy. (that's the Snowden angle) But no one has a right to use a product that can be legally purchased to do an illegal act. (that's like a gun)
The intel agencies break the rules all the time; and rightfully so if there is imminent danger involved. If Apple handed over the information the FBI is seeking, their privacy feature is compromised and everybody knows it. So what should happen is the Feds take the phone to Apple headquarters, they meet in a room with Apple engineers, and then wait in the lobby for the results. win-win.
There are two issues. First the terrorist had a right to an expectation of privacy to areas we all expect privacy - our homes, our cars as we go about daily life, what we say in private conversations on our phones, for example. Once the gummit has a rational reason to believe we are committing crimes in our homes, cars or on phones, traditionally it can get a warrant to discover what we are up to. The terrorist gave up her right to privacy concerning phone calls back in Dec. So, this has absolutely no comparison to Snowden.
The second issue is Apple's right. Apple sells a product that has as one feature an ability to defeat the gummit's ability to see what's in it, that is who called and any data stored on it. The purchaser, the terrorist, no longer has any claim to privacy. Where does Apple derive any right to not allow the gummit access to that PARTICULAR phone? Seriously. I'm asking. Is it just that Apple thinks if it allows access then it's products will not be as appealing to purchasers?
Yes. If this was about Apple being told to hand over the code, it'd be different matter. And you are correct that Apple is hardly being the champion of little people seeking to avoid warrantless spying based on no reasonable suspicion.
You must bear in mind that if Apple allows a "backdoor entry" that it wont be long before a Nigerian Hacker is accessing your information.
Apple needs our support.
.
I don't support Apple....their i-phones are made in a Chinese factory where the workers are required to sign a pledge not to commit suicide. Apple's image is all green and counter culture but they're fucking pirates hiding billion$ off-shore to evade US taxes.
