Fedgov vs Apple : In re Iphone "backdoor"

[g5000]

the gist is just as i said in my first post in this thread...

you can't claim the program is harmful based solely on what harm might possibly occur..(paranoia)

That sounds like Clapper v. Amnesty International. The respondents were dismissed as not having any standing since they could not prove they had been spied on.

If they could prove they had been spied on, the case would have been valid.

And as I said earlier, you are way off base. There's no question the government is intruding on Apple.

 

[g5000]

the question of whether a phone is a personal effect is beside the point..

No, it isn't. It is an extremely important point. Do you even have a clue what the Fourth Amendment is about?

a warrant was issued for search and seizure of the phone.

Apple is unable to search the phone. They do not have a key.

 

[g5000]

Because the respondents were found to not have standing on the issue of NSA surveillance in Clapper v. Amnesty International, the Supreme Court dismissed the case.

This means the constitutionality of such spying was not determined.

 

[Valerie]

you think the search and seizure of the san bernadino mass murder is UNREASONABLE, is that it ?

you believe FBI warrants are NOT due process...........?

 

[g5000]

you think the search and seizure of the san bernadino mass murder is UNREASONABLE, is that it ?

you believe FBI warrants are NOT due process...........?

Nope. That is not what I am saying.

I am saying Apple does not have a key. The Feds are going to have to find their own way to search the terrorist's personal effects.

I am saying that if Apple was forced to create a key, which is WAY beyond the scope of the search warrant, then Apple will suffer a financial loss as no one will trust the privacy of Apple phones going forward.

 

[Valerie]

why can't Apple cooperate and retrieve the info without giving away the code..?

 

[g5000]

The federal government is trying to compel a private entity to create a master key which could be used to violate the privacy of every citizen who owns personal effects manufactured by that private entity.

This is much bigger than a search warrant served on a dead person's personal effects.

 

[g5000]

why can't Apple cooperate and retrieve the info without giving away the code..?

I asked you earlier if you would trust a big corporate home builder who had a master key to the millions and millions of houses they built across the globe. Would you trust that none of the thousands of employees would ever rob your house? Would you be comfortable with that situation?

Wouldn't you prefer to buy a house from a competitor who did NOT have such a key?

This is the same thing.

 

[Valerie]

"which could be used to violate the privacy of every citizen who owns personal effects"


could be.. potentially... like so many other things they could potentially do...

 

[bendog]

The federal government is trying to compel a private entity to create a master key which could be used to violate the privacy of every citizen who owns personal effects manufactured by that private entity.

This is much bigger than a search warrant served on a dead person's personal effects.

Not if Valerie's post in 108 is valid. Corporations are required to turn over information about individuals all the time. The question is whether Apple complying would allow the gummit to, illegally, access other phones without a court or Apple knowing.

 

[Timmy]

Can you really force a company to make something that doesn't exist?

 

[Valerie]

omfg i can't believe we trust our government with nukes!

they could bomb us any day now...........

 

[deltex1]

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.

Fag Ed Snowden backs Fag Tim Cook....I support the gummint. Like Giulianni says...quote an instance where the government violated a private citizens rights.

 

[SwimExpert]

the question of whether a phone is a personal effect is beside the point..

a warrant was issued for search and seizure of the phone.

So seize. Search it. Go ahead and knock your socks off.

 

[g5000]

A nobody kid named Edward Snowden was able to steal millions of secrets, from government systems all around the world, which he was not supposed to have access to. From one of the most secret clubs in the world.

Think about that when you fool yourself into bleeving an Apple master key would be secure.

 

[Valerie]

i bet we can ultimately break the code but prefer to ask for Apple's assistance first...

 

[g5000]

Like Giulianni says...quote an instance where the government violated a private citizens rights.

You're joking, right?

Easy peasey!

Supreme Court Rules Government Violated Privacy Rights in GPS Tracking Case

 

[SwimExpert]

why can't Apple cooperate and retrieve the info without giving away the code..?

Who said they "can't"? They don't want to. End of story.

 

[g5000]

U.S. intelligence-collection initiative violated rights at least once, government says

 

[g5000]

Like Giulianni says...quote an instance where the government violated a private citizens rights.

NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds