Fedgov vs Apple : In re Iphone "backdoor"

[waltky]

Apple phone ruling reignites privacy versus law enforcement debate...

Privacy versus security at heart of Apple phone decrypt order
17 Feb.`16 - A court order demanding that Apple Inc help the U.S. government break into the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters opens a new chapter in the legal, political and technological fight pitting law enforcement against civil liberties advocates and major tech companies.

The government argues that the phone is a crucial piece of evidence in investigating one of the worst attacks in the United States by people who sympathized with Islamist militants. But privacy groups warn that forcing companies to crack their own encryption threatened not just the privacy of customers but potentially citizens of any country. A federal judge in Los Angeles on Tuesday ordered Apple to provide "reasonable technical assistance" to investigators seeking to unlock the data on an iPhone 5C that had been used by Rizwan Farook, who along with his wife, Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people and wounded 22 others on Dec. 2 in San Bernardino, California. Both were killed in a shootout with police. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been investigating the couple's potential communications with Islamic State and other militant groups and argued that it needs access to the iPhone to find out more.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the Department of Justice was asking Apple for access to just one device, a central part of the government's argument. "They are not asking Apple to redesign its product or to create a new backdoor to one of their products," Earnest told reporters at the daily briefing. He said the case was about federal investigators learning "as much as they can about this one case" and "the president certainly believes that is an important national priority." Technology rights groups fear that companies could be ordered to create "backdoors" into devices that would make them insecure and vulnerable to attack by law enforcement or criminal hackers.

A court order demanding that Apple Inc help the U.S. government unlock the encrypted iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters opens a new chapter in the legal, political and technological fight pitting law enforcement against civil liberties advocates and major tech companies.​

Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook said Tuesday's court order threatened the security of its customers and had "implications far beyond the legal case at hand." If the federal judge, Magistrate Sheri Pym, rejects Apple's arguments, the company can appeal her order to the district court, and then up the chain to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit is known to be pro-privacy. "The government ultimately will have an uphill fight,” said Robert Cattanach, a former Justice Department lawyer who advises companies on cyber security issues.

The ruling was a topic of discussion on the presidential campaign trail on Wednesday. Donald Trump, the front-runner for the Republican Party's nomination to run in the Nov. 8 election said on Fox News Channel’s "Fox & Friends" program that Apple's resistance to encryption stems from "ridiculous hysteria ... about privacy and the government." Another Republican candidate, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, called it a “tough issue” that would require government to work closely with the tech industry to find a solution. Rubio said he hoped Apple would voluntarily comply with the court order.

'MASTER KEY'

 

[Valerie]

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”



The text of the Fourth Amendment bars unwarranted searches of "persons, houses, papers, and effects." But, as Scalia told the audience, "conversations are quite different" from all four of those things.

Scalia Comes To Brooklyn, Drops Huge Hint About NSA Surveillance And The Supreme Court

 

[Valerie]

With a very thoughtless response? Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure..........

you can read my mind? that's impressive.

surely you can point out which post of mine was so terribly thoughtless. tia

 

[Valerie]

NSA spying challenge turned aside
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider a challenge to the National Security Agency’s global sweep of telephone and electronic communications — the first such test case to reach the Court since former NSA analyst Edward Snowdon began releasing publicly a pile of secret papers disclosing details of that surveillance. The Court made no comment as it turned aside an unusual request by an advocacy group, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (docket 13-58).

The EPIC plea was filed directly in the Court, without prior lower court action. The group requested that the Justices direct a judge of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to vacate an order he issued in April requiring a branch of the telephone giant Verizon to turn over to the government a vast array of data, including sweeps of U.S. telephone calls and Internet exchanges. The Court very rarely grants such a “writ of mandamus or prohibition.”

NSA spying challenge turned aside

 

[Valerie]

Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden is an American computer professional, former CIA employee, and former government contractor who leaked classified information from the U.S. National Security Agency in 2013. Wikipedia


The legislation authorizing the spying was signed into law the first time in July 2008 and the ACLU immediately brought suit.

...a program that Congress eventually legalized in 2008 and again in 2012.

Supreme Court Thwarts Challenge to Warrantless Surveillance

 

[Zander]

The simple solution to this is for the OWNER of the cell phone - the County of San Bernardino - to ask Apple to open it.

Then Apple can provide the excellent customer service they are famous for and no rights are lost, no back door created. Just another customer service WIN!!

You're welcome.

 

[Preacher]

While I agree with Apple here I think they should help get the phone open for the FBI but they shouldn't be FORCED to do it. What's sadder is the combined forces of the fed gov can't crack the damn phone...I mean really? Has diversity destroyed the fed gov that much!?

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

This isn't about turning over information. Apple is not in possession of any information. Apple is being ordered to obtain information that the government wants. For all intents and purposes, the government is trying to force Apple to become it's agent, to create software which does not exist (may not even be possible to create), and to then use that software to conduct a surveillance operation.

If the FBI wants to get to the data, let them have their own techs hack into the device. The government does not have an inherent entitlement to get into any device it wants because it might have information they want.

Apple would be turning over information IF it handed over an unlocked phone to the FBI, and IF the FBI could use that phone to copy whatever Apple did to unlock it so as to enable the FBI to unlock other phones without Apple's knowledge AND a court order.

Unless that is the situation, Apple is down to arguing 1) if we wrote this code, one of our employees could disclose it without our approval and that would do econ damage to us OR 2) if we wrote this code, buyers would be less likely to buy our phones because it's possible the gummt could get a search warrant if it was likely we committed a crime. 1 might be a real concern, but it would apply equally to all other phone makers. 2 doesn't sway me.

That's a meaningless question begging tautology. All you're doing is saying that if they hacked into the phone, then the phone would be hacked.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

While I agree with Apple here I think they should help get the phone open for the FBI but they shouldn't be FORCED to do it. What's sadder is the combined forces of the fed gov can't crack the damn phone...I mean really? Has diversity destroyed the fed gov that much!?

They have been trying for three months. Apple is so good that even the feds can't bypass their encryption security.

 

[SwimExpert]

Goddam, this willful stupidity is a marvel to behold.

Mars, my friend. Mars.

 

[MisterBeale]

The Boston Bombers are government patsies.

Fine, if they are not, the Patriot act is useless, so is the NDAA, and there is no excuse for either of these two hideous tramplings upon the Bill of Rights.

CIA Document 1035-960: Foundation of a Weaponized Term
CIA Document 1035-960: Foundation of a Weaponized Term

CIA Document 1035-960 was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times. The directive is especially significant because it outlines the CIA’s concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American government” vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially interested in maintaining its own image and role as it “contributed information to the [Warren] investigation.”


The memorandum lays out a detailed series of actions and techniques for “countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.” For example, approaching “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” to remind them of the Warren Commission’s integrity and soundness should be prioritized. “[T]he charges of the critics are without serious foundation,” the document reads, and “further speculative discussion only plays in to the hands of the [Communist] opposition.”


The agency also directed its members “[t]o employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”


1035-960 further delineates specific techniques for countering “conspiratorial” arguments centering on the Warren Commission’s findings. Such responses and their coupling with the pejorative label have been routinely wheeled out in various guises by corporate media outlets, commentators and political leaders to this day against those demanding truth and accountability about momentous public events.

If you can't read, do the research, and put the pieces together, that is on you.


But when you just throw out ad hominem with nothing to back it up, it doesn't further the conversation. Intelligent folks know what went down.


The Boston Bombings and the CIA Connection. Graham Fuller and Uncle Ruslan Tsarnaev
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-bo...aham-fuller-and-uncle-ruslan-tsarnaev/5335416

Former CIA officer: ‘Absurd’ to link uncle of Boston suspects, Agency
Former CIA officer: ‘Absurd’ to link uncle of Boston suspects, Agency | The Back Channel

The Tale of Uncle Tsarnaev, CIA Chief Graham Fuller and a Turkish Islamist Who Lives in USA
The Tale of Uncle Tsarnaev, CIA Chief Graham Fuller and a Turkish Islamist Who Lives in USA : The Progressive Press

 

[SwimExpert]

They have been trying for three months. Apple is so good that even the feds can't bypass their encryption security.

Private sector 1, government 0

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The simple solution to this is for the OWNER of the cell phone - the County of San Bernardino - to ask Apple to open it.

Then Apple can provide the excellent customer service they are famous for and no rights are lost, no back door created. Just another customer service WIN!!

You're welcome.

They already gave permission months ago. What the feds are doing is forcing Apple to write a program to bust their own encryption. Watch the sales of I-phones to increase these next few months because of their decision to not cooperate.

 

[Preacher]

While I agree with Apple here I think they should help get the phone open for the FBI but they shouldn't be FORCED to do it. What's sadder is the combined forces of the fed gov can't crack the damn phone...I mean really? Has diversity destroyed the fed gov that much!?

They have been trying for three months. Apple is so good that even the feds can't bypass their encryption security.

Wow. That's comforting since I own an iphone.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

While I agree with Apple here I think they should help get the phone open for the FBI but they shouldn't be FORCED to do it. What's sadder is the combined forces of the fed gov can't crack the damn phone...I mean really? Has diversity destroyed the fed gov that much!?

They have been trying for three months. Apple is so good that even the feds can't bypass their encryption security.

Wow. That's comforting since I own an iphone.

I do too which is why I'm concerned about all this. I've only used Apple computers since my first one.

If Apple claims they can't break this code without risking the security of millions of people, then I believe them. After all, it's their phone, they should know.

But I have to ask this question: were these two lowlife terrorists of any importance in terrorist organizations, or were they just disposable followers? What could be so important to the feds that they need the information out of this phone? We now know of the plot to kill these people, and it's pretty much over with.

So is this just an excuse because it drives the feds nuts that there is a product out there that they can't control, or is it because there is actually vital information on that phone that might prevent a future attack or connections to the attack they were part of?

 

[FA_Q2]

The San Bernadino shooter lived in a house.
That house had locks on the doors.
The locks were made by Acme Lock Co.

Why should Acme Lock Co. be required to pick the lock to the front door?

It's all fine and dandy for the authorities to want to conduct a search to look for evidence of further terrorist activity. If the government wants to find a way to enter the house to conduct that search, good on them. But there is no justification for demanding that the lock company get involved and be forced to become an agent of government activity.

This conversation really should have ended right here. I don't see how you can get so far astray of the actual issue as Valerie has - this has nothing to do with legal search and warrant laws. This has everything to do with the government suddenly deciding that it can and will COMPEL third parties to be its strong arm to pursue those search warrants.

 

[FA_Q2]

Apple should be able to gain access to a phone and retrieve the info on one phone. Like tapping a phone line, once proper legalities have been met it is legal.

I think Apple is saying they'd have to show the government how to tap everyone's phone, and that is what they don't want to do. I haven't read their whole complaint by if that is it I would side with Apple. The government cannot be given the right, as shown in the NSA leaks, to tap information from every person and know everything. Even if it compromises SOME security.

A fine line to walk but it has to be walked.

Not really. It is a glaringly massive and obvious line the size of a football field. The government can pursue any warrant that a judge has issued. They cannot and should never be allowed to force a third party to do it for them. They have no power to tell me or you to search another party. That is nuts and what they are asking apple to do for them - to do their dirty work so they do not have to.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

No, it is not. How many times does it have to be repeated on this thread: THERE IS NO INFORMATION TO TURN OVER. THERE IS NO KEY. THERE IS NO BACKDOOR. THERE IS NOTHING THAT APPLE HAS THAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS.

What they do want is to force apple to create a backdoor so that they can use it.

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.

This isn't about turning over information. Apple is not in possession of any information. Apple is being ordered to obtain information that the government wants. For all intents and purposes, the government is trying to force Apple to become it's agent, to create software which does not exist (may not even be possible to create), and to then use that software to conduct a surveillance operation.

If the FBI wants to get to the data, let them have their own techs hack into the device. The government does not have an inherent entitlement to get into any device it wants because it might have information they want.

Apple would be turning over information IF it handed over an unlocked phone to the FBI, and IF the FBI could use that phone to copy whatever Apple did to unlock it so as to enable the FBI to unlock other phones without Apple's knowledge AND a court order.

Unless that is the situation, Apple is down to arguing 1) if we wrote this code, one of our employees could disclose it without our approval and that would do econ damage to us OR 2) if we wrote this code, buyers would be less likely to buy our phones because it's possible the gummt could get a search warrant if it was likely we committed a crime. 1 might be a real concern, but it would apply equally to all other phone makers. 2 doesn't sway me.

Or it is neither of those. It is:

A fourth reason is the government is trying to compel a private entity to create a privacy violation tool for them. Would you like being involuntarily enlisted as a burglar? Is that legal?

I don't care if the code has zero chance of being released, only works on that phone and does nothing to their sales at all - it is immaterial to the fact that the government should not have the power to compel you to do their dirty work for them. Apple is not an arm of the government - they are a private entity that has NOT committed a crime of any sort. All they are guilty of is creating encryption protocol that actually works and for that the government is very upset.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

And you have entirely missed the point. Where is ANYONE on this thread arguing that the government does not have the power to search the phone? Where has anyone said that the government should not be able to serve its warrants?

You know that you have no real points when everything that is stated from your position by all in this thread taking it relies on the same straw man.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

And?

Apple is not charged with upholding the nations interests nor would I ever trust apple to do so. The government is supposed to be doing that and it seems that they think creating new powers and stomping on freedoms to gain access to a phone from a dead terrorist that is 99.99% likely to have nothing useful on it at all is in 'our best interests.'

They are doing a rather poor job protecting those interests.