N.Y. judge backs Apple in encryption fight with government

[HenryBHough]

I keep asking but nobody seems to want to answer.....

If you're believing the FBI is right and we have nothing to fear then why are you not concluding each post with your social security number, home address, phone number and bank account numbers. What IS it that you're hiding?

 

[thereisnospoon]

]

[
Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

I think the government has the constitutional authority for searches with probable cause.

This is NOT a request to search. This is an invasion of intellectual property.
Apple made an offer to allow the FBI to bring the phone to them and the people at Apple would get into the phone and turn over the information the FBI needed.
The FBI declined. They wanted FULL access to the device and the FBI sued.
Imagine that...A federal agency wanting to violate the constitutional rights of a company ( corporations are people) and also violate copyright laws, commerce laws and trade laws.
The company and the authorities should get into a room and arrive at a resolution that with which both sides can live with

 

[OKTexas]

]

[
Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

I think the government has the constitutional authority for searches with probable cause.

I actually agree, if Apple had a program they should provide it, but they don't, it doesn't exist. That fact makes the court order moot, they can't demand something that is nonexistent.

They possess the knowledge, so that's a distinction without a difference. They are obstructing justice,

unless of course you don't believe that the proper course of justice here is for the authorities to know what's on that phone.

So are proposing Apple develop a way to get into the phone and just give it to the government?

 

[thereisnospoon]

]

[
Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

I think the government has the constitutional authority for searches with probable cause.

I actually agree, if Apple had a program they should provide it, but they don't, it doesn't exist. That fact makes the court order moot, they can't demand something that is nonexistent.

They possess the knowledge, so that's a distinction without a difference. They are obstructing justice,

unless of course you don't believe that the proper course of justice here is for the authorities to know what's on that phone.

I agree the FBI should be able to have what is on the device but not the method to retrieve it. Apple can obtain it and hand it over to the FBI...

 

[thereisnospoon]

What's worth remembering here is that Apple, for money reasons, bows to every demand the Chinese make.

Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

Yes. under the circumstances.

Then you are insane.

If you can't find probable cause to unlock a terrorist's phone, then you are totally ignorant of the law.

Not to unlock the phone. To receive the information relevant to the investigation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

]

[
Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

I think the government has the constitutional authority for searches with probable cause.

I actually agree, if Apple had a program they should provide it, but they don't, it doesn't exist. That fact makes the court order moot, they can't demand something that is nonexistent.

They possess the knowledge, so that's a distinction without a difference. They are obstructing justice,

unless of course you don't believe that the proper course of justice here is for the authorities to know what's on that phone.

So are proposing Apple develop a way to get into the phone and just give it to the government?

I believe, as a personal opinion based on common sense, that Apple already knows how to open the phone.

They are withholding that knowledge from the police and in doing so are impeding an investigation.

Two friends of one of the Boston bombers got prison time for impeding that investigation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's worth remembering here is that Apple, for money reasons, bows to every demand the Chinese make.

Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

Yes. under the circumstances.

Then you are insane.

If you can't find probable cause to unlock a terrorist's phone, then you are totally ignorant of the law.

Not to unlock the phone. To receive the information relevant to the investigation.

The police have probable cause to look at all the information on the phone and decide for themselves what is relevant.
If the police have a search warrant to search your house for drugs, they have the right to see lots of things not relevant to drug possession.

 

[OKTexas]

]

[
Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

I think the government has the constitutional authority for searches with probable cause.

I actually agree, if Apple had a program they should provide it, but they don't, it doesn't exist. That fact makes the court order moot, they can't demand something that is nonexistent.

They possess the knowledge, so that's a distinction without a difference. They are obstructing justice,

unless of course you don't believe that the proper course of justice here is for the authorities to know what's on that phone.

So are proposing Apple develop a way to get into the phone and just give it to the government?

I believe, as a personal opinion based on common sense, that Apple already knows how to open the phone.

They are withholding that knowledge from the police and in doing so are impeding an investigation.

Two friends of one of the Boston bombers got prison time for impeding that investigation.

Knowing how and having the technology in place to do it are two completely different things.

Now would you answer my question?

 

[Jarlaxle]

]

[
Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

I think the government has the constitutional authority for searches with probable cause.

I actually agree, if Apple had a program they should provide it, but they don't, it doesn't exist. That fact makes the court order moot, they can't demand something that is nonexistent.

They possess the knowledge, so that's a distinction without a difference. They are obstructing justice,

unless of course you don't believe that the proper course of justice here is for the authorities to know what's on that phone.

So are proposing Apple develop a way to get into the phone and just give it to the government?

I believe, as a personal opinion based on common sense, that Apple already knows how to open the phone.

They are withholding that knowledge from the police and in doing so are impeding an investigation.

Two friends of one of the Boston bombers got prison time for impeding that investigation.

You don't actually understand how encryption works, do you. (That is not a question.)

 

[jon_berzerk]

]

[
Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

I think the government has the constitutional authority for searches with probable cause.

I actually agree, if Apple had a program they should provide it, but they don't, it doesn't exist. That fact makes the court order moot, they can't demand something that is nonexistent.

They possess the knowledge, so that's a distinction without a difference. They are obstructing justice,

unless of course you don't believe that the proper course of justice here is for the authorities to know what's on that phone.

So are proposing Apple develop a way to get into the phone and just give it to the government?

I believe, as a personal opinion based on common sense, that Apple already knows how to open the phone.

They are withholding that knowledge from the police and in doing so are impeding an investigation.

Two friends of one of the Boston bombers got prison time for impeding that investigation.

you have proof of that

 

[jon_berzerk]

]I think the government has the constitutional authority for searches with probable cause.

I actually agree, if Apple had a program they should provide it, but they don't, it doesn't exist. That fact makes the court order moot, they can't demand something that is nonexistent.

They possess the knowledge, so that's a distinction without a difference. They are obstructing justice,

unless of course you don't believe that the proper course of justice here is for the authorities to know what's on that phone.

So are proposing Apple develop a way to get into the phone and just give it to the government?

I believe, as a personal opinion based on common sense, that Apple already knows how to open the phone.

They are withholding that knowledge from the police and in doing so are impeding an investigation.

Two friends of one of the Boston bombers got prison time for impeding that investigation.

Knowing how and having the technology in place to do it are two completely different things.

Now would you answer my question?

actually they said they dont know how

and that it would take a team of engineers and another lab to try

 

[NYcarbineer]

]I think the government has the constitutional authority for searches with probable cause.

I actually agree, if Apple had a program they should provide it, but they don't, it doesn't exist. That fact makes the court order moot, they can't demand something that is nonexistent.

They possess the knowledge, so that's a distinction without a difference. They are obstructing justice,

unless of course you don't believe that the proper course of justice here is for the authorities to know what's on that phone.

So are proposing Apple develop a way to get into the phone and just give it to the government?

I believe, as a personal opinion based on common sense, that Apple already knows how to open the phone.

They are withholding that knowledge from the police and in doing so are impeding an investigation.

Two friends of one of the Boston bombers got prison time for impeding that investigation.

you have proof of that

Learn to read, Corky.

 

[NYcarbineer]

]I think the government has the constitutional authority for searches with probable cause.

I actually agree, if Apple had a program they should provide it, but they don't, it doesn't exist. That fact makes the court order moot, they can't demand something that is nonexistent.

They possess the knowledge, so that's a distinction without a difference. They are obstructing justice,

unless of course you don't believe that the proper course of justice here is for the authorities to know what's on that phone.

So are proposing Apple develop a way to get into the phone and just give it to the government?

I believe, as a personal opinion based on common sense, that Apple already knows how to open the phone.

They are withholding that knowledge from the police and in doing so are impeding an investigation.

Two friends of one of the Boston bombers got prison time for impeding that investigation.

You don't actually understand how encryption works, do you. (That is not a question.)

You need to learn to read, too.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I actually agree, if Apple had a program they should provide it, but they don't, it doesn't exist. That fact makes the court order moot, they can't demand something that is nonexistent.

They possess the knowledge, so that's a distinction without a difference. They are obstructing justice,

unless of course you don't believe that the proper course of justice here is for the authorities to know what's on that phone.

So are proposing Apple develop a way to get into the phone and just give it to the government?

I believe, as a personal opinion based on common sense, that Apple already knows how to open the phone.

They are withholding that knowledge from the police and in doing so are impeding an investigation.

Two friends of one of the Boston bombers got prison time for impeding that investigation.

you have proof of that

Learn to read, Corky.

yes nothing but slander from you shithead

 

[thereisnospoon]

Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

Yes. under the circumstances.

Then you are insane.

If you can't find probable cause to unlock a terrorist's phone, then you are totally ignorant of the law.

Not to unlock the phone. To receive the information relevant to the investigation.

The police have probable cause to look at all the information on the phone and decide for themselves what is relevant.
If the police have a search warrant to search your house for drugs, they have the right to see lots of things not relevant to drug possession.

Ok...One more time....IN this case, the government is ( as it appears to me) asserting its right to exercise probable cause.
Now, where the conflict exists is the method by which the government wants to gather that information.
At that point the government is over reaching. The FBI wants the information on the device. That's fine. They can have it. But what they are not entitled to is the method by which it is gathered.
Lets use your house search scenario.
A judge issues a search warrant( must be specific) for 123 magnolia drive. The police show up and in the warrant is a specific item noted "papers". During the search, the police discover a safe. The police instruct the homeowner their warrant allows them to search the contents of the safe.
The police have the right to the contents. But they do not have the right to the combination or any security method used to enter the safe.
Now, replace the safe with the phone....Simple.
There is no obstruction. The FBI ( federal government) wants the whole ball of wax and they are not entitled to it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes. under the circumstances.

Then you are insane.

If you can't find probable cause to unlock a terrorist's phone, then you are totally ignorant of the law.

Not to unlock the phone. To receive the information relevant to the investigation.

The police have probable cause to look at all the information on the phone and decide for themselves what is relevant.
If the police have a search warrant to search your house for drugs, they have the right to see lots of things not relevant to drug possession.

Ok...One more time....IN this case, the government is ( as it appears to me) asserting its right to exercise probable cause.
Now, where the conflict exists is the method by which the government wants to gather that information.
At that point the government is over reaching. The FBI wants the information on the device. That's fine. They can have it. But what they are not entitled to is the method by which it is gathered.
Lets use your house search scenario.
A judge issues a search warrant( must be specific) for 123 magnolia drive. The police show up and in the warrant is a specific item noted "papers". During the search, the police discover a safe. The police instruct the homeowner their warrant allows them to search the contents of the safe.
The police have the right to the contents. But they do not have the right to the combination or any security method used to enter the safe.
Now, replace the safe with the phone....Simple.
There is no obstruction. The FBI ( federal government) wants the whole ball of wax and they are not entitled to it.

If they have the right to the contents they have the right to the means to get it.

 

[OKTexas]

Then you are insane.

If you can't find probable cause to unlock a terrorist's phone, then you are totally ignorant of the law.

Not to unlock the phone. To receive the information relevant to the investigation.

The police have probable cause to look at all the information on the phone and decide for themselves what is relevant.
If the police have a search warrant to search your house for drugs, they have the right to see lots of things not relevant to drug possession.

Ok...One more time....IN this case, the government is ( as it appears to me) asserting its right to exercise probable cause.
Now, where the conflict exists is the method by which the government wants to gather that information.
At that point the government is over reaching. The FBI wants the information on the device. That's fine. They can have it. But what they are not entitled to is the method by which it is gathered.
Lets use your house search scenario.
A judge issues a search warrant( must be specific) for 123 magnolia drive. The police show up and in the warrant is a specific item noted "papers". During the search, the police discover a safe. The police instruct the homeowner their warrant allows them to search the contents of the safe.
The police have the right to the contents. But they do not have the right to the combination or any security method used to enter the safe.
Now, replace the safe with the phone....Simple.
There is no obstruction. The FBI ( federal government) wants the whole ball of wax and they are not entitled to it.

If they have the right to the contents they have the right to the means to get it.

If the only person with the combination is dead, then what?

 

[BlindBoo]

I keep asking but nobody seems to want to answer.....

If you're believing the FBI is right and we have nothing to fear then why are you not concluding each post with your social security number, home address, phone number and bank account numbers. What IS it that you're hiding?

A little thing call probable cause maybe?

Is Apple aiding and abetting known terrorists who viciously gunned down 14 innocent Americans.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Do you think it's reasonable for the government to demand a private company invent something that doesn't exist?

Yes. under the circumstances.

Then you are insane.

If you can't find probable cause to unlock a terrorist's phone, then you are totally ignorant of the law.

Not to unlock the phone. To receive the information relevant to the investigation.

The police have probable cause to look at all the information on the phone and decide for themselves what is relevant.
If the police have a search warrant to search your house for drugs, they have the right to see lots of things not relevant to drug possession.

And no...The police do not get to decide what is relevant. The judge bound by the laws of the state, the federal government and 300 years of legal precedent decide what is relevant.
For example.....Let's say the cops get warrant to search the house for drugs and any related items related to the use and sale of illegal drugs. Items such as scales, plastic bags, etc....
During the search, one of the police officers has to walk out to his car to get a new pair of gloves. On his way out, he decides to open the door of the home owner's car. Remember the car is NOT on the search warrant. In the car the officer finds an open bottle of liquor and the key was in the ignition More than just a citation.
On that search alone, the police arrest the owner.
The homeowner's rights were violated because the search of the car was was illegal. Not only that, the presence of the open bottle of liquor was not relevant to the search for illegal drugs.
To carry this one step further. Again, the warrant is specific to search the house.
Same cop goes out to his car to get a new pair of gloves. ON his way to his car, he decides to remove the lid from the homeowner's trash can which was in the street for collection that day. The cop sees what he believes to be remnants of drug material. On that basis , the officer arrests the homeowner.
Once again, because the warrant was specific to the HOUSE,. the trash can was off limits.
One exception.....If the LID of the trash can was not on top of the trash can, that would fall under "in plain view" exception.....In other words, anyone including the police could see the drug material by simply walking by and lookig at the trash in the can.
In this scenario, the removal of the lid made it a "search"...
In both of these examples it illustrated that the police do not "have the right to see lots of things not relevant...".
I am shocked that you, a liberal, would side with government on this....
Look, I am no fan of Apple. I don't own any Apple products.
However, the dog I have in this fight is that if the government continues to incrementally strip away our rights, we are no longer the USA

 

[thereisnospoon]

I actually agree, if Apple had a program they should provide it, but they don't, it doesn't exist. That fact makes the court order moot, they can't demand something that is nonexistent.

They possess the knowledge, so that's a distinction without a difference. They are obstructing justice,

unless of course you don't believe that the proper course of justice here is for the authorities to know what's on that phone.

So are proposing Apple develop a way to get into the phone and just give it to the government?

I believe, as a personal opinion based on common sense, that Apple already knows how to open the phone.

They are withholding that knowledge from the police and in doing so are impeding an investigation.

Two friends of one of the Boston bombers got prison time for impeding that investigation.

you have proof of that

Learn to read, Corky.

You offered an opinion. THat's proof?