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

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Would you get off your emotional rant and think about this for a moment....Please..
Apple is not I repeat, NOT refusing assistance to the FBI in giving them the information they want.
The company's objection is the FBI wants full and unfettered access to ALL Apple phones.
More than once Apple has offered to cooperate, but the FBI isn't satisfied.
Its essentially this......Apple has offered to give the FBI what is in the device. They are not going to tell them how to get it.
Because that is not part of the deal....And its Constitutionally protected intellectual property.

 

[Contumacious]

]

[
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 search.

The iphone belongs to San Bernardino County. So if this is a search the served the wrong party.

But what fedgov wants to do is conscript Apple into assisting "law" enforcement.

.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

You are entitled to believe whatever you wish.
The courts and the law say otherwise.

 

[Contumacious]

]

[
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...

There is NOTHING preventing the FBI from submitting an interagency request to the NSA - they have the info.


.

 

[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.

Would you get off your emotional rant and think about this for a moment....Please..
Apple is not I repeat, NOT refusing assistance to the FBI in giving them the information they want.
The company's objection is the FBI wants full and unfettered access to ALL Apple phones.
More than once Apple has offered to cooperate, but the FBI isn't satisfied.
Its essentially this......Apple has offered to give the FBI what is in the device. They are not going to tell them how to get it.
Because that is not part of the deal....And its Constitutionally protected intellectual property.

I was just answering your emotional argument. If Apple has agreed to that then more power to them. Apple should only answer to a judge's warrant on individual cases, and not give the FBI a key to everyones backdoor.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Would you get off your emotional rant and think about this for a moment....Please..
Apple is not I repeat, NOT refusing assistance to the FBI in giving them the information they want.
The company's objection is the FBI wants full and unfettered access to ALL Apple phones.
More than once Apple has offered to cooperate, but the FBI isn't satisfied.
Its essentially this......Apple has offered to give the FBI what is in the device. They are not going to tell them how to get it.
Because that is not part of the deal....And its Constitutionally protected intellectual property.

I was just answering your emotional argument. If Apple has agreed to that then more power to them. Apple should only answer to a judge's warrant on individual cases, and not give the FBI a key to everyones backdoor.

Ok...How in the hell can stating the facts be construed as an emotional argument?
On your response, I concur

 

[Contumacious]

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

...in a case completely unrelated to the San Bernidino case, having no bearing whatsoever in the merits of that case.

NY Case>>>>>>>>>>> FBI vs Apple

San Bernardino Case>>>>>> FBI vs Apple

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

.