Anybody Notice The Feds Wants Apple To Break Into An Americans phone

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Check out the video interview of John MacAfee by Ben Swann. MacAfee has offered to hack into the specific phone for free. What the FBI wants, however, is to be able to hack into ANY phone at ANY time. They have turned MacAfee down.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/02/...v-if-cant.html

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You should go back a reread what've you've posted. The Bill of Rights ARE NOT PART OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. They were not ratified with the Constitution and it wasn't until decades after they were ratified by the States that they were even applicable to the States!!!

Once something is ratified, it becomes part of the Constitution. This is why they are called "amendments." We are amending the constitution. Why aren't more people calling LL out on this? This is ridiculously basic civics right here.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Once something is ratified, it becomes part of the Constitution. This is why they are called "amendments." We are amending the constitution. Why aren't more people calling LL out on this? This is ridiculously basic civics right here.

I think what LL is stating is that the original document did not contain The Bill Of Rights. They were added after the Founders believed the people needed guarantees limiting Government Power.

All Amendments carry the full weight of Law.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I think what LL is stating is that the original document did not contain The Bill Of Rights. They were added after the Founders believed the people needed guarantees limiting Government Power.

I get what he thinks. The fact of the matter remains that he is wrong. All amendments to the constitution are part of the constitution. The constitution is not just that document that was originally signed.

Besides, even if he wants to take some kind of "originalist" stance on the constitution, he is in a catch-22 because the amendment process is part of the original constitution. Not only that, but they only got to the required number of states to ratified the constitution after it was promised that the BoR would be added after ratification. While it wasn't technically part of the original constitution, it in essence was because it would have fallen apart without it.

All Amendments carry the full weight of Law.

Yes, they are all part of the constitution, which is my point.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Anybody Notice The Feds Wants Apple To Break Into An Americans phone

But the Feds don't want to ask the Syrian refugees coming into the country what's on their phone?

BTW: Here's the OP. The Feds vs. Apple. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The 4th Amendment is not involved.

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

LE historically has "examined" computers AND phones of known criminals, and/or those suspected of having committed a crime. That's the reason why "we" (at least I've noticed what they were carrying out) have seen Federal, State, and Local LE on news broadcasts carrying CPU's out of places where known or suspected criminal activity has occurred or the place where a suspected criminal and/or victim has kept their computer (including lap tops) and confiscate their phones for forensic examinations.

See: HillariousNoMore and her "private server"!

To specifically respond to your off-topic question: It would depend on the scope of the investigation and the crime sought to be charged. I would suspect that most of the communications between the individuals in the Wildlife Refuge were intercepted, as well as their communications to the "outside world"!

You should probably remember that the "remedy" for the violation of the 4th amendment (as well as the 5th in a different context) is to merely prohibit the admission of the information obtained without a warrant (or under one of the exceptions) against the person who OWNED the phone......and there are even exceptions to that "general rule." So your "other" unrelated example is not relevant, since the "OWNER" of the phone in the Apple situation has WAIVED any rights as to any protections of the information on the phone.

By now you should have realized what's at stake. It's not about Farooq, Finicum, nor Bundy, et al. The heart of the contention here is that the "good guys" want the "master key" from Apple in the name of "public safety." If Apple has one, hands it over now; if Apple has no such keys, well, makes one then hands it over. Either way the "good guys" will not be denied. But somehow a hard question has to be asked: is the interest of "public safety" better served by the LE coercing Apple to come up with "master key" after "master key" in an effort to assist ALL ongoing criminal investigations the "good guys" deem essential to the preservation of "public safety?" Then I don't see why gun makers should not be legally compelled to manufacture firearms that can only be fired by their owner(s) who owns them legally. And that's not the end of it. How about the latest version of Android phones, manufactured by Huawei, Lenovo, LG, Samsung, etc.... More "master keys...?"

Like clockwork, you are the only one in this thread fought so tenacious on behalf of the LE. Whether right or wrong, you deserve a worthy commendation on this one.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

By now you should have realized what's at stake.

Like clockwork, you are the only one in this thread fought so tenacious on behalf of the LE. Whether right or wrong, you deserve a worthy commendation on this one.

I think I know what's "at stake" in the current conflict between Apple & the FBI.

As for the last statement, you would be challenged to find a thread in which I have "fought so tenacious (sic) on behalf of LE."

Recognizing the legal realities of the inevitable result in this scenario when one's remedy is based on the 4th Amendment "is not fighting tenaciously on behalf of LE." It is simply placing the current facts (as opposed what might be down the road) over the template of "the law" and confirming the obvious based on judicial precedent that the principles of the 4th amendment do not exist in this case.

Why put your eggs in a losing basket? There's a relatively old "legal" saying: "Bad facts make bad law."

[CuteOldGuy]

The government has the authority to unlock the phone. It does not have the authority to force Apple or anyone else to. John MacAfee has volunteered. Why don't they take him up on the offer?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It does not have the authority to force Apple or anyone else to.

We'll see.

My vote is: the government can with proprietary protection protocols in place.

[CuteOldGuy]

So, WTLL, you believe that government can single out a person or entity and force them to do something against their will? That's called "slavery". Are you in favor of slavery?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I think what LL is stating is that the original document did not contain The Bill Of Rights. They were added after the Founders believed the people needed guarantees limiting Government Power.

All Amendments carry the full weight of Law.

That's why it was called "The Bill of Rights" ... and it was not for almost 100 years that "The Bill of Rights" was determined to be applicable to the States, which indicates that the document was not considered a "part" of the U.S. Constitution.

Please note that EatFido posted in terms of the "defining document" ... a history of the discussions reveals the distinction. There was only one "personal right" in the U.S. Constitution that arose from the principles in the Magna Carta and that was the right to a writ of habeas corpus.

The problem is when decades of writings lump the two documents together as one it ignores the basic beginnings of the two documents and their relative function.

The Constitution addressed the powers of the states through the "supremacy" clause and reserved other powers to the states. The Bill of Rights was interpreted to be applicable only to the Federal Government and not to the States, and had it been "incorporated" into the U.S. Constitution by "implication" as EatFido suggests, that would not have been the case ... it would have been applicable to state action as was the U.S. Constitution.

But that "begs the question" ... EatFido was posting about a "defining" document!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So, WTLL, you believe that government can single out a person or entity and force them to do something against their will? That's called "slavery". Are you in favor of slavery?

Making shit up again are you? Trying to vilify me with a "slavery" label?

More of your WTF shit!

Let's see .. you question was ........

Do I "believe that government can single out a person or entity and force them to do something against their will"?

Yes! Government doesn't all the time!

Are you filing a tax return this year? Or do you do it "on your own free will"? The list is endless.

Do you have health insurance coverage or do you pay the fine?

When the speed sign says "55" is that what you do ... go "55"?

I realize it galls your "libertarian" deluded mind, but 95% of your life is "regulated" by a "government.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Yes, they are all part of the constitution, which is my point.

Actually "your point" was that the United States Constitution prohibited the Federal Government from imposing on Apple an obligation to open the phone.

I merely asked you where it said that ... and pointed out to you (correctly I might add) that the 4th amendment (you cited) was not applicable.

So while you are counting tooth picks, the intellectual logs are rolling by.

The two documents were (and are) distinctively different with different purposes. That was, and is, apparent from the SCOTUS rulings regarding the application of the Bill of Rights for almost a 100 years. But that "issue" doesn't have anything to do with the "real issue" now does it?

So spend another 5-6 pages of posts posting about it....and see if it resolves the "real issue"!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

...the defining document of our country is the COTUS?

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Does "COTUS" mean the "Constitution of the United States"?

Originally Posted by eatfibo

...COTUS commonly means "Constitution of the United States."

Originally Posted by LexusLover

So where is it in the Constitution of the United States of America ("COTUS" AKA the "defining document") that the issue of Apple being protected from the government intrusion into the phone in which Apple imbedded an alleged "encryption" software covered?

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'll put aside for the moment that the 4th amendment was (and is) not part of the United States Constitution .....and suggest ..

... that you will eventually discover that you would not have "standing" to assert 4th amendment protection regarding someone else's Apple phone.

I'll also put aside that the 4th amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches" and requires a "warrant," which is nothing more than a court order, with which Apple has already been served.

Furthermore, I'll put aside that the 4th amendment has a rather long list of "SCOTUS" ... crafted exceptions that allow searches WITHOUT warrants in exigent circumstances which include the risk of the loss of the evidence among many other LE scenarios ... in fact most LEGAL LE searches are not even conducted with a "search warrant"!

So, since it's apparent you don't have a clue, I'll just ask it again, since you were the one who brought up the "defining document" of this country ...

"So where is it in the Constitution of the United States of America ("COTUS" AKA the "defining document") that the issue of Apple being protected from the government intrusion into the phone in which Apple imbedded an alleged "encryption" software covered?

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Did you just argue that amendments to the constitution are not part of the constitution?

Let me repeat something I've said to you already, in this very thread: "I'm not arguing whether or not they can legally do this" and "There may be some legal precedent (set by people who don't fully understand the technology) that makes this legal, I don't really know.

I've repeatedly said to you that I am not in an debate about the legality of it.

And you should probably go back and reread my observation as to a "solution"! This thread OP is about "legality" when a court order is discussed. And I even asked you where in the "defining document" does the government have the authority. Wouldn't it be less burdensome to just say: "I don't know"!

[Yssup Rider]

I think we all know the LLephantMan is a big supporter of LE. Just ask all the whookers he's outed!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!