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

[CuteOldGuy]

WTLL. Stay in context. When can government single out a person or business and require them to perform an act against their will with no supporting law to do so?

And the Constitution was intended to limit the Federal government. It was ALWAYS the Constitution even before SCOTUS determined that the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.


You are exceeding your own personal best for stupidity.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

When can government single out a person or business and require them to perform an act against their will with no supporting law to do so?

And the Constitution was intended to limit the Federal government. It was ALWAYS the Constitution even before SCOTUS determined that the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.


You are exceeding your own personal best for stupidity.

The Constitution authorizes the Government to perform tasks. One of those "authorized tasks" is passing a law that authorizes LE to implement directives. And when the "authorized directive" has a reasonable relationship to "public safety" the SCOTUS has upheld the implementation of the directive.

I realize that's a scary concept for you ... the Government having authority.

But just pretend, like you usually do, that Government doesn't exist.

[CuteOldGuy]

Please tell us where the Constitution authorizes the government to force an individual person or entity to perform a task against their will with no supporting law. Thanks.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Please tell us where the Constitution authorizes the government to force an individual person or entity to perform a task against their will with no supporting law. Thanks.

First you show me where I posted:

"....the Constitution authorizes the government to force an individual person or entity to perform a task against their will with no supporting law."

Should I save you some time, or are you just going to make up some more shit?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Constitution authorizes the Government to perform tasks. One of those "authorized tasks" is passing a law that authorizes LE to implement directives. And when the "authorized directive" has a reasonable relationship to "public safety" the SCOTUS has upheld the implementation of the directive.

I think I will repeat what I posted before you made up some shit.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"Right of Privacy" does not apply to "this phone" ... since the phone was the property of the county and the user does not have a reasonable, legitimate expectation of privacy when using a government owned phone.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

the county "issued" the phone to him as an employee ...

... it IS owned by the county ... and the county did not object to the search!

Since he (they?) was using a government phone there WAS NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY to activate the protections of the 4th amendment. The "legal issue" with Apple is "proprietary" information with regard to the encryption and providing a program to the government to unscramble it. The "business issue" is future purchasers realizing that the encryption will not keep their information involving criminal activities safe from the prying eyes of the government....

......so the crooks (and terrorists) will quit purchasing and using Apple's new phones.

Early on the Clinton administration signed a "chip" installation executive order for cell phones to allow the government to snoop without people knowing about it, and it was rescinded after a hail storm of criticism. The government snoops now anyway. Apple will have to make a technological adjustment with their software .... following the ballpoint ink business of changing the "formula" annually.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Without any Constitutional Protection Apple et al may be risking a criminal charge of "hindering" and/or "interfering" with a criminal investigation. There are potentially alternatives to refusing to provide the software to the Feds, and the Apple interest can be protected by a court order, which is frequently done. The "loss of revenues" may not be a viable defense when alternatives are available.

My suggestion was, and still is, Apple cooperating on a case-by-case basis in lieu of Congress passing legislation mandating access to encryptions in phones manufactured, sold, and/or shipped in and/or into the U.S.

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

My suggestion was, and still is, Apple cooperating on a case-by-case basis in lieu of Congress passing legislation mandating access to encryptions in phones manufactured, sold, and/or shipped in and/or into the U.S.

Looks like Congress is poised to exert itself into the fray as it should, for the general public deserves robust and intelligent debates on such momentous issue wherein the conflict between digital data (private and public domains) security and public safety needs to be resolved, instead of one side being brutally bludgened to submission by the other.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ap...rticle/2584404

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Looks like Congress is poised to exert itself into the fray as it should, for the general public deserves robust and intelligent debates on such momentous issue wherein the conflict between digital data (private and public domains) security and public safety needs to be resolved, instead of one side being brutally bludgened to submission by the other.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ap...rticle/2584404

The "debate" has been ongoing for decades, approaching centuries, the only difference is the technology, which, BTW, is one characteristic that distinguishes the "Constitution" from the "Bill of Rights"! As technology, social attitudes and tolerances, and mores evolve and change, the SCOTUS has interpreted the "Bill of Rights" to "adjust" and/or "accommodate" those new positions. The SCOTUS is usually playing "catch up." Not so with the "Constitution."

When "we" don't take care of "our own" business in a mutually acceptable and reasonable manner, government steps in to the fray....whether it be LE (executive), the courts (judiciary), or Congress (the legislative branch). When so-called "Libertarians" figure that out they will be able to be "liberated" from government intervention and the size of government can be truly minimized. It's a slow process to "get government out" once it has stuck its grimmies into your business, and it is so much easier to keep government out in the first place in the long run.

[CuteOldGuy]

You don't make any sense, WTLL. You're doubling down on stupid. The encryption algorithm belongs to Apple. It is part of the value of their product. Why would they voluntarily devalue their product? If the government forces them, against their will, to develop a back door to their encryption, that would be a violation of the 13th Amendment, which by the way, is part of the Constitution. It would also be a "taking" of Apple's property, which would require the government to provide "just compensation" to Apple in the amount of devaluation. It's in the Constitution. Try reading it. You might learn something.

Oh, despite your lunacy, the Bill of Rights and the following Amendments are all the Constitution.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You don't make any sense, WTLL. ....

Coming from you I take that as a compliment.

Oh, BTW, the Bill of Rights is not even interpreted the same as the "U.S. Constitution"! Different purpose.

You might want to revisit your "Constitutional Law" history as it relates to the 14th Amendment and Bill of Rights!

As for you loudmouth .....try applying it in judicial proceedings.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The "debate" has been ongoing for decades, approaching centuries, the only difference is the technology, which, BTW, is one characteristic that distinguishes the "Constitution" from the "Bill of Rights"! As technology, social attitudes and tolerances, and mores evolve and change, the SCOTUS has interpreted the "Bill of Rights" to "adjust" and/or "accommodate" those new positions. The SCOTUS is usually playing "catch up." Not so with the "Constitution."

This is COG on "constitutional law"!

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Coming from you I take that as a compliment.

Oh, BTW, the Bill of Rights is not even interpreted the same as the "U.S. Constitution"! Different purpose.

You might want to revisit your "Constitutional Law" history as it relates to the 14th Amendment and Bill of Rights!

As for you loudmouth .....try applying it in judicial proceedings.

Walk-the-Walk!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Constitution authorizes the Government to perform tasks. One of those "authorized tasks" is passing a law that authorizes LE to implement directives. And when the "authorized directive" has a reasonable relationship to "public safety" the SCOTUS has upheld the implementation of the directive.

I realize that's a scary concept for you ... the Government having authority.

But just pretend, like you usually do, that Government doesn't exist.

You read the "constitution" and assign your own meaning to it, ok?

I'll review opinions by the Supreme Court regarding the historical interpretation!

Here's a rather recent rendition .... in an infamous decision ...

“The Constitution authorizes Congress to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, andamong the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”Art. I, §8, cl. 3. Our precedents read that to mean that Congress may regulate “the channels of interstate commerce,” “persons or things in interstate commerce,” and “those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” Morrison, supra, at 609 (internal quotation marksomitted). The power over activities that substantially akin to the police power. The Constitution authorizes Congress to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”Art. I, §8, cl. 3. Our precedents read that to mean that Congress may regulate “the channels of interstate commerce,” “persons or things in interstate commerce,” and “those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” Morrison, supra, at 609 (internal quotation marksomitted).” NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., 567 U.S. 4-5 (Supreme Court 2011).

It has NOTHING to do with the "Bill of Rights"!

The GOVERNMENT (Federal) has been in the "phone business" for awhile!

Sounds like you are the one who needs to "catch up" and stay "caught up"!

[Jackie S]

It would be great if the SCOTUS would step into this and say, "send it to us, now". Of course, they can't, because that is not the way things are done. But no doubt, they will sooner or later have to rule on such legal matters as technology increases.

As for the average American on the street, they ask......"why can't the Federal Government give the phone to Apple, have them unlock it, and then give it back.

The reason Apple doesn't want to is they do not want their customer base believing that Apple does have that capability. And beside, what is to stop the technicians who actually perform the work, (or figure it out), from offering, for a large sum of cash, the procedure to either a competitor, or anybody else that might like it? Would Apple be willing to trust all involved?

Millions of dollars, and the reputations of businesses are at stake.

SCOTUS should step in, because this is a Constitutional Question, and in that, they have the final say.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

And beside, what is to stop the technicians who actually perform the work, (or figure it out), from offering, for a large sum of cash, the procedure to either a competitor, or anybody else that might like it? Would Apple be willing to trust all involved?

SCOTUS should step in, because this is a Constitutional Question, and in that, they have the final say.

As for the "procedure" ...Who is "Apple"? The company has no brain, nor ability to "actually perform the work"! "Apple" is a bunch of people .. who already know how to unscramble the encryption?

All this hand-wringing over "internal security" presupposes two "facts":

1. Apple is a living, breathing, and thinking entity separate from the employees, and
2. the developers of the encryption don't already know how to unscramble it.

The first one is elementary ... it is not a "fact"! The 2nd defies logic.

For those of you who have written software using even those most primitive of "language" have known that the testing of the accuracy of the software DEPENDS on testing the results by comparing the input data to the output data. The only way one can do that in this context is "unscramble" the encryption to verify the input data is the same as the output ... "unscrambled"!

In the "ancient" days it was tedious cards run through the "reader" in a room sized computer that your hand held can "out think" today. Then it was converted to magnetic tape. Repetition with writing, examining, tweaking, and and re-running the program ... until it was correct.

[CuteOldGuy]

Good lord, WTLL. You are making a huge fool of yourself. Have fun. BTW, you avoided responding to my post with the skill of WPF. Brilliant.