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

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

I already very explicitly called out the 4th amendment and being secure in our effects. But, I also noted earlier that it was less about whether or not the state could convince the courts that it isn't unconstitutional, but describing how I believe it violates the spirit of those protections; I am sure someone with far better knowledge of the law could make a case better than I could that the state has the right to do this. Not to mention, what I stressed as even more important: the fact that it will likely make us all less safe. Please at least try to keep up here.

I'll put aside for the moment that the 4th amendment was (and is) not part of the United States Constitution (although it would seem that a self-proclaimed Constitutional scholar as yourself would know that), 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" (since you like those flashy seemingly intellectual and know-it-all "alphabet soups") 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? Please show your "prowess" as a constitutional scholar! Since we are just "chatting" here!"

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Ok, here's what I don't get. I thought Apple's encryption process was supposed to be 100% hack-proof, meaning they couldn't decipher it even if they wanted to. Now it seems they CAN decipher it if they work on it. Well gee, if Apple can decipher it, so can hackers and foreign governments acting on their own. So the argument that Apple shouldn't do this because it will open a backdoor for hackers is bullshit. Either a backdoor is possible or it isn't. If I bought an I-phone running iOS-8 because it was marketed as being 100% hack-proof, I would want my money back.

The "problem" the knee-jerkers (who call themselves "Libertarians" and "anti-Government") haven't yet grasped is: The argument they use against Apple assisting the FBI in extracting the information off the phone is a PERFECT argument for the prohibition against the manufacture and distribution of handguns in the United States.

"They can end up in the hands of criminals."

I guess their "top secret bullshit" on their phones is more important than firearm ownership and possession.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

So you are arguing that the "good guys" should be legally allowed to compell the Apple to hack the cell phones of LaVoy Finicum and Ryan Bundy in order to access the damages done to the "public safery" caused by their occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge?

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns...ers-at-refuge/

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.

[i'va biggen]

LE, and the feds have a shitload of phones they wish Apple would open. They are using this particular one hoping public opinion will shift the balance, because it is a terrorist's phone.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

LE, and the feds have a shitload of phones they wish Apple would open. They are using this particular one hoping public opinion will shift the balance, because it is a terrorist's phone.

And you KNOW this how? Oh, wait! Let me guess!

You have a friend, who has a friend, who heard from a friend ....

.. or have you been reading tweets and blogs again!

You might want to "fact check" your facts regarding the FBI "problem" in "opening" the phone.

Or ask your "friend, who has a friend, who heard from a friend ...."

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

And you KNOW this how? Oh, wait! Let me guess!

You have a friend, who has a friend, who heard from a friend ....

.. or have you been reading tweets and blogs again!

You might want to "fact check" your facts regarding the FBI "problem" in "opening" the phone.

Or ask your "friend, who has a friend, who heard from a friend ...."

http://sports.yahoo.com/photos/uk-pr...NlYwNpbWFnZQ--

What a little whining bitch you are lexie.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

And you KNOW this how? Oh, wait! Let me guess!

You have a friend, who has a friend, who heard from a friend ....

.. or have you been reading tweets and blogs again!

You might want to "fact check" your facts regarding the FBI "problem" in "opening" the phone.

Or ask your "friend, who has a friend, who heard from a friend ...."

Iva has never found any objection to stating his opinion based upon his own half assed intuition, no matter how much ridicule it gets him.

[Guest042616-1]

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 (although it would seem that a self-proclaimed Constitutional scholar as yourself would know that), and suggest ..

Did you just argue that amendments to the constitution are not part of the constitution? Holy shit. It doesn't take a constitutional scholar to know that they are, in fact, part of the constitution the moment they are ratified. All it takes is grade school knowledge of the constitutional process.

"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? Please show your "prowess" as a constitutional scholar! Since we are just "chatting" here!"

You think you have me in a "gotcha" point, but, as usual, it is a strawman. 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. But I am talking about the philosophy and spirit of the constitution of the matter, more than whether or not it is currently legal for them to do so." and "But, I also noted earlier that it was less about whether or not the state could convince the courts that it isn't unconstitutional, but describing how I believe it violates the spirit of those protections." I've repeatedly said to you that I am not in an debate about the legality of it. Hell, this is no longer a strawman, but a blatant misrepresentation of my argument.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The "problem" the knee-jerkers (who call themselves "Libertarians" and "anti-Government") haven't yet grasped is: The argument they use against Apple assisting the FBI in extracting the information off the phone is a PERFECT argument for the prohibition against the manufacture and distribution of handguns in the United States.

"They can end up in the hands of criminals."

Actually, what I've said is that this technology would make us less safe, not more, citing the fact that it would almost certainly fall into the wrong hands. But, apparently, what I've said is of no actual importance to you. Only what you wish I had said.

I guess their "top secret bullshit" on their phones is more important than firearm ownership and possession.

Again, another strawman. No one here has made any claim of having "top secret" information on their phone.

Maybe this is a debate for another time, but, really, we live in the information age. People in America are being victimized far more by people stealing their information, rather than being the victims of physical crimes. In many ways, it is arguably more important for our own safety that our information be secure than we be secured by guns.

On top of that, information and secure communication is massively important in conflict. As the saying goes "WWII was won with British Intelligence, American steel and Russian blood." The intelligence they are referring to is the cracking of the German ciphers so we could read all of their communications. So if there were ever a need to rise up against the government, the ability to communicate, without the government being allowed to snoop in, is vital to security from the government. It might actually be more important than our physical arms, at this point in time, considering there is no way we could compete against the US army, on its own soil, if they could simply listen to everything we say.

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.

Again, strawman. No one is this thread is saying that they can't examine the phone. What I am saying, at least, is that they should not compel apple to create a backdoor so that the government can bypass the encryption. If the state can get into the phone, they can go right ahead and do it.

[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.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

What a little whining bitch you are lexie.

That's your echo, little boy.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Did you just argue that amendments to the constitution are not part of the constitution? Holy shit. It doesn't take a constitutional scholar to know that they are, ....

So now you are claiming you are a "constitutional scholar" ....


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!!!

I wasn't "debating" anything. It's simply a legal fact.

The 4th amendment does not apply to the Apple vs. FBI fiasco. But you continue to delude yourself, ok?

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's your echo, little boy.

Actually, I have to agree with LittleEva on this one. WTLL, you need to take walk, drink some tea, and just relax a bit. You'll feel better.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

So now you are claiming you are a "constitutional scholar" ....


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!!!

I wasn't "debating" anything. It's simply a legal fact.

The 4th amendment does not apply to the Apple vs. FBI fiasco. But you continue to delude yourself, ok?

Then why are they called "Constitutional Amendments"? How can an action related to speech, religion, or privacy be declared "unconstitutional " by SCOTUS if the Amendments are not part of the Constitution?


You're an idiot, WTLL.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

I already very explicitly called out the 4th amendment and being secure in our effects.

Without all the childish, useless remarks ... just explain why the 4th Amendment is applicable to the Apple vs. FBI scenario. I realize you can't, but the opportunity is there to "walk the walk"! If you can't just say so.

[CuteOldGuy]

The 4th Amendment to THE CONSTITUTION protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, and to be secure in their personal effects. It is perfectly reasonable for the FBI to want to examine a criminal's phone. It is NOT reasonable for the government to force a private company to provide information which would allow the FBI to access ANY phone at ANY time.

John MacAfee has volunteered to hack that specific phone. Why doesn't the FBI take him up on his offer? It's because the government is not interested in that particular phone. It wants access to ALL phones. And that, WTLL, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL pursuant to the 4th Amendment to the CONSTITUTION.