Thread: Apple's stand against the Feds

Call me cynical, but I'm guessing this "solution" conveniently appeared just because the feds saw that they might lose the court case ... which of course wouldn't be the precedent they were really hoping for with this high-profile situation.

Whether or not the security of the iPhone was actually broken, the unintended consequence of announcing it had been is that few, if any, terrorists will keep any important information on a phone of any kind in the future.

The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Is it therefore reasonable, or unreasonable, to breach the security of a cell phone device if it means saving lives?

Back when the 4th Amendment was written, a warrant could have been issued to seize and search the property of a single individual. It was most likely never conceived that in the future multitudes would, maybe foolishly, share and store sensitive information via electronic devices where a breach of one could mean a breach of all.

The real issue though is should Apple have to comply with the All Writs Act, and does the Federal Gov. have jurisdiction to enforce. Now that the FBI went around Apple, after Apple refused to comply, will Apple suffer any consequences? Will it be determined that they were legally obligated to cooperate with the FBI.

It's all elementary because like everything else it's the cost benefit thing. If there should ever be a mass incident in this country which could have been prevented with the info from the phone which Apple fought tooth and nail the question becomes how many have to die before Apple or any other outfit reconsiders. Absent that, when the public starts to boycott the company the company will fold like a deck of cards.

The writers of the Constitution believed that security of the nation is of such importance that the the federal government has essentially unlimited power to effect that security:

"The authorities essential to the common defense are these: to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation, because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. This power ought to be coextensive with all the possible combinations of such circumstances; and ought to be under the direction of the same councils which are appointed to preside over the common defense.

Whether there ought to be a federal government intrusted with the care of the common defense, is a question in the first instance, open for discussion; but the moment it is decided in the affirmative, it will follow, that that government ought to be clothed with all the powers requisite to complete execution of its trust. And unless it can be shown that the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate limits; unless the contrary of this position can be fairly and rationally disputed, it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community, in any matter essential to its efficacy that is, in any matter essential to the formation, direction, or support of the NATIONAL FORCES."

- Hamilton, Federalist #23

Whether or not anyone is for the help of the manufacture or against I guess we all know the answer now is it doesn't really matter, good old big brother was able one way or another to get inside the smart phone and now can get the info, they can do it. I believe that in the future all computers can be hacked or neutralized and taken control of and be used to control us. Through a code or a RF chip the human race is going to be changed drastically soon and computers will play a big part, they have already change peoples habits the IPOD and now the IPhone/Smart phone hand held computers everyone is now looking down at the device and blocking out everything around them in their lives. Revelation 13:16-18 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Did anyone catch this part?

The "method" for circumventing the iPhone's security wall was not disclosed. However, reports have circulated that several overseas firms, including Israel's Cellebrite, have touted possession of forensic hacking technologies that could siphon data from the mobile device without damaging it.

May be a good time to buy stock in good old-fashioned office supplies like: file cabinets, paper, pencils, ink, and typewriters.

Originally Posted by Suticat

Did anyone catch this part?

The "method" for circumventing the iPhone's security wall was not disclosed. However, reports have circulated that several overseas firms, including Israel's Cellebrite, have touted possession of forensic hacking technologies that could siphon data from the mobile device without damaging it.

I believe the FBI has this too. They just wanted full access to something they don't have now. They saw they weren't going to get it so the story goes they don't need it, to save face.

Hopefully, Apple will plug the hole..... Not that I would ever purchase anything made by Apple, Microsoft or any other closed source software supplier. Still, I suspect new vulnerabilities will be found and exploited by the spymasters under the guise of "preventing" this or that. The joke is that nothing any law enforcement agency finds on any electronic device will "prevent" something from happening. They only start poking around *after* something has happened, yet they insist on being given the right to be able to do this to anyone, at any time, under the guise of "prevention" without being overseen by someone in authority, such as a judge.

As for the FBI's case.... they pulled it when they felt their use of the ancient "All Writs Act" would be struck down, nullifying many of their previous cases, or at least that's how it looks to me..... but that's just my opinion and I don't even live in the USA!