Apple is fighting the FBI
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Someone suggested to me yesterday that one facet of this case that appears unconstitutional is the government requiring a company to make something so the government can get their access. He didn't express how it was unconstitutional - only that it was.
Thoughts?
Seems unconstitutional in that the constitution gives no allowance of the government to require companies to build products on their behalf. Any power not given by the constitution is forbidden by it.
Love it! Still not sure how they used the commerce clause to get a fee put on everyone for not having health insurance. - moving on -
OK given that, let's move to my second post. Apple has already created the Public/Private key - so they can just demand that, and use their own code (or demand a copy of Apples current version so they, the government, can modify it).
thoughts?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Since code is speech, forcing someone to code would violate free speech.
I've heard this before, but I'm not sure on the court's opinion on the matter. But assuming they agree with you - how is this case not already thrown out?
-
@Dashrender said:
Love it! Still not sure how they used the commerce clause to get a fee put on everyone for not having health insurance. - moving on -
It's not a fee, it's a tax and congress has the right to tax. Why they tax the poor and not the rich, that's its own issue. But healthcare is a straight tax, very simple, totally within their right to levy same as any tax.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Since code is speech, forcing someone to code would violate free speech.
I've heard this before, but I'm not sure on the court's opinion on the matter. But assuming they agree with you - how is this case not already thrown out?
Because a Judge who doesn't understand this has said Apple needs to hack the phone.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Since code is speech, forcing someone to code would violate free speech.
I've heard this before, but I'm not sure on the court's opinion on the matter. But assuming they agree with you - how is this case not already thrown out?
Because it hasn't actually made it to court yet?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Since code is speech, forcing someone to code would violate free speech.
I've heard this before, but I'm not sure on the court's opinion on the matter. But assuming they agree with you - how is this case not already thrown out?
Because the law isn't very strong in the US. The country is very litigious but the strength of law is low.
-
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Since code is speech, forcing someone to code would violate free speech.
I've heard this before, but I'm not sure on the court's opinion on the matter. But assuming they agree with you - how is this case not already thrown out?
Because it hasn't actually made it to court yet?
That too, no court involved.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Since code is speech, forcing someone to code would violate free speech.
I've heard this before, but I'm not sure on the court's opinion on the matter. But assuming they agree with you - how is this case not already thrown out?
Because it hasn't actually made it to court yet?
That too, no court involved.
OK good point Dafyre.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Since code is speech, forcing someone to code would violate free speech.
I've heard this before, but I'm not sure on the court's opinion on the matter. But assuming they agree with you - how is this case not already thrown out?
Because it hasn't actually made it to court yet?
That too, no court involved.
OK good point Dafyre.
If Apple takes it to court, the FBI needs time to find the right judges that owe them favors, etc, etc...
-
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Since code is speech, forcing someone to code would violate free speech.
I've heard this before, but I'm not sure on the court's opinion on the matter. But assuming they agree with you - how is this case not already thrown out?
Because it hasn't actually made it to court yet?
That too, no court involved.
OK good point Dafyre.
If Apple takes it to court, the FBI needs time to find the right judges that owe them favors, etc, etc...
How can Apple not?
-
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Since code is speech, forcing someone to code would violate free speech.
I've heard this before, but I'm not sure on the court's opinion on the matter. But assuming they agree with you - how is this case not already thrown out?
Because it hasn't actually made it to court yet?
That too, no court involved.
OK good point Dafyre.
If Apple takes it to court, the FBI needs time to find the right judges that owe them favors, etc, etc...
How can Apple not?
Why would Apple do that? Until Apple is taken to court, they don't need to do anything. Not Apple's position to take someone to court.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Since code is speech, forcing someone to code would violate free speech.
I've heard this before, but I'm not sure on the court's opinion on the matter. But assuming they agree with you - how is this case not already thrown out?
Because it hasn't actually made it to court yet?
That too, no court involved.
OK good point Dafyre.
If Apple takes it to court, the FBI needs time to find the right judges that owe them favors, etc, etc...
How can Apple not?
Why would Apple do that? Until Apple is taken to court, they don't need to do anything. Not Apple's position to take someone to court.
Right. I think in this case, the FBI would have to sue Apple into submission, and Apple, in this case, would fight it and they would wind up in court that way.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Since code is speech, forcing someone to code would violate free speech.
I've heard this before, but I'm not sure on the court's opinion on the matter. But assuming they agree with you - how is this case not already thrown out?
Because it hasn't actually made it to court yet?
That too, no court involved.
OK good point Dafyre.
If Apple takes it to court, the FBI needs time to find the right judges that owe them favors, etc, etc...
How can Apple not?
Why would Apple do that? Until Apple is taken to court, they don't need to do anything. Not Apple's position to take someone to court.
Right. I think in this case, the FBI would have to sue Apple into submission, and Apple, in this case, would fight it and they would wind up in court that way.
Exactly. There is no court order, just he FBI trying to pressure them into doing something the court isn't willing to let the FBI do.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Since code is speech, forcing someone to code would violate free speech.
I've heard this before, but I'm not sure on the court's opinion on the matter. But assuming they agree with you - how is this case not already thrown out?
Because it hasn't actually made it to court yet?
That too, no court involved.
OK good point Dafyre.
If Apple takes it to court, the FBI needs time to find the right judges that owe them favors, etc, etc...
How can Apple not?
Why would Apple do that? Until Apple is taken to court, they don't need to do anything. Not Apple's position to take someone to court.
Apple is currently under a court order to make software and put that software on the device in question. Apple isn't going to sue anyone.. they, hopefully, are going to appeal the court order to do that stuff.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Since code is speech, forcing someone to code would violate free speech.
I've heard this before, but I'm not sure on the court's opinion on the matter. But assuming they agree with you - how is this case not already thrown out?
Because it hasn't actually made it to court yet?
That too, no court involved.
OK good point Dafyre.
If Apple takes it to court, the FBI needs time to find the right judges that owe them favors, etc, etc...
How can Apple not?
Why would Apple do that? Until Apple is taken to court, they don't need to do anything. Not Apple's position to take someone to court.
Right. I think in this case, the FBI would have to sue Apple into submission, and Apple, in this case, would fight it and they would wind up in court that way.
Exactly. There is no court order, just he FBI trying to pressure them into doing something the court isn't willing to let the FBI do.
Are you sure there is no court order? I'll see what I can find.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Since code is speech, forcing someone to code would violate free speech.
I've heard this before, but I'm not sure on the court's opinion on the matter. But assuming they agree with you - how is this case not already thrown out?
Because it hasn't actually made it to court yet?
That too, no court involved.
OK good point Dafyre.
If Apple takes it to court, the FBI needs time to find the right judges that owe them favors, etc, etc...
How can Apple not?
Why would Apple do that? Until Apple is taken to court, they don't need to do anything. Not Apple's position to take someone to court.
Apple is currently under a court order to make software and put that software on the device in question. Apple isn't going to sue anyone.. they, hopefully, are going to appeal the court order to do that stuff.
Can't sue courts (actually can't sue any government agency.) That's a flaw of the law in the US, the government is not under the law.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Since code is speech, forcing someone to code would violate free speech.
I've heard this before, but I'm not sure on the court's opinion on the matter. But assuming they agree with you - how is this case not already thrown out?
Because it hasn't actually made it to court yet?
That too, no court involved.
OK good point Dafyre.
If Apple takes it to court, the FBI needs time to find the right judges that owe them favors, etc, etc...
How can Apple not?
Why would Apple do that? Until Apple is taken to court, they don't need to do anything. Not Apple's position to take someone to court.
Apple is currently under a court order to make software and put that software on the device in question. Apple isn't going to sue anyone.. they, hopefully, are going to appeal the court order to do that stuff.
True. Appealing the court order is what will be required for them to not have to do that. Which could take months before it even lands in a court room.
-
In court papers, the Justice Department has assured the federal magistrate judge who ordered Apple to unlock the phone that after the software serves its purpose — letting the FBI try as many passcodes as it needs to get in without wiping the contents — Apple may “destroy it … refuse to disseminate it outside of Apple and make clear to the world that it does not apply to other devices or users without lawful court orders.”
The order, signed Tuesday by a magistrate judge in Riverside, Calif., does not ask Apple to break the phone’s encryption but rather to disable the feature that wipes the data on the phone after 10 incorrect tries at entering a password. That way, the government can try to crack the password using “brute force” — attempting tens of millions of combinations without risking the deletion of the data.
-
@Dashrender said:
“destroy it … refuse to disseminate it outside of Apple and make clear to the world that it does not apply to other devices or users without lawful court orders.”
Most everyone agrees this one isn't a lawful court order. So that's total BS right there.
-
What this does tell us, is that Apple needs to make the lock out in firmware that they cannot update no matter what they do. Take this capability out of their own hands.
