mojo84 wrote:Do those of you that think Apple was in the right believe judges should not be able to issue search warrants in cases where there is justifiable reason to perform a search?
As far as making the argument this is the same as government overreaching and encroaching upon privacy and personal liberty, I believe that is not a valid argument. The government went through the court system and requested he order Apple to assist based upon probable justifiable cause to perform the search of the phone. I also understand Apple not wanting to be a part of breaching it's own security system as they believe it would open pandora's box. I also agree they should fight it up to the point of the judge ordering them to help.
There has to be some point when an individual loses some rights to privacy and protection from search and seizure. It has been established over time it's when there is justifiable probable cause (probably not the exact proper legal wording) and a judge issues a warrant or order. If not, then we need to do away with the search warrant process altogether.
I believe that Apple was in the right so I will answer.
I believe that judges should be able to issue search warrants as long as such searches do not run afoul of the 4th amendment. I believe that warrants should be specific and limited in nature. I also believe that this process should be transparent and open and not result from "secret" courts.
I do not believe that police should have the ability to search phones without having obtained a warrant. I also believe that no person (or company) should be compelled to work for the government against their will. Specifically, no person / company should be forced to hack into a phone or other device.
In other words, I believe that Apple was in the right.
Was it a secret court in this case? How does this run afoul of the 4th? Isn't this similar to having a property manager open the door of a suspects apartment so the cops can execute the search warrant? It's my understanding the order was for this one phone. If Apple would have done it, they could have controlled the process. Now it's out of their hands and the show is on than other foot. People know how to breach their security and they don't.
I agree police shouldn't be able to search a phone without a warant. That is not the case here.
I also believe Apple was right up to the point they refused to obey the judge's order. Now they have put themselves at a strategic disadvantage. Their encryption has been broken, they don't know how and everyone knows their phones aren't as secure as promised. Whether one likes Apple products or not, they did not come out a winner in this ordeal.
By the way, phone companies are required to keep metadata on file for the government, I am reqiired by the government to keep certain client records for period time. Am I having to unjustly work for the government?
Regarding the parts I bolded, I was answering the question you asked about the general ability of judges to issue warrants. I agree that your question was not completely relevant to this case.
I disagree with you that Apple was wrong to legally challenge the judge's order instead of just complying at that point. I take it one step further and say that no person or company should be forced to work for the government against their will. In other words, I do not believe that the judge should be able to issue that specific order.
As far as the "just this one phone" argument goes, I don't buy it. Even if the government would have been content with never knowing the process, they would know that Apple had the ability to crack phones and the precedent would have been set. I have zero faith that the government would have stopped at this one phone. That's a bit of a moot point now, of course.
Not sure how you think the judges order question wasn't relevant to this. The judge ordered the phone unlocked for a search. Same end result as a judge issuing a warrant.
The rest of your post just comes down to your distrust and dislike for the government and not based on legal or constitutional arguments. You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts.
Like I said, the FBI is now in the driver seat and Apple is scrambling to fill the breach.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
Solaris wrote:
They never claimed The older (pre iphone6) phones were all that secure. In fact it was common knowledge how easy it was to get into them.
This wake up call is good to help them see they do not yet have it figured out.
On what are you basing this? They have always advertised they have the safest ecosystem. It says on their website they've been protecting people's data for over a decade.
Whether or not it's true, that is what they've been saying for a long time. Why the spin?
Go read docs on earlier iPhones and you will see they never made this claim. Heck it took several versions of iOS before they even added a lock screen
I don't need to. I showed you what they say on their website.
Yes That is current policy. I was referring to prior policy before CE, SE, or pass codes. Those older phones were easily hacked.
So they are lying about the over a decade part?
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
mojo84 wrote:Do those of you that think Apple was in the right believe judges should not be able to issue search warrants in cases where there is justifiable reason to perform a search?
As far as making the argument this is the same as government overreaching and encroaching upon privacy and personal liberty, I believe that is not a valid argument. The government went through the court system and requested he order Apple to assist based upon probable justifiable cause to perform the search of the phone. I also understand Apple not wanting to be a part of breaching it's own security system as they believe it would open pandora's box. I also agree they should fight it up to the point of the judge ordering them to help.
There has to be some point when an individual loses some rights to privacy and protection from search and seizure. It has been established over time it's when there is justifiable probable cause (probably not the exact proper legal wording) and a judge issues a warrant or order. If not, then we need to do away with the search warrant process altogether.
I believe that Apple was in the right so I will answer.
I believe that judges should be able to issue search warrants as long as such searches do not run afoul of the 4th amendment. I believe that warrants should be specific and limited in nature. I also believe that this process should be transparent and open and not result from "secret" courts.
I do not believe that police should have the ability to search phones without having obtained a warrant. I also believe that no person (or company) should be compelled to work for the government against their will. Specifically, no person / company should be forced to hack into a phone or other device.
In other words, I believe that Apple was in the right.
The amount of trust you have in Apple is truly scary to me.
"You may all go to H3ll, and I will go to Texas." - Davy Crockett
"Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything." - Wyatt Earp
NRA Life Member
לעולם לא תשכח
Solaris wrote:
They never claimed The older (pre iphone6) phones were all that secure. In fact it was common knowledge how easy it was to get into them.
This wake up call is good to help them see they do not yet have it figured out.
On what are you basing this? They have always advertised they have the safest ecosystem. It says on their website they've been protecting people's data for over a decade.
Updated 3 minutes ago. I don't see anything new, but I just saw this.
The FBI has finally accessed an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters last month but the device hasn't yielded
a "smoking gun," according to law enforcement sources who said authorities are continuing to follow leads generated by the device.
The iPhone 5c used by Syed Farook did not contain any identities of suspected co-conspirators or overseas contacts that
investigators believe may be related to the attacks, law enforcement sources told ABC News.
The method used to access the device and the identity of the third party who helped are unknown. FBI Director James Comey
said earlier this month the tool purchased from a private party and used to access Farook's iPhone only works on a "narrow slice"
of phones, such as the iPhone 5c running iOS 9.
I just had something interesting happen.
I got a notice on my computer that my iTune software needed to be updated.
So I downloaded the software and updated the computer.
About fifteen minutes later the software on the computer opens up
and asks me if I want to have iTunes encrypt my backup.
Then it proceeded to finish with the upgrade to the computer. Very strange.
I don't ever remember being asked this question after a software upgrade.
I'm sure this has already been stated; but who else believes that the FBI has no problem getting into a phone, they are just trying to cover their own ass legally by demanding apple unlock it?
