Ramblings of an old Doc

 

Tim Cook, is saying “No!”, in thunder to the DoJ.

But…”What if there’s info in there that would help catch terrorists?” That “What if” that makes us decide for ourselves the answer to Ben Franklin’s statement. Tim Cook said “No.” to the Justice Department’s Order to assist the FBI extract data from the San Bernadino terrorist’s phone. Wanna know something? He was right to do so.

Why? Well, for one thing, does it occur to anyone that the FBI has the terrorist’s fingerprint? So, why can’t they unlock the phone? Does it occur to anyone the government has super Cray computers which could have unlocked that phone? Why do they want the backdoor which they’ve wanted for a year at least? Why are they saying this is a “once only” when it clearly is not?

The FBI says it would be a “one time”, and that your device’s security wouldn’t be compromised. Security experts disagree: THEY say it will. Guess who I believe? Why should anyone believe that “one time” nonsense? The NSA collected your data illegally for years. Now? Congress has made it legal. Trust them to take your rights without a fight.

From the moment the FBI was created, J. Edgar Hoover collected dirt on everyone and used it to blackmail Presidents and Congresses and Courts. You think anything has changed? They’ve only gotten better at it, and justifying it because they know they’re dealing with sheep (sorry, Jim). The government has violated your rights with impunity, and poo-poo it, and they’ve done it for years…and will continue to do so.

So, if they can unlock the phone (does anyone really believe they can’t?), why ask a Court for an order? Because they want it “legally” (who doesn’t love a farce?), and more than ANYTHING, they want a PRECEDENT. That is what they MUST NOT obtain. The Bill of Rights stands as an integrated whole. The First, Second and Fifth Amendments most definitely depend upon the Fourth Amendment, and “What if” is Not sufficient reason to violate anyone’s privacy, just as “We want to know” isn’t, either.

The government knows it cannot justify the iPhone search with proof there actually is data there which is critical to the security of America. They are acting out of “What if?”. Well, that’s called a “fishing expedition”. It is inadequate reason for a Federal Judge to grant a search warrant. The Court Order was a serious breach of every citizen’s right to privacy and unreasonable search and seizure. Judges guard the Fourth Amendment jealously. They’d better, because the FBI would be looking at their phones with any imaginary “what if” they could dream up. Not just the FBI: Every local Police Dep’t. could “justify” such a search in a similar manner. Where is the boundary?

“We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” – B. Franklin. Well, The EFF and ACLU, Google, Twitter and Facebook are standing with Apple on this. Shaping up to be an epic fight. I hope “We the People” win. “Backdoors” weaken security. They do not strengthen it. If a backdoor exists, ANYONE can exploit it, and will. The CIA has been trying to break into iPhones for years without success. You can bet the FSB and others have, as well.

So, Tim Cook is vowing to fight the DoJ’s Magistrate’s Order all the way to the Supreme Court. So would I: At best? There’ll be a tie, and no way to resolve it. Fitting in a karmic way.

Source:

http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/18/fbi-apple-iphone-explainer/


Comments (Page 11)
14 PagesFirst 9 10 11 12 13  Last
on Feb 24, 2016

psychoak
That any plans by that crowd would have had anything to do with the succeeding administrations actions a decade later is laughably preposterous.

Administrations come and go, true. But some 'things' always stay the same since they do not depend on the current administration. Besides, there was a reason why that plan was made. Just because it was a different administration, does not mean the reason was no longer valid - US foreign policy has been pretty consistent throughout all these years and all the different administrations.

psychoak
France in particular was quite exuberant in their participation, launching the plurality of airstrikes.

Sarkozy was quite the 'cowboy' (perhaps to make up for his own small stature). He loved everything to do with the US. And Blair was not much different - Blair, Bush and Sarkozy. What a trio!

psychoak
The UK even outspent us, and no one outspends us on anything...


lol!

psychoak
Iraq, like much of the Middle East, is three factions, Kurd, Sunni Arab, and Shia Arab.  We owe this to the way the UK split them up, so they are indeed at fault for such things.   They all hate each other, they're all tribal cultures, and they all want their own country.  The Kurds want Kurdestan, the Shia and Sunni Arabs just want to be running Iraq.

No contest about that here, as you know if you read my previous post regarding Arab tribal mentality.

psychoak
Bush had this idea that we could set up a stable democracy in a tribal shit hole filled with three groups that loath each other on principle and have a long history of murdering each other by the thousands.  Hence the crazy idea.

You see, I don't buy that. At all. I don't think Bush cared a tiny bit about what happened to the Iraqis. That 'lets bring Democracy to the savages' was just a poor excuse to start the war. Personally he wanted revenge for the attempt on his father's life, that I believe.

psychoak
The US currently has somewhere around 60% of the reserve currency, with the Euro being the next largest chunk.  No hyper inflation came with the UK losing their status as the reserve currency of choice, and they were once in an even larger position.  What decline they suffered precipitated the loss of their position in the market, it did not come as a result.

Completely different situation. The UK at the time was not using Fiat currency, its currency was backed by its gold reserves. If the Petrodollar system collapses (and it will, sooner or later) the US will lose its permission to simply print more money to get out of financial holes. The number of dollars in existence will then far surpass actual demand (since they are no longer required to buy oil), and you know how the law of supply and demand works: the value of the dollar will *suddenly* come tumbling down. This is the classical definition of hyperinflation: extremely rapid or out of control inflation.

Furthermore, the petrodollar allows the US to buy oil with a currency that it can print at will. When that is no longer true, it will have to pay for oil in something that has REAL value.

on Feb 25, 2016

Well, whaddaya know?

on Feb 25, 2016

There appear to be posts missing, me thinks this thread was pruned, or perhaps I dreamed replying yesterday...

on Feb 25, 2016

I see a reply from you on 2-23 and two replies from yesterday, psycho.

 

on Feb 25, 2016

Well, well. Guess Doc was right.

 

on Feb 25, 2016

The solution to the issue is simple, Just don't buy Iphones anymore.

 

on Feb 26, 2016

DrJBHL


Quoting Daiwa,



Well, well. Guess Doc was right.

 

Yup, this case was just the thin edge of a much wider wedge.

However, I do not can not agree with James Comey about Apple's 'great' security..... nor would the thousands of stars who had their accounts hacked and had their personal photos uploaded to the internet for all to see.   And yes, they all should have sued Apple big time for the breach

on Feb 29, 2016

Hope you folks saw this;

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/judge-rules-fbi-apple-data-case?utm_content=buffere60aa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=

Judge Orenstein said, "Apple is not obligated to assist government investigators against its will and noted that Congress has not adopted legislation that would achieve the result sought by the government."

That was a simple drug case...but it ain't looking good for the DoJ. And it shouldn't.

What they want simply puts too much power in the hands of the government.

on Mar 01, 2016

DrJBHL

Hope you folks saw this;

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/judge-rules-fbi-apple-data-case?utm_content=buffere60aa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=

Judge Orenstein said, "Apple is not obligated to assist government investigators against its will and noted that Congress has not adopted legislation that would achieve the result sought by the government."

That was a simple drug case...but it ain't looking good for the DoJ. And it shouldn't.

What they want simply puts too much power in the hands of the government.

Hopefully judges in the future follow suit and deny government bids such as this, otherwise it'll be open slather on everybodys electronic privacy, and not just in the US.  Other countries tend to adopt US precedents and I don't want that kind of crap coming here, where government want to know the ins and outs of a cat's arse.

 

on Mar 01, 2016

So, if they can unlock the phone (does anyone really believe they can’t?), why ask a Court for an order? Because they want it “legally” (who doesn’t love a farce?), and more than ANYTHING, they want a PRECEDENT. That is what they MUST NOT obtain.

I go with this idea - that the FBI/NSA/etc can do a lot more than they're telling us, but know that to make that "lot more" legal, they have to make a legal precedent. I don't use an iPhone so I couldn't care less about the loss of my data etc, but I'm still not confident with the idea that "it's only to unlock this one phone." There's an interesting argument that says that to be admissable in court, that technology/method/software would have to be tested rigorously (as are all instruments used to obtain evidence) and once that happens, the technology/know how to get into in iPhone becomes, intentionally or not, public knowledge. Then it's open slaver for anyone who can use that technology to hack into your iPhone.

I also have a far, far more cynical view of "The War On Terrorism" than probably most people. Edward Snowden and how he's advocating using TOR? What evidence do we have that doing that won't actually make it easier for the NSA to track us? In other words, is Mr Snowden actually a double agent?

Basically, what I'm suggesting is that what we were using for online privacy a few years ago actually worked well. Well enough to concern the NSA. Who had two choices: A) Heavy the anti-virus/security suite manufacturers for a backdoor much like the FBI are doing here. Create their own backdoor and then create a "I've just found out the NSA are doing mass surveliance, here's how to defeat it!" situation. Which involves using certain software/browsers etc.

 

 

on Mar 01, 2016

Your paranoia is deeply misplaced, as someone who knows from a genius programmer family member how easy it is to get into secured systems, I can guarantee that nothing the public has been commonly using since the dawn of the internet was actually secure.  The only serious limitation on the NSA has been the amount of content.  It's just not possible for them to actually look through everything, or even collect everything.  I expect the iPhone isn't at all secure either, and it's simply a matter of the government spending the resources to crack into them that makes them want to harass Apple to do it for them.  Why do work you can legally compel someone else to do for you?

on Mar 01, 2016

psychoak

Why do work you can legally compel someone else to do for you?

Good point...but the real angle is the legal precedent. That's what they really want, because anything obtained without it will be "the fruit of the poisoned tree"...illegal search and seizure, and getting thrown out of Court.

on Mar 01, 2016

They already have a legal search warrant.  The only possible legal barrier here is breaking the encryption, which is a crime thanks to our enterprising fools in D.C., but I highly doubt that applies to the government.

 

The precedent isn't for getting into people's phones, it's for forcing Apple to do it for them.

on Mar 01, 2016

Brad's post let the cat out of the bag.

The true purpose of this thread is about the ability to hide firearm transactions *when* guns become illegal and the government comes to take them away.

Stop trying to pretend it's about a blanket/all encompassing concern for privacy in general, and just start another gun debate.

 

on Mar 01, 2016

Not talking about any gun stuff...look at the OP. I'm talking Privacy, and trying to force a company to break its own software.

And it's not just about search warrants, but legal precedent expanding the government's power drastically.

14 PagesFirst 9 10 11 12 13  Last