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 7)
14 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last
on Feb 22, 2016

I grew up and raised in one of the 2 most liberal states in the U.S.(Calif).  I've lived through and seen it all.  I've been attacked and chased.  Well I moved and when I put on my pants the .45 in on them. 

Jafo, you do remember it was a republican who freed the slaves?  You keep mentioning the KKK, well they were democrats. 

I for one am glad to have a CHL that I went to class for.

on Feb 22, 2016

Unless you're a 90 pound woman that shoots a 200 pound man, that just isn't the case.  In the last few years, there have been incidents where people had the absolute crap beat out of them before they managed to shoot attackers who were known criminals with a history of violence, and were then put on trial for it anyway.  The most famous being the Trayvon Martin case.  A poor 17 year old kid, a kid that was ripped from playing football and had a history of violence and rage inducing drug use, who just happened to be curb stomping an overweight Hispanic suffering from multiple lacerations to the back of his head and face from where he was being bashed against the pavement, along with witnesses that saw it going down, was "murdered" by this evil white guy that chased him down and shot him.

 

As an actual white guy, if I move to Florida, and shoot a black guy twice my size that comes at me without having a gun in his hand, I'm probably going to trial even if I'm bleeding all over the ground when I shoot him.  Rarities where someone gets away with murder because of it just aren't that common, and typically don't even apply to the law.  When two people have a shoot out, and the drug dealer or buyer that survives gets off, stand your ground doesn't apply.  You can't run away from bullets in the first place.  Your ability to flee someone who pulls a gun on you is zero unless they just don't feel like shooting you in the back.  I have seen the odd case where it was obvious abuse, but this is why we have jury's, and they're far outweighed by the number of people who have been murdered trying to flee an attacker, which is an act of absolute stupidity if you can actually put them down.  Unless you're running from a obviously unhealthy individual that isn't armed and can't possibly be fast enough, you're guaranteeing you'll lose the fight if they catch you.  For slow people, it amounts to attempted suicide.

on Feb 22, 2016

psychoak

Unless you're a 90 pound woman that shoots a 200 pound man, that just isn't the case.  In the last few years, there have been incidents where people had the absolute crap beat out of them before they managed to shoot attackers who were known criminals with a history of violence, and were then put on trial for it anyway.  The most famous being the Trayvon Martin case.  A poor 17 year old kid, a kid that was ripped from playing football and had a history of violence and rage inducing drug use, who just happened to be curb stomping an overweight Hispanic suffering from multiple lacerations to the back of his head and face from where he was being bashed against the pavement, along with witnesses that saw it going down, was "murdered" by this evil white guy that chased him down and shot him.

 

Ah yes, Travon Martin. The "Hispanic guy" has proven to have some serious anger management issues, as well as being a liar (about his assets, and faking a rescue, at least ).

It was a case of two idiots over reacting, but it's fairly clear who was the instigator.

This is the latest story I could find, but there are plenty more detailing the escapades of Zimmerman.

http://www.ibtimes.com/george-zimmerman-nbc-lawsuit-update-after-trayvon-martin-story-zimmerman-vows-pay-2204711

 

on Feb 22, 2016

Anything other than an examination of the actual facts of the Martin/Zimmerman interaction is useless posturing.

on Feb 22, 2016

DrJBHL


Quoting Jafo,

Possibly my reference to the Aussie invented RFID jammer is more relevant...



As is the Swiss Company J.G. Neher & Sons.

Incredibly, Aluminum foil and even duct tape (I swear) will turn the trick for jamming the RFID chip scanner/skimmers:

http://lifehacker.com/145519/how-to-make-an-rfid-blocking-duct-tape-wallet

http://lifehacker.com/5896785/foil-electronic-pickpockets-with-aluminum-foil-or-multiple-credit-cards

http://lifehacker.com/5842853/make-your-own-rfid-shielded-wallet-to-foil-id-thieves

 

Yes, there are half-arsed ways to attempt to 'block' readers but this isn't one of them.  It jams the frequency used.  Quaint issue is...if the jammer is put too close to the shop's scanner when you purchase something on a tag and go ...it'll cause the reader to be needed to be reset/rebooted.

on Feb 22, 2016

psychoak

It's not the difference in gun ownership that makes the murder rate in the US 4 times as high as it is in Australia.  Switzerland has a massive gun ownership rate, with army service being mandatory, and every member keeping their weapons at home, yet they have an even lower murder rate than Oz does. 

AFAIK it's rifles, no guns, and old, heavy & loud ones. So if you're a criminal you think a lot about *stealth*, such clumsy rifles that actually wake the whole neighbourhood when discharged and can't be concealed under a common dress are rather impractical.

Then, Switzerland people are one of the most rich people in the world, there is simply not much reason for a born-Switz to endulge into criminality in the first place....

psychoak

We have a very large transient population composed primarily of the mentally ill, who were expelled from institutionalization because the courts ruled it was wrong to do so unless they were proven to be a danger before hand.  We have an extremely ethnically diverse population, complete with the racial strife that comes with it.  We also have most of our murders in places where people have been disarmed by the government.

and still these people are constantly able to get guns. and when they have one, they feel suddenly overtly confident & do risky stuff.

IMO except police or military NOONE should be allowed to have access to firearms whatsoever. if everybody is de-armed this would make is so easy for police to deal with all those criminals, because they wouldn't have to fear constantly for their life when making a single arrest etc pp

if you want to defend yourself get a big dog or 2. if you train it well it's so much more better & reliable than a household weapon, at least, if the intruder doesn't possess a firearm as well (a knife or bat won't help him...). and I say much better because a gun just lulls you into a feeling of false security, because you've got no guarantee whatsoever you may be able to use it against a careful Night Stalker-type of intruder. Which is a good case to mention - one of his victim was actually alert by him and tried to shoot at him with her rifle under her bed; but it only made click because it wasn't loaded - in her state of mind (half-sleeped/freightened) she forgot that she unloaded it previously. Yeah bad tactic, actually jumping out of a window may have saved her life but she was feeling bold... and these types of mistakes happen when you're unprepared & taken off guard. Or that you mistake your girlfriend for an intruder & shoot her sitting on the toilette...

on Feb 22, 2016

Ahh, the puppies and rainbows view, if only they just didn't exist.

 

The Swiss also issue a semi auto 9mm, the most common handgun used in like 40% of crimes with a gun.

 

Then, Switzerland people are one of the most rich people in the world, there is simply not much reason for a born-Switz to endulge into criminality in the first place....

 

Which is further down the post...

 

A dog is good to have, but you can't take your trained attack dog to the theater, where a crazy guy pretends to be the joker and goes on a killing spree.  The problem is you can't take your gun either, which is why these things happen.  People interested in committing murder don't do such silly things like leave their gun at home in a lock box.  Criminals with guns only buy them legally in somewhere around 3% of the cases, so good luck getting rid of them by making them illegal.  Back before they were invented, strangely enough, crime in general and murder in particular were both far more common than after.  It probably has something to do with trained attack dogs being harder to get.

on Feb 22, 2016


there are half-arsed ways

Really? They say they work...but I guess you're objective.

on Feb 22, 2016

you'll learn how to shoot with a 9mm during your time, yes, but carry does this weapon the commanding stuff

psychoak

Criminals with guns only buy them legally in somewhere around 3% of the cases, so good luck getting rid of them by making them illegal.

sure, but these weapons ultimately have to come from somewhere, so I would venture to say they've been produced by your own industry, sold legally, and then entered the black market.

psychoak

 Back before they were invented, strangely enough, crime in general and murder in particular were both far more common than after.  

perhaps, but your crimerate is still obscenely high in comparison to other countries which restrict firearms more 

on Feb 22, 2016

DrJBHL

Really? They say they work...but I guess you're objective.

^ Passive Shields or metallic wallets Only reduce the signal strength, this will not block a high-powered RFID reader  Source: Credit Card Fraud The contactless Generation | Kristin Paget | Chief Hacker, Recursion Ventures. Please note Kristin Paget does not sponsor or officially endorse this website or product, we have only referenced a report that is freely available online to download and read. All credit for the report and its findings go to Kristin Paget. - See more at: http://www.armourcard.com.au/rfid-protective-product-comparison/#sthash.nOvwWYUB.dpuf 

Doc...on some of those links of yours they also claim 2 RFID cards will confuse a scanner and be safe.  They only confuse a POS reader so you have the option to choose which to use.  A Scanner will simply 'get' whichever it locates first.

'working' is relative....

on Feb 22, 2016

Wow.

Lots of stuff.

My thoughts, if anyone cares:

What stupid things other people do has nothing to do with me or my property.

I don't grant the government the power to decide what I can and can't purchase with my money.  

And yes, that means if I wanted "drugs" (which I don't so I comply with the law only because my preferences happen to coincide with it) I'd get them.

Same for guns or anything else.  I have guns. I like them. I think they're pretty neat in the same way other people like sports cars (which I've had too). It's no one's business what guns I have or don't have and I would absolutely use deadly force if anyone tried to steal my property from me whether that be a burglar or an agent of the government.

What people overseas don't understand is that this desire to be free from our "betters" was the foundation of our country.  Of course the United States is different. Of course Americans are different.  We're cranks. We're violent. We're crazies. But we're also the ones responsible for much of the cool stuff you rely on whether it be this forum or Twitter or Facebook or Google or Microsoft or Apple or whatever.  

We like to do what we want.  And we'll do whatever it takes to keep it that way.

 

 

on Feb 22, 2016

on Feb 22, 2016

on Feb 22, 2016


In case one's interested here's the judge's order;

 

Still 'trying' to get back to the OP...[guns, Religion, and guns and religion aren't the topic] ...

Anyone read this?

Anyone notice the order relates to a specific object...serial number included?

Anyone here think that extrapolation of such to the point of 'oh, gad...our liberty is screwed - we are all gonna die'  is just a wee bit OTT?

Anyone here blindly confident that Apple is being totally altruistic [the ones with the fishing-net suicide cure]?

Anyone here consider that Mister B. Franklin was not refering to an iPhone or anything like it?

Anyone here actually believes that 'Liberty' is threatened by another's access to one solitary phone?

 

It's about as skewed as Assange claiming he was held against his will when he personally decided to hole out in that Embassy.... and Oz did something wrong by withholding his passport.  Sorry, Assange...we have an extradition treaty with both the UK and Sweden.  You're wanted on sex charges.  Man up.

on Feb 22, 2016

BlackSmokeDMax


Quoting gevansmd,

My point is, getting a warrant when you're in custody for the crime should be easier. In other words, it's not an unreasonable search. It appears as if proper procedures were followed to get the order.



No it shouldn't be easier. It should fall under the exact same rules. If all they need to do is arrest you first to make it easier, why bother ever getting a search warrant the appropriate way?

The only way it would work they way you think is if they required some sort of evidence to place you in custody in the first place. Which they do not. Granted they can't hold you forever, but if all they need is to have you in custody for the time it takes to get a warrant, that is all they will do.

That would be a blatant end-around on the laws in place regarding search warrants.

 

The perpetrators are already dead.  What rights of theirs can possibly be violated? Even if they were alive, are you saying the police have no legal way to gather evidence?  That's where the courts come in and they have in this case.  Apple is happy enough to decrypt their phones for China, so they can have a market there but suddenly have cold feet when 14 people are murdered?  Please!

 

14 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last