The Apple flap

[Dinsdale]

First, as many of you know, I hate all things Apple, think their products are garbage, and really can't stand the entire company or their idiot holier-than-thou customers.

But some moron of a judge issued a court order for them to unlock some terrorist chumps phone?

Apple doesn't currently have the ability to do so, meaning it will require labor to accomplish.

I think that judge needs to find a new job, and he should be replaced by a judge who has actually read the 13th Amendment.

The FBI is going to get laughed out of court on appeal.

[Wolfman]

I have mixed feelings about this, but not about Apple products, I've been an Apple/ MAC man since day one. The issue here is freedom from tyranny, and that trumps (no pun intended) all. I don't want that horse let out of the barn.

[Dr_Phibes]

Woud it not be easy for Apple to provide a written transcript of whatever nonsense was on the phone? Not that there's anything to be learned from Bonnie and Clyde. Pre-attack shootout conversations between those two rocket scientists are bound to be a treasure trove of 'intel' <---- cool Tour Of Duty type speak.

[Dinsdale]

Let's say it was 175 years ago, and the only form of long-distance communication was by Pony Express. The dirtbag terrorists in CA would have written letters on paper and handed them off to the Pony Express to deliver to other dirtbag terrorists presently unknown to the DOJ. If Pony Express had a lock box that it could not unlock (only the recipient and the sender could do so), I don't think many of us would get too worked up if a judge ordered Pony Express to crack open the box

Your comparison left the rails. In your scenario, the Pony Express has the capacity to hand over a key, or stick a key in the box. Apple has no such ability without performing extensive labor.

Light coming on yet?

Or will this help:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

And to clear things up:

Involuntary servitude or Involuntary slavery is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs.

Pretty sure a court order counts as "coercion."

Now, as to your latter points, if Big Brother wants to pass a law regarding being able to unlock phones made from a certain date forward, I suppose that would be legal (and I'd be quite opposed). But, you being a lawyer and whatnot, I'm quite certain that you see the problem with retroactive enforcement... that whole ex post facto thingamajig.

[Dinsdale]

Woud it not be easy for Apple to provide a written transcript of whatever nonsense was on the phone?

And therein lies the rub -- no, they can't.

But the whole thing is retarded. I'm quite sure the telco would happily pony up the call/text logs, upon seeing a court order -- happens thousands of times a year in this country...


So, how's that multi-billion dollar data collection center we bought the NSA working out? (Answer -- it was a laughable failure.)

[Mikey]

The phone in question is owned by San Bernardino County and was purchased as a business phone. Any question of privacy in this case should be moot.

[Dr_Phibes]

This happened to Blackberry in 2010 after the Mumbai attack and Saudi Arabia, India, Britian, UAE, US threatened to shut down Blackberry servers. The issue diappeared, then it turned up in the whatshisname leaks, the guy hiding in Russia - that Blackberry caved.

[smackaholic]

Dins,

Your indentured servitude Apple defense is easily solved. FBI just cuts them a check for the geekhours consumed to crack such a code.

I think there may be a better solution. You inform Apple that it will not be considered for any future gubmint contracts if they don't play nice. They'd hand that shit over last week.

[Screw_Michigan]

I think there may be a better solution. You inform Apple that it will not be considered for any future gubmint contracts if they don't play nice. They'd hand that shit over last week.

the federal gubment likes Apples for its strong encryption, one reason why they don't use Balckberries anymore. Tell me you knew.

[smackaholic]

I think there may be a better solution. You inform Apple that it will not be considered for any future gubmint contracts if they don't play nice. They'd hand that shit over last week.

the federal gubment likes Apples for its strong encryption, one reason why they don't use Balckberries anymore. Tell me you knew.

I understand they like them. Do you think that the folks at Apple are the only ones capable of encryption? Plus, a large majority of their phones are used by gov. underlings who's security is not that important, as far as uncle sugar is concerned.

[BSmack]

Woud it not be easy for Apple to provide a written transcript of whatever nonsense was on the phone?

And therein lies the rub -- no, they can't.

But the whole thing is retarded. I'm quite sure the telco would happily pony up the call/text logs, upon seeing a court order -- happens thousands of times a year in this country...


So, how's that multi-billion dollar data collection center we bought the NSA working out? (Answer -- it was a laughable failure.)

Doesn't that require work? Pretty laughable comparing a court order to slavery. I had no idea the CEO of Apple was Kunta Kinte.

[R-Jack]

But some moron of a judge issued a court order for them to unlock some terrorist chumps phone?

Apple doesn't currently have the ability to do so, meaning it will require labor to accomplish.

Apple "So let me get this straight? One of your gumshoe's mishandles the phone and locked it up beyond all hope, and you want us to create a program to unlock it, which would theoretically work for every phone, and give it to the government?"

Yeah....RACK Apple for telling them to fuck off.

[mvscal]

Smackaholic is right. This is not an indentured servitude situation. Companies can be ordered by the government to do all kinds of things that cost them money (e.g., produce your financial records for an audit, recall your vehicles for a safety upgrade, put a scrubber on your smokestack, provide your employees with health insurance etc.). And if the order is beyond the ordinary and actually takes property from the company, that can be OK too (provided it is necessary).

I'm OK with them ordering Apple to open this one phone for them. Ordering them to install some kind of backdoor in their encryption for the government's convenience is a non-starter.

[Diego in Seattle]

Smackaholic is right. This is not an indentured servitude situation. Companies can be ordered by the government to do all kinds of things that cost them money (e.g., produce your financial records for an audit, recall your vehicles for a safety upgrade, put a scrubber on your smokestack, provide your employees with health insurance etc.). And if the order is beyond the ordinary and actually takes property from the company, that can be OK too (provided it is necessary). The Fifth Amendment permits takings provided there is just compensation. So that one will not fly, in my book.

More to this point, government contracts for aerospace parts have priority ratings. If a purchase order comes in with the highest priority rating, the contract stipulates that the government can come in & prevent the company from doing anything else in order to fulfill their need asap.

[Rooster]

My thinking is that the government shouldn't be able to compel a private company to divulge information that it cannot produce itself. As it stands, we have a bloated bureaucracy that can't find its' ass with both hands, so it is trying to force its' citizens to do its' job for them. Screw that. If Uncle Sammy had been doing his job from the beginning the wife would never have been allowed in the country.

Let's face it, immigration law enforcement isn't rocket science. You start with:
1) Don't let people in from specific large areas of the world.
2) Don't let people in from specific small areas of the world.
3) When all else fails and you have to let in some folks, only let in people of European descent with high education and marketable skills like the South African Boers. You know, people who'll vote from the Right wing side of the spectrum and have a working knowledge of how to properly deal with Black Lives Matter.

[BSmack]

Rooster, at least you're openly racist.

[Goober McTuber]

And openly dim-witted.

[Rooster]

There's no requirement for the United States to accept anyone from a particular region or even a general area of the world. That the occupants of the Middle East and Asia Minor just happen to be Muslim, well, don't blame me for the location they chose to live in-- but I don't want any of them in my country. If that makes me a racist-- or dimwitted --in your book, I can handle it. Because your implied assertion that people from those regions of the world just want to be loved and cuddled is obviously retarded. So, yeah, go ahead and tell us all again how gentle and peaceful those Islamacists are.

[smackaholic]

I will never understand how the alleged progressive, tolerant folks think that letting boatloads of folks in from the area that rose intolerance to an art form is a good idea.

White protestant folk, for the most part, do a pretty damn good job of running functional, tolerant societies. Everybody else, not so much. This really is a simple fact. And anything that makes the country less so, is likely to be a bad thing. Not suggesting that we round all the brown folk up and shoot them. Some are very good people, but going out of our way to go "browner" is really kind of fukking stupid.

[Screw_Michigan]

White protestant folk, for the most part, do a pretty damn good job of running...tolerant societies.

I laffed. One step forward, three steps back with suckaholic.

[smackaholic]

White protestant folk, for the most part, do a pretty damn good job of running...tolerant societies.

I laffed. One step forward, three steps back with suckaholic.

What part of that statement do you disagree with? Does pointing out facts make me less tolerant?

White protestant euros are gifted in the art of running tolerant democracies.

The zipperheads are good a running orderly civilizations, democracies, not so much and they are more xenophobic than even the Donald.

The Arabs are good at running corrupt vicious dictatorships, lopping off domes and fukking goats.

Black folks.....are good at a few sports and gave us a lot of really good music up till about 30 years ago. When it comes to running governments, they make the Arabs look like Norway.

The other white folks, the dagos, spics, greeks, etc.... are too busy having a good time to be any good at governing.

Who'd I miss? The slavs, I guess. They're pretty much a mess too.

[BSmack]

I will never understand how the alleged progressive, tolerant folks think that letting boatloads of folks in from the area that rose intolerance to an art form is a good idea.

White protestant folk, for the most part, do a pretty damn good job of running functional, tolerant societies. Everybody else, not so much. This really is a simple fact. And anything that makes the country less so, is likely to be a bad thing. Not suggesting that we round all the brown folk up and shoot them. Some are very good people, but going out of our way to go "browner" is really kind of fukking stupid.

What part of that superior mix of progressive and tolerance are you invoking in this post?

[smackaholic]

I will never understand how the alleged progressive, tolerant folks think that letting boatloads of folks in from the area that rose intolerance to an art form is a good idea.

White protestant folk, for the most part, do a pretty damn good job of running functional, tolerant societies. Everybody else, not so much. This really is a simple fact. And anything that makes the country less so, is likely to be a bad thing. Not suggesting that we round all the brown folk up and shoot them. Some are very good people, but going out of our way to go "browner" is really kind of fukking stupid.

What part of that superior mix of progressive and tolerance are you invoking in this post?

My post isn't meant to be progressive or tolerant. It is a simple observation of man over the past 500 years or so. That was about the time that some silly english folks at least started pretending that men had some basic rights. It took most of the following 500 years to work out the bugs, but they are getting there.

The one thing that derails this 500 year march towards liberty are the folks in that group who are a little too tolerant and progressive. They think that society in general is, as well and if we all just pull together in a socialist utopia, everything will be swell. It just takes a little gentle guidance from government to steer the handful of wayward folk in the right direction. By gentle guidance, of course, I mean folks with guns and prison cells. The simple fact that such a system requires that someone be in charge and that someone must be willing to tell someone else what to do creates trouble. History has shown time and time again that folks like Hitler, Stalin and Mao end up in charge of these systems and they get a little carried away with that gentle guidance now and then.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

They make a lot more money because of this incident.

Apple is at market-saturation. They make their money on hardware, so whenever the next iMcGuffin is ready, that's when they'll cash in again.
Apple doesn't make money selling meta-data like Google and Microsoft. If they flip the encryption keys over to the NSA/FBI, it's over...board up the windows...roll up the carpets.