Apple

Apple's Involuntary Servitude

The DOJ has persuaded a judge to issue a search warrant for a thing that does not exist, by forcing Apple to create a key that the FBI is incapable of creating.

|

JohnGoode/Flickr

"There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all." — Justice Antonin Scalia (1936-2016)

After the San Bernardino massacre on Dec. 2, 2015, the FBI lawfully acquired the cellphone of one of the killers and persuaded a federal judge to authorize its agents to access the contents of the phone. Some of what it found revealed that the killer used the phone to communicate with victims and perhaps confederates and even innocents who unwittingly provided material assistance.

Then the FBI hit a wall. It appears that the killer took advantage of the phone's encryption features to protect some of his data from prying eyes unarmed with his password.

The cellphone was an iPhone, designed and manufactured by Apple, the wealthiest publicly traded corporation on the planet. Apple built the iPhone so that its users can store sensitive, private, personal data on the phone without fear of being hacked by friend or foe.

After the FBI determined it could not replicate the killer's password without jeopardizing the phone's content, it approached Apple, and representatives of each negotiated for weeks trying to find a way for Apple to help the FBI without compromising the security of the Internet itself. They failed.

Apple has argued that the government has no legal right to compel it to assist in a government investigation, or to compel it to alter or destroy its business model of guaranteeing the safety and privacy of its customers' data. Apple knows that any "key" it creates for the FBI, once used on the Internet, is itself vulnerable to hacking, thereby jeopardizing all Apple products and negating the privacy of tens of millions, and even exposing the government to foreign hackers.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has argued that Apple has a legal duty to help solve the mystery of who knew about the San Bernardino attacks so that the guilty can be prosecuted and the rest of us protected from future harm. Its lawyers asserted that the government would keep secure whatever key Apple created.

After the DOJ/Apple talks broke down, the DOJ made a secret application on Feb. 16, 2016, two and a half months after the massacre, to a federal judge for a search warrant for this key to access the killer's iPhone.

The warrant was improperly granted because Apple was not given notice of the DOJ application. So, the judge who issued the order denied Apple due process—its day in court. That alone is sufficient to invalidate the order. Were Apple a defendant in a criminal case or were Apple to possess hard evidence that could exonerate or help to convict, the secret application would have been justified.

But that is not the case here.

Instead, the DOJ has obtained the most unique search warrant I have ever seen in 40 years of examining them. Here, the DOJ has persuaded a judge to issue a search warrant for A THING THAT DOES NOT EXIST, by forcing Apple to create a key that the FBI is incapable of creating.

There is no authority for the government to compel a nonparty to its case to do its work, against the nonparty's will, and against profound constitutional values. Essentially, the DOJ wants Apple to hack into its own computer product, thereby telling anyone who can access the key how to do the same.

If the courts conscripted Apple to work for the government and thereby destroy or diminish its own product, the decision would constitute a form of slavery, which is prohibited by our values and by the Thirteenth Amendment.

Yet, somewhere, the government has the data it seeks but will not admit to it, lest a myth it has foisted upon us all be burst. Since at least 2009, the government's domestic spies have captured the metadata—the time, place, telephone numbers and duration of all telephone calls—as well as the content of telephone calls made in America under a perverse interpretation of the FISA statute and the Patriot Act, which a federal appeals court has since invalidated.

The DOJ knows where this data on this killer's cellphone can be found, but if it subpoenas the National Security Agency (NSA), and the NSA complies with that subpoena, and all this becomes public, that will put the lie to the government's incredible denials that it spies upon all of us all the time. Surely it was spying on the San Bernardino killers.

There is more at stake here than the privacy of Apple's millions of customers and the security of power grids and all that the Internet serves. Personal liberty in a free society is at stake. A government that stays within the confines of the Constitution is at stake.

The late great Justice Antonin Scalia recognized that liberty and safety are not in equipoise when he wrote that there is nothing novel about liberty trumping safety under the Constitution. The primacy of liberty and a government subject to the rule of law is the core constitutional principle that, while honored, will keep tyranny at bay. And when dishonored, will let tyranny thrive.

COPYRIGHT 2016 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO | DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Mark Cuban Tells Politicians "Good Luck" Getting Rid of Fantasy Sports

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I Nominate Judge Nap for SCOTUS.

    Is that how it works?

    1. Judge Nap: beloved by cosmos and yokels alike. The only author that gets published by both Reason and LRC.

    2. Second.

      1. Oh, and… Read all 3 double-spaced pages of the order:
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/2996…..one#scribd

  2. I don’t believe this is a real Judge Napolitano article. Where are the rhetorical questions?

    1. Could they be right here? In the comment section?

    2. Could they be right here? In the comment section?

      1. With the squirrels?

    3. What if Judge Napolitano had an unpaid intern write this article under his name? What if Reason published it? What would be an appropriate method for a reader to determine the legality of such an action, giving the original, plain meaning of the Constitution?

    1. It’s interesting that Verizon would weigh in on this. They must be tired of being conscripted by the government to provide data.

    2. I can’t imagine anyone in the tech industry would support the FBI position. Their position is absurd. Gates was just signaling when he sided with them and he had to walk that back, didn’t he?

      Technological advances ( encryption, drones, 3d printing etc ) are eating into the government’s power over our lives and they are fighting it tooth and nail. They are going to lose. Genies don’t go back into bottles.

      Speaking of high tech I will be casting some late 19th century style bullets today: 30’s and 45’s. How is that for fun?

      http://www.midwayusa.com/produ…..-gas-check

      http://www.midwayusa.com/produ…..-gas-check

      1. What metal are you using?

        1. Wheel weights. I drop them out of the mold into a 5-gallon bucket of water and for about two years they are hard as a rock. Eventually they lose temper just sitting on the shelf.

          Loading for 30-30, 450 Marlin and 458 Win Mag. I think I am adding .375’s to the mix for my 375 Winchester.

          I could cast for days. It is a productive way to have time to think.

          1. Nice. Yeah, I’ve always wanted to get into reloading.

          2. Nice. I love DYI peeps.

  3. My friend’s sister in-law makes $55 /hour on the computer . gh She has been out of a job for nine months but last month her income was $13390 just working on the computer for a few hours.visit that site….

    ——— http://www.alpha-careers.com

    1. She was working 60 hour weeks?

      Pass.

      1. But she was just working on the computer for a few hours. What was she doing the rest of the time?

        1. Working for the Justice Department?

      2. She was working?

        Pass.

      3. Yeah, I got a much better offer from. Nigerian prince. His name is Nigel Saladu.

      4. Arithmetic is so troubling.

  4. I’m sure this is a question with an obvious reason it wouldn’t work, but why on Earth can they just not copy the data on the phone to another device and then give the phone 10 tries, when it fails reload the copy, try 10 more, reload etc?

    It’s not like law enforcement agencies don’t do this already with other electronic devices. Is there something about an iPhone, or other smart phones, that prevent them from doing this? Or is it just hard to do and they want the easy way of force Apple to do it, as well as the benefit of a nice tasty precedent they can use?

    1. You are talking about the same agency that told the county to reset the iCloud password, thereby shooting themselves in the dick. So I’ll take “Both Evil and Incompetent” for $400, Alex.

    2. I’m not familiar with Apple’s security system. They may have accounted for this, but even if they haven’t, the government’s intent is not to break this particular phone. It is to set the precedent of making certain nothing and no one is beyond their reach.

      Can’t have anyone defying them, now can we?

      I expect that if the FBI begins to believe that they would lose the inevitable court case, that they will quietly drop it and wait for another opportunity to pursue compliance.

      1. See also: Jose Padilla.

      2. This. It’s all about getting that precedent. That is why they picked this case. What, you want to defend a terrorist that killed innocent people?

    3. The way encryption is set up on the Iphone prevents this. Every encrypted Iphone, (and Android device for that matter) has a special hardware key that is baked into the device. The actual “password” that the system uses to decrypt a file is a mix of the pin/password that the user has set, and the hardware key that is baked in to the device. Getting access to this hardware key is basically impossible without software that has been signed with a key by Apple itself, and actually I believe in Iphone 6 and above even Apple has no way to find out what the hardware key actually is even if they wanted to.

      Because of this, you can’t just clone the file system and start attacking it in a computer or another device. Without the hardware key unique to the phone you aren’t getting anywhere and as far as I know the FBI has no way to obtain this key. At least not without a lot of time and investment.

      1. Absolutely, the other issue is that to do what the FBI wants, Apple would have to force a sfotware update with a valid Apple certificate. Because the iOS only accepts software updates from Apple and no one else (this is a feature, not a bug) that is why the FBI cannot just get in.

        I also have an issue with how the gov’t is saying that Apple can destroy the method. If they are able to find a co-conspirator and bring them into court, the defense is going to subpoena the Apple Techs and have them painstakingly walk through the process they used, thereby making it public knowledge.

        I have an iphone and the above is why i likes it.

    4. Because you can’t copy data from a lock device?

      1. That should be a limitation of the communications protocols. Unless there’s some impediment hardwired into the storage unit, it should be possible to come up with a protocol which simply duplicated the contents of storage without engaging native system (like we do when recovering lost datums from a totally fucked up disk). But if I understand right, some part of this thing involves communications with a remote server, which couldn’t be passed by.

  5. the DOJ has persuaded a judge to issue a search warrant for A THING THAT DOES NOT EXIST, by forcing Apple to create a key that the FBI is incapable of creating.

    As opposed to, say, the government mandating fuel-efficiency standards for the auto industry?

    1. That rustles my jimmies even more than most government foolishness: that bureaucrats who don’t have to design, manufacture, sell, maintain, or dispose cars get to tell the people who do that their cars must meet numbers that have never been met before.

      1. it’s all people making rules about stuff they don’t understand, this one is just more obviously life-and-death. that arrogance goes from annoying to deadly when we’re talking about medicine.

    2. Or penaltaxing people for things they don’t do…

    3. I dislike both, but there’s a difference. If you don’t like CAFE requirements you don’t have to sell cars. Apple cannot back out of this, per the order.

      1. If you don’t like cafe standards you don’t have to sell cars. So what exactly in the FUCK are GM, Ford, et al, companies were created to sell cars, and have been doing this for, maybe a 100 YEARS supposed to do?

        1. They make military cars… the military get’s waivers when… say Tier 4 diesel makes it so they can’t just burn JP-8 in them.

    4. I remember two IRS cases involving pretty extreme things. One was a search and seizure (which was executed by a three AM attack sunday morning by a swat team in unmarked uniforms) where the warrant specified to search “See Attachment A” and to seize “See Attachment A”, when no attachment was ever produced, even in subsequent litigation. The other was an arrest, where two IRS agents came to town, somehow recruited the aid of a score of local LEOs from different agencies, and waylaid a couple of women on their way to town. It was an ambush sort of thing, where onced the car got by the grange hall, ten police cars boxed it in and forced it off the highway (an absurdity since there was no reason the driver, my mother, would have attempted any escape if they’d just signalled for her to pull over). Once it was stopped, armed men surrounded the vehicle, forcibly extracted the occupants, before they’d any oppo to process the situation and respond, and had them laid on the hoods of police cars with guns to their heads. Both were arrested. After being processed at the jail, my sister was released. My mother got instead charged and prosecuted and ultimately convicted of obstruction for having a ‘bad attitude’ during processing.

    5. The IRS guys had left the state within a couple hours, never to return. When she attempted to determine the reason for the arrest, the locals could only say they were ordered to do it by the IRS, and the IRS responded by a refusal based on national security interests. The reason or lack therof for the arrest was not permitted to be mentioned before the jury. For what it’s worth, at that time, mother hadn’t got into any taxable income for a decade or more, and never prior nor subsequent was she involved in any IRS investigations. The other case, with the search warrant, also targetted people who were never otherwise approached about any tax problems.

    6. When she got out of jail, Mother was sort of shellshocked by the whole thing, and for several years she used to never answer the door but with a pistol in hand and she slept with a weapon ready to hand by the bed. Before that, she rarely ever carried anything stronger than pepper spray.

  6. ….$….Just before I looked at the paycheck that said $6914 , I didnt believe that my mom in-law really bringing in money in their spare time from their computer. . there neighbour had bean doing this for only six months and resently paid for the mortgage on there place and bourt a top of the range Saab 99 Turbo . look at this site….

    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ???????? http://www.Wage90.com

    1. If you think your mother-in-law is making crazy money on her computer, just wait ’til you see how much your mom makes us pay to watch her do things in front of her webcam…

  7. I tend to support Apple in this dispute, because if they are forced to create the software that the FBI wants, it certainly will set a precedent, despite the FBI’s denials that they are seeking one. The Wall Street Journal has reported that there are 12 more iPhones, seized in various types of criminal cases, that the FBI would like to force Apple to help it crack after the one in question in this case. But Judge Napolitano overstates his case a bit. The software that the FBI wants Apple to create would not be used “on the Internet”, so it will not be directly subject to being stolen by “hackers”. But the precedent set would be bad enough, even if Apple were able to keep this tool from leaking out.

  8. What a terrible jumble of an article. BTW, the 13th allows slavery as a punishment for crimes. Yes, slavery is STILL legal in the US.

  9. ….$….Just before I looked at the paycheck that said $6914 , I didnt believe that my mom in-law really bringing in money in their spare time from their computer. . there neighbour had bean doing this for only six months and resently paid for the mortgage on there place and bourt a top of the range Saab 99 Turbo . look at this site….

    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ???????? http://www.Wage90.com

  10. Another nail in the “Top Man” fallacy since the FBI can’t do what Apple can. Of course, another nail in the coffin of liberty and privacy.

    It should be noted that the killing already took place.

  11. I simply don’t understand how unlocking this one Apple phone would expose a fatal flaw in… all technology? Or as stated, ” Apple’s millions of customers and the security of power grids and all that the Internet serves.”

    How can I accept this analysis and at the same time hold to the notion that everything outside of a piece of paper can already be hacked into?

  12. So, comments about the “Honorable” Sheri Pym and woodchippers are out, right?

    Seriously, I don’t blame the FBI for asking Apple and/or pursuing leads. I don’t exactly/entirely blame the DA for doing his job with respect to the FBI and San Bernadino. The judge who said “Fuck you, Apple, that’s why” instead of “All Writs Act, are you fucking kidding me?” is whom I blame.

    Scalia was being modest in his statement, large portions of the Constitution exist explicitly written to protect guilty people, or allow them to protect themselves, from being simply being identified as such by their government and done away with.

  13. Dream On?

    For one thing, the San Bernardino “event” was , most likely, a scam – an inside job fraud instigated to further a political agenda, or multiple agendas, complete with fake victims etc., just like 9/11 and related [Paris, Sandy Hook, Boston etc.]. :

    “Attorney for San Bernardino gunman’s family floats hoax theory”:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/po…..ax-theory/

    Besides that distinct total fraud possibility, the indisputable fact of the matter is that the FBI itself is a scam, a fraud, just one of an endless, and ever increasing tax [i.e theft] supported entities with wholly political agendas that have nothing at all to do with “law enforcement” , national security, or whatever, and everything to do with maintaining power, “by any/all means necessary”. Politics as usual, in other words.

    However:

    “..In your dreams, the FBI is not a scam,
    In your dreams, 9/11 was not a scam
    In your dreams, the war on terror is not a scam,
    In your dream, al -qaeda was not a scam,
    In your dream I.S.I.S. is not a scam”

    Lyrics excerpted from:

    “Dreams [Anarchist Blues]”:

    http://onebornfree-mythbusters…..blues.html

    Regards, onebornfree.
    onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom

    1. These spam bots get more sophisticated every day.

  14. Start making extra money each week… This is an awesome side work for anybody… The best part about it is that you can do this job from your couch at home and get paid from 100 to 2000 bucks every week…Apply now and receive your first check at the end of this week

    ——– http://www.workprospects.com

  15. There’s another point to be made here. In response to new privacy standards adopted by Apple and Google the FBI has already demanded that Congress force manufacturers to give them backdoor access into Americans’ cellphones. Congress turned them down flat.
    http://dailycaller.com/2014/10…..ellphones/

    Should the FBI be able to use a sympathetic case to go through the courts and circumvent the will of Congress through judicial fiat? Because that’s exactly what they’re attempting to do here.

  16. They have the number of the phone and the carrier has the records of every call and text. Personal data may be harder to come by if it is stored on the phone only.
    What is the real issue?

  17. omfg, Seriously!? Consider changing your publication name from Reason to Drama!

    Apple added legitimate features for legitimate usage of apple devices to protect the legitimate users from illegitimate attempts to access private data. But, these features are preventing a legitimate search for criminal evidence and potentially national security threatening intelligence and may even result in destruction of evidence if they even attempt to access it.
    The FBI is not seeking ‘involuntary servitude’. They are asking to provide a means to perform a legal, court approved, officially vetted, probable-cause motivated search of a terrorist’s cell phone! They are essentially asking them to ‘comment out’ one or two lines of code and press a f$%@ing compile button!!

    Apple has already provided private user information in over 70 cases under similar circumstances. This isn’t opening a hole in all iphones, isn’t giving the FBI unfettered access to users’ private data. It’s giving them a device where they can ‘attempt’ to do an intensive brute force effort to try to ‘guess’ the password to decrypt the data.

    I’m the first in line to be suspicious of government, especially in matters of private property, IP and rights issues. This is a legitimate search handled by the proscribed legal process. If protecting citizens from terrorism is NOT a legitimate role of the government, what the hell is?

    Why so many ‘reasonable’ people suddenly become knee-jerk drama queens over this is beyond me!

    1. ~~ The FBI is not seeking ‘involuntary servitude’.

      If not, that means you and I are on the hook for an expensive ‘investigation’ (as if Apple won’t fleece the FBI in reimbursement) to find someone who didn’t pull the trigger.

      ~~ court approved

      Since you didn’t read the article, I’ll abridge it: warrant no good. Apple wasn’t given notice, nor was the warrant specific.

      ~~ If protecting citizens from terrorism is NOT a legitimate role of the government

      Yep, found the Republican. Govt *is* to protect us WITH RESPECT TO OUR RIGHTS. How do we know the FBI is chasing anything more important than some guy sendin a “Quran Verse of the Day” email? We don’t. Because they won’t say.

      In short, plenty of reason to be suspicious.

      1. protecting citizens from anything is not really a legitimate function of the state. First, since it’s mostly impossible. Secondly, since insofar as it is possible it involves more injury to a greater number of people than did the injury the government meant to protect somebody from. T?rtio, it’s impossible to know if the government’s efforts to protect people actually work and so impossible to determine the legitimacy of any given means employed. In order for protection from harm to be a legitimate function of the state, one would have to apply a weaker test of frivolity to (potentially) criminal matters than one does to civil causes, which is plainly ridiculous.

    2. Associating this issue with terrorism is quite unfortunate. The fact is that it concerns not terrorism, but crime (which terrorism certainly exemplifies) and the process of obtaining and executing search warrants in criminal investigations. None of the 12 other warrants for the government reportedly is seeking equivalent assistance seem to involve terrorism, and probably none of the 175 iPhones that the Manhattan DA has and would like similar help with involve terrorism.

      1. I think that an act of terrorism may be part of a subset of criminal acts, but that some acts of terrorism are subsets of warfare. The problem is treating “terrorism” as a discrete category that somehow falls outside both sets or else unsupportably straddles the two simultaneously. Terrorism is not unitary. It is a means that may be employed by criminals or may be employed by forces at war. May as well lump all “shootings” together, whether they are part of a criminal effort, part of a military effort, part of a police action, or part of a hunting accident. Of course, things are furthered muddled by the “war crimes” monstrosity which is an illegitimate theory from about every angle it’s viewed (it might make sense if used in the sense of acts, illegal under the rules of a military force, executed by an agent of that force and so unquestionably under their authority and obliged to adhere to their rules).

    3. The FBI is not seeking ‘involuntary servitude’.

      Forcing someone to create something is involuntary servitude. They are trying to force Apple to help defeat their own security scheme by writing software that does not currently exist, which can (and will) then be used on countless other phones. What else is that but involuntary servitude?

      They are asking to provide a means

      Provide a means? The fourth amendment only gives the government the power to attempt to seize or search something once they follow the proper procedures; it does not say that they must succeed. Our rights don’t and shouldn’t vanish just to make the government’s job easier, even if that allows some Bad Guys to get away.

      court approved

      The court’s judgement was seriously flawed. This is no doubt unconstitutional.

      1. Is not slavery if you’re not black.

    4. They are essentially asking them to ‘comment out’ one or two lines of code and press a f$%@ing compile button!!

      Which will then establish precedent that the government can force people to do the work for them, and will enable the government to use this same software countless times.

      Apple has already provided private user information in over 70 cases under similar circumstances.

      In those cases, did Apple have to create new software for the government? Even if they did, that does not mean they should be forced to continue.

      I’m the first in line to be suspicious of government

      No, you are a fool.

      If protecting citizens from terrorism is NOT a legitimate role of the government, what the hell is?

      The US government’s first priority should be to follow the US constitution.

  18. “wealthiest publicly traded corporation on the planet”

    No.

    1) no objective definition for that,

    2) Apple doesn’t own their market capitalization, their shareholders do.

  19. Apple should be applauded and supported on this issue. The fascist oinkers are on the loose.

  20. The only real problem I have with Apple’s position in this case is that it is treating the phone as property of Farook, the terrorist, and not property of the county government agency he worked for, which had issued the phone to Farook. It seems to me that this being a job-issued piece of equipment, is actually property of the County, and not Farook, and if the County wants Apple’s help resetting its password and recovering its User ID, or whatever, they should be more than happy to do so. So in this respect, this point of view reframes the entire debate into one where Apple is being a jerk about giving good customer service to their customer, the County government, rather than a hero in protecting their non-customer, the terrorist Farook.
    Outside of this, I think its great if Apple wants to protect their customers data, but Farook isn’t their customer, the County is.

    1. You don’t understand how this works. If Apple has any clue what they’re doing they have made it so even they can’t bypass the lock without the password; if they haven’t they’re hypocrites. What the Government is implicitly asking the FBI to do is:

      1. Find a vulnerability (that Apple can be assumed not to know about)
      2. Exploit that vulnerability to bypass the phone’s security
      3. Pretend that “Throw it away” doesn’t just mean “Keep it on hand for the next time we need it unless you want to go through all this again… by the way it would be easier if you just gave it to us…”

      Just because they’re not telling Apple step by step how to do it doesn’t mean that this isn’t what they’re actually asking.

      If a thief kidnaps a locksmith points his gun at his head and says three words… “Open this Lock”… the thief can’t plead that he never told the locksmith to pick the lock.

  21. There’s a difference between “surrendering a little liberty” for a “little security” than having it stolen from us. Especially after they FAILED so miserably with the liberty they already stole. The US government is a RICO.

    1. Good point, and the reason voters are backing the Mercantilist and the Socialist instead of the soft machine seeking to coerce Apple.

  22. After a fairly reasonable beginning, this unfortunate piece goes downhill rapidly. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a much better article on its web site, http://www.eff.org, and Orin Kerr has discussed the issue in three Volokh Conspiracy posts.

    Apple has been tasked to develop a way to allow the FBI to efficiently try all possible pass codes on an iPhone that is in their possession and for which they have obtained a search warrant which nobody has questioned. Apple has, by credible reports, the technical capability to do this, and have not said they cannot. The government demanded a solution that will be usable for the iPhone that the search warrant describes and no other. Apple can satisfy that requirement as well because iPhones will not load and run software that does not have a proper digital signature that only Apple, and as far as anyone knows, can supply.

    The claim that once created, the required software could become public and therefore risks Apple device security in general and the “privacy of tens of millions, and even exposing the government to foreign hackers” is simply untrue. Thousands of organizations and individuals, in the US and elsewhere, some of them almost certainly working for the US government, could create software that does what the government asks, or worse. Such software might exist already, and if it does not it is because the requirement for Apple’s digital signature, without which it cannot be used.

    1. Hey, Tommy here says the SS was only following orders, and that the jewish people they exterminated could have left Germany voluntarily like the Fuehrer suggested in 1920. Besides, all the proper forms had been filled out and they weren’t even christian. Furthermore, they volunteered to get into those gas showers. Any claims to the contrary are simply untrue, so the Nuremberg tribunal should find in favor of the proper government authorities and People’s Courts tasked with exercising their authority for people, not Apple stockholders’ greedy profits. Get with the program!

    2. There’s no way to provide the means of exploiting the vulnerability without revealing the nature of the vulnerability. This is fucking software. Grow a brain. FBI wouldn’t’ve even have to keep a copy, necessarily. Some analysis could probably determine the nature of the workaround, which is all they’d need to get going on replication. The vulnerability would of necessity be something natural to the system, not this particular device. The fucking lock preventing the workaround from being applied to other devices wouldn’t mean dick in the long run, since the vulnerability would be revealed (and since it’s unlikely the lock restricting the software to this device couldn’t be relatively easily cracked).

  23. There is no immediate privacy issue in this case. Privacy rights for the phone in question, as well as the additional twelve reported elsewhere and the 175 or so in possession of the Manhattan DA, are bypassed when the government obtains search warrants, to whatever extent the warrants provide. Apple was asked, using the authority of the All Writs Act, to help the FBI execute that warrant. They are opposing the order, and another in the Eastern District of New York. The legal question is about whether that request is proper or not. There also is no genuine privacy issue for the public at large. In the US, privacy issues of this type are handled as part of the process of obtaining a search warrant and other legal process for determining admissibility of evidence, including any might be gained from a defective warrant.

    Other countries have different practices surrounding search and seizure, some of them quite oppressive. Apple is a multinational company subject to the national laws where it operates, sometimes modified by provisions in treaties involving the US. There is no reason to think it will not be subject to similar or more intrusive demands in some of those countries, whether the US government or Apple wins in this case.

  24. The Bush Dynasty Administrations are clearly the perpetrators. They sent murdering troops into mohammedan deserts when These States had not been attacked, and the military-industrial complex was promptly retaliated against with no regard for collateral damage. You and I would do the same of some insane mystics sent military troops to attack our country. It remains to be seen whether Apple will have the cojones of the lady in the 1984 commercial. They could throw the hammer into the teeth of nationalsocialism by backing some libertarian candidates.

  25. Judge Nap for Supreme Court!

    Right again; there has to be a “thing” before a warrant can be issued to search and seize.

    4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

  26. You’re getting ?150 worth of bonuses for just a fraction of that price. Everything to get you started in learning a proven system for accelerating your exam success. So if that’s what you want to do, this is the opportunity you’ve been waiting for…..

    ——— http://www.workprospects.com

  27. OBAMACARE

  28. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…

    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ———— http://www.Wage90.com

  29. The DOJ has persuaded a judge to issue a search warrant for a thing that does not exist, by forcing Apple to create a key that the FBI is incapable of creating.

    That is how Apple is portraying this; it has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

  30. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  31. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ————? http://www.Wage30.com

  32. The Fit Finally programs and guides are based on over 600 research studies conducted by some of the biggest Universities and research teams of the world.
    We take pride in the fact that our passion for better health and fitness is 100% backed by science and helps 100’s (if not 1000’s) of people every year since 2010. Just try it:

    http://03615gbnxbyy5y42r9r8o80…..kbank.net/

  33. Apple to DOJ, We don’t know how.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.