6 ms·

Ah, the GOP. Keep this in mind when they carry on about being the party of personal liberty.

by beedogs 11y ago

rhino369 11y ago
Taken narrowly, there is no personal liberty at stake in this situation. Searching this phone is clearly permissible under the 4th amendment. I guess making Apple--a huge corporation--assist is somewhat against liberty, but I wouldn't call it personal liberty. They get compensated for it. The slippery slope argument everyone seems to be pushing doesn't quite make sense to me. How is forcing Apple to help get past security after a valid court order going to hurt third parties privacy? Nobody is asking for Apple to introduce a backdoor into their products for sale. Only to exploit a backdoor into one specific phone.
- skywhopper 11y ago
  The backdoor does not currently exist. Creating it leads to a slippery slope because the FBI will not only ask Apple to unlock phones from known dead terrorists who killed multiple people, but it will cascade to suspected terrorists, and then families of suspected terrorists, and then drug dealers and drug users and then speeders and loiterers and people of the wrong color, just like every other police abuse of power. And then if Apple gives into the FBI, it'll have to give into the UK and France and Germany and China and Russia and anywhere else they want to sell their phones. And once the capability is created and exists, it can leak, and then no one's phone is safe anymore. That's the slippery slope.
  - noonespecial 11y ago
    And unlike many of the "slippery slope" arguments that seem to involve hand-wavy-ness and no-reasonable-person-ness, this one is straight, slick, steep and you can see right to the bottom. Don't get in the tube and push off if you don't want to ride this one all the way down.
    - InclinedPlane 11y ago
      Note that the purpose of this case is not to get the data, the FBI have other options for this specific example. The purpose is to set a precedent, and to get the backdoors they want created. This isn't some haphazard accidental "oops, we didn't mean to go so far" situation, this is the FBI getting out the hose and the slip-n-slide and pointing a gun at Apple to get on.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    >The backdoor does not currently exist. This is pretty much semantics. Apple can load a modified firmware without the password. That is a backdoor. >Creating it leads to a slippery slope because the FBI will not only ask Apple to unlock phones from known dead terrorists who killed multiple people, but it will cascade to suspected terrorists, and then families of suspected terrorists, and then drug dealers and drug users and then speeders and loiterers and people of the wrong color, just like every other police abuse of power. The fact is that each time this tool would be used would require a federal district court to specifically order it. That eliminates the slippery slope risk. The courts would absolutely allow it for murder cases. In fact, any federal crime. But that's what is supposed to happen. And if you really think that a district court would let the FBI search a phone because they are the wrong color (or any other blatantly illegal purpose), well that court would also force apple to help them. So it ordering this now doesn't increase the likelihood of it happening. >And then if Apple gives into the FBI, it'll have to give into the UK and France and Germany and China and Russia and anywhere else they want to sell their phones. I am not arguing that Apple should give the FBI the power to do it independently. The FBI isn't asking for it. And the court didn't order Apple to do that. Apple already has the capability to do this.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - oldmanjay 11y ago
      That you consider it a fact that law enforcement obeys its judicial constraints undercuts any argument you might make
      - rhino369 11y ago
        I'm not considering it a fact. I consider it a fact that the FBI would not physically be able to use this tactic without an explicit court order. You don't have to trust the FBI at all.
        oldmanjay 11y ago
- danjoc 11y ago
  I like to think it's about the 3rd amendment. The backdoor is a digital soldier. Frankly though, I hope Apple loses this one. I'd like to see it spur them into developing a device that they do not have the ability to compromise, because it gives the end user the freedom to modify all the way down to the firmware. Like how you can theoretically flash your own signed coreboot into a chromebook.
  - remarkEon 11y ago
    Interesting thought, though I'd imagine that if Apple loses the kind of device you're talking about might be by extension criminalized depending on the breadth of the ruling - or explicitly criminalized by congress. I'd actually like to think of encryption as a 2nd amendment issue - protection against an unruly and intrusive government. Encryption being necessary to the security of a free state...or something.
    - dougabug 11y ago
      This is an astute point. Encryption is a modern, defensive technology against an overreaching State intent on total control over its populace. In the 21st Century, guns are a relatively weak counterbalance to State power. Even in Saddam's Iraq, people had guns.
    - rosser 11y ago
      To your point, remember that the US government has long classed encryption as a munition, and subjects it to arms control and export regulations. It is a Federal felony (though, aside, what isn't anymore?) to travel with crypto of a certain strength to dozens of countries — many of which don't even require a visa or do visa-on-arrival. You weren't thinking of bringing your US-purchased laptop or smartphone along with you when you went abroad, were you? EDIT: phrasing.
    - Outdoorsman 11y ago
      I think you make an excellent point... >>if Apple loses the kind of device you're talking about might be by extension criminalized depending on the breadth of the ruling - or explicitly criminalized by congress.<< I can easily see this going in that direction...
stvswn 11y ago
Please, Dianne Feinstein is equally supportive. This doesn't align well with the parties -- hawks in both parties are bad about it, while each party has factions that are pro-liberty on this issue. Ted Cruz, for example, took a lot of heat from Rubio and Christie over his pro-encryption stance. Hillary is pretty weak on the issue.
- beedogs 11y ago
  > Please, Dianne Feinstein is equally supportive. She's an anomaly among Democrats. She may as well caucus with the Republicans, given her abysmal record in this area.

Ah, the GOP. Keep this in mind when they carry on about being the party of personal liberty.

by beedogs 11y ago

Ah, the GOP. Keep this in mind when they carry on about being the party of personal liberty.

Taken narrowly, there is no personal liberty at stake in this situation. Searching this phone is clearly permissible under the 4th amendment. I guess making Apple--a huge corporation--assist is somewhat against liberty, but I wouldn't call it personal liberty. They get compensated for it. The slippery slope argument everyone seems to be pushing doesn't quite make sense to me. How is forcing Apple to help get past security after a valid court order going to hurt third parties privacy? Nobody is asking for Apple to introduce a backdoor into their products for sale. Only to exploit a backdoor into one specific phone.

skywhopper 11y ago
The backdoor does not currently exist. Creating it leads to a slippery slope because the FBI will not only ask Apple to unlock phones from known dead terrorists who killed multiple people, but it will cascade to suspected terrorists, and then families of suspected terrorists, and then drug dealers and drug users and then speeders and loiterers and people of the wrong color, just like every other police abuse of power. And then if Apple gives into the FBI, it'll have to give into the UK and France and Germany and China and Russia and anywhere else they want to sell their phones. And once the capability is created and exists, it can leak, and then no one's phone is safe anymore. That's the slippery slope.
- noonespecial 11y ago
  And unlike many of the "slippery slope" arguments that seem to involve hand-wavy-ness and no-reasonable-person-ness, this one is straight, slick, steep and you can see right to the bottom. Don't get in the tube and push off if you don't want to ride this one all the way down.
  - InclinedPlane 11y ago
    Note that the purpose of this case is not to get the data, the FBI have other options for this specific example. The purpose is to set a precedent, and to get the backdoors they want created. This isn't some haphazard accidental "oops, we didn't mean to go so far" situation, this is the FBI getting out the hose and the slip-n-slide and pointing a gun at Apple to get on.
- rhino369 11y ago
  >The backdoor does not currently exist. This is pretty much semantics. Apple can load a modified firmware without the password. That is a backdoor. >Creating it leads to a slippery slope because the FBI will not only ask Apple to unlock phones from known dead terrorists who killed multiple people, but it will cascade to suspected terrorists, and then families of suspected terrorists, and then drug dealers and drug users and then speeders and loiterers and people of the wrong color, just like every other police abuse of power. The fact is that each time this tool would be used would require a federal district court to specifically order it. That eliminates the slippery slope risk. The courts would absolutely allow it for murder cases. In fact, any federal crime. But that's what is supposed to happen. And if you really think that a district court would let the FBI search a phone because they are the wrong color (or any other blatantly illegal purpose), well that court would also force apple to help them. So it ordering this now doesn't increase the likelihood of it happening. >And then if Apple gives into the FBI, it'll have to give into the UK and France and Germany and China and Russia and anywhere else they want to sell their phones. I am not arguing that Apple should give the FBI the power to do it independently. The FBI isn't asking for it. And the court didn't order Apple to do that. Apple already has the capability to do this.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    That you consider it a fact that law enforcement obeys its judicial constraints undercuts any argument you might make
    - rhino369 11y ago
      I'm not considering it a fact. I consider it a fact that the FBI would not physically be able to use this tactic without an explicit court order. You don't have to trust the FBI at all.
      - oldmanjay 11y ago
danjoc 11y ago
I like to think it's about the 3rd amendment. The backdoor is a digital soldier. Frankly though, I hope Apple loses this one. I'd like to see it spur them into developing a device that they do not have the ability to compromise, because it gives the end user the freedom to modify all the way down to the firmware. Like how you can theoretically flash your own signed coreboot into a chromebook.
- remarkEon 11y ago
  Interesting thought, though I'd imagine that if Apple loses the kind of device you're talking about might be by extension criminalized depending on the breadth of the ruling - or explicitly criminalized by congress. I'd actually like to think of encryption as a 2nd amendment issue - protection against an unruly and intrusive government. Encryption being necessary to the security of a free state...or something.
  - dougabug 11y ago
    This is an astute point. Encryption is a modern, defensive technology against an overreaching State intent on total control over its populace. In the 21st Century, guns are a relatively weak counterbalance to State power. Even in Saddam's Iraq, people had guns.
  - rosser 11y ago
    To your point, remember that the US government has long classed encryption as a munition, and subjects it to arms control and export regulations. It is a Federal felony (though, aside, what isn't anymore?) to travel with crypto of a certain strength to dozens of countries — many of which don't even require a visa or do visa-on-arrival. You weren't thinking of bringing your US-purchased laptop or smartphone along with you when you went abroad, were you? EDIT: phrasing.
  - Outdoorsman 11y ago
    I think you make an excellent point... >>if Apple loses the kind of device you're talking about might be by extension criminalized depending on the breadth of the ruling - or explicitly criminalized by congress.<< I can easily see this going in that direction...

stvswn 11y ago

Please, Dianne Feinstein is equally supportive. This doesn't align well with the parties -- hawks in both parties are bad about it, while each party has factions that are pro-liberty on this issue. Ted Cruz, for example, took a lot of heat from Rubio and Christie over his pro-encryption stance. Hillary is pretty weak on the issue.

beedogs 11y ago
> Please, Dianne Feinstein is equally supportive. She's an anomaly among Democrats. She may as well caucus with the Republicans, given her abysmal record in this area.