6 ms·

More on All Writs Act of 1789. The Dangerous All Writs Act Precedent in the Apple Encryption Case http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/a-dangerous-all-w

More on All Writs Act of 1789. The Dangerous All Writs Act Precedent in the Apple Encryption Case http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/a-dangerous-all-writ-precedent-in-the-apple-case?mbid=social_twitter http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/a-dangerous-all-w... "Tim Cook, the C.E.O. of Apple, which has been ordered to help the F.B.I. get into the cell phone of the San Bernardino shooters, wrote in an angry open letter this week that “the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create.” The second part of that formulation has rightly received a great deal of attention: Should a back door be built into devices that are used for encrypted communications? Would that keep us safe from terrorists, or merely make everyone more vulnerable to hackers, as well as to mass government surveillance? But the first part is also potentially insidious, for reasons that go well beyond privacy rights. The simple but strange question here is exactly the one that Cook formulates. What happens when the government goes to court to demand that you give it something that you do not have? No one has it, in fact, because it doesn’t exist. What if the government then proceeds to order you to construct, design, invent, or somehow conjure up the thing it wants? Must you?"

madaxe_again 11y ago
You go to prison. For anyone familiar with what happened in Russia during the Stalinist era the US's current trajectory is clear. It doesn't matter that what the state is telling you to do is impossible - the only relevant fact is that you're not complying, and are therefore an enemy of the people (the state). We'll be finding out how Tim runs a secret paedophile ring, or how he has been laundering money, or how he has been supporting IS through action and/or inaction. HUAC will return, lazarus like, but you'll call it the centre for American improvement or some such shit. Remember Chaplin? Anyway. That's one potential future, an actual past, and while the apparatus is more subtle this time, it's the same old forces doing the same old things.
- sillysaurus3 11y ago
  That works for Qwest's CEOs, but probably not Apple's. If this is the endgame, it's good that computers exist. Without Twitter, the public might believe absurd lies. Nowadays, the lies would have to be pretty nuanced to have an effect. Of course, there's something to be said for overwhelming power. If those in the government really want their way, and all three branches refuse to yield, and none of us can control who are in those branches, is there really anything we can do to stop it? Luckily, this is roughly as likely as the moon disappearing. For now.
  - madaxe_again 11y ago
    I'd love to believe that twitter could be a counterbalance, but it can also be an amplifier - any lie repeated long and loud enough becomes truth - particularly when twitter streams are "algorithmicly driven", and can therefore be filtered to give whatever sentiment more precedence. Haa twitter stopped trump's rise?
    - cheez 11y ago
      Or "of course Bill Cosby is guilty"
      - GirlProgrammer 11y ago
        No he isn't. People shouldn't be allowed to get people charged on "he said, she said" crimes 19 years after the fact.
        cheez 11y ago
        That's my point. The amplifier of media, old and new, allows this kind of topic to be a thing, when by all ethical standards, it should not be.
  - mrich 11y ago
    > Without Twitter, the public might believe absurd lies. People still are people, with all their positive and negative sides. Some technological advancement is unlikely to change that.
    - smoyer 11y ago
      +1 People often believe "facts" more due to their own preconceived biases than due to logical investigation. So any reports that support their position are obviously the truth. Likewise, they dismiss reports that are contrary to their position. There are lots of examples one could use as proof - recently Donald Trump. Notice there's absolutely no one in the middle? You're either fully behind him or your completely against him. Any time you see a highly polarized issue, I'd recommend asking yourself why there's no middle ground. Often it's because there's also no rationale for the extremes. How do we use the scientific method on issues like this? Even our historical perspectives hold biases - and sometimes it's hard to collect a large enough sample size to have confidence in your conclusion.
- greggarious 11y ago
  Or if you truly are clean, it would be easy to use witness testimony to put you at a crime scene, Steven Aviary style.
puranjay 11y ago
I can't think of a single thing the government has done in the name of surveillance and security that have actually helped catch any terrorists. All those body scanners at airports? How many terrorists have they managed to catch? (Meanwhile, TSA agents steal items from baggage all the time) If all that surveillance couldn't catch the school shooters, the Boston bombers and this couple, is the only solution even MORE surveillance?
- Demiurge 11y ago
  Do you think they would actually be doing a good job if you (public) knew about the instances surveillance helped? If you were tasked with catching terrorist, what would you do?
  - merpnderp 11y ago
    Yes, if the TSA had stopped a single terrorist, they'd be at least stating a number, if not the facts. Given they won't even give a ball park number is pretty good evidence it is a big fat zero like all the investigative journalism has found. Not like organizations like the TSA can keep a secret.
    - Demiurge 11y ago
      Why would they be stating the number? How can they know if they intimidated or prevented attacks by mere existence? Statistically, mere police patrol presence reduces crime, which is not directly related to detective work. But, TSA is kind of parallel to surveillance, my question was about whether we could possible judge the success of that, and other intelligence in the most secretive of government operations.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  A simple gloss of the shooter's Facebook would have showed a rabid sympathizer for anti-American terrorists and a strong support of violence against civilians. The FBI can' be assed to check Facebook, but they want access to all our encryption to stop terrorists? And the Boston bombers had been specifically pointed out to US law enforcement by more than one foreign intelligence agency, and they made no move to stop them. Saying they need more power to surveil us is just ludicrous given they ignore in your face public data, or credible tips already.
acqq 11y ago
"Here, Apple engineers are effectively being conscripted to build forensic software — a hacking app — for the FBI." "Instead of being asked to hand over its own information, Apple is being instructed to help hack into someone else’s — someone whose only connection to the company was owning a phone that Apple produced." "That’s a particular stretch because (as Apple argues in another ongoing case) Congress has already passed a federal law outlining exactly what companies must do to help police spy on digital messages: the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1992." (1) A "hacking OS" more precisely. Now compare what is being requested with the apparent legal basis for it: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act "(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. (b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction." - That's really the whole act! Which FBI claims to simply mean "we can order anything to anybody" including ordering Apple to make "a special operating system," and then later, obviously, even the special chips to allow FBI to snoop continuously, if they want. It's not an accident. Should this particular act be allowed to be used to effectively ban encryption? That's how much is at stake. 1) http://nypost.com/2016/02/18/will-an-18th-century-law-force-apple-into-hacking-killers-phone/ http://nypost.com/2016/02/18/will-an-18th-century-law-force-...
- mirkules 11y ago
  It was suggested to me that Apple could argue against "we can krder anyone to do anything" using the 13th amendment which abolishes "involuntary servitude". It's a stretch, and according to Wikipedia, the amendment is rarely used, but the same could be said for All Writs...
  - discardorama 11y ago
    I think the Federales have enough money to compensate Apple above and beyond what it costs them.

madaxe_again 11y ago

You go to prison. For anyone familiar with what happened in Russia during the Stalinist era the US's current trajectory is clear. It doesn't matter that what the state is telling you to do is impossible - the only relevant fact is that you're not complying, and are therefore an enemy of the people (the state). We'll be finding out how Tim runs a secret paedophile ring, or how he has been laundering money, or how he has been supporting IS through action and/or inaction. HUAC will return, lazarus like, but you'll call it the centre for American improvement or some such shit. Remember Chaplin? Anyway. That's one potential future, an actual past, and while the apparatus is more subtle this time, it's the same old forces doing the same old things.

sillysaurus3 11y ago
That works for Qwest's CEOs, but probably not Apple's. If this is the endgame, it's good that computers exist. Without Twitter, the public might believe absurd lies. Nowadays, the lies would have to be pretty nuanced to have an effect. Of course, there's something to be said for overwhelming power. If those in the government really want their way, and all three branches refuse to yield, and none of us can control who are in those branches, is there really anything we can do to stop it? Luckily, this is roughly as likely as the moon disappearing. For now.
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  I'd love to believe that twitter could be a counterbalance, but it can also be an amplifier - any lie repeated long and loud enough becomes truth - particularly when twitter streams are "algorithmicly driven", and can therefore be filtered to give whatever sentiment more precedence. Haa twitter stopped trump's rise?
  - cheez 11y ago
    Or "of course Bill Cosby is guilty"
    - GirlProgrammer 11y ago
      No he isn't. People shouldn't be allowed to get people charged on "he said, she said" crimes 19 years after the fact.
      - cheez 11y ago
        That's my point. The amplifier of media, old and new, allows this kind of topic to be a thing, when by all ethical standards, it should not be.
- mrich 11y ago
  > Without Twitter, the public might believe absurd lies. People still are people, with all their positive and negative sides. Some technological advancement is unlikely to change that.
  - smoyer 11y ago
    +1 People often believe "facts" more due to their own preconceived biases than due to logical investigation. So any reports that support their position are obviously the truth. Likewise, they dismiss reports that are contrary to their position. There are lots of examples one could use as proof - recently Donald Trump. Notice there's absolutely no one in the middle? You're either fully behind him or your completely against him. Any time you see a highly polarized issue, I'd recommend asking yourself why there's no middle ground. Often it's because there's also no rationale for the extremes. How do we use the scientific method on issues like this? Even our historical perspectives hold biases - and sometimes it's hard to collect a large enough sample size to have confidence in your conclusion.
greggarious 11y ago
Or if you truly are clean, it would be easy to use witness testimony to put you at a crime scene, Steven Aviary style.

puranjay 11y ago

I can't think of a single thing the government has done in the name of surveillance and security that have actually helped catch any terrorists. All those body scanners at airports? How many terrorists have they managed to catch? (Meanwhile, TSA agents steal items from baggage all the time) If all that surveillance couldn't catch the school shooters, the Boston bombers and this couple, is the only solution even MORE surveillance?

Demiurge 11y ago
Do you think they would actually be doing a good job if you (public) knew about the instances surveillance helped? If you were tasked with catching terrorist, what would you do?
- merpnderp 11y ago
  Yes, if the TSA had stopped a single terrorist, they'd be at least stating a number, if not the facts. Given they won't even give a ball park number is pretty good evidence it is a big fat zero like all the investigative journalism has found. Not like organizations like the TSA can keep a secret.
  - Demiurge 11y ago
    Why would they be stating the number? How can they know if they intimidated or prevented attacks by mere existence? Statistically, mere police patrol presence reduces crime, which is not directly related to detective work. But, TSA is kind of parallel to surveillance, my question was about whether we could possible judge the success of that, and other intelligence in the most secretive of government operations.
merpnderp 11y ago
A simple gloss of the shooter's Facebook would have showed a rabid sympathizer for anti-American terrorists and a strong support of violence against civilians. The FBI can' be assed to check Facebook, but they want access to all our encryption to stop terrorists? And the Boston bombers had been specifically pointed out to US law enforcement by more than one foreign intelligence agency, and they made no move to stop them. Saying they need more power to surveil us is just ludicrous given they ignore in your face public data, or credible tips already.

acqq 11y ago

"Here, Apple engineers are effectively being conscripted to build forensic software — a hacking app — for the FBI." "Instead of being asked to hand over its own information, Apple is being instructed to help hack into someone else’s — someone whose only connection to the company was owning a phone that Apple produced." "That’s a particular stretch because (as Apple argues in another ongoing case) Congress has already passed a federal law outlining exactly what companies must do to help police spy on digital messages: the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1992." (1) A "hacking OS" more precisely. Now compare what is being requested with the apparent legal basis for it: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act "(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. (b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction." - That's really the whole act! Which FBI claims to simply mean "we can order anything to anybody" including ordering Apple to make "a special operating system," and then later, obviously, even the special chips to allow FBI to snoop continuously, if they want. It's not an accident. Should this particular act be allowed to be used to effectively ban encryption? That's how much is at stake. 1) http://nypost.com/2016/02/18/will-an-18th-century-law-force-apple-into-hacking-killers-phone/ http://nypost.com/2016/02/18/will-an-18th-century-law-force-...

mirkules 11y ago
It was suggested to me that Apple could argue against "we can krder anyone to do anything" using the 13th amendment which abolishes "involuntary servitude". It's a stretch, and according to Wikipedia, the amendment is rarely used, but the same could be said for All Writs...
- discardorama 11y ago
  I think the Federales have enough money to compensate Apple above and beyond what it costs them.