17 ms·
> The FBI’s brief dismisses all of this as a marketing ploy, and then blasts Apple as a literal threat to American democracy, writing: “Apple’s rhetoric is not
by ehartsuyker 11y ago
> The FBI’s brief dismisses all of this as a marketing ploy, and then blasts Apple as a literal threat to American democracy, writing: “Apple’s rhetoric is not only false, but also corrosive of the very institutions that are best able to safeguard our liberty and our rights: the courts, the Fourth Amendment, longstanding precedent and venerable laws, and the democratically elected branches of government.”
Ironically, Apple giving users encryption doesn't weaken the Fourth Amendment; it makes it stronger because it provides the ability for citizens to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" in a way that the courts recently have been unable to.
- mstade 11y agoAlso, since when is the FBI a "democratically elected" branch of government?
- blisterpeanuts 11y agoThe FBI is technically part of an "elected" branch, but it's nonetheless a semi-autonomous agency not directly accountable to the people who voted for the President. Even the President could be investigated by the FBI. We just have to trust that good people were appointed to this agency, and be ready to fight them in court when not-so-good people make bad decisions.
- harryh 11y agoThe FBI is part of the executive branch which is democratically elected.
- naringas 11y agothe FBI is executive branch!? I would've never occured to me... I thought all law enforcement was on the judicial branch. TIL.
- brudgers 11y agoIn the US, judges adjudicate from the facts presented. Unlike many other legal systems, judges do not investigate. Roughly speaking, the judicial branch of the US Federal government is very small, little more than judges and their clerks. The US Constitution grants it little explicit power and its principle source of political power, declaring laws unconstitutional, was established solely by the Federal physician's own precedent: one day the US Supreme Court started declaring laws unconstitutional.
- Grishnakh 11y ago>Unlike many other legal systems, judges do not investigate. Maybe we should change that. Countries like France and Germany don't seem to have all the wackiness in their legal systems that we do.
- harryh 11y agoMost people tend to think that giving unelected judges an armed police force is a bad idea. Even in France and Germany.
- drzaiusapelord 11y agoI can't remember the last time SCOTUS sent a democratic activist to the loving arms of Vladimir Putin's torture/death squads: http://en.odfoundation.eu/a/6935,in-a-shocking-decision-french-government-decrees-extradition-of-kazakh-dissident-mukhtar-ablyazov-to-russia http://en.odfoundation.eu/a/6935,in-a-shocking-decision-fren... Perhaps you're being too dismissive of the US system?
- gozur88 11y agoI don't see any evidence the US has more or less "wackiness" in its legal system. It's served us quite well, over the years.
- dfc 11y agoThe executive branch is home to the Department of Justice. Maybe that is what you were thinking of? If it makes it easier, when you think about the judicial branch think of judges, and for the executive branch think use power.
- studentrob 11y agoIt's coming from the top. Obama has backed this effort from the start. The White House wants the Burr-Feinstein anti-encryption bill [1]. They've been waiting for it for months and the press keeps asking about it. From the White House Daily Briefing on March 11 [2], > Q: Can I do the weekly check-in on if you guys have anything to say on the Burr-Feinstein legislation on encryption coming out of the Senate? > MR. EARNEST: I don’t have anything new -- which is to say we continue to be in touch with Congress, and I continue to be personally skeptical -- more broadly, going beyond just this specific legislation, I continue to be a little skeptical of Congress’s ability to handle such a complicated policy area, given Congress’s recent inability to handle even simple things. [1] http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-cybersecurity/2016/02/march-is-encryption-bill-month-hackers-going-after-japans-infrastructure-a-mixed-final-2015-tally-212865 http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-cybersecurity/2016... [2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/14/press-gaggle-press-secretary-en-route-austin-texas-31116 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/14/press...
- rayiner 11y agoYeah let's just forget the whole "warrant" bit in the very next part of the fourth amendment.
- rdpickard 11y ago(disclaimer; not a lawyer) How do you see there being probable cause for the issuance of a warrant? My reading of the FBI-Apple-CDCal-Govt-Reply document (page 2 / line) was that there was not forthcoming or ongoing attack, but evidence of the attack that Farook had executed.
- tptacek 11y agoProbable cause? The phone's user shot 22 people. The phone itself belongs to the county, so legally, they don't even need a warrant, but if there isn't cause to issue a warrant in this case, there's never been such cause in any case.
- rdpickard 11y agoBut the phone has no (additional) prosecutorial value against Farook and Apple itself is not in possession of any evidence or information that has to do with the attack, which seems to be the reason why the FBI is using the All Writs Act. What i am trying to figure out is if the FBI is saying that there is evidence on the phone of future attacks, or information about co-conspirators, or some other material that would lead to additional action. From what I have read, there is no indication that is the case. What is it the FBI is gaining by unlocking the phone? Other than a legal precedent.