8 ms·
FBI Cannot Make Apple Rewrite Its OS
- halis 11y agoIt's definitely an over-reach. If they can force a company to change a product for this, then what's to say they can't slowly extend this precedent to all sorts of abuses of power.
- dogma1138 11y agoThey can draft "Apple" into the military and order it to do it then, there are precedences for this.
- adrianN 11y agoAnd then court-martial and execute Apple for not complying?
- progressive_dad 11y agoAnd then kidnap and sentence their families to hard labor up to the 3rd generation.
- dogma1138 11y agoI'm not saying it's right, I'm saying there are far more extreme options that could be used some of which were used before like drafting doctors and union workers.
- Zigurd 11y agoBefore that happens we might actually get a court test of whether the Executive's interpretation of the terms of whatever vague use-of-force resolutions we are waging a borderless, endless war actually constitute a wartime condition.
- thrillgore 11y agoAnd then theoretically the engineers could point the gun at themselves and fire?
- SteveNuts 11y agoWhat precedent are you talking about?
- dogma1138 11y agoTruman issued an ultimatum to draft coal and railroad workers during the steel strikes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_steel_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_steel_strike There was a doctor's draft in the 50's, there was a more recent general "health care workers" selective draft but I'm not sure where it exactly stands. Basically what Obama can do is issue a requirement to register with the Selective Services Administration as a threat failure to do so can incur heavy fines on each Apple employee. Once they are registered they can draft any engineer they need into military service and order them to do so, if they refuse they can be court marshalled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System This ofcourse will never happen, the most extreme case was under Truman and it was an ultimatum with an apparent executive order drafted but that was enough to bring the steel industry to it's knees and to the table. The funny part is that if anything even remotely extreme happens we might start to see the seeds of the "2nd American Revolution" the one from so many dystopian novels where the world is ruled by corporations Apple, Google, Microsoft and the likes have enough power to seed the "corporate congress" :)
- charonn0 11y agoI'm pretty sure Congress would have to reinstate the draft first.
- dogma1138 11y agoThe draft system was replaced by the SSA it's slightly different now basically they can only draft registered individuals but they also compel individuals to register with the SSA. As far as I know there is not requirement for an act of congress to actually draft people under the SSA and for anything else a presidential order is sufficient.
- csydas 11y agoWhile I definitely share the opinion that the FBI is in the wrong in this instance, I think your position is either poorly worded or misguided on the basis of some semantic points.* To be rather obtusely specific, the FBI has not requested a change in product or even the design of a new product from Apple. I'm sure the FBI was well aware of the subsection of the US code the article is referring to which is why the request was framed as a "one-off tool" to help in an investigation, not a new product, and it's why the FBI itself is not saying it can require Apple, but rather that a court of law is saying Apple has to. Again, this is nitpicking and IANAL, but the limitations section [1] is pretty clear that law enforcement itself cannot impose any requirement as to... [...]require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features, or system configurations to be adopted by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services; or[...] The request being made isn't really covered by the limitations here. While I have full confidence that the end-game of this case for the US government is to add an exception for the creation of "one-off" tools, I don't think that the FBI's request is actually covered by this limitation. The authority of the request doesn't come from law enforcement, it comes from a court, fulfilling the intended limitation that law enforcement can't dictate the design of communication technology for its own purposes. Likewise, while a product of sorts is being created in the form of a law enforcement tool, the FBI isn't actually asking for this to be implemented in the product itself or requiring that Apple make it the standard either. Furthermore, the entire section is discussing the ability to monitor, capture, and terminate communications, not talking about software or hardware itself, which his shared by the statement released by the FBI. [2] Again, cannot stress that I am not a lawyer, but I think the interpretation on CALEA is fairly sound - it's not applicable as the purpose of the section being referenced is not relevant to the request being made. I do think that the request is still wrong regardless of any reasons put forth by the FBI and that it sets a horrible precedent, but this article (and by extension Apple's lawyers) are arguing a weak point using CALEA. [1] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/1002 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/1002 [2] - https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2755290/2016-03-10-149-Gov-Reply-ISO-Mot-to-Compel-Opp.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2755290/2016-03-1... edited for clarity purposes
- 11y ago
- jacobolus 11y agoYesterday’s discussion of this link, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11305065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11305065
- Shivetya 11y agoWell I think this statement needs to be qualified with the word "currently". The basis for the argument is that there is a law the protects Apple and by that same statement it means a law can require it. Let alone I am quite sure the Administration knows the law but as they also know, ignorance is something that has value and can be spent and that ignorance translates into many of the American populace that will simply nod when he states something as true having to be true. The is the capital that politicians spend all the time and sadly it tends to work, maybe not in the end but long enough to get what they want
- nickbauman 11y agoTo me the issue is simple: If a criminal you weren't suspicious of shreds incriminating documents before he commits a crime, you don't make paper shredder companies redesign their paper shredders so that it's easier for law enforcement to reconstruct what's shredded. It's a paper shredder, after all. The same way a person's phone storage is supposed to be really hard to get at: that's it's job.
- kordless 11y agoMoreover, it's simpler to blame someone else for the result of your own actions. The perception breaking encryption will solve all their "problems" and allow them to get back to reducing suffering to zero is a fallacy. Our government's historic actions have had just as much part to play in this drama as anything. You reap what you sow. The real fallacy here is the idea that the government is 100% responsible for "keeping us safe". In reality, it's me that keeps me safe most of the time. I expect them to deal with larger threats, such as North Korea. I expect all of us to deal with smaller threats, and understand shit happens sometimes that we wish hadn't.
- DonHopkins 11y agoAnd even larger threats than terrorists, like toddlers with guns. [1] [1] http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/ http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/
- EdHominem 11y agoI don't have a toddler or own a gun. Clearly, I am invincible.
- bargl 11y agoI want to go on record saying I agree with the idea that more control of guns is necessary, and I use this statistic to beat into my father's thick skull that guns are a problem in the USA. But I think a better intro into the problem is Vox. http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-sta... There are a LOT of decent arguments people in the US use to keep guns in the hands of their citizens. The most compelling one for me is that if you want to take my guns then lets have a plan in place to severely reduce the number of guns police have. That resonates with me on a personal level but I'm not expecting the police to give up all guns until results are shown on both sides. I can only think of Swatting in the USA. If I can prank call the police and they swat my neighbors house how can we say that citizens are the only problem here. http://time.com/2916554/aclu-police-militarized-report-swat-war-comes-home/ http://time.com/2916554/aclu-police-militarized-report-swat-... I use swat teams as an example of the paramilitarization of police that bothers me and is another side of the gun problem in the USA. If they broken into houses with battons and stun guns this would be bad but a different story.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ucaetano 11y agoThis is when German comes in handy: - Können sie? (are they able to?): yes - Darfen sie? (are they allowed to?): some say yes, some say no
- CocaKoala 11y agoIn English, that distinction can be made with "Can the FBI do this?" and "May the FBI do this"; yes, they can (they have the ability), no, they may not (the law does not allow them to). This lesson is taught to children thus: "Mother, can I have a cookie?" "I don't know, child of mine. Can you?" "Mother, MAY I have a cookie?" "Yes, child of mine. You may." Of course, in English the term "may" is semantically overloaded with a "will they/won't they" sort of question, so it's still unclear depending on how you parse it. But it's unclear for a different reason!
- ucaetano 11y ago"Of course, in English the term "may" is semantically overloaded with a "will they/won't they" sort of question, so it's still unclear depending on how you parse it. But it's unclear for a different reason!" Actually that's the original meaning of "may" in english, similar, and derived from the same root, to the modal verb mögen in German, expressing a possibility of something happening. In other words: - Can (können) = to really be able to - May (mögen) = expresses the possibility, but not the permission - ??? (dürfen) = to be authorized to The past of "may" is "might", which helps understand it.
- dostick 11y agoWhat if there was a catastrophic event, like asteroid heading for earth estimated to destroy all life on the planet. and one NASA scientist figured out how to stop it for sure using math formula. But he died suddenly of heart attack. Saved the formula in the Notes app on his iPhone. And now NASA asks Apple to break encryption, so they can access the formula and stop the event that will destroy the planet. Will Apple comply in this case? (I think they will) What if asteroid is estimated to take out only one country ?(they probably will comply) One city? Small village? Just one person? Not trolling, I'm all for privacy and support Apple.
- Zigurd 11y agoThat's worse than the never-ever-actually-happened "ticking time bomb." There is no need to address this hypothetical because the odds of this happening are far lower than the odds of getting wiped out by an asteroid.
- helen842000 11y agoThey're not asking for 1 specific phone to be unlocked here. They're asking for ALL Apple phones to be built to withstand brute force attempts without wiping data in case they need to access it in the future.
- simonh 11y agoAssuming Apple refused, the government would draft an emergency law requiring them to do it, or possibly the President could issue an executive order. Job done. The question at hand is, does the law as it stands now require Apple to comply with this request, and if not will a law be passed that does require them to do so.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoThe time would be better spent redoing the scientist's work.
- foobarrio 11y agoThe argument is still the same. This a cost/benefit thing. The cost to society of forcing Apple to comply right now is greater than the benefit of unlocking a single phone and setting a precedent and handing more power to the FBI. If an asteroid was going to wipe out the earth, well then the cost/benefit analysis shifts quite a bit doesn't it?
- exelius 11y agoObama is right - it is an increasingly terrifying world. But I'm more terrified of hugely powerful centralized governments with the ability to get to any person, anywhere in the world than I am a group of poorly organized, illiterate goat herders 4000 miles away. Just remember the US government is directly responsible for the deaths of more US citizens every year than all terror groups in the world combined over the last decade. Which is a more realistic threat to the average American - being killed by a police officer or being killed by a terrorist?
- chrismcb 11y agoIs it though? Is it increasingly terrifying, or does the media just portray it that way?
- exelius 11y agoIt is; if only for the fact that the very small number of violent radicals can organize more effectively than ever while also having access to better murder techniques than ever before. I'm personally terrified of the day someone decides to strap a claymore to the bottom of a drone and detonate it ~100 feet above a large crowd. That's the day that outdoor public gatherings become unsafe for the remainder of human history.
- evilduck 11y agoNew means of killing people doesn't really make large gatherings any less safe. Suicide bombers already blow up large crowds of people all over the world. The drone and claymore is probably already less effective and more costly than the current methods of just holding someone's family hostage and forcing them into a crowd with way more explosives than a drone would carry.
- nitrogen 11y agoI'm reminded of the scene in Back to the Future where Doc reveals that he got his nuclear fuel from terrorists. The name of the country has changed, but the problem is an old one. The biggest thing we can do to keep people safe is to stop giving desperate people the means and motive to kill.
- Zigurd 11y agoJust became not theoretical: http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/16/03/17/apple-employees-threaten-to-quit-if-forced-to-build-govtos-report-says http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/16/03/17/apple-emplo...
- nerdponx 11y agoI really appreciate how the author went out of their way to empathize with and humanize the president