5 ms·

In what sense of ownership?

by mentat 11y ago

ikeboy 11y ago
Public funds purchased the phone. I'm not sure what you mean?
- Taniwha 11y ago
  The phone is evidence in a police investigation, they didn't buy it, while its owners are dead surely it belongs to their hiers? or does that whole rule of law thing mean nothing
  - uptown 11y ago
    The phone was a work phone issued by the San Bernardino Health Department, so no - the heirs of the killers didn't assume ownership of the phone. It was always the property of the San Bernardino Health Department.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    http://ktla.com/2016/02/18/why-didnt-san-bernardino-county-officials-have-access-to-the-terrorist-iphone/ http://ktla.com/2016/02/18/why-didnt-san-bernardino-county-o...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- rubyfan 11y ago
  "public funds" is not a single shared bucket of loot that everyone puts into. In this case it was a county owned device. County governments are typically recognized incorporated organizations that have no real line of authority or connection with the federal government. So no, the FBI or federal doesn't have some ownership claim that makes it ok to break into. As others point out they have basically seized the device from its owner in the course of investigation.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    Unless the county was forced to hand it over, this is not relevant.
    - rubyfan 11y ago
      can you explain the comment on relevance a bit more? You said it twice but I'm not seeing your point. Regarding the Director's double speak I think it is relevant. The FBI or federal government is still not the owner. Regardless of whether the device was seized or surrendered the property is still owned by the county. > What he's saying is "we want it both ways". We don't want to take away security for users, we just want to make it easier for someone who's not the owner of the phone to get into it.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        If they have permission from the owner, it's wrong to describe it as trying to get into "someone else's phone". There's no expectation of privacy in a government owned phone.
        newjersey 11y ago
        Who decides paying $1M to get access to a government owned device is appropriate use of public money though? Why didn't they go through proper channels? Why did they reset the iCloud passwords? What steps have they taken to prevent this from happening in the future? The FBI is doing a lot of hand waving and there is no accountability. Where are all those fiscal conservatives when we need them?
        ikeboy 11y ago
        Re icloud, see http://www.computerworld.com/article/3044025/apple-ios/terrorist-changed-icloud-password-disabled-auto-backups-on-his-iphone.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/3044025/apple-ios/terro...

In what sense of ownership?

by mentat 11y ago

In what sense of ownership?

ikeboy 11y ago

Public funds purchased the phone. I'm not sure what you mean?

Taniwha 11y ago
The phone is evidence in a police investigation, they didn't buy it, while its owners are dead surely it belongs to their hiers? or does that whole rule of law thing mean nothing
- uptown 11y ago
  The phone was a work phone issued by the San Bernardino Health Department, so no - the heirs of the killers didn't assume ownership of the phone. It was always the property of the San Bernardino Health Department.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  http://ktla.com/2016/02/18/why-didnt-san-bernardino-county-officials-have-access-to-the-terrorist-iphone/ http://ktla.com/2016/02/18/why-didnt-san-bernardino-county-o...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rubyfan 11y ago
"public funds" is not a single shared bucket of loot that everyone puts into. In this case it was a county owned device. County governments are typically recognized incorporated organizations that have no real line of authority or connection with the federal government. So no, the FBI or federal doesn't have some ownership claim that makes it ok to break into. As others point out they have basically seized the device from its owner in the course of investigation.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  Unless the county was forced to hand it over, this is not relevant.
  - rubyfan 11y ago
    can you explain the comment on relevance a bit more? You said it twice but I'm not seeing your point. Regarding the Director's double speak I think it is relevant. The FBI or federal government is still not the owner. Regardless of whether the device was seized or surrendered the property is still owned by the county. > What he's saying is "we want it both ways". We don't want to take away security for users, we just want to make it easier for someone who's not the owner of the phone to get into it.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      If they have permission from the owner, it's wrong to describe it as trying to get into "someone else's phone". There's no expectation of privacy in a government owned phone.
      - newjersey 11y ago
        Who decides paying $1M to get access to a government owned device is appropriate use of public money though? Why didn't they go through proper channels? Why did they reset the iCloud passwords? What steps have they taken to prevent this from happening in the future? The FBI is doing a lot of hand waving and there is no accountability. Where are all those fiscal conservatives when we need them?
        ikeboy 11y ago
        Re icloud, see http://www.computerworld.com/article/3044025/apple-ios/terrorist-changed-icloud-password-disabled-auto-backups-on-his-iphone.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/3044025/apple-ios/terro...