Judge forces Apple to unlock iPhone

[fskimospy]

You are allowed free speech, but if your speech does not abide by the law, you are free to stop speaking. There is no law forcing any company to produce cars.

There is no law forcing any company to produce iPhones. You still haven't answered how this is any different than cars being required to have seat belts.

Again, this is a bad ruling for many reasons, it's just not a bad ruling because all software is protected speech under the first amendment, and certainly every product created is not protected speech. That's stupid.

 

[CZroe]

There is no law forcing any company to produce iPhones. You still haven't answered how this is any different than cars being required to have seat belts.



Again, this is a bad ruling for many reasons, it's just not a bad ruling because all software is protected speech under the first amendment, and certainly every product created is not protected speech. That's stupid.

When I build a go kart for use on my own track it doesn't have to have seat belts. The government does not own the telecommunication infrastructure. Even if they did, this applies to stand-alone mobile devices just the same (WiFi iPad/iPod, for example). Our constitutional protections aren't ignores just because the FCC controls the airwaves anyway. They have to operate within the bounds of the constitution. The dealt belt analogy is laughably inaccurate. This amounts to unreasonable search and seizure, not protecting users from the danger of having their personal devices be secure.

 

[fskimospy]

When I build a go kart for use on my own track it doesn't have to have seat belts. The government does not own the telecommunication infrastructure. Even if they did, this applies to stand-alone mobile devices just the same (WiFi iPad/iPod, for example). Our constitutional protections aren't ignores just because the FCC controls the airwaves anyway. They have to operate within the bounds of the constitution. The dealt belt analogy is laughably inaccurate. This amounts to unreasonable search and seizure, not protecting users from the danger of having their personal devices be secure.

How is it inaccurate? I agree that Apple shouldn't be forced to create a back door, just not for the reason that everything you create is speech.

 

[CZroe]

How is it inaccurate? I agree that Apple shouldn't be forced to create a back door, just not for the reason that everything you create is speech.

Again, seat belts are a condition of using a roadway that does not belong to the manufacturer or the owner or any other private company and is for public safety. Driving in public roads is a privilege and the seat belt requirement does not affect a constitutional right.

The government does not own my iPad. The government does not own my cable or telephone line. The government does not own the proprietary telecommunication networks, no matter how open the owners chose to make them. The demand would compromise public safety and deny constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure to millions of Americans.

They are not comparable in any way.

 

[realibrad]

There is no law forcing any company to produce iPhones. You still haven't answered how this is any different than cars being required to have seat belts.

Again, this is a bad ruling for many reasons, it's just not a bad ruling because all software is protected speech under the first amendment, and certainly every product created is not protected speech. That's stupid.

I'll answer.

Seatbelts are a direct safety measure. If you get into an accident they offer a big improvement in the likelihood of reducing injury. The downside of seatbelts are so mild that they become worth the mandate. There is some increased cost and some very narrow risk increases in some very limited situations. This the cost benefit is weighed in favor.

Cracking the iPhone OS is a huge risk. You don't need me to go into all the implications but the benefits are greatly outweighed by the costs. It would be bad if just the gov had is, but if it got out into the wild holy shit. The gov could not keep its Iran nuke virus from getting out.

 

[waggy]

You guys are wrong in the seat belt issue but not how you guys think. Granted i haven't read every post in the thread so this may have been said but you guys are ignoring it.

IF you own a car that predates the law on seatbelts they won't force you to go and rebuild the car to include them. I can legally drive a model T down the road without seatbelts.

what the government is trying to do is force apple to put in a "seatbelt*" at the cost of apples time.


*though it actually has nothing to do with safety and could actually decrease it and our rights.

 

[realibrad]

Again, seat belts are a condition of using a roadway that does not belong to the manufacturer or the owner or any other private company and is for public safety. Driving in public roads is a privilege and the seat belt requirement does not affect a constitutional right.

The government does not own my iPad. The government does not own my cable or telephone line. The government does not own the proprietary telecommunication networks, no matter how open the owners chose to make them. The demand would compromise public safety and deny constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure to millions of Americans.

They are not comparable in any way.

They do own the spectrum which is very analogous to roadways. It can also be a safety issue.

 

[waggy]

They do own the spectrum which is very analogous to roadways. It can also be a safety issue.

how is it a safety issue? way i see it having a backdoor is MORE UNSAFE then having it as it is.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll answer.

Seatbelts are a direct safety measure. If you get into an accident they offer a big improvement in the likelihood of reducing injury. The downside of seatbelts are so mild that they become worth the mandate. There is some increased cost and some very narrow risk increases in some very limited situations. This the cost benefit is weighed in favor.

Cracking the iPhone OS is a huge risk. You don't need me to go into all the implications but the benefits are greatly outweighed by the costs. It would be bad if just the gov had is, but if it got out into the wild holy shit. The gov could not keep its Iran nuke virus from getting out.

So wait, you're saying seatbelts are speech? You don't seem to be answering my question at all.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, seat belts are a condition of using a roadway that does not belong to the manufacturer or the owner or any other private company and is for public safety. Driving in public roads is a privilege and the seat belt requirement does not affect a constitutional right.

The government does not own my iPad. The government does not own my cable or telephone line. The government does not own the proprietary telecommunication networks, no matter how open the owners chose to make them. The demand would compromise public safety and deny constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure to millions of Americans.

They are not comparable in any way.

What does the fourth amendment have to do with the first? I'm confused.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'll answer.

Seatbelts are a direct safety measure. If you get into an accident they offer a big improvement in the likelihood of reducing injury. The downside of seatbelts are so mild that they become worth the mandate. There is some increased cost and some very narrow risk increases in some very limited situations. This the cost benefit is weighed in favor.

Cracking the iPhone OS is a huge risk. You don't need me to go into all the implications but the benefits are greatly outweighed by the costs. It would be bad if just the gov had is, but if it got out into the wild holy shit. The gov could not keep its Iran nuke virus from getting out.

I don't think that's the correct argument. It has nothing to do with the relative merits of seat belts vs. a security circumvention. Instead, in the case of seat belts, Congress passed a law that required future compliance for any company choosing to manufacture automobiles. Congress didn't impose it retroactively, and it left manufacturers with a choice to either comply or get out of the business.

Apple isn't being given a choice. Congress did not pass a law requiring future phones to have a means of circumventing passcode security. Instead, a judge is ordering Apple to develop such a mechanism and to install it retroactively. Unlike those car manufacturers, Apple can't decide to ignore the judge's order by getting out of the phone business.

So those are the two key differences, IMO. It was a judge instead of Congress, and it unconditionally forced development of something new instead of setting a new requirement for future products.

 

[realibrad]

So wait, you're saying seatbelts are speech? You don't seem to be answering my question at all.

Oh sorry I'm at the airport. I thought you were just looking at an explanation as to how they were different.

Speech has been changed as of late. Because actions carry implicit speech I suppose you could make an argument that it's speech, but that is messy and not needed when there are better arguments.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh sorry I'm at the airport. I thought you were just looking at an explanation as to how they were different.

Speech has been changed as of late. Because actions carry implicit speech I suppose you could make an argument that it's speech, but that is messy and not needed when there are better arguments.

I know they are different and I don't support Apple being forced to crack their own devices. The only thing I said was that their argument that this was a free speech issue is bullshit. iPhone firmware is not speech. If it is then basically everything is speech and we don't want to go there.

 

[Bowfinger]

You guys are wrong in the seat belt issue but not how you guys think. Granted i haven't read every post in the thread so this may have been said but you guys are ignoring it.

IF you own a car that predates the law on seatbelts they won't force you to go and rebuild the car to include them. I can legally drive a model T down the road without seatbelts.

what the government is trying to do is force apple to put in a "seatbelt*" at the cost of apples time.


*though it actually has nothing to do with safety and could actually decrease it and our rights.

Yes, and even more than that, it's requiring Apple to develop a "seatbelt" that doesn't exist today.

 

[realibrad]

I don't think that's the correct argument. It has nothing to do with the relative merits of seat belts vs. a security circumvention. Instead, in the case of seat belts, Congress passed a law that required future compliance for any company choosing to manufacture automobiles. Congress didn't impose it retroactively, and it left manufacturers with a choice to either comply or get out of the business.

Apple isn't being given a choice. Congress did not pass a law requiring future phones to have a means of circumventing passcode security. Instead, a judge is ordering Apple to develop such a mechanism and to install it retroactively. Unlike those car manufacturers, Apple can't decide to ignore the judge's order by getting out of the phone business.

So those are the two key differences, IMO. It was a judge instead of Congress, and it unconditionally forced development of something new instead of setting a new requirement for future products.

So the better argument is that Apple has to do it retroactively vs seatbelts that were grandfathered in? All that argument does is give a reason to not do it for past OS's. The next upgrade would have to include it.

 

[realibrad]

I know they are different and I don't support Apple being forced to crack their own devices. The only thing I said was that their argument that this was a free speech issue is bullshit. iPhone firmware is not speech. If it is then basically everything is speech and we don't want to go there.

Well, then what is speech? Are clothes speech? What about art? Speech does need to be loose. I'm not going to make the speech argument because I think there are better ones.

 

[Bowfinger]

So the better argument is that Apple has to do it retroactively vs seatbelts that were grandfathered in? All that argument does is give a reason to not do it for past OS's. The next upgrade would have to include it.

Yes, I believe Congress could pass such a law, and it would be arguably Constitutional. I think it would be a bad law, but that's a different issue.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, then what is speech? Are clothes speech? What about art? Speech does need to be loose. I'm not going to make the speech argument because I think there are better ones.

I would say that speech, broadly, is something where you are trying to communicate something. Apple is not trying to communicate with its customers with iPhone firmware. If phone firmware counts as speech, that definition of speech is so broad as to encompass almost anything. That sounds like a really bad idea to me.

 

[realibrad]

Yes, I believe Congress could pass such a law, and it would be arguably Constitutional. I think it would be a bad law, but that's a different issue.

So how is your argument better when mine addresses the much bigger issue of not forcing them to do it at all? Yours just delays it for a short time.

 

[CZroe]

You guys are wrong in the seat belt issue but not how you guys think. Granted i haven't read every post in the thread so this may have been said but you guys are ignoring it.

IF you own a car that predates the law on seatbelts they won't force you to go and rebuild the car to include them. I can legally drive a model T down the road without seatbelts.

what the government is trying to do is force apple to put in a "seatbelt*" at the cost of apples time.


*though it actually has nothing to do with safety and could actually decrease it and our rights.

No. There is a technical reason why they CANNOT ask for this "seat belt" even in future iPhones. That is the issue.

They do own the spectrum which is very analogous to roadways. It can also be a safety issue.

What does the cellular spectrum have to do with my iPad or iPod? It's completely unrelated to that. It's not analogous at all. Stop trying.

What does the fourth amendment have to do with the first? I'm confused.

Go on being confused then. They have the first amendment right to protect your fourth amendment right with their code/features. Their support of your right to privacy as expressed in code is being improperly threatened in direct violation of BOTH amendments.

 

[fskimospy]

No. There is a technical reason why they CANNOT ask for this "seat belt" even in future iPhones. That is the issue.

What does the cellular spectrum have to do with my iPad or iPod? It's completely unrelated to that. It's not analogous at all. Stop trying.

Go on being confused then. They have the first amendment right to protect your fourth amendment right with their code/features. Their support of your right to privacy as expressed in code is being improperly threatened in direct violation of BOTH amendments.

Can you explain why their first amendment rights are being violated? Do you consider phone firmware to be speech? If you do, what is not speech?

 

[realibrad]

I would say that speech, broadly, is something where you are trying to communicate something. Apple is not trying to communicate with its customers with iPhone firmware. If phone firmware counts as speech, that definition of speech is so broad as to encompass almost anything. That sounds like a really bad idea to me.

Well that is the double edge sword of speech. Speech can be explicit or implicit. It's ambiguous and amorphous. There is an argument that all action is speech. It gets really murky and that's why I think there are better arguments.

 

[CZroe]

So how is your argument better when mine addresses the much bigger issue of not forcing them to do it at all? Yours just delays it for a short time.

I addressed that. It remains unconstitutional even for future devices. They do not have the authority to compel Apple to remove a security mechanism that can be used to break into my and everyone else's phones. That is akin to denying us our constitutional rights in the same way as general warrants, which is exactly what that right was intended to protect us from.

 

[realibrad]

No. There is a technical reason why they CANNOT ask for this "seat belt" even in future iPhones. That is the issue.



What does the cellular spectrum have to do with my iPad or iPod? It's completely unrelated to that. It's not analogous at all. Stop trying.



Go on being confused then. They have the first amendment right to protect your fourth amendment right with their code/features. Their support of your right to privacy as expressed in code is being improperly threatened in direct violation of BOTH amendments.

The spectrum is like a road. Those devices typically connect to a network that is on a regulated network.

 

[CZroe]

The spectrum is like a road. Those devices typically connect to a network that is on a regulated network.

No. They don't. There are far more iPods and iPads connecting over unregulated WiFi than cellular. 700MHz, 900MHz, 2.4GHz, 5GHz, etc were all set aside for unregulated consumer use as long as they don't cause interference outside of their intended operational frequencies and output power is limited. I can disrupt 2.4GHz with my pirate signal all I want as long as my output power and range are limited so that most people can get away from my disruption to do whatever they want to do with it.

Even for cellular frequencies, the spectrum slices are sold for commercial use by corporations entitled to the same constitutional rights to do with as they please as long as it does not infringe on someone's use of another slice they have paid for. It is not comparable at all. I can take a car to a private race track without seat belts if I want because it isn't their road. Once they've sold that frequency without stipulations, it isn't theirs to change the rules after the fact.

Think about POTS: is it OK for the US government to just steal AT&T's phone system because... ? No. They can subsidize access for rural service. Fine. They can't just take it.