Judge forces Apple to unlock iPhone

[Rakehellion]

Yes they do have a problem with it. They have a problem with the fact that it's designed to be secure and wipes your sensitive personal data when someone guesses your password incorrectly too many times. That's an important security feature. Apparently, the government wants it to be illegal to sell secure devices that can stay secure.

Legally, no. Realistically, yes.

 

[Ichinisan]

Secure OS platforms are not violations of the law. Do you not understand what this case is about at all?

Thats what Apple is fighting to maintain. If you are forced by law to make your system insecure by defeating your system's security measures, then it's against the law to maintain a secure system.

Free speech isn't free.

It is.

Free speech must obey the law.

The law the law the law...must be constitutional.

 

[CZroe]

Secure OS platforms are not violations of the law. Do you not understand what this case is about at all?







Free speech isn't free. Free speech must obey the law.

.Judges do not make the law. This is unconstitutional and, thus, 100% illegal to force Apple to do this. If a law were passed to compel Apple to do this then the law itself would be illegal. It's happened before (DMCA... *grumble grumble*), but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Rakehellion]

Absolutely WRONG. It's a misunderstanding that it is the government's job to keep us safe.

Laws are intended to keep people safe.

It's their job to ensure our continued freedom/liberty.

If this case is any clue, it's the government's job to restrict freedom and liberty.

Safety only factors in when you threaten someone else's life/liberty while expressing your own.

Self harm is also illegal.

It's why you can smoke and harm your own health but you can't force someone else to breathe your smoke.

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's illegal to force anyone to do anything. Cigarettes and alcohol are legal, but cocaine and marijuana aren't. Prescription drugs are illegal without a doctor's note.

It's illegal to blow smoke in someone's face but it's even more illegal to throw a cup of water in someone's face.

 

[Rakehellion]

.Judges do not make the law. This is unconstitutional and, thus, 100% illegal to force Apple to do this. If a law were passed to compel Apple to do this then the law itself would be illegal. It's happened before (DMCA... *grumble grumble*), but that doesn't make it right.

The FBI is going to lose. This is just a political circlejerk.

 

[Rakehellion]

Thats what Apple is fighting to maintain. If you are forced by law to make your system insecure by defeating your system's security measures, then it's against the law to maintain a secure system.

Apple isn't being forced to do anything. It's still in litigation.

It is.

There are restrictions on free speech.

 

[CZroe]

Laws are intended to keep people safe.







If this case is any clue, it's the government's job to restrict freedom and liberty.







Self harm is also illegal.







You have no idea what you're talking about. It's illegal to force anyone to do anything. Cigarettes and alcohol are legal, but cocaine and marijuana aren't. Prescription drugs are illegal without a doctor's note.



It's illegal to blow smoke in someone's face but it's even more illegal to throw a cup of water in someone's face.

Incorrect. That is the basic misconception most people have that I pointed out earlier. Once again, as defined by the constitution, they only have the power to restrict your liberties where they infringe on someone else's. Thanks for bringing up the drug war because that is one other example of an unconstitutional government policy.

Laws are only supposed to be created "to keep people safe" as a consequence of protecting their liberties from being infringed on by others expressing their liberties (life, pursuit of happiness). You can't force the entire iOS-using public to give up their right to privacy and right against unreasonable search and seizure to issue the digital equivalent of a General Warrant.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution. You aren't the only one, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[CZroe]

Apple isn't being forced to do anything. It's still in litigation.







There are restrictions on free speech.

"Litigation..." to force them. Intelligent people don't play these games. Cut it out.

 

[CZroe]

The FBI is going to lose. This is just a political circlejerk.

Let's hope. Right now it appears that every major politician supports the FBI's view.

 

[Rakehellion]

as defined by the constitution, they only have the power to restrict your liberties where they infringe on someone else's.

So laws can't violate the constitution...

Thanks for bringing up the drug war because that is one other example of an unconstitutional government policy.

...except when they do? What point are you trying to make?

Laws are only supposed to be created "to keep people safe" as a consequence of protecting their liberties from being infringed on by others expressing their liberties

And isn't preventing you from violating another person the very definition of safety?

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution. You aren't the only one, but that doesn't make it right.

And you seem to believe that the constitution is the supreme, inviolable law of the land.

 

[Rakehellion]

"Litigation..." to force them. Intelligent people don't play these games. Cut it out.

Apple hasn't complied with the request. Apple hasn't been forced.

 

[Ichinisan]

Apple isn't being forced to do anything. It's still in litigation.

So trying to force Apple is A-OK because Apple hasn't 100% lost yet? I guess there is no concern that the government is trying to do this? Really?

There are restrictions on free speech.

Yes. When it conflicts with someone else's Liberty and pursuit of happiness (common example: yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and causing a stampede in which people die).

The founders and signers of the US Constitution thought about this a LOT more than any of us.

 

[Ichinisan]

So laws can't violate the constitution...



...except when they do? What point are you trying to make?

Unconstitutional laws exist and politicians are trying to change the meaning of the US Constitution and reinterpret it to erode liberty, so I'm supposed to be OK with every single one of these from now on?

And you seem to believe that the constitution is the supreme, inviolable law of the land.

*facepalm

When it comes to the Federal government, IT IS the "inviolable law of the land."

We can only hope that past reinterpretations and unconstitutional laws are later declared "unconstitutional" and repealed.

 

[Rakehellion]

So trying to force Apple is A-OK because Apple hasn't 100% lost yet? I guess there is no concern that the government is trying to do this? Really?

The government tries to do a lot of things.

Yes. When it conflicts with someone else's Liberty and pursuit of happiness (common example: yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and causing a stampede in which people die).

It isn't illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

And you're really patting yourself on the back with this meaningless distinction between "restricting someone's liberty" and "threatening someone's safety." The latter is a subset of the former.

The founders and signers of the US Constitution thought about this a LOT more than any of us.

Apparently they didn't think enough because that constitution has had a few changes made to it over the years.

 

[Ichinisan]

Apple hasn't complied with the request. Apple hasn't been forced.

OK. I will wait until they ARE forced before I show concern. You know...after precedent has been set.

 

[Ichinisan]

It isn't illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

You're going to be pedantic and talk about when there actually is a fire.

 

[Rakehellion]

I'm supposed to be OK with every single one of these from now on?

You don't have to be okay with anything. It isn't illegal to offend someone over the internet.

When it comes to the Federal government, IT IS the "inviolable law of the land."

It is. Except when it isn't.

We can only hope that past reinterpretations and unconstitutional laws are later declared "unconstitutional" and repealed.

Hope all you want. Or I guess you could vote if you want to make a difference. Or load up your sniper rifle, whatever.

Personally I don't care about the constitution or the law, I care about right and wrong.

 

[Rakehellion]

http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com...-shout-"fire"-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html

 

[Rakehellion]

OK. I will wait until they ARE forced before I show concern. You know...after precedent has been set.

Be concerned all you want, but I think Apple has a lot more power to actually do something about it.

 

[Ichinisan]

Personally I don't care about the constitution or the law, I care about right and wrong.

You don't care about attempts to erode liberty and privacy. Can you blame others for actually caring about it?

 

[CZroe]

So laws can't violate the constitution...

A lawbreaker breaking the law doesn't mean the law doesn't exist. The constitution remains the law of the land. If a law is unconstitutional then it is indefensibly wrong. Understand? Arguing for an unconstitutional action because other actions taken have been unconstitutional is down-right ridiculous.

...except when they do? What point are you trying to make?

A point so simple it seems to have escaped you: It's wrong. Both are wrong.

And isn't preventing you from violating another person the very definition of safety?

Once again: there is no right to safety. You can eat fatty foods until you die if you want to. The government can compel a producer to make you aware of the risks. They can't out-right ban or restrict fried chicken or make you do what's good for you. This is why New York City's laws about sugar and salt are ridiculous violations of liberty.

And you seem to believe that the constitution is the supreme, inviolable law of the land.

That's EXACTLY what it is supposed to be. Only a dribbling moron thinks they have a point by implying it isn't. When the protections aren't enough to prevent an unconstitutional law from being passed, violations are supposed to be detected and expunged. Ever wonder why we no longer have prohibition?

 

[Rakehellion]

You don't care about attempts to erode liberty and privacy.

Nice strawman, kid. I don't care about armchair activism. I don't care about sensationalism.

 

[CZroe]

Apple hasn't complied with the request. Apple hasn't been forced.

Again, intelligent people don't play these games. "You shouldn't be concerned about them wanting to do this because they haven't done it yet."

 

[CZroe]

Nice strawman, kid. I don't care about armchair activism. I don't care about sensationalism.

*facepalm*

 

[Paratus]

Incorrect. "Key" in relation to "backdoor" and "security mechanism" does not always mean "encryption key." You are confused because there are more than one security measures at work. This removes the key to one of them, completely circumvents it instead of going through that "door," so to speak. That is a backdoor. It's a very important security measure too, as evidenced by the fact that it's the only one they need to have removed.

It is UNDENIABLY a back-door around the self-destruct/lockout mechanism designed to prevent brute-force attacks. It is undeniable that this could be used on anyone's iOS device if it could be used on these particular phones. They are literally asking Apple to open the locked doors to millions of innocent customers. It's not OK. That is like having a general warrant. Even if they leave control of it in Apple's hands, Apple will have been forced to circumvent the very security they worked hard to create and it will affect the potential business success they had gone through the effort to obtain.

Disabling a feature that is meant to keep someone from guessing the password, allowing them to crack the password by bruteforce, is a backdoor. It is. Period.

The commonly understood definition of a backdoor is:

A backdoor is a method, often secret, of bypassing normal authentication in a product, computer system, cryptosystem or algorithm etc. Backdoors are often used for securing unauthorized remote access to a computer, or obtaining access to plaintext in cryptographic systems.

While I agree the FBI wants software to obtain unauthorized access to the plaintext data stored on the phone the reported method in no way bypasses normal authentication. In fact the FBI is relying on the authentication system to authorize them to access the decryption key.

If the software was a backdoor there would be no need to brute force the password.
If your interpretation of a software backdoor was correct every system that relied on a password for authentication has a backdoor as anyone can attempt, (at least a limited number of times), to guess the password. That's not how the term is commonly used.

At any rate we're arguing semantics. I've stated my position so I'm going to leave it at that.