Another poll question whose answer "depends" on how you take the question.
The American judicial "system", in some instances, allows a defendant to legally disagree with a court's ruling, thereby allowing the case to go to a higher court.
At some point, be it a local court, appealate, district, or, finally, the U.S. Supreme Court.
I am all for Apple following the process it is legally allowed to, to whatever conclusion it ends with.
I don't know for sure, but, I'm guessing, should the final "allowable" court rule against Apple, they will "open" that phone. I don't believe Tim Cook (Apple CEO) wants to go to jail.
But, I do believe in his (Apple's) right to use our system of law. I would ask nonetheless, should I ever need that RIGHT.
Yes, that's all fine and good and a nice, balanced view, but this isn't just about that one iPhone. If that one gets opened, they all get opened, potentially jeopardizing all of our 4th amendment rights, exposing us to criminals and hackers and foreign agents, including employees of the CIA and NSA. (and the precedent would be set, so this isn't just about iPhones).
Of course the iPhone should be unlocked, and this is being done the right way, through the legal system. The government should be able to gain access to private information, with a search warrant, in order to investigate illegal activity and establish whether a crime was part of a larger network. Apple is not special.
John McAfee has absolutely no tie with the antivirus software any longer, he took the money and ran. Also, McAfee antivirus cannot protect against malware because it invades your browser, not your hard drive, especially Google Chrome. For that protection you need Malwarebytes, that sucker works and it works well. It will fix things right up for free for fourteen days and is recommended by Google Chrome. This is an unpaid endorsement by someone who downloads way too much risky stuff (no porno) for that I go to YouPorn or PornHub.
Lori, the hold-up could be for the fact that he is a strong suspect in murdering his neighbor a few years ago. I don't know, maybe he is offering on the condition that authorities drop any potential charges against him for him unlocking the device. I'd let that man rot before dealing with him.
Useful links, especially the first one, which makes it very clear, this isn't just about unlocking one iPhone. It's about unlocking all iPhones so the government, or any foreign government, or criminals can more easily access your data. It puts in clear terms what's involved. It's not just a matter of writing a simple piece of software and the destroying it, as the FBI would like you believe. It opens the entire Pandora's Box.
Doesn't really matter if my 1st response was all fine and good and a nice, balanced view, Howard. What matters is the U.S. laws.
Again, entities such as Apple, along with individuals, are afforded, in some circumstances, the LEGAL ability to "out-wait" court orders, until their "journey" through the legal system reaches it's ultimate LEGAL end.
At that point, it will be up to Tim Cook to decide whether he (his company) follows the final court's order. He may well be willing to sit in jail, indefinitely, but, I'm betting against that. And, I certainly don't know, but, I'm guessing the decision isn't Mr. Cook's sole decision. I believe the answer belongs to Apple's "board".
As Howard pointed out though there are 2 issues as I see it. 1) They want access to Farooks phone , very legitimate and reasonable.
the #2 Though I find unreasonable, the order is also demanding that Apple install in the operating system a key that justice can use to unlock ANY phone they need to. THATS what Apple is fightting and rightly so. The Govt has no right to do this and just at the surface it gives them the ability to get into data without a court order. Too much room for abuse just with the legitimate use of what the FBI is demanding. Let alone creating a back door for hackers to also steal data.
I don't see Apple's board of directors backing down anytime soon...
Ed, I think you miss my point, which Kyle gets. Yes, Apple has a right to fight the court order. Over Farook's phone. But the government doesn't have the right to get access to my phone without a warrant (though some believe the Patriot Act already allows that). The government isn't just asking for access to Farook's phone. It's also asking for access to mine, too, and yours (if you have an iPhone). That violates the 4th Amendment in my mind.
Nope. I don't, and wouldn't, own an iphone. Just as I wouldn't own any Apple product. Not saying they are good products. Just that I believe they're over-priced.
But, then again, I'm the kind that wouldn't pay $300 for a pair of Jordans. Maybe, if wearing them magically gave me the ability to jump 4-feet high & run circles around others on the court, I might believe they were worth the money they charge. But, just to brag that "I got Jordan's - nyah-nyah"! ? It ain't happenin'
I find it so hard to believe that my fellow Americans are so willing to give up our rights, in this case the 4th, for some false sense of security. stop being afraid of death as it is the one thing we all must do.
Was just listening to (today's) news on the radio. Heard a spokesperson from the "Justice Dept." claim, again, that this case of U.S. vs. Apple is ONLY about this one phone (and, that it wouldn't be used for other phones).
Why doesn't Apple enter into a legal contract with the U.S. Justice Dept.?
Contract could guarantee a fine of $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion dollars) should the govt. default, and use the "workaround" for any phone except the single "terrorist" phone.
Sort of a "put your money where your mouth is" contract.
Of course, I'm guessing that the U.S. would never sign such a contract, because they have no intention to limiting this to one phone.
Either way, this will be decided fairly soon (I think). Apple is running out of courts to appeal to.
Another poll question whose
Another poll question whose answer "depends" on how you take the question.
The American judicial "system", in some instances, allows a defendant to legally disagree with a court's ruling, thereby allowing the case to go to a higher court.
At some point, be it a local court, appealate, district, or, finally, the U.S. Supreme Court.
I am all for Apple following the process it is legally allowed to, to whatever conclusion it ends with.
I don't know for sure, but, I'm guessing, should the final "allowable" court rule against Apple, they will "open" that phone. I don't believe Tim Cook (Apple CEO) wants to go to jail.
But, I do believe in his (Apple's) right to use our system of law. I would ask nonetheless, should I ever need that RIGHT.
Yes, that's all fine and good
Yes, that's all fine and good and a nice, balanced view, but this isn't just about that one iPhone. If that one gets opened, they all get opened, potentially jeopardizing all of our 4th amendment rights, exposing us to criminals and hackers and foreign agents, including employees of the CIA and NSA. (and the precedent would be set, so this isn't just about iPhones).
Of course the iPhone should
Of course the iPhone should be unlocked, and this is being done the right way, through the legal system. The government should be able to gain access to private information, with a search warrant, in order to investigate illegal activity and establish whether a crime was part of a larger network. Apple is not special.
Absolutely! This was a
Absolutely! This was a government issued phone for Syed Farook, who was a health inspector for San Bernadino County.
John McAfee of the antivirus software company has offered to get into it. I don't know what the hold-up is in letting him do it.
John McAfee has absolutely no
John McAfee has absolutely no tie with the antivirus software any longer, he took the money and ran. Also, McAfee antivirus cannot protect against malware because it invades your browser, not your hard drive, especially Google Chrome. For that protection you need Malwarebytes, that sucker works and it works well. It will fix things right up for free for fourteen days and is recommended by Google Chrome. This is an unpaid endorsement by someone who downloads way too much risky stuff (no porno) for that I go to YouPorn or PornHub.
Lori, the hold-up could be
Lori, the hold-up could be for the fact that he is a strong suspect in murdering his neighbor a few years ago. I don't know, maybe he is offering on the condition that authorities drop any potential charges against him for him unlocking the device. I'd let that man rot before dealing with him.
I didn't know that Mike, and
I didn't know that Mike, and that would sure explain it!
Useful links, especially the
Useful links, especially the first one, which makes it very clear, this isn't just about unlocking one iPhone. It's about unlocking all iPhones so the government, or any foreign government, or criminals can more easily access your data. It puts in clear terms what's involved. It's not just a matter of writing a simple piece of software and the destroying it, as the FBI would like you believe. It opens the entire Pandora's Box.
https://medium.com/@gernot/why-tim-cook-is-so-furious-be24163bdfa#.lzob…
This clears up a lot of misinformation
https://medium.com/@thegrugq/feeble-noise-pollution-627acb5931a2#.hblj0…
Even a retired general who served as director of the CIA and NSA under Clinton and Bush says the FBI is wrong.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/former-director-of-cia-and-nsa-s…
Doesn't really matter if my
Doesn't really matter if my 1st response was all fine and good and a nice, balanced view, Howard. What matters is the U.S. laws.
Again, entities such as Apple, along with individuals, are afforded, in some circumstances, the LEGAL ability to "out-wait" court orders, until their "journey" through the legal system reaches it's ultimate LEGAL end.
At that point, it will be up to Tim Cook to decide whether he (his company) follows the final court's order. He may well be willing to sit in jail, indefinitely, but, I'm betting against that. And, I certainly don't know, but, I'm guessing the decision isn't Mr. Cook's sole decision. I believe the answer belongs to Apple's "board".
As Howard pointed out though
As Howard pointed out though there are 2 issues as I see it. 1) They want access to Farooks phone , very legitimate and reasonable.
the #2 Though I find unreasonable, the order is also demanding that Apple install in the operating system a key that justice can use to unlock ANY phone they need to. THATS what Apple is fightting and rightly so. The Govt has no right to do this and just at the surface it gives them the ability to get into data without a court order. Too much room for abuse just with the legitimate use of what the FBI is demanding. Let alone creating a back door for hackers to also steal data.
I don't see Apple's board of directors backing down anytime soon...
Ed, I think you miss my point
Ed, I think you miss my point, which Kyle gets. Yes, Apple has a right to fight the court order. Over Farook's phone. But the government doesn't have the right to get access to my phone without a warrant (though some believe the Patriot Act already allows that). The government isn't just asking for access to Farook's phone. It's also asking for access to mine, too, and yours (if you have an iPhone). That violates the 4th Amendment in my mind.
Here's another good explainer link.
http://fusion.net/story/271636/apples-battle-with-the-fbi/
everybody go back to a flip
everybody go back to a flip phone. (had to throw some humor in this conversation)
Nope. I don't, and wouldn't,
Nope. I don't, and wouldn't, own an iphone. Just as I wouldn't own any Apple product. Not saying they are good products. Just that I believe they're over-priced.
But, then again, I'm the kind that wouldn't pay $300 for a pair of Jordans. Maybe, if wearing them magically gave me the ability to jump 4-feet high & run circles around others on the court, I might believe they were worth the money they charge. But, just to brag that "I got Jordan's - nyah-nyah"! ? It ain't happenin'
I find it so hard to believe
I find it so hard to believe that my fellow Americans are so willing to give up our rights, in this case the 4th, for some false sense of security. stop being afraid of death as it is the one thing we all must do.
Was just listening to (today
Was just listening to (today's) news on the radio. Heard a spokesperson from the "Justice Dept." claim, again, that this case of U.S. vs. Apple is ONLY about this one phone (and, that it wouldn't be used for other phones).
Then, I came across this headline: "U.S. Department of Justice asks another judge to force Apple to unlock an iPhone in New York"
from http://mashable.com/2016/03/08/doj-apple-unlock-iphone-new-york/#eysnAY…
Why doesn't Apple enter into a legal contract with the U.S. Justice Dept.?
Contract could guarantee a fine of $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion dollars) should the govt. default, and use the "workaround" for any phone except the single "terrorist" phone.
Sort of a "put your money where your mouth is" contract.
Of course, I'm guessing that the U.S. would never sign such a contract, because they have no intention to limiting this to one phone.
Either way, this will be decided fairly soon (I think). Apple is running out of courts to appeal to.