Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Huh? All Apple is saying is that it will appeal the District Court's decision . . . . it is the lowest court in the Federal Judiciary. It will take it up to the Court of Appeals and, if it loses there, petition the SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari. I have no doubt that they would comply with the final, non-appealable ruling. That's how it is supposed to work.
Personally, I like how this is playing out. I think privacy rights (which is paramount) has to be balanced sensibly with dire law enforcement needs. We all know that the FISA courts are totally rubber stamping machine. Forcing the LE to seek a Federal judge to publicly rule on breaking encryption on the merits and urgency on a case-by-case is a good compromise.
Mick
+2 Mick,
This IS the way it is supposed to work and I for one and happy Apple is protecting privacy rights.
They are going to portray Apple as a terrorist organization for doing this. To sway the publics opinion. To pass statutory laws, that take what apple is protecting for you. Your privacy and personal security.
Apple is wrong on this. They have no right to intentionally hide things from law enforcement. Once the phone is purchased by someone it is their property and LE has every right to get into it for evidence especially with a court order, encryption or not. Tim Cook is just trying to keep his name in the news.
Apple is wrong on this. They have no right to intentionally hide things from law enforcement. Once the phone is purchased by someone it is their property and LE has every right to get into it for evidence especially with a court order, encryption or not. Tim Cook is just trying to keep his name in the news.
I don't think you are framing the issues correctly. Of course, LE has every right to try to break into the guy's iPhone, and they have been. That's not contested.
What's at issue is whether Apple can be forced by LE/courts to decrypt the phone . . . . if they didn't build in a back door, I don't believe they can even though they made the device (I could be wrong). Apple is not hiding anything, as you say. It is a default feature of every device they sell.
I think Apple can and will, but they are going to challenge it up to the Court of Appeals and possibly the SCOTUS. Once there is a final, non-appealable judgment, Apple will do what it can.
It is should be no big deal to ordinary people given what Snowden said the govt monitors anyway. (as we're typing Big Bro' is there too)
Just give it up. Are terrorists (foreign and American) going to have privacy rights too with secret cells behind the corner?
What it tells them, is that they should just get an iPhone and they're safe. The're always this window of opportunity with unsecure ares for terrorists to strike. In this case, they get to use a device develpped by American brains and against them.
If it happens to your friend or family, you will still support Apple? Sounds like a journalist not giving up their sources for who may have committed a murder. I don't know law any more than Law & Order but it may fall into Aiding and Abetting and Impeding or Interfering with a Federal Crime investigation.
If Apple's iOs is so great and super-secure, you think it will not be duplicated on other devices, programs, and apps?
So not only terrorists, but kidnappers, serial killers, sex-trafficking rings, drug lords, corrupt wall street bankers, politicians (can't leave them out) all have Apple's secure phone that will help in never incriminating them.
The think the FBI or NSA will get an Apple employee to hand over the code. They will get strong-armed like J. Edgar Hoover did. (Yes I saw a PBS documentary.) I am not pro-govt, I am anti-terrorist though.
I don't think you are framing the issues correctly. Of course, LE has every right to try to break into the guy's iPhone, and they have been. That's not contested.
What's at issue is whether Apple can be forced by LE/courts to decrypt the phone . . . . if they didn't build in a back door, I don't believe they can even though they made the device (I could be wrong). Apple is not hiding anything, as you say. It is a default feature of every device they sell.
I think Apple can and will, but they are going to challenge it up to the Court of Appeals and possibly the SCOTUS. Once there is a final, non-appealable judgment, Apple will do what it can.
Mick
Even if the SC orders apple to do something it will have to place resources to do. Apple can still say NO.
Why is that?
Because they can.
Government will have to use the business end of a gun, to force compliance.
Then Apple will fully understand why We the People, have a 2nd Amendment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
