` A federal judge in Brooklyn says the FBI cannot force Apple to open a locked iPhone used by a suspected drug dealer.The ruling is a boost to Apple in the public opinion war with the federal government over access to locked devices. Though it is not binding on a judge in California who is now considering the separate case of access to a locked iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino attackers, it gives the company a leg up, and Apple will be sure to cite it in that ongoing dispute. The massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., left 14 people dead, and investigators searching for answers. U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein said the FBI could not compel Apple to unlock the phone in the Brooklyn case, because Congress specifically considered and rejected a bill that would require companies like Apple to make the data on a locked iPhone available to law enforcement." - Source ` *****************` This case is about civil liberties, specifically, how far can the government violate them. There are some very scared people, irrationally so, of supposed terrorism that will gladly sacrifice their right to privacy to the government for a perceived sense of security. I am not one of them. ` ` ` ` `
US invites experts to hack the Pentagon... Pentagon invites hackers in and backs encryption Wed, 02 Mar 2016 - The US defence secretary Ash Carter invites hackers to help find security holes and backs strong encryption, amid the fight between Apple and the FBI.
I read this story in Yahoo! news. The magistrate conceded that a matter of national security is independent of this drug case and has ruled accordingly. The FBI will continue to pursue the Farook (San Bernardino) case and I believe they will prevail. This is a matter of national security and not to be taken lightly. I can only imagine 2 outcomes from this: 1. Apple can work with the FBI this one time and allow the FBI to "brute force" (break into) the phone by providing a modification to the phone's firmware that will override the 10 failure erasure. This will limit the legal ramifications to this one incident, although it will be used as a soft (non-binding) precedent that will verify that Apple has the ability to do this and that the capability either exists or can be recreated. 2. Apple can keep resisting this case and the Justice Department will take this through the courts to the highest one in a series of appeals and counter appeals until this is resolved. Since this involves a terrorist act and involves national security, I doubt Apple has much of a chance. Since they created the encryption scheme to foil law enforcement and create a safe harbor for illegal activity to anyone that wants to buy it, I doubt that Apple will prevail. If the feds win on this one, this will create a hard legal precedent and any cop in Podunk, USA can goes to Joe's Justice of the Peace and Grain and Feed to get a court order to open up a phone. This will not only apply to Apple, but any digital device maker that tries to force encryption against law enforcement. I believe Apple battling the FBI on this would be a fool's errand. Yes. If it can happen in the US, it can happen anywhere. It can happen anywhere anyway. Something that global companies have to contend with are local rules, regulations and laws. Countries can nationalize businesses within their borders on a whim. It is not the responsibility of the US to shield businesses from other countries' laws, just like other countries do not force US laws within their own borders. The US Constitution ends once you go outside the US. This is not a civil liberties issue. Due process is being used in the courts in pursuit of a criminal terrorist act and civil liberties can be suspended in the interest of law enforcement. To say that someone can commit a crime and then expect their butt selfies to be Constitutionally protected is ludicrous. Information from laptops, desktops and tablet computers are seized and inspected lawfully in criminal investigations. This is just an extension of that.
Ash Carter Warns Against Tech 'Back Doors'... US Defense Secretary Warns Against Tech 'Back Doors' March 03, 2016 - U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter said Wednesday he opposes "a single technical approach" as a solution to the complex legal battle between Apple and the FBI.
` This isn't about terrorist civil liberties, it's about American civil liberties. On one side you have those who are so scared of a potential terrorist attacking that they are urinating in their pants and are willing to give up such rights for the illusion of security. Not so with the rest of us. Apple has a strong case and it is my sincere hope they prevail.
The FBI isn't asking for a back door. They are asking for the capability to "brute force" the phone while it is under Apple's watchful eye.
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence,it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. Attributed to Washington.
How are terrorists different from other criminals? To me, a mass murderer is a mass murderer regardless of motive.
The rest of the World has not this protection as do U.S. Citizens, In any other Country, that information would have been retrieved with little ado.
On the other hand, contemplate this scenario, a LEO has a known Terrorist in custody, the Terrorist knows the locations to the many bombs he has planted in a major city, that information is also on his phone, I have only X hours to get this information and dispatch bomb squad personnel to each location and isolate each device, how far should I be allowed to go in order to get this information ? By the way, your wife, unknown to you will get blown up by one of the bombs, if I am not able to get the information in time. How far should I be allowed to go ? tic tock, tic tock, tic tock........ precious time is a wasting..... tic tock, tic tock, tic tock, tic tock, tic tock, tic tock.......... A warrant just like the ones normally obtained for wire tapping ( year 1939) should be sufficient.
