reddogblitz Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Another factor in this: the reason they're suing to get Apple to unlock the phone is because someone (one of the shooter's co-workers) changed the password two days after the attack. So the government can't sync the phone to the iCloud and get the data that way, as they usually would. So torture him/her til they give it up. What's the big deal? Are all the black sites full? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 So torture him/her til they give it up. What's the big deal? Are all the black sites full? They don't even know who it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) Another factor in this: the reason they're suing to get Apple to unlock the phone is because someone (one of the shooter's co-workers) changed the password two days after the attack. So the government can't sync the phone to the iCloud and get the data that way, as they usually would. So rather than do the investigative work of identifying who changed the password (and charging him with obstruction, and getting the new password)...they'd rather claim Apple is being obstructionist, and make a legal case out of that. Yeah, this isn't about San Bernadino. They're just using it as an excuse to break commercial encryption standards. They don't even know who it is. How many CO workers did he have? Torture them all til one of 'em cracks and cops to it and gives it up. This is a matter of national security. Edited February 20, 2016 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 How many CO workers did he have? Torture them all til one of 'em cracks and cops to it and gives it up. This is a matter of national security. Yikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 It's actually pretty easy to figure out who did it. Just have a company bbq. Whoever doesn't eat the pulled pork is probably guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Ted Cruz said it best, just unlock that one damn phone! They were friggin terrorists for gods sake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Ted Cruz said it best, just unlock that one damn phone! They were friggin terrorists for gods sake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Ted Cruz said it best, just unlock that one damn phone! They were friggin terrorists for gods sake! That's the whole thing I don't understand. Can't the FBI just get a warrant for that one phone or is that what the FBI has? And if so what's the issue? Apple doesn't need to give them the "magic key" to all phones just unlock this one and hand it to the FBI. What am I missing here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 That's the whole thing I don't understand. Can't the FBI just get a warrant for that one phone or is that what the FBI has? And if so what's the issue? Apple doesn't need to give them the "magic key" to all phones just unlock this one and hand it to the FBI. What am I missing here? I was figuring you guys would be spitting venom at me for not knowing that! I really don't get it either. Just open that damn phone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I was figuring you guys would be spitting venom at me for not knowing that! I really don't get it either. Just open that damn phone! This is a perfect example of the fact that we don't disagree with everything you say just because it comes from you. We disagree with most of what you say because you're an (sorry, I can't believe I'm going to say this but here goes) asshat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 26, 2016 Author Share Posted February 26, 2016 Another factor in this: the reason they're suing to get Apple to unlock the phone is because someone (one of the shooter's co-workers) changed the password two days after the attack. So the government can't sync the phone to the iCloud and get the data that way, as they usually would. So rather than do the investigative work of identifying who changed the password (and charging him with obstruction, and getting the new password)...they'd rather claim Apple is being obstructionist, and make a legal case out of that. Yeah, this isn't about San Bernadino. They're just using it as an excuse to break commercial encryption standards. 100000% That's the whole thing I don't understand. Can't the FBI just get a warrant for that one phone or is that what the FBI has? And if so what's the issue? Apple doesn't need to give them the "magic key" to all phones just unlock this one and hand it to the FBI. What am I missing here? Yes, the FBI can and has (I believe) already done that. The issue again is not about this one phone. It's about the government wanting to get the precedent on the record. The consequences could be more than just a further assault on our 4th amendment rights: https://hbr.org/2016/02/how-the-applefbi-fight-risks-the-whole-u-s-tech-industry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_29537456/apple-feud-fbi-over-iphone-order-heats-up No difference than any other criminal investigation Federal prosecutors refuted that contention in Friday's court filing. Specifically, the government maintains that Apple must devise a software program to crack the security password on Farook's iPhone 5, but would retain control of that program and would not have to even supply it to the government. The Justice Department notes that Apple has cooperated in similar cases involving iPhones run on older operating systems, and argues the company is changing course. In addition, federal prosecutors also contradicted Cook, who in the letter indicated the government is asking for software developments Apple does not currently have and which the company considers "too dangerous to create." In court papers, prosecutors claim Apple refused to cooperate with the FBI on the security issue "although it conceded it had the technical capability to help." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) Yes, the FBI can and has (I believe) already done that. The issue again is not about this one phone. It's about the government wanting to get the precedent on the record. The consequences could be more than just a further assault on our 4th amendment rights: https://hbr.org/2016/02/how-the-applefbi-fight-risks-the-whole-u-s-tech-industry Can't Apple just "open" this one phone and hand it to the FBI? Edited February 26, 2016 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 100000% Yes, the FBI can and has (I believe) already done that. The issue again is not about this one phone. It's about the government wanting to get the precedent on the record. The consequences could be more than just a further assault on our 4th amendment rights: https://hbr.org/2016/02/how-the-applefbi-fight-risks-the-whole-u-s-tech-industry And as I said they're playing a very dangerous long game. This would not have been an issue in prior OS and both Apple & Google have introduced greater encryption into subsequent OS releases and there's talk that the next versions will be even more secure. That's all fine & dandy, but the law looks at these efforts as deliberate attempts to circumvent security. The techs shouldn't then be surprised at the legislation that will follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Can't Apple just open this "open" this one phone and hand it to the FBI? I think that was already offered. (By more than just Apple) The government insists on being given the method to do it themselves to "preserve the evidence." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I think that was already offered. (By more than just Apple) The government insists on being given the method to do it themselves to "preserve the evidence." Those following more closely than I......is this true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I think that was already offered. (By more than just Apple) The government insists on being given the method to do it themselves to "preserve the evidence." There won't be any court case in which there will need to be an evidence chain. They're looking for info that might take them to other terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 There won't be any court case in which there will need to be an evidence chain. They're looking for info that might take them to other terrorists. There might, actually. And considering this is the FBI and DoJ, that's probably the expectation. And I doubt they have any procedures for handling it otherwise. And either way, they'd certainly want to keep their options open. So yeah, chain of evidence is certainly an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 There might, actually. And considering this is the FBI and DoJ, that's probably the expectation. And I doubt they have any procedures for handling it otherwise. And either way, they'd certainly want to keep their options open. So yeah, chain of evidence is certainly an issue. Obviously keeping their options open would be best for the FBI but I think I've read or seen that they're fine with just getting the info. I just don't see where one would get concrete evidence that would prove a case off of a cell phone. It's more likely that they would get a lead or two to follow up on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Obviously keeping their options open would be best for the FBI but I think I've read or seen that they're fine with just getting the info. I just don't see where one would get concrete evidence that would prove a case off of a cell phone. It's more likely that they would get a lead or two to follow up on. And if that lead pans out into criminal charges, they wouldn't want to have those charges thrown out because of a dumbass chain of evidence violation. It's probably mostly keeping the option open, since they don't know what they'll find; and institutional practice that they simply don't know how to violate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts