Anybody Notice The Feds Wants Apple To Break Into An Americans phone

Good lord,You are making a huge fool of yourself. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Do you honestly believe I give a fuck what you think about my comments?

Do you honestly believe I give a fuck what you think about my comments? Originally Posted by LexusLover

No. I just think you should. If you're ok sounding stupid, then carry on.


BTW, a federal judge just sided with Apple today on another phone case.

No. I just think you should.

BTW, a federal judge just sided with Apple today on A phone case. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

A United States Magistrate ... in a ___________ case. And have you seen an opinion yet to determine if in FACT he did "side with Apple"! There are now going to be two circuits with differing decisions on the same topic (perhaps) and that will create an "interest" in the SCOTUS. Those Government people are so diabolical, aren't they? Not to mention that more media on the topic begins to paint a picture that Congress needs to act.

Since you apparently get your legal information from news headlines on TV ... it is helpful to actually "hear" or "read" what the Judge rules. Frequently, a Judge will state the legal standard to be met to obtain an order, but conclude the facts were insufficient to obtain an order based on the legal standard stated.

I can only "assume" that what I just posted sounds "stupid" to you, based on your vast legal education and experience.

Keep making your decisions on headlines in the media.

You are making a huge fool of yourself. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Do you honestly believe I give a fuck what you think about my comments? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Two Idiots having a lovers spat!!!!!

Epic ... Absolutely ... Epic!

[QUOTE=LexusLover;1057866020] can only "assume" that what I just posted sounds "stupid" to you, based on your vast legal education and experience./QUOTE]

My legal education and experience are far superior to yours. That's why I'm right. At least I know that amendments to the Constitution are part of the Constitution. And I know the government cannot force a private entity or person to perform a task by judicial fiat, singling out that entity or person, and not requiring others to the same. It violates the Takings Clause, as well as the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.


If you can't see that, you're an idiot.

My legal education and experience are far superior to yours. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm not talking about a prize out of a cracker jack's box.

Courts order private persons (which includes entities) to do shit all the time .... but again in your dumb effort to so narrowly set the "proposition" you propose in an effort to make youself look "intelligent"... you are making yourself look foolish while you ignore what I posted.

Originally Posted by LexusLover "Right of Privacy" does not apply to "this phone" ... since the phone was the property of the county and the user does not have a reasonable, legitimate expectation of privacy when using a government owned phone.

Originally Posted by LexusLover the county "issued" the phone to him as an employee ...... it IS owned by the county ... and the county did not object to the search!Since he (they?) was using a government phone there WAS NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY to activate the protections of the 4th amendment. The "legal issue" with Apple is "proprietary" information with regard to the encryption and providing a program to the government to unscramble it. The "business issue" is future purchasers realizing that the encryption will not keep their information involving criminal activities safe from the prying eyes of the government..........so the crooks (and terrorists) will quit purchasing and using Apple's new phones.Early on the Clinton administration signed a "chip" installation executive order for cell phones to allow the government to snoop without people knowing about it, and it was rescinded after a hail storm of criticism. The government snoops now anyway. Apple will have to make a technological adjustment with their software .... following the ballpoint ink business of changing the "formula" annually.

Originally Posted by LexusLover Without any Constitutional Protection Apple et al may be risking a criminal charge of "hindering" and/or "interfering" with a criminal investigation. There are potentially alternatives to refusing to provide the software to the Feds, and the Apple interest can be protected by a court order, which is frequently done. The "loss of revenues" may not be a viable defense when alternatives are available.

My suggestion was, and still is, Apple cooperating on a case-by-case basis in lieu of Congress passing legislation mandating access to encryptions in phones manufactured, sold, and/or shipped in and/or into the U.S.

You should stay on the porch with your "superior legal education and experience"!

[QUOTE=CuteOldGuy;1057869717]

can only "assume" that what I just posted sounds "stupid" to you, based on your vast legal education and experience./QUOTE]

I know the government cannot force a private entity or person to perform a task by judicial fiat, singling out that entity or person,.....It violates the Takings Clause, as well as the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

If you can't see that, you're an idiot. Originally Posted by LexusLover

And you "claim" you have "superior" education and experience?

This thread is an example of the "morphing" of a discussion by a lost soul, who is feebly attempting to appear intellectually superior....... you (and others) have now drifted from a "right of privacy" to "equal protection"! For you to appear correct!

What does the "Taking Clause" say?
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 US 419 - Supreme Court 1982

"This Court has consistently affirmed that States have broad power to regulate housing conditions in general and the landlord-tenant relationship in particular without paying compensation for all economic injuries that such regulation entails. See, e. g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241 (1964) (discrimination in places of public accommodation); Queenside Hills Realty Co. v. Saxl, 328 U. S. 80 (1946) (fire regulation); Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503 (1944) (rent control); Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398 (1934) (mortgage moratorium); Edgar A. Levy Leasing Co. v. Siegel, 258 U. S. 242 (1922) (emergency housing law); Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135 (1921) (rent control). In none of these cases, however, did the government authorize the permanent occupation of the landlord's property by a third party. Consequently, our holding today in no way alters the analysis governing the State's power to require landlords to comply with building codes and provide utility connections, mailboxes, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and the like in the common area of a building. So long as these regulations do not require the landlord to suffer the physical occupation of a portion of his building by a third party, they will be analyzed under the multifactor inquiry generally applicable to nonpossessory governmental activity. See Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104 (1978).[19]"

The Government has historically been authorized to regulate interstate communications and the TOOLS by which those communications are accomplished. See FCC. Inherent in the court's opinions are the underlying analysis of the "public interest" in the "taking" or "confiscation" as it relates to the identifiable and quantifiable potential damages to the "owner" of the property. The imminent domain cases do not allow for "speculative" damage recovery, and the standard for economic damages requires a more exact formula than "pronouncements" of "potential lost sales" because of the alleged "intrusion"! Then the issue is whether or not the "use" is temporary and limited as opposed to permanent.

Your alleged "superior legal education and experience" should inform you of those LEGAL FACTS. Tossing out bullshit on a hooker board is not evidence of your "superior legal education and experience" ... it's merely proof you're a loudmouth.

You really don't understand at all, do you, WTLL? And you lie about it. Tell us about a case where a court has ordered a non party to provide property they don't have to law enforcement.

You really don't understand at all, do you, ... Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That "response" is telling .... Like I said ... you create the ridiculous statement of "fact" and then "demand" research to dispute your "ridiculous statement of fact"! And you attribute the "statement of fact" to me?

Any "legal education and experience" you have did come from a Cracker Jack box!

And you "claim" you have "superior" education and experience?

This thread is an example of the "morphing" of a discussion by a lost soul, who is feebly attempting to appear intellectually superior....... you (and others) have now drifted from a "right of privacy" to "equal protection"! For you to appear correct!

What does the "Taking Clause" say?
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 US 419 - Supreme Court 1982

"This Court has consistently affirmed that States have broad power to regulate housing conditions in general and the landlord-tenant relationship in particular without paying compensation for all economic injuries that such regulation entails. See, e. g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241 (1964) (discrimination in places of public accommodation); Queenside Hills Realty Co. v. Saxl, 328 U. S. 80 (1946) (fire regulation); Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503 (1944) (rent control); Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398 (1934) (mortgage moratorium); Edgar A. Levy Leasing Co. v. Siegel, 258 U. S. 242 (1922) (emergency housing law); Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135 (1921) (rent control). In none of these cases, however, did the government authorize the permanent occupation of the landlord's property by a third party. Consequently, our holding today in no way alters the analysis governing the State's power to require landlords to comply with building codes and provide utility connections, mailboxes, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and the like in the common area of a building. So long as these regulations do not require the landlord to suffer the physical occupation of a portion of his building by a third party, they will be analyzed under the multifactor inquiry generally applicable to nonpossessory governmental activity. See Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104 (1978).[19]"

The Government has historically been authorized to regulate interstate communications and the TOOLS by which those communications are accomplished. See FCC. Inherent in the court's opinions are the underlying analysis of the "public interest" in the "taking" or "confiscation" as it relates to the identifiable and quantifiable potential damages to the "owner" of the property. The imminent domain cases do not allow for "speculative" damage recovery, and the standard for economic damages requires a more exact formula than "pronouncements" of "potential lost sales" because of the alleged "intrusion"! Then the issue is whether or not the "use" is temporary and limited as opposed to permanent.

Your alleged "superior legal education and experience" should inform you of those LEGAL FACTS. Tossing out bullshit on a hooker board is not evidence of your "superior legal education and experience" ... it's merely proof you're a loudmouth. Originally Posted by LexusLover

You really don't understand at all, do you, WTLL? And you lie about it. Tell us about a case where a court has ordered a non party to provide property they don't have to law enforcement. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That "response" is telling .... Like I said ... you create the ridiculous statement of "fact" and then "demand" research to dispute your "ridiculous statement of fact"! And you attribute the "statement of fact" to me?

Any "legal education and experience" you have did come from a Cracker Jack box! Originally Posted by LexusLover

This exchange just about sums up your "education and experience"!

This exchange just about sums up your "education and experience"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yeah, it does. I handed you your ass and rubbed your face in it.

Yeah, it does. I handed you your ass and rubbed your face in it. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Like I said ..... I'm not the least concerned about your "assessment" .... apparently that works for you "elsewhere," but not here, and certainly not with me. If you couldn't call your own "game," you'd never win.

Just to be clear....my "ass" hasn't left, but if you want to be obsessed with a guy's ass .... look elsewhere.

this is why Apple was right to contest this action. They were right to contest for several reasons. first is to ensure that The Government was within legal rights and laws to compel them to, and second it wasn't necessary. lastly, "loss of reputation" that dreaded corporate death sentence that sends your customers running off to the competition.





Justice Department cracks iPhone; withdraws legal action



https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-d...220719890.html

I know we could get lost in "theoreticals" but humor me.

Let's say terrorists where using GM products to car bomb not just places abroad but here in the US. Would the government be justified in demanding a way to tap into the car's operating system, spy on any given car and at their discretion, stop the car and even disable all (or almost all) electronic devises inside the vehicle?

At what point does the government not have the right to interfere with a company's product?

BTW, I read they don't even think this phone has anything on it. It appears the to personal phones the Muslim terrorists were using were destroyed.

I know we could get lost in "theoreticals" but humor me.

Let's say terrorists where using GM products to car bomb not just places abroad but here in the US. Would the government be justified in demanding a way to tap into the car's operating system, spy on any given car and at their discretion, stop the car and even disable all (or almost all) electronic devises inside the vehicle?

At what point does the government not have the right to interfere with a company's product?

BTW, I read they don't even think this phone has anything on it. It appears the to personal phones the Muslim terrorists were using were destroyed. Originally Posted by gnadfly

GM can already do that. they've done it for various police dept's for stolen cars before.

at the point that it violates constitutional rights and the law. And that's correct, the phones that probably had the real contact info were destroyed. So why, if the Government does not have any credible info that the phone they have contains worthwhile data on it would they pressure Apple in the courts to hack it?

So they can get away with doing it to anyone's phone, crime or not. that's why. and that's exactly why Apple fought it. And Apple knew perfectly well their phone is not hack-proof and that with the combined efforts of the FBI, NSA and CIA they could get in.

Word is, the Israelis helped the FBI. So says John McAfee, or rather implied it. He also offered to help.

JOHN MCAFEE: I'll decrypt the San Bernardino phone free of charge so Apple doesn't need to place a back door on its product


http://www.businessinsider.com/john-...or-free-2016-2

McAfee: I know who's helping the FBI hack Apple

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/22/john-...ird-party.html