Apple vs. The Government

[Dave D]

I have a better understanding of it than you. Search warrants are issued upon probable cause, always have been. It's nothing new. The search is justified they need the assistance of apple because of the encryption. It's that simple.

There is nothing in this case that will be legal precedent. The FEDS will get in. Apple is only delaying the inevitable.

I never said the FBI wouldn't get what it was asking for.

According to apple, in the article you said YOU DID NOT READ, the government is asking for a technology that apple says they don't have access to.  


But you have a better understanding of the situation  than I so....

[Al Doggity]

Are you aware of the definition of the word?

They used the term "public discussion" at the beginning of a letter addressed to the public in which they discussed their position. There really is no debate about what it meant.  

[Al Doggity]

I have a better understanding of it than you. Search warrants are issued upon probable cause, always have been. It's nothing new. The search is justified they need the assistance of apple because of the encryption. It's that simple.

There is nothing in this case that will be legal precedent. The FEDS will get in. Apple is only delaying the inevitable.

This isn't what this case is about.  Case is not about a search warrant. The phone is in the government's possession.

[Las Vegas]

Are you saying they'll be refusing feedback, Al?  Trying to figure out what you mean.

[Nails]

This is allll bullshit, they really want the technology to crack tom brady's phone for the next court case against brady and deflate gate

[Las Vegas]

This isn't what this case is about.  Case is not about a search warrant. The phone is in the government's possession.

He means for the information inside.

[Dave D]

This isn't what this case is about.  Case is not about a search warrant. The phone is in the government's possession.

I think we all agree that the government gets what it wants at any cost. They will deal with the backlash after the fact. Ape and Google are at least letting the public think their voice and rights matter.

[Al Doggity]

Are you saying they'll be refusing feedback, Al?  Trying to figure out what you mean.

Where is the confusion? You are the one who asked " Why is Apple calling for a public discussion?" I told you that they're not.  Will they refuse feedback? Who knows?  Are they seeking it? NO. That's not what that letter says. It  says, "Here's what the government asked us. We are taking this opportunity to lay out the issues publicly as opposed to keeping the matter private."   The idea that they are looking to have some sort of townhall meeting figure out what they should do doesn't even make sense. That company has never done anything like that and if they wanted opinions there are tons of ways they could get them. It's a legal issue that most people don't even understand.

[Al Doggity]

I think we all agree that the government gets what it wants at any cost. They will deal with the backlash after the fact. Ape and Google are at least letting the public think their voice and rights matter.

Not all. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the government will win in this case.  It's possible, but I wouldn't even say likely.

[Las Vegas]

Where is the confusion? You are the one who asked " Why is Apple calling for a public discussion?" I told you that they're not.  Will they refuse feedback? Who knows?  Are they seeking it? NO. That's not what that letter says. It  says, "Here's what the government asked us. We are taking this opportunity to lay out the issues publicly as opposed to keeping the matter private."   The idea that they are looking to have some sort of townhall meeting figure out what they should do doesn't even make sense. That company has never done anything like that and if they wanted opinions there are tons of ways they could get them. It's a legal issue that most people don't even understand.

So why do you suppose they chose that word, if they didn't mean it?

[Las Vegas]

The government has people who can do this.  If the government claims to want something on that phone, then let them find a way to get it.

[Al Doggity]

So why do you suppose they chose that word, if they didn't mean it?

Because they ... discussed... the issue... publicly. As opposed to privately. In a letter addressed to the public.

Did you notice that there were no plans for a public debate/townhall meeting/ feedback website or hotline mentioned elsewhere in the letter? That would be mad simple for them to set up if that was the plan. Why only that one line, that doesn't even mean that in the context of the letter?

[Las Vegas]

Because they ... discussed... the issue... publicly. As opposed to privately. In a letter addressed to the public.

Did you notice that there were no plans for a public debate/townhall meeting/ feedback website or hotline mentioned elsewhere in the letter? That would be mad simple for them to set up if that was the plan. Why only that one line, that doesn't even mean that in the context of the letter?

In case you missed it:

*The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.

*A conversation or debate about a certain topic.

[Las Vegas]

You are convinced Apple won't loosen up on their stand, and that's good.  I'm glad you have faith in that.

[Nails]

yes, lets create the back door again to these devices

cant wait for celebrity nudes flap 2.0

[HTexan]

You are convinced Apple won't loosen up on their stand, and that's good.  I'm glad you have faith in that.

[Al Doggity]

You are convinced Apple won't loosen up on their stand, and that's good.  I'm glad you have faith in that.

That's not what I said, but it is literally the entire point of the letter. Which is another reason that I don't understand why you are so confused about their use of the phrase "public discussion". They are categorical about where they stand. The entire letter is explaining to the public exactly what the issues are and exactly why they are not complying.  So, it's not as if they are looking for public input to take a stand or hedging their bets anywhere else.

[Al Doggity]

LOL much clearer and more succinct.

[Las Vegas]

That's not what I said, but it is literally the entire point of the letter. Which is another reason that I don't understand why you are so confused about their use of the phrase "public discussion". They are categorical about where they stand. The entire letter is explaining to the public exactly what the issues are and exactly why they are not complying.  So, it's not as if they are looking for public input to take a stand or hedging their bets anywhere else.

Do you think they should expect to get it, after publishing that?

[Las Vegas]

BTW, in past cases which Apple busted phones for LE, can anyone determine the reasoning vs. now?

I'm sure there's an answer, so would like to know.  I understand those were different OS, and that they had known vulnerabilities, so why didn't Apple tell LE to go do it themselves with their own resources?

[Irongrip400]

This is dumb. What if you forget your password?  You have to buy a whole new phone?

That's one way to guarantee revenue for the future!

[TuHolmes]

This is dumb. What if you forget your password?  You have to buy a whole new phone?

No. You restore your phone to factory condition.

Your phone works, but all the data is wiped.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

It's all show.
CrApple, Microshit and many others have backdoors for the government already incorporated in their products for many years.
If you want to make it a little harder for the government to spy on you use Linux.

This^^^And lets not forget that the Government probably has many workers working for Apple and many other tech companies. Gov workers probably helped design it. People probably believe that CERN's Large Hadron Collider has nothing to do with any government.

[Al Doggity]

This^^^And lets not forget that the Government probably has many workers working for Apple and many other tech companies. Gov workers probably helped design it. People probably believe that CERN's Large Hadron Collider has nothing to do with any government.

I don't think this is true. The world has just changed too for me to buy into the overreaching, all-powerful gov't narrative. With a few exceptions, it's more profitable and prestigious to work for a successful private company than it is to work for the government.

[Never1AShow]

I thought Getbig was all in favor of back doors.

Apple, please provide the corn.