SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Apple CEO Tim Cook Opposes Court Order to allow Govt. Acess to it's iOS devices

Page 2 of 3

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Apple CEO Tim Cook Opposes Court Order to allow Govt. Acess to it's iOS devices (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=224426)

Rockin Robbins

02-19-16 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace (Post 2382415)

I suggest you read up on the subject a bit more .

Thomas Jefferson (April 13 [O.S. April 2] 1743 – July 4, 1826) was an American Founding Father who was principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776).

During the American Revolution, he represented Virginia in the Continental Congress that adopted the Declaration, drafted the law for religious freedom as a Virginia legislator, and served as a wartime governor (1779–1781).
Jefferson served as a delegate to the Second Continental Congress beginning in 1775 at the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. He sought out John Adams who, along with the latter's cousin Samuel, had emerged as a leader of the Congress. Jefferson and Adams established a permanent friendship which led to Jefferson's work on the Declaration of Independence. Adams supported Jefferson's appointment to the Committee of Five formed to write the Declaration in furtherance of the Lee Resolution passed by the Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

Apparently ,Wikipedia disagrees with you. Perhaps you should send them a note and site your expertise. If you notice, I had said " one of the framers " of the Constitution. Wikipedia agrees with that .

Your time might be better spent reading up on the material instead of trying to make others look foolish.

The article I wrote was to inform others of what issues are taking shape in Federal Court and how far reaching the implications of these questions are and the ramifications and consequences of any decisions.

The article was further written to invite discussion and debate among our more learned and intelligent Subsim members.

Apparently you should actually read what Wikipedia has to say. Where does it say that Jeffereson was one of the framers of the US Constitution? It does not. And he was not.

Steve is exactly right and your "evidence" bears that out. Your time might better be spent......etc.

Commander Wallace

02-19-16 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins (Post 2382679)

In fact, I was referring to the fact Ben Franklin was a signer and framer of
the Constitution and also the Declaration of Independence although I made no reference to the Declaration.With regards to Thomas Jefferson, I listed what Wilkepedia had said as far as his being one of the founding fathers of the U.S along with Ben Franklin and other notables.

I should have made the distinction but I had no idea there was going to be a test today. I just assumed most would intelligently infer what I meant and make the distinction for themselves and have better things to do than hang me out to dry. Most here were classy enough to do just that and focus on the body of work I wrote and have an intelligent and rational discussion.

Enough said. Lets move on.

Eichhörnchen

02-19-16 02:52 PM

This is all very well, but none of it explains exactly why they gave the part of the chimney sweep to Dick Van Dyke.

vienna

02-19-16 03:10 PM

Casting couch?...

<O>

Rockstar

02-19-16 04:13 PM

Rather than the word getting out Apple just complied with a government request. A show is put on for the public to keep up the appearence of a company concerned about their customers privacy

August

02-19-16 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace (Post 2382687)

I had no idea there was going to be a test today.

Think of it this way, you're turning in a test paper every time you hit the Submit Reply button. :)

Commander Wallace

02-19-16 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 2382758)

Think of it this way, you're turning in a test paper every time you hit the Submit Reply button. :)

Guilty as charged.

( goes to time out box to stand in corner ) :)

Commander Wallace

02-19-16 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eichhörnchen (Post 2382708)

This is all very well, but none of it explains exactly why they gave the part of the chimney sweep to Dick Van Dyke.

LOL. Chimney sweep.

* Tries to be inconspicuous in sliding Eichhörnchen's cheese back on his cracker * :D

Platapus

02-19-16 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins (Post 2382678)

And I'm utterly dismayed that Apple did not offer exactly that solution. Then no tool would escape the process and the legitimate need to know the contents of a dead murderer's cell phone would be satisfied.

Apple would merely extract the data and send the data only to the Federal government.

It is important to remember that the FBI is in the business of collecting evidence and prosecuting cases in court. There has to be a chain of evidence custody. There are extensive rules of evidence that must be adhered to in order for data to be entered in to the court as evidence.

Imagine what a good defense attorney could do with:

"My client's cell phone was given to a corporation which is not a sworn law enforcement official agency; does not operate under the rules of evidence; is not certified by any legal authority, and the cell phone was exposed to unknown tampering outside of any supervision and "magically" incriminating evidence resulted. In addition this this we can't know what and how this tampering was done to my client's cell phone? We are supposed to trust that some tech at Apple did not add or subtract or in any way manipulate the data, just because they said so? Is that what your "evidence" is against my client?"

Your Honor, I respectfully suggest that the members of the jury be instructed to duck so they don't get hit when this case is thrown out of your court. :yep:

Mittelwaechter

02-20-16 10:26 AM

Platapus - I like the way you're thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 2382742)

Rather than the word getting out Apple just complied with a government request. A show is put on for the public to keep up the appearence of a company concerned about their customers privacy

Kudos!

https://twitter.com/snowden/status/700823383961792512

Catfish

02-20-16 02:43 PM

Bingo.

Gargamel

02-20-16 06:34 PM

As it turns out, apple did offer a simple and one off solution to the problem, but the government screwed it up (by my reading).

IF the phone had been allowed to backup to the icloud, apple would have happily turned over the data from the backup. But someone in the government (I'm not sure if it was the suspects employers or someone from the Justice Department) altered the phones login properties, preventing it from backing up.

So, yes Apple did have a simple solution that would have complied with the court order, but the government screwed it up.

vienna

02-22-16 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gargamel (Post 2383083)

It was the terrorist's employer, the County of San Bernardino, who fouled up; there was an add-on to the telecom package allowing the County to access employees' cell phones and contents, if needed, but, while the County did purchase the add-on (by some local news accounts, about six months prior to the attack),it never activated the program. The Feds had and have nothing to do with the loss of access...

<O>

Gargamel

02-22-16 03:25 PM

Nope, that's a different story, but with similar results.

So it looks like the government had 2 chances to gain access to the phone, and it fouled both up.

MaDef

02-22-16 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins (Post 2382678)

problem with that scenario is called "chain of Custody". Unless it's done under federal supervision any "evidence" found will be tainted.

More troubling is if the feds get their way and force Apple to comply, it sets a dangerous precedent for the Gov. to force the same type of compliance from anyone for pretty much anything.

Platapus

02-22-16 06:08 PM

This brings up an interesting question.

The police can force a person to have their fingerprints taken.

Can the police force someone to swipe their finger on their cell phone to unlock it?

MaDef

02-22-16 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 2383532)

This brings up an interesting question.

The police can force a person to have their fingerprints taken.

Can the police force someone to swipe their finger on their cell phone to unlock it?

They still need probable cause.

August

02-22-16 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 2383532)

This brings up an interesting question.

The police can force a person to have their fingerprints taken.

Can the police force someone to swipe their finger on their cell phone to unlock it?

Why didn't the police just use the dead mans finger to make the swipe? I don't think those print readers care what temperature the finger is.:)

MaDef

02-22-16 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 2383574)

Why didn't the police just use the dead mans finger to make the swipe? I don't think those print readers care what temperature the finger is.:)

It's my understanding the phone either didn't have that option or it wasn't set up. Nor was " mobile device management" software (that the county paid for but didn't install), set up on the device.

Skybird

02-23-16 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 2383532)

This brings up an interesting question.

The police can force a person to have their fingerprints taken.

Can the police force someone to swipe their finger on their cell phone to unlock it?

In Germany, by the law the owner of an encrypted computer-device cannot be ruled to hand out the code to decrypt it.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:41 AM.

Page 2 of 3

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page