Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Rule of Jaw: Trump says BOYCOTT APPLE unless they unlock phone for Feds

Rule of Jaw: Trump says BOYCOTT APPLE unless they unlock phone for Feds

What, me worry about him in control of the IRS, FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA, EPA, and Park Police?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-quick-cuts/watch/donald-trump-calls-for-apple-boycott-626518595618

This is just great:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump just called for a boycott of Apple in light of the company’s reluctance to help authorities hack into the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters.

“Apple ought to give the security for that phone, OK?” Trump said at a rally in Pawley’s Island, South Carolina, on Friday.

“What I think you ought to do is boycott Apple until such time as they give that security number. How do you like that? I just thought of it. Boycott Apple!”

In other news, a federal court is expected to rule on the issue after further legal briefing.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

Ha! Rule of jaw … Not sure if that is a WAJ coined phrase or not, but it is awesome.

I hope for a serious underperformance for this Obamacare mandate loving, backdoor decryption loving, headline seeker.

On the delicate continuum of security versus civil liberty, T-rump has openly said he defaults to the extreme of “security”.

Seriously. The man is a tyrant in waiting. He should be kept waiting until the end of his days.

    Same Same in reply to Ragspierre. | February 19, 2016 at 8:11 pm

    Trump started off with some decent points. Everything since then has been a disaster. Too bad his goons don’t seem able to catch on.

I get the appeal of Trump now. It’s because he speaks and acts with the impunity and decisiveness of a fascist.

The self-professed conservatives who support him do so because they believe in the only cure for the GOP’s inability to counter the Left’s judicial and legislative action is to elect someone (anyone) who doesn’t care about restraint.

They want a fighter. They want a Gaius Julius Ceasar.

To hell with all the Ciceros and their pablum about Executive Restraint, Constitutional Checks and Balance, Separation of Powers, Free Markets, Limited Government, Republicanism.

“Let’s tear up the Constitution! How do you like that? I just thought of it.”
— President Trump, circa 2017

The Republican candidates have all been dusappointing on this issue. Trump is less dissapointing, than say, Ted Cruz, because he doesn’t seem to understand what the Feds are asking for and he’s speaking off the cuff.

Trump’s answer, Apple gives the Feds what they need to unlock a particular iPhone, is what’s gone on in the past, and what the Feds are asking for is a master key (that may not exist) to unlock anybody’s iPhone.

If such a master key exists, I’m buying a different kind of phone. Such a master key ought not to exist, or the public ought not to think exists.

There’s a court order that asks Apple provide its data, and they should do so. If a master key exists they should turn it over and then make a phone with no master key, They shouldn’t be forced to create back doors for hackers in telephones that are increasingly being used as secure data for banking and credit transactions.

    Ragspierre in reply to rotten. | February 19, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    “I think Apple has serious argument that they should not be forced to put a backdoor in every cell phone everyone has. … So I think Apple has the right side on the global don’t make us do this to every iPhone on the market. But I think law enforcement has the better argument, this concerns the phone of one of the San Bernardino hackers. And for law enforcement to get a judicial search order, that’s consistent with the Fourth Amendment. That’s how the Bill of Rights operates, to say Apple, open this phone, not Anderson’s phone, not everyone’s here, open this phone.”

    What’s “disappointing” about that, ya moron…???

    As I’ve stated elsewhere, there are competing, valid interests here, and the COURTS need to weigh them, the down-sides to each, and reconcile them.

    This is called “the rule of law”. Quite apart from the “rule of jaw”.

    “There’s a court order that asks Apple provide its data, and they should do so. If a master key exists they should turn it over and then make a phone with no master key, ”

    If there’s a court order that asks Apple to provide data on iPhone owners who are…dangerous pro-2nd Amdt conservatives, they should do so?

    And since we’re on the topic of imperial orders.

    There was an attempted court order, engineered by your candidate, to seize the property of a widow, Vera Coking. Defend that.

    Public Power, Private Gain: The Case of Vera Coking and Trump’s Abuse of Eminent Domain

“give the security for that phone”? Is this Trump’s way of saying “I’m just as stupid as you fools who support me”?

Yet, Trump continues to tweet from his i-Phone.

    HandyGandy in reply to windbag. | February 20, 2016 at 1:14 am

    Are you telling us Trump bought i this week?
    Or are you disappointed that Trump couldn’t tell back when he bought the phone that he would be boycotting Apple in the future.

      Estragon in reply to HandyGandy. | February 20, 2016 at 6:36 am

      So your precious billionaire couldn’t get his phone replaced within a couple of hours if he wanted to?

      Pathetic cultist.

      He continues to tweet from an i-Phone after calling for a boycott of Apple. A quick trip to the mall, and he could have backed his rhetoric with action by changing phones. He didn’t, which tells you a great deal about his convictions versus his rhetoric. It ought to tell you about his convictions versus his rhetoric on every other issue.

      Don’t pretend not to understand the hypocrisy of Trump in this matter, it’s not convincing. I’m not saying he bought one this week. That’s a straw man of your construct in order to avoid the simple facts and the blatant inconsistencies of your god.

      Oh, and last night his campaign was still using i-Pads to complete transactions.

Sammy Finkelman | February 19, 2016 at 5:00 pm

Slightly off topic:

I just received the TIME Almanac for 2006.

This is the true story of what Donald Trump was doing on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

From the TIME Almanac of 2006 (section about skyscrapers, page 443)

« On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Adrian D. Smith, a well-known architect in the Chicago office of Skidmore Owings & Merrill, was in a meeting with Donald Trump. The hyperbolic New York City developer was in Chicago to go
over the design of a proposed Trump residential tower in that city that he had decided should be — what else — the tallest building in the world, around 2,000 ft. In the midst of that meeting, the two men got word of the first plane that hit the World Trade Center. “When the second plane hit, we all rushed to the television to see what was happening,” says Smith. “That was the end of the meeting.” And also the end of the 2,000 ft. tower. A few weeks later, Trump’s people came back with a revised proposal – at 900 ft. or so. »

    Ragspierre in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | February 19, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    IF that account is true…and I’m not accepting its truth on face value…it gives the lie to the T-rumpian accounts of “watching the Towers fall from my office” or WTF ever.

    That would be worth investigating.

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to Ragspierre. | February 20, 2016 at 2:53 am

      Trump was mocked in the UK press for claiming he saw people jumping from the Twin Towers from his penthouse in Trump Tower, some 4.1 milesa way. He certainly must have the Best Eyesight Ever! if he saw them jump from almost 800 miles away.

      Also because of the lock down of US airspace he would have been stuck in Chicago, which would have made his location that day doubly memorable. I seem to recall nothing except military planes were allowed in the air until Friday, The car rental agencies quickly ran out of cars. Perhaps Trump bought a brand new car in Chicago to get back to Manhattan.

He’s a clown candidate bro.

The feds are ‘fishing’ (or want to fish) for co-consipirators. I’m willing to let them have access to that specific phone if a truly one-off break in is technically possible. I don’t believe Apple should be forced to do it, though. Let the Feds come up with it and go back to a court of competent authority for approval of its use on a case by case basis.

Or talk to Mr. Phelps.

    Estragon in reply to Daiwa. | February 20, 2016 at 6:39 am

    There is a legitimate law enforcement interest in the information in that phone, which is owned by the State of California. A judge ordered Apple to cooperate; they refused.

    I would have Tim Cook before me in the morning to show why he should not sit in jail for contempt of court.

As for Donald, Sean Penn should love the guy.

So after the feds fail to prevent the attack they need to harass Apple over a phone. Gee, why don’t the feds look into why that family was allowed to be in the USA and why he was able to bring back a wife. The same thing happened with allowing the boston bomber family into the USA. The feds aren’t doing their jobs, so it isn’t up to Apple to be on the hot seat now. This is all an excuse to get into all our phones whenever the feds want, warrant or no warrant.

Too many people forget or fail to note that the natural condition of man has been and remains that of subject of a monarch or autocrat. We are among the minority, not just now but in all time. The citizens of democratic states/republics are dwarfed in number by subjects.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | February 19, 2016 at 6:23 pm

He’s letting his inner progressive talking points they talk about in progressive circles out: Bush lied; boycotts; he even said he likes the Obamacare mandate.

To justify the mandate he used the exact same talking point progressives use. That is, he likes the mandate because he doesn’t want to see people dying in the street. Implying that those of us who oppose the mandate want to see people die in the street.

He really is starting to remind me of that progressive kook Alan Grayson.

Trump is not alone. There’s talk in California of outlawing phone encryption, and someone in congress wanted to intoduce a bill compelling back doors.

For the record iPhones 5s and later cannot be broken ar all by anyone. So this is a passing fancy.

    rotten in reply to Petrushka. | February 19, 2016 at 7:52 pm

    But why should the government compel Apple to create something that doesn’t exist. They should, at most, only be required to turn over that which does exist.

Trumph’s your back door man.

ugottabekiddinme | February 19, 2016 at 6:55 pm

I get the privacy concerns. Yet I also am mindful that no one is forced to store sensitive banking and credit on their phone. It is after all just a small item one carries around all day which can easily be lost or lifted. The issue presented is so recent a phenomenon, with time solutions can be found.

What concerns me as a lawyer is the government using the court to coerce a private entity to create something where nothing now exists, at its command, to further an investigation. There is not even any “probable cause” of an offense or evidence as to Apple, so it is exceedingly coercive, and not your usual 4th Amt issue at all.

Apple is not a material witness or alleged co-conspirator or anything. In a fully fledged banana republic, Apple would give in or be prosecuted criminally as an accessory before the fact for making encrypted phones.

Oh the Donald “just thought of it” and proposed off the top of his head a general boycott of Apple till it gives in?

Banana republic here we come.

    Using ApplePay is actually MORE secure than using a physical credit card. At least it is, until the Goobermint compromises the encryption system that makes it so.

Here’s a much better explanation of what’s going on between Apple and the FBI: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/02/encryption-isnt-at-stake-the-fbi-knows-apple-already-has-the-desired-key/

    gulfbreeze in reply to daitken. | February 20, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    Thanks for posting that, daitken. That info is in fairly stark contrast to what is being reported in the general media (not surprisingly since it doesn’t fit into a media soundbyte). It makes the government’s request seem much less onerous than those media accounts led me to believe.

    I love how the crazy cruzbot warriors downvote a simple link to the actual facts at issue.

    Is it true that a group picture of the crazy cruzbot warriors is indistinguishable from the see no evil hear no evil monkeys.

Everyone including Jacobson is full of shit, with the exception of daitken.

How do I know this? I read the court order. Something apparently no one else bothered top do. It was widely distributed and discussed several days ago on mopst tech sites.

The court order asks Apple to do one thing. Push software on this particular phone. The order also dioes it’s best to insure that the software can only work with this particular phone.
The software is supposed to do three things:

1) Disable the auto-erase function. This function basically has the phone erase all the data after 10 failed attempts to enter a password.
2) Make a mechanism where you can try to enter the password from a port/internet/bluetooth/other external mechanism.
3) Disable the delay that occurs between attempts to enter passwords.

What does this do. It allows the government to create a device ( Ohh cool they could us a Raspberry Pi! ) that enters successive passwords till they hit the right one.

The government is not asking for a master-key.
The government is not asking for a generic backdoor.
The government is not asking for Apple to break it’s encryption.

I would still object except for one thing.
The phone is owned by the San Bernadino Dept of Public Health.
If you want the data on your phone to stay private, then do not use a company phone, That’s OpSec 101.

    ugottabekiddinme in reply to HandyGandy. | February 19, 2016 at 8:04 pm

    The ownership of the phone has nothing to do with the coercive order to Apple.

    Why should Apple have to put its people to work for the government to create software that does not exist, to input onto the phone to give the government what it is demanding?

    I sympathize with the investigators but do not see the legal basis for the coercion.

    Ragspierre in reply to HandyGandy. | February 19, 2016 at 8:17 pm

    Again, proving up your credentials as a moron.

    Comparing William Jacobson to ‘sh-t?’ Obviously, you don’t know sh-t.

    Though one would be fooled after reading beyond the first sentence of your comment.

LOL. Really funny to watch all these faux conservatives for Cruz combining with whacko liberals locking arms to protect TERRORISTS.

Here are the facts. The phone is owned by the county of San Barnadino. The owner of tbe phone has requested tge phone be opened. So there are ZERO absolutely NO 4th amendment or privacy issues regarding the phone. Next the government has obtained a judges approval and court order to open the phone.

Calling for a boycott of Apple is the least worry Apple would have if I were president. As President I would fully use any and all of the following to protect USA citizens. It would be my hope that a President Trump would do one or more or all of the following:

I would annonce that the doj would hold Apple and its officers personally liable both criminally and civilly should there be a terrorist attack that could have been in theory foiled if Apple had timely complied with court order.

If a terrorist attack should happen anywhere in the world involving an american citizen before Apple’s compliance I would frog walk on national TV the top 10 officers of apple and every member of their board of directors out of their homes and offices to be booked for their complicity in those crimes.

I would then have the SEC open a civil and criminal investigation into Apple and its officers for failing to provide adequate reserves against their earnings for the potential billions of dollars in liabilities for failure to unlock that phone.

I would send a couple hundred IRS agents to take up permanent residence at Apple and audit every open year with a microscope. Do the same for the top 250 highest paid employees of Apples personal returns.

All apple products and parts coming in from overseas would be held in customs pending inspection. I would assign a single blind and physically handicapped customs inspector to inspect one by one each product and part and would not release a single product until they all had been inspected.

Somewhere along the line Apple’s stock price would effectively become zero and shareholders will demand cooks resignation and compliance with a reasonable request to protect USA citizens from terrorists.

While doing the above I would have congress pass legislation codifying the civil and criminal liability for a company that fails to comply with valid search warrant or court order to cooperate in terrorism investigation.

I would have congress pass legislation requiring that all encrpted products and encryption schemes included on any product sold in USA MUST maintain unlocking decryption keys/information to unlock any information or device upon search warrant or other court order.

I like the vast majority of voters am disgusted at Apple trying to place its profits and ultra liberal pro terrorist ideology above the safety and security of USA citizens. Especially in this kind of fact situation.

    ugottabekiddinme in reply to Gary Britt. | February 19, 2016 at 8:08 pm

    “I would have congress pass legislation requiring that all encrpted products and encryption schemes included on any product sold in USA MUST maintain unlocking decryption keys/information to unlock any information or device upon search warrant or other court order.”

    If this had already been the law, I’d have no problem whatever. In its absence, and given the notoriety of the terrorists, I am reminded of the old legal line “Hard cases make bad law.”

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 19, 2016 at 8:16 pm

    “Calling for a boycott of Apple is the least worry Apple would have if I were president. As President I would fully use any and all of the following to protect USA citizens. It would be my hope that a President Trump would do one or more or all of the following:

    I would annonce that the doj would hold Apple and its officers personally liable both criminally and civilly should there be a terrorist attack that could have been in theory foiled if Apple had timely complied with court order.

    If a terrorist attack should happen anywhere in the world involving an american citizen before Apple’s compliance I would frog walk on national TV the top 10 officers of apple and every member of their board of directors out of their homes and offices to be booked for their complicity in those crimes.”

    See why I’ve dubbed this puke “Bierhall Bullyboi Britt”?

    He and his man-crush are fascists and tyrants inchoate.

    He LOVES him some COLLECTIVISM but has PRETENDED some “conservative” credentials. He’s not got a conservative or liberty-loving notion in his crap-packed skull. Like the little yellow god he sucks, he’s a fraud, a liar, and a bigot.

      “I like the vast majority of voters am disgusted at Apple trying to place its profits and ultra liberal pro terrorist ideology above the safety and security of USA citizens. Especially in this kind of fact situation.”

      And then we have the strange bedfellows of the protect global corporation greed and profits at all costs crowd combined with the whacko ultra liberal hate america first crowd combining to support TERRORISTS against the safety of USA citizens.

      Yes all these Cruz supporters posting to support terrorists against the safety of USA citizens are exactly the kind of “rational” people who we should listen to about whom we should vote.

      All morons the entire lot of you faux conservatives for Cruz. Not worth the spit I step on while walking down a public sidewalk.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 19, 2016 at 8:46 pm

        “I like the vast majority of voters am disgusted at Apple…”

        This is called the fallacy of popular opinion, goose-stepper.

        You can’t speak for voters, and even if you could, your Collectivism would not be OK. We’re still a nation of laws. At least up til you and T-rump get your way.

        What’s the program the Obami have been using where they screw with banks serving legal businesses like you advocate doing above…??? Using BIG GOVERNMENT because you can.

        You are no different.

          Only a stupid ass liberal collectivist posing as a Cryz supporter couldn’t tell the difference.

          Moron

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 20, 2016 at 10:19 am

          Perhaps you can explain the difference for us, goose-stepper.

          Not in terms of “me, good; them, bad”. But in terms of principles. How are your Collectivist yearnings different than those of Eric Holder?

          Try it. It’ll be FUN…!!!

        Are you at all concerned that your recommendations could lead phones vulnerable to hacking?

        These phones are used for banding and credit and must be secure. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

        Long term, there will be a technological solution that addresses both needs. In the video games world, the uncrackable game may have been invented. New games, like Rise of the Tomb a Raider have gone a year without being cracked by inventing a unique software Id for each machine that only works on that machine.

        But getting to that solution was a 20 year technological challenge.

        What we absolutely do not need right now is some sort of legal precedent (for either side) that prevents the eventual technology from being developed.

          Absolutely None !

          Just like I was never concerned about George Bush listening to me tell my wife what groceries to get from the store under tge patriot act.

          Anybidy sophisticated enough to hack my phone could hack my PC. That is just a made up BS obfuscation as far as I’m concerned. Locking a device doesn’t protect it from hacking. It just protects it if the phone is lost or left laying around unwatched. It doesn’t prevent hacking while phone is in use online.

          DaveGinOly in reply to rotten. | February 20, 2016 at 1:32 am

          Never before have citizens of any country been able to truly secure their communications. Ciphers, dead letter drops, secret codes, invented languages and alphabets, etc. have all been tried and found wanting. Because of this previous lack of capability, governments now presume they not only have the authority to intercept your communications they also have the right to understand what it is they’ve intercepted. Our government is now throwing a hissy fit because it has the communications in hand, and it can’t understand or read it. It is taking its frustration out on Apple by directing public attention it while directing attention away from its own lack of capability and its failure to prevent the massacre they are now investigating. At the same time, they hope to both create a precedent and establish a cause célèbre to support the inevitable demand that the vast majority of law-abiding citizens shouldn’t have the ability to secure their private communications because of the threat posed by a very small number of criminals and terrorists. Sounds like a gun control argument to me.

        Gary, do your parents know you’re up past 10pm and using the computer?

    ecreegan in reply to Gary Britt. | February 19, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    Nobody questions the right of the phone’s owner to give the government permission to get the data on the phone. We argue that the government isn’t entitled to force Apple to write phone-cracking software that doesn’t already exist in order to get that data.

    As an analogy, nobody says that the government can’t get into a safe. However, the fact that the safe manufacturer didn’t build its safes with master keys and therefore can’t just give the government a key doesn’t mean the government is entitled to force the manufacturer to build a safe-cracking machine.

      You are right the government should not have to force them. They should do it as good corporate citizens. But if they don’t want to be good corporate citizens then they should be held liable for building a dangerously defective product that is easily converted to an instrument that aids and abets terrorusm. Sales of their product should be suspended and their operations shut down until their product can NOT be safely used as an instrumentality supporting terrorist activity. Trading in their stock should be permanently suspended until it can be determined exactly the extent of their aiding and abetting of world wide terrorist activity with their dangerously defective product. The SEC should open an investigation for both civil and criminal violation of the securities laws for Apple’s failure to disclose the risks of their products being easily converted to instruments supporting terrorism and their substantially misleading financial statements that fail to disclose the potential liabilities for the deaths caused by the use of their dangerously defective products that are easily converted to aid and abet terrorist activity.

        Gary, you should print out this column and bring it to class tomorrow to show your teacher. He or she will be impressed by your efforts as a sixth-grader in participating in debates with adults.

        But then, the teacher might give you a time-out for calling people names.

        Your call.

        gulfbreeze in reply to Gary Britt. | February 20, 2016 at 4:12 pm

        “But if they don’t want to be good corporate citizens then they should be held liable for building a dangerously defective product that is easily converted to an instrument that aids and abets terrorusm. Sales of their product should be suspended and their operations shut down until their product can NOT be safely used as an instrumentality supporting terrorist activity.”

        These reasons mirror the same logic that’s used by the left against gun manufacturers/owners and their 2nd Amendment rights, e.g. the ability to use high-capacity magazines is a “defect” instead of a feature.

        In addition, high user encryption capability is indeed a feature, not a defect. The fact the U.S. government uses encryption is a testimony to that fact. Private citizens/corporations are entitled to the same privacy rights.

        In addition, there are myriad products that have been converted to terrorist use, e.g. galvanized metal pipe and nails. Should we hold manufacturers of such products liable for their “defective” use? Slippery slope, no?

        If citizens want to ensure the government can access their encrypted data with manufacturers’ assistance, the way to implement that is by statute, e.g. pass a law that can enforce such access. The U.S. provided security under the Patriot Act, and that was the correct way to implement it then. And it’s still the correct way now.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Gary Britt. | February 20, 2016 at 12:09 am

    Except for one problem – warrants (and subpoenas) are for the production of evidence, documents, or data that is known or believed to exist. The government can’t compel the production (both the in the legal sense of “bringing forward” and in the literal sense of “making”) something that doesn’t exist. What the government is after isn’t evidence – the government already possesses the evidence. The only thing a subpoena could possibly compel a party to surrender is a password, and Apple doesn’t possess it.

      Not under the all writs act of 1798. Still on the books.

      But yes they could choose to be bad corporate citizens and protect the terrorist assoc I ates of tge dead terrorist but if I were president they would do so while I drove their stock price to zero and eliminated over 200 billion of their capital. Their sales would also go to zero because none of their products would clear customs in less than 1 year.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 20, 2016 at 9:39 am

        But you are a Collectivist bastard who HATES our Constitution and would be FAR worse…by your own admission…than FDR, Clinton, AND Obama.

        Combined. No wonder you LOVES you some Der Donald…!!!

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 20, 2016 at 9:47 am

        What’s ALSO hilarious is that you call yourself an attorney, while having ZERO respect for the rights of individuals and the businesses they create, or the consumers who use their products.

        A cell phone that resists being broken into is “a defective product”…???

        And you’d destroy wealth held by millions of Americans, and the value of the purchases of millions more, just to exact your demands.

        You are dangerously out of your flucking mind. And evil in the bargain.

        gulfbreeze in reply to Gary Britt. | February 20, 2016 at 4:23 pm

        So the solution is to remove $500+ billion of wealth of Apple stock-owning individuals, then cause chaos among all those who financially benefit from Apple’s ecosystem, as well as the investment all Apple users have in hardware and software, as well as the cost of implementing those systems….not to mention all the jobs that have been created via Apple’s ecosystem.

        Good grief, just pass a law to give the government the right to do what you want. Waaay cheaper, AND more effective against all tech companies.

        You don’t have to burn down a house just to get past a locked door.

    You’re laughing out loud now, because they’re coming for Apple.

    Will you still be laughing when they come for you?

    gmac124 in reply to Gary Britt. | February 20, 2016 at 11:56 am

    “I would send a couple hundred IRS agents to take up permanent residence at Apple and audit every open year with a microscope. Do the same for the top 250 highest paid employees of Apples personal returns.”

    Open the door it is the gestapo. Give us what we demand or we will start lining people up and shooting them…..NOW.

      If Cook doesn’t like it then he personally and apple as a corporation should move to a place where supporting anti USA terrorists are more welcomed like Syria or Lybia. I hear the heat from all the bombs exploding has a wonderful moderating effect on the weather there.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 20, 2016 at 3:43 pm

        Hey, for that matter you’ve got Cuber or North Korea. They LOVE your kind there.

        gmac124 in reply to Gary Britt. | February 20, 2016 at 3:44 pm

        You miss the point again. It has nothing to do with supporting terrorists and everything to do with the methods you would try to use to gain what you want. I have fought for my country and freedoms, I WILL not allow them to be infringed even if it means that we allow terrorists to get away.

The Friendly Grizzly | February 19, 2016 at 8:05 pm

Why isn’t our oh so great NSA and our flawless FBI and their world-renowned crime lab able to bust into that phone? For all the propaganda we hear about their abilities and super-computers, why the need to go to Apple?

    ugottabekiddinme in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | February 19, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    As I understand it, the fear is that such efforts to break in will set off the 10-try limit/wipe feature, and lead to automatic destruction of all data on the device.

    It’s not quite that simple, as explained in this article (which is technical, but this particular section hopefully explains the concept simply enough):

    http://bit.ly/1VrAZsO

    “The FBI does not really need Apple to write a custom firmware that lets you brute force the iPhone PIN without risk of wiping the device or suffering lengthy timeouts. It’s much easier for Apple to write this code, of course, because Apple knows all about the iPhone, but there’s no doubt that the FBI could pay some enterprising reverse engineers and hackers to develop the software itself. The problem for the FBI is not so much the development of the software; it is getting that software to run on the iPhone.

    “The iPhone requires that its firmware have a digital signature that authentically demonstrates that the firmware was developed by Apple and has not been subsequently modified. The FBI does not have (and is not asking for) access to Apple’s signing key. It is instead asking for Apple to use its signing key to sign the custom firmware so that the iPhone will accept it and run it. It is this signature requirement that means the FBI cannot create the software itself.”

http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-bernardino-shooters-apple-id-passcode-changed-government/story?id=37066070

Apparently, a county employee changed the passcode remotely “less than 24 hours after authorities took possession of the device.” I’m not tech enough to grasp the full implications, but it looks like there’s more to the story.

As an aside Trump also wanted people to boycott Macy’s and celebrated their stock slide because they quit selling his clothing line when he declared himself a candidate.
Yep this is a foretaste of the things to come that also remind me of the recent past. SOSDD.

    rotten in reply to Mich. | February 19, 2016 at 9:33 pm

    Trump turns out to be a genius here n what companies to short.

    The decision of the Apple Board of directors to reinvent the Company as a fashion company means they will probably miss the next big technological thing,

Wow, if that’s true, then somebody in the government knows the password, That’s who the government should be after.

JackRussellTerrierist | February 20, 2016 at 12:09 am

This is humpatrump sticking his loud mouth into things he knows nothing about just to garner media attention again and hear the sound of his own blowhard voice.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

WGAS? He’s a commie liar just like obastard.

This article has a better explanation of the problem, at least I found it helpful.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/apple-we-tried-to-help-fbi-terror-probe-but-someone-changed-icloud-password/

I would like to point out:
The Farooks’ computer hard drive was successfully either destroyed, lost or passed to an unidentified accomplice and has not been found by the FBI.
The Farooks’ successfully destroyed their personal cell phones so nothing has been recovered.
This phone was Farook’s work phone but wasn’t backed up for six weeks or so, and was found after the shootings.
It seems likely that he wasn’t concerned about this phone because he had spent the six weeks preparing, and had kept the phone separate.
If he had used it for anything else, wouldn’t it also have been destroyed?

Big picture: make Obama stop importing terrorists into the country, and the government won’t need to spy on Americans.

So Perfesser BJ not only shreds the Constitution, but he is a champion of Islamist terrorist rights. Which side is he on?

I thought this was a legal blog. Paterico explains the situation:

http://patterico.com/2016/02/19/the-apple-iphone-and-the-san-bernardino-shooters-its-not-what-youve-been-told/

The FBI has a valid search warrant and court order, and Apple must comply. This is a criminal case, and the usual rules apply.

    Ragspierre in reply to bob sykes. | February 20, 2016 at 9:25 am

    Patterico makes some valuable points, but remember he comes at this as a PROSECUTOR.

    WAY back up-thread, you’ll find a comment or two saying it’s a matter of balancing two conflicting sets of VALID interests, along with the down-sides each presents, BY A COURT.

    Apple will make a case, the DOJ will make theirs, and a court will decide.

    But Donald FLUCKING T=rump is a threat to our republic, as are his goose-stepping myrmidons like the execrable Bierhall Britt (and, of course, not all T-rump supports fit in that ilk).

The potential defendant is dead. Therefore, it is not a criminal case. Can a warrant compel a private citizen to break into private property on behalf of the government? I don’t know the answer, but this is not a simple straight forward case of comply with the warrant in a criminal case, in my opinion.

    1. It is still criminal when looking for other terrorists.

    2. The 1798 law of writs is also a basis for the judicial authority.

    3. Then there is always possibility of charging Apple and Cook with Treason for aid8ng and abetting the enemy.

Trump is wrong in this one…in my opinion.

It is also my opinion that he may not have been thoroughly briefed on the specifics.

Apple cooperates with China to compromise iphone security. Even gave Chinese copy of ios source code. But Apple too good to help fight war on terrorism by unlocking one terrorists phone. I say Cook should wake up one moring in GITMO.

Citing reports by Chinese daily Beijing News and the state-run People’s Daily, the article claimed that Cook agreed in January 2015 to allow authorities in China to carry out “security checks” on all iPhones sold in the country to make sure the US had not installed any spyware. But, Apple has never confirmed or responded to the allegations.

The article reported that analysts believe Apple likely handed over its operating system source code as part of the agreement. If true, this would mean that the Chinese government knows how Apple’s software works, including its security system.

User data stored in China

Apple also decided in February 2015 to store local users’ personal data in China. The move was a gesture of good will towards Beijing that other companies like Google, for example, have always rejected for “security reasons”. This is because it is easier for China to request access to personal information that is under its jurisdiction.

http://m.france24.com/en/20160219-usa-apple-plays-digital-privacy-hardball-with-fbi-but-not-china

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 20, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    But, see, goose-stepper, you want US to be more like China in dealing with Apple (or anyone you don’t approve of).

    Whereas, those of us who love liberty want Apple and everyone else to deal with everyone according to the principles of liberty and the rule of law.

    Both of which you obviously hate.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend