Personal privacy v national security

[tonyk]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

I'm with you john...and some people say there's no god.

The FBI was able to get a court order from US District Court judge Pym instructing Apple to provide them with information that may be on that phone. Just as the FBI had a court order to go into Bernie Madoff's (or any other suspect's) locked file cabinets, locked safe, locked briefcase, laptop hard drive, desktop hard drive, and pretty much anywhere else where the FBI could make a case to the court for having probable cause to believe there was information or data, or anything else that constitutes evidence in a criminal case. So it's a smart phone. So they fucked up. So what?

So now there are "privacy" advocates on the web and on every cable new channel saying that once the FBI lost access to the phone, their window of opportunity to get at that information was over. Really? Seems to me judge Pym pretty clearly decided that it's not over. The whining from Apple seems to have to do with their fear that other, not so nice, countries where Apple has decided to sell their devices will demand similar access, which they will use in tyrannical and oppressive ways. That's too bad, I suppose, but how is that the FBI's problem?

This is not just about terrorist activity, either. Criminal evidence gathering is just that...and court orders and warrants for criminal case evidence apply to all suspected criminal activity. I think FBI director Comey made a pretty good case for this when he said...


http://www.dailypress.com/news/crime...412-story.html

And as the linked article, and many articles from other sources as well, indicate...there has been a back door into the data on every iPhone sold right from the beginning, and the world didn't come to an end. It wasn't until late 2014 that Apple's latest iPhone IOS was so deeply encrypted into the phone's data that it could no longer be accessed...allegedly even by Apple. And who's buying that line anyway. Why is Tim Cook saying he "won't" crack open Syed Farook's iPhone, and not that he "can't?" Because he knows his people can. And if he says they can't now he's committed felony obstruction of justice by lying to the FBI and the court.

Knowing who someone was texting or calling can be found thru their service provider. The FBI is looking for more info than that, perhaps contact lists and such.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by tonyk

Knowing who someone was texting or calling can be found thru their service provider. The FBI is looking for more info than that, perhaps contact lists and such.

The FBI told the court what they were looking for, and the court ordered Apple to provide access. Maybe the order will be reversed, maybe it won't. It's an order for access to property that could provide evidence in a criminal case. That's how evidence is developed in a criminal investigation. Whether the evidence is in a locked file cabinet or a locked smartphone.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

The FBI told the court what they were looking for, and the court ordered Apple to provide access.

We don't actually know what the FBI told the court, do we? We've already learned that at least the FISA courts are a joke and that the FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, etc. just have to ask and they receive. I do know that this isn't FISA but I won't assume that any Federal magistrate treats these things differently.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Boreas

We don't actually know what the FBI told the court, do we? We've already learned that at least the FISA courts are a joke and that the FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, etc. just have to ask and they receive. I do know that this isn't FISA but I won't assume that any Federal magistrate treats these things differently.

I don't know exactly what the FBI legal team said to the judge in the Farook case. But when they're seeking a warrant to gather evidence they're in court making a case for probable cause to support a warrant. Obviously they did their job or judge Pym would not have issues the court order. Obviously you think Its a rubber stamp...and I can only assume you also think that's a bad thing.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Obviously you think Its a rubber stamp...and I can only assume you also think that's a bad thing.

We know the FISA courts are a rubber stamp for the Feds and I see no reason to assume that other federal courts operate any differently.

[MrPots]

Just pondering....

We spend trillions on anti terrorist activities in this country, and the efforts of the FBI here to gain access to this phone is just a small example....

yet more people are killed by toddlers with guns in this country than terriorists, yet we pass billsl demanding children be given more access to guns.

WTF.....

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Boreas

We know the FISA courts are a rubber stamp for the Feds and I see no reason to assume that other federal courts operate any differently.

If you say so. However, as you have said, the FISA court system has nothing to do with the FBI seeking a warrant in a domestic criminal case. And Sherri Pym is a US District Court judge from California, not a FISA judge. But maybe you believe that every US District Court judge from sea to shining sea is a rubber stamp for an FBI search warrant request on every case. I'm sure judges cooperate with law enforcement, I for one, believe they should. But I kinda doubt that the FBI can walk into a US District Court, and when asked why they are requesting this warrant they can say, "Because we feel like it." Maybe you would prefer that the FBI should have to walk into court already having enough evidence to convict in order to get a search warrant.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by MrPots

Just pondering....

We spend trillions on anti terrorist activities in this country, and the efforts of the FBI here to gain access to this phone is just a small example....

yet more people are killed by toddlers with guns in this country than terriorists, yet we pass billsl demanding children be given more access to guns.

WTF.....

Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. H L Mencken

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

If you say so. However, as you have said, the FISA court system has nothing to do with the FBI seeking a warrant in a domestic criminal case. And Sherri Pym is a US District Court judge from California, not a FISA judge. But maybe you believe that every US District Court judge from sea to shining sea is a rubber stamp for an FBI search warrant request on every case. I'm sure judges cooperate with law enforcement, I for one, believe they should. But I kinda doubt that the FBI can walk into a US District Court, and when asked why they are requesting this warrant they can say, "Because we feel like it." Maybe you would prefer that the FBI should have to walk into court already having enough evidence to convict in order to get a search warrant.

Well, that's an over-stated version of what I said. What I said is that I have no reason to believe that other federal courts are any less accommodating to the Feds than FISA courts have been shown to be. See, Ike, we know that this is a problem. We just don't know how widespread the problem is. I think it's unwise to assume that it's restricted to one court or one type of court, one judge or one type of judge.

[Oerets]

Just how is this in effect destroying evidence in a way? By allowing potential evidence of a crime be encoded in order to shield retrieval.



Barney