DOJ threatened to seize iOS source code unless Apple complies with court order in FBI case

[LiberalArkie]

Snip

As Fortune’s Philip-Elmer DeWitt rightfully pointed out, that’s a classic police threat.

“We can do this easy way or the hard way. Give us the little thing we’re asking for—a way to bypass your security software—or we’ll take whole thing: your crown jewels and the royal seal too,” DeWitt wrote.

“With Apple’s source code, the FBI could, in theory, create its own version of iOS with the security features stripped out. Stamped with Apple’s electronic signature, the Bureau’s versions of iOS could pass for the real thing,” he added.

Whether or not the DoJ is trying to intimidate Apple, I do not know. But I know this—that quoted excerpt from DoJ’s court filing has got to send chills down everyone’s spine.

Snip

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2016/03/14/dos-threats-seize-ios/

[randome]

1. Yeah, well, DeWitt is putting his own spin on things, of course.

A corporation that refuses to comply with a legal warrant? Well, there needs to be some push-back for that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[LiberalArkie]

3. The last few times the FBI got the source code, the code ended up in the public a couple of

months later. The NSA and CIA said it was not needed and advise against a backdoor. New York and Chicago have 175 phones that they want to do also once the FBI sets the precident. Russia, China and the EU said they wanted Apple to crack some phones also.

[randome]

9. So don't give them any source code. They just want the password reset disabled.

A phone is no different from any other personal property -searchable with a valid warrant. Apple knew they would run up against law enforcement issues but they went ahead and opted for marketing over common-sense.

If they 'get away' with this, then encryption will be applied to all digital devices: computers, tablets, cameras, TVs, etc. We will be living in a Libertarian 'paradise'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[warrprayer]

2. Police state

It's been here for a while now.

[JDPriestly]

7. You are right.

Please, everyone, vote for Bernie Sanders.

If you vote for Hillary, the police state will just get worse. Ironically, it is the African-American and other minority members who suffer the worst from the police state. But who do the majority of them vote for and support here on DU?

Hillary -- the Democratic candidate who most enthusiastically supports the police state when it comes to things like cybersecurity.

I knew people who lived in Eastern Europe during the Communist regimes.

I don't tell all the stories I know here on DU because some of the people are still living. I remember one older woman from East Germany who told me stories about life there. Surveillance makes people very cautious, very silent about the things they are unhappy about. Political discussion if it happens is fearful. People watch themselves so that they use the right words. Most just didn't talk about a lot of things that we talk about freely.

That's why I have also had it with some of the alerts on DU. Some DUers are alerting on the mere exercise of free speech about politicians and political issues. To bar speech just because it says something nasty about a politician is repression. We don't need it on DU.

Americans do not realize what is at stake with this cybersecurity business. Why aren't we better safeguarding our water sources? Why aren't we better safeguarding a lot of public places and things like nuclear reactors? Why is so much energy and money spent on cybersnooping rather than on really protecting our citizens?

The priorities are completely out of line in my view.

[JDPriestly]

4. The future: Recording devices built in to our phones that can be remotely turned on.

The FBI will be able to listen to us everywhere: in the kitchen, in our beds (to end child pornography or even a very healthy discussion about our children's problems in that location). Or the better to blackmail people?

I know. Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

But already, you go to your gym, you drive down the street, you go to the bank (do people still do that?), you do anything outside the confines of your house and you may be under surveillance. In fact, you probably are in many areas of town.

Obama is absolutely wrong on this one.

The needs of law enforcement are not that great.

Crimes and terrorist attacks occurred before the advent of the internet, and there were no paper trails because the criminals and terrorists colluded behind closed doors or on walks in the open air. Watch the old movies about the Mafia or WWII resistance fighters or the few movies about the repression under the rule of the Communists in Eastern Europe and Russia.

Or just look at our own homegrown American Revolution. What no one ever mentions is that fact that John Hancock and the many other men who started that war were trying to break a law that required them to pay certain taxes and buy items from the British. They were, essentially smuggling and breaking other laws they felt were unfairly imposed by the British.

And the Fourth Amendment exists in our Constitution because, in order to prevent the violations of British law, the British brutally violated the privacy of Americans.

And that is the risk today. The violation of privacy (without brutality but still a violation).

The argument that people could violate the tax code if the FBI could not get our on-line data is absurd. They have only to require that certain institutions like banks provide the information.

Before the advent of telephones, when people rode horses and met in ale and cider houses or inns and churches, what in the world did law enforcement do? How did they manage?

I totally disagree with the FBI on this.

I do not have any iron in the fire on it. I am a 72-year-old woman. My secrets are pretty much limited to what I tell my doctor.

But I oppose this cyber-snooping mania of our government. A husband and wife should be able to have an argument over the phone without the FBI or the NSA or the CIA or some obnoxious third party listening in on it.

No wonder we are all so paranoid. No wonder we all have so many conspiracy theories. The conspiracy to know everything about us is very real.

No to this cybersnooping.

And what if that phone that the FBI is so obsessed with has no information of value on it at all? Why does the FBI want it so much?

There is something fishy here.

They should use old interrogation methods. Maybe there were no third parties involved?

Too much, our very privacy, is at stake here. I do not understand why President Obama who claimed to be a constitutional lawyer is backing up the FBI and the NSA on this. It's simply wrong. It's just wrong.

[villager]

6. Plus a whole bunch! It's absolutely wrong, and one of our incumbent President's greatest failures.

Last edited Tue Mar 15, 2016, 03:35 PM - Edit history (1)

He's betrayed the Constitution he's purported to study, and believe in, on this one.

[randome]

10. I think the FBI wants the phone to see why Cloud backup was turned off before the murders.

You can store a hell of a lot of data on a phone without it going through telecoms. It's just a digital filing cabinet that should be subject to search with a legal warrant, same as everything else is.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[AxionExcel]

5. "All your source code are belong to us." - FIBI

[bemildred]

8. That should be hilarious. nt

[Rex]

11. "If government can’t get in, then everyone’s walking around with a Swiss bank account"

So if I understand you correctly then sir, only the wealthy should be untouchable? Slip of the tongue? Gosh I have to pick between Apple and the DoJ...tough call.

[JDPriestly]

12. Very good point.