You need a primer in reading comp. my 4th amendment statements were regarding your comment about the government having access to ANY citizens phone AFTER this ruling. Don't pick and choose what you want to understand.
Ah, you misunderstand the meaning of "access". My intention is that with this new "bypass device" Law Enforcement (or anyone with effort and means) will
now be able to access what was previously unaccessible. I know the law, JW, thanks.
The court documents also address your issues with bypassing the passcode. Again Apple could do this on their campus and destroy the backdoor. I don't see why they would share the backdoor with the world.
I've had enough fun talking to a wall. Time to get back to reality.
Sorry, the court documents don't address jack. What the documents say is that the Federal Government is Ordering Apple to comply with a judicial order to create a work-around to the very security created to keep people from doing what they (Apple) are now being ordered to do. The Federal Magistrate used the pretense of "The All Writs Act" as their is no legal pretense for what Apple is being ordered to do. Oddly, I think you may see an argument based on the 3rd Amendment to defend Apple's burden to thwart the
All Writs Act.**The All Writs Act is a United States federal statute, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which authorizes the United States federal courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." The act in its original form was part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The current form of the act was first passed in 1911[1] and the act has been amended several times since then.
As for Apple taking a device onto their internal network, well, that is incredibly dangerous. They have no idea what is on the device, what damage it might do, and thus no rational person would permit it from an IT perspective. And yes, it actually needs to be on their internal development network to attempt to engineer a back door. It can't be in isolation because the very certificate and restoration servers
only live on their live network. Once again the technology challenges are greater than you realize.
I forgot to address the justice thing since you asked... Again you assuming to know how I operate and you wouldn't know justice if it slapped you in the face. Do you think the families of San Bernardino will have justice? That's what matters.
Testy of you. I actually do know justice, thanks. Despite our being on opposite sides of a debate, I haven't lost my respect for you or your profession. But my posit was this: If you rely on the Judicial process for justice, then you can't really expect to trample the rights of others to get justice. It's the old "means to an end" argument that fails when those who uphold the law, break it. They may break it in the interest of justice, but at what expense?
Remember, this thread was about "Freedom isn't Free". We are arguing about the cost of our liberty and freedom, and the
risks we take to enjoy it. Too frequently, the citizens are told "Its in the interest of Public Safety/ National Security...". Well, that may sometimes be true, but it isn't always. And in this particular case of the FBI, their grievance really needs to be with the County of San Bernadino for issuing a device that they (SB Co.) had no control over. Apple is becoming the scapegoat (as mentioned many times earlier) and I suspect (as others do as well) that the FBI is using this moment to drive public support for instituting a new variation of the Patriot Act. Remember that one?
If the FBI is genuinely concerned about an impending threat and the data that is on that phone, heck, gather up all his relatives, friends and drinking buddies, and waterboard them until Noah sails his next Ark. Why let Miranda get in the way? It's in the interest of national security after all and their actions just might bring justice to the families in SB Co. (Which the Feds are culpable for, not Apple).
