|
climboutonalimb posted:To be fair, the 4th doesn't protect against decrypting THIS phone. For one, they're dead, but also they weren't citizens. 4th amendment gives equal protection to citizens and non-citizens, but Apple definitely doesn't have a 4th Amendment right against the FBI searching someone else's phone.
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:45 |
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/09/congress-expresses-serious-concern-over-new-overtime-rules/ I've been trying to follow this pretty closely, but one thing I've not been able to definitively suss out is what salaried workers who fall under the proposed threshold, if any, won't be newly eligible for overtime under the new rules. I read a bit on the "duties test", but it isn't exactly clear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:4th amendment gives equal protection to citizens and non-citizens, but Apple definitely doesn't have a 4th Amendment right against the FBI searching someone else's phone. But does Apple have a right to not have to engineer a workaround for the government?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Nobody is even talking about how the FBI is asking apple to develop a new capability from scratch which must work the first time without failure. This is a significant development effort that will require major resources from Apple. Do you think the FBI is going to pay for it? Yes. For example, in a similar order, the court held that "[t]o the extent the manufacturer believes the order to be unduly burdensome or that it should be reimbursed for expenses, the manufacturer should be given clear notice that it has the opportunity to object to the Order." Apple's challenging on "unduly burdensome", I guess, but they also get to be reimbursed for expenses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But does Apple have a right to not have to engineer a workaround for the government? Not that I know of. At least I don't know what basis there would be, at least under existing caselaw.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:I really loving hate Feinstein being one of my senators. Boxer is way better and I'm sad she's the one retiring first. The day Feinstein retires should be as celebrated by Dems as the day Scalia retired, although she'll probably only retire the same way. (It's really best to discard the two-party label altogether when it comes to the libertarianism-authoritarian spectrum, of course.) Has she done literally anything good during her political career beyond speak out against torture in 2014 (so brave to do it long after those programs were shut down) and renovate the San Francisco streetcar system/increase the number of high rise buildings in SF back in the 1970s? Going through her background, from vetoing domestic partner legislation and refusing to march in gay pride parades as the Mayor of San Francisco, to co-sponsoring PIPA and the first extension to the PATRIOT Act, to supporting the Iraq War and the death penalty, she's basically an authoritarian nutjob. (Her assault weapon ban didn't seem to have any effect on gun violence, by the way.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Yes. For example, in a similar order, the court held that "[t]o the extent the manufacturer believes the order to be unduly burdensome or that it should be reimbursed for expenses, the manufacturer should be given clear notice that it has the opportunity to object to the Order." Apple's challenging on "unduly burdensome", I guess, but they also get to be reimbursed for expenses. When apple comes back with a 7-8 figure cost estimate will they be thrown in contempt of court? The US government has no idea what they're asking for or ordered and it's actually pretty scary. This assumes that it's theoretically possible, which as its a 5c the answer is "probably". But Apple has to expend a lot of time figuring that part out first!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:When apple comes back with a 7-8 figure cost estimate will When AT&T does that, they just pay. That's why they're mad. This is usually a huge profit center for companies and Apple isn't playing ball. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Not that I know of. At least I don't know what basis there would be, at least under existing caselaw. The government can compel a company to make anything it wants (and get reimbursed) if it helps in a police investigation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Brodeurs Nanny posted:It's really quite difficult for me to understand why people see an issue so ludicrously black and white. Supporting Black Lives Matter doesn't mean "gently caress any and all cops, murder the police." It means black lives matter. Why are cops offended by the notion that cops who murder unarmed kids and are racist should be held accountable? "All lives matter! (But black peoples' issues don't warrant concern and should honestly pipe down so I'm not inconvenienced... Forever.)" - a white American racist AKA you will keep that boot firmly planted in your mouth and you will like it!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Not that I know of. At least I don't know what basis there would be, at least under existing caselaw. There may be limited precedent for this because it's emerging technology but is there any caselaw precedent for a property owner not handing over a key to property to be searched if it means... I don't know what would analogous... access to the master key pattern for the entire apartment complex would be made public as a result?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:19
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Trabisnikof posted:The government can compel a company to make anything it wants (and get reimbursed) if it helps in a police investigation? Need to exhaust other options first, but yeah, they can go to court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The government can compel a company to make anything it wants (and get reimbursed) if it helps in a police investigation? Need to exhaust other options first, but yeah, they can go to court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Seriously, if it turns out congress can remove someone(s) from the court simply by reducing its number and then later boost it back up and have the (presumably their) president nominate entirely new people, that is a massive flaw in the system. That's exactly how it works. There is nothing that would prohibit a Congress and President from passing a law that lets them stack the court. Since the SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment as per the Constitution itself I think the SCOTUS might actually force a showdown if the other two branches decided to try and reduce numbers by kicking someone from the bench so they'd have to wait for someone to retire or die and not replace them. Cutting the SCOTUS down to 7 isn't going to happen because Obama would oppose it heavily and I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS itself would condemn such a naked power play. This idea has no chance. Even if the Senate can do it on their own via a resolution they still would have to impeach a justice since those are explicitly lifetime appointments and impeaching her for not going along with it will likely turn the SCOTUS against the GOP because allowing it to happen would undermine the court too much for them to tolerate. Roberts is a piece of poo poo but he'd go to war with the GOP before he'd let them gently caress with the SCOTUS like that. ReidRansom posted:I have no idea. Flores seemed to think they could do it via resolution, with no action by the president. He's wrong and the only way Kagan's leaving the bench is if she retires, dies, or gets impeached. FlamingLiberal posted:Just a reminder that Feinstein was perfectly a ok with government spying until the CIA spied on her committee People like her are pretty much the reason I think Trump has better than even odds at beating Clinton in the election. Dems might not be as bad as the GOP but there are some really lovely Dems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:There may be limited precedent for this because it's emerging technology but is there any caselaw precedent for a property owner not handing over a key to property to be searched if it means... I don't know what would analogous... access to the master key pattern for the entire apartment complex would be made public as a result? It's going to the lock manufacturer and asking for them to make a new lock that doesn't need a key. And please install it on this door without damaging the door frame, door or wall. Yes the lock is engaged, and extends well into the wall, why would we be asking you if it wasn't?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:It's going to the lock manufacturer and asking for them to make a new lock that doesn't need a key. And please install it on this door without damaging the door frame, door or wall. Yes the lock is engaged, and extends well into the wall, why would we be asking you if it wasn't? Yes, people seem to not notice the gov't isn't asking Apple for the keys, they know Apple doesn't have them. They're asking Apple to weaken the security in situ. As soon as Apple does it, China is going to demand a copy and coincidentally many VIPs in China suddenly get robbed of their iPhones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:It's going to the lock manufacturer and asking for them to make a new lock that doesn't need a key. And please install it on this door without damaging the door frame, door or wall. Yes the lock is engaged, and extends well into the wall, why would we be asking you if it wasn't? The part where I get lost here is what the government is supposed to do if they have a legal warrant/valid reason to search the phone and can't because of the technology built into the phone. Do they just give up?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
MC Nietzche posted:The part where I get lost here is what the government is supposed to do if they have a legal warrant/valid reason to search the phone and can't because of the technology built into the phone. Do they just give up? Pretty much.  Same as if the criminal had smashed the phone with a hammer and threw the pieces in a fire. It would be useful to get the information that was on it, but it's irretrievable. That sucks, but so it goes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
MC Nietzche posted:The part where I get lost here is what the government is supposed to do if they have a legal warrant/valid reason to search the phone and can't because of the technology built into the phone. Do they just give up? If the encryption is done perfectly and the keys are lost then it cannot be opened before the heat death of the universe. So hopefully yes they do just give up and stop wasting people's resources. Just like if you forget the password/key for your laptop with whole drive encryption - you have to wipe it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
duz posted:Yes, people seem to not notice the gov't isn't asking Apple for the keys, they know Apple doesn't have them. They're asking Apple to weaken the security in situ. As soon as Apple does it, China is going to demand a copy and coincidentally many VIPs in China suddenly get robbed of their iPhones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Yeah exactly. Like I said before, I don't understand even theoretically how whatever they want Apple to do could only ever be applied to one phone. if(uuid != PHONE_UUID_HERE) { //don't boot } else { //boot } But you know a state actor would never be able to find a literal in a loving hex editor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I am almost certain there is a Hindu monastic order out there that can give a run for the money, but I don't actually know which. I know there are a few that easily break 1k years so we are halfway there! Technically speaking, the Armenian Church is probably the oldest Christian church, and its head has been the formal head of the church hierarchy since the early 4th century, which puts it one up on the Papacy, since the latter developed over the course of centuries from regular old city bishop to head of the entire church. But both trace themselves back to the apostles in the mid first century CE, and nobody can prove either way, so it's really a bit of a wash. As for Hinduism, it looks like its oldest monastic orders go back to the 8th century, so close! Just bump off the world's largest religion, some of the most stubborn survivors in Eurasia, and the entire deified Imperial Family of Japan and you'll have the title clinched.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
BobTheJanitor posted:Pretty much. Then I'm not sure what congress will do but they're going to do something because the FBI is going to point at the decidedly unsmashed phone and say "corporate intransigence is letting criminals go free/endangering the public" and then I'm not sure what happens next.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
MC Nietzche posted:Then I'm not sure what congress will do but they're going to do something because the FBI is going to point at the decidedly unsmashed phone and say "corporate intransigence is letting criminals go free/endangering the public" and then I'm not sure what happens next. Either a legal ban to encryption in general or in apple products specifically (with merely a precedent that encryption in general is on legal thin ice)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Yeah exactly. Like I said before, I don't understand even theoretically how whatever they want Apple to do could only ever be applied to one phone. Why can't Apple refuse to hand over the method to China?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Why can't Apple refuse to hand over the method to China? Then iPhones don't get shipped from their factories.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Yeah exactly. Like I said before, I don't understand even theoretically how whatever they want Apple to do could only ever be applied to one phone. It makes more sense when you realize that James Comey is a dope who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. He's given countless public statements in the past complaining about how encryption is stopping the FBI from apprehending The Terrorists and requesting that tech companies do something to weaken encryption for law enforcement. When every single programmer responds that it's impossible to do so without also opening vulnerabilities for hackers and other malicious parties to exploit, he says the same thing again and changes some words around. Not long ago, after programmers had told him his request was fundamentally impossible to implement for the xth time, he blamed them for not trying hard enough to come up with a solution and was super sure that they could figure it out if they just tried hard enough. He essentially wants a magic solution and won't take no for an answer. The specifics not making sense are just an extension of that. NoEyedSquareGuy fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Technically speaking, the Armenian Church is probably the oldest Christian church, and its head has been the formal head of the church hierarchy since the early 4th century, which puts it one up on the Papacy, since the latter developed over the course of centuries from regular old city bishop to head of the entire church. But both trace themselves back to the apostles in the mid first century CE, and nobody can prove either way, so it's really a bit of a wash. That recent? Huh. Guess mainlanders really are lazy. (It is a Ceylon joke.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Technically speaking, the Armenian Church is probably the oldest Christian church, and its head has been the formal head of the church hierarchy since the early 4th century, which puts it one up on the Papacy, since the latter developed over the course of centuries from regular old city bishop to head of the entire church. But both trace themselves back to the apostles in the mid first century CE, and nobody can prove either way, so it's really a bit of a wash. Japanese emperor is no longer a god since 1945. Still a war criminal though
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:It makes more sense when you realize that James Comey is a dope who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. He's given countless public statements in the past complaining about how encryption is stopping the FBI from apprehending The Terrorists and requesting that tech companies do something to weaken encryption for law enforcement. When every single programmer responds that it's impossible to do so without also opening vulnerabilities for hackers and other malicious parties to exploit, he says the same thing again and changes some words around. Not long ago, after programmers had told him his request was fundamentally impossible to implement for the xth time, he blamed them for not trying hard enough to come up with a solution and was super sure that they could figure it out if they just tried hard enough. Maybe he just thinks that encryption is pointless because as a security clearance holder the Chinese already have everything in his SF-86 and background investigations anyways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:I've been trying to follow this pretty closely, but one thing I've not been able to definitively suss out is what salaried workers who fall under the proposed threshold, if any, won't be newly eligible for overtime under the new rules. I read a bit on the "duties test", but it isn't exactly clear. Currently, that's decided by the states and feds. The first example I ran into (I never knew there were jobs that were flat out exempt) was movie theatre workers in Texas. At all levels, they're completely exempt from overtime laws. Here's Texas' list: http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/exemptions_from_overtime_only.html Most of them make sense, like farm workers and other seasonal jobs. We already saw how absurd companies can get with the ACA. A number of national corporations cut hours to right below the threshold and we're still waiting on good analysis of how that effected turnover costs and general employee quality. They're threatening to do that again with this, but it's alot hard to constantly replacement management that's pissed it isn't getting enough hours/benefits. Either way, gently caress them. They're stealing money from their employees and now they're crying about the feds forcing them to give it back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Then iPhones don't get shipped from their factories. So it's less can't and more don't want to? And that assumes China really wants to go down that road.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:For someone with zero credibility, he sure is on TV a lot. I would really be fascinated to know what dirt he has or what compromising photos he's locked up with a dead man's hand somewhere because it's the only way I can mentally rationalize someone being consistently wrong for decades and still having the job he does. Anyone else would be sitting out in the unemployment line, yet...
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Zachack posted:So it's less can't and more don't want to? Once the backdoor exists, I imagine, even if Apple gave it only to the US government it would end up other places sooner or later, whether through espionage or similar lawsuits in other countries. Apple can refuse all it wants, just like its refusing to do it in the first place here, but once you tell the company that no, you can't refuse its harder for them to refuse elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:4th amendment gives equal protection to citizens and non-citizens, but Apple definitely doesn't have a 4th Amendment right against the FBI searching someone else's phone. Hmmm. That makes this seem a bit similar to a landlord not giving up their keys to let the police in. Do they have a duty to do so?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
I bet the FBI would be pretty unhappy if this precedent was used to mandate that they include a backdoor into their own encrypted databases, because Mossad needs that info to find terrorists
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:I think Scandinavian countries had sane and competent leaders. And then the refugee problem happened and racism hit the fan and apparently a neo-nazi party is on the rise. Not a surprise given how incompetently the left handled the issue, they really only have themselves to blame.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I bet the FBI would be pretty unhappy if this precedent was used to mandate that they include a backdoor into their own encrypted databases, because Mossad needs that info to find terrorists  if you think the FBI/US government in general doesn't already give Israel whatever info it wants on anything at any time
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I bet the FBI would be pretty unhappy if this precedent was used to mandate that they include a backdoor into their own encrypted databases, because Mossad needs that info to find terrorists what encrypted fbi databases hobbesmaster posted:Maybe he just thinks that encryption is pointless because as a security clearance holder the Chinese already have everything in his SF-86 and background investigations anyways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
foobardog posted:Hmmm. That makes this seem a bit similar to a landlord not giving up their keys to let the police in. Do they have a duty to do so? This particular instance is more like, the landlord explicitly provides the tenant with their own unique, unpickable lock that they themselves don't have keys to, and the police want the landlord to be the one to change the locks back to something they can pick. Which isn't even necessarily something the landlord is capable of, especially since changing the lock might or might not cause a load-bearing wall to give out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:45 |
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:This particular instance is more like, the landlord explicitly provides the tenant with their own unique, unpickable lock that they themselves don't have keys to, and the police want the landlord to be the one to change the locks back to something they can pick. Which isn't even necessarily something the landlord is capable of, especially since changing the lock might or might not cause a load-bearing wall to give out. Oh, I know it can definitely be distinguished, I'm just more interested in the comparison. Basically, if this wouldn't even fly for a normal landlord, there's little evidence it should now apply in the digital case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:38
|
|