|
do you still have to ask the queen for permission before youre allowed to browse porn lol
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:01 |
|
|
poty posted:do you still have to ask the queen for permission before youre allowed to browse porn lol 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
good luck apple, you will need it DoJ files motion to compel Apple to comply with FBI order The Justice Department is seeking to force Apple to comply with an order to help the FBI crack a phone used by one of the San Bernardino attackers, CNBC confirmed Friday. Apple previously had been given an additional three days to respond to the order, with a Feb. 26 deadline. Apple CEO Tim Cook and other tech executives denounced the request this week amid a renewed debate over how much access firms should give authorities to investigate or prevent attacks. considering they aren't requiring a custom decrypted firmware, just a timeout nullification, Apple has no case
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
even if they were asking for firmware that removed the lock or encryption entirely, theres no reason apple couldn't lock it to that firmware and/or invalidate the image immediately after its unlocked. you could litterrally flash it, unlock + remove passcode, flash back to default os and then destroy that first image and revoke its signature so even if somehow someone got a copy and then somehow managed to remove the components that lock it to the device without violating the signature, then it still wouldn't work cause the signature would have been invalidated by the revocation list.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
The major point is the precedent that opens the flood gates for other requests, the trick by the government is to make the case look reasonable and a one-off but it is not just "one phone" that is targeted the legal process affects all devices with any level of security. Flooding the newswires today obviously: 
MrMoo fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
if we were to succumb to the rule of law, even once, it would open the floodgates. there would be no end to the onerous legislation the government would place upon us, expecting us to follow every law on the books
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
bet they don't even find anything important on the phone
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
the best part is the COUNTY owns it, not the user. they have permission from the owner, it's just Apple
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:if we were to succumb to the rule of law, even once, it would open the floodgates. there would be no end to the onerous legislation the government would place upon us, expecting us to follow every law on the books Depends whether you live in Ferguson? This was covered in an episode of Bones recently, the Jeffersonian where the forensic team work is federal and thus follows federal law despite being in Virginia where the state law allows medical marijuana. Seeley and Camille are all hyped up about following the federal law as the principle of their job. One intern Wendell Bray has bone cancer and was using marijuana and had to be fired as a permanent employee but could be employed as a consultant. At the end of the episode Bones and Seeley list how many more local laws they have broken.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
it may be reasonable for the FBI to access that phone and perhaps apple will even do it for them after they defeat the feds in court but apple should still fight them and invoke their 1st amendment right and take this all the way to the supreme court if need be. cause otherwise the precedent would be set that law enforcement can get anyone to weaken or change their product to suit the needs of some random investigation, whether that is for terrorism or just a local cop trying to go after some drug dealer
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
No you guys this is the erosion of civil liberties to perform terrorism and have your saved emails not able to be read because it would take way too long to brute force your iPhone
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
I'm a big dumb idiot from the UK who doesn't understand US law and makes a big show of it
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
MrMoo posted:The major point is the precedent that opens the flood gates for other requests, the trick by the government is to make the case look reasonable and a one-off but it is not just "one phone" that is targeted the legal process affects all devices with any level of security. first off the feds will get access. period. theres no scenario here where they don't. the difference is that if apple gives them access now they can limit the precedent to a single phone. apple writes software that only works to decrypt that phone. for future cases this means yes the feds can get access to phones, but they have to get a court order and then apple or whoever does it for that phone. the effect is limited to phones involved in active investigations. if apple doesn't give in now, the feds will just say "ok well these companies aren't helpful so we're just going to require backdoors in everything." that will affect everyone
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
cremnob posted:it may be reasonable for the FBI to access that phone and perhaps apple will even do it for them after they defeat the feds in court the law already requires many other companies to weaken the privacy of their products for government benefit. apple doesn't have a leg to stand on here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
i wish your stupid country didn't make it so easy to buy guns
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:the law already requires many other companies to weaken the privacy of their products for government benefit. apple doesn't have a leg to stand on here. CALEA requires that for telephone companies and carriers, it specifically does not include tech companies like apple so you're wrong about that. in the future there might be legislation that covers tech companies mandating backdoors, but that is not the case now. theres a reason why they're using the All Writs Act and its cause there is no other legislation that covers this apple will invoke their first amendment right against being compelled to write this software for the feds and its gonna be epic
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
in the absence of a specific law dealing with phones, the all writs act applies and when looking at previous law for hints at what congress might approve, CALEA makes it clear that congress wants the feds to have access to this kind of information.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
cremnob posted:CALEA requires that for telephone companies and carriers, it specifically does not include tech companies like apple so you're wrong about that. in the future there might be legislation that covers tech companies mandating backdoors, but that is not the case now. they don't have a first amendment right to not do what the government tells them
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
cremnob posted:CALEA requires that for telephone companies and carriers, it specifically does not include tech companies like apple so you're wrong about that. in the future there might be legislation that covers tech companies mandating backdoors, but that is not the case now. but they aren't writing anything, they are commenting out timeouts and resigning it. depends on what judge president trump gives us
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:they don't have a first amendment right to not do what the government tells them code is speech according to the court of appeals for the 9th circuit. even if apple fails to successfully argue against the order under the All Writs Act, which they have a pretty decent shot at, they can easily argue that this order is compelled speech and that it infringes their first amendment right
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
code is only speech in that it can be used to generate speech. you cant limit the creation of code for use in generating speech, but that doesn't mean you cant control software for other purposes or compel someone to write software.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:first off the feds will get access. period. theres no scenario here where they don't. the difference is that if apple gives them access now they can limit the precedent to a single phone. apple writes software that only works to decrypt that phone. for future cases this means yes the feds can get access to phones, but they have to get a court order and then apple or whoever does it for that phone. the effect is limited to phones involved in active investigations. Even CNN has covered this well, backdoors in the phones is pointless users will just use encryption software and that software can be made outside of US jurisdiction. It will damage US industry as US made products will no longer be favourable due to government snooping and interference*. I like the drama response of the privacy advocates: ISIS are terrorizing the US because of the civil liberties enjoyed, if you remove privacy the US becomes no better than the ISIS. * I wonder if anyone would really care as they don't really care much now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
and actually the first amendment and the constitution exactly protects u from things the government might tell u to do!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
MrMoo posted:Even CNN has covered this well, backdoors in the phones is pointless users will just use encryption software and that software can be made outside of US jurisdiction. It will damage US industry as US made products will no longer be favourable due to government snooping and interference*. yes there are lots of good things to consider in a legislative process which would make legislation pretty limited once tech companies have input on the process apple and the rest of tech shouldnt let the courts have an end run around that process
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
MrMoo posted:Even CNN has covered this well, backdoors in the phones is pointless users will just use encryption software and that software can be made outside of US jurisdiction. It will damage US industry as US made products will no longer be favourable due to government snooping and interference*. right. for average consumers they will continue using the bad crypto with backdoors that apple will have created. criminals will use good crypto. better for apple to cave now and avoid the blanket backdoor. cremnob posted:and actually the first amendment and the constitution exactly protects u from things the government might tell u to do!! ok then im not gonna pay taxes anymore cause 1st amendment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
MrMoo posted:Even CNN has covered this well, backdoors in the phones is pointless users will just use encryption software and that software can be made outside of US jurisdiction. It will damage US industry as US made products will no longer be favourable due to government snooping and interference*.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
if code is speech, how to crypto export restrictions work?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
cremnob posted:and actually the first amendment and the constitution exactly protects u from things the government might tell u to do!! Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1] no
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
 obviously, all the presidential candidates being super stars here. quote:19-Feb-2016 15:33 MrMoo fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:if code is speech, how to crypto export restrictions work? its not and they don't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:its not and they don't. yes, it was rhetorical. but if code were considered speech, export restrictions couldn't exist
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
read this https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/21-29
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Code is a commodity y'all. Sorry you work at a company so far in the dumpster you never had to understand congressional trade laws
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
the eff is literally a bunch of fundamentalist loonies and should never be referred to for anything
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
ok but they won a case in the US court of appeals where they say that code is speech
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
broken clock opsec posted:the eff is literally a bunch of fundamentalist loonies and should never be referred to for anything and that judgement from the lower courts if from 1999, many other cases supersede it
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
you can read the ruling here https://epic.org/crypto/export_controls/bernstein_decision_9_cir.html theultimo posted:and that judgement from the lower courts if from 1999, many other cases supersede it please refer me to those cases
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
cremnob posted:you can read the ruling here libcss oh wait DVD ENCRYPTION IS FREE SPEECH yadda yadda http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise50.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
quote:Thus, cryptographers use source code to express their scientific ideas in much the same way that mathematicians use equations or economists use graphs. Of course, both mathematical equations and graphs are used in other fields for many purposes, not all of which are expressive. But mathematicians and economists have adopted these modes of expression in order to facilitate the precise and rigorous expression of complex scientific ideas.[13] Similarly, the undisputed record here makes it clear that cryptographers utilize source code in the same fashion.[14]
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:01 |
|
|
broken clock opsec posted:the eff is literally a bunch of fundamentalist loonies and should never be referred to for anything I'm still mad at them & lessig for loving up the copyright extension case so bad [not that it would have gone much differently with better lawyers & witnesses]
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:50
|
|
