Ted Cruz Supports Law Enforcement Over Freedom
it was just a matter of time for me after the immigration stance...
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Cruz didn't mention that the iPhone of the attacker belonged the county health department, because the attacker was a government health inspector. A discussion about whether local (and larger) governments should be handing out phones to their employees that they can't access when necessary seems a lot more appropriate in this instance than one about whether the government should get a way in to everyone's phones.
In his letter, Cook had already rejected arguments that "building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution." That, Cook explained, ignored "both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case." He compared the software Apple was being ordered to develop to a master key that was "capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks."
While Cruz insisted Apple should comply with the order forthwith, Apple also has the right to appeal, which it has said it would be doing. Cruz insisted last night that the government order, and the abrogation of the right to the security of our personal papers and effects from government access that came with it, was consistent with the Fourth Amendment. But the case could go all the way to the Supreme Court.
In other portions of the town hall, Cruz argued he was a "constitutionalist" who would appoint the best (conservative) justices. His answer on Apple doesn't bode well for the Fourth Amendment. It was much easier for Cruz to call the judicial order for Kim Davis, a Kentucky clerk, to perform the duties required of her, "lawless" because of the perceived abrogation of her rights in that instance.
Apple's argument, however, may not be as clear as it sounds either. Shane Harris at The Daily Beast reports that Apple has unlocked phones for authorities on at least 70 occasions in the last eight years. The feds, Harris reported, had also admitted to having developed a method to get through the encryption of one version of the iPhone iOS. That appears to undercut the government's use of the All Writs Act of 1789, which requires such an order as Apple received to be a last resort for method.
PRISM, when leaked by Snowden was already a legacy program. Who knows what they are capable of now.
Apple has no way to crack the phone.
If government had the authority to crack the phone they should spend the effort to crack it by hiring someone who is willing to do so, not by forcing Apple to do so.
"Apple doesn’t manage the encryption keys to encrypt data. The news stories is saying encrypted data not a locked screen. Data is encrypted with key pairs that are managed by companies external to Apples control and if a back door existed, it would negate the entire reason for the technology in the first place. Once encrypted, you must have the private key to decrypt the data, period. These people stating that Apple must have a back door, they don’t know… it’s a guess… Do they have a back door to unlock a locked screen, I would assume they would. Do they have a back door to decrypt data that their customer encrypted, I would assume not."
Bottom line they can get in but don't want the feds to have the knowledge that would lead to getting into other cells and refused point blank to set the phones up that way
exactly what the judges warrant stipulated.
So it's between the feds and the corporation and their lawyers as to how and what can be witnessed on the entry method which means it's the same back door for all of them...
I make my living working with MS technology, plain and simple, Microsoft develops the technology and does an awesome job in designing the technology to fit their customer’s needs. MS is an enterprise class software company so they don’t market their products to you (this is changing internally).
You use MS technology on a daily basis and don’t even know it… The only reason why you have this enormous overblown opinion of Apple is because you don’t understand the technology. Apple is just putting a pretty interface on it all and delivering it with style and marketing.
Ignorant statement – “ So apple is just another Micros soft except puts out a working package from the start instead of 'get it on the market fix it later.' Interesting”
Wow Bil Gates ignorant. Now that is an ignorant statement compounded by what Apple? Their marketing strategy was turnkey but priced beyond the reach of most....
I guess it helps to have been born early enough to experience the whole change over from Lead 1.1 to CPM to DOS to Windows... Do you remember Lead 1.1?
Does MS make some quality products? Yes. Have they been squeaky clean? Not by a long shot. Their coercive business and licensing practices are well known and only started to fail when Google and Apple took the mobile industry by storm. Microsoft still tops out in that segment at about 2% market share.
I've been a Windows admin since NT 3.51 and one of the things that has absolutely made no sense at all is Microsoft's continuous alteration of the Control Panel. Everything is now buried three layers deep and intentionally obfuscated - like the network settings. They keep trying to force both the users and admins to adjust to how they want to do things without ever trying to allow the users to choose for themselves. Drives me nuts.
And regarding the payment, that also drives me crazy. It's a result of their drive to put out a new version of things every other year. It's stupid. Businesses upgrade on a five-year cycle, which is why every other version of Windows (aside from technically being crap) does so poorly in the market. I could spend every hour of every day planning and applying upgrades to Microsoft-based products and never get anything productive accomplished. That's just wrong. So in the software I used to be able to use for 5-6 years, I am now paying for upgrades every year I don't use or get any value from. A license for Office I now would have paid $200 for for its useful life I'm now spending $200 a year for. Great for Microsoft's revenue stream, but doing nothing for me.
I see this ultimately as a very good thing. Either Microsoft will move to innovation that actually provides value, or they will see themselves go the way of so many other businesses who failed to continue improving. Especially now that so many apps are being driven to the cloud and HTML5 standards, the desktop isn't nearly as important as it once was as a platform for access to applications. When my son fires up his Raspberry Pi and can run web apps for a mere $35 compared to the $1000 for a typical Windows box, the future is plain to anyone who looks...
(1) the actual owner of the phone (the County) has given permission for the phone to be accessed
(2) last I heard, the phone was a 5c (which can be hacked by Apple) and not a 5s or 6 (which can apparently not be hacked)
The big question for me is whether the hacking of this particular phone will give the FBI the key to open any 5c level phone. It is appropriate for Apple to take legal measures to appeal the court order, but if the unlocking of the phone will unlock only this phone and not all 5c phones then Apple should do so. If unlocking this phone will let the FBI unlock all 5c phones, then Apple should not be called on to do so and should continue to refuse if asked.
Jan
I would like to get away from the 'they (NSA/FBI./etc) are supposed to protect us' viewpoint and back to the 'we Americans are tough and can protect ourselves' philosophy.
Jan, reads Heinlein
Regardless of whether they would increase or decrease, I'd rather live free with people able and willing to protect themselves, as you suggest, than to be in a safe prison.
Blechch.
This is what we have to work on changing before we can try to accomplish anything more permanent (such as more personal freedoms in the Constitution; more limitations on gov). (My fantasy is that when some terrorist tries this again, a LOL pulls an Uzi out of her handbag and takes them out. OK- maybe just a 45...)
Heinlein tried many philosophies in his stories, but MIAHM era stories are very comfortable to read.
Jan
Jan
Jan
They stated one end of the conversation had to originate or end in a foreign country or a court order would be needed.
However they forgot about satellites.which are most definitely and legally outside the country.
The way bureaucrats work with that much wiggle room you don't ask just do it and if caught apologize then use another loophole.
In any case how hard would it be for them to make it look as if it went through a satellite?
I am stating that the NSA should NOT have massive surveillance privileges. Do you think that they should?
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan, mystified
Jan, laughing now
My comment was that 'I did not care' if the NSA were effective, I would prefer to accept greater risk and have greater freedom. You are reacting to this comment as if I were a proponent of the NSA when I believe I have clearly stated that I would not consider myself a proponent of general surveillance even if the organization were successful at doing so.
Somehow you have inverted my stance and are now arguing against me. Please do not stand me on my head.
Jan
What I do know is that I am not arguing about whether the NSA is effective or not. What I have said is that even IF the NSA were effective, I still would not prefer the safety of their scrutiny over the risk of more freedom. Obviously, if the NSA is not effective, then the argument is even stronger against allowing them to have that latitude.
The venerable freedom vs security dichotomy applies to this case. Like you, I think that freedom is far more important.
Jan
Snowden provided overwhelming evidence that the NSA is not effective in this program as has Ron Paul. The NSA has provide unsubstantiated claims.
Jan
When the Constitution was written, it was for a poor, obscure, boondocks country where the fastest travel was by horse. I think this is one of the places we have outgrown the social technology of that document. What precautions should be added to keep this sort of organization under control?
Jan
Jan
Jan
Not always but far too much for my liking.
If they can't get the safe open, tough sh*t on their part.
Suspicion of or suspicion support of terrorism is clean, swift, simple and requires or denies such minor impedimenta as civil rights...from Miranda to sentencing.
If this is real, IMHO Cruz is wrong
Look at it from this angle-remember all that data they are collecting under secret order and storing every 9 months from all of our cellular devices? why the hell don't they go get what they need from there? If they can't, then they can bloody well quit collecting my personal communications. because that was its express purpose.
I guess what I don't understand is the correlation between this and immigration. I should have been more clear in my confusion. :)
If it doesn't they just apologize maybe for the error ....to their boss
The law goes back to the 1930's and also prohibits interference with through the air transmissions so we can't get the cell phone jammers or black out spots (50' diameter circle mas o menos ) available elsewhere as one example
Isn't it surreal that we've even having this debate in our country? It's this silent glide over the slippery slope that I've discussed with a few friends recently. We actually debate things here in California like forced medical treatment, removing the right to a free public education, violation of the 4th Amendment, and many other things that surprise me still.
him over Trump or a Democrat).
But is Apple supposed to invent or manufacture
something that does not exist as yet, in order to
provide a way to open those phones? That would be a violation of the 13th Amendment,
never mind the Fourth.
What the government wants is to eliminate any form of private encription. The current attack on us is just politically enabled because terrorists killed people.
They are asking apple to remove the restriction on the number of attempts you can have to put in security codes to unlock iphones before all the data is wiped out.
I like this restriction in the case I lose my phone or its stolen and someone wants to get my data. They have 10 tries currently out of a potential 10,000 security codes to get it right and unlock the phone. I like that. The government wants unlimited tries so it can just try each of the 10,000 and get the data. That means ANYONE could get my data by just trying the 10,000 codes one by one (or a hacker or other government).
Apple has correctly determined that people would NOT put anything sensitive on their phones any more (hear that HIllary?)
With the huge budgets the government has, and the power of the NSA, I cant believe that they cant just pay some hacker to get into the phone they want as it is. This makes no sense to me why they must get Apple to do it for them.
I understand that during that process of getting into that phone, it could get hacked. I suggest that it be done by apple in a Faraday cage or metal container with no one looking over their shoulders.
Problem solved.
2nd a warrant requires that they can search something, not that you are required to find it for them.
That's my take if I understand it.
I also understand that the cops or fbi did something to the phone which makes it impossible to get in now.
Sounds like they were either stupid or did it on purpose to force the issue.
Dollars to donuts, I'll be that his years as a prosecutor and AG for Texas significantly influence this position. It's pretty easy when you're pressing for conviction to fail to look at the other side: personal liberties. And the issue is not that the government didn't get a warrant, it's that the government is basically coercing the manufacturer's cooperation because they (the government) can't do it themselves. What's worse is that it threatens Apple's business, as they made a big deal about making their devices so secure not even Apple's employees could get into them. I've seen it in my business where the phone locked up so hard the only option was to wipe the phone (reinitialize) and then set it back up and re-download settings and data from their saved profile.
I understand that during that process of getting into that phone, it could get hacked. I suggest that it be done by apple in a Faraday cage or metal container with no one looking over their shoulders.
Problem solved.
I'll never vote for a lawyer.
Most business lawyers are there trying to secure or protect their clients property that is what I do.
Now that is not to say there are not a lot of bad lawyers, but you have to blame the philosophical culture first, the law second, judges third, and then lawyers in general practice.
No opinion on the other two, other than lawyers of old are quite different than today's crop of ambulance chasers.
I've been in 8 or so lawsuits in my life, I'm just not impressed with the average (low) level of IQ, their institutional narcism, or how they act behind closed doors.
For a person billed as a constitutionalist, Cruz has made a really bad, sticky, blunder. As I have posted many times, I am not an engineer so I may get the technicalities wrong, but from what I can gather, the government is actually demanding that Apple create a new product that will destroy the salability of their current products. Here comes the old analogy maker again: "Hey, Mr. Apple, I need you to test the new gallows. Will you kindly hang yourself so we can be sure the bad person doesn't get off?"
first of all Reason was the source for the charges of Rand lying to immigration. When challenged the writer of that nonsense claimed it was backed up in Reason. It was not and that in two articles both of which promised facts and failed to deliver.
Second. Cruz stated in this specific case of a committed crime the court order specifically said they needed to open up access on this one specific cell phone. Not provide a means to open it up. the key was to be kept in their hands not loaned out. He further stated he was against the blanket request for back door technology to be provided to Law Enforcement something it appears that was asked for by them and denied by the judge;.
End of non existent controversy. And strike two for Reason. which as i recall started as a libertarian blog and 'we don't get along with them.'
so I have to come down on the side of Cruz as in the end I had to come down on his side on the foreign born non-issue
but I still don't like his tax plan ....until I see some sort of proof it will not be instituted until after income tax is repealed and then in a proper end user consumption tax form.
And i still state that if he want votes there is not better place than the 46% disenfranchised to add to the less than 24% Republican since most of them are RINOS and actually Democrats anyway. The way to do that is Webb as VP running mate....Not by turning weak sister and supporting a poor second choice left wing socialist corporatist.
Let's be honest, if they produce something like that, I could, for example, do that for someone with that tool. So could many other people that have the skills I have as long as they had the tool.
My own and my entire family's background was stolen from OPM along with 21 million others - where we grew up, friends we associated with, teachers, obviously, our financial backgrounds, etc., with our security clearances. OPM didn't bother to protect that, so why would anyone believe the government would protect this "key".
A subpoena requires information to be provided in the course of the investigation, it can't be issued to a civilian "requiring" them to PERFORM the investigation, and to produce WORK PRODUCT that the investigation needs.
You know what, people like myself and my associates don't work for the government as civil servants, because frankly, they don't pay enough. With that they offer their technical folks, they are going to get the C & D students, that's it. Not the ones that were writing code by the time they were 7.
There is a very vast difference between complying with a court order to provide information supporting a reasonable doubt suspicion, for example, and requiring a private company to do their investigation for them. Ayn Rand would roll over in her grave.
And no, it's not "only" for this investigation, because the NY PD last night said on the news that they "had at least 189 iPhones in storage that they also need access to for crimes ranging from murder to identity theft"... so, my original thought was on this, it starts with a nickel-terrorist that obviously didn't have a network behind him or he wouldn't borrow a couple of $450 plastic-receiver AR-15s you can buy at Walmart from his neighbor, you would never take that risk if you were really "operational".. you wouldn't drop the kids off with grandma & grandpa to go on jihad.
The Obama administration really, really wants this to be 'workplace violence'. The phone is a $99 iPhone 5c from 4 years ago, its sad that with the vast resources of the government, they need 'help' to do something with that. I also doubt he would have been planning workplace violence on his employer-owned cell phone (he worked for San Bernardino County). This is more about hoping against hope that some coworker called him a rag head or a camel jockey on a text and they are hoping they can prove its workplace violence.
need one say more?