I'll put in a call to Tim Cook and let you know what he says.

If that's a question, I believe adhering to the Constitution doesn't allow giving up liberty for safety.

Which is why I asked for facts

The way the device is made makes it necessary that apple itself retrieve that info.

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.

He stated clearly: only with a valid search warrant for THAT PHONE ONLY. Which they have.

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.

1st of this is not what the government want. They want a backdoor.

2nd a warrant requires that they can search something, not that you are required to find it for them.

for the constitution?????

ahem. db is a lawyer. does he impress you the way you have characterized lawyers? we are Objectivist. We are honest to your face. But there is such a thing as proprietary information. that is not the lawyers' fault. that is the fault of the judicial system. focus your anger on the system. Help change it. I know we do...everyday

Once again, what he's saying (much like Trump on taxing companies that want to locate outside the U.S.) is very Republican. These kinds of ideas are what drove me out of the GOP. Not sure how many others followed me, but I know a few...

To develop a bypass, you need the source code, which only Apple has.

This article is not very up to date. In 2014 Apple started using the user's password to one-way encrypt the information on an iPhone and implemented a separate security chip too. Does the FBI/NSA have enought INTEL from snooping on the communication of that iPhone?

I admit to being disappointed in Cruz. (I'd still take
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.

Basically it's like the Government issuing a warrant to seize a safe. They can take the safe, but they can not make you tell them the combination.

If they can't get the safe open, tough sh*t on their part.

Yes. Just heard it again this afternoon on tv. Now, again, devil in the details, whether they were meaning decrypted or simply opened ( bypassed the password) I do not know. But the 70 number keeps being used.

Imigration stance? The one were he put a poison pill in the Gang of 8, to kill it. Rubio recently said, " We never intended the bill to pass at all". So, now, Rubio agrees with Ted. But everyone calls Ted a liar. Ted was strategic, principled, and courageous in doing so. The cartel wants him gone, but he is not going anywhere. I understand Ted's stand, although I fall on the other side. He is a law and order/Constitution guy, and they seem to have followed the letter of the law. But technology is passing the law.

He stated clearly: only with a valid search warrant for THAT PHONE ONLY. Which they have.

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.

Jefferson was predominantly a farmer... So was Madison.

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.

Ashinoff has the right of it. The devil's details are that:
(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

???That is what I heard.( 70 previous phones decrypted)???

On the apple issue, I have this to say.

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.

Really so you would not have voted for Jefferson or Madison, John Quincy Adams, or Calvin Coolidge?

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.

I'd be careful when reversing the order of law. If it is not Constitutional, regardless of SCOTUS upholding it, it is not legal.

If I knew how to link audio /video segments of news reports of what I listen to I'd happily do so. Whether you'd consider them 'facts' or not I don't know. Really the only facts belong to those actually dealing with this - Tim Cook and whoever crafted the warrant.

I have to agree with khalling. I prefer many of Cruz's stances, but this is one which doesn't sit well with me.

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.