If you mean like worshiping Apple, I couldn’t agree more.
3 Likes
Can’t we get them on some kind of DMC related charge?
The annoying thing about this is you can never know…
The FBI aren’t exactly trustworthy, but in any case, whatever they say is either going to be utter lies, a mix or truthful, but you can never know which. Even if they gave the truthful answer, you’d never know since all three options are equally possible still…
Just to add further complexity, you cannot know if anything ever existed on the phone in the first place so even that doesn’t help…
It’s basically possible lies by possible liars confirmed by possible liars who may or may not be lying…
I’m now just fearful of the lying inception happening…
4 Likes
It’s not that I WANT to, but after the battle to get it cracked open I feel like we should all enjoy the spoils of victory!
1 Like
Also, from the DMCA:
“This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term “information security” means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.”
It would be extremely incompetent of the lawmakers to omit this, so I just assumed it was in there until I checked for myself.
1 Like
Where did you get the idea they gave a crap about public opinion?
1 Like
I don’t think this is a valid argument. The legal concept of “ownership” has shifted over the years particularly since the introduction of the DMCA. A terrible bit of legislation introduced (and paid for) in a time of panic. A search for “DMCA tractor” or “DMCA coffee maker” will give you some pretty good examples of how this law in particular is bad for society.
2 Likes
See my reply about the law enforcement exemption in the DMCA.
1 Like
“Man, this case isn’t going well, is it. We might be in trouble here guys.”
“Hey, did you try…uhh…Password, capital p?”
…
…
“FUCK!”
4 Likes
When the congress people started asking actual questions before their usual fawning over who could be first to grant all the powers being requested?
(Though I think it’s pretty clear that the FBI reversed course because Apple’s defense was clearly going to steamroller the FBI’s bizarre contorted legal “interpretations” in court and produce a solid precedent against them.)
2 Likes
I don’t think I’m a nut, and I don’t automatically disbelieve everything the government says simply because I can’t believe everything they say. Truthers and conspiracy theorists piss me off because I’ve got to put that caveat front and center before I say anything like this:
Does anybody else think this might be a bit of misdirection? A way for the FBI to avoid risking a “bad” precedent in a very public trial (with strong public opinion - which in the real world can influence the outcome). They decision to make this case about this particular defendant’s phone was legal strategy, of course. They already have him nailed as an actual terrorist from my (limited) understanding. I suppose it’s encouraging that rubber-hose cryptanalysis doesn’t seem to have been used in this case.
I doubt that the information on this phone was essential for this prosecution, and this case seems more about the precedent. I feel like they may just be regrouping; they’ll try to set the precedent again under more favorable conditions, against an opponent with fewer resources (of course most tech companies aren’t fighting them at all).
It’s the perfect way to bow out of a losing fight. Sow doubt about a technology that they can’t break, so people seek out alternatives, maybe ones they can; tire out the vigilant.
You know, this is a shame. Despite the fuckups, among the intelligence agencies, the (modern) FBI always felt the closest to being the “good guys” to me. This case hasn’t helped.
4 Likes
They do. They give tours at headquarters. Excluding anything from the Hoover era, whenever you see them represented in fiction, they tend to find solutions to “ticking time bomb” situations that stay within the rule of law. It’s propaganda, sure, but I’m inclined to believe it to an extent. It’s how they represent themselves to potential recruits, in addition to the general public. That’s always implied to me that they’re trying to hold themselves to a higher standard.
1 Like
Is that a… question?
1 Like
Oh of COURSE they write in something so when the shoe is on the other foot we can’t club them with the same junk that gets hurled at us for the past twenty years.
2 Likes
Oh, please. If they thought they still had a chance of getting a judgement in their favor, they would have pushed ahead, regardless of what public opinion was.
Unfortunately for them, the law they were using to try and compel Apple to crack the phone (the All Writs Act of 1789), requires that such action must be the only available resolution. Once a 3rd party made a credible claim to be able to crack the phone, the government’s ability to compel Apple using the the All Writs Act went out the window. That’s the only reason they dropped the case - they had no other choice. Public opinion had nothing to do with it.
3 Likes
Even if the prosecution chooses not to use any evidence from the phone, they are still going to have to produce it, including who cracked it and how, in Discovery surely? Might contain exculpatory evidence and all that… So a) I doubt its a lie, cuz at a minimum someone judicial who might not take kindly to a lie is going to be able to check, and b) we (and Apple) might (barring National Security seals of some kind standing up in court) eventually find out what happened.
You mean Apple unlocked it for the FBI or had an arrangement already? I’d accept that in a blink of an eye.
I’ll bet that the FBI’s lying, choosing to leverage the ambiguity of its unverfied (unverifiable) claim to intimidate makers & users while truly aiming to defuse legal action it could lose.
1 Like
The conspiracy theorist in me says they had already unlocked it or already had a means to unlock it and were trying to set precedent and shift public opinion which backfired miserably. The whole “third party” just reeks of a deus ex machina to me. Maybe they used our tax dollars to buy a previously unpublished 0 day exploit.
Nothing would really surprise me these days.
1 Like
We are talking about dick picks here. I kinda wonder if anyone really “enjoys” dick picks.
Some guys maybe.
