Say That Again

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
bill gates, doj, encryption, fbi, going dark, unlocking

Companies:
apple



Bill Gates Is Confused About Apple FBI Fight, Makes Everyone More Confused

from the understand-the-issues-before-speaking-out-bill dept

Lots of people seem to have opinions on the whole Apple / FBI thing without actually understand the details. The latest just happens to be Bill Gates, so it's getting a fair bit of attention. On Monday the Financial Times published an interview with Gates emblazened with the title: Bill Gates Backs FBI iPhone Hack Request. The article then quotes Gates appearing to side with the FBI:
The Microsoft founder took issue with Tim Cook’s characterisation of the government’s order that Apple help break open the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone as a demand for a “back door”, denying that it would set a wider precedent.

“It is no different than [the question of] should anybody ever have been able to tell the phone company to get information, should anybody be able to get at bank records. Let’s say the bank had tied a ribbon round the disk drive and said, ‘Don’t make me cut this ribbon because you’ll make me cut it many times’.” “This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information. They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case,” Mr Gates told the Financial Times.
Later in the article, he suggests that there should be times that information cannot be fully encrypted:
Mr Gates told the FT that there were benefits to the government being able to enforce taxation, stop crime and investigate terror threats, but said there must be rules on when the information can be accessed.

“I hope that we have that debate so that the safeguards are built and so people do not opt — and this will be country by country — [to say] it is better that the government does not have access to any information,” he said.
Of course, seeing as (1) it's Bill Gates and (2) basically everyone else in the tech industry has come out siding with Apple, this story spread pretty quickly, leading Gates to then jump onto Bloomberg TV to claim that it was a misrepresentation to say he sided with the FBI:
I was disappointed, because that doesn’t state my view on this. I do believe that with the right safeguards, there are cases where the government, on our behalf — like stopping terrorism, which could get worse in the future — that that is valuable. But striking that balance — clearly the government [has] taken information, historically, and used it in ways that we didn’t expect, going all the way back, say to the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. So I’m hoping now we can have the discussion. I do believe there are sets of safeguards where the government shouldn’t have to be completely blind.

[....] The courts are going to decide this. … In the meantime, that gives us this opportunity to get the discussion. And these issues will be decided in Congress.
So basically, it seems that (once again) everyone is a bit confused about this. Gates' initial answer was a bit wishy-washy and doesn't actually get at the actual issue. He focuses on the question of the precedent -- and he's just flat out wrong on that. He's right that the DOJ in this case is asking for a very specific thing, but setting the precedent that they can get that very specific thing will mean that similar things will be asked for in other cases -- and he is wrong that it won't put overall security at risk. The precedent here is everything, because once in place similar rulings can be used to proactively undermine security systems. That's a big deal, even if Gates doesn't recognize it.

Gates also totally misrepresents the issue by talking about how law enforcement needs to enforce the law and stop crime. That's a tautology. Everyone knows that. But that does not mean it needs to force companies to build systems to hack their customers. It's a completely different question. Meanwhile, his "backing off" of the FT's headline is still confused. No one's saying that the government is completely blind. They have a ton of other information. Gates is, unfortunately, buying into the myth that the FBI needs everything. But that's never been the way that the law works. We have a 4th amendment (and hell, a number of other amendments, including the 5th) for good reasons: and one of those reasons is that we expect the job of law enforcement to be hard. And that's because convicting someone of a crime shouldn't be easy. And we do that on the belief that if we make the job hard, we're a lot less likely to convict innocent people.

It's too bad that Gates doesn't appear to fully understand the issue, and is allowing yet more misinformation into this debate.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    mountainbiker (profile), 23 Feb 2016 @ 2:54pm

    If you'd like to support #StandWithApple and its stance on privacy, there is a White House petition at

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/apple-privacy-petition

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2016 @ 2:56pm

    bill gates also confused people when he said he likes 'the vacine' method best for future population control.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Vax Man (yeah, sure), 23 Feb 2016 @ 6:37pm

      Re: Truest Me, I know What's Best For All Of You

      Correct! I don't understand why so-called intelligent citizens everywhere have not called him out re: vaccines and population reduction (he as said so on numerous occasions, on camera). Stupid is as stupid does.

      Swine Flu anyone? Or, bird flu? Or, (the list goes on and on).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2016 @ 5:03am

        Re: Re: Truest Me, I know What's Best For All Of You

        Its quite funny that a lot of people seem to seize on his words and not actually think the logic of his statements through.

        Take a look at all developed countries with good health care, low infant mortality and high life expectancy and you will also see low population growth or in some cases even population decline. This is not because vaccines reduce population growth.

        Many factors actually contribute to this effect, for example if your children are only 50% likely to make it to their 10th birthday you are going to have more children. Reducing infant mortality will reduce the number of children born.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mason Wheeler (profile), 24 Feb 2016 @ 7:56am

          Re: Re: Re: Truest Me, I know What's Best For All Of You

          We're seeing low population growth and even decline because the largest segment of the population (the Baby Boom generation) is aging and moving beyond childbearing years. We're seeing it in developed nations throughout the world because the Baby Boom was a worldwide event, with a distinct, worldwide cause--soldiers returning home after the end of WWII--and developed nations contributed the most to the war effort.

          Health care and modern technology (or vaccines, for that matter) have little-to-nothing to do with it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Dingledore the Flabberghaster, 24 Feb 2016 @ 10:15am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Truest Me, I know What's Best For All Of You

            You're completely ignoring the fact that virtually none of the global population growth is happening in developed nations - which is entirely Gates', not unreasonable, argument.

            And no, the Baby Boom was not a worldwide event - it only covered the nations involved in World War 2 i.e. developed nations.

            If you really think that health care and modern technology has "little to nothing" to do with population growth then I ask you to quote your sources and in return I'd present the ghosts of Nightingale, Pasteur, Fleming, etc would happily tell to f##k off back into your cave.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Mason Wheeler (profile), 24 Feb 2016 @ 2:24pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Truest Me, I know What's Best For All Of You

              You're completely ignoring the fact that virtually none of the global population growth is happening in developed nations

              No, that's exactly the point I'm making: that it's the same developed nations that experienced the baby boom where we're seeing an end to population growth as the baby boom generation, comprising the largest demographic group, moves out of childbearing years.

              And no, the Baby Boom was not a worldwide event - it only covered the nations involved in World War 2 i.e. developed nations.

              Which, again, is specifically what we are talking about here. We appear to be in violent agreement, as they say.

              If you really think that health care and modern technology has "little to nothing" to do with population growth then I ask you to quote your sources and in return I'd present the ghosts of Nightingale, Pasteur, Fleming, etc would happily tell to f##k off back into your cave.

              First, I didn't say that health care and modern technology has little or nothing to do with population growth, but rather that they have little or nothing to do with the recent decline in population growth. And as all three of the people you cite above made their contributions before World War II, I hardly see how they have any relevance on the subject.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Dingledore, 25 Feb 2016 @ 1:01am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Truest Me, I know What's Best For All Of You

                Because people born in developed countries during and after the baby boom haven't died in childhood. On the 1930s, infant mortality rates in the us had hit 30%. You could maybe blame malnutrition from the depression for a lot of that, except that that there was equally a food shortage during ww2, and yet infant mortality improved and has since got better and better - for example, there was a massive drop after the Mmr vaccine started going in the 60s.

                Increasing infant survival is recognised to reduce the parents’ demand for children. Further, a decreasing fertility allows the parents to devote more attention and resources to their children. That means healthier children who go on themselves to have healthy children, which further encourages the downward trend in population.

                That trend needs to start somewhere, and it starts with fewer child deaths. And vaccination has repeatedly proven to reduce child mortality.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        tqk (profile), 24 Feb 2016 @ 11:28am

        Re: Re: Truest Me, I know What's Best For All Of You

        I don't understand why so-called intelligent citizens everywhere have not called him out re: vaccines and population reduction ...

        Well, after creating the disaster that is Microsoft, all that pales in comparison.

        Sheesh.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2016 @ 3:14pm

    Doesn't understand how the law works. It's a wonder why MS got slapped hard during the anti trust years.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PT (profile), 24 Feb 2016 @ 10:06am

      Re:

      Actually he probably does understand it, as a direct result of this experience and the settlement between Microsoft and the US Government. I recall the FBI used to fulminate about how Skype's unpublished and unbreakable encryption was making the world safe for pedophiles and drug dealers, but since Microsoft bought Skype they seem to have stopped worrying about it. Interesting.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2016 @ 3:21pm

    Bill Gates, confused about operating system principles and fundamental aspects about reliable computation?

    In other breaking news: dog bites man; rabid skunks found to be lacking in social skills; and sun sets in a generally westward direction.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    That One Other Not So Random Guy, 23 Feb 2016 @ 3:36pm

    In the case of the government

    Whenever a government entity wants more power it should be resisted tooth and nail. Because once you give it up, you will NEVER, EVER, get it back.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Digitari, 23 Feb 2016 @ 3:42pm

    Next up on the war on Terror..........

    remember when the USA had smart people?


    Me neither!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      That One Other Not So Random Guy, 23 Feb 2016 @ 4:17pm

      Re: Next up on the war on Terror..........

      "remember when the USA had smart people?"
      remember when the WORLD had smart people?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2016 @ 5:27pm

        Re: Re: Next up on the war on Terror..........

        There have been a few, we tend to murder them quickly, the largest gathering of smart people in world history was during the creation of the US Constitution.

        Right now every signer of that document would be ridiculed and marginalized by the media, both parties, and just about every world leader right now and more than 1/2 of the USA would likely support their imprisonment if not execution were the current government inclined to charge them as terrorists.

        The other people we like to THINK are smart are those like Bill Gates... only smart enough to steal from the smart and smart enough to buy public opinion with philanthropy. Shocker right?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2016 @ 9:00am

          Re: Re: Re: Next up on the war on Terror..........

          All the smart people end up in the grave after being gunned down.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 2:53am

      Re: Next up on the war on Terror..........

      Yes, but the majority thought a smart phone would be better

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2016 @ 3:52pm

    it couldn't possibly be anything to do with Gates wanting to ding Apple then?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2016 @ 3:55pm

    This attitude from Bill Gates should come as no surprise seeing how Microsoft Windows 10 has more tracking built into the OS than any other OS or Windows version ever marketed. They lead the way in spying on their users than any other Operation System on the market and even after public outcry they continue to do so. Microsoft is "Big Brother in you computer".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      That One Other Not So Random Guy, 23 Feb 2016 @ 4:18pm

      Re:

      They led the way? OK. You haven't used a MAC lately huh?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      JBDragon, 24 Feb 2016 @ 8:42am

      Re:

      I'm sure Skype has a HUGE backdoor to allow all the Government spying they could ever want on your audio and video calling. All in the name of fighting Terrorists! Not really, just generally spying on the American Public, but Terrorists sounds better.

      Of course your odds are far higher getting struck by lighting then ever killed by a Terrorists in this country.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2016 @ 3:59pm

    Let’s say the bank had tied a ribbon round the disk drive and said, ‘Don’t make me cut this ribbon because you’ll make me cut it many times’.


    Now we know what happened to Windows.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2016 @ 4:30pm

      Re:

      A better one:

      A bank built a high tech vault for safely storing customer money. A couple of mafia thugs approached them and demanded the key so that they could take the money to the racetrack. They promised not to take too much or to come back very often.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2016 @ 10:56am

      Re: Zdziarski's take

      Cut the ribbon? I think the FBI is all hot and bothered to pop Apple's cherry. Apple'll just be another techwhore in the corner sucking on law enforcement's dick.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    SpaceLifeForm, 23 Feb 2016 @ 4:51pm

    His Billness is out of sorts

    [https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2016/02/calea-limits-all-writs-act-and-protects-security-apples- phones]

    [https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2016/02/more-calea-and-why-it-trumps-fbis-all-writs-act-o rder]

    [http://www.fastcompany.com/1561471/microsofts-global-criminal-compliance-handbook-leaked]

    There be dots there.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    fincoder22 (profile), 23 Feb 2016 @ 5:02pm

    Apple lies

    Tim Cook's customer letter states "Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control".

    Ok,this really annoys the crap out of me. Backdoors are bad. Agreed. But this statement is complete bullshit. For example: Older insecure versions of IOS are essentially the same thing as what the FBI needs to unlock the phone. Apple can download one of those on the device if they are unwilling to build one. (and let me tell you: they already have a version ready to go). If Apple doesn't want to hand over this insecure ios version they can totally target this device with an over the air update. It does not need to be available to the FBI as a generic hacking tool.

    Unlocking one phone in-house is not the same thing at all as providing the government with a backdoor to all iPhones everywhere. Again, the brainwashed Apple sheep believe everything Tim Cook says. Any critically thinking programmer deep down inside knows that all this grandstanding BS is not about the technical feasibility of unlocking that phone but is really a giant PR war so that Apple can claim in the end that they are the most "secure" and that their customers can really "trust Apple". Total nonsense. Apple IOS always had security flaws and secret little backdoors and still has them to this day. To believe otherwise is foolish indeed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      teka, 23 Feb 2016 @ 9:48pm

      Re: Apple lies

      So the FBI can already access the phone, because surely if John Q. Randomguy (one of those critically thinking programmers) can make such broad statements it follows that the bottomless funding and experience of a world superpower investigation bureau can already find and use the "security flaws and secret little backdoors" freely.

      They are working on this advertising campaign with Apple, portraying themselves as bad guy statists, good guy patriots and technically inept liars (going from one to another easily) just.. because they thought it would be fun?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2016 @ 5:12am

      Re: Apple lies

      "But this statement is complete bullshit"

      I'm not sure how many embedded operating systems you have created but downgrading software and ensuring that all the relevant databases stay intact is not an easy thing. At best the downgrade will work but all the data will be corrupt at worst the phone will be a brick.

      If Apple were to comply with this order there will be a queue of FBI agents outside Apple HQ with an iPhone each they want to crack. (I read somewhere that there is currently around 50 or so known cases waiting on the outcome of this one)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        fincoder22 (profile), 26 Feb 2016 @ 7:08pm

        Re: Re: Apple lies

        Yes, this is indeed a problem. I don't disagree at all. There are actually two real issues:
        1. Apple's creation of GovtOs will set a precedent and the FBI will keep coming back to use it for every iPhone they can't crack.
        2. If GovtOs ever leaks out of Apple HQ, they have a major problem.

        All this doesn't mean though that they shouldn't do it. There are ways to keep code secure. Do you have access to Apple's current ios source code? No, I didn't think so. Their corporate security is pretty tight. Also, the thing about setting precedents is not a total given. There are ways to limit the way this particular case applies to other future cases. It's a legal/constitutional issue and I'm not an expert in that (nor is any other poster on this forum btw), but if I were Apple I would negotiate a limited scope for the applicability of this insecure GovtOs. What they are doing now, grandstanding and lying to the public is going to get them hammered hard in court. Better to strike a deal and settle this quickly before it turns ugly.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          coffinsurfer (profile), 26 Feb 2016 @ 7:37pm

          Re: Re: Re: Apple lies

          I agree with you 100%. Apple could very well have taken this phone and unlocked it with it in THEIR possession, then relocked it and handed it back with the info requested to the Feds. The Feds got what they wanted and Apple gets to keep doing what it wanted. Apple screwed up and refused. Now on March 22nd they are going to get nailed and there is nothing they can do about it

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    fincoder22 (profile), 23 Feb 2016 @ 5:44pm

    Apple nonsense

    Ok, one more: [From the Apple FAQs]
    "Could Apple build this operating system just once, for this iPhone, and never use it again?"
    The digital world is very different from the physical world. In the physical world you can destroy something and it’s gone. But in the digital world, the technique, once created, could be used over and over again, on any number of devices.

    Tim Cook: "Law enforcement agents around the country have already said they have hundreds of iPhones they want Apple to unlock if the FBI wins this case. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks. Of course, Apple would do our best to protect that key, but in a world where all of our data is under constant threat, it would be relentlessly attacked by hackers and cybercriminals. As recent attacks on the IRS systems and countless other data breaches have shown, no one is immune to cyberattacks."


    Ok so Tim Cook has never heard of an "air gapped PC"? Or just put the file on a fucking USB stick and throw it in a safe. ???? Apple can't even figure out how keep one insecure version of ios9 out of the hands of hackers, how are they going to protect all their customer's data? What a joke....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2016 @ 5:54pm

      Re: Apple nonsense

      Ok so Tim Cook has never heard of an "air gapped PC"? Or just put the file on a fucking USB stick and throw it in a safe. ???? Apple can't even figure out how keep one insecure version of ios9 out of the hands of hackers, how are they going to protect all their customer's data? What a joke....

      You, sir, are a joke. You do not understand security or what this is about or you are a shill.

      Apple can't just lock this sort of thing in a vault ten miles below the surface. They do this once and it's already known the government will ask them THOUSANDS of more times. Hundreds or thousands of people will have access to these tools. Apple simply won't be able to vet everyone who could have contact well enough and it WILL leak. Every government and criminal organization on earth will be trying to get a copy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        JBDragon, 24 Feb 2016 @ 8:54am

        Re: Re: Apple nonsense

        There's a whole process and chain of command the Police and FBI have to do in order for anything found on that phone to not be thrown out of court. That means the FBI can't just hand the phone to Apple and say here' crack it so we can do these things. The FBI would have to be there watching while Apple does it. then take that cracked phone so they can finish the job themselves, now it's out of Apple hands and in the FBI hands along with that cracked software that's on the phone now. It's pretty much now in the wild. The FBI now has it. That means the CIA and NSA and anyone else who wants a copy. Based on what they learn from that software crack and in turn create even better hacks.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      The Great Wazcini, 24 Feb 2016 @ 10:03am

      Re: Apple nonsense

      Apple too big to fail? Other companies have shut their doors and closed shop before they let the government pry into their customers' privacy with their help. Don't think we'll see Apple fold up over this.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Machin Shin (profile), 23 Feb 2016 @ 6:43pm

    Of course this does not help my opinion of Microsoft. Whats worse is that it makes me even more suspicious of Windows "backing up" your full disk encryption key to Microsoft servers. Where I'm betting NSA is demanding a copy for their records...... After all, you shared it with a "third party" and it is "just a business record"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Disgruntled Grumpypants, 24 Feb 2016 @ 4:38am

      Re:

      "Of course this does not help my opinion of Microsoft."

      No kidding. Let's also not forget that Microsoft was the first to enthusiastically jump on board the PRISM band wagon as well, which is why I originally refused to buy an Xbox One (I bought one only after they removed Kinect as a requirement). Between Bill's public statements and having a look at Windows 10 recently (sandboxed of course), anyone willing to trust them these days is crazy. That questionaire on first boot? It felt like I was being asked the same question in multiple different ways, i.e. to let them have access to anything and everything private. As much as I dislike Linux, it's looking more and more likely that it's going to end up being my go to operating system some day.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2016 @ 6:45pm

    The FBI needs everything...

    to enforce the law and stop crime. Total surveillance of everyone, all the time, for their own good. Tim Cook loves terrorists.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2016 @ 1:56am

    Hey, if the govt. really truly wants it it'll break any "safe" especially if they can force someone to do so.

    Best bet is to keep your private info reasonably encrypted as to prevent any random passerby from accessing it, but also understand that there's not really a lot you can hide from the government if it sets its sights on you.

    It's unfair but that's how it is nowadays.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2016 @ 2:01am

      Re:

      Also, you can thank exaggerated PC, "terrorism" and misdirected priorities for leading us to this point.

      Today, in public at least, our leaders feign fear when confronted with important matters saying they are not being pursued because they're "dangerous" and what they really want is "to save human lives".

      Meanwhile behind closed doors thousands die for the whims of the exact same leaders.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2016 @ 7:42am

    Inaccurate Metaphor

    According to Gates "Let’s say the bank had tied a ribbon round the disk drive and said, ‘Don’t make me cut this ribbon because you’ll make me cut it many times’."
    it is not asking the bank to cut a ribbon, it is asking the bank to build some scissors.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    coffinsurfer (profile), 24 Feb 2016 @ 8:31am

    This is utter BS

    When we had the NSA spying issue, Apple stood up and whined that we needed to make sure that the FBI and such went to a judge and got a court order. Ok The FBI DID go to a judge and the Judge agreed with the FBI after reading everything they presented and issued a court order for Apple to give the FBI the information on just that one phone. SO the FBI did exactly what Apple was whining about and demanding they be forced to do.

    Did Apple do what the Judge told them they had to do? Did Apple follow the court's order? Nope. NOW they are whining about having to do what they wanted the FBI and NSA to be required to do in the first place? NOPE! Its called being hypocrites!

    At last count well over 50% of the public is telling Apple to grow a set and man up and unlock this one phone. only 30% are saying dont do it. The NY Stock Exchange is showing Apple's stock is falling. And unless they can convince the Judge otherwise, on March 22nd 2016 Apple can be found in direct violation of federal law and not only be fined up to $1,000,000.00 a day till they comply, but the CEO of Apple can be personally charged and arrested and fined until he complies. And no matter how much money Apple thinks they have, you cannot survive a one million dollar a day fine for very long. And I dont care how educated or powerful you think you are, if you cost a company millions of dollars and did it because of some ego trip you are on like the CEO of Apple is doing today; you WONT be CEO for much longer.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      JBDragon, 24 Feb 2016 @ 8:57am

      Re: This is utter BS

      What is B.S. is that dumb rant you threw out! Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 25 Feb 2016 @ 4:29am

      Re: This is utter BS

      At last count well over 50% of the public is telling Apple to grow a set and man up and unlock this one phone. only 30% are saying dont do it.

      I'm guessing you missed it, but not a day or so ago there was an article here on TD about that very thing. The main point? The numbers are meaningless, because that's not what's being demanded of Apple here.

      Apple isn't being 'asked' to unlock the phone, they're being 'asked' to create a custom version of the phone OS specifically designed to remove two key security features, or in other words to undermine their own product's security.

      'So what?' you might ask, 'The previous owner killed a bunch of people, and he's dead anyway!'

      Precedent is what.

      Once it's been found legal and acceptable to force a company to undermine their own security, it will happen again, and again, and again. And unless you're naive enough to think that the code created to remove the security will never make it into the wild(and if you are, tell that to the various government agencies who've been hacked the last few years), it's not a matter of 'if' the code will be used by criminals, but 'when', making everyone less safe.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        coffinsurfer (profile), 25 Feb 2016 @ 4:29pm

        Re: Re: This is utter BS

        And I guess you missed the letter to Apple by FBI Director Comey that clearly said all they want is the info from THIS phone. And even the CEO of Apple stated the exact same thing on the ABC-NBC-CBS-CNN-MSNBC-and Fox where ALL of them replayed his interview.

        So are you calling him a liar now? Or are you willing to admit that you are wrong and that Comey is right and that all they want is the information on this phone. Even Comey admitted that they offered Apple the phone and asked them to take off the information they wanted and keep the rest of it locked up, and Apple refused.

        Apple is going to lose this case and they are going to be fined a major amount of money on March 22nd. And I doubt that if you are a CEO and cost your company a couple hundred million dollars because of your ego, that you will stay the CEO.

        Oh and you might want to look at the Wall Street Journal's NY Stock Exchange. Seems Apple stock has dropped about 15% since this started. And considering that Chinese cell phone makers are making better phones with more features at a third of Apples cost, it is seriously eating into their market share in their backyards of South Korea and North America and they are losing money BIG time there. Thats why they had to lay off over 3000 people in the last 2 years and more layoffs are coming because of this.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 25 Feb 2016 @ 10:11pm

          Re: Re: Re: This is utter BS

          So are you calling him a liar now? Or are you willing to admit that you are wrong and that Comey is right and that all they want is the information on this phone.

          Oh he's telling the truth when he says that... but only technically. In the current case he does only want the info from this one phone(well, that and the precedent. More the latter than the former really). And in the next case it will just be one device too. And the next case, and the one after that...

          When you've got multiple groups and people talking about how they're watching the case closely, and about all the currently locked devices they've got that they'd really love to have unlocked, the idea that if Apple is forced to do what the FBI demands it won't be swamped with similar requests pretty much immediately is absurd. If a company can be forced to undermine their own security at the orders of a court, it will be happening on a regular basis, with each order making it that much harder for the next company to refuse.

          Even Comey admitted that they offered Apple the phone and asked them to take off the information they wanted and keep the rest of it locked up, and Apple refused.

          Probably because thanks to the FBI's incompetent bungling of the matter the easy route was taken off the table, so Apple cannot just 'take off the 'information they wanted and keep the rest locked up'. To get at the info on the device the security has to be removed, and that absolutely requires that Apple create a modified version of the phone OS to do so.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            coffinsurfer (profile), 26 Feb 2016 @ 7:07am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: This is utter BS

            And that is the other groups problem to deal with Apple for or about. All the FBI wants is one stupid phone and there is no way that Apple can keep denying this. They are going to lose this case and lose it big time as they are trying to claim that making this code or breaking this phone is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Sorry but even the Constitutional experts like Laurence Tribe are saying that this argument will not fly and will not work as the same argument could be made for laptops and so on and no court in the country has ever accepted this argument as realistic or a legal defense.

            All it is going to take is for the FBI to bring just one set of grieving parents before a camera and have them ask Apple why they are blocking the investigation, and its all over for Apple as public sentiment will shift against them so fast it will look like a tidal wave hit them. Already over 50% of the public is saying that Apple should do the right thing and unlock this one phone with only 30% saying they shouldnt. Meaning the majority of the US is telling Apple to unlock the stupid phone.

            This is not going to bode well for Apple as they are already losing money and stock price according to the Wall Street Journal and the NYSE. And China is building cell phones that do everything Apple's does and more, with larger screens and more useful applications, for about a third of what Apple's cost and are taking a massive bite out of Apples bottom line in South Korea and the North American countries. And Apple is feeling the pressure. And now this? Apple is in deep trouble if this farce continues.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 27 Feb 2016 @ 4:16am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is utter BS

              Sorry but even the Constitutional experts like Laurence Tribe are saying that this argument will not fly and will not work as the same argument could be made for laptops and so on and no court in the country has ever accepted this argument as realistic or a legal defense.

              If code is treated as speech, then forcing someone to write specific code is an an example of forced speech, something that courts generally aren't too keen on last I checked.

              However the first amendment argument is more there for later on, their primary argument is more centered on which applies, AWA or CALEA, and should the judge agree that the latter pre-empts the former, then Apple is off the hook, as there's nothing in there that allows the government to force a company to undermine their own security. They also argue that it's hardly a simple process as the FBI/DOJ are arguing to create the modified OS, and would take significant work, as well as the idea that creating it won't put other phones at risk by opening the door for the code to leak.

              All it is going to take is for the FBI to bring just one set of grieving parents before a camera and have them ask Apple why they are blocking the investigation, and its all over for Apple as public sentiment will shift against them so fast it will look like a tidal wave hit them.

              You mean like they already tried to do?

              'Stephen Larson, the lawyer for the victims, told the Guardian the office of the US attorney for the central district of California contacted him on 14 February with a request to file a brief asking Apple to aid in unlocking the phone.

              On 16 February, the federal attorney, Eileen Decker, requested a federal magistrate, judge Sheri Pym, issue a warrant for the unlocked iPhone 5C. Pym provided it that day.
              '

              Just as the FBI has relatives of victims on their side agreeing with them, Apple has relatives of victims on their side, so the FBI's cheap attempt to use emotional tactics to bolster their case is a wash.

              Already over 50% of the public is saying that Apple should do the right thing and unlock this one phone with only 30% saying they shouldnt. Meaning the majority of the US is telling Apple to unlock the stupid phone.

              And as I and many others have already pointed out that's utterly meaningless, because what those who answered the question think is being demanded of Apple and what is actually being demanded of them is significantly different.

              But hey, so long as we're throwing out meaningless numbers, how about the other poll that's been mentioned on TD about the matter, that showed roughly 46% overall against the FBI being able to force Apple to unlock the phone, with only 35% in favor of the FBI's actions. They also got the question wrong, but as it clearly demonstrates(just as much as the other poll does) more people are in favor of Apple's actions than the FBI's.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                coffinsurfer (profile), 27 Feb 2016 @ 8:23am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is utter BS

                Sorry, but there is nothing in US law nor any Supreme Court decision or Congress passed bill that even equates writing code as a form of free speech. And until it is classified as such then thre is nothig that can be claimed.

                Sorry to tell you that your post is wrong from the get go

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  coffinsurfer (profile), 27 Feb 2016 @ 8:24am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is utter BS

                  Sorry, my keyboard stuck, I meant to say nothing and there in my post.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  That One Guy (profile), 27 Feb 2016 @ 10:08am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is utter BS

                  You might want to tell Apple that then, because they seem to think otherwise, and appear to have several cases to back up their claim.

                  'Under well-settled law, computer code is treated as speech within the meaning of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429, 449 (2d Cir. 2001); Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481, 485 (6th Cir. 2000); 321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 1099–1100 (N.D. Cal. 2004); United States v. Elcom Ltd., 203 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1126 (N.D. Cal. 2002); Bernstein v. Dep’t of State, 922 F. Supp. 1426, 1436 (N.D. Cal. 1996).

                  The Supreme Court has made clear that where, as here, the government seeks to compel speech, such action triggers First Amendment protections. As the Court observed in Riley v. Nat’l Fed. of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781,796 (1988), while “[t]here is certainly some difference between compelled speech and compelled silence, . . . in the context of protected speech, the difference is without constitutional significance.”


                  However that's almost a moot point, because as I noted above the First Amendment argument is more a fallback in case the other arguments don't cut it, or aren't enough on their own. If it never even reaches the point of compelled speech, because it's shot down by the court agreeing that companies cannot be forced to provide decryption services to anyone who comes calling, the free speech issue won't even come into play.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    coffinsurfer (profile), 24 Feb 2016 @ 8:57am

    Doubt it Dragon

    My close friend Martha Punches, lost her daughter in an apartment fire. She had a skype and twitter and facebook account. Martha went to all three and showed them via a death certificate that Laura had passed and all she did was want access to these accounts. She showed them she was Lauras mother and gave them every type of document she could to prove it, and all three absolutely refused to allow Lauras own mother to have access to her daughters accounts. Martha had to hire an attorney and actually SUE them to gain access.

    Thats just wrong. And Apple knows it.

    And as for being killed by a terrorist? Yea right. Tell that to the Boston Marathon Bombing survivors, or the meat Packing shooting Survivors, or the California shooting survivors, or the Military base shooting survivors or the people hurt by 9-11. Try telling them that they had a better chance of getting hit by lighting then being shot or harmed by a terrorist and dont be too shocked when they laugh at you and then punch you in the face

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2016 @ 10:41am

      Re: Doubt it Dragon

      Thats just wrong. And Apple knows it.

      No, that's the law, and Apple knows it.
      Sorry you don't like the law.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        coffinsurfer (profile), 24 Feb 2016 @ 4:05pm

        Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon

        Sorry, but thats NOT the law. There is NOTHING in US law that says this can happen. I noticed that you didnt cite any law, so that just makes it your opinion and like everyone has a butt, they have an opinion. Sadly yours stinks.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 25 Feb 2016 @ 5:18am

      Re: Doubt it Dragon

      Try telling them that they had a better chance of getting hit by lighting then being shot or harmed by a terrorist and dont be too shocked when they laugh at you and then punch you in the face

      Boston Bombing(2013): 6 deaths(including one of the bombers).
      280 non-fatal injuries.Source

      Deaths by lightning(2013): 23.Source
      Rough estimate for yearly number injured by lightning: 297.Source

      9/11 Attack(2001): 2,996 (2,977 victims + 19 hijackers) dead, 6,000+ non-fatal injuries.Souce

      For context:

      Number of deaths for leading causes of death(2013)
      Heart disease: 611,105
      Cancer: 584,881
      Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
      Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
      Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
      Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
      Diabetes: 75,578
      Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
      Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
      Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
      Source

      Lives lost to terrorist attacks are tragic, and horrible for both those that die and those that survive, but add up all the deaths caused by terrorism in the US for the past decade and it wouldn't even come close to how many people die from numerous other causes on a yearly basis.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        coffinsurfer (profile), 25 Feb 2016 @ 4:31pm

        Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon

        But Dragon said that not ONE person has ever died from a terrorist attack on US Soil, and he was proved wrong.

        Nice try but massive fail

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 25 Feb 2016 @ 9:55pm

          Re: Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon

          But Dragon said that not ONE person has ever died from a terrorist attack on US Soil, and he was proved wrong.

          No, he didn't.

          'Of course your odds are far higher getting struck by lighting then ever killed by a Terrorists in this country.'

          But even if he had, and had been wrong on that detail, as the numbers show you're still more likely to be killed by any number of other things, which kill more than any terrorist ever has on a yearly basis, and yet most people don't even bat an eye at them. Yet some loser with a bomb is supposed to have the public quaking in it's collective shoes and handing over privacy and security if only the government will protect them? Yeah, no.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            coffinsurfer (profile), 26 Feb 2016 @ 6:57am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon

            Sorry but yes he did. Look up the phrase "had a better chance of getting hit by lightning then being shot or harmed by a terrorist" and see what that means.

            The odds of you being struck by lightning is 1 in 700,000 per year and then you multiply the 700,000 by every year you are alive. Meaning the older you get the less likely you are going to be struck by lightning. Now since it is already a 1 in 700,000 chance of being hit by lightning, then Dragon is saying that the odds against you being shot or killed by a terrorist in the US are much greater. And in this he is essentially saying that nobody has been killed or shot by a terrorist with odds against it happening being that high.

            I proved him wrong. Simple math and fact.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 27 Feb 2016 @ 4:44am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon

              Sorry but yes he did. Look up the phrase "had a better chance of getting hit by lightning then being shot or harmed by a terrorist" and see what that means.

              I did, and it seems pretty clear to me the statement means 'You are more likely to die from being struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist', which is certainly supported by the numbers that I've been able to find.

              This one mentions a 1/25,000,000 chance of dying from a terrorist attack aboard an American commercial airliner, taking into account the 9/11 deaths, and compares that to a 1/500,000 chance of being struck by lightning.

              This one looked at terrorist attacks in the period of five years since it was written(2011), and put the odds at: 1/20,000,000 death by terrorist, 1/19,000 death by car accident, 1/99,000 dying in a building fire, and 1/5,500,000 death by lightning. Or as they put it:

              'In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.'

              Or how about this one, which runs through various risks and how likely people are to die from them compared to terrorism(TL;DR version: pretty much anything is more likely to kill you than a terrorist), including this gem:

              The 2011 Report on Terrorism from the National Counter Terrorism Center notes that Americans are just as likely to be “crushed to death by their televisions or furniture each year” as they are to be killed by terrorists.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                coffinsurfer (profile), 27 Feb 2016 @ 8:26am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon

                Only to you maybe, to any other person he is stating that nobody has been killed by terrorists in the US and that is simply not true.

                You can try and sugar coat it or twist it any way you wish, but the fact remains what his intention for the statement was. And I notice that he has never denied it

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  That One Guy (profile), 27 Feb 2016 @ 9:46am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon

                  And now you know his intentions when he posted? From that single line? Quite the mind reader aren't we?

                  Let's be really generous to you and say that yes, that was what he meant. Even then while he'd be wrong on the specifics, he'd be correct in general, you absolutely are more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist, something I notice you haven't denied either.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    coffinsurfer (profile), 27 Feb 2016 @ 10:07am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon

                    Jeeze, are you really that obtuse? READ his post an you can see what he meant, its not that hard to decipher.

                    And again if I am wrong then where is his posts saying that I am wrong, oh thats right....they dont exist!

                    And I dont have to deny anything as I am not the one that made the original post.

                    Not to quick on the uptake are you?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      That One Guy (profile), 27 Feb 2016 @ 10:24am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon

                      Jeeze, are you really that obtuse? READ his post an you can see what he meant, its not that hard to decipher.

                      Maybe because you seem to really want it to say that, because I have read it, several times at this point, and while the wording could use some polish...

                      'Of course your odds are far higher getting struck by lighting then ever killed by a Terrorists in this country.'

                      Is pretty clearly not saying 'no one has ever been killed by a terrorist in the US'.

                      As for why he hasn't stepped in and made clear what he meant? Other than the fact that the article is four days old, his last comment three, your lack of replying to his comment directly quite possibly made him miss it entirely.

                      And lastly, as I noted in the very comment you replied to, it doesn't matter if he did mean what you claim he meant and was wrong specifically, in general he was right. By the numbers lightning is absolutely more likely to kill you than a terrorist.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            tqk (profile), 26 Feb 2016 @ 12:03pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon

            Yet some loser with a bomb is supposed to have the public quaking in it's collective shoes ...

            Worldwide! Bomb the Tube in London, and all Britain's "terrorized" by security overload. Twin Towers, NY, 15 years of war and counting. One nutbar rushes Canada's Parliament and we get C-51.

            We get to talk about this because the US is so fscked up it can tell Microsoft "hand it all over" and as a good corporate citizen, it does.

            Where to start to fix this mess? The Constitution or CALEA?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              coffinsurfer (profile), 26 Feb 2016 @ 7:34pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon

              Nothing in the Constitution about unlocking cell phones of dead terrorists. In fact the Constitution does not say this is a crime in any way. So what are you bringing the Constitution into this for?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    But Seriously, 24 Feb 2016 @ 9:36am

    Techdirt Fans Having Fun With This One!

    Microsoft seems to have been DUMMING DOWN operating systems for the government since they dissed everyone out of the XP3 os. I am not sure we can blame Gates for that though.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Straight to the Point, 24 Feb 2016 @ 10:17am

    Techdirt censorship

    Techdirt is censoring my comment about how easily the government fills positions of prison guards so willing to anally probe people that we are all in for a rough ride.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2016 @ 11:40am

    Maybe I am alone in this. I would prefer law enforcement stops committing crimes over stopping crimes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Pronounce (profile), 24 Feb 2016 @ 11:56am

    Gates Understands Perfectly

    Gates is pro-Gates and that means anything that harms Microsoft's competitors benefits him.

    Apple's phone market share in the U.S. is significant, but it isn't as significant in BRIC countries. The same BRIC countries where Android (Microsoft's $2billion royalties pocket book exists). The same BRIC countries that are eyeing U.S. tech companies as pawns of the U.S. intelligence agencies.

    If I was Apple I'd change citizenship to a country that was more favorable to my bottom line.

    In fact the irony of the U.S. pushing Apple so hard that it was forced to do this would be extremely funny to me.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      coffinsurfer (profile), 24 Feb 2016 @ 4:10pm

      Re: Gates Understands Perfectly

      Fine, go right ahead and let them change countries. And the US Government then can put an embargo on ALL Apple products and not let them into the country. I mean Apple does have over 100 Billion dollars in off shore accounts so they dont have to pay taxes on it here...so the US Government can come along and ban them from selling anything in the US until they pay the taxes on that money and there is nothing Apple can do about it.

      Not to mention that Apple is facing a new threat. China is producing cell phones just as good and in most cases better then Apple or Samsung with the same abilities as an Apple or Samsung at a third of the price. And they are selling these in Apple's back yard and cutting into their bottom line, as they are selling these in Korea and the US and making a bundle.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Whatever (profile), 24 Feb 2016 @ 8:44pm

    I don't think Gates is as confused as you try to make out. Rather, he seems to be more able to understand the gap between the two issues, and realizes that as a people, we need to have a discussion about all of these things, and not rush to judgement. Moreover, it would be very bad is the decisions are made by the courts based on outdated laws, rather than on new or updated laws adopted once we have had the discussion and decide what we want to do as a people.

    Bill Gates is sort of a long term thinker, he's not so worried about today's fight as much as it's longer term implications and how to deal with them. It's not confusion you see, just someone getting a little misunderstood by media that is too driven by sound bites rather than deeper thought.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2016 @ 3:22pm

    Give that man some free software.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    coffinsurfer (profile), 27 Feb 2016 @ 10:25am

    Nice spin attempt. NOTHING is ANY of these decisions equates information on your cell as protected by the 1st Amendment. NOTHING in these decisions say that asking Apple or any other company to give information that was demanded by a court order is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

    And you missed this decision in 2014 where it says the Supreme Court has ruled police just cannot up and take your cell phone and snoop through it...UNLESS THEY HAVE A VALID COURT ORDER!! http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/28/opinion/cevallos-police-search-cell-phone/ And what destroys your whole argument is the FBI DID HAVE a valid court order for the information.

    Game set and match, you lose.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 27 Feb 2016 @ 10:36pm

      Re:

      A little hint, as apparently you keep missing it: If you want to reply to a comment, use the 'Reply to this' link at the bottom of the comment.

      And wow, you are really focused on the first amendment part of the filing, despite me pointing out several times now that it's not their central argument.

      NOTHING is ANY of these decisions equates information on your cell as protected by the 1st Amendment.

      The cell phone isn't, the code is.

      NOTHING in these decisions say that asking Apple or any other company to give information that was demanded by a court order is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

      Apple cannot provide the information on the device thanks to the FBI's incompetent bungling, it doesn't matter if they are presented with one warrant or a hundred. The only way they can gain access to it is to create custom code contrary to their wishes, and if there have been cases in the past that have found code to equal speech, as is the case, then forcing a company to create code against their wishes would be an instance of compelled speech.

      The FBI/DOJ's claims to the contrary, they are not just asking for Apple to 'unlock' the device or hand over it's contents, they are demanding that Apple spend considerable time and resources writing custom code with the intent of undermining their own security. A warrant can compel a company to hand over files in it's possession, but as it stands right now those files are not in Apple's possession, so they have nothing to hand over, warrant or not.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        coffinsurfer (profile), 28 Feb 2016 @ 10:31am

        Re: Re:

        Little hint, I DO click the reply tab. Now you can apologize for your ignorance.

        And again there is NOTHING in any of these decisions saying coding is protected by the first amendment either. The only ones who made that decision is the 2nd Circuit court and that means child that this decision is only enforceable in the 2nd Circuit. Apple is located in the NINTH Circuit and as such this decision bears no legal meaning in this case. Nice try but major fail. The ONLY way this would be the ruling all over the US is IF the US Supreme Court heard the case and upheld it, and they have not.

        Before you start talking about the legal ramifications, it would do you a major amount of good if you actually KNEW a little about the law and the Constitution. I have been studying the US Constitution for over 40 years and can state chapter and verse what is and what is not in there. And when I was in the Military before I retired and was sent TDY, I spent almost a year in a JAG office. And you dont sit around with attorneys all day for almost a year and not learn something.

        So your background in trying to say I am wrong is what exactly?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 28 Feb 2016 @ 9:49pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Little hint, I DO click the reply tab. Now you can apologize for your ignorance.

          Which of course is why two of your comments responding to someone else's comments have not been responses to said comments but entirely new ones I take it? If you are clicking 'Reply to this', then as the saying goes, 'You're doing it wrong'. Unless of course you meant to have this particular comment string be entirely separate from the comment it was responding to, in which case that's exactly the problem I'm pointing out.

          The only ones who made that decision is the 2nd Circuit court and that means child that this decision is only enforceable in the 2nd Circuit. Apple is located in the NINTH Circuit and as such this decision bears no legal meaning in this case.

          Which means it's not binding in the current court, but judges do take notice of how other judges have ruled in crafting their decisions(hence why legal filings include references to other cases), and if the only ones who have ruled on code in that manner have said 'Yes, code is speech', then the current judge is likely to take that into consideration when they make their judgement.

          However, as I have said I don't know how many times now, it doesn't matter if the first amendment argument isn't overly strong here, because that's not what Apple's core argument in the case is. Their core argument has nothing to do with the first amendment, which makes your constant focus on it rather like someone deriding a skydiver for bringing an umbrella in addition to the chute as not likely to work. True, but rather a moot point as it's meant as a fallback, something extra, but not what they're depending on.

          So your background in trying to say I am wrong is what exactly?

          Someone able to focus on more than the immediate case, and more than one particular part of it apparently.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            coffinsurfer (profile), 29 Feb 2016 @ 8:27am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Sorry to bust your bubble yet again but when I click on the tab (reply to this) I cant help what thesite does to the post now can I?

            And Not all judges listen to other courts, case in point. the 9th said Yes to SSM, the 6th said No. Now if its like you say then the 6th should have took notice of the 9ths decision, right?

            And no code is NOT speech anywhere but in the court stated. And since that courts jurisdiction does not enclose the whole US, that decision is only valid in in that courts jurisdiction. That is in the following states ONLY


            District of Connecticut (New Haven, Hartford, Bridgeport)
            Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn, Central Islip)
            Northern District of New York (Albany, Binghamton, Plattsburgh, Syracuse, Utica)
            Southern District of New York (Manhattan, White Plains)
            Western District of New York (Buffalo)
            District of Vermont (Burlington, Rutland, Brattleboro)

            It has no legal authority outside these states. Look up the US District Courts and even they will tell you that. So you can use whatever terms you want, but the fact remains that the US Supreme Court has NOT and is not in any hurry to decide that coding is a 1st amendment right as you are claiming. Look it up on supremecourt.gov in their archives and you will see I am correct and you sadly are not.

            So maybe you should take your own advice? And I see that you still have not stated what your background is that you can state that I am wrong unless it is clearly only your OPINION and not fact.

            Nice try at obfuscation and spin, but your smoke and mirrors attempt fails miserably.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 29 Feb 2016 @ 10:37am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              It has no legal authority outside these states. Look up the US District Courts and even they will tell you that. So you can use whatever terms you want,

              As I said above, it's not binding on other courts, but they do take it into consideration when crafting their own rulings. That it's not binding simply means they don't have to rule the same.

              ...but the fact remains that the US Supreme Court has NOT and is not in any hurry to decide that coding is a 1st amendment right as you are claiming.

              Last I checked the SC only tends to step in when you've got split and opposing rulings, and as far as I'm aware the only cases where 'Is code equal to speech?' have come up it's been ruled that yes, code is treated as speech. As such while it's not a sure thing it's at least likely a safe bet that should the issue come into play it will be similarly ruled.

              So maybe you should take your own advice? And I see that you still have not stated what your background is that you can state that I am wrong unless it is clearly only your OPINION and not fact.

              Given, as you yourself pointed out, that the SC hasn't ruled on the 'Is code speech?' issue both sides' stance on the matter at this point is a matter of 'opinion', with the notable difference that in the cases where it has come up the answer has been 'Yes'.

              I've presented some of the reason that I accept Apple's argument as to why code should be classified as speech based upon previous cases, making forcing someone to create code an example of compelled speech, now then what do you have to support your opinion that it isn't?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                coffinsurfer (profile), 10 Mar 2016 @ 7:36am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                No they dont. Not every court is required to accept or take into consideration another courts decision. They can if they so choose but are not required to do so. The SSM case is clear proof of that when the 6th US District Court refused to even consider other courts decisions. Nice try but fail.

                Then you really need to check on your facts. I have looked in every US Supreme Court decision where the term "coding" is even mentioned in any way and have yet to find even one case where it was ruled by the majority that it is free speech. Same result in the US Library of Congress. fail number 2.

                And how can you insist that it has come up when the US Supreme Court Archives clearly show it didnt, and the US Library of Congress says the exact same thing? Are you now going to claim that they are all wrong and you are the correct one? Do you have any idea how that sounds for you to claim you know more then the Supreme Court and the Library of Congress? fail 3

                And I have already given my sources as to why Apple is going to lose on this issue...so why do you want me to repost them whn you refuse to accept them the first time they were posted?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.