If a provider that you have a business relationship with turns over information without a warrant—especially location data they are legally compelled to collect for 911 service—and does so with no resistance, then they are not third parties; they are de facto agents of the government.
Any conclusion that is forgone is a non-argument; evidentialism requires proof. It’s possible the guy is guilty as sin, but he is clearly being denied due process by being confined without charge. The growing use of the foregone conclusion doctrine, coupled with the All Writs Act, is nothing short of the second coming of the Inquisition—the State just knows that you are guilty; this is not history we should suffer to repeat.
The Act specifically states it must be used in accordance with the principles of law. What principle is it where a citizen has to help their government understand encoded works? The State’s characterization of this act as mere production is intentionally misleading. He is being ordered by an entity that is barred from so doing to work against his own rights and realize whatever evidence may be on that drive. Code is considered speech, so such decoding would naturally be testimonial.
Warrantless, haphazard collection is plainly illegal—even if it only affects hundreds of people; Clapper hasn't answered honestly because the answer is "we monitor everyone who sends anything upstream," and that admission would be all the evidence we need to gain standing and legally challenge the program, which begins its unlawfulness at the point of seizure.
I’m astounded by the glaring negligence and willful ignorance of this cop's roadside cavity search, which is, unmistakably, battery, if not attempted manslaughter. The cop’s untrained pushing, pulling, and squeezing could’ve easily perforated the victim’s colon.
It’s also amazing that this didn’t end up with someone being killed, because the guy would’ve been totally justifed in using force against the officer. You have the absolute right to protect yourself from assault.
So, what changed? Why are we stepping gingerly to ensure that canary reporting is legal? Of course it’s legal—it’s speech about what should be a public activity. If the government is asserting that its privileges trump our right to speak, then it needs to be disabused of that notion through civil disobedience.
To the extent Apple’s software includes expressive elements—such as variable names and comments—the Order permits Apple to express whatever it wants, so long as the software functions.
The FBI plans to let Apple choose their variable names and make notes in their own code? How magnanimous! I’m sure that the people who died in the founding and service of this country would appreaciate the government’s redefinition of the constituent elements of speech and forcing people to write things that have been relegated to non-expressive status. /s
The All Writs Act states that it must be "agreeable to the usages and principles of law;" as we no longer adhere to the principle that slavery is just or permissible, then how is slavery in the service of the State agreeable? That's exactly what law enforcement is trying to do: enslave Apple to be their little deputy because they might possibly help, regardless of their non-affiliation with the events or their willingness to participate. This won't stop at phones. Once this inch is given, they will come for the proverbial yard; this will apply to all devices by any manufacturer—"You made it, so you'll facilitate our access to it and to our specifications."
The judge’s requirement that the action be explicitly in opposition of police activity shows that we need reform in how judges come to sit—and how they can be removed—from the bench, because that's not a cogent or defensible thought. Speech doesn’t have to be words; it can be symbolism that is oppositional, supportive, or even neutral, and the majority of photography is the latter. Ruling that the right to speech is contingent on vocal opposition or “fair notice” to a officer is actually compelling you to speak, where no such duty is owed to secure that right.
The act of neutrally monitoring law enforcement is, itself, a political statement—we don’t trust you not to misbehave. Even if that were not expressive, at the moment a cop tells you to stop performing a perfectly legal activity, any non-expressive action on your part is instantly converted to an action of recording your opposition to that conduct.
The "conversation" that the FBI wants to have is like the conversation we've had over the TPP—the one negotiated in secret with the text locked in a guarded room. Similar conversations are had when two wolves and a sheep discuss what's for dinner.
Apple is not an arm of law enforcement, and the idea that they are obliged to create a new system of forensic analysis for one phone is ridiculous, and is such regardless of whether or not they are being compensated. Every moment they have to spend on that is a moment taking them away from making or improving their own products—the reason they’re in business. The propagandists can try to make this about Apple protecting terrorists, pedophiles, et al., but the real issue is one of basic freedom. It’s too neutral to say they are being “compelled” to comply in this situation; due to an act in which they played no part, they are being enslaved in the service of the state.
If they create a workaround that compromises the security of their product, Apple will lose everyone’s trust, and they will suffer epic financial losses that will rip through the economy. All of this will happen for a device that likely has little to no intelligence value. If the government’s intent is to destroy their business anyway, then they should just close up shop in protest, like Lavabit.
When the culture of an organization is such that it’s willing to break laws and hurt people to get what they want, would that group’s publicly expressed apology have counted any more than a hidden one? “We gave some people coffee enemas and other nightmare fuel for the rest of their lifetimes for no good reason… our bad.”
The most sincere avenue to apology would be criminal charges for everyone involved; this would, at least, be some assurance that this type of thing is not likely to happen again.
A necessary condition of being a passerby—on a road or otherwise—is that your observations are time-limited and coincidental. If law enforcement is engaged in any form of examination that a member of the public could not do in passing, then it’s a search, by definition.
If we reduce the 6th Circuit’s argument to its absurb conclusion, then cameras could be installed outside every private home, trained on us 24/7, and we couldn’t complain. Nobody reasonably expects—or would tolerate—such monitoring.
If only we could harness the power from the rotational forces of the founding fathers collectively rolling over in their graves…
Without probable cause, there is only a general warrant, which is unconstitutional. We have no business assisting in enforcing legal standards that differ from our own and which we abandoned as inferior.
This. I can’t tell which is more dangerous—a government that wants to publicly and explicitly codify powers that take priority over those of its citizens’ rights into constitutional law, or the government that has planned in open secret to seize that same authority.
Then again according to US law, even wget is a hacking tool if the stars align correctly.
You may be correct, but I'm not aware of any official classification of wget as a hacking tool or of there being anything intrinsically illegal—or even detrimental—about it. It's described as a "command-line web browser," and it's the same utility that Mark Zuckerberg used on the road to building his Facebook empire. If a site honors a request for downloads, is that not tacit approval to do so?
This is my question, as well. By staking out a gardening center's every customer for plate info, are they not already technically engaged in a mass warrantless search/seizure? Considering how many people garden as a hobby, it's a baseless presumption that a consumer at such a shop must be up to something illegal, and having the government tracking citizen whereabouts without a bona fide reason is not the intent of the 4th amendment.