Eventhough most people probably could not tell individual members of those three groups apart I don't hear of them all being referred to as muslims....but I'll leave my comments at that so as not to endanger this thread.
Apple vs The FBI
- Thread starter krichardson
- Start date
What i see is many of them are treated better here than theri own countries, i see some of our traditions being trampled on because some (i dont know who or why) think that its unfair to muslims to have santa claus widely shown in public and yes this i have seen in my own city. I see that some actually wanted sharia (spelling?) Taken seriously here. So yeah i can see and old lady who is set in her ways having negative opinions
The difference I see between those locally not being called a terrorist and the 'outsiders' being called terrorist is the local ones only involve 1 or 2 people and they only plan the attack just days before. The 'terrorist' run a huge operation which has a chain of command and has been training and preparing for a long time.
They are not quessing ... they are hoping .. hoping for any lead that they can get to prevent another slaughter ..... whether this opens a can of worms..... maybe and maybe not ?. Modern technology is probably already involved in more secrecy regarding phones compared to this phone.. advancement is new every day.
Federal Judge just ruled that Apple does not have to unlock a iPhone in a federal drug case. Here is part of the ruling
.
In a 50-page ruling rejecting almost everything federal prosecutors had argued, Judge James Orenstein ruled that Apple could not be compelled to help get information off a locked iPhone used by methamphetamine dealer Jun Feng under the 1789 All Writs Act, the same law at issue in the California terrorism case.
Orenstein acknowledged that the debate over encryption and the needs of law enforcement required balancing competing interests. But Congress, not the courts, should make that decision, he said.
"That debate must happen today, and it must take place among legislators who are equipped to consider the technological and cultural realities of a world their predecessors could not begin to conceive," the judge wrote. "It would betray our constitutional heritage and our people's claim to democratic governance for a judge to pretend that our Founders already had that debate, and ended it, in 1789."
Prosecutors had argued that Apple was connected closely enough to Feng's iPhone to be compelled to help, citing a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that the All Writs Act forced New York Telephone to assist in recording numbers dialed from a suspect's phone. They sought to have Apple bypass the phone's passcode security and extract Feng's personal data from the phone.
But Orenstein rejected that logic. "To the extent that Feng used his iPhone in committing crimes, he used his own property, not Apple's," the judge wrote. "Unlike the telephone company in N.Y. Tel. Co., which owned the facility used for criminal communications, Apple has no ownership interest in anything that the record reveals Feng used to commit a crime."
.
In a 50-page ruling rejecting almost everything federal prosecutors had argued, Judge James Orenstein ruled that Apple could not be compelled to help get information off a locked iPhone used by methamphetamine dealer Jun Feng under the 1789 All Writs Act, the same law at issue in the California terrorism case.
Orenstein acknowledged that the debate over encryption and the needs of law enforcement required balancing competing interests. But Congress, not the courts, should make that decision, he said.
"That debate must happen today, and it must take place among legislators who are equipped to consider the technological and cultural realities of a world their predecessors could not begin to conceive," the judge wrote. "It would betray our constitutional heritage and our people's claim to democratic governance for a judge to pretend that our Founders already had that debate, and ended it, in 1789."
Prosecutors had argued that Apple was connected closely enough to Feng's iPhone to be compelled to help, citing a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that the All Writs Act forced New York Telephone to assist in recording numbers dialed from a suspect's phone. They sought to have Apple bypass the phone's passcode security and extract Feng's personal data from the phone.
But Orenstein rejected that logic. "To the extent that Feng used his iPhone in committing crimes, he used his own property, not Apple's," the judge wrote. "Unlike the telephone company in N.Y. Tel. Co., which owned the facility used for criminal communications, Apple has no ownership interest in anything that the record reveals Feng used to commit a crime."
Yes, they're hoping, but not for a lead to help them prevent another slaughter. They're hoping to make their "terrorist" claim stick. For all I know, that was just another ugly workplace violence case. The only difference is that it was committed by a or two Muslim, so it got spun into "terrorist."
