FBI Director Says To Take Deep Breath Over iPhone Spat
Source: USA Today
Elizabeth Weise, USATODAY 12:21 a.m. EST February 22, 2016
SAN FRANCISCO — In a surprisingly plain spoken open letter on the issues of privacy and safety swirling around the FBI's demand that Apple help it unlock a smart phone used by one of the killers in the San Bernardino, Calif., massacre, the agency's director is asking that everyone "take a deep breath and stop saying the world is ending."
"The San Bernardino litigation isn't about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message. It is about the victims and justice. Fourteen people were slaughtered and many more had their lives and bodies ruined. We owe them a thorough and professional investigation under law. That's what this is. The American people should expect nothing less from the FBI," director Jim Comey said in an open letter released Sunday night.
He said that the legal issue in question is actually quite narrow.
"We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist's passcode without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. That's it," he wrote.
Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/02/22/fbi-director-james-comery-apple-san-bernardino-privacy-terrorism/80721652/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)mpcamb
(2,871 posts)The headline writer purposely minimizes the core constitutional issue of the era- surveillance, privacy and government spying.
"Spat", my derriere.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)of the others using that software.
You cannot do just make the one phone vulnerable, because it would then have to have different software than all the rest to act differently, seems to be Apple's position in court.
Good for them.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Trust us, we're the good guys.
William Seger
(10,778 posts)Comey was the Acting Attorney General when Ashcroft was in the hospital in 2004 and Bush needed the AG to certify the legality of the NSA domestic surveillance programs. Comey refused, which led to Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales visiting Ashcroft in the hospital to get his signature on it. Comey heard about the plan and also went to the hospital to try to talk Ashcroft out of approving it.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/civil-liberties-groups-criticize-comey-but-colleagues-praise-him/2013/05/30/ef389d12-c966-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.html
One day after President Obama’s plan to nominate the former senior Justice Department official to run the FBI became public, the American Civil Liberties Union became the second civil liberties group to raise questions about Comey’s involvement in the Bush administration’s post-Sept. 11 antiterrorism tactics, such as warantless surveillance and tough interrogations.
Comey “approved some of the worst abuses committed by the Bush administration,’’ the ACLU said in a statement that accused Comey of signing off on “enhanced interrogation techniques that constitute torture, including waterboarding.’’
~snip~
Comey was criticized by some in the administration for that appointment, and he also tangled with Bush officials over enhanced interrogation techniques.
In e-mails obtained in 2009 by the New York Times, Comey called some of the techniques “wrong” and “simply awful,” although, the paper reported, he approved their legality.
BTW, what concessions did Comey make with Bush to quell the revolt over the illegal, unconstitional domestic surveillance?
William Seger
(10,778 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)That makes it all okay, then.
You didn't answer my question: what concessions did Comey make with the Bush administration to quell the revolt over the illegal, unconstitutional domestic surveillance?
William Seger
(10,778 posts)He didn't have the authority to "approve" it. What he did was write an analysis of a specific 1994 statute and concluded that the statute was too vague to say that it made waterboarding illegal. That analysis was used to justify the claim that it was legal, but that wasn't Comey's opinion:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fbi-nominee-comey-explains-role-bush-administration-decisions-waterboarding-v19375875
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Go for it! (But remember that it's bad, mmkay?)
Right in line with the same crap the OLC was coming up with.
Here's Bybee's legal opinion:
an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody of physical control.
1&U.S.C. § 2340(1). As we outlined in our opinion on standards of conduct under Section 2340A, a violation of 2340A requires a showing that: (1) the torture occurred outside the United States; (2) the defendant acted under the color of law; (3) the victim was within the defendant's custody or control; (4) the defendant specifically intended to inflict severe pain or suffering; and (5) that the act inflicted severe pain or suffering.
Section 2340 is pain that is difficult for the individual to endure and is of an intensity akin to the pain accompanying serious physical injury.
We next consider whether the use of these techniques would inflict severe mental pain or suffering within the meaning of Section 2340. Section 2340 defines severe mental pain or suffering as "the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from" one of several predicate acts. 18 U.S.C. § 2340(2). Those predicate acts are: (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that any of the preceding acts will be done to another person. See 18 U,S.C. § 2340(2XA}-{D), As we have explained, this list of predicate acts is exclusive, See Section2340A Memorandum at 8. No other acts can support a charge under Section 2340A based on the infliction of severe mental pain or suffering. See id. Thus, if the methods that you have described do not either in and of themselves constitute one of these acts or as a course of conduct fulfill the predicate act requirement, the prohibition has not been violated. See id.
Specific Intent. To violate the statute, an individual must have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering. Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture. As we previously opined, to have the required specific intent, an individual must expressly intend to cause such severe pain or suffering. See Section 2340A Memorandum at 3 citing Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255, 267 (2000). We have further found that if a defendant acts with the good faith belief that his actions will not cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent. See id. at 4 citing South Atl. Lmtd. Ptrshp. of Tenn. v. Reise, 218 F.3d 518, 531 (4th Cir. 2002). A defendant acts in good faith when he has an honest belief that his actions will not result in severe pain or suffering. See id. citing Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 202 (1991). Although an honest belief need not be reasonable, such a belief is easier to establish where there is a reasonable basis for it. See id. at 5. Good faith may be established by, among other things, the reliance of the advice of experts. See id at 8.
Furthermore, no specific intent to cause severe mental pain or suffering appears to be present. As we explained in our recent opinion, an individual must have the specific intent to cause prolonged mental harm in order to have the specific intent to inflict severe mental pain or suffering. See Section 2340A Memorandum at 3. Prolonged mental harm is substantial mental harm of a sustained duration, e.g~ harm lasting months or even years after the acts were inflicted upon the prisoner. As we indicated above, a good faith belief can negate this element. Accordingly, if an individual conducting the interrogation has a good faith belief that the procedures he will apply, separately or together, would not result in prolonged mental harm, that individual lacks the requisite specific intent. This conclusion concerning specific intent is further bolstered by the due diligence that has been conducted concerning the effects of these interrogation procedures.
William Seger
(10,778 posts)No, that's not at all what he said; he and others argued, unsuccessfully, against "going for it" and also against the domestic surveillance program. Just because he is head of the FBI doesn't mean you can treat him unfairly with distortions of fact.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)after Comey argued for "changes."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500864.html
"I couldn't stay if the administration was going to engage in conduct that the Department of Justice had said had no legal basis," he said. "I just simply couldn't stay." Comey testified he was going to be joined in a mass resignation by some of the nation's top law enforcement officers: Ashcroft, Mueller, Ayres and Comey's own chief of staff.
Ayres persuaded Comey to delay his resignation, Comey testified. "Mr. Ashcroft's chief of staff asked me something that meant a great deal to him, and that is that I not resign until Mr. Ashcroft was well enough to resign with me," he said.
The threat became moot after an Oval Office meeting March 12 with Bush, Comey said. After meeting separately with Comey and Mueller, Bush gave his support to making changes in the program, Comey testified. The administration has never disclosed what those changes were.
Sounds like Comey was arguing for a fig leaf to cover his ass.
William Seger
(10,778 posts)Comey is not the evil villain in the Bush Administration abuses. I don't have to agree with him on every issue to note that he has a reputation for being highly principled, and I don't see any evidence that he wasn't or isn't.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)to defend a Republican George W. Bush/Barack Obama appointee who has done nothing, objectively, to stop torture, domestic surveillance, and the removal of privacy safeguards.
You a big fan of John Brennan and the drone program, too?
William Seger
(10,778 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)You provided a modicum of amusement.
Griefbird
(96 posts)Thanks for diverting the discussion in a completely useless direction. Once something is created, it can't be uncreated; so a back door to the iphone may not be the equivalent of nuclear bomb technology, but it will not be contained if it is created. Certainly Apple is not a paragon of virtue, but I agree with them on this.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)If you would bother to read the rest of this thread, you would see that I disagree with Comey on torture, domestic surveillance, and encryption. However, the level of reading comprehension you have displayed makes this unlikely.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)You're supposed to protect rights, not trample them. What am I talking about? This is Amerika. Police don't give a shit about your rights. In fact, we don't have rights. We have civil privileges.
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)
nilram
(2,888 posts)We do. That's why we should not have screwed up and reset the iCloud password for the phone.
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,076 posts)... I was going to add that. "Breaking into iOS", like our friend from above mentions, "camel in the tent". Pointless unless they want to set precedent that no phone is secure.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
keylargo
(42 posts)I read that it was one of the FBI investigators who told the County to reset it and the county compiled!
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
atreides1
(16,079 posts)Do you believe that a county employee is going to try to reset the password, without the FBI's permission?
Wouldn't that fall under the heading of tampering with evidence?
randome
(34,845 posts)Maybe it's standard practice to change the password once an employee is no longer with the county. Someone clearly screwed up by not looking at the larger picture but it's not clear who did.
All we have to go on is bits and pieces of news dribbled out.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
Chakab
(1,727 posts)(with no data to back up said claim) thinks that law enforcement should have unfettered back door access to all personal electronic devices.
Now, what kind of names will I get called for pointing out that this fascist asshole is a Bush administration leftover that the President inexplicably reappointed twice?
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)This is just them satisfying their fetish for knowing everything that is none of their fucking business.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Ah, that's better.
The answer is NO!
atreides1
(16,079 posts)" The FBI said it worked with the county to reset the iCloud password a few days after the attack to try to get immediate access to the data. That effort eliminated the possibility of the Apple suggested workaround being possible."
Justice
(7,188 posts)which made no sense to me that the County IT person would take it upon himself to try to reset the iCloud password.
William Seger
(10,778 posts)... then changing the password would have given them access to recent texts, emails and contacts. Unfortunately, what they found was that the phone hadn't been backed up for six weeks. If it hadn't been backed up just because it hadn't connected to a wi-fi in six weeks, then taking it around to various locations hoping it would reconnect to a wi-fi that it had previously used might have worked. If, however, either backups disabled (which is really more likely) or wi-fi were disabled, then that wouldn't have done anything.
