ACLU Shows How the Apple-FBI Fight Was About Much More Than One Phone (theverge.com) 155
Russell Brandom reports for The Verge: Apple's San Bernardino fight may be over, but the government is still seeking both Apple and Google's help in unlocking phones. New research from the American Civil Liberties Union shows 63 different cases in which the government compelled help from Apple or Google in unlocking a handset. It's unclear how many of the orders were filled, although companies often complied with such orders where possible before last year. The bulk of the cases target Apple, but nine of the orders also look to compel Google's help, typically to reset the password on a given device. The devices include phones from Alcatel, Kyocera, and Samsung, many of which shipped without the default device encryption that blocked the use of traditional forensic tools in the San Bernardino case.
Re:Ok, got it (Score:4, Insightful)
The revelation that Apple and Google are both receiving many of these requests and have complied on some of them, reversing course only recently, is an important artifact in the narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
how can we make this issue work for our BOTTOM LINE?
THIS IS ALL APPLE AND GOOG CARE ABOUT.
its not about freedom. dont kid yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, Apple's motivation is to shift liability on to the end user by taking away their own ability to help the government. But it's still important to know that they didn't have goodness in their hearts about this, and they were complying with Big Brother's requests until they decided the liability involved was a little too much for them.
Re: Walled Garden (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
how can we make this issue work for our BOTTOM LINE?
THIS IS ALL APPLE AND GOOG CARE ABOUT.
its not about freedom. dont kid yourself.
And what exactly is the problem with this? Neither Apple nor Google are altruistic tech "think tanks", they are in business to make money
Re: Ok, got it (Score:4, Insightful)
How many of those prior cases demanded that the vendor create a customised "FBiOS" to bypass all protections, and how many involved a much more limited order to provide the password to unlock one specific phone?
I think you'll find the change in tune is more about what they're now being ordered to do. Consider also that Apple and Google created these encryption features in part to avoid the burden of the increasing number of unlock requests.
Re:Ok, got it (Score:5, Informative)
The revelation that Apple and Google are both receiving many of these requests and have complied on some of them, reversing course only recently, is an important artifact in the narrative.
Note that this may not have been a choice by the companies. As I understand it (IANAL), if the company can comply and can't show any egregious harm that would be caused by compliance, they have to comply or be in contempt of court, and judges have extremely wide latitude in the penalties they can apply for contempt. So the change may have been that security improvements made it impossible for them to comply, or -- as Apple was arguing -- impossible to comply without egregious harm.
On the Google side, for example, one thing that changed was that Google removed the device admin and Android device manager features that allowed the password to be remotely reset. IIRC, the remote reset features were removed in Lollipop. In Marshmallow my team moved password verification into the trusted execution environment. The TEE app (called Gatekeeper) that manages password authentication does allow a "forcible" password change, where the old password is not provided, but higher layers don't offer any way to do this, and doing it will cause the TEE-based crypto keystore to permanently and irrevocably invalidate all authentication-bound keys. Such as the one used for device encryption. So a forcible reset doesn't let you in, it bricks the device (until factory reset).
Previously, device admins could remotely reset passwords so that enterprises could let users into their managed devices when they'd locked themselves out. No more. Now all the admin can do is wipe the device. Android device manager will still allow you to change the password remotely, but you have to provide the old one (and you have to have configured Android device manager on the device, and you have to be able to log into the Google account associated with the phone).
These changes were made to eliminate the potential for abuse by Google, rogue employees, etc. But they had the side effect of making it impossible for Google to comply with password reset requests.
(Disclosure/disclaimer: I'm a Google Android engineer. I work on the TEE-based password manager and crypto keystore. All of the above is publicly available information, however. I tried to avoid expressing any opinions, sticking only to facts. If you find an opinion, however, it's mine and not Google's.)
Re: (Score:2)
The documentation for the hardware-backed keystore is at: https://source.android.com/sec... [android.com]
The Lollipop changes... that I'm not sure about. I'm sure it's in the release notes somewhere, but I'd have to go Googling for it, and I'm sure you can do that as well as I can.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple and Google have no choice about complying with requests for information they've got, or can get with tools they've got. Apple isn't saying they won't provide information in response to court orders. They're saying that they're making it difficult for anyone, including Apple, to crack the security, and that they will resist orders to make tools to crack iPhones and iPads. Whether this is a matter of marketing or idealism isn't really an important issue.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Question to fellow Slashdotters (Score:1)
Is it ever in, your opinion, acceptable for the law enforcement to demand (through courts) other parties' cooperation in accessing encrypted data?
If yes, please, list the circumstances, which would make it acceptable and explain, why the "San Bernardino" case was different. Thank you!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
War is a conflict between nation-sates. We are not at war.
This is the correct answer.
And to the GP (AC) - the constitution is to be followed at all times. Nowhere is it stated that the government is free to do as they please in an emergency.
Re: (Score:2)
No...but was the state of emergency declared during WWII ever canceled?
Re: (Score:2)
Americans thought it was a war between two states; the British thought it was a national response to armed insurrection.
The Revolutionary War is only a war in hindsight. If the USA lost, it would have been nothing more than a colonial insurrection---and certainly not the first in recorded history.
There are different types of armed conflict, but war as defined by the Geneva Conventions involves nations. As the only legal covenant which is binding on most of the civilized world, its definition is the most sen
Re: (Score:2)
2) Apple unlocked the phone data for the FBI when asked.
3) The FBI "lost" the password for the data that Apple had already provided in a manner that also meant Apple could not simply repeat what they did in step 2.
WHAT? Links please, as everything I have read says that is not true.
Re:Question to fellow Slashdotters (Score:4, Informative)
"FBI Admits It Urged Change Of Apple ID Password For Terrorist’s iPhone"
http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpa... [buzzfeed.com]
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so how does that show in any way that Apple "2) Apple unlocked the phone data for the FBI when asked." or that the FBI "3) The FBI "lost" the password for the data that Apple had already provided in a manner that also meant Apple could not simply repeat what they did in step 2."
I see the FBI resetting the password (or having it reset, whatever) to gain access to the data, but I see nowhere that they already had the data, or that they lost any password they already had.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, if a warrant has been issued given probable cause, then assuming the third party is fairly compensated for their efforts, then assistance in accessing the one device is acceptable. The problem is in the San Bernadino case, that's not what was asked for. They asked for a tool which could then be effectively used for all devices, and in the past have asked for legislation to require access that would allow them to access anybodies device, regardless of warrants. And this technology would always be the
Re: (Score:2)
What the FBI asked for was a crack specialized to that one phone, and specified that the actual cracking could by done at an Apple facility, provided the FBI got access to the information. If the order had stood, it would have (a) been a precedent, and (b) forced Apple to create such a tool, which means they could be forced to apply it whenever the court ordered (the All Writs act has been held to compel a third party to use a tool they already had). While the actual court order was for one phone, the ef
Re:Question to fellow Slashdotters (Score:4, Insightful)
The "San Bernardino" case was different because the FBI was trying to compel Apple to write new software to assist them in breaking their own phone. Apple had been cooperating with the FBI up until that point, including providing them with a copy of the phone's backed up data from several weeks prior. I don't believe the government should be able to compel someone to write code against their will.
Generally speaking, I have no problems with law enforcing requesting assistance in accessing encrypted data, but keep in mind this whole push for encryption on consumer devices and on the web in general partly came about because the government was caught spying on its citizens. As such, I take a pretty dim view of this same government and their rumblings about wanting to require a back door (and they just *hate* that term) in all encrypted products, because they've demonstrated they can't be trusted with that sort of responsibility. Not only have they demonstrated an absolute willingness to snoop on absolutely everyone, they also have a pretty poor track record in keeping secret data secure. How many breaches shall I cite? How long before foreign governments *cough China* has access to those universal keys as well?
Re: (Score:1)
Different from what?.. You are answering the second part of the question without answering the first: is ever Ok for the police to demand other parties' cooperation?
Cite two, please.
Please, China already gets Apple's cooperation [slashdot.org] — the company only plays "f
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, here you go.
The IRS [slashdot.org] was hacked, multiple times [google.com].
But that's only one agency. I'm sure the rest of the Government agencies are secure, right?
Oh wait [google.com]
It seems that anyone who filled out a background check, or was used as a reference, or who's name came up in the course of the investigation, had their information compromised [slashdot.org].
You were asking for two cites. Just use google to search for slashdot references, and they spill out. You don't even need to search the wider web.
Re: (Score:3)
I already stated: "I have no problems with law enforcing requesting assistance in accessing encrypted data". In particular, is it acceptable to demand cooperation through the courts? Sure: that's at the heart of the All Writs Act. But I feel that in this case Apple was within its right to argue with the court that this was too far a stretch for existing legal precedent, for reasons I already stated.
I don't believe for a minute that Apple is some saint (I don't even own an iPhone), but that doesn't mean t
Re:Question to fellow Slashdotters (Score:4, Insightful)
It is, in my opinion, acceptable for law enforcement to demand cooperation from third parties when that cooperation is limited to turning over data which the third parties have in their possession. So, for example, if Joe Smith backed up his criminal plans to Apple's servers, and Apple has access to those backups, then it would be reasonable for Apple to turn them over to law enforcement when law enforcement presents a court-issued warrant for the backups.
The San Bernardino case was different because Apple didn't actually have the data in its possession. What the FBI wanted was not the data, but instead they wanted Apple to crack the security on the phone. One reason that is different is because it harms Apple to even admit that the cracking is possible. Apple was not a conspirator. The government should not have the ability to harm a private company to solve a case that the company is not involved in.
Put another way, if someone used a motel room to plan a terrorist attack, it would be reasonable for law enforcement to demand, again through a warrant, that the motel manager unlock the room. However, it would not be reasonable for them to go to the company who made the locks the motel uses and insist that they provide a master key. Even if the FBI accidentally dropped the only key to the room down a sewer grate, it would still be unreasonable to have the lock manufacturer reduce the security of their product.
Of course, all of that is just my opinion (which is what you asked for).
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Could you elaborate, why this makes a difference?
I do not think, this is what happened... More like the FBI asked the lock-maker to pick a particular lock...
Re: (Score:1)
> Could you elaborate, why this makes a difference?
I have to admit that the difference I mentioned was more of a feeling I have, but let me try to figure out why I feel that way.
If Apple had the data, they could hand it over without suggesting any vulnerability that wasn't already known to exist. In this case, they no longer had access to the data. They had to create access to the data. For me, that active creation of a vulnerability where none existed before is the core of the distinction.
I'd also li
Re:Question to fellow Slashdotters (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, when the party in question has the key to the encryption, it is acceptable for the FBI to subpoena the party in question to provide the key. As part of due process the party in question can then attempt to quash the subpoena if it has grounds to do so.
This is different than "write a new operating system and install it on this phone so that we can access the data without having the key" (or, if you consider the lavabit case: "rewrite your application to collect the user's key so that we can subpoena it from you" or from the traditional safe perspective "invent a new drill that can drill into your drill-proof safe"). What I want to know is whether the FBI was even planning on paying Apple for their work in developing a new operating system or were they just expecting Apple to slave away for them for free?
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to overstate the complexity of the task required here... Just a bit, no?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe so. There are two steps here:
1: Build an OS that allows access to the data without knowing the key. For this particular phone this isn't that hard, since it doesn't have the secure enclave. The only thing that has to be done is to remove the timeout/lock after failing to enter the PIN so the FBI can enter all 10000 combinations from 0-0-0-0 to 9-9-9-9 and hope that the guy didn't use a longer PIN.
2: Install this OS onto a locked
New OS-building effort?! (Score:1)
Phlease... Claiming, they had to "build on OS" implies an amount of work comparable with, you know, creating an OS, when in fact all they had to do was slightly modify their existing OS to disable (comment-out) the data-destruction functionality, which would've kicked-in upon too many invalid PIN-entries.
This would've been less work, than hackers were/are doing to disable various license-checking parts of binary files.
And certainly far less work than, for example, Ubuntu did,
Re: (Score:2)
Setting aside the fact that you are completely ignoring step 2 (I assume since it is not as easy as you wished it was), what exactly does the amount of effort required have to do with it? Whether the level of effort required to create it is high or low, the government is demanding that Apple produce a thing it does not have.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, the demand was an OS that would eliminate the lockout delay, eliminate the wipe-after-ten-tries, and which would allow the PIN to be entered electronically. That last was probably the biggest task, although without access to the source code neither you nor I know for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Mu.
It's not ever acceptable for other parties to have the capacity to help (except maybe to lend their supercomputers). If a cryptosystem can be modified to reveal (without the attacker knowing the key) something that is already encrypted, then that cryptosystem is hopelessly defective to a comical degree. (Why isn't this bloody-fucking-obvious to everyone?) If Gn
Re:Question to fellow Slashdotters (Score:5, Insightful)
GODDAMNIT NO! Not ANY extent. There are limits to what a court can ask. The court cannot ask for things that violate the Constitution. Warrants are not unlimited in scope in power, in fact they are supposed to very limited to enumerated specifics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Due process. The Constitution is pretty clear. [...] If they are presented with a court-ordered warrant, they should cooperate to any extent possible. [...] Frankly, it's repulsive that Apple thinks it doesn't have to comply with a lawful warrant
You seem to be woefully ignorant of a few important facts:
1) Contrary to your statement, Apple complied with the warrants that were issued, turning over all of the data that they had on the suspects under investigation, and they even provided engineers to assist the FBI in applying known techniques to recover data the FBI had but was unable to access.
2) As you likely know, warrants have limits. If a cop is on his way to serving a warrant at a drug den, he can't conscript pedestrians he passes on the street
WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
So Apple complied with the requests in drug cases but started a big fight over a terrorist? Did they change their policy or is there a technical difference between the cases?
Re: (Score:2)
The funniest part of the whole case was that it was a government owned phone. The FBI should have been able to gain access without any issue, but Apple decided that they wouldn't help in this specific case...
Though all the conspiracy theories going around do come very close for second place.
Re: (Score:1)
The funniest part of the whole case was that it was a government owned phone. The FBI should have been able to gain access without any issue, but
Incorrect, Apple was still happy to have the government access the phone, as that's a simple factory reset. What the government wanted was the data, which was still possible until the FBI purposefully removed the only avenue by having the iCloud account password reset. All of a sudden, the only way in was through the locks. I'm pretty sure those locks will be even harder to circumvent come the iphone7. Android manufacturers will likely follow shortly thereafter, as they all seem to be taking a following rol
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI and city of San Bernadino both have a legal right to access the data, so why is it Apple's choice about if they will help them? Also, why the big fight over this one, when they are more than happy to open up iPhones in other cases?
Simple side note here - if the government had been properly managing its devices and maintaining their own backups, none of this would have mattered.
As someone who does this job for a government agency, I totally agree. It is not Apples prerogative however to deny a city, state, fed, or even company's access to their data.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
The FBI and city of San Bernadino both have a legal right to access the data, so why is it Apple's choice about if they will help them?
Sure, at the very least, San Bernardino has a "right" to the data on the phone. That is separate and different from saying that Apple is obligated to crack the phone for them.
Re: (Score:1)
Apple hardware cheaper than Windows hardware? What world do you live in?
Even used, iPhones are expensive, whereas you can get Windows phones for $30. On the project I am working to bring phones to employees, AT&T is even giving them to us for free...without contract.
Re: (Score:1)
The whole thing is stupid. I have a feeling nothing was even on the phone. Let's see, these are fundamentalists that think the US is evil and can't be trusted. Yet they would trust Apple? Ok, maybe these were stupid people.
Does anyone think that their phone can't be hacked/cracked? Especially when there's a nation state trying to get to it? I wouldn't bet on it.
Would apple helping the FBI change my using an apple phone - Nope.
The other one is stupid - the guy saying it can't be backed up. I had a Governmen
Re: (Score:2)
> The FBI and city of San Bernadino both have a legal right to access the data, so why is it Apple's choice about if they will help them?
I have a legal right to shit in a cup, smear it all over my balls, then rub my shit-covered balls against the wall, so why is it your choice whether you will help me do so?
Re: (Score:1)
The FBI and city of San Bernadino both have a legal right to access the data, so why is it Apple's choice about if they will help them? Also, why the big fight over this one, when they are more than happy to open up iPhones in other cases?... It is not Apples prerogative however to deny a city, state, fed, or even company's access to their data.
So I have a government bought business card and I write a note on it and then burn it. Is Hallmark obligated to help recover my note? That's analogous to what the government wanted from Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
So, Apple helps out in other cases, but this one, this one is just not going to happen!
Seems like an odd stance to take when they have no problem doing it in many other cases.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/a... [thedailybeast.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No one asked Apple to make a free patch. It was to be paid for.
Many times the police will contract with safe manufacturers to break into a safe they need access to. Also, the banks will open a safety deposit box for the police with a warrant, so I am not sure why they would have someone drill it out. You could even have a locksmith pick the lock, it isn't like those locks are especially secure.
Re: (Score:1)
No one asked Apple to make a free patch. It was to be paid for.
Many times the police will contract with safe manufacturers to break into a safe they need access to. Also, the banks will open a safety deposit box for the police with a warrant, so I am not sure why they would have someone drill it out. You could even have a locksmith pick the lock, it isn't like those locks are especially secure.
I don't recall seeing anything in the order about a contract being negotiated or a payment to be determined. It was just "you will assist".
The bank I use has to hire a contractor to drill out the safety deposit box if the keys are lost. There are no other options. I'm sure if picking the lock would be easily done, then that option would be used.
Re: (Score:2)
First, because the court order didn't ask for Apple to help access only that data, it asked Apple to provide a tool for the government to access all data, including on any other iPhone (of the same model, at least) owned by other people. Second, because the court order compelled speech: it required Apple to write new code, and code is speech. The First Amendment guarantees r
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I'm having trouble finding where they asked Apple to "it asked Apple to provide a tool for the government to access all data", can you point to it in the order?
https://www.documentcloud.org/... [documentcloud.org]
I see where it says they want a tool that is keyed to this specific phone, so it would be rather inconsistent to also ask for a tool to unlock any phone they like. After all, that isn't how the legal system works, they have to get permission from a judge to unlock every single phone.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I'm having trouble finding where they asked Apple to "it asked Apple to provide a tool for the government to access all data", can you point to it in the order?
https://www.documentcloud.org/... [documentcloud.org]
I see where it says they want a tool that is keyed to this specific phone, so it would be rather inconsistent to also ask for a tool to unlock any phone they like. After all, that isn't how the legal system works, they have to get permission from a judge to unlock every single phone.
You obviously do not understand how the software update process works. What they requested Apple to do would have worked on every single iPhone 5c in the world. It may have worked on other model phones, as well. They were asking for a master key for all iPhone 5Cs. And why should the FBI get it? If the NSA is doing its job, they have already illegally captured all the meta data for communications going into and out of the phone. San Bernadino County could have configured the device properly. The FBI
Re: (Score:2)
Page 10 of the linked document (retyped due to no copy paste)
Importantly, the SIF would be created with a unique identifier of the SUBJECT DEVICE so that the SIF would [underlined]only[underlined in text] load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE
So, no, I don't think I am misunderstanding anything. It sounds like you might be falling for the propaganda that Apple is putting out there though. The order is right there in black and white, you can read the thing for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, maybe I should get the Easter Bunny to explain it to you. You do believe in the Easter Bunny, don't you? You do seem to implicitly trust the FBI.
Since I don't...the FBI wrote it as a request to break one phone, and then used it in a context where it would both create a precedent and force Apple to create a tool. After the FBI got the useless information from the phone, they had a batch of phones lined up for the exact same treatment.
The phone almost certainly didn't have useful information on
Re: (Score:2)
Your conspiracy theories of what the FBI may be up to have nothing to do with the entirely wrong things that were said. Your belief in the Easter Bunny notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's look at the situation. The San Bernardino shooters destroyed their own phones, presumably to stop the FBI from getting useful information from them. One shooter had a work phone, which the FBI had access to, which might have had something useful on it. The FBI ordered the country government to change the password on it, rendering it inaccessible. About a couple of months later, the FBI decided it needed to get the information off that phone, and got an ex parte court order for Apple to do certain
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. They would have paid fair rates for the work, as they do every other time they ask for assistance from companies.
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI and city of San Bernadino both have a legal right to access the data, so why is it Apple's choice about if they will help them?
You locked yourself out of your car, why am I obligated to help you get into it?
It is not Apples prerogative however to deny a city, state, fed, or even company's access to their data.
By refusing to assist you in unlocking your car I am not denying you access, I am simply not assisting you.
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI and city of San Bernadino both have a legal right to access the data, so why is it Apple's choice about if they will help them?
The city should have backups and recovery keys if they intend to recover data from an encrypted device. Yes, they own the data, and that means they are responsible for ensuring the availability and integrity of their data.
On iPhone 5 and older, there is no secure enclave and Apple can push iOS updates without the device being unlocked. During development, Apple chose to create versions of iOS that always wiped crypto keys on repeated PIN failures. They have never created a product that can recover or unlock
Re: (Score:2)
An entire generation of older cell phones had older tech that could be recovered per device so that covers the past legal "help" question.
The next step was for the US gov to ask for a master key that the gov could use on any phone for any reason and that the brand would have to make.
The US gov would have conscripted a computer system that they could use for generations of phones without
Re:WTF (Score:4, Funny)
If you believe *anything* in the Daily Mail, I have a Loch Ness Monster to sell you.
Actually, given the readership of the Daily Mail, this could be the missing link!
Step 1: Locate Daily Mail reader
Step 2: "Sell" Daily Mail reader the Loch Ness monster. <---- This is the new bit!
Step 3: Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting.. So Apple was willing to get the data from the phone, they just don't want to tell how they did it? I guess that makes sense, in a way.
F the ACLU until they defend the 2nd amendment (Score:1)
I'll start giving a damn about the ACLU when they start treating all our rights as fundamental - not just the ones they like.
Re: (Score:2)
The ACLU believes we should all have freedom from ever seeing any religious practice. I don't even know how you could say they believe in any freedoms.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Freedom OF Religion includes freedom FROM relig (Score:4, Insightful)
The first amendment guarentees everyone the freedom to practice their religion. It does not guarantee that you will not witness other's practicing of their religion.
http://www.washingtontimes.com... [washingtontimes.com]
I guess the example I was thinking about doesn't involve the ACLU...however, I have seen previous examples where the ACLU sought to prevent other's from exercising their religion because they didn't like it, not because somehow the state was involved.
Re: (Score:2)
there is a difference between witnessing others practicing their religion, and being forced to partake yourself.
hence the implied freedom -from- religion as part of the deal.
though that concept is not applicable in your link.
the guy in the article is a crank...but that doesn't mean hes necessarily wrong.
from that article it seems the concepts at issue is two fold:
-the participation of public officials in their official capacity participating in a religious activity, rather than as private citizens, while su
Re: (Score:2)
Consider this scenario, from my time in the service:
Often at large ceremonies, like changing command, or pass in reviews, or etc, a chaplain will offer a brief prayer at the start.
As one of the bodies in the formation (ugh...the worst duty ever, I swear! standing there in dress or service uniform, sweating/freezing, trying to pay attention and not fall asleep, or ignore the bug biting....sorry...went on tangent) ... ...at some point the command is given "Let us pray". Now this is not intended as a religiou
Re: (Score:2)
may have tipped my hand that I'm personally on the fence, and see both sides of the argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I would ask a lawyer. It seems to be a touchy situation, but, possibly, they may get around it by opening it up to all religions so that no one religion is being favored over any other. This is the meaning behind the establishment part, not being free from observance, but selecting one over the other.
Re: (Score:2)
In which case they can damn well get a Hindu or Buddhist or Shinto chaplain once in a while, unless they intend to form an establishment of monotheistic religions only. Or, for that matter, Pastafarians and Satanists.
Re: (Score:2)
That is possible, however, it doesn't look like there are many in the military of those religions.
http://secular.org/files/mldc-... [secular.org]
But, that could also be a sampling error; maybe those weren't options in the survey.
Re: (Score:2)
There are Hindu chaplains.
I've not heard of Buddhist ones, but then that religion doesn't seem like one that would lend itself to having chaplains.
The only one I know of being rejected is a Humanist (atheist) who is currently suing the navy over that rejection.
Though I believe his rejection had to do with the lack of an endorsement. Remember that Chaplains are volunteers , and the military does not actively recruit them (and in a sense, cannot). They must apply for service as a chaplain. Then the military c
Re: Freedom OF Religion includes freedom FROM reli (Score:3)
Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion... [I]f you dissolve the separation of Church and State, don't count on it being your sect in charge.
None of the three things you quoted ("Freedom OF religion," "Freedom FROM religion," or "separation of Church and State") are actually law or in the Constitution or anything like that.
The First Amendment ACTUALLY says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
You don't get to demand that the government use its force to suppress religious practices that you don't like any more than you get to demand that they suppress speech or printe
Re: (Score:1)
Basically the ACLU has fought situations where people of one faith or no faith at all are put into awkward situations by other's practicing their religion. Having a Christian prayer at a high school sporting event, graduation, etc... puts kids into a situation where they either have to act like they are part of that religion or look like they are some weird oddity by refusing to participate. Just because you are free to practice your religion doesn't mean you get to espouse it in everyone else's face. An
Re: (Score:2)
The First Amendment non-establishment clause means the government cannot use its resources to promote any particular religion or group of religions. That's what the ACLU fights against. There's a lot of cases where some government or other decides to do something that specifically favors Christianity, which is unConstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you want the freedom to take other people's freedoms because you are a bigot?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Second Amendment doesn't have the same wording as any of the others. The others don't try to explain or justify themselves. It's a reasonable assumption that the first clause, like every other phrase in the Constitution outside the Preamble, means something.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? They stand up for a lot of rights, some of them highly unpopular. Do they have to stand up equally for each and every one, or can they use their limited resources more strategically?
For example, there are already large and powerful organizations defending Second Amendment rights. Why would the ACLU need to add to that effort with money that could go to another First Amendment case (there being no comparable organizations for the First)?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the ACLU waste resources when it knows the NRA has 2nd amendment issues covered?
The ACLU is actually against the 2nd Amendment. Here it is in their own words: https://www.aclu.org/second-amendment [aclu.org]
They view it as a "collective right" whereas all the rest of the amendments are individual rights. Basically, _someone_ can own a gun, but just not _you_ for arbitrary and whatever reasons they want.
And, begrudgingly admit they don't like the Heller decision.
This speaks volumes for what and why they fight for things. They are not straight up "for the constitution" or "for rights" they are
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, most Republican candidates seem to think the SCOTUS got it wrong on the First Amendment. The obvious answer is to support Bernie.
Difference (Score:1)
How is unlocking a phone any different than cracking a safe full of documents?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that the "someone" is the maker of the encryption algorithm and not the owner of the papers. The latter would be against the 5th Amendment but the former is not.
By the way... (Score:5, Interesting)
Simply because the FBI says they "cracked an iPhone 5c does not mean they actually did. More likely is they did not but knew that they would lose the case and didn't want to set a precedence. They knew very well that in all likelihood, the iPhone contained nothing. The terrorists used burner phone which they destroyed, why would they use a work issued phone at all for anything but work?
Re: (Score:2)
Simply because the FBI says they "cracked an iPhone 5c does not mean they actually did. More likely is they did not but knew that they would lose the case and didn't want to set a precedence.
Or more likely the iPhone 5c lacking the security features of other phones was actually cracked by any of the many methods suggested in these articles including the known power cycling bug that prevents the phone wipe after 10 attempts.
We're not talking about the latest and greatest here.
If we learned anything from Snowden (Score:1)
What we all need to remember is, the NSA wants an open look at all records of every call, every link, every note, such that the 4th Amendment will simply disappear for law enforcement
3/4 of all prosecutions using FISA warrant search are used for DOMESTIC DRUG ENFORCEMENT, a situation which begs us to remember that every Congressman has a file to be used anytime debates about how much money to giv
OEM incompetence (Score:1)
Even if Google wanted to be part of the solution (and since they view the user's privacy as their product that's a big assumption) their inability to control OEMs makes me want to abandon them for Apple. That's saying something since I absolutely deplore the manufacturing standards that Apple upholds w.r.t. their contract factories like Foxconn, but I think that it's something that we are going to have to start thinking about in the future!
Will