‘Who do they think they are?’ Donald Trump blasts Apple for not unlocking San Bernardino terrorist’s iPhone

“Donald Trump says that Apple should comply with a California judge’s order to help the FBI break into the phone of one of the San Bernardino shooters,” David Wright reports for CNN. “‘I agree 100% with the courts,’ Trump said on ‘Fox and Friends’ on Wednesday morning. ‘In that case, we should open it up. I think security over all — we have to open it up, and we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense.'”

“rump strongly argued that the Apple should unlock the phones, adding, the shooters ‘killed 14 people, other people laying desperately ill in the hospital from what they did. These are two people radicalized who were given a wedding party by the people they killed! There’s something going on. We have to be very careful, we have to be very vigilant,'” Wright reports. “‘But to think that Apple won’t allow us to get into her cell phone,’ Trump continued, ‘who do they think they are? No, we have to open it up.'”

“The letter, signed by Apple’s CEO Tim Cook and published Tuesday, warns that complying with the order would entail building ‘a backdoor to the iPhone,’ creating ‘something we consider too dangerous to create,'” Wright reports. “‘The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals,’ the letter reads.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Encryption is either on or off. This is a binary issue. There is no in-between. You either have encryption or you do not.

There have been people that suggest that we should have a back door. But the reality is if you put a back door in, that back door’s for everybody, for good guys and bad guys. — Apple CEO Tim Cook, December 2015

Oppose government overreach.

Some truths are universal. Like this one:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

SEE ALSO:
Tim Cook posts open letter opposing U.S. government demands to bypass iPhone encryption – February 17, 2016
Apple CEO opposes court order to help FBI unlock San Bernardino terrorist’s iPhone – February 17, 2016
Apple wants judge to rule if it can be forced to unlock defendant’s iPhone – February 16, 2016
U.S. House lawmakers seek to outlaw states from banning encrypted iPhones – February 10, 2016
Obama administration wants access to smartphones – December 15, 2015
Obama administration’s calls for backdoors into encrypted communications echo Clinton-era key escrow fiasco – December 14, 2015
Donald Trump: To stop ISIS recruiting, maybe we should be talking to Bill Gates about ‘closing that Internet up in some way’ – December 8, 2015
Hillary Clinton: We need to put Silicon Valley tech firms to ‘work at disrupting ISIS’ – December 7, 2015
Apple CEO Cook: ‘You can’t have a back door that’s only for the good guys’ – November 21, 2015
Apple CEO Cook defends encryption, opposes back door for government spies – October 20, 2015
Do not let the government snoops weaken encryption – November 4, 2015
U.S. NSA seeks to build quantum computer to crack most types of encryption – January 3, 2014
Judge compares government request for Apple to access users’ iPhone data to execution order – October 27, 2015
U.S. judge expresses doubts over forcing Apple to unlock iPhone – October 26, 2015
Apple tells U.S. judge it can’t unlock iPhones running iOS 8 or higher – October 20, 2015
a href=”http://macdailynews.com/2015/10/20/apple-ceo-cook-defends-encryption-opposes-back-door-for-government-spies/”>Apple CEO Cook defends encryption, opposes back door for government spies – October 20, 2015
With Apple court order, activist federal judge seeks to fuel debate about data encryption – October 12, 2015
Judge declines to order Apple to disable security on device seized by U.S. government – October 10, 2015
Apple refused to give iMessages to the U.S. government – September 8, 2015
Obama administration war against Apple just got uglier – July 31, 2015
Edward Snowden: Apple is a privacy pioneer – June 5, 2015
Apple, others urge Obama to reject any proposal for smartphone backdoors – May 19, 2015
U.S. appeals court rules NSA bulk collection of phone data illegal – May 7, 2015
In open letter to Obama, Apple, Google, others urge Patriot Act not be renewed – March 26, 2015
Apple’s iOS encryption has ‘petrified’ the U.S. administration, governments around the world – March 19, 2015

80 Comments

  1. This is an issue of freedom. The so-called good guys may not always be good guys, especially if they are coming after your private communications. I cannot find an article in the Constitution that allows the government to meddle in private communication no matter what the nature of the communication is.

        1. I’m just surprised we haven’t heard from First2014then2080? This kind of thing really puts people like MDN in a tough spot. My party, right or wrong… or PIck the right person for the job.

          1. Trump is not my pick for the GOP nomination.

            As for the Democrat Party candidates: One of them belongs in a Soviet retirement home and the other in Leavenworth.

        2. I guess I am falling for your act of stupidity or I am missing something.

          The 4th amendment:
          “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    1. The Fourth Amendment quite specifically allows the government to meddle in private communications with a proper warrant (“papers and effects” has always included letters). This is not a constitutional issue. This specific case does not even present a privacy issue, since the owner of the device has given consent to access (even apart from the warrant). It is a statutory issue about the interpretation of the All Writs Act. A third party can be required to give reasonable assistance to the execution of a search warrant, but can it be required to demolish its own business model by sacrificing the security of its products? I would hope not.

      Establishing the principle that digital communications cannot be secure would have all sorts of other consequences. For example, communications between spouses or with one’s lawyer, doctor, or priest are privileged, but only if they are kept secure from third parties. Without security, no privileged communications could exist. No financial transaction could be protected from publicity or from interference. It goes on and on.

    2. No its about naivness and paranoia….
      Everyone take a chill pill…

      What if your own chileds life was hanging on the line…. Would you be ranting all this naiev BS…. ?

  2. If trump had a clue he’d be even more dangerous to the country and consequemtially to the world. To him its all reality tv and u fortunately there’s still a Jerry Springer demographic which he attracts and appeals to….White ignorant trash.

      1. Ignorant white trash is less than half of the US population. All white people are a minority now, having just dropped to 49% of the US. (Hawaii has less than 0.5% of the population, and no room for expansion, so they’re not tipping US population scales anytime soon.)

        Trump is projected to lose the general election by a land slide, likely because of how small his base is compared to the overall population, and how little appeal he has to anyone outside his base (and by his base, I mean “ignorant white trash”.) He’s a gift to the Democrats. They all want to run against him because that would guarantee a Democratic victory.

  3. The 4th amendment:
    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    The question here is should a company be allowed to provide communication that cannot be retrieved even with a warrant. I think this is a fascinating legal and constitutional issue that probably will end up with a Supreme Court decision.

      1. The Repubs may talk a big game about obstructing a Supreme Court nomination, but the political fallout of such a strategy would be devastating to the party and virtually guarantee a loss in November. While Mitch McConnell and friends are barking up a storm right now, they have no bite.

        1. There’s no chance that there will be an Obama SCOTUS nomination up for a vote during the remainder of Obama’s term. Won’t happen. The political fallout is irrelevant compared to 30-40 years of a Supreme Court justice sitting on the bench, and there’s no way it would improve the chances of a Democrat sitting in office during the next term. The people angry about it won’t vote Republican, and the people who will vote Republican will be happy about it, it is a net zero effect on the election.

          1. We can agree to disagree, but elections are won with the independent vote. Never discount the power of voter rage. The public’s disgust of the Iraq War shifted the balance of power to Obama and let to a two term presidency. A president can set the direction of the country and there is no other position in government that has that ability.

  4. In order to do this, they would have to create a different version of iOS, for the FBI. Once (and if) that version is created, it could be used to break into any iOS device. Apple would have to provide the iOS to the FBI, not do it in their labs as that would open up all kinds of legal issues.

  5. Good luck to the US citizens if that clown Trump ever gets to be President. In the UK, I think our ‘special relationship’ with the US will be dead in the water. Mind you, we have our own Corbyn clown to put up with.

  6. Trump is one sophisticated criminal.

    Obviously, Apple can’t just force open an encrypted device. For that to be possible, it would need some kind of fake encryption that anyone could break that would leave all phones like it open to data theft. There’s no way Apple can open it if the phone is actually encrypted.

    Except that’s not obvious to a sizable population, who just don’t know. They were misinformed, or they were never given the relevant information, or they never put 2 and 2 together. This is classic Trump politics, combining a narrow public ignorance with a convenient scapegoat to play large number of American citizens for fools, and raise his personal power.

    I really hope the con ends with Trump pocketing donor money then dropping from the race at the last moment. That seems like the most likely scenario, but I fear he might try something more bold.

  7. What was Benjamin Franklin’s position on search warrants into people’s private homes? I think even Ben had exceptions to his rules. MDN’s take is too simplistic.

    4th: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    Ben’s quote and the Revolution was based on government ABUSE of warrants.

    There are backdoors to everything. Don’t let Apple fool you. Apple is just giving the impression that there is no back door.

    It’s just a matter of time when iPhone’s will be illegal unless they comply.

    1. Actually, Franklin’s quote was based on an attempt by wealthy landowners in Pennsylvania to interfere with the colonial legislature’s right to tax them. It had nothing to do with warrants or privacy.

      1. Correct. This has been pointed out many times. And MDN’s (and some of the more far-right wing posters on here)’s continual misapplication of the quote is disingenuous at best, and obscures the real arguments.

        1. Again, quotes are always used out of context. If you insist that a quote can ONLY be used in the exact same circumstances and context that the quote was made then we will need to stop using quotes altogether.

          That is an incredibly ignorant standard.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.