Monday, February 29, 2016

Progress In Apple Vs FBI/DOJ:
NY Judge Backs Apple In Drug Case


Some progress has been made in the Apple debacle with the FBI. It turns out that Apple's objection to government requests for an iOS device cracking key began back in October, 2015. The ruling involves a drug case in Brooklyn, NY and the US Department of Justice.  The judge's decision is provided in an article over at Reuters:

N.Y. judge backs Apple in encryption fight with government
The U.S. government cannot force Apple Inc (AAPL.O) to unlock an iPhone in a New York drug case, a federal judge in Brooklyn said on Monday, a ruling that bolsters the company's arguments in its landmark legal showdown with the Justice Department over encryption and privacy. . . .
(Added emphasis, mine). 

I strongly suggest reading the entire article. This is the first precedent case in this debacle and is going to carry some weight as similar cases progress, especially Apple's Motion To Vacate from last week regarding the FBI obtained terrorist iPhone.

Here is a link to a PDF of the full judgement:



. . .

In deciding this motion, I offer no opinion as to whether, in the circumstances of this case or others, the government's legitimate interest in ensuring that no door is too strong to resist lawful entry should prevail against the equally legitimate societal interests arrayed against it here. Those competing values extend beyond the individual's interest in vindicating reasonable expectations of privacy – which is not directly implicated where, as here, it must give way to the mandate of a lawful warrant. They include the commercial interest in conducting a lawful business as its owners deem most productive, free of potentially harmful government intrusion; and the far more fundamental and universal interest – important to individuals as a matter of safety, to businesses as a matter of competitive fairness, and to society as a whole as a matter of national security – in shielding sensitive electronically stored data from the myriad harms, great and small, that unauthorized access and misuse can cause.

How best to balance those interests is a matter of critical importance to our society, and the need for an answer becomes more pressing daily, as the tide of technological advance flows ever farther past the boundaries of what seemed possible even a few decades ago. But 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. 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.

Ultimately, the question to be answered in this matter, and in others like it across the country, is not whether the government should be able to force Apple to help it unlock a specific device; it is instead whether the All Writs Act resolves that issue and many others like it yet to come. For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that it does not. The government's motion is denied.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York 
February 29, 2016 
JAMES ORENSTEIN U.S. Magistrate Judge


Saturday, February 27, 2016

Good On EFF At The 2016 Apple Stockholders Meeting!


I'm a supporter of the EFF, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Here's another free plug as thanks for their excellent work.

EFF to Apple Shareholders: Your Company Is Fighting for All of Us
. . . We’ve long warned that the FBI seeks to undermine the security for technology users, and have been warning that a showdown like this one was coming. Make no mistake, all of us have our security at stake here. There is no reliable way to build a pathway to undermine Apple’s security that will only let in good guys. And once it has built this path, there is no way that the law will limit Apple to using it on a single phone. Neither the technology nor the law supports this. As security expert Bruce Schneier said, either we all have security or none of us does.

So it's gratifying to see Apple take this stand to protect the security and privacy of its customers. We are supporting Apple publicly and will be filing a friend of the court brief siding with them because it’s wrong for the government to conscript Apple or any company or coder to write and certify brand new code that they believe, rightly, will undermine security features that protect us all.

This is about all of our safety and resisting government overreach. These are hard battles to fight—we know, we’ve been fighting them for many years. We’re proud of Apple for supporting strong encryption, which at its heart is supporting civil liberties. And we’re proud to stand with them on this fight.

- Cindy Cohn, Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Apple's Shareholders Offer Support for Stance Against U.S.
When Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, rose during the meeting at Apple headquarters in Cupertino, California, to praise the company, her words sparked a long round of applause from the audience, including Cook on stage.

~ ~


Friday, February 26, 2016

Additions To Your Reading List
Re: Apple Vs FBI Vs US Constitution


I'm heading out to coffee and lunch with a reading list about the Apple debacle with the FBI et al. So I thought I'd share. You're welcome, don't hit me! Ow! You can really thank Brian Krebs for inciting my list of Jonathan Zdziarski articles. Both of these fellows are remarkably insightful.

The Lowdown on the Apple-FBI Showdown
by Brain Krebs

Zdziarski's Blog of Things
by Jonathan Zdziarski
tl;dr Apple’s technical capabilities under FBI AWA order
Code is Law
Apple, FBI, and the Burden of Forensic Methodology
10 Reasons Farook’s Work Phone Likely Won’t Have Any Evidence 
On FBI’s Interference with iCloud Backups
The Dumpster of Forensic Science
On Ribbons and Ribbon Cutters 
Open List of Requested iOS Security Improvements  
Forensic “Weapons” and Ex Post Facto Burden

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

BTW: Last night I dreamed of trying to fit an unruly open roll of film into a camera. I believe this was a prescient abstract reference to the list of Zdziarski articles I discovered this morning. (Jonathan is an avid photographer). My brain does that on occasion. Some of these abstract dreams have been years ahead of reality. Why they're so frickin' abstract I don't understand. Perhaps it's for the purpose of plausible deniability, should my subconscious ever be confronted regarding the laws of time. No peeking, etc. ;-)


Thursday, February 25, 2016

Apple's 'Motion To Vacate' Response
To The FBI's Court Challenge


Today, Apple released their 65 page 'Motion To Vacate' to the US Central District Court, Eastern Division of California. MacNN offers an initial review of the document as well as a source link and the ability to read it or download it via Scribd.

Apple tells court Constitution 'forbids' FBI compliance
Apple has now presented a legal response that officially challenges the Department of Justice over its demands that the company creates access to an iPhone sized as part of the San Bernardino workplace violence case, which the FBI has consistently characterized as a "terrorist" incident -- a move critics say is really the agency leveraging the tragedy in an effort to weaken privacy laws, and which Apple's attorney's called "forbidden" by the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.

"This is not a case about one isolated iPhone," begins the 65-page document. It sets out to establish Apple's perspective that the government's demands mean nothing short of creating "a back door to defeat the encryption on the iPhone, making its users' most confidential and personal information vulnerable to hackers, identity thieves, hostile foreign agents, and unwarranted government surveillance." . . .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here is the first paragraph of the Introduction of Apple's Motion To Vacate:
This is not a case about one isolated iPhone. Rather, this case is about the Department of Justice and the FBI seeking through the courts a dangerous power that Congress and the American people have withheld: the ability to force companies like Apple to undermine the basic security and privacy interests of hundreds of millions of individuals around the globe. The government demands that Apple create a back door to defeat the encryption on the iPhone, making its users’ most confidential and personal information vulnerable to hackers, identity thieves, hostile foreign agents, and unwarranted government surveillance. The All Writs Act, first enacted in 1789 and on which the government bases its entire case, “does not give the district court a roving commission” to conscript and commandeer Apple in this manner. Plum Creek Lumber Co. v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir. 1979). In fact, no court has ever authorized what the government now seeks, no law supports such unlimited and sweeping use of the judicial process, and the Constitution forbids it. . .
And the Conclusion:
Apple has great respect for the professionals at the Department of Justice and FBI, and it believes their intentions are good. Moreover, Apple has profound sympathy for the innocent victims of the attack and their families. However, while the government’s desire to maximize security is laudable, the decision of how to do so while also protecting other vital interests, such as personal safety and privacy, is for American citizens to make through the democratic process. Indeed, examples abound of society opting not to pay the price for increased and more efficient enforcement of criminal laws. For example, society does not tolerate violations of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, even though more criminals would be convicted if the government could compel their confessions. Nor does society tolerate violations of the Fourth Amendment, even though the government could more easily obtain critical evidence if given free rein to conduct warrantless searches and seizures. At every level of our legal system—from the Constitution, to our statutes, common law, rules, and even the Department of Justice’s own policies—society has acted to preserve certain rights at the expense of burdening law enforcement’s interest in investigating crimes and bringing criminals to justice. Society is still debating the important privacy and security issues posed by this case. The government’s desire to leave no stone unturned, however well intentioned, does not authorize it to cut off debate and impose its views on society.
Skimming through the document, it turns out that Apple applies three elements of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. The First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments! This is an effective shotgun blast at the assertions of the FBI and Department of Justice.

Rather than quote or comment further, I'd rather everyone digested the document in whole and review it thereafter, including myself.


MS Silverlight Exploit In-The-Wild:
Uninstall Silverlight NOW!
(Or update if you're stuck using it).


I don't know of any reason to continue using Microsoft's Silverlight Internet plug-in and neither does Microsoft! The company has, albeit quietly, stated that they are eventually discontinuing all support of Silverlight and that everyone should move on to more modern technologies. That includes ALL Mac users. So bully for Microsoft for sort of warning people ahead of time that Silverlight Is Dead. HTML5 and other MS technologies replace it in entirety.

But the damned thing is still being used by many websites. Meanwhile, further security holes in Silverlight have been found and are being exploited on the web at this moment, in-the-wild. Mac users are susceptible and are going to suffer. Uninstall Silverlight NOW! Don't update it. Just UNINSTALL IT! That is my personal advice.

Here's what's going on:

Malicious websites exploit Silverlight bug that can pwn Macs and Windows
Code execution exploit for just-fixed bug makes encore appearance in Angler.
. . . Exploit code for the patched vulnerability is being distributed through Angler, one of several toolkits that criminals use to seed websites with code that carry out drive-by attacks. The Silverlight attack was spotted earlier this week by a researcher who goes by the moniker Kafeine. The vulnerability is indexed as CVE-2016-0034. . . .
Microsoft has been clear that exploits have the ability to remotely execute malicious code on both unpatched Windows and OS X devices. . . .
While Silverlight vulnerabilities aren't nearly as numerous as security bugs in Adobe's Flash or Oracle's Java, Kafeine's discovery shows that the Microsoft framework has the potential to endanger a broad base of people using both Windows and OS X. Readers who can browse the Internet without Silverlight are best off uninstalling it. Everyone else should religiously update it as soon as patches become available. Patched versions are 5.1.41212.0 or higher.
Here are Microsoft's instructions for removing the Silverlight Internet plug-in from Mac computers:

Removing Silverlight plugins on Macintosh
1. Access your hard drive
   Double-click the hard drive icon on your desktop

2. Find the plugin
   Navigate to your Internet Plug-Ins directory: /Library/Internet Plug-Ins/

3. Remove the plugin
   Drag any of the following into your trash bin:
   • Silverlight.plugin
   • WPFe.plugin
I must add:

4. Restart ALL your web browsers. Otherwise Silverlight will still be running in them.

And again: Don't patch Silverlight. UNINSTALL Silverlight. Get it over with. If you run into some retrograde website that insists upon using Silverlight, send them this link, dated January 16, 2014:

Silverlight Support Roadmap

Microsoft will continue to support Silverlight 5 until 10/12/2021
That's the cutoff date. 
Microsoft continues to release updates to Silverlight 5 to address security and compatibility issues.
But that's it for the future of Silverlight.

So get rid of it! Immediately! So say I.


Tuesday, February 23, 2016

No Surprise:
MORE Orders For Apple To Hack iPhones


So much for the 'just this one iPhone' rhetoric, as predicted:

Justice Department Seeks to Force Apple to Extract Data From About 12 Other iPhones
The Justice Department is pursuing court orders to force Apple Inc. to help investigators extract data from iPhones in about a dozen undisclosed cases around the country, in disputes similar to the current battle over a terrorist's locked phone, according to people familiar with the matter. . . .

Separately, federal prosecutors in New York are sparring with Apple over an iPhone seized in a drug investigation there. In that case, prosecutors filed a letter with U.S. magistrate judge James Orenstein late Monday that indicates there are other cases in which the government has obtained similar court orders, but the letter does not provide further detail. . . .

"The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that's simply not true," Apple CEO Tim Cook wrote last week in a letter to customers. "Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices... The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements."

The obvious result.

Stick with it Tim Cook and Apple!

Pay no attention to the man with the red tie...

Keeping Score: Who Is Pro Privacy
Vs Who Is Pro Surveillance


The kettle is boiling a steam of opinions at this point among those who understand and have experienced the question of our US right to privacy vs the need to apply surveillance as perceived 'security'. It turns out there is some question as to what 'security' really means in this case. Are We The People more 'secure' with our government being able to crack into our devices? Or are We The People more 'secure' with uncrackable end to end encryption?

Which brings me to this fascinating interview with former CIA and NSA director General Michael Hayden. There is a man who's been on the bleeding edge. What would you guess is his opinion of this situation?

Former Director of CIA and NSA Says FBI is Wrong about Apple’s Encryption
General Hayden was appointed director of the NSA by President Bill Clinton (D), and then director of the CIA by President George W. Bush (R). The [point] of his interview is that he says there is no doubt that strong encryption makes the job of law enforcement more difficult. On balance, however, strong encryption makes the country stronger. . . 
The article at MacObserver includes a video interview with General Hayden.

When considering the General's point, it's important to consider the 'security' of :

(A) We The People
(B) Business, Corporations
(C) Law Enforcement
(D) Government

Every one of the groups above has suffered profound damage to their security specifically because hackers were able to break into computerized systems holding their data, steal it and abuse it. Every one of them. If those computer systems had used quality, unbreakable, end to end encryption, it is worth speculating that almost NONE of that data robbery would have occurred. I'd add in that if all concerned were knowledgeable of how computing, security and hacking worked, the speculation would have some serious teeth. I'm talking about overcoming the computer security illiteracy barrier. 

Of course, good luck with that. Computer systems are increasingly more complex and we will always have the 'luser factor' among we humans. There will always be people who'll fall for social engineering and other trickery that allow computer hacker entry, no matter what technological barriers are placed in the way. But moving along...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

FBI Director James Comey published an opinion article in the Encryption section of the Lawfare Blog on Sunday, February 21st:

We Could Not Look the Survivors in the Eye if We Did Not Follow this Lead
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. . . .
Reflecting the context of this heart-breaking case, I hope folks will take a deep breath and stop saying the world is ending, but instead use that breath to talk to each other. . . .
 This is what I call an emotional appeal. I personally find this to be an insulting emotional appeal. We The People are apparently emotional animals, prone to hysteria, acting like Chicken Little, saying 'the world is ending' when the FBI drops this 'heart-breaking case' on our heads.

This is how one particular US government official thinks of the citizens he serves.

Mr. Comey then insults Apple:

Although this case is about the innocents attacked in San Bernardino, it does highlight that we have awesome new technology that creates a serious tension between two values we all treasure: privacy and safety. That tension should not be resolved by corporations that sell stuff for a living.
Apple sells stuff. That's what they do. Lucky we, the Apple customers, have a superior corporation from whom we buy that stuff. Tim Cook and Apple are looking out for what We The People, as their customers, require in our computerized gear. We want both privacy AND security. In this case it is security from our own government's illegal, unwarranted, unconstitutional snooping. (Did I add in 'traitorous'? Maybe next time).

This is an issue of:


Do we now trust our US government to obey the law? Do we trust the FBI to treat this as a One-Time-Case?


Do We The People deserve a patronizing Director of the FBI who treats us as moody cattle and asks that we have a 'long conversation' while avoiding the actual constitutional and technical issues involved and feeding us 'think of the children' heart-string pulling rhetoric?


I find FBI Director James Comey to be disingenuous and disturbing. We The People deserve far better. Ideally, he should be entirely removed from the actual conversation and his job. That is of course IMHO. Short of that, he might consider being quiet. He's wrecking his own cause.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For those who want their head to explode with even more opinions from the kettle, this article is of significant interest:

Apple vs. the FBI: Here's where everyone stands
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Meanwhile, Apple has provided a FAQ about their stance on this issue:

Answers to your questions about Apple and security
Why is Apple objecting to the government’s order?

Is it technically possible to do what the government has ordered?

Could Apple build this operating system just once, for this iPhone, and never use it again?

Has Apple unlocked iPhones for law enforcement in the past?

The government says your objection appears to be based on concern for your business model and marketing strategy. Is that true?

Is there any other way you can help the FBI?

What should happen from here?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

BTW: I sent EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) another $64 this past week. I want the t-shirt! I also appreciate their perspective and legal involvement in all things digital.


Saturday, February 20, 2016

US DOJ Files Showdown Against Apple,
A War of US Constitution
Vs Rhetoric
Vs Technology

I'm going to use this blog article space as sparse documentation of the battlefront:

The US Constitution Vs The US Government. 

Apple is currently caught in the middle and is standing with the US Constitution. That, of course, is not the only way to view this situation. But from my POV it is the simple distillation after the rhetoric and technology are cleared away. The US government has already proven that it has totally FAILed to adhere to the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. The director of the NSA (National Security Agency) directly lied in public to the US Congress regarding these illegal, constitutional violations. A US whistleblower, who bravely brought attention to the NSA's and other governmental organization's ignoring of the US Constitution, is forced to live in exile because justice, fair treatment and respect for government level whistleblowers currently does not exist in the USA. IOW: We are experiencing what I can only call a wave of totalitarianism in the USA. One of the amusing aspects of this wave is that both of the worthless political parties are party to this treasonous behavior, this violation of the rights of We The People. I therefore have no respect for either political party. But let's move along.

News in the US government 
Vs Apple 
Vs Violation of The Fourth Amendment To The US Constitution 
Vs Rhetoric 
Vs Technology, 


US DoJ files motion to compel Apple to obey FBI iPhone crack order
Uncle Sam says Cupertino is only thinking about its marketing and PR strategy
The US Department of Justice has today filed a motion compelling Apple to comply with a court order to help the FBI break into a killer's iPhone.
Government's Motion To Compel Apple Inc. To Comply With This Court's February 16, 2016 Order Compelling Assistance In Search (pdf)
Rather than assist the effort to fully investigate a deadly terrorist attack by obeying this Court's Order of February 16, 2016, Apple has responded by publicly repudiating that Order. 
1. Apple has attempted to design and market its products to allow technology, rather than law, to control access to data which has been found by this Court to be warranted for an important investigation. Despite its efforts, Apple nonetheless retains the technical ability to comply with the Order, and so should be required to obey it. . . .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Today I ran into an interesting article about this situation over at Bloomberg Business. It features a profound quote, well worth consideration, posted below.

Secret Memo Details U.S.’s Broader Strategy to Crack Phones
The government’s going to have to get over it,” said Ken Silva, former technical director of the National Security Agency and currently a vice president at Ionic Security Inc., an Atlanta-based data security company. “We had this fight 20 years ago. While I respect the job they have to do and I know how hard the job is, the privacy of that information is very important to people.
(Bolding: Mine).
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

More to come as the drama further unfolds.


Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Tim Cook Defends Customer Security:
The Apple CEO For Our Times


I have to draw attention to Tim Cook's recent letter to customers. He is defending their security when using Apple devices and software. I consider it brilliant and a defining road mark of our efforts in the USA to stop totalitarianism within our government and to return its purpose to supporting and defending We The People, as opposed to anyone else.

Some misguided people have inexplicably called for Tim Cook's head. I, in turn, would rather see such critic's heads instead. Not that I want them literally! But I do want to force and enforce sanity, fairness and intelligence back into my US government. I'd dearly love to get rid of the tag I use to describe them now: #MyStupidGovernment. /rant

You can read Tim Cook's entire letter HERE.

I'm posting his letter here as well. Every Apple customer should read it and take solace that there is a sane, fair and intelligent computer company looking out for our security interests. (^_^)
February 16, 2016
A Message to Our Customers
The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.

This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.

The Need for Encryption

Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going.

All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data.

Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.

For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.

The San Bernardino Case

We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.

When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.

We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.
The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.

The Threat to Data Security

Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.

In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.

The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.

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 same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.

We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.

A Dangerous Precedent

Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority.

The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.

The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.

Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.

We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.

While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

Tim Cook
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Terrorism is horrible and must be stopped. All of us must do everything we can do to stop this craziness… these people shouldn’t exist. They should be eliminated… You don’t want to eliminate everyone’s privacy. If you do, you not only don’t solve the terrorist issue but you also take away something that is a human right. The consequences of doing that are very significant. 

Apple CEO Tim Cook, February 27, 2015
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Fourth Amendment To The US Constitution

"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 Fifth Amendment To The US Constitution

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." 

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759