- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 9/6/23 at 9:57 am to 14&Counting
I find it amusing that you and several other proud Desantis supporters are supporting Liberty's decision.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 9:57 am to Chingon Ag
quote:No, it is exactly the point. People are just wanting to be mad. Be mad at the justice department, be mad at the judge, be mad the politics of crap appointments possibly. But Liberty did not one thing that will change the outcome.
That is not the point here. Damn.
Hell, if you dont want your home searched, just lock your front door. If you dont give them a key, they will just turn around.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:01 am to cwill
quote:
The warrant was going to get the safe opened. It was going to be opened one way or the other. 6 one way, half dozen another, the outcome was always the same.
No one is arguing the outcome...just the means. Liberty, as the company form which the guy bought a security device, should have played no part in this...at all. The FBI could have gotten into the safe. This isn't even a situation where they need the assistance of Apple to hack an iPhone, something Appl has told them to frick off about. Nah...they could have done this no sweat.
Instead, they went the easier route and simply got the company to do it from them. They were under no legal obligation to do this and could not have been compelled to do so since it could have been opened by other means.
Their customers, past and potential future, should know this is how they roll.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:12 am to Diamondawg
quote:
Same with the bank?
Explain how this is similar?
The contents of a safe can be accessed, either by some third party cracking it or brute force. The original manufacturer is not needed here...at all.
The bank, on the other hand, would have to grant access in order for the authorities to see the 'contents." There is no other work around.
Now, you may think both are similar in terms of allowing access to personal items, but one is being stored in an item YOU OWN in your own home and can be accessed any number of ways that don't include the company that sold the device, and the other is an institution that has all of its paperwork and information stored digitally in it's own infrastructure.
The only way this analogy even comes close to being the same is if the safe was SO secure that the Feds literally had no possible way of opening it. None. At all.
It's apples and oranges different.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:12 am to jp4lsu
quote:
Wouldn't the owner be obligated to open the safe with the warrant?
NO! The homeowner is not compelled to cooperate. That is both an act of offering approval to search (which, if in judicial review the warrant is found to be baseless, the evidence that would normally be thrown out, that evidence is now approved to be used against the accused based on the approval of the accused to search), and by doing so, if there IS any incriminating evidence, the accused is not compelled to incriminate themself. It is up to law enforcement to obtain evidence, not for the accused to hand over evidence. Jeez.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:13 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
This isn't even a situation where they need the assistance of Apple to hack an iPhone, something Appl has told them to frick off about.
Didn't they get into that phone?
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:15 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:So Liberty should just say that they are so easy to access you dont need the code?
The only way this analogy even comes close to being the same is if the safe was SO secure that the Feds literally had no possible way of opening it. None. At all.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:20 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Didn't they get into that phone?
In terms of the relevancy of my point, it doesn't matter if Apple eventually caved.
The iPhone was built to make it essentially impossible to crack. Apple was not just the easiest option, it was the ONLY option and at least for a while they told the FBI to get lost.
Again, we can argue about whether any company should comply etc and that would be interesting, but it's not really the issue here.
The issue HERE is that, unlike Apple, the FBI could have easily gotten into the safe without the help of the company that sold it. The fact that they'd have gotten in anyway isn't an argument for the the safe company to have stepped in an done it for them, it's an argument for why they absolutely weren't needed. I'm really not sure why you guys are arguing this simple point.
It was then up the the customer (guy handed the warrant) if he wanted to open it for the Feds or force them to get it open.
Where exactly did Liberty come in here?
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:22 am to tigerfoot
quote:
So Liberty should just say that they are so easy to access you dont need the code?
Could the FBI have opened the safe without their help? If the answer is YES, then this entire point makes no sense.
Liberty wasn't required to open it, either legally or in reality. It was just easier if they did.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:25 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
Liberty wasn't required to open it, either legally or in reality. It was just easier if they did.
It would have been better on their part to leave it up to the homeowner. It's no longer their safe.
Another damning comment I saw in Twitter was from a guy who got locked out of his own safe, and Liberty told him to hire a locksmith instead of helping him. They'll help the feebs but not a customer?
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:25 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
In terms of the relevancy of my point, it doesn't matter if Apple eventually caved.
I didn't say anything about them caving.
quote:
The iPhone was built to make it essentially impossible to crack.
Sure, that's their marketing and that's what the layman believes. That isn't reality.
My question was rhetorical. They got into the phone without Apple's help.
quote:
I'm really not sure why you guys are arguing this simple point.
I'm not sure why you're conflating the points I've actually made with points others have maybe made...
Either way, the continued comparison with the iPhone isn't exactly a good one. The "backdoor" the FBI asked for isn't the same as the "master" or "user" code Liberty provided.
This post was edited on 9/6/23 at 10:29 am
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:29 am to Flats
quote:
It would have been better on their part to leave it up to the homeowner. It's no longer their safe.
100%
Liberty's response should have been, "If our customer asks us to open it, we'll be glad to do that. Otherwise, he's the owner of the safe and if he refuses to open it they we can't help you."
Of course, if the customer wanted it open he'd have typed in the code when I'm sure they asked him for it. What I'm sure he thought would happen after he told them no was that they'd bust it open one was or another and took the loss of the safe into that equation when doing so. What I'm sure he DIDN'T assume would happen is that Liberty would run up along side and hand the FBI the code against his will.
quote:
Another damning comment I saw in Twitter was from a guy who got locked out of his own safe, and Liberty told him to hire a locksmith instead of helping him. They'll help the feebs but not a customer?
I have no idea if this is true or not, but if true that's pretty bad.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:30 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:Didnt the Apple precedent kinda change this for Liberty
Liberty wasn't required to open it, either legally or in reality. It was just easier if they did.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:33 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
They got into the phone without Apple's help.
Sooooooo...the point here is because Apple caved then we should expect all companies too?
What I see there is another example of why a company clearly isn't needed to get into these things. I'd assume the iPhone was more difficult to get into than the safe would be.
I get why the FBI went to Liberty. It was easier than devoting effort to opening it themselves. What I don't get is why Liberty went along, since there were clearly ways to get this done without this.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:33 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
I have no idea if this is true or not, but if true that's pretty bad.
Someone said so on X, of course it's true.
Looks like Liberty has now restricted replies. Smooth.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:34 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
Sooooooo...the point here is because Apple caved then we should expect all companies too?
Apple didn't cave. Did you read anything I posted?
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:34 am to tigerfoot
quote:
Didnt the Apple precedent kinda change this for Liberty
Dunno...and I'd think not if Buckeye is correct and they cracked it without Apple's help, right?
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:35 am to HubbaBubba
Lesson: don’t use electronic locks. Use old style combination locks and have them changed from the factory so the manufacturer isn’t able to provide the info.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:36 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Did you read anything I posted?
Yeah, sorry I did. I'm doing three things at once right now!
The rest of that post addresses your point though, does it not?
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News