Saturday, March 19, 2016
Friday, March 18, 2016
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Why Apple went to war with the FBI | ZDNet
It took just a few hours for the Justice Dept. to gauge how its legal action against Apple would be perceived by the public.
Not long after a California court released an order compelling Apple to help the FBI unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, there was an outpouring of support in Apple's favor, and little compassion for the government's case.
FBI could demand Apple source code and keys if iPhone backdoor too 'burdensome'
FBI could demand Apple source code and keys if iPhone backdoor too 'burdensome'
The FBI could create "ghost" iPhone updates that imitate legitimate Apple software.
Read More
Within hours of reading headlines with words like "backdoor," Apple responded to the growing public empathy with a letter on its website stating that the company will "oppose this order." Apple had made iOS 8, which debuted in September 2014, impossible for anyone other than the phone's owner to unlock -- including law enforcement and Apple itself.
But in the days running up to the judge signing the court order, the Justice Dept. had "stacked the deck" against the iPhone maker, according to a person with direct knowledge of the case.
It was a move to thrust the long-standing debate over encryption between tech companies and law enforcement into the public eye -- one that the government reportedly ended up regretting.
Why Apple went to war with the FBI | ZDNet
Revealed: The Trump campaign NDA that volunteers must sign | Ars Technica
"Today, The Daily Dot published the key parts of that Trump NDA. It's a broad gag order that says volunteers "promise and agree not to demean or disparage publicly" Trump, his family members, or his companies. The contract is apparently life-long, lasting for the "term of service and at all times thereafter."
It's hard to think of a contract more blatantly unconstitutional than a never-ending agreement to not disparage a political candidate, and impossible to imagine a judge enforcing a contract like this. In case anyone missed that point, Daily Dot reporter Patrick O'Neill spoke to employment lawyer Davida Perry about the contract. She described it as "really shocking," adding, "I guess [Trump] doesn't know about the First Amendment."
The contract also bars volunteers from working for, or volunteering for, "any person that is a candidate or exploring candidacy for President of the United States other than Mr. Trump."
Contracts that bar disparagement, disclosure, or competition are common in business deals but generally can't be applied to uncompensated volunteers. (Some states, notably California, don't allow most non-compete deals even in employment contracts.)
If that weren't far-reaching enough, the contract actually goes on to tell volunteers what they can and can't do in coming election cycles. If Trump becomes president, the contract purports to bar volunteers from working for competitors when he runs for re-election in 2020—or even 2024, when he would be termed out. And if Trump loses but wants to run again? His volunteers still won't be allowed to work for another candidate, the contract states."
Revealed: The Trump campaign NDA that volunteers must sign | Ars Technica
It's hard to think of a contract more blatantly unconstitutional than a never-ending agreement to not disparage a political candidate, and impossible to imagine a judge enforcing a contract like this. In case anyone missed that point, Daily Dot reporter Patrick O'Neill spoke to employment lawyer Davida Perry about the contract. She described it as "really shocking," adding, "I guess [Trump] doesn't know about the First Amendment."
The contract also bars volunteers from working for, or volunteering for, "any person that is a candidate or exploring candidacy for President of the United States other than Mr. Trump."
Contracts that bar disparagement, disclosure, or competition are common in business deals but generally can't be applied to uncompensated volunteers. (Some states, notably California, don't allow most non-compete deals even in employment contracts.)
If that weren't far-reaching enough, the contract actually goes on to tell volunteers what they can and can't do in coming election cycles. If Trump becomes president, the contract purports to bar volunteers from working for competitors when he runs for re-election in 2020—or even 2024, when he would be termed out. And if Trump loses but wants to run again? His volunteers still won't be allowed to work for another candidate, the contract states."
Revealed: The Trump campaign NDA that volunteers must sign | Ars Technica
The weird, wide world of Amazon's Alexa Easter eggs - CNET
It turns out that Alexa loves a good inside joke, and with good reason. The ability to play along with your favorite Star Wars reference or awkwardly deflect questions about where babies come from is all part of Alexa's charm. Without it, the Amazon Echo would be a less successful voice platform -- after all, no one likes talking to a stuffy, out-of-touch know-it-all.
To that end, Alexa's cloud-powered smarts are packed with Easter eggs, and Amazon's seemingly adding in new ones every day. Here are some of our current favorites:
The weird, wide world of Amazon's Alexa Easter eggs - CNET
Steve Wozniak on an Apple backdoor: 'bad people are going to find their way to it' | The Verge
In a Reddit Ask Me Anything Q&A, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak has added more of his thoughts to the debate stirred by Apple and the FBI. As the government and Wozniak's former company continue their legal battle over an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, Wozniak writes in defense of Apple and "the side of personal liberties."
Steve Wozniak on an Apple backdoor: 'bad people are going to find their way to it' | The Verge
Steve Wozniak on an Apple backdoor: 'bad people are going to find their way to it' | The Verge
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6187547/vrg_jbareham_flotus_lede_sized_FIN_scrubbed.0.png)
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Apple says Constitution 'forbids' what FBI is asking - CNET
Apple shouldn't have to comply with a search order for an iPhone used by one the San Bernardino, California, terrorists because the Constitution forbids it, the company said Tuesday.
Apple, in a reply to a Department of Justice filing from Thursday, said the All Writs Acts -- the 227-year-old law used to compel Apple to assist the FBI -- can't be applied in this case. It also sought to show that prior cases cited by the Justice Department can't be used as precedent to make Apple redesign its mobile software. Apple went on to say the founding fathers of the US "would be appalled" by how the FBI and Justice Department are trying to use the All Writs Act.
"The All Writs Act cannot be stretched to fit this case because to do so 'would be to usurp the legislative function and to improperly extend the limited federal court jurisdiction,'" Apple's filing said, quoting a decision from the 9th US Circuit in 1979.
The Justice Department's most recent filing defended its use of the All Writs Act, saying in passing the act, "Congress gave courts a means of ensuring that their lawful warrants were not thwarted by third parties like Apple."
Apple says Constitution 'forbids' what FBI is asking - CNET
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)