Friends Kingdom: Re: [iPad] The 227-Year-Old Statute Being Used to Order Apple to Endanger Y

If the FBI hadn't played around with the phone in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for this.They would have had their information.

And by the time they get it, the information will be useless anyway.

And why are those innocent people who were killed any more important than all the other innocent iPhone users?

cic

On 4 Mar 2016, at 5:23 AM, Jerry Elkins jreusa@gmail.com [iPad] <iPad@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

No one wants a back door. They want to read ONE terriost phone. One. Just read what is on the phone. Innocent people were killed for christ sake. Apple is making a mountain out of nothing.


Jerry R. Elkins
2004 HR Scepter PDQ
2008 Ford Sport Trac
Kemah, Tx 77539

On Mar 3, 2016, at 7:25 AM, Hélène Dion hdion@videotron.ca [iPad] <iPad@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Courts have previously held that software — computer code — is "speech".

And also that the Bill of Rights (specifically the 1st Amendment), in guaranteeing freedom of speech, also protects from any law *compelling* speech.

Meaning that for the government to tell Apple that they must write code for some specific goal is a violation of the Constitution.

Let me make one thing VERY clear first. I side with Apple on this. No if, no but. Beside the whole principle of the thing, it's obvious to me that the key to a back door should certainly not be built and then handed to people who just might be so inept as to lose it, the way the FBI did by resetting the iPhone's iCloud password account.

OTOH, I like a good debate ;-))

What I take exception with, in this case, is the lines I quoted above. I'm not convinced that the Bill of Rights should totally apply to companies. The consequences of using an argument such as Apple's right to refuse "compelled speech" are far-reaching.

For instance, think of the way corporate financing is influencing US politics and political campaigning. Many people think this is deplorable (I happen to agree). But this is a good example of the risks of extending the rights of individuals to corporations. It started with a 1976 ruling (Buckley v. Valeo), which upheld limits on campaign contributions, but held that spending money to influence elections is protected speech by the First Amendment. Then, from Buckley (an individual), it went to the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which a 5 to 4 decision held that corporations could also spend unlimited money during elections, holding that corporations have a First Amendment right to free speech.

(I just found the following article in Wikipedia, Corporate personhood in the United States, that's where I got the Buckley/Citizens United references.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood)

So am I with Apple on this? You bet. Do I believe that Corporate Apple has a right to "free speech"? I'm not so sure.

Note: I admit that I'm from Québec, a Canadian province, which to some minds might mean that I shouldn't intervene. But… food for thought, eh? and all that.

Hélène D.
iPad owner since the very first minutes it was sold in Canada
Apple computer owner since 1983