New Legislation Would Ban US Government From Purchasing Apple Products (arstechnica.com) 296
HughPickens.com writes: Cyrus Farivar reports at ArsTechnica that Congressman David Jolly has introduced the "No Taxpayer Support for Apple Act," a bill that would forbid federal agencies from purchasing Apple products until the company cooperates with the federal court order to assist the unlocking of a seized iPhone 5C associated with the San Bernardino terrorist attack. "Taxpayers should not be subsidizing a company that refuses to cooperate in a terror investigation that left 14 Americans dead on American soil," said Jolly, who announced in 2015 that he's running for Senate, joining the crowded GOP primary field to replace Sen. Marco Rubio. "Following the horrific events of September 11, 2001, every citizen and every company was willing to do whatever it took to side with law enforcement and defeat terror. It's time Apple shows that same conviction to further protect our nation today." Jolly's bill echoes a call from Donald Trump last month to boycott Apple until it agrees to assist the FBI. Not to fear, GovTrack gives Jolly's bill a 1% chance of being enacted.
Even better reason (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Even better reason (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm all for open systems, but there's a slight problem here: this is mainly about smartphones, not PCs, and there aren't exactly a lot of open options here.
Of course, you would think that with the size of the US Government, they could work out a deal with Samsung or one of the Android phone makers to supply bare phones which could then be flashed with a government-made version of Android or AOSP, similar to CyanogenMod. But by the same token, the government could certainly do this for their PCs too, making their own custom Linux distro.
But instead, the Government is doubling down on crippled, closed, proprietary platforms that the Government has almost zero control over: Windows 10 on PCs/laptops and Apple iPhones.
And it's not like other countries' governments are doing much better (though they wouldn't have the economies of scale the USG has, except maybe China). At best, we're seeing some European municipalities adopting Linux but that's about it.
Re:Even better reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Android is more or less open.
IMHO, for those that think along these lines, why not have the US government contract out the design and build of their own Smart Phone. That way, they can really tell everyone where to go. And with Android, they could probably do it fairly easily.
FYI, I was half expecting the guy to be a (D), but noticed he was an (R). Which is why I I would never vote for anyone in either party.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing wrong with government buying closed stuff like Apple as long as you can easily migrate away from it if necessary. I've worked with corporate ecosystems that accommodated a mix of Android, Windows and iOS phones very well, and dropping on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Even better reason (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I think if the US Government mandated Open systems there would be a long line of manufactures filing lawsuits to get that mandate overturned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I might want to say as representing an unofficial "NSA spook" (as in I toured through their building once or twice) that the NSA uses a whole lot of Linux boxes. Most of the rest of the government doesn't.
Actually, I have seen the same thing at JPL.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they did make SELinux for a reason after all: they wanted the extra security capabilities for their internal use. But it does seem pretty stupid that a government competent enough to make something as technically sophisticated as SELinux can't be bothered to actually use it on all their PCs so that government operations aren't subject to the whims of a for-profit multinational corporation or vulnerable to the security shortcomings in that commercial OS.
Re: (Score:2)
They're going to have to be retrained to use Windows 10. Switching them to Linux/KDE from their current Windows 7 would be an easier transition than that. And with a custom distro, they could make KDE look and work almost just like Win7.
Re: Even better reason (Score:3)
Linux doesn't run all the other Windows only software that they use. Do you think the uptake on the desktop of Linux, something that costs nothing and has been around for 2 decades, would be so low if it was a just drop in replacement?
Re: (Score:2)
Linux hasn't had good uptake because of non-existent marketing, and because of applications.
However, it doesn't matter if Linux doesn't run the applications when you're risking national security by running a closed-source OS that is known to send private data back to MS, and does who-knows-what-else. They don't give the US government the source code to Windows. (They probably make available some source code they claim is the full and complete source.)
Furthermore, a lot of Windows applications can be run u
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Other companies have some source code that MS claims is the Windows source code. If they haven't actually compiled that code and produced a binary-identical version of Windows, then it's not. MS does *not* provide the full build system or all the source code that goes into Windows.
Re: Even better reason (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't judge the value of an orator by the size of his audience. Otherwise it would imply that Apple makes the best mobile devices and that McDonalds makes the best breakfast food.
Re: (Score:2)
"You are "buying" a walled garden full of security holes and endless paid upgrades"
Let me see if I got this. The government should boycott Apple because it's too secure for the FBI to break into. At the same time, Apple is too full of security holes for said government to trust it. Is this the kind of logic that politicians use?
Re: (Score:2)
The Fappening (Score:2)
I'm sure all those celebs who got their nude pics leaked agree with you. Because clearly "being secure" is one all-encompassing thing that you can use to bullshit your iPropaganda.
Re:Even better reason (Score:4, Interesting)
But ... the reason for this hall of fame hissy fit is that the phone is *too* secure. They can't break into it, so they're gonna show apple who's boss and stop buying their stuff
When really, this is the exact opposite of the correct response. If the iPhone is so secure that the FBI is having to run through all this legal crap to even get an attempt at breaking in (which still might fail) the gubmint should be switching to iPhones across the board.
Re: (Score:2)
I have an ever better reason the Government should be banned from buying Apple (or Microsoft): It ain't Open. You are "buying" a walled garden full of security holes and endless paid upgrades. The Government should only be purchasing truly Open systems.
Walled garden? From the point of view of someone buying a large number of devices, this is a positive, not a negative.
Security holes? It's the lack of security holes that has lead us to this situation.
Paid upgrades? Every new version of iOS is free of charge. Now, tell me - how many Android phones have been released that have never seen an upgrade released for them?
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, yeah, it's full of security holes, just not the ones that will let the gov't in.
Re: (Score:2)
Two Cans and a string has holes it it. In fact, it almost requires holes ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know that resorting to the use of the word 'fuck' is a signal to your enemies that you've given up, right?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Thats right they are exercising their rights (Score:2)
We should ban them.
Tantrums (Score:5, Insightful)
I really wish people like this got booted out of office by the fed up constituency. How much tax payer money was just wasted on drafting this piece of worthless paper? I fully realize how fed up and cynical I have become.
Re: (Score:3)
I really wish people like this got booted out of office by the fed up constituency.
I really wish people this empty-headed never got voted into office in the first place. It's much easier to not let them in than it is to kick them out.
Re: (Score:3)
They lack skills for the real world though. "I'm sorry David, you just don't seem to be cut out for a career here at Dairy Queen. Have you considered make a moving to politics?"
Re: (Score:2)
I really wish people like this got booted out of office by the fed up constituency.
The sad thing is this idiot is doing this to get booted IN to office (Rubio's FL Senate seat). Even sadder is that it might actually help. [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tantrums (Score:4, Insightful)
Just yesterday I was playing FF14, doing a bit of crafting, and had just a 1% chance of my craft turning out to be high quality.
And it happened.
See, 1% is indeed a very small chance - but it is still a chance, and therein lies the problem.
Re: Tantrums (Score:2)
Maybe Tim should suggest his users in Florida boycott David Jolly.
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of that guy is not to be cost-effective, it's to convey the wishes of the population and nudge legislation accordingly. He's doing his job.
Re: (Score:3)
He may be too young to really remember 9/11. What I remember is that congress jumped and did exactly everything the government asked for and we ended up going to war with two countries that we still haven't managed to extricate ourselves from, hundreds of thousands of people are dead, terrorism is now rampant primarily due to US actions, we have many failed states in its wake, and plenty of politicians will readily admit that they made a mistake when authorizing military action. So now we have a dumb cong
Re: (Score:2)
The worst part is they *cant* pass this law. Its straight up unconstitutional. Section 9 of the constitution straight up forbids pasing bills of atainder (A law targetting a specific individual and declaring them guilty) or retrospective laws. This would last 5 minutes in court before being
Bill of Attainder (Score:5, Interesting)
That is a bill of attainder and is unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is a bill of attainder and is unconstitutional.
From Google:
at-tain-der (noun historical) the forfeiture of land and civil rights suffered as a consequence of a sentence of death for treason or felony.
I understand the incredulous response to this proposed legislation, but calling it a bill of attainder is a gross exaggeration.
Re:Bill of Attainder (Score:5, Informative)
I think a "bill of attainder" [cornell.edu] has a different legal definition, though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As I understand it, bill of attainder [wikipedia.org] is a law that targets a person or group by declaring them guilty of a crime along with some punishment. It was abused by the British Monarchy prior to the Revolutionary War, and resulted in a Constitutional ban on all such laws. Article I, section 9, clause 3 [about.com]:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
The last time I heard the term "bill of attander" in the news was the Palm Sunday Compromise [wikipedia.org] ten years ago, when supposed state-rights Republicans rushed
Re:Bill of Attainder (Score:5, Informative)
A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial.
Re: (Score:2)
from google:
A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial.
As I have said above, I disagree with this bill and I hope it dies a swift death.
That said, I do not agree that it is bill of attainder.
Apple has not been declared guilty of any crime, either within the legal system or within this bill. The author of the bill is trying to encourage a government boycott of Apple as a retaliation for their lack of co-operation with the FBI. Again: I think that's wrong, but it's not a legislative declaration of guilt. It's just a pissed-off legislator trying to gain political
Re: (Score:3)
The bill proposes a boycott of Apple by the government. That's not the same as a seizure of Apple's assets, or a denial of their rights.
I want to be clear: I think this bill is wrong, and I hope it will be defeated. But it is not a bill of attainder.
Bill of Attainder==legislation targeting 1 entity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is a bit of difference between stopping charitable grants to an organization versus a boycott.
Re: (Score:2)
The bill proposes a boycott of Apple by the government. That's not the same as a seizure of Apple's assets, or a denial of their rights.
It is declaring Apple guilty and punishing them by refusing to permit them to play on a level playing field.
Re: (Score:2)
So I have to ask. Are all the purchase made in America laws that direct government to prioritize US goods in their purchasing requirements a bill of atainder also? How would this be different from existing laws that say you can only purchase supplies through approved vendors?
I'm thinking congress is well within constitution grounds to direct how money it appropriates is spent.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, if they were to start a petition on change.org instead it wouldn't work because people who sign that kind of petition are mostly Apple customers and cognitive dissonance prevents them from blaming Apple no matter what. Same reason why Apple can have one of the worst ecological track record in manufacturing without the greeners complaining.
Catch 22 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, if Apple does comply with the federal request, they should be banned on grounds that their hardware is no longer secure.
Do you know what the request is? They haven't been asked to unlock or hack into iPhones. They've simply been asked to disable the "brick after 10 failed attempts on the pin code" feature on THAT specific device (the one used by the guy who killed 14 people).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, by complying with the US government, foreign governments will be able to ask for this too. What's Apple going to do in China, give up their huge profits? Do Americans really want to let foreign governments have the power to open their phones? Probably most don't care given how many don't even have passports.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably most don't care given how many don't even have passports.
Most of them can't afford to travel, and you want them to spend money on a passport?
Taxpayers shouldn't be "subsidizing" Apple (Score:2)
I thought it had got as silly as it could, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
The stupidity is strong here.
Re: (Score:2)
First I read about seized iPhone may hold “dormant cyber pathogen” http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com] , and now, this new idiot.
The stupidity is strong here.
That iPhone may also hold the latitude/longitude of Jimmy Hoffa's body, and the identity of the Zodiac Killer.
Not stupid, just knowing their constituents well. (Score:3)
Grandstanding Schmuck (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
http://jolly.house.gov/ [house.gov]
A real trailblazer in his concern for Veterans, The Economy, Healthcare, and Beaches.
Revert to 1990s control of encryption (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they can't. As I just ranted about in an earlier comment [slashdot.org]... Source code is protected speech, and speech is constitutionally protected from government censorship. Without the overwhelming support needed to pass a constitutional amendment (which nobody believes the US Fed can possibly hope to manage these day
Re: (Score:2)
Also, we go go back to classifying encryption as armaments, then the NRA would be on Apple's side. And a politician with the balls to stand up to the NRA is even more rare a creature than a politician with any shred of honesty or integrity.
Come to think of it... that may really be the best thing for Apple and encryption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, restricting the export of software that does encryption would work so well. It would take Apple and any other company all of two minutes to get around that.
"Hey everyone. The encryption group is going to have to relocate due to these new rules. What country do we want to move to? Canada, New Zealand, Australia, UK, anywhere else? Relocation expenses and a large bonus for the hassle. The final OS integration team is coming too."
And then Apple isn't exporting the software but importing it.
Apple should just move (Score:4, Insightful)
Close all offices and manufacturing in the US and go. The US does not need all those jobs and taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they just need to shift the encryption team offshore and create it as a separate company. Then they are importing it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's clearly what they're planning to do. Do you think their new building only looks like a spaceship?
Apple already breaking encryption for PRC (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think for a minute that you have privacy with iPhone. Apple only wants to be able to legally say no to requests from USA govt. In Peoples Republic of China, Apple must comply, or they cannot do business there. Tech companies must provide PRC with source code (under SLA), just as Microsoft did with Windows.
If that source code means signing keys, yeah. Otherwise, you're wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If this passes, I'll buy an iPhone! (Score:2)
I prefer not to have the walled garden, but I'd like to protest this stupid rule more than I want to protest Apple!
well (Score:2)
Knowingly unconstitutional... (Score:2)
With so many blatantly unconstitutional laws passed, it would be nice if the people that wrote & passed them could be held accountable somehow. I suppose we can all dream.
Warnings (Score:2, Funny)
All tech products sold with poor encryption should have the following warning in a large font:
WARNING:
This data is stored on a US server, using INTENTIONALLY WEAK ENCRYPTION which is EASILY BYPASSED.
Users are advised NOT to store anything PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE.
Users assume ALL RISK for any IDENTITY THEFT.
Users are ENCOURAGED to purchase IDENTITY THEFT PROTECTION INSURANCE. Note that this insurance may also be hosted in the US and may be INEFFECTIVE.
Users are requested to use a CREDIT CARD for ALL PURCHASE
fair enough (Score:2)
Tax payer money shouldn't be wasted on rounded corners anyway.
Government computers are supposed to be utilitarian and beige.
Maybe Congressman Jolly (Score:2)
Should rename himself Jolly-Roger.
It's a shame the police state is taking over (Score:5, Interesting)
The US was founded upon fear of an excessively powerful central government, as the British crown was seen massively abusing their power. So strong protections were built-in that weakened law enforcement for the benefit of civil liberties. There have always been other systems of government that are slightly more effective at catching or prosecuting criminals, but Americans knew, for hundreds of years, those trade-offs weren't worth it.
The limiting of government power was so ingrained that the US seems to be the only major nation without a state broadcaster. Outside the US, everybody in the world knows the VOA, but they are NOT allowed to operate inside the US at all. We believed the ability of the current government to directly influence the electorate, was too much power and control to give to our representatives, and settled on allowing only operation on foreign soil, with aggressive protections against even incidental domestic operation.
A warrant, today, gets the FBI exactly the same information it did 50 years ago... They can tap and record all the calls that occur after the warrant is issued, get a log of all previous calls that were made, etc.
Computers have made US law enforcement lazy. They expect they can get a warrant and will automatically be handed an archive with the contents of ALL of your communications for the past several YEARS. The information they got with a warrant decades ago is no longer good enough for them, and they're going to insist on the power they've gotten accustomed to, and refuse to allow privacy to make a comeback.
Remember, it was only a year ago that the entire contents of your phone were siphoned off by the police whenever you were pulled over just for speeding. This was done under the laws that allows them to look for weapons in the vicinity that you might be able to reach for, and which got extended to allow into evidence incriminating documents that just happened to be found in the process of searching for weapons.
And what did the police do with their gigabytes of all your personal information they siphoned off your phone? Maybe look for patterns of terrorism and drug dealing? No. Why they instead they thought it would be a good idea to look for any nude photos you might have, and share them with their friends. [slashdot.org] Hooray for law enforcement keeping us all safe!
The San Bernardino case is pretty damn obviously worthless, too. The FBI has already FAILED to protect the public. The shooters already carried out their attacks, and were shot dead. FBI and Homeland Security failed miserably to identify them as threats, despite there being ample publicly available information to identify them as ISIL sympathizers. It's the same story as the 9/11 attacks all over again. Homeland Security had MORE INFORMATION than they were able to process and deal with, yet they use attacks as a lame excuse to expand their power, their budget, and get access to much more information, which again, they don't have any hope of being able to process in a timely manner.
Homeland Security has become better and better at revealing details after the fact, but is still useless at identifying individuals who pose a threat before they can carry out their plans to murder people. Apple unlocking iPhones for the FBI is more of the same... It won't possibly help identify future threats, it'll just be a little bit more information the FBI can publish about their past.
This was settled back in the early 90s with the PGP case. Code for encryption programs falls under the constitutional protections of freedom of speech. A new federal law or court ruling cannot override constitutional rights, and there's absolutely no hope of
It's a shame Homeland Security has gone so far the wrong way. Part of the NSA's purview is to help IMPROVE our domestic security against attack and interception by foreign governments. Under a cloud of p
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame Homeland Security has gone so far the wrong way.
Your comment was going great until here. This is what the HSA was intended to do from the beginning. It's not a shame, it's their purpose. There is no other.
Freedom Fries (Score:2, Interesting)
If there is a way to be an asshole in public, someone in the GOP will do it. And the rest will follow, otherwise they might get kicked out of the pack for being "too librul".
Heck, Trump just told the public he is well hung during a presidential debate. For the Republicans a "big tent" means that any level of stupid is allowed. The fact that so many Republicans hold elected office is a measure of the blind idiocy of the American public.
Re: (Score:2)
And just how long did that last?
If there is a way to be an asshole in public, someone in the GOP will do it. And the rest will follow, otherwise they might get kicked out of the pack for being "too librul".
There used to be decent Republicans in office; ones who understood that having a different viewpoint didn't make you evil and who would work with the Democrats to find common ground and actually do things that were good for the country. They had some core principles but understood compromise was what got things done. They could argue long and hard on the floor and afterwards go get a drink and figure out what common ground let them come up with a solution both sides could live with. Somewhere along the line
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1776.
Next!
no winners here (Score:2)
Bullies (Score:2)
I'm certainly not an Apple fanboy. But apparently Apple didn't break any law. Perhaps it would actually break a law by complying to the request.
There are enough security agencies and services that could have done their homework by gathering and processed intelligence. But they didn't. And now they go around begging others for answers. Much like cheating on your tests. Do your homework and stop whining, I'd say.
Much along the lines of VW cheating at benchmarks. Coming with an absolutely crap emissions t
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently, in spite of FBI denials, New York police have dozens of similar requests waiting for this one to set the precedent they're waiting for. Would one of those be a battle more to your taste?
Maybe you'd prefer that we all just roll over and let the warm, fuzzy people from the letter agencies scratch our tummies. Because let's face it, if you can't trust the people brought to you by J. Edgar Hoover, who can you trust?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't do it!
Re: (Score:3)
Don't do it!
...frig. Thanks for the annoying earworm just before bedtime! >:(
I can see why it was banned...
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we paying people to ponder such things??
Article I of the US Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we paying people to ponder such things??
Article I of the US Constitution.
According to Wikipedia:
Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress.
I suspect that you're talking about the first amendment instead, which is not the same thing at all. Maybe you should learn the basics before quoting the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
I only cited the Constitution, I didn't quote it. I meant simply that getting rid of Congress (as opposed to its current members) would require amending the Constitution. As this requires Congressional approval, I'm not holding my breath.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should government funds be used to enrich a company that will not comply with a legal order
It may be a legal order, but is it constitutional?
Re:what a knob (Score:4, Insightful)
"what more is there to say"
"The terrorists who committed the crime are already dead so what the fuck is all this bullshit really about?"
sorry, does a question count?
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be a bill of attainder if the Hyde Amendment were amended to deny funding for abortions to Planned Parenthood, but allowed for other abortion providers?
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering something. Why would the government want to use Apple phones if they are back doored and it is known that spies and others could access information on them?
It seems to me they would want it the other way around. Don't use if there is a back door instead of if there isn't any.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, like those rich slaves that Abraham Lincoln fought for. The bastard.
Re: (Score:3)
publicly execute David Jolly
I've seen idiotic behavior from fanbois before but that's up there for sure.
This whole situation is hilarious. The same people who were crying for more gun control from the feds are now crying because the feds want Apple to unlock the iPhone of a known dead terrorist. Cognitive dissonance much?