The Washington Times reports that Carole Adams, the mother of Robert Adams — a 40-year-old environmental health specialist who was shot dead in the San Bernardino, Calif., massacre by Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife in December, is siding with Apple in its battle to protect consumer's privacy rights. Adams says she stands by Apple's decision to fight a federal court order to create software that would allow federal authorities to access the shooter's password-blocked iPhone. Adams says she understands the FBI's need to search Farook's phone, but it has to be done without putting others at risk.
"This is what separates us from communism, isn't it? The fact we have the right to privacy," says Adams. "I think Apple is definitely within their rights to protect the privacy of all Americans. This is what makes America great to begin with, that we abide by a Constitution that gives us the right of privacy, the right to bear arms, and the right to vote."
Related Stories
Apple Denies FBI Request to Unlock Shooter's iPhone:
Apple once again is drawing the line at breaking into a password-protected iPhone for a criminal investigation, refusing a request by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to help unlock the iPhones of a shooter responsible for an attack in Florida.
The company late Monday said it won't help the FBI crack two iPhones belonging to Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, a Saudi-born Air Force cadet and suspect in a shooting that killed three people in December at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.
The decision is reminiscent of a scenario that happened during the investigation of a 2015 California shooting, and could pit federal law enforcement against Apple in court once again to argue over data privacy in the case of criminal investigations.
While Apple said it's helping in the FBI's investigation of the Pensacola shooting—refuting criticism to the contrary—the company said it won't help the FBI unlock two phones the agency said belonged to Alshamrani.
"We reject the characterization that Apple has not provided substantive assistance in the Pensacola investigation," the company said in a statement emailed to Threatpost. "Our responses to their many requests since the attack have been timely, thorough and are ongoing."
[...] The FBI sent a letter to Apple's general counsel last week asking the company to help the agency crack the iPhones, as their attempts until that point to guess the "relevant passcodes" had been unsuccessful, according to the letter, which was obtained by NBC News.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday February 22 2016, @10:30AM
Total respect to this woman. Next time some pro-surveillance ballbag starts banging on about "you'd feel differently if it was your family member who was killed", I will point to Ms Adams.
(Score: 3, Touché) by basicbasicbasic on Monday February 22 2016, @10:38AM
I'd wait for a better example who doesn't try linking it to communism and gun ownership.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday February 22 2016, @11:10AM
Valid point, but whether I agree with her right-wing "guns+commies" attitude or not, she has refused to let fear and revenge cloud her principles. I respect that.
Beside, having privacy advocates from across the political spectrum shows that privacy is not just another crappy blue / red shouting point. Some people would respond a lot better to this lady than they would a left-leaning privacy advocate. We need support from all sides.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by basicbasicbasic on Monday February 22 2016, @11:49AM
There must be *somebody* from the right who supports privacy using a rational rather than an emotional argument, though. I'd respect them more, and feel more comfortable allying myself with them.
I do see how it makes sense to ally yourself with as many others as possible in a fight against an overpowering foe, but I'd be careful standing too close to them when the floor can be shot out from their reasoning so easily.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mhajicek on Monday February 22 2016, @01:37PM
Supporting the constitution is not an emotional argument.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Troll) by basicbasicbasic on Monday February 22 2016, @01:44PM
It really is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @02:59PM
> Supporting the constitution is not an emotional argument.
Since privacy is not mentioned in the constitution I guess that means you are anti-privacy.
Oh, its more complicated than that? Funny how that works.
(Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday February 22 2016, @04:23PM
Privacy: noun pri•va•cy (prīˈvə-sē): 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.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @07:48PM
Hey, you made up a convenient definition for the word privacy!
Congratulations on intrepreting the constitution to make your point.
Did you see the second sentence of my post? You know, the one where I implied that you had to do just that in order make the constitution apply in cases like this?
All constitutional literalists are idiots.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @11:56AM
She's linking the right to privacy with the right to own guns and the right to vote. If taking away the right to privacy is acceptable then will or can the government come after other rights ?
(Score: 1, Troll) by basicbasicbasic on Monday February 22 2016, @12:56PM
That makes as much sense as linking the right to privacy to the right to gay marriage. You may have your own pet causes you want to champion but they are irrelevant to the issue at hand, and if you think the government is taking away all rights that is a separate issue to the rights you think they are taking away.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @01:17PM
That makes as much sense as linking the right to privacy to the right to gay marriage.
WTF? Have you read the Bill of Rights? [wikipedia.org] and the other Amendments to the Constitution that outline these specific rights?
No matter what tour views on gay marriage are, pretending that the Constitution doesn't address the rights to vote, bear arms and to be secure in their persons and effects against unreasonable searches is trolling plain and simple.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by basicbasicbasic on Monday February 22 2016, @01:36PM
There are something like 30 rights in the Bill Of Rights; when you feel one is threatened it doesn't make any sense to bring up every other one or to bring up whatever your pet cause is.
This is why the those who have been vocally championing the right to bear arms haven't previously been linking it to the right to privacy, yet somehow when the right to privacy is threatened they immediately link it to the right to bear arms.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @02:12PM
Once the government takes away a right specifically outlined in the Constitution - no matter how many rights are directly enumerated in the Constitution - it means they can then come after others. Precedent is important. If you believe any of the rights specifically and directly granted by the Constitution are "pet causes" then I'm afraid there's no reasoning with you.
(Score: 2) by basicbasicbasic on Monday February 22 2016, @02:29PM
"An attack on one is an attack on all" is a good cause to champion but it is not the same as defending the right to privacy, and the two shouldn't be conflated.
The arguments for privacy are stronger than just "defend the constitution"; you have to say *why* you are defending the constitution and to do that you have to defend every one of the rights it contains on its own terms, not just because they are things written are on a piece of paper with other things.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @02:50PM
As US citizens we do not need to justify why we want to defend the rights granted to us by the US Constitution. Move along troll.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Monday February 22 2016, @06:26PM
We really, really should though. After all the constitution is just words on paper. Words with a well established way to modify them. If your only argument is that "these are guaranteed by the constitution", then you're inviting the obvious solution - remove that protection from the constitution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @07:40PM
The means to change the US Constitution is outlined in the Constitution itself. If you want to come after any or all of the of the rights granted in the Constitution have at it. The rest of us will be waiting with our right to vote against your attempted changes.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday February 23 2016, @05:01AM
I absolutely agree. My point is that we should defend our position based on something beyond that piece of paper. So long as popular opinion strongly agrees with us its relatively easy to defend those rights. But if one side is arguing "we should do this so the bogeyman don't eat you up" and the other is only arguing "we shouldn't, because a 200 year old document says we can't", then it's only a matter of time before popular opinion is swayed and we lose those rights. And that's assuming they have to amend the constitution, whereas the fact of the matter is that it's almost as selectively and self-servingly interpreted as the bible.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday February 22 2016, @04:27PM
Once you start saying some constitutional rights are more important than others, you open door to total destruction of all rights. There is only one way to change the rights outlined in the constitution and that is through a constitutional amendment. Sidestep that process and the constitution indeed is nothing but a piece of fancy paper.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday February 22 2016, @03:02PM
Careful man, getting close to something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... [wikipedia.org]
And i do believe you are wrong about the "right to bear arms people" and privacy. Weapon registration is actually a pretty big issue for them. They want to own a gun without having to declare it to anyone.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 22 2016, @03:25PM
I see - divide and conquer. Separate each of the rights into their components, and erode one right at a time, so that the masses don't notice that they are less and less free, as time goes on.
Sorry, man, it DOES make sense to link them all together. The founding fathers linked them all together in the Constitution and the Bill or Rights for a reason.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Monday February 22 2016, @03:12PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @03:28PM
Workers controlling the means of production and communism, as per the Communist Manifesto, are not really one and the same. Worker control of the means of production is an aspect of a variety of forms of socialism, which is an umbrella under which communism falls. Communism, however, is characterized also by a dictatorship of the proletariat. Some, such as the Stalinist/Leninist camp (the ones we tend to be most familiar with in practice) take that to mean a literal dictatorship, while others, such as the Trotskyist folks, take that to mean a democratic state coupled with a worker-owned means of production, so as to take away the power structure granted through mere ownership of capital.
Frankly, particularly with Engels' input, I'd have to say a strict reading of the manifesto makes the Leninist camp seem a bit more what the authors of the document had in mind in the first place. See the history of the First International Workingman's Association for how Marx toppled an otherwise hierarchical approach to proletariat controlled society.
Communism has been the single biggest roadblock to socialism we've seen. That it still draws supporters seems to be a matter of history being repeatedly forgotten.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @03:19PM
Well, not all of us are pinkos.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @04:29PM
Well, not all of us are pinkos.
Individuals? Of course not. But she is referring to Communist governments. When I've traveled overseas most people who despise the US government don't think the same of American citizens.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 22 2016, @03:22PM
The thing is - she is right. She loves this country, and she values the Constitution. How can the issue NOT be linked to all the other issues affecting us today?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @10:36AM
"This is what separates us from communism, isn’t it? The fact we have the right to privacy,”
WTF has communism to do in this case? Privacy can be protected under communism as well. I wonder if it is even mentioned in the works of Marx.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Cornwallis on Monday February 22 2016, @10:46AM
Hey self-absorbed idiot. She comes from an age when the accepted belief was that (not incorrect) the Communist states like the USSR = totalitarianism. E. Germany, Red China, the Soviets, and all the other states the U.S. is trying to emulate were collectively called Communist and is how everyone identified them.
Think outside your little worldview would ya? Perhaps think of how/when others were raised. Props to Carole Adams. She is someone to respect.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @11:53AM
This was not an attack to her position in this matter (I think it is great that she supports Apple in this), but a remark on her reasoning/motivation. Please don't call me names, I'd rather have a normal discussion without people calling names. If you can't convince me with your arguments, then please don't reply.
Yes, I'm aware that those so-called "communist" totalitarian states might be what she is referring to (with all the McCarthy propaganda she has been exposed to). I was referring to the communist ideology.
Age or the way you were raised is no reason to stick your head in the ground and ignore the fact that the world you live in changes continuously.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @12:00PM
Yes, I'm aware that those so-called "communist" totalitarian states might be what she is referring to
Then what are you complaining about? You understand her position, and the context within which she expressed it, and what her points of reference are. So you're taking offense with her use of the term "communism" because it doesn't align with your strict definition of it even though you knew how and why she used that term?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @01:06PM
Adams made a factual error, AC corrected it. Get over yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @03:06PM
Correction: Adams made an emotional statement, AC insulted her. Get over yourself.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 23 2016, @02:11AM
The ideology is, theoretically, nice. Too bad in practice it is much too easy to hijack the ideology: the communist ideology package doesn't come with checks and balances.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 22 2016, @03:32PM
Privacy protected under communism? I suppose you have some examples of that with which to enlighten us? Communism has been proved to be a failure, time and again, yet people insist that it can work? Test time - how did Einsten define insanity?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday February 22 2016, @04:36PM
Communism, like capitalism, is an economic system.
You can have freedom or authoritarianism under both economic systems. It has been convenient for our capitalist oligarchs to conflate communism with authoritarianism, but if you look at the current trajectory America is taking (due process free execution and detention, massive prison population, whistle blower persecution, mass surveillance, militarized police force, civil forfeiture, other things I'm forgetting), capitalist societies are also susceptible to non-free authoritarian political systems.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 22 2016, @06:01PM
And, which governments are actually separate from the economic system(s) which they espouse? Here, in the US, the Federal Reserve is supposed to be a private entity, but in practice, it has a lot of control over government, as well as the economy. Do you suppose that we could ever separate government from the economic system?
China and Russia both had to kill off tens of millions of their comrades, before the masses accepted the fact that communism was the order of the day.
I do NOT believe that any community larger than a farming village can ever implement communism. An economy and/or government policy that dictates that I should work hard, with little if any personal reward will always fail.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @05:24PM
I suppose you have some examples of that with which to enlighten us?
Indeed I do, but first you'll need to show me your papers comrade.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @06:06PM
> Privacy protected under communism? I suppose you have some examples of that with which to enlighten us?
"The inviolability of life and other privacy rights of the person shall be guaranteed." --Article 47, Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1963) [wikisource.org]
"The privacy of citizens, and of their correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications is protected by law." --Article 56, Constitution of the Soviet Union (1977) [wikisource.org]
"Citizens are guaranteed inviolability of the person and the home, and privacy of correspondence." --Article 79, Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (2012) [wikisource.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 22 2016, @06:17PM
There is a difference between some lip service regarding human rights, and examples of governments which actually respect human rights. The subject of this discussion, in fact, is about a government whose constitution is largely ignored, while government agencies argue in court why their needs are more important than the rights of citizens.
Again, I remind you that the USSR killed off tens of millions to enforce communism. That was tens of millions, above and beyond what the Russians and subjected people endured in WW2.
If you're really interested in examples of communism working, you're going to have to do better than some words printed on paper. I asked for EXAMPLES.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2016, @12:12AM
You asked for examples of privacy protection under a communist government, and I provided de jure examples. You didn't specify they had to be de facto. :p I think that, de facto, the countries I mentioned were/are unable to implement an electronic surveillance state to the extent we in the USA have, because for technological or economic reasons they lack/lacked the means to do so. I perceive that the desire to have mass surveillance is widespread among a variety of economic and political systems.
About the subject of this article, the existence of a case in court may be a sign that the slide toward totalitarianism hasn't reached its nadir.
As for the tens of millions of its own citizens the USSR killed (or whose deaths were precipitated by the government's actions) and your question of whether communism can "work", I'll note that the USSR was besieged from its inception. Allied forces [wikipedia.org] supported the Whites in the Russian Civil War. Other countries which adopted--or were perceived as about to adopt--communism have also faced adverse responses from outside. For examples, consider Iran under Mosaddegh, Chile under Allende, Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, and Cuba under the Castro brothers. Can external enmity foster internal repression?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 23 2016, @02:19AM
While it can indeed, it is not required: the communist regimes will slide sooner or later in repression.
They will invent enemies if/when needed, be it only to justify the failures that will happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2016, @04:34AM
> "The privacy of citizens, and of their correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications is protected by law." --Article 56, Constitution of the Soviet Union (1977)
You should be aware that the KGB was fully excused from these -- all and every phone was tapped. I also know of a person who was sent to 15 years to Gulag for a political joke...
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Tuesday February 23 2016, @05:57AM
"The privacy of citizens, and of their correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications is protected by law."
And said law also protected the Soviet government's right to access all of those things.
Or they could just ignore the law because, you know...they were corrupt and evil.
Or was that your point? /confused
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 23 2016, @02:06AM
No, you can't have communism with an actual right to privacy for citizens. Keeping secrets is a dangerous thing during the class struggle**., it marks you as a potential enemy of the regime.
Under a communist regime, the only group of people that has the official right to secrets is the secret police.
--
** and, oh boy, communism is about a perpetual class struggle. There's a single class (egalitarian socoety, eh?) that struggles and the leaders which have all the interest in the world to maintain that struggle as a way of life - otherwise their presence is not justified.
Incidentally, this is how Trump will behave if he'll get elected, mark my words. There's always be something to build a wall against, he'll make sure about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @10:41AM
> Adams says she stands by Apple’s decision
Great move—respect!
… but couldn't she just not have said _anything_ else?!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by inertnet on Monday February 22 2016, @12:04PM
Other victims take an opposite stand: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35629381 [bbc.com]
In my opinion Carole Adams made clear what the real issue is, although she used a number of fighting words to cloud it. Everyone understands the eagerness to investigate the phone, but if Apple complies, it opens up a Pandora's box. Because it can't be a one-off effort, although that would be acceptable for everybody I guess. If they comply once, they have proven that it can be done, so they will be forced to do that trick more and more in the future.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @01:52PM
> If they comply once, they have proven that it can be done, so they will be forced to do that trick more and more in the future.
In fact, the Manhattan District Attorney is using this conflagration to publicly complain that he has 175 iphones he wants Apple to crack open for him. [go.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @02:32PM
Why doesn't the DA just waterboard the suspects? Or just flat-out frame them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @02:53PM
Why doesn't the DA just waterboard the suspects?
Dude, he's from NY not Chicago.
Or just flat-out frame them.
Accessing the phone info and framing them are not mutually exclusive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @03:02PM
Why doesn't the DA just waterboard the suspects?
Dude, he's from NY not Chicago.
Abner Louima. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @04:35PM
Abner Louima was killed by a police officer using an illegal choke hold in public. The fact that the officer didn't even face disciplinary charges (let alone legal charges) even though there was clear video of his death is shameful. But, they didn't drag him back to a secret [theguardian.com] police [cnn.com] detention [time.com] facility [cbsnews.com] to be tortured.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday February 22 2016, @03:30PM
Law-and-order pro-gun anti-communism political coalition fracturing in 3...2...1...
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Monday February 22 2016, @07:28PM
Interesting point.
I honestly cannot master the mental gymnastics required to be in that camp....and I'm grateful for that fact. *head asplodes*
I'm happy to align myself with the 'bleeding heart liberals' on most issues. :-)
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Tuesday February 23 2016, @06:06AM
Uh, why?
Without an armed citizenry, the USA would not have been founded.
Without an armed citizenry, fascist, totalitarian governments such as the Nazis, Soviets, Chinese Communists, DPRK, etc, face no resistance. One of the first things such movements do is disarm the citizenry.
Why is this hard to understand? Why do you think "mental gymnastics" are required? To me, it requires extreme contortions to think otherwise.
Who do you think more closely shares your interests: the people in your community, or glorious leader politician in the capital who controls the government, the military, and his own armed bodyguards? When he says, "Turn in your weapons, comrade; it's for your own good. Trust me," why do you trust him?
The kicker is that the government and society within which he operates would not exist if the policies he desires to enact had been in place from the beginning. It's like standing on a platform while chainsawing the platform's legs off.
But when you understand what his motivation is, it makes perfect sense.
The question is, again, why do you trust him?
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Tuesday February 23 2016, @02:15PM
When did I mention my support for gun control?
IIRC, I stated I agreed with most of the stuff...not all of it. And in your haste to rant against me, you pick one of the issues I oppose liberals on.
I hunt with both firearms, and bow. I shoot competitively(bench rest and action pistol), and reload for all of my guns except .22 rimfire.
In short, I support the Second Amendment, but I do think some controls should be in place.
Trust the gov't.? No way! I don't trust gov't. or corp. entities at all. I can trust some people though...
Good job on making yourself look foolish, and frankly, not too bright...a common problem when 'painting with too broad a brush'.