Are You Too Secure?

Are You Too Secure?

Should Terrorists Be?

A court order requiring Apple amounts to an “unprecedented” stretch of an antiquated law — one that is about to spark an epic fight pitting privacy against national security, legal scholars said Thursday. That being… to create a way to help law enforcement get access to a terrorist’s smartphone.

A federal judge in New York last fall unsealed portions of a case revealing that Apple had turned over information to law enforcement about 70 times in recent years, according to the government, based on court orders citing an obscure 1789 law called the All Writs Act. This act allowed courts to issue orders if other judicial tools were unavailable.

This week’s court order was different from those issued in the past as it requires Apple to create new software, experts said, not provide technology already at hand. In essence forcing Apple to make a new software that doesn’t exist in order to violate its own program of making something that was designed to be inaccessible.

“This is a new frontier,” said Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society. “I know of no other statutory provision that would arguably create an obligation for device manufacturers to help out the government.”

Apple may not have fought orders in the past because “it was easy for Apple to give the data,” she said. “But the architecture of the phones changed. This is about Apple creating a new forensic version of its software to do the job the FBI wants it to do.”

Apple has hired attorneys Ted Olson and Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. They are expected to argue the order violates constitutional provisions as well as the All Writs Act and would create bad public policy.

Law enforcement has relied on a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that said the All Writs Act could be used to compel New York Telephone Co. to provide technology to enable investigators to track calls being made in a gambling operation. The phone company was a heavily regulated public utility and already had the technology, however technology has certainly changed since then and key differences from the Apple case, experts said.

UC Irvine School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said a carefully drafted federal law giving law enforcement the right to get around encryption in certain compelling situations probably would be constitutional. But he doubted a court could force a company to write software. “You can’t subpoena or get a warrant for something that doesn’t exist.”

The case, which will be heard in the magistrate’s courtroom next month, would then go before a federal district judge. If appealed, the case will be heard by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although the case could be fast-tracked, Chemerinsky said the Supreme Court probably would not want to hear one that poses such novel issues without a hearing by an appeals court. “Context is everything,” he said. “I don’t think the courts have the authority to tell someone to write software, but if the reason is to prevent a dirty bomb from exploding tomorrow, the context would matter a lot.”

David O’Brien, senior researcher at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, said Apple is likely to argue that the government’s demand would place an unreasonable burden on the company. But the government can counter that public safety is at stake.

In the New York case, U.S. District Magistrate Judge James Orenstein hesitated at ordering Apple to unlock a customer’s smartphone. He wanted to know first whether the assistance sought by the government was technically feasible and whether the proposed order would be unduly burdensome.

Apple had the technology at that time to give the government, but the criminal defendant in the case later confessed and opened his phone for investigators. In today’s newest iPhone models, they are not capable of being unlocked and therefore a new software would be required to be created to accomplish the goal.

We’re in a situation where public safety is balanced with personal privacy AND… a company’s right to preserve its advantage over competitors. People (including terrorists) buy the new iPhone because their privacy is assured and customers know that the government can’t access emails, texts, location and other private information.

Traditional Conservatism

With today’s political environment being uncertain, questionable, even potentially damaging to our future, there’s been a return to at least reviewing those standards and principles that were envisioned by our founders.

We’ve had questionably unconstitutional actions by our administration, insensitivity to the citizenry by our congress, and proposals and actions that defy all common rules of social etiquette, anti-racism, economic growth and personal freedoms.

With all this in mind, we invite your visit to a blog that has independent views and insights with a conservative slant.

Enjoy and CLICK HERE to visit the latest posts.

 

SCOTUS Decision Affects You and Your Dr

Dr. Elaina George was a guest on Erskine Overnight and continues to provide the latest inside info on Obamacare.

You may recognize Dr. George as a guest on many television shows such as Neil Cavuto on Fox.

Dr. George is working on a program to assist the Private Practice Doctor who chooses to maintain independence from the Big Federal Government System better known as Obamacare.

SCOTUS Decision Affects You and Your Dr

We at Erskineonradio.com are in agreement with her philosophy and believe she is onto something cutting edge.

Dr. George is a frequent guest on Erskine Overnight and we will continue to support her and re post her articles as soon as available.

Check out Dr. George’s bio at the bottom of her article which we are proud to feature below:

What the King v Burwell Decision Means for Doctors and Patients

While reading the Supreme Court’s decision on King vs. Burwell, I realized that I was not surprised by the ruling. It fits the pattern that has developed over the last several years. The letter of the law has not applied to The Affordable Care Act, this was true when it was upheld as a tax instead of an abrogation of the Commerce clause, and now the ruling has massaged the meaning of subsidies that apply to state run exchanges to apply to everyone.

The other thing that has not changed is the fact that patients will continue to find access limited by rising out of pocket expenses in the form of rising deductibles, co-insurance and premiums that are expected to continue to increase further. We can continue to look forward to patients using emergency rooms as primary care centers because they can’t afford to see a physician and independent physicians closing their practices or becoming hospital employees further exacerbating the doctor shortage. The ruling does nothing to change the reality that having health insurance in the age of Obamacare does not equal access to quality healthcare.

Finally, the winners have been rewarded. When the stock value of health related companies such as corporate hospitals rise on the news of the decision, doctors and patients should take pause. The insurance companies and hospitals have clearly figured out that business as usual can continue. In fact, it will become business as usual on steroids. Insurance companies will be empowered to further limit their physician panels, they will continue to decrease the medications that they will cover, they will continue to decrease what they cover as medically unnecessary and experimental to limit access to physician directed care while they increase their premiums increasing their profits in the bargain. Hospitals will continue to get larger taking over the market and setting prices without pressure from honest competition from independent physicians, ambulatory surgery centers, labs and radiology centers that would encourage cost control.

The King vs. Burwell decision has answered the question of who stands to gain in the age of Obamacare. Justice Roberts in his opinion said it best “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.” With this decision medical insurance companies, hospitals and other pieces of the corporate healthcare delivery system now have the scale clearly tipped in their favor at the expense of doctors the patients – the mission has been accomplished.

King v Burwell Decision Affects You and Your Dr

DR. ELAINA GEORGE BIO:

Dr Elaina George is a Board Certified Otolaryngologist. She graduated from Princeton University with a degree in Biology. She received her Masters degree in Medical Microbiology from Long Island University, and received her medical degree from Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. Dr George completed her residency at Manhattan, Eye Ear & Throat Hospital. Her training included general surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital, pediatric ENT at The NY-Presbyterian Hospital, and head and neck oncology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. She has published in several scientific journals and presented her research at national meetings. As a solo practitioner in private practice who is also a small business owner, she has a unique perspective on the problems of health care delivery, the true costs of healthcare and viable solutions. Dr George is a recipient of the Patients’ Choice Award in 2008 and 2009. She was recently honored with membership in The Leading Physicians of the World and Who’s Who Top Doctors Honors Edition.