Did Elizabeth Holmes get the correct sentence?
As we should already know, now-disgraced and convicted CEO Elizabeth Holmes operated Theranos. Theranos was to offer the world a fantastical new way of testing people’s health concerns for all manner of blood diagnostics all with the tiniest drop of blood. It’s fantastical because Elizabeth Holmes’s Theranos was never able to make this testing technology actually work (the entire basis for the fraud). Ms. Holmes has now been convicted of wire fraud and defrauding investors, a federal crime. More than this, Ms. Holmes has now been sentenced to serve 11 years in a federal prison.
NBC News Opinion
One NBC opinion piece, written by a former federal prosecutor and current attorney, Andrey Spektor, contends that Elizabeth Holmes’s 11 year sentence is too harsh. This author does not agree. Why? Because of the nature of and, more importantly, the real dangers posed by the device she failed to create.
Andrey’s contention is:
But that calculation was the least important component of determining Holmes’ sentence because the judge ultimately disagreed with the probation estimate and, anyway, no rational judge would have sentenced her to anything approaching life in prison. Among other things, she is a first-time, nonviolent offender whose crime did not lead to anyone’s death.
I contend that this highlighted statement is, at best, inaccurate and is, at its worst, false. There may actually have been illness and death as a result of Theranos’s deception, when the Theranos “Edison miniLab” machine (pictured)
, did not work as purported and likely impacted medical treatments needed (or weren’t needed, as the case may be) for medical patients. For Andrey to contend that no one died (or by extension, weren’t injured or hurt), that’s incredibly wrong thinking.
Ms. Holmes’s deception impacted many people’s health; health which relied on accurate testing results from Theranos’s Edison miniLab machine. Without accurate testing results, the wrong medications could have been prescribed, the wrong treatment plans could be implemented, up to and including not prescribing medications which could save people’s lives… or indeed the opposite may have occurred; the wrong prescription may have been prescribed causing injury or potentially death. Claiming her fraudulent testing equipment couldn’t cause harm is fallacious and disingenuous. Worse, according to the whistleblowers, Ms. Holmes knew that her miniLab testing equipment didn’t work!
Dangers to Society
The fact that the Edison’s machine’s deception was “caught early” is of no consolation to those who received inaccurate test results from Theranos’s intentional equipment deception. In other words, you can’t just play “god” with people’s lives and health and expect to get away with it.
To claim that her defrauding and misleading and intentional deception about her alleged testing methodology, which clearly did not work properly (or at all), didn’t impact people’s health and lives is insulting to those who could have lost their lives to Theranos’s medical fraud. Even still, some still could lose their lives early because of Theranos.
That the fraud was caught early because of two conscientious whistleblowers within Theranos employee ranks is more a testament to those two individual’s forthright and upstanding conscience than of Elizabeth Holmes coming clean about the dangers the Theranos Edison ultimately posed to society. Elizabeth Holmes would likely have continued to play this dangerous game if those two whistleblowers hadn’t come forward. It wasn’t Elizabeth Holmes who “came clean” on the wrongness of her equipment. It was those two Theranos whistleblowers who put their careers in jeopardy to save the lives of others.
11 Year Sentence
For all of these reasons above, I vehemently disagree with Andrey Spektor’s opinion. Elizabeth Holmes’s 11 year sentence is not at all inappropriate or too long. In fact, I’d say her sentence was downright lenient considering the danger she, Theranos and her fraudulent testing equipment posed to society as a whole. If her equipment’s fraud had not been found early, we could have gone perhaps a year or two or longer without knowing how many people might have been misdiagnosed, given the wrong medical treatments or, indeed, given no treatments at all for preventable, but fatal illnesses if left untreated. In short, Elizabeth Holmes (and her fake testing equipment) was (and is) a danger to society.
I contend that 11 years is way too lenient for that level of danger and risk that she and Theranos posed to the world. She doesn’t deserve leniency for having committed this level of medical malfeasance against the public at large. While one can try and argue that the trial wasn’t about her medical malfeasance specifically, the fraud fully stemmed from that malfeasance. Thus, any malfeasance must be considered as part of the sentencing. It can’t be “distanced” or “separated” as though it didn’t exist. That malfeasance was the entire reason Elizabeth Holmes’s machine was found to have caused the defrauding of investors. Eye on the ball, people.
While a trial for the affected patients was not allowed to move forward, that doesn’t preclude the absolute sheer negligence and willful malfeasance Holmes performed against an unsuspecting public. Elizabeth Holmes knew her machine didn’t work. Yet she STILL went ahead with placing it into Walgreens knowing its problems. That’s not innocent happenstance; that’s willful malfeasance and, at worst, malevolence. Conscientious people don’t put other people in harm’s way intentionally. Elizabeth Holmes put people in harm’s way. One might want to call that blind ambition. Call it what you will. Blind ambition can still result in someone doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons, even knowing that the outcome might cause harm to others. That can’t be dismissed with an 18 month sentence (as Ms. Holmes has requested), a mere slap on the wrist.
No, the 11 year sentence by federal sentencing Judge Edward Davilla was definitely of a sufficient length as to give her pause AND send her a solid message for what Theranos and she had done to the public… even if not specifically stated by judge Davilla; this judge knew the stakes.
Babies as Shields?
One thing Elizabeth Holmes appears to also be shrewd at is trying to get out of her 11 year sentence. She’s now attempting this by getting pregnant. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with starting a family… but on the heels of beginning an 11 year federal criminal sentence? I get that her biological clock is ticking, but it primarily says she’s using an infant as a shield. That’s not a good look and it fully supports the above malfeasance. She’s putting her baby in harm’s way to protect herself from going to prison, or at least so she hopes. It’s a crude and crass way to begin prison… and it leaves her kids in the lurch without a parent for 11 years.
She knew she had been convicted, yet she chose to get pregnant anyway? A judge should have held her in contempt of court over that. When Holmes’s first child was born, her trial had not yet begun. Thus, there was no way to know which way her trial might go. Her second child, however, is simply being used as a pawn against incarceration. That’s both a nasty and very vile reason to have a child. It doesn’t show compassion for the child, it shows self-preservation by Holmes. It’s an incredibly uncaring and self-centered tactic, especially for a baby that’s now caught in her manipulative crossfire. As I said, distasteful.
She’s now delivered her second child, but it’s almost certain she’s working hard to conceive a third as yet another shield. Enough’s enough here. If she pops up pregnant again, cite her for contempt of court, let her carry that child to term in prison and give birth to that child behind bars. The sentence was issued and it must be carried out. Having a baby shouldn’t become a “get out of jail free” card… not for her, not for anyone. Worse, babies should never be used as incarceration blockers.
Judges should make it perfectly clear to any convicted felon who decides to conceive a baby after conviction means possible contempt of court and that neither the pregnancy nor the birth will stop the incarceration from occurring. Playing these games with the court should always mean contempt of court and possible longer incarceration time.
Did Elizabeth Holmes get the correct sentence?
No, but not for the reasons Andrey Spektor proposed. In fact, Ms. Holmes got a far more lenient sentence than she should have been given considering the real medical dangers both she and her testing machine imposed on society. Ms. Holmes should count herself lucky at receiving only 11 years. Let’s hope that when she gets out of prison, she doesn’t try to start yet another dangerous “medical testing” company.
As for those 11 years Ms. Holmes faces? This amount of incarceration also sends a clear message to other would-be CEOs not to play with people’s lives using untested medical technologies in the goal of gaining personal fame, wealth or for any other reason.
↩︎
Are Trump’s final Pardons legal?
The United States Constitution has very specific language defining how and when the Presidential power of pardons and reprieves can and cannot be used. Let’s explore.
Constitutional Language
From Article II, Section 2, here is the language that defines the President’s powers. Note, styles have been added for clarification purposes.
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
U.S. Constitution => Article II => Section 2
At the end of this paragraph, we have an exception to and limitation of the previous power, “grant reprieves and pardons”. Some might argue that this exception covers the entire paragraph describing his powers as a whole, but this exception immediately follows the definition of the President’s aforementioned “grant reprieves and pardons” power. While the exception may cover all of his power in a logical sense after full impeachment AND conviction and having been removed from power, it doesn’t make sense to cover all of his powers while he still holds office after impeachment, but before the trial. He must still remain commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, for example.
Instead, I believe that this specific language, because it appears directly after the “grant reprieves and pardons” language is intended to narrowly apply solely to the power of granting reprieves and pardons, not to the entire paragraph.
Logically, this interpretation makes the most sense because you wouldn’t want a President who is in the process of being impeached to flurry pardon both himself and those who might have been involved, thus nullifying the entire impeachment proceeding. Meaning, the power given to Congress to impeach the President must not be allowed a loophole by the President to avoid impeachment.
Trump’s Pardons and Reprieves
While the language of the constitution is clear on what powers the President has, it has exclusions when specific powers are unavailable to the President as defined just above.
Let’s examine Trump’s flurry of pardons on the way out of office. Because of the way the constitution language is written, it seems that Trump’s final flurry of reprieves and pardons on the way out, but which occurred after his second impeachment on January 13, 2021 may not be constitutionally valid or legal. According to the constitution, the President forfeits the power of reprieves and pardons “in cases of impeachment” or, more specifically, during impeachment proceedings.
One can argue that Trump lost this power during his first impeachment. He did. However, that impeachment ended in acquittal… thus restoring all powers to him that he would have lost between the House’s impeachment, but before the Senate trial concluded in acquittal. If he had made any pardons during that impeachment period in 2019, those would also be constitutionally invalid.
Our Framers’ Logic
The framers of the constitution would have logically understood the impeachment process fully. After all, they designed it. The framers understood that impeachment is a two step process requiring both the House and the Senate to participate. They also understood that because these two houses must work together to complete the process, there could be delays between the time the House approves their impeachment resolution and the time the Senate begins and concludes the impeachment trial.
These same framers also understood that because of the time required to complete the impeachment process in full, the President could use his power of pardons and reprieves to nullify the very reason for the impeachment itself. To avoid this design flaw in the process, the framers included the clause ‘except in cases of impeachment‘ to limit the use of this Presidential power during impeachment proceedings and thus avoid the possibility the President could pardon himself or others and nullify the entire impeachment.
Legal vs Illegal Pardons
The point to all of this is that President Trump, at the time before he left office, was still under impeachment proceedings. This clause in the constitution would then suspend Trump’s power of reprieves and pardons until the impeachment had reached full conclusion: acquittal or conviction.
Because Trump’s impeachment is still ongoing as of this article (and was at the time of his exit from office), any reprieves and pardons he signed after the House passed its Article of Impeachment would be constitutionally illegal and thus, null and void.
If Trump had remained in office after conclusion of the Senate’s impeachment trial AND if the trial resulted in his acquittal, his power of reprieves and pardons would be restored. He could have then reissued those reprieves and pardons to make each of them legal and valid. However, Trump is no longer President as his term has ended. His ability to reissue those reprieves and pardons has ended. This means that all of the reprieves and pardons that Trump issued after January 13th, 2021 are constitutionally invalid and must remain invalid in perpetuity.
President Joe Biden, the now current President, could reinstate those reprieves and pardons on Trump’s behalf if he so chooses, but that would require Joe Biden to agree to reissue those specific reprieves and pardons on behalf of Donald Trump.
↩︎
Apple and Law Enforcement
Apple always seems to refuse law enforcement requests. Let’s understand why this is bad for Apple… and for Silicon Valley as a whole. Let’s see how this can be resolved.
Stubbornness
While Apple and other “Silicon Valley” companies may be stubborn in reducing encryption strength on phones, reduction of encryption strength isn’t strictly necessary for law enforcement to get what they need out of a phone device. In fact, it doesn’t really make sense to reduce encryption across all phone devices simply so law enforcement can gain access to a small number of computer devices in a small set of criminal cases.
That’s like using a sledgehammer to open a pea. Sure, it works, but not very well. Worse, these legal cases might not even be impacted by what’s found on the device. Making all phones vulnerable to potentially even worse crimes, such as identity theft and stealing money in order to prosecute a smaller number of crimes which might not be impacted by unlocking a phone doesn’t make sense.
There Are Solutions
Apple (and other phone manufacturers) should be required to partner with law enforcement to create a one-use unlocking system for law enforcement use. Federal law could even mandate that any non-law enforcement personnel who attempts to access the law enforcement mode of a phone would be in violation of federal law. Though, policing this might be somewhat difficult. It should be relatively easy to build and implement such one-use system. Such a system will be relatively easy to use (with the correct information) and be equally difficult to hack (without the correct information).
How this enforcement system would work is that Apple (or any phone vendor) would be required to build both law enforcement support web site and a law enforcement mode on the phone for law enforcement use only. This LE support server is naturally authentication protected. A verified law enforcement agent logs into Apple’s LE system and enters key information from/about a specific device along with their own Apple issued law enforcement ID number. Apple could even require law enforcement officers to have access to an iPhone themselves to use FaceID to verify their identity before access.
The device information from an evidence phone may include the iPhone’s IMEI (available on the SIMM tray), ICCID (if available), SEID (if available), serial number, phone number (if available) and then finally a valid federally issued warrant number. Apple’s validation system would then log in to a federal system and validate the warrant number. Once the warrant is validated and provided the required input data specific to the phone all match to the device (along with the Apple’s law enforcement ID), Apple will issue a one-time use unlocking code to the law enforcement agent. This code can then be used one time to unlock the device in Law Enforcement Mode (LEM).
To unlock an evidence device, the agent then boots the phone into LEM (needs to be built by Apple) and then manually enters an Apple-generated code into the phone’s interface along with their law enforcement ID. The law enforcement mode then allows setup and connection to a local WiFi network (if no data network is available), but only after entering a valid code. The code will then be verified by Apple’s servers and then the phone will be temporarily unlocked. Valid entry of a law enforcement code unlocks the device for a period of 24 hours for law enforcement use. There is no “lock out” when entering the wrong code when the phone is in “law enforcement mode” because these codes are far too complex to implement such a system. Though, the phone can reboot out of LEM after a number of wrong attempts. You simply can’t randomly guess these codes by trial and error. They are too complex and lengthy for this.
This specific one-use code allows unlocking the device one time only and only for a period of 24 hours. This means that phone will accept that specific code only once and never accept that specific code again. If law enforcement needs to unlock the phone again, they will have to go through the law enforcement process of having Apple generate a new code using the same input data which would then generate a new code, again, valid for only 24 hours.
A successfully used LE code will suspend all phone screen lock security for a period of 24 hours. This means that the only action need to get into a phone for up to 24 hours (even after having been powered off and back on) is by pressing the home key or swiping up. No touch ID or Face ID is needed when the phone is unlocked during this 24 hour period. This allows for use of this phone by multiple people for gathering evidence, downloading information or as needed by law enforcement. This mode also suspends all security around connecting and trusting iTunes. iTunes will also allow downloading data from the phone without going through its “trust” security. After 24 hours, the phone reboots, deletes LE configuration parameters (such as WiFi networks) and reverts back to its original locked and secured state.
The iPhone will also leave a notification for the owner of the phone that the phone has been unlocked and accessed by law enforcement (much the same as the note left in luggage by the TSA after it has been searched). If the phone still has Internet access, it will contact Apple and inform the Apple ID that the phone has been unlocked and accessed by law enforcement. This Internet notification can be suspended for up to 30 days to allow law enforcement time enough to get what they need before the system notifies the Apple ID owner of access to that device. Though, I’d recommend that Apple notify the owner right away of any access by law enforcement.
How to use the code
When a valid generated Apple law enforcement code is entered into the phone in LEM, the phone calculates the validity of the code based on an internal process that runs on the phone continuously. While the phone is validly being used by its owner, this process will periodically sync with Apple’s LE servers to ensure that an iPhone’s LEM process will work properly should the phone fall into the possession of law enforcement. This information will have to be spelled out and agreed to in Apple’s terms and conditions. Apple’s servers and the phone remain synchronized in the same way as RSA one-time keys remain synchronized (within a small calculable margin of error). Thus, it won’t need to synchronize often.
How to use Law Enforcement Mode
This mode can be brought up by anyone, but to unlock this mode fully, a valid Apple issued law enforcement ID and one-use code must be entered into an iPhone for the mode to unlock and allow setup of a WiFi network. Without entry of an Apple issued law enforcement ID number or because of successive incorrect entries, the phone will reboot out of LEM after a short period time.
Law Enforcement ID
A law enforcement ID must be generated by Apple and these IDs will synchronize to all Apple devices prior to falling under law enforcement possession. To keep this list small, it will remain compressed on the device until LEM successfully activates, at which time the file is decompressed for offline validation use. This means that a nefarious someone can’t simply get into this mode and start mucking about easily to gain entry to a random phone. It also means someone can’t request Apple issue a brand new ID on the spot. Even if Apple were to create a new ID, the phone would take up to 24 hours to synchronize… and that assumes that the phone still has data service (which it probably doesn’t). Without data service, the phone cannot synchronize new IDs. This is the importance of creating these IDs in advance.
Apple will also need to go through a validation process to ensure the law enforcement officer requesting an ID is a valid officer working for a legitimate law enforcement organization. This in-advance validation may require a PDF of the officer’s badge and number, an agency issued ID card and any other agency relevant information to ensure the officer is a valid LE officer or an officer of the court. This requires some effort on the part of Apple.
To get an Apple law enforcement ID, the department needing access must apply for such access with Apple under its law enforcement support site (to be created). Once an Apple law enforcement ID has been issued, within 24 hours the ID will sync to phones, thus activating the use of this ID with the phone’s LEM. These IDs should not be shared outside of any law enforcement department. IDs must be renewed periodically through a simple validation process, otherwise they will expire and fall off of the list. Manufacturers shouldn’t have to manage this list manually.
Such a system is relatively simple to build, but may take time to implement. Apple, however, may not be cool with developing such a law enforcement system on its own time and dime. This is where the government may need to step in and mandate such a law enforcement support system be built by phone manufacturers who insist on using overly strong encryption. While government(s) can legislate that companies reduce their encryption strength on their devices to avoid building a law enforcement system as described, instead I’d strongly recommend that companies be required to build a law enforcement support and unlocking system into their devices should they wish to continue using ever stronger encryption. Why compromise the security of all devices simply for a small number of law enforcement cases? Apple must meet law enforcement somewhere in the middle via technological means.
There is also no reason why Apple and other device manufacturers are denying access to law enforcement agents for phone devices when there are software and technical solutions that can see Apple and other manufacturers cooperate with law enforcement, but yet not “give away the farm”.
I don’t even work for Apple and I designed this functional system in under 30 minutes. There may be other considerations of which I am not aware within iOS or Android, but none of these considerations are insurmountable in this design. Every device that Apple has built can support such a mode. Google should also be required to build a similar system for its Android phones and devices.
Apple is simply not trying.
↩︎
Random Thoughts - Randocity! 
leave a comment