tuscl

OT: Invasion of Privacy OR Defending America?

shailynn
They never tell you what you need to know.
Apple vs Federal Government:

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/apple-vow…

This is spooky ground. Very controversial either outcome.

18 comments

  • jackslash
    •
    9 years ago
    I don't think the government should have a blanket way of getting encrypted data. But if a judge orders a specific phone to be unlocked, I believe Apple should cooperate.
  • Dominic77
    •
    9 years ago
    The U.S. is fast becoming a police state, and a militarized one at that. Stockpile your military grade guns and ammo. We will need them day when we need to activate the Constitution's escape clause.
  • shailynn
    •
    9 years ago
    ^^^ right, but here's the issue. Apple claims if they make a blueprint to unlock a 'specific' phone, then they would essentially have the blueprint to unlock anyone's Apple-made phone.
  • rockstar666
    •
    9 years ago
    I can't see the government having the right to demand Apple design back doors to their encryption algorithms, but a court order to unblock one particular i-phone in a criminal investigation should be heeded by Apple to the fullest of their abilities.
  • Dominic77
    •
    9 years ago
    Jackslash said --> " getting encrypted data. But if a judge orders a specific phone to be unlocked, I believe the phone's owner/user should cooperate." --> END QUOTE

    ^There, I fixed that for you. ;) Apple plays no role here. Cook is correct.
  • JohnSmith69
    •
    9 years ago
    As a legal matter I think Apple is right on this one. The government could require Apple to disclose technical data to assist in getting the phone data, but Apple cannot be required to affirmatively provide technical assistance to the government.
  • Dominic77
    •
    9 years ago
    Rockstar666 said--> "but a court order to unblock one particular i-phone in a criminal investigation should be heeded by the phone's owner/user to the fullest of his or her abilities." --> END QUOTE

    There, I fixed that for you. ;) Cook is correct here.

    This is IMO, only. But as a computer security professional and a U.S. citizen, that's where I stand. Others may disagree. That's up to them.
  • rockstar666
    •
    9 years ago
    The "owner/user" is dead.
  • shailynn
    •
    9 years ago
    It will be interesting to see how the politicians running will comment on the statement Apple made. I have a feeling this will be the only thing in the news for the next several days.

  • JamesSD
    •
    9 years ago
    In this specific case the attackers are dead. I care about lot less about the privacy of dead people.

    I would cooperate if I was Apple
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    9 years ago
    ^^^^ I find JamesSD's view to be reasonable.

    One thing I noted some years back was with Ted Kaczynski, the UNA Bomber. Once the suspect's identity was disclosed TV news went to where he was, Wyoming, and to the Public Library and interviewed a librarian.

    She went on about knowing Kaczynski and always doing interlibrary loans for him. This was wrong. It does play into this eccentric loaner stereo type, and it did make it harder for Kaczynski to get a fair trial.

    I think TV news was just looking for someone who knew him and was willing to say something.

    I do though applaud Apple for taking the position that they won't just lie down, they will contest everything in court.

    SJG
  • jester214
    •
    9 years ago
    I don't think anybody really cares about the privacy of the dead terrorists. They care about the privacy of everyone else that MIGHT be affected if Apple gives the gov what they want.

    I think it's up to the courts.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    9 years ago
    100% correct!

    SJG
  • sflguy123
    •
    9 years ago
    Ppl seem to be looking at this narrow mindedly. It's like when instant replay enters a pro sport for a limited number of types of replays I know it will just be expanded and expanded over time.

    It's like a locksmith making a key to get into one dead persons house but that key also opens everyone elses house.

    Our enemies can also use the same key to get into our houses.

    This won't be the end it will be the beginning.
  • pensionking
    •
    9 years ago
    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
    -- Benjamin Franklin

    Does a branch of the federal government have the authority to direct a private corporation to assign money, time and intellectual resources for completion of tasks aimed to assist the federal government in matters to which said corporation is neither an accused nor is a direct party? I suspect, upon appeal to right-minded constitutional experts, the answer is no.

    IMO, Furthermore, Cook has a fiduciary obligation to Apple shareholders to refuse these demands as to comply most certainly would adversely affect future iPhone sales dramatically.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    9 years ago
    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/18/ap…

    Also Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake City
    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/29/fo…

    SJG
    https://sites.google.com/site/sjgportal/

    Discussion of Front Room Makeout Sessions
    https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=4…

    Jestrite50 on requirement of front room makeout sessions
    https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=3…

    and here:
    https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=3…

    Anyone ever seen this? It does not look good.
    http://www.pornkillslove.com/

    Doors - The End
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSUIQgEV…
  • bkkruined
    •
    9 years ago
    You don't put a backdoor into one specific phone, or "decrypt" it. If it is properly encrypted, it will not decrypt unless the key / passcode is given.
    At issue is that Apple has a setting to self destruct / delete everything if the wrong passcode is put in too many times. And the FBI wants to get around this...
    So, the phone should be dismantled, physical memory mounted on a separate system and the encryption broken via brute force, or copied from to / from the phone each time the 10 incorrect passcodes wipe the phone so that all 100,000 or so possible passcodes can be tried without it wiping the data (how long can they be?).
    At that point, the FBI has a whole lotta work to do to get data off a phone, and isn't going to be going that unless they really need it (i.e. really a terrorism case) and that's something that doesn't really bother my sense of personal privacy.
    Just putting back doors in stuff, the way some LE and gubbermint dumbasses are asking, bad bad bad bad bad.....
  • Dominic77
    •
    9 years ago
    If the owner/user is dead, then the FBI is shit out of luck. Too bad.

    If you support this request, then you are an idiot.

    What the FBI is asking for will weaken iPhones for all of us. This is NOT an acceptable trade off. This is a troubling precedent. I am an American and I refuse to give this much power to be Federal Govt or to any government. The FBI is asking Apple to voluntarily weaken the from door to iPhones so they can brute force the PIN code, bypassing the encryption. And if you think for one single second that LE will only use this software for this one phone on this one investigation, then you are a gullible idiot.

    I WANT my military grade encryption just as I WANT my military grade guns. No Govt has the right to take that away from me as an American.

    That is what this discussion is about.
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion