Should Apple open that phone

[Clinos]

Of course not. The specific case of the moment is merely a pretext, something they hope they can get public sympathy for while they pursue their ultimate objective. What they want is unfettered access to every thought and idea you and everyone else might ever have.

They can be patient.

Wish I could rep you again buddy. A lot of people are missing the true point of this request and it's really saddening to observe.

[dbx]

Terrorists give up their rights, as well as criminals.

Yes for terrorists and criminals.

No for the general public.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[InternetTuffGuy]

Wish I could rep you again buddy. A lot of people are missing the true point of this request and it's really saddening to observe.

Don't worry, I did it for you.

[InternetTuffGuy]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The question is. Would you feel confident if given the tools the government would only use this on confirmed criminals? I believe we call this the slippery slope.

[Brackneyc]

The question is. Would you feel confident if given the tools the government would only use this on confirmed criminals? I believe we call this the slippery slope.

You mean in the same fashion the government promised that a seatbelt violation would never be a primary reason to pull someone over?

How did that go for us.

[mslman71]

No. It isn't worth it. To have the government be able to force people to do work for them as well as what I see to be the inevitable outcome of some flavor of backdoor that will ultimately get exploited. For Christ's sake a million plus secret clearance dossiers (many people at my office were victims of this) were hacked by the Chinese. Having silent access to people's phones as well as the knowledge of what people are most worthy of spying on is a bad combo. None of this touches the issue with the fed's power growing to the point that they'll be able to do whatever they want to whomever they want with little or no public record of their actions or recourse against it, at least in terms of information access. At the very least I can see the definition of terrorist being used in most any arbitrary way, not that it isn't already. Based on the definition of terrorist that I've seen a basic advocate of changing the government through peaceful but highly visible and vocal means could be considered a terrorist in the loosest sense.

On the practical side if Apple publicly says yes and does it then it becomes quite obvious that "terrorists" will not use the phone for the same purposes. At the very least if this is inevitable Apple should fight it and win in the public's eye but silently do it in private. I don't agree with this but it sorta defeats the purpose if they tell everyone they're doing it.

I'm not familiar with how applications are encapsulated on the iPhone. Personally I think the solution is simply to write an application, either native to the phone, or remotely, that automatically destroys all the contents of the phone IF the owner does not enter the security code within a given period of time. E.g., no code entered within 24 (12, 8, 4, whatever) hours, phone wipes itself. This doesn't matter of course if the phone is exploited through one of its wireless routes.

[dbx]

The question is. Would you feel confident if given the tools the government would only use this on confirmed criminals? I believe we call this the slippery slope.

No, not in the scenario you put forth. I'm not advocating that Apple give govt. the tools or knowledge to do it. I simply wish Apple, and American based company, would just step up and say, "Sure, give us the phone and we'll "transcribe" everything we can off of it for you, lock it and then give it back to you." Both sides get what they want; Apple keeps proprietary info...and the govt. gets the info needed to possibly uncover other cells and potentially, save citizen's lives.

While I support the Patriot Act, I was always disappointed that the govt. won't come out and say something like, "And if we overhear a drug deal going down (etc., etc., ...) we will not use that information to arrest anyone. We will only use it if we believe terrorism is involved."

And while I find the lack of such a disclaimer most concerning, I'm also well aware that we don't live in the same world that we did just 15 years ago. And sure, many people would throw around famous sayings by our founding fathers as it pertains to giving up liberties to preserve...etc., I have to side with another saying that came from the military - "We're not here to practice democracy. We're here to preserve it." And make no mistake, we are at war. Just a different kind than we've ever had to deal with on this scale. This is just another of many such topics that are nearly futile to try to articulate on a message board.

[Clinos]

While I support the Patriot Act, I was always disappointed that the govt. won't come out and say something like, "And if we overhear a drug deal going down (etc., etc., ...) we will not use that information to arrest anyone. We will only use it if we believe terrorism is involved."

The Patriot Act is overwhelmingly being used for exactly that. Most of the tools we gave law enforcement to keep the nation safe from terrorists are being used instead for drug dealers, money launders, and a slew of other crimes that see people charged without being able to defend against because the investigation or source records are sealed under the premise of National Security. Unfortunately our government has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with such tools or unlimited authority.

Here is a short article on much of the abuse: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/1...sa-patriot-act

[paolo59]

This is one of those things that I just didn't know at the offset. It's way above my pay scale. There are things that come up that I just have no idea or real understanding how to deal with. Ha! Imagine that!!! But the more I've read and heard on the news as this thing has unfolded, the more inclined I am to say no.

[x-trainer ben]

well this is interesting

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/pho...nowden-1316554

[dbx]

well this is interesting

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/pho...nowden-1316554

But if true, why would this issue even exist? (honest question). Perhaps, to set a precedent? I don't think so. If they could (FBI), they would...without giving a thought to asking.

[Clinos]

L O just L O L

WASHINGTON — While the Justice Department wages a public fight with Apple over access to a locked iPhone, government officials are privately debating how to resolve a prolonged standoff with another technology company, WhatsApp, over access to its popular instant messaging application, officials and others involved in the case said.

WhatsApp, which is owned by ********, allows customers to send messages and make phone calls over the Internet. In the last year, the company has been adding encryption to those conversations, making it impossible for the Justice Department to read or eavesdrop, even with a judge’s wiretap order.

To understand the battle lines, consider this imperfect analogy from the predigital world: If the Apple dispute is akin to whether the F.B.I. can unlock your front door and search your house, the issue with WhatsApp is whether it can listen to your phone calls. In the era of encryption, neither question has a clear answer.

Some investigators view the WhatsApp issue as even more significant than the one over locked phones because it goes to the heart of the future of wiretapping. They say the Justice Department should ask a judge to force WhatsApp to help the government get information that has been encrypted. Others are reluctant to escalate the dispute, particularly with senators saying they will soon introduce legislation to help the government get data in a format it can read.

Whether the WhatsApp dispute ends in a court fight that sets precedents, many law enforcement officials and security experts say that such a case may be inevitable because the nation’s wiretapping laws were last updated a generation ago, when people communicated by landline telephones that were easy to tap.

“The F.B.I. and the Justice Department are just choosing the exact circumstance to pick the fight that looks the best for them,” said Peter Eckersley, the chief computer scientist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit group that focuses on digital rights. “They’re waiting for the case that makes the demand look reasonable.”

I'm more curious about the specific laws being created to defeat encryption and/or privacy. A reasonable expectation of privacy is at the heart of our democracy...encryption would be exactly what the framers would have been talking about. Interesting to see the government attempt to argue against a reasonable expectation of privacy in this regard.

[Brackneyc]

L O just L O L
















I'm more curious about the specific laws being created to defeat encryption and/or privacy. A reasonable expectation of privacy is at the heart of our democracy...encryption would be exactly what the framers would have been talking about. Interesting to see the government attempt to argue against a reasonable expectation of privacy in this regard.

That privacy stuff is only a problem for those straying outside the law.

[acrawlingchaos]

That privacy stuff is only a problem for those straying outside the law.

This makes absolutely no sense. Are you suggesting that if you are a law abiding citizen than you should have no reasonable expectation of privacy? What's the logic?


Most people aren't foolish enough to be guilted into forfeiting their rights. IMO the only people interested in invading the privacy of it's citizens are perverts. The only way you or the government should be able to get my dick pics is if you ask nicely.

[dbx]

This makes absolutely no sense. Are you suggesting that if you are a law abiding citizen than you should have no reasonable expectation of privacy? What's the logic?

Although I'll admit to using this logic in the past, I have to agree. An easy example would be for say, law abiding politicians (at whatever level, city, state, fed) to have their "innocent" info hacked, into any level of govt.s hands. Powerful business owners/CEO's, etc., the same. Insider trading....in the hands of govt. people...well outside of Wall street. And on and on...

That's why I wish Apple would simply take the phone, decode it...and give it back to the FBI, as this case (I realize there are others) clearly involves terrorism. I'm down with that, all day long!

[Brackneyc]

This makes absolutely no sense. Are you suggesting that if you are a law abiding citizen than you should have no reasonable expectation of privacy? What's the logic?


Most people aren't foolish enough to be guilted into forfeiting their rights. IMO the only people interested in invading the privacy of it's citizens are perverts. The only way you or the government should be able to get my dick pics is if you ask nicely.

It was sarcasm. It is also the often used argument of those willing to have Apple looking into phones. Also used by those who think the cops should be able to look where they like, and a warrant be damned. Nothing to hide? Let them come on in. (sarcasm again).

[acrawlingchaos]

Although I'll admit to using this logic in the past, I have to agree. An easy example would be for say, law abiding politicians (at whatever level, city, state, fed) to have their "innocent" info hacked, into any level of govt.s hands. Powerful business owners/CEO's, etc., the same. Insider trading....in the hands of govt. people...well outside of Wall street. And on and on.

I don't think innocent politicians should be invaded upon either. We have due process and every citizen is entitled to it. If the government has reasonable cause to believe one of it's citizens (including politicians) has committed a crime, they need to follow the process.

[dbx]

I don't think innocent politicians should be invaded upon either. We have due process and every citizen is entitled to it. If the government has reasonable cause to believe one of it's citizens (including politicians) has committed a crime, they need to follow the process.

Like Craig alluded to, you might be a bit "off" tonight, as we're together on this .

[Mark1T]

Fuk me

...

[dbx]

...

I agree. And the weather here is unusually warm for late March.

[x-trainer ben]

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/...ng-with-apple/

Had to post this followup......NEVER MIND, WE GOT IT! FBI CLAIMS IT FOUND A WAY INTO IPHONE, CANCELS APPLE HEARING

[mslman71]

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/...ng-with-apple/

Had to post this followup......NEVER MIND, WE GOT IT! FBI CLAIMS IT FOUND A WAY INTO IPHONE, CANCELS APPLE HEARING

What they should do is go through with the hearing and claim to give up while not saying they found a way into it.

[Clinos]

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/...ng-with-apple/

Had to post this followup......NEVER MIND, WE GOT IT! FBI CLAIMS IT FOUND A WAY INTO IPHONE, CANCELS APPLE HEARING

What they should do is go through with the hearing and claim to give up while not saying they found a way into it.

Very doubtful on this, the Apple security mechanism isn't 100% uncrackable but this sounds so extreme as to be dubious.

It would have been wiser for the government to continue to force the issue publicly with Apple rather than say they found a workaround which will force Apple to release an even more security focused locking system they'll in turn backport down to older models as well. In this scenario the filing wins the battle but loses the war.