Apple opposes gov order to unlock iPhone

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2016, 05:40 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: If the FBI are asking for Apple to give them a customised IOS that circumvents security on every IOS device - which is what Apple seem to be suggesting - then Apple are correct to refuse.


If the FBI are only asking purely for the data from this one specific phone - and allow Apple to control the process and not give up the customised SIF - then That would be reasonable. 

Either way the FBI would not be able to use the IOS without a warrant.

As the law is now I think Apple has the right torefuse.  but I am pretty sure the law will be changed to ccatch up with technology.  But I don't see how this change to the law would cost me any of my "freedoms".  I am still protected from unreasonable search.

[Bmoreblitz]

(02-18-2016, 05:42 PM)Benton Wrote: That's a bad analogy. That's putting a civilian directly in harm's way. That's not common.

But asking specialists for support is. Car company engineers work with investigators when there's belief of faulty equipment that leads to injury.

No not really....do it for one device not all. then who knows how many further requests for lesser suspected crimes there could be from the FBI or other law enforcement agencies. 

[Bmoreblitz]

(02-18-2016, 05:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Either way the FBI would not be able to use the IOS without a warrant.

As the law is now I think Apple has the right torefuse.  but I am pretty sure the law will be changed to ccatch up with technology.  But I don't see how this change to the law would cost me any of my "freedoms".  I am still protected from unreasonable search.

Private communication is one freedom I like. 

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2016, 05:49 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: Private communication is one freedom I like. 

And this will do nothing to infringe on that right unless there is probable cause that you have been involved in criminal activity and a warrant is obtained.


I like the privacy of my home, but there is no way I want to stop police from being able to investigate crimes with valid search warrants.

[Bmoreblitz]

(02-18-2016, 05:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And this will do nothing to infringe on that right unless there is probable cause that you have been involved in criminal activity and a warrant is obtained.


I like the privacy of my home, but there is no way I want to stop police from being able to investigate crimes with valid search warrants.

I think the issue is that technology ISN’T analogous and will require different rules. Decrypting private iPhone communication after a crime is NOT the same as warranted bugging of a suspect’s house. Because you’re decrypting past private conversations that occurred before they were ever suspected of a crime. 


That’s why we don’t want this: accepting iPhone decryption is accepting that we’re carrying around an always on, always listening, always recording government bug. Before we’ve ever committed a crime

Technology might be mildly analogous now, but the way we use it is different and still evolving and needs to be viewed through a different lense and laws adopted to accommodate. I don’t think private companies get to decide the outcome, but fear mongering governments with their own agenda are just as risky. Maybe worse? 

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2016, 06:01 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: I think the issue is that technology ISN’T analogous and will require different rules. Decrypting private iPhone communication after a crime is NOT the same as warranted bugging of a suspect’s house. Because you’re decrypting past private conversations that occurred before they were ever suspected of a crime. 


That’s why we don’t want this: accepting iPhone decryption is accepting that we’re carrying around an always on, always listening, always recording government bug. Before we’ve ever committed a crime

Technology might be mildly analogous now, but the way we use it is different and still evolving and needs to be viewed through a different lense and laws adopted to accommodate. I don’t think private companies get to decide the outcome, but fear mongering governments with their own agenda are just as risky. Maybe worse? 

There is nothing new here.

The hard drive of your computer and all its history is subject to search with a warrant.

Your past phone records, business record, etc., are all subject to search with a warrant.

But these searches are all "reasonable" because they can not be done without a warrant.  There is nothing new at all about this issue with the info on this phone.  

And, unless your phone records all conversations the phone is nothing like a "recording bug".

Do you use a computer.  do you know that your computer hard drive is subject is subject to search 

[Mike M (the other one)]

Here's my beef:
"The FBI is seeking information that may be on Farook's employer-issued phone "

Did not the Government issue the phone to him? If so, they why didn't they have a monitoring software pre-installed or not allow the phones to be able to use FDE or phones that have the FDE feature?

Seems to me like the FBI is trying to force Apple to do their work for them, when the Gov effed it up in the first place.

For this reason, I am totally on Apple's side. Once Apple does this, one of their prime selling features will no longer be applicable for their phone.

Warrant or no warrant, making them give up one of their key selling points for their phone will create undue economic hardship due to a drop in sales.

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2016, 06:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Here's my beef:
"The FBI is seeking information that may be on Farook's employer-issued phone "

Did not the Government issue the phone to him? If so, they why didn't they have a monitoring software pre-installed or not allow the phones to be able to use FDE or phones that have the FDE feature?

Seems to me like the FBI is trying to force Apple to do their work for them, when the Gov effed it up in the first place.

For this reason, I am totally on Apple's side. Once Apple does this, one of their prime selling features will no longer be applicable for their phone.

Warrant or no warrant, making them give up one of their key selling points for their phone will create undue economic hardship due to a drop in sales.

It will not effect their sales at all except to people who want to use the phones for criminal activity.  No one else will be effected.

[Bmoreblitz]

Criminals would eventually get their hands on the know how as well. Some in the government could be considered criminals

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2016, 06:44 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: Criminals would eventually get their hands on the know how as well. Some in the government could be considered criminals

No one disputes this.  The question is why do we want to make it so easy for criminals.

If we did away with the law against stealing don't you think the theft rate would increase?  The fact that some people are going to steal even if it is illegal does not mean that we should make it legal to steal.

[Bmoreblitz]

(02-18-2016, 06:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No one disputes this.  The question is why do we want to make it so easy for criminals.

If we did away with the law against stealing don't you think the theft rate would increase?  The fact that some people are going to steal even if it is illegal does not mean that we should make it legal to steal.

Would a thief go for the money in a safe/vault locked/secured or the money in a shoe box?

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2016, 07:11 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: Would a thief go for the money in a safe/vault locked/secured or the money in a shoe box?

Do you like cake or pie?

What part of "people will still be able to buy encryption programs" do you not understand?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-18-2016, 06:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It will not effect their sales at all except to people who want to use the phones for criminal activity.  No one else will be effected.

False. Top Level security people would also be effected. Would you like for the Chinese to get ahold of one of the special backdoor software and use it to hack into Hillary's phone (since she has no clue what is/isn't top secret)?

And honestly, what ever is on my phone, I would never want to have to have it used against me in a court of law, since we all know that the gov would never take anything out of context to make me appear to be someone that I am not.

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2016, 09:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And honestly, what ever is on my phone, I would never want to have to have it used against me in a court of law, since we all know that the gov would never take anything out of context to make me appear to be someone that I am not.

Stop and think how absurd that argument really sounds.

"The police should never be able to search for evidence against criminals or terrorists even with warrants because they might do something improper."


Is that really the position you want to take?

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2016, 09:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: False. Top Level security people would also be effected. Would you like for the Chinese to get ahold of one of the special backdoor software and use it to hack into Hillary's phone (since she has no clue what is/isn't top secret)?

Well we can't have password encryption either because the Chinese might steal her password.

So what are we going to do?

[Rotobeast]

(02-19-2016, 01:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well we can't have password encryption either because the Chinese might steal her password.

So what are we going to do?

Sphincter recognition technology. 

[Benton]

(02-18-2016, 09:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote:  
And honestly, what ever is on my phone, I would never want to have to have it used against me in a court of law, since we all know that the gov would never take anything out of context to make me appear to be someone that I am not.

Well, yeah, I think everyone agrees criminals like the fact you have a device where you can store lots of illegal stuff, or information concerning illegal stuff you've done, and police have no access if you don't provide them access. But the point is, if they have reason to believe there is something illegal on your phone, a warrant provides them the right to access it, regardless of what you want.

[JustWinBaby]

(02-19-2016, 05:01 PM)Benton Wrote:  But the point is, if they have reason to believe there is something illegal on your phone, a warrant provides them the right to access it, regardless of what you want.

But is that the same as a right to compel a company to provide a backdoor, a method which potentially comprises the security and privacy of other users?

Does the govt need a master key to everyone's door for the purpose of entering one specific house, or should the govt be burdened with finding another way?

[SteelCitySouth]

(02-19-2016, 05:01 PM)Benton Wrote:

Well, yeah, I think everyone agrees criminals like the fact you have a device where you can store lots of illegal stuff, or information concerning illegal stuff you've done, and police have no access if you don't provide them access. But the point is, if they have reason to believe there is something illegal on your phone, a warrant provides them the right to access it, regardless of what you want.

I don't think you could find presedence for a warrant providing the police with the ability to force a person to manufacture a key to someone else's house.

[Benton]

(02-19-2016, 05:15 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: But is that the same as a right to compel a company to provide a backdoor, a method which potentially comprises the security and privacy of other users?

Does the govt need a master key to everyone's door for the purpose of entering one specific house, or should the govt be burdened with finding another way?

(02-19-2016, 05:22 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I don't think you could find presedence for a warrant providing the police with the ability to force a person to manufacture a key to someone else's house.

Agreed. And I've said in this thread I don't think they can make a company do that. But I've also said — based on their response — that Apple already has that ability, they just don't want that to be public.