Apple opposes gov order to unlock iPhone

[fredtoast]

(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?

In the name of public safety the policve have to have access.

We can not have 100% freedom to do whatever we want.  There have to be rules that everyone follows so we can all live together.  We all need to keep absolutely as much freedom as possible without endangering society.  When criminals and terrorists have a tool that powerful to use against people we have to have some regu;ation to keep us all safe.

It is a balancing test, and as long as a warrant is required I have no problem with a law that requires are encrption providers to have some way to grant access to law enforcement.

[SunsetBengal]

For the record, I back Apple's stance. Giving government agencies the "keys" to unlock anyone's phone is just wrong. I get the whole "this is a case of terrorism" argument. However, they should have asked Apple to kindly have their engineers unlock the phone, and turn it back over to the government.

Giving up the secret to the government would only lead to "other situations" where they decided it was "absolutely necessary" to violate other people's right to privacy.

Edit: I'm probably restating an argument that has been made many times throughout this thread, just too lazy to read 80 posts before chiming in. Sorry.

[JustWinBaby]

(02-19-2016, 07:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: In the name of public safety the policve have to have access.

And, yet, the police can or have found a way to access my house...They don't need a master key.

Let's say the police have a court order for my safety deposit box, but they don't know which one.  Should the bank be required to allow them access to all the safety deposit boxes to find mine?

(02-19-2016, 07:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We can not have 100% freedom to do whatever we want.

Nor should the government be given a sledgehammer when a scalpel is needed. We don't put the privacy of thousands or millions of people potentially at risk simply because it's more convenient for the govt with respect to ONE individual.

I have ZERO doubt the govt is more than capable of cracking that IPhone (otherwise they are REALLY wasting my tax dollars). They don't want to do it for paranoid reasons unique to the govt with respect to the public and enemies knowing what they are capable of when everyone already knows they are capable of it.

[6andcounting]

Apparently court filings by the DoJ confirm that the phone's password was reset after it had been seized by investigators. Had it not been reset, the phone could have been unlocked without needing an Apple encryption key. Official word is that a rogue, low- level employee from the health department reset it by accident.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tn-apple-fbi-call-20160219-story.html

Apple said that in early January it provided four alternatives to access data from the iPhone besides the controversial method the FBI is now proposing.

But one of the most encouraging options was ruled out because within 24 hours of the shooting rampage, the phone’s owner — possibly gunman Syed Rizwan Farook’s employer, the San Bernardino County public health department — reset the password to Farook’s iCloud account to access data from the backup, according to Apple and federal officials.

That means the iCloud password on the iPhone itself is now wrong, and it won’t back up unless someone can get past the phone’s passcode and change it.

The issue was discovered after Apple engineers sent to Southern California to work with the FBI struggled to trigger an automatic backup, Apple said. When iCloud is enabled, iPhones automatically sync with the cloud if they are charging and are connected to a familiar Wi-Fi network.

[fredtoast]

(02-20-2016, 01:24 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I have ZERO doubt the govt is more than capable of cracking that IPhone (otherwise they are REALLY wasting my tax dollars).  They don't want to do it for paranoid reasons unique to the govt with respect to the public and enemies knowing what they are capable of when everyone already knows they are capable of it.

So let me get this straight.  You are terrified of the government getting access to this information, but you also believe that they already have the access but just refuse to use it?  So why should it upset you that apple might give the government info they already have since the government is afraid to use it?



Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-21-2016, 11:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So let me get this straight.  You are terrified of the government getting access to this information, but you also believe that they already have the access but just refuse to use it?  So why should it upset you that apple might give the government info they already have since the government is afraid to use it?



Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

They want apple to create a back door. Once it's created it will be impossible to keep under wraps. Thus making any apple product at risk.

[fredtoast]

(02-21-2016, 11:41 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They want apple to create a back door.  Once it's created it will be impossible to keep under wraps.   Thus making any apple product at risk.

Paranoia is not a valid argument.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-21-2016, 12:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Paranoia is not a valid argument.

Security is however.

[fredtoast]

(02-21-2016, 12:38 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Security is however.

Spy satellites we use to keep watch on our enemy's weapons might also be used for a bad purpose.  Does that mean we have to do away with them also?

All passwords for any type of password encryption can be stolen.  So do we have to get rid of password encryption?

[StLucieBengal]

(02-21-2016, 12:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Spy satellites we use to keep watch on our enemy's weapons might also be used for a bad purpose.  Does that mean we have to do away with them also?

All passwords for any type of password encryption can be stolen.  So do we have to get rid of password encryption?

There is no reason Apple needs to open that phone.    Sorry but the privacy of the individual is more important than a Muslim terrorist.   It's not like all this info has done anything to stop any of these guys.    Until they close the border or severely restrict access to Muslims they won't stop them.

[Rotobeast]

(02-21-2016, 11:41 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They want apple to create a back door.  Once it's created it will be impossible to keep under wraps.   Thus making any apple product at risk.

The government gets us all in the back door, eventually. 

[RoyleRedlegs]

(02-21-2016, 06:48 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: The government gets us all in the back door, eventually. 

That's what the government sees as their duty, unfortunately 

[Au165]

(02-21-2016, 12:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Paranoia is not a valid argument.

It has been the only argument for the stupid airport security measures that don't work as proven by a 96% failure rate.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2016, 11:43 AM)Au165 Wrote: It has been the only argument for the stupid airport security measures that don't work as proven by a 96% failure rate.

What?

96% of people who get on airplanes are carrying weapons thay snuck through airport security?

I find that hard to believe.  why haven't there been a lot more problems with hijackings and everything with all these weapons on planes?

My opinionj i s that if we had zero airport security we would have plans dropping out of the sky every day.  What exactly makes you think we don't need any security at airports?

[Benton]

(02-22-2016, 01:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What?

96% of people who get on airplanes are carrying weapons thay snuck through airport security?

I find that hard to believe.  why haven't there been a lot more problems with hijackings and everything with all these weapons on planes?

My opinionj i s that if we had zero airport security we would have plans dropping out of the sky every day.  What exactly makes you think we don't need any security at airports?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3179120/New-TSA-chief-vows-close-security-gaps-U-S-airports-tests-96-failure-rate.html

Quote:The new leader of the Transportation Security Administration said on Wednesday his top priority would be to close security gaps at airport checkpoints where an internal report showed 96 percent of undercover tests failed.

Peter Neffenger, the agency's new administrator, told a congressional panel that front-line TSA employees would be trained by September to avoid the pitfalls that led to those failures.Lawmakers opened the U.S. House of Representatives hearing with references to a Department of Homeland Security report that found TSA airport screeners did not detect banned weapons in 67 of 70 tests at dozens of airport checkpoints.

We should have airport security, but, yeah, undercover tests weren't very good.

Which is just one more reason I still refuse to fly commercial after having to throw my daughter's snow globe away six years ago. They fail 67 of 70 times, but think a snow globe is a threat.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2016, 01:49 PM)Benton Wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3179120/New-TSA-chief-vows-close-security-gaps-U-S-airports-tests-96-failure-rate.html



We should have airport security, but, yeah, undercover tests weren't very good.

Which is just one more reason I still refuse to fly commercial after having to throw my daughter's snow globe away six years ago. They fail 67 of 70 times, but think a snow globe is a threat.

The "threat" of airport securty is what keeps us safe.  I don't know what kind of "weapons" they were able to sneak through 67 of 70 times, but I guarantee they were not guns or bombs.

TSA confiscated over 2200 guns in 2014.  I doubt that means 50K+ guns made it through airport security.

[Au165]

(02-22-2016, 02:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The "threat" of airport securty is what keeps us safe.  I don't know what kind of "weapons" they were able to sneak through 67 of 70 times, but I guarantee they were not guns or bombs.

TSA confiscated over 2200 guns in 2014.  I doubt that means 50K+ guns made it through airport security.

You can guarantee they weren't guns or bombs? That is a lie...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tsa-missed-95-percent-of-weapons-explosives-in-security-text/article/2565360

"In one test, an undercover agent was stopped after setting off an alarm at a magnetometer, but TSA agents failed to detect a fake explosive device taped to his back during a pat down."

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2016, 03:34 PM)Au165 Wrote: You can guarantee they weren't guns or bombs? That is a lie...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tsa-missed-95-percent-of-weapons-explosives-in-security-text/article/2565360

"In one test, an undercover agent was stopped after setting off an alarm at a magnetometer, but TSA agents failed to detect a fake explosive device taped to his back during a pat down."

Still doesn't matter.

Claiming that airport security is useless and that there is no need for it is ridiculous.

It is like you come out against stuff without even thinking what you are saying.  It is all just knee-jerk reaction instead of meaningful discussion.

TSA=Government=bad.  That is just too simplistic.  TSA is useful and necessary.

[Au165]

(02-22-2016, 03:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Still doesn't matter.

Claiming that airport security is useless and that there is no need for it is ridiculous.

It is like you come out against stuff without even thinking what you are saying.  It is all just knee-jerk reaction instead of meaningful discussion.

TSA=Government=bad.  That is just too simplistic.  TSA is useful and necessary.

Wait, it doesn't matter that you guaranteed something to bolster your argument then were proven wrong within minutes?

Never said it was useless. You said paranoia was not a valid argument, I countered that we use paranoia to justify our airport security (as it stands, I never said security as a whole). I never said I don't agree with having security, but I would argue is that what we are doing does not work and it is all for show. People are however willing to go along with it because they are paranoid that terrorists are coming through airports daily attempting to blow up plans which is false. They are getting caught long before they reach the ticket counter by intelligence agencies.

By the way I was involved in a government bid for a airport security upgrades and can assure you there are as many holes as Swiss cheese in the security at airports.

This is exactly what you did before your guarantee.

This is you oversimplifying. The NSA was able to basically without warrant (used a very vague interpretation of a warrant issued by a secret court) collect as much data as they wanted on millions of people. You don't think there is any cause to be concerned about a potential back door to millions of peoples personal devices getting into the hands of such an agency who only needs to answer to a secret court? That is not paranoia that is a legitimate concern.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-22-2016, 01:49 PM)Benton Wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3179120/New-TSA-chief-vows-close-security-gaps-U-S-airports-tests-96-failure-rate.html



We should have airport security, but, yeah, undercover tests weren't very good.

Which is just one more reason I still refuse to fly commercial after having to throw my daughter's snow globe away six years ago. They fail 67 of 70 times, but think a snow globe is a threat.

I am right with you. We are in instanbul waiting for our connection. TSA at Miami took my wife's perfume bottle. She forgot it was in her purse and didn't pack it in the checked luggage. Not to mention the countless bottles of water they take away. No wonder stuff gets through they focus on the trivial.

Just profile and take a hard look at those with connections to the terrorist states and let the people who aren't a threat through.

Btw the Turkish version of the tsa is fast and no nonsense we have come and gone with zero issue or wait.