Apple opposes gov order to unlock iPhone

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2016, 04:45 PM)Au165 Wrote:  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.

Uh, wrong.  If there was no airport security then there wpould be a lot of potential hijackers and terrorists trying to take bombs and or guns onto planes.

It isn't because they are all getting caught before they get to the airport.  they are not even trying because they are aware of the airport security.


the fact that TSA confiscated over 2200 guns in 2014 makes it pretty clear to me that there is more reason than "paranoia" to justify the need for airport security.

[Au165]

(02-23-2016, 02:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Uh, wrong.  If there was no airport security then there wpould be a lot of potential hijackers and terrorists trying to take bombs and or guns onto planes.

It isn't because they are all getting caught before they get to the airport.  they are not even trying because they are aware of the airport security.


the fact that TSA confiscated over 2200 guns in 2014 makes it pretty clear to me that there is more reason than "paranoia" to justify the need for airport security.

So only the government can sneak 96% of weapons through? What that shows is those who actually try to conceal weapons get them through, those who don't get caught (accidental, don't understand rules, etc.). Remember Andre Smith being one of those who had a gun get confiscated at the airport? There are thousands of stories like that.

We have guys who travel all the time with carry ons at my work, including me. These carry ons when not on planes often times have pocket knives and box cutters in them for opening packing materials.  Sometimes those get left in their carry ons, and guess what? They still get through security with them! Those box cutters are the same weapons that the hijackers on 9/11 used to take down the twin towers. Remember the shoe bomber? He got through security, but it was the passengers who stopped him from blowing up, not TSA. When has TSA ever stopped a terrorist from getting through? Don't you think they'd make that public to get some traction and support? Don't you think if any of the guys carrying all thsoe guns had actual intentions to do something the FBI would have arrested and charged them and the TSA would have been hailed as heros?

I'm sorry, but the security measures in place do nothing. 96% failure rate in a controlled study when people had intent on hiding weapons is not stopping anyone who is set on doing bad things. We have digressed however, so maybe this is better left to it's own thread.

[fredtoast]

(02-23-2016, 04:47 PM)Au165 Wrote:  When has TSA ever stopped a terrorist from getting through?

Every single day.  If there was no airport security checking for this stuff then there would be a lot more hijackings and terrorist bombings.

Seriously, do you really think that we should have no airport security at all?  Because this argument seems so stupid I don't know if you are being serious.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Getting back on topic.

Fred, think about it. If they create this backdoor for the FBI, then other Countries (like China/Russia) will demand a copy of it as well so they can use it to curb the their citizen's privacy in the name of national security as well.

Now they have a copy of it, so guess who's phones they are going to start messing with so they can steal international secrets.

Wasn't Yahoo sued a few years ago for outing Chinese dissidents. They gave up Emails, information and it caused several dissidents to end up in jail.

Pakastan has tried to force Blackberry to give up access to all encrypted traffic that flows through their servers.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/01/technology/pakistan-blackberry/

Brazil banned Facebooks whatsapp messaging services for 48 hours before the public outcry became to much.

Now again, if we give them the Backdoor, then terrorist will just find a new phone to use, and then we've traded our privacy for nothing.

[fredtoast]

(02-23-2016, 05:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Getting back on topic.

Fred, think about it. If they create this backdoor for the FBI, then other Countries (like China/Russia) will demand a copy of it as well so they can use it to curb the their citizen's privacy in the name of national security as well.  

Now they have a copy of it, so guess who's phones they are going to start messing with so they can steal international secrets.

Apple is not subject to the jurisdiction of foreign courts.

And, please tell me whose phones they are going to start messing with for international secrets because I really don't know.

These "evil forces" can get a pass word just as easy as they can steal a program from Apple.  So do we have to give up on all password encryption?

[Benton]

(02-23-2016, 05:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Getting back on topic.

Fred, think about it. If they create this backdoor for the FBI, then other Countries (like China/Russia) will demand a copy of it as well so they can use it to curb the their citizen's privacy in the name of national security as well.  

Now they have a copy of it, so guess who's phones they are going to start messing with so they can steal international secrets.

Wasn't Yahoo sued a few years ago for outing Chinese dissidents. They gave up Emails, information and it caused several dissidents to end up in jail.

Pakastan has tried to force Blackberry to give up access to all encrypted traffic that flows through their servers.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/01/technology/pakistan-blackberry/

Brazil banned Facebooks whatsapp messaging services for 48 hours before the public outcry became to much.

Now again, if we give them the Backdoor, then terrorist will just find a new phone to use, and then we've traded our privacy for nothing.

China or any country isn't prohibited from making that demand now. But Apple isn't a Chinese company and can tell them to **** off. If they do acquiesce to the FBI, all Apple could do is ask the U.S. for help in compelling them to to the same for a foreign country. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-23-2016, 05:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Apple is not subject to the jurisdiction of foreign courts.

And, please tell me whose phones they are going to start messing with for international secrets because I really don't know.

These "evil forces" can get a pass word just as easy as they can steal a program from Apple.  So do we have to give up on all password encryption?

WTF? Apple is subject to any countries courts where they conduct business inside of.

What would happen is that a precedent would be set for the US, making it easier for other countries to force them to comply.

Whose phones? I don't know the names of the people that they would mess with. Obviously they'd go after heads of corporations, High ranking people in the Department of Defense, Congress, anywhere where they think they could gain an edge or a secret, and not just in our country either.

Tell me o wise one, how do you steal a program that isn't written yet?

also are you up to date on this story?  

Apple sent engineers to help them unlock it already, but because a low level government goon reset the password with in hours after the phone was returned to them, it screwed up Apple's ability to get into the phone.

I would call that well within the definition of  "reasonable." What the FBI is asking for now, is not "reasonable". Another thing you are forgetting is that Apple was not even a party to the initial ruling done by this Magistrate. That alone is enough to possibly get it thrown out on an Appeal.

[fredtoast]

(02-23-2016, 06:44 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Whose phones? I don't know the names of the people that they would mess with. Obviously they'd go after heads of corporations, High ranking people in the Department of Defense, Congress, anywhere where they think they could gain an edge or a secret, and not just in our country either.

So how do they get these phones?

[fredtoast]

(02-23-2016, 06:44 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: also are you up to date on this story?  

Apple sent engineers to help them unlock it already, but because a low level government goon reset the password with in hours after the phone was returned to them, it screwed up Apple's ability to get into the phone.

I would call that well within the definition of  "reasonable." What the FBI is asking for now, is not "reasonable". 

How do you define "reasonable"?  What makes one reasonable but the other not?

And if Apple had the power to get to the encrypted information before the password was reset doesn't that mean the Chinese could steal that?  So based on your logic we have already given up all our privacy because a program exists that allows Apple to get encrypted information.  

[fredtoast]

(02-23-2016, 06:44 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: WTF? Apple is subject to any countries courts where they conduct business inside of.

Not subpoenas issued in criminal cases.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-23-2016, 06:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So how do they get these phones?

You have not read the court order or else you wouldn't be asking this stupid question.

https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/02/17/apple_order.pdf

Once precedent is set, here's a string of phones ready to go:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeorgantopoulos/manhattan-district-attorney-cant-access-175-apple-devices-be#.qnZngAz0g

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/23/11098616/apple-fbi-similar-encryption-cases-court-documents

[fredtoast]

(02-23-2016, 08:08 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You have not read the court order or else you wouldn't be asking this stupid question.

https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/02/17/apple_order.pdf

Once precedent is set, here's a string of phones ready to go:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeorgantopoulos/manhattan-district-attorney-cant-access-175-apple-devices-be#.qnZngAz0g

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/23/11098616/apple-fbi-similar-encryption-cases-court-documents

Sorry, but I don't see how this leads to China having the phones of American diplomats or congressmen.

Sorry to sound so stupid but could you point out what I am missing?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-23-2016, 06:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How do you define "reasonable"?  What makes one reasonable but the other not?

And if Apple had the power to get to the encrypted information before the password was reset doesn't that mean the Chinese could steal that?  So based on your logic we have already given up all our privacy because a program exists that allows Apple to get encrypted information.  

Is it reasonable for me to come to your company and have you dedicate the majority of your R&D to develop something for "1" phone, thus preventing you from working on building your next OS. Apple already stated that building this backdoor that the FBI is requesting would be akin to developing an whole new OS. A new OS is not developed overnight, and if you do this, you will give it to me when you are done.

I have no idea what the engineers did or would have done. All I know is that they did send some to help out.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-23-2016, 08:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, but I don't see how this leads to China having the phones of American diplomats or congressmen.

Sorry to sound so stupid but could you point out what I am missing?

Sure, the part where it says:
"for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the Subject Device; ......Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the Subject device."

Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, other protocols and Remote Access do not require a physical connection and the Government wants those features on the program that Apple will be forced to create.

Why all of that trouble for 1 phone that they have physical access to??

[fredtoast]

(02-23-2016, 08:31 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sure, the part where it says:
"for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the Subject Device; ......Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the Subject device."

Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, other protocols and Remote Access do not require a physical connection and the Government wants those features on the program that Apple will be forced to create.

Why all of that trouble for 1 phone that they have physical access to??

Still not seeing anything about the Chinese getting the phones of diplomats or congressmen.

What does the phrase "for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-fi or other protocol available on the Subject Device available on the suject device" mean?

I don't read that as saying they can unlock the phone remotely.  Can you tell me where this quote was pulled from so that i can read it in context?  I can't really tell what it means.

[fredtoast]

(02-23-2016, 08:22 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Is it reasonable for me to come to your company and have you dedicate the majority of your R&D to develop something for "1" phone, thus preventing you from working on building your next OS.

If it could potentially save lives then yes.

What dollar amount does Apple put on a human life?  How many hours of R&D is a human life worth?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-23-2016, 08:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Still not seeing anything about the Chinese getting the phones of diplomats or congressmen.

What does the phrase "for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-fi or other protocol available on the Subject Device available on the suject device" mean?

I don't read that as saying they can unlock the phone remotely.  Can you tell me where this quote was pulled from so that i can read it in context?  I can't really tell what it means.

It was in the first link I provided.

https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/02/17/apple_order.pdf

(02-23-2016, 08:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If it could potentially save lives then yes.

What dollar amount does Apple put on a human life?  How many hours of R&D is a human life worth?

Apple is in the business of making phones.

[fredtoast]

(02-23-2016, 09:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It was in the first link I provided.

https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/02/17/apple_order.pdf

You mean the one that says the SIF will be coded with a unique indentifier so that it will only work on the subject device?

(02-23-2016, 09:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Apple is in the business of making phones.

Why won't you answer the question? 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-23-2016, 09:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You mean the one that says the SIF will be coded with a unique indentifier so that it will only work on the subject device?



Why won't you answer the question? 

Ok I thought maybe just maybe you didn't understand the technical request.

Now I see you are just lucy'in, so just stop.

I did answer your question.
Apple is in the business of making phones.

[fredtoast]

(02-23-2016, 09:44 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Ok I thought maybe just maybe you didn't understand the technical request.

 Which you clearly didn't.


You are welcome.