PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: nddons on February 17, 2016, 04:30:21 PM
-
Who would have thought that the courage to push back on FedGov would have come from the CEO of Apple?
"You know what would be better than prosecuting those who helped the San Bernardino jihadists? Stopping them, i.e., for the Men in Black to do their goddamned jobs. An arranged marriage to a Pakistani woman who spent years doing...something...in Saudi Arabia? Those two murderous misfits had more red flags on them than Bernie Sanders's front yard on May Day, and the best minds in American law enforcement and intelligence did precisely squat to stop their rampage. Having failed to do its job, the federal government now seeks even more power - the power to compel Apple to write code rendering the security measures in its products useless - as a reward for its failure."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431491/apples-tim-cook-right-resist-governments-demand?target=author&tid=903320
-
I gotta say, I'm with the Feds on this one.
This is not broad surveillance of society. The feds have definitely established probable cause to search this device, and they have a court order to do so. It's a specific, targeted search fully in line with the provisions of the 4th Amendment.
-
I gotta say, I'm with the Feds on this one.
This is not broad surveillance of society. The feds have definitely established probable cause to search this device, and they have a court order to do so. It's a specific, targeted search fully in line with the provisions of the 4th Amendment.
I haven't seen the court order, so this is supposition on my part. However, I don't think the order was for Apple to open up THIS particular phone. My understanding that they want Apple to essentially put in a "back door" into their software to make it easier for the Feds to open this phone any any other iPhone that might be used by terrorists. If true, that's a bridge too far.
-
I haven't seen the court order, so this is supposition on my part. However, I don't think the order was for Apple to open up THIS particular phone. My understanding that they want Apple to essentially put in a "back door" into their software to make it easier for the Feds to open this phone any any other iPhone that might be used by terrorists. If true, that's a bridge too far.
Actually, yes. It was. It was an order for Apple to open this particular phone. They specifically asked for security bypass software hard-coded this this phone's serial number.
Not only do they have a search warrant, but they have the owner's permission, as it belongs to the terrorist's employer.
-
Maybe if the govt. had taken care of business and got these two before they went on their rampage we wouldn't be here.
-
Maybe if the govt. had taken care of business and got these two before they went on their rampage we wouldn't be here.
So, because they failed, we should cheer Apple for not letting the feds see if they were plotting with anyone else.
-
Who would have thought that the courage to push back on FedGov would have come from the CEO of Apple?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431491/apples-tim-cook-right-resist-governments-demand?target=author&tid=903320
I assumed that quote came from Steve Case, but it was just from the author of the article.
-
Apple doesn't even have the ability to do this. They'll have to create it. If they end up complying then I would charge the federal government since it will require Apple to expend resources to create it. What guarantees does Apple have that what they create, if forced to, won't fall into the wrong hands? Apple has a lot to lose from this.
I don't argue the legality of the search warrant, that's legitimate.
-
Mr Franklin hits the nail on the head once again. ”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” I hope this ends up at the Supreme Court.
-
Mr Franklin hits the nail on the head once again. ”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” I hope this ends up at the Supreme Court.
OK, so let's just let people out of prison then, because we're sacrificing liberty, right?
Just curious: Are there any circumstances where the feds should be able to execute a valid search warrant? Or would you bar locksmiths from assisting the feds in doing so?
-
I assumed that quote came from Steve Case, but it was just from the author of the article.
Yes, it was. Who's Steve Case?
-
Yes, it was. Who's Steve Case?
A figment of a malfunctioning mind.
I meant Tim Cook, CEO of Apple.
I guess it just shows that brains can fart!
-
A figment of a malfunctioning mind.
I meant Tim Cook, CEO of Apple.
I guess it just shows that brains can fart!
As my dad said, getting old ain't for sissies!
Been there, done that, Eddie. :D
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html
But in a similar case in New York last year, Apple acknowledged that it could extract such data if it wanted to. And according to prosecutors in that case, Apple has unlocked phones for authorities at least 70 times since 2008. (Apple doesn’t dispute this figure.)
-
So, please someone explain to me why Apple is the hero of this story?
We have a known terrorist. We have the permission of the phone's owner to unlock it. We have clear and undeniable probable cause. We have the feds asking Apple to unlock this one specific phone.
Where is the overreach? Isn't this the kind of thing we expect law enforcement to do? Investigate specific crimes. This isn't bulk collection of millions of people's data, this is a specific search of a specific target, with way more than probable cause to do so.
How is Apple the hero for stonewalling this?
-
If Apple had something in place right now to get into the phone then the court order would seem a little more plausible. A court order for them to expend resources to create something that doesn't already exist ... bah.
-
If Apple had something in place right now to get into the phone then the court order would seem a little more plausible. A court order for them to expend resources to create something that doesn't already exist ... bah.
Let's extend that analogy outside the digital world.
Bob the Bombmaker is arrested after blowing up Giant Steps Nursery School. In the course of the investigation, the feds learn that Bob's employer, Acme Blasting, has rented him a safe deposit box at a local bank. The feds go to the local district court and obtain a search warrant for the box, and also the consent of Acme Blasting. Bob, however, is unwilling to give up his key, which he has of course hidden in such a way as it is not retrievable.
Are you saying the feds can't demand that the bank permit them to break into the box without a key or hire a locksmith, because they would have to expend resources (compensated by the feds) to get into that box?
I think that as soon as you move this to a non-digital world, the silliness of Apple's position becomes apparent.
-
Let's extend that analogy outside the digital world.
Bob the Bombmaker is arrested after blowing up Giant Steps Nursery School. In the course of the investigation, the feds learn that Bob's employer, Acme Blasting, has rented him a safe deposit box at a local bank. The feds go to the local district court and obtain a search warrant for the box, and also the consent of Acme Blasting. Bob, however, is unwilling to give up his key, which he has of course hidden in such a way as it is not retrievable.
Are you saying the feds can't demand that the bank permit them to break into the box without a key or hire a locksmith, because they would have to expend resources (compensated by the feds) to get into that box?
I think that as soon as you move this to a non-digital world, the silliness of Apple's position becomes apparent.
Not a good analogy. Will breaking opening the safety deposit box negatively affect the bank's business model, and erode earning per share due to compromised practices?
-
Not a good analogy. Will breaking opening the safety deposit box negatively affect the bank's business model, and erode earning per share due to compromised practices?
Well, using Jeff's analogy, the Feds should just hire a digital locksmith.
-
Not a good analogy. Will breaking opening the safety deposit box negatively affect the bank's business model, and erode earning per share due to compromised practices?
Yes. The bank promises their safe deposit holders privacy in what they put in there. By opening Bob's box, other box holders will see that their secrets could be revealed.
-
Well, using Jeff's analogy, the Feds should just hire a digital locksmith.
What happens now is that the police present the bank with a warrant for the contents of the box, the bank hires the locksmith.
-
Yes. The bank promises their safe deposit holders privacy in what they put in there. By opening Bob's box, other box holders will see that their secrets could be revealed.
People have known that could happen for decades. There are more secure places to put stuff. This is a 4th Amendment issue
-
Actually, yes. It was. It was an order for Apple to open this particular phone. They specifically asked for security bypass software hard-coded this this phone's serial number.
Not only do they have a search warrant, but they have the owner's permission, as it belongs to the terrorist's employer.
Ok, now you made me look this up.
Your assertion is what Josh Ernest is saying, but not what Tim Cook is saying.
This is from a letter written by Cook to Apple customers:
"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.
"Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.
"The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control."
http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
Absent seeing the actual subpoena, I trust Tim Cook far more than I trust the President's spokesturd.
-
People have known that could happen for decades. There are more secure places to put stuff. This is a 4th Amendment issue
How is this a 4th Amendment issue?
a) The feds have the permission of the device owner.
b) The feds have met the burden of probable cause, plus a helluva lot more
Here's the entire text of Amendment IV:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So, I have some questions for you:
Is it unreasonable to search the persons, houses papers and effects of someone who has committed multiple murders?
Is there a lack of probable cause? Was the warrant illegal in that it was issued without same? Is not a phone "particularly describ[ed as] the place to be searched"? Designating one particular phone, by serial number, is not particular enough? Do the feds now have to describe the individual memory address that they intend to search?
-
Ok, now you made me look this up.
Your assertion is what Josh Ernest is saying, but not what Tim Cook is saying.
...
Absent seeing the actual subpoena, I trust Tim Cook far more than I trust the President's spokesturd.
Here you go:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2714005/SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.pdf (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2714005/SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.pdf)
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=372.0;attach=75)
-
Page 2, line 17:
"The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE"
-
Page 2, line 17:
"The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE"
Once you create a backdoor, that doesn't currently exist, to overcome the most advanced security measures on their latest product, is it reasonable to assume that it can be limited to one single phone? I don't know about that, and it seems clear that Cook doubts that.
-
Wondering why the FBI doesn't just ask the NSA for all the phone number this phone called and the text of the conversations. 8)
-
Ok, now you made me look this up.
Your assertion is what Josh Ernest is saying, but not what Tim Cook is saying.
This is from a letter written by Cook to Apple customers:
"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.
"Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.
"The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control."
http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
Absent seeing the actual subpoena, I trust Tim Cook far more than I trust the President's spokesturd.
So basically, Apple and Tim Cook are saying they don't trust their employees at all. They're saying there is a high probability that if they commanded their software engineers to create an alternate iOS to accommodate the FBI, that one, or more of these employees would keep this code for themselves and spread it to the world. A sad state of affairs at Apple. Such is the dog eat dog, everyman for himself world of high tech software engineering I guess.
Somebody please explain to me why it is that Apple can't get a team of trusted engineers together, write this new iOS on secure machines where the work is contained, take the phone from the FBI to this secure facility, unlock the phone with an FBI agent present who is not a software engineer, dump all the data off the phone, then relock the phone with it's original iOS and hand the phone back to the FBI with the stored phone data on some other media? Apple then could wipe clean, or even destroy the machines that were used to make the unlock iOS if they think it's that big of a threat. Yes, a handful of engineers will know how it was done. Are software engineers so corrupt that they will certainly hand this knowledge off to the highest bidder??
And yes, Apple could be compensated for their expenses by the Federal Government. I bet if Tim Cook's kids were murdered by terrorists, he would shave no problem setting this up. What Apple is doing is forcing the FBI to hire their own software engineers to write the code. It might take a long time, but they would eventually get there and and then how secure is this forbidden knowledge?
-
What Apple is doing is forcing the FBI to hire their own software engineers to write the code. It might take a long time, but they would eventually get there and and then how secure is this forbidden knowledge?
No, the important thing here is the code signing. Apple has to apply a cryptographic signature to the code in order for the device to accept it. Only Apple can do that (absent years of computer time), and it's what they are flatly refusing to do.
They're taking a routine law enforcement situation and trying to make PR hay out of it.
-
Once you create a backdoor, that doesn't currently exist, to overcome the most advanced security measures on their latest product, is it reasonable to assume that it can be limited to one single phone? I don't know about that, and it seems clear that Cook doubts that.
Why do you assume that the FBI would shave to have possession of this new code? Unlock the phone for the FBI, dump the data off, relock the phone and hand the original locked phone and stored data on a memory card back to the FBI. The FBI never needs to have the new code, so they won't be going around unlocking everybody's phone.
-
Why do you assume that the FBI would shave to have possession of this new code? Unlock the phone for the FBI, dump the data off, relock the phone and hand the original locked phone and stored data on a memory card back to the FBI. The FBI never needs to have the new code, so they won't be going around unlocking everybody's phone.
FBI's not asking for Apple to unlock, just to disable the 10 tries and it wipes feature, and also the brute-force protections (so they can feed codes to the phone as fast as they can).
The court order is for the software to reside in RAM, so turn the phone off and poof, it's gone.
-
No, the important thing here is the code signing. Apple has to apply a cryptographic signature to the code in order for the device to accept it. Only Apple can do that (absent years of computer time), and it's what they are flatly refusing to do.
They're taking a routine law enforcement situation and trying to make PR hay out of it.
And that's what I'm saying, if the computer industry continues to stonewall, the FBI will take those years of computer time and figure this thing out. If Apple has this capability to unlock the phone, the FBI will figure it out for themselves eventually.
-
How is this a 4th Amendment issue?
a) The feds have the permission of the device owner.
b) The feds have met the burden of probable cause, plus a helluva lot more
Here's the entire text of Amendment IV:
So, I have some questions for you:
Is it unreasonable to search the persons, houses papers and effects of someone who has committed multiple murders?
Is there a lack of probable cause? Was the warrant illegal in that it was issued without same? Is not a phone "particularly describ[ed as] the place to be searched"? Designating one particular phone, by serial number, is not particular enough? Do the feds now have to describe the individual memory address that they intend to search?
Nowhere in the 4th A does it require a corporation to be complicit to compromises their security is exercising the rights established by said amendment.
-
And that's what I'm saying, if the computer industry continues to stonewall, the FBI will take those years of computer time and figure this thing out. If Apple has this capability to unlock the phone, the FBI will figure it out for themselves eventually.
And you can bet your sweet bippy that the NSA/FBI unlock code will not be limited to a single serial number. Apple is putting their customers privacy at more risk with their stonewalling.
-
Nowhere in the 4th A does it require a corporation to be complicit to compromises their security is exercising the rights established by said amendment.
Oh, so a bank can refuse to let the police with a warrant into their vault with safe deposit boxes in it then, right? Because opening that vault door "compromises their security". Good luck with that argument.
None of the bill of rights "require" any private entity or individual to do anything. They restrict what the government is permitted to do. Congress has enacted the All Writs Act to support executing court orders. So long as that Act does not violate the 4th Amendment, and in this case it most certainly does not, that Act can impose obligations on individuals and companies.
-
All I know is that douche bag, Edward Snowden reportedly supports Tim Cooks decision. Talk about a fucked up world! Here's a guy who loves to steal other people's secrets and share them with everybody on the planet saying that the terrorist's right to privacy must be held most sacrosanct. :o ::)
-
And you can bet your sweet bippy that the NSA/FBI unlock code will not be limited to a single serial number. Apple is putting their customers privacy at more risk with their stonewalling.
That was my point. Apple has the opportunity to control the process now.
-
Oh, so a bank can refuse to let the police with a warrant into their vault with safe deposit boxes in it then, right? Because opening that vault door "compromises their security". Good luck with that argument.
None of the bill of rights "require" any private entity or individual to do anything. They restrict what the government is permitted to do. Congress has enacted the All Writs Act to support executing court orders. So long as that Act does not violate the 4th Amendment, and in this case it most certainly does not, that Act can impose obligations on individuals and companies.
Then allow the FBI to continue to try and gather data from the iphone. If they fail, so be it.
-
Then allow the FBI to continue to try and gather data from the iphone. If they fail, so be it.
So, companies get to decide for themselves which constitutional laws and court orders they obey or don't? Cool!
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/02/17/the-centuries-old-law-the-government-wants-to-use-to-unlock-a-terrorists-iphone/
Let's not forget that the government wants access to all encrypted data and will likely do anything they can to get it. Nose under the tent and all.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2888193/nsa-director-wants-govt-access-to-encrypted-communications.html
http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/18/mccain-wants-legislation-mandating-government-access-to-encryption/
-
After all, if we have nothing to hide why should we object?
::)
-
If you have nothing to hide, and a valid search warrant is served on you, you are required to comply. There is absolutely no 4th Amendment implications of this matter.
-
If you have nothing to hide, and a valid search warrant is served on you, you are required to comply. There is absolutely no 4th Amendment implications of this matter.
One of the tech shows I watch said you cannot be forced to give up a password, since that would be self incrimination.
Surprisingly, the same does not hold true of a fingerprint-locked device - you can be compelled to unlock that.
Word to the wise.
-
If you have nothing to hide, and a valid search warrant is served on you, you are required to comply. There is absolutely no 4th Amendment implications of this matter.
No. You are 'ordered' to comply.
You can refuse, and experience the consequences as pursued by the FedGov, but you, and in fact any corporation (and by extension its' officers) have the ability to act in accordance with their conscience.
Freedom is hard.
'Gimp
-
I am of two minds on this topic. There is one side of the argument, that is completely valid, which says the court has the right order certain types of evidence to be collected (i guess you could say, mined for evidence).
That in and of itself sounds and feels perfectly righteous.
The there is the other side of the question, which puts Apple in the position of being ordered to surrender its work product, which is proprietary and costly to develop. Once the work product is compromised, nothing would stop the federal branch from exploiting the technical code and using it to further violate another of our few remaining areas of privacy.
That in of itself sounds perfectly reasonable for both reasons, but certainly it is hard for me to sign on to Apple being forced to give up its privately developed technical advantage.
It reminds me of Bill Clinton ordering weapon manufacturers to "share" guidance secrets with our enemies, in exchange for campaign 'donations.' It just fails in my eyes.
There is no way the federal government will stop at one phone. They will co-opt everything they get from Apple, and use it to peer inside the private lives of anyone they deem to be out of sync with the government agenda, including all of us. Of that I have no doubt, and because of it, I find myself siding against the court and with Apple.
-
This is not just Apple that is at stake, this is the entire digital industry and those that have a valid reason to protect proprietary encryption algorithms. Yes, this is akin to asking Apple to make a Master Key. They will NOT simply use it on this one device.
My first thought is that Apple could simply unlock the device and then turn over all data on it. Sounds simple, but then they advertised that certain portions of the phone (ie Apple Pay) are "unbreakable" even by Apple, who have a right to protect their market share and consumer confidence. You think they didn't reach out to Google, Blackberry and other device makers??? Darn skippy they (probably) did to fight this legal battle.
I think there is no real tangible value in the contents of the phone and the gov't warrant just wants a peek to justify their curiosity so they can claim they're doing it to protect us. There is no further value in prosecuting the couple with the phone, only to pre-suppose they are working to prevent other crimes, except the SCOTUS ruled that law enforcement has no duty in crime prevention. Can't have it both ways.
-
There's another factor here that makes this ruling more reasonable.
The "flaw" that is being exploited in this request no longer exists. The iPhone 5C that is at issue is the most recent model on which this can occur. From the 5s onward, the only way to load a new iOS version onto the phone is to enter the password first, making this exploit impossible. If our friendly terrorist had an iPhone 5s or iPhone 6, this wouldn't even be possible.
This is not some new vulnerability. It's an old well known one in security circles. It doesn't exist with current equipment.
-
I think that article is suspect. If you load a new iOS it wipes the data. The article I read said they wanted to bypass the wipe feature meant to prevent brute-force attacks. The feature wipes the phone after 10 unsuccessful attempts to enter the password. This will then allow the FBI to try all the 10,000 available numbers in a 4-digit sequence (if they used 4-digit password for example). The 10 tries, could be as low as 3 tries, giving an attacker less of an opportunity to break into the phone.
-
If you have nothing to hide, and a valid search warrant is served on you, you are required to comply. There is absolutely no 4th Amendment implications of this matter.
But this goes beyond compliance with a search warrant, doesn't it? It compels Apple to devote time, talent, intellectual property and money to decimate the security built into their devices by creating IP that today doesn't exist on behalf of FedGov, notwithstanding its stated goal of tracking terrorists.
This might be more of a 13th Amendment issue, as it smacks of involuntary servitude.
-
So, companies get to decide for themselves which constitutional laws and court orders they obey or don't? Cool!
Which constitutional law requires a company to expend their own manpower to provide a government agency with that they can design on their own? Let us not forget that Apple has not broken any law, nor is that implied.
-
Which constitutional law requires a company to expend their own manpower to provide a government agency with that they can design on their own? Let us not forget that Apple has not broken any law, nor is that implied.
The All Writs Act. Read the order. FedGov is also paying for their services.
-
All I know is that douche bag, Edward Snowden reportedly supports Tim Cooks decision. Talk about a fucked up world! Here's a guy who loves to steal other people's secrets and share them with everybody on the planet saying that the terrorist's right to privacy must be held most sacrosanct. :o ::)
What's your opinion of the "Patriot" Act?
-
What's your opinion of the "Patriot" Act?
I don't like it. I saw it as a way for Big Government to take advantage of a crisis and reduce our freedoms, and liberties. In addition it created DHS/TSA, and grew government vastly. Another huge bureaucracy to pay for, and be controlled by. I blame both the Republicans, and Democrats.
-
I just saw a headline that the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman is going to propose a bill that criminalizes a firm who will not decipher encrypted messages. Your move, Apple.
Edit: Article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-intel-committee-chairman-working-on-encryption-bill-1455832584
-
I just saw a headline that the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman is going to propose a bill that criminalizes a firm who will not decipher encrypted messages. Your move, Apple.
Edit: Article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-intel-committee-chairman-working-on-encryption-bill-1455832584
And in related news from the Capitol, a bill is working its way though House Homeland Security Committee that would criminalize citizens who refuse to open their doors and computers to federal, state, or local law enforcement official who deems it necessary in the interest of homeland security.
On the Senate side, the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism is drafting a bill making it a felony for members of the so-called Tea Party to appear in public without wearing a red "T" measuring a minimum of 4" high by 3" wide.
-
And in related news from the Capitol, a bill is working its way though House Homeland Security Committee that would criminalize citizens who refuse to open their doors and computers to federal, state, or local law enforcement official who deems it necessary in the interest of homeland security.
(http://www.bywayofbicycle.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/1984.jpg)
-
Good, informed discussion on Tech News Today #1451.
https://twit.tv/shows/tech-news-today/episodes/1451?autostart=false (https://twit.tv/shows/tech-news-today/episodes/1451?autostart=false)
-
I sure hope Apple sticks with this. Enough of trying to force companies to do the governments dirty work.
-
I sure hope Apple sticks with this. Enough of trying to force companies to do the governments dirty work.
you mean like being the tax collector?
-
you mean like being the tax collector?
Yes, that is just as shady. Let folks pay at the end of the year only...then they can see how we are getting screwed. Same with Apple---they do this crap and no doubt they will be forced into more under a safety guise.
-
OK, so let's just let people out of prison then, because we're sacrificing liberty, right?
What crimes has Apple committed? What crimes have you committed?
Just curious: Are there any circumstances where the feds should be able to execute a valid search warrant? Or would you bar locksmiths from assisting the feds in doing so?
Do you believe the government should be able to dictate companies spend resources to fulfill their wishes? Our privacy has been violated in extreme ways over the past 15 years. At what point would you say enough is enough? What gives the government the right to destroy the security agreement (say trust) between Apple and it's customers?
Once this "back door" is created, human nature suggests it will be sold to the highest bidder.
Again, Mr Franklin had it right. The "greater good" is bullshit in this context.
-
The All Writs Act. Read the order. FedGov is also paying for their services.
Thanks, Jeff. I'll do some reading.
-
All I know is, the terrorists of the world are all laughing their asses off and buying up iPhones right now. I have been an iPhone user for a long time now. I never knew my phone would become useless junk if I put the wrong password in 10 times. I guess if for some reason you forget your password, you have to just buy a new phone?? What happens when your little kid really wants to play the game on your phone and tries to get in by guessing passwords? You have to buy a new phone??
-
I never knew my phone would become useless junk if I put the wrong password in 10 times. I guess if for some reason you forget your password, you have to just buy a new phone?? What happens when your little kid really wants to play the game on your phone and tries to get in by guessing passwords? You have to buy a new phone??
Your lack of knowledge about how your device works does not an argument make.
-
I just saw a headline that the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman is going to propose a bill that criminalizes a firm who will not decipher encrypted messages. Your move, Apple.
Edit: Article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-intel-committee-chairman-working-on-encryption-bill-1455832584 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-intel-committee-chairman-working-on-encryption-bill-1455832584)
How do you enforce a crime statute on a corporation?
-
All I know is, the terrorists of the world are all laughing their asses off and buying up iPhones right now. I have been an iPhone user for a long time now. I never knew my phone would become useless junk if I put the wrong password in 10 times. I guess if for some reason you forget your password, you have to just buy a new phone?? What happens when your little kid really wants to play the game on your phone and tries to get in by guessing passwords? You have to buy a new phone??
Dave- it restores the device to factory by wiping all the data, settings, apps, etc.
-
John McAfee to the rescue........
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35611763?ocid=socialflow_twitter
-
John McAfee to the rescue........
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35611763?ocid=socialflow_twitter
Wow. McAfee is a Libertarian POTUS candidate? Wow. Good thing Guatemala or Beliz didn't accept his application for political asylum.
-
This will be interesting if the FBI takes him up on the offer.
-
All I know is, the terrorists of the world are all laughing their asses off and buying up iPhones right now. I have been an iPhone user for a long time now. I never knew my phone would become useless junk if I put the wrong password in 10 times. I guess if for some reason you forget your password, you have to just buy a new phone?? What happens when your little kid really wants to play the game on your phone and tries to get in by guessing passwords? You have to buy a new phone??
That completely misses the point. The government is demanding Apple provide a master key that can be used to see private information on everyone's phone. It's scumbag's phone now, but as we know from the recent IRS scandal, government officials are not immune from turning innocent, law abiding citizens into targets for various reasons....including their ideology.
This heavy handed nonsense needs to stop. Apple's stance is long overdue from corporate america. I'm hearing other companies are coalescing around Apple which is good to see. The NSA nonsense burned many of the tech companies. It's good to see they learned from that debacle.
-
And now Donald Trump is calling for a boycott of Apple unless and until they cooperate!
I assume he'd want to at least waterboard Tim Cook to get it done!
Heaven help us!
-
And now Donald Trump is calling for a boycott of Apple unless and until they cooperate!
I assume he'd want to at least waterboard Tim Cook to get it done!
Heaven help us!
I'm sure he'll say that he has standing to sue Apple because ... he saw someone on an iPhone once or something.
-
And now Donald Trump is calling for a boycott of Apple unless and until they cooperate!
I assume he'd want to at least waterboard Tim Cook to get it done!
Heaven help us!
I've tried to have an open mind about Trump, but if true, that makes him a non-starter for me. Adios Donald....
-
I've tried to have an open mind about Trump, but if true, that makes him a non-starter for me. Adios Donald....
I heard him say it on Neil Cavuto's 4PM show today. I'll see if I can find another source.
Here you go:
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-boycott-apple-2016-2 (http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-boycott-apple-2016-2)
From the horse's mouth:
-
I'm sure he has friends at Apple, he's worked with hundreds of people from Apple, they love him, he loves them ...
The Dems are collecting all these clips and could probably run a 90-minute ad filled only with them. The man is pathetic.
I am beginning to wonder if he is getting his support numbers from Democrats who just want EITHER Bernie or Hillary, so are throwing their votes behind this sure-to-lose gasbag.
-
I'm sure he has friends at Apple, he's worked with hundreds of people from Apple, they love him, he loves them ...
The Dems are collecting all these clips and could probably run a 90-minute ad filled only with them. The man is pathetic.
I am beginning to wonder if he is getting his support numbers from Democrats who just want EITHER Bernie or Hillary, so are throwing their votes behind this sure-to-lose gasbag.
Bingo. I hate crossover primary states.
-
He sounds like he wants to go after bystanders too.
In the clip, he says "I just thought of this" which means that he goes off half-cocked. Or maybe he's whole-cocked, which would make him a big....Richard.
-
All I know is, the terrorists of the world are all laughing their asses off and buying up iPhones right now. I have been an iPhone user for a long time now. I never knew my phone would become useless junk if I put the wrong password in 10 times. I guess if for some reason you forget your password, you have to just buy a new phone?? What happens when your little kid really wants to play the game on your phone and tries to get in by guessing passwords? You have to buy a new phone??
The data auto-erase security feature is turned on or off in the settings in ios9. Additionally, after several incorrect passcode attempts the system creates longer delays with each unsuccessful attempt ending up with, IIRC, an hour delay on the 9th attempt. So you really have nothing to worry about when it comes to little kids attempting to enter incorrect passcodes.
-
Your lack of knowledge about how your device works does not an argument make.
I'm not sure what argument you think I'm making with my ignorance?
-
Actually, yes. It was. It was an order for Apple to open this particular phone.
Yeah right... and I have a bridge you can buy.
-
Yeah right... and I have a bridge you can buy.
Well, if you're willing to take the Apple PR on one thing, why not another?
This controversy is pure PR hay made by Cook.
-
I'm not sure what argument you think I'm making with my ignorance?
Either was I!
All of the things you mentioned are things Apple put in place to make your device and data more secure, and they can easily be turned off completely if you so desire. It's only logical to have them ON by default.
In addition, there's iCloud backup. If and when your device fails or gets "bricked" by repeated attempts to unlock it, all your data is secure in the cloud and your current or new device can be easily restored with all your data intact. Or, you can create a backup on a home computer and encrypt that if you really need to.
Finally, I do believe the tech shows said the cloud backups mentioned above are not encrypted to the same level as a physical device, and could be the subject of a legitimate warrant.
-
Well, if you're willing to take the Apple PR on one thing, why not another?
This controversy is pure PR hay made by Cook.
I disagree. The Feds have been desirous of piercing digital privacy for a long time. When you get a chance look up the history of PGP, which is the genesis of modern user controlled cryptography. PGP gave them fits and it's still uncertain if the Government has put in a backdoor or not when the technology became commoditized.
Apple is taking a political stance for privacy the same the creator of PGP, Phil Zimmerman did. Slippery slope and all.
-
Allegedly insightful New Yorker article here:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/a-dangerous-all-writ-precedent-in-the-apple-case (http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/a-dangerous-all-writ-precedent-in-the-apple-case)
Have it marked to read later.
-
I will get to the article soon but I saw and had to post this
-
Excellent article FEB! It got my wheel turning. I called my Law Professor family member and discussed the possibility of an Intervention or Amicus brief (perhaps finding a consumer advocacy group to do so).
So just to establish something, my profession is related to what is going on here- I'm in the tech field and I think I'd like to make an argument that the tech industry has moved society to a digital trust of all data to include financial.
If Apple is forced to comply, my financial privacy is at risk as well as anyone that has embraced Near Field payment technology. There is no way Apple can put this Genie back in the bottle and they will set the privacy industry back to the Stone Age not only with the legal precedent but because of the lengths Apple will have to employ to subvert the multilayered security built into the device and the iOS, it's all subject to potential compromise.
I debate the value of discovery; the government would learn nothing new by cracking the devices security, lest it's saying the NSA doesn't have the call records, the carrier and ISPs don't have log history and the remaining from the iCloud backup. They are fishing so they can cast enlarge their search to affiliates and bystanders who most of which had nothing to do with San Bernardino. There is zero prosecutorial value in this with dead criminals.
So, with all that said- who would be interested in being a party to a 3rd party injunction as a unconsidered party - the consumer pool at large? Any lawyers on board that would be interested in writing it?
-
Just tuning into Sunday's "This Week In Tech".
They're teasing this topic with the title "Apple vs. the DOJ".
Usually informed debate on such topics, and this should be a relatively timely take.
-
It is an online podcast?
-
It is an online podcast?
I watch the video version via our AppleTV. There's also an audio-only version.
Just Google "This Week In Tech", or type in into the search window of your podcast aggregator.
Or just click here: https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech/episodes/550?autostart=false (https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech/episodes/550?autostart=false)
-
Interesting legal discussion of the issue:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/18/preliminary-thoughts-on-the-apple-iphone-order-in-the-san-bernardino-case-part-1/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/19/preliminary-thoughts-on-the-apple-iphone-order-in-the-san-bernardino-case-part-2-the-all-writs-act/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/20/has-apple-made-iphones-illegal-in-the-financial-industry/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/20/or-is-apple-happy-to-build-a-backdoor-as-long-as-it-makes-money-from-it/
-
Good summary in FAQ format from CNET:
http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-versus-the-fbi-why-the-lowest-priced-iphone-has-the-us-in-a-tizzy-faq/ (http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-versus-the-fbi-why-the-lowest-priced-iphone-has-the-us-in-a-tizzy-faq/)
-
The current IOS uses AES-256 encryption, and has since v8.0. The threat from cyber criminals is growing like crazy. The security on the phones is partially why most of the identity hacks don't come through the phones. Prior to v8 there was a back door that Apple used in the 70 cases.the users wanted a more security so they made it sold it and now it's in the wild. Good, I'm tiered of being hacked.
The current security can't be cracked by Apple or anyone else.
Apple is being cohersively deputized to create a new operating system with a back donor and install it on this one phone so it can be cracked. They promise it will never be used again. Their history makes me shutter. Trust?
And remember, 70% of these phones are sold around the world. China WILL issue a similar court order. Trust them too?
We need more security, not less until the cyber criminals are all gone....
-
We need more security, not less until the cyber criminals are all gone....
And that will never, ever happen. They will be with us as long as there is a "cyber", or the human animal still continues to prey on itself.
However, I still need some clarification. If I understand it correctly, the FBI and the DOJ is demanding Apple unlock one phone and not supply the FBI with a new kit of software that they can use wherever they want. Is this wrong? If I'm right, basically Tim Cook doesn't trust any of his employees to not let this secret knowledge, knowledge that people seem to be treating like atomic bomb secrets, out to the wide world. If so, that is a seriously sad commentary on our society, Silicone Valley, and humanity in general.
I also get that if they do it once, the FBI will be back again and again. However, the requirement for a judicial review before the orders are given is good enough for me. People get so wrapped up in protecting their naked selfies, gossip, grousing about the government, cheating texts and god knows what else that they forget there are some very bad people out there that our law enforcement is expected to catch before they act. To do this they need intel. A captured phone of a known perpetrator is exactly where this kind of intel comes from.
Once upon a time, maybe 15 years ago, phones were easy to crack into and everybody was OK with it. What has changed?? Is the world in general that much more evil?
-
And that will never, ever happen. They will be with us as long as there is a "cyber", or the human animal still continues to prey on itself.
However, I still need some clarification. If I understand it correctly, the FBI and the DOJ is demanding Apple unlock one phone and not supply the FBI with a new kit of software that they can use wherever they want. Is this wrong? If I'm right, basically Tim Cook doesn't trust any of his employees to not let this secret knowledge, knowledge that people seem to be treating like atomic bomb secrets, out to the wide world. If so, that is a seriously sad commentary on our society, Silicone Valley, and humanity in general.
I also get that if they do it once, the FBI will be back again and again. However, the requirement for a judicial review before the orders are given is good enough for me. People get so wrapped up in protecting their naked selfies, gossip, grousing about the government, cheating texts and god knows what else that they forget there are some very bad people out there that our law enforcement is expected to catch before they act. To do this they need intel. A captured phone of a known perpetrator is exactly where this kind of intel comes from.
Once upon a time, maybe 15 years ago, phones were easy to crack into and everybody was OK with it. What has changed?? Is the world in general that much more evil?
If they unlock that ONE phone it provides a key to EVERY phone. THAT is why Apple is resisting.
-
And that will never, ever happen. They will be with us as long as there is a "cyber", or the human animal still continues to prey on itself.
However, I still need some clarification. If I understand it correctly, the FBI and the DOJ is demanding Apple unlock one phone and not supply the FBI with a new kit of software that they can use wherever they want. Is this wrong? If I'm right, basically Tim Cook doesn't trust any of his employees to not let this secret knowledge, knowledge that people seem to be treating like atomic bomb secrets, out to the wide world. If so, that is a seriously sad commentary on our society, Silicone Valley, and humanity in general.
I also get that if they do it once, the FBI will be back again and again. However, the requirement for a judicial review before the orders are given is good enough for me. People get so wrapped up in protecting their naked selfies, gossip, grousing about the government, cheating texts and god knows what else that they forget there are some very bad people out there that our law enforcement is expected to catch before they act. To do this they need intel. A captured phone of a known perpetrator is exactly where this kind of intel comes from.
Once upon a time, maybe 15 years ago, phones were easy to crack into and everybody was OK with it. What has changed?? Is the world in general that much more evil?
The government is free to try to crack it. They're just too unskilled or lazy to do it themselves.
Yet they want us to think that the NSA metadata snooping is easy as 1-2-3.
-
If they unlock that ONE phone it provides a key to EVERY phone. THAT is why Apple is resisting.
I get that, but who owns, or controls the key? Apple, or the FBI, and could not the key be destroyed after it''s one time use?
-
I get that, but who owns, or controls the key? Apple, or the FBI, and could not the key be destroyed after it''s one time use?
I doubt it. So what happens when the FBI comes to Apple to break iPhone #2? And #3? Do you think Apple will be rewriting code 3 different times?
-
I get that, but who owns, or controls the key? Apple, or the FBI, and could not the key be destroyed after it''s one time use?
The owner had the key, but changed it and now doesn't seem to know what they changed it to.
Neither Apple or the FBI have a "key"
-
And that will never, ever happen. They will be with us as long as there is a "cyber", or the human animal still continues to prey on itself.
However, I still need some clarification. If I understand it correctly, the FBI and the DOJ is demanding Apple unlock one phone and not supply the FBI with a new kit of software that they can use wherever they want. Is this wrong? If I'm right, basically Tim Cook doesn't trust any of his employees to not let this secret knowledge, knowledge that people seem to be treating like atomic bomb secrets, out to the wide world. If so, that is a seriously sad commentary on our society, Silicone Valley, and humanity in general.
I also get that if they do it once, the FBI will be back again and again. However, the requirement for a judicial review before the orders are given is good enough for me. People get so wrapped up in protecting their naked selfies, gossip, grousing about the government, cheating texts and god knows what else that they forget there are some very bad people out there that our law enforcement is expected to catch before they act. To do this they need intel. A captured phone of a known perpetrator is exactly where this kind of intel comes from.
Once upon a time, maybe 15 years ago, phones were easy to crack into and everybody was OK with it. What has changed?? Is the world in general that much more evil?
Really, 2/3 of these phones are sold overseas. A proper judicial review in China according to their laws is what worries me. Not clear why you would be comfortable with that. This is a global issue and back doors are not in our interests.
-
If they unlock that ONE phone it provides a key to EVERY phone. THAT is why Apple is resisting.
...and why they should resist at all costs.
I find it very interesting that Bill Gates comes down on the side of acquiescence.... His porous, insecure POS operating system has been inferior for years, but survives simply because of it's huge installed base.
Apple is a global company that should not be doing the bidding of incompetent governments. Their shareholders did not invest to serve at the whim any government.