Apple v. FBI

[iacas]

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

Thoughts?

Basically, the FBI wants Apple to hack its own product (by creating a new version of iOS) and Apple is refusing to do so for reasons stated at the URL above. The iPhone (a 5C) belonged to one of the dead San Bernardino terrorists.

I - along with the EFF and ACLU - support Apple in this and think that the FBI is once again reaching and attempting to use PR to set a precedent that will make it substantially easier to subvert privacy.

[nevets88]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

Thoughts?

Basically, the FBI wants Apple to hack its own product (by creating a new version of iOS) and Apple is refusing to do so for reasons stated at the URL above. The iPhone (a 5C) belonged to one of the dead San Bernardino terrorists.

I - along with the EFF and ACLU - support Apple in this and think that the FBI is once again reaching and attempting to use PR to set a precedent that will make it substantially easier to subvert privacy.

I'm on Apple's side on this, very slippery slope here. What I've been reading:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/18/why-you-should-side-with-apple-not-the-fbi-in-the-san-bernardino-iphone-case/

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/san-bernardino-shooter-apple-iphone-encryption-technology

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-iphone-encryption-ted-lieu-fbi-court-order/

https://tidbits.com/article/16210#.VqBNGn5GsCI.twitter

 

[jamo]

I'm sympathetic to the cause of catching terrorists, but firmly on Apple's side. 

[nevets88]

1 minute ago, jamo said:

I'm sympathetic to the cause of catching terrorists, but firmly on Apple's side. 

Quote

Today I walked by a television showing CNN. The sound was off, but I saw an aerial scene which I presume was from San Bernardino, and the words "Apple privacy vs. national security." If that's the framing, we lose. I would have preferred to see "National security vs. FBI access."

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/02/judge_demands_t.html

[No Mulligans]

How is this different than a warrant that allows the FBI to search through a house and file cabinets and listen voicemails and look at emails etc.?  It seems that the law already allows this by extension of current laws.

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

How is this different than a warrant that allows the FBI to search through a house and file cabinets and listen voicemails and look at emails etc.?  It seems that the law already allows this by extension of current laws.

No. It's not really the same type of thing at all.

The FBI is welcome to search what they can on the phone. That's well within their legal rights to do so at this point.

That's not what they're asking, though.

[boogielicious]

Doesn't the FBI already have access to the meta data from the service provide? They know the numbers the phone called. Not sure what else they want. The phone doesn't store calls. Maybe texts?

[Jeremie Boop]

I understand the hesitancy, but at the same time not helping the FBI to access the information just is hard to get behind... 

[iacas]

Just now, boogielicious said:

Doesn't the FBI already have access to the meta data from the service provide? They know the numbers the phone called. Not sure what else they want. The phone doesn't store calls. Maybe texts?

Texts they could get from telecom. iMessages I think they could get by hacking the iCloud account (like the celeb nude selfies).

Just now, Jeremie Boop said:

I understand the hesitancy, but at the same time not helping the FBI to access the information just is hard to get behind... 

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I don't think it's hard to get behind. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here - you may not know what this actually requires Apple to do.

[cipher]

I am opposed to what the FBI is trying to do here.  It sounds like Apple has cooperated with the information held on their end, as they should.  For them to build a back door into every phone would open up all kinds of liability to them and their customers.  I hope they can defeat this.

 

Quote

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.

 

[Jeremie Boop]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

Texts they could get from telecom. iMessages I think they could get by hacking the iCloud account (like the celeb nude selfies).

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I don't think it's hard to get behind. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here - you may not know what this actually requires Apple to do.

Locked phone = essential liberty? Really is this much different than having a computer locked with possible information on it. There are all sorts of ways to get into locked/secured information on computers. Like I said, I understand the hesitancy to do this, the possibility of the tool or whatnot getting out. I was actually a little surprised that Apple didn't already have a way to get into a phone if necessary. 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Locked phone = essential liberty?

Liberty is liberty. It comes in many forms. Why do you get to draw the line?

2 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Really is this much different than having a computer locked with possible information on it.

It is.

2 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

There are all sorts of ways to get into locked/secured information on computers.

And nobody is saying the FBI is not allowed to try all of those methods.

2 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I was actually a little surprised that Apple didn't already have a way to get into a phone if necessary. 

Then you don't understand Apple very well. Or the EFF. Or the ACLU.

Did you read the URL I linked to?

[Jeremie Boop]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

Liberty is liberty. It comes in many forms. Why do you get to draw the line?

It is.

And nobody is saying the FBI is not allowed to try all of those methods.

Then you don't understand Apple very well. Or the EFF. Or the ACLU.

Did you read the URL I linked to?

I did not read the link. I read through something earlier today about how it would require Apple to write a whole new version of iOS or something. I was originally surprised, because you are correct, I don't know Apple very well, or the EFF. However, I don't really see how information on a cell phone is all that much different from information on a computer. To me an electronic storage device is the same as any other. Generally speaking, I've never much been one to worry about anyone going through my stuff, which I guess is why I feel how I do about this subject. Basically, what this essentially is going to show is, if you want to keep something out of the hands of the FBI or law enforcement keep it on an iPhone. I'm not saying that Apple should give in, because I do believe they have every right to refuse to do what's being asked. I just don't necessarily think I'd refuse if I was the one in charge. Which, I'm sure, many of you are quite happy about. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Jeremie Boop

[No Mulligans]

18 minutes ago, iacas said:

Liberty is liberty. It comes in many forms. Why do you get to draw the line?

In my opinion, liberty shouldn't be absolute.  Should citizens have the liberty to own and operate a fully loaded F-18 hornet, weapons and all?  A line has been drawn and theoretically it is the citizens that draw that line.  So, yes, @Jeremie Boop does get to take part in where to draw the line.

And I consider myself a libertarian.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I did not read the link. I read through something earlier today about how it would require Apple to write a whole new version of iOS or something. I was originally surprised, because you are correct, I don't know Apple very well, or the EFF. However, I don't really see how information on a cell phone is all that much different from information on a computer.

That has nothing to do with it.

And an iPhone is a computer.

2 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

To me an electronic storage device is the same as any other. Generally speaking, I've never much been one to worry about anyone going through my stuff, which I guess is why I feel how I do about this subject.

So the quote still applies: you're willing to give up essential liberties (like your own privacy) for safety. That hasn't worked out very well for people. Governments always seem to reach and take as much power as they can, and these checks and balances are important.

It's not even necessarily about that, though, because in committing the terrorist acts, the terrorists gave up their rights. Apple, however, did not, nor should Apple be forced to create a back-door to their own product.

2 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Basically, what this essentially is going to show is, if you want to keep something out of the hands of the FBI or law enforcement keep it on an iPhone.

If you want to keep something out of the hands of the FBI, there are way better ways to do it than putting it on your iPhone. Like… don't write it down. Don't store it anywhere.

This case isn't about that.

Just now, No Mulligans said:

In my opinion, liberty shouldn't be absolute as your statement implies.  Should citizens have the liberty to own and operate a fully loaded F-18 hornets, weapons and all?  A line has been drawn and theoretically it is the citizens that draw that line.  So, yes, @Jeremie Boop does get to take part in where to draw the line.

He doesn't get to draw it for everyone. He doesn't even get to draw it for himself because he has to follow the laws everyone else has to follow, too.

And again, Apple didn't commit the terrorist acts.

Quote

“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,” the company declared. “But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create… 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 is asking Apple to create something which is dangerous, compromises the privacy of ALL users, and which does not exist right now (for those very reasons).

[No Mulligans]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

He doesn't get to draw it for everyone. He doesn't even get to draw it for himself because he has to follow the laws everyone else has to follow, too.

As I said, "theoretically"... "he gets to take part in where to draw the line"... by voting, by writing his representatives etc.

I didn't say or imply he single handily can draw the line for everyone.  And, he has not done so anymore than you in this thread, neither of you have by expressing opinions.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, No Mulligans said:

As I said, "theoretically"... "he gets to take part in where to draw the line"... by voting, by writing his representatives etc.

I didn't say or imply he single handily can draw the line for everyone.  And, he has not done so anymore than you in this thread, neither of you have by expressing opinions.

Okay, anyway, back to the actual topic…

Quote

“If you allow people to be conscripted in this way, as investigative arms of the government,” Julian Sanchez observes, “not just to turn over data, but to help extract data, where the only connection to a case is that they wrote some software the suspect used or made a device the suspect used, you're effectively saying that companies are going to have to start a sideline in helping the government with surveillance.” He adds: “Do we want to accept that courts may compel any software developer, any technology manufacturer, to become a forensic investigator for the government, whether or not the investigation is intrinsically legitimate?"

 

[Jeremie Boop]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

That has nothing to do with it.

And an iPhone is a computer.

So the quote still applies: you're willing to give up essential liberties (like your own privacy) for safety. That hasn't worked out very well for people. Governments always seem to reach and take as much power as they can, and these checks and balances are important.

It's not even necessarily about that, though, because in committing the terrorist acts, the terrorists gave up their rights. Apple, however, did not, nor should Apple be forced to create a back-door to their own product.

If you want to keep something out of the hands of the FBI, there are way better ways to do it than putting it on your iPhone. Like… don't write it down. Don't store it anywhere.

This case isn't about that.

He doesn't get to draw it for everyone. He doesn't even get to draw it for himself because he has to follow the laws everyone else has to follow, too.

And again, Apple didn't commit the terrorist acts.

 

The FBI is asking Apple to create something which is dangerous, compromises the privacy of ALL users, and which does not exist right now (for those very reasons).

And I specifically said they have every right to refuse to do so. Just because I don't necessarily agree with them doesn't mean I think they should be forced to do it.