Apple v. FBI

[turtleback]

14 hours ago, inthehole said:

I'm late to the party ... Bottom line is that I have NOTHING that I consider private enough that I wouldn't give permission to the govt to see if it could be applied to subvert terrorism.   I'm not a terrorist so I have nothing to hide.      I consider terrorism that much of a threat, that I'm willing to lose some personal privacy.   I support the FBI and apples thumbing its nose will likely affect my decision to buy their products in the future 

Well, good news bad news.  The bad news is that someone in gov't has decided that you are a terror threat and therefore you are stripped of all of your rights.

The good news is that the weather at Guantanamo is lovely this time of year.

I think YOU are about whom Benjamin Franklin was talking.

[k-troop]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

Well, good news bad news.  The bad news is that someone in gov't has decided that you are a terror threat and therefore you are stripped of all of your rights.

The good news is that the weather at Guantanamo is lovely this time of year.

I think YOU are about whom Benjamin Franklin was talking.

Little harsh, no?  And US Citizens cannot be sent to Guantanamo, so the rest of your argument is deemed void due to your inaccurate interpretation of USG policy.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, inthehole said:

I think what rubs a lot of people wrong is as a US based company, Apple SHOULD want to help the govt develop a method to assist in terrorism or other criminal mitigation on their product, rather than being an obstruction.   Listen, if this type of search is protected by the issuance of a warrant through due process, what's the problem with providing the govt with a tool that can be used to attain lawful information obtained via warrant ?

Apple is an international company.

26 minutes ago, k-troop said:

Little harsh, no?  And US Citizens cannot be sent to Guantanamo, so the rest of your argument is deemed void due to your inaccurate interpretation of USG policy.

I think his point still stands.

[inthehole]

7 hours ago, iacas said:

Apple is an international company.

I think his point still stands.

So we're inferring the govt is going to fabricate an elaborate plot that I'm a terror threat from information on my phone that i know does not exist. ... lol - ok, when the govt starts going to that kind of trouble to incarcerate law abiding citizens intentionally, I'll start worrying about it.    In the meantime, the Feds can have my cell phone ... And I'll even give them my password.     Any law abiding citizen SHOULD feel the same in the interest of subverting terrorism

[newtogolf]

14 minutes ago, inthehole said:

So we're inferring the govt is going to fabricate an elaborate plot that I'm a terror threat from information on my phone that i know does not exist. ... lol - ok, when the govt starts going to that kind of trouble to incarcerate law abiding citizens intentionally, I'll start worrying about it.    In the meantime, the Feds can have my cell phone ... And I'll even give them my password.     Any law abiding citizen SHOULD feel the same in the interest of subverting terrorism

That's exactly what they want you to say and do.  Scare us to the point we will forfeit all our rights in the name of protecting us from terrorists.  That is until they begin to infringe more and more on our basic rights but then it will be too late because we already forfeited all our rights.  

Our forefathers went to great lengths to secure our independence and put a document in place that ensures our rights and protection from a government that forgets they are there to serve the people not control them.  

Your willingness to hand over those rights that men in our military still die for trying to protect is shortsighted and naive, because without those rights we're no better off than those who live under the reign of dictators.  

[inthehole]

Well you know what, you & I have a whole lot different opinion of the threat of terrorism - I lost people at 9/11 and it's still fresh in my mind.   You will never convince me that giving the govt my f-ing cell phone privacy in the interest of subverting terrorist subhuman POS assholes isn't a small price to pay.   People like you take terrorism far too lightly and have very short memories ...

[newtogolf]

Just now, inthehole said:

Well you know what, you & I have a whole lot different opinion of the threat of terrorism - I lost people at 9/11 and it's still fresh in my mind.   You will never convince me that giving the govt my f-ing cell phone privacy in the interest of subverting terrorist subhuman POS assholes isn't a small price to pay.   People like you take terrorism far too lightly and have very short memories ...

I'm sorry for your loss, I also lost some good friends in the World Trade Center.  I don't take terrorism lightly, I just take my rights as a US citizen more seriously.  

[iacas]

8 hours ago, inthehole said:

Well you know what, you & I have a whole lot different opinion of the threat of terrorism - I lost people at 9/11 and it's still fresh in my mind.   You will never convince me that giving the govt my f-ing cell phone privacy in the interest of subverting terrorist subhuman POS assholes isn't a small price to pay.   People like you take terrorism far too lightly and have very short memories ...

You're being shortsighted in two ways:

1. That it is only the US government.

2. That it is just governments.

Do you want a hacker to get access to your cell phone? Do you want a "terrorist" to get access to a US government official's phone?

This goes beyond this one case. Also,  The odds of anything at all useful existing on the guy's work phone are slim to none.

[nevets88]

52 minutes ago, iacas said:

You're being shortsighted in two ways:

1. That it is only the US government.

2. That it is just governments.

Do you want a hacker to get access to your cell phone? Do you want a "terrorist" to get access to a US government official's phone?

This goes beyond this one case. Also,  The odds of anything at all useful existing on the guy's work phone are slim to none.

Exactly! I wonder why I don't see this point bought up more often. The very exact thing can be turned around and used for nefarious purposes.

[iacas]

@inthehole I don't particularly or entirely agree with the way it's worded, but another way of looking at the war on terror is that if as a result Americans are coaxed into giving up their liberties and freedoms, "the terrorists have won."

The US was founded on certain principles. I'd like to see those remain.

[Big Lex]

I still am not sure I completely understand all the details here, but I think one link mentioned that the court order specified Apple had the right to destroy the software back door immediately after using it on the suspect's phone(s). So let's say Apple furnished the FBI with the "back door," and then exercises their right to destroy the software back door they created.

In this scenario, does it mean that the ONLY phone that would have been cracked would be the phone(s) in question, the terrorist suspects' phones?

Or would the creation of this back door be somehow permanent in some way?

If the back door is not permanent, but is a one-off thing that Apple has complete control of, and compromises ONLY the security of ONE phone (or all the phoneS in question), how does this threaten the privacy of the rest of us?

Obviously there is the precedent set....if the government can make them do it once, they can conceivably make them do it again and again. But how, as iacas hints, does the back door open the risk that, for example, the back door finds its way into the hands of terrorists? Is it not possible for Apple to completely control the creation and lifespan of the back door?

 

 

[krupa]

2 hours ago, Big Lex said:

Is it not possible for Apple to completely control the creation and lifespan of the back door?

 

 

The only way for that to really work is to do the development on a computer that is not and has never ever  been connected to a network.  Only one person can develop the backdoor and he better know how to keep his mouth shut... and he dies immediately after doing the work.  But keep in mind that the virus (conficker or stuxnet, can't remember which) that messed up Iranian nuclear centrifuges made their way onto "air gapped" computers.  There is always a way.

In reality, there's no way to guarantee that the hack wouldn't get public.  Defenders need to be successful 100% of the time; attackers only need to be successful once.  Who do you think wins?

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, krupa said:

The only way for that to really work is to do the development on a computer that is not and has never ever  been connected to a network.  Only one person can develop the backdoor and he better know how to keep his mouth shut... and he dies immediately after doing the work.  But keep in mind that the virus (conficker or stuxnet, can't remember which) that messed up Iranian nuclear centrifuges made their way onto "air gapped" computers.  There is always a way.

In reality, there's no way to guarantee that the hack wouldn't get public.  Defenders need to be successful 100% of the time; attackers only need to be successful once.  Who do you think wins?

In addition to all of that, it will set a precedent that severely undermines the ability of not just Apple but any device manufacturer who encrypts data. And not just in this country, but in China, Russia, Korea… and anywhere else Apple and other devices are made and sold. What's to stop China from saying "hey, Apple, unlock this device please, our courts compel you to do so just like the U.S. courts"? And what's to say we also will trust the Chinese government that it's not a stolen U.S. CIA spy's phone, or a Russian diplomat's phone, or something like that?

[k-troop]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

What's to stop China from saying "hey, Apple, unlock this device please, our courts compel you to do so just like the U.S. courts"?

FBI says this has already happened.  Apple denies.

[krupa]

Here's an interesting paper about privacy and the "I've got nothing to hide" argument.

NothingToHide.pdf

[nevets88]

Last Week Tonight - Encryption

 

[saevel25]

John Oliver's take,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsjZ2r9Ygzw

This is why going into a decision like this with ignorance backed by illogical emotion is idiotic.

[boogielicious]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

John Oliver's take,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsjZ2r9Ygzw

This is why going into a decision like this with ignorance backed by illogical emotion is idiotic.

Steve beat you to it!