Apple v. FBI

[nevets88]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

Well, that's not really breaking in then.

Set an alphanumeric passcode, people. Though if they can get your thumb even that won't be necessary.

I've been using a long alpha numeric for a long time. And my password manager is one of my most used apps. And I 2FA almost everything I can and I use Google Authenticator as well. Also, one of the benefits of knowing another language helps in making/remembering passwords. Once you get used to these things, it's not really that much extra effort.

[turtleback]

On 3/10/2016 at 9:51 PM, 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 ...

Too many people have either never known or forgotten the lessons of history.  Tyranny is a far greater threat, throughout history, than terrorism.  Ginning up irrational fears, whether against Jews, Communists, Fascists, blacks, Chinese, Catholics,  Protestants, etc., has been a primary tool of governments and government-wannabees for millennia.  The only way to stop terrorism is to keep killing terrorists until they give up.  

The good thing about this is the next time the FBI tries to bully a company like this they are open to the charge of crying wolf, since they claimed the only way they could get the info is if Apple broke their own security and then they managed to do it another way (or they are just lying about having cracked the phone as their way of backing down).  Either way, this looks like a win for Apple and liberty.

 

[jsgolfer]

On 3/29/2016 at 2:22 PM, boogielicious said:

I need to send this to my IT department.

I should as well.

[bogdan101]

This reminds me to buy the correct horse batteries next time I go to Staples.

[k-troop]

2 hours ago, turtleback said:

 The only way to stop terrorism is to keep killing terrorists until they give up.

I'm not sure how this sentence relates to the rest of your post, but it is patently false.  If (and that's a tough if) you could somehow kill ALL of them, then maybe.  But "kill a lot" ---> "they give up" has been disproved time and again since we began studying insurgencies.

[inthehole]

On ‎3‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 0:41 PM, turtleback said:

Too many people have either never known or forgotten the lessons of history.  Tyranny is a far greater threat, throughout history, than terrorism.  Ginning up irrational fears, whether against Jews, Communists, Fascists, blacks, Chinese, Catholics,  Protestants, etc., has been a primary tool of governments and government-wannabees for millennia.  The only way to stop terrorism is to keep killing terrorists until they give up.  

The good thing about this is the next time the FBI tries to bully a company like this they are open to the charge of crying wolf, since they claimed the only way they could get the info is if Apple broke their own security and then they managed to do it another way (or they are just lying about having cracked the phone as their way of backing down).  Either way, this looks like a win for Apple and liberty.

 

disagree completely.    It's a cell phone.   I don't consider a cell phone that valuable and why it needs to be THAT private.    I do consider stopping terrorists at any cost of the utmost value.

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, inthehole said:

disagree completely.    It's a cell phone.   I don't consider a cell phone that valuable and why it needs to be THAT private.    I do consider stopping terrorists at any cost of the utmost value.

You might not keep personal contacts, use bank, credit card or insurance apps on your phone or store personal data on your cell phone but many people do.  This isn't about having having something to hide it's about your right as a citizen of this country to privacy.  The Apple case was also about your cell phone being secure so that hackers, identity thieves and other unscrupulous people can't access that data.  There is no such thing as a "back door" that only the government can access.  

As for terrorism, most information that is useful to the government can be accessed in other ways, phone records, text messages e-mail messages, etc.  There's no need for the government to have back doors into our cell phones except in very extreme circumstances.  

[jsgolfer]

1 hour ago, inthehole said:

disagree completely.    It's a cell phone.   I don't consider a cell phone that valuable and why it needs to be THAT private.    I do consider stopping terrorists at any cost of the utmost value.

At any cost?

So you'd be good with a curfew? How about security checkpoints asking for your papers that allow you to travel outside of your state or your current locality.  Or how about we suspend the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, these things get in the way of the government going after the bad guys.  So what are you really willing to give up for this perceived security?

It may just be a cell phone now, but whose to say that someone won't make the case that we need to stop terrorism at any cost, so all freedoms should be curtailed.  Can't protect the people from the terrorist bogeyman if they are running around free in the streets and they have rights.  And if you're good with curtailing freedoms for so-called security, at some point then you have to be willing to let the government do this by force (usually at the end of gun barrel) and bad things can happen if this occurs.  And the government, in their infinite wisdom, has never made any mistakes or used their authority to go after people they don't like. 

So I will politely disagree that stopping terrorists at any cost is a good idea. 

  

[iacas]

12 hours ago, inthehole said:

disagree completely.    It's a cell phone.   I don't consider a cell phone that valuable and why it needs to be THAT private.    I do consider stopping terrorists at any cost of the utmost value.

That's a ridiculous thing to say. Your posts have been refuted and responded to time and time again, and yet you stick with the hard line ridiculous position that "anything to thwart terrorism is worth the cost." No, it's not.

Others said it a bit more politely, but I guarantee they're thinking similar things: you don't give up essential liberties or freedoms or whatever just because it might affect a small fraction. Doing that is letting the terrorists win.

[k-troop]

They also win when people die on the streets of the USA. @newtogolf mentioned in the POTUS election thread that terrorism is a problem. But IS is losing in Syria. The only place they're gaining victories is in democratic countries. What's the acceptable cost of fighting terrorism?

[newtogolf]

23 hours ago, k-troop said:

They also win when people die on the streets of the USA. @newtogolf mentioned in the POTUS election thread that terrorism is a problem. But IS is losing in Syria. The only place they're gaining victories is in democratic countries. What's the acceptable cost of fighting terrorism?

Proper screening of immigrants and refugees to ensure those entering the country are not terrorists would be a good start but that currently is deemed to be politically incorrect.  

Seems the preferred method of those in power today would be to weaken US citizens rights to privacy and illegal search and seizure so no one feels singled out or picked on?  

[k-troop]

6 hours ago, newtogolf said:

Proper screening of immigrants and refugees to ensure those entering the country are not terrorists would be a good start but that currently is deemed to be politically incorrect.  

Seems the preferred method of those in power today would be to weaken US citizens rights to privacy and illegal search and seizure.  

I'm not familiar with the rampant illegal search and seizure.

[inthehole]

On ‎4‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 11:23 PM, iacas said:

That's a ridiculous thing to say. Your posts have been refuted and responded to time and time again, and yet you stick with the hard line ridiculous position that "anything to thwart terrorism is worth the cost." No, it's not.

Others said it a bit more politely, but I guarantee they're thinking similar things: you don't give up essential liberties or freedoms or whatever just because it might affect a small fraction. Doing that is letting the terrorists win.

OK then ... as I lift my head up from this dogpile - can I make a prediction ?

There WILL eventually be a terrorist event in the USA that will make 9-11 look like a firecracker.  

Will we look back at the aftermath & say ... I wonder if this could have been prevented if we gave the government the complete inventory of tools it wanted all along to prevent this type of act ?     I'm thinking there will be a collective about face on this issue then, and only then ... but then it will be too late

[newtogolf]

On 4/3/2016 at 5:37 AM, k-troop said:

I'm not familiar with the rampant illegal search and seizure.

Read local newspapers, the police more so than the Federal government perform illegal searches on a daily basis.  I fully support law enforcement but even they have begun to encroach on citizens rights, especially those who aren't as aware of them as they should be.  

1 hour ago, inthehole said:

OK then ... as I lift my head up from this dogpile - can I make a prediction ?

There WILL eventually be a terrorist event in the USA that will make 9-11 look like a firecracker.  

Will we look back at the aftermath & say ... I wonder if this could have been prevented if we gave the government the complete inventory of tools it wanted all along to prevent this type of act ?     I'm thinking there will be a collective about face on this issue then, and only then ... but then it will be too late

Exactly how do you think they got the Homeland Security Act passed and began to trample on our rights, fear after 9-11.  Our government has gotten very good at using tragedies to increase their powers regarding our privacy and guns.  After almost every tragedy in this country that involved a gun the government (Obama) has made the attempt to weaken or eliminate the 2nd Amendment.  

Fear is not a good enough reason to forfeit individual rights.  If you don't value those rights there are plenty of countries you can choose from if that makes you feel safer.  

[inthehole]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

Fear is not a good enough reason to forfeit individual rights.

With regard to terrorism knocking down our door in the future, I don't consider it fear at all, I consider it a certainty.   Which if the government isn't given all resources needed, will become inevitable.   To me, it's more of preparedness mindset than fear.

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, inthehole said:

With regard to terrorism knocking down our door in the future, I don't consider it fear at all, I consider it an inevitable certainty.  

I agree, we're a huge target for ISIS, where we disagree is that I don't think sacrificing our personal privacy is going to prevent it.  Cell phones in 2001 were still pretty limited in terms of functionality.  

[iacas]

4 hours ago, inthehole said:

OK then ... as I lift my head up from this dogpile - can I make a prediction ?

There WILL eventually be a terrorist event in the USA that will make 9-11 look like a firecracker.  

Will we look back at the aftermath & say ... I wonder if this could have been prevented if we gave the government the complete inventory of tools it wanted all along to prevent this type of act ?     I'm thinking there will be a collective about face on this issue then, and only then ... but then it will be too late

Okay. Why stop there? Let's just tap everyone's phones. Let's let the government analyze everything you do. Hell, let's put trackers in every automobile while we're at it. Or, heck, inside our bodies? Because, why not, it's all in the name of safety, right?

Give me a break, man.

Furthermore, if a terrorist organization wants to encrypt a file… they can do so with or without Google, Samsung, Apple, or anyone else. You're arguing against privacy but don't even seem to understand how ineffective what you're asking would be.

[inthehole]

On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 0:07 PM, iacas said:

Okay. Why stop there? Let's just tap everyone's phones. Let's let the government analyze everything you do. Hell, let's put trackers in every automobile while we're at it. Or, heck, inside our bodies? Because, why not, it's all in the name of safety, right?

Give me a break, man.

Furthermore, if a terrorist organization wants to encrypt a file… they can do so with or without Google, Samsung, Apple, or anyone else. You're arguing against privacy but don't even seem to understand how ineffective what you're asking would be.

OK, this is getting a bit condescending, but I'll reply by saying from what I understand, the preferred method of communication among terrorists is currently social media which is more often taking place on cell phones.   That is where this discussion should be focused, not illogical suppositions about gross government intrusions.