Apple v. FBI

[newtogolf]

25 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Here's what I hope happens (I am 100% with Apple on this one):

(source: http://dustinteractive.tumblr.com/post/139553430811/apple-decides-to-cooperate-with-fbi)

On the actual topic...I suspect that the FBI has wanted to fight this battle for a long time, but they waited until the SB shooting specifically so that public opinion would be more likely to be on their side.

Exactly, the FBI along with the other agencies and local police departments have been trying to remove every bit of privacy we have.  The FBI has been on record in the past criticizing Apple and others for using and allowing apps to use encryption that they and NSA can't break. 

[k-troop]

2 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

On the actual topic...I suspect that the FBI has wanted to fight this battle for a long time, but they waited until the SB shooting specifically so that public opinion would be more likely to be on their side.

I agree that the FBI probably picked this one for a reason, but I don't see what public opinion has to do with the outcome.  It's an application for (and appeal from the issuance of) a judicial writ.  Only the facts directly bearing on this case are really relevant.  They may have picked this one because the "owner" consented to the search (thus the court doesn't really have to weigh privacy or the 4th Amendment) and the government can demonstrate a strong national security interest.  Those are good facts for the FBI.

[newtogolf]

31 minutes ago, k-troop said:

I agree that the FBI probably picked this one for a reason, but I don't see what public opinion has to do with the outcome.  It's an application for (and appeal from the issuance of) a judicial writ.  Only the facts directly bearing on this case are really relevant.  They may have picked this one because the "owner" consented to the search (thus the court doesn't really have to weigh privacy or the 4th Amendment) and the government can demonstrate a strong national security interest.  Those are good facts for the FBI.

The question is can the government force a private business to incur the expense of developing a back door to their software or device?  

Should Apple be forced to comply and if there is consumer fallout as a result of Apple developing a back door to their OS is the government responsible for business and shareholder losses?  

[bogdan101]

Guys, let's not be naive here; this is just grandstanding for PR/business purposes. I'm sure Apple/Google/whoever are quietly giving the government what they want. And to be honest, I'm not losing any sleep over it. My bank guarantees that I'm not on the hook if someone hacks into my bank account, and the same goes for credit cards. Other than that, anyone hacking into my phone could find that I really suck at golf.

Edited February 24, 2016 by bogdan101

[newtogolf]

1 minute ago, bogdan101 said:

Guys, let's not be naive here; this is just grandstanding for PR/business purposes. I'm sure Apple/Google/whoever are quietly giving the government what they want. And to be honest, I'm not losing any sleep over it. My bank guarantees that I'm not on the hook if someone hacks into my bank account, and the same goes for credit cards. Other than that, anyone hacking into my phone could find that I really suck at golf.

I used to think that way, I've got nothing to hide so why do I care if the government can hack my phone, tap my phone lines and monitor my computer activity.  

It seems trivial but then I realized that we're giving the government way too much power and establishing a precedent for a future we don't know.  Some might say it's paranoia to think of a government that would turn on its people but would the Revolutionary War even be possible today with all the information and access the government has to our information?  

It may already be too late but our rights are precious, imo we should do everything possible to protect them.  

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, bogdan101 said:

Guys, let's not be naive here; this is just grandstanding for PR/business purposes. I'm sure Apple/Google/whoever are quietly giving the government what they want. And to be honest, I'm not losing any sleep over it. My bank guarantees that I'm not on the hook if someone hacks into my bank account, and the same goes for credit cards. Other than that, anyone hacking into my phone could find that I really suck at golf.

I don't think you're right at all. As long as I've known Tim Cook he's been nothing but super thoughtful and honest.

I have no reason to believe he's lying now.

(I had several interactions with him in the late 90s and early 2000s re:campus programs.)

[bogdan101]

23 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't think you're right at all. As long as I've known Tim Cook he's been nothing but super thoughtful and honest.

I have no reason to believe he's lying now.

(I had several interactions with him in the late 90s and early 2000s re:campus programs.)

I read the text at the link you posted, and it sounds like self serving b.s., playing on the public's fear of "invasion of privacy' by the government.

OMG, the government will be able to access the microphone and the camera on my phone at any time and see what I'm up to; well, I'm shaking in my golf shoes!

The government is no knight in shining armour, and neither is Apple, nor Google; but if we want the government to protect us, creating encryption without the possibility of legally breaking it is a bad idea.

 

 

[iacas]

34 minutes ago, bogdan101 said:

I read the text at the link you posted, and it sounds like self serving b.s., playing on the public's fear of "invasion of privacy' by the government.

OMG, the government will be able to access the microphone and the camera on my phone at any time and see what I'm up to; well, I'm shaking in my golf shoes!

The government is no knight in shining armour, and neither is Apple, nor Google; but if we want the government to protect us, creating encryption without the possibility of legally breaking it is a bad idea.

You just say your opinions as if they're facts.

There's no point in discussing things with you. Countless better arguments (from both sides) have been presented.

You don't get to decide what is an acceptable violation of my rights to privacy.

[ghalfaire]

I am on Apple's side.  They say they don't have a back door and I believe them.  Further I don't believe the constitution or any law I know says the Government can compel Apple to produce a back door.  

Lastly, my opinion, that if the Government had a back door its use would not be limited to just national security data gathering.  The IRS comes to mind or the SEC or several other agencies that don't always behave in ethical and/or lawful manner will surely be interested in such a tool.

[bogdan101]

46 minutes ago, iacas said:

You just say your opinions as if they're facts.

There's no point in discussing things with you. Countless better arguments (from both sides) have been presented.

You don't get to decide what is an acceptable violation of my rights to privacy.

Of course they're my opinions only, and obviously I have no say in what is acceptable to anybody else. I said I'm shaking in my golf shoes, not you...  :)

You opened this thread by asking thoughts on the matter, and I just offered some.

I believe you when you say Mr. Cook comes across as honest and sincere; otherwise he would have failed the interview for CEO at the the largest corporation in the world.

 

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, bogdan101 said:

I believe you when you say Mr. Cook comes across as honest and sincere; otherwise he would have failed the interview for CEO at the the largest corporation in the world.

Tim Cook didn't interview for the CEO position.

"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little safety deserve neither." - Paraphrased Ben Franklin

[bogdan101]

23 minutes ago, iacas said:

Tim Cook didn't interview for the CEO position.

"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little safety deserve neither." - Paraphrased Ben Franklin

I rest my case: why would I trust a guy who became CEO of Apple without even having to interview for the job? 

Okay, let me show my true colors: I'll never side with Apple on anything ever, for one single reason: Itunes!

[saevel25]

6 minutes ago, bogdan101 said:

I rest my case: why would I trust a guy who became CEO of Apple without even having to interview for the job? 

Okay, let me show my true colors: I'll never side with Apple on anything ever, for one single reason: Itunes!

You do realize that big corporations do what they call head hunting. They basically have a short list and they go pick their guy and make an offer. 

 

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

You do realize that big corporations do what they call head hunting. They basically have a short list and they go pick their guy and make an offer. 

Tim Cook was not hired after a head hunter.

He joined Apple in the late 90s as a senior VP or something and was named by Jobs as his successor.

[saevel25]

Just now, iacas said:

Tim Cook was not hired after a head hunter.

He joined Apple in the late 90s as a senior VP or something and was named by Jobs as his successor.

Or that way 

[k-troop]

I'm under the impression that the key the FBI wants Apple to produce would require physical possession of the device, meaning it would not allow for remote intrusions and would require the government agency seeking to employ it to have a warrant. 

Am I misunderstanding?

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, k-troop said:

I'm under the impression that the key the FBI wants Apple to produce would require physical possession of the device, meaning it would not allow for remote intrusions and would require the government agency seeking to employ it to have a warrant. 

Am I misunderstanding?

Yes, you're misunderstanding.

[k-troop]

24 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yes, you're misunderstanding.

Care to elaborate?