[RoundelObsession]

Almost three to one for common sense, thank God we still outnumber them. LOL!

[jtodd_fl]

Also, from Benjamin Franklin.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[cays]

Originally Posted by jtodd_fl

Recently, they had the ability to tap your phone without warrants.

ARS TECHNICA 1/5/15

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking the position that court warrants are not required when deploying cell-site simulators in public places. Nicknamed "stingrays," the devices are decoy cell towers that capture locations and identities of mobile phone users and can intercept calls and texts.

The FBI made its position known during private briefings with staff members of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). In response, the two lawmakers wrote Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson, maintaining they were "concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequately considered the privacy interests" of Americans.

According to the letter, which was released last week:

For example, we understand that the FBI’s new policy requires FBI agents to obtain a search warrant whenever a cell-site simulator is used as part of a FBI investigation or operation, unless one of several exceptions apply, including (among others): (1) cases that pose an imminent danger to public safety, (2) cases that involve a fugitive, or (3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The letter was prompted in part by a Wall Street Journal report in November that said the Justice Department was deploying small airplanes equipped with cell-site simulators that enabled "investigators to scoop data from tens of thousands of cellphones in a single flight, collecting their identifying information and general location."

The bureau's position on Americans' privacy isn't surprising. The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privacy in public places. It began making that argument as early as 2010, when it told a federal appeals court that the authorities should be allowed to affix GPS devices on vehicles and track a suspect's every move without court authorization. The Supreme Court, however, eventually ruled that warrants are required. What's more, the administration has argued that placing a webcam with pan-and-zoom capabilities on a utility pole to spy on a suspect at his or her residence was no different from a police officer's observation from the public right-of-way. A federal judge last month disagreed with the government's position, tossing evidence gathered by the webcam that was operated from afar.

Just a few days ago the LAPD chief refused as per instructions issued by the FBI to confirm or deny that they were eavesdropping on conversations and/or intercepting texts when asked by a TV reporter.

[overcoil]

This dimension of the story...
http://www.latimes.com/business/tech...226-story.html
...Apple isn't quite so altruistic with privacy.

[Sidewinderpb]

Originally Posted by ScottSinger

This dimension of the story...
http://www.latimes.com/business/tech...226-story.html
...Apple isn't quite so altruistic with privacy.

International corporations must abide by the rules of each place they operate in. This being America, land of the "free," Apple can and should protest the governmental imposition of unjust regulation. China is a stern communist state, much unlike America, so Apple has to play by their rules.

[jtodd_fl]

My favorite argument is the "doing it for good PR" argument. Ironically, most making that argument also make the "iPhone users are iSheep and Sheople and and non-tech-savvy". The fact is that this is an unpopular stance and it skews more unpopular the less tech-savvy the person is. So someone holding both views above is logically inconsistent. Apply cannot be taking a position unpopular with the non-tech-savvy crowd in order to get good PR from their non-tech-savvy user base. smh

[RedlinePSI]

Originally Posted by Lucky John

So what you are saying is yes because people have been murdered here, and more may die because a corporation is refusing to assist and follow a judges order to assist, then Apple should be assisting?

Not exactly. It's too late in this case. That statement of mine was referring to the question of whether the government should have the power to tell all tech companies that they are not allowed to create totally hack proof devices.

[csu87]

Originally Posted by ScottSinger

This dimension of the story...
http://www.latimes.com/business/tech...226-story.html
...Apple isn't quite so altruistic with privacy.

this more shows they are not working with the FBI for a PR/Marketing strategy than anything.

The current trend in the US is to be anti government and most Americans dont trust the government. In China, most don trust the government either, but as far as i know, its not the trendy thing there to be anti government since they have always not trusted them.

Apple is a business and will do anything that they can to make money. If they thought it would make money to help the government, they would, regardless of "Privacy" or "Security" concerns.

[csu87]

Ironically, right after i hit submit on my last post, i got a call from "Apple Marketing" to advertise on the App Store...

[RedlinePSI]

I still don't get why apple cant take the phone into a lab on their premises, disconnect that phone from all network connections, upload the iOS update directly from a local computer (also not networked), open the phone, jointly search for the data with the FBI, take what they want, then wipe the phone, then wipe the computer the iOS update was created on. ONE instance of the iOS update will ever exist on an iPhone, and the source server, and it will be immediately deleted from both the phone and the source.

This is a one time deal obviously. They can't be taking thousands of requests for this type of work. And honestly, they should charge an arm and a leg for this.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

They why does the FBI/NSA/CIA/etc... need Apple to unlock a phone for them? They have nearly unlimited resources.

The current encryption method used by apple can not be cracked. Once you get to the X attempt that will wipe your phone, you're done. If there is a back door that will allow brute force to be used, (bypassing the wipe your phone once X attempts have happened) a computer can run every combination of codes until it hits the right one.

If you're under indictment that makes sense. But the government can't issue a court order for me to get a job building home furniture if i don't want to, even if i currently build office furniture. Unless it's war time and needs are similar to WWII i suppose.

OK, you are differentiating between Apple writing code vs. the work that is required of a bank to produce records, a company to compile analyses for the IRS or a telephone company doing whatever is necessary to provide the ability to monitor calls, as examples. I don't think I would draw that line.

I don't believe it is impossible to break into an Apple phone but certainly think it would be quickest and most resource-efficient for Apple to do it, which is the main reason why I expect the government wants their assistance.

If the NSA or FBI actually developed a way to get into anyone's phone without Apple's help or knowledge, would that be better than Apple knowing what was done? Is it really ok for technology firms to create technology that can be used by criminals to permanently conceal their activities like never before? I think these are equally difficult questions as it is to determine if Apple should help now. As I stated previously, I agree with Cook that legislation is needed to sift through this new frontier.

[QUiKSR20]

Originally Posted by RedlinePSI

I still don't get why apple cant take the phone into a lab on their premises, disconnect that phone from all network connections, upload the iOS update directly from a local computer (also not networked), open the phone, jointly search for the data with the FBI, take what they want, then wipe the phone, then wipe the computer the iOS update was created on. ONE instance of the iOS update will ever exist on an iPhone, and the source server, and it will be immediately deleted from both the phone and the source.

This is a one time deal obviously. They can't be taking thousands of requests for this type of work. And honestly, they should charge an arm and a leg for this.

Because where would it stop? The requests would keep coming, Also if there was said OS created that would be a prime target to get that OS... Its digital its not like they can throw the code in the shredder when done.. Remember this is not just Apple, They would request this stuff from Android/Google, MSFT etc .. What if in a future case they want to remotely turn on the mic? Or remotely turn on the camera? These phones contain some serious data ie location of our kids and family etc. All it would do is make the everyday users phone less secure as the others would move to another form of encryption, Apple doesn't own encryption. There is a reason Apple has Google / Facebook / Microsoft / Mozilla / Twitter all on its side, This would be bad to create.. Stuff always leaks out.

The latest abc interview was pretty good..

[jgoens]

Originally Posted by miiipilot

I think Apple should comply on a case-by-case basis.

In this case they should.

They should send the apple engineer to whatever facility. Only the apple engineer is allowed in the room and he/she alone unlocks the phone. erases all traces of how he/she unlocked the phone and gives the unlocked phone to the FBI.

Criminals/terrorists do NOT deserve privacy or protection.

While I was reading these posts, I was just thinking what you said. There should be new rules and forget about precedents....Apple should make a decision as to whether each situation merits intervention on the behalf of the people of the country. While everyone knows the got would love to be able to get into everyone's private files, this case is a matter of winning the war against terrorists.

[cays]

I've always thought this has been the best op/ed piece I've ever read on privacy, this country and society at large. It goes all the way back to 2007, published in the SF Gate.

While probably more often remembered for his prescient warning that America must beware the too-powerful "military-industrial complex," former five-star general and president of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower, also possessed a deep understanding of the folly of over-reliance on government power to deliver security to a populace.

In 1949, three years before his election to the presidency and while serving as president of Columbia University, Eisenhower dryly remarked that if security were the ultimate goal of Americans, then "prison ... [where] they'll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads," should be their abode of choice. While not as memorable as Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" speech in 1775 that helped spark a revolution in freedom that echoed through the ages, Eisenhower, too, clearly understood that complete security -- if it ever might be secured -- could only be attained at the cost of freedom itself.

America, for its first two and a quarter centuries, inherently understood that a measure of the price paid for freedom is a certain lack of security -- a degree of risk, as it were. While in prior times of peril our nation back slid in its understanding of this principle of liberty, and allowed government to seize power to the extent fundamental freedom was threatened -- the Alien and Sedition Acts early in the 19th century, the suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War era, the "Red Scare" and the "Palmer Raids" in the time of World War I, the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II -- in each instance, corrective action was taken.

The terrorist attacks of 2001 and the resulting and unprecedented power grab by the federal government in its drive to bring "security" to an America frozen with fear over another such attack, for the first time in our nation's history threatens to permanently enshrine the notion that security trumps freedom.

In no sense is the big hand of government power more apparent than in the incessant drive by Washington to abolish any vestige of privacy enjoyed by our citizens. The mantra is a familiar one: "you must be prepared to give up a little privacy in order to have security." The question is often posed, "if you have nothing to hide, why should you be concerned if the government listens in to your phone calls or reads your e-mails?" Ultimately, the administration falls back on the refrain that "we are fighting a new and dangerous enemy, of the sort never contemplated by those who drafted the Fourth Amendment many decades ago, and we need new powers to do meet these grave threats."

The fact is, of course, our Founding Fathers, those geniuses in gray wigs, knew exactly what they were doing. They knew that power corrupts and that the power of the government to invade a person's property, belongings and beliefs constitutes the power to control. They understood that if government enjoyed absolute power to invade or take away a person's privacy, then the government enjoyed absolute control over that person, who therefore had no liberty or freedom. It's that simple.

At the time the Bill of Rights was being debated and adopted, and in the first few years thereafter, the United States faced a threat far greater than that posed by potential terrorist cells today. We faced invasion and conquest by the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth: Great Britain.

Yet, in the face of such a threat, our framers deliberately and knowingly limited the ability of the government to invade people's privacy and gather evidence against them. The Fourth Amendment allows government to do so only in those instances in which it has good reason to suspect the person of criminal acts (yes, that includes suspected "terrorist" conduct). To claim that the limitations in the Fourth Amendment do not apply in the year 2007 because the threat we face is somehow different from or worse than the threat we faced two and a quarter centuries ago is at odds with historical reality; it is mere sophistry.

Why is this so important? Is it simply because we don't want the government to learn our bank account balance ... or our medical history ... or our travel patterns ...or whatever? Yes, but not really. It is vitally important that we rectify this frightening erosion of our constitutional underpinning because, as philosopher Ayn Rand correctly concluded in her 1943 novel, "The Fountainhead," privacy is the very foundation of freedom. "Civilization," she said, is the "progress toward a society of privacy." It is after all, "the process of setting man free from men."

Our Founding Fathers understood that. The Bill of Rights and the Fourth Amendment protects it. This administration disdains it. And the American people truly must re-establish it, if our very notion of a society based on freedom is to survive.

[Sidewinderpb]

TL;DR?

[Fundguy1]

10 million times no I don't agree with apple. What's wrong with you people?

This is a pure marketing and money play for Apple. And it is super dangerous.

The government wants them to unlock the phone, not get the program to unlock the phone.

A judge said to unlock it

The government issueshould search warrants. This includes phones. This was done.

This particular phone is a known dead terrorists phone who took extra care to secure it.

This particular phone was owned by someone who worked for the terrorist and the owner gave permission to have it unlocked.

To answer where would it stop, Apple has unlocked close to 100 phones in the past for law enforcement. This isn't something new. It's high profile. So it makes news. This is why they said no for this particular phone. So it would be in the news so they can profit from it by protecting terrorists.

The guy who sold him the guns said he had other terrorist buddies in the area who helped the terrorist.

The FBI needs Apple to only make a program that will allow unlimited password guesses. Without this software the phone will destroy all data after 10 guesses. Once the phone is opened they can destroy the code and software so it is used only once. This is what they said no too.

By doing this, the government won't get any software or way to open any other phones. They asked apple to open it, then remove the software so they just get the data.

The left and apple and left leaning reporters have 100% been lying by implying this will give the government access to any other phone.

Apple is 100% only protecting existing terrorists in the US as a way to promote their phones for profit. Pure and simple.

I'm waiting for one of two things to happen. CEO in jail or terrorists kill more peopl . Hope the first happens before the second does.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

What do you guys think of this whole Apple/Tim Cook vs. the FBI? I know privacy is a big deal for a lot of people and this is really the first time a large corporation has stood up and are planning to fight the US Government over it.

For those who don't know, basically the premise is this, the FBI wants Apple to take the phone used by the shooter in San Bernardino and remove the feature where the phone will wipe itself after so many consecutive log in attempts. This way the FBI can use brute force to unlock the phone (brute force is when you just try every single possible password combination until you get one that unlocks the phone).

Apple has no such software and they're refusing to update iOS with such a feature as it would effectively be creating a backdoor, or a security flaw on purpose.

Apple is arguing that to have the Federal Government make Apple create such software would be against their First Amendment rights. They argue that you can't make someone say something they don't want to, you can't make someone write something they don't want to either (in this case, writing computer code).

Do you guys agree with what Apple is doing?

This original premise leaves out a lot of details. Upon reading it this way I can see why so many people have been duped into backing apple through ignorance to the whole set of facts, many deliberately suppressed by the liberal left.

[Needbmwpartzz]

Pandora's box is now open...
Govern yourself accordingly.

[Supermoon]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

To answer where would it stop, Apple has unlocked close to 100 phones in the past for law enforcement. This isn't something new. It's high profile. So it makes news.
This is why they said no for this particular phone. So it would be in the news so they can profit from it by protecting terrorists.

You are making a false claim.
The phones that have been previously unlocked by government requests were running iOS 7 or older.
Neither FBI nor Apple can legitimately break the encryption of an iPhone running iOS 8 or newer while keeping it a legal/admissible evidence.
The phone involved in this case is running the latest iOS 9.
So FBI asked Apple to develop and sign a custom iOS without auto-erase or delay between passcode attempts
so they can brute-force the heck out of it within a few minutes.
Asking for something like this is totally different from asking to unlock a single phone.
If accepted, such an attempt will weaken the security of the proprietary iOS and above all, it will leave a bad precedent.

[Ali Shiralian]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

This original premise leaves out a lot of details. Upon reading it this way I can see why so many people have been duped into backing apple through ignorance to the whole set of facts, many deliberately suppressed by the liberal left.

It's not the liberal left or the neocons like yourself who are suppressing the facts. Both sides have valid points if you care to agree. I did mention on earlier posts that Apple as a corporation cares more about its public image rather than our personal liberties however, more and more of our privacy has been compromised Apples reasons not withstanding.

What's concerning more here is the fact that government doesnot have the ability to access the phone on its own and needs Apple to creat a back door. Whatever comes out of this situation will not do anything to stop the terrorists or enhance citizens privacy .

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Supermoon

You are making a false claim.
The phones that have been previously unlocked by government requests were running iOS 7 or older.
Neither FBI nor Apple can legitimately break the encryption of an iPhone running iOS 8 or newer while keeping it a legal/admissible evidence.
The phone involved in this case is running the latest iOS 9.
So FBI asked Apple to develop and sign a custom iOS without auto-erase or delay between passcode attempts
so they can brute-force the heck out of it within a few seconds.
Asking for something like this is totally different from asking to unlock a single phone.
If accepted, such an attempt will weaken the security of the proprietary iOS and above all, it will leave a bad precedent.

I'm not making a false claim. I claimed law enforcement asked apple to open almost 100 phones before and they did. I never claimed those were this operating system. And it is a single phone bone. This one. Apple will have the code to unlock the phones. Not the FBI. And if apple wants, they can destroy the code after so it is only one phone. The code will not go into any other phone. And it won't exist if apple doesn't want it to. So security will be identical for all other phones. They have been stating this since the beginning.

Second, what in the hell makes anyone think there should be something secure that the government can't get in? Only people breaking the law should be scared.

Third, they have been searching phones and phone records since they were created. If everyone's worried the government is going to do something evil with this capability, which requires a court order, then why hasn't it happened in over 100 years?

Forth, NSA probably already has all this data anyway through Obamas Metadata storing program. Nobody seems to care they already should technically have it and almost nobody is asking why don't they just get it there. Curious. Especially since Obama spent billions to do just this.

Fifth. Since the government has this, there is a court order, apple controls the software, the only thing apple is doing is protecting knowm terrorists and their bottomline. I hope they don't end up with this being blood money but it probably will.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Ali Shiralian

It's not the liberal left or the neocons like yourself who are suppressing the facts. Both sides have valid points if you care to agree. I did mention on earlier posts that Apple as a corporation cares more about its public image rather than our personal liberties however, more and more of our privacy has been compromised Apples reasons not withstanding.

What's concerning more here is the fact that government doesnot have the ability to access the phone on its own and needs Apple to creat a back door. Whatever comes out of this situation will not do anything to stop the terrorists or enhance citizens privacy .

Wrong.
1. The privacy of citizens won't be hurt as stated above. This is moving the line to enhance it from where it's been foe a century.

2. There is a known terrorist cell that they believe will be compromised by the data in this phone.