PDA

View Full Version : Apple vs. the FBI



bjf123
02-17-2016, 11:36 AM
I'm curious what everyone on here thinks of the FBI's request that Apple write code to allow them to bypass the security settings on the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooters. I'm torn. While I understand the need to see that data, I also agree with Apple that if they put in a back door, it will be hacked by others. The request here is for a specific program to be written to allow this iPhone to be unlocked. If there would be some way to guarantee that this program would never see the light of day, never be given to the government, and never leave Apple's campus, maybe it's a reasonable request. However, there's no way to guarantee that.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/apple-challenges-chilling-demand-decrypt-san-bernadino-iphone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LadyMuskie
02-17-2016, 11:45 AM
I don't think that the feeling of safety is worth the price of our privacy and/or civil liberties. I'm with Ben Franklin on this topic, and I hope Apple stands strong.

muskiefan82
02-17-2016, 11:54 AM
This is actually a really fascinating subject. Apple created an encryption methodology with NO key so that your phone (if you have apple) will ALWAYS remain secure. There is no key or software that can unlock the phone. I think the government requiring that Apple write such a program to be something that is outside the scope of their powers. There is no way to put the horses back in the barn once you let them loose. If Apple creates anything, even for just this phone, it will get out and it will become compromised. Also, if Apple CAN compromise their encryption system, then so can the government or another, possibly more sinister, group/government/agency. The NSA or other entity should just purchase their own Apple phones and try to do it themselves if they really want to do this (assuming this isn't just a story to cover up how they already hacked the phone by having Apple write code that allows them to do legally what they've already done illegally- conspiracy theorists rejoice!) This is a very real issue. If you haven't watched it before, I suggest that the TV show Person of Interest (outside of the excellent story lines and fight scenes), isn't as far out there as one might think.

MADXSTER
02-17-2016, 04:26 PM
I don't think that the feeling of safety is worth the price of our privacy and/or civil liberties. I'm with Ben Franklin on this topic, and I hope Apple stands strong.

I agree with this. Well said.

Nigel Tufnel
02-17-2016, 04:40 PM
This is the kind of stuff that makes me think of Person Of Interest and kind of shudder. Can't help but wonder if that show is closer to the truth than any of us know.

Emp
02-18-2016, 05:06 PM
I support the privacy side of most of these issues, but I'm just as concerned about non governmental invasions, like Google, that sell my info to whomever will pay for it. I want encryption I control.

In this specific case, I agree with LM. It's not even a slippery slope......all the wrong people will have the key soon enough if Apple is forced to create it.

That said....I'm not sure if the horse hasnt already left the barn on commercial privacy.

SemajParlor
02-19-2016, 12:17 AM
This isn't about terrorism as much as it is about the public. The government wants Apple to code a program that will bypass Apple security and let them access any phone.

Yeah, no thanks.

LA Muskie
02-19-2016, 12:18 AM
I don't believe for a second that it would require writing new code and that Apple doesn't have the capability to disable the self destruct button. Not for a second. They just don't he world to know they already have that capability. There's always a master key. Always.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Strange Brew
02-19-2016, 12:45 AM
This isn't about terrorism as much as it is about the public. The government wants Apple to code a program that will bypass Apple security and let them access any phone.

Yeah, no thanks.

For once, I'm with you.

LadyMuskie
02-19-2016, 06:38 AM
I don't believe for a second that it would require writing new code and that Apple doesn't have the capability to disable the self destruct button. Not for a second. They just don't he world to know they already have that capability. There's always a master key. Always.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This may be true (my husband works in IT security and there are a few different schools of thought on this), but from my perspective (and from the perspective of every IT security person you'll likely ever meet) it's a moot point. The only reason to give the government access is under an assumption that it will somehow make us safer. But there is no guarantee that that will be the case, and even if there was such a guarantee, is it worth the price? I'd say the answer is no. We don't need the government quartered in our phones and on our laptops. We all want to prevent terrorism, but if we're willing to destroy what America is in the process, then we're not destroying terrorism. We're merely aiding the terrorists in accomplishing their goals.

SemajParlor
02-19-2016, 08:30 AM
For once, I'm with you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

murray87
02-19-2016, 10:02 AM
Apple shouldn't have to give the government their encryption secrets. Instead, couldn't the Apple engineers open this one phone and show the FBI what's in it without compromising privacy of others?

LA Muskie
02-19-2016, 10:11 AM
Apple shouldn't have to give the government their encryption secrets. Instead, couldn't the Apple engineers open this one phone and show the FBI what's in it without compromising privacy of others?

Not without forensically compromising the evidence. If someone tells me a "secret" about how they just killed a bunch of people, and I'm subpoenaed to testify, I can't refuse to testify because I promised I would keep it a secret. Nor can Apple. Unless it suddenly became a lawyer or priest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LadyMuskie
02-19-2016, 10:18 AM
Not without forensically compromising the evidence. If someone tells me a "secret" about how they just killed a bunch of people, and I'm subpoenaed to testify, I can't refuse to testify because I promised I would keep it a secret. Nor can Apple. Unless it suddenly became a lawyer or priest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This analogy couldn't be more flawed. This isn't even close to being the same thing as what is going on in this case.

LA Muskie
02-19-2016, 10:38 AM
This analogy couldn't be more flawed. This isn't even close to being the same thing as what is going on in this case.

It's not a perfect analogy, I will grant you that. But it's only materially flawed if you accept Apple's premise that the ability doesn't already exist.

But OK let's change the premise. Instead it's evidence locked in a Stanley safe that the attackers purchased and owned. Stanley possesses a master key to the safe. The government subpoenas Stanley for the key.

This is the tech world playbook. They think they live by different rules than the rest of society. The reality is that -- like all businesses -- they would prefer not to be burdened with government subpoenas that don't serve their interests. At the same time -- and just ask Sony about this -- they want the weight of the government to come down on those who adversely affect their interests. You can't have it both ways.

In the immortal words of George Costanza, "we're living in a society!"

http://youtu.be/usN3rpfFoGA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ArizonaXUGrad
02-19-2016, 11:24 AM
Why can't it just be this? Why does the government need to be able to open everyone's iphones? I am in complete agreement with Apple on this, but I am biased as I use an Iphone.


Apple shouldn't have to give the government their encryption secrets. Instead, couldn't the Apple engineers open this one phone and show the FBI what's in it without compromising privacy of others?

RealDeal
02-19-2016, 11:26 AM
I don't think that the feeling of safety is worth the price of our privacy and/or civil liberties. I'm with Ben Franklin on this topic, and I hope Apple stands strong.

Yep.

bjf123
02-19-2016, 11:31 AM
The only way I could agree with Apple doing anything is if they have complete control of the iPhone in question, write code so a brute force attack to unlock the phone works, apply the code, access the data, give the data to the FBI, remove the code, reinstall the original code, then, and only then, return the device to the FBI.

Under no circumstances should the FBI have access to the phone while the code that allowed it to be accessed is present. Since the FBI would never agree to this, they're SOL. I'm with Apple on this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LadyMuskie
02-19-2016, 01:28 PM
It's not a perfect analogy, I will grant you that. But it's only materially flawed if you accept Apple's premise that the ability doesn't already exist.

But OK let's change the premise. Instead it's evidence locked in a Stanley safe that the attackers purchased and owned. Stanley possesses a master key to the safe. The government subpoenas Stanley for the key.

This is the tech world playbook. They think they live by different rules than the rest of society. The reality is that -- like all businesses -- they would prefer not to be burdened with government subpoenas that don't serve their interests. At the same time -- and just ask Sony about this -- they want the weight of the government to come down on those who adversely affect their interests. You can't have it both ways.

In the immortal words of George Costanza, "we're living in a society!"

http://youtu.be/usN3rpfFoGA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Still not the same thing. Not even close.

We're talking data here, not pieces of paper you store in a safe.

We're talking about having the ability to, with one fell swoop, be able to access private emails, banking information, sexual preferences, anti-government feelings that are perfectly legal, religious preference, whether spouses are cheating, rants about employers, etc. etc. etc. on every iPhone in use today. You think that our government and its employees are inherently good and looking out for our best interest.

I think any time the government DEMANDS unfettered access to our private lives, we should all stand up and say "absolutely not". The United States government wants to quarter itself in our emails and our phones using the pretense of safety. The British did something similar in our homes 240 some odd years ago, and we purposefully wrote out laws to prevent such actions from happening again.

The government exists to serve the people. The people are not the servants of the government, and the government doesn't need that access to solve this crime.

LA Muskie
02-19-2016, 02:22 PM
You can say "'not the same thing" about any analogy. That's the difference between it being an analogy and the exact same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LadyMuskie
02-19-2016, 03:07 PM
You can say "'not the same thing" about any analogy. That's the difference between it being an analogy and the exact same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't say! But your analogy is flawed. It doesn't make sense. And in order for analogy to work, it should make sense in what you're comparing. With that mind . . .

Unless the Stanley safe contains ALL of the personal private information that a cell phone would contain, including private information about friends and family members, who are not accused of any wrong-doing or under any kind of investigation, and that key that Stanley has would unlock all the Stanley safes around the world, and make them vulnerable to other thieves, then the analogy is nowhere near useful.

bobbiemcgee
02-19-2016, 03:32 PM
Pay da' man......oops, wrong thread.

SemajParlor
02-19-2016, 03:42 PM
Boycott Apple! They support terrorists!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tardy Turtle
02-19-2016, 06:24 PM
http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/295adf590b6a0b804df3f46f56022ae0e040b57f/c=68-0-2863-1579&r=x329&c=580x326/local/-/media/2016/02/12/USATODAY/USATODAY/635908373925556818-AP-CLASSIC-FILMS-46072653.JPG

"You could only dream of getting out... getting anywhere... getting all the way to the F-B-I."

LA Muskie
02-19-2016, 06:32 PM
Unless the Stanley safe contains ALL of the personal private information that a cell phone would contain, including private information about friends and family members, who are not accused of any wrong-doing or under any kind of investigation, and that key that Stanley has would unlock all the Stanley safes around the world, and make them vulnerable to other thieves, then the analogy is nowhere near useful.
1. Your analogy is the typical slippery slope that people raise when they don't understand the issues. The "all" vs. "some" distinction has no bearing in the law. None. Whatsoever.

2. The information of friends and family members is not protected under the law. They do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy on someone else's phone.

3. This is information I just learned today: "The phone in this case was owned by the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, Farook’s employer. Farook used it, but the county owned it. The county has already consented to a search of the phone." If that is the case, Farook has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the phone, either.

Here's a rule to live by: If you want to keep a secret, DON'T PUT IT IN WRITING OR OTHERWISE FIX IT IN PERMANENT FORM. Typing something on your encrypted iPhone is not fundamentally different under the law than writing a a note and putting it in a safe. And sending an email or text is no different than putting a letter in the mail. The medium may be different. The legal effect is not.

LadyMuskie
02-19-2016, 06:59 PM
I'm just going to leave this article here (http://www.techinsider.io/apple-the-fbi-screwed-up-san-bernardino-investigation-2016-2).

If you don't want to read it, it explains how the government fucked up and is now blaming Apple and trying to make Apple out to be the bad guy. When the fact is, if the braintrusts in the FBI had just waited for tech experts (you know, those guys and gals who actually know what they're doing when it comes to encryption and how these darn phones work) Apple could have extracted the information like they have done previously without putting every iPhone user at risk by creating an entirely new backdoor iOS. But, we should DEFINITELY trust the government! We should DEFINITELY assume that they won't leak or lose the new backdoor that would destroy Apple's encryption - putting thousands of innocent civilians at risk. Because, after all it's the government and they know what they're doing and they're all really good people. So, it's okay. Don't worry, America! The FBI is on it!

Don't we all feel safe now? The guys who put themselves into this position are assuring you they won't fuck up any further! Boy. I know I feel better.

LA Muskie
02-19-2016, 07:46 PM
The government may have fucked up a criminal investigation? I'm shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED!!!

Did they or didn't they? I certainly wouldn't doubt it. But I also wouldn't necessarily take Apple's word for it since...well...it has a vested interest in turning the attention away from itself and onto the government, and its statements during this dispute have been anything but 100% accurate. Then again in this instance they may be right. The government fucks up criminal investigations. It's the reason blatantly obvious criminals walk...

All of that said, I'm not sure how it's legally relevant. Just because they fucked up doesn't mean they aren't entitled to other means legally available to them to secure the evidence they are marshaling in aid of their prosecution (of a terrorist act, no less).

You seem to be buying what Apple is saying. Hook, line, and sinker. Which of course is exactly what they want. They have built brand loyalty and trust. And they are trading on that now. Look, I like Apple products as much as the next guy or girl. (Well, I like the iPhone and iPad -- I still can't figure out our damn MacBook.) But I also know better than to believe their press releases.

To some degree I wonder if this debate doesn't depend on one's proximity to the incident. It shouldn't, but it certainly could play a role. I live about an hour away from San Bernardino. Because of the attacks, my daughter's school -- and the rest of the entire LA Unified School District -- was closed down by a rather pathetic bomb threat (don't get me started on that decision...). We had to try to explain to her why. Anyway, we want these fuckers prosecuted. I want a mountain of evidence. I want them in prison for life (I'm not a fan of the death penalty).

You, on the other hand, are in Ohio -- far removed from this most recent tragedy. While I'm not saying that renders you immune to its effects (I'm sure not), I think it's probably a little easier to focus on one's personal privacy interests when the terrorist act didn't occur in their backyard.

And please understand -- I get the privacy debate. What with the NSA surveillance and everything else we have learned about government intrusion these last few years (none of which I am in favor), there are serious concerns about the government knowing where the line is and not stepping over it -- much less getting to decide where the line is drawn in the first place.

But I don't see this as part of that broader debate. I think this is a stretch. This isn't blind, wholesale surveillance. It's a formal criminal investigation into a specific incident. There is no question the crime occurred. The attackers are known. The phone was in his possession. He didn't own it. The phone possesses potential evidence. At a minimum, Apple already has the capability to deactivate the self-destruct feature to allow the FBI to try to hack into it (Apple has denied this, but IT professionals have proven that it's not true -- or at minimum mere semantics). Apple may even have the capability to access the data (this appears to be more questionable). In any event, Apple has information that could aid in a federal criminal investigation. Like any other citizen, it is subject to the subpoena power of the government and the warrant power of the Courts. And no, it doesn't have any 4th Amendment privileges here. First, a valid warrant was issued. Second, the government has the consent of the phone owner (San Bernardino County).

LadyMuskie
02-19-2016, 11:02 PM
Oh. I get it. You're scared and letting fear overtake you. Wise move. The wife of one of the actual victims said she doesn't think what the government is doing is right. Emotions and fear is what created ISIS in the first place, which is why the attack in San Bernardino happened.

We all note that you won't be commenting on anything that happens outside of California since apparently that's the new standard. The only so-called experts on all things San Bernardino related live within a 100 mile radius, I guess. Keep that in mind if you feel a need to make a snarky comment about the bomb threats Ohio and Kentucky schools have been receiving, thereby diminishing the seriousness of what we are all going through. You don't have any idea what it's like for us living through it.

As for your erroneous implication that I am a fan of Apple or its products you are, unsurprisingly, once again wrong. I don't own an iPhone, iPad or Mac, nor does anyone living in this house. I do have an old iTouch that can't even tell the right date any longer. You see, Im married to a man who makes his living in IT security for one of the nation's largest security firms, writing code, saving your ass and mine from hackers on a daily basis. So, we don't own Apple products because previous generations were notoriously unsecure.

I'll leave you with this - the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. I had my dad in NYC in 1993 at a trade show that was supposed to take place at the WTC. He didn't go that day because he made arrangements to have lunch with another sales rep. I narrowly missed having my hotel in London bombed by the IRA when I was in high school on a school trip. We had only left hours before, aND were on a ferry for hours whike our parents panicked . Madx's son was in Paris when ISIS struck, at the soccer match if I remember correctly. You don't think our families were scared? You don't have the corner market on being in the proximity of danger, and your fear doesn't get to dictate the destruction of liberty for the rest of us. Fear does more harm than good, and succumbing to that fear means there's no reason to fight the terrorists. We've already lost.

LA Muskie
02-20-2016, 12:04 AM
I don't know why I engage you Lady. Sometimes you are right. And I agree with you. And I let you know that. Because I'm comfortable in my own skin.

And sometimes I am wrong. And I own that too. And I apologize.

You, however, double down. Then triple down. And on. And on. You make it personal. You misconstrue. You create false narratives to support your agenda.

You've bothered me since the fateful Crosstown Shootout. You can only see one perspective. Yours. Everyone else is a moron for disagreeing. And a bad person to boot.

You may be a nice person in real life (you probably are). But you're a sanctimonious bitch in the quasi-anonymous world of Internet chat-boards.

I'm done with you. I'll see you on the other side of "ignore". Your upside just isn't worth putting up with your downside anymore.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RealDeal
02-20-2016, 12:25 PM
Gotta love it when someone resorts to calling a woman a bitch in a message board argument. Kind of sad.

LadyMuskie
02-21-2016, 05:13 AM
Gotta love it when someone resorts to calling a woman a bitch in a message board argument. Kind of sad.

Sad, true. But unsurprising. It's the culture we live in. The nice part is, name-calling like this show us a person's true character. Women all over the globe are used to being called names when they choose to voice an opinion and not accept a man's opinion as fact, or cow-tow to a man's self-imagined superiority. The good news is, most of us these days were raised to (a) not give a fuck what a man who would resort to name-calling thinks and (b) raise our own daughters to do the same. Like my grandma used to say - if they're talking about me at least they're leaving those who aren't as strong alone for a little bit.