Deleted
Posts: 0
May 15, 2024 20:37:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 17:39:01 GMT
That is giving up my right, my key to my own home, because they are not competent enough to break the door down or go through the window. That isn't my fault, my concern, and it should not come at the expense of my home. But then the question becomes is this loss of privacy worth the price it could cost? We know the couple in question were terrorists. We know they went to a lot of trouble to erase their "electronic footprint" for the lack of a better of phrase. The question is why. It is logical to assume there was information they did not want the authorities to have. What type of information? Is it information on sleeper cells in the US? Is it information on other planned attacks? I'm all for protecting my privacy but I also understand nothing is absolute. In this one particular case I think the circumstances are such I think Apple should help retrieve the data on the phone. However I also understand this could "open the flood gates" and the government could/would require access to backdoors on phones at the drop of a hat. That is why instead of Tim Cook saying flat out no both sides need to get together and come up with guidelines both sides can live with. Because the price of Apple's current stance could result in the loss of life for a lot of innocent people. |
|
|
|
Post by shutterbug2sue on Feb 17, 2016 17:48:30 GMT
Why should Apple do the government's snooping? In addition, the terrorists are dead and strongly appear to have acted alone. I hope Apple stands their ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by SnowWhite on Feb 17, 2016 17:49:34 GMT
We know they went to a lot of trouble to erase their "electronic footprint" for the lack of a better of phrase. The question is why. It is logical to assume there was information they did not want the authorities to have. See, that's the thing, they went to great trouble to destroy their personal cellphones. They went to great trouble to get rid of the harddrive on their computer. The fact that they did not go to the same trouble for Syed's work cell phone suggests to me that there's nothing of value on it. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 15, 2024 20:37:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 17:57:39 GMT
Maybe the government should ask Hollywood instead of Apple.  It's a tricky situation and I have a different answer every five minutes. |
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095 
|
Post by raindancer on Feb 17, 2016 18:01:52 GMT
That is giving up my right, my key to my own home, because they are not competent enough to break the door down or go through the window. That isn't my fault, my concern, and it should not come at the expense of my home. But then the question becomes is this loss of privacy worth the price it could cost? We know the couple in question were terrorists. We know they went to a lot of trouble to erase their "electronic footprint" for the lack of a better of phrase. The question is why. It is logical to assume there was information they did not want the authorities to have. What type of information? Is it information on sleeper cells in the US? Is it information on other planned attacks? I'm all for protecting my privacy but I also understand nothing is absolute. In this one particular case I think the circumstances are such I think Apple should help retrieve the data on the phone. However I also understand this could "open the flood gates" and the government could/would require access to backdoors on phones at the drop of a hat. That is why instead of Tim Cook saying flat out no both sides need to get together and come up with guidelines both sides can live with. Because the price of Apple's current stance could result in the loss of life for a lot of innocent people. Fine. Show me an instance where the TSA stopped a terrorist. Show me some other way in which our privacy has been violated and that it has only worked against a criminal and not negatively harmed any other citizen. The expense of many so the government can get at the few? That's how we are going to be? I'm not willing to give up my privacy because they think they might find something of value. I The loss of life in this situation is completely and utterly a ridiculous argument. If for one second the US government gave two sh*ts about that we wouldn't have the ridiculous issue with guns, including operation fast and furious. Lives are not what they are worried about. They don't care about individual citizens. A lot more innocent people stand to be hurt from ID theft, etc. from this than from some maybe information they might find on this one individual cell phone. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 15, 2024 20:37:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 18:03:25 GMT
We know they went to a lot of trouble to erase their "electronic footprint" for the lack of a better of phrase. The question is why. It is logical to assume there was information they did not want the authorities to have. See, that's the thing, they went to great trouble to destroy their personal cellphones. They went to great trouble to get rid of the harddrive on their computer. The fact that they did not go to the same trouble for Syed's work cell phone suggests to me that there's nothing of value on it. You want to bet your life or the lives of others on that? |
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
|
Post by raindancer on Feb 17, 2016 18:31:01 GMT
See, that's the thing, they went to great trouble to destroy their personal cellphones. They went to great trouble to get rid of the harddrive on their computer. The fact that they did not go to the same trouble for Syed's work cell phone suggests to me that there's nothing of value on it. You want to bet your life or the lives of others on that? Rhetoric. So sure. I would bet my life on the fact that this has jack squat to do with what is on Syed's phone and more to do with the US govt. wanting to force Apple's hand. |
|
|
|
Post by shutterbug2sue on Feb 17, 2016 18:41:23 GMT
You want to bet your life or the lives of others on that? Rhetoric. So sure. I would bet my life on the fact that this has jack squat to do with what is on Syed's phone and more to do with the US govt. wanting to force Apple's hand. I agree with this. |
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Feb 17, 2016 18:43:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 17, 2016 19:19:17 GMT
Did you read the order from the magistrate? I can't say what the government WANTS (and tend to agree that they probably want a whole lot more) but this order does NOT grant them access to all devices. |
|
ginacivey
Pearl Clutcher
refupea #2 in southeast missouri
Posts: 4,685
|
Post by ginacivey on Feb 17, 2016 19:30:54 GMT
maybe they should just reset it to 1970!
|
|
|
|
Post by blondiec47 on Feb 17, 2016 19:33:33 GMT
Did you read the order from the magistrate? I can't say what the government WANTS (and tend to agree that they probably want a whole lot more) but this order does NOT grant them access to all devices. Not now they don't, but they know how so there is nothing stopping them from finding reasons. Also this could open up iPhones to outside hackers. I am another that is not will to put my privacy on the line so they can snoop on one phone. I also agree that if they got rid of all their other digital footprints there is probably nothing on this phone or they would have destroyed it as well. This is a fishing expedition and I am glad that Apple is saying no. |
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Feb 17, 2016 19:42:37 GMT
I'm a little torn about it too. on one hand, for national security, it would be good to get the full contents of that phone. but the damage has been done. I don't know what other info they can get other than to further complete their investigation. are we preventing future attacks? as we gaining knowledge about other terrorists that may have been involved?
as far as Apple is concerned, as an Iphone user, MAC and Ipad owner, and Apple stockholder, I would not want them to provide a back door to the encryption because that would lessen the faith I have that my devices and their it's contents can be kept secure. I'm sure the FBI employs enough hackers and cyber people to eventually find a way to get into the phone without a step by step guide from Apple. to some extent, I understand and support Apple's position not to hack into the phone. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 15, 2024 20:37:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 19:54:29 GMT
Fine. Show me an instance where the TSA stopped a terrorist. Show me some other way in which our privacy has been violated and that it has only worked against a criminal and not negatively harmed any other citizen. The expense of many so the government can get at the few? That's how we are going to be? I'm not willing to give up my privacy because they think they might find something of value. I The loss of life in this situation is completely and utterly a ridiculous argument. If for one second the US government gave two sh*ts about that we wouldn't have the ridiculous issue with guns, including operation fast and furious. Lives are not what they are worried about. They don't care about individual citizens. A lot more innocent people stand to be hurt from ID theft, etc. from this than from some maybe information they might find on this one individual cell phone. I'm curious did you ever read the entire story about Fast & Furious? It's an interesting story. And I'm sure not in the way you think. Anyway back to the topic at hand. Rule #1 Any information on any device that is in any way shape or form associated with the Internet or any kind of a network will be hacked at some point. That is a fact. So every time you use your bank card, credit card, laptop, or smartphone you are putting your privacy at risk. The more information one has on these devices the greater risk to their privacy when these devices are hacked. For whatever reason the FBI can't get the data on that phone so they have asked Apple for help in retrieving the information off a known terrorist's phone. In this case I personally don't have a problem because to me the "what if" is the potential loss of lives. As as to proving the TSA has stopped terrorist attacks prove that they haven't. Or that FBI, the NSA, or CIA hasn't stop terrorist attacks. The one thing that will always haunt this country about the 9/11 attack was the information was there we just didn't see it because we weren't looking for it. Now we are looking for it or trying to but some are throwing up roadblocks. I do not believe the government should have carte blanche to the information on all our electronic devices but I don't think they should be off bounds either. There has to be a middle ground that all sides can agree on. |
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
|
Post by raindancer on Feb 17, 2016 19:58:48 GMT
Fine. Show me an instance where the TSA stopped a terrorist. Show me some other way in which our privacy has been violated and that it has only worked against a criminal and not negatively harmed any other citizen. The expense of many so the government can get at the few? That's how we are going to be? I'm not willing to give up my privacy because they think they might find something of value. I The loss of life in this situation is completely and utterly a ridiculous argument. If for one second the US government gave two sh*ts about that we wouldn't have the ridiculous issue with guns, including operation fast and furious. Lives are not what they are worried about. They don't care about individual citizens. A lot more innocent people stand to be hurt from ID theft, etc. from this than from some maybe information they might find on this one individual cell phone. I'm curious did you ever read the entire story about Fast & Furious? It's an interesting story. And I'm sure not in the way you think. Anyway back to the topic at hand. Rule #1 Any information on any device that is in any way shape or form associated with the Internet or any kind of a network will be hacked at some point. That is a fact. So every time you use your bank card, credit card, laptop, or smartphone you are putting your privacy at risk. The more information one has on these devices the greater risk to their privacy when these devices are hacked. For whatever reason the FBI can't get the data on that phone so they have asked Apple for help in retrieving the information off a known terrorist's phone. In this case I personally don't have a problem because to me the "what if" is the potential loss of lives. As as to proving the TSA has stopped terrorist attacks prove that they haven't. Or that FBI, the NSA, or CIA hasn't stop terrorist attacks. The one thing that will always haunt this country about the 9/11 attack was the information was there we just didn't see it because we weren't looking for it. Now we are looking for it or trying to but some are throwing up roadblocks. I do not believe the government should have carte blanche to the information on all our electronic devices but I don't think they should be off bounds either. There has to be a middle ground that all sides can agree on. That's a lot of speculation about what I do or don't know. And giving the government something like this is the old if you give a mouse a cookie story. Just because someone at some point may commit a criminal act against me at some point doesn't mean I should just forgo all security options. I still lock my cars, I still keep an eye on my credit scores, etc. Just because at some point in time some one might hack my phone doesn't mean I should say "to hell with security" and give that information over for the government to f up like they always do. |
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Feb 17, 2016 20:10:10 GMT
Fine. Show me an instance where the TSA stopped a terrorist. Show me some other way in which our privacy has been violated and that it has only worked against a criminal and not negatively harmed any other citizen. The expense of many so the government can get at the few? That's how we are going to be? I'm not willing to give up my privacy because they think they might find something of value. I The loss of life in this situation is completely and utterly a ridiculous argument. If for one second the US government gave two sh*ts about that we wouldn't have the ridiculous issue with guns, including operation fast and furious. Lives are not what they are worried about. They don't care about individual citizens. A lot more innocent people stand to be hurt from ID theft, etc. from this than from some maybe information they might find on this one individual cell phone. I'm curious did you ever read the entire story about Fast & Furious? It's an interesting story. And I'm sure not in the way you think. Anyway back to the topic at hand. Rule #1 Any information on any device that is in any way shape or form associated with the Internet or any kind of a network will be hacked at some point. That is a fact. So every time you use your bank card, credit card, laptop, or smartphone you are putting your privacy at risk. The more information one has on these devices the greater risk to their privacy when these devices are hacked. For whatever reason the FBI can't get the data on that phone so they have asked Apple for help in retrieving the information off a known terrorist's phone. In this case I personally don't have a problem because to me the "what if" is the potential loss of lives. As as to proving the TSA has stopped terrorist attacks prove that they haven't. Or that FBI, the NSA, or CIA hasn't stop terrorist attacks. The one thing that will always haunt this country about the 9/11 attack was the information was there we just didn't see it because we weren't looking for it. Now we are looking for it or trying to but some are throwing up roadblocks. I do not believe the government should have carte blanche to the information on all our electronic devices but I don't think they should be off bounds either. There has to be a middle ground that all sides can agree on. I disagree that we weren't looking for the information that could have stopped 9/11. We were. We even saw it, but it was hidden amongst so much irrelevant and unreliable chatter that picking out the credible threat was only something that could be achieved in hindsight. That's kind of what happens when you're faced with mountains of information.
As for the OP, I hope Apple is able to stick to their guns.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 15, 2024 20:37:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 20:12:52 GMT
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Feb 17, 2016 20:19:49 GMT
Did you read the order from the magistrate? I can't say what the government WANTS (and tend to agree that they probably want a whole lot more) but this order does NOT grant them access to all devices. It seems to me this is step 1 to getting a lot more than what they're asking for. Slippery slope... |
|
|
|
Post by SnowWhite on Feb 17, 2016 20:21:39 GMT
For whatever reason the FBI can't get the data on that phone so they have asked Apple for help in retrieving the information off a known terrorist's phone. In this case I personally don't have a problem because to me the "what if" is the potential loss of lives. Except that's not what the government is asking for. They didn't ask Apple to hack this phone. They asked Apple to provide to them a master key for this phone and all other phones. It really is akin to asking a lock maker for a master key to all locks in this country. Once that master key is made, there are no guarantees that ONLY the government will use it and that the government will ONLY use it for this one phone. |
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
|
Post by raindancer on Feb 17, 2016 20:26:58 GMT
I should have just ditto'd this quote instead of my ramblings above: But the truth is, no legal case applies in a vacuum. If this goes through, if Apple is forced to assist, it will open a floodgate of law enforcement requests. Then what about civil cases? Opening a phone to support a messy divorce and child custody battle? Or what about requests from other nations, especially places like China and the UAE that already forced BlackBerry and others to compromise the security of their customers? And once the scale of these requests increases, as a security professional I guarantee the tools will leak, the techniques will be exploited by criminals, and our collective security will decline. It really doesn’t matter if it’s the iPhone 5c or 6s. It really doesn’t matter if this is about dead terrorists or a drug dealer. It doesn’t matter what specific circumvention Apple is being asked to create. What matters is if we have a right to the security and privacy of our devices, and of our communications, which are also under assault. If we have the right to tools to defend ourselves from the government and criminals alike. Yes, these tools will be sometimes used for the worst of crimes, but they’re also fundamental to our civil rights, freedom of discourse, and our ability to protect our digital lives from the less impactful, but far more frequent criminal attacks. |
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Feb 17, 2016 20:42:49 GMT
It's interesting to me that they chose this case to push forward on the request. Both players are dead - decrypting their phones isn't going to lead to a conviction; not decrypting their phones isn't going to lead to an acquittal. So this would serve no other purpose than setting a precedent for future cases. And/Or they're fishing - if that is the case, they need to find a way to find information that doesn't put the privacy of everyone else in jeopardy.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 15, 2024 20:37:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 20:49:21 GMT
It's interesting to me that they chose this case to push forward on the request. Both players are dead - decrypting their phones isn't going to lead to a conviction; not decrypting their phones isn't going to lead to an acquittal. So this would serve no other purpose than setting a precedent for future cases. And/Or they're fishing - if that is the case, they need to find a way to find information that doesn't put the privacy of everyone else in jeopardy. Yeah, exactly. Like I said above, I am sure they just about pissed their pants when things went this way on this particular case because it's tailor made for what they want. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 15, 2024 20:37:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 21:00:20 GMT
That's a lot of speculation about what I do or don't know. And giving the government something like this is the old if you give a mouse a cookie story. Just because someone at some point may commit a criminal act against me at some point doesn't mean I should just forgo all security options. I still lock my cars, I still keep an eye on my credit scores, etc. Just because at some point in time some one might hack my phone doesn't mean I should say "to hell with security" and give that information over for the government to f up like they always do. One main responsibility of the US Government is to keep its citizen's safe. But I believe you are saying don't give government the tools/information they need to do it because they may abuse it even with guidelines. I disagree with your thinking. I think the government should be able to get the information they need but by following certain parameters that includes a check and balance mechanism. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 15, 2024 20:37:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 21:04:28 GMT
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Feb 17, 2016 21:14:57 GMT
That's a lot of speculation about what I do or don't know. And giving the government something like this is the old if you give a mouse a cookie story. Just because someone at some point may commit a criminal act against me at some point doesn't mean I should just forgo all security options. I still lock my cars, I still keep an eye on my credit scores, etc. Just because at some point in time some one might hack my phone doesn't mean I should say "to hell with security" and give that information over for the government to f up like they always do. One main responsibility of the US Government is to keep its citizen's safe. But I believe you are saying don't give government the tools/information they need to do it because they may abuse it even with guidelines. I disagree with your thinking. I think the government should be able to get the information they need but by following certain parameters that includes a check and balance mechanism. What information do they need here? The two who perpetrated the attacks are dead.
That checks and balances mechanism should have prevented this court order so I don't really have much faith in it right now.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 15, 2024 20:37:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 21:41:58 GMT
For whatever reason the FBI can't get the data on that phone so they have asked Apple for help in retrieving the information off a known terrorist's phone. In this case I personally don't have a problem because to me the "what if" is the potential loss of lives. Except that's not what the government is asking for. They didn't ask Apple to hack this phone. They asked Apple to provide to them a master key for this phone and all other phones. It really is akin to asking a lock maker for a master key to all locks in this country. Once that master key is made, there are no guarantees that ONLY the government will use it and that the government will ONLY use it for this one phone. I understand what is wanted. And that is when the negotiations start. Just because it's the government doesn't mean there can't be negotiations. To stop potential terrorist attacks in this country there has to be a way to strike a balance with the government getting the information they need without infringing too much on the privacy of the citizens that are to be protected. It is extremely naive to think the government can get the information they need without impacting the privacy of its citizens in some way. That is where the discussion and negotiations come in to play. But when Tim Cook says no without the discussion then we have problems I think. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 15, 2024 20:37:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 21:44:37 GMT
But when Tim Cook says no without the discussion then we have problems I think. There has been plenty of discussion. Ultimately, Apple is not willing to compromise the larger consumer privacy issue that is at play here and I appreciate that tremendously. |
|
|
|
Post by RiverIsis on Feb 17, 2016 22:34:25 GMT
One main responsibility of the US Government is to keep its citizen's safe. But I believe you are saying don't give government the tools/information they need to do it because they may abuse it even with guidelines. I disagree with your thinking. I think the government should be able to get the information they need but by following certain parameters that includes a check and balance mechanism. What information do they need here? The two who perpetrated the attacks are dead.
That checks and balances mechanism should have prevented this court order so I don't really have much faith in it right now.
This is only case specific to find out who their terrorist contacts were and why they flew under the radar. I'm still deciding where I am on this. I don't think Apple is as secure as they claim. I think there is a lot of posturing on both sides. I have some coder family/friends that I will try to quiz over it. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 15, 2024 20:37:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 22:38:51 GMT
I'm still deciding where I am on this. I don't think Apple is as secure as they claim. I think there is a lot of posturing on both sides. I have some coder family/friends that I will try to quiz over it. I haven't seen a single person who works in tech and supports the government's side in this. My developer friends are all adamantly opposed to it. |
|
|
|
Post by RiverIsis on Feb 17, 2016 22:41:15 GMT
I'm still deciding where I am on this. I don't think Apple is as secure as they claim. I think there is a lot of posturing on both sides. I have some coder family/friends that I will try to quiz over it. I haven't seen a single person who works in tech and supports the government's side in this. My developer friends are all adamantly opposed to it. Oh I know they will be against it, I just want to know how much Apple is bullshitting everyone. TBH at the moment, I don't for one moment believe they don't already have the technology they just aren't going to admit it. |
|
