|
Post by monklady123 on Feb 17, 2016 13:01:14 GMT
I hope there wasn't a thread on this already. I searched and didn't see one, but I've never sure I'm doing that search thing right. Anyway, Apple vs. the FBI -- What do you think? I'm torn... I think the implications are serious for Apple creating a back door into their security, especially since their security has always been so good. On the other hand, if it gives us insight into terrorists and their plans.... And on the third hand, I'm not sure I like the government being able to order companies to hack into secure technology. -- Apple vs. the FBI
|
|
lesley
Drama Llama
My best friend Turriff, desperately missed.
Posts: 7,286
Location: Scotland, Scotland, Scotland
Member is Online
Jul 6, 2014 21:50:44 GMT
|
Post by lesley on Feb 17, 2016 13:07:05 GMT
That is a really interesting situation. And I think Apple are right to refuse to do something that is detrimental to them as a company. As the forensics expert said, it is likely that governmental organisations would be able to access the phone without Aplle's involvement. So why put Apple in the position, unless there is a different agenda?
|
|
StephDRebel
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,689
Location: Ohio
Jul 5, 2014 1:53:49 GMT
|
Post by StephDRebel on Feb 17, 2016 13:35:09 GMT
I read an article today that said they've been trying to get into the phone but can't because of the security features. I hope apple stands their ground and prevails in this one, scary stuff.
|
|
Nicole in TX
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,951
Jun 26, 2014 2:00:21 GMT
|
Post by Nicole in TX on Feb 17, 2016 13:44:52 GMT
I agree with all of your points. It is an interesting case all around.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 21, 2024 0:46:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 13:59:34 GMT
I have no doubt that Apple already has that back door in place, but I don't think they should share it with the government.
|
|
|
Post by cyndijane on Feb 17, 2016 14:19:28 GMT
Yeah, no. I hope Apple stands their ground, too. I can't imagine it's as simple as- just this one time.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Feb 17, 2016 14:28:20 GMT
Considering how incompetent our government is at protecting us from cyber threats, under no circumstances should this be allowed. I hope Tim Cook stands his ground and that it goes to court and they win. The government encroaching on our privacy little by little to "protect" us is only harming us. I've said it before, with regard to other acts of security theater, like the TSA. It's reactive, it is non-useful, and it hurts us more than it helps us. Give them an inch and they take a mile.
|
|
|
Post by ferblover on Feb 17, 2016 14:29:21 GMT
I have 0 confidence that this would be a "one time" thing.
|
|
BarbaraUK
Drama Llama
Surrounded by my yarn stash on the NE coast of England...............!! Refupea 1702
Posts: 5,961
Location: England UK
Jun 27, 2014 12:47:11 GMT
|
Post by BarbaraUK on Feb 17, 2016 14:33:42 GMT
Yes, I too think it would be difficult for this to be a one time thing if Apple loses out on this because a precedent would have been set. I hope they stand their ground and win if the case goes to court as it's detrimental to them as a company also apart from anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Delta Dawn on Feb 17, 2016 14:34:43 GMT
Considering how incompetent our government is at protecting us from cyber threats, under no circumstances should this be allowed. I hope Tim Cook stands his ground and that it goes to court and they win. The government encroaching on our privacy little by little to "protect" us is only harming us. I've said it before, with regard to other acts of security theater, like the TSA. It's reactive, it is non-useful, and it hurts us more than it helps us. Give them an inch and they take a mile. This is a scary prescedent to set if the FBI prevails. Where does your right to personal safety begin and keeping big brother out end? I don't have an answer to this either.
|
|
|
Post by monklady123 on Feb 17, 2016 14:36:00 GMT
Also, cynic that I am, I find it hard to believe that the FBI/CIA/Whoever doesn't have IT people who can hack anything. I don't know though...maybe I've been watching too much crime TV. I mean if you watch "Criminal Minds" do you think that Penelope Garcia couldn't figure out how to hack a cell phone? She does that and more every week. lol
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Feb 17, 2016 14:41:41 GMT
Also, cynic that I am, I find it hard to believe that the FBI/CIA/Whoever doesn't have IT people who can hack anything. I don't know though...maybe I've been watching too much crime TV. I mean if you watch "Criminal Minds" do you think that Penelope Garcia couldn't figure out how to hack a cell phone? She does that and more every week. lol They don't pay enough for that level of talent in real life.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Feb 17, 2016 14:44:36 GMT
I also think other people in other countries should be concerned, if our government can order this, so can others, or they can just use what is made available. It's a recipe for disaster.
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Feb 17, 2016 14:52:25 GMT
This situation is pretty serious and scary. I don't want my privacy violated, and I looooove how secure apple products are (or at least seem to be to me, as I've never had a virus problem with any of them). But at the same time if the hack can gain valuable info to learn more and about and stop future terrorist attacks I sort of feel like there is a moral obligation to help. But like they said on the news this morning who are they going to entrust with that secret and how can we be sure they won't sell it to the highest bidder?
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 17, 2016 15:07:33 GMT
I think there's several layers here. I understand and probably concur with the concerns of creating a backdoor to the ios will probably open up a whole new host of problems from both malicious sources who would want to take advantage of it and the potential for the government to use it in unauthorized ways. I do however see a distinct difference between a court ordered investigation and government surveillance and we shouldn't conflate the two. You absolutely lose your right to privacy when you have given probable cause and as long as the search is done with the appropriate warrants, it shouldn't be used to argue a slippery slope of loss of privacy.
ETA I do have to vehemently disagree that Apple does well with security. I honestly think they have an undeserved reputation by being a smaller player and not subjected to malicious attacks in the pc world. I have had multiple issues with my iphone and ad redirects with Safari. I also had a virus on my work Macbook so the idea that they don't get viruses is just wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Feb 17, 2016 15:16:09 GMT
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Feb 17, 2016 15:16:29 GMT
I think there's several layers here. I understand and probably concur with the concerns of creating a backdoor to the ios will probably open up a whole new host of problems from both malicious sources who would want to take advantage of it and the potential for the government to use it in unauthorized ways. I do however see a distinct difference between a court ordered investigation and government surveillance and we shouldn't conflate the two. You absolutely lose your right to privacy when you have given probable cause and as long as the search is done with the appropriate warrants, it shouldn't be used to argue a slippery slope of loss of privacy. ETA I do have to vehemently disagree that Apple does well with security. I honestly think they have an undeserved reputation by being a smaller player and not subjected to malicious attacks in the pc world. I have had multiple issues with my iphone and ad redirects with Safari. I also had a virus on my work Macbook so the idea that they don't get viruses is just wrong. The request is not to specifically hack this one guys cell phone. The request is to deny US citizens, yet one more right to privacy, to "protect" us. Yet the far bigger concern is that if Apple complies, then we are opening ourselves up to more common problems that the US government does nothing to help us out with as victims (Identity theft anyone?). So in some noble effort to keep me safe, I'm supposed to be ok with, and assign morality to something that ultimately will likely harm me in some lesser way, with no way to regain what is lost? That is not how I want the US government to do business. It's not a slippery slope argument to suggest that when one person commits a crime and is giving up rights that all of us must in the name of solidarity. Particularly to a group of people that uses that information illegally, can't control their own cyber security issues, and can't prove that any of these types of actions have actually ever "saved" anyone from harm.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 17, 2016 15:25:56 GMT
I think there's several layers here. I understand and probably concur with the concerns of creating a backdoor to the ios will probably open up a whole new host of problems from both malicious sources who would want to take advantage of it and the potential for the government to use it in unauthorized ways. I do however see a distinct difference between a court ordered investigation and government surveillance and we shouldn't conflate the two. You absolutely lose your right to privacy when you have given probable cause and as long as the search is done with the appropriate warrants, it shouldn't be used to argue a slippery slope of loss of privacy. ETA I do have to vehemently disagree that Apple does well with security. I honestly think they have an undeserved reputation by being a smaller player and not subjected to malicious attacks in the pc world. I have had multiple issues with my iphone and ad redirects with Safari. I also had a virus on my work Macbook so the idea that they don't get viruses is just wrong. The request is not to specifically hack this one guys cell phone. The request is to deny US citizens, yet one more right to privacy, to "protect" us. Yet the far bigger concern is that if Apple complies, then we are opening ourselves up to more common problems that the US government does nothing to help us out with as victims (Identity theft anyone?). So in some noble effort to keep me safe, I'm supposed to be ok with, and assign morality to something that ultimately will likely harm me in some lesser way, with no way to regain what is lost? That is not how I want the US government to do business. It's not a slippery slope argument to suggest that when one person commits a crime and is giving up rights that all of us must in the name of solidarity. Particularly to a group of people that uses that information illegally, can't control their own cyber security issues, and can't prove that any of these types of actions have actually ever "saved" anyone from harm. Actually the request was specifically to hack this one guys cell phone. You're not giving up YOUR RIGHTS if this goes through. I acknowledged that there may be other implications that should be discussed and debated. But the idea that a search warrant is issued in a criminal investigation doesn't translate into you giving up your right to privacy.
|
|
|
Post by SnowWhite on Feb 17, 2016 15:48:49 GMT
The request is not to specifically hack this one guys cell phone. The request is to deny US citizens, yet one more right to privacy, to "protect" us. Yet the far bigger concern is that if Apple complies, then we are opening ourselves up to more common problems that the US government does nothing to help us out with as victims (Identity theft anyone?). So in some noble effort to keep me safe, I'm supposed to be ok with, and assign morality to something that ultimately will likely harm me in some lesser way, with no way to regain what is lost? That is not how I want the US government to do business. It's not a slippery slope argument to suggest that when one person commits a crime and is giving up rights that all of us must in the name of solidarity. Particularly to a group of people that uses that information illegally, can't control their own cyber security issues, and can't prove that any of these types of actions have actually ever "saved" anyone from harm. Actually the request was specifically to hack this one guys cell phone. You're not giving up YOUR RIGHTS if this goes through. I acknowledged that there may be other implications that should be discussed and debated. But the idea that a search warrant is issued in a criminal investigation doesn't translate into you giving up your right to privacy. The problem is, any code they turn over to break into this one guy's phone will likely also break into anyone's iPhone. It's not like this encryption is specific to his phone and his phone alone, it's standard iPhone software.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Feb 17, 2016 15:49:23 GMT
The request is not to specifically hack this one guys cell phone. The request is to deny US citizens, yet one more right to privacy, to "protect" us. Yet the far bigger concern is that if Apple complies, then we are opening ourselves up to more common problems that the US government does nothing to help us out with as victims (Identity theft anyone?). So in some noble effort to keep me safe, I'm supposed to be ok with, and assign morality to something that ultimately will likely harm me in some lesser way, with no way to regain what is lost? That is not how I want the US government to do business. It's not a slippery slope argument to suggest that when one person commits a crime and is giving up rights that all of us must in the name of solidarity. Particularly to a group of people that uses that information illegally, can't control their own cyber security issues, and can't prove that any of these types of actions have actually ever "saved" anyone from harm. Actually the request was specifically to hack this one guys cell phone. You're not giving up YOUR RIGHTS if this goes through. I acknowledged that there may be other implications that should be discussed and debated. But the idea that a search warrant is issued in a criminal investigation doesn't translate into you giving up your right to privacy. It does, and here is a great explanation why: Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case. In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge. The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable. The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe. We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them. From the letter from Tim Cook Link to the rest of the letter. And just in case it matters, I don't own an iphone. I just am damn tired of our government taking away our right to privacy one piece at a time to save us, when they are doing the exact opposite.
|
|
|
Post by SnowWhite on Feb 17, 2016 15:50:30 GMT
Also, cynic that I am, I find it hard to believe that the FBI/CIA/Whoever doesn't have IT people who can hack anything. I don't know though...maybe I've been watching too much crime TV. I mean if you watch "Criminal Minds" do you think that Penelope Garcia couldn't figure out how to hack a cell phone? She does that and more every week. lol They don't pay enough for that level of talent in real life. I agree with you. They're not trying to be savvy here, they're trying to brute force attack this phone and they want Apple to disable the 'wipe on brute force' mode. I have no doubt this phone could be cracked, but not by the folks the government employees.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 17, 2016 16:04:15 GMT
I stated in my first post that there were technological implications and the potential for government abuse - so I don't disagree at all with that aspect raindancer and SnowWhite I think those are legitimate concerns and as I have an extremely healthy skepticism and lack of trust in our government thus I am not sure that I support this effort - not to mention it makes the government look like a bunch of IT idiots. There were several posters who cited overall privacy concerns and "big brother" and I wanted to make the distinction between unauthorized government use and malicious users using the technology (which I'll be honest I am less concerned about as I honestly think there are probably more of these who have the ability to do it themselves) and that by upholding a search warrant in a criminal investigation everyone has suddenly given up their right to privacy.
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Feb 17, 2016 16:07:40 GMT
if the software does not exist (and why would it...it would negate a strength of apple's corporate interests), then the government is saying...we are going to direct your work and that of your employees.. that is a slippery slope we don't want to go down. this is not a ticking bomb..this is to understand something that has passed and can't be changed. not worth it.\ I think apple should hold its ground, on behalf of all of us. I agree the govt can't pay enough to attract the top talent...the govt can't pay the price or offer the atmosphere of working in a top company. or the freedom to direct your own work product.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Feb 17, 2016 16:10:48 GMT
I stated in my first post that there were technological implications and the potential for government abuse - so I don't disagree at all with that aspect raindancer and SnowWhite I think those are legitimate concerns and as I have an extremely healthy skepticism and lack of trust in our government thus I am not sure that I support this effort - not to mention it makes the government look like a bunch of IT idiots. There were several posters who cited overall privacy concerns and "big brother" and I wanted to make the distinction between unauthorized government use and malicious users using the technology (which I'll be honest I am less concerned about as I honestly think there are probably more of these who have the ability to do it themselves) and that by upholding a search warrant in a criminal investigation everyone has suddenly given up their right to privacy. I see this as analogous to the key that Cook talks about. Say your neighbor had a crime in their home and the FBI can't get into their house because they can't find a way without the key. They then say everyone in the neighborhood has to give them a key to their house to try on the neighbors house. They aren't going to use your key to get into your house, just to see if it works on the neighbors. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 17, 2016 16:21:46 GMT
I stated in my first post that there were technological implications and the potential for government abuse - so I don't disagree at all with that aspect raindancer and SnowWhite I think those are legitimate concerns and as I have an extremely healthy skepticism and lack of trust in our government thus I am not sure that I support this effort - not to mention it makes the government look like a bunch of IT idiots. There were several posters who cited overall privacy concerns and "big brother" and I wanted to make the distinction between unauthorized government use and malicious users using the technology (which I'll be honest I am less concerned about as I honestly think there are probably more of these who have the ability to do it themselves) and that by upholding a search warrant in a criminal investigation everyone has suddenly given up their right to privacy. I see this as analogous to the key that Cook talks about. Say your neighbor had a crime in their home and the FBI can't get into their house because they can't find a way without the key. They then say everyone in the neighborhood has to give them a key to their house to try on the neighbors house. They aren't going to use your key to get into your house, just to see if it works on the neighbors. 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 that gets into is it really giving everyone up their key. On it's face APPLE having software to turn of their encryption is analogous to a bank using their key to open your safe deposit box with a warrant (which some banks do while others will force the government to drill out the lock). The government isn't saying Apple has to release this new software to everyone which would make it your example of everyone turning their keys over. Again - I understand there are concerns that others will use the technology or the government will misuse the technology - but that isn't the same as saying you're giving up your RIGHT to privacy.
|
|
Loydene
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,639
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Jul 8, 2014 16:31:47 GMT
|
Post by Loydene on Feb 17, 2016 16:23:59 GMT
I'm standing by raindancer and pretty much everything I've seen her say here!
The gun people go crazy over mere suggestions of alteration/strengthening/enforement of gun laws asserting 2nd Amendment protections and violations ... yet we get silence from the majority of citizens when serious intrusions to privacy are requested in the name of "safety".
I hope Apple stands its grounds.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 21, 2024 0:46:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 16:45:25 GMT
I think the feds probably just about peed their pants with excitement that they aren't able to get into this cell phone. There could not be a more perfect situation for them to try and force this kind of action on Apple and other phone manufacturers.
An extremist Muslim terrorist who killed people in the US and we can't get to the information on his phone? So much of the public at large and many legislators will be totally on board with doing anything to get into that phone without thinking of the long term ramifications for everyone else. The tired refrains of "if you don't have anything to hide, what's the problem?" and "don't put anything on your phone you don't want everyone to be able to see" just don't cut it. We simply cannot give up all our rights to privacy just because the world has evolved in ways that make it easier to violate privacy.
I hope we don't fall for it. (The push for a back door, not that I think there is some conspiracy theory about the terrorism itself.)
|
|
|
Post by blondiec47 on Feb 17, 2016 17:00:01 GMT
While I can understand the governments frustration, I really hope Apple holds it ground. All the points brought up here are enough reason to not force Apple to provide a way in
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Feb 17, 2016 17:09:06 GMT
Why can't apple retrieve the data and then not tell the government how they did it? I realize it is a bit simplistic, but really they don't have to give anyone the "key". The government should really just want the data, they shouldn't really care how they got it - if the intent for one man's data is honorable.
I guess I think of my iphone as having Apple as the admin. I would assume they could get into my phone to fix it even without my codes. I wouldn't want the government to know how to become my admin, but for apple to monitor apple devices wouldn't surprise me - hell they know where I'm going when I get in my car, they know what music I like, they know pretty much everywhere I have ever taken my phone. If I'm dead, they should be able to access it - again, NOT the government.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 17, 2016 17:16:37 GMT
Why can't apple retrieve the data and then not tell the government how they did it? I realize it is a bit simplistic, but really they don't have to give anyone the "key". The government should really just want the data, they shouldn't really care how they got it - if the intent for one man's data is honorable. I guess I think of my iphone as having Apple as the admin. I would assume they could get into my phone to fix it even without my codes. I wouldn't want the government to know how to become my admin, but for apple to monitor apple devices wouldn't surprise me - hell they know where I'm going when I get in my car, they know what music I like, they know pretty much everywhere I have ever taken my phone. If I'm dead, they should be able to access it - again, NOT the government. I'm wondering if it's due to the need for chain of custody or the information could be thrown out? I know they receive data from servers directly from companies under a warrant so don't know that there isn't an alternative. For those interested this is the specific ruling from the judge on the assistance Apple is to offer: www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.htmlIt IS supposed to be for one phone, but I fully acknowledge people's concern that it could/would be misused by the government or other individuals.
|
|