A Message to Our Customers from Apple

[Magnificent Seven]

February 16, 2016 A Message to Our Customers

The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.

This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.

The Need for Encryption
Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going.

All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data.

Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.

For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.

The San Bernardino Case
We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.

When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.

We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.

The Threat to Data Security
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.

A Dangerous Precedent
Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority.

The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.

The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.

Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.

We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.

While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

Tim Cook

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

[Magnificent Seven]

We are super doomed...

[DenBronx]

This sort of thing was all a joke years ago.

"Oh, it will never happen to us Americans." "The people won't put up with it." "They are more scared of us then we are of them" "More gun control please because we can TRUST our Government." "Spying is only to catch the bad guys" "They will never hack into my personal devices without my permission"


You see, this is why you don't budge or give an inch to big Govt. They are not your friends. They do not care what's best for you, only them.


So, who's laughing now?

[weazel]

freedom

[Magnificent Seven]

Think twice all you people who want the government to fund everything and have control of our lives! This is exactly what this country fought against in other parts of the worlds! You're giving a power to corrupt, money driven, and power hungry people who at the end of the day don't care about the little people like us. Remember nothing in life is for free!!!! Most countries pay 70% in taxes to have health care and education! I'd rather say get off you butt and earn it if you want something that bad! Keep money in my pocket bc many won't contribute if it's free and prob still not do anything with themselves. You always have to earn it! So anything that's pushed as too good to be true will be and cost us little guys the most!

[weazel]

Most countries pay 70% in taxes? damn I want to know where that is.

[ShaneFalco]

Told people this stuff was not a joke.. ..

[ShaneFalco]

freedom

and see people still think its a joke.

At least they cant lie and say its about "terrorism" anymore. They just fully embrace the surveillance now that their argument has collapsed.

[weazel]

and see people still think its a joke.

nope, that's not what that meant. I was agreeing with you there Shane. People that are the least free are told their whole lives how free they are

[Slick]

No one is forcing you to put all of your personal information on a phone either. I see your point here M7, but I don't share your concern.

[ShaneFalco]

nope, that's not what that meant. I was agreeing with you there Shane. People that are the least free are told their whole lives how free they are

my apologies. thought you were mocking. :)

[Magnificent Seven]

This is not a joke. I attached it from Apple.com. Go to Apple.com and see it for yourself.

[ShaneFalco]

Gary Johnson

"If the government wants to search a hotel room, they don't -- or shouldn't -- demand that the hotel hand them a pass key that would open EVERY room. In a very simplified way, that is what the government is demanding of Apple in order to supposedly access one particular device. Apple is right to be fighting -- and we ALL have a stake in the outcome."

[ShaneFalco]

Trump of course supports the FBI having a backdoor.


On Fox & Friends this morning, Trump said, “To think that Apple won't allow us to get into her cellphone? Who do they think they are? No, we have to open it," he said. “I agree 100% with the courts. In that case, we should open it up. I think security overall—we have to open it up. And we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense. Somebody the other day called me a common-sense conservative. We have to use common sense. Our country has so many problems.”

[BroncoJoe]

Personally, I don't get the outrage. These people killed 14 people, and would have killed more if not stopped. What if there are people on that phone who want to continue the carnage that live here?

Not saying I necessarily agree with the GOVT or Apple. Just saying.

[FanInAZ]

1) This thread actually belongs in politics.

2) Normally, I side with the government in these debates, but I'm siding with Apple in this one because of a possible scenario that has yet to be mentioned. Even if we were to trust the FBI to play by the rules when using this backdoor, the fact they would have exclusive access to one would make it even more appealing than it already is for criminals & terrorists to join them in order to gain this access. Such access would undoubtedly also give them the ability to conduct surveillance on the FBI's Internal Affairs division so they will know not only if someone is suspecting a mole, but progress in the investigation. This will give them the ability to exploit their position as long as possible before going off the grid in order to avoid getting caught.

[FanInAZ]

Trump of course supports the FBI having a backdoor.

I doubt he's tech savvy enough to understand anything being discussed here.

[ShaneFalco]

Personally, I don't get the outrage. These people killed 14 people, and would have killed more if not stopped. What if there are people on that phone who want to continue the carnage that live here?

Not saying I necessarily agree with the GOVT or Apple. Just saying.

because if you give the government source code/backdoor , it is giving them a backdoor to everyone else's phone.

[BroncoJoe]

because if you give the government source code/backdoor , it is giving them a backdoor to everyone else's phone.

We live in a different world now. If you can articulately explain to me the problem with this, I'll jump on board. And I'm not talking about saying something like "but our privacy!!!"

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it.

[ShaneFalco]

Yea a world that the government believes it should have access to everything, whether people committed a crime or not.

Thats a huge problem.

[Ravage!!!]

Personally, I don't get the outrage. These people killed 14 people, and would have killed more if not stopped. What if there are people on that phone who want to continue the carnage that live here?

Not saying I necessarily agree with the GOVT or Apple. Just saying.

because although it might sound like a quick way to solve a single problem, it opens up a HUGE problem for decades. It's creating the very pinhole that would cause the damn to break.

[BroncoJoe]

Yea a world that the government believes it should have access to everything, whether people committed a crime or not.

Thats a huge problem.

I don't disagree.


because although it might sound like a quick way to solve a single problem, it opens up a HUGE problem for decades. It's creating the very pinhole that would cause the damn to break.

Again, I'm not defending the GOVT, or Apple. I just think we live in a different world where surveillance is crucial to the well being of the public. The second something happens, what's the first reaction? Why didn't the police/government know about this????

I'm honestly playing devil's advocate here, in case you all don't know it.

[Ravage!!!]

We live in a different world now. If you can articulately explain to me the problem with this, I'll jump on board. And I'm not talking about saying something like "but our privacy!!!"

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it.

We absolutely liv in a different world now. Our phones really aren't our phones. They are our personal computers. They are our identity, our wallets, our friends, our relative, our identification..our medical records...and most correspondences that we have around the world. Being who we called, texted, emailed, or contacted through social media. Which, as you said, is today's world.

So to give an example as a comparison in yesterday's world...that would be like gving the government full access to everyone's home computer, front door, mail box, medical records, and bank accounts at their will and leisure. That sounds great in trying to 'catch a burglar'..but do we really want to allow the governing body tht much free access to our lives purely because they want it?

[BeefStew25]

Mission creep.

[BroncoJoe]

We absolutely liv in a different world now. Our phones really aren't our phones. They are our personal computers. They are our identity, our wallets, our friends, our relative, our identification..our medical records...and most correspondences that we have around the world. Being who we called, texted, emailed, or contacted through social media. Which, as you said, is today's world.

So to give an example as a comparison in yesterday's world...that would be like gving the government full access to everyone's home computer, front door, mail box, medical records, and bank accounts at their will and leisure. That sounds great in trying to 'catch a burglar'..but do we really want to allow the governing body tht much free access to our lives purely because they want it?

Tell me about the terrorists (who have a global reach) in yesterday's world, and I'll listen.

[NightTerror218]

Most countries pay 70% in taxes? damn I want to know where that is.

Holland is over 50% I believe

[NightTerror218]

I don't disagree.

Again, I'm not defending the GOVT, or Apple. I just think we live in a different world where surveillance is crucial to the well being of the public. The second something happens, what's the first reaction? Why didn't the police/government know about this????

I'm honestly playing devil's advocate here, in case you all don't know it.

The problem is once you create this backdoor, hackers will find it and steal your data. Credit card info, identity theft, all data.

[ShaneFalco]

or hell maybe a government employee who has a gambling problem.

[OrangeHoof]

Choose Apple products for your next jihad...

[BroncoJoe]

The problem is once you create this backdoor, hackers will find it and steal your data. Credit card info, identity theft, all data.

So, you're saying we shouldn't do this to prevent innocent lives being snuffed out because of CC info, identity theft, etc.?

Seems to me that there are other programs to help prevent that from happening.

And you're right. None of that stuff happens now, right? ( end sarcasm )

I don't see why Apple can't get the data from the phone. I'm sure it has to be hooked up to one of their servers/computers to get to it. It's not like it'll be out there and available anymore than what currently happens with thieves and people who do that sort of thing already.

[BroncoJoe]

Choose Apple products for your next jihad...

Apple is the bane of my existence. I hate them.

[BroncoJoe]

or hell maybe a government employee who has a gambling problem.

Yeah, because no one's personal information is EVER compromised, right?

[Magnificent Seven]

Most countries pay 70% in taxes? damn I want to know where that is.

To have that type of system yes! How they pay for "free" entitled services. When you look into those countries the tax rate is way higher. Again nothing is ever free!

[Ravage!!!]

Tell me about the terrorists (who have a global reach) in yesterday's world, and I'll listen.

Again. You are focusing in on capturing terrorists by giving up our civil rights. I, personally, don't want to give up my civil rights in the pursuit and HOPE of apprehension of a supposed terrorists. You give access to YOUR private information in the hopes of finding someone else's stuff, and guess what that opens the door to them finding...YOUR shit.

Terrorists always had world wide access. They in fact, had done it LONG before the internet. Via radio, snail mail, hand-t0-hand delivery, or pigeon. Whatever. We landed people on the moon before there were home computers, it certainly was viable to make contact with someone across the states or the oceans.

FBI: I see you have been having a lot of corrospondence with this 'chaz' person via the internet.
Joe: Yeah. we are both Bronco fans
FBI: You do realize that chaz is a well known narcotics dealer and distributor of child pornography
Joe: no...no... I didn't know that
FBI: Considering the amount of corrospondence that you've had, we find it hard to believe that you didn't know. You are now under investigation.

Now you may be saying "so what, I didn't do anything, thus I won't be charged." True. However it will be public knowledge that you are under investigation for having ties to drug dealers and child porn distributors. That can/could be reported over news channels of your local town/city.

A small, minute, example of the infinite number of possibilities of people's privacy being intruded upon.

Having the right to look through people's privacy in search for specific baddies sounds GREAT.... if you believed that those in pursuit wee 100% trustworthy. How many politicians do you believe to be that kind of trustworthy? How many police chiefs? How many people do you know, in the workforce, that you would trust with all your information at the touch of a keypad?

[Ravage!!!]

So, you're saying we shouldn't do this to prevent innocent lives being snuffed out because of CC info, identity theft, etc.?



Yes, I'm absolutely saying that. Exactly. YEs. 100% yes. Opening that pandora's box is worse than the possibility of people losing their lives, as the terrorists can pass information in HUNDREDS of ways. This wouldn't stop anyone.

[BroncoJoe]

Again. You are focusing in on capturing terrorists by giving up our civil rights. I, personally, don't want to give up my civil rights in the pursuit and HOPE of apprehension of a supposed terrorists. You give access to YOUR private information in the hopes of finding someone else's stuff, and guess what that opens the door to them finding...YOUR shit.

Terrorists always had world wide access. They in fact, had done it LONG before the internet. Via radio, snail mail, hand-t0-hand delivery, or pigeon. Whatever. We landed people on the moon before there were home computers, it certainly was viable to make contact with someone across the states or the oceans.

FBI: I see you have been having a lot of corrospondence with this 'chaz' person via the internet.
Joe: Yeah. we are both Bronco fans
FBI: You do realize that chaz is a well known narcotics dealer and distributor of child pornography
Joe: no...no... I didn't know that
FBI: Considering the amount of corrospondence that you've had, we find it hard to believe that you didn't know. You are now under investigation.

Now you may be saying "so what, I didn't do anything, thus I won't be charged." True. However it will be public knowledge that you are under investigation for having ties to drug dealers and child porn distributors. That can/could be reported over news channels of your local town/city.

A small, minute, example of the infinite number of possibilities of people's privacy being intruded upon.

Having the right to look through people's privacy in search for specific baddies sounds GREAT.... if you believed that those in pursuit wee 100% trustworthy. How many politicians do you believe to be that kind of trustworthy? How many police chiefs? How many people do you know, in the workforce, that you would trust with all your information at the touch of a keypad?

In that senario, I'd say "sure - check my computer. Put that sicko away for life".

Let's take a look at what Manning is going through. Whether true or not, his name is being dragged through the mud. How about those athletes from whatever college that was who were recently charged (they weren't charged, but whatever), then cleared because it was a complete and total farce. Was that because the GOVT had information from their cell phones and wrongly accused them?

[BroncoJoe]

Oh, and I actually believe that most politicians (maybe not most, but whatever), most police officers, most sheriffs are good people. It isn't JUST the government that has bad people in it.

[NightTerror218]

So, you're saying we shouldn't do this to prevent innocent lives being snuffed out because of CC info, identity theft, etc.?

Seems to me that there are other programs to help prevent that from happening.

And you're right. None of that stuff happens now, right? ( end sarcasm )

I don't see why Apple can't get the data from the phone. I'm sure it has to be hooked up to one of their servers/computers to get to it. It's not like it'll be out there and available anymore than what currently happens with thieves and people who do that sort of thing already.

It's the fact that it could not put everyone in jeopardy. Any hacker can hack your phone through this new back door, get all your data, location and track you.

If a terrorist/assassin is targeting someone with iPhone, they can hack them, read messages and find out routine and locations.

Want terrorists to hack personal phones of Congress or federal agencies to get back mail information.

Or read conversation between you and your kids to know when your kids are most vulnerable.

It's not just about federal agencies accessing your phone it's about providing a back door for anyone to hack into anyone's phone.

Read the article. The government told them to create a new operating system with they back door. Which means all phones will have this back door.

I do not know much about this terrorist situation outside of the 2 terrorists were killed in shootout. But it sounds like government wants to be able to remotely hack any phone at any time, no matter where it is. That is too great a power that would be scary in the wrong hands.

[NightTerror218]

In that senario, I'd say "sure - check my computer. Put that sicko away for life".

Let's take a look at what Manning is going through. Whether true or not, his name is being dragged through the mud. How about those athletes from whatever college that was who were recently charged (they weren't charged, but whatever), then cleared because it was a complete and total farce. Was that because the GOVT had information from their cell phones and wrongly accused them?

No use for subpoena with this technology they can just get your through your back door and have their way.

[BroncoJoe]

It's the fact that it could not put everyone in jeopardy. Any hacker can hack your phone through this new back door, get all your data, location and track you.

If a terrorist/assassin is targeting someone with iPhone, they can hack them, read messages and find out routine and locations.

Want terrorists to hack personal phones of Congress or federal agencies to get back mail information.

Or read conversation between you and your kids to know when your kids are most vulnerable.

It's not just about federal agencies accessing your phone it's about providing a back door for anyone to hack into anyone's phone.

Read the article. The government told them to create a new operating system with they back door. Which means all phones will have this back door.

I do not know much about this terrorist situation outside of the 2 terrorists were killed in shootout. But it sounds like government wants to be able to remotely hack any phone at any time, no matter where it is. That is too great a power that would be scary in the wrong hands.


No use for subpoena with this technology they can just get your through your back door and have their way.

It's my understanding that they just want Apple to "break into the phone". I am not a fan of them purposely installing a back-door in their iOS system.

You can't tell me Apple doesn't' have a way to read the information on this guys phone. I just don't believe it. And they should use it to see what's on there and if there are any others still in the States that could cause harm.

[NightTerror218]

It's my understanding that they just want Apple to "break into the phone". I am not a fan of them purposely installing a back-door in their iOS system.

You can't tell me Apple doesn't' have a way to read the information on this guys phone. I just don't believe it. And they should use it to see what's on there and if there are any others still in the States that could cause harm.

The article specifically says iOS update that the government claims will only use once.

The only way apple could access data is if it had remote access to the phone or if it had information saved in say the cloud. I bet they have already looked at all information that Apple has access too. But access information stored the phone hard drive is just like a laptop. HP or Dell don't have access to your hard drive information not does windows. This is what the government wants access to is the phone hard drive.

[BroncoJoe]

The article specifically says iOS update that the government claims will only use once.

The only way apple could access data is if it had remote access to the phone or if it had information saved in say the cloud. I bet they have already looked at all information that Apple has access too. But access information stored the phone hard drive is just like a laptop. HP or Dell don't have access to your hard drive information not does windows. This is what the government wants access to is the phone hard drive.

I guess my point is, if the FBI or whoever took a laptop to Microsoft, they'd be able to "break into" that information. I'm sure Apple does as well - as long as the phone is physically in their possession. If they're talking about a cloud based way to breach the data, I'm opposed to that.

As I said before, I can't imagine Apple doesn't have a way to look at the information on the phone if it's in their possession.

[NightTerror218]

I guess my point is, if the FBI or whoever took a laptop to Microsoft, they'd be able to "break into" that information. I'm sure Apple does as well - as long as the phone is physically in their possession. If they're talking about a cloud based way to breach the data, I'm opposed to that.

As I said before, I can't imagine Apple doesn't have a way to look at the information on the phone if it's in their possession.

That is completely different then what the FBI is telling them to do. Read paragraph 10. They want the iOS modifies for a back door.

There is no mention of the phone being in their possession. I do not know if it is or not. I would think if it is they can get the info.

They also said that they build security to keep everyone out of phones even apple. Nobody is above the personal information on the phone.

[Slick]

A mexican off the street can hack your phone with ease.

[ShaneFalco]

this is what every company now faces. Not just apple.

US gov wants backdoor installed on ALL HDs, and did so without approval of the Manufacturer in the past.


If any organization did this to a company, they would be thrown in jail.

[MOtorboat]

I'm not sure I understand how all this works, but I don't believe for a second Apple simply doesn't have the technology and would have to create it.

[Ravage!!!]

So, you're saying we shouldn't do this to prevent innocent lives being snuffed out because of CC info, identity theft, etc.?



Yes, I'm absolutely saying that. Exactly. YEs. 100% yes. Opening that pandora's box is worse than the possibility of people losing their lives, as the terrorists can pass information in HUNDREDS of ways. This wouldn't stop anyone.

Plus... once you start giving up your civil rights, that's changing the govt. That's changing our entire way of life. Isn't that what separates us from the type of countries that have terrorists, civil rights and the rights that the american public can keep the govt from controlling their lives purely at their will? Giving up those rights, one by one... is depleting what it means to be an american. Giving the govt THAT kind of leap, only leads to the precident of them taking another right away, all in the name of "pursuing terrorists." That's a horrible, terrifying, road to start to wander down.

No thank you. Thank GOODNESS that more Americans are looking out for the "american" way of life and trying to keep that way....by not falling into this "lets let the Govt have EVERYTHHING from our lives in the "pursuit" of terrorist." Those words, alone, give me chills as it would mean the terrorists have taken MUCH MUCH more than lives in a bombing.

[Ravage!!!]

It's my understanding that they just want Apple to "break into the phone". I am not a fan of them purposely installing a back-door in their iOS system.

You can't tell me Apple doesn't' have a way to read the information on this guys phone. I just don't believe it. And they should use it to see what's on there and if there are any others still in the States that could cause harm.


So govt officials are good people, but the people at Apple are just not helping them (the FBI) break into ONE phone, when you believe they can, purely becausee they want to help terrorism?

[Ravage!!!]

I'm not sure I understand how all this works, but I don't believe for a second Apple simply doesn't have the technology and would have to create it.

You're probably right.... you don't understand how all that works.

[MOtorboat]

You're probably right.... you don't understand how all that works.

So you really believe Apple is hiding nothing?

This is Apple we're talking about here.

[ShaneFalco]

its the about the source code MO.

This is the forced merger of government with a free company.

[MOtorboat]

its the about the source code MO.

This is the forced merger of government with a free company.

I don't understand this enough to be strongly for or against anything here. The main reason, though, is because I don't really believe either party.

Frankly, it's just best not to hide shit anymore.

[ShaneFalco]

I don't understand this enough to be strongly for or against anything here. The main reason, though, is because I don't really believe either party.

Frankly, it's just best not to hide shit anymore.
Sorry but Privacy is not a bad thing no matter how many people want to pass it off as that.

I can tell you something far worse.... growing up in a society where everybody has to self censor what they say or do. Free Speech just becomes a punchline at that point.

[Dapper Dan]

I'm not sure I understand how all this works, but I don't believe for a second Apple simply doesn't have the technology and would have to create it.

I guess I'm in the same camp. When this stuff pops up, I'm usually not outraged because I thought it already happened. All of my contacts are saved by Google. Every app I've ever downloaded is on record. I thought everything I did on my phone could be monitored. If I didn't want it to happen I would get rid of my cell phone. I never saw a cell phone as a necessary thing that should be protected by the Constitution.

[aberdien]

America is still very free.

[ShaneFalco]

"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say," - Snowden


the right to privacy, just like the right to free speech, is fundamental for all Americans.

[MOtorboat]

I guess I'm in the same camp. When this stuff pops up, I'm usually not outraged because I thought it already happened. All of my contacts are saved by Google. Every app I've ever downloaded is on record. I thought everything I did on my phone could be monitored. If I didn't want it to happen I would get rid of my cell phone. I never saw a cell phone as a necessary thing that should be protected by the Constitution.

Well. I'm not going to go that far. But it's best to be careful nowadays, I guess. The main thing is to, you know, not commit crimes.

[Dapper Dan]

America is still very free.

Yeah, but back in 1946 the government stayed out of my cell phone

[ShaneFalco]

you know we are ****** when people are literally agreeing with the notion of putting a backdoor into peoples products who have done nothing wrong. Or when people protest the government managing healthcare industry, but let that same government have complete reign over those same healthcare records. Or when people hate the idea of government controlling business, then applaud their efforts to force its way into power over a business.

Oh well. Bring it on, and when one day, it ****s over you, or somebody you know.... tough shit.

[Davii]

I'm certain this technology already exists, either at Apple ot some hacker. Apple is NOT nearly as secure as they want you to believe.

Fappening anyone?

That being said, no way in hell should Apple do this. IF they are handed a subpoena for specific information they should comply and provide that specific information, but no way should they hand over access to a backdoor into iOS.

I despise Apple, but I agree with them on this issue. They should not do this as requested.

[ShaneFalco]

“If upheld, this decision could force US technology companies to actually build hacking tools for governments against their will, while weakening cybersecurity for millions of Americans in the process,” Wyden said.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/apple-fbi-encryption-san-bernardino-russia-china

where is the line between business and government?

[NightTerror218]

In 2014, Apple and Google — whose operating systems are used in 96 percent of smartphones worldwide — announced that they had re-engineered their software with “full disk” encryption, and could no longer unlock their own products as a result.

From article
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

[NightTerror218]

I guess I'm in the same camp. When this stuff pops up, I'm usually not outraged because I thought it already happened. All of my contacts are saved by Google. Every app I've ever downloaded is on record. I thought everything I did on my phone could be monitored. If I didn't want it to happen I would get rid of my cell phone. I never saw a cell phone as a necessary thing that should be protected by the Constitution.

Never share private texts with your significant other because they could be hacked and then used against you. Once the backdoor is created hackers will use it.

Back a backhanded comment about a president and next thing secret service smashes your door as a terrorist because they took it as a treat.

[NightTerror218]

Yeah, but back in 1946 the government stayed out of my cell phone

This is like having a wiretap on your home phone in 1946.

Everyone uses cell phones. More people text then call. So they would have access to all conversations remotely.

[Dapper Dan]

This is like having a wiretap on your home phone in 1946.

Everyone uses cell phones. More people text then call. So they would have access to all conversations remotely.

Isn't that how we found out JFK was a commie?

[ShaneFalco]

"The FBI is creating a world where citizens rely on Apple to defend their rights, rather than the other way around," Snowden said Wednesday morning on Twitter.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/17/technology/apple-fbi-phone-unlock-edward-snowden/index.html

[MOtorboat]

In 2014, Apple and Google — whose operating systems are used in 96 percent of smartphones worldwide — announced that they had re-engineered their software with “full disk” encryption, and could no longer unlock their own products as a result.

From article
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

Sure they can't.

[Dapper Dan]

Sure they can't.

We trust businessmen more than the politicians we elect.

[ShaneFalco]

We trust businessmen more than the politicians we elect.

Maybe because businesses dont have the ability to drone strike anyone at a given time.

[MOtorboat]

We trust businessmen more than the politicians we elect.

The FBI is investigating a terrorist act. They aren't even talking about hypotheticals here.

I get people being really leery of this, but they are investigating a crime, not any hypothetical crimes.

[ShaneFalco]

no they really arnt.

This is about rewriting source code for a backdoor into every iphone made.

has nothing to do with terrorism.

[Davii]

**** Snowden. Using that traitor pos for quotes doesn't help you in this argument SF. I'm in your camp, but don't use Snowden.

[MOtorboat]

Maybe because businesses dont have the ability to drone strike anyone at a given time.

Are you sure?

I'm just sayin'.

[Dapper Dan]

Maybe because businesses dont have the ability to drone strike anyone at a given time.

So you don't want them to have access to your iPhone because they'll drone strike you. A lot of people here are making good arguments for your side and I think you're making the argument lose credibility. Just my look at it.

[MOtorboat]

no they really arnt.

This is about rewriting source code for a backdoor into every iphone made.

has nothing to do with terrorism.

And, like I said, I don't believe for a second they don't already know how to do that.

[Dapper Dan]

Are you sure?

I'm just sayin'.

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

[Davii]

The FBI is investigating a terrorist act. They aren't even talking about hypotheticals here.

I get people being really leery of this, but they are investigating a crime, not any hypothetical crimes.

Yes/no Mo. They're investigating a crime, but a warrant is supposed to be for specific info, etc. The analogy that popped up earlier about a hotel giving them a master key instead of just the room they need is a good one IMO

[Davii]

And, like I said, I don't believe for a second they don't already know how to do that.

I agree. Apple does, FBI might.

[Davii]

Wtf? Was that a massive edit?

Where?

[MOtorboat]

Yes/no Mo. They're investigating a crime, but a warrant is supposed to be for specific info, etc. The analogy that popped up earlier about a hotel giving them a master key instead of just the room they need is a good one IMO

That's fair.

[Dapper Dan]

I thought everything was already saved in the NSA Metadata program.

[ShaneFalco]

And, like I said, I don't believe for a second they don't already know how to do that.

so there is no difference between a business who owns the company and product being able to do it.... versus the government who forces itself onto the company...

Is that really what you are trying to say?

[Dapper Dan]

Where?

Nevermind. I fingered it out.

[MOtorboat]

so there is no difference between a business who owns the company and product being able to do it.... versus the government who forces itself onto the company...

Is that really what you are trying to say?

My point is the company is lying.

[ShaneFalco]

I thought everything was already saved in the NSA Metadata program.

This encryption is the reason it is not. Which is why surveillance powers want the backdoor.

However, if you use something gmail. Every time you send an email and it is stored on a server outside of the US, which alot of google servers are, and it then comes back to a US server, the NSA has that. Could be a picture, could be an email, could be any data saved on a google server.

[DenBronx]

I believe Apples stock has taken a huge hit already. This probably won't help it.

[ShaneFalco]

My point is the company is lying.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vFOax-Zzc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVPFwf5UJp0

Who is really telling the lies here?

[ShaneFalco]

I am not for one second saying they should not try to get access to this guys phone to look for known contacts/connections, i hope they do get in and find who helped them. But they dont need to burn down the entire private encryption industry to do so.

its a heavy handed tactic. But that is what government throughout history always is. Some giant heavy handed approach to every problem they face, trampling whatever the **** is in the way, even rights.

[ShaneFalco]

Google coming out against it now.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-googles-ceo-just-said-000854021.html

[MOtorboat]

Google coming out against it now.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-googles-ceo-just-said-000854021.html

Brilliant marketing. They ain't stupid.

[NightTrainLayne]

I guess my point is, if the FBI or whoever took a laptop to Microsoft, they'd be able to "break into" that information. .

Not if it's encrypted. That's the entire point of encryption. The FBI is asking Apple to create a way to defeat the encryption which is standard on the iPhone.

The problem for civil liberties folks is that once you create and use such a thing, you can't guarantee that it won't get used again, or worse yet, fall into the wrong hands and get used nefariously.

[BroncoJoe]

For the record, I'm against having a back door into the system.

What the FBI is wanting, how I understand it anyway, is to have Apple unlock the phone before it erases itself after too many failed attempts. I just find it hard to believe Apple doesn't have this capability.

[BroncoJoe]

I like what Rubio is saying:


Rubio added of the encryption issue: "We're going to have to figure out a way forward working with Silicon Valley and the tech industry on this. There has to be a way to deal with with this issue that continues to protect the privacy of Americans but creates some process by which law-enforcement intelligence agencies could access encrypted information. I don't have a magic solution for it today — it's a complicated new issue."

As the New York Post reports, Rubio thinks Apple should voluntarily comply — "ultimately, I think being a good corporate citizen is important" — a position many in the tech industry vehemently oppose. There are fears that the case could set a dangerous precedent, that companies can be legally compelled to hack into their users.

But his recognition of the issues at stake is earning him praise.

Ben Thompson, a tech commentator, shared a video clip of Rubio's answer on Twitter. He said it was "a far better answer to the Apple/FBI question than I expected from any politician."

http://www.businessinsider.com/marco-rubio-apple-fbi-encryption-privacy-backdoors-2016-2

[Rick]

I guess I am probably in a minority...but I really, honestly, just do not care.

It is a new age, people are getting killed in extreme ways, there are only so many ways the government can protect people.

I am sorry, I care more about protecting the physical security of myself and my children than the data security of it.

I Just do not care, if they want a back door into my phone...have at it.

[weazel]

Holland is over 50% I believe

Wow that is high, but Holland gets more than just free medical and dental, they are as close to a true socialist country as you get. Among other things, they also receive free education their entire lives, including college, which depending on what you take may cost as much as the extra taxes they will pay over the course of their life. I'm not saying it's right, just stating that their extra 20%+ they pay does go to other things they get in return. Everyone also get payments from the Government for the extra power they generate.

[Slick]

I guess I am probably in a minority...but I really, honestly, just do not care.

It is a new age, people are getting killed in extreme ways, there are only so many ways the government can protect people.

I am sorry, I care more about protecting the physical security of myself and my children than the data security of it.

I Just do not care, if they want a back door into my phone...have at it.

I get the point, I really do, but I agree.

Th crime wave of the future is here already. I assume anything on my phone is fair game as far as the governments are concerned, as well as hackers.

I sympathize with the sentiment that creating a back door to get around encryptions for all iPhones or Android phones seems like an overreach, but I also agree with what Joe and MO have said in that it's really hard to believe that law enforcement can't simply get into this one phone in particular.

[Rick]

If they want my data they don't even need the backdoor, ill unlock the dang thing for them.

[Ravage!!!]

It's really NOT about breaking into the phone that is the problem. It's the fact that giving up THAT kind of civil rights, just opens up a HUGE precident for more of it to be taken. It's not like just handing over your wallet. It's SOO much more than that. It's would be like you agreeing to hand over your wallet to any policing agency, at any time, without them having to ask. That's a HUGE deal.

Having to get a warrant to search an american citizen, is a pretty BIG deal. Take those types of liberties away, give the government the right to search through your private information (without your permission), is really no different than saying they can search your house at any time they please in the name of "hunting terrorists."

I'm just absolutely not willing to give a governing body the right to rummage through my life purely because they want to. Terrrorists or not.

[BroncoJoe]

It's really NOT about breaking into the phone that is the problem. It's the fact that giving up THAT kind of civil rights, just opens up a HUGE precident for more of it to be taken. It's not like just handing over your wallet. It's SOO much more than that. It's would be like you agreeing to hand over your wallet to any policing agency, at any time, without them having to ask. That's a HUGE deal.

Having to get a warrant to search an american citizen, is a pretty BIG deal. Take those types of liberties away, give the government the right to search through your private information (without your permission), is really no different than saying they can search your house at any time they please in the name of "hunting terrorists."

I'm just absolutely not willing to give a governing body the right to rummage through my life purely because they want to. Terrrorists or not.

The owner of the phone is dead. That's a pretty distinct difference. Along with the fact that he and his wife absolutely destroyed their personal phones gives some clue as to what might be on this particular phone. It's also a phone owned by the company he worked for. What if they gave the approval to "break/hack" into it? Does that make a difference?

Either way, it's a complicated issue. I'm not sure there's an answer.

[Rick]

That is ok, if that is your opinion I won't argue for you to change it.

For me however, the modern times and what it especially means for my children, for me they can search my phone, my computer, and my underwear drawer. I just don't care...so long as it goes towards the greater good of law enforcement securing my family and other families.

[BroncoJoe]

The owner of the phone is dead. That's a pretty distinct difference. Along with the fact that he and his wife absolutely destroyed their personal phones gives some clue as to what might be on this particular phone. It's also a phone owned by the company he worked for. What if they gave the approval to "break/hack" into it? Does that make a difference?

Either way, it's a complicated issue. I'm not sure there's an answer.

PS - if my company wanted to view what's on my company phone or laptop, would that be an invasion of privacy?

[Ravage!!!]

The owner of the phone is dead. That's a pretty distinct difference. Along with the fact that he and his wife absolutely destroyed their personal phones gives some clue as to what might be on this particular phone. It's also a phone owned by the company he worked for. What if they gave the approval to "break/hack" into it? Does that make a difference?

Either way, it's a complicated issue. I'm not sure there's an answer.

Again, Joe. It's not so much about giving permission for an individual phone. That has never been the discussion, even from the first Apple Letter. Giving permission for an individual phone is like handing over persmission to search my house. Ok, search my house, no problem.

But that different than giving the government the right to simply go around and search anyone and everyone's house whenever they want. Would you want to live in a society that the government LITERALLY can watch every move you are making at the press of a key... innocent or not, that's such a huge violation of my rights it makes me ill just thinking about it.

Do you happen to watch the TV show "colony?" If you aren't, I highly recommend it as its really good. But that would be the road you lead to when your individual rights are stripped away. ALL in the name of "safety." It's BS, really. As anyone could use the justification of "homeland security" to strip away our freedomes.

I believe there is an answer...and that is to not take away my civil rights in the pursuit of criminals. They will always find a way to communicate as they have before there were cell phones and computers. This is nothing new. It's not hard to pass off info by hand, as it's been done for centuries. Cell phones are used now because we have them. If we don't, then you simply move on to option 2, no big deal.

[wayninja]

I'm certain this technology already exists, either at Apple ot some hacker. Apple is NOT nearly as secure as they want you to believe.

Fappening anyone?

That being said, no way in hell should Apple do this. IF they are handed a subpoena for specific information they should comply and provide that specific information, but no way should they hand over access to a backdoor into iOS.

I despise Apple, but I agree with them on this issue. They should not do this as requested.

I believe apple. The data breach you are referring to was information stored in Apple's Cloud based services, not on the physical phones themselves. Data on the internet has always been vulnerable to breach.

This is a different animal entirely. They need consumers to trust that they build secure software and products and came up with the passcode lockout encryption method to assure customers that their data would not be compromised even if their phone was lost. It's a reasonable thing to do and it's not easy to backdoor.

If you read the court order, The FBI is NOT asking that the iOS that is generally available be made with a backdoor. They are asking apple for technical assistance to breach 1 phone. In fact, the language of the court order specifies that the customized firmware/OS be coded in such a way that it will only load on this specific phone (using it's UID). They've been quite careful to purposefully NOT ask for the key to every hotel room.

I see both viewpoints and in my mind there simply needs to be a balance. Extremes are rarely good in anything. Denying the government (who believe it or not, does have people working for it that genuinely have our best interests at heart) access to helpful information is bad. Subjecting everyone to possibility of privacy invasion is bad.

It seems to me that in this case at least, the FBI is attempting to walk the line.

[wayninja]

Again, Joe. It's not so much about giving permission for an individual phone. That has never been the discussion, even from the first Apple Letter. Giving permission for an individual phone is like handing over persmission to search my house. Ok, search my house, no problem.

But that is the issue. Read the court order.


[Provide] the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File (“SIF”) that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory (“RAM”) and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the device’s flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade (“DFU”) mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 2. The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter, Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE through a computer allowed the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis.

The "concern" is that the software that apple uses to do this will get "out there" somehow. And I agree that is a concern. But let's not act like the Government ordered Apple to give them the keys to the kingdom.

[weazel]

The owner of the phone is dead. That's a pretty distinct difference. Along with the fact that he and his wife absolutely destroyed their personal phones gives some clue as to what might be on this particular phone. It's also a phone owned by the company he worked for. What if they gave the approval to "break/hack" into it? Does that make a difference?

Either way, it's a complicated issue. I'm not sure there's an answer.

Brady destroys his phones, maybe he's a terrorist

[ShaneFalco]

i love how everyone has to give up their natural rights because some people are afraid.

Grow a goddamn spine.

Millions of people died for these rights, i wonder if they were afraid....

[wayninja]

i love how everyone has to give up their natural rights because some people are afraid.

Grow a goddamn spine.

Millions of people died for these rights, i wonder if they were afraid....

What are you talking about?

[Rick]

Just the way of a message board, you have some discussing topics, putting out their opinions, and then you have some ******* chime in having to sling shit around.

Wonder if you could have responded to latest comments without trying to belittle people? Nah, that's not what ******** do.

[ShaneFalco]

sorry, but just have far more respect for people who died for the 4th amendment and liberty throughout history then people who are willing to give away said rights because they feel afraid.

call me a dick, douche, whatever, i may be. But i know what i am standing up for is right. History has shown us that sacrificing liberty for security has never worked.

[wayninja]

sorry, but just have far more respect for people who died for the 4th amendment and liberty throughout history then people who are willing to give away said rights because they feel afraid.

No, seriously, what are you talking about?

Are you making some larger point, or talking about this issue in particular? If the latter, then you are extremely overstating the order.

[Ravage!!!]

It's the same reactions that we saw during WWII. People were buying up bomb shelters because of the same fears. Now, instead of hiding in shelters fromHitler's bombs, its giving up rights in fear of terrorists.

[Ravage!!!]

I believe apple. The data breach you are referring to was information stored in Apple's Cloud based services, not on the physical phones themselves. Data on the internet has always been vulnerable to breach.

This is a different animal entirely. They need consumers to trust that they build secure software and products and came up with the passcode lockout encryption method to assure customers that their data would not be compromised even if their phone was lost. It's a reasonable thing to do and it's not easy to backdoor.

If you read the court order, The FBI is NOT asking that the iOS that is generally available be made with a backdoor. They are asking apple for technical assistance to breach 1 phone. In fact, the language of the court order specifies that the customized firmware/OS be coded in such a way that it will only load on this specific phone (using it's UID). They've been quite careful to purposefully NOT ask for the key to every hotel room.

I see both viewpoints and in my mind there simply needs to be a balance. Extremes are rarely good in anything. Denying the government (who believe it or not, does have people working for it that genuinely have our best interests at heart) access to helpful information is bad. Subjecting everyone to possibility of privacy invasion is bad.

It seems to me that in this case at least, the FBI is attempting to walk the line.

Great post.

[ShaneFalco]

It's the same reactions that we saw during WWII. People were buying up bomb shelters because of the same fears. Now, instead of hiding in shelters fromHitler's bombs, its giving up rights in fear of terrorists.
i wish they would do that again. Just build some shelters, hide from the terrorists in there. That way you are not asking millions of people to be affected by your fear. :)

[ShaneFalco]

I believe apple. The data breach you are referring to was information stored in Apple's Cloud based services, not on the physical phones themselves. Data on the internet has always been vulnerable to breach.

This is a different animal entirely. They need consumers to trust that they build secure software and products and came up with the passcode lockout encryption method to assure customers that their data would not be compromised even if their phone was lost. It's a reasonable thing to do and it's not easy to backdoor.

If you read the court order, The FBI is NOT asking that the iOS that is generally available be made with a backdoor. They are asking apple for technical assistance to breach 1 phone. In fact, the language of the court order specifies that the customized firmware/OS be coded in such a way that it will only load on this specific phone (using it's UID). They've been quite careful to purposefully NOT ask for the key to every hotel room.

I see both viewpoints and in my mind there simply needs to be a balance. Extremes are rarely good in anything. Denying the government (who believe it or not, does have people working for it that genuinely have our best interests at heart) access to helpful information is bad. Subjecting everyone to possibility of privacy invasion is bad.

It seems to me that in this case at least, the FBI is attempting to walk the line.
yes it is trying to build a backdoor.


Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession. The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.


The government could take this software, as they now have the source code, and use it on everyone.

You are basically saying the FBIs version of it. "Trust Us". Not the most credible source in the tech world.

[Rick]

sorry, but just have far more respect for people who died for the 4th amendment and liberty throughout history then people who are willing to give away said rights because they feel afraid.

call me a dick, douche, whatever, i may be. But i know what i am standing up for is right. History has shown us that sacrificing liberty for security has never worked.

My option is still what happened in the past is the past, this is now, new threats. What causes and actions taken to acquire freedoms, often over a 2 hundred years ago, doesn't mean anything to me compared to what is going on NOW.

That is my opinion and I realize it differs from other opinions. Surprisingly I can know that the opinions differ from mine and discuss it without being a dick. Who knew that was possible?

[wayninja]

i wish they would do that again. Just build some shelters, hide from the terrorists in there. That way you are not asking millions of people to be affected by your fear. :)

Am I on ignore? What are you talking about?

How does Apple helping the government break into one phone from a known terrorist affect millions of people?

[Ravage!!!]

But that is the issue. Read the court order.



The "concern" is that the software that apple uses to do this will get "out there" somehow. And I agree that is a concern. But let's not act like the Government ordered Apple to give them the keys to the kingdom.

Agreed, and most of myposts aren't really in response to the actual event, but the proposed possibilities and some saying that there should simply be a back-door installed for the sake of security and hunting terrorists. We've seen a lot of rights be taken away in the 'hunt for terrorists' after 911, and the idea of offering up my private information purely because the govt wants to claim "homeland security" isn't somthing I ever want to see.

Things like this always hve the sound of being sincere. Hell, they most likely have the initial intentions of being sincere and purely for the 'safety of our nation'..but as we know, once something like that is set into place....then the possibilities of that information being used for much more is RIGHT THERE, and all they have to do is take it. You opened the door for one, sincere, good, idea...but that door doesn't simply close. It remains open for anything else that now wants to climb in. Once it is open, then it's very hard to close again.

[Ravage!!!]

Am I on ignore? What are you talking about?

How does Apple helping the government break into one phone from a known terrorist affect millions of people?

He's responding to the idea that the letter proposed...that has been asked of Apple. The discussion has moved on to having a back-door applied to ALL phones, and the rest of the posters are responding to that scenario. Whether they believe its a good thing, or a bad thing. The "opening that phone" really hasn't been the discussion, as its a microcosm of the possibilities.... from which the letter from Apple suggested.

[wayninja]

yes it is trying to build a backdoor.

No. It's not. Or at least not one that affects anything more than 1 phone. The government even said it was ok if Apple did everything in house so that the government can't 'watch' them do it or get their code and simply have apple provide access to the data.



The government could take this software, as they now have the source code, and use it on everyone.

Are you joking? Did you read the court order?

Even if they James Bond the code from Apple, they would STILL need to have your physical phone in order to do this. That doesn't affect "millions" of people unless the government suddenly confiscates the phones of millions of people.

[wayninja]

He's responding to the idea that the letter proposed...that has been asked of Apple. The discussion has moved on to having a back-door applied to ALL phones, and the rest of the posters are responding to that scenario. Whether they believe its a good thing, or a bad thing. The "opening that phone" really hasn't been the discussion, as its a microcosm of the possibilities.... from which the letter from Apple suggested.

Ok, fair enough. I must have missed the change in conversation from this specific case to a "what if" scenario.

[ShaneFalco]

My option is still what happened in the past is the past, this is now, new threats. What causes and actions taken to acquire freedoms, often over a 2 hundred years ago, doesn't mean anything to me compared to what is going on NOW.

That is my opinion and I realize it differs from other opinions. Surprisingly I can know that the opinions differ from mine and discuss it without being a dick. Who knew that was possible?

In 1933, Hitler demanded that Germany's president, Hindenburg, sign what became known as the Reichstag fire decree (Reichstagsbrandverordnung).

The decree is considered by historians to be one of the key steps in the establishment of a one-party Nazi state in Germany.

It nullified many of the key civil liberties of German citizens, and it was used as the legal basis to imprison anyone considered to be opponents of the Nazis.

It was also aimed at suppressing publications that were considered unfriendly to the Nazi cause.

According to Ferdinand Schlingensiepen's biography of one of Hitler's leading critics, Dietrich Bonhoeffer*, the decree meant that "the right to privacy of communication by mail or telephone no longer existed."
Time doesnt matter.

[wayninja]

Agreed, and most of myposts aren't really in response to the actual event, but the proposed possibilities and some saying that there should simply be a back-door installed for the sake of security and hunting terrorists. We've seen a lot of rights be taken away in the 'hunt for terrorists' after 911, and the idea of offering up my private information purely because the govt wants to claim "homeland security" isn't somthing I ever want to see.

Things like this always hve the sound of being sincere. Hell, they most likely have the initial intentions of being sincere and purely for the 'safety of our nation'..but as we know, once something like that is set into place....then the possibilities of that information being used for much more is RIGHT THERE, and all they have to do is take it. You opened the door for one, sincere, good, idea...but that door doesn't simply close. It remains open for anything else that now wants to climb in. Once it is open, then it's very hard to close again.

Yes, the patriot act all over again. I totally understand the fears. But just as Shane is calling for us not to give up our liberties out of fear, we should also not deny our elected, appointed, fellow citizens and officers tools they need to help keep us safe out of another kind of fear.

Again it's all balance. There's really very little need to close the door and make no exceptions. That's just another kind of fear.

[Ravage!!!]

No. It's not. Or at least not one that affects anything more than 1 phone. The government even said it was ok if Apple did everything in house so that the government can't 'watch' them do it or get their code and simply have apple provide access to the data.

But ninja..if it were simply THIS easy, with no concerns as to the big picture of which this could escelate, why do youthink Apple has their hesitation? You can't be suggesting that they are worried about the terrorists privacy, right? So there must be much more the possibilities of making such a software especially (integrated INTO their OS) that you aren't considering or are simply glossing over because the govt says that it won't be used.

Having a software backdoor, integrated into everyone's phone (and that is exactly what they are saying, as it would be a complete software 'update' that would integrate the backdoor onto EVERYONE's phone) just opens the door for an INCREDIBLE breach.

A BIG update, with the backdoor integrated, and then only USED on that one phone..... right now. That's a very big problem for me.

[ShaneFalco]

No. It's not. Or at least not one that affects anything more than 1 phone. The government even said it was ok if Apple did everything in house so that the government can't 'watch' them do it or get their code and simply have apple provide access to the data.




Are you joking? Did you read the court order?

Even if they James Bond the code from Apple, they would STILL need to have your physical phone in order to do this. That doesn't affect "millions" of people unless the government suddenly confiscates the phones of millions of people.

yes it is. Building software specifically for the government to access data, is a backdoor..... not a front, or a side, but a backdoor into the product. Which they would then be able to use to brute force any other phone they want. No warrant, No Judge, just good ole fashioned hacking by a government entity.

[NightTerror218]

Joe
You are really stuck on. It's just one phone.

But what they are trying to do is install so.e5hing that will affect every single iPhone ever made or will be made.

If Apple could get into one phone they would. They have helped the FBI already.

But if apples creates a new iOS for the sole purpose of having a back door to every iPhone they that impacts millions of people. It also set a new president on government able to access personal information for free and no warrants. Huge impact to civil rights.

Also creating a back door is what enables hackers to get in as well. Not only will government now enter a pin and access any phones data but hackers have an easy way into your private information.

This is not about 1 damn phone.

[wayninja]

But ninja..if it were simply THIS easy, with no concerns as to the big picture of which this could escelate, why do youthink Apple has their hesitation?

Stock price. That's it. To think that Apple is some champion of digital data is a bit of a pedestal to put them on. They don't want their sagging stock price to sag further and consumer doubts about Apple giving the government their data would do this.


You can't be suggesting that they are worried about the terrorists privacy, right? So there must be much more the possibilities of making such a software especially (integrated INTO their OS) that you aren't considering or are simply glossing over because the govt says that it won't be used.

No. They are worried about their stock price. It's not complicated.


Having a software backdoor, integrated into everyone's phone (and that is exactly what they are saying, as it would be a complete software 'update' that would integrate the backdoor onto EVERYONE's phone) just opens the door for an INCREDIBLE breach.

No... I don't if I'm not explaining it right or what, but NO ONE has said this will be on everyone's phone and they in FACT said that it would be built/hardcoded to affect only 1 phone. Even if the software were modified so that it could be used on all phones, the phones would still need to be in the physical possession of the government to be affected. Is there something that I'm missing where this is not what the court ordered?


A BIG update, with the backdoor integrated, and then only USED on that one phone..... right now. That's a very big problem for me.

Ok. But that's a total fiction. That's not the issue at hand. The modified OS would be applied to ONLY the one device and would be coded in such a way (at the governments ORDER) to only affect that one phone using it's hardware ID.

[wayninja]

yes it is. Building software specifically for the government to access data, is a backdoor..... not a front, or a side, but a backdoor into the product. Which they would then be able to use to brute force any other phone they want. No warrant, No Judge, just good ole fashioned hacking by a government entity.

Ok, then you just don't know what a backdoor is then? Or don't understand the scope and qualfications of the order? I guess that's the issue.

[wayninja]

Joe
You are really stuck on. It's just one phone.

But what they are trying to do is install so.e5hing that will affect every single iPhone ever made or will be made.

If Apple could get into one phone they would. They have helped the FBI already.

But if apples creates a new iOS for the sole purpose of having a back door to every iPhone they that impacts millions of people. It also set a new president on government able to access personal information for free and no warrants. Huge impact to civil rights.

Also creating a back door is what enables hackers to get in as well. Not only will government now enter a pin and access any phones data but hackers have an easy way into your private information.

This is not about 1 damn phone.

Yes it is. Where do you guys get this stuff? Did you even read the court order?

It's ONE phone. The court order spells out 1 phone and 1 phone only. Not an update to the generally available iOS for all users. It would be loaded onto this 1 phone, phsyically using the DFU mode of the phone.

[Ravage!!!]

Ok. But that's a total fiction. That's not the issue at hand. The modified OS would be applied to ONLY the one device and would be coded in such a way (at the governments ORDER) to only affect that one phone using it's hardware ID.

Bullshit.

Ok... look. I'm not some "conspiracy" dude, at all .In fact, I hate conspiracy theories. But lets be real here, this is a bs belief, that, or naive one.

You think the FBI/CIA has THE written code on a phone that hack install a backdoor, when they want, and it will someone leave their hands once used? I get that you want to believe that this would be installed on ONE phone...but I think that's extremely short sighted. Maybe it's a want to believe because you have so much confidence in our US Government for being honest and true. But there is a guy hiding out in another country, that leaked a LOT of governmental secrets...that tells us EXACTLY how untrustworthy they are in regards to monitoring our privacy...as is.

Sorry. But I think you are being a bit naive on this. Maybe not so much naive, as purely wanting to believe in the 'trustworthiness' of that kind of info being kept on the legit. I'm not, and I don't.

We keep allowing the government more access and more access and more access purely in this BS name of "hunting terrorists"...then we seem to be allowing them ANYTHING they want if they simply cry out the words "homeland security." But I don't buy into their "only this one time" claims. It's NEVER just one time. It always turns into "Hey, you know we have that software that was once used in that other case...we could always just use that for this instance." The MOMENT that kind of info is given, shared, or obtained...... it already has a secondary use earmarked for use.

[wayninja]

Bullshit.

Ok... look. I'm not some "conspiracy" dude, at all .In fact, I hate conspiracy theories. But lets be real here, this is a bs belief, that, or naive one.

You think the FBI/CIA has THE written code on a phone that hack install a backdoor, when they want, and it will someone leave their hands once used? I get that you want to believe that this would be installed on ONE phone...but I think that's extremely short sighted. Maybe it's a want to believe because you have so much confidence in our US Government for being honest and true. But there is a guy hiding out in another country, that leaked a LOT of governmental secrets...that tells us EXACTLY how untrustworthy they are in regards to monitoring our privacy...as is.

Sorry. But I think you are being a bit naive on this. Maybe not so much naive, as purely wanting to believe in the 'trustworthiness' of that kind of info being kept on the legit. I'm not, and I don't.

We keep allowing the government more access and more access and more access purely in this BS name of "hunting terrorists"...then we seem to be allowing them ANYTHING they want if they simply cry out the words "homeland security." But I don't buy into their "only this one time" claims. It's NEVER just one time. It always turns into "Hey, you know we have that software that was once used in that other case...we could always just use that for this instance." The MOMENT that kind of info is given, shared, or obtained...... it already has a secondary use earmarked for use.


I don't know what else to say except READ THE ******* COURT ORDER. Apple in NO WAY has to give the government this code. They can provide the government access to the data, remove the software and give the phone back to the FBI once the passcode has been reset or data obtained.

Sorry, but what you are saying is definitely a conspiracy theory that is not supported by what the court ordered. If you are trying to claim that there are bad people out there that will disobey the court order, then, frankly, I'll just say "no shit".

Apple already has the capability to be sinister here, court order or not. It's their software. So we trust apple as far as we want or believe they are keeping their end of the deal. Why is it different with the government?

[ShaneFalco]

Creating software for a backdoor is in the court order. You keep taking the FBIs side, the most untrusted agency besides the NSA when it comes to the tech world over the leader of the worlds tech company itself. You act like Tim Cook just made up shit in his letter.

And your reason is "stock price".

While your take on the FBI is "trust us".

[BroncoJoe]

Good grief - some of the replies here are hysterical. And yes - use that word with all meanings.

[ShaneFalco]

The FBI did not describe such a move as a "backdoor" into the iPhone, but complying with the request would "undeniably" create one, and limiting its use to the Farook case could not be guaranteed, the letter said.

"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," it said.

"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," the letter continued, adding it could find "no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack."


"If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone's device to capture their data," it said.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/us/san-bernardino-shooter-phone-apple/

[wayninja]

Creating software for a backdoor is in the court order. You keep taking the FBIs side, the most untrusted agency besides the NSA when it comes to the tech world over the leader of the worlds tech company itself. You act like Tim Cook just made up shit in his letter.

And your reason is "stock price".

While your take on the FBI is "trust us".


Are you claiming that apple is not concerned with their stock price?

Sorry, but your constantly stated bias here makes it difficult to have an objective discussion about it. I'm not taking any "side", I'm simply evaluating the court order the way it's worded. Apple is able to comply without compromising their encryption technology on all the other phones. It's just that simple.

[ShaneFalco]

Some people just dont understand the precedent being set on this case.

[wayninja]

And some people see everything as a slippery slope.

[ShaneFalco]

Are you claiming that apple is not concerned with their stock price?

Sorry, but your constantly stated bias here makes it difficult to have an objective discussion about it. I'm not taking any "side", I'm simply evaluating the court order the way it's worded. Apple is able to comply without compromising their encryption technology on all the other phones. It's just that simple.
yea you actually are. You keep giving line for line what the FBI is saying. What the FBI refuses to mention is what they can do after this one phone.

[ShaneFalco]

"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,"

Like what else there to say?

[ShaneFalco]

Then China will come asking Apple, Russia, the entire world.

US government would literally be advancing world wide surveillance on innocent civilians.

[wayninja]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/us/san-bernardino-shooter-phone-apple/

So... the guy who opposes the court order is saying that he disagrees with the order? Oh. I'm shocked.

He's interested in his stock price. He knows that 99/100 users don't know the technical details here and will run with the "APPLE CORROBORATES WITH BIG GOVERNMENT TO STEAL YOUR DATA!!!" headlines.

If you want to read the actual technical details about what the FBI wants and how it's actually feasible without compromising any other phone, I encourage you to do so:

http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-comply-with-the-fbi-court-order/

[ShaneFalco]

Stock price. What a joke. I guess Google needs a stock bump too, along with every other tech leader coming out against it.

[wayninja]

Stock price. What a joke. I guess Google needs a stock bump too, along with every other tech leader coming out against it.

Are you really this dense? CEO's no longer care about their stock prices and are only interested in fighting for our digital privacy?

Talking about the other extreme...

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/17/why-apple-should-comply-cybersecurity-expert.html


We do not know whether it is possible to bypass these mechanisms. Apple has responded that it is being asked to "create something too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." That response is not technically correct. For it to be a backdoor, Apple would have to add it to phones that are shipped, and as I discussed earlier, I agree that we should not be adding a backdoor to our devices.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/17/apple-san-bernardino-terror-attack-court-order-iphone-richard-burr/80525170/


There are no decryption demands in this case, and Apple is in no way required to provide a so-called backdoor.


In Apple’s court filings in a recent New York criminal case, it specifically stated that it was refusing to cooperate with the government and comply with a court order because doing so would cause reputational damage that would tarnish its brand: “Forcing Apple to extract data in this case, absent clear legal authority to do so, could threaten the trust between Apple and its customers and substantially tarnish the Apple brand.”

Now why would they care about the trust between themselves and their customers or their reputation? Hmmm... I doubt it has anything at all to do with money.

[ShaneFalco]

once this software is created, all bets are off. Keep parroting the FBI lines of " it will only be used on one phone". Like they have any credibility. Doesnt change the fact the software now exists to do this to other phones in the future.

Stock price has nothing to do with it. Ridiculous claim.

[BroncoJoe]

Some people just dont understand the precedent being set on this case.

Like you?

[wayninja]

yea you actually are. You keep giving line for line what the FBI is saying. What the FBI refuses to mention is what they can do after this one phone.

So, you've already convicted the FBI of wrongdoing before actually having the means to do so. And yet, I'm the one taking sides?

The FBI can do whatever the court orders them to be able to do. Same as yesterday. Same as tomorrow. Anything else is extra-legal or illegal. Same as before, Shane.

[ShaneFalco]

So, you've already convicted the FBI of wrongdoing before actually having the means to do so. And yet, I'm the one taking sides?

The FBI can do whatever the court orders them to be able to do. Same as yesterday. Same as tomorrow. Anything else is extra-legal or illegal. Same as before, Shane.

the same FBI that lies to congress over surveillance on pretty much any subject?

Absolutely.

[wayninja]

once this software is created, all bets are off. Keep parroting the FBI lines of " it will only be used on one phone". Like they have any credibility. Doesnt change the fact the software now exists to do this to other phones in the future.

Stock price has nothing to do with it. Ridiculous claim.

Sorry man, but once you start claiming to me that the CEO's of america don't care about their stock prices, it's hard to really take you seriously.

If the FBI could break into it, they would have done so already. So they need apple to do it and gave apple the ability to hide whatever they are doing. You don't have to trust the FBI, you just have to trust apple. And if you don't trust apple, this shouldn't change that.

[wayninja]

the same FBI that lies to congress over surveillance on pretty much any subject?

Absolutely.

Ok, well, then, thanks for proving my point I guess.

[ShaneFalco]

If this domino falls, what possible justification would they have to refuse to unlock the phone of a Chinese dissident at the behest of the Chinese government?

[ShaneFalco]

Sorry man, but once you start claiming to me that the CEO's of america don't care about their stock prices, it's hard to really take you seriously.

If the FBI could break into it, they would have done so already. So they need apple to do it and gave apple the ability to hide whatever they are doing. You don't have to trust the FBI, you just have to trust apple. And if you don't trust apple, this shouldn't change that.
Sorry man but once you start claiming that CEOS should want to set a legal precedent of installing backdoors into their product by governments, its hard to take you seriously. This is way more then just phones at stake here. It is now left up to corporations to defend their users rights, instead of the very government that is supposed to be protecting them. Very sad. And if you cant see what this is going to create down the road, or even a few months from now, then i give up.

[ShaneFalco]

Ok, well, then, thanks for proving my point I guess.

I am bias, absolutely.

Bias for liberty and the rights i was born with.

America is supposed to be the country that sets legal precedent for the rest of the world. Gay Marriage, Civil Rights, etc. Things that make the rest of the world think twice about us, and what is like to truly embrace liberty in governance.

Not the country that sets off a worldwide precedent that any government can force backdoors into private companies products. This is the very essence of Orwell right here down the road, mics in smart fridges/ thermometers/tvs/ etc.

I am not going to pretend this is a good thing.


And some people see everything as a slippery slope.

The slope is dry and steady at first, then it drops 90 degrees and is covered in slippery shit.

[Slick]

I'd like to see King or LawDog weigh in on this.

[wayninja]

Sorry man but once you start claiming that CEOS should want to set a legal precedent of installing backdoors into their product by governments, its hard to take you seriously. This is way more then just phones at stake here. It is now left up to corporations to defend their users rights, instead of the very government that is supposed to be protecting them. Very sad. And if you cant see what this is going to create down the road, or even a few months from now, then i give up.

I never said he should want to. In fact, I totally agree with the logic of his decision to push back on this. Because it likely WILL affect their stock. So. Nice try?

And you keep using that word backdoor, when almost the entire technical community agrees that this isn't the case. Cook is clearly using that as fear-mongering.

[ShaneFalco]

NSA has tried for years to get a backdoor into Apple phones. But its only this "one time".

http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-ceo-v-nsa-good-guys-shouldnt-get-their-own-backdoors/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data

http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-spyware-gives-agency-full-access-to-the-iphone-report/

http://www.eweek.com/security/nsa-spying-on-apple-iphones.html

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/10/8181531/cia-tagets-apple-xcode-encryption

[wayninja]

NSA has tried for years to get a backdoor into Apple phones. But its only this "one time".

http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-ceo-v-nsa-good-guys-shouldnt-get-their-own-backdoors/

Your strawmen are getting ridiculous shane.

[ShaneFalco]

Documents provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden detail a number of initiatives, including an attempt to crack encryption keys implanted into Apple's mobile processor, and a method compromising Xcode — the Apple tool used to create the vast majority of iOS apps.

Although the report doesn't include details of any successful operations against Apple


has been the governments goal for quite some time to do exactly this.

[ShaneFalco]

Your strawmen are getting ridiculous shane.

strawmen? go read the links. They have been trying to get this done for years.

And now they finally have a terrorist case to do it on.

[ShaneFalco]

back in 2013.


If U.S. products are OK to target, that’s news to me," Matthew Green, a cryptography expert at Johns Hopkins University’s Information Security Institute told The Intercept. "Tearing apart the products of U.S. manufacturers and potentially putting backdoors in software distributed by unknowing developers all seems to be going a bit beyond ‘targeting bad guys.’ It may be a means to an end, but it’s a hell of a means."

[wayninja]

strawmen? go read the links. They have been trying to get this done for years.

And now they finally have a terrorist case to do it on.

Yes. Strawmen. You know what that means right?

First; The NSA is not the FBI
Second; This is not a decryption court order for a backdoor

So when you hold up dissimilar things as being similar, it's called a Strawman.

[ShaneFalco]

The government has been targeting Apples encryption for years.

But hey no relevance at all...strawman.....

[wayninja]

The government has been targeting Apples encryption for years.

But hey no relevance at all...strawman.....

Correct. Strawmen. And no relevance at all. But again, your clear bias won't let you see this objectively.

[BroncoJoe]

The government has been targeting Apples encryption for years.

But hey no relevance at all...strawman.....

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lwyp--6UDlE/S84QYrNbYRI/AAAAAAAACtA/bIVq4U7S9UI/s1600/633673729262531831-TinfoilHat.jpg

[BroncoJoe]

oh look you learned how to post a picture.

Great comeback, considering I was using computers and on the internet probably before you were born.

[ShaneFalco]

Correct. Strawmen. And no relevance at all. But again, your clear bias won't let you see this objectively.

Yea one companies encryption being targeted for years by government entities..... no relevance. no precedent, gee i wonder what everyone is so upset about...

[ShaneFalco]

Great comeback, considering I was using computers and on the internet probably before you were born.

you actually want to contribute to the thread or just continue to fail at trolling?

[BroncoJoe]

you actually want to contribute to the thread or just continue to fail at trolling?

What exactly have you been doing?

I have contributed my opinion. Not outlandish arguments from an underground bunker with the thought that "everyone is out to get me" standpoint.

As ninja has suggested multiple times, I'd suggest you actually read the court documents and fully understand what is actually happening before spewing your typical "the government is trying to steal my liberties" BS.

[ShaneFalco]

you guys obviously want to take personal shots at me over this. But frankly i dont care.

The history of targeting Apples encryption is absolutely relevant to what is occurring now. It shows a past mindset of wanting this encryption broken to have access to it, and by means far beyond one terrorism case. So when they get or if they get, the new backdoor, there will be many more examples after. And hey maybe one day they just decide to do it to everyone and lie to congress about it.

Because that never happens.

[ShaneFalco]

What exactly have you been doing?

I have contributed my opinion. Not outlandish arguments from an underground bunker with the thought that "everyone is out to get me" standpoint.

As ninja has suggested multiple times, I'd suggest you actually read the court documents and fully understand what is actually happening before spewing your typical "the government is trying to steal my liberties" BS.yea tim cook and i are hanging out in our underground Apple Bunker looking for government snipers....

and i have read the court documents, you just dont seem to get that its about more then just this one case, as others have suggested.

[BroncoJoe]

once this software is created, all bets are off.

I think it's incredibly naive to think it doesn't already exist. I could be wrong, but that would be shocking if they didn't have a way in already.

[wayninja]

Yea one companies encryption being targeted for years by government entities..... no relevance. no precedent, gee i wonder what everyone is so upset about...

Yes. Again you correct, since this specific court order does NOTHING to alter the encryption of the iphone or software. So once again, there is no relevance.

Any more of your strawmen you'd like to burn?

[Northman]

I dont know about apple and the government but im getting through Missy's backdoor tonight.

[wayninja]

I think it's incredibly naive to think it doesn't already exist. I could be wrong, but that would be shocking if they didn't have a way in already.

Even if they don't, if it's possible to do at all, that means the "backdoor" already exists. It's just a matter of exploiting it.

[ShaneFalco]

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

The EFF is a civil-liberties advocacy group. Predictably, it is supporting Apple on this one. In a blog post, EFF's deputy executive director, Kurt Opsahl, explained why:


We are supporting Apple here because the government is doing more than simply asking for Apple's assistance. For the first time, the government is requesting Apple write brand new code that eliminates key features of iPhone security—security features that protect us all. Essentially, the government is asking Apple to create a master key so that it can open a single phone. And once that master key is created, we're certain that our government will ask for it again and again, for other phones, and turn this power against any software or device that has the audacity to offer strong security.

[ShaneFalco]

Mozilla


Mozilla, the organisation behind popular web browser Firefox, has Apple's back.

Its executive director, Mark Surman, said, according to Wired UK, that the case "sets a dangerous precedent that threatens consumers' security going forward. Companies should be encouraged to aggressively strengthen the security of their products, rather than undermine that security."

Reform Government Surveillance


Reform Government Surveillance is a coalition of some of the world's tech companies. Members include AOL, Apple, Dropbox, Evernote, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoo. The group issued a statement offering Apple some support on Wednesday:

Reform Government Surveillance companies believe it is extremely important to deter terrorists and criminals and to help law enforcement by processing legal orders for information in order to keep us all safe. But technology companies should not be required to build in backdoors to the technologies that keep their users' information secure. RGS companies remain committed to providing law enforcement with the help it needs while protecting the security of their customers and their customers' information.

Twitter


"We reject any proposals that would require companies to deliberately weaken the security of their products via backdoors, forced decryption, or any other means."

The social network is also a member of industry body Reform Government Surveillance, which has released a statement that is above.

WhatsApp


Facebook hasn't commented yet, but the CEO of Facebook-owned messenger WhatsApp has.

Founder Jan Koum is strongly supporting Apple, saying that "today our freedom and our liberty is at stake." Koum is a vocal advocate of strong encryption technology, and it is incorporated into WhatsApp.

Here's his full Facebook post:

I have always admired Tim Cook for his stance on privacy and Apple's efforts to protect user data and couldn't agree more with everything said in their Customer Letter today. We must not allow this dangerous precedent to be set. Today our freedom and our liberty is at stake.

[wayninja]

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

The EFF is a civil-liberties advocacy group. Predictably, it is supporting Apple on this one. In a blog post, EFF's deputy executive director, Kurt Opsahl, explained why:

Right, so they don't want the government to be able to ask for this. Which is not surprising. But it's nothing to do with the fact that it exposes "millions of phones to privacy concerns". At least not that don't already exist.

[wayninja]

Mozilla


Reform Government Surveillance



Twitter



WhatsApp

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this other than companies with similar interests as Apple, feel the same way as apple. So?

[wayninja]

If this domino falls, what possible justification would they have to refuse to unlock the phone of a Chinese dissident at the behest of the Chinese government?

This argument is ridiculous. This is tantamount to refusing to comply with a search warrant because of the precedent that it sets.

[Davii]

Stock price. That's it. To think that Apple is some champion of digital data is a bit of a pedestal to put them on. They don't want their sagging stock price to sag further and consumer doubts about Apple giving the government their data would do this.



No. They are worried about their stock price. It's not complicated.



No... I don't if I'm not explaining it right or what, but NO ONE has said this will be on everyone's phone and they in FACT said that it would be built/hardcoded to affect only 1 phone. Even if the software were modified so that it could be used on all phones, the phones would still need to be in the physical possession of the government to be affected. Is there something that I'm missing where this is not what the court ordered?



Ok. But that's a total fiction. That's not the issue at hand. The modified OS would be applied to ONLY the one device and would be coded in such a way (at the governments ORDER) to only affect that one phone using it's hardware ID.

After further reading this is how I understand it. Apple is not being completely honest in their letter if I'm understanding it correctly.

[turftoad]

IMO, this is not a huge deal. Apple is making a bigger deal of than it should be. They want access to a terrorists phone. That's it. They want to see if he was a serial killer or such. They issued a cort order. If it takes a court order, I'm fine with that if it can stop terror.
I don't see it as a means for the Govt. to try to find a back door to get everyone's info. That is fear mongering IMP. National security is #1 in my mind. If that's what they need to do it so be it.
If you are worried and have that much to hide you better check your life style.

[turftoad]

By the way, I have an I pad and an I phone. They can look my shit up whenever they want to. I'm old. I don't have musch to hide anymore!

[Valar Morghulis]

I find the whole "we needs guns to ensure the government thinks twice about being tyranous yet we are happy to let surveillance of our lives take place because they only have our best interests at heart" concept incredibly paradoxical.

[Davii]

I find the whole "we needs guns to ensure the government thinks twice about being tyranous yet we are happy to let surveillance of our lives take place because they only have our best interests at heart" concept incredibly paradoxical.

Because that's not the argument. The way you're trying to make it sound is as though Apple is being told to put this code on iPhones so the government can read them whenever they want. That's not the case. Apple has been presented with a court order to get data off of a phone they made. Getting this data means they must write some code since they claim they don't have it at this point.

This is not surveillance, big brother is not asking Apple for a program to tap every cell phone and listen to the microphone, look through the camera lens, etc.

This is data recovery from a device known to have been used in the commission of a crime, and such recovery has been ordered by a judge just as it would be in any search/seizure according to the laws and US Constitution.

At first read I sided with Apple, after looking into it further I do not.

[BroncoJoe]

At first read I sided with Apple, after looking into it further I do not.

I'm glad you finally came around. :)

[BroncoJoe]

This article is a pretty good read:


A lot of people have misconstrued the government’s request and believe it asked the court to order Apple to unlock the phone, as Apple has done in many cases before. But as noted, the particular operating system installed on this phone does not allow Apple to bypass the passcode and decrypt the data. So the government wants to try bruteforcing the password without having the system auto-erase the decryption key and without additional time delays. To do this, it wants Apple to create a special version of its operating system, a crippled version of the firmware that essentially eliminates the bruteforcing protections, and install it on the San Bernardino phone. It also wants Apple to make it possible to enter password guesses electronically rather than through the touchscreen so that the FBI can run a password-cracking script that races through the password guesses automatically. It wants Apple to design this crippled software to be loaded into memory instead of on disk so that the data on the phone remains forensically sound and won’t be altered.

Note that even after Apple does all of this, the phone will still be locked, unless the government’s bruteforcing operation works to guess the password. And if Farook kept the iOS9 default requirement for a six-digit password, and chose a complex alpha-numeric combination for his password, the FBI might never be able to crack it even with everything it has asked Apple to do.

http://www.wired.com/2016/02/apples-fbi-battle-is-complicated-heres-whats-really-going-on/

[BroncoJoe]

It's kind of humorous as well that the phone in question is actually owned by San Bernardino County. It's a government phone.

[Davii]

It's kind of humorous as well that the phone in question is actually owned by San Bernardino County. It's a government phone.

Didn't realize that. That being the case there is no expectation of privacy at all in regards to that phone.

[BroncoJoe]

Didn't realize that. That being the case there is no expectation of privacy at all in regards to that phone.

I've mentioned it a few times throughout the thread - no one reads... :( They completely destroyed their personal phones beyond any way to inspect them. As I mentioned before, that in and of itself leads you to believe there is a very good chance information is probably on this phone as well.

This particular phone was owned by his employer. Whether that employer is government or not is moot.

[wayninja]

I find the whole "we needs guns to ensure the government thinks twice about being tyranous yet we are happy to let surveillance of our lives take place because they only have our best interests at heart" concept incredibly paradoxical.

I find this statement to be a gross oversimplification at best.

[wayninja]

I've mentioned it a few times throughout the thread - no one reads... :( They completely destroyed their personal phones beyond any way to inspect them. As I mentioned before, that in and of itself leads you to believe there is a very good chance information is probably on this phone as well.

This particular phone was owned by his employer. Whether that employer is government or not is moot.

I come to the opposite conclusion. They destroyed their personal phones and even removed and destroyed/hid their computer harddrive, but didn't bother to do anything with these government owned phones. I'm betting that there is nothing or very little of value on these phones, ironically.

[BroncoJoe]

I come to the opposite conclusion. They destroyed their personal phones and even removed and destroyed/hid their computer harddrive, but didn't bother to do anything with these government owned phones. I'm betting that there is nothing or very little of value on these phones, ironically.

I can see that angle as well.

[BroncoJoe]

I can see that angle as well.

BUT - we should probably know for sure.

[wayninja]

BUT - we should probably know for sure.

Oh, yeah, it would be silly to ignore potential evidence and/or intelligence. I just don't expect there to be much of anything. But leave no stone unturned.

[ShaneFalco]

Because that's not the argument. The way you're trying to make it sound is as though Apple is being told to put this code on iPhones so the government can read them whenever they want. That's not the case. Apple has been presented with a court order to get data off of a phone they made. Getting this data means they must write some code since they claim they don't have it at this point.

This is not surveillance, big brother is not asking Apple for a program to tap every cell phone and listen to the microphone, look through the camera lens, etc.

This is data recovery from a device known to have been used in the commission of a crime, and such recovery has been ordered by a judge just as it would be in any search/seizure according to the laws and US Constitution.

At first read I sided with Apple, after looking into it further I do not.
No but it sets the precedent to do so, which Apple is arguing and which a few on here seem to not want to admit

I hope apple wins.

[wayninja]

No but it sets the precedent to do so, which Apple is arguing and which a few on here seem to not want to admit

I hope apple wins.

The precedent for what?

Search and seizure via a warrant? You might be around 400 years too late to contest that precedent.

[Davii]

No but it sets the precedent to do so, which Apple is arguing and which a few on here seem to not want to admit

I hope apple wins.

Dude, there's a lawful warrant. Signed by a judge and everything. This DOES NOT set a precedent for a damn thing other than a court, WITH A WARRANT, compelling Apple to provide information from a device used in the commission of a crime.

You're dead wrong, and you more or less just admitted it by agreeing with me. This is NOT about setting any precedent at all. In fact, it's really no different than an ISP being compelled to hand over information about someone's web activity.

[wayninja]

Dude, there's a lawful warrant. Signed by a judge and everything. This DOES NOT set a precedent for a damn thing other than a court, WITH A WARRANT, compelling Apple to provide information from a device used in the commission of a crime.

You're dead wrong, and you more or less just admitted it by agreeing with me. This is NOT about setting any precedent at all. In fact, it's really no different than an ISP being compelled to hand over information about someone's web activity.

This is it. While I totally understand why Shane is concerned, it has to end at concern and not spill into outright paranoia. You have to simply understand that each situation is separate from the continuum of rationalization that leads you to believe that a search warrant is equivalent to random, public cavity searches.

[ShaneFalco]

http://www.techinsider.io/john-mcafee-iphone-backdoor-terrible-idea-2016-2

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Some victims of the mass shootings in southern California and their families will file documents encouraging a U.S. magistrate judge to uphold her order that Apple Inc. help the FBI hack into a locked iPhone as part of the terrorism investigation, a lawyer said Monday.

A Los Angeles attorney, Stephen Larson, said he represents at least several families of victims and other employees he declined to identify but who were involved in the shootings. He said the U.S. attorney in the case, Ellen Decker, sought his help. Larson said he will file a brief supporting the Justice Department before March 3.

The victims "have questions that go simply beyond the criminal investigation ... in terms of why this happened, how this happened, why they were targeted, is there anything about them on the iPhone — things that are more of a personal victim" view, Larson said.

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_29547241/victims-families-will-ask-judge-force-apple-hack

[turftoad]

http://www.techinsider.io/john-mcafee-iphone-backdoor-terrible-idea-2016-2

They are not looking for a back door. They are trying to investigate a crime.

[Nomad]

IMO, this is not a huge deal. Apple is making a bigger deal of than it should be. They want access to a terrorists phone. That's it. They want to see if he was a serial killer or such. They issued a cort order. If it takes a court order, I'm fine with that if it can stop terror.
I don't see it as a means for the Govt. to try to find a back door to get everyone's info. That is fear mongering IMP. National security is #1 in my mind. If that's what they need to do it so be it.
If you are worried and have that much to hide you better check your life style.


By the way, I have an I pad and an I phone. They can look my shit up whenever they want to. I'm old. I don't have musch to hide anymore!


We have all fruit products as well. They'd be bored watching me as well. :lol:

[tomjonesrocks]

This is a hard one to come down on for me but I really wish this was Google and not Apple.

So many have irrational vitriol against Apple and skip right to "**** Apple!" before even hearing the rest. Think Google would get a better evaluation from the public.

[Nomad]

FaceTime is better than Skype.....my reason for getting Apple products.

[Nomad]

This is a hard one to come down on for me but I really wish this was Google and not Apple.

So many have irrational vitriol against Apple and skip right to "**** Apple!" before even hearing the rest. Think Google would get a better evaluation from the public.

Curious as to why?

[tomjonesrocks]

Curious as to why?

There's so many reasons if you're looking for one. Predatory App Store policies to the "locked down" nature of the devices, to hating Apple fans and the buzz their releases create, to the air of superiority they project, "PC Master Race" and specs-driven types, the fact that iTunes blows, and on and on.

I think "get off my lawn" types especially think of it as a hipster brand.

Davii already mentioned he hates Apple.

[Nomad]

There's so many reasons if you're looking for one. Predatory App Store policies to the "locked down" nature of the devices, to hating Apple fans and the buzz their releases create, to the air of superiority they project, "PC Master Race" and specs-driven types, the fact that iTunes blows, and on and on.

I think "get off my lawn" types especially think of it as a hipster brand.

Davii already mentioned he hates Apple.

Hmm....to me it's just a computer and cell phone. Like I mentioned....Facetime is what lures me to be an Apple customer. I'm far from being a hipster:lol:

[ShaneFalco]

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_29547241/victims-families-will-ask-judge-force-apple-hack

yea thats good, use the families to dictate policy.

America, the place where we put the needs of a few above everyone else.

[ShaneFalco]

Next up. 9/11 families will tell us all how much we need the patriot act!

[turftoad]

yea thats good, use the families to dictate policy.

America, the place where we put the needs of a few above everyone else.

They are not looking to dictate any policy. Jesuz, they are trying to solve a terrorist crime. It's really not that hard to understand.

[ShaneFalco]

i disagree, once the software "backdoor" is created. The FBI will try to use it for other cases.

This case sets the precedent to do so.

[BroncoWave]

i disagree, once the software "backdoor" is created. The FBI will try to use it for other cases.

This case sets the precedent to do so.

And if they get warrants for those cases as well, what is the issue?

[ShaneFalco]

The issue is when they decide they dont need warrants anymore, or create a FISA court to make the warrants.

[BroncoWave]

The issue is when they decide they dont need warrants anymore, or create a FISA court to make the warrants.

Which is nothing more than paranoid speculation on your part.

[ShaneFalco]

FISA courts are a paranoid spectrum?

[ShaneFalco]

They never do anything without warrants! I trust the government!

FBI Believes It Can Conduct Warrantless Email Searches, New Documents Show
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/warrantless-email-searches-fbi_n_3253762.html

http://www.inquisitr.com/683643/google-data-seized-by-fbi-with-warrantless-searches-has-user-info/

http://mashable.com/2012/02/27/fbi-turns-off-3000-gps-devices/#2ABXmFFRh5qg

[BroncoJoe]

Unfortunately, Shane doesn't understand exactly what is happening.

Not unusual, just the typical uneducated responses from him.

Must have a lot of skeletons in his closet or something.

[ShaneFalco]

See i love how you cant discuss the issue at hand and resort to personal attacks because you are the one who actually doesnt understand jack shit when it comes to the precedent being set or technology in general

[BroncoJoe]

See i love how you cant discuss the issue at hand and resort to personal attacks because you are the one who actually doesnt understand jack shit when it comes to the precedent being set or technology in general

Not true at all. It's not my fault you choose not to read what I and several other posters have stated.

Maybe the tin foil is riding to low on your head and is covering your eyes.

[ShaneFalco]

see more personal attacks.

you merely adopted the technology, I was born in it, moulded by it. I didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but BLINDING!

The internet betrays you, because it belongs to me!

[BroncoJoe]

see more personal attacks.

you merely adopted the technology, I was born in it, moulded by it. I didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but BLINDING!

The internet betrays you, because it belongs to me!

Uh, OK?

[ShaneFalco]

sigh. Old people....

[BroncoJoe]

Oh, and PLEASE on the personal attacks. Grow a pair (since you are allegedly a man) or report them. I doubt anything I've said to you would get a CYP.

[BroncoJoe]

sigh. Old people....

Sigh. Young, uneducated people....

[BroncoWave]

sigh. Old people....

But you hate all these personal attacks, right?

[ShaneFalco]

But you hate all these personal attacks, right?
Sure thing Mr. paranoid spectrum.

FISA courts dont exist,

and the FBI never does anything without a warrant.

[BroncoJoe]

Sure thing Mr. paranoid spectrum.

FISA courts dont exist,

and the FBI never does anything without a warrant.

This has nothing to do with the Apple and Farook's phone. Which, by the way, ISN'T EVEN HIS.

[ShaneFalco]

Yes it does. If the FBI has Apple create software to unlock the encryption program on this phone, they will come back asking again for another case. And then another. All with Warrants, then one day, as it has been proven time and time again, they will decide they can do it without the warrants, or create a separate court that will give them any warrant they want.

Precedent. Which is what Tim Cook, and every other tech company is arguing by LOOKING AT WHAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. They are just "uneducated, with stupid opinions" Do you have any idea how that makes you sound?

[BroncoJoe]

Answer me this: Why has Apple helped numerous times in the past, yet now want to make this stand? Over a phone a terrorist used, which is owned by a government entity?

[ShaneFalco]

because the ownership of the phone has nothing to do with it. Its the encryption program which they seek to bypass to access his data.

[Davii]

i disagree, once the software "backdoor" is created. The FBI will try to use it for other cases.

This case sets the precedent to do so.

Bullshit

[ShaneFalco]

This feeling has been building in the tech world/community for some time.

Tech companies are sick of dealing with the overreach of government and cyber criminals into their products/services.

Encryption has taken off as a reaction to this. Multi million dollar industry now, And now you have the government asking for software to remove this. I would never give it up, for anything.

[ShaneFalco]

Bullshit

tell that to every tech company coming out against this.

[Davii]

Here's something funny, one of the top iHackers out there says this is easy for Apple to do and they can even write a new firmware that would only work on this one phone.

[ShaneFalco]

Mcafee says he could unlock it, and Apple would not have to do anything. No new software, no backdoor. Just good ole fashioned hack.

Mcafee is crazy, but he is apart of the encryption world.

[Davii]

tell that to every tech company coming out against this.

Well no shit. Nobody wants to be viewed as the company that rolls over, whether it's actually important or not, you'll get roasted by every tech weenie and ridiculous anti government whacko out there until your stock price plummets.

Ask Blackberry....

It's ALL about PR Shane.

[ShaneFalco]

you got it, nobody wants to be the company that could possibly hand over the keys to the kingdom.

Especially in a world where every private business should have this type of encryption.

Why should they?

[BroncoJoe]

We do not know whether it is possible to bypass these mechanisms. Apple has responded that it is being asked to "create something too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." That response is not technically correct. For it to be a backdoor, Apple would have to add it to phones that are shipped, and as I discussed earlier, I agree that we should not be adding a backdoor to our devices.

In this matter, if it is technically possible to defeat the auto-erase and delay, the backdoor thus already exists in the devices and Apple is being asked to show the government how to get in, or perhaps more likely, Apple is being asked to use their technical knowledge of the phone to discover an existing backdoor and then show the government how to use it.

If such a flaw exists, then the flaw will inevitably be discovered by the hacker community, or foreign governments down the road. Hiding the flaw does not necessarily improve the security of their customers, but creating the "exploit kit" does expose customers to a greater risk of attack in the short term.

In this particular matter, the legal and the ethical authority for the search of this device exists. What Apple is being asked to do with respect to this device does not reduce the security of other phones.

While we should resist laws that would mandate the addition of backdoors, requested assistance does not constitute the creation of a backdoor and Apple should provide the requested assistance. In so doing, perhaps Apple will discover a vulnerability which they can fix in future devices.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/17/why-apple-should-comply-cybersecurity-expert.html

[Davii]

you got it, nobody wants to be the company that could possibly hand over the keys to the kingdom.

Especially in a world where every private business should have this type of encryption.

Why should they?

Of course they should, and when presented with a court order the company holding the keys to encryption should hand over the requested information.

I think they should be paid for it, if they need to write new code, etc, but there has never been an expectation to privacy after a court order has been issued. Period. This is a completely legal and constitutional request.

[turftoad]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/17/why-apple-should-comply-cybersecurity-expert.html

You have your bifocals on to read all that old man! :shocked:

[BroncoJoe]

You have your bifocals on to read all that old man! :shocked:

HA! Actually, I use mono-vision contacts. One strong, one weak. I hated wearing reading glasses!

[ShaneFalco]

Joe has a monocle and a top hat, dont lie.

[ShaneFalco]

Of course they should, and when presented with a court order the company holding the keys to encryption should hand over the requested information.

I think they should be paid for it, if they need to write new code, etc, but there has never been an expectation to privacy after a court order has been issued. Period. This is a completely legal and constitutional request.

again, we are going to have to agree to disagree, because i am arguing against precedent, not the single case.

[tomjonesrocks]

HA! Actually, I use mono-vision contacts. One strong, one weak. I hated wearing reading glasses!

Wow. How is that going? Is it going well enough you'd have your eyes permanently done that way?

Am going to have laser surgery in the next year or so and that's one option.

[Davii]

HA! Actually, I use mono-vision contacts. One strong, one weak. I hated wearing reading glasses!

I've never heard of these.

[BroncoJoe]

Wow. How is that going? Is it going well enough you'd have your eyes permanently done that way?

Am going to have laser surgery in the next year or so and that's one option.

I love it. Not sure about the permanent part though - It can be annoying using binoculars, driving at night or going to a movie.

PS/Edit: In those cases, I put the stronger contacts in both eyes, and have reading glasses just in case.

[MOtorboat]

again, we are going to have to agree to disagree, because i am arguing against precedent, not the single case.

There's no precedent. They've obtained a warrant to get information off of a phone. You're the one always screaming about warrant-less searches. They have one and you're still screaming about it.

[BroncoJoe]

I've never heard of these.

My contact prescription was getting too strong (need it for distance) to comfortably read, look at my phone or work on the computer. I was wearing reading glasses, which I hated. My eye doctor suggested it, and I adapted immediately. The strong contact goes on the dominant eye, the weaker on the other eye.

[Davii]

again, we are going to have to agree to disagree, because i am arguing against precedent, not the single case.

Why should you be allowed to encrypt something to the point that no court or investigative agency can read it? Why do you NEED such privacy, and why does that privacy outweigh the safety of others?

I understand what you're arguing, but here's the deal, this falls within established warrant and search and seizure laws. You, and Apple, are requesting that basically the laws be changed to allow for today's encryption to be unsearchable.

You have yet to prove why it should be excepted.

[Davii]

My contact prescription was getting too strong (need it for distance) to comfortably read, look at my phone or work on the computer. I was wearing reading glasses, which I hated. My eye doctor suggested it, and I adapted immediately. The strong contact goes on the dominant eye, the weaker on the other eye.

Are you a candidate for lasik, prk, etc?

[Denver Native (Carol)]

The White House appears to be willing to compromise with Apple in its fight with the tech giant to comply with a federal court order to provide “reasonable technical assistance” in the government’s investigation of the locked iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino gunmen.

The Obama administration told a magistrate judge Friday it would be willing to allow Apple to retain possession of and later destroy specialized software it was ordered to create to help federal authorities hack into the encrypted iPhone belong to Syed Rizwan Farook.

"Apple may maintain custody of the software, destroy it after its purpose under the order has been served, refuse to disseminate it outside of Apple and make clear to the world that it does not apply to other devices or users without lawful court orders," the Justice Department told Judge Sheri Pym. "No one outside Apple would have access to the software required by the order unless Apple itself chose to share it."

On Tuesday, a federal judge ordered Apple to help the FBI hack into the phone used by Farook, who along with his wife, Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people in December.

Although the judge instructed Apple to create the software for the FBI, she said it could be loaded onto the phone at an Apple facility. The Justice Department made explicit Friday that Apple could retain custody of the software at all times.

That's a good "compromise position" because "they're giving all the power to Apple," Jason Healey, a former director on cyber policy at the White House, told the Associated Press.

rest - http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/20/doj-would-allow-apple-to-keep-or-destroy-software-to-help-fbi-hack-iphone.html

[Northman]

IMO, this is not a huge deal. Apple is making a bigger deal of than it should be. They want access to a terrorists phone. That's it. They want to see if he was a serial killer or such. They issued a cort order. If it takes a court order, I'm fine with that if it can stop terror.
I don't see it as a means for the Govt. to try to find a back door to get everyone's info. That is fear mongering IMP. National security is #1 in my mind. If that's what they need to do it so be it.
If you are worried and have that much to hide you better check your life style.

I have to agree. Just sounds like overreacting to a request for one particular phone that was involved in a crime.