Thread: A Message to Our Customers from Apple

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Davii

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

I'm glad you finally came around.

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-...ally-going-on/

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Davii

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

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.

Originally Posted by wayninja

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.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

I can see that angle as well.

BUT - we should probably know for sure.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

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.

Originally Posted by Davii

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.

Originally Posted by ShaneFalco

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.

Originally Posted by ShaneFalco

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.