quade 4 #1 February 17, 2016 This is one of those things where a law needs to be passed and the Supreme Court needs to rule on it. Until then, Apple is fighting the good fight here. No small part of the government, even the FBI, should be able to decide policy for the entire country. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/17/apple-ceo-the-u-s-government-wants-something-we-consider-too-dangerous-to-create/quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 818 #2 February 17, 2016 I couldn't agree more, well said. I'd like to see better encryption come from this too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #3 February 17, 2016 Kudos to Cook & company!"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 February 17, 2016 Snowden weighs in. http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/17/technology/apple-fbi-phone-unlock-edward-snowden/quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 February 17, 2016 EFF weighs in. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/eff-support-apple-encryption-battlequade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Halfpastniner 0 #7 February 17, 2016 Can someone ELI5 here... why can't Apple just tell the Feds to go fuck themselves? The FBI is asking a corporation to produce something which doesn't exist, which could potentially harm their customers, and on top do it for free? How is that legal? And what if another government decides they also need access to this code to pry data, is Apple just supposed to just bend over and start handing out master keys to anyone who tells them? I hope he tells the FBI to figure it out themselves if they want in so bad.BASE 1384 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #8 February 17, 2016 HalfpastninerCan someone ELI5 here... why can't Apple just tell the Feds to go fuck themselves? The FBI is asking a corporation to produce something which doesn't exist, which could potentially harm their customers, and on top do it for free? How is that legal? And what if another government decides they also need access to this code to pry data, is Apple just supposed to just bend over and start handing out master keys to anyone who tells them? I hope he tells the FBI to figure it out themselves if they want in so bad. ELI5: FBI went to court and got court to order Apple to do what they wanted. Apple to appeal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Halfpastniner 0 #9 February 18, 2016 SkyDekker***Can someone ELI5 here... why can't Apple just tell the Feds to go fuck themselves? The FBI is asking a corporation to produce something which doesn't exist, which could potentially harm their customers, and on top do it for free? How is that legal? And what if another government decides they also need access to this code to pry data, is Apple just supposed to just bend over and start handing out master keys to anyone who tells them? I hope he tells the FBI to figure it out themselves if they want in so bad. ELI5: FBI went to court and got court to order Apple to do what they wanted. Apple to appeal. So if the FBI got a court order to make McDonalds build a fighter jet they would just have to figure it out? I just don't get it. It's not like Apple has the key and wants to protect it... it doesn't exist and now they have to pay people to break their own product. Edit to add: http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/BASE 1384 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,387 #10 February 18, 2016 Hi Half, QuoteSo if the FBI got a court order to make McDonalds build a fighter jet they would just have to figure it out? Sort of 'Yup.' I spent 30 yrs working in US gov't. contracting. Now, I seriously doubt that Uncle Sam would order MacDonalds to make a fighter jet. However, let us say that you make bras for women. In a national emergency ( admittedly a rare situation ) you might be required to build parachutes. Why? Because it is a national emergency. Also, because you have the technology ( could be argued ) and the equipment ( the feds may actually buy you a harness machine ) and you might have the capacity. You could be req'd to actually employ more people so that you could finish the parachutes on time. Just little known facts regarding gov't. contractors. Jerry Baumchen PS) I hold numerous TSO's and have received more than one letter from the gov't. asking about my capacity to build parachutes in a national emergency. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #11 February 18, 2016 Happy to see both sides of the political fence agreeing this is far too much reach for a government to have. Also happy to see my employer on the same side as Apple. Everybody come together now! www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #12 February 18, 2016 QuoteWE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO: Halt efforts that compel Apple and other device makers to create a "backdoor" for the Government to access citizens data The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of it's customers. The FBI, is demanding that Apple build a "backdoor" to bypass digital locks protecting consumer information on Apple's popular iPhones. We the undersigned, oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand. Sign the petition here: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/apple-privacy-petitionquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #13 February 18, 2016 The111 Happy to see both sides of the political fence agreeing this is far too much reach for a government to have. Also happy to see my employer on the same side as Apple. Everybody come together now! Kumbaya. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #14 February 18, 2016 Today on NPR they has some terrorist-expert-droid explaining that it is perfectly legitimate to ask Apple to hack the iPhone because "the owner of the phone is asking for it to be done, and the owner is San Bernardino County".Oh? So the personal property of a deceased person no longer belongs to his estate? Or are we to believe he left a will, bequeathing his cell phone to San Bernardino County? This is brilliant; The state can just declare it owns a persons computer/phone/etc and demand the mfgr hack it because "the owner" is requesting it. "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #15 February 18, 2016 ryoder Today on NPR they has some terrorist-expert-droid explaining that it is perfectly legitimate to ask Apple to hack the iPhone because "the owner of the phone is asking for it to be done, and the owner is San Bernardino County".Oh? So the personal property of a deceased person no longer belongs to his estate? Or are we to believe he left a will, bequeathing his cell phone to San Bernardino County? This is brilliant; The state can just declare it owns a persons computer/phone/etc and demand the mfgr hack it because "the owner" is requesting it. The owner was using a service that encrypts his data. It was his choice to use that service. If he wanted easily accessible data, he should not have used that service. He may own the device, but clearly he does not own the data. www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #16 February 18, 2016 ryoder Today on NPR they has some terrorist-expert-droid explaining that it is perfectly legitimate to ask Apple to hack the iPhone because "the owner of the phone is asking for it to be done, and the owner is San Bernardino County".Oh? So the personal property of a deceased person no longer belongs to his estate? Or are we to believe he left a will, bequeathing his cell phone to San Bernardino County? This is brilliant; The state can just declare it owns a persons computer/phone/etc and demand the mfgr hack it because "the owner" is requesting it. Fox News hosts have already proclaimed it a victory for ISIS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #17 February 18, 2016 ryoder Today on NPR they has some terrorist-expert-droid explaining that it is perfectly legitimate to ask Apple to hack the iPhone because "the owner of the phone is asking for it to be done, and the owner is San Bernardino County".Oh? So the personal property of a deceased person no longer belongs to his estate? Or are we to believe he left a will, bequeathing his cell phone to San Bernardino County? This is brilliant; The state can just declare it owns a persons computer/phone/etc and demand the mfgr hack it because "the owner" is requesting it. No, the phone itself was not owned by the dead guy. It was owned by his employer (San Bernadino County) and issued to him. Quote The iPhone is owned by Farook's employer, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, which assigned it to him. The county consented to investigators' requests to search its contents. Link They have a search warrant. They can legally go into the phone and retrieve what ever they want. They just don't have the ability to do so. Best analogy I can come up with is someone who has something buried on their land. Without a warrant, the cops can't come on the property to search. With a warrant they can search, but if they can't find anything, too bad. It may not be there, it may just be well hidden. They can't torture the suspect into revealing where it is. I don't disagree with Apple or Tim Cook on this issue. The idea that the government could force a company to do what they want to do is abhorrent. Anything Apple could come up with to access this particular phone could be used to access every Iphone. The idea that it would only be used by the government and only in this one case is ludicrous."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #18 February 18, 2016 OK, I sit corrected.Now I wonder if he really was dumb enough to use an employers phone in planning the attack. "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #19 February 18, 2016 Never fear; McAfee is here!http://hothardware.com/news/john-mcafee-offers-to-decrypt-san-bernardino-iphone-for-fbi "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #20 February 18, 2016 ryoder OK, I sit corrected.Now I wonder if he really was dumb enough to use an employers phone in planning the attack. Maybe. Obviously he could have. They can't get in to find out. I'm going to guess not. He and his wife tried to destroy their personal phones. This one was simply left behind in a car. I would take that to mean that he didn't think there was anything to hide on that phone. He disabled the "backup to the cloud" feature. I would tend to think that he left nothing on that particular phone, but made it hard to access anything to mess with the cops. Thoughtful terrorists want to change our society for the worse. The attackers in 2001 certainly succeeded in making air travel a big pain in the ass. "Security Theater" has made very little real difference in in actual safety in the air. Maybe he knew perfectly well that nobody could access the phone and wanted to make the government trample on our privacy rights to get to... Nothing. Which seems to be what's happening (the "trampling" part, not necessarily the "nothing" part)."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,031 #21 February 18, 2016 And so is Trump! "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. . . . we should open it up. I think security over all -- we have to open it up, and we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #22 February 18, 2016 billvonAnd so is Trump! "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. . . . we should open it up. I think security over all -- we have to open it up, and we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense." Somebody should give the phone to Trump along with a can opener and say, "Have at it!"quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,031 #23 February 19, 2016 >Somebody should give the phone to Trump along with a can opener and say, "Have at it!" He wouldn't use it. He doesn't like Apple because they send their manufacturing work overseas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #24 February 19, 2016 quade Somebody should give the phone to Trump along with a can opener and say, "Have at it!" Trump would waterboard it until it unlocked its self."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #25 February 19, 2016 billvonAnd so is Trump! "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. . . . we should open it up. I think security over all -- we have to open it up, and we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense." There is some fine, thought out and well articulated policy. It is going to be great! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
