Is It The Law Or Lack Of Know How Preventing Uncle Sam From Unlocking The Terrorist's Apple Iphone?

Well said!

 

A strong offense has been the American way for a while. Sadly, not as often now as it was in the past.

 

Hacking/Brute-forcing a phone after a terrorist already has killed people isn't an offense though. It's a disproportionate reaction to something that could not have been prevented by allowing the government to see what is on people's phones. Just like the access that the Patriot Act allows would have done nothing whatsoever to prevent a group of passengers from taking over a couple of commercial airliners and crashing them into a couple of buildings.

A calm analysis of the actual benefits of doing something that, once done, cannot be reversed, should be mandatory. Mainly because it's kind of common sense to look before we leap and think before we act.

I, for one, would not want the contents of my Android phone to become available to just about anyone, government agency or not - my personal email is attache to that phone, and those emails are private. I don't discuss anything illegal in emails to my immediate biological family - but that is beside the point. They are citizens of a country outside the US, and their country's laws are very specific about protecting personal correspondence. Like the emails they send me.

The can of worms this issue could open up if Apple says yes is at best gallon sized, at worst, it is a giant barrel of legal problems.

 

Gaining access to all the data on the phone or computer of a terrorist should be allowed - by law.
But everyone, definitely not.

 

In theory, I agree.

In practice however, it is at this point in time impossible to do one while preventing the other. So if we assume that it's impossible to prevent access to the data of a phone or computer of anyone, is it still okay to permit the violation of privacy of thousands of innocents, just to get to the devices of a small handful of terrorists?

Once again, sacrificing liberty for safety is bad.

 

Hmm, are they convicted? Who defines terrorist? Fourth Amendment anyone?

 

And if there is no way to guarantee privacy of any iPhone once that first phone is hacked?
That is exactly where we are at. If Apple writes the code and hands the code or hacked phone back there is no control. The only secure solution is to not write the code.
What you suggest is not an option.

 

I paraphrased him. You quoted him correctly.

I don't.

Does anyone else remember the controversy from this time last year, when Kaspersky announced that the NSA had planted spyware functions in the firmware of storage drives manufactured by Seagate, Western Digital, Micron, Toshiba, IBM, Samsung (and possibly other companies I can't remember right now)? Despite how hard the named corporations worked to prove this was not the case - and several of them did manage to prove that the allegations were false about their products - they are still suffering from bad press, and their sales are also suffering to this day, especially in countries whose population traditionally have a negative view of the US government. I'm pretty sure none of the companies I named earlier wanted their introduction to the growing Chinese market to become any more difficult than it already was...

Apple wants the people in China, India, and the countries that used to be Soviet Union to buy iPhones instead of Android phones. Becoming known for compromising the privacy of their users just because the US government asks them to, would get in the way of that, particularly after Kaspersky's reveal last year. Not to mention that within the industry, there are still rumblings and consequences from the Kaspersky claims, particularly for the companies that manufacture drives with encryption built into the firmware.

Though this of course begs the question: If it's okay for Apple to give the FBI access to the data on a person's phone, then why was there such an outrage at the notion of the NSA spying on people through their storage drives?

Actually, don't answer that.

 

Good news!

Are we taking an over-under on how long it will take to start strongly questioning the general competence levels of a Justice Department that claims they are entirely lost and helpless to make a case stick unless they get access to the data on that phone....?

 

I was just coming to post that, too! While it's not the same case as the California one, it does land quite a blow to the government's position and lends huge credibility to Apple's position.

 

Why do you think they would have a whole customized operating system with some security features removed on standby?

 

Why do you think they would need something that complicated? A back door is a simple thing to build. I don't believe they have one, and I have stated my reasons already.

 

Were it simple, the NSA would have done it.

 

That is actually kind of my point. The NSA can't do it without Apple's full cooperation. This entire thread was started because they don't have that. Not on this particular issue.

 

It took a while... but Apple eventually helped South African investigators.
Oscar Pistorius murdered one woman. The lowlife terrorists killed 14 people and seriously injured 22. Fortunately, the police exterminated the subhumans. No 'liberty'... no free accommodation, clothing, food, etc.

And now... the right to privacy of dead killers is being protected.
There's no liberty in death.

 

On a lighter note...
http://www.majorgeeks.com/news/story/random_photo_code_writing_can_be_stressful.html

 

I'll just throw this out there... It seems the reason the FBI can't access the data from the cloud and instead needs Apple to write software to break into the phone is, wait for it, the FBI's own fault!
http://fortune.com/2016/03/02/fbi-testimony-apple/

 

A little update on this. It might be out of Apple's hands now. This might have backfired on them in the long run.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03...bernardino-attackers-iphone.html?intcmp=hpbt3

 

I don't understand why anybody in their right mind want's to protect the rights of a dead terrorist/murderer.
Apple has sold more than 700 million iPhones.
And NO, the FBI, NSA, CIA, etc. is not going to start a mass request to spy on/unlock every Apple iPhone.
Nobody cares about the "o so private" stuff you have on your phone. Just don't plan on killing people...

 

I just hope somebody has foiled the evil Apple Corporation, especially with another terrorist attack occurring in Brussels today the last thing we need in this world is for big business to kiss terrorists butts. I understand at the same time too there's other things now we should be doing to prevent what just happened in Brussels. Since airports appear to be havens for these scumbags I propose setting up checkpoints surrounding all airports. That certainly could have been the key to preventing the attack today in Brussels.

 

You forgot the liberal terrorist-butt-kissing. Remember 9/11? When Islamic terrorists killed almost 3,000 people and injured more than 6,000 others? And then when the George W. Bush administration tried to introduce terrorist profiling at airports, the liberals shouted racial profiling.

Why doesn't the UN address the governments of these Islamic countries where the s0-called refugees come from?

 

I don't see how Apple is an "evil corporation". I don't think our 4th amendment rights should vanish because some crazy people are willing to break laws.

 

Moving the checkpoints to outside the airport perimeter would just move the target. You would still have many people in one area. Here, our military bases have traffic backed up waiting to go past the check stations and it has already been pointed out that presents many people in a small area for soft targets. Some CWP folks have talked of the need to respond before base security could even get to the gate much less outside the gate. With so many cars waiting in line is just as much a hazard as standing around in an airport security line.

 

Some things this 3rd party might be considering

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...4b4004-f08e-11e5-a2a3-d4e9697917d1_story.html

 

We don't. We want to protect the rights of everyone else.

I don't want my personal rights to privacy to become collateral damage in the war against terrorism, and that in itself is more than enough reason to speak up in defense of the privacy rights of others.

 

I was thinking the same thing too but now that the check point is located outside of the building or outdoors, I do see less chance for the kind of disaster that happened in Brussels. There certainly won't be no ceilings and walls caving in, while people are spaced further apart in a straight line. I'm afraid we need more security at just about anywhere large numbers of people conjugate. In the meantime Apple needs to quit defending terrorists hardware.

 

And maybe, liberals should stop defending the 'rights' of criminals - dead or alive. Terrorists, murderers, and other lowlifes don't have rights. Ordinary peace-loving, hardworking people have the right to live in a safe environment.

And the paranoiac hysterics, who have nothing apart from their 'privacy', should seek psycho therapy. I'll contact Dr. Phil...
Security agencies don't want to see what's on your phone... just keep your nose clean. Don't kill people or plan to kill people. And your 'oh-so-private' info will be safe.

Spare a thought for the victims of the bomb blast in Belgium.

 

1. Actually, they do. That's why everyone has a right to an attorney and a trial by their peers, and why the burden of proof is on the accuser and not on the accused.
2.One man's terrorist is another man's hero.

But I can tell that I am wasting my time trying to keep the conversation from drifting deeper into the realms of blind fear and rage than it already has, so I'm going to stop trying and go do something more productive. With people who won't stoop to implying that I am mentally ill simply because they don't understand my point of view.

 

This is what we can do to ourselves without even cellphones or internet.(see link) So unlocking phones won't stop it. I still believe it is already possible to defeat the iPhone or any phone for that matter. Anything really private probably shouldn't be on the phone.


http://ok.gov/OEM/documents/Bombing After Action Report.pdf

 

The fear panderers. My safety is my responsibility. I do not need anybody to protect me as long as I am afforded my 2nd amendment rights.

Those who are willing to give up their freedom under the guise of safety have neither freedom or safety.

There have been great people who have pioneered the American Spirit. Why is this such a problem for you Eldon?

Why do you imply that because I want my privacy protected that I support the murderers? (who by the way got caught and one dead)

Maybe one could look into the (in)justice system and see how the total compliance of all subjects be enforced without a peep.

Why do you want Slavery?

Anyway, why don't you read Apples official position and quit spewing your hatred here?
http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

After you do read it, if you don't comprehend Apple's position, feel free to ask for clarification.

 

True but if the FBI and others can't unlock these phones, that's all the more reason to store something private on them or should I say a terrorist best friend?

 

I believe the phones are all already compromised. Mis-information. The gov and large corporations have never wanted to reveal their true capabilities.

 

You could say that, and that would expose you for what you are.

Would it not be better to punish the crime? Keeping secrets is not a crime, otherwise 90% of the government and FBI and political agencies would be in jail.


What's next? Neural taps into my imagination?