Personal privacy v national security

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by merrylander

How does the cracking code get into public hands this wayy?

Things do.

[Oerets]

Would there be any doubt to the quick retrieval if let's say Mr Crook's loved one was kidnapped and a Apple phone was found locked at the scene?

A loose nuke?

All we have here is at what degree everyone accepts the need.

I think now, Apple wants the Government to pass legislation requiring the back door.



Barney

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by CarlV

As far as I can recall Tim Cook has never stated that it could not be hacked by Apple.

Anybody?


Carl

You've already got the opposite from what I'm going to say Carl. The same thing I said pages ago. I think I'm right...

The propaganda from Apple says they can't. But in response to the court order, Tim Cook is not saying he "cant", he's saying he won't.

Why is Tim Cook saying he "won't" crack open Syed Farook's iPhone, and not that he "can't?" Because he already knows his people can. And if he says they can't now, and it comes out later that they can, he's committed felony obstruction of justice by lying to the FBI and the court.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

You've already got the opposite from what I'm going to say Carl. The same thing unsaid pages ago. I think I'm right...

The propaganda from Apple says they can't. But in response to the court order, Tim Cook is not saying he "cant", he's saying he won't.

Why is Tim Cook saying he "won't" crack open Syed Farook's iPhone, and not that he "can't?" Because he already knows his people can. And if he says they can't now, and it comes out later that they can, he's committed felony obstruction of justice by lying to the FBI and the court.

Where exactly did you get your law degree? FWIW, Apple is very ably represented by Ted Olsen. I believe Cook said that they can't get into the phone without writing new software (i.e., changing aspects of the operating system) and that he doesn't believe that the government should be able to force Apple to develop software that they don't want to develop and that would negatively impact their business model, their brand and their customers' security. Meanwhile, several other law enforcement agencies have said that they have upwards of 200 more iPhones that they want Apple to open up for them. This isn't strictly about the one iPhone in San Bernardino.

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

You've already got the opposite from what I'm going to say Carl. The same thing unsaid pages ago. I think I'm right...

The propaganda from Apple says they can't. But in response to the court order, Tim Cook is not saying he "cant", he's saying he won't.

Why is Tim Cook saying he "won't" crack open Syed Farook's iPhone, and not that he "can't?" Because he already knows his people can. And if he says they can't now, and it comes out later that they can, he's committed felony obstruction of justice by lying to the FBI and the court.

I always had this figured for total BS. If Cook had just STFU and did it none of the rest of this would be going on in public and in our new the rules don't apply to me society. Jesus made me do it.
That and a bunch of PD's wanting to get a piece of the action. And as departments being run with little integrity just like Wall St., somebody willing to sell any info will, just takes one.

Maybe if Cook buys plenty of Congressmen like the NRA has...

Carl

[Pio1980]

I tend to believe Cook on this as a Pandora box scenario, particularly since it was the Feds that locked the phone with poor procedure without first consulting w/Apple.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[CarlV]

The County messed up big time.

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS/AP) — The county government that owned the iPhone in a high-profile legal battle between Apple Inc. and the Justice Department paid for but never installed a feature that would have allowed the FBI to easily and immediately unlock the phone as part of the terrorism investigation into the shootings that killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California.

If the technology, known as mobile device management, had been installed, San Bernardino officials would have been able to remotely unlock the iPhone for the FBI without the theatrics of a court battle that is now pitting digital privacy rights against national security concerns.

http://www.politicalchat.org/showpos...7&postcount=38


Carl

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by CarlV

I always had this figured for total BS. If Cook had just STFU and did it none of the rest of this would be going on in public and in our new the rules don't apply to me society. Jesus made me do it.
That and a bunch of PD's wanting to get a piece of the action. And as departments being run with little integrity just like Wall St., somebody willing to sell any info will, just takes one.

Maybe if Cook buys plenty of Congressmen like the NRA has...

Carl

The other bullshit is that if Apple cracks this phone open it will put every other iPhone at risk to be hacked. Not any more at risk than every iPhone was at risk for being hacked than they all were prior to late 2014 when the IOS with the deeper encryption was released.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Where exactly did you get your law degree? FWIW, Apple is very ably represented by Ted Olsen. I believe Cook said that they can't get into the phone without writing new software (i.e., changing aspects of the operating system) and that he doesn't believe that the government should be able to force Apple to develop software that they don't want to develop and that would negatively impact their business model, their brand and their customers' security. Meanwhile, several other law enforcement agencies have said that they have upwards of 200 more iPhones that they want Apple to open up for them. This isn't strictly about the one iPhone in San Bernardino.

Of course it isn't. And it shouldn't be. An iPhone is no different from any other place where information can be stored, like a file cabinet or a safe. And on a case by case basis, law enforcement should have the option to go into court to request a warrant to search a suspect's smartphone for evidence in a criminal investigation just like they have the option to request a warrant to search a file cabinet, safe, closet, sock drawer, or garbage can. Because this is about criminal evidence gathering, not about some sinister desire by the government to be able remotely spy on everybody's smartphone, like the privacy activists are claiming.

BTW - Android phones are accessible through a "back door".

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

The other bullshit is that if Apple cracks this phone open it will put every other iPhone at risk to be hacked. Not any more at risk than every iPhone was at risk for being hacked than they all were prior to late 2014 when the IOS with the deeper encryption was released.

While true, I don't see this as particularly persuasive. It's a little like saying we should get rid of birth control pills because it's not as if unintended pregnancies will be more prevalent than they were before the pill was invented.