Personal privacy v national security

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by CarlV

I still do not understand why Apple cannot retrieve the information then hand it over. It isn't because they can't, and doing it that way they absolutely protect their product.


Carl

Unless they are hiding something?



Privacy, court order? Legal, illegal actions by owners? I trust the Government on this one.

Point as I see it, anything on the phone needs to be found out. Like I stated the phone belonged to the company he worked for. Businesses as a rule read your emails, track sites visited and listen to your phone calls at work when on company machines.


Barney

[hillbilly]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I'm with Apple on this. They do not have the capability to get the data off of the phone without making changes to the operating system that will allow the FBI to do a "brute force" attack on the phone (use every possible password combination without wiping the phone clean after 10 password attempts). It's an iPhone 5c with iOS 9 which means it has a 4 digit passcode (i.e., 9,999 possibilities). Once this change is made to the OS (or if the software becomes available outside of Apple), nobody's iPhone is secure at that point.

The government is asking Apple to undertake the programming effort to the OS which will both cost money to do and will also break Apple's promise to its customers about security of its phones. Besides, even if they do this, there are available apps that future terrorists can (and do) use to encrypt communications anyway.

The thing about iPhones is first you have to unlock it before making changes or being able to update it, or dilly dally with the software in any way. They can't change the software in these to prevent them from deleting after 10 attempts to get in unless you enter the correct passcode first. Apple says they made it so not even Apple can get in to ensure people's privacy. I'm not sure what Apple can do, but being an iPhone user it's nice to know that if I lose my phone without realizing it, nobody can use my apps or nose through my family pictures, contacts, etc.

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Is that how Sheriff Arpaio serves it?

If you got a job, you could eat 100% beef bologna too.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

If you got a job, you could eat 100% beef bologna too.

Yawn, grow up sonny. I've been a self employed construction puke and business owner since you were in Pampers.

I'm retired now and loving it, arthritis and all. No baloney here, it's carne asada when I eat beef

[nailer]

I don't think the FBI is expecting to win this fight. They've been around a long time and can afford to take a longer view. Losing this battle could well turn into a strategic win in that if something bad happens and iPhone encryption played a role, or can be made to be perceived as having done so, the FBI has an "I told you so" assault to open their next information access battle.

[finnbow]

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

If you got a job, you could eat 100% beef bologna too.

You'd have to eat that beef bologna to GET a job.

[CarlV]

Well isn't this just marvelous.

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.

The service costs $4 per month per phone.

Instead, the only person who knew the unlocking passcode for the phone is the dead gunman, Syed Farook, who worked as an inspector in the county’s public health department.

The iPhone assigned to Farook also lacked a Touch ID feature, meaning the FBI cannot use the dead gunman’s thumbprint to unlock it now. The FBI found the phone in a car after the shootings.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...farook-iphone/

It is even better than 80% of BART security cameras are dummy ones story.


Carl

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by CarlV

I still do not understand why Apple cannot retrieve the information then hand it over. It isn't because they can't, and doing it that way they absolutely protect their product.


Carl

Carl,

I am new to the thread.

Your thought is the same as what has been rolling around in my head. Based on my limited understanding of the situation, the first thing that struck me as odd was that the FBI was reported as asking for a tool. That is materially different than asking for data.

That is my knee jerk assessment of the issue. The unspoken issue seems to be about how FBI's counsel phrased their request.

[CarlV]

Yes, but as in post #39, the fix is there, the county even paid for it.
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.

And so much for it not being possible to retrieve info as Apple insists.

Carl