Apple vs. the FBI

[Sidewinderpb]

Originally Posted by ny325

I agree. However, isn't the FBI only asking to unlock the phones of the two savages? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Precedent setting is the issue. Many others, along with myself, have elaborated in previous posts.

[QUiKSR20]

Originally Posted by Sidewinderpb

Precedent setting is the issue. Many others, along with myself, have elaborated in previous posts.

People are either failing to read of failing to see the real picture and only believing what they want to believe unfortunately.

The threads going to go nowhere, This will continue to go back and fourth im done with it.. Id rather get back to fun stuff like BMW's

[AW335TT]

Originally Posted by ny325

I believe if you have nothing to hide, why worry.

If the FBI decided to put cameras in every bathroom and changing room.. Would you mind?

[AW335TT]

Originally Posted by ny325

Apple is worrying about its image before the safety of our country. God forbid another attacks takes place, and somehow information leads back to those two savages. Then what is everyone going to say? Let me guess, " You see, I told you so." Guess what, it's too late.

So you think if the FBI got into this phone it's going to somehow prevent a future attack??

Even if they got into it, all terrorists have to do is tweak the plan a little bit, move one city over, for example... These are ppl who commit suicide for fun.. You're not going to deter them by getting into one of their phones.

Getting into the phone will have absolutely no benefit. You get rid of 1.. Another one takes it place.

[trey100]

Originally Posted by RedlinePSI

I'm going to respond with a question if I may, seriously. Are you saying that Google/Apple collects sensitive information without the end user having agreed to a terms of use, and willingly forefitting permissions to certain parts of their device? That includes everything from social security numbers to credit card numbers, to a naked pic.

Do you mean the terms of use that you see pop up in everything we do that you must agree to in order to use the device or software that happens to be 20 pages of law speak?

Like I said - they work around privacy issues. Everything we are doing today that involves electronic devices, TVs, and yes even things like refrigerators will be tracked. We would all have consented to it in some way or another. If you do not believe so, then that is fine.

If you want to stay private you'll need to go live in the woods sans devices.

[ny325]

Agree trey100. They should move to the woods, and give up all electronic devices. By the way, maybe sell your vehicle if it has a navigation system.

[Sidewinderpb]

Originally Posted by ny325

Agree trey100. They should move to the woods, and give up all electronic devices. By the way, maybe sell your vehicle if it has a navigation system.

Thanks for your intelligent contribution.

[RedlinePSI]

Originally Posted by trey100

Do you mean the terms of use that you see pop up in everything we do that you must agree to in order to use the device or software that happens to be 20 pages of law speak?

Yes, basically. Long jargon or not, the fact that it's written out for you and subsequently agreed to by the end user is ALL the difference in the world. If you are willing to give up some security for a cool app then you have no argument. It's a bullshit move, yes, but the choice is yours regardless. That is completely different than the government privately retaining the ability to bust in to your phone when they see fit. Probably regardless of whether you have been proven guilty of a crime yet or not.

Originally Posted by trey100

Like I said - they work around privacy issues. Everything we are doing today that involves electronic devices, TVs, and yes even things like refrigerators will be tracked. We would all have consented to it in some way or another. If you do not believe so, then that is fine.

If you want to stay private you'll need to go live in the woods sans devices.

Tracked how, and for what purpose? You kind of come off like you read up on the internet of things future, and somebody made you put on the tin foil hat after they convinced you the FBI was going to turn your refrigerator against you. I am well aware that any device connected to the internet is reachable. The bottom line is, unwarranted surveillance is illegal. And if you are talking about less severe issues like marketing purposes, show me where I agreed to that when I got my Samsung Smart TV! But regardless, who gives a shit about the latter!? This thread is about high level tracking with full access to personal devices. So in that respect, I should updated my last question. Show me where I agreed to allow government agencies or Samsung to attain full access to my home network just because I bought a TV.

[trey100]

Originally Posted by RedlinePSI

Yes, basically. Long jargon or not, the fact that it's written out for you and subsequently agreed to by the end user is ALL the difference in the world. If you are willing to give up some security for a cool app then you have no argument. It's a bullshit move, yes, but the choice is yours regardless. That is completely different than the government privately retaining the ability to bust in to your phone when they see fit. Probably regardless of whether you have been proven guilty of a crime yet or not.

Tracked how, and for what purpose? You kind of come off like you read up on the internet of things future, and somebody made you put on the tin foil hat after they convinced you the FBI was going to turn your refrigerator against you. I am well aware that any device connected to the internet is reachable. The bottom line is, unwarranted surveillance is illegal. And if you are talking about less severe issues like marketing purposes, show me where I agreed to that when I got my Samsung Smart TV! But regardless, who gives a shit about the latter!? This thread is about high level tracking with full access to personal devices. So in that respect, I should updated my last question. Show me where I agreed to allow government agencies or Samsung to attain full access to my home network just because I bought a TV.

I think we can go in circles on this. I never said surveillance is ok. If I did please show me.

It's all about collection of information, data, patterns, etc to market things to you (for now). These companies learn all about you by everything you do on your phone. They are adding devices to collect information so they can piece more things together to draw a clearer picture of you. And in the world we live in, we must hand over that privacy in order to be functional in society. We can't stop using computers or phones, correct? So yes, you agree allow them to peek into your life by consenting. Do we have a choice? Can we say no but I still want to use your product?

Your description of me is completely off. Please don't make this personal.

The point I am trying to make is clear: We forego our privacy every day (forced by the likes of Apple and Google as examples) in order to remain functional but somehow when it comes to getting info from a terrorist's phone (even if the possibility of something relevant being on there is minimal) everyone is talking about protecting our privacy. You don't see the irony in that just a bit?

Once again, I was not speaking of "surveillance". This is getting info stored on a phone. Similar to going into their house to search it for clues, etc.

By the way, I am completely ok with Facebook, Google, etc forcing me into consenting a reduction in my privacy for the benefit of staying productive. Would I rather they didn't - yes - and if so I might lean the other way. No tin foil hat here. It's the folks defending the terrorist's "rights" that are wearing the tin foil hats. I am saying the opposite.

[Mr Tonka]

^^ they think that just because they didn't take the time to read it or are capable of understanding it, no one has.

It's not like all attorneys work for Apple and never read or go against terms of use. Hell, most of the time the terms of use change is because an attorney read it and brought suit against them for some type of violation of rights.

Not one person here has defended the terrorists rights. Further proof that you didn't bother to read the thread.

[IndotagSwizz]

I don't see what's the big deal about having different opinions instead of trying to convince other people that they have to think the same way they think. I personally agree with Apple's stance, in my opinion the FBI has absolutely no right access my phone information, just because they can do so in other aspects of my life doesn't mean to me that I should give them total access to every piece of information I own. And if anybody feels the opposite not only it doesn't bother me at all I also could care less, doesn't mean that either one of us is right, just our preference.

[jtodd_fl]

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
― Thomas Jefferson

[jtodd_fl]

Originally Posted by IndotagSwizz

I don't see what's the big deal about having different opinions instead of trying to convince other people that they have to think the same way they think. I personally agree with Apple's stance, in my opinion the FBI has absolutely no right access my phone information, just because they can do so in other aspects of my life doesn't mean to me that I should give them total access to every piece of information I own. And if anybody feels the opposite not only it doesn't bother me at all I also could care less, doesn't mean that either one of us is right, just our preference.

I generally agree with this... there is a small exception that is critically important. We all get the same vote in elections and we have largely stopped having honest discourse about anything important. Instead, we, as a society, have chosen sides and defend the side that we are on. According to physiological studies, Identity is the most significant determinant of decisions in the face of uncertainty. When not certain, one most often asks themselves, "What would someone like me do?" Someone like me being... evangelical, environmentalist, NRA member, liberal, conservative, parent, LGBT, whatever... Instead of honestly debating the the merits of a counterpoint, we (societally and DEFINITELY politically) resort to name calling and sound bites. Republicans are racists. Democrats are socialists. Tea Partiers are nut cases. We don't talk about the nuances of positions, because it is hard and it requires the participants in the discussion to really understand the issues and be willing to be demonstrably right or wrong - to put their own position on the line, as it were. So, we don't do it. So, the Oscars are racist. If you say they aren't and that we should look at the historical and socioeconomics of the what it takes to write movies or be in them in Hollywood and look at it structurally, then you are racist. Instead, #OscarBoycott. If your position takes more than 140 characters to articulate, then ... whatever. So, we get what we have. Also, stfu... you're a pussy for not being forceful in your opinion - flip flopper... (Yeah, that was sarcasm.) /soapbox

[UncleWede]

Hey, Fundguy. What are you going to do when they hack into one of your larger clients' phone, steal his password to your account company, and dump al their stock? OR do it to your phone, and dump all your clients' stock, and you are left holding the proverbial bag?

THAT is what's at stake here. It's not about future terrorism, it's about future embezzlement on a scale the world has never seen. What job will you do then?

[jgoens]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

Hey, Fundguy. What are you going to do when they hack into one of your larger clients' phone, steal his password to your account company, and dump al their stock? OR do it to your phone, and dump all your clients' stock, and you are left holding the proverbial bag?

THAT is what's at stake here. It's not about future terrorism, it's about future embezzlement on a scale the world has never seen. What job will you do then?

[RedlinePSI]

Originally Posted by trey100

I think we can go in circles on this. I never said surveillance is ok. If I did please show me.

It's all about collection of information, data, patterns, etc to market things to you (for now). These companies learn all about you by everything you do on your phone. They are adding devices to collect information so they can piece more things together to draw a clearer picture of you. And in the world we live in, we must hand over that privacy in order to be functional in society. We can't stop using computers or phones, correct? So yes, you agree allow them to peek into your life by consenting. Do we have a choice? Can we say no but I still want to use your product?

Your description of me is completely off. Please don't make this personal.

The point I am trying to make is clear: We forego our privacy every day (forced by the likes of Apple and Google as examples) in order to remain functional but somehow when it comes to getting info from a terrorist's phone (even if the possibility of something relevant being on there is minimal) everyone is talking about protecting our privacy. You don't see the irony in that just a bit?

Once again, I was not speaking of "surveillance". This is getting info stored on a phone. Similar to going into their house to search it for clues, etc.

By the way, I am completely ok with Facebook, Google, etc forcing me into consenting a reduction in my privacy for the benefit of staying productive. Would I rather they didn't - yes - and if so I might lean the other way. No tin foil hat here. It's the folks defending the terrorist's "rights" that are wearing the tin foil hats. I am saying the opposite.

Well basically I am with you on your understanding and acceptance of how data collection happens every day. I wonder if there are people out there who think it's the lords magic work that the items they were recently shopping for, all of a sudden pop up in add's on every other website they visit. I am ok with that, it does not bother me at all. Mostly-innocent habit tracking like that, for the purpose of marketing and even user convenience is certainly worth the slight loss in personal security. However there is a line that gets crossed. For example, if I have a personal matter that I would like to do research on, that gets logged in far away servers when I Google it, and that does not sit well with me. I have to take extra steps to disassociate my search with my identity if I want to keep something private, and I am more than sure most people don't even think to do something like that. Some people may not care, but many do, and they don't know whats happening. So to me, when it gets to that point, we are crossing into the uncomfortable zone. The fact that the FBI is requesting a Pandora's box, even if they don't realize it (or do they?), is like 3 and a half city blocks past the line of comfort to me.

So I see that you are not speaking on surveillance per say, but when hackers figure out how to take advantage of this weakness, surveillance is just one of myriad issues that we will all have to be concerned with. So to answer your question, no I don't see irony as a proper term to define this. I just don't think you can lump every single privacy concern, from browsing habits, to not allowing me to secure my phone, into one group.

You are right, we can go on with this forever and like somebody else said it's just a difference of opinion. But it's an interesting discussion. And i'm speaking on American's rights.

[eluded]

Apple wins the first battle, gov't shouldn't rely on the All Writs Act, passed in 1789

[QUiKSR20]

All you guys that are saying the FBI is in the right, Please watch this and share your thoughts? ( Its less than 5 mins )

/Thread

They dont need back doors for phones that are in their possession, They want to gain access to phones that are not in their possession.\

They are using terrorism to try and sell us on why we need a back door in..

[IndotagSwizz]

Originally Posted by QUiKSR20

All you guys that are saying the FBI is in the right, Please watch this and share your thoughts? ( Its less than 5 mins )

/Thread

They dont need back doors for phones that are in their possession, They want to gain access to phones that are not in their possession.\

They are using terrorism to try and sell us on why we need a back door in..

I was about to post this

[JasonCSU]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Top 5 are all west coast based multimillion dollar Democrat donating liberal as hole run companies. They are all backing apple because they don't want a back door either for profits. I wish they would burn.

No target on apples back if they crack the phone, remove the data, then destroy the software. Not sure why everyone thinks this will be easy to get off the Internet tomorrow when it will be inside apple only on one phone only then destroyed.

They better ask other firms to do this is there is a crime involved, and throw anyone trying to stop them on jail for obstruction of justice. It's the law.

What far worse will happen? Nothing. Absolutely nothing will happen if apple complies, except terrorists get nabbed before killing.

And you didn't have that confidence when you had your iPhone 4, or you'd be scared one phone was cracked and then the software desrroyed? Holy paranoid batman.

They want apple to do it because then there's no question of authenticity of the evidence. And apple has complied every time until now. Why is that? Why comply and do this before, but now in the wake of the largest terrorist incident in the us since 9/11, with active terrorists on the loose, why would they say no? Because they want to use it for marketing. Brag they stood up to the man and won so kids who buy their crappy phones buy more. Free advertising.

Yes, this involves snowden, but he really should burn more than anyone for what he's done.

The logic, or lack thereof, of your posts is astounding. So you are saying a whistle blower who informed the American public that their own government has been illegally spying and collecting data on them should burn for what he has done?

[cays]

Originally Posted by Verbiage

This reminds me to a certain degree of a parallel to Tor (the encrypted/proxy browser used for incognito web surfing) and how the FBI had a hand in tracking down illegal activity from it.

Of course they didn't force the developers of Tor to isolate certain individuals since that would go against the premise of the browser itself (not all users had malicious intent), but Apple should have the right to maintain their security measures for more reasons than just this individual case, as Jason has stated.

This came out a week ago, very surprised to see a well-known university behind it.

A federal judge in Washington has now confirmed what has been strongly suspected: that Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) researchers at its Software Engineering Institute were hired by the federal government to do research into breaking Tor in 2014. The judge also made a notable statement in his court order that "Tor users clearly lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in their IP addresses while using the Tor network."

However, some of the details that Tor alleged previously seem to be wrong: the research was funded by the Department of Defense, not the FBI. Tor Project Director Shari Steele told Ars earlier this year that the organization still couldn't get straight answers from CMU. According to the judge, that research was then subpoenaed by federal investigators.

The Tor Project did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment. Meanwhile, Kenneth Walters, a CMU spokesman, refused to answer Ars' questions, referring us only to the university's last statement, from November 2015, which hinted that the university was served with a subpoena.

[Verbiage]

Originally Posted by cays

This came out a week ago, very surprised to see a well-known university behind it.

A federal judge in Washington has now confirmed what has been strongly suspected: that Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) researchers at its Software Engineering Institute were hired by the federal government to do research into breaking Tor in 2014. The judge also made a notable statement in his court order that "Tor users clearly lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in their IP addresses while using the Tor network."

However, some of the details that Tor alleged previously seem to be wrong: the research was funded by the Department of Defense, not the FBI. Tor Project Director Shari Steele told Ars earlier this year that the organization still couldn't get straight answers from CMU. According to the judge, that research was then subpoenaed by federal investigators.

The Tor Project did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment. Meanwhile, Kenneth Walters, a CMU spokesman, refused to answer Ars' questions, referring us only to the university's last statement, from November 2015, which hinted that the university was served with a subpoena.

Absolutely ridiculous.