Apple vs. the FBI

Topic: Apple vs. the FBI (Read 20064 times)

Apple vs. the FBI

2016-02-28, 05:54:35

I assume everybody is aware of this "problem"… (Let me know if you require more background.)

I'm interested to hear the opinions of others. (I've recently finished reading Apple's latest response… And I've formed an opinion.

)

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #1 – 2016-02-28, 16:14:11

I, too, have formed an opinion, and side with Apple largely because I don't trust government intrusiveness. Yesterday I watched a nicely done documentary on PBS, http://terrordocumentary.org/, which many of our users won't have access to.

Look around and you might fine a way to get access to it.

You (Oakdale) should be able to find it at
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/videos/terror/.

I watched it online.

After hounding one man endlessly as a suspected terrorist, he was finally jailed for having a gun in his apartment.

Finally,

Quote

a team of researchers offered a version of it last year when they published the prescient paper “Keys Under Doormats.”

“As computer scientists with extensive security and systems experience, we believe that law enforcement has failed to account for the risks inherent in exceptional access systems,” the group wrote in July. The risks of that type of backdoor include adding complexity to an already intricate system that’s difficult keep secure, and the impossibility of creating access that would be used solely by the FBI. Any backdoor accessible to law enforcement can and also would be used by a hacker for any number of nefarious reasons."

https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/97690/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2015-026.pdf

The long and short of it is that extraordinary FBI access would find it's way into the hands of others.

What's your view, Oak?

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #2 – 2016-02-28, 21:46:26

I too side with Apple… For the practical reasons you mention. But also for their legal arguments, which boil down to a simple statement:
Congress has repeatedly, and thoughtfully so, refused to grant law enforcement the power to conscript private companies the way the FBI (and others) demand.

Have you noticed that a lot of people -including some at the FBI- seem to think technology is like a genie in a bottle? That all you have to do is rub it the right way and you'll be granted three wishes?

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #3 – 2016-02-29, 00:09:18

I would also side with Apple as the matter of governments just getting access does not seem principally right at all. There have been other companies who have just given into pressures but the basic right of the individual to have privacy is paramount. The point has also been made that it does open things right up for others and iffy information access. Security excuses are well just that and all that does is give each of us less control and is a worrying direction. Too many in a recent poll just believe what they are told as the official "excuse" and that is a veritable worry in itself. Apple is morally right.

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #4 – 2016-02-29, 01:12:12

It must be… why yes it is…a leap day for the three of you to agree.

Not that I would dissent either.

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #5 – 2016-02-29, 05:08:40

Sometimes, the facts and laws and traditions are too plain to spin…
I'm for national security. I don't want terrorists to have an easy time of killing Americans. This couple, and their "friend" who bought them the weapons they used, should be investigated. And, indeed, the iPhone that was recovered should be opened to see if it holds clues to any others who might have been involved… And, perhaps, plotting something further.
But that information was made almost impossible to get, by the actions of law enforcement. Why, I ask, did the authorities demand a re-set of the phone's password?
All the information the FBI is seeking would have been available -on the cloud- and readily given over by Apple, pursuant to a court order… But the "authorities" precluded that.
One wonders why.

Until I see such explanation, I'll assume they're incompetents — who, now, want to cover their asses.
"Nationalizing" Apple is a bad idea, I think.

(I'd like to hear what our various candidates for the presidency think about this. Am I the only one who would…?)

We don't need to reject the constitution to fight terrorism. Just the opposite, I think: We need to recognize those rights and privileges the Founders sought to protect. To understand why they were paramount. And to apply them to new circumstances and technologies.

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #6 – 2016-02-29, 14:15:45

The weird thing in this story is that FBI seems to be *asking* for backdoor access. Apple itself, CIA, KGB, and all other interested parties already have it without asking. What gives?

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #7 – 2016-02-29, 16:48:54

Quote from: jax on 2016-02-28, 20:12:12

It must be… why yes it is…a leap day for the three of you to agree.

Athos, Porthos, and Aramis.

Or, perhaps, the Three Stooges.

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #8 – 2016-02-29, 23:35:11

Quote from: ersi on 2016-02-29, 14:15:45

The weird thing in this story is that FBI seems to be *asking* for backdoor access. Apple itself, CIA, KGB, and all other interested parties already have it without asking. What gives?

Let the Americans play the idiots. They love it.
Just imagine, the FBI needs to ask in their knees for Apple to do something for them...
There's no limits for people stupidity.

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #9 – 2016-03-01, 04:08:42

Only problem being the 3 Stoogies is we might disagree with which one each of us would be.

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #10 – 2016-03-01, 05:15:23

I'd be any of the three… Curly was the most creative performer. Moe was the most savvy businessman, and "writer". And Larry was the most consistent and talented of the trio.
I liked them all! They made me laugh…

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #11 – 2016-03-01, 07:41:17

Quote from: ersi on 2016-02-29, 06:15:45

The weird thing in this story is that FBI seems to be *asking* for backdoor access. Apple itself, CIA, KGB, and all other interested parties already have it without asking. What gives?

You haven't been keeping up with the technology, have you?

You're just another would-be Aladdin. Fantasy seems to be your milieu.

So: Here's a new scenario for your consideration.
Biochemical extraction of memories becomes possible. All it takes is slicing and dicing the brain that contains the relevant memories… How long do you think it would be before law enforcement would "ask" for access to such memories, before they had a corpse…?

(Specially if they could get the same thing from a "core"-man, heh?

Technology does advance.)
And if it were possible to clone the individual, what would be the harm? "Hey, you honor, we'll make an exact copy of him… What's the problem? We're only destroying a copy…" Are there not judges that would find no constitutional problems with such?

(See what you've missed out on, Jaybro, by ignoring the genre of Science Fiction?

This "argument" occurred to me immediately. I thank ersi for giving me the necessary point against which to mention it: He assumes too much and knows too little, so I had to challenge his presumptions.)

The "magic" solution is presumed by law enforcement; but -as everyone knows- magic entails a cost…

Apple can either cripple its encryption or go out of business… Will it matter, that every other provider of such devices will be left in the same position?
I don't think so. This is the watershed case: The 4th Amendment means something, doesn't it?
Ask Trump. Ask Clinton, or Sanders.

The only one I know who will answer based upon a consistent understanding of the U.S. constitution is Ted Cruz.
Sorry! But the rest of the field is wishy-washy…

You perhaps disagree?

(I've sent him a specific question, via email. If I receive an answer, I'll -of course- pass it on. But I don't know him personally, and I can't guarantee that I'll get an answer. My intimation is — well, what you'd expect. But I could be wrong…
The worst case would be that my question is ignored. If he doesn't answer me, he's not the candidate I think he is…
That will matter, to me.)

@Jaybro: Do you think I miss-used my last comma here…?

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #12 – 2016-03-01, 10:34:05

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-01, 02:41:17

The worst case would be that my question is ignored. If he doesn't answer me, he's not the candidate I think he is…
That will matter, to me.)

Prepare yourself for the worst case. He won't even see your email. A campaign factotum might, but he won't. Don't hold that against him...he's a busy man.

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #13 – 2016-03-01, 10:45:47

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-01, 07:41:17

You haven't been keeping up with the technology, have you?

You evidently haven't. Ever installed an app on an Android phone? Saw the permissions they ask for? And the apps that don't ask for permissions do the same things regardless...

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-01, 07:41:17

This is the watershed case: The 4th Amendment means something, doesn't it?

Dream on. The 4th Amendment only seems to mean something now for the moment because FBI stupidly asked for access that more competent authorities and other interested parties have without asking. This story is "the watershed case" only for the technologically challenged.

Edit: FBI's request is not a problem for the 4th amendment. Rather, when an authority has the so-called permission to encrypted content, it's against the definition of encryption. When such a permission is granted, it would mean that there was no encryption to begin with.

However, in order for the content to be usable for the regular user, there's the passphrase which unencrypts the content and during that while it's all out in the open, insofar as the apps connect to the world wide web. Everybody should be aware of this.

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #14 – 2016-03-01, 19:54:14

Of course, ersi, you know better than Apple's engineers!

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #15 – 2016-03-01, 20:38:17

And of course you know that it's Apple's engineers speaking and not its political branch.

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #16 – 2016-03-01, 22:15:38

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-01, 12:38:17

And of course you know that it's Apple's engineers speaking and not its political branch.

Ah! Another conspiracy theory!
Did you read Apple's Motion to Vacate? The link, via The Register, is in the originating post…
Skip down to Erik Neuenschwander's supporting declaration…

Is it possible that the NSA, say, can unlock this phone? Sure. But not necessarily… They too might flub it.

It's plain that law enforcement shot themselves in the foot when they opted to change the phone's password: That prevented the automatic upload of the phone's data to the cloud — from which Apple would have the access the court order presumes.
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine may well be a consideration, too.

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #17 – 2016-03-03, 23:16:49

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-01, 22:15:38

Apple vs. the FBI

Apple is the FBI.
FBI is the NSA.
NSA is the CIA.
All that shit is the same.
Including Microsoft, Google, Facebook, whathever.

Free the internet.

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #18 – 2016-03-04, 22:02:19

Bel, you're off your rocker…

It's getting harder and harder to tell you from Howie… But at least there's an understandable reason for your mistakes of grammar and spelling: You have a first language, and not so much practice with English!

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #19 – 2016-03-04, 23:18:09

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-04, 22:02:19

your mistakes

My mistakes? or your "it" paleolithic language?

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #20 – 2016-03-04, 23:49:05

"Paleolithic language"? And yet it's still too complicated for you?

(Spell-check is also, I presume… When posting in English-ish, wouldn't it make sense to clue your spell-check in?

)

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #21 – 2016-03-05, 04:14:38

The way so many over in nutjobland misuse the English language,mis-pronounce it along with the spelling of some words and more is in the mildest way a hoot. But in wide practice takes away any stance from Oakland. But I suppose Oakdale the hermit has been brought up by the usual education system that even the Hill is concerned about.

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #22 – 2016-03-05, 13:58:55

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-04, 23:49:05

it's

Is not. I'm liberating you from the it nonsense dictatorship.
The devil hides in it.

It's a much more noble intent than try to convince us that American polices needs to ask for having access to any American company in strategic areas such as communications.

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #23 – 2016-03-06, 01:57:59

I think the more deeper and tragic matter is that the FBI is so much part of the corporate and security State. Why does the number of security agencies total well into the double figures especially if a country is not a totalitarian one?? They cost billions of dollars and as I have oft said far more than the historical dictatorships we all know of. One can almost understand the hmph of the FBI lot as they are so much part of the control system but it is still in principle not right. The other good thing is that it has stirred other internet companies to have the courage to support the stand of Apple.

Re: Apple vs. the FBI

Reply #24 – 2016-03-06, 04:32:33

Quote from: rjhowie on 2016-03-05, 17:57:59

Why does the number of security agencies total well into the double figures especially if a country is not a totalitarian one?? They cost billions of dollars and as I have oft said far more than the historical dictatorships we all know of. One can almost understand the hmph of the FBI lot as they are so much part of the control system but it is still in principle not right.

We should just be like the Brits, and ignore the over-reach?

Still, there's more to consider:

Quote

Godfather of encryption explains why Apple should help the FBI hack the terrorist’s iPhone

I'm beginning to think that this was the plan all along…
Get a "legal" president to conscript Apple into the NSA. Does anyone think that's a good idea?