Considering how often the justice system fails and how corrupt the FBI's history is I wouldnt trust either.
Apple Refuses Court Order Over Phone Encryption
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
FBI Corruption History
I kinda feel this point needs a threadmark. For people unfamiliar with how crooked the FBI has been in the past, I really recommend reading up on it. It's some eye-opener. There is no reason that they are not up to similar stuff now, or won't in the future, which is where I see the danger in giving in to them in this case.
http://theantimedia.org/10-most-crooked-corrupt-things-fbi-ever-done/
Don't be put off by the website name, plenty of collated links to mainstream media sources there
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harveys...fbi-a-racketeering-organization/#1a2acffa58be
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/j-edgar-hoover-begins-his-legacy-with-the-fbi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
Edit: Wow, look at that, I can make threadmarks in this thread. Cool.
according to WSJ it is not just a "single case". The DOJ is already trying to do the same with "dozens" of other iphones.
If they could do it, they would be happily doing it to any phone they please. One positive of this case is it's shining an uncomfortable light on the kind of activity that they keep hidden as much as possible. They are undoubtedly doing surveillance at present that the majority of people would be grossly uncomfortable with, because that is what they have done throughout their history.
Just seen that none are related to terrorism charges, and most involve older versions of iOS.
So we've gone from "one special case of terrorism" to a dozen cases that aren't even terrorist related
This is exactly what I meant by drawing the line, you allow the FBI to get access to 1 phone, and it wont stop at 1 phone, it wont stop at terrorism, they just want access to millions of phones.
It definitely makes me feel uncomfortable that they might be trying to read the messages of people considered threats to national security.
Take the terrorist whose phone sparked this all off, the one who shot multiple people. Imagine the CIA were able to read his messages. What a horrible invasion of his privacy.
All organisations have done bad things at some point throughout history. It doesn't change my opinion on whether I'd like them to have tools like this or not going forward.
The good it can do far out weighs people's rights to having personal messages or pictures.
Well then I'm afraid we will never, ever see eye to eye.
I'm ok with that.
Nothing outweighs our rights to privacy. As a post on FB said the other day, with a picture of George Orwell on it, "I wrote 1984 as a warning , not as a fecking handbook".
I think the various governments have enough tools at their disposal, besides I'm sure I read somewhere that Terrorists have mostly gone low tech as emails / phone calls can be too easily captured.
BTW why the feck do they need this given that US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have had the ECHELON program up and running for many years?
It always baffles me when these type of things come up how quickly people are happy to give privacy away.
I'd imagine the advent of 128bit E2EE makes ECHELON a bit redundant in the most important areas.
What would the FBI have to do with people's information for you to not consider it a good idea? Just interested in where different people draw the line.
The third party who will do the unlocking possibly revealed
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35883441
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35883441
Was listening to a radio call in show the other day and they had a small debate about this. One guy brought up the issue that we see very little complaint when the FBI or Police are given a warrant to search someone home but suddenly when the FBI wants to access a criminals iPhone everyone is up in arms about privacy matters. I think he said it was something Obama brought up in a speech or interview at some point.
The debate was lively as they discussed what the difference was between a warrant for home search (which of course might get issued without there really being a good cause, the process is open to abuse) and the FBI getting a warrant asking Apple to gain access to someone's encrypted iPhone information. No final answer was reached of course, opinions varied wildly. With the negative being the potential abuse of the access to the iPhone. Yes some criminal could break into your house using items he can easily buy almost anyplace but in the majority of cases you would know if someone broke into your home. With a tool to break into iPhones if a bad guy got ahold of it or the Government used it illegally, depending of how it worked (ie if they could do it remotely without having your phone) you would never know it was being done. A home search they have to present the warrant, if they can "hack" your iPhone remotely even if they had a warrant, they could gain access without ever showing the warrant to you.
Other issues brought up to and I am probably not summarizing it well.
The debate was lively as they discussed what the difference was between a warrant for home search (which of course might get issued without there really being a good cause, the process is open to abuse) and the FBI getting a warrant asking Apple to gain access to someone's encrypted iPhone information. No final answer was reached of course, opinions varied wildly. With the negative being the potential abuse of the access to the iPhone. Yes some criminal could break into your house using items he can easily buy almost anyplace but in the majority of cases you would know if someone broke into your home. With a tool to break into iPhones if a bad guy got ahold of it or the Government used it illegally, depending of how it worked (ie if they could do it remotely without having your phone) you would never know it was being done. A home search they have to present the warrant, if they can "hack" your iPhone remotely even if they had a warrant, they could gain access without ever showing the warrant to you.
Other issues brought up to and I am probably not summarizing it well.
It's not the same.
Getting a search warrant for "A" house in the states, doesn't suddenly give them the ability to search my house as well.
Getting a search warrant for "A" house in the states, doesn't suddenly give them the ability to search my house as well.
Yeah that's the problem the potential abuse because I don't think anyone believes that Apple would maintain control over the ability and only use it when a proper warrant has been issued.
The comparison would be requiring all locks on all houses to be opened by a special skeleton key.
The FBI and whoever request this special key and use it wisely.
Then sometimes illegally. Thieves find out how to create their own key that works and suddenly nothing is secure any more.
It baffles me how some people think that their privacy is more important than preventing a terrorist attack.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Everyone's right to privacy is more important than a few lives lost in what are relatively rare occurrences (OK, Israel excepted) with low casualties. Intelligence gathering is already very extensive and fairly succesful at protecting people from atrocities.
That said, I think Apple should comply provided a transparent court issues a warrant via standard procedures, i.e. the FBI can prove a case for needing access.
But your quite ok with not making them less rare (which is the opposite of what's happening) at the tiny, hypothetical risk that a criminal might hack into your phone. Astonishing.
Edit; There have been 1322 deaths in the last 30 days from Jihadist activity.
Yes, I'm OK with maintaining everyone's right to privacy versus the tiny, hypothetical risk that a terrorist attack will occur. I may be wrong but it seems you're not really living up to your username here. I'm not all concerned with the criminal element, governments need to follow the law when accessing devices.
I'd love to know what you have or do in your phone that is worth more than potential lives that may be lost.
And terrorist threats is a everyday reality now. Calling it hypothetical is just sheer short sightedness imo. I mean I don;t wake up in the morning everyday expecting to die, but it still remains true that most places I visit are potential terrorist targets.
Personally, I really couldn't give toss who can access my phone. Porn, RedCafe and overdraft alerts is all they'll have on me.
Not a thing. Privacy is an important right that applies to everyone. In comparison, terrorism touches a very small number of victims. That's why I feel that privacy rights are the more important in this debate. Rights, once surrendered, are difficult to get back.
I don't even look at porn on my phone (that's what tablets are for
) but we have privacy rights and they need to be protected. I think it's fine for the feds to request access through the courts, it just needs to be transparent and done each time they want to access someone's devices.And how many could have been prevented with better communications monitoring? It's interesting because the NSA does indeed monitor all electronic communication anyway, and despite that there have been 1322 deaths in the last 30 days from Jihadist activity.
I don't think this is an either/or situation. Everyone has access to rights, but once in a while when needed they should be able to live with an exceptions. Just like warrant for searching physical properties (houses etc) police should be able to search electronic properties too. Alternatively if a court order is produced Apple can decrypt the said phone and provide the contents to authorities without actually handing over the decryption device.
People who are directly affected by terrorists are less. With excess of rampant ethnic profiling, Islamophobia etc..those who are indirectly affected by it are far more.
This is not about communication monitoring, but a court ordered search warrant.
That's a ridiculous argument tbh. It's part of a overall picture.
I recommend (if you can stomach it) reading back a few pages. You'll see the reasons why many people have concerns about this and why it's far, far more complex than Apple using some "decryption device". The issues at hand are deep and the consequences far-reaching.
I'm not really saying anything different, to be fair. Just needs to be on a case by case basis with plenty of oversight.
I'd wager that increased scrutiny such as this would lead to increased and more invasive racial profiling, too.
Last edited:
General statistics from ecology.com support the estimate that, overall, around 4.5 million people have died in that same period. Terrorism isn't very likely to kill anyone.
I did read from Page 3 onwards and still don't get it. Android is an open source and still is popular? Does that mean Android users currently suffer a risk
And the misuse by FBI and Hoover is just scaremongering. People are more afraid of FBI than the terrorists, lolzy! Court order is the way to go. It happens for physical property and see no reason why e-property should be treated any differently.
Even taking in consideration radical outcomes, it'll be big companies and maybe foreign diplomats who would be more susceptible to spying and such. Impact to common man should be negligible.
I did read from Page 3 onwards and still don't get it. Android is an open source and still is popular? Does that mean Android users currently suffer a risk
And the misuse by FBI and Hoover is just scaremongering. People are more afraid of FBI than the terrorists, lolzy! Court order is the way to go. It happens for physical property and see no reason why e-property should be treated any differently.
Even taking in consideration radical outcomes, it'll be big companies and maybe foreign diplomats who would be more susceptible to spying and such. Impact to common man should be negligible.
Fair enough, if that's your take on it after assessing the evidence and points of view then we'll never agree.
I have two friends on life-support from the Turkey attack.
I'm sure their family and medical team will take great comfort from that fact.
That is an interesting way to look at it as long as you understand that there has never been a lock which couldn't be broken before. Apple, and the rest will follow, have potentially just invented one.
So using your analogy imagine a situation where a person kidnaps someone you love, locks them behind the unbreakable door and the police can never release them. It begs the question how many kidnappings would there be in a society where it became impossible to catch anyone who committed that offence.
OK so the analogy breaks down there but lets imagine in the near future everyone has unbreakable encrypted data. Now the pervert next door takes voyeur naked pictures of your daughter. Then he starts selling those pictures across the internet to anyone who pays for them. The police can never prove anything because the pictures are coded in unbreakable encryption.
Yes there are holes in this analogy too but I hope you can understand the point being made.
Is it so outrageous to believe that technology is moving forward at a pace faster than our law enforcement agencies can keep up with? There are certain developments like this with encryption invented with good intentions though it is, it could have dramatic consequences on the way we all live. I'm not sure Apple are the people we want deciding the risk reward balance.
It starts all righteous and well meaning as a way to secure our phones it ends up enabling something far darker.
It has already happened with the internet and pornography which it looks like we dodged a bullet with, in that mass exposure to it isn't as harmful as it could have been.