Barb_ Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Here is why I've been siding with Tim Cook since the beginning. Our technology is 21st century and hurtling faster and faster into the future. Our laws are 18th-20th century. The lawmakers never imagined the types of technology we have and will have that reach deeper and deeper into our private lives. Our laws just haven't kept up with our tech. Any time we can err on the side of privacy and tech we should. And here is an article that articulates my stance better than I do. Thoughts? http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/technology/personaltech/the-apple-case-will-grope-its-way-into-your-future.html?referer=https://www.google.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 It's tricky. I tend to come down on the side of privacy. At the same time, without modern tech extremists halfway around the world would not have realtime access to folks in our country (and vice versa); I completely understand those tasked with security and legal responsibilities wanting access to electronic information. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idnib Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I always err on the side of privacy. This case reminds me of how libraries can protect their users by simply not keeping their check-out history so it's not even a question of accessing it and it removes them from the equation. Apple has followed the same path and currently does not have access to the customer's data. Here's a good article from Wired. Morningstar writes about how the request is bigger than most people think, and exceeds terrorism cases. From a technical point of view, there is no option to only download parts of it the data, the entire phone will be dumped. We already know that police officers (in the U.S.) are allowed to blatantly lie to people who are being interrogated. I spoke with an officer I know and he said they would absolutely use the idea that they could get all the data off someone's phone to go after them, even if they had not done it. I find the idea that a suspect may be worried the police know about his affair, or nude photos, or his kids' birthdays and an upcoming trip, to be too much of an imbalance in power. I would err on the side of privacy anyway, but in a country in which the police can lie to you about anything while questioning you, I would be much more certain it's a terrible idea. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusyMom5 Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I"ve been siding w/ Apple on this one, too. I'm still not happy about the Patriot Act and feel that this gives government way too much access to my personality and personal life. I Listened to a talk radio show on this a few days ago- this is not just about this ONE case, it is going to set a standard. I cannot believe that we cannot prosecute or investigate without access to a cell phone, we are smarter than that! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Unless the government issued the phone to you, the government has no right to the information in the phone. I'm with Apple on this one. I'm especially appalled by the tactic the FBI is insisting Apple use to crack the phone. They want a backdoor program, which they could then, theoretically and practically, use on any Apple phone. Not cool, Big Bro. Not cool in any book. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purplejackmama Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 And in a crazy turn of events, big business proves itself more trustworthy than big brother. I'm team Apple. For sure. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I honestly have mixed feelings. I'm not sure if why a phone should be more protected than any other item that law enforcement can get a search warrant for. If I was to travel abroad and come back, TSA could legally search my laptop and phone....copy files, etc. Does the fact that the person whose phone is being searched is dead matter? Does one lose a right to privacy upon death? I'm also kind of sad/surprised that the FBI cannot hack the phone themselves. I get why Apple doesn't want to. I'm not sure that they should be forced to help hack their own phones...to violate their trust with their consumers. SO I guess my take away is that the FBI, CIA, and others probably need to pay their IT folks better so that they have people on staff that can hack it. I'm assuming that there's no issue (among boardies although I could be wrong) if the FBI hacks a phone that they have a search warrant for. The issue at stake is asking Apple to help them dismantle security/privacy measures that they put in place. Right? 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 It's one thing to get a search warrant for a specific person's phone for a specific reason. My understanding is that the FBI wants a bit of code that would "unlock" all iphones for them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 It's one thing to get a search warrant for a specific person's phone for a specific reason. My understanding is that the FBI wants a bit of code that would "unlock" all iphones for them. Yes and no. They are asking for Apple to crack this specific phone for them. The concern is that once Apple develops the backdoor to do that, then they will be asked to crack other phones. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) Yes and no. They are asking for Apple to crack this specific phone for them. The concern is that once Apple develops the backdoor to do that, then they will be asked to crack other phones. I thought the "crack" provided (if Apple acquiesces) would allow the FBI potential access to other phones? In other words, the technology the FBI is asking for could be a backdoor used and exploited by anyone if it got out beyond this case. I thought the whole point of the dispute was that it's not just simply the FBI asking them to crack one phone and what that means on the legal side of things, but rather writing code that could open a whole host of consequences on the technology side. ETA: the Time article I read suggests the FBI wants Apple to create an OS that allows for brute force hacking of the passcode, which currently isn't possible given the safeguards in place. So, creating this OS would potentially present a danger to any other users if someone gets ahold of it. Edited February 25, 2016 by JodiSue 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcadia Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) If a backdoor is created, it can be used to crack any iPhone because basically it is exploiting an iOS loophole. My opinion is that FBI should do their own hacking if they want the data. Either they don't have the expertise which would be scary or they want a convenient way to hack all iPhones and other apple devices and want Apple to do the dirty work. ETA: It is being debated by friends in my home country. No one wants the US govt. to have a backdoor to iPhones everywhere in the world. Edited February 25, 2016 by Arcadia 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanM Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Unless the government issued the phone to you, the government has no right to the information in the phone. I'm with Apple on this one. I'm especially appalled by the tactic the FBI is insisting Apple use to crack the phone. They want a backdoor program, which they could then, theoretically and practically, use on any Apple phone. Not cool, Big Bro. Not cool in any book. In this case though, the government did issue the phone. From one article, "The phone at issue is an iPhone 5c issued to Farook by San Bernardino County in his role as a health inspector." I don't agree with the FBI tactics personally. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pawz4me Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I honestly have mixed feelings. I'm not sure if why a phone should be more protected than any other item that law enforcement can get a search warrant for. If I was to travel abroad and come back, TSA could legally search my laptop and phone....copy files, etc. Does the fact that the person whose phone is being searched is dead matter? Does one lose a right to privacy upon death? I'm also kind of sad/surprised that the FBI cannot hack the phone themselves. I get why Apple doesn't want to. I'm not sure that they should be forced to help hack their own phones...to violate their trust with their consumers. SO I guess my take away is that the FBI, CIA, and others probably need to pay their IT folks better so that they have people on staff that can hack it. I'm assuming that there's no issue (among boardies although I could be wrong) if the FBI hacks a phone that they have a search warrant for. The issue at stake is asking Apple to help them dismantle security/privacy measures that they put in place. Right? I agree, but especially with the bolded part. It bothers me that the court wants to force Apple to create something that doesn't exist (or at least they say doesn't exist) in order to hack their own product. That just doesn't seem right to me. And assuming Apple is being truthful and the software/operating system doesn't exist and they would have to create it -- that would be forcing them to incur what I'm guessing would be a rather considerable expense. Of course Apple can afford it, but to me that's irrelevant. It simply doesn't seem right to be able to compel a company to (1) hack their own product and violate consumer trust and (2) incur the cost of doing so. FWIW, although we own several Apple products I've never been a fan of a lot of their corporate practices. But this time I'm definitely leaning toward their side. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I do get that people are worried about the implications for other phones. On the other hand, presumably people also created the technology, or the non-technological methods, for other ways of getting information. There is all kinds of code to break into computers if you potentially have bad stuff on there. People design equipment for surveillance. People develop techniques for effective interrogation. Criminals can have important information stored on electronic devices. I suspect if this guy had a bunch of child porn images, people would see why police would want to be able to follow up with them. It seems what is more important is making sure that these powers can't be used without justification and oversight. THat being said, should a private organization be required to do develop this? I'm not sure if that happens in other comparable instances. Coming down on the side of privacy is the best PR decision on Apple's part though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovinmyboys Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 1. I don't necessarily think your right to privacy extends past your death. 2. It was a government issued phone. 3. The FBI definitely needs to be able to pay more. The director is on record saying they have trouble recruiting (especially in IT) because of the relatively low pay. If there was a way to hack just this phone and apple already has that way, I would be for forcing apple to do it. However, that doesn't seem to be what is being asked of Apple. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) If Apple publicly creates a backdoor option to access phones, then I don't see the point in using a smart phone. I don't want people having access to the health data, tracking my kids, or any other private information I keep there. I can't imagine any data on that particular phone that isn't already available on the cloud or in phone company records, so this entire thing seems like a huge red herring - let's use terrorism to stop privacy! ETA: if it really was a government issued phone, why didn't they already have backdoor access installed? Edited July 22, 2016 by Katy 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 How is it constitutional for government to compel a private company to develop a product for them anyway? I don't understand how this can possibly be legal. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idnib Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I can't imagine any data on that particular phone that isn't already available on the cloud or in phone company records, so this entire thing seems like a huge red herring - let's use terrorism to stop privacy! I absolutely side with Apple on this one, but I think in this particular case the phone didn't back up to the cloud. Actually, I think it was backing up to the cloud, but then the county investigators changed the password and it stopped backing up. And phone company records give you numbers and durations, but not content. Of course, the NSA may have that. :glare: Honestly, I don't back up my phone to the cloud at all. I copy stuff to my laptop and then back it up physically. I don't like sharing all my info with Apple. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idnib Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 3. The FBI definitely needs to be able to pay more. The director is on record saying they have trouble recruiting (especially in IT) because of the relatively low pay. They have trouble competing for low- and mid-level IT people, certainly. If someone were talented enough to break this sort of encryption, they would absolutely find the money, I have no doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Nothing stops bad guys from trying to develop anything. However, currently it's extremely difficult. BUT brute force hacking of a 4-digit pin is extremely easy, so to develop a tool/code to allow people to do that for an iPhone would be...not smart on Apple's part. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcadia Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 BUT brute force hacking of a 4-digit pin is extremely easy, so to develop a tool/code to allow people to do that for an iPhone would be...not smart on Apple's part. Brute force hacking won't work well because the phone gets lock after a few tries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Brute force hacking won't work well because the phone gets lock after a few tries. Right. And the FBI is asking Apple to develop some code/an OS so that the phone won't lock after a few tries so that the can brute force the pin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 In this case though, the government did issue the phone. From one article, "The phone at issue is an iPhone 5c issued to Farook by San Bernardino County in his role as a health inspector." I don't agree with the FBI tactics personally. In that case, the phone should have been managed by SB Co. IT, no? They should be able to access the phone and turn in the data. If SB Co. IT didn't have control of the phone in the first place, they're rather lax. I don't agree with the FBI tactics either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madteaparty Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 pity the citizen, having Apple wage war on her behalf. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I do think that a responsible employer who issues equipment like that to individual employees should have passwords to them. Apple shouldn't have to crack the phone for the FBI. It's not Apple's data. We have a computer at work that really needs to go back to the IT department to be hacked or wiped because it was password locked and nobody in the office knows the password. Which makes it useless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.