U.S. Attorney General voices concern over Apple's iOS 8 security features

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 82
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    ... This complicates things for law enforcement agencies wanting to gain access to a suspect's smartphone, even if the proper warrants and documentation are supplied.

    ...

    But doesn't NSA, FBI... serve you with secret warrants from a secret court where you will incriminate yourself by telling your lawyer that you were served the warrant because the warrant tells you that you are not allowed to tell anybody.

  • Reply 42 of 82
    nick29nick29 Posts: 111member
    I'd like to voice my concerns over AG Eric Holder's stonewalling about Operation Fast & Furious, where the US Dept. of Justice forced American gun shops to sell firearms to known Mexican narco gangs. How many thousands died?
  • Reply 43 of 82
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,583member
    Seriously, go FK yourselves! What did you do before cell phones? Just do your job with what you have, especially after spending multiple BILLIONS on security.
  • Reply 44 of 82
    kavokkavok Posts: 51member
    Holder reminds me of a little brat that yells at Mom because he doesn't like what his sibling is doing to distract her from the fact he's stealing cookies from the cookie jar. The entire Obama administration can take a long walk off a short plank as far as I'm concerned. They had help of course from previous administrations, but they have taken it to new heights of unconstitutionalism.
  • Reply 45 of 82
    I think this is a smoke screen. With the strength and capability of govt computers, I doubt anything is impossible to hack, even advanced encryption. Life is a Circus.
  • Reply 46 of 82
    sgs46sgs46 Posts: 4member
    This is really no different than encrypting your own hard drive on your PC/Mac. Why should anyone ever have a back door to that?
  • Reply 47 of 82
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    The US's CALEA act is worth review.  This act of congress was passed in the 1994 and made stronger all during the Clinton Administration.  (Apple Director, Al Gore probably knows about this law.) 

    This act of congress is already in place and there's possibly an applicable case law worth review.  Back in the late 1990s, one local US telephone company, called "Qwest" was unable to provide lawful intercept capability to the Government under the 1994 act of congress.

    Most likely, the reason for secrecy was related to financial crimes he was committing.  Ultimately, the CEO of the company was found guilty, and served time in jail.  As for the company, well, following a change in leadership, Qwest became compliant with the US law. 

    When your a company like Apple, and your company is based on a culture of secrecy, including mistrust of the US Government, and willful and wanton desire to forgo paying US taxes, it's certainly worth additional study.

    In that particular case, the company's CEO is, and always will be, a convicted felon who was found guilty by a layperson jury, not the government.   Time Magazing ranked the CEO #5 in a top-ten list of the "Most crooked CEOs of All Time".

    It seems Apple is speeding down the same path.

    LOL. You forgot the sarcasm tag.
  • Reply 48 of 82
    iaeeniaeen Posts: 588member
    jonyo wrote: »
    Any time someone says some equivalent to "think of the children!" as a bullet point in their argument, I know that the rest of what comes out their mouth is some sort of fear mongering bullshit trying to convince me to give up my freedoms for some sense of security or safety. My data is my data. If you have a warrant to get at it, then you can take my device and do your best. But if I want to use crazy strong crypto to keep it from you, that's what I'm going to do, and too damn bad for you.

    This. It's crazy how often this argument is used is used in modern politics, and it's disturbing how effective it is at turning people into sheep.

    I almost think critical thinking is on its deathbed, and democracy won't be far behind.
  • Reply 49 of 82
    hodarhodar Posts: 237member
    Oh, foolish me.

    I thought we were innocent until PROVEN guilty. If I ant to use PGP to encrypt my Hard Drive, that's my option. If I am accused of committing a crime, and you produce the warrant to view my cell phone - I have a very simple choice: Comply with the warrant, or go to jail.

    Odd, forced to prove your innocence, welcome to a "Fundamentally changed" America.

    It's just that simple.
  • Reply 50 of 82
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,400member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RORWessels View Post





    I would guess not. This administration has been no friend to liberty, freedom, and democracy.



    And the previous one was?

  • Reply 51 of 82

    The logic is simple.  If Apple needs to add the backdoor for the US government, then it needs to add the backdoor for every government.  It would be a logistic nightmare and a huge national security risk.

  • Reply 52 of 82
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,963member
    adamc wrote: »
    In time sensitive cases, such as kidnappings, an iPhone's data could help find and save the lives of potential victims, Holder said

    Isn't this after the fact?

    ?Kind of funny to think that the law enforcement have to rely on data from a phone to save a victim and not the kidnapper himself.

    ?

    That's assuming that the kidnapper is alive.
  • Reply 53 of 82
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    winchester wrote: »
    I can't believe I'm even saying this, but I actually agree. If the proper warrents are issued, I believe authorities ought to have a way to access a suspect's data. But Only if a warrent is issued. Otherwise, somebody get Mr. Holder and the head of the FBI a violin. lol.

    Yes, because that's what would happen… The government would NEVER use it on normal Americans. Oh wait, they already did that.

    Man don't you get it? You can't give them the keys to them csstle "a little bit".
  • Reply 54 of 82
    ahmlcoahmlco Posts: 432member

    Be interesting to see when the first "thumbprint" court case comes down the pike. For most of the encrypted iPhones, a mere thumbprint would probably be all that's required to access the device.

     

    Also keep in mind that the encryption (and protection) only applies to data stored on the device and not on data mirrored to iCloud or Dropbox or some other cloud storage service. That information can be still be subpoenaed.

  • Reply 55 of 82
    nolamacguy wrote: »
    Yes, because that's what would happen… The government would NEVER use it on normal Americans. Oh wait, they already did that.

    Man don't you get it? You can't give them the keys to them csstle "a little bit".

    Please read my post. I said ONLY when a Warrant is issued. This Can be enforceable. If the FBI truly wants a back-door for them to access potentially harmful data, there are ways to go about it without giving the government the keys to "them csstle".

    For example, now that their typical methods of gathering intel are challenged as a result of companies incorporating data encryption, big brother could use a fraction of that NSA budget to fund the implimentation of a discretionary council in companies like Apple. One that will run entirely outside of the government's control, but exist for the sole purpose of determining whether to allow government agencies access to data in the event that a proper warrant is issued.

    Fear of 1984 is not a good reason to dismiss logic and reason. While I agree more than anyone that our freedoms are worth fighting for, I am certain that there are ways to ways to appease law enforcement in tangeant with protecting those freedoms. Again, just to Re-clarify- Warrants only...
  • Reply 56 of 82
    gprovidagprovida Posts: 244member
    Unfortunately, the ease and low threshold of what constitutes evidence to warrant a threat has dropped to the point that it is effectively meaningless. This suggests that with higher security levels that can be cracked the police et al need enough confidence that the "juice is with the squeeze" versus current process which is frequently seen as a fishing expedition.

    Another point is that other nations have such low regard for US efforts for privacy that it is unclear if they would allow Apple to sell products, think Europe. MS being required to provide US law access to email on another countries servers and what would we say about the reverse, e.g., Chian asking for email on US servers.

    Finally, what we consider legitmate law enforcement becomes dictatorial freedom of expression control in Iran, China, Russia, etc., and Apple would have not choice but to comply with local laws.

    So Apple and other tech companies getting out of the middle of this legal, moral, and technical mess makes eminent sense.

    The big danger is US Government or other Governments requiring Apple to create and maintain back doors. This would create a real nightmare.
  • Reply 57 of 82
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,193member
    rorwessels wrote: »
    Even if a warrant is issue, that is for the physical device. Because of the fifth amendment I don't have to do or reveal anything that might be considered self-incrimination. That's what they are afraid of. The moment anyone is served a warrant of any kind, they should immediately invoke the right to remain silent, the fifth amendment, and seek legal counsel.

    That is why they want Appke etc to be forced to put in and keep in a back door.

    Lawsuits have already said that you can't force someone to tell their passcode. So no one will
  • Reply 58 of 82

    I am sorry and not trying to flame the thread or apple.  As this relates to all BIG TECH companies.

     

    Am i the only one here that believes this is all a ploy to make the people THINK that the devices are government NSA proof?

    Why do I feel this is a ploy between the gov and companies to make it seem that your data is safe and free from prying eyes.

     

    If the NSA forced YAHOO with a 250K fine a day unless they joined prism - why all of a sudden google/apple design "NSA" safe security?

     

    I just don't buy it - and since Eric Holder is a liar beyond any credibility - the fact that he claims he cant get access is reason alone enough to believe that ITS business as usual.

     

    Edit for spelling.

  • Reply 59 of 82
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

     
    During a speech in front of the Global Alliance Against Child Sexual Abuse Online on Tuesday, Holder criticized Apple...


     

    Holder is the one who backed off on prosecuting any new obscenity cases.  It seems like giving everybody the green light to pour gas everywhere and then worrying that the fire lane is blocked is inconsistent.

     

    On another note, I think it's very telling that he and Comey are 'voicing concerns' rather than taking immediate legal action.  To me it says they know they don't have a leg to stand on, are grumpy about losing power, and are trying to drum up public support for something down the road (maybe legislative action declaring that we don't have the right to privacy, using 'think of the children' to wrench a bad law into the system that will probably do far more to harm innocent citizens than to protect children).

     

    That said, I'm not saying that it's a good thing that horrible people may now have an easier time going undetected by law enforcement.  I wish there were a way to guarantee that Big Brother wouldn't spy on it's own citizens sans warrant backed by reasonable suspicion AND that law enforcement could have access and tools needed to take down child predators.  I just don't see how that's technically possible.

  • Reply 60 of 82
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by gprovida View Post



    The big danger is US Government or other Governments requiring Apple to create and maintain back doors. This would create a real nightmare.

     

    I don't think Apple will do it.  They know that sooner or later someone would notice and then their reputation is shot.  They aren't willing to take that risk.  I think that if the gub'ment came to them on the quiet and said 'do it or else' they'd refuse, and maybe even make public the request.

     

    I'm 90% on that.  The 10% does creep me out.

Sign In or Register to comment.