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.
malcolmtucker wrote: »
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.
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.
And the previous one was?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.