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



  • Reply 61 of 82
    holmstockd wrote: »
    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?

    Crossed my mind as well! lol. It'd be one way to go about it, I guess. However, I can't imagine any one of these government heads willingly taking the blow to their ego if they didn't have to. lol. Interesting thought though ;)
  • Reply 62 of 82



    lol thanks - this always comes to mind when it comes to EGO - is that a greater then THEM is at stake and any of these government mouthpieces are disposable - http://www.naturalnews.com/023727_power_government_butter.html

  • Reply 63 of 82
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,114member
    We're becoming a society of paranoids, but as Joseph Heller famously wrote in [I]Catch-22[/I], “Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.”
  • Reply 64 of 82
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,639member

    Originally Posted by chasm View Post

    The director of the FBI and now the Attorney General of the United States are either stupid or flat-out lying. Forensic decryption tools have existed and continue to exist, and are in use on a routine basis. This may come as a shock, but some criminals are kind of smart and already use encryption to protect themselves. In fact, Apple has offered HD encryption for over a decade. Is your mind blown yet?

    What this move by Apple and now others does is make it harder for police/government to ABUSE your rights. It doesn't stop them from getting to your data if they have good reason to believe they need it. They'll use exactly the same tools they do now. It's just that from now on they'll actually have to need a good reason and a real determination to do the work necessary to justify using them.

    Oh boo hoo hoo.



    First of all, don't at least 95% of iPhone users sync to another device or to iCloud which is not encrypted in a way that authorities couldn't get in if they wanted to?     


    Secondly, this whole kidnapping scenario is a red herring.   Let them show that there have been kidnapping cases in which they were resolved based upon obtaining physical access to a locked phone.    My bet is that it has never happened.    I think they've been watching too many crime shows on TV where they're holding the alleged kidnapper and he refuses to cooperate and little Susie is locked up in some underground chamber somewhere.    


    When they have (supposedly) stopped incidents of terrorism, has it ever been because they had physical access to a phone?   Or was it because they monitored email or phone conversations over networks, which they would still have access to, either legally or illegally?


    And I agree with those who state that they would get a lot more understanding from the general public if they hadn't overstepped their bounds and spied on Americans illegally or through gross misinterpretations of the law.    

  • Reply 65 of 82

    Originally Posted by eponymous View Post

    If the US government hadn't massively overstepped its bounds already, some people might trust their "middle ground." That trust has evaporated after Snowden's damning revelations. Holder is the chief law enforcement officer in the US government, and he collaborated with the national security state while NSA staffers swapped naked pics of Americans. He has zero credibility when it comes to the Constitution and the law, in my opinion.


    What damning revelations? That PRISM was a standard subpoena procedure? Or that the NSA never actually mass collected cell phone or internet data domestically? Snowden made a bunch of exaggerated and/or false claims about those things initially in order to hide the fact that his most valuable data was related to foreign surveillance, not domestic. 

  • Reply 66 of 82
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,639member

    Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post

    We're becoming a society of paranoids, but as Joseph Heller famously wrote in Catch-22, “Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.”

    I used to think people were tin foil-hat paranoids before all the revelations about just how far the government had gone in terms of domestic spying on Americans who had no relationship to criminal or terrorist activity.   I used to think that the Government wasn't capable of organizing a lunch, never mind an organization that was spying on everyone. 


    The approach of attempting to spy on everything because "we might need it later" not only violates our freedoms, but this "piece of dust in a haystack" approach is counter-productive.   If the government used its efforts to concentrate on those for which there is evidence (remember evidence?) that they're engaged in serious criminal or terrorist activity, it would probably make us safer in the long run.    And that's aside from the $ trillions in taxpayer money used to support all this.

  • Reply 67 of 82
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    The approach of attempting to spy on everything because "we might need it later" not only violates our freedoms, but this "piece of dust in a haystack" approach is counter-productive. 


    They aren't spying on everything. The major phone companies like Verizon testified in front of Congress (with proof) that the only domestic metadata that had been mass collected by the NSA was from land line phones. No cell phone or internet.  


    Also, the major tech companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft etc. proved that PRISM was a standard subpoena procedure with limited scope, not an unlimited backdoor access to servers.

  • Reply 68 of 82
    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.

    Holder already destroyed this concept by bypassing proper judicial procedure and Constitutional rights when he supported state-driven warrantless spying on law abiding citizens!
  • Reply 69 of 82
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member

    Get warrant for thumb print and hold to phone.

  • Reply 70 of 82
    I'm glad you mentioned this. It's funny that they use kids ("think of the children!") as an example. What parent would not have "Find my iphone" active? And can't they still subpoena the phone company for tower logs?
  • Reply 71 of 82
    bbhbbh Posts: 131member

    5Th Amendment?

  • Reply 72 of 82
    mytdavemytdave Posts: 447member

    If Eric Holder is complaining, then Apple is doing something right.


    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  --Benjamin Franklin

  • Reply 73 of 82
    This is a joke. How about a law requiring each of us submit to all law enforcement agencies our front door keys, car keys and any combination to a safe you might have at home?
  • Reply 74 of 82
    All these government and spy agency concerns about the new security features being too secure are really telling in terms of their attitudes regarding what privacy means. To them, privacy should only exist until these people deem that it's no longer convenient.

    We are talking about securing information that the government should not have access to in the first place. To say that these security features protect people too much is to assume everyone is a criminal.

    How is securing the private information of citizens any different than say, if the information was stored in the person's brain? There's currently no way of taking information from a person's head without that person's permission / choice so why should it be any different with information stored in a person's personal electronic device? Legally, there has to be just cause to compel a person to reveal information and even in such circumstances, the person can still choose to keep silent.

    Why should it be any different for information on a person's phone?
  • Reply 75 of 82
    So let me get this straight US AG Eric "I'M Leaving My Job (hooray) Soon" Holder is upset that Apple AND Google have added encryption to their OS's which will make it harder for the gov't to get into them.

    Oh I get it they are worried about terrorists and we must subject all of the hundreds of millions if not billions of users who are NOT terrorists to unlawful search and seizure by the gov't. Its the same old tired routine like when Congress likes to trot out child prngraphy as the reason behind illegal searches and holding your tech hostage at the boarder or illegally wiretapping your computer or phone, or stopping file sharing. Yes its all about the children. Its total BS, none of the so called leaders have a clue about technology, and the stupid folks keep electing them.
  • Reply 76 of 82

    You’re damned if you do; damned if you don’t.

  • Reply 77 of 82
    habihabi Posts: 317member

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

    That's assuming that the kidnapper is alive.

    Or if the shot person was not even a/the kidnapper <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />:D, the police would need to see if the person would have done something other incriminating things to justify shooting him/her in the first place...

  • Reply 78 of 82
    nousernouser Posts: 65member

    Well since our government still has all those fake cell towers gathering all our cell data, how big a problem can a few million encrypted cellphones be when they can still intercept all transmissions anyway.  


    "1984" is our Government's game plan.


    They currently have cameras almost everywhere and facial recognition so they know who you are, where you've been and where you are going. They can monitor your charge card for every purchase you make from books and movies to what brand of toothpaste you buy. They can locate your cellphone even if you are not using it, unless the power is removed.  Yes, our government is indeed extremely capable of watching us. You don't need a tinfoil hat but you should know that you are very trackable, especially if you are on the grid.  They track everyone, whether innocent or guilty, just because they have the technology to do so and have endless funding from us.  They have our checkbook and buy all the technology they want and we gleefully (well maybe not gleefully) pay for it without question.


    Wonder what other technology our government has that we don't yet know about?


    I encourage everyone to go back and read George Orwell's "1984" and you will probably be surprised at how many things mirror that book today.  


    •You have the government controlling what words we can use. Yesterday I read some members of congress wants to outlaw the word "Redskins" in print and media.  


    •Big Brother now watches us through tens of thousands of cameras. Next time you get on an airplane or train smile at the cameras.


    •They are capable of monitoring all of our telephone conversations.


    •They sre effectively able to control the press and openly bar particularly critical reporters from events.  They even go as far as to persecute those in the press who are at odds with them. "DOJ seized emails and phone records of Fox News correspondent James Rosen." for example.


    •School textbooks are being altered to misrepresent our constitution. A recent high school textbook quotes the Second Amendment as, "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."  The actual second amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


    I have to ask, is this the country that we, our parents and grand parents fought and many died for?  Is this still the same home of the FREE as it was just a few decades ago?  I think not. I fear this will not end well.  As long as we remain sheep, we will be herded to wherever Big Brother wants us.  


    We have ceded our government way too much control and power. We have blindly let them wipe their feet on our constitution. We have ignored what they have done and are doing to our free country. Today, our young adults know every the brand and model of cellphone on the market but can't name any members of our congress or of the supreme court. How did this happen?  We just went to sleep and let this happen.  Wake up and vote. Lets take our country back and hope it is not too late.  

  • Reply 79 of 82
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    If they want information they can ask for it.


    There are certain rights guaranteed under the constitution, the presumption of innocence and the right to silence are just two that spring to mind.


    As an Australian I am not sure of what rights I hold when American law enforcement agencies want to snoop on my stuff, something they demand from the rest of the world.

  • Reply 80 of 82
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Originally Posted by habi View Post


    Or if the shot person was not even a/the kidnapper <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />:D, the police would need to see if the person would have done something other incriminating things to justify shooting him/her in the first place...

    That's easy for American law enforcement, resisting arrest and assaulting officers are the commonly used excuses they use to get away with killing innocent people.


    "He assaulted my boot with his face, so I had to shoot him seventeen times."

Sign In or Register to comment.