FBI director continues crusade against Apple's encryption of iPhone data

1356710

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 188
    Good God, that guy's wearing a lot of makeup! I'm sensing a touch of the "J.Edgar"s about him.

    Perhaps it's compulsory for FBI Directors...
  • Reply 42 of 188
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,368member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post



    Let's see if you privacy nuts sing a different tune when one of your family members is kidnapped and the perp has their location on their iPhone and won't give the cops the password.



    I would have found the 'family member' by looking at 'Find My Friends' on one of my iOS devices.

    Or don't you have 'family members' as a friend?

  • Reply 43 of 188
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    The law and the government exist in service to the American people, not the other way around.



     "But what about the children?!"

  • Reply 44 of 188
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,368member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asterion View Post



    Good God, that guy's wearing a lot of makeup! I'm sensing a touch of the "J.Edgar"s about him.



    Perhaps it's compulsory for FBI Directors...



    An Edgar suite perhaps?

  • Reply 45 of 188
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post



    Let's see if you privacy nuts sing a different tune when one of your family members is kidnapped and the perp has their location on their iPhone and won't give the cops the password.

     

    "Life or Liberty" is typically at the root of the most contentious issues the US populace discusses.  As a collective group, we're pretty bi-polar and inconsistent.  Think: "Abortion", "Guns", "Speech", "Privacy", "Drugs", "Distracted Driving", etc...



    It is my opinion that our system of government is supposed to protect "Liberty" above all and where "Liberty" did not preserve "Life", that leftover responsibility to protect "Life" was an individual responsibility.



    We don't send troops overseas to protect "Life", to save future citizens from being killed.  We send them to protect "Liberty", our way of life and form of government, so that we don't fall to tyranny, to a government that will protect life at all costs.  If "Life" were so important, we wouldn't have legal alcohol or guns, and we would speed up our march to automated self-driving cars so reckless driving could be eliminated.  The fact is, "Life" isn't as important as "Liberty" - and the plain reason for that is this:  Nothing protects "Life" as well or completely as "Liberty".

     

    Sh*t happens.  I hope it never happens to anyone, but that's not a justification to create a future government that slides down that slippery slope and jumps the shark.

  • Reply 46 of 188
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,368member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BrianCPA View Post

     



     "But what about the children?!"




    They are save, I just found them.

  • Reply 47 of 188
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,470member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by reroll View Post

     

    They could change the law.




    His comments are the beginnings of just that. A couple times in the interview, though, he seems to be speaking in code to say, "Ignore what I ask for as a public law enforcement official--it's really not in your best interest."

  • Reply 48 of 188
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Pesky Constitution of the United States...
  • Reply 49 of 188
    Originally Posted by tlevier View Post

    It is my opinion that our system of government is supposed to protect "Liberty" above all and where "Liberty" did not preserve "Life", that leftover responsibility to protect "Life" was an individual responsibility.


     

    Why’s it listed “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, then?

     

    It’s better to be alive, free, and sad than to be alive, in chains, and ‘happy’.

  • Reply 50 of 188
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by reroll View Post

     

    They could change the law.




    It looks like they're running up against the Constitution beyond details of legislation...

  • Reply 51 of 188
    rgh71rgh71 Posts: 112member
    genovelle wrote: »
    There is a very simple solution to this. Get a court order compelling the suspect to unlock the device, then access it using their finger in the same way the obtain finger prints during a booking.

    Unless the user only uses a code. In that case good old fashioned torture still works
  • Reply 52 of 188
    The incentive to giving up your secure code already exists: Disobeying a subpoena will keep you in jail until you oblige.

    He's tugging at heart strings by insinuating that every situation that they can't get the code results in rape or murder; a little disingenuous. It's code for, "We want to be able to read the phones of every inner-city, low-level drug dealer on a whim, without a court order, so we can catch the big fish. {Note to peace officers when doing this: Apply masking tape over your badge before grabbing phones from perps' hands, reading the contents, then giving the phone back.}."
  • Reply 52 of 188
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

     



    And then log into iCloud and erase the device while its in their hands. 




    Faraday cages aren't any sort of secret. Phones in evidence get immediately turned off: turn them on where there is no signal and the contents are preserved.

  • Reply 54 of 188
    jfc1138 wrote: »

    It looks like they're running up against the Constitution beyond details of legislation...

    Our Constitution has seen repeated violations over the decades. The problem is there are so few avenues available to us as individuals to protect our constitutional rights if our own government is actively working to destroy them.
  • Reply 55 of 188
    Quote:

    There is a very simple solution to this. Get a court order compelling the suspect to unlock the device, then access it using their finger in the same way the obtain finger prints during a booking.

     



     

    This is a weakness in Touch ID compared to a memorized passcode. You can be compelled to give a fingerprint and other physical evidence. You can't be compelled, under the Fifth Amendment, to give up the contents of your mind to use against yourself in most cases.

     

    It's important to recognize a meaningful difference between an encryption key and a physical key:  providing a key from memory is testimony that you control that data. It's possible for an incapacitated person's fingerprint to be used without their knowledge.

  • Reply 56 of 188
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mrboba1 View Post

     



    So obtain a warrant to open the phone. Why does a manufacturer need to be in the middle of it? This is between the private party and law enforcement.


    I totally agree. My comment was only in response to the statement "Vehicles and apartments can hold physical evidence, cell phones contain intangible ideas and discussions." Cell phones can contain just as much evidence as an apartment or car. The difference being that with a warrant you can fairly easily search a car or apartment. If you get a warrant to search a phone that holds encrypted data and the owner won't divulge the password, then the warrant is of little use. It's like getting a warrant to search a house, but you can't go into this one particular closet. Again, I'm not on Comey's side, I'm just saying that to a certain degree I understand his point. I don't agree with it, but I see where he is coming from.

  • Reply 57 of 188
    The incentive to giving up your secure code already exists: Disobeying a subpoena will keep you in jail until you oblige.

    He's tugging at heart strings by insinuating that every situation that they can't get the code results in rape or murder; a little disingenuous. It's code for, "We want to be able to read the phones of every inner-city, low-level drug dealer so we can catch the big fish."

    The reasons given by the director are irrelevant. The real impetus for the foot stamping is to fight any remote chance his department will be defunded and shut down. Once instituted, almost every government program has contributed to greater taxes on citizens and increases in the intrusiveness of the laws.
  • Reply 58 of 188
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 1,929member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post





    Screw you. With the proper warrant authorities should be able to search a phone like they search a house or car. The fourth amendment guaranttees protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, not lawful ones. As Comey said , what if police we're not allowed to open the trunk of your car for any reason, even with a warrant. The balance of power between the government and it's citizens is a fine line and lawful search warrants should compel an iPhone user to unlock their device.



    You're the ass and you can go straight to hell.

     

    The problem as I see it is that a large fraction of the public, regardless of political affiliation, no longer agrees with the government regarding what is "unreasonable" and what ought to be "lawful." The post 9-11 overreach by the government (all levels and branches, both major political parties) means that the government has lost the consent of a large fraction of the governed. 

     

    It will take a very long time to regain that public trust. The first step would be to reform the police-state laws passed after 9-11. The second step would be to see some law enforcement types end up in jail for breaking the law. Both of those things are going to take a long time and might never happen. 

  • Reply 59 of 188
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post



    The incentive to giving up your secure code already exists: Disobeying a subpoena will keep you in jail until you oblige.

     

    The Fifth Amendment protects you from disclosing your knowledge of the code. Cases where the people have been ordered to give up passwords involved data the government already knew about. There's no case I'm aware of where someone's Fifth Amendment rights were overruled to compel them to reveal a code based on the government wanting to fish through unknown data.

  • Reply 60 of 188
    blastdoor wrote: »
    The problem as I see it is that a large fraction of the public, regardless of political affiliation, no longer agrees with the government regarding what is "unreasonable" and what ought to be "lawful." The post 9-11 overreach by the government (all levels and branches, both major political parties) means that the government has lost the consent of a large fraction of the governed. 

    It will take a very long time to regain that public trust. The first step would be to reform the police-state laws passed after 9-11. The second step would be to see some law enforcement types end up in jail for breaking the law. Both of those things are going to take a long time and might never happen. 

    Also, the so-called Patriot Act should be repealed and Homeland Security should be scaled back massively, if not eliminated. It's waste piled on top of corruption and more waste and it's gone on for far too long. Bring spending back to those core constitutional functions of our Federal government.
Sign In or Register to comment.