Might come as little surprise that the biggest threats to our Constitution and personal liberties are coming from our own government these days. This is how freedom dies. One power-hungry "public servant" at a time.
What the DA is asking for is court-ordered access to examine the contents of a phone. This is no different than a court ordering you to turn over documents or computer files during a criminal investigation or for access to your telephone calls via a wire tap during an investigation.
It is not the wholesale invasion of privacy via the NSA or hackers that is happening everyday. It is targeted.
The fundamental problem is: strong encryption that can't be broken by law enforcement exists. So even if Apple adds a back door to iPhones, the people who really want to hide something can simply use different technology. So it's not actually going to help catch terrorists at all -- only dumb petty criminals at most.
The fundamental problem is: strong encryption that can't be broken by law enforcement exists. So even if Apple adds a back door to iPhones, the people who really want to hide something can simply use different technology. So it's not actually going to help catch terrorists at all -- only dumb petty criminals at most.
Fine, let them. But, why should we make it easier for them? As for the dumb petty criminals, we are making it easier for them too.
Might come as little surprise that the biggest threats to our Constitution and personal liberties are coming from our own government these days. This is how freedom dies. One power-hungry "public servant" at a time.
I think that's giving more credit than is due. I honestly think it's just public servants who simply don't have a clue when it comes to technology coming up with these laws.
Up you nose with a rubber hose Mr D/A.... that said---To offer a contrarian view--- I agree with him.
IMO (so be kind, its just an opinion) ---
Super duper crypo-security is not needed on an consumer phone, for phone messages, email etc . Why for? Just because we wanna? For what reason?-- the off chance someone sniffs your phone and sees your sniffing your neighbor? What is the rate/1000 phones of these cyber type crimes? I only hear of antidotal case... my friends phone...
Law enforcement always has had the ability to subpoena mail, tap phones, journals etc. These are good(some would say great) tools when used properly.
Now--- law enforcement access to 'evidence' --- the chatting of bad guys (not necessarily terrorist, just your every day moron crook or murderer) or email info is at risk; or extremely difficult to obtain (or months of computers running to break the crypto), all over some perceived 'want my privacy' hoop-la by the rest of us.
We have basic privacy right(subjext to due process) today, but 'absolute' privacy is another matter; that is not guaranteed nor has it ever. An argument could be made that advanced crypto should only be under a license. ( I can fore-see congress back-dooring an amendment of some type requiring it)
Up you nose with a rubber hose Mr D/A.... that said---To offer a contrarian view--- I agree with him.
IMO (so be kind, its just an opinion) ---
Super duper crypo-security is not needed on an consumer phone, for phone messages, email etc . Why for? Just because we wanna? For what reason?-- the off chance someone sniffs your phone and sees your sniffing your neighbor? What is the rate/1000 phones of these cyber type crimes? I only hear of antidotal case... my friends phone...
Law enforcement always has had the ability to subpoena mail, tap phones, journals etc. These are good(some would say great) tools when used properly.
Now--- law enforcement access to 'evidence' --- the chatting of bad guys (not necessarily terrorist, just your every day moron crook or murderer) or email info is at risk; or extremely difficult to obtain (or months of computers running to break the crypto), all over some perceived 'want my privacy' hoop-la by the rest of us.
We have basic privacy right(subject to due process) today, but 'absolute' privacy is another matter; that is not guaranteed nor has it ever. An argument could be made that advanced crypto should only be under a license. ( I can fore-see congress back-dooring an amendment of some type requiring it)
I think that's giving more credit than is due. I honestly think it's just public servants who simply don't have a clue when it comes to technology coming up with these laws.
That's really beside the point. The more power and responsibility people hand over to self-interested persons working in government the more power they'll collect and use, regardless of consequences.
Apple respects data privacy very high and thus innovate, uses better encryption for iphone users. National security is most important so Government agencies have to come up with different better methods to intercept terrorists communication.
There is a huge difference between what this DA is asking for and what hackers and the NSA (or the KGB used to) do everyday. [...]
What the DA is asking for is court-ordered access to examine the contents of a phone. [...]
It is not the wholesale invasion of privacy via the NSA or hackers that is happening everyday. It is targeted.
Your negative hue and cry is much akin to the concept of "throwing the baby out with the bath water." [...]
Do you also want to do away with wiretaps as well? Or other court-ordered surveillance? And, if so, at what cost will you decide enough is enough?
You have the issue completely upside down.
There is nothing wrong with wire taps or court orders - nobody suggest these be discontinued. But neither is there anything wrong with people keeping their information private.
Privacy is legal. And there is nothing wrong with companies or other individuals providing tools that help people maintain LEGAL privacy. Or do you want to make privacy or privacy tools and services illegal?
You argue, apparently, that all people's rights must be violated to make it easier to catch criminals. Every police state that ever lived makes that argument. And what happened when the US government found it easy to eavesdrop? They began recording people's selfies.
If there was ever a case to make for controlled government access, it would be in a context where the government wasn't already violating everyone's privacy. We don't live in that context.
An argument could be made that advanced crypto should only be under a license. ( I can fore-see congress back-dooring an amendment of some type requiring it)
They already tried this in the 90s: declaring that strong encryption is a "weapon" and thus subject to the same export regulations as bombs and whatnot. I'll let you guess at how well that worked out... (can anyone control the spread of knowledge?)
That's really beside the point. The more power and responsibility people hand over to self-interested persons working in government the more power they'll collect and use, regardless of consequences.
I just think the whole paranoia culture that has developed around believing that everything the government does is highly calculated is nonsense. That said, I do feel that mindless passing of regulations which don't actually solve problems needs to be stopped.
They already tried this in the 90s: declaring that strong encryption is a "weapon" and thus subject to the same export regulations as bombs and whatnot. I'll let you guess at how well that worked out... (can anyone control the spread of knowledge?)
And it's even more interesting that the hack used by the US to damage the Iranian reactor some years ago is now the same hack being used against the US by the Chinese. These things are like Pandora's box.
Because it's simply not a solution to the problem. Why should we all give up our privacy for a solution that isn't one?
how are you giving up your lawful right to privacy? What the DA is asking for and to which I agree is the right to access the information via a court order. Are you anticipating law enforcement coming to your door every week or so to check your phone? Or, that it will be read as you pass a check point? The first isn't practical (but would go a long way to solving unemployment). The second is easily solved. Turn your phone off. Of course, if they read every phone, there is still not enough time to use it to pry into your life and everyone else's. It's a matter of practicality.
And, if you are worried about a court order into your life — don't do anything illegal.
The only person giving up privacy is the person having committed or suspected of having committed a crime.
There is nothing wrong with wire taps or court orders - nobody suggest these be discontinued. But neither is there anything wrong with people keeping their information private.
Privacy is legal. And there is nothing wrong with companies or other individuals providing tools that help people maintain LEGAL privacy. Or do you want to make privacy or privacy tools and services illegal?
You argue, apparently, that all people's rights must be violated to make it easier to catch criminals. Every police state that ever lived makes that argument. And what happened when the US government found it easy to eavesdrop? They began recording people's selfies.
If there was ever a case to make for controlled government access, it would be in a context where the government wasn't already violating everyone's privacy. We don't live in that context.
Of course privacy is legal. I'm not upside down. Allowing access facilitates the forensic activity. One does not have a right to privacy if a court deems that their private information is accessible for examination.
Access affects only those who are targeted by a court order. Not everyone.
What do being struck by lightning, winning the lottery, dying of car accidents, having a baby born with one eye, and politicians being trustworthy have in common?
They're all more likely to happen over you dying of a terrorist attack.
Given that that was just released, it seems appropriate. So, Mister District Attorney, stop the fearmongering, you greedy hack.
I agree with you. This country now breeds a whole lot of paranoia and fear. They want to legislate every damn thing. You have to be politically correct about every damn thing. I do not want the NSA or anyone for that matter having backdoor access to my phone. So now the iPhone is the 'terrorist device of choice' gimme a break. I think the bullshitters that we have for politicians are the greatest devices of choice that our enemies have. They are worrying about terrorist how about the humongous debt this great nation is in to the likes of China etc. How about the fact we hardly produce anything as a nation anymore? How about the now shrunken middle class in this country. I'm sure that terrorizes John Q. Public on a daily basis way more.
Comments
Might come as little surprise that the biggest threats to our Constitution and personal liberties are coming from our own government these days. This is how freedom dies. One power-hungry "public servant" at a time.
What the DA is asking for is court-ordered access to examine the contents of a phone. This is no different than a court ordering you to turn over documents or computer files during a criminal investigation or for access to your telephone calls via a wire tap during an investigation.
It is not the wholesale invasion of privacy via the NSA or hackers that is happening everyday. It is targeted.
The fundamental problem is: strong encryption that can't be broken by law enforcement exists. So even if Apple adds a back door to iPhones, the people who really want to hide something can simply use different technology. So it's not actually going to help catch terrorists at all -- only dumb petty criminals at most.
Might come as little surprise that the biggest threats to our Constitution and personal liberties are coming from our own government these days. This is how freedom dies. One power-hungry "public servant" at a time.
I think that's giving more credit than is due. I honestly think it's just public servants who simply don't have a clue when it comes to technology coming up with these laws.
Fine, let them. But, why should we make it easier for them? As for the dumb petty criminals, we are making it easier for them too.
Because it's simply not a solution to the problem. Why should we all give up our privacy for a solution that isn't one?
IMO (so be kind, its just an opinion) ---
Super duper crypo-security is not needed on an consumer phone, for phone messages, email etc .
Why for? Just because we wanna?
For what reason?-- the off chance someone sniffs your phone and sees your sniffing your neighbor?
What is the rate/1000 phones of these cyber type crimes? I only hear of antidotal case... my friends phone...
Law enforcement always has had the ability to subpoena mail, tap phones, journals etc. These are good(some would say great) tools when used properly.
Now--- law enforcement access to 'evidence' --- the chatting of bad guys (not necessarily terrorist, just your every day moron crook or murderer) or email info is at risk; or extremely difficult to obtain (or months of computers running to break the crypto), all over some perceived 'want my privacy' hoop-la by the rest of us.
We have basic privacy right(subjext to due process) today, but 'absolute' privacy is another matter; that is not guaranteed nor has it ever.
An argument could be made that advanced crypto should only be under a license. ( I can fore-see congress back-dooring an amendment of some type requiring it)
Back to our regular programming.
IMO (so be kind, its just an opinion) ---
Super duper crypo-security is not needed on an consumer phone, for phone messages, email etc .
Why for? Just because we wanna?
For what reason?-- the off chance someone sniffs your phone and sees your sniffing your neighbor?
What is the rate/1000 phones of these cyber type crimes? I only hear of antidotal case... my friends phone...
Law enforcement always has had the ability to subpoena mail, tap phones, journals etc. These are good(some would say great) tools when used properly.
Now--- law enforcement access to 'evidence' --- the chatting of bad guys (not necessarily terrorist, just your every day moron crook or murderer) or email info is at risk; or extremely difficult to obtain (or months of computers running to break the crypto), all over some perceived 'want my privacy' hoop-la by the rest of us.
We have basic privacy right(subject to due process) today, but 'absolute' privacy is another matter; that is not guaranteed nor has it ever.
An argument could be made that advanced crypto should only be under a license. ( I can fore-see congress back-dooring an amendment of some type requiring it)
Back to our regular programming.
I think that's giving more credit than is due. I honestly think it's just public servants who simply don't have a clue when it comes to technology coming up with these laws.
That's really beside the point. The more power and responsibility people hand over to self-interested persons working in government the more power they'll collect and use, regardless of consequences.
There is a huge difference between what this DA is asking for and what hackers and the NSA (or the KGB used to) do everyday. [...]
What the DA is asking for is court-ordered access to examine the contents of a phone. [...]
Do you also want to do away with wiretaps as well? Or other court-ordered surveillance? And, if so, at what cost will you decide enough is enough?
You have the issue completely upside down.
There is nothing wrong with wire taps or court orders - nobody suggest these be discontinued. But neither is there anything wrong with people keeping their information private.
Privacy is legal. And there is nothing wrong with companies or other individuals providing tools that help people maintain LEGAL privacy. Or do you want to make privacy or privacy tools and services illegal?
You argue, apparently, that all people's rights must be violated to make it easier to catch criminals. Every police state that ever lived makes that argument. And what happened when the US government found it easy to eavesdrop? They began recording people's selfies.
If there was ever a case to make for controlled government access, it would be in a context where the government wasn't already violating everyone's privacy. We don't live in that context.
An argument could be made that advanced crypto should only be under a license. ( I can fore-see congress back-dooring an amendment of some type requiring it)
They already tried this in the 90s: declaring that strong encryption is a "weapon" and thus subject to the same export regulations as bombs and whatnot. I'll let you guess at how well that worked out... (can anyone control the spread of knowledge?)
That's really beside the point. The more power and responsibility people hand over to self-interested persons working in government the more power they'll collect and use, regardless of consequences.
I just think the whole paranoia culture that has developed around believing that everything the government does is highly calculated is nonsense. That said, I do feel that mindless passing of regulations which don't actually solve problems needs to be stopped.
They already tried this in the 90s: declaring that strong encryption is a "weapon" and thus subject to the same export regulations as bombs and whatnot. I'll let you guess at how well that worked out... (can anyone control the spread of knowledge?)
And it's even more interesting that the hack used by the US to damage the Iranian reactor some years ago is now the same hack being used against the US by the Chinese. These things are like Pandora's box.
And, if you are worried about a court order into your life — don't do anything illegal.
The only person giving up privacy is the person having committed or suspected of having committed a crime.
"Apple has created a phone that is dark, that cannot be accessed by law enforcement even when a court has authorized us to look at its contents"
He says that like it's a bad thing.
Access affects only those who are targeted by a court order. Not everyone.
They're all more likely to happen over you dying of a terrorist attack.
Well, except maybe one of them.
I agree with you. This country now breeds a whole lot of paranoia and fear. They want to legislate every damn thing. You have to be politically correct about every damn thing. I do not want the NSA or anyone for that matter having backdoor access to my phone. So now the iPhone is the 'terrorist device of choice' gimme a break. I think the bullshitters that we have for politicians are the greatest devices of choice that our enemies have. They are worrying about terrorist how about the humongous debt this great nation is in to the likes of China etc. How about the fact we hardly produce anything as a nation anymore? How about the now shrunken middle class in this country. I'm sure that terrorizes John Q. Public on a daily basis way more.