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.
The DA is asking that a back door be built into the devices for law enforcement. Do you honestly think that hackers wouldn't exploit that back door in about a day? Get real. If a court order is issued to search a particular device, then that person needs to unlock their device to allow access. If they don't, are they not in contempt of court, and could possibly go to jail as well?
We have given up way too much already in the name of "protecting us". That is the first step towards a police state, and if you don't think so, then you need to read history again.
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.
Invasion of user privacy takes four forms:
A. Direct or passive remote monitoring or intercept of user information and data — much like hackers do. Or, the NSA.
B. Active, targeted observation — e.g., wire taps (which are legal when authorized by a court), surveillance drones, wireless transmitters.
C. Active reading of phone or computer data via external electronic devices — the so-called mobile forensic devices police sometimes use to read smartphone data.
D. Physical access — whether by stolen password or court-ordered forensic examination.
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.
Your negative hue and cry is much akin to the concept of "throwing the baby out with the bath water."
What most of you seem to support is that, if the Tsarnaev brothers had communicated only on iPhones, and that was the key physical evidence of their conspiracy, they should go free. Is that really what you want?
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?
What we want is for the government to stay out of our private lives. And absolutely no back doors. With back doors you leave yourself vulnerable to malfeasance as well. They are spending BILLIONS on homeland security. We expect them to do their jobs without invading our privacy!
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 seems that their private information is accessible for examination.
Access affects only those who are targeted by a court order. Not everyone c
What planet are you living on? The Snowden releases prove unequivocally that the government wants access to all of our digital mobile and phone information all of the time. Period. If they have reasonable and probable cause to go after an individual, they have many many means to monitor that person without gaining access to data on their phone, otherwise they wouldn't even be asking to access their phone. What I and most people expect is for them to do their job with what they have. Otherwise, why not just put microphones in everyone's house so the government can access conversations if they obtain a court order. That is basically what you are proposing by requiring that the government be able to access everyone's phone.
Obama needs to stop enabling the NSA to invade our privacy and curtail our constitutional rights.
Obama? He's not concerned about protecting the Constitution, he's concerned about maintaining power for him and his party. Same goes for the previous president, and the one before that one and so on.
I keep reading bullshit like this from little pion's like him, and I'm not surprised in the slightest at how quickly the US is going to hell in a hand basket.
To those of you who believe the US hasn't become a police state already, I suggest you take those blinders off... You've been in a police state since Bush, and it's only gotten worse because of the likes of scum like this DA, and the mindless nitwits now roaming the countryside of the US which empower said scum bags like the DA, by claiming they don't mind having their privacy, literally, butt-raped.
It seems to me there isn't enough people with intelligence and "gusto" left in the US to stand up to these repressive pricks and take some action to remove them from any position of power in order to restore the US to what it once was, with the freedoms your people once enjoyed. I use a past-tense verb, because you have no freedoms left; everything you now think you enjoy is but a shadow of the past, and what remains is just a cloak to make you think you still have freedoms.
The DA is asking that a back door be built into the devices for law enforcement. Do you honestly think that hackers wouldn't exploit that back door in about a day? Get real. If a court order is issued to search a particular device, then that person needs to unlock their device to allow access. If they don't, are they not in contempt of court, and could possibly go to jail as well?
We have given up way too much already in the name of "protecting us". That is the first step towards a police state, and if you don't think so, then you need to read history again.
If the back door is only accessible via physical access, just how does that enable a hacker?
What we want is for the government to stay out of our private lives. And absolutely no back doors. With back doors you leave yourself vulnerable to malfeasance as well. They are spending BILLIONS on homeland security. We expect them to do their jobs without invading our privacy!
It isn't you they are after with a back door. That would/should require physical access.
Last time I checked, I don't live in Libya, Cuba, Iran or North Korea. I should be allowed to use whatever encryption method I like.
If he doesn't like it, then halt the export of iPhones to any country known to harbor or create terrorists. Should be pretty easy to do there buddy boy.
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 seems that their private information is accessible for examination.
Access affects only those who are targeted by a court order. Not everyone c
You are arguing that privacy technology is not legal if you are arguing that all information must be kept in some government accessible form.
Either it is legal to keep your information encrypted, so other parties can't look at it, or it isn't. You are saying governments should always have a technical means of accessing your data, which means you are saying that it should be illegal for people to choose to keep their data private with encryption unless they give keys to someone else.
Are you really saying you think it should be illegal for people to have encrypted data without sharing their keys with someone?
Everything these days is always in the name of Terrorists or to Protect the Children. So what if you lose a few more rights or we want to spy on you easier, it's to Protect the Children and catch those Terrorists.
Why a Terrorist wouldn't do what a drug deal does and use cheap burner dumb phones?!?!?! This is just another clueless idiot!!!
Everything these days is always in the name of Terrorists or to Protect the Children. So what if you lose a few more rights or we want to spy on you easier, it's to Protect the Children and catch those Terrorists.
Why a Terrorist wouldn't do what a drug deal does and use cheap burner dumb phones?!?!?! This is just another clueless idiot!!!
The obvious counter-argument to this DA is "what are you doing to protect our liberties"?
Comments
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.
The DA is asking that a back door be built into the devices for law enforcement. Do you honestly think that hackers wouldn't exploit that back door in about a day? Get real. If a court order is issued to search a particular device, then that person needs to unlock their device to allow access. If they don't, are they not in contempt of court, and could possibly go to jail as well?
We have given up way too much already in the name of "protecting us". That is the first step towards a police state, and if you don't think so, then you need to read history again.
What we want is for the government to stay out of our private lives. And absolutely no back doors. With back doors you leave yourself vulnerable to malfeasance as well. They are spending BILLIONS on homeland security. We expect them to do their jobs without invading our privacy!
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.
Ah, the old "if you aren't with us you're against us" argument. How about a rational middle ground?
Thanks. Now I know who not to vote for next time the Manhattan DA's term is up.
trying to figure why he would make statements per the article - he's not running - https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=strict&q=manhattan+district+attorney+term+limits at least not right now.....
he wants to reduce crime http://manhattanda.org/meet-cy-vance - so why does he target the iPhone?
What planet are you living on? The Snowden releases prove unequivocally that the government wants access to all of our digital mobile and phone information all of the time. Period. If they have reasonable and probable cause to go after an individual, they have many many means to monitor that person without gaining access to data on their phone, otherwise they wouldn't even be asking to access their phone. What I and most people expect is for them to do their job with what they have. Otherwise, why not just put microphones in everyone's house so the government can access conversations if they obtain a court order. That is basically what you are proposing by requiring that the government be able to access everyone's phone.
Obama needs to stop enabling the NSA to invade our privacy and curtail our constitutional rights.
Obama needs to stop enabling the NSA to invade our privacy and curtail our constitutional rights.
Obama? He's not concerned about protecting the Constitution, he's concerned about maintaining power for him and his party. Same goes for the previous president, and the one before that one and so on.
I keep reading bullshit like this from little pion's like him, and I'm not surprised in the slightest at how quickly the US is going to hell in a hand basket.
To those of you who believe the US hasn't become a police state already, I suggest you take those blinders off... You've been in a police state since Bush, and it's only gotten worse because of the likes of scum like this DA, and the mindless nitwits now roaming the countryside of the US which empower said scum bags like the DA, by claiming they don't mind having their privacy, literally, butt-raped.
It seems to me there isn't enough people with intelligence and "gusto" left in the US to stand up to these repressive pricks and take some action to remove them from any position of power in order to restore the US to what it once was, with the freedoms your people once enjoyed. I use a past-tense verb, because you have no freedoms left; everything you now think you enjoy is but a shadow of the past, and what remains is just a cloak to make you think you still have freedoms.
But maybe this isn't true. Maybe iPhones actually have a backdoor and he wants terrorists to use them.
Like double-cross and triple-cross spies, these sorts of things leave my head spinning.
Last time I checked, I don't live in Libya, Cuba, Iran or North Korea. I should be allowed to use whatever encryption method I like.
If he doesn't like it, then halt the export of iPhones to any country known to harbor or create terrorists. Should be pretty easy to do there buddy boy.
The availability of weapons not phones would seems to be the real problem for the fight against terrorists.
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 seems that their private information is accessible for examination.
Access affects only those who are targeted by a court order. Not everyone c
You are arguing that privacy technology is not legal if you are arguing that all information must be kept in some government accessible form.
Either it is legal to keep your information encrypted, so other parties can't look at it, or it isn't. You are saying governments should always have a technical means of accessing your data, which means you are saying that it should be illegal for people to choose to keep their data private with encryption unless they give keys to someone else.
Are you really saying you think it should be illegal for people to have encrypted data without sharing their keys with someone?
Everything these days is always in the name of Terrorists or to Protect the Children. So what if you lose a few more rights or we want to spy on you easier, it's to Protect the Children and catch those Terrorists.
Why a Terrorist wouldn't do what a drug deal does and use cheap burner dumb phones?!?!?! This is just another clueless idiot!!!
Everything these days is always in the name of Terrorists or to Protect the Children. So what if you lose a few more rights or we want to spy on you easier, it's to Protect the Children and catch those Terrorists.
Why a Terrorist wouldn't do what a drug deal does and use cheap burner dumb phones?!?!?! This is just another clueless idiot!!!
The obvious counter-argument to this DA is "what are you doing to protect our liberties"?