User security, privacy issues draw sharp contrast between Apple iOS, Google Android in FBI encrypti

24567

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 122
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,883member
    Keep fighting it. 
  • Reply 22 of 122
    Everybody forget that encryption on Android has been possible on Android since Kit Kat and that it will be on by default on 6.0 and beyond? On my Samsung I have extra layer of security, KNOX. Android can be just as secure as Apple. We are reading too much into Google being silent. Though, if they stay silent too long, that can be suspect 
    singularity
  • Reply 23 of 122
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,351member

    cnocbui said:
    Google's silence tells you where they stand on the issue of security. 
    Google pulled out of China rather than cave into the Chinese government and censor search, and also in protest at the Chinese government's hacking of their services like Gmail.  Apple has tolerated every single thing the Chinese government have done or demanded to compromise the security of users in China, like the poisoned Xcode, faking the iCloud server and harvesting users logins, hosting all user data in China with the nod-nod - wink-wink fully encrypted data that is in plain form en-route to the server so the Chinese just have to harvest it all before it is encrypted, etc etc.
    A completely distorted view on China.  The 'poisoned' Xcode is not done by Chinese government.  You have been brainwashed too long.  
    jony0
  • Reply 24 of 122
    What bothers me is that Tim Cook seems to be implying that it is actually POSSIBLE for Apple to comply with the FBI Order. That means current, existing iPhones (like the SUBJECT DEVICE) are NOT secure, and already have a back door. The FBI are NOT asking for a NEW version of iOS with a backdoor. They are asking Apple to "crack" an existing iPhone so that brute-force attack can be made. It may not technically be a backdoor for the encryption, but if there is a way to gain access to the data using a "brute force" approach, then it is the same thing. The data is ultimately NOT secure. I want Apple to make a phone that even THEY cannot crack. I thought they had claimed such, and it is disturbing to find out that that was apparently wrong.

    Firstly, this can be only done on IPhone 5 and before. The OS handles most of the security. Apple of course is the only one with the source code for IOS 8. Theoretically, they can develop an OS with the required security features missing and "upgrade" The software on the suspects IPhone 5c. Iphone 6 has a "security enclave", making this scenario impossible 
    jony0
  • Reply 25 of 122
    This article seems far too reductive to me. The argument that one decryption is all descriptions is just wrong. This has proceeded exactly as it should, through open procedure in public courts.

    You don't get to say "I use Apple products so I can ignore subpenas" or even worse,  "the law doesn't apply because tech."

    Despite their high horse, all I see Apple doing is undermining rule of law. We should be applauding this sort of thing coming out of the NSAs shadow world and into the light of regular law and democratic process.
  • Reply 26 of 122
    Kudos to Apple and Tim Cook for safeguarding our hard fought for basic rights and freedoms. I'm dumping my Android devices and Google apps. Google and the rest of them are faithless cowards. 

    The FBI and the US Government in general ought to be ashamed of their cowardice and for allowing the terrorists and their actions to dictate the terms of our lives. 

    If we sacrafice our rights, our personal security, and our freedoms because we want to catch a few more terrorists. All the terror attacks in the world are not worth sacrificing that which our forefathers fought and died for.
    jony0
  • Reply 27 of 122
    What do you expect...
    Flagged.  This is not YooToob.
    trustnoone00nolamacguy
  • Reply 28 of 122
    normmnormm Posts: 645member
    What bothers me is that Tim Cook seems to be implying that it is actually POSSIBLE for Apple to comply with the FBI Order. That means current, existing iPhones (like the SUBJECT DEVICE) are NOT secure, and already have a back door. The FBI are NOT asking for a NEW version of iOS with a backdoor. They are asking Apple to "crack" an existing iPhone so that brute-force attack can be made. It may not technically be a backdoor for the encryption, but if there is a way to gain access to the data using a "brute force" approach, then it is the same thing. The data is ultimately NOT secure. I want Apple to make a phone that even THEY cannot crack. I thought they had claimed such, and it is disturbing to find out that that was apparently wrong.
    Not current iPhones.  This is a 5c, which doesn't have the secure enclave hardware -- this is the last model where the encryption is enforced just by software. And the thing they're planning to brute force is a four-digit unlock code.  But the precedent is still bad.  With a huge enough effort, Apple could modify the chips on an existing iPhone.  They should avoid starting down this path.

    hlee1169jony0
  • Reply 29 of 122
    tourun said:
    There are at least a dozen individuals and/or organizations that can "brute force" a device or system better than the FBI or CIA.  So Apple, stick to your guns.  Oh, I hope I don't get arrested for using that word.
    You can't brute force it if it locks you out and deletes your data on the 10th try. 
  • Reply 30 of 122
    LoopDoGG said:
    Everybody forget that encryption on Android has been possible on Android since Kit Kat and that it will be on by default on 6.0 and beyond? On my Samsung I have extra layer of security, KNOX. Android can be just as secure as Apple. We are reading too much into Google being silent. Though, if they stay silent too long, that can be suspect 

    First, KNOX is a joke.

    Second, encryption is only turned on by default in higher end Android phones with enough processing power to meet minimum data transfer rates specified by Google. Your budget Android phone (and let's face it - that's the largest percentage of devices sold) won't have encryption enabled by default. 

    Third, the reason for #2 is because Android uses software based encryption. That means the processor is doing all the work of encryption/decryption whenever you need data stored to or read from storage. It also means hackers can look at the source code for Android to try and find ways to get access. Plus the fact that data being processed is done in RAM (where there's a possibility hackers might be able to access it). The iPhone has had dedicated hardware encryption since way, way, way back in the 3GS.


    You can't put Android encryption and iOS encryption on the same playing field. One is clearly superior, and it's not the little green robot. 
    radarthekatcornchipjkichlinehlee1169ManyMacsAgonolamacguymagman1979jony0
  • Reply 32 of 122
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,933member
    Dear Mr. James Comey,
    As of today, the FBI still has no way to know what I am thinking. Am I therefore operating above the law? Are you just biding time until someone creates a means for reading people's thoughts? Once created, will the FBI have exclusive access to that technology? My iPhone and iPad are extensions of my mind, used to enhance my memory, thought and decision-making processes. Apple and third party software that runs on these devices also monitors me in ways that often I wish it didn't--and almost certainly in many ways I am completely ignorant--but over which I have little-to-no control. The Founding Fathers could not have dreamed of where technology has taken us today. Please wake up to the reality that the Constitution was intended to be a document of fluid interpretation that therefore can justifiably be interpreted to give every citizen the right to absolute privacy in the realm of digital devices if they so choose. Furthermore, the NSA has already proven that even the most elite government administrators are far too lenient on themselves. In other words, no matter how strongly you word your statements of consolation about how the FBI intends to use a backdoor, you and the government in general are not to be trusted.
    Sincerely
    Moi
    RbaumdrradarthekatcornchipanantksundaramSpamSandwichhlee1169ManyMacsAgolymfbadmonkmagman1979
  • Reply 33 of 122
    I'm glad to see that Tim Cook isn't going to allow the Government access to the encryption process of iOS. They would end up making everyone their bitch.
  • Reply 34 of 122
    MarionE said:
    That is because she can't even hide her own emails. She's clueless.
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 35 of 122
    It's a load of B/S from the US Govt and FBI. This has almost nothing to do with protecting the USA from nefarious actors.

    Nothing can stop such nefarious actors from rolling their own encryption, the tools are open source and widely available. No court order is going to make it possible for Apple to unlock those kinds of communication.
    cornchipnolamacguy
  • Reply 36 of 122
    Privacy is nothing but a knee jerk reaction and subsequent paranoia from neurotic people. People who truly need privacy can find better ways to conceal what they may.
    This issue from Tim Cook and all the Privacy advocates are nothing but insecure small people. This iisue is folly. People are not as important as they think they are.
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 37 of 122
    Sundar Pichai lack of support is understandable once you remember he's not an American. He's only a naturalized citizen.
  • Reply 38 of 122
    ...wake up, people. They're trying to kill us!
  • Reply 39 of 122
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,498member
    To all of you that are with Apple, the EFF, and the ACLU;

    Henry V, St Crispin's Day Speech:



    radarthekat
  • Reply 40 of 122
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,883member
    This article seems far too reductive to me. The argument that one decryption is all descriptions is just wrong. This has proceeded exactly as it should, through open procedure in public courts.

    You don't get to say "I use Apple products so I can ignore subpenas" or even worse,  "the law doesn't apply because tech."

    Despite their high horse, all I see Apple doing is undermining rule of law. We should be applauding this sort of thing coming out of the NSAs shadow world and into the light of regular law and democratic process.
    The government can't force a company to write code. Code is speech. 
    ration alcornchipanantksundaramjony0
Sign In or Register to comment.