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

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 122
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,498member
    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    I'll chalk up Google in the support column, but it appeared to be a statement initiated by events, not an endorsement of Apple's action.
    ...and still much more in support than it's other tech brethren like Microsoft and Facebook. 
    I fully expect Google to be on board for the coming battle. 
  • Reply 102 of 122
    Does the President's Blackberry have a software backdoor or does the constitution only apply to heads of state?
    The constitution applies equally to heads of state and everyone else.  There's no constitutional right to privacy, only to due process.  That's why the President has to turn over records when ordered.

    It would hardly be a victory for constitutional law if the President could just use technical means to refuse to answer subpoenas.

    Also, the order is not for Apple to create a software backdoor. It's to help access the data on a specific device physically in hand. 
  • Reply 103 of 122
    Another awesome DED editorial. I only have one complaint: the packability chart, while telling, is severely outdated: it stops at iOS 7.1 and Android 4.4, so that's about 2 years behind, an eternity in the tech world.
  • Reply 104 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.
    I guess you can ignore subpoenas if you are dead (as in the case of the terrorists). But no, you don't use Apple products so you personally can ignore subpoenas -- if you don't unlock your own phone when asked, I guess you risk going to jail -- just as with any other evidence you might be asked to supply. You use Apple so that your phone maker or OS maker doesn't hand over the keys to the first person who asks nicely; and to avoid getting hacked by anyone that decides to be loose with or to profit from its knowledge of the tools and methods used to get into your phone.

    As always, if the FBI ransacked a suspect's property but didn't find what they are looking for because he has memorised it, put it into his own code, or otherwise hidden it, then they have to induce the suspect to reveal it, one way or another (either through a deal or threat of torture or imprisonment, etc.); that's police work. Why should the govt get a shortcut from doing real, traditional police work, when that shortcut compromises everyone's personal freedoms and security?

    We would have a situation like the one Eric Schmidt betrayed: "Well, if you didn't want anyone to know about it, don't put it in an email." Now, it'll be like, "Well, if you didn't want anyone to know about it, don't put it on your own personal phone."
    ManyMacs, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Good point about the suspects being dead, but I think the same thing would come up if they were alive. After all, the shooters really wouldn't have much to lose and may be beyond coercion (if torture is not an option, which I hope it is not).

    I guess I don't see this shortcut as compromising everyone's personal freedoms and security.  It's long been true that with court approval, the government could have access to any records whatsoever.  I don't see why new technology should change that.  Think of the abuses that would ensue if anyone (including corporations and the government itself) could create subpoena-proof enclaves simply through technical means.

    Unless the threat you're talking about is because they're trying to compel Apple to create something new, which I'm not sure about (30 minutes pass) .ok, this just inspired a web search, and I learned that current wiretap laws do require companies to provide "technical assistance necessary to accomplish the interception" (18 US Code 2518 (4)(e), here) Also found that they can order manufacturers of telecommunications equipment to "furnish forthwith modifications necessary for the carrier to comply." I'd bet that the court cases come down to if those apply and Apple's claims that the court's order is unduly burdensome.  We'll see.


  • Reply 105 of 122
    nolamacguy said:

    total nonsense. code = speech. the government cannot compel you to speak for it or to write code for it. 
    Hi notamacguy.  Not sure if code is legally the same as speech, but this got me curious, and I found that existing wiretap laws give courts the power to "direct that a provider of wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian or other person shall furnish the applicant forthwith all information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the interception" (here) and also that providers of communications equipment can be ordered to "furnish forthwith modifications necessary for the carrier to comply. [with wiretap orders]" (here). Google the "Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act", it seems pretty relevant.

    It seems hard to argue that writing or modifying software is not included in "technical assistance" and "modifications". In any event, Apple has every right to appeal the order, so we'll find out soon enough.

  • Reply 106 of 122
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,040member
    I personally don't own a mobile phone or mobile device, I use a laptop that I can easily wipe and reload. The fact that there is no way to wipe data from mobile devices is one of the reasons that I don't use them. I'm not doing anything illegal, but I feel that private information should be that. I find that mobile devices accumulate too much user-data, everything from what the user buys, to the user's geographical location.
    Same as for your compyonce you connect it to Internet. Duh!
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 107 of 122
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,040member
    I DECLARE THAT I STOP READING COMMENTS FROM NEW POSTERS WHO SIGNED UP FOR THIS TOPIC ONLY AND URGE YOU TOO.
  • Reply 108 of 122
    Now even self-proclaimed "constitutionalist" Ted Cruz is claiming that Apple must abide by the court order. He's as dumb on this issue as any Democrat or Republican. Apple has the right to appeal this to the Supreme Court, and frankly if the Supreme Court looks remotely like they could rule against Apple, Tim should immediately relocate ALL of Apple's IP to a sovereign country outside of the US' reach. 

    Following the FBI's demands will destroy Apple's ability to sell to China (their fastest growing market) and will open Apple to equally damaging demands by other governments. In essence, Tim must be willing to destroy the company in order to save the company.
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 109 of 122
    Does the President's Blackberry have a software backdoor or does the constitution only apply to heads of state?
    The constitution applies equally to heads of state and everyone else.  There's no constitutional right to privacy, only to due process.  That's why the President has to turn over records when ordered.

    It would hardly be a victory for constitutional law if the President could just use technical means to refuse to answer subpoenas.

    Also, the order is not for Apple to create a software backdoor. It's to help access the data on a specific device physically in hand. 
    "No constitutional right to privacy"? The 4th Amendment is the protection of your right to "control" your privacy.

    Remember, our rights are inherent and not assigned by government. The Constitution is a guarantee to defend our individual rights which are not limited to those spelled out in the Constitution.
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 110 of 122
    DId you ever read some of the user agreements for things like google? Many state that they will automatically comply with law enforcement, even without a warrant. The danger is not people using devices and online accounts to do illegal stuff. The danger is that law enforcement could conduct blanket searches and harass and intimidate people engaging in their constitutional rights. The ability to fabricate or falsify evidence once law enforcement has an account's password is great. There's also the danger of revealing the location of a user that wants to remain anonymous.
  • Reply 111 of 122
    If I was a company that wanted to sell a mobile device, I would do the following: Install a mechanical switch to disable the GPS device, so that it cannot be used without the users knowledge. According to the FCC, the GPS location feature on a phone was supposed to be used only for dialing 911. The user is also given the option the use the GPS in a phone for functions such as maps, etc. The problem is that the control of the access to this device is SOFTWARE, and just about any app can override user control and access the GPS device. Same goes for geolocation. Did you ever use CNN.com? They require, as a condition of using their website (which I do not) that you agree to geolocation and GPS on a cellular device. Revealing the location of a device user or a PC can place that person in great harm. It could also be abused by law enforcement. Again, so far, I am happy with 2000 pro / xp on a PC. I have a "backup" that i simply restore, that overwrites all the junk that has accumulated. If my PC talks out, I can pull the plug. But imagine having a device that is always able to connect! I am unhappy with the security and accumulation of user data on a cell phone type device, and that is why I have chosen not to use one. My friends sometimes laugh when I say that "I don't own a cell phone". I often get the "how can you live without a cell phone" My answer is, well I did for the last 30+ years of my life, and so did everyone else. I use email, wifi, even a CB radio. I don't use phones anymore. They used to be safe, but now they are being abused by both private corporations and the US government.
  • Reply 112 of 122
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member



    Wow, did they sent a fax? No wonder they cannot hack the phone.
    Maybe ask someone at the hackers conference; they claim they are always able to break in.
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 113 of 122
    The FBI and all government agencies' prime principle of operation and reason for enablement is to to protect and preserve our constitutionally protected rights... The FBI disrespects it's Job, and our rights when it wants to take our rights away from us. It is easy to manufacture any number of "good reasons" to take away our constitutionally protected rights. National Security does not justify anything the FBI wants to do.... The Answer is no, No, NO WAY!
  • Reply 114 of 122
    iamhe said:
    The FBI and all government agencies' prime principle of operation and reason for enablement is to to protect and preserve our constitutionally protected rights... The FBI disrespects it's Job, and our rights when it wants to take our rights away from us. It is easy to manufacture any number of "good reasons" to take away our constitutionally protected rights. National Security does not justify anything the FBI wants to do.... We have a right to be secure in our communications, and a right to privacy. The Answer is no, No, NO WAY!
  • Reply 115 of 122
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,302member
    DId you ever read some of the user agreements for things like google? Many state that they will automatically comply with law enforcement, even without a warrant. The danger is not people using devices and online accounts to do illegal stuff. The danger is that law enforcement could conduct blanket searches and harass and intimidate people engaging in their constitutional rights. The ability to fabricate or falsify evidence once law enforcement has an account's password is great. There's also the danger of revealing the location of a user that wants to remain anonymous.
    Where does Google say they'll comply with warrantless handover of user data? Google's TOS are the same as Apple's when it comes to compliance with lawful demands AFAIK.
    staticx57
  • Reply 116 of 122
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    Interesting, it seems Apple painted itself in a corner.
    When the government persists Apple has to shut down in the U.S. and move to - perhaps - Ireland.
    This solves two problems in one, because the bulk of Apples money isn't foreign anymore.
    It also has to build Spaceship Campus Two, but that's peanuts, compared to the goldmine oversees.
  • Reply 117 of 122
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    If I was a company that wanted to sell a mobile device, I would do the following: Install a mechanical switch to disable the GPS device, so that it cannot be used without the users knowledge. According to the FCC, the GPS location feature on a phone was supposed to be used only for dialing 911. The user is also given the option the use the GPS in a phone for functions such as maps, etc. The problem is that the control of the access to this device is SOFTWARE, and just about any app can override user control and access the GPS device. Same goes for geolocation. Did you ever use CNN.com? They require, as a condition of using their website (which I do not) that you agree to geolocation and GPS on a cellular device. Revealing the location of a device user or a PC can place that person in great harm. It could also be abused by law enforcement. Again, so far, I am happy with 2000 pro / xp on a PC. I have a "backup" that i simply restore, that overwrites all the junk that has accumulated. If my PC talks out, I can pull the plug. But imagine having a device that is always able to connect! I am unhappy with the security and accumulation of user data on a cell phone type device, and that is why I have chosen not to use one. My friends sometimes laugh when I say that "I don't own a cell phone". I often get the "how can you live without a cell phone" My answer is, well I did for the last 30+ years of my life, and so did everyone else. I use email, wifi, even a CB radio. I don't use phones anymore. They used to be safe, but now they are being abused by both private corporations and the US government.
    "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear"
  • Reply 118 of 122
    enufenuf Posts: 19member
    Corporations have the moral and ethical duty to serve both their customers privacy needs and the needs of a civilized society in general. That means aiding law enforcement when, with due process of law, the need arises to to do so.


  • Reply 119 of 122
    The sharp contrast is that both Google and Apple view the government's backdoor proposal as dangerous. /s

    FinSpy exploited security flaws in iTunes to infect Apple devices from 2008 to 2011. For 3 freaking years, Apple failed to patch the exploit.

    This is from the company that cares about "security and privacy". Even though this same company, according to their privacy policy, collects and analyzes the same amount of personal data about their users as Google.

    This is the same company that only just figured out how to do 2-factor authentication reliably across their cloud services. And that was only prompted after an embarrassing high profile security and privacy breach with their products.

    The breach violated the security and privacy of their users, mostly celebrities, by publishing their private and most intimate media, for anyone on the Internet to peruse. The event is now forever dubbed as the "The Fappening".

    The sharp contrast between both companies is that Google actually knows how to keep your data secure and private, while, according to Tim Cook, Apple doesn't care about your data.

    The reality-distortion field is strong in this realm.
    singularity
  • Reply 120 of 122
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    The sharp contrast is that both Google and Apple view the government's backdoor proposal as dangerous. /s

    FinSpy exploited security flaws in iTunes to infect Apple devices from 2008 to 2011. For 3 freaking years, Apple failed to patch the exploit.

    This is from the company that cares about "security and privacy". Even though this same company, according to their privacy policy, collects and analyzes the same amount of personal data about their users as Google.

    This is the same company that only just figured out how to do 2-factor authentication reliably across their cloud services. And that was only prompted after an embarrassing high profile security and privacy breach with their products.

    The breach violated the security and privacy of their users, mostly celebrities, by publishing their private and most intimate media, for anyone on the Internet to peruse. The event is now forever dubbed as the "The Fappening".

    The sharp contrast between both companies is that Google actually knows how to keep your data secure and private, while, according to Tim Cook, Apple doesn't care about your data.

    The reality-distortion field is strong in this realm.
    The two factor authentication had already existed since day one, I believe it was turned off by default but recommended by Apple.  The famous fools chose to ignore the recommendation and they also chose passwords that it appears were guessable.  The breach wasn't a 'hack', it was simply the famous fools were fools.
Sign In or Register to comment.