New poll says public sides with Apple over FBI in resisting iPhone unlock order

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 86
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,594member
    what do you think cook would say if there were an iPhone that had information on it regarding an armed terrorist attack on their headquarters?

    This is the worst possible argument against which to make a decision of personal privacy. It is like framing the question of capital punishment with the murder of your child. These kinds of decisions need to be made based on principles. In the case of capital punishment - yeah sure, if your daughter had just been murdered you'd likely want the death penalty, but from a more objective standpoint you have to decide wether the death of innocent people wrongly accused is acceptable collateral fallout. The question of the right to privacy is fundamental and TC is absolutely right in calling for a debate. Whichever way the decision swings there will be scenarios with potentially horrible outcomes.
    edited February 2016 ration aljony0hlee1169magman1979palomine
  • Reply 22 of 86
    Younger people weren't around much before the age of cell phones and can't realize that when landlines were the only option, the government really didn't spy on people to any large extent, and then not usually without good reason. For the most part cops have there hands, and time, full with enforcement issues. And people had real lives, apart from their friggin' phones!  They had other things to do!  Youngsters are too paranoid in this.  Don't believe me and still too scared?  Just don't run your mouth on the phone and stick to in-person conversations.  You'll be fine.  They're the best kind anyway!
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 23 of 86
    NemWanNemWan Posts: 115member
    GTQ said:
    Apple is wrong and the people backing Apple are wrong. When a member of their family or someone close to them is murdered, will they take the same position if the name of the killer is on a locked Iphone. The killer walks free if the phone is not unlocked.
    I assume you're referring to hypothetical conspirators to be discovered in iMessage, since the shooters are dead.

    The only reason Apple can be ordered to anything in this case is because they haven't yet perfected the iPhone's security enough to eliminate all practicality of forcing access to users' non-iCloud, on-device data.

    Smartphones are becoming prosthetic extensions of our minds and need the same level of privacy as our thoughts. Properly implemented security should ensure that the contents of a personal digital device that a dead user has not chosen to share are as permanently inaccessible as the contents of their mind.

    If law enforcement can live with the Fifth Amendment sometimes preventing them getting confessions, they can also solve crimes without smartphone data, like they have for centuries.
    hmlongcojony0hlee1169magman1979palomine
  • Reply 24 of 86
    The point is not about Farook's phone, it's about Apple building a backdoor into all iPhones. This backdoor could, and would be used by criminals after your bank codes. I'm siding with Apple.
    ration aljony0hlee1169magman1979
  • Reply 25 of 86
    sandorsandor Posts: 507member
    fallenjt said:

    Sound so wrong AI. Apple didn't refuse unlock...they refused to build the back door.

    after they already sent engineers to help the investigation.
    after the law enforcement already had the phone.
    after the county already changed the icloud password & subsequently locked themselves out.
    after the county had a poorly implemented (and probably poorly planned) device management system for their phones.

    the failures are all on government.
    so we are supposed to trust them?
    cincymacjony0magman1979
  • Reply 26 of 86
    sandorsandor Posts: 507member
    RickD0514 said:
    Since when does a company or person get to say "no" to the government just because they disagree with the request?
    Apparently Apple thinks they are above the law and that their business proposition is more valuable than other people's lives.  Throw Cook in jail for his refusal to comply ... and also for good measure, for being self-absorbed and narcissistic.


    um, this country was founded on that precise idea!

    we said no to the british empire.
    diplicationpunkndrublicjony0magman1979
  • Reply 27 of 86
    sog35 said:
    If the FBI wins this case they will have the ability and legal right to:

    1. track everywhere you visit using location services
    2. record you phone conversations and text messages
    3. Record you real life conversations by using the mic on your phone
    4. take video and pictures of your home using the iPhone camera
    5. Tract all your online purchases, search history, web history, app history, email history
    6. Look at all your photo's and videos on your phone
    7. Listen and Watch you using the iPhone camera/mic during your most intimate moments at home.

    Ridiculous.

    Why fight the terrorist if we give up all our liberty doing so?
    Yup, the government is just waiting for apple to comply so they can see you stare at your phone reading Facebook status updates. 

    Love these knee-jerk tin foil hat wearing responses. 
  • Reply 28 of 86
    Why is privacy important? Ask this writer who got hacked on an airplane using their free wifi:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2016/02/24/got-hacked-my-mac-while-writing-story/80844720/
  • Reply 29 of 86
    GTQ said:
    Apple is wrong and the people backing Apple are wrong. When a member of their family or someone close to them is murdered, will they take the same position if the name of the killer is on a locked Iphone. The killer walks free if the phone is not unlocked.
    The killer in this case is dead. Not to mention that one of the family members of one of the people killed in the San Bernadino incident sides with Apple. Is it so hard for people to say "my family" and "I will" instead of "their". Don't speak for others when you don't know and are really just speaking for yourself. The fact of the matter is they could have total access to all phones in the world and you are not guaranteed to not die at the hands of a foreign terrorist. However I would still suggest caution when entering schools especially. Let's not forget that 30 people are murdered every day in America by guns. So if you think this phone is the most important and best opportunity for the FBI to keep you safe, then good luck to you.
  • Reply 30 of 86
    Amazing how someone can cherry pick the polls that reflect their own opinion to say what they want it to say. Pew has an equally convening poll that says the exact opposite. In fact this poll looks oddly close to what the iPhone owning populace stated, and not what the general populace stated in the Pew Poll. So the question becomes who has the over and under sampling of iPhone users, and who did, and didn't weight the iPhone users to the actual representation in the population. Since the Reuters poll doesn't have a segment for people who own iPhones vs Own a Different Smart Phone I'd suspect the Reuters poll to be the one most likely in error. Or it could be a difference in how the question was worded.
  • Reply 31 of 86
    RickD0514 said:
    Since when does a company or person get to say "no" to the government just because they disagree with the request?
    Apparently Apple thinks they are above the law and that their business proposition is more valuable than other people's lives.  Throw Cook in jail for his refusal to comply ... and also for good measure, for being self-absorbed and narcissistic.


    Are you an idiot? We already have a lot of laws that effectively boil down to saying "no" to the government. Freedom of religion says "no" to government-sponsoed religion. Laws against self-incrimination and unlawful search and seizure say "no" to the government. 

    Not to mention the not-so-minor fact fact that not every "request" the government might make is necessarily legal.

    Heck, not every LAW the government makes is legal, and our "disagreement" with them is what sends them up all the way to the Supreme Court.

    This is more of the same: Can an All Writs request compel Apple to compromise the security of a given device? And risk compromising everyone's privacy and security in the process?
    ration alhlee1169
  • Reply 32 of 86
    What happens if a mobile phone used by ISIL or the Taliban is recovered in a war zone. Will Apple say "Soldiers Lives don't matter?"
  • Reply 33 of 86
    NemWanNemWan Posts: 115member
    Younger people weren't around much before the age of cell phones and can't realize that when landlines were the only option, the government really didn't spy on people to any large extent, and then not usually without good reason. For the most part cops have there hands, and time, full with enforcement issues. And people had real lives, apart from their friggin' phones!  They had other things to do!  Youngsters are too paranoid in this.  Don't believe me and still too scared?  Just don't run your mouth on the phone and stick to in-person conversations.  You'll be fine.  They're the best kind anyway!
    Do you only remember the good old days and not the bad old days? Landline telephones were an obviously convenient place to plant bugs. Don't get me started on J. Edgar Hoover and wiretaps. COINTELPRO? Martin Luther King Jr.? Nixon illegally wiretaped reporters and government officials he thought were leaking. The Church hearings revealed electronic surveillance of journalists, labor unions and student groups. Some paranoia is healthy and has been repeatedly vindicated.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 34 of 86
    I don't see why Apple couldn't create a "backdoor" and give only Congress to control the "random key".  
    This way the FBI can never abuse it, and mandates that whenever the FBI needs to break in, Congress would have to hold an immediate voting session to allow it or not.
    Serious matters like the San Berdinal case, the gov't has every right to acquire the data in order to protect the citizens. 
    Apple could apply this same principle in other countries where the devices are being sold, and never have worry of its responsibility.

    We all know that if you, as the device owner, don't do anything "stupid" or illegal, then you should never have to worry about gov'ts intrusion.

    Apple is against it now is all about marketing gimmicks!  
    It is only software based, so it can be easily done.

  • Reply 35 of 86
    ezdiv said:
    We have such short memories.  Once again we're one big terror attack in the US away from everyone then complaining about why the government hasn't done enough to protect us.  Well they're (gov) trying to do something but we don't want to unlock a freakin' phone?!  Come on people.  Get over yourselves.  No one cares about your uninteresting personal lives.
    You don't understand encryption. If they break the encryption on this phone they break it on every apple device there is.

    I suppose you support the patriot act as well?
    hlee1169magman1979
  • Reply 36 of 86
    RickD0514 said:
    Since when does a company or person get to say "no" to the government just because they disagree with the request?
    Apparently Apple thinks they are above the law and that their business proposition is more valuable than other people's lives.  Throw Cook in jail for his refusal to comply ... and also for good measure, for being self-absorbed and narcissistic.


    Since when is the government aloud to tell a private business to do something unethical?
    magman1979
  • Reply 37 of 86
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,662member
    medv4380 said:
    Amazing how someone can cherry pick the polls that reflect their own opinion to say what they want it to say. Pew has an equally convening poll that says the exact opposite. In fact this poll looks oddly close to what the iPhone owning populace stated, and not what the general populace stated in the Pew Poll. So the question becomes who has the over and under sampling of iPhone users, and who did, and didn't weight the iPhone users to the actual representation in the population. Since the Reuters poll doesn't have a segment for people who own iPhones vs Own a Different Smart Phone I'd suspect the Reuters poll to be the one most likely in error. Or it could be a difference in how the question was worded.
    The Pew poll is already out of date.

    More to the point, after Bill Gates appeared and Billspained security, so badly I might add that it tipped the balance in the favor of Apple, that yesterday, popular media actually began writing stories questioning the FBI's motives.

    The tide has turned.
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 38 of 86
    Oh and to all you people in this poll who call yourself republicans and side with the governments stance you don't understand the meaning of what it is to be a republican.
    diplication
  • Reply 39 of 86
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,662member
    holycow said:
    I don't see why Apple couldn't create a "backdoor" and give only Congress to control the "random key".  
    This way the FBI can never abuse it, and mandates that whenever the FBI needs to break in, Congress would have to hold an immediate voting session to allow it or not.
    Serious matters like the San Berdinal case, the gov't has every right to acquire the data in order to protect the citizens. 
    Apple could apply this same principle in other countries where the devices are being sold, and never have worry of its responsibility.

    We all know that if you, as the device owner, don't do anything "stupid" or illegal, then you should never have to worry about gov'ts intrusion.

    Apple is against it now is all about marketing gimmicks!  
    It is only software based, so it can be easily done.

    I wouldn't give Congress the time of day, because they would leak it to score political points.
    sandorpalomine
  • Reply 40 of 86
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,684member
    The single post trolls keep coming. 

    I think the question should be phrased "should the government be able to unlock YOUR phone in the name of safety/security". 
    magman1979
Sign In or Register to comment.