Eddy Cue says FBI could force Apple to secretly activate iPhone camera, microphone if precedent is

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 45
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,597member

    tenly said:
    I'm disgusted by the fear-mongering on both sides of this argument.  I really need to stop reading the comments on these FBI vs Apple articles.  Doing so gives me heartburn!

    For example - this article implies that *IF* the government is successful here, then one day they *may* have the ability to secretly turn on your camera and microphone.  That's a true statement - but it's misleading in that it implies that if Apple wins this fight, it protects us from the FBI directly accessing our cameras in the future.

    In reality, they are not really related at all.  The FBI will go after the camera and microphone access in the future regardless of what happens here.  Win or lose in this particular case doesn't mean much as far as the future is concerned.  This is one of the first battles in what will be a very long war.  A loss will hardly slow down the FBI.  They'll be back - again and again - trying different angles - trying the same angles in different courts.  Other countries will definitely join in making demands of their own. Settle in folks.  This privacy and security issue is one that will be here for a very, VERY long time.
    So then stop reading them, as you obviously lack the understanding of the content. It is quite obvious that if the government can compel Apple by court order, or legal mandate, to write software to make the phone less secure, then that opens up the door for them to force tech companies to provide additional software that obviates the security of the device, including steaming content live camera and audio. They are already able to do this through the phone network so why would they stop with just this one request? The logic is quite obvious and true. Especially when you have so many suppressive involved in our government and law enforcement. 
    Urei1620
  • Reply 42 of 45
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    seems like it's a war of hypotheticals without either side presenting anything concrete around why it should or shouldn't be done..."this could prevent another attack", "the FBI can listen in on my calls". typical government and corporate garbage...scare the regular people in to picking sides and fighting with each other while nothing actually gets done.
    The court briefs are rather specific. Sound bites are just that.
  • Reply 43 of 45
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member
    freerange said:

    tenly said:
    I'm disgusted by the fear-mongering on both sides of this argument.  I really need to stop reading the comments on these FBI vs Apple articles.  Doing so gives me heartburn!

    For example - this article implies that *IF* the government is successful here, then one day they *may* have the ability to secretly turn on your camera and microphone.  That's a true statement - but it's misleading in that it implies that if Apple wins this fight, it protects us from the FBI directly accessing our cameras in the future.

    In reality, they are not really related at all.  The FBI will go after the camera and microphone access in the future regardless of what happens here.  Win or lose in this particular case doesn't mean much as far as the future is concerned.  This is one of the first battles in what will be a very long war.  A loss will hardly slow down the FBI.  They'll be back - again and again - trying different angles - trying the same angles in different courts.  Other countries will definitely join in making demands of their own. Settle in folks.  This privacy and security issue is one that will be here for a very, VERY long time.
    So then stop reading them, as you obviously lack the understanding of the content. It is quite obvious that if the government can compel Apple by court order, or legal mandate, to write software to make the phone less secure, then that opens up the door for them to force tech companies to provide additional software that obviates the security of the device, including steaming content live camera and audio. They are already able to do this through the phone network so why would they stop with just this one request? The logic is quite obvious and true. Especially when you have so many suppressive involved in our government and law enforcement. 
    You're the one who's lacking understanding - did you read my entire post or only the bit that you quoted?

    I acknowledged that its true that a loss to the FBI could result in all the bad things that are mentioned.  What I was stating is that a victory against the FBI does not in any way eliminate the possibility of them!  If they can't use the all writs act - they will find another angle and come at our data again and again and again.  They will pursue and champion new legislation and possibly even constitutional amendments to get what they want.  They will use every terrorist attack that occurs and the ones they are able to stop to garner more and more support for them to monitor every of all the time.  A victory simply slows them down.  They will never stop trying to get access to our data - and this fight is just one of many to come.

    I'm not at all saying that this fight is not important.  It's very important.  A loss to the FBI will most certainly result in them coming back and asking for more and more - but so will a victory!  We are in a no-win situation. We think that we are fighting to preserve our rights to privacy, but how and when can we declare victory?  We can't.  The fight will never be over because the FBI and others will just keep coming.  I wish I was just being overly cynical - because it's going to become a very scary world when they finally get what they're asking for.  It looks like George Orwell got it right - he was just a few decades off as far as his timeframe was concerned.

    Am I just being overly cynical?  Is there a way to actually WIN this fight permanently?
    edited March 2016 gatorguy
  • Reply 44 of 45
    Urei1620 said:
    Yes they could force and shoot their own foot. How about Apple moves operations to different place? Would you lose control if they actually started operations from Ireland? That would be interesting considering they provide those devices to US military and I bet nobody wants backdoors to hack miltary equipment. FBI seems to act in a little bit odd fashion lately. I understand counter - terrorism, but there could be other ways. Make that precend... the other life precedents would come next and you cannot prevent them when jurisdiction has its limits and does not cross country boundaries. Corporations do cross country boundaries.
    Very old school. FBI is now being run by a lawyer and all he knows is to get his way in a legal framework instead of building FBi's capability to gather information by intelligence methods. Comey thinks that once he has a warrant, then he is entitled to get the information easily in a usable form. Apparently the FBI is nothing more than a police department.
    As far as I know (and I do have good sources close to FBI - their instructors) they do have intelligence trained by IT specialized companies in cybercrime. Who runs it is another story.
    Urei1620
Sign In or Register to comment.