FBI director says iOS and Android privacy features put users 'above the law'

1456810

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 188
    FBI Director James Comey says: "I am a huge believer in the rule of law...." good, then as an unelected public servant, appointed to the job on our behalf by elected politicians do shut up, and before you talk in public ask for permission from your bosses, that is us the electorate. You are not at liberty to air your opinions, if you don't like it then quit and find another job.
  • Reply 142 of 188
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member
    <img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="49621" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/49621/width/500/height/1000/flags/LL" style="; width: 448px; height: 274px">


    Of course, this creates an entirely new set of problems for the government that they’d be unwilling to undertake, so you’re right in that it’s safe.

    Or just wait for him to fall asleep and then unlock it with his fingerprint...
  • Reply 143 of 188
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    I think they already have a backdoor. Microsoft is easy to bully because of their many government contracts.




    MS are currently in contempt of court for their commendable persistence in refusing to grant US law enforcement access to data held on a server in Dublin.

     

    Apple, on the other hand, are going to store the user data of Chinese citizens on servers in China.  Contrast that with Google who wouldn't compromise their integrity and pulled out of China altogether.

  • Reply 144 of 188
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by YvesVilleneuve View Post





    The legal term of what they are doing is "obstruction of justice".



    You'll be giving speeches about 'good guys' and 'bad guys' any minute.

  • Reply 145 of 188

    I hope Apple will continue this trend. US Gov already acts above the law, they can go **** off.

  • Reply 146 of 188
    I fully believe that the government should have a certain amount of access to information as it pertains and aids in the protection of the American people. I understand this can lead to misuse but at the end of the day I really don't have anything on my devices that will cause me to lose sleep if the government had access...I would like someone to explain the real concern with this.
  • Reply 147 of 188
    fracfrac Posts: 480member
    pakitt wrote: »
    I am interested to see if and when the EU will have to say about this feature in iOS8. Not even mentioning China...

    I find the statement of this FBI director quite presumptuous and preposterous. And also, the fact that they need "evidence" from a mobile phone to always frame a criminal, is disturbing.
    I would like to remember that 09/11 happened well before all this "above the law" placing of one's personal data was even remotely possible.... It happened in 2001 in case somebody forgot.

    What did the FBI do back then? Were they prevented in avoiding the tragedy by accessing (warrant or not) encrypted data on some US company's servers or somebody's GSM phone? Please.

    This argumentation about personal data encryption is ridiculous. It's almost like accusing people of an act, just because they think about it. Facts count, not encrypted bits of emails and contacts and pictures on a server or mobile phone.... Encrypted bits don't kidnap kids, or make terrorists kill people. Actions, guns, social problems, poverty, etc do that.

    As far as I know, the EU as a whole does not aggregate it's membership"s policing, under one authority nor their secret services other than Interpol...and they are famously private, so we are unlikely to get a similar declaration.
    I find it refreshing that in the US 'everyone and his dog' officials get to air their opinion publicly - wisely or otherwise.
    In the UK we are unlikely to hear anything beyond some dumb question in the talking shop House of Lords, only for some leak to occur whereupon everyone goes gaga 'til the next scuttlebutt media obsession. Statements we hardly ever get.
    We have seriously given up public outrage here.
  • Reply 148 of 188
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member
    So then... Are people who don't own a phone a?so operating above the law? The FYI should take a chunk of our tax dollars and purchase phones for all criminals. They should also introduce legislation which requires all criminals to store enough evidence on the phones so that law enforcement agencies can both foil their plans AND convict them.
  • Reply 149 of 188
    Now we know why Eric Holder resigned, Thanks Apple!
  • Reply 150 of 188
    apple ][ wrote: »
    Screw the children. My rights are more important.
    You're obviously not a parent
  • Reply 151 of 188
    gregquinn wrote: »
    You're obviously not a parent

    Constitutional rights are not limited to parents or children.
  • Reply 152 of 188
    rorwessels wrote: »
    I believe it was one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin I think, that said something along the lines of and I'm paraphrasing, those who would give up freedom in exchange for security deserve neither. Now I know this is a hard concept for some to understand but the cause of freedom and liberty actually does have a cost. Most in the United States would be willing to pay that cost and some have. This also get back to the other saying give me liberty or give me death. It doesn't say give me security or give me death it's give me liberty. Something this FBI director should probably go back and try to understand. What is even more shocking is that this current administration hasn't asked for this idiots resignation. But then that's something I should've expected from this administration.


    "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

    - Thomas Jefferson


    "People should not fear their government. Government should fear their people."

    - V
  • Reply 153 of 188
    I fully believe that the government should have a certain amount of access to information as it pertains and aids in the protection of the American people. I understand this can lead to misuse but at the end of the day I really don't have anything on my devices that will cause me to lose sleep if the government had access...I would like someone to explain the real concern with this.

    Do you own an iPhone? Will you be using Apple Pay? Are you aware there are people attempting 24 hours a day to hack into devices, web sites and databases to extract personal and financial information? With weak encryption, compromised devices with backdoors and lazy security measures YOUR data is more vulnerable to theft.

    Are you seeing how this might be a problem?
  • Reply 154 of 188



    I believe in having full security.  I am not against keeping data safe.  What I am saying is that if certain government agencies need access to this info then there should be a means for them to do so without compromising what you are referring to.

  • Reply 155 of 188

    I believe in having full security.  I am not against keeping data safe.  What I am saying is that if certain government agencies need access to this info then there should be a means for them to do so without compromising what you are referring to.

    And what you've just described is a fantasy scenario.

    Accessibility = Security weakness

    Google "Steve Gibson Security Now" if you'd like to learn more about what it takes to keep information secure.
  • Reply 156 of 188

    No I don't think that you are callous or cavalier. Americans are Canada's awesome southern neighbours. I am concerned how the US government is slowly eroding your constitution to suit it's own agenda. It's like a frog in a pot of water coming to a slow boil.

    The erosion of our Constitutional rights makes our Constitutional rights that much more important as the populace increasingly becomes aware and revolution becomes imminent.
  • Reply 157 of 188

    Ops looks like Apple struck a nerve.

     

    The other issue is there are laws in the books which make it illegal to attempt to listen in on encrypted communications. You know you can freely to listen to the government or police communication as they traveling over the air ways, however, if those same communications are encrypted any attempt by anyone to de-encrypt them is illegal the same goes for communications via other methods. (Today you have police scanner which you can listen to old analog police radio communications. They are all being replace with Digital encrypted communications systems so the generally public can not listen in on what they are doing.) The FBI know this and if they attempt to crack someone phone they are now above the law, however they can ask Apple to un-encrypt the content this is not an issue since Apple is the owner of the encryption technology you the end user is not. But now that apple has said they do not have he means to do it they can not legally hack your phone.

     

    The FBI know that now can not ask Apple or anyone else to hack your phone, otherwise, they would be breaking the law themselves. The government could do it, but it will not be easy.

  • Reply 158 of 188
    The erosion of our Constitutional rights makes our Constitutional rights that much more important as the populace increasingly becomes aware and revolution becomes imminent.

    I guarantee there is no revolutionary uprising (a la the "Arab Spring") imminent in America. The majority of the population is generally inattentive or poorly informed about constitutional and political issues.
  • Reply 159 of 188
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    "Imminent"? Seriously?
  • Reply 160 of 188
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post



    "Imminent"? Seriously?

     

    It's pretty clear from reading comments around the internet that there is a deluded minority in the US who both believe and wish that to be true. The mindset has likely always existed, but never had much of a vehicle for expression.

Sign In or Register to comment.