Screw you. With the proper warrant authorities should be able to search a phone like they search a house or car. The fourth amendment guaranttees protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, not lawful ones. As Comey said , what if police we're not allowed to open the trunk of your car for any reason, even with a warrant. The balance of power between the government and it's citizens is a fine line and lawful search warrants should compel an iPhone user to unlock their device.
...or have people retain information in their memory that we can't torture out of them.
The only reason they don't want it encrypted is because they want unlawful, unrestricted access to it. Otherwise they could simply get a court order to have me give up my password.
Yeah, and then you would claim fifth amendment rights of not incriminating yorurself, right? You clowns hate the government so much you would probably just love to live in a country where the government has no power at all... like Somalia for example.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH You think that a subsection of the executive branch cares about what we think?! When’s the last time they acted based on what WE wanted?
With the proper warrant authorities should be able to search a phone like they search a house or car. The fourth amendment guaranttees protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, not lawful ones. As Comey said , what if police we're not allowed to open the trunk of your car for any reason, even with a warrant. The balance of power between the government and it's citizens is a fine line and lawful search warrants should compel an iPhone user to unlock their device.
Reported for personal attacks which I have removed in this quote.
With a proper warrant, the owner can be compelled to open their phone, or have the authorities open it. This just makes it so they cannot compel the company who made the device to open it, just like a computer - which it is. This isn't a phone tap, this is access to a computer.
What an idiotic argument to compare a vehicle or apartment to a cell phone. Vehicles and apartments can hold physical evidence, cell phones contain intangible ideas and discussions.
Cell phones could hold lots of evidence such incriminating photos, emails, voice messages, memos, etc.
The 'ticking clock' scenario was trotted out as justification for a law that was then routinely abused, while never being used to handle any actual ticking clock situations.
Those that give up Liberty to have temporary Security deserve Neither
Carney's argument is without merit. There is no need for a backdoor. The user has the information and can get at it. The solution is simple. Get a court order to require the user to divulge the relevant contents of his communication. That is, the FBI needs to have probable cause so get access.
Let's see if you privacy nuts sing a different tune when one of your family members is kidnapped and the perp has their location on their iPhone and won't give the cops the password.
Looks like it's time for the public to request the removal of this guy. He's obviously overreaching his authority and needs to understand the limits imposed on his department by our constitution. Just because Bush illegally instituted the Patriot Act doesn't mean people with some common sense can't get rid of it and bring back some protection for regular people.
I think my iPhone is too thin hide a body though... /s
On a more serious note, I'm not sure this makes any sense. Creating encryption that can be cracked makes it inherently flawed encryption. When you have a device that is sold in countries like China and Russia who distrust American government surveillance... and when you have very sophisticated cyberterrorists, and when you have folks like the president of the United States that wants to use an iPhone for matters of state instead of some Canadian fruit company's brick... well, encryption is a bit important. In this day and age it just plain an important feature, especially when it's holding your health information, fingerprints, nude selfies, credit card information... yes, your entire freaking identity.
So this guy can be as pissed as he wants to be, but the only logical conclusion for smartphones is absolute security. In a way, the government has brought this on themselves by misusing the public trust. I think this guy should focus his agency on either a) a new program to crack the uncrackable device or b) stopping criminals before bad things happen. Don't make the rest of us law abiding citizens suffer for your inability to do your job.
There is a very simple solution to this. Get a court order compelling the suspect to unlock the device, then access it using their finger in the same way the obtain finger prints during a booking.
The suspect is then protected by the 5th Amendment.
The logical conclusion of his argument is to make it mandatory for everyone to wear microphones and video cameras 24 hours a day wherever they are, so that the government can check that they're not terrorists or other criminals.
I wouldn't be surprised to see him complaining that the government has no access to our thoughts.
Hello 1984.
The USA has forgotten what liberty is.
Screw you. With the proper warrant authorities should be able to search a phone like they search a house or car. The fourth amendment guaranttees protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, not lawful ones. As Comey said , what if police we're not allowed to open the trunk of your car for any reason, even with a warrant. The balance of power between the government and it's citizens is a fine line and lawful search warrants should compel an iPhone user to unlock their device.
You're the ass and you can go straight to hell.
It's not quite that simple though, because encryption of information is not entirely analogous to securing physical items by locking them where they cannot be accessed. Encryption amounts to obfuscation - more analogous to hiding such items where they cannot be found, and there have been many ways to do both of those long before iOS.
"...or sell an apartment that could never be entered even by law enforcement."
I can think of a couple dead innocent people who were killed or maimed in no-knock raids by police SWAT teams either by mistake or incompetence. In Georgia there was a crib by the door and the police rammed it in enough to toss a flash bang. The bang went off in the crib with a 2-yr old.
Then there's swatting. If police will allow themselves to be "socially engineered" to become the tools of the bad guys...
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think a lot of people would like to and would be justified in strengthening and reinforcing their doors to prevent "law enforcement" from entering their premises based on this alone.
The logical conclusion of his argument is to make it mandatory for everyone to wear microphones and video cameras 24 hours a day wherever they are, so that the government can check that they're not terrorists or other criminals.
I wouldn't be surprised to see him complaining that the government has no access to our thoughts.
Hello 1984.
The USA has forgotten what liberty is.
Actually that is not the logical conclusion unless you choose to disbelieve the bit about needing reasonable cause to obtain a court order.
So obtain a warrant to open the phone. Why does a manufacturer need to be in the middle of it? This is between the private party and law enforcement.
Exactly. There's no "back door" installed on my house by the builders that only the police hold the key to. Nor a "police remote" made by my car's manufacturer that unlocks my trunk. Nor should there be a backdoor access point created by Apple on my cell phone just in case the FBI thinks they need to see what's in it.
I get that technology changes the way our criminal justice system works but asking that all our data be easily accessible when they ask for it is absurd. I have a right to have a device that only I can access just like I have a right to reenforce my house, car, etc.
Comments
I want the administrator ID and password to the FBI's email servers. It's only fair.
Screw you. With the proper warrant authorities should be able to search a phone like they search a house or car. The fourth amendment guaranttees protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, not lawful ones. As Comey said , what if police we're not allowed to open the trunk of your car for any reason, even with a warrant. The balance of power between the government and it's citizens is a fine line and lawful search warrants should compel an iPhone user to unlock their device.
You're the ass and you can go straight to hell.
Gosh, why don't you tell us how you really feel?
Yeah, and then you would claim fifth amendment rights of not incriminating yorurself, right? You clowns hate the government so much you would probably just love to live in a country where the government has no power at all... like Somalia for example.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH You think that a subsection of the executive branch cares about what we think?! When’s the last time they acted based on what WE wanted?
With the proper warrant authorities should be able to search a phone like they search a house or car. The fourth amendment guaranttees protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, not lawful ones. As Comey said , what if police we're not allowed to open the trunk of your car for any reason, even with a warrant. The balance of power between the government and it's citizens is a fine line and lawful search warrants should compel an iPhone user to unlock their device.
Reported for personal attacks which I have removed in this quote.
With a proper warrant, the owner can be compelled to open their phone, or have the authorities open it. This just makes it so they cannot compel the company who made the device to open it, just like a computer - which it is. This isn't a phone tap, this is access to a computer.
What an idiotic argument to compare a vehicle or apartment to a cell phone. Vehicles and apartments can hold physical evidence, cell phones contain intangible ideas and discussions.
Cell phones could hold lots of evidence such incriminating photos, emails, voice messages, memos, etc.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/10/09/schneier-iphone-encryption
The 'ticking clock' scenario was trotted out as justification for a law that was then routinely abused, while never being used to handle any actual ticking clock situations.
Those that give up Liberty to have temporary Security deserve Neither
- Benjamin Franklin
Cell phones could hold lots of evidence such incriminating photos, emails, voice messages, memos, etc.
So obtain a warrant to open the phone. Why does a manufacturer need to be in the middle of it? This is between the private party and law enforcement.
i understand the whole, "if you have nothing to hide, why does it matter" bit, but the U.S. gov't hides a lot (looking at you NSA).
i have nothing to hide, but why should i have to share it? if there is a court order- sure, have fun. if there is not- my phone is mine.
worried about the contents of a phone? do cops not do stakeouts anymore? they just want to snoop phones and get their intel that way?
I think my iPhone is too thin hide a body though... /s
On a more serious note, I'm not sure this makes any sense. Creating encryption that can be cracked makes it inherently flawed encryption. When you have a device that is sold in countries like China and Russia who distrust American government surveillance... and when you have very sophisticated cyberterrorists, and when you have folks like the president of the United States that wants to use an iPhone for matters of state instead of some Canadian fruit company's brick... well, encryption is a bit important. In this day and age it just plain an important feature, especially when it's holding your health information, fingerprints, nude selfies, credit card information... yes, your entire freaking identity.
So this guy can be as pissed as he wants to be, but the only logical conclusion for smartphones is absolute security. In a way, the government has brought this on themselves by misusing the public trust. I think this guy should focus his agency on either a) a new program to crack the uncrackable device or b) stopping criminals before bad things happen. Don't make the rest of us law abiding citizens suffer for your inability to do your job.
The suspect is then protected by the 5th Amendment.
It's not quite that simple though, because encryption of information is not entirely analogous to securing physical items by locking them where they cannot be accessed. Encryption amounts to obfuscation - more analogous to hiding such items where they cannot be found, and there have been many ways to do both of those long before iOS.
"...or sell an apartment that could never be entered even by law enforcement."
I can think of a couple dead innocent people who were killed or maimed in no-knock raids by police SWAT teams either by mistake or incompetence. In Georgia there was a crib by the door and the police rammed it in enough to toss a flash bang. The bang went off in the crib with a 2-yr old.
Then there's swatting. If police will allow themselves to be "socially engineered" to become the tools of the bad guys...
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think a lot of people would like to and would be justified in strengthening and reinforcing their doors to prevent "law enforcement" from entering their premises based on this alone.
Actually that is not the logical conclusion unless you choose to disbelieve the bit about needing reasonable cause to obtain a court order.
So obtain a warrant to open the phone. Why does a manufacturer need to be in the middle of it? This is between the private party and law enforcement.
Exactly. There's no "back door" installed on my house by the builders that only the police hold the key to. Nor a "police remote" made by my car's manufacturer that unlocks my trunk. Nor should there be a backdoor access point created by Apple on my cell phone just in case the FBI thinks they need to see what's in it.
I get that technology changes the way our criminal justice system works but asking that all our data be easily accessible when they ask for it is absurd. I have a right to have a device that only I can access just like I have a right to reenforce my house, car, etc.