There is exactly NO difference because phones cannot be encrypted only data can be.
I have been skipping back through your comments. As others are pointing out, you are not making any sense.
Do you want to make it illegal for people to encrypt their data and not share their keys? Good luck enforcing the unenforceable. So either suggest something workable or just accept that governing is going to be hard because it is supposed to be hard. When it is easy, citizens lose their freedom very quickly. As our Constitution authors took pains to make clear, domestic government is a greater threat to liberty than any external or internal threat.
Phones can't. That's correct. But passwords can't be broken hence the problem.
It is physically impossible to make data on a phone inaccessible! Its called Flash RAM. Anyone with technical skills and resources can get to the 1's and 0's in a phone.
The DA isn't worried about getting access to the 1's and 0's. He has that already and it won't do him any good. He wants to have a backdoor to decrypt the data. What else could you possibly think he wants?
The key to break complex passwords that lock the phone. If you use something other that a 4 digit password, it can not be broken.
we bitch but we keep electing the same a$$ holes. Go figure
Its not the voters, although people in power like to deflect blame to them. Unfortunately this is what happens with an effectively two party system. It is as if you only had two choices for dinner, every day, the same two choices. Get tired of one? Suddenly you only have one choice and they know it.
The Constitution framers were insightful in attempting to avoid consolidation of power using three branches and checks and balances within the government and term limits on individuals. Unfortunately it didn't occur to them to put term and seat limits on parties as well, and parties are more powerful than any individual. So we are left with a system where power has consolidated down to just two parties and they are each the only check on the other.
There is little incentive for either party to change or govern well when no matter how badly they treat citizens they automatically get back into power as soon as the other party inevitably uses their power just as irresponsibly. That is a very low bar.
The one thing both parties agree on is not letting any other parties into the club.
Personally I wish there were seat limits on party's and also a separation of State and National parties so state politicians had a much greater incentive to check the Federal government.
Maybe someone on Mars will have the sense to learn from our mistakes as our founders learned from those before them.
Hyperbolic BS. The real point of this is that they would love to be able to get into folks phones cause it would make their job easier. Now they are pissed cause they have to go back to old school methods from pre iPhone. Not really Apple's issue
If we pretend this guy is right, what could possibly be done that would work?
Let's say there will be a law that mandates back doors.
Convince enough people that the protections of the US constitution will mostly work, and that government agencies have competence to keep the keys to the back door out of the wring hands, and such a law could become real.
Eventually.
Maybe.
This law will do nothing at all for devices manufactured, sold and used outside the US.
Foreign governments will not be keen on joining in, they have no reason to trust US agencies and the US constitution does nothing at all to protect their citizens.
if they come with a warrant to search my house, I'll open the door. Same thing with the phone
Sure, me too. But how much warrant will the NSA need for my iCloud data? I'm not a US citizen, I'm free game.
If the US mandates back doors to the cloud data, foreign governments will mandate their citizens data to be stored locally, or just be in a bigger hurry to mandate this.
If this guy has seen episodes of Homeland or any terrorist themed movie/TV show recently, all terrorists use disposable phones made in China. It doesn't matter whether they have encryption or not, even the cell signal is enough to give the terrorist's location away. If it's even common knowledge in Hollywood, then yeah, I don't see terrorists lining up for iPhone 6S.
Last time I checked, hackers have a much higher IQ than most of us, and can come up with very creative ways to exploit backdoors, even those meant for local, via remote. Please don't be naive. Have you not read the Snowden docs?
Why don't you stop making comments, and having trains of thought, that empower dirtbags like this DA, and your government, to rape and pillage every single shred of entitlement to privacy that your citizens are guaranteed under your constitution? Your ideology is what gives these people the power they're seeking, so you're not helping matters!
Arrogant egotist who uses giant intellect to harass and insult ... I'm impressed. Not. Go away little boy. Go play in the street or something. You have done nothing but harass and insult me. Your comments are abusive.
Sure, me too. But how much warrant will the NSA need for my iCloud data? I'm not a US citizen, I'm free game.
If the US mandates back doors to the cloud data, foreign governments will mandate their citizens data to be stored locally, or just be in a bigger hurry to mandate this.
Different issue than the phone being discussed here.
Different issue than the phone being discussed here.
I doubt it. Apple gets requests for data (like iPhone backups) on its servers, but they have nothing to give, they cannot decrypt the data. They designed it that way. Same issue.
Insults again. You offer nothing constructive. Just personal insults.
I do wonder, though, why are you so angry. Why are you so angry or insecure that you feel it necessary to attack a nameless, faceless entity on the net just because you don't like the way they think.
Don't you realize that that puts you in the same boat with people who want to track everything? You are doing no better than any dictator who tries to drown out free speech with insults and fearmongering.
Yes, you are doing the very thing that you accuse the DA of doing!
Wow, talk about hypocrite! You denounce me of attacking you for your illogical and anti-constitutional way of thinking, and then you plunk me in with the same group of vile trash as the DA? Just wow...
Arrogant egotist who uses giant intellect to harass and insult ... I'm impressed. Not. Go away little boy. Go play in the street or something. You have done nothing but harass and insult me. Your comments are abusive.
Talk about someone getting their panties in a twist... If you can't handle the feedback you receive, then don't dish out trash that is destroying your country.
BTW, I find your comments highly infuriating and provocative, so goes both ways.
That reminds me: I've been meaning to send a copy of my vehicle key, my house key, my employee-access badge and my driver's license to the DA so he has access in case he suspects me of a crime.
Talk about someone getting their panties in a twist... If you can't handle the feedback you receive, then don't dish out trash that is destroying your country.
BTW, I find your comments highly infuriating and provocative, so goes both ways.
None of your comments to me have been constructive. They have been insulting, derogatory, arrogant and condescending. Too bad you find that inflammatory. Get over it. For the third time and last time, if you have nothing constructive to add, don't reply to me.
Phones can't. That's correct. But passwords can't be broken hence the problem.
Are you even trying to make a coherent point? Why would this conversation be even taking place if passwords were easy to break?
What is your viewpoint? That people by law should have to share their passwords with third parties?
There are only two logical options:
1) People are required to share passwords with government (or third parties that will work with government) so governments can look at data whenever they think they need to (i.e. court orders, or whatever) but puts civil liberties at risk (government and corporate abuse) and criminalizes regular people just trying to keep legal confidential information private.
2) People are not required to share passwords with others. In which case, yes its going to be tough on law enforcement just like it has always been.
You seem feel the DA has a point. What is that point? Do you really want to make a law to enforce option 1 above? If not, then what on Earth are you advocating?
The DA is nuts.
But please, state in a sentence or two what it is exactly you believe should happen, because your comments are all over the place. What should be the law? How should it be enforced? In your opinion.
Are you even trying to make a coherent point? Why would this conversation be even taking place if passwords were easy to break?
What is your viewpoint? That people by law should have to share their passwords with third parties?
There are only two logical options:
1) People are required to share passwords with government (or third parties that will work with government) so governments can look at data whenever they think they need to (i.e. court orders, or whatever) but puts civil liberties at risk (government and corporate abuse) and criminalizes regular people just trying to keep legal confidential information private.
2) People are not required to share passwords with others. In which case, yes its going to be tough on law enforcement just like it has always been.
You seem feel the DA has a point. What is that point? Do you really want to make a law to enforce option 1 above? If not, then what on Earth are you advocating?
The DA is nuts.
But please, state in a sentence or two what it is exactly you believe should happen, because your comments are all over the place. What should be the law? How should it be enforced? In your opinion.
What do I think? I think that the issue needs intelligent and unemotional discussion... Not the insults and screeds a few here have laid out. People with open minds should be able to discuss this DNS find an acceptable compromise that addresses all the issues fairly. Polarization is not a way to resolve these issues.
"dire consequences could arise without surveillance being an at-hand tool."
Dire consequences has arisen, it's the shredding of the U.S. Constitution, and it has been done by people like DA Cyrus Vance Jr. who take an oath to protect and serve the Constitution and We The People. All DA Vance sees, is country of 300 million potential terrorists.
Why is it that the biggest enemy's of freedom in this country are those that are elected and appointed to protect our freedoms? We don't need surveillance to find our most dangerous threats to freedom, they are in plain sight and pontificate on at our expense.
Maybe what they are really afraid of, is of what happens to them and the top one-percent when we all awake from our subjugation.
...What the DA is asking for is court-ordered access to examine the contents of a phone. This is no different than a court ordering you to turn over documents or computer files during a criminal investigation or for access to your telephone calls via a wire tap during an investigation.
It is not the wholesale invasion of privacy via the NSA or hackers that is happening everyday. It is targeted.
Your negative hue and cry is much akin to the concept of "throwing the baby out with the bath water."
What most of you seem to support is that, if the Tsarnaev brothers had communicated only on iPhones, and that was the key physical evidence of their conspiracy, they should go free. Is that really what you want?
Do you also want to do away with wiretaps as well? Or other court-ordered surveillance? And, if so, at what cost will you decide enough is enough?
The thing YOU don't get is that once a backdoor is in place (no matter its intention) it will take those with other than so-called legal access via court order etc… a very short time to uncover this backdoor and make the encryption all but useless. Look back at Jailbraking and unlocking of iPhones -- people like you cried that it was your right to have it open. Well Android is living proof that simply does not work. Same with the copy protection put in place for Bluray discs, didn't take the bad guys long to break into that and it was a quite sophisticated system same thing with Apple's iPhone to keep the phone safe -- cat and mouse for every new iOS version out there. If you think the protection was trivial you have another think coming!
You want to build in a backdoor that allows the govt to snoop. I don't think so!
The thing YOU don't get is that once a backdoor is in place (no matter its intention) it will take those with other so-called legal access via court order etc… a very short time to uncover this backdoor and make the encryption all but useless. Look back at Jailbraking and unlocking of iPhones -- people like you cried that it was your right to have it open. Well Android is living proof that simply does not work. Same with the copy protection put in place for Bluray discs, didn't take the bad guys long to break into that and it was a quite sophisticated system same thing with Apple's iPhone to keep the phone safe -- cat and mouse for every new iOS version out there. If you think the protection was trivial you have another think coming!
You want to build in a backdoor that allows the govt to snoop. I don't think so!
Snoop? No. I don't want them snooping. Yes, once there is a way to break the encrypted password, those with court approved access would be able to read data on the phone if the data is not encrypted by another means.
As for hackers... That issue makes this one that needs to be discussed and carefully considered by people who don't make knee jerk reactions.
Comments
we bitch but we keep electing the same a$$ holes. Go figure
Its not the voters, although people in power like to deflect blame to them. Unfortunately this is what happens with an effectively two party system. It is as if you only had two choices for dinner, every day, the same two choices. Get tired of one? Suddenly you only have one choice and they know it.
The Constitution framers were insightful in attempting to avoid consolidation of power using three branches and checks and balances within the government and term limits on individuals. Unfortunately it didn't occur to them to put term and seat limits on parties as well, and parties are more powerful than any individual. So we are left with a system where power has consolidated down to just two parties and they are each the only check on the other.
There is little incentive for either party to change or govern well when no matter how badly they treat citizens they automatically get back into power as soon as the other party inevitably uses their power just as irresponsibly. That is a very low bar.
The one thing both parties agree on is not letting any other parties into the club.
Personally I wish there were seat limits on party's and also a separation of State and National parties so state politicians had a much greater incentive to check the Federal government.
Maybe someone on Mars will have the sense to learn from our mistakes as our founders learned from those before them.
If we pretend this guy is right, what could possibly be done that would work?
Let's say there will be a law that mandates back doors.
Convince enough people that the protections of the US constitution will mostly work, and that government agencies have competence to keep the keys to the back door out of the wring hands, and such a law could become real.
Eventually.
Maybe.
This law will do nothing at all for devices manufactured, sold and used outside the US.
Foreign governments will not be keen on joining in, they have no reason to trust US agencies and the US constitution does nothing at all to protect their citizens.
if they come with a warrant to search my house, I'll open the door. Same thing with the phone
Sure, me too. But how much warrant will the NSA need for my iCloud data? I'm not a US citizen, I'm free game.
If the US mandates back doors to the cloud data, foreign governments will mandate their citizens data to be stored locally, or just be in a bigger hurry to mandate this.
Different issue than the phone being discussed here.
I doubt it. Apple gets requests for data (like iPhone backups) on its servers, but they have nothing to give, they cannot decrypt the data. They designed it that way. Same issue.
Insults again. You offer nothing constructive. Just personal insults.
I do wonder, though, why are you so angry. Why are you so angry or insecure that you feel it necessary to attack a nameless, faceless entity on the net just because you don't like the way they think.
Don't you realize that that puts you in the same boat with people who want to track everything? You are doing no better than any dictator who tries to drown out free speech with insults and fearmongering.
Yes, you are doing the very thing that you accuse the DA of doing!
Wow, talk about hypocrite! You denounce me of attacking you for your illogical and anti-constitutional way of thinking, and then you plunk me in with the same group of vile trash as the DA? Just wow...
Arrogant egotist who uses giant intellect to harass and insult ... I'm impressed. Not. Go away little boy. Go play in the street or something. You have done nothing but harass and insult me. Your comments are abusive.
Talk about someone getting their panties in a twist... If you can't handle the feedback you receive, then don't dish out trash that is destroying your country.
BTW, I find your comments highly infuriating and provocative, so goes both ways.
Phones can't. That's correct. But passwords can't be broken hence the problem.
Are you even trying to make a coherent point? Why would this conversation be even taking place if passwords were easy to break?
What is your viewpoint? That people by law should have to share their passwords with third parties?
There are only two logical options:
1) People are required to share passwords with government (or third parties that will work with government) so governments can look at data whenever they think they need to (i.e. court orders, or whatever) but puts civil liberties at risk (government and corporate abuse) and criminalizes regular people just trying to keep legal confidential information private.
2) People are not required to share passwords with others. In which case, yes its going to be tough on law enforcement just like it has always been.
You seem feel the DA has a point. What is that point? Do you really want to make a law to enforce option 1 above? If not, then what on Earth are you advocating?
The DA is nuts.
But please, state in a sentence or two what it is exactly you believe should happen, because your comments are all over the place. What should be the law? How should it be enforced? In your opinion.
Dire consequences has arisen, it's the shredding of the U.S. Constitution, and it has been done by people like DA Cyrus Vance Jr. who take an oath to protect and serve the Constitution and We The People. All DA Vance sees, is country of 300 million potential terrorists.
Why is it that the biggest enemy's of freedom in this country are those that are elected and appointed to protect our freedoms? We don't need surveillance to find our most dangerous threats to freedom, they are in plain sight and pontificate on at our expense.
Maybe what they are really afraid of, is of what happens to them and the top one-percent when we all awake from our subjugation.
...What the DA is asking for is court-ordered access to examine the contents of a phone. This is no different than a court ordering you to turn over documents or computer files during a criminal investigation or for access to your telephone calls via a wire tap during an investigation.
It is not the wholesale invasion of privacy via the NSA or hackers that is happening everyday. It is targeted.
Your negative hue and cry is much akin to the concept of "throwing the baby out with the bath water."
What most of you seem to support is that, if the Tsarnaev brothers had communicated only on iPhones, and that was the key physical evidence of their conspiracy, they should go free. Is that really what you want?
Do you also want to do away with wiretaps as well? Or other court-ordered surveillance? And, if so, at what cost will you decide enough is enough?
The thing YOU don't get is that once a backdoor is in place (no matter its intention) it will take those with other than so-called legal access via court order etc… a very short time to uncover this backdoor and make the encryption all but useless. Look back at Jailbraking and unlocking of iPhones -- people like you cried that it was your right to have it open. Well Android is living proof that simply does not work. Same with the copy protection put in place for Bluray discs, didn't take the bad guys long to break into that and it was a quite sophisticated system same thing with Apple's iPhone to keep the phone safe -- cat and mouse for every new iOS version out there. If you think the protection was trivial you have another think coming!
You want to build in a backdoor that allows the govt to snoop. I don't think so!
As for hackers... That issue makes this one that needs to be discussed and carefully considered by people who don't make knee jerk reactions.