Argument over strong encryption reaches boiling point as Apple, Microsoft rebuff court orders for da

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 112
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    Quite true. Although they could conceivably see nearly unlimited fines for failing to comply with a court order. Should that happen, I'd rather took the high road and fought back with every dollar in their war chest.




    We are not talking about refusing to comply with a court order, we're talking about court orders that are impossible to comply with.  The court could order Apple's lawyer to crap diamonds but that doesn't mean she can.

  • Reply 42 of 112
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

     

    That reference is out of line. The Kentucky clerk used moral issues for not following the law. Apple is following the law and the constitution, the FBI, NSA, and law enforcement are not. Getting Congress to change the law would have to pass the Supreme Court because it would be held unconstitutional. 




    Actually, a simple correction. Kim Davis used RELIGIOUS arguments for not following the law. Please don't confuse that with morality.

  • Reply 43 of 112
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by williamh View Post

     



    We are not talking about refusing to comply with a court order, we're talking about court orders that are impossible to comply with.  The court could order Apple's lawyer to crap diamonds but that doesn't mean she can.




    Of course Apple could be forced to pull their Messages app and/or replace it with something porous for law enforcement.

  • Reply 44 of 112

    Of course Apple could be forced to pull their Messages app and/or replace it with something porous for law enforcement.

    It won't be easy, and it will take a while.

    I think Microsoft's brief (quoted in the NYT article) summarizes it perfectly: it's a tradeoff amongst three very difficult and perhaps equally important tdimensions, each of of which makes a case for itself: sovereignty, privacy, and competitiveness. I'd add a fourth, security.
  • Reply 45 of 112
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,167member

    Of course Apple could be forced to pull their Messages app and/or replace it with something porous for law enforcement.

    That's law enforcement ultimate goal but no one can force Apple and others to do that without the law they are trying to push.
  • Reply 46 of 112
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gregg Thurman View Post





    From a personal point of view, I don't worry about government searches of my property and/or person for two reasons: first, I know I have committed no crimes and, second, the process of obtaining a valid search warrant is very precise. Even after being granted and executed some are found (due to defects in the warrant) to be unlawful, resulting in the evidence collected being inadmissible.



     

     

    All that goes out the window when the police break in (no warrant) to the wrong house address, shoot the homeowners dog, shoot the homeowner and shoot one of their own in the process.

     

    I would be very worried, because getting restitution from the grave isn't very satisfying.

  • Reply 47 of 112
    sennensennen Posts: 1,470member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

     



    There was an article a while back about this. Apple cannot access iMessage because of the end to end encryption but they can access iCloud backup. These iCloud backup includes iMessages stored on the device when the backup happened.




    Yes. The knock against Apple/iPhone by privacy advocates has been that whilst iMessage is encrypted end-to-end and hence inaccessible, iCloud Back Up does not offer this protection.

  • Reply 48 of 112
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gregg Thurman View Post



    I'm a retired police officer, and the problem, as I see it, is the doctrine of 'plain sight' meaning that anything seen (in plain sight) while executing a warrant is validly collected. My question would be, assuming valid search warrants are ultimately granted and enforceable (with the cooperation of Apple and others), is how do you limit the scope of such search warrants to the targets? Once access to unencrypted iMessage is granted all communications are exposed.



    As to whether Apple should surrender iMessages when directed under a valid search warrant, I can see both sides. The mission (what they are legally bound to do, and for which they are paid) is to enforce the law. Search warrants have been a very important tool in the fight against crime. Without them the number of arrests and convictions drop, maybe to the point of anarchy.



    On the other hand, the average law abiding citizen wants to be secure in their person from unreasonable search and seizures. Since the Bill of Rights was first adopted the Courts have defined what is reasonable, especially since the 1960s.



    From a personal point of view, I don't worry about government searches of my property and/or person for two reasons: first, I know I have committed no crimes and, second, the process of obtaining a valid search warrant is very precise. Even after being granted and executed some are found (due to defects in the warrant) to be unlawful, resulting in the evidence collected being inadmissible.



    So, even if a valid warrant is granted to search my person and/or property, I have nothing to fear (beyond the intrusion into my privacy) as I have committed no crime.



    Seems to me, after rereading my post, is that those objecting the loudest are of two categories, those that have committed crimes, and those that have a general dislike of authority.



    The only issue I can see with this is what I'd like to call the Ashley Maddison effect.

     

    Exposure of private data can have significant effects even if it does not involve anything illegal and if for example, a police investigation accessed someones iMessage account and found emails regading an affair of a married person (which could come out in court if the boundaries of what is accessed is not stipulated - ie does the other person in the affair pose a blackmail threat ergo why he stole the money when it may not be true) that could have consequences that are beyond what is legally actionable.

     

    The main issue of a back door is that illegal access may occur as by definition it is insecure.

     

    Cheers Dr Hawk

  • Reply 49 of 112
    Originally Posted by konqerror View Post

    Law is the law



    Thanks for agreeing with me. Apple won’t be giving anyone a back door, then.

     

    I just had an idea. What if you had an encryption system that took longer than is practical (for these purposes, let’s say… 20 years) to decrypt? Any individual could fully comply with any government request for data, even giving them the password, but it would take longer for them to decrypt the information than any charges to remain valid.

  • Reply 50 of 112
    You realize this argument goes beyond U.S. Interests. Apple is an international organization. If back doors are created, they can either be abused by U.S. Government to spy on foreign citizens, innocent or otherwise. Or if you're a more self centred American, allow foreign interests to spy on Americans or even its government.

    Anyone who thinks creating a back door for one party won't be exploited by other parties is naive.

    Even worse, my understanding of what the U.S. Government really wants is the ability to access that data WITHOUT going through Apple. They want a back door so that Apples lawyers can't even review and either challenge or whistleblow. A back door could allow bulk scraping of data.

    Be careful Americans. This is a slippery slope.
  • Reply 51 of 112
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Headfull0wine View Post



    Be careful Americans. This is a slippery slope.

     

    Amazing revelation: Europe has the same, and sometimes even wider wiretap laws.

    http://cryptome.org/eu-intercept.htm

    Quote:
    3.3. If network operators/service providers initiate encoding, compression or encryption of telecommunications traffic, law enforcement agencies require the network operators/service providers to provide intercepted communications en clair.

  • Reply 52 of 112
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    OK, these two paragraphs make no sense:



    First:

    Over the summer Apple was asked to furnish real-time iMessage communications sent between two suspects in an investigation involving guns and drugs, reports The New York Times. The company said it was unable to provide such access as iMessage is protected by end-to-end encryption



    But then:

    Apple and other tech firms have privately voiced interest in finding a common ground, The Times reports. To that end, the publication notes Apple did indeed hand over a limited number of messages stored in iCloud pertaining to this summer's investigation.



    image image


    The first paragraph is accurate.  I suspect the second paragraph may relate to unencrypted emails and not iMessages stored in iCloud.  You know how the press is with finer details.

  • Reply 53 of 112
    konqerror wrote: »
    Law is the law and Apple isn't in Congress. Are you supporting the Kentucky clerk who's in jail right now?

    I am.

    It's ridiculous.

    The gays forcing their own rights to trample over religious conviction.

    For some reason the homosexuals always have their wishes upheld while those who also have the right to oppose are put in jail??? What the heck is happening to America.

    It sure isn't progress.
  • Reply 54 of 112
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by konqerror View Post



    Law is the law and Apple isn't in Congress. Are you supporting the Kentucky clerk who's in jail right now?




    I am.



    It's ridiculous.



    The gays forcing their own rights to trample over religious conviction.



    For some reason the homosexuals always have their wishes upheld while those who also have the right to oppose are put in jail??? What the heck is happening to America.



    It sure isn't progress.

    Are you being serious?

     

    Same sex marriage is a basic human right. It's not about religion. It's about affording all people the same rights.

     

    You can have your religion all day long, just as long as it doesn't trample on basic human rights for others.

  • Reply 55 of 112
    Bottom line, the FBI, NSA, Homeland Security and the CIA want a secure logging port access that is not visible to anyone but them, allowing them to capture ever bit transmitted between all parties they are snooping on.

    Microsoft and Apple are saying **** You. I'm not sacrificing our customers for your dog n' pony witch hunts. Good for them.
  • Reply 56 of 112
    Originally Posted by TechLover View Post

    Same sex marriage is a basic human right.




    No form of marriage is a human right, so it’s interesting you’ve confused yourself into this.

  • Reply 57 of 112
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by TechLover View Post

    Same sex marriage is a basic human right.




    No form of marriage is a human right, so it’s interesting you’ve confused yourself into this.


    Sure it is.

     

    If a same sex wants to enjoy the same rights as an opposite sex couple that is pretty basic.

     

    The benefits of marriage are many. Financially they deserve the same rights as an opposite sex couple if they want to get married. If it's your loved one in the hospital you deserve the same rights as an opposite sex married couple if you want to get married.

     

    It's interesting you've confused yourself on this. You are smarter than that.

  • Reply 58 of 112
    Originally Posted by TechLover View Post


    ...enjoy the same rights as...


     

    Did you read my post at all?

     

    Financially they deserve...



     

    State financial benefits to marriage exist for the purpose of easing the monetary burden of procreation, continuing the existence of the state. Not sure how that’s a point in favor of this particular instance.

     

    It's interesting you've confused yourself on this. You are smarter than that.


     

    It’s almost as though I said something else, isn’t it.

  • Reply 59 of 112
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by TechLover View Post


    ...enjoy the same rights as...


     

    Did you read my post at all?

     

    Financially they deserve...



     

    State financial benefits to marriage exist for the purpose of easing the monetary burden of procreation, continuing the existence of the state. Not sure how that’s a point in favor of this particular instance.

     

    It's interesting you've confused yourself on this. You are smarter than that.


     

    It’s almost as though I said something else, isn’t it.


    What about opposite sex couples who get married and enjoy the financial benefits yet choose to never have children?

     

    Are you saying that all married couples should be forced to procreate in order to benefit from the institution of marriage? 

     

    What if you can't have children either man or woman, should you not be allowed to marry and enjoy the benefits that marriage allows?

  • Reply 60 of 112
    Originally Posted by TechLover View Post

    Are you saying that all married couples should be forced to procreate in order to benefit from the institution of marriage?




    I’m just telling you why it exists.

Sign In or Register to comment.