Wrong. That is the service provider (the carriers) that have to provide access. That is TOTALLY different. I'm the end user, and if I want to use encryption I most certainly can, and I chose to do so when I buy an iDevice.
You're right, you're the end user, just like a person using a normal phone. AT&T is the Carrier or middle man, just like Apple is the Middle man between you and the person you're sending that imessage to. So YES, the Law can be easily changed by congress and I'm pretty sure they'd go for it. Then Apple would have to modify iMessage to have a backdoor and update everyone's iPhones to use the new iMessage encryption. There would be nothing you could do about it. Other then using your own 3rd party encryption. Windows Phone and Android would have to do the same also to follow the new law.
Yep, I'm about 99% sure the law will be modified, or a new one created. All in the name of protecting the children or Terrorists. The same old reasons used over and over. Taking more of our rights away, but it'll end up being done!!! The Constitution is DEAD. it's been so stepped on and smeared. Hell Obama has greatly helped out in that area. The Leftists don't like a State law, no problem, run to the Federal Government, they rule for them, and the State just lost another of their own rights.
they didnt give them real time data on imessage but it seems that the people or persons saved the conversion on icloud which is what they gave them.
How would end up something like this unencrypted on iCloud, unless you specifically copy and paste the information into an unencrypted document?
If e.g. backing up an iOS device to iCloud leads to that sort of security breach, then Apple is duplicitous and intentionally misleading about its products' security.
What happened here needs to be disclosed.
Wrong. That is the service provider (the carriers) that have to provide access. That is TOTALLY different. I'm the end user, and if I want to use encryption I most certainly can, and I chose to do so when I buy an iDevice.
You're right, you're the end user, just like a person using a normal phone. AT&T is the Carrier or middle man, just like Apple is the Middle man between you and the person you're sending that imessage to. So YES, the Law can be easily changed by congress and I'm pretty sure they'd go for it. Then Apple would have to modify iMessage to have a backdoor and update everyone's iPhones to use the new iMessage encryption. There would be nothing you could do about it. Other then using your own 3rd party encryption. Windows Phone and Android would have to do the same also to follow the new law.
Yep, I'm about 99% sure the law will be modified, or a new one created. All in the name of protecting the children or Terrorists. The same old reasons used over and over. Taking more of our rights away, but it'll end up being done!!! The Constitution is DEAD. it's been so stepped on and smeared. Hell Obama has greatly helped out in that area. The Leftists don't like a State law, no problem, run to the Federal Government, they rule for them, and the State just lost another of their own rights.
While I agree with many of your sentiments, it's Bush who pushed through the "PATRIOT" act, enabled illegal wiretapping, granted immunity to telcos involved, etc.
All Obama did was not to reverse some of these things as he had promised to do while he was just a senator running for the office of POTUS.
Unfortunately Reps & Dems are uniquely bipartisan when it comes to eroding civil liberties.
Here follows an amalgam of stuff I've already written elsewhere:
Privacy is not an admission of guilt, it is a fundamental freedom and human right. Before explaining the flaws in the ‘nothing to hide’ argument, let’s offer it in its most compelling form. The following is based on the formation by Daniel J. Solove, professor of law at the George Washington University Law School:
Surveillance results in the disclosure of particular pieces of information to a few government officials, or perhaps only to government computers. This kind of limited disclosure is not likely to be threatening to the privacy of law-abiding citizens, in fact only those engaged in illegal activities have a reason to hide this kind of information. Although some cases may exist in which the information disclosed might be sensitive or embarrassing to the law-abiding, this limited disclosure lessens the threat to privacy. Moreover, the security benefit provided by these disclosures is very high and outweighs whatever minimal or moderate privacy interests the law-abiding citizens might have in these particular pieces of information.
In short, this kind of argument holds that there is no privacy violation in the absence of sensitive, embarrassing or illegal information which one wants to conceal. Or, put the other way, your privacy is only violated in the event that something sensitive is uncovered. But hiding bad things is not what privacy is about.
Arguing that governmental snooping is an effective deterrent is an invalid position, for we can’t measure the amount of terrorist plotting which hasn’t taken place over the phone, by email or via any other surveilled means of communication. This argument, then, is baseless and cannot be used to support the hypothesis.(Which doesn’t seem to stop those in charge from trying.) What is notable, however, is the way in which surveillance serves to suppress freedom of speech, an essential democratic right, with citizens afraid of voicing their opinions for fear of future retribution (see Aggregation).
Perhaps the key refutation can be found in the following: even if no information worth hiding is uncovered, the attack on privacy is still inherently harmful. It serves to create a dystopian separation between the individual and the state—particularly the justice system—by removing citizens from any active, participatory role in the process and reducing them to little more than apathetic, cynical observers. Thus, we turn our backs on the very ideals of a democratic society.
Aggregation
If you’re reading this, the odds are statistically overwhelming that you aren’t a terrorist, wish no harm upon the government, haven’t committed a major offence and aren’t wanted for treason. That said, with billions invested in data-collection and storage, and in an age in which people are arrested for posting controversial messages on Twitter, how certain can you be that the collection of years worth of your data wouldn’t unearth something you’d rather leave buried? A single episode of data-collection—say, a phonecall to a spouse about a business trip—might be innocent enough. But when combined with another—perhaps an email invoice from a hotel with a double-room booking for the same period—the evidence begins to mount. And even in the event that you have absolutely nothing to hide, having access to such vast amounts of data would make it trivial to build a case against you for any future infractions.
Imagine a politician standing in opposition to a future government whose campaign credibility could be eradicated entirely by the careful, deliberate revelation of some of his intimate data. If an act alone isn’t enough, working through vast quantities of data to find more episodes to support any angle of one’s choosing is always an option.
Exclusion
The more the government spies on its own citizenry, the greater the gulf between the people and the state. Without delving into hypothetical situations in which free speech might be limited or eradicated given the fear that something ‘they’ know might be leaked to the media to discredit the speaker, this relationship presents some inherent problems to any democracy.
Unaccountability of increasingly intelligent intelligence services will naturally lead us to a place in which citizens have no say in how information on them is gathered or what is done with it after the fact. This could, at best, be said to undermine what it means to be democratic and, at worse, could be seen as a malicious attempt to stifle opposition and free-speech with the underlying threat of, for example, one’s internet history being exposed.
Fundamentally, any method by which government promotes a severance between its own actions and accountability and the will and knowledge of the people is a dangerous and insidious threat to the very democracy that underpins it.
But the government is doing this to protect us from terrorists, right?
For centuries—through two world wars, the Cold War and innumerable other conflicts, major and minor—, through times of intense political instability and stability alike, Britain has fostered a legal system with a definite, inclusive sense of our civil rights and liberties. We have an historic and treasured cultural sense of fair play and good manners, a tendency towards equality and personal freedom, an honoured history of protest and a healthy disregard for authority. From the bold action of Robert the Bruce, Robin Hood, Guy Fawkes, Wat Tyler, Emmeline Pankhurst to the bold thinking and writing of John Stuart Mill, George Orwell and countless others, the British people have worked hard to uphold these values which define our nation.
And we would give it all up when faced with the relatively minor threats of cyber-criminality and political/religious extremists? This seems to compromise the very core of what it means to be British.
Since 9/11, it is possible to count on the fingers of one hand the amount of terrorist attacks Britain has witnessed on her soil; the recent atrocities in Woolwich and the London bombings of 7/7 stand out in particular. The implication is that 9/11 was very much the exception, not the rule, and must not be used as a constant means to account for ever-expanding intelligence powers. If we are to argue that the primary purpose of GCHQ’s unparallelled domestic surveillance is to prevent terrorist attacks, then why have the British public remained in the dark? Terrorists, one can assume, are well aware that they’re being looked for online, and are unlikely to be communicating by Facebook messaging or Skype. Why has the NSA’s £100 million funding remained so fervently off the books and out of the National Audit Office’s public records? There’s clearly more to it than they’re letting on.
In terms of the usefulness of these technologies and methods in detecting terrorist plots to harm citizens, there has been little evidence presented in the UK thus far. However, over in the USA, the recent Senate hearing on strengthening privacy rights found that the NSA’s original claim that more than 50 terrorist operations had been foiled directly as a result of Section 215 of the Patriot Act was, at best, frivolous with President pro tempore, Senator Leahy pressing the issue until the NSA was forced to concede that there existed no circumstance in which a plot could not have been ended ‘but for’ the use of these controversial surveillance methods.
So like these US guys want to have a backdoor to a service that is worldwide. Did I get that correctly?
In violation of international agreements enforced by the US on other countries. Yep, about right.
Not that it matters. In the end, politics are business, and business isn't about what's right or even what's agreed, but about who's strongest and most determined at that given point in time, where strongest might mean "who can rally more people" or "who can deal most economic damage". The only question is, will the US government get its way, or will the IT industry get its way. In any case, it's like watching a tv series, complete with betrayals, private jets, corruption scandals, whistleblowers and Russian special agents.
Comments
Wrong. That is the service provider (the carriers) that have to provide access. That is TOTALLY different. I'm the end user, and if I want to use encryption I most certainly can, and I chose to do so when I buy an iDevice.
You're right, you're the end user, just like a person using a normal phone. AT&T is the Carrier or middle man, just like Apple is the Middle man between you and the person you're sending that imessage to. So YES, the Law can be easily changed by congress and I'm pretty sure they'd go for it. Then Apple would have to modify iMessage to have a backdoor and update everyone's iPhones to use the new iMessage encryption. There would be nothing you could do about it. Other then using your own 3rd party encryption. Windows Phone and Android would have to do the same also to follow the new law.
Yep, I'm about 99% sure the law will be modified, or a new one created. All in the name of protecting the children or Terrorists. The same old reasons used over and over. Taking more of our rights away, but it'll end up being done!!! The Constitution is DEAD. it's been so stepped on and smeared. Hell Obama has greatly helped out in that area. The Leftists don't like a State law, no problem, run to the Federal Government, they rule for them, and the State just lost another of their own rights.
How would end up something like this unencrypted on iCloud, unless you specifically copy and paste the information into an unencrypted document?
If e.g. backing up an iOS device to iCloud leads to that sort of security breach, then Apple is duplicitous and intentionally misleading about its products' security.
What happened here needs to be disclosed.
While I agree with many of your sentiments, it's Bush who pushed through the "PATRIOT" act, enabled illegal wiretapping, granted immunity to telcos involved, etc.
All Obama did was not to reverse some of these things as he had promised to do while he was just a senator running for the office of POTUS.
Unfortunately Reps & Dems are uniquely bipartisan when it comes to eroding civil liberties.
If these bozo's were around when your constitution was drafted, they would have called for the banning of envelopes and sealing wax.
Well, banning personalized seals used to make impressions in the wax.
Here follows an amalgam of stuff I've already written elsewhere:
Privacy is not an admission of guilt, it is a fundamental freedom and human right. Before explaining the flaws in the ‘nothing to hide’ argument, let’s offer it in its most compelling form. The following is based on the formation by Daniel J. Solove, professor of law at the George Washington University Law School:
Surveillance results in the disclosure of particular pieces of information to a few government officials, or perhaps only to government computers. This kind of limited disclosure is not likely to be threatening to the privacy of law-abiding citizens, in fact only those engaged in illegal activities have a reason to hide this kind of information. Although some cases may exist in which the information disclosed might be sensitive or embarrassing to the law-abiding, this limited disclosure lessens the threat to privacy. Moreover, the security benefit provided by these disclosures is very high and outweighs whatever minimal or moderate privacy interests the law-abiding citizens might have in these particular pieces of information.
In short, this kind of argument holds that there is no privacy violation in the absence of sensitive, embarrassing or illegal information which one wants to conceal. Or, put the other way, your privacy is only violated in the event that something sensitive is uncovered. But hiding bad things is not what privacy is about.
Arguing that governmental snooping is an effective deterrent is an invalid position, for we can’t measure the amount of terrorist plotting which hasn’t taken place over the phone, by email or via any other surveilled means of communication. This argument, then, is baseless and cannot be used to support the hypothesis.(Which doesn’t seem to stop those in charge from trying.) What is notable, however, is the way in which surveillance serves to suppress freedom of speech, an essential democratic right, with citizens afraid of voicing their opinions for fear of future retribution (see Aggregation).
Perhaps the key refutation can be found in the following: even if no information worth hiding is uncovered, the attack on privacy is still inherently harmful. It serves to create a dystopian separation between the individual and the state—particularly the justice system—by removing citizens from any active, participatory role in the process and reducing them to little more than apathetic, cynical observers. Thus, we turn our backs on the very ideals of a democratic society.
Aggregation
If you’re reading this, the odds are statistically overwhelming that you aren’t a terrorist, wish no harm upon the government, haven’t committed a major offence and aren’t wanted for treason. That said, with billions invested in data-collection and storage, and in an age in which people are arrested for posting controversial messages on Twitter, how certain can you be that the collection of years worth of your data wouldn’t unearth something you’d rather leave buried? A single episode of data-collection—say, a phonecall to a spouse about a business trip—might be innocent enough. But when combined with another—perhaps an email invoice from a hotel with a double-room booking for the same period—the evidence begins to mount. And even in the event that you have absolutely nothing to hide, having access to such vast amounts of data would make it trivial to build a case against you for any future infractions.
Imagine a politician standing in opposition to a future government whose campaign credibility could be eradicated entirely by the careful, deliberate revelation of some of his intimate data. If an act alone isn’t enough, working through vast quantities of data to find more episodes to support any angle of one’s choosing is always an option.
Exclusion
The more the government spies on its own citizenry, the greater the gulf between the people and the state. Without delving into hypothetical situations in which free speech might be limited or eradicated given the fear that something ‘they’ know might be leaked to the media to discredit the speaker, this relationship presents some inherent problems to any democracy.
Unaccountability of increasingly intelligent intelligence services will naturally lead us to a place in which citizens have no say in how information on them is gathered or what is done with it after the fact. This could, at best, be said to undermine what it means to be democratic and, at worse, could be seen as a malicious attempt to stifle opposition and free-speech with the underlying threat of, for example, one’s internet history being exposed.
Fundamentally, any method by which government promotes a severance between its own actions and accountability and the will and knowledge of the people is a dangerous and insidious threat to the very democracy that underpins it.
But the government is doing this to protect us from terrorists, right?
For centuries—through two world wars, the Cold War and innumerable other conflicts, major and minor—, through times of intense political instability and stability alike, Britain has fostered a legal system with a definite, inclusive sense of our civil rights and liberties. We have an historic and treasured cultural sense of fair play and good manners, a tendency towards equality and personal freedom, an honoured history of protest and a healthy disregard for authority. From the bold action of Robert the Bruce, Robin Hood, Guy Fawkes, Wat Tyler, Emmeline Pankhurst to the bold thinking and writing of John Stuart Mill, George Orwell and countless others, the British people have worked hard to uphold these values which define our nation.
And we would give it all up when faced with the relatively minor threats of cyber-criminality and political/religious extremists? This seems to compromise the very core of what it means to be British.
Since 9/11, it is possible to count on the fingers of one hand the amount of terrorist attacks Britain has witnessed on her soil; the recent atrocities in Woolwich and the London bombings of 7/7 stand out in particular. The implication is that 9/11 was very much the exception, not the rule, and must not be used as a constant means to account for ever-expanding intelligence powers. If we are to argue that the primary purpose of GCHQ’s unparallelled domestic surveillance is to prevent terrorist attacks, then why have the British public remained in the dark? Terrorists, one can assume, are well aware that they’re being looked for online, and are unlikely to be communicating by Facebook messaging or Skype. Why has the NSA’s £100 million funding remained so fervently off the books and out of the National Audit Office’s public records? There’s clearly more to it than they’re letting on.
In terms of the usefulness of these technologies and methods in detecting terrorist plots to harm citizens, there has been little evidence presented in the UK thus far. However, over in the USA, the recent Senate hearing on strengthening privacy rights found that the NSA’s original claim that more than 50 terrorist operations had been foiled directly as a result of Section 215 of the Patriot Act was, at best, frivolous with President pro tempore, Senator Leahy pressing the issue until the NSA was forced to concede that there existed no circumstance in which a plot could not have been ended ‘but for’ the use of these controversial surveillance methods.
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20g3hx/eli5_why_you_have_nothing_to_fear_if_you_have/
TLDR; "The more the government spies on its own citizenry, the greater the gulf between the people and the state."
So like these US guys want to have a backdoor to a service that is worldwide. Did I get that correctly?
In violation of international agreements enforced by the US on other countries. Yep, about right.
Not that it matters. In the end, politics are business, and business isn't about what's right or even what's agreed, but about who's strongest and most determined at that given point in time, where strongest might mean "who can rally more people" or "who can deal most economic damage". The only question is, will the US government get its way, or will the IT industry get its way. In any case, it's like watching a tv series, complete with betrayals, private jets, corruption scandals, whistleblowers and Russian special agents.
TLDR; "The more the government spies on its own citizenry, the greater the gulf between the people and the state."
Gulf War 3?