Tim Cook calls FBI backdoor demand 'dangerous,' vows to fight case



  • Reply 61 of 161
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,982member
    apple ][ said:
    I'm with Tim Cook & Apple on this one!

    I appreciate that my iOS devices are very secure, and I'd rather not see Apple being forced by the govt to create weaker and compromised versions of iOS on purpose, something that would affect hundreds of millions of customers.

    The authorities and the administration should have just done their jobs better and those terrorists could have been caught before they carried out their act of workplace violence. Red flags were everywhere. 
    You should stop using Donald Trump avatar for this thread because Trump himself is fucking supporting the government to tell Tim cook to back down in this case!
  • Reply 62 of 161
    metrixmetrix Posts: 253member
    If you are an Apple software engineer nothing good can come from you developing code to help create the backdoor. Will the FBI force people at GUNPOINT to produce code to open the iPhone?
  • Reply 63 of 161
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,982member
    enuf said:
    Apple's position on this is absurd. They should be working to devise a way to comply with the order and maintain security of all other products. The two goals are not incompatible. For example, require the work be physically contained and under Apple's control. The terrorist's phone does not leave the Apple facility. The FBI works with Apple's people on Apple's property with the agreement that the phone does not leave Apple's control with the work-around loaded into it.

    The entire attitude should be about getting this job done while maintaining the security of everyone else.

    Short of this or some approach along a similar line of thinking, the FBI should seek Tim Cook's arrest, fines and a period of imprisonment for Contempt of Court. If that fails to obtain the necessary response, further prosecution should follow.
    Are you even reading the article? It's not only about this phony, but FBI wants Apple to create a software to access every fucking iPhone out there, and that demand is unreasonable.
    You can't force someone to create something that's not existence
    edited February 2016 calijfc1138nolamacguy
  • Reply 64 of 161
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    Isn't it ironic that after all the illegal spying the Feds have done on American citizens, the NSA/FBI missed -- or was unable to harvest -- the San Bernadino terrorists' data? It reveals how stupid their master plan to protect the American homeland was in the first place. The FBI should hire some adults (like Richard Clarke) instead of pipsqueaks out of college. If a 200 year old writ is the best the brilliant minds in our government can muster, no wonder America's policies are so undermined and overwhelemed. 
  • Reply 65 of 161
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,504member
    I'm late to the party, but I really don't understand how a court can require Apple to create something. Disclose, sure. And while Tim seems to confirm they have been ordered to create a version of iOS with a backdoor, what good does that do on the phone currently in possession?
  • Reply 66 of 161
    Isn't it amazing that President Obama's name is not attached to any of this?  Even though it's his administration that Tim Cook is talking about. Somehow President Obama floats above his policies like a cloud ... that has no responsibility or accountability for anything. And just as Tim Cook avoided mentioning Obama's name, it shall also not be mentioned on any of the traditional news sites.
  • Reply 67 of 161
    matrix077 said:
    Who thinks Tim Cook doesn't have a back door to view all of your personal information?
    Do you have an evidence that Tim Cook does?
    Do you have evidence he doesn't? Ask any security expert and they'll tell you that there's always a backdoor. They may break the code up to different people as to make sure it's not solely owned by one person but there's always a backdoor.
    Let me point out that these are all examples of argument from ignorance fallacy:


    "It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)."

    Lack of evidence to the contrary is not evidence for an unproven assertion.
  • Reply 68 of 161
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,001member
    Hmmm...I wonder how this will play with the general public. Most people that don't know anything about the specifics will just see chyron's like the one below and think Apple is on the side of terrorists. Apple better have someone ready to go on TV defending this if necessary. image

    Its only a matter of time before Apple is blamed for supporting terrorists because of this. Some people just don't understand technology (media, government, general population, etc). They don't realize the implications of Apple doing such a thing and will never understand Apple's point of view. All they see is Apple is supporting the terrorists because they won't help get into an encrypted phone. They don't understand that you can't just make it happen once and then it goes away. Once its possible, its always possible and they'll be asked again and again to do it. 
  • Reply 70 of 161
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,982member
    gatorguy said:
    postman said:

    If Apple were to lose this case, then say goodbye to your personal data forever, because once a so-called "back-door" is created – any hacker will have access to all your personal information. Fact: No gov't agency has ever been able to protect digital data from being hacked – including the Pentagon and White House. If they get an "encryption key", so will any serious hacker out there. They always do. And by setting a precedent, expect other governments in other countries to demand the exact same thing for any reason they feel like.

    To give government law enforcement agencies whatever they want with no legal protection for individual personal privacy is by definition a police state.

    Apple doesn't have to create a "backdoor" to comply with legitimate security requests.
    From another site:

    "...it would be possible to put the iPhone into DFU mode and then overwrite the firmware with a version that has neither the auto-erase mode nor delays between passcode attempts. The FBI could then trivially brute-force its way into the phone.

    The FBI can’t overwrite the firmware because the device checks for a valid Apple signature. The FBI doesn’t have this. But Apple does. Apple could thus create signed firmware without the protections designed to defeat brute-force attacks, and hand the phone back to the FBI."

    User data can still stay private with no secret government backdoors that might be taken advantage of by hackers. Personally I don't see this as an insurmountable problem. 

    Don't you see what's wrong with what you just said in bold? You can force someone to give you something he/she has, but you cannot force him/her to CREATE something out of the blue. That's unconstitutional!
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 71 of 161
    One compromise would be to set up an Administrator/User hierarchy on the iPhone. In this case, I believe the phone belongs to the government and was issued on loan to the terrorist dude, presumably with a standard contract stating that the owner (in this case the government agency where he worked) has the right to access any data passing through or stored on the device--I had a similar agreement with my company-issued Blackberry at my last job.

    If the owners had their own password for accessing the device, they wouldn't need a back door. Too late in this case, and wouldn't satisfy the government in many other instances, but it seems like that should just be the way it works normally.

    It seems surprisingly short-sighted of the government to be demanding this. Obviously, if Apple gives this to the US government, then the Chinese government will demand it as well, etc.
  • Reply 72 of 161
    This is nothing but a back door fishing expedition by the FBI. Apple has already given the FBI iCloud data. On top of the iCloud information, the FBI has the shooters computers, text messages, multiple flash drives, e-mails, etc. Is there really something on the iPhone that the FBI doesn't know already? The FBI is just using this case to gain pubic support for back doors. 
  • Reply 73 of 161
    For that matter, anyone providing nuclear missile technology to the government should be required to provide technology to effectively shoot down said missiles. Otherwise, what would happen if the missiles were to fall into the wrong hands? And by the same logic, if you're going to sell armor-piercing ammo, you should be required to invent bulletproof vests that can't be penetrated, and provide them to the government upon request, right?
  • Reply 74 of 161
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,982member
    jungmark said:
    thh21044 said:
    Traitor. Not a victim, and not a Veteran? Not my problem I guess, Tim? Here is hoping you are ground zero on the next attack. Traitor.
    Troll. Why don't you give up a key to your house. There could be terrorist information in your crawl space. 
    Let me say it in better way:
    you dont make a master key for cops to gain access to every house that's installed with the lock made by you. 
    That's exactly what FBI wants here. Apple can help to break in this particular phone but FBI wants Apple to create a software for breaking in every iPhone. 
  • Reply 75 of 161
    Who thinks Tim Cook doesn't have a back door to view all of your personal information?
    Tim Cook for President!!!  
  • Reply 76 of 161
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,982member
    Believe me FBI already broke in or at least had access to information on this phone. They just want to be able to break in any phone without helps from Apple. 
    Think about it. You have or need to back up your phone somehow right? Where're those back-ups? On users' PC or iCloud. Apple don't have any problem giving FBI access to those iCloud backups if ordered by court. So, FBI can restore the damn backup into a new iPhone, right?
  • Reply 77 of 161
    robhogan said:
    What Jack Bauer do?
    Or Jack Reacher?  Oh wait, Reacher has problems just figuring out how to answer a cell phone let along break into one :)

  • Reply 78 of 161
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,521member
    Isn't it amazing that President Obama's name is not attached to any of this?  Even though it's his administration that Tim Cook is talking about. Somehow President Obama floats above his policies like a cloud ... that has no responsibility or accountability for anything. And just as Tim Cook avoided mentioning Obama's name, it shall also not be mentioned on any of the traditional news sites.
    Not amazing at all. The president, any president, has less power that the intel agencies that operate in the background from one administration to the next. Just ask jfk.
  • Reply 79 of 161
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    YES!! This is why I love Tim Cook!

    What's the problem FBI? Throw the terrorist in jail and be done with it, you have all the evidence you need. Apple has ZERO responsibility in doing your job for you.

    Also where did all the morons with 1 post come from?
    If you want insecure open software stick with your 'droid crap.
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 80 of 161
    Simple: Don't shoot-to-kill suspects/criminals, and then you have legal means at your disposal to unlock the phone.
Sign In or Register to comment.