I think if this was another company, people would think it prudent to help unlock phones on a court-ordered by court-ordered basis. The odds of this technology getting out are quite low.
Both sides make a great case. I just lean slightly towards national security on this one. Even with an encryption key safeguarded by the govt./FBI, I would feel like my data was safe from prying eyes.
We don't have all that much privacy out in the wild as it is. It's part of the give and take of rights vs. safety.
I think you miss the bigger picture. Here is a quote from the New York Times Editorial Staff:
"Congress would do great harm by requiring such back doors. Criminals and domestic and foreign intelligence agencies could exploit such features to conduct mass surveillance and steal national and trade secrets. There’s a very good chance that such a law, intended to ease the job of law enforcement, would make private citizens, businesses and the government itself far less secure."
How could they possibly install software on a locked phone ?
I 100% missed this! thank you!! Now here is another question... Did the FBI lie to the federal judge about the evidence it had? One more question... Did the POTUS authorize the FBI to lie to a federal judge? Another question... Now that the leaks about the supposed incompetence of the FBI and DOJ in this matter are being revealed, will anyone in Congress haul the FBI and DOJ to the Hill to have a public discussion about what the FBI and DOJ have done to damage the credibility of the US government regarding national security?
Another option would be to make it harder for these people to get their hands on automatic weapons. Increase checks or even ban auto's from anywhere but the locked facilities of the firing range. As for the debate at hand, it starts with access to one phone, then 2, then every police dept, gov dept, etc using this case as a test bed for access to all the phones they wish in the future.
It is easier for Feinstein, Trump and so many others to not fight this particular weapons fight. It seems a lot of people will more readily fight for their rights to buy weapons that are used to kidnap children, behead people, kill people, blow up buildings and more than for protection of their privacy. The government is okay with that.
Another option would be to make it harder for these people to get their hands on automatic weapons. Increase checks or even ban auto's from anywhere but the locked facilities of the firing range. As for the debate at hand, it starts with access to one phone, then 2, then every police dept, gov dept, etc using this case as a test bed for access to all the phones they wish in the future.
Guns.
I wonder if there's a correlation between those who demand lax gun ownership, but want govt to break Apple's privacy policy...
This isn't just security vs. privacy. Those goofy bastards half way across the world want to do all kinds of evil things to the people in this country. I just don't see how the govt. can protect us without having some sort of 'mechanism' that helps them get into whatever communications devices these terrorists are using.
Maybe the solution would be to give Apple that particular phone and let them work on it. And when they get into it, they can provide the govt. the data without the key (mechanism) itself. Apple would control the key (or destroy it).
I would trust this corporation/govt. partnership more than just having the FBI maintaining a master key. People have pointed out in replying to my post that personal privacy is a misnomer. That's why I said upfront that our security and privacy in the wild is not what we think it is. Various times of crisis have temporarily eroded various rights in this country's history. That's why the pendulum swings both ways. When there's a terrorist attack (or multiple), we loosen up our rights. We adjust to the need for security, as it should be. There just needs to be equal weight given to oversight and attempts to keep that pendulum from getting stuck way over on one side.
I don't see how it can be any other way. If my son was being held by a kidnapper and the FBI obtained his phone, I'd certainly want someone to de-encrypt it. National security is that, on a much higher level.
Both sides make great arguments. I can't think of a more pressing debate than this one.... my personal pendulum swings gently to either side, depending on the arguments I hear. It's difficult to stand rigid on this one. I can't wait for smart people to start debating this one.
I think if this was another company, people would think it prudent to help unlock phones on a court-ordered by court-ordered basis. The odds of this technology getting out are quite low.
Both sides make a great case. I just lean slightly towards national security on this one. Even with an encryption key safeguarded by the govt./FBI, I would feel like my data was safe from prying eyes.
We don't have all that much privacy out in the wild as it is. It's part of the give and take of rights vs. safety.
Do you even know what 'risk' is?
Being harmed through an act of terrorism is one of the least likely - therefore lowest risk - things that are likely to happen to someone living in a politically developed country. You are about 4 times more likely to be hit by lightning in the US than be harmed through terrorism. If it was proposed by the three letter agencies that giving them full access to all your communications and documents would allow them to reduce the chances of you being hit by lightning you would laugh - well I hope you would.
You are 33,842 times more likely to die of cancer than through terrorism, yet because the three letter agencies effectively run the country, the US government spends $500M per terrorism mortality vs $10,000 per cancer victim. Is that sane?
Somewhere between 180,000 to 440,000 people die in the US annually from preventable medical mistakes and infections. Maybe money would be better spent on educating people as to how low a risk terrorism really is and then diverting the enormous sums spent on the war-on-terror to health care. Even just being slightly more thorough in cleaning hospitals would have a greater beneficial impact than has ever been derived from the TSA groping people.
I have everything I could find on this subject this week in trying to decide how I feel about it. It is a very difficult issue for me. I can clearly see both sides. We all want to know where domestic terrorists might strike next, and we all want to insure that our phones and associated cloud storage are secure from would-be hackers. At least for now, I side with Apple. I don't want to slide down that slippery slope, at least in this instance. I think it highly unlikely that they will find anything useful on this guy's work phone, after having destroyed their personal phones and removed/destroyed the hard drive in their computer. Maybe in a different situation, but let's not go there quite yet.
Then what's to prevent you from falling for fascist ploys to erode democratic rights? All they have to do is scare you and you're fine with a police state?
I think if this was another company, people would think it prudent to help unlock phones on a court-ordered by court-ordered basis. The odds of this technology getting out are quite low.
Both sides make a great case. I just lean slightly towards national security on this one. Even with an encryption key safeguarded by the govt./FBI, I would feel like my data was safe from prying eyes.
We don't have all that much privacy out in the wild as it is. It's part of the give and take of rights vs. safety.
Maybe for the millennials. I grew up in the 80s under this grand propaganda scheme that said America was this shining light of freedom and rule of law with inviolable civil liberties, and it was willing to plunge the world into a nuclear holocaust in order to protect those rights. Now I realize it was all just a show. If capitalism is totalitarian, why put up with it? At least communism tasks the state with providing for all. We have to live in poverty and unemployment AND we have to give up our political rights? If government is to be big brother, then shouldn't we demand to be treated like family? Liberty was the ostensible reason America's values were worth fighting for. Without that, what's left but national chauvinism?
The biggest part of this problem is when you get people yapping their mouths who do not know what they are talking about. Most people have no real clue how the technological processes are setup for these systems to work and for proper security to be in place. "Oh just have Apple make a program to get into the device" -- shows how little these government lawyers at the Justice Department and politicians (Trump, Obama & most in DC) know how this stuff works.
In turn you have other incompetent staff at San Bernardino County that have no clue on how to properly manage iOS devices in an enterprise environment.
And to think -- some people want more government in our lives and "caring" for us!
The government is only feigning incompetence. They probably orchestrated San Bernardino in order to provide a justification for this. That's what fascist governments do. America turned the corner when it installed an unelected president and started launching aggressive wars against countries that didn't threaten or attack it.
And to think -- some people want more government in our lives and "caring" for us!
Yes, insurance companies, the medical-industrial complex, the military-industrial complex, Wall Street investment banks all do such a principled, disciplined, efficient job - often with taxpayer dollar$. Save the true believer routine for your Sunday morning kneeling.
SSA and Medicare run with % admin cost and suffer less fraud than insurance companies w/15-25% admin budget. The single largest reason for most nations' healthcare cost being less than ours is they aren't paying a spiff to insurance companies. We suffer the same waste in subsidies to mediocrities ranging from Lockheed to AstraZeneca.
But, you can just sit and wait for the kindly fat cats up top to dribble-down your share of pie in the sky. They - and their coppers - will make you safe.
This isn't just security vs. privacy. Those goofy bastards half way across the world want to do all kinds of evil things to the people in this country. I just don't see how the govt. can protect us without having some sort of 'mechanism' that helps them get into whatever communications devices these terrorists are using.
I'd argue that the terrorist will just find another means to communicate. It isn't highly difficult to create highly secure communications software now days.
How could they possibly install software on a locked phone ?
they would not install it on the drive but on a ramdisk and then access the drive from the new OS bypassing completely the OS on the drive. The drive is still encrypted but now they can try feeding new pins to unlock the key as mush as they want and avoid any wiping of the drive itself because none of the code the is on the drive is going to be executed.
I think if this was another company, people would think it prudent to help unlock phones on a court-ordered by court-ordered basis. The odds of this technology getting out are quite low.
Both sides make a great case. I just lean slightly towards national security on this one. Even with an encryption key safeguarded by the govt./FBI, I would feel like my data was safe from prying eyes.
We don't have all that much privacy out in the wild as it is. It's part of the give and take of rights vs. safety.
Do you even know what 'risk' is?
Being harmed through an act of terrorism is one of the least likely - therefore lowest risk - things that are likely to happen to someone living in a politically developed country. You are about 4 times more likely to be hit by lightning in the US than be harmed through terrorism. If it was proposed by the three letter agencies that giving them full access to all your communications and documents would allow them to reduce the chances of you being hit by lightning you would laugh - well I hope you would.
You are 33,842 times more likely to die of cancer than through terrorism, yet because the three letter agencies effectively run the country, the US government spends $500M per terrorism mortality vs $10,000 per cancer victim. Is that sane?
Somewhere between 180,000 to 440,000 people die in the US annually from preventable medical mistakes and infections. Maybe money would be better spent on educating people as to how low risk terrorism really is and then diverting the enormous sums spent on the war-on-terror to health care. Even just being slightly more thorough in cleaning hospitals would have a greater beneficial impact than has ever been derived from the TSA groping people.
Sure, govt, one specific case. I fully believe you. It all starts with one item. A snowflake is harmless until it causes an avalanche.
Laws change, our rights don't.
Snowflakes - avalanches ??? You may be singing a different tune if a Sarin shell is headed your way.
I think SAFETY is a higher priority than "privacy". What the hell are all these people tal;king about that has them so hyper about this or other programs?
Safety higher than privacy? Privacy is a right. Next we should ban protests and govt critique due to "safety" concerns. Then we should promote strip searches at airports due to "terrorism". After that, no one should be able to lock their doors. Internet traffic should flow through the NSA firewalls.
If we give up one right, we give up all rights. You know, because "safety".
Maybe the solution would be to give Apple that particular phone and let them work on it. And when they get into it, they can provide the govt. the data without the key (mechanism) itself. Apple would control the key (or destroy it).
.
If Darth Vader can change the deal on Bespin, the FBI can change the deal at Apple.
You allow this for one time but the FBI won't stop requesting for other phones once they know the tool exists. First it's terrorism, next protesters.
This all is lose-lose for Apple either way. Apple has been singled out for this test case between the government and citizen’s 4th and 5th amendment rights. If Apple prevails they are vilified by the powerful government lobby. If Apple gives in they are vilified by the civil rights and libertarian lobby.
As for the argument about how Tim Cook would feel if it were his family members who were killed, we’ve been through that already with the “enhanced interrogation” vs “torture” blowup after 9/11. It’s a straw-man argument with no logical purpose other than to evoke strong emotions. Torture is torture and human rights are human rights.
Comments
Sounds like a great plan.
"Congress would do great harm by requiring such back doors. Criminals and domestic and foreign intelligence agencies could exploit such features to conduct mass surveillance and steal national and trade secrets. There’s a very good chance that such a law, intended to ease the job of law enforcement, would make private citizens, businesses and the government itself far less secure."
It is easier for Feinstein, Trump and so many others to not fight this particular weapons fight. It seems a lot of people will more readily fight for their rights to buy weapons that are used to kidnap children, behead people, kill people, blow up buildings and more than for protection of their privacy. The government is okay with that.
I wonder if there's a correlation between those who demand lax gun ownership, but want govt to break Apple's privacy policy...
Maybe the solution would be to give Apple that particular phone and let them work on it. And when they get into it, they can provide the govt. the data without the key (mechanism) itself. Apple would control the key (or destroy it).
I would trust this corporation/govt. partnership more than just having the FBI maintaining a master key. People have pointed out in replying to my post that personal privacy is a misnomer. That's why I said upfront that our security and privacy in the wild is not what we think it is. Various times of crisis have temporarily eroded various rights in this country's history. That's why the pendulum swings both ways. When there's a terrorist attack (or multiple), we loosen up our rights. We adjust to the need for security, as it should be. There just needs to be equal weight given to oversight and attempts to keep that pendulum from getting stuck way over on one side.
I don't see how it can be any other way. If my son was being held by a kidnapper and the FBI obtained his phone, I'd certainly want someone to de-encrypt it. National security is that, on a much higher level.
Both sides make great arguments. I can't think of a more pressing debate than this one.... my personal pendulum swings gently to either side, depending on the arguments I hear. It's difficult to stand rigid on this one. I can't wait for smart people to start debating this one.
Being harmed through an act of terrorism is one of the least likely - therefore lowest risk - things that are likely to happen to someone living in a politically developed country. You are about 4 times more likely to be hit by lightning in the US than be harmed through terrorism. If it was proposed by the three letter agencies that giving them full access to all your communications and documents would allow them to reduce the chances of you being hit by lightning you would laugh - well I hope you would.
You are 33,842 times more likely to die of cancer than through terrorism, yet because the three letter agencies effectively run the country, the US government spends $500M per terrorism mortality vs $10,000 per cancer victim. Is that sane?
Somewhere between 180,000 to 440,000 people die in the US annually from preventable medical mistakes and infections. Maybe money would be better spent on educating people as to how low a risk terrorism really is and then diverting the enormous sums spent on the war-on-terror to health care. Even just being slightly more thorough in cleaning hospitals would have a greater beneficial impact than has ever been derived from the TSA groping people.
http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/anti-terrorism-spending-disproportionate-to-threat/
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/youre-68-times-more-likely-to-be-hit-and-killed-by-lightning-than-murdered-by-a-terrorist.html
All this nonsense to retrieve a 6 week old shopping list.
SSA and Medicare run with
But, you can just sit and wait for the kindly fat cats up top to dribble-down your share of pie in the sky. They - and their coppers - will make you safe.
I'd argue that the terrorist will just find another means to communicate. It isn't highly difficult to create highly secure communications software now days.
If we give up one right, we give up all rights. You know, because "safety".
You allow this for one time but the FBI won't stop requesting for other phones once they know the tool exists. First it's terrorism, next protesters.