House committee invites Apple CEO Tim Cook, FBI Director James Comey to discuss encryption

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 100
    bugsnw said:

    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).
    Not viable. Apple will have to create a software division just to respond to such government requests from around the globe. Once they know that Apple can do it, and has done it, the compay'll be deluged with demands from these folks (who have no concept or regard for other people's money or time).
    cnocbuihlee1169palomineargonaut
  • Reply 42 of 100
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,597member
    And there you have ...

    "According to news reports, there are a number of other law enforcement officials around the country considering use of authorities to compel similar assistance by technology manufacturers."

    This will spread around the world if Apple complies, and if it is even possible!!! This is absolutely NOT about one iPhone, nor is it only a US issue!
    hlee1169palomineargonaut
  • Reply 43 of 100
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,597member

    G. Ned C. said:
    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.
    The bottom line is that we are spending 10's of BILLIONS of dollars on national security every year. Let the government do their job with the tools they already have - that should be our expectation and our demand as a free society. This phone is not the most critical factor in stoping terrorism. Democracy and freedom comes with a cost. Accept it.
    tallest skilpalomineargonaut
  • Reply 44 of 100
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,597member

    bugsnw said:
    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.
    Wow! Are you ever naive! The government can't even protect the data they have, and you want to give them the keys? Just look at all the recent hacks of government systems, millions of records, and even the Snowden incident.
    palomineargonaut
  • Reply 45 of 100
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,597member
    you’d like to support Apple’s stance on privacy, there is a White House petition at https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/apple-privacy-petition
    ai46argonaut
  • Reply 46 of 100
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    emig647 said:
    bugsnw said:
    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. 
    These software already exist and can be compiled from sources by anyone who has a modicum of tech capability.

    Also you can just coded words to communicate in the open (no encryption at all) and nobody will know unless you infiltrated the org and found out (which is next to impossible since most of them are small cliques that have no real connection to the bigger orgs)
    anantksundaramargonaut
  • Reply 47 of 100
    Criminal enterprises or terrorist groups probably know just like I do about the "Find iPhone" feature and its ability to remotely erase all data on an iPhone. Which, or so you'd think, they would have used. I admit I'm not sure what exactly erase means. Irretrievable - unrecoverable - for good and for all time? So - aren't the chances of any data on that phone still being available pretty slim? And for that remote possibility we are supposed to let the FBI have its way and give them what they want, even if the ramifications down the road could be something I don't even like to think about? On a different note with all this going on I would love for Apple to incorporate a whole new feature in their iOS: Have the phone monitor its locked and unlocked cycles. If the phone hasn't been unlocked in any 24hr period it automatically assumes it's no longer in its owner's possession and permanently erases all data without the owner having to do a thing. Should my phone get erased that way only because I'm in the hospital due to an emergency or accident - I can live with that. I can rebuild it. No sweat.
  • Reply 48 of 100
    As to the invitation to discuss the matter - I would be very careful there in Tim Cook's shoes. It's only a very small step to go from an open discussion to being asked to give sworn testimony and having to plead the 5th. Those boys in D.C. are sneaky!
  • Reply 49 of 100
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,309member
    foggyhill said:
    emig647 said:

    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. 
    These software already exist and can be compiled from sources by anyone who has a modicum of tech capability.

    Also you can just coded words to communicate in the open (no encryption at all) and nobody will know unless you infiltrated the org and found out (which is next to impossible since most of them are small cliques that have no real connection to the bigger orgs)
    The geographical scope of Daesh would give them access to many recruits with post grad skill levels in a number of technical fields, and with funding from many different sources in the Middle East, I would be surprised if they didn't have a number of relatively secure communication systems to rely on. But they would also have a courier system in place in lieu of technical communications systems.

    I've stated this in the past; security will only come when we and everyone else throwing fuel on the fire walks away. We, the U.S., needs to stop funding terrorist proxies in the Middle East in the misguided desire to overthrow governments. Since 9-11, the U.S. has seen no more than a few dozen casualties due to foreign terrorists, but the Middle East has seen hundreds of thousands of casualties, and millions of refugees, some of whom are likely to be recruited by by ISIS or ISIL, amongst other groups. It's a quagmire that we need to exit.

    Needless to say, I stand with Apple.
    edited February 2016 palomine
  • Reply 50 of 100
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    bugsnw said:
    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.
    It's a strawman's argument. In the past, yes the government could easily tap your phone, but they still needed a warrant and access to your line and then someone had to listen to yoru crap, it was labor intensive and done in few cases were it really was needed because of that.

    These days, if there are backdoors, someone in a remote office can get a warrant within 1 day without moving, tap a few lines to activate and then use automated tools to extract info, then use this to get more warrants for everyone that communicates with the first. Within a few days, dozens and even hundreds could be under surveillance that are in touch with that first person (most of which are totally innocent like most people that talk with criminals are not criminals). That's assuming the first warrant was justified in the first place; considering that law enforcement can couch their appeal any way they want, that's not a given.

    You think that's not what will occur? Well it has already occurred because of the Patriot act. It also occured before the 1980s when civil rights and labor organisations were under surveilance . In fact, there are very few times were this kind of surveillance has been afforded the scrutiny it deserved.

    Making surveillance easier to us also makes it more likely to be used locally, were judges and police has been demonstrated to have abused their powers routinely over the last 20 years, especially in regards to minorities and the disenfranchised (Muslims beings one of those groups).

     It makes it unlikely Apple would be able to avoid collaborating with countries with unsavory reputations and were access to these backdoors may be done for spurious reasons. Apple would not be Apple to say no to these unless it sets itself as a judge!

    Also, you're argument is total bull shit, it uses the habitual emotional appeal of saying that the crime either would have been prevented if they had access to this phone, or having access to the phones will prevent crimes. This assumes criminals are complete idiots and in this case, even if they were, they'd still have killed their victims anyway lone wolf operations are very self contained..

    In the old day, wiretapping was so unlikely that yes criminals used their phones despite knowing it was a possibility. But, if those phones could be accessed at any time, with no effort, criminals would just assume those phones are insecure at all time and not put anything that can compromise them on them and just uses coded words to talk, or doesn't talk at all.

    What I see is a massive use of false equivalency and straw men argument to justify the unjustifiable.


    edited February 2016
  • Reply 51 of 100
    bugsnwbugsnw Posts: 717member
    freerange said:

    bugsnw said:
    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.
    Wow! Are you ever naive! The government can't even protect the data they have, and you want to give them the keys? Just look at all the recent hacks of government systems, millions of records, and even the Snowden incident.

    If Coke can guard its recipe, then Apple can guard the encryption key.
  • Reply 52 of 100
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    bugsnw said:
    freerange said:

    Wow! Are you ever naive! The government can't even protect the data they have, and you want to give them the keys? Just look at all the recent hacks of government systems, millions of records, and even the Snowden incident.

    If Coke can guard its recipe, then Apple can guard the encryption key.
    Again, a fracking false equvalency. And BTW, the Coke can's info is well known.
    hlee1169argonaut
  • Reply 53 of 100
    Freedom vs. Security.
    edited February 2016 ai46hlee1169cnocbuipalomineargonaut
  • Reply 54 of 100
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,309member
    dinoone said:
    Freedom vs. Security.
    Well done!
    anantksundaramargonaut
  • Reply 55 of 100
    On October 6, 2015 the European Court of Justice decided (Safe Harbor decision) that he US “does not afford an adequate level of protection of personal data” and denied US tech company the right to handle EU citizens's personal data.
  • Reply 56 of 100
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    cnocbui said:
    bugsnw said:
    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.

    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.


    You should post this to Tim Cook so he can end this nonsense now. 
    cnocbuiargonaut
  • Reply 57 of 100
    If you use stats, then I guess Iran having a nuke is not worth losing any sleep over. How many bombs have they lodged into the US? Zero. 

    Yet.... it is in the top 3 national security concerns. Stats are......well........... fun.
  • Reply 58 of 100
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,305member
    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. 

    How's about this, not let these terrorists into this county in the first place.  That's their first failures!!!  They were not stopped before their killing spree, that's the second failure.  Breaking into a phone now for dead people and making a big deal about that and really trying to pass blame onto Apple only works for idiots that want to freely give up their rights.
  • Reply 59 of 100
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,309member
    bugsnw said:
    If you use stats, then I guess Iran having a nuke is not worth losing any sleep over. How many bombs have they lodged into the US? Zero. 

    Yet.... it is in the top 3 national security concerns. Stats are......well........... fun.
    Even if Iran had a nuke, which they don't and won't as long as the treaty holds due to technical inspection by Western observers, Iran wouldn't be targeting us anyway. More to the point, your straw man wrt Iran has absolutely nothing to to with iPhone security, and everything to do with international politics. Even more to the point, and lost on you, is that the two terrorists were followers of religious dogma that is supported in Saudi Arabia, not Iran.

    Myself, I haven't any fear of Iran; we practically gave them control of Iraq through our actions during the last decade. I'm more concerned with the collapsing democracy in Turkey, and instability in Saudi Arabia. I would note that the U.S., through its specific support of authoritarian regimes, is beginning to, and will continue to lose much of its political capital in the Middle East and South Asia to the Chinese. 
    edited February 2016 hlee1169argonaut
  • Reply 60 of 100
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,305member
    postman said:
    bugsnw said:
    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."

    The only people that are protected in the end are the terrorist buying cheap android phones and throwing any number of 3rd party encryption onto it.  Maybe even create their own.  Not hard to do, it's only Math.  What's the end result?  Out of control fraud or worse for 99+% of the normal people and the terrorists are the only ones protected.  Problem made far, far worse.

    As for its only for this one phone, until it's the next phone that they have to get into and then the next.  Nothing it worth that kind of thing.  Let alone other country's like China now requesting the same access.  That may cost someone their life for something they said the the government doesn't like.
    hlee1169palomineargonaut
Sign In or Register to comment.