Mark Zuckerberg voices support for Apple in encryption row, but FBI is winning public mindshare

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 75
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    As noted by other commentators, the average American is indoctrinated (by fear, uncertainty, and doubt) into giving away their civil liberties, one small step at a time, over and over, for the cause of ... nebulous things. Those who wish to control and surveil all there is to control and surveil are being given license to do so. That is the slippery slope we Americans have been sliding down since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 succeeded in their goals of disrupting world commerce and damaging the society and culture of the USA. Every step toward surveillance and "security" taken by government officials is a step toward killing off the very ideals of the so-called free society and installing an authoritarian police state / dictatorship. 
  • Reply 42 of 75
    robauto18 said:
    "Dear Mr. Cook:  You really need to find a solution to how to provide FBI access to the terrorist iPhone ... The US needs this information NOW to save lives.  You are effectively aiding terrorists.  I and my students have been devoted Apple users 40 years but now I will be rethinking my future purchases."
    The ignorance is displayed by this commenter is truly amazing. Apple is not legally compelled to give everything the FBI asks of them. At least not yet—until precedent is set, which would be unfortunate for most, if not all, citizens. What information is of value on the only device not destroyed by the perpetrators? It was a work phone, not their now destroyed private phones. It's possible that the FBI may find something of use, but all known evidence as of now would tell you otherwise. In regards to this iPhone, what lives are in immediate jeopardy? Enough with the hyperbole. And go head and educate yourself, and then remove your foot from your mouth. It feels good.
  • Reply 43 of 75
    robauto18 said:
    I guess, my PHD aside, I'm just one of the unwashed public but the Apple response is very very disappointing.  Apple needs to come up with a solution  -- and there is always a solution.  Here is what I wrote, admittedly an emotional argument, to Tim Cook.  

    "Dear Mr. Cook:  You really need to find a solution to how to provide FBI access to the terrorist iPhone.  You are a smart man in a smart company and can surely find an answer better than your resounding “NO” to the FBI.  Obviously someone will crack your codes eventually but that’s besides the point.  The US needs this information NOW to save lives.  You are effectively aiding terrorists.   Chinese labor practices were  bad enough but this — unforgivable.  Apple’s image is being irreversibly damaged in my opinion and this will probably be the beginning of the end of your leadership there and indeed Apple’s great popularity.   I and my students  have been devoted Apple users  40 years but now I will be rethinking my future purchases."  NO is not an acceptable response and it's Apples responsibility to help in my opinion.

    This is exactly the type of knee-jerk reactionary response that is going to make us all lose our civil liberties and any right to privacy.

    Just a few things —

    - You cannot say that they "need this information NOW to save lives.  You are effectively aiding terrorists."  You don't even know that there is any useful information on the dude's WORK PHONE. Meanwhile, he and his wife already destroyed their personal phones/computers etc that were likely used in any sort of planning. You think they simply forgot to do the same with his work phone? I would bet money there's not a shred of useful information on there, much less anything that will save a single life.

    - "responsibility to help" — they HAVE been helping in many ways, and continue to try to do so. But this particular order, to build a dangerous tool, has very serious implications for everyone worldwide including you and you should not assume you know better, PHD or not.

    They've been trying to get their way past strong encryption for a while, and now have a perfect case to appeal for mass support of another law to take away at our rights, a la PATRIOT Act. For what exactly? Now the federal government can order corporations to hack their own customers for them. This sets a very very dangerous precedent if it comes to pass in their favor, and will not make us any safer, in fact the net effect becomes that we are all less safe in many ways without data security.

    You want safety? Push for better healthcare, automobile regulations, etc — you're far more likely to die from heart disease or an auto accident than terrorism.

    Also, Chinese labor practices? As opposed to all of the American-built consumer electronics companies? Get real. At least Apple is leading in making serious, credible improvements in this area.
    edited February 2016 argonaut
  • Reply 44 of 75
    The PEW research merely shows support for unlocking in the case of a terrorist attack that has already happened. What the DOJ/FBI is asking for is a permanent back-door. These are two different things. However, once Apple complies and precedent is set, they would most likely be required by the FBI to create a back-door- a la China.
  • Reply 45 of 75
    Apple should not unlock iphone. In my opinion, i think the FBI should find other solution rather than asking apple unlock iphone.
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 46 of 75
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member
    robauto18 said:
       I and my students  have been devoted Apple users  40 years but now I will be rethinking my future purchases."  
    Obvious troll lie. 

    Its amazing my ignore list was grown over the last week. 
  • Reply 47 of 75
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,050member
    jkichline said:
    Well the public is dumb and easily persuaded. Welcome to the Idiocracy.
    They got fed by media and news with general headlines: "Apple refused to unlock the iPhone used by San Bernardino shooter". Such headline is fucking misleading. What about Media feed people with the truth like this: "FBI Forced Apple to Create a Software to Allow Hacking on iPhone used by Terrorist in San Bernardino".
  • Reply 48 of 75
    The Feds claim that they just want the data, but they created a need for encryption-defeating tools by changing the network passcode, then panned McAfee's offer to retrieve the data without such tools. I fail to understand why a majority of the public would side with the Feds unless they are completely ignorant of the basic facts of this case.
  • Reply 49 of 75
    I believe that Apple is in favor of the terrorist actions of ISSI, and any other terrorist group for that matter, by short-changing the FBI and the general public of , what could be, valuable terrorist data and cell information. I will never buy an Apple product, as long as they do not unlock that phone for the FBI.
  • Reply 50 of 75
    dysamoria said:
    As noted by other commentators, the average American is indoctrinated (by fear, uncertainty, and doubt) into giving away their civil liberties, one small step at a time, over and over, for the cause of ... nebulous things. Those who wish to control and surveil all there is to control and surveil are being given license to do so. That is the slippery slope we Americans have been sliding down since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 succeeded in their goals of disrupting world commerce and damaging the society and culture of the USA. Every step toward surveillance and "security" taken by government officials is a step toward killing off the very ideals of the so-called free society and installing an authoritarian police state / dictatorship. 
    Utter nonsense. There are no liberties being "given away". They were never existed. SInce when is the purchase of an iPhone license to hide from a court order?

    If you don't want your secrets found, don't carry them in your pocket. It is that simple and never in the history of mankind have we expected anything more but now it is loss of liberty? 
  • Reply 51 of 75
    "Public mindshare" would generally reject the 1st Amendment, too.  Nothing new about that.  That's why we try to have courts willing to overturn and negate criminal acts by cops.
  • Reply 52 of 75
    jungmark said:

     Also you made mention that John McAfee is interested in supporting Apple. Actually, he is willing to lead the team of hackers to helps the FBI if Apple is  unavailable or otherwise flippant in the following the court order.
    Apple shouldnt have to crack its own phone. If the FBI wants access, let them do it. 

    Creeps like McAfee are always willing to suck up to someone in power to try get some glory for himself.  If the NSA freaks haven't been able to sort the FBI bubbas, I doubt McAfee can do it.

  • Reply 53 of 75
    The PEW research merely shows support for unlocking in the case of a terrorist attack that has already happened. What the DOJ/FBI is asking for is a permanent back-door. These are two different things. However, once Apple complies and precedent is set, they would most likely be required by the FBI to create a back-door- a la China.
    Kudos to Tim Cook for controlling the narrative and getting people to believe this.

    The ridiculous thing here is that what the FBI is asking for is hardly a backdoor. The backdoor is the one Apple installed.

    In their infinite wisdom, they left a barndoor-sized hole in their security model and that's the following: The device will blindly trust any update that is signed by Apple.

    This is backdoor 101: There's a way to make security modifications to the device without the user's key being first used to unlock the device. They could have easily prevented this by making the device unable to accept any updates unless unlocked, but they didn't because they don't really care about their user's privacy - they care about control (and this is, in my opinion, what this argument is really about).

    The fact is, had they not installed that backdoor, this whole issue would be completely be moot - Apple could have sincerely said there's nothing they can do.

    Sorry, but the violation of privacy and installation of backdoors is on Apple, not anyone else.
  • Reply 54 of 75
    Personally I think that Apple have two options here.

    1. They fight this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Win or loose, they fought their fight and they do what the law of the land dictates.

    OR

    2. They relent to the request/order and provide for the access to this one iPhone on condition.

        a. Apple does all the work at their campus without any interference from the DOJ or FBI.
        b. All the programming work is done in a secluded and high security room that has no network capability.
        c. The room is a Faraday cage to prevent any radio transmissions in and/or out.
        d. Once the software/crack is written, the iPhone in question will be given to Apple and they alone will crack the device, extract all data from the device and then hand that data to the FBI.
        e. The FBI may examine the device under the watchful eye of Apple and once they are satisfied that they have all useful data to their inquiry, they sign off on it and leave.
        f. Apple retains the device in question, destroys it and destroys the software and all technology that was used to write any software to crack it and destroys any devices that were required to implement the crack.
        g. The FBI and DOJ pays Apple for its trouble.
  • Reply 55 of 75
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    freds143 said:
    jkichline said:
    Well the public is dumb and easily persuaded. Welcome to the Idiocracy.
    Youre not even kidding. LOL. Each time Apple users turn on their phones there are 40+ apps gathering data on that user, their location, who they talk to, text etc. while Apples takes a "stand" on that same users "privacy". Its called data mining and its BIG, what advertisers want and pay for
    fuck off troller.
  • Reply 56 of 75
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member


    The PEW research merely shows support for unlocking in the case of a terrorist attack that has already happened. What the DOJ/FBI is asking for is a permanent back-door. These are two different things. However, once Apple complies and precedent is set, they would most likely be required by the FBI to create a back-door- a la China.
    Also if they asked a question like, would you be fine with police anywhere in the world to have access to your phone, you'd get a very different answer.

    The question was a leading one with a false equvalence and implied there was something of worth on the phone when they likely were not.
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 57 of 75
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    twaeker said:
    dysamoria said:
    As noted by other commentators, the average American is indoctrinated (by fear, uncertainty, and doubt) into giving away their civil liberties, one small step at a time, over and over, for the cause of ... nebulous things. Those who wish to control and surveil all there is to control and surveil are being given license to do so. That is the slippery slope we Americans have been sliding down since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 succeeded in their goals of disrupting world commerce and damaging the society and culture of the USA. Every step toward surveillance and "security" taken by government officials is a step toward killing off the very ideals of the so-called free society and installing an authoritarian police state / dictatorship. 
    Utter nonsense. There are no liberties being "given away". They were never existed. SInce when is the purchase of an iPhone license to hide from a court order?

    If you don't want your secrets found, don't carry them in your pocket. It is that simple and never in the history of mankind have we expected anything more but now it is loss of liberty? 
    You do realize that in many countries , in fact most countries by far, "the court" is not controlled by rule of law but the whim of man.
    So, those people should expect even less privacy, fantastic.
    Considering how arbitrary the applciation of the law has been in the case of minorities in the US, I'd add the US to those countries were a certain class of people should expect even more to be randomly fucked up by "the

    edited February 2016
  • Reply 58 of 75
    robauto18 said:
    I guess, my PHD aside, I'm just one of the unwashed public but the Apple response is very very disappointing.  Apple needs to come up with a solution  -- and there is always a solution.  Here is what I wrote, admittedly an emotional argument, to Tim Cook.  

    "Dear Mr. Cook:  You really need to find a solution to how to provide FBI access to the terrorist iPhone.  You are a smart man in a smart company and can surely find an answer better than your resounding “NO” to the FBI.  Obviously someone will crack your codes eventually but that’s besides the point.  The US needs this information NOW to save lives.  You are effectively aiding terrorists.   Chinese labor practices were  bad enough but this — unforgivable.  Apple’s image is being irreversibly damaged in my opinion and this will probably be the beginning of the end of your leadership there and indeed Apple’s great popularity.   I and my students  have been devoted Apple users  40 years but now I will be rethinking my future purchases."  NO is not an acceptable response and it's Apples responsibility to help in my opinion.


    Sadly

    It's interesting how little the FBI knows concerning how to sync an iPhone to iCloud or iTunes. Apparently (from reading your post) you don't know much about it either. I could sync Syed's 5C on my laptop with iTunes. Tonight. If I wanted to.
  • Reply 59 of 75
    pmcdpmcd Posts: 396member
    Apple should provide as much help as it can to the FBI. This is a very extraordnary situation and it is a mistake to turn this into a defence of basic privacy rights. Apple cannot win with public opinion in this situation and the decision to elavate the issue to a public discussion on privacy is a mistake on the part of Tim Cook. No doubt he means well but this is not good for Apple as a company. The privacy issue would be better dealt with under more sedate circumstances and not muddied by the terrorist aspect of the situation.
  • Reply 60 of 75
    I've yet to see it written anywhere, but is the phone really this critical to the prosecution's case? Surely the guy's guilty regardless of what's on his phone - what will reading his iMessages add or take away from the sentencing and I'm sure it brings no closure or benefit to the victims knowing what was on the guys phone.

    edit* nevermind, I assumed this was another gunman gone crazy shooting in america and the guy was in court, just read up on it just now. 
    edited February 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.