I replied to everyone on this board buy all my comments are being deleted. Please Google search Apple China and you will find your answers.
Your comments are there and I will NOT "Google", don't you know they collect ALL your data and have broken many privacy laws? Irony huh? Also you have yet to post any evidence that Apple shared any private info or backdoor with China, just speculation and bad attempts.
Dude are you dumb?
I find it funny this guy is supposedly against privacy invasion yet wants us to use Giggle and seems to defend android a spyware OS. He also thinks Giggle is doing bad in China because they wouldn't share info/a backdoor with the government when the complete opposite happened. Apple was able to get in China because iPhones could not share citizen's info while Giggle was kicked out because 'droid knockoffs share info back home with Goog. Wow he's so delusional and confused.
To Quote your source, the DailyMail: In January last year Quartz reported that
according to Chinese news agencies, Apple agreed to let the Chinese
government perform 'security checks' to confirm that there were no
'backdoors' that might let the US government read Chinese citizens'
data.
Which part of 'no backdoors' do you have issues with?
If you want to be taken seriously, and I assume that you do, never use the Daily Mail as evidence to support your assertions. They are a disgusting newspaper and value sensationalism above truth.
It's truly dispiriting when significant branches of our government -- which we'd like to believe is one of the best in the world -- become a bunch of thugs and liars.
Didn't the FBI (or was it the DoJ?) come out and say yesterday that Apple had never objected to any of the previous requests for information, contrary to what Apple claimed in their Open Letter? If this is true, then the FBI has been caught in yet ANOTHER lie. The others:
1) This will not set a precedent. Proven false by the queue of police departments now lined up with iPhones in-hand, waiting to be unlocked.
2) The County did it! Proven false by the County stating that they were working under the FBI's orders.
3) Sending Apple on a 2 week wild-goose chase to initiate iCloud backups after they'd already reset the password.
4) This is not a backdoor! Well, technically, yes it is. If the FBI's technical people don't know what a backdoor is, ... wait, the FBI doesn't know what a backdoor is??? Bwahahahaha!!! Riiiighhhttttttt...
5) We're not breaking encryption! Except you're asking Apple to bypass the system's security, so that you can brute-force-guess the password to... yup, break into the encrypted device.
6) The code will never leave Apple. Except for the data to be entered into court, the defense will rightfully have to do due diligence and ask to see the code to make sure that it is valid and the data is therefore valid -- in their labs, not Apple's.
Geez, 6 lies -- no, 7 -- right off the top of my head. This is unconscionable.
Morons who support the FBI think this ONE iPhone will be the only one onlocked and then forgotten, locked away into the history books.
NO. The FBI and others will continually ask Apple to open iPhones like a kid constantly asking his parents to open a candy wrapper for them.
I think if Apple gives them their way they can at least set up a small office for these opertions and ask for a 100 million dollar fee for every unlocked iPhone. Let's see if it's worth it to them and provide an extra revenue stream.
Oh, all right, just one phone and those other nine, but after that no more. I really mean it.
But seriously, I agree with your suggestion that Apple should receive a fee. Comey has publicly stated that he thinks Apple's stance is motivated by wanting to protect their business model. That statement acknowledges that by having to create the backdoor iOS, Apple's business will be damaged. In my opinion, the "takings" clause of the 5th Amendment is applicable in this circumstance. "…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
I replied to everyone on this board buy all my comments are being deleted. Please Google search Apple China and you will find your answers.
Every article you posted a link too doesn't support the nonsense you are spewing. All those articles are purely fiction with no proof or facts to back anything up. You lose all credibility when you start quoting the Daily Mail. Try again.
It's truly dispiriting when significant branches of our government -- which we'd like to believe is one of the best in the world -- become a bunch of thugs and liars.
What is even more dispiriting, is that so many people not only acquiesce but support the dilution and elimination of their constitutional rights by those liars.
I replied to everyone on this board buy all my comments are being deleted. Please Google search Apple China and you will find your answers.
This is my first post in the AppleInsider forums. I have been reading the forums for the past several years.
For prox; Please be aware of Google. They are not friendly with Apple. As such, I don't trust their search engine. They can skew the search results to make Apple look bad.
From what I know in a nutshell, sure Apple had to show the Chinese that Apple's products wasn't 'phoning home' with user data and that the Chinese wanted to view the source code. But Apple didn't give the source code to them. I think the archives of AppleInsider will show this.
I replied to everyone on this board buy all my comments are being deleted. Please Google search Apple China and you will find your answers.
It's funny how you cite articles about China's concern about back doors and interest in reviewing the iPhone to ensure there aren't any. That's just what Apple said they didn't do and now refuses to do. Your citations undercut your argument.
As as far as encryption is concerned, it shouldn't matter if Apple allowed anyone to review the source code. Strong encryption DOES NOT rely on secrecy of the mechanism, it requires secrecy of the key (if symmetric) or private key (if assymetric). The most common encryption algorithms are not secret, otherwise they'd be impossible to implement.
If the courts do succeed and force Apple to write new code but use it only for "national security", how long until these requests become "national security" related?
You really should learn not to take things out of context to suit your agenda. China was not given access to user data on anyone's iPhone.
In a reaction to revelations from Edward Snowden about the NSA installing backdoors in american designed communications products, China demanded the opportunity to inspect software source code for same. Apple showed them the code in a faraday caged room with no internet connection, cameras, etc. As a result of their being NO observable backdoors in the code Apple was permitted to continue selling IOS products in China.
This is the exact opposite of the libel your are promoting as fact.
Thanks for clarification, but I don't think you 'could' change his mind. When someone like him already believe in one thing (no matter how ridiculous the lie is), they will stick to it even if the truth is right in front.
As PROX mentioned (through news articles) China wanted the Apple iOS source code to ensure that there are NO backdoors in the code, as Apple alleged. Apple (allegedly) handed over the source code to iOS, NOT the security keys, and they DID NOT create a NEW version with a backdoor, nor did they hand over firmware code (to anyone's knowledge). If all the FBI wanted was the source code, Apple probably would have handed that over, but that is not the NY judge's order.
To me the FBI is asking of Apple the equivalent of asking a safe maker, not only how the safe is designed, AND not only the best way to defeat the safe, but also to build in a special combination to the safe usable only by them (yeah, right) to circumvent any combination set by the owner of the safe.
So...ALL of the links you posted just stated that "Apple agreed to let the Chinese government perform 'security checks' to confirm that there were no 'backdoors' that might let the US government read Chinese citizens' data. The country had threatened Apple's access to the Chinese market." So the fact that Apple worked with China to ensure there were no backdoors is somehow working with China to remove encryption as the FBI is asking to do? The agreement between Apple and China in no way exposes the security of millions of iOS users. In fact, the Chinese government, on the face of this negotiation, is actually doubling down on iOS encryption ar the consumer level.
No facts reported in any of those pieces reflect apples willingness to expose the encryption or threaten security for iOS for the Chinese government.
It's fairly obvious that the FBI wants to access idevices at will. What isn't clear however is why are they (FBI) making out like they can't already. All they have to do is call up Chloe O'brian and have Jack Bower twist a few arms.
Besides, most access codes are 1111, why don't they simply try that. ???
It's fairly obvious that the FBI wants to access idevices at will. What isn't clear however is why are they (FBI) making out like they can't already. All they have to do is call up Chloe O'brian and have Jack Bower twist a few arms.
Besides, most access codes are 1111, why don't they simply try that. ???
They apparently tried a few but don't want to get to 10 wrong guesses and wipe the phone. You just can't pay for this kind of marketing. When will the FBI demand help getting access to bit locker encrypted laptops?
It's fairly obvious that the FBI wants to access idevices at will. What isn't clear however is why are they (FBI) making out like they can't already. All they have to do is call up Chloe O'brian and have Jack Bower twist a few arms.
Besides, most access codes are 1111, why don't they simply try that. ???
They apparently tried a few but don't want to get to 10 wrong guesses and wipe the phone. You just can't pay for this kind of marketing. When will the FBI demand help getting access to bit locker encrypted laptops?
Well I don't know about that because I'm not a technical wiz or a guru with a crystal ball at the moment. Yet I do know that the service at Foot Locker is TERRIBLE, and those guys do not need to be playing on any laptops !
As far as this goes with the whole FBI vs APPLE thing: now is the time to buy stock because all the android users, assuming they care about security, will be making the switch. Imagine hords of people finally able to protect their data like:
1 whomever they called... Wait 1 whomever they text and the content.. Wait
I mean; 1 the best rap they ever wrote in "notes".
Soooooo what was the FBI saying about "Just this once" regarding the San Bernardino iPhone? Looks like "more than once" to me.
Huh? The people in government sometimes hold back information or actually LIE? Wait; their lips are moving. "We're from the government and we know what's best." I guess they've never heard of a government of the people, by the people, for the people. And I'm sure they don't know that slavery was abolished and we don't belong to the government.
Soooooo what was the FBI saying about "Just this once" regarding the San Bernardino iPhone? Looks like "more than once" to me.
I knew this all along, FBI have been trying to push their agenda and this is a high profile case to get public support to complete their mission. Shame on them.
Comments
Also you have yet to post any evidence that Apple shared any private info or backdoor with China, just speculation and bad attempts.
Dude are you dumb?
I find it funny this guy is supposedly against privacy invasion yet wants us to use Giggle and seems to defend android a spyware OS.
He also thinks Giggle is doing bad in China because they wouldn't share info/a backdoor with the government when the complete opposite happened. Apple was able to get in China because iPhones could not share citizen's info while Giggle was kicked out because 'droid knockoffs share info back home with Goog. Wow he's so delusional and confused.
Which part of 'no backdoors' do you have issues with?
But seriously, I agree with your suggestion that Apple should receive a fee. Comey has publicly stated that he thinks Apple's stance is motivated by wanting to protect their business model. That statement acknowledges that by having to create the backdoor iOS, Apple's business will be damaged. In my opinion, the "takings" clause of the 5th Amendment is applicable in this circumstance. "…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
For prox;
Please be aware of Google. They are not friendly with Apple. As such, I don't trust their search engine. They can skew the search results to make Apple look bad.
From what I know in a nutshell, sure Apple had to show the Chinese that Apple's products wasn't 'phoning home' with user data and that the Chinese wanted to view the source code. But Apple didn't give the source code to them. I think the archives of AppleInsider will show this.
As as far as encryption is concerned, it shouldn't matter if Apple allowed anyone to review the source code. Strong encryption DOES NOT rely on secrecy of the mechanism, it requires secrecy of the key (if symmetric) or private key (if assymetric). The most common encryption algorithms are not secret, otherwise they'd be impossible to implement.
To me the FBI is asking of Apple the equivalent of asking a safe maker, not only how the safe is designed, AND not only the best way to defeat the safe, but also to build in a special combination to the safe usable only by them (yeah, right) to circumvent any combination set by the owner of the safe.
The agreement between Apple and China in no way exposes the security of millions of iOS users. In fact, the Chinese government, on the face of this negotiation, is actually doubling down on iOS encryption ar the consumer level.
No facts reported in any of those pieces reflect apples willingness to expose the encryption or threaten security for iOS for the Chinese government.
Besides, most access codes are 1111, why don't they simply try that. ???
As far as this goes with the whole FBI vs APPLE thing: now is the time to buy stock because all the android users, assuming they care about security, will be making the switch. Imagine hords of people finally able to protect their data like:
1 whomever they called... Wait
1 whomever they text and the content.. Wait
I mean; 1 the best rap they ever wrote in "notes".
"We're from the government and we know what's best."
I guess they've never heard of a government of the people, by the people, for the people. And I'm sure they don't know that slavery was abolished and we don't belong to the government.