San Bernardino's top cop says it's likely 'there is nothing of any value' on iPhone the FBI wants A

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 54
    Caption nitpick:

    makeshift != spontaneous

    The choice of words makes it sound as if everyone should have waited for "someone" to do "something" official/prettier.  That kind of heartfelt grief and the need to express it is hardly "makeshift".
  • Reply 22 of 54
    The Crazy Train just keeps chugging along.
    Something that needs to be clearly stated is that the "User" and the "owner" of the phone are one and the same according to Apple Terms of Service ---  San Bernadino County.  They owned the phone and gave it to an employee (the shooter) who signed a statement agreeing to use it only for work.  The FBI is not even asking for access to the phone.  They only want Apple to force a backup because they already have access to the cloud backups.  Apple can do this by simply pushing a phone-specific update to the OS that forces an immediate and full backup.  No back door, no one's privacy rights endangered.  But Tim Cook sees this as a form of free advertising.  The fact is that Apple has a long history of illegal activities.
    What have you been smoking?
    1. How do you know if Apple can push a phone specific update?  I'm not so sure.  Even if they could, the TECHNIQUE could then be used on ANY phone.
    2. Everyone's privacy becomes endangered.  It's blatantly obvious.
    3. It's not about advertising.  The FBI went public first, Apple had no choice but to respond.
    4. Apple does NOT have a history of illegal activities, quite the opposite.  If you want illegal you should be looking at Shamesung and Mickeysoft.
    5. Finally, the FBI isn't asking for a forced iCloud backup, they are asking for a security bypass to allow them to brute-force attack the passcode.
    mwhitelostkiwipscooter63baconstangkevin keebadmonk
  • Reply 23 of 54

    Well, it's Obama's Justice Department/FBI, and Hillary's openly running for Obama's third term --- actually GW Bush's fifth term, when it comes to the privacy issue (the W standing for Warrantless Wiretapping) --- and, naturally, all of the republican candidates are on board with the continuing War on Privacy.

    So does anyone know who I'm supposed to vote for in November if I'm AGAINST the ongoing War on Privacy?

    The two front-runners seem to have taken themselves out of the running!  I'm pulling the lever marked "None of the above."

    The SB 'top cop's' belief won't make much impact on this ongoing debate.  The FBI will still want access to the iPhone, because it gives them de facto permission to gain access to the next several thousand iPhones ancillary to acts of violence.
    mwhitecalibaconstang
  • Reply 24 of 54

    Well, it's Obama's Justice Department/FBI, and Hillary's openly running for Obama's third term --- actually GW Bush's fifth term, when it comes to the privacy issue (the W standing for Warrantless Wiretapping) --- and, naturally, all of the republican candidates are on board with the continuing War on Privacy.

    So does anyone know who I'm supposed to vote for in November if I'm AGAINST the ongoing War on Privacy?

    This will be (yet again) an election between bad choices. You vote for the "least bad", but really the popular vote is meaningless. It is delegates who choose the president in the Electoral College.
    Actually, the *only* candidate that is a constituionalist is Ted Cruz, and he is the only one who didn't say to let the FBI have it's way - he said Apple should work with the FBI to come to a resolution and to have a larger discussion about technology and privacy, which will have to take place in congress...  If you value the constitution of the United States, and all of your freedoms that it protects, then Ted is the only choice this time around.
    cnocbui
  • Reply 25 of 54

    The FBI is not even asking for access to the phone.  They only want Apple to force a backup because they already have access to the cloud backups.  Apple can do this by simply pushing a phone-specific update to the OS that forces an immediate and full backup. 
    Well, the FBI already queered that possibility by letting San Bernardino County change the AppleID password. You can't force an update on a locked phone if the password has been changed, but not updated on the phone by the user.
    lostkiwibaconstangbadmonk
  • Reply 26 of 54
    What does the Government expect to get that the carriers can't provide? Of course contacts that were not called won't show up in a phone records search. Are those contacts important? Maybe.
  • Reply 27 of 54
    mytdave said:
    This will be (yet again) an election between bad choices. You vote for the "least bad", but really the popular vote is meaningless. It is delegates who choose the president in the Electoral College.
    Actually, the *only* candidate that is a constituionalist is Ted Cruz, and he is the only one who didn't say to let the FBI have it's way - he said Apple should work with the FBI to come to a resolution and to have a larger discussion about technology and privacy, which will have to take place in congress...  If you value the constitution of the United States, and all of your freedoms that it protects, then Ted is the only choice this time around.
    It's also worth noting that only Trump, Cruz, and Sanders are threatening to dismantle the "Washington establishment" pay-to-play network that secretly controls both parties behind closed doors.  And that's also why each party hates these candidates.

    For me, Sanders is out because he's a socialist.  Plus he has no real chance against the Clinton machine.

    That just leaves Trump and Cruz, both of whom can beat Hillary. Their ideologies are different, but their platforms are similar.
  • Reply 28 of 54

    Well, it's Obama's Justice Department/FBI, and Hillary's openly running for Obama's third term --- actually GW Bush's fifth term, when it comes to the privacy issue (the W standing for Warrantless Wiretapping) --- and, naturally, all of the republican candidates are on board with the continuing War on Privacy.

    So does anyone know who I'm supposed to vote for in November if I'm AGAINST the ongoing War on Privacy?

    I have the same problem as you, I changed some time ago from Democrat to Republican to vote for Trump but that's out and with everyone else they are all the same, going to make it hard trying to vote, I think this time I am going to set it out, first time in 44 years I won't vote.
    baconstang
  • Reply 29 of 54
    But he also said law enforcement has an obligation to "leave no stone unturned" in their investigation of the attack, and not making an effort would be unfair to the victims and their families.
    There is a tradeoff between law enforcement "leaving no stone unturned", and preserving citizens' rights to privacy and security. Apple addresses this at the conclusion of their motion to the court:
    At every level of our legal system—from the Constitution, to our statutes, common law, rules, and even the Department of Justice’s own policies—society has acted to preserve certain rights at the expense of burdening law enforcement’s interest in investigating crimes and bringing criminals to justice. Society is still debating the important privacy and security issues posed by this case. The government’s desire to leave no stone unturned, however well intentioned, does not authorize it to cut off debate and impose its views on society.
    edited February 2016 baconstang
  • Reply 30 of 54
    It is pretty unlikely -- this didn't seem like a closely directed attack but one inspired by ISIS. And this guy does not appear to have been some kind of mastermind who was coordinating other attacks because no one coordinating attacks would be the first one -- he would direct his flunkys to go allahu akhbar first and then he would have done his. From a network-of-terror standpoint, the less other people know about particular attacks, the better.
  • Reply 31 of 54
    jungmark said:
    Contacts? If he called anyone, that would show up on his cell phone records right? No need to hack the iPhone. 
    I don't think that iMessages and FaceTime show up on his cell phone records, and if I am not mistaken, that may be what the unlock request is all about. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong about that.
    Apple can say who contacts whom via iMessages and FaceTime without needing to crack anything. What they can't do is get any content from the communication.

    It is most likely that the value of the information is WHO they were contacting, not what was said, and law enforcement would already have that.
    anantksundaram
  • Reply 32 of 54
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,878member
    jungmark said:
    Contacts? If he called anyone, that would show up on his cell phone records right? No need to hack the iPhone. 
    I don't think that iMessages and FaceTime show up on his cell phone records, and if I am not mistaken, that may be what the unlock request is all about. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong about that.
    True although iMessage to non iPhone users might show up. The iPhone wasn't his primary though so I doubt he'd use it to contact fellow terrorists.  
    anantksundaram
  • Reply 33 of 54
    The FBI knows there is nothing on this iPhone.

    The cops found the iPhone in Rafia Farook's mom's black Lexus IS300. The FBI has all the iCloud backups up until a few weeks before the attack. The terrorists obviously didn't think it was worth destroying along with their other phones & computers.


    calibaconstangbadmonk
  • Reply 34 of 54
    I'm betting money that Rafia's mom was using the phone & already told the FBI the passcode. The FBI knows there isn't anything of value because they already unlocked it. This is all for show to get Apple to create a backdoor.
    calibadmonk
  • Reply 35 of 54
    Whatever contacts it might have on the phone, the FBI already have records of that from iCloud backup until a month before the incident.
    calibadmonk
  • Reply 36 of 54
    cnocbui said:
    'Hey, Tashfeen. We must make sure to destroy all evidence that might help the infidels before we leave.'

    'Good idea, Syed. We should destroy our phones and the computer.'

    (smash, thmp, thump, bang, thump)

    'Syed, what about the other phone, over there, what is on it?'

    'Oh that - it only has all of the contacts in the Daesh network in the US and Canada and the the plans and dates for the attack in Los Angeles.'

    'Oh, that's OK then, we can leave that one.'
    Well, sadly the one-post troll drive-by will never have an intelligence to understand this. If Apple won't do it, they support the terrorists!
    edited February 2016 cali
  • Reply 37 of 54
    diegogdiegog Posts: 134member
    jungmark said:
    Contacts? If he called anyone, that would show up on his cell phone records right? No need to hack the iPhone. 
    I don't think that iMessages and FaceTime show up on his cell phone records, and if I am not mistaken, that may be what the unlock request is all about. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong about that.
    Possible. But very unlikely it had anything to do with his attack. It was his WORK phone. He destroyed his personal phone (android) prior to the attack.  And how many people do you only FaceTime and iMessage, where the iMessage always goes through, and never goes through as a text message, and you also never make phone calls to? They have his call records for years if they want. 
    anantksundaram
  • Reply 38 of 54
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    mytdave said:
    Actually, the *only* candidate that is a constituionalist is Ted Cruz, and he is the only one who didn't say to let the FBI have it's way - he said Apple should work with the FBI to come to a resolution and to have a larger discussion about technology and privacy, which will have to take place in congress...  If you value the constitution of the United States, and all of your freedoms that it protects, then Ted is the only choice this time around.
    It's also worth noting that only Trump, Cruz, and Sanders are threatening to dismantle the "Washington establishment" pay-to-play network that secretly controls both parties behind closed doors.  And that's also why each party hates these candidates.

    For me, Sanders is out because he's a socialist.  Plus he has no real chance against the Clinton machine.

    That just leaves Trump and Cruz, both of whom can beat Hillary. Their ideologies are different, but their platforms are similar.
    Give me a fucking break, dismantle establishment, Trump is the creation of the largesse of the establishment, he is a the 0.1% that built this shit, he's hired illegals left and right, he's exported jobs to China, everything he says he's not done and claims others are doing he's actually done and you trust this POS liar! If not for trickle down tax laws sicne the 1980s, he'd likely be in the poor house by now, he's that shitty a "businessman", but he does have some acting talent... Faking it that long takes some doing...
    I can understand you not voting, but voting Trump or Cruz makes you a seriously deluded idiot.

    Fact finding orgs find nearly 100% of what he says is wrong; that doesn't phases his moron crowd.

    Trump shits down the mouth of his own public day and night, pandering to the most base emotions, nearly mob emotions, and you believe his garbage?
    By his own words "I don't know what the hell I was thinking" when caught in another of his bullshit affirmations on the Iraq war (that he was against when he was not).
    Somebody so incompetent that he got the same return on investment as putting as an stock market index fund for the 40 years he's had his father's money, including 4 bankruptcies and stiffing thousands of employees and creditors, yet calls himself a so called genius.

    Your handle tells me EXACTLY what I should think of you .
    edited February 2016 baconstangrob53
  • Reply 39 of 54
    diegogdiegog Posts: 134member
    Congratulations on your first, uninformed, uncited, and unsupported post. Look forward to many more of them. 
    The Crazy Train just keeps chugging along.
    Something that needs to be clearly stated is that the "User" and the "owner" of the phone are one and the same according to Apple Terms of Service ---  San Bernadino County.  They owned the phone and gave it to an employee (the shooter) who signed a statement agreeing to use it only for work.  The FBI is not even asking for access to the phone.  They only want Apple to force a backup because they already have access to the cloud backups.  Apple can do this by simply pushing a phone-specific update to the OS that forces an immediate and full backup.  No back door, no one's privacy rights endangered.  But Tim Cook sees this as a form of free advertising.  The fact is that Apple has a long history of illegal activities.

    calibaconstangkevin kee
  • Reply 40 of 54
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    dipdog3 said:
    I'm betting money that Rafia's mom was using the phone & already told the FBI the passcode. The FBI knows there isn't anything of value because they already unlocked it. This is all for show to get Apple to create a backdoor.
    HOLY SH**!! This makes so much sense!!
    badmonk
Sign In or Register to comment.