It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.
Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them.
Just my 2 cents.
I have to agree with this statement. The chances of a non-VIP like 99.8% of IPhone users having his phone compromised by a Cellebrite hacking process is virtually zero.
Privacy is privacy. Once we give it up, it’s gone forever.
Then you gave it up the day you got a credit card, opened a bank account, were hired by someone, or passed your driver exam. All of those are giving up more or your "personal privacy" than this purported Cellebrite hack ever could.
IMO Cellebrite is a non-issue for 99.8% of users who will NEVER encounter them or their software.
Here's an idea instead of faux hand-wringing on the mountain top: Take your umbrage over lost personal privacy and look into into what credit bureaus are allowed to collect, share, and outright sell. It's right in front of your face and effects nearly every one of you every single day. That's worth at least a few minutes of your time, certainly more than whether Cellebrite can access some suspect's/criminal's phone under certain and specific circumstances and likely for a very good reason. But you (not you specifically) probably won't because off-the-cuff reaction to some headline is easy. Understanding takes more effort.
This is an incredibly specious argument. There is simply no comparison between your willingly giving up information in return for a convenience where you expect the powers-that-be who handle that information to be careful and circumspect, with a situation in which the information is unwillingly, inconveniently given up with no expectation of privacy to follow.
Moreover, a hack of a credit card company or a DMV does not result in your giving up your personal thoughts, personal (e.g., family, workplace) communication, privileged communications (e.g., with a doctor or a lawyer), your contacts, your calendar, your company's secrets or plans... the list is long.
GG, shame on you for such dissembling nonsense.
How are you personally exposed to Cellebrite hacks? You aren't.
Yes the credit bureaus act as clearinghouses for for financial worthiness BUT when did you give Experian or Transunion or Equifax permission to sell your personal information for marketing or surveys or investigations or pretty much any purpose even if having nothing to do with extending credit on your behalf? Answer: You didn't expressly do so, nor were you aware they're doing it in all likelihood. BTW where's that page opting out from it?
But feel free to explain how you're benefiting when Experian sells the actual you, name/address/email and other personal data, to the PAC interested in getting donations from pro-Democratic wage-earners making $150K or more working in higher education, living with a significant other and over the age of 50. How about when a medical device company purchases a list from Equifax of medicare-eligible high income individuals suffering from specific diseases or impairments. Privacy intrusion? Some company buys personal access from Transunion to LGBT individuals earning more than 100K and working in tech or finance, not politically active, amd owning a pet who might be interested in their product lines. Privacy intrusion? The credit bureaus actually sell segments like that with identifiable people and their contact information, and you want to say you willingly cooperated with no expectation of privacy? That makes yours the very definition of specious argument.
You didn't benefit from the data sale, you didn't expressly permit it, you aren't aware of it when it happens, and it happens every day. Celebrite isn't touching your life at all. Which is worth your concern but which is getting it? There's your answer.
You don't worry about those invasive things right up in your face, but want to proclaim how informed and concerned you are about personal privacy when Cellebrite can access your device with physical access which they don't have and almost assuredly never will.
You’d think Israelis of all people would not be pushing a device that enables totalitarian governments and their agencies to identify dissidents and “undesirables.”
You pretty much described Israel: An autocratic, militaristic leader attacking dissidents and "undesireables".
Oh wait! Never mind. They explained that: It's "self-defense" under their version of the "stand your ground" law.
redraider11 said: You’re such a sheep. You’ve been brainwashed not to even care about you’re own privacy. Let me guess, you also believe don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment because it’s impossible for governments to get out of control and the police are there to protect you.
Just because politicians have convinced you that you don’t need privacy or individual liberty doesn’t mean the rest of us are going to believe that BS.
I’m fine with this technology, but Apple should do anything and everything to make it null and void to protect its customers.
I'm not at all concerned with iPhone password security. Online security yes but physical security no. I have nothing compromising stored on my phone. if you want to see pictures of my family or my recipes for Italian specialties, have at it. Years ago I had no passcode whatsoever on my phone and it worked out to my advantage one time. I was in a horrible accident while traveling abroad and the authorities were able to easily access my contacts which actually saved my life. I have a very simple four digit passcode now. I understand why people are paranoid about their password being discovered but personally I really don't care because my phone is always in my pocket and I also have nothing to hide.
It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.
Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them.
Just my 2 cents.
I have to agree with this statement. The chances of a non-VIP like 99.8% of IPhone users having his phone compromised by a Cellebrite hacking process is virtually zero.
Privacy is privacy. Once we give it up, it’s gone forever.
Then you gave it up the day you got a credit card, opened a bank account, were hired by someone, or passed your driver exam. All of those are giving up more or your "personal privacy" than this purported Cellebrite hack ever could.
IMO Cellebrite is a non-issue for 99.8% of users who will NEVER encounter them or their software.
Here's an idea instead of faux hand-wringing on the mountain top: Take your umbrage over lost personal privacy and look into into what credit bureaus are allowed to collect, share, and outright sell. It's right in front of your face and effects nearly every one of you every single day. That's worth at least a few minutes of your time, certainly more than whether Cellebrite can access some suspect's/criminal's phone under certain and specific circumstances and likely for a very good reason. But you (not you specifically) probably won't because off-the-cuff reaction to some headline is easy. Understanding takes more effort.
This is an incredibly specious argument. There is simply no comparison between your willingly giving up information in return for a convenience where you expect the powers-that-be who handle that information to be careful and circumspect, with a situation in which the information is unwillingly, inconveniently given up with no expectation of privacy to follow.
Moreover, a hack of a credit card company or a DMV does not result in your giving up your personal thoughts, personal (e.g., family, workplace) communication, privileged communications (e.g., with a doctor or a lawyer), your contacts, your calendar, your company's secrets or plans... the list is long.
GG, shame on you for such dissembling nonsense.
How are you personally exposed to Cellebrite hacks? You aren't.
Yes the credit bureaus act as clearinghouses for for financial worthiness BUT when did you give Experian or Transunion or Equifax permission to sell your personal information for marketing or surveys or investigations or pretty much any purpose even if having nothing to do with extending credit on your behalf? Answer: You didn't expressly do so, nor were you aware they're doing it in all likelihood. BTW where's that page opting out from it?
But feel free to explain how you're benefiting when Experian sells the actual you, name/address/email and other personal data, to the PAC interested in getting donations from pro-Democratic wage-earners making $150K or more working in higher education, living with a significant other and over the age of 50. How about when a medical device company purchases a list from Equifax of medicare-eligible high income individuals suffering from specific diseases or impairments. Privacy intrusion? Some company buys personal access from Transunion to LGBT individuals earning more than 100K and working in tech or finance, not politically active, amd owning a pet who might be interested in their product lines. Privacy intrusion? The credit bureaus actually sell segments like that with identifiable people and their contact information, and you want to say you willingly cooperated with no expectation of privacy? That makes yours the very definition of specious argument.
You didn't benefit from the data sale, you didn't expressly permit it, you aren't aware of it when it happens, and it happens every day. Celebrite isn't touching your life at all. Which is worth your concern but which is getting it? There's your answer.
You don't worry about those invasive things right up in your face, but want to proclaim how informed and concerned you are about personal privacy when Cellebrite can access your device with physical access which they don't have and almost assuredly never will.
Your argument still remains entirely as specious as anantksundaram described it. This whole thing about Experian, et al. is a red herring and a se quoque. It's entirely beside the point that there are other privacy violators, like Google and Facebook, out there, and the gist of your argument, that we should ignore one potential privacy violation because there are other actual or potential privacy violations is patently absurd; it defies reason, particularly when you have cumulatively and historically argued that we should ignore pretty much all the other privacy violators too.
In addition, your entire argument depends on conveniently ignoring the fact that this won't be just a benign law enforcement tool. Quite apart from the almost certain abuse of such a tool by law enforcement (when did law enforcement not abuse each of its various tools in some way?), history has shown that Cellebrite tools cannot be controlled and use limited to law enforcement. This will become available to criminals, repressive regimes, and other bad actors. The idea that even in these cases that the number of affected users will be small and therefore irrelevant is pernicious nonsense.
What percentage of the Earth's population has been infected with Ebola? Probably fewer than 0.2%. How are you personally exposed to Ebola? You aren't. So the WHO should just ignore it because there are other more pressing health issues. Influenza kills many more people ever year than Ebola. Thus, according to the logic you apply to Cellebrite, Ebola is nothing to worry about and anyone who is concerned is simply being hysterical.
Keep on resisting. One person’s new responses are negating his previous responses about privacy. He’s trying to deflect attention from Cellibrite to other entities. Those other entities have had or will have time in the privacy spotlight. Right now the spotlight is on Cellibrite, which can’t even protect its own tools from being hacked.
This is a SERVICE from Cellbrite, not simply a matter of buying one of their forensics devices - ie you have to send them the iOS device.
They almost certainly have a boot loader exploit that allows booting to a custom SW image, that uses the device itself to brute force the passcode.
That approach is going to be rate limited by the Secure Enclave. That means that long/complex passcodes will defeat it, and its really only ~6 digits that will be impacted.
Now they can claim "any" without caveats like "only really works for standard length passcodes or shorter" or "you have to plug in our dongle within 30 minutes of the phone locking", and not technically be lying. (it really comes down to your interpretation of "any" vs "all".
It it not. It is a device that law enforcement can buy, with a subscription required to keep the device active and up to date.
It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.
Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them.
Just my 2 cents.
I have to agree with this statement. The chances of a non-VIP like 99.8% of IPhone users having his phone compromised by a Cellebrite hacking process is virtually zero.
You’re such a sheep. You’ve been brainwashed not to even care about you’re own privacy. Let me guess, you also believe don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment because it’s impossible for governments to get out of control and the police are there to protect you.
Just because politicians have convinced you that you don’t need privacy or individual liberty doesn’t mean the rest of us are going to believe that BS.
I’m fine with this technology, but Apple should do anything and everything to make it null and void to protect its customers.
And you seem prone to hyperbole and slippery slopes. Issues like this are not black and white. The fact that one company [claims it] has figured out how to access locked devices doesn't suddenly mean that the sky has fallen and passcodes are useless on our phones.
The right to privacy is not absolute and there are very legitimate cases in which government agencies should have access to devices. People seem to have a hard time distinguishing the difference between that and no privacy whatsoever. The fact that I recognize this fact doesn't mean I don't care about privacy, rather it means I understand that there are no absolutes.
@gatorguy is correct - this doesn't affect vast majority of people and the degree of consternation far exceeds that. My main concern is not that they can break the encryption. My concern is that in the past they have sold devices which are completely unlocked, meaning they can be used by anyone who gets their hands on them. Requiring them to 'phone home' and get authorization before use would be far preferable. If a device gets lost, it could simply be deactivated and rendered useless.
Right to privacy is absolute and a basic human right, no exceptions.
You’d think Israelis of all people would not be pushing a device that enables totalitarian governments and their agencies to identify dissidents and “undesirables.”
Hey, if the FBI and other law agencies do not have the chops to constantly crack Apple's security features, I'm all for a third party to keep trying, just so Apple can make its devices more and more secure!
Like others have stated, Apple will probably pick up on such device via a shell company and see how it works. They may already have one and may actually be paying a subscription to keep the device updated.
It must be frustrating for Cellbrite that they cannot prevent Apple from getting their hands on their machine.
It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.
Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them.
Just my 2 cents.
I have to agree with this statement. The chances of a non-VIP like 99.8% of IPhone users having his phone compromised by a Cellebrite hacking process is virtually zero.
Privacy is privacy. Once we give it up, it’s gone forever.
Then you gave it up the day you got a credit card, opened a bank account, were hired by someone, or passed your driver exam. All of those are giving up more or your "personal privacy" than this purported Cellebrite hack ever could.
IMO Cellebrite is a non-issue for 99.8% of users who will NEVER encounter them or their software.
Here's an idea instead of faux hand-wringing on the mountain top: Take your umbrage over lost personal privacy and look into into what credit bureaus are allowed to collect, share, and outright sell. It's right in front of your face and effects nearly every one of you every single day. That's worth at least a few minutes of your time, certainly more than whether Cellebrite can access some suspect's/criminal's phone under certain and specific circumstances and likely for a very good reason. But you (not you specifically) probably won't because off-the-cuff reaction to some headline is easy. Understanding takes more effort.
This is an incredibly specious argument. There is simply no comparison between your willingly giving up information in return for a convenience where you expect the powers-that-be who handle that information to be careful and circumspect, with a situation in which the information is unwillingly, inconveniently given up with no expectation of privacy to follow.
Moreover, a hack of a credit card company or a DMV does not result in your giving up your personal thoughts, personal (e.g., family, workplace) communication, privileged communications (e.g., with a doctor or a lawyer), your contacts, your calendar, your company's secrets or plans... the list is long.
GG, shame on you for such dissembling nonsense.
How are you personally exposed to Cellebrite hacks? You aren't.
Yes the credit bureaus act as clearinghouses for for financial worthiness BUT when did you give Experian or Transunion or Equifax permission to sell your personal information for marketing or surveys or investigations or pretty much any purpose even if having nothing to do with extending credit on your behalf? Answer: You didn't expressly do so, nor were you aware they're doing it in all likelihood. BTW where's that page opting out from it?
The world is filled with international criminal nations. Israel is one of them*.
Currently, we are told that the "bad guy" is China -- but I don't see them doing these things. But, can you imagine the outrage if they did?
(* That is not "anti-semitic". I'm talking about the country, not the religion or its people. But those defending the actions of this criminal nation tend to hide behind the "anti-semitic" thing.)
Who doubts that China invests significant resources in exactly these types of activities?
Cellebrite is a company; Israel is a country. The distinction isn't that hard to understand, is it?
It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.
Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them.
Just my 2 cents.
I have to agree with this statement. The chances of a non-VIP like 99.8% of IPhone users having his phone compromised by a Cellebrite hacking process is virtually zero.
Privacy is privacy. Once we give it up, it’s gone forever.
Then you gave it up the day you got a credit card, opened a bank account, were hired by someone, or passed your driver exam. All of those are giving up more or your "personal privacy" than this purported Cellebrite hack ever could.
IMO Cellebrite is a non-issue for 99.8% of users who will NEVER encounter them or their software.
Here's an idea instead of faux hand-wringing on the mountain top: Take your umbrage over lost personal privacy and look into into what credit bureaus are allowed to collect, share, and outright sell. It's right in front of your face and effects nearly every one of you every single day. That's worth at least a few minutes of your time, certainly more than whether Cellebrite can access some suspect's/criminal's phone under certain and specific circumstances and likely for a very good reason. But you (not you specifically) probably won't because off-the-cuff reaction to some headline is easy. Understanding takes more effort.
This is an incredibly specious argument. There is simply no comparison between your willingly giving up information in return for a convenience where you expect the powers-that-be who handle that information to be careful and circumspect, with a situation in which the information is unwillingly, inconveniently given up with no expectation of privacy to follow.
Moreover, a hack of a credit card company or a DMV does not result in your giving up your personal thoughts, personal (e.g., family, workplace) communication, privileged communications (e.g., with a doctor or a lawyer), your contacts, your calendar, your company's secrets or plans... the list is long.
GG, shame on you for such dissembling nonsense.
How are you personally exposed to Cellebrite hacks? You aren't.
Yes the credit bureaus act as clearinghouses for for financial worthiness BUT when did you give Experian or Transunion or Equifax permission to sell your personal information for marketing or surveys or investigations or pretty much any purpose even if having nothing to do with extending credit on your behalf? Answer: You didn't expressly do so, nor were you aware they're doing it in all likelihood. BTW where's that page opting out from it?
It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.
Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them.
Just my 2 cents.
I have to agree with this statement. The chances of a non-VIP like 99.8% of IPhone users having his phone compromised by a Cellebrite hacking process is virtually zero.
You’re such a sheep. You’ve been brainwashed not to even care about you’re own privacy. Let me guess, you also believe don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment because it’s impossible for governments to get out of control and the police are there to protect you.
Just because politicians have convinced you that you don’t need privacy or individual liberty doesn’t mean the rest of us are going to believe that BS.
I’m fine with this technology, but Apple should do anything and everything to make it null and void to protect its customers.
And you seem prone to hyperbole and slippery slopes. Issues like this are not black and white. The fact that one company [claims it] has figured out how to access locked devices doesn't suddenly mean that the sky has fallen and passcodes are useless on our phones.
The right to privacy is not absolute and there are very legitimate cases in which government agencies should have access to devices. People seem to have a hard time distinguishing the difference between that and no privacy whatsoever. The fact that I recognize this fact doesn't mean I don't care about privacy, rather it means I understand that there are no absolutes.
@gatorguy is correct - this doesn't affect vast majority of people and the degree of consternation far exceeds that. My main concern is not that they can break the encryption. My concern is that in the past they have sold devices which are completely unlocked, meaning they can be used by anyone who gets their hands on them. Requiring them to 'phone home' and get authorization before use would be far preferable. If a device gets lost, it could simply be deactivated and rendered useless.
Right to privacy is absolute and a basic human right, no exceptions.
It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.
Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them.
Just my 2 cents.
I have to agree with this statement. The chances of a non-VIP like 99.8% of IPhone users having his phone compromised by a Cellebrite hacking process is virtually zero.
Privacy is privacy. Once we give it up, it’s gone forever.
Then you gave it up the day you got a credit card, opened a bank account, were hired by someone, or passed your driver exam. All of those are giving up more or your "personal privacy" than this purported Cellebrite hack ever could.
IMO Cellebrite is a non-issue for 99.8% of users who will NEVER encounter them or their software.
Here's an idea instead of faux hand-wringing on the mountain top: Take your umbrage over lost personal privacy and look into into what credit bureaus are allowed to collect, share, and outright sell. It's right in front of your face and effects nearly every one of you every single day. That's worth at least a few minutes of your time, certainly more than whether Cellebrite can access some suspect's/criminal's phone under certain and specific circumstances and likely for a very good reason. But you (not you specifically) probably won't because off-the-cuff reaction to some headline is easy. Understanding takes more effort.
This is an incredibly specious argument. There is simply no comparison between your willingly giving up information in return for a convenience where you expect the powers-that-be who handle that information to be careful and circumspect, with a situation in which the information is unwillingly, inconveniently given up with no expectation of privacy to follow.
Moreover, a hack of a credit card company or a DMV does not result in your giving up your personal thoughts, personal (e.g., family, workplace) communication, privileged communications (e.g., with a doctor or a lawyer), your contacts, your calendar, your company's secrets or plans... the list is long.
GG, shame on you for such dissembling nonsense.
How are you personally exposed to Cellebrite hacks? You aren't.
Yes the credit bureaus act as clearinghouses for for financial worthiness BUT when did you give Experian or Transunion or Equifax permission to sell your personal information for marketing or surveys or investigations or pretty much any purpose even if having nothing to do with extending credit on your behalf? Answer: You didn't expressly do so, nor were you aware they're doing it in all likelihood. BTW where's that page opting out from it?
I don't see anyway to opt out of the data collection itself nor it's sale but the use of it can be restricted, at least on Experian's end.
Yikes, 7 different "opt out" links just from one company. At least they are trying to comply with the various rules and regulations, but good luck to anyone trying to manage this as a consumer.
It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.
Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them.
Just my 2 cents.
I have to agree with this statement. The chances of a non-VIP like 99.8% of IPhone users having his phone compromised by a Cellebrite hacking process is virtually zero.
You’re such a sheep. You’ve been brainwashed not to even care about you’re own privacy. Let me guess, you also believe don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment because it’s impossible for governments to get out of control and the police are there to protect you.
Just because politicians have convinced you that you don’t need privacy or individual liberty doesn’t mean the rest of us are going to believe that BS.
I’m fine with this technology, but Apple should do anything and everything to make it null and void to protect its customers.
And you seem prone to hyperbole and slippery slopes. Issues like this are not black and white. The fact that one company [claims it] has figured out how to access locked devices doesn't suddenly mean that the sky has fallen and passcodes are useless on our phones.
The right to privacy is not absolute and there are very legitimate cases in which government agencies should have access to devices. People seem to have a hard time distinguishing the difference between that and no privacy whatsoever. The fact that I recognize this fact doesn't mean I don't care about privacy, rather it means I understand that there are no absolutes.
@gatorguy is correct - this doesn't affect vast majority of people and the degree of consternation far exceeds that. My main concern is not that they can break the encryption. My concern is that in the past they have sold devices which are completely unlocked, meaning they can be used by anyone who gets their hands on them. Requiring them to 'phone home' and get authorization before use would be far preferable. If a device gets lost, it could simply be deactivated and rendered useless.
Right to privacy is absolute and a basic human right, no exceptions.
Privacy is very important, but all the "rights" people mention, it's one of the least absolute. Your right to privacy almost always conflicts with someone else's right to act or speak.
Now if you want to talk about protections against intrusion by government actors in our personal affairs and private documents, I'm with ya.
It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.
Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them.
Just my 2 cents.
I have to agree with this statement. The chances of a non-VIP like 99.8% of IPhone users having his phone compromised by a Cellebrite hacking process is virtually zero.
You’re such a sheep. You’ve been brainwashed not to even care about you’re own privacy. Let me guess, you also believe don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment because it’s impossible for governments to get out of control and the police are there to protect you.
Just because politicians have convinced you that you don’t need privacy or individual liberty doesn’t mean the rest of us are going to believe that BS.
I’m fine with this technology, but Apple should do anything and everything to make it null and void to protect its customers.
And you seem prone to hyperbole and slippery slopes. Issues like this are not black and white. The fact that one company [claims it] has figured out how to access locked devices doesn't suddenly mean that the sky has fallen and passcodes are useless on our phones.
The right to privacy is not absolute and there are very legitimate cases in which government agencies should have access to devices. People seem to have a hard time distinguishing the difference between that and no privacy whatsoever. The fact that I recognize this fact doesn't mean I don't care about privacy, rather it means I understand that there are no absolutes.
@gatorguy is correct - this doesn't affect vast majority of people and the degree of consternation far exceeds that. My main concern is not that they can break the encryption. My concern is that in the past they have sold devices which are completely unlocked, meaning they can be used by anyone who gets their hands on them. Requiring them to 'phone home' and get authorization before use would be far preferable. If a device gets lost, it could simply be deactivated and rendered useless.
Right to privacy is absolute and a basic human right, no exceptions.
It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.
Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them.
Just my 2 cents.
I have to agree with this statement. The chances of a non-VIP like 99.8% of IPhone users having his phone compromised by a Cellebrite hacking process is virtually zero.
You’re such a sheep. You’ve been brainwashed not to even care about you’re own privacy. Let me guess, you also believe don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment because it’s impossible for governments to get out of control and the police are there to protect you.
Just because politicians have convinced you that you don’t need privacy or individual liberty doesn’t mean the rest of us are going to believe that BS.
I’m fine with this technology, but Apple should do anything and everything to make it null and void to protect its customers.
And you seem prone to hyperbole and slippery slopes. Issues like this are not black and white. The fact that one company [claims it] has figured out how to access locked devices doesn't suddenly mean that the sky has fallen and passcodes are useless on our phones.
The right to privacy is not absolute and there are very legitimate cases in which government agencies should have access to devices. People seem to have a hard time distinguishing the difference between that and no privacy whatsoever. The fact that I recognize this fact doesn't mean I don't care about privacy, rather it means I understand that there are no absolutes.
@gatorguy is correct - this doesn't affect vast majority of people and the degree of consternation far exceeds that. My main concern is not that they can break the encryption. My concern is that in the past they have sold devices which are completely unlocked, meaning they can be used by anyone who gets their hands on them. Requiring them to 'phone home' and get authorization before use would be far preferable. If a device gets lost, it could simply be deactivated and rendered useless.
Right to privacy is absolute and a basic human right, no exceptions.
Privacy is very important, but all the "rights" people mention, it's one of the least absolute. Your right to privacy almost always conflicts with someone else's right to act or speak.
Now if you want to talk about protections against intrusion by government actors in our personal affairs and private documents, I'm with ya.
I don't really see how someone's right to speak or act conflicts with someone else's privacy, unless they are revealing confidences or, for example, posting pictures of you on the internet without your permission. The latter probably ought to be illegal, particularly pictures of a personal nature, and the right to privacy in that instance ought to trump other rights. The former is morally reprehensible, but you probably had a choice to not reveal those confidences to them. But, whether it's more "absolute" or not, and regardless of in what sense it is or is not, privacy is one of the most fundamental and necessary of human rights, and privacy and freedom are in many ways two sides of the same coin: Without privacy there is no real freedom. Obversely, without freedom, real privacy is unlikely to exist.
It's also a fundamental mistake to assume that rights specifically cited in the US Constituion are somehow more absolute or fundamental than other rights, or were thought to be by either the founders or their successors. As SCOTUS made clear in Griswold, many Amendments that protect other specific "rights" also protect privacy. In fact the very purpose of many of these "rights" was to protect privacy. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th & 14th Amendments all relate directly to privacy. How many other "rights" are protected by multiple clauses of the Constitution? The 9th Amendment also makes clear that, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That so many clauses protect privacy directly and indirectly speaks forcefully for its importance to the founders, to just how fundamental a right they considered it, and to just how inseparable it is from liberty.
Comments
Yes the credit bureaus act as clearinghouses for for financial worthiness BUT when did you give Experian or Transunion or Equifax permission to sell your personal information for marketing or surveys or investigations or pretty much any purpose even if having nothing to do with extending credit on your behalf? Answer: You didn't expressly do so, nor were you aware they're doing it in all likelihood. BTW where's that page opting out from it?
But feel free to explain how you're benefiting when Experian sells the actual you, name/address/email and other personal data, to the PAC interested in getting donations from pro-Democratic wage-earners making $150K or more working in higher education, living with a significant other and over the age of 50. How about when a medical device company purchases a list from Equifax of medicare-eligible high income individuals suffering from specific diseases or impairments. Privacy intrusion? Some company buys personal access from Transunion to LGBT individuals earning more than 100K and working in tech or finance, not politically active, amd owning a pet who might be interested in their product lines. Privacy intrusion? The credit bureaus actually sell segments like that with identifiable people and their contact information, and you want to say you willingly cooperated with no expectation of privacy?
That makes yours the very definition of specious argument.
You didn't benefit from the data sale, you didn't expressly permit it, you aren't aware of it when it happens, and it happens every day. Celebrite isn't touching your life at all. Which is worth your concern but which is getting it? There's your answer.
You don't worry about those invasive things right up in your face, but want to proclaim how informed and concerned you are about personal privacy when Cellebrite can access your device with physical access which they don't have and almost assuredly never will.
Oh wait! Never mind. They explained that: It's "self-defense" under their version of the "stand your ground" law.
In addition, your entire argument depends on conveniently ignoring the fact that this won't be just a benign law enforcement tool. Quite apart from the almost certain abuse of such a tool by law enforcement (when did law enforcement not abuse each of its various tools in some way?), history has shown that Cellebrite tools cannot be controlled and use limited to law enforcement. This will become available to criminals, repressive regimes, and other bad actors. The idea that even in these cases that the number of affected users will be small and therefore irrelevant is pernicious nonsense.
What percentage of the Earth's population has been infected with Ebola? Probably fewer than 0.2%. How are you personally exposed to Ebola? You aren't. So the WHO should just ignore it because there are other more pressing health issues. Influenza kills many more people ever year than Ebola. Thus, according to the logic you apply to Cellebrite, Ebola is nothing to worry about and anyone who is concerned is simply being hysterical.
My honest sense is is that he genuinely seems to believe the stuff he posts.
And thanks @anantksundaram . We may not always agree but respect.
They also like to make a profit.
Hey, if the FBI and other law agencies do not have the chops to constantly crack Apple's security features, I'm all for a third party to keep trying, just so Apple can make its devices more and more secure!
Like others have stated, Apple will probably pick up on such device via a shell company and see how it works. They may already have one and may actually be paying a subscription to keep the device updated.
It must be frustrating for Cellbrite that they cannot prevent Apple from getting their hands on their machine.
You're welcome.
Cellebrite is a company; Israel is a country. The distinction isn't that hard to understand, is it?
https://www.experian.com/privacy/opting_out.html
I don't see anyway to opt out of the data collection itself nor it's sale but the use of it can be restricted, at least on Experian's end.
Now if you want to talk about protections against intrusion by government actors in our personal affairs and private documents, I'm with ya.
It's also a fundamental mistake to assume that rights specifically cited in the US Constituion are somehow more absolute or fundamental than other rights, or were thought to be by either the founders or their successors. As SCOTUS made clear in Griswold, many Amendments that protect other specific "rights" also protect privacy. In fact the very purpose of many of these "rights" was to protect privacy. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th & 14th Amendments all relate directly to privacy. How many other "rights" are protected by multiple clauses of the Constitution? The 9th Amendment also makes clear that, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That so many clauses protect privacy directly and indirectly speaks forcefully for its importance to the founders, to just how fundamental a right they considered it, and to just how inseparable it is from liberty.