Freonpsandoz

sog35 said:

 I'm 100% fine with hacks that require physical access to the phone.  

Same here, especially if the hack also involves expensive hardware. I just didn't want to see them force Apple to create something that put all iPhone users at risk if it were stolen.

What percentage of data and identity theft cases are solved and prosecuted? Who was prosecuted for the 2014 Anthem data breach that may cost consumers as much as $16 billion? Who was prosecuted for the 2015 Ashley Madison data breach? The 2014 eBay breach? The $1 billion JPMorgan breach in 2014? The $80 million Home Depot breach in 2014? The $35 million Sony breach in 2014? The $252 million Target breach in 2013? The $90 million Global Payments breach in 2012? The $130 million Tricare breach in 2011? The $19 million Citibank breach in 2011? The $2.8 billion Heartland Payments breach in 2009? These are just a few of the most expensive recent data thefts; the tip of the data and identity theft iceberg. How many of these cases were solved? How many of the perpetrators were brought to justice? How does the government ensure that, if data is stolen and used for theft, the perpetrator will be punished?

I think the problem is that the government is unable to provide any significant protection from the technology crime threats facing us. These threats have become very important to people and their importance is growing by the day. Technology has created these threats and the government is unable to effectively combat these threats through traditional means like prosecution, so technology in the form of encryption has been created to counter these threats. The government, seeing itself becoming increasingly irrelevant in the fight against technology crimes, attempts to keep the public focused on traditional crimes for which the government still has solutions. Unfortunately, the encryption solution to technology crime reduces the ability of the government to protect us from the traditional crimes, potentially reducing the government's relevance in crime prevention even further. This creates even more anxiety and opposition in the forces representing the current order who are invested in the traditional crime prevention and justice business.

Major technological changes will upend a social order that cannot cope with the challenges, conflicts and problems created by those changes. The current social order has failed to effectively combat the increasingly important problems of data and identity theft, so the forces representing the traditional crime prevention order are now in a battle with those of a new technology crime prevention order. The traditional order will eventually lose this battle unless it can render the new order unnecessary by halting data and identity theft using traditional means. It is too bad that Obama can't see the battle in these terms. Maybe he isn't really the Marxist his opponents say he is!