Question to the left, should Apple follow the law?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Really?  So Apple is not allowed to challenge the court order like ANY OTHER person or business?   

 

If we're going for the crazy anarchy suggestion why stop at pulling the patent?  Why not just start shooting Apple executives one by one?

Give me some notice so I can make some stock purchases, will ya

[philoshop]

I almost never side with Apple, Microsoft, or any other crony socialist entity. But I think that...hold on...wait a second...I'm camping and trying to type and...oh, crap, there's a nose poking under the side of the tent...

[Otto]

Really? So Apple is not allowed to challenge the court order like ANY OTHER person or business?

If we're going for the crazy anarchy suggestion why stop at pulling the patent? Why not just start shooting Apple executives one by one?

Yea, really. Not the shooting of executives part, of course. And sure, Apple can challenge a court order, but I hope they lose. If it were your landline or home computer, they would already have everything they need. Your smart phone should be treated no differently. And all this should be based on probable cause, which in this particular case they have in spades.

I don't think that's lazy anarchy, it is responsible government - formed for the protection of the greater good.

[shawnhu]

I don't think that's lazy anarchy, it is responsible government - formed for the protection of the greater good.

You know, that's probably what Andy Cuomo thought too when he passed the safe act.

X-Calibur Lighting Systems

http://facebook.com/XCaliburLightingSystems

Edited February 26, 2016 by shawnhu

[pt0217]

Otto, sounds like your happy that the government has all of your phone conversations and computer communications. Why?

I don't want the government knowing anything I'm communicating. It's none of their business.

[Otto]

Simple. I've got nothing to hide.

[pt0217]

Simple. I've got nothing to hide.

For me it has nothing to do with whether I have something. It's about Liberty. I'm not willing to give it away.

[Black Bellamy]

Simple. I've got nothing to hide.

 

I bet you do.    I'll bet anything in the world you have a secret you don't want anyone to know about.

[Otto]

If I do, it's not a plot to commit jihad or harm anyone or commit a crime. Everyone should have their "Liberty", but when you intend to create harm or commit a crime you should lose it.

[ants]

Simple. I've got nothing to hide.

So would you would have no problem with the government showing up at your house,  unannounced and just taking a walk through ?  Or randomly pulling you over and going through your car??? As long as you have "nothing to hide"??

[Otto]

If they had reasonable cause to do so, I wouldn't have a choice. They would have a court order allowing them to search my home or car, and they should be able to search my phone too. That's the issue. When it is justified under reasonable cause and a court order.

I think we are forgetting the details of this particular case....they are terrorists and murdered innocent people. If one of those victims were a loved one of yours, I'm pretty sure your opinion would be different.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

If one of those victims were a loved one of yours, I'm pretty sure your opinion would be different.

I was with you right up to this sentence. Feelings and emotion should have nothing to do with it. Reasonable cause is just that. Either the threshold is met or it isn't. knowing the victims is irrelevant. 

[ants]

If they had reasonable cause to do so, I wouldn't have a choice. They would have a court order allowing them to search my home or car, and they should be able to search my phone too. That's the issue. When it is justified under reasonable cause and a court order.

I think we are forgetting the details of this particular case....they are terrorists and murdered innocent people. If one of those victims were a loved one of yours, I'm pretty sure your opinion would be different.

I agree. I guess I was concentrating more on the "I have nothing to hide" part of your statement. A lot of people think that if they're not doing anything wrong then the Government can look at them all they want and at any time they want.

[jrm]

Simple. I've got nothing to hide.

I have nothing to hide either.

However, I do not agree that the US Government should have unfettered access to...

1. My health information

2. My bank account information

3. My private texts with family and friends

4. My private emails with family and friends

5. My financial data

6. My confidential corporate correspondence with clients and co-workers

7. My purchase history with Amazon and other online vendors

8. My personal photos and videos

9. Personal information about family and friends (which they have provided me)

10. Credit card details

All this and more is on my phone.

Now, I will completely agree that with a proper warrant/due process they government should have the ability to get any of that information which relates to their investigation and is covered by the warrant.

First point is that opening my phone would give them access to troves of unrelated, but still private and sensitive information.

There is, a much bigger issue at play. Let's take a leap and say we have nothing to hide and that the U.S. Government can be trusted to never abuse the power to unlock and that once unlocked your information will not be misused or compromised.

The problem is that plenty of other U.S. agencies/DAs are already chomping at the bit to get the same access. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is only a very short time before the "master key" is in the wild. Then, everyone's phone is vulnerable to thieves and other untrustworthy types.

Further, other governments are sure to demand the same thing of Apple (and Google). That opens up this exploit to foreign governments, many of which will use this tool for the wrong purposes.

I may not have something to hide, but that doesn't mean I want the Russian mob (behind the "Nigerian Scam" and other online rip-offs) to have access to the personal data on my phone. Most people's phones contain more than enough information to make "identity theft" easy enough for a three-year old to perpetrate.

Interesting that the FBI director is back-pedling on his congressional testimony. At first he testified that this was a "one time, one phone" situation. He has not corrected himself to say that other agencies are asking for this and that it would be used in other cases.

The problem with the digital work is that once that file, program, code, etc. is out there, it is only a matter of time before it is available anywhere and everywhere. It cannot be contained.

Edited to add: I just realized I do have something to hide. Since an iPhone tracks your movements with GPS data, I can imagine a slew of speeding tickets coming my way if the government gets access.

Edited February 26, 2016 by jrm

[The_Field_Ager]

I have an ancient flip phone and have no plans to upgrade any time soon. I never enrage in sensitive conversations over the phone either. There are ways to keep your info safe. If I ever need a smart phone for work, it would only ever get used for work.

[Elmo]

I have an ancient flip phone and have no plans to upgrade any time soon. I never enrage in sensitive conversations over the phone either. There are ways to keep your info safe. If I ever need a smart phone for work, it would only ever get used for work.

Tinfoil hat much?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shawnhu]

Tinfoil hat much?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pretty sure he's tired of taking it off, so he enlisted a surgeon to permanently implant one.

X-Calibur Lighting Systems

http://facebook.com/XCaliburLightingSystems

[Uptown Redneck]

Saw today that a federal judge sided with Apple and said they don't have to unlock the phone

Edited March 1, 2016 by Uptown Redneck

[pt0217]

Uptown please post any links you can to support that.

[Uptown Redneck]

Uptown please post any links you can to support that.

Check out the Associated Press, however it deals with a drug case but it provides precedent for Apple's position. (Maybe I should have read whole article before posting instead of headline on phone, oh well at least a precedent has been set in Apple's favor)

[pt0217]

I did see that story last night. Also, Loretta Lynch was interviewed by Brett Bair. She admitted that there are 7 cases pending that they want Apple to assist accessing I phones. So I guess it's not just this one phone,this one time!

[Uptown Redneck]

I did see that story last night. Also, Loretta Lynch was interviewed by Brett Bair. She admitted that there are 7 cases pending that they want Apple to assist accessing I phones. So I guess it's not just this one phone,this one time!

Its like anything else, give someone an opening and they'll run with it as far as they can. The government is simply on a fishing trip.

[pt0217]

No doubt.

[philoshop]

I came across an article last week (somewhere?) and didn't bookmark it.

Apple's CEO Tim Cook explained in detail what was going on, and why he was refusing to cooperate.

I'll look for the article when I get a chance, but the gist of it went something like this:

 

The FBI has been asking Apple for well over a year to provide encryption-breaking assistance on about 100 phones in cases across the country. Most of those cases have nothing to do with terrorist activities. The FBI is pushing hard on this particular phone because of the sensational nature of the case.

 

The FBI consulted with Apple immediately after they took possession of the phone related to the San Bernardino case, and Apple immediately gave them advice on how to safeguard the information on the phone so that they wouldn't screw anything up. The FBI ignored Apple's advice.

[pt0217]

Sounds right. Use this phone to push for it because the people will foolishly buy the false narrative.