If the FBI gets into the "terrorist's" iPhone, they'll get into yours

[NightWatcher]

This current case is not about the shooters from San Bernadino but about precedent for being able to get into your iPhone (or other phone).

They'll scare you into giving them what they want by throwing around the scary "terrorist" label but they'll use it more to see if you texted a pot dealer to score a nickel bag.

Don't give them an inch, they'll take the whole damn mile.

[avebury]

1. Exactly! They have been taking advantage of 9-11 to use terrorists

to achieve all kinds of goals that they could not otherwise achieve to turn the US into a police state at the expense of the US Constitution and our citizens.

[vinny9698]

45. The cell phone did not belong to the terrroists but to the county

The owners, the county, wants it to be decrypted. How is that intruding if the owners want it to happen?

[6chars]

81. because the terrorist was using it with an expectation of privacy

he assumed the county would not be able to decrypt it.

[Logical]

2. To many clueless people do not understand this. Nt

[LannyDeVaney]

11. Too

[Glassunion]

29. lol

[Demonaut]

73. two?

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. All my texts telling my wife where I dropped off the car! All my Instagrams of craft cocktails!

How many times I played The National's High Violet on repeat. Oh dear Gawd my Runkeeper average 10k pace!

Damn you, Federal government! Damn you to heeeeeeellllllllll!

[TipTok]

23. Why do you care if you have nothing to hide?

Is that the argument you are going with?

Really? There's no principle to it at all?

That's just sad...

[Warren DeMontague]

80. Amazing, isn't it? Especially cuz these "tools to keep us safe" end up being used for the drug war

and little else, every fucking time.

Well, if that cancer granny didn't want to go to prison, she shouldn't have eaten that pot brownie.

http://gothamist.com/2007/04/30/cancerstricken.php

[randome]

4. Hyperbole much? Do they 'get into' your bank & financial records? Do they tap your phone?

And these were actual terrorists! A phone is just an electronic filing device so in essence it's no different from filing cabinets full of paper documents, which they still need warrants to search.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[X_Digger]

19. With a person's phone, they can get into your bank, financial and health records.

Right now I can pick up my phone and see my bank statement, my laughable 401k contributions, and thanks to the walgreens app, every prescription I've filled since 2012. I have a payment app installed in my phone, so I can make payments from my credit card account as well. Oh, and my calendar has my doctor's name, as well as a saved password to the patient portal for that same doctor.

So yes, my phone is the single device, for which a single warrant will open up my entire life.

For luddites, probably not so much.

[msanthrope]

27. Sigh.....they can get your bank records without a warrant, now.

In fact... All the information you described is available to law enforcement authorities without a warrant.

[Rex]

58. Wait until someone here has the state comptroller go after them. nt

nt

[msanthrope]

59. You Better Believe It!!! nt

[Kittycat]

52. And my fingerprint.

[Jim Beard]

60. That was your choice to make your private information

vulnerable to anyone. You remember those papers with all those words you didn't read.

[Ilsa]

82. And how long before the hackers get the code to

Unlock your phone and your ID? I don't believe for a second that the new technology will be safely kept by the FBI or any other govt. agency.

[Nevernose]

86. Then the FBI should get right on that

Because I still don't understand how it's Apple's job to write a new OS to make the FBI's job easier, or why the FBI just doesn't get the NSA to do it for them.

If you think the Feds are above using this against anyone, anytime, for any reason, Google "FBI and stingray"

[Warren DeMontague]

97. We know the NSA fed spy data on US Citizens to the DEA to facilitate arrests of drug users.

Ahmm, yes, only actual terrorism of course for these extra special authoritarian powers.

ahem ahem

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/the_nsa_dea_police_state_tango/

[Nitram]

5. As as they need a warrant, signed by a judge, for each and every instance...

...I'm down with it. Just as I would be for serving a warrant on a criminial's home so that papers and files can be searched.

[davidn3600]

7. When you open a backdoor for law enforcement to get in....

...a hacker could eventually find it and get in himself.

You need to understand that you are basically asking Apple to create a weakness in their software. If your credit card data gets stolen because of this, are you going to blame Apple?

[Nitram]

8. My credit card hsa been stolen a number of times.

Fortunately, the credit card companies have really good algorithms to catch unusual activity on the cards, and they've always stopped activity before it happened.

If Apple creates software for Justice to prevent a phone from erasing its data while they try to access the files, I don't think that would apply to online activity. A criminal would have to have the physical phone in hand and a copy of the software.

[mythology]

36. The request from the FBI isn't for a widespread back door

It's to have Apple create a custom firmware, tied to the specific device by unique identifiers to turn off two specific functions. The first the 10 password attempts before wiping the phone and the time delays that start after a few incorrect password attempts.

Basically if he had a decently long quality password, this won't help the FBI. If he has a 4 number pin, there are only 10,000 possible combinations. If he has a 15 character password like I do, it will take roughly speaking 1.5 million centuries to crack.

[JDPriestly]

101. Apple wants to be able to compete in selling its products with similar products that can or could

be produced in countries in which the FBI cannot demand such a right.

That's why the FBI needs to play it cool. There has to be some other way for the FBI to find out who these terrorists might have had ties to.

Because it will put Apple and the US at a commercial disadvantage if the FBI can force Apple and American companies to make their electronic products vulnerable in any way to the NSA or FBI.

In this specific case, there is reason for the FBI to get a warrant for this specific device. But is there enough reason or grounds to force Apple to make all their similar devices vulnerable to hacking or to reading whether by the FBI or by malicious hackers?

I don't think so. I think privacy takes precedence.

[Atman]

6. What can they do to Apple?

They're huuuuuuuge. Apple is right to tell them to go fuck themselves. I know there are lots of haters out there, but I guarantee plenty of Android users will quietly switch to IOS as long as Apple holds their ground. You're absolutely correct, it's not about the San Bernadino case. Once you give the feds the key they're going to use it to open the door any time they want.

[awoke_in_2003]

10. The feds will back down...

Apple is too big of a corporation to take marching orders from the FBI. Money=power

[IDemo]

9. Putting aside for a moment whether the FBI would abuse this (I believe the answer is yes)

As Cook and countless others have patiently and vainly attempted to explain, it would not be a matter of if but when hackers would exploit a backdoor and enjoy your financial and personal data.

[flamingdem]

12. On this one I wish they could get into that phone

because there were others involved, clearly.

I live in LA and I'd like to see those people caught before they do it again, seriously, and we know they will.

[GoneOffShore]

14. "Those who would give up liberty...."

None of us get out of here alive.

Tomorrow you could be knocked down by a bus (except you live in LA and there aren't that many) or a car or a motorcycle. More chance of that than a terrorist attack.

[flamingdem]

15. As Bernie said tonight there's a middle way

that doesn't step on liberties.

[True Earthling]

25. So you don't worry because you believe YOU are safe?

Isn't that a self-centered way of looking at the problem? I worry about terrorism because of people I don't even know who may be attacked... why isn't that a concern?

[Glassunion]

30. I don't worry, because I believe that I am safe, that you are safe, and that the people you don't

even know are safe.

[True Earthling]

32. Like the people in San Bernadino were safe?

So there is no threat, no risk whatsoever of a terrorist attack?

[randome]

34. Pfft. Who cares? They lived in San Bernardino.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Glassunion]

35. No they were not. Not on that day.

I'm not saying there is no risk. Everything in life is a risk. Everything.

Getting in the car is risky, but we still do it.
Eating can be risky. But we still do it.
Swimming can be risky. But we still do it.

You see the thing is, if you take the number of people who's lives were cut short by those terrorists, the same number also lost their life by choking to death and drowning, and another 3,273 people that day lost their lives in traffic collisions. Every single day, a 9/11 death toll occurs on our roadways.

Police officers killed more people that week than the terrorists did.

You are more than welcome to live in fear of something that in all probability will never have a direct effect on you. Just don't expect the rest of us to have the same irrational fear.

[True Earthling]

37. The risk of attack is low not because terrorists aren't trying...

It's low because of gov't efforts to screen people coming in to the U.S. and gov't efforts to gather information that might uncover plots.

For every successful attack there are probably hundreds of attacks that have been prevented. So far we have not had another 9-11 but there are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of radical Muslims that would love to duplicate 9-11 or do something a lot bigger. Maybe the odds are small that 9-11 could happen again but it would be foolish to believe there isn't a big attack being planned somewhere...right now.

I'm not worried about me personally being a victim of a terrorist attack and I think most people arguing for security feel the same way... so throwing out statistics showing how small the threat is misses the point. It's not about my personal safety.. it's about that rogue attack that comes out of nowhere.. like a San Bernadino, like Paris.

Apple is not giving the FBI a back door. What the FBI is requesting, a criminal would need the physical phone AND a copy of the software to crack a phone. The big worry is hacking online activity. If an iPhone is stolen it can be located with "find my iPhone" or it can be "wiped" remotely as well. The only reason it didn't happen here was the owner died! My daughter had her iPhone stolen last month and within 5 minutes we located the phone in the thief's apartment.

You say everything in life is a risk. It's seems like a lot of DU'ers have no tolerance for risk when it comes to privacy. I get the feeling that even if Apple could provide the data with ZERO RISK that a hacker could duplicate the process.. people here would still not want to see that... If the real concern is protecting privacy and personal info.. that make no sense. It would only make sense if one is anti-gov't or anti LE.

[Glassunion]

40. The rougue attack will always be a possibility.

No matter how much of the bill of rights we toss into the shredder, there will always be the possibility of a rogue attack.

The FBI is indeed asking for a back door. They are specifically looking for a way around (back door) Apple's security that will allow them to brute force password attempts. This way around will be figured out by criminal enterprises. That's their job. Once the hole is found in the security, it will not be long before criminal enterprises figure out how to circumvent it without the physical phone.

We cannot get into one phone, so now we want to open up 10's of millions of phones to a security risk.

My tolerance of risk is simple. Would willfully opening up the security of 10's of millions of phones be worth the security risk of not being able to unlock one phone?

If you open up a phone with a method for security to be bypassed, there is no such thing as ZERO RISK.

[True Earthling]

43. I would not call their approach a "back door" that can be unlocked with a universal key

This is what the FBI is requesting...

Apple's reasonable technical assistance may include, but is not limited to: providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File ("SIF&quot that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the device's flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade ("DFU&quot mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-17/the-apple-fight-isn-t-about-encryption

The SIF will only work on this specific phone. Even if the FBI keeps the SFI they cannot use it on any other iPhone. Also - the procedure will not work over the air..only by USB cable.

Again in plain English, the FBI wants Apple to create a special version of iOS that only works on the one iPhone they have recovered. This customized version of iOS (*ahem* FBiOS) will ignore passcode entry delays, will not erase the device after any number of incorrect attempts, and will allow the FBI to hook up an external device to facilitate guessing the passcode. The FBI will send Apple the recovered iPhone so that this customized version of iOS never physically leaves the Apple campus.
As many jailbreakers are familiar, firmware can be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade (DFU) Mode. Once an iPhone enters DFU mode, it will accept a new firmware image over a USB cable. Before any firmware image is loaded by an iPhone, the device first checks whether the firmware has a valid signature from Apple. This signature check is why the FBI cannot load new software onto an iPhone on their own — the FBI does not have the secret keys that Apple uses to sign firmware.

http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-comply-with-the-fbi-court-order/

I don't believe it would open up 10's of millions of phone to a security risk. Even if it did Apple could provide an update to defeat the hack once discovered.

[Whiskeytide]

41. I don't really fear being killed or injured ...

... in a terrorist attack. You're right, the risk is very, very low. But a terrorist attack tends to terrorize. It terrorizes the electorate, which results in bad decisions in the voting booth. It terrorizes politicians and law enforcement, which also results in bad decisions in policy making and policing.

All of that is plenty of reason to want to stop another terrorist attack, right? So the question is, how far do we allow that effort to go as balanced against our rights to privacy? In other words, is what the FBI is asking of Apple an example of lawfully and properly trying to stop further attacks, or is it an example of terror causing bad policy making and bad policing?

If Apple has the information requested, and a warrant is obtained for it, I have no problem with it being turned over to the FBI.

If Apple doesn't have the information, but can get it with an already existing program to by-pass the phone's security systems, I also have no problem with that.

If Apple can create such a program, I'm ready to assume they already have done so. They really just don't want to give it to the FBI. Fine. Unlock that phone for the FBI, hand it back to them and say "you're welcome".

In the unlikely event Apple doesn't already have the program to get to the information the FBI wants from the phone, then I don't think - legally - the FBI can make them create it.

The devil in all this will be in the actual details. Either the FBI is using this attack to try and acquire an investigative tool for wider-spread use, or Apple doesn't want it's customers to know what they can know about their customers.

[Glassunion]

42. Bingo

You nailed it on the head.

Personally, I feel that Apple does not have the capability to unlock the phone. They have been working with the FBI on that phone, and I fear that whatever is on it, is lost forever. The FBI (from what I've been reading), wants a method for the future. They want the ability to "brute force" unlock a phone, however this will require Apple to open a security hole in their operating system.

[alarimer]

51. I think this is reasonable

I don't think Apple or anyone else should give the FBI the key to getting into any phone whenever they want to.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

54. There is a difference between one or two

people being killed in your community from a car wreck and numerous people killed in Columbine, Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, or 9/ll. The first is a family tragedy, while the last four devastated entire communities.

[GoneOffShore]

88. Giving up liberty for security is never a good idea.

Or are you totally happy with the FBI peeking at your smartphone, your laptop, your internet browsing, your camera?

All in the name of 'being safe'.

How interesting.

[X_Digger]

20. Those who would give up a little liberty for the illusion of security deserve neither. n/t

[LiberalArkie]

28. Any calls they made to "others" is already known by phone records.

Any texts they have made to "others" are already known by phone records.
Any emails are already known because of the ISPs records.
Apple had asked the FBI to make its court application under seal – meaning that the legal arguments could be heard in private – but the FBI chose instead to make it a public fight.

The FBI has what they want, they just want back doors on every phone. It isn't about your phone or mine. It is about a businessman's phone who is in competition with a friend of some senator or banker.

[randome]

33. What about potential maps and notes made on the phone that did not go through an ISP?

Maybe the terrorists were smart enough to write contacts down on a notepad instead of a contact list. Searching a phone is not fundamentally different from searching a filing cabinet because that's basically what a phone is: a digital filing cabinet.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[questionseverything]

53. this is the part i do not get

they have the phone records from the provider so what else are they looking for?

[LiberalArkie]

55. Apple offered to talk about it under a secret court order, the FBI refused and went public

the FBI want to force the companies to provide back doors to twitter, IOS , Android, FaceBook etc.

[questionseverything]

56. i understand the illegal backdoor request

but the part i don't get is what info would they gather that they can't get from the provider (phone company)

i hear people saying,but we have to know who the killer talked to...that would be in the phone companies records,right?

[LiberalArkie]

57. They might get a picture of their kid or something like that. but the main thing is to

make the public want a backdoor to keep us safe. And only the FBI will have the key, they promise that only they will have the key and they promise that it will only be use with a court order, they promise. So far the multi billion dollar security sweep stuff never has prevented a single crime. But it has probably allowed a lot of people to learn a lot of business secrets and a lot of secrets from our congress critters and their staffs.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. Yeah, and just like the patriot act, we can trust them that they only want this special power to go

After "teh dangerous terraists", right?

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/the_nsa_dea_police_state_tango/


http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/10/patriot-act-warrants-used-more-drugs-terrorism



Dont kid yourself. They picked the terrorists iphone on purpose, but this is really about law enforcement wanting more tools to wage war on non violent drug users.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

87. 1000% agree FD !

[GoneOffShore]

13. Too right. And the "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" folks

are telling the government to go ahead.

[Kaleva]

16. They'll find out how boring I really am.

[backscatter712]

39. Then I'm sure you wouldn't mind having a government agent watch you take a piss.

Walking into the bathroom with you and watching you as you use the toilet. That's boring, isn't it?

[Kaleva]

49. I had to put up with that for years while in the Navy

Or when returning to the ship from liberty, one would roll the dice and if you hit the number for the day, you got escorted to the after head and get strip searched

[GummyBearz]

17. From what I read, the feds want to get data from a phone they have in their custody

Maybe just don't commit terrorist acts, then the fed wont get your phone in their custody, and they wont be able to manually access data on it...

[Ilsa]

18. Yep. I didn't understand the issue at first because of

a lousy news report. I thought the issue was isolated to this one phone. When I heard more about it, I cringed and completely flipped. Apple should not disclose this to the FBI.

For what it is worth, a friend said she was certain someone in the FBI was reading her texts. She was being harassed by someone at work who told her that they had a friend in the FBI spying on her. It was all just personal abuse of the system. There was no crime being investigated, it was just a matter of making her information available to someone who shouldn't have it. From everything she told me about it, I believe her. I think a person in the fbi was using govt resources to spy on someone for the fun of it.

[True Earthling]

21. I agree fearmongering is not the way to persuade or influence people's minds..however...

I see a lot of fearmongering on the other side of the argument..beware of the scary, evil government/LE who will be combing through your personal info if Apple gives the FBI what they want.

Also - the argument that people should not worry or be scared of terrorists because the odds of dying from a terrorist attack are less then being struck by a car crossing the street...is a self-centered way of looking at the problem. The person making that argument is saying that terrorism is a problem only if they are attacked. I worry about terrorism because of people I don't even know who may be attacked... why isn't that a concern?

[TipTok]

22. They aren't "terrorists"...

The privacy argument should and can be made without minimizing what the shooters did and what their motivations were.

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

24. Yet some here think Loretta Lynch will be a great SCOTUS justice

I have a little problem with AGs not respecting the Bill of Rights, a much bigger problem on SCOTUS. Doesn't matter if you're Lynch or Cruz.

[RufusTFirefly]

26. No they won't!!

They can't even see me!

[randome]

31. Just like they're pouring over your financial records right now.

And looking under your bed when you're away from home. Oh. Wait. All those things require a warrant.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[backscatter712]

38. It is impossible to make a backdoor that only the Good Guys can use.

What if the backdoor gets leaked out (and that's fairly likely)?

What if the Good Guys turn into Bad Guys (ask Snowden about that)?

What if the developers fuck up, and the protections that were supposed to let Good Guys in while keeping Bad Guys out fail?

[vinny9698]

44. The cell phone did not belong to the terrroists but to the county

So the owners of the phone want it to be encrypted. How is that intruding? Now if the phone belonged to the terrorist you might have a stronger point.

[Travis_0004]

84. The biggest problem is apple can not decrypt it

They do not have the ability.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. They can get into your physical home.

It's not so much about them getting the information. I think it's fair to say there's sufficient probable cause.

What I have trouble with is them demanding a private entity be impressed into service spending time, money, man-hours and other resources to create something that does not exist.

[randome]

47. A large corporation like Apple no doubt has a large legal team that includes developers.

I'm sure they field requests and perform services on a wide variety of legal fronts.

Protecting the profits of one of the largest corporations on the planet should not be much of a concern.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. I don't disagree with anything you've said but

I have no idea how it relates to anything I said.

I'm not worried about profits; I'm worried about the government forcing people to act as its agents.

[randome]

85. Apple was warned early on that this would create law enforcement and security issues.

They made a decision that came down on the side of marketing. I don't feel any sympathy for them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

89. You make it sound as if they broke some law.

[randome]

90. No, even a massive corporation like Apple shouldn't have to kowtow to any government.

But they do all the time when they want to sell their services in China. So does Google. With a legal warrant (which they can still contest), I don't have a problem with compelling their cooperation.

The same thing applies when police want to search a crime scene. Wouldn't it be great if landlords could lock the doors or car manufacturers who fudge EPA tests are not required to cooperate with authorities? Witnesses called to testify in any case are compelled to give 'expert testimony', which is their time -and, for many, money- in order to cooperate.

I don't see this as being any different for Apple. It's not like they're being required to do the impossible. It's more like they need to have a conversation with authorities to explain why it's impossible, or at least demonstrate in good faith that what is requested simply can't be done.

If it truly can't be done, what's wrong with Apple demonstrating this? It may be that they're afraid it can be done, and they don't want the public to know it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

105. A warrant applies to things that exist.

Yes, the phone exists but the technology to forcibly open it does not. If that technology existed I would be on your side. I cannot be on the side of forcing people who are not part of a government agency into doing the government's work against their will.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. odd that a pharmacist who refuses to fill a BC prescription has the right of "conscience" to refuse

But a coder who doesnt want to create another tool for authoritarians to spy on and arrest people for shit like smoking pot, doesnt have such a right.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. I would submit both have an ironclad right to refuse being forced into labor.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. One difference is, pharmacists are licensed by the state.

And as such they have a publicly mandated job to fill legal prescriptions. Plus filling prescriptions is in the job description. If they cant do that, they ought to find a different job.

Apple's coders have no such relationship with the government. And writing tools for law enforcement to deliberately compromise the security on their own products isnt similarly part of the job they are hired to do.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. All it would take would be for the government to invent a licensing law for coders and your

argument would no longer apply.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. I suppose. But there isnt one now.

And under such a regimen coders would know what they were signing on for, just like pharmacists do.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. Considering some states demand hairdressers be licensed I can't see

myself signing on to the idea that licensed by the state makes one an agent of the state.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. Well I do think pharmacies are a state-regulated business for a reason.

And until birth control is available OTC I think the state has a legitimate interest in making sure that a woman doesn't get turned away from the only Walgreens for 200 miles at 10:30 at night by a pharmacist who refuses to give her oral contraceptives because she's not wearing a wedding ring.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

106. I'm all for OTC birth control but I can't support "state license = state agent."

As I stated previously, the government has no right to impress people into service for the government.

On the flip side, police officers are licensed by the government and do work for the government -- obviously. Yet, it is settled law that they have no duty to act.

I do not support we-have-to-work-for-them doctrine and doubly so if the equation is we-have-to-work-for-them-but-they-don't-have-to-work-for-us.

[alarimer]

50. Yes. They are mad Apple won't comply

It makes me consider switching because I am not sure Google would do the same thing with Android, or if they even could, with it being so fragmented.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. They ask for the powers to "fight terror" and then use them to arrest pot smokers.

Every fucking time.

[Jim Beard]

64. Theres a lot of people posting here that need to help the Bundy's

They all have a very deep fear of the government.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. Okay, justify this.

Because invariably, after the "special extraodinary tools" are given to the authorities, "fighting terror" magically morphs into "busting people for drug use". Every fucking time.

So you'll excuse me if I dont want the security of every iPhone compromised because it makes easier for the feds to throw sick grannies in prison for growing medical weed.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/10/patriot-act-warrants-used-more-drugs-terrorism


http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/the_nsa_dea_police_state_tango/

[Jim Beard]

93. Did you thank Snowden for leaking all that information

snowden is NOT a hero to all liberals. Bill Press likes him, Stephanie Miller doesn't.

[Warren DeMontague]

96. And Trump agrees with you.

Did you thank Trump? Is he a hero to "all liberals"?

[Demonaut]

72. then don't put shit that might incriminate you in your phone

if it's stored then it's accessible

[Warren DeMontague]

74. Right, all those people sitting in prison for smoking pot should have known better.

That's after the NSA fed illegal spy data to the DEA, which proceeded to notify local law enforcement, who busted them, and then formulated a completely artificical "parallel construction" explanation for how the evidence was acquired (a less keen legal mind might call it, "lying in court&quot ...

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/the_nsa_dea_police_state_tango/

Here's an idea-


How about if the government wants us to take their "emergency security needs" seriously, they stop using the supposedly extra-critical vital enforcement tools to spy on and arrest people for shit like low level drug crimes?

[Demonaut]

75. I see your point...the data collected by the NSA was derived from?????

where their phone was located via GPS data or did they mine information from texts or emails?

I read the article but it leaves out specific information

And I understand that a means of intelligence gathering was invented out of whole cloth but what was the source?

[Warren DeMontague]

78. The point of the article is that the blanket NSA surveillance information- itself illegal

was then shared directly with the DEA and local LEOs, who then used it to track and arrest people for things like drug use, and then when in court the DEA/LEOs would engage in "parallel construction" of a chain of evidence.

It's not clear what the specific source of the NSA spy data was, only that it was supposed to be foregin surveillance for "national security" and it ended up being watching American citizens to arrest them for drug use.

[Smarmie Doofus]

76. It's about both.

>>>>This current case is not about the shooters from San Bernadino but about precedent for being able to get into your iPhone (or other phone). >>>>>>>

But I agree w. Apple: don't let 'em in.

[Jim Beard]

77. Then pass a law forbidding them from manfacturing and selling

such programs. The US government has people like me on its side and not the hillbillies at the Oregon refuge. Yall can go down like the haters, I prefer to have a safe country. I have seen the wonderful computer makers mass billions of dollars after our GOVERNMENT saved their sorry asses from a South American dictator. Then after making tons of money, flee the United States and not pay taxes.

Fuck the assholes of the computer industry, they need to be brought down a notch.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. Yeah, everyone in silicon vally is a hillbilly rancher.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-18/apple-draws-line-in-sand-while-silicon-valley-waits-to-pick-side

You go ahead and stand with Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton, I'll be over here with the people who actually build shit that make Americans' lives better, not the authoritarians who have spent the past 40 years shitting on the 4th Amendment because they're mad about pot smoking.

derp

[Jim Beard]

91. We have a system in this country

that can stop the excessive use of electronic surveillance to bust the small user. Its really simple. If the majority in this country want certain drugs to be legal, they have the right to do so. Cruz and Cotton are in the minority but maybe you should burst into churches Sunday morning and demand they vote YOUR way in the legalization of drugs.

They way you are going is you are enabling the huge drug Kingpins murder thousands in Mexico. The drug lords sure do appreciate Apple making the new encryption available to them. They can kill thousands and do banking in Ireland with Apple.

[Warren DeMontague]

92. You seem tense.

We do have a system, and that system includes the 4th amendment. It also includes the right of the criminally accused not to have the prosecution falsify a "parallel" chain of evidence to cover up NSA derived "tips".

The worst thing that could happen to the "drug lords" would be an end to the war on drugs. This isn't just speculation, either- this is borne out by the fact that one of the biggest losers from Colorado, etc. legalizing weed, has been the mexican drug cartels.

And there are a lot of damn good reasons why people - and businesses - want strong encryption. Industrial espionage. Billions in proprietary trade secrets. The ability to log onto your bank without hackers getting your pin number.

Also, by your logic, if throwing people in prison and spying on them for smoking weed is so popular with "the public", why cant the authorities make their case on that basis? Why the bait and switch about "terror", and then turning around to use it to incarcerate millions of people for drug possession?

They should make the case to the people, right?

[Jim Beard]

100. I probably am a little tense, accept my apology for that however

we could argue the point several ways. That government overuse of spying on citizens is bad but in reality, private business does more.

The drug deal is a two edge sword. locking up small users is the fault of prosecutors wanting to make a name for themselves when the crimes are unwarranted but then lets flip the coin. If the same technique helps in the apprehension of some very violent people preparing to do harm to our citizens, it is a very good thing.

I say work to get the laws changed about drugs but the biggest help will be controlling District attorneys.

[Warren DeMontague]

104. bottom line in the context of the FBI, etc, they have given very little reason for people to trust

them at their word.

And it is undeniable that they have had a bone to pick with apple's end-user encryption since it was implemented. I simply do not believe that a) whatever is on this now-deceased person's phone; which I suspect the government already has a good idea about, anyway- is worth the extraordinary effort they're putting into it, other than they want to either establish a precedent OR obtain by any means necessary the tools or knowhow to get around this encryption scheme they don't like... and b) I think the principle of privacy and security is a valid one for a number of reasons already laid out- I am going to proudly side with not just Silicon Valley but also the EFF on these matters, every time.

I believe law enforcement can keep us safe just fine without having to have a magic key into everyone's shit; and it's worth noting that even when they do have these near-omniscient powers they keep demanding, again, they DON'T use them to keep us safe, but like I said, they use em to go after low level drug users.

The Feds or the NSA dont need super secret illegal powers to spy on El Chapo, anyway. It's the person smoking the bong in their basement (or the journalist that has written the article deemed 'subversive') that are the focal points of these, again, extra-legal and extra-constitutional activities. And honestly we all should have learned these lessons long ago, from J. Edgar Hoover, Nixon, and COINTELPRO.

And on that note, I'm sure there are a variety of philosophical points one could take on the issue of privacy vs. security in the case of a terrorist's cell phone, but I do not know how anyone can argue at this point in time that the authoritarian wet dream known as the drug war, en masse, has been anything except a giant taxpayer funded clusterfuck, a failure, and a cruel disaster that has devastated lives and taken a big ol' invasive crap on our constitutional rights in the process. The violence associated with "the drug trade" is, almost exclusively, a function of prohibition just as al capone and tommygun wielding gangsters grew out of the 21st Amendment.

[hobbit709]

83. Rule #1. Never put anything on your phone or computer that you don't want known.

[Sam_Fields]

94. If the government has a valid warrant it has a right to the content of your encrypted phone

This is no different then if the government got a warrant for the contents of your locked file cabinet. Call me names, but that is the law of the United States as written in the constitution.

[Bradical79]

103. They have the phone

But I don't see where in the constitution a 3rd party can be compelled to create something for the government that doesn't currently exist, something that could be used to bypass the security on all iPhones.

[treestar]

95. I seriously doubt they will ever be interested in mine

I'm interested in the SB shooters' though.

[Major Nikon]

98. Hopefully they will answer my voicemails

[Angel Martin]

99. Apple's got your back, yeah right !

In the USA, Apple is the "champion" of user privacy.

But in China, they have allowed the PRC to "audit" every phone for "security" reasons.

http://qz.com/618371/apple-is-openly-defying-us-security-orders-but-in-china-it-takes-a-very-different-approach/

so Apple wont let let the FBI see the phone of known terrorists, but it will give it's security code to PRC and Chinese military !

[d_legendary1]

102. Definitely kicking this!

Have people forgotten what created the patriot act? Remember Obama and PRISM? Not falling for this again!