Wage Slave wrote: What exactly is it about tech and tech companies that makes it and them above and beyond the law when it suits?
Was that rhetorical?
Nicely put, btw, Legion, too. The rest of you, this isn't a corporate funded civics class
Hot Topics | |
---|---|
Wage Slave wrote: What exactly is it about tech and tech companies that makes it and them above and beyond the law when it suits?
Mike Oxlong wrote:Apple can comply with the FBI court order
I believe it is technically feasible for Apple to comply with all of the FBI’s requests in this case
kurogane wrote: What exactly is it about tech and tech companies that makes it and them above and beyond the law when it suits?
kurogane wrote:
Nicely put, btw, Legion, too. The rest of you, this isn't a corporate funded civics class
legion wrote:Samurai_Jerk wrote:
Fuck you and that emotional illogical woman legion (Won't somebody think of the children!!!). The government is essentially trying to conscript Apple to do its bidding. Like Coligny said if Apple is lying, they're fucked. And they should be. However, if they really don't have a way to unlock the phone, they shouldn't be forced to try to come up with new technology to do so.
Again, this isn't about the right to privacy of this criminal. If that were so, Apple would have an easy out in this case. I'm pretty sure the county who owns the phone would have no problem with Apple unlocking it. This is about the government's dislike of encryption technology that they don't control.
I thought a macho man like you would admire the government for its manly stance on this.
Read back what you wrote there, are you using the term "illogical woman" as some kind of abuse? Lie back on the couch a little and I will help you with your anger issues.
You are alone, and lonely, you feel the world is against you, the feds are spying on you, the walls are closing in ........... you wish you were on a nature reserve with a large semi naked man with a big gun and an even bigger moustache.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sq-g-UXuMk
Wage Slave wrote:If Apple refuses to obey a court order, then the CEO needs to be brought to court and charged with contempt.
Wage Slave wrote:This is not some street corner drug dealer's phone. It belonged to a mass murderer who is suspected of sympathising with a murderous and extreme organisation that means to cause as much harm as possible to as many people as possible.
Coligny wrote:Wage Slave wrote:This is not some street corner drug dealer's phone. It belonged to a mass murderer who is suspected of sympathising with a murderous and extreme organisation that means to cause as much harm as possible to as many people as possible.
The CIA...
you mean the guy was a CIA operative... ?
Because look back and smell the shit... With the bay of Pigs, the Tonkin Gulf yacht club incident, mujahideen support in Afghanistan, Guantanamo and countless more... Law and due process are like "land of the free and home of the brave" nothing more than faded bumper stickers...
This case feels like the FBI wants to show off to the DHS... but they didn't plan well enough and are a bit starting to panic...
Coligny wrote:Maybe... but government are like bratty kids. if apple comply once... you will hear "mee toooo" from all over the planet including shitholes where making a joke aboot the local semi god king is punished by death.
Wage Slave wrote:when there is a legitimate and overriding need for lawful authority to do so.
Wage Slave wrote:belonging to wrongdoers.
wagyl wrote:Wage Slave wrote:when there is a legitimate and overriding need for lawful authority to do so.
Has that been established in this case?Wage Slave wrote:belonging to wrongdoers.
Or even this? (Yeah, I know, I am on shaky ground with that one. Right on the San Bernardino Fault.)
Do we as a society spend $500,000 going after information worth 50c? Or even better, can the courts force a private enterprise business to spend $500,000 of their own funds to go after information that is worth 50c to society?
The US authorities have had a hard-on about encryption for a while. They don't want this for the information on that phone. They want this for the key to all the backdoors.
EFF to Support Apple in Encryption Battle
We learned on Tuesday evening that a U.S. federal magistrate judge ordered Apple to backdoor an iPhone that was used by one of the perpetrators of the San Bernardino shootings in December. Apple is fighting the order which would compromise the security of all its users around the world.
We are supporting Apple here because the government is doing more than simply asking for Apple’s assistance. For the first time, the government is requesting Apple write brand new code that eliminates key features of iPhone security—security features that protect us all. Essentially, the government is asking Apple to create a master key so that it can open a single phone. And once that master key is created, we're certain that our government will ask for it again and again, for other phones, and turn this power against any software or device that has the audacity to offer strong security.
The U.S. government wants us to trust that it won't misuse this power. But we can all imagine the myriad ways this new authority could be abused. Even if you trust the U.S. government, once this master key is created, governments around the world will surely demand that Apple undermine the security of their citizens as well.
EFF applauds Apple for standing up for real security and the rights of its customers. We have been fighting to protect encryption, and stop backdoors, for over 20 years. That's why EFF plans to file an amicus brief in support of Apple's position.
Coligny wrote:Maybe... but government are like bratty kids. if apple comply once... you will hear "mee toooo" from all over the planet including shitholes where making a joke aboot the local semi god king is punished by death.
According to the New York Times, Apple – which has assisted federal investigations in the past – asked the FBI to file the aforementioned order under seal.
However, when the agency submitted its demands in a public court citing the powerful All Writs Act, Apple CEO Tim Cook hit the roof:
"The order does not, as Apple's public statement alleges, require Apple to create or provide a 'back door' to every iPhone; it does not require Apple to 'hack [its] own users' or to 'decrypt' its phone; it does not give the government 'to reach into anyone else's device' without a warrant or court authorization; and it does not compromise the security of personal information.
"Apple's current refusal to comply with the court's order, despite the technical feasibility of doing so, instead appears to be based on its concern for its business model and public brand marketing strategy."
Coligny wrote:Maybe we could split the "Apple against the feds" thread from the "Dimwit need councelling thread"
legion wrote:wagyl wrote:legion wrote:they forgot that there are bad people in the world that use technology to enable bad things.
We haven't banned kitchen knives, or matches, yet.
please
that is really weak
wagyl wrote:
Where is the fallacy in this analogy?
Maybe it would have made you happier if I had said that they hadn't banned guns yet. Why do they need guns in America anyway? The FBI are pretty good and prosecuting fraudsters, so I hear....
legion wrote:wagyl wrote:
Where is the fallacy in this analogy?
Maybe it would have made you happier if I had said that they hadn't banned guns yet. Why do they need guns in America anyway? The FBI are pretty good and prosecuting fraudsters, so I hear....
I'm not a fan of argument by analogy, analogy can illustrate an argument, but not prove or disprove it.
I think Wage Slave has summed up the core issue, it is not about banning encryption, it is whether or not Apple is obliged to cooperate in accessing data which may be of use.
How Apple do this is their problem. They tied the Gordian Knot, they need to cut it.
They came up with a one size fits all model, and say that if they crack it for one they crack it for all. To me this shows a lack of foresight on their part. Like the aftermath of the Lehman shock I think the learning here is we have to take responsibility for ourselves, you can't trust a mutual fund with your money, you can't trust the government or a corporation with your privacy. Governments are motivated by control, corporations by profit. Believing Cook is taking an ethical stand is as naive as being surprised that the NSA was monitoring the internet.
Meanwhile Trump has tweeted "Boycott Apple" from his iPhone, so I guess Tim Cook is going to smell of roses for quite some time yet.
Mike Oxlong wrote:It's a right clusterfuck. First the Feds claim some city IT drone reset the iCloud password on their own looking for info, it now comes out the Feds oversaw that, and precluded any chance of a later iCloud backup when the phone connected to a recognized wifi network. After shooting themselves in the foot, they went after Apple...
The county government that owned the iPhone in a high-profile legal battle between Apple Inc. and the Justice Department paid for but never installed a feature that would have allowed the FBI to easily and immediately unlock the phone as part of the terrorism investigation into the shootings that killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California.
If the technology, known as mobile device management, had been installed, San Bernardino officials would have been able to remotely unlock the iPhone for the FBI without the theatrics of a court battle that is now pitting digital privacy rights against national security concerns.
The service costs $4 per month per phone...
The software would help the FBI hack into the phone by bypassing a security time delay and feature that erases all data after 10 consecutive, unsuccessful attempts to guess the unlocking passcode. This would allow the FBI to use technology to rapidly and repeatedly test numbers in what’s known as a brute force attack.
The FBI said it wants to determine whether Farook had used his phone to communicate with others about the attack.
FBI Director James Comey said the agency owes it to the victims of the San Bernardino terror attacks to try to gain access to a cellphone used by one of the gunmen. In a message posted Sunday night on the Lawfare blog, Comey said the FBI “can’t look the survivors in the eye, or ourselves in the mirror, if we don’t follow this lead.”
Apple has said it will protest the ruling and has until Friday to intervene in court.
San Bernardino had an existing contract with a technology provider, MobileIron Inc., but did not install it on any inspectors’ iPhones, county spokesman David Wert said. There is no countywide policy on the matter and departments make their own decisions, he said.
MobileIron has confirmed that if the software were installed on the iPhone, it would unlock it.
Wert disputed the value of the remote management technology because he said Farook — or any other county employee — could have removed it manually. That would have alerted county technology employees and led them to intervene.
In many offices and classrooms, officially issued smartphones include the installed management software. It can unlock the phone, delete all information in case of loss or theft, track the device’s physical location, determine which apps are installed, check battery life and push software updates. The technology is intended to make such products more suitable in corporate environments, where tighter controls are important to protect company secrets.
“This is the business case” for mobile device management, said John Dickson, a principal at Denim Group Ltd., a security consultancy. “The organization simply has no control or influence or anything over the device unless they have some MDM authority. The ability to do remote air updates, the ability to do remote wipe, the ability to control certain settings. Those are the standard kinds of things you do in mobile device management.”
Dickson said “the big question now going forward, it builds the case for, is why this guy would have an essentially uncontrolled device.”
This is the first time since the county issued its first Blackberry device in 2003 that law enforcement has needed access to a locked county-owned phone, Wert said. Prosecutors said in court filings that the county gave its consent to search the device. County policy said digital devices can be searched at any time and Farook signed such an agreement.
Apple executives said Friday that the company had worked hard to help federal investigators get information off the locked iPhone, suggesting they use an iCloud workaround while the phone was connected to a familiar wireless network so that it would begin automatically backing up and provide access to data. The executives spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing legal process.
The executives said Apple sent engineers to work with the FBI on the workaround but the effort ultimately failed. The FBI said it worked with the county to reset the iCloud password a few days after the attack to try to get immediate access to the data. That effort eliminated the possibility of the Apple suggested workaround actually succeeding.
But if the county had installed the management device it had bought onto Farook’s phone, none of these efforts would have been necessary...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests