Exactly. If Apple do it, it's not just going to end there.
Apple Refuses Court Order Over Phone Encryption
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Exactly. If Apple do it, it's not just going to end there.
Ed Snowden likes this.
Everything the terrorist can use so can the corporations, organised crime cartels and paedophiles. If its on your apple phone today how long before its on every hard drive on every mass storage device.
It would be interesting to divide the world into two and let those people who are so sure they want this level of privacy have it and those who don't live in a world without it. Impossible I know but interesting.
It would be interesting to divide the world into two and let those people who are so sure they want this level of privacy have it and those who don't live in a world without it. Impossible I know but interesting.
He is saying that if Apple made this backdoor then there will be no one in US would buy iPhone, since US Government is justified to got their data for the fact it's an American company. They just go out and buy Samsung, you know a Korean productOk
If a backdoor or encryption key was in existence for the device, then I think it would be right to compel Apple to hand it over to investigators. However, I don't agree that a court should be able to order Apple to create new software or modify existing software to assist an investigation. If the FBI want to crack the device unilaterally, then they should attempt to crack it themselves.
This is the real issue as much as @Raoul wants to ignore it...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html
Next China, Putin, Assad etc will be asking for back doors.
The real issue is that terrorists will continue to use encrypted chat apps to hatch Paris style attacks in other parts of the world. I'm sure our resident privacy connoisseurs will see the light of day, but only after witnessing yet more mass carnage.
Interesting point. So basically, profit logic trumps the preservation of life.
Round of applause.
The power structure of global society has already changed though and decisions like this only serve to crystallize the direction these shifts are heading. It's unrealistic bordering on ridiculous assume entities like Apple are tied to nations and the quicker people accept that, the easier it will be to digest news like this.
In regards to surveillance there have always been safeguards in place to prevent overreach and they've almost always failed. Former NSA Director Keith Alexander and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper both lied to congress repeatedly before and during Select Committees on Intelligence, sometimes under oath and were only exposed thanks to the Snowden leaks, so what chance do the lone representatives of random private companies have in ensuring the likes of the aforementioned don't abuse this ungodly power they're asking for again? Hell, every declassified and leaked document on the matter has proven time and time again, given the opportunity, government agencies repeatedly exceed their authority on the matter of surveillance to a point where it hinders their ability to do the jobs they're designed to do in the first place.
Another round of applause.
This would be a great point if mass surveillance had ever stopped a terrorist attack on US soil.
How do you know one hasn't already ?
Given the amount of time, resources and energy the FBI employ engineering their own imaginary terror plots to prop up their own figures, I'd say not as many one would think:
etc. etc.
That doesn't really answer the question does it. Allow me then - the correct answer is you don't know. There could well be numerous large attacks that have been averted through surveillance, which is generally the best way to find out what terrorists are doing before they do it. What is quite interesting in this debate is that the opponents of surveillance are quite weak in terms of providing tangible and realistic alternatives that can help thwart attacks before they happen (and no changing foreign policy is not one of them).
Let's turn everyone's phone into a sonar device a la Dark Knight, then the government could listen to everything all the time.
If you've nothing to hide.... Amirite?
If you've nothing to hide.... Amirite?
I think the government should be able to monitor phones of any suspects. Having said that if they get information that is not related to terrorism, that information should not be allowable.
Every report, every leak, every declassified document on the issue of ubiquitous surveillance and data mining has proven without fail that it's ridiculously ineffective at identifying and thwarting legitimate large-scale terror plots. Those are the facts. No amount of emotive language or boogeymen will change that. In terms of tangible, realistic alternatives, they include redirecting the trillions of dollars spent on projects like PRISM into LEGITIMATE intelligence gathering.
Very long, I guess. Although, there are nice heuristic algorithms that solve many NP-hard problems reasonably fast. I even had to implement one of those as feature for my thesis.@Revan, how far away are we from solving P = NP?
...
Point in case, I usually hate Apple, but they are right on this stance.
A few posters here would welcome Putin in their back door
Wow, the US has spent "trillions of dollars" on PRISM ? That's quite astounding.
As someone who was once on the inside of the game, the reality is that there are basically just two primary ways of thwarting attacks before they happen - through surveillance or human intelligence. Listening to what insurgents/terrorists are planning is probably the best way to find out what they are doing, when they are going to do it, and what means they will use. If there is a better way to know then I'm all ears, but until such time tracking communications is the best way to mitigate attacks.
Assad has apparently also welcomed him there.
I hope all big companies, especially Google/Alphabet, Microsoft, Oracle, Facebook are with Apple on this. The Pandora box should not be allowed to open.
When you or anyone makes such a statement, you should also include a viable solution as to how the state should stop terrorist attacks from happening where terrorists are using encrypted communication apps to plot Paris style attacks. Imagine a scenario where an attack was imminent and the ISIS plotters were using an app to lay out their plans. Would you want the attack to go ahead because you privilege privacy over mass murder ?
Snowden's comments are a bit rich...after all this is a guy who a guest of an authoritarian dictator who routinely uses his own proxies to control social media in his own country.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/31/5...-control-over-russias-facebook-pavel-durov-vk
He's also uniquely placed to speak to the fact that the US government can't be trusted with this kind of information.
Fair enough mate. You've made the best case so far in this thread.
I have thought about that, and generally I don't give a shit about my privacy compared to possible terrorist acts. The problem is that for how long this masterkey will be only in the hand of US government (who btw, doesn't have a good history when it comes to private data)? Soon, other countries will require that, and soon many hackers and possibly terrorists will have a way to access other people data.
The encryption protocols are made unbreakable for exactly this reason. Once you start making them breakable, who knows where it will end.
I think it already is. Traffic is already monitored, and if your phone is targeted I think the NSA already has the ability to listen to calls, monitor data transfer, and even turn its mic on if it isn't.
Also, pre-Patriot Act restrictions were about the NSA not monitoring Americans. Foreigners have always been treated as fair game to monitor.
Indeed, it is. But this is a step further.
I understand Apple's position, and I'm kind of divided. That said, don't think they'll come out on top in the legal process.
It was a coy dig at the perma-crocked, not fit for purpose, money bonfire that is the Utah Data Center ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Wow, the US has spent "trillions of dollars" on PRISM ? That's quite astounding.
As someone who was once on the inside of the game, the reality is that there are basically just two primary ways of thwarting attacks before they happen - through surveillance or human intelligence. Listening to what insurgents/terrorists are planning is probably the best way to find out what they are doing, when they are going to do it, and what means they will use. If there is a better way to know then I'm all ears, but until such time tracking communications is the best way to mitigate attacks.
Civil Liberties. The final front for Neo-Liberalism's 'war on terror'.
You know, that is not a term I expected to show up in this topic.
Surely they can't be legally compelled to create a piece of software that doesn't currently exist on behalf of the government?
If it already existed I can imagine them being forced to grant access, but this is very different.
That said, the US courts have lost the ability to surprise me.
Well, the US District Court in Central California has already ordered them to cooperate with the FBI, and this is the order they refused. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.html
I guess now they have to appeal to the US Court of Appeals (any lawyers feel free to correct me) and see how that goes. But the fact that a judge has already looked at this, I'm guessing Apple had a lawyer argue their case, and has already decided that they should comply, is why I don't give them that much of a chance to see this out successfully. They appeal, but if that doesn't work I guess they just have to go along and help the FBI.
Will be interesting to see what happens in the UK over the next few years with the government wanting history and stuff stored, and Cameron being strongly against encryption technology. Apple and other companies won't budge, so will some sort of ban on those products be threatened?
This is one of the most interesting privacy cases I've ever seen, and I hope to god that Apple wipe the floor with them.