Tweet
I'm pleased the FBI is now exploring the cell phone owned by his former employer and used by the terroist. I do not understand the theory that cell phones are some special class of information not subject to court ordered access. I understand that Apple wants to try and say this can't happen to their phones but I see that as a choice of higher profits and less security from attacks. The terroist problem is real and we need to give law enforcement tools to protect us from the crazies. Other views?
-
-
I was a little surprised that the FBI admitted they cracked the phone and dropped the suit. I suppose this lets them save face and also give an FU to Apple, but at the same time it let people know it could be done and Apple will step it up and make it even harder to crack later. -
I respectfully disagree. I don't see how the rule of law won - the FBI found their own way of breaking into the phone without Apple's assistance, so they dropped the case against Apple. I'm not against the FBI / law enforcement, etc. - or particularly pro-Apple. (I do own a few of their products, including an iPhone, but I'm not a hard-core fan that lives and breathes Apple.) I do think that the govt was overstepping their authority in this case. But, that's just my opinion - others may disagree.
The iPhone in question belonged to the terrorist's employer. He and his wife destroyed their personal phones. I'm doubtful that anything useful/relevant will be obtained from the employer's phone that they hacked into, but we'll never know. Noone would ever admit to creating such a huge stink over something that ended up being useless. Before this, I had no idea that they were so secure! Or, that a company couldn't have a master password for IT, etc. (like company-owned computers).BillComment
-
I will be real surprised if this stays, as this is political/legal preceedent based. On the political side, they were wanted the publics support, by causing fear. On the legal front, they wanted a company to be forced to work for them for free, and do so until they got what they wanted.
They asked to suspend the suit, but I haven't heard the judge filing a response. (afaik the case is still technically open)
They dropped it after a former NSA director, made the comment that they didn't ask for technical help, but they sued to get the precedent.She couldn't tell the difference between the escape pod, and the bathroom. We had to go back for her.........................Twice.Comment
-
I think Apple's position was, "Go ahead and crack it. Just don't ask us to do it for you." That's a different position than your suggested, "This phone is not subject to court order."
Now, whether Apple's position is tenable I don't know. What are the circumstances in which a private company can be made to do the bidding of the state? Or, as in this case, to be compelled to be an agent of the state in providing service to law enforcement. OTOH, as you point out, we have a very serious problem on your hands and it should be all hands on deck. Tough nut to crack, IMO.JRComment
-
My understanding is the Cracking was done by a Company in Canada. They made copies of the digital part of the phone and would try 9 combinations of the 4 digit passcode and then go to the next copy and do the same over and over until all the combination of number were used and somewhere along the way they hit the right code. The could not do 10 tries on one copy as that would kill the phone. I think the way it could have be done was have the FBI give the phone to Apple and have one employee do the job with one FBI guy standing there watching to prevent and games. That way the government would not have the process only Apple and limited number of people would know how to do it. That is moot now it has been proven it can be done probably at great expense. I doubt there was much if any information on the work phone.
TomComment
-
If the terrorist's employer used device management software* none of this would have been an issue, as the employer would have been able to access the data themselves. Ironically the company actually owned such software but didn't use it.
-Tim
*disclaimer- I work for a company that makes iPhone management softwareComment
-
Personally, I have a problem with any company that produces any kind of encryption for so-called public use. In any circumstance, what is "public" must be understood that it can be subversive.
Basically, should any company so distrust the government of a country that protects them, their designs, their manufacturing freedom, and basically the very basic environment that allows them to thrive... and then do something that can protect any individual or group that can secretly conduct activity that may well be anti-government, dangerous to the citizenry in whole or in part and/or otherwise be criminal or subversive to the freedoms under which we live.
With this kind of encrypted communications many criminal elements of the past would have never been brought to justice and the Nazi's and Japanese could have very well won WWII. In many historical examples, it was only this country's ability to decode otherwise secret communications that we enjoy the freedom's that we do today. It is a shame when we now live in a society that is so mistrusting and afraid of our own government that we are willing to give great advantage to our true enemies. Worse still is the fact that it is one of our greatest companies that has provided that secrecy.
CWSLast edited by cwsmith; 03-29-2016, 03:37 PM.Think it Through Before You Do!Comment
-
It is the password and the content of the memory/address chip that is encrypted, is it not? While I understand the need to have our personal communications being protected from theft, when the police or government are kept from getting at it, even with a court order, than that is a different story, IMHO.
I do realize of course that I may very well be in the minority, having such an opinion in this day and age.
CWSThink it Through Before You Do!Comment
-
I believe the issue was that if Apple divulged how to unlock this phone, it would become trivial to access any other encrypted phone in the world. So it wasn't a matter of refusing to unlock a single phone, but refusing to compromise millions of phones.
The analogy I heard was that if Schlage locks were required to turn over a "master key" to the police that could unlock any of their locks, anywhere, with the police promising they'd keep it safe and only use it for good purposes.Comment
-
As to the trust issues. Edward Joseph Snowden is all I need.
Mike
"It's not the things you don't know that will hurt you, it's the things you think you know that ain't so." - Mark TwainComment
-
How is it that you all think that this thread is not political?just another brick in the wall...
Boycott McAfee. They placed an unresponsive popup on my pc.Comment
-
I was waiting for that☺.
Could it be that no political parties, offices, elected, appointed, or candidates were mentioned? Or that it could just be a point of business or current event discussion?
Sorry, just funnin' ya, no disrespect intended and no further post's from me on the subject.
😀
CWSThink it Through Before You Do!Comment
Comment