Well in this case nobody knows the truth. If the NSA wants to access Apple controlled devices there is nothing Apple can do about it, heck I would not be suprised if the backdoors for the NSA come built into IOS/OSX
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases Guidelines for Law Enforcement Data Requests
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well in this case nobody knows the truth. If the NSA wants to access Apple controlled devices there is nothing Apple can do about it, heck I would not be suprised if the backdoors for the NSA come built into IOS/OSX
You are correct that NSA does not advertise its successes. The whole point is to NOT let our enemies know how or when they are being tracked, or how exactly their plots were foiled.
From my own experience during the Cold War, I will tell you that there are constant threats that are averted, and it's a Good Thing that most people don't know about them.
People at NSA are just normal people. They're Americans, and they have good intentions. They are not going to allow rampant government abuses. There is also Congressional oversight.
Snowden had good intentions too, but he was an idiot and a traitor to give away so much info. If/when more people die because terrorists started using alternative communication methods, the deaths will be directly on his head.
"The company says the data extraction process itself can only be performed on devices in "good working order" at its Cupertino, California headquarters. "
I'm assuming they have to crack the encryption there. Or at least hoping
----------
The user you are quoting didn't summarize it correctly, or at least not completely. Since iOS 4 and until this was discovered, iOS was saving the user locations to an unencrypted (not sure whether it was encrypted if you used a passcode) file stored locally on the device and synced to the computer as part of the backup. You were able to download an application called iPhoneTracker and see your movement history. The accusation was that Apple was sending this data to servers, but no evidence of that was found.
MacRumors reported on it at some point, but I can't find it. Here's a different article: http://readwrite.com/2011/04/20/your_iphone_is_tracking_your_every_move#awesm=~oDEifIqXRLH5hV
Ahh yes that jogged my memory thanks!
See stories about LOVEINT, celebrity spying, etc. People at the NSA are normal people, that's why they can't be trusted! Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And, personally, I'd rather give up a little security if it means I can have liberty.
I have no interest in a discussion about Snowden being a traitor or not, or how much damage he's actually caused to national security. Those are matters for a court to decide, should Snowden ever see one. I will just say, however, that the fact that Snowden could get classified information, transport it overseas, and leak it, is just proof that this technology can be exploited in ways it was not (allegedly) intended for. If Snowden could effectively spy on the NSA, then so can criminals, foreign governments, and whatever "enemy" we have this week. So it's not even just the NSA that has this power, if you actually trust the NSA. It's the NSA, plus whatever spies or criminals can infiltrate the agency that has this power. Do you also trust all of those people? It's not a matter of having nothing to hide from the US government (and we all have things to hide because there are things that are none of the government's business), it becomes a matter of having nothing to hide from foreign governments, foreign corporations, criminals, traitors, and perhaps even those terrorists we're all supposed to be terrorized by. Can you say you have nothing to hide from any of those people, and it's okay if they have access to all your information? For every Snowden idealist, how many actual nefarious individuals are working in the NSA today, not advertising what they're doing?
KDarling, you used to have such amazing insight, but your last post went against all my assumptions.
You, pinning anything on a man is preposterous... Blame the people, blame the team, or blame the man in charge when it happened, blaming the "man" is the easy thing to do.
Your whole post is subjective blah. Why now? You are a smart lad...
You know the Russian's safely averted one of our drones a couple months ago to safely land... Did your boy help them with that too???
You, pinning anything on a man is preposterous... Blame the people, blame the team, or blame the man in charge when it happened, blaming the "man" is the easy thing to do.
Your whole post is subjective blah. Why now? You are a smart lad...
You know the Russian's safely averted one of our drones a couple months ago to safely land... Did your boy help them with that too???
If you folks believe this crap, I have some ocean front property I can sell you real cheap. NSA always has and always will have access. The patriot act took care of that.
This whole thing goes far beyond the PATRIOT Act. CALEA has been around since 1994. The Clipper chip backdoor idea rolled out in 1993. The DES cipher was deliberately given a short key size to facilitate eavesdropping all the way back in 1976-77. FISA itself and its secret court goes back to 1978. You could go back further through the decades and find all kinds of cases of constitutionally shady or outright illegal surveillance, or attempts to make it easier.
Like probably a few others around here, I was a non-commissioned officer in one of the military branches of NSA.
And, like tens of thousands of others, we kept the secrets, so that normal people could continue to have free lives without worries.
I'll say this, I was paranoid about secret agencies before I was in one. Afterwards, you understand why a lot is done the way it is.
Again, they are not fiends. They're smart people like you and me. Do some goof up? Sure. But overall everyone has good intentions.
It's not subjective. It's from direct experience.
Never said anything like that.
Look, is it good that he exposed some of this? Perhaps. Did he need to show all details, too? No, that exposes extra danger, and perhaps even put lives at risk.
That's the thing though. The shear population size of the USA means that the NSA would not have people just looking through your messages and other personal data willy-nilly. There would be an element of suspicion in place before resources were devoted to such a venture.
I think a lot of people would consider themselves a bit of a special and unique snowflake. When in fact, the NSA has absolutely no interest in the vast majority of the population. For investigative purposes the general population is essentially noise that needs to be filtered out when performing investigations.
The level of access the NSA are pushing for are to allow investigations of interest to take place. Not to steal people's selfies and read their shopping lists.
How big is the NSA? We don't know. It's Secret.
What protocol does the NSA follow to initiate an investigation? We don't know. It's Secret.
Who makes up t he rules?
Why can't we see the rules?
Is this a free country?
Are they reading this thread?
In a large group study, anomalies are identified by filtering out repeated consistent patterns of behavior which are deemed normal and irrelevant. You have to observe the whole to sort out the few. In their vision of a perfect world, these people would have machines filtering every piece of communication from everyone looking for anomalies.
Dale
At the end of the day, does it really matter if they look at this thread or read your messages?
If one has nothing to hide then it should not be a detrimental act. Investigative methods are not publicised because then counter measures can be developed to circumvent the next investigation.
Who's fault is it when one's safety is breached and harm ensues? The government's for not preventing it in the first place? Or the individual's for not being able to save them self?
If you can defend yourself and maintain your own safety - Why can't the government be allowed to defend itself, or the people in which it governs?
It matters because we believe in the right of privacy. For example, everyone here on this discussion forum is probably powerless to act on it, so let me ask you to post a detailed financial statement of your assets, accounts, and debts, with names of course. Who are your business associates? Who do your children date?
Since you have nothing to hide, and we can't steal from you, why would it matter? See what I mean? The information is private, and nobody else needs to know, regardless of their intentions. That's why it's bad that the government (which means people) can spy on you.
If there's too much data to be usefully sorted through, then why is the NSA collecting all of it? Isn't that a waste or energy, time, money, and manpower?
If some sort of system is being used to filter and sort through it all, looking for patterns ("data mining"), what guarantees do we have that the system is even working? How many false positives are there? How many false negatives? We know that the NSA's mass warrantless collection of data on the American public has not prevented terrorists attacks such as the one at the Boston Marathon. It stands to reason there are also other people who are entirely innocent who are also placed under suspicion by this data mining program because it's imperfect. Without any transparency, we have no knowledge of any successful use of the programs, and so the program is by definition unjustified to the American public. Is this not a government for the people by the people? How can we make good public policy decisions about a program that is so far-reaching in its impact but entirely secret? Hint: We can't.
If such programs are actually worthwhile, getting real results and with a minimum of collateral damage, then the American public would support them. That the government is so unwilling to even put these issues to vote is a sign that the American public would not support them if they were transparent. Likely they are rife with ineffectiveness and cost overruns. I'd like to know that, as a taxpayer.
I've heard the argument that we can't let "the enemy" know about these programs and how they work. Well if they're actually working, "the enemy" would surely notice all their plots being foiled, and their agents being arrested en masse. Knowing the capabilities of the US government to protect its citizens might even act as a deterrent. Security through obscurity is no security at all. You have to assume your opponent is smarter and faster than you, and already knows all of your defenses. Surely if Snowden could take a massive load of top secret documents out of the country in such a spectacular, public way, "the enemy" can infiltrate the NSA and steal plenty of secrets in secret.
And look, absolutely nobody is saying that the government shouldn't be allowed to gather information on specific targets. People are just saying the government needs to prove to a judge that they have a valid suspicion about a specific individual, and limit the scope of their investigation to that specific individual. What the government is doing here is collecting information on everybody, treating everybody as suspicious, and heaven help you if their analysis targets you by mistake.
How would you feel about the police coming by your home every single day, searching it thoroughly for anything illegal, and never having to justify their actions or get permission from a judge? They also stick cameras in every room without telling you, and search the homes and cars of all your friends and neighbors. Got anything even remotely embarrassing or personal inside your home? Do the police have any reasonable cause to suspect you of anything at all? Wouldn't you feel even just a tiny bit harassed or oppressed, even if you weren't doing anything they can arrest you for? The digital equivalent of this scenario is happening right now. Where's your outrage?
It's not about the people who are there now. It's about who will be there in the future. We wouldn't have a Constitution if we could trust the people in the government to always be good and well intentioned.
Laws and government agencies need to be set up to protect freedom from an unknown future. The NSA's data collection violates that principle.
Last edited:
How many times do you need to call BS on the same tired argument?
One of a million rebuttals:
https://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/
I'd go with (c) The person or group who created the harm.
It can. Within the bounds of the powers given to it by the people through the constitution.
It absolutely does matter, precisely because you're not doing anything illegal. You've got absolutely everything to hide, because your law-abiding behavior is none of the government's business at all.
It's a monumental waste of taxpayer money targeting individuals who have shown no cause for suspicion. As a taxpayer you should be outraged. It's entirely outside the constitutional and legislated scope of the government to investigate and harass citizens who are doing nothing wrong. As a citizen of a nation of laws you should be outraged. It's a violation of your natural rights to privacy as affirmed (not created) by the 4th Amendment. As a human being you should be outraged.
The harm, besides financial, legal, and natural, is also the chilling effects of such programs. I covered this in an earlier post, but the gist is this. If you or anyone else hesitates for even just a moment before exercising any of their rights, because they fear it might be misinterpreted by the all seeing eye of government, there is harm. We know these programs are flawed, because they're designed by human beings, implemented by human beings, managed by human beings, and the results analyzed by human beings. If you think "I have nothing to hide" and really believe that, do you also believe that there is a zero probability of you getting screwed over anyway? If there's even a chance, however small, that you might mistakenly be labeled a terrorist or whatever bogeyman-of-the-week the government is trying to scare us over, simply by user error of some NSA guy who didn't get enough sleep last night, then wouldn't you be a lot happier not to have your name in the database at all? If they're going to make mistakes, wouldn't it be better if they at least had to show some probable cause before collecting data so they only make mistakes with the data of actual suspects?
This is absolutely, 100% right. The current president, however anybody may feel about him personally or politically, is probably not the next Hitler or Stalin. The current head of the NSA, however anybody may feel about him, is probably not the next Heinrich Müller or Erich Mielke.
But what happens under the next administration? Or the one after that? What happens in 20, 50, or 100 years? Our laws are designed to restrict government not the people, because the founding fathers had just been oppressed by the English Crown and they were terrified of unchecked government power. History has shown time and time again, you give any government too much power, they will abuse it. Maybe not right away. Maybe not under the people where the power is first invested. But down the line, there is always abuse. So you restrict that power as much as possible, being suspicious of government, and ensuring checks and balances between various branches of that government so no one individual or group gains too much power.
Right now, the executive branch has a terrifying amount of power. The courts, under FISA, are not checking it. Congress isn't providing oversight. Perhaps the NSA, right now, is only just conducting LOVEINT and spying on celebrities, and letting people like Snowden sneak off with tons of our top secrets. Just a bit of harmless abuse and incompetence, right? Well okay. It's still a huge waste of taxpayer money, bombs are still going off in American cities, but maybe it's not resulting in a huge amount of real harm for real people. Without transparency, Congressional oversight, and proper court procedure, we'll never really know the depths of the abuse. But even if that abuse is tiny right now, that's no guarantee it will remain that way. There are dangerous precedents being set, here, not just legally, but also socially and politically. If a monster like Hitler could be elected democratically, who's to say it can't happen here? You think poor economic conditions, nationalistic fervor, and a charismatic psychopath won't ever make for the perfect storm again?
Nope. The reason why it's collected is not so that it can be constantly sorted through. It's collected so that if/when someone because suspect, the data can be searched specifically for that person's communications.
It's kind of like the way that most businesses film customers, or how some countries have cameras everywhere. They're not there to be gone through constantly. They're there only so that if a crime takes place, they can be reviewed.
See above. They're not searching everyone's comms. Only people they have been specifically tasked to investigate, and that's usually only those who communicate outside the country with suspected terrorists.
As you yourself noted above, there's supposedly no constant data mining.
It's not as non-transparent as you think, simply because so many people of all types and political persuasions have been involved.
There are currently about 1.5 million Americans with Top Secret clearances. Over the past few decades, there have been tens of millions of Americans with such clearances.
All those people do know why things are kept secret, and they do know how much success we've had.
Here's an idea: join up. Get a clearance. Find out for yourself. It's not like it's some secret cabal. Heck, anyone who's smart enough can apply.
Oh, I'm totally against the police being able to search smartphones without a warrant. I'm totally against police being allowed to hide GPS trackers on cars without a warrant. Moreover, some agencies such as the FBI have had a history of investigating political opponents. There's no way I'd give carte blanche power to any group.
So yes, vigilance over the watchers is important. That's why Congress and courts oversee these projects. And so do the people who do the work.
This is why it's important to note that so many Americans have been part of the Intelligence Services. Abuses cannot hide forever, when there are so many people involved.
Last edited: