Really... Is that the best you can do? Great that you took the headline bait which was created out of thin air. I suppose when one's out of gas and not able to to contribute, trotting out that phrase over and over never gets old. Kind of like 5400 rpm drives, 16 gb memory, 1 gb ram, Apple/Cook is greedy, MASSIVE FAIL, and on and on. Bravo!
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 Actively Working to 'Double Down' on iCloud Encryption
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Really... Is that the best you can do? Great that you took the headline bait which was created out of thin air. I suppose when one's out of gas and not able to to contribute, trotting out that phrase over and over never gets old. Kind of like 5400 rpm drives, 16 gb memory, 1 gb ram, Apple/Cook is greedy, MASSIVE FAIL, and on and on. Bravo!
THIS
It's not crazy science fiction. It will happen in my lifetime. And when it does happen I want there to be decades-worth of court precedence that says those kind of things are warrant-proof.
It starts now, not the day when brain scans become available.
I did and can't see any significant difference between what's in the 2 backups, hence my request for specific details of what you say is missing. Removing duplicates between the two I end up with this list
- Data that's already stored in the cloud, like contacts, calendars, notes,
- Data stored in other cloud services, like Gmail and Exchange mail
Seeing as how that data is easily re-downloaded during the restore, I don't see a significant difference between an iCloud Backup and an iTunes one (certainly not enough of a difference to worry about it!)
The wording on the two lists is a bit different and they're in a different order, but I think I've done it right: here's how I did it with the iCloud backup item first and the iTunes relevant item second)
Data that's already stored in the cloud, like contacts, calendars, notes, My Photo Stream, and iCloud Photo Library (Photos already stored in the cloud, like My Photo Stream, and iCloud Photo Library)
Data stored in other cloud services, like Gmail and Exchange mail ()
Apple Pay information and settings (Apple Pay information and settings)
Touch ID settings (Touch ID settings)
Content you didn't get directly from iTunes, App, or iBooks Stores, like imported MP3s, videos, or CDs (Content synced from iTunes, like imported MP3s or CDs, videos, books, and photos)
iTunes in the Cloud and App Store content (Content from the iTunes and App Stores)
FUD
This is the "If you have nothing to hide then you won't care if the goverment can invade your privacy" fallacy.
The FBI is like a kid who is distracting the attention so does not have to actually do what is supposed to be doing.
More than a year ago I went to the FBI headquarters in Florida to give information about a drug dealer. I gave the information of his network with pictures, phone numbers, addresses, even the pictures of his hookers with real names and date of birth.... the drug dealer still around today with more money than ever. Not to mention is now a U.S. citizen.
That is the FBI.
More than a year ago I went to the FBI headquarters in Florida to give information about a drug dealer. I gave the information of his network with pictures, phone numbers, addresses, even the pictures of his hookers with real names and date of birth.... the drug dealer still around today with more money than ever. Not to mention is now a U.S. citizen.
That is the FBI.
That's a tough nut to crack right thee..
if Apple "prevented" any cloud access they would be the only ones that do, and that would mean there'd be little point in rolling your own private cloud. I would like to see what Apple comes up with.
To be able to provider the same level of encryption on a physical device is one thing we use everyday, but its a different matter entirely when u talk about cloud storage... I have not used SpiderOak for example, but even i have my doubts.
You cannot have T.N.O on someone else's server if the info is out of your control. As such the only way to have T.N.O is to be in control yourself. That's why i keep my info on me always unless i choose to give it up. But i'd keen to see what Apple does here
They are not the only ones. Google, Facebook, SnapChat and more are all looking to do the same. Encryption software companies are about to make a killing. All because of gov't overreach. If they thought iOS 9 was secure, they haven't seen anything yet....,
You do realize how easy it is to get a warrant for anything right?
There are options I think. I would agree that a backdoor or a master key is a problem. But for living criminals, allowing the the warrant to basically allow the police to force the criminal to open the phone would be a potential compromise. For dead criminals, the problem is clearly more difficult, but not insurmountable. The point is to have the right laws and processes to allow the legal search and seizure without giving away the key to the bank vault.
My point is not to weaken encryption. I would advocate for stronger. My point is how can we continue to support the legal system without weakening encryption. Tim even said that we need to debate this. I don't like the FBI's proposal, but that does not mean a solution can't be found.
Per the 5th amendment you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. Please consider your questions before asking
Look I used my example of pictures on purpose. Pictures are physical and the digital version is the same thing. If I have arrested a pedophile, getting to those pictures on the phone or in a digital locker is important to identify other victims so that the authorities can get them needed support. I do not want them having the master key, but yes I want there to be a way for the law to access information when they have the legal right to do so.
That is not progress IMHO. Progress is being able to better protect my assets and privacy. Progress is not putting them above the law.
If you have a storage unit (say at U-haul) I can get a warrant to enter that unit.
===================================
Folks I will take all the hits you want to give me. But let's not be simplistic here.
Encryption is good - we all agree.
More encryption is even better - we still agree.
But being above the law is not good - maybe we all don't agree, but I will not back away from that position. There has to be a way to access the information. It could be a semi-simple approach of giving the authority to force a user to unlock the data (with the proper warrants of course). Refusal would then be considered a crime or contempt of court which would give you additional jail time. The really bad folks would refuse and take the jail time. These are also the one that would have burned the physical evidence and covered there tracks. So it works out. And the FBI can hire better hackers to find ways around security -- just like the Chinese.
I use CrashPlan for my cloud backups and they have operated this way for years. If I forget my CrashPlan password, I lose access to my data.
There is no reason Apple cannot do the same. The fact of the matter is that warrant-proof systems already exist. Even if Google and Apple make it so they have backdoors into their systems criminals and terrorists can just use existing systems from third parties.
CrashPlan is yet another example of a warrant -proof system. Child pornographers have used encrypted hard drives as well and the PC manufacturers can do nothing to help the FBI.
There is no reason Apple cannot do the same. The fact of the matter is that warrant-proof systems already exist. Even if Google and Apple make it so they have backdoors into their systems criminals and terrorists can just use existing systems from third parties.
CrashPlan is yet another example of a warrant -proof system. Child pornographers have used encrypted hard drives as well and the PC manufacturers can do nothing to help the FBI.
If you are a dead terrorist, it's quite hard for you to provide decryption keys or unlock your smartphone
BTW, government agencies have the ability to intercept most of those data while "in the air" ....
[doublepost=1458140630][/doublepost]
He is wrong. Go figure.
And this is where your thinking is turned inside out and upside down. You're implying that your privacy, and mine are subservient to the law. When in fact the law is subservient to yours and my privacy. Having a master key to every house in the world just to catch one bad guy not only flies in the face of civil liberty law, but it is immoral in terms of personal liberty.
No government should have that power. Especially one that has many, many other tools in their arsenal to fight crime, and who has shown time and again that they cannot be trusted with the powers that are granted to them.
And from a more pragmatic standpoint, it's ludicrous to think that criminals intent on hiding their tracks will not utilize one of the many encryption tools available to them outside of Apple's domain, while hundreds of millions of innocent people will lose their privacy and security in the name of...security.
It's like saying that I am a criminal for owning a gun that I have never used to hurt anyone, just because someone else might use one to hurt others.
Not a surprise and an expected (at least to me) natural evolutionary progression.
Take this current "privacy" issue off the table and I bet we would be seeing this same evolution.
Cook has made a series of boneheaded product decisions of late, but he's been gutsy as hell in fighting the good fight to protect customer privacy.
Thanks, Tim! You're establishing a legacy all your own.
Thanks, Tim! You're establishing a legacy all your own.
Keychain?
There is also the "and now for something completely different..."
[doublepost=1458141669][/doublepost]
Most WSJ stories if the URL is copied and posted into Google search, your can get the full article.
[doublepost=1458141907][/doublepost]
Had that discussion a few years back (before smartphones) as part of an Ethics / Civics class. Our conclusion was a resounding No unless there are significant Constitutional changes enacted. Or the advent of a Police State.
One of the primary discussions was the significant potential for process abuse by those in power.
Many years later and here we are ...
[doublepost=1458142018][/doublepost]
Please rezip your ziplock
BG gave an ambiguous answer while Microsoft came out in favor of Apple.
Only MS filed an (partnered) AB. Bill did not.
[doublepost=1458142206][/doublepost]
Apple has never use "encryption" as a selling point in an advertisement.
I did however like John Oliver's version
Last edited:
Except the robber IS the government. It has already been proven the NSA taps EVERYONE without a warrant. People like Snowden have already leaked 'secure' documents. You'd be naive to think that any DIGITAL solution the government has to access phones, even with a warrant, wouldn't be leaked and used by hackers/criminals. No way I would trust the government to protect anything.
STOP COMPARING THE DIGITAL WORLD TO THE PHYSICAL!
How about Apple sell non-encrypted iPhones to the bad guys and encrypted phones to everyone else. That way, the government can get the data they want.. problem solved.
[doublepost=1458142921][/doublepost]
Exactly, they're not altruistic like other companies, whose motivation is not profit.
Even though this is a bit off topic, you cannot relegate your opinion to just the 4th. In a case like this, when asked to "create" something for the warrant, the 1st and 5th Amendments come into direct scope. While you are correct for general "search" warrants, that is not what Apple was served with. Don't limit yourself to a narrow scope of the legal document served to Apple.
[doublepost=1458143479][/doublepost]
Most people don't know whom or how to get a warrant. The scope of folks allowed to request a warrant and the method to get one is pretty wide open.
Exactly. My iPhone, along with Evernote and other apps, is already my digital brain. It would be such a huge invasion of privacy to allow anyone have the encryption key to my data.
...
Per the 5th amendment you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. Please consider your questions before asking
.
Just for general knowledge and for those too lazy / busy to look it up, here is a summary definition of the Fifth Amendment.
An amendment to the US Constitution that provides for due process of law where the government is seeking to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property; provides for Grand Jury proceedings for certain serious offenses; prohibits the government from trying a person again after that person has been acquitted; prohibits the government from forcing a defendant to testify against himself or herself; and prohibits government confiscation of private property for public use without just compensation to the property owner.
There is quite a bit included in this Amendment.
I guess you didn't read my other comments, so we will just have to leave it here. You have your opinion and you will not entertain others. Nothing more can be said.
You really DON'T get. Here is the problem.... encryption that is unbreakable for all practicable purposes ALREADY EXISTS. It has existed for 3 decades. It is available via free open source download on the internet. Even if Apple and Google provided backdoors or other "magical" methods to enable search warrants against the phones of bad guys, it would not matter. Android is open source. Somebody in Afghanistan can go download open source Android, they can EASILY build a version that encrypts the entire phone with a secure alphanumeric password with no backdoors (in fact I think CynagenMod already has this option).
In fact, after the death of Osama Bin Laden, the USA recovered Al Queda documents that detailed plans for building encrypted communication systems based on existing open source. Perhaps Apple and Google (and Crashplan or any other secure service that uses encryption) have saved them the trouble, but in reality, what these companies have done is made it possible for the good guys to have security rather than just letting the bad guys have it. This is a fact that anybody who has worked in the field of digital security already understands. However, John Oliver lays it out in layman's terms quite nicely:
Next up.... let's allow secure phones but require a background check and 3-day waiting period to buy one.... oh wait that is the gun control argument, where the bad guys also have access to whatever guns they want, but the good guys have to jump through hoops.