Apple Says Opposing FBI is 'Absolutely Not' a 'Marketing Strategy'

[Nuvi]

They can. Have the NSA do it. This is clearly brought up to set a precedence.

My thoughts exactly. NSA has capability and resources to do it. Just a wild guess but I'll bet NSA has hacked plenty of iPhones before so it's not some new territory for them. Then again, getting everyone's data handed to them on a plate would be so much more easier...

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Fire on all cylinders.

 

[dk001]

What is it that people are afraid of.

I do not care if my local police can see everything on my phone and read my emails. Who cares?

I wouldn't want my family knowing or even my neighbours, but the police MI5 etc I am not bothered about.

I am not a terrorist so nothing I say or store is of any interest to them.

I have significant financial data on mine. Add to that health info, account(s) info and access, confidential work info, credit card use access, customer info, etc ...
No, this is not something I want every person with a "request" to have access to.

 

[Mac 128]

What is it that people are afraid of.

I do not care if my local police can see everything on my phone and read my emails. Who cares?

I wouldn't want my family knowing or even my neighbours, but the police MI5 etc I am not bothered about.

I am not a terrorist so nothing I say or store is of any interest to them.

In terms of what innocent people are afraid of, one thing is the potential for law informant organizations to plant evidence on their phone or computer. In other words, abuse of power by officials. This is exactly the same argument which frames the 2nd amendment -- the population should be able to defend itself from its own corrupt government. Giving law enforcement unrestricted access to people's private information invites the possibility for abuse of that power.

And, on a slightly less paranoid example, what happens if the private contents of an innocent person's iPhone are introduced into a legal case which becomes public record, exposing some of that private information they might otherwise wish to keep private from family and neighbors? What if in the process of introducing that data, the government fails to redact some bit of sensitive information that allows a criminal going through public records to effectively steal that person's identity? What if the government's servers get hacked and the content's of someone's iPhone in the process of review is stolen and used for nefarious purposes? Etc.

 

[OldGuyTom]

This is a pathetic marketing scam and nothing more. I've worked at two network providers and there were always secure areas for the company's security personnel and law enforcement. The areas were off limits to "regular" employees. Back then I suppose they were looking for pedophiles, drug money transfers, etc. etc. since terrorism wasn't as common place as it is now. When problems occurred they were handled privately. The presidents of the company didn't issue press releases or send out mail to all their customers proclaiming they were fighting for their privacy.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to call "BS" on this claim.

 

[Nuvi]

The county government (iPhone owner) and the FBI reset the password, presumably to keep the co-conspirators out.

This makes absolutely no sense. I'm not saying FBI didn't do it for that particular reason but it still doesn't make any sense. Any sane person would have seen this as possible honeypot scenario which could have drawn possible co-conspirators. Sounds like FBI is doing piss poor job.

 

[dk001]

This makes absolutely no sense. I'm not saying FBI didn't do it for that particular reason but it still doesn't make any sense. Any sane person would have seen this as possible honeypot scenario which could have drawn possible co-conspirators. Sounds like FBI is doing piss poor job.

Or they (FBI) thought they could get to the info before anyone else and get some kudos for doing so

 

[pika2000]

What is it that people are afraid of.

I do not care if my local police can see everything on my phone and read my emails. Who cares?

I wouldn't want my family knowing or even my neighbours, but the police MI5 etc I am not bothered about.

I am not a terrorist so nothing I say or store is of any interest to them.

Nobody's stopping you from not using a passcode or not locking your door.

 

[-hh]

One reason is the recent OPM breach. The government lost the names, social security numbers, addresses, phone numbers, finger prints, work history, salary, and more, of many that not only currently works for the government or used to work for the government, but anyone who applied for a job to work for the government. So far, 18 million individual records at the low end.

This, but even more profoundly, this next part:

Since this data also includes information on your siblings, your parents, your neighbors, and your co-workers, ...

And don't forget one's spouse ... including their SSN.

And none of these harmed peoples garnered any benefit, because they weren't even applying for said job.

...we can play the Kevin Bacon game...

Or identity theft: everything that would be required to go ask for a bank mortgage, etc.

I don't trust the government to keep my secrets. There is no way they can keep up with current technology and implement what is needed to safeguard my information.

Its not just the government, but pretty much any entity. In the infamous words of Benjamin Franklin:

"Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."

The larger question for Society is quite simple, as established in criminal law from Blackstone's foundation:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
- Sir William Blackstone

And embraced by the USA's founding fathers:

"It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever."
- John Adams, in defense of the British Soldiers of the Boston Massacre, November 27, 1770.

-hh