Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Speaks Out Against Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act

If forced, as we are, to choose between being free and being secure, since the two concepts are polar opposites, I'll choose freedom every time, even if it does come at a cost. It always does, and always will. If this country decides freedom is too scary a burden to live with, well then that pretty much wraps it up for the U.S.

...it's almost like we should have a constitutional amendment specifically declaring the importance of personal communications, travel, and effects to prevent an intrusive government from treating everyone as though they're guilty until proven innocent, creating a culture of paranoia, squelching dissent and free expression, undermining democracy itself.

If that is the position the senate or law enforcement takes, then they are undeniably an enemy of the people, the constitution, and deserve to be treated as such. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: freediverx, dk001, 5105973 and 8 others
This proposed legislation conflicts with judicial due process as it exists in the US and represents yet another attempt at wholesale collection of information of citizens without probable cause.

Please speak out and resist these moves toward an Orwellian 'Big Brother' society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freediverx, dk001, 5105973 and 4 others
No evidence here but I feel that there is something bigger going on. Apple and the other companies are being very vocal which is good but also makes me wonder what exactly they have been asked to do. Is it just a backdoor? Something more? Again, I dont know enough but I do wonder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001 and 5105973
Chatter said:
No evidence here but I feel that there is something bigger going on. Apple and the other companies are being very vocal which is good but also makes me wonder what exactly they have been asked to do. Is it just a backdoor? Something more? Again, I dont know enough but I do wonder.
Click to expand...

That is something that has been worrying me in the back of my thoughts. Notice how specific they are? "We can't decrypt UNLESS the customer is running the older iOS." Its like "heres yet another reason to upgrade to iOS 9!"

And yet every time I do a major upgrade I have to spend an hour searching and researching through every setting to turn off every cloud "feature" that gets turned on. I upgraded one of the phones to 9 today, and as usual, it immediately activated iCloud Drive, iPhoto Streaming, iCloud Photo Sharing, iPhoto Send Right to the White House, Find My iPhone (hilarious as that particular phone did not have an iCloud account or any other user info attached to it - it was used strictly as a phone), and tons of other little things. It looks like iOS casts a wider net with every iteration. Fortunately, there was no information on it, but still, this blatant porosity shouldn't happen.

Anyway, my point was that they seem so hot to get everyone to upgrade, and now they're basically saying "its so secure no one can get into it, even with a court order!" Makes me wonder, like you said, is there something else going on here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tampageek
Apple is likely the most clever company on the planet.

They know exactly how to win customers confidence by saying what the customers want to hear. Saying it over and over in different situations and times it becomes the truth.

The iPhone is the Dream Personal Tracking- Spying Device of the: FBI / NSA / DHS / IRS / ATF / agencies.

Every civilian that carries an iPhone or other Smartphone is extremely valuable as the agencies get all we do via a smartphone recorded, sent to the archives, much to their delight.

If this is unbelievable from your perspective.

Check back in a few years.

The Slap Of Reality Awaits You... :eek:
 
ThunderSkunk said:
...it's almost like we should have a constitutional amendment specifically declaring the importance of personal communications, travel, and effects
Click to expand...

The problem is that by doing that, you're automatically giving them loopholes. The Constitution was meant to restrain government but actually gave it a gigantic loophole in what is commonly known as the "commerce clause". By saying that Congress gets to regulate commerce between the states, they have decided that anything that can even remotely pass over state lines is now under their jurisdiction. From this we end up with the FTC, FAA, FCC, EPA and so many other parts of the bureaucracy - what is increasingly known as the "deep government", because it doesn't face oversight or risk office every few years - and these agencies are now writing law from their desks instead of waiting on Congress. And never mind that "regulate" simply meant to "provide for", as in "make a path for".

So... you specifically declare the importance of personal communication, travel, and effects, and watch how multitudes of federal agencies spring up to "defend" those things. And in order to do so, they'll need staff, and funding, and authority over implementing regs. Then they'll require cooperation from companies who manufacture those regulated items. Of course they'll need investigative powers, followed by arrest powers. With the cooperation of local law enforcement of course! Wouldn't want to run afoul of that old Constitution...

See what a slippery slope you walk when you award a monopoly on violence to an entity like that? Too bad the Founders didn't stay with the Articles of Confederation. The weaker government that derived from that would probably have taken an extra hundred years to get as bad as where we are now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freediverx
jimthing said:
The problem is very complex. Look at it from the law enforcement side too.

Do you want the state to protect you from terrorism: yes. But do you want the state to have access to potential terrorist communications? Erm, yes.

So how does the state get access to those comms, without having a way to access them (by breaking encryption)? Yet also not breaking the encrypted comms of innocents as well?

All questions that remain unanswerable currently. And is a dichotomy for us as a society to wrangle with.
Click to expand...
The right to privacy existed before the digital age, it makes things harder but not impossible. The government is just trying to become curupt like most powerful ones tend to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freediverx
BigBeast said:
Does anyone else feel like the people are constantly having to fight against their governments? Where is the nation that was once FOR the people?
Click to expand...
The one created by fighting against their government? Then maintained by fighting against their government? Still here.
 
Sill said:
The problem is that by doing that, you're automatically giving them loopholes. ... you specifically declare the importance of personal communication, travel, and effects, and watch how multitudes of federal agencies spring up to "defend" those things. And in order to do so, they'll need staff, and funding, and authority over implementing regs. Then they'll require cooperation from companies who manufacture those regulated items. Of course they'll need investigative powers, followed by arrest powers. With the cooperation of local law enforcement
Click to expand...

Sure, they could do that too, or, like the 4th amendment I paraphrased (& expanded), they could again claim emergency powers due to war, write an Act shredding it, and since we are now in a permanent state of war, never have to relinquish any emergency powers, but make them the new status quo, in yet another in a long line of ratcheting power grabs by authoritarians.

Half a century ago, a handful of actions far less treasonous as this were regarded with such outrage that enormous public hearings were held and a president was figuratively crucified over it. What luck those same people still advising security policy today are having, with a citizenry as distracted, complacent and pliable as they are.

The pendulum swings wider and wider again.
 
brand said:
No, not at the cost of our constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
Until a bomb goes off in your town and the unthinkable happens and the constitutional rights are left the same in print but take on a slightly different interpretation in mind by those directly affected?

BTW the way, I’m not saying I agree with it one way or the other. Just that it’s a lot more complex.
 
ThunderSkunk said:
If forced, as we are, to choose between being free and being secure, since the two concepts are polar opposites, I'll choose freedom every time, even if it does come at a cost. It always does, and always will. If this country decides freedom is too scary a burden to live with, well then that pretty much wraps it up for the U.S.

...it's almost like we should have a constitutional amendment specifically declaring the importance of personal communications, travel, and effects to prevent an intrusive government from treating everyone as though they're guilty until proven innocent, creating a culture of paranoia, squelching dissent and free expression, undermining democracy itself.

If that is the position the senate or law enforcement takes, then they are undeniably an enemy of the people, the constitution, and deserve to be treated as such. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last.
Click to expand...
This. Security and prvacy are like opposite sides of a coin. Increase one and you reduce the other. A happy medium needs to be found.
 
While you are busy clapping, laughing hysterically and tweeting about at Obama's angry translator this is what is actually getting done in the government offices, which many people don't care about until it is too late.

True politicians are long gone now. You either get puppets or comedians (or just plain anecdotes such) nowadays.

Apple is doo.. No wait. WE'RE dooomed!

Note from Spoderman (for the more thickheaded Obama nuts):
You can change Obama's name for any other politician. From where I'm standing he is just a better entertainer than the other guys that preceded him.
 
scaramoosh said:
It's common sense isn't it?

Your data should be private unless you're in a court case on a murder charge, there is lots of circumstantial evidence against you and that data could be used to convict you.

I don't see why this is even an argument.


Edit: I'm just using that as one extreme example.
Click to expand...

You cannot have it both ways, this is the Problem with what TIM says again and again.

Either it's secure, Secret and Apple cannot access it even if they wanted to (which is the story he keeps telling the public)
Or When needed for criminal/national security reasons your data CAN be accessed and disclosed.

You CANNOT have it both ways.

If you murder, Rape, Blow up the White House and all of a sudden Apple can obtain your terrorist plans you were sending and using on iPhones etc, then Tim is Lying to us.

He and Apple have to be unable to supply the Authorities with any data, even to help convict the worst terrorists in the world if he is being honest when he says Apple cannot access your data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SirCheese
While I agree it's bad law and Apple et al. are right in opposing it, I'd just like to point out that there is no one in this thread saying Apple should stay out of politics like there are when Mr. Cook says something about gay rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MyopicPaideia and rdowns
I do not care what reasonable argument you make as to how we need to stop terrorism. There is never justification for invading millions of lives because maybe you will find a bad guy in there. This is the slippery slope that leads to George Orwell's "1984" or Phillip Dick's "Minority Report".

No thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001, jpgr15 and Benjamin Frost
lowendlinux said:
While I agree it's bad law and Apple et al. are right in opposing it, I'd just like to point out that there is no one in this thread saying Apple should stay out of politics like there are when Mr. Cook says something about gay rights.
Click to expand...
True, but I did ask the question in the other thread about his WSJ interview. For me this is reasonable that he take a stance because the law would affect Apple in terms of how they write the OS security. If it passes, they either build a back door or have to maintain a database of encryption keys to provide to the government. There is a direct cost to Apple on this. Not to mention that folks today prefer Apple over Google because of the perception of better security and privacy. This would eliminate the perceived advantage and could cost Apple part of its customer base. The LGBT issue is a potential indirect cost in terms of people who work or might work at the company. This is is an area that is less clear for a company to get involved in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001 and Benjamin Frost
The way I look at it, I want my personal privacy from marketing and sales programs unless I sign up for it. In the case of national security and criminal cases, I do think the courts should be able to request records from a smart phone or any phone. But it shouldn't just be random or when they feel like taking a peek at someone's data. If you're under active investigation, then they should be able to request the phone be unlocked.

I appreciate Apple's stance on this, but there are situations where access is needed.

And for those of you that are freaked over this...look at it this way, how many times has the FBI or police showed up at your door with a court order to enter and search your house? In my case... never and this should be no different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sbailey4
lowendlinux said:
While I agree it's bad law and Apple et al. are right in opposing it, I'd just like to point out that there is no one in this thread saying Apple should stay out of politics like there are when Mr. Cook says something about gay rights.
Click to expand...

That's an illogical comparison.

Privacy matters directly affect Apple due to the products they make.
 
When a citizen has to remind the government what the Constitution says, it's just another day in liberty land. The Constitution was written to protect us from government. We are the sovereigns not the bureaucracy that sets to tax and fine and jail us over the most trivial things. Never has it been more true that, "they will send swarms of agents, hither and yon to eat out our sustenance". (Patrick Henry)

It has certainly expanded to the state and county levels as well now. In San Bernardino County, CA they hired hundreds of agents, gave them cars and fine books and started going from property to property writing "beautification" fines. They don't give warnings. Just fines. Nobody was given notice of the beautification rules either. They were written by an unknown committee and published in a rule book nobody sees, knows about, or is publicized in any way. The fines typically exceed the property taxes.

Rocketman

cite:

http://www.mikechurch.com/founders-...ck-henry-say-about-swarms-of-irs-agents-this/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back