Apple Speaks Out Against Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
freediverx
macrumors 65816
CISA is a dirty deal.
It's the dirty deal that lets much of government from the NSA to local police get your private data from your favorite websites and lets them use it without due process. The government is proposing a massive bribe—they will give corporations immunity for breaking virtually any law if they do so while providing the NSA, DHS, DEA, and local police surveillance access to everyone's data in exchange for getting away with crimes, like fraud, money laundering, or illegal wiretapping.
Specifically it incentivizes companies to automatically and simultaneously transfer your data to the DHS, NSA, FBI, and local police with all of your personally-indentifying information by giving companies legal immunity (notwithstanding any law), and on top of that, you can't use the Freedom of Information Act to find out what has been shared.
The NSA and members of Congress want to pass a "cybersecurity" bill so badly, they’re using the recent hack of the Office of Personnel Management as justification for bringing CISA back up and rushing it through. In reality, the OPM hack just shows that the government has not been a good steward of sensitive data and they need to institute real security measures to fix their problems. The truth is that CISA could not have prevented the OPM hack, and no Senator could explain how it could have. Congress and the NSA are using irrational hysteria to turn the Internet into a place where the government has overly broad, unchecked powers.
It's the dirty deal that lets much of government from the NSA to local police get your private data from your favorite websites and lets them use it without due process. The government is proposing a massive bribe—they will give corporations immunity for breaking virtually any law if they do so while providing the NSA, DHS, DEA, and local police surveillance access to everyone's data in exchange for getting away with crimes, like fraud, money laundering, or illegal wiretapping.
Specifically it incentivizes companies to automatically and simultaneously transfer your data to the DHS, NSA, FBI, and local police with all of your personally-indentifying information by giving companies legal immunity (notwithstanding any law), and on top of that, you can't use the Freedom of Information Act to find out what has been shared.
The NSA and members of Congress want to pass a "cybersecurity" bill so badly, they’re using the recent hack of the Office of Personnel Management as justification for bringing CISA back up and rushing it through. In reality, the OPM hack just shows that the government has not been a good steward of sensitive data and they need to institute real security measures to fix their problems. The truth is that CISA could not have prevented the OPM hack, and no Senator could explain how it could have. Congress and the NSA are using irrational hysteria to turn the Internet into a place where the government has overly broad, unchecked powers.
freediverx
macrumors 65816
freediverx
macrumors 65816
They are answerable. There must be a balance between security and civil liberties. CISA and the NSA are unraveling the Bill of Rights, and there has been zero evidence that this mass surveillance has prevented a single terrorist act. Millions of people die every day for a wide variety of reasons and the irrational obsession with terrorism is just a facade for the government to increase its powers and erode civil liberties that millions have fought and died to preserve.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
ivoruest
macrumors 6502
I thought our information was already being shared. And now, even with fingerprints that should confirm the use of the device by a specific user.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe that we're being watched all of the time. This is why I haven't activated my TouchID unlock, eventhough it is not needed for scanning my fingers everytime I press the button. Any comments by an experienced programer will be very much appreciated.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe that we're being watched all of the time. This is why I haven't activated my TouchID unlock, eventhough it is not needed for scanning my fingers everytime I press the button. Any comments by an experienced programer will be very much appreciated.
Piggie
macrumors G3
I don't understand the issue.
Tim Cook has publicly said Apple don't collect any info, it's simply not there to collect. They could not collect it even if they wanted to, due to the way they have designed their system.
So it's a non issue, the government cannot get access to anything stored or said on Apple mobile devices can they?
If what Tim has publicly stated is indeed true.
Or are we now saying that what Tim said to us buying public is actually not true, and if requested Apple can/will supply the data?
What you type, Say, Store on your iPhone is either Private and unobtainable as Tim has stated, or it's not.
You can't have it both ways.
Tim Cook has publicly said Apple don't collect any info, it's simply not there to collect. They could not collect it even if they wanted to, due to the way they have designed their system.
So it's a non issue, the government cannot get access to anything stored or said on Apple mobile devices can they?
If what Tim has publicly stated is indeed true.
Or are we now saying that what Tim said to us buying public is actually not true, and if requested Apple can/will supply the data?
What you type, Say, Store on your iPhone is either Private and unobtainable as Tim has stated, or it's not.
You can't have it both ways.
cwt1nospam
macrumors 6502a
Yes, let's do that. Does law enforcement want organized crime to have access to my private information? Does law enforcement want ISIS or a rogue state like N. Korea to be able to target and attack, from thousands of miles away, individuals who may have said something negative about them? Does law enforcement really believe that there can be a way to prevent access to private information by people who should not have it and still have a back door?
The bottom line is that problems with back doors are much greater than the solutions they provide. Technology can't solve that.
dk001
macrumors demi-god
At the same time I do not have in-house surveillance that authorities can record, review, search and monitor 24x7 either. What is being asked is far far outside a warrant.
dk001
macrumors demi-god
TC is far from stupid. Listen/read very carefully what he is saying. It is specific and not generalized. When you are being that specific, there is a reason. What that reason is we do not know.
cwt1nospam
macrumors 6502a
I agree. You don't.
That's with IOS > 7, so they could be compelled to break into devices of the small percentage of IOS users still on IOS 7 or before.
The bigger issue is what happens going forward. Could they be compelled to redesign their system to allow for storing keys? Yes, if laws like this pass. The irony is that many of the people who see a slippery slope with respect to guns (where there really isn't one: background checks on all gun sales is not nearly as intrusive as this) don't see it here.
cwt1nospam
macrumors 6502a
LOL! The one place you can be sure that you're not being watched is with TouchID! No apps have access to the fingerprints stored on your iPhone. Read up on Secure Enclave.
Last edited:
dk001
macrumors demi-god
Ummmm... Marriage Licenses started in the Middle Ages to allow a "marriage" that was deemed illegal in the country and was issued by church or state. Here in the US they became the "norm" in order to deal with one State not recognizing another State's common-law marriage (which was the norm).
dk001
macrumors demi-god
I think if people really knew how bills were drafted/crafted and what exactly the lawmakers knew in terms of details they would be appalled.
Artimus12
macrumors 6502a
For your examples to hold any water, you must first believe that Terrorism is not being used by Government to undermine the Rights of Citizens to personal privacy, and many individuals do not believe that to be the case! They instead believe that the threat of Terrorism is being used by Government to install fear (a weapon in itself) in a population and thus erode privacy rights written into Law to protect Citizens from a Governing power that no longer has its population's best interests at heart.
Snowdon may have been labeled a Traitor by agents of said Government, but as he didn't produce those documents\communications himself, ...and please note that there has been no denial of their authenticity, in contrast, some have been proven to be accurate and admissions have been made... logic dictates there must be at least some truth to what has so far been published.
There are still other ways to gather intelligence on individual suspects without needing to access the Whole World's electronic devices. These Security Services need to get off their backside's and back to good old Detective Work.
dk001
macrumors demi-god
Head - Sand
Just because TC says A and B are true and goes into great detail on this (which I applaud), does not mean C, D, E, and F are also true at the same level when mentioned in a general way. Even if spoken publicly.
dk001
macrumors demi-god
Scenario (all to real):You mention something in joke on a social site that trips the attention of a school official who escalates it to the local pd who reviews it and dumps it as a non issue.
But....
The FBI picks up the pd review, bounces it off the data collected by the NSA since you have no privacy and suddenly your innocent past is now being scoped in a whole different way. Things could easily be taken out of context or linked A to b to C to ... your grey comment / activity is ow being judged in a black and white data world. Suddenly your world is turned upside down.
Inquisition. I'm not talking Monty Python.
ctdonath
macrumors 68000
You're breezing right by the core problem with that comment. The key word is "potential".
There are a whole lotta people in power who think that my kind fits that description, just because I adhere to common religious/social/political views. The governor of NY described my kind and said we should leave the state. DHS enumerated harmless characteristics of my kind and deems them dangerous indicators. I'm on numerous lists just because I (like a great many) want to exercise Constitutional rights harmlessly. Were you highly selective in my (very extensive & broad) personal library, you could find something to condemn me over. Yet ... I'm practically no different from nearly half the people in this country. And yes, there are state agents who would stick me in that "potential" category (for no good reason, mind you). Yes, I want my communications secured - precisely because the state often wants to go on a fishing expedition and snoop everything they can, declaring upstanding citizens to be enemies.
No, I don't want the state to have such access.
Get a warrant. Convince a judge there _actually_ is a problem, then use that big budget to do some basic investigation. Quit using the specter of "potential terrorist communications" as a disingenuous way to snoop on everyone.
dk001
macrumors demi-god
Just to level set:
The topic that raised TC and the iOS8 and above Apple can't get into is totally different than CISA. That legal proceeding is dealing with unlocking a idevice has far bigger implications that reach well beyond iOS or device access. Apple just happens to be the man in the middle at the moment (thankfully in this case).
The topic that raised TC and the iOS8 and above Apple can't get into is totally different than CISA. That legal proceeding is dealing with unlocking a idevice has far bigger implications that reach well beyond iOS or device access. Apple just happens to be the man in the middle at the moment (thankfully in this case).
ctyrider
macrumors 65816
No. What's led to 9/11 is an overall incompetence of various security agencies and their inability to piece together the information they already had on the 9/11 plotters. Mohamed Atta and company were on FBI watch list and it was well known to the government that they were taking flight lessons and doing other suspicious things.
9/11 did not happen because of government inability to decrypt electronic communications.
ah ok then.... in the manner then 9/11 happened based on other research because the SAS helped plan it.
In any case, the ability to share data between companies it basally only because they don't want governments to share, or the NSA to collect..
it just sounds more "reasonable" and less of a panic if a company which already has it anyway, to share with other non-governments rather with a higher power.
Regardless. Apple wants all that info anyway, its the only reason why they are so vocal about it, so we will trust them and be more in favor of giving our privacy up.... Regardless of what Apple will do, or will not do with it, is irreverent.
Once u give up any info, u loose privacy, that's always been my take on it. and that's how it will stay
After all. if a company lays out exactly what they do, and no other one does, wouldn't u more likely hand over your money to them ? of course.
Cook even said it himself ""No one should have to decide between privacy or security."
to my reply: why not ? we have think for ourselves..
It's good Apple's being all good about privacy, BUT in the end of the day. users decide what they give up... That's how it should always be... and if a company says "we'll think on your behalf",then my question to them is "ok... what is your (real) purpose"
In any case, the ability to share data between companies it basally only because they don't want governments to share, or the NSA to collect..
it just sounds more "reasonable" and less of a panic if a company which already has it anyway, to share with other non-governments rather with a higher power.
Regardless. Apple wants all that info anyway, its the only reason why they are so vocal about it, so we will trust them and be more in favor of giving our privacy up.... Regardless of what Apple will do, or will not do with it, is irreverent.
Once u give up any info, u loose privacy, that's always been my take on it. and that's how it will stay
After all. if a company lays out exactly what they do, and no other one does, wouldn't u more likely hand over your money to them ? of course.
Cook even said it himself ""No one should have to decide between privacy or security."
to my reply: why not ? we have think for ourselves..
It's good Apple's being all good about privacy, BUT in the end of the day. users decide what they give up... That's how it should always be... and if a company says "we'll think on your behalf",then my question to them is "ok... what is your (real) purpose"
Last edited:
What you are talking about in the middle ages was the sovereign making exclusive claim to the maidenhead of every female in his jurisdiction. Some historians I've read insist that led to prima nocte, while others say that no such thing ever happened. However, regardless of the validity of that, the sovereign still claimed ownership over persons in his fealty. Hang on to that for a moment...
I was speaking of the colonies in my post, I should have clarified that. Initially in the colonies and early days of the confederated States, many marriages were common-law or performed in front of lay witnesses, in addition to the popular tradition of a church wedding. The ceremony - if any - was there to let the neighborhood know these people were "off the market". To put things on record for the purposes of inheritance and provenance they had registration of marriage, but not licensing of marriage. This ranged from simple family Bible entries up to recording a statement with the local registrar. Again, this wasn't done to acknowledge state permission, but rather used the common interpretation of the state as an organization to make your declarations of personal property and contract public knowledge and thus prevent fraud and question of equity position.
The Articles gave way to the stronger central government that was known as "these united States of America", and finally in that all important post-war era after 1865 we ended up with the "United States". It was the mid-century mentality that was terrified of whites intermarrying with other races that brought marriage licensing into play. This was fascistic at its core, as a large noisy portion of the people pestered the government to "do something" about that possibility of interracial marriage. The government as usual threw up its hands and said "we can't do anything... unless you give us the power. Care to try?" (This is a very distilled summary of what happened, obviously.) Laws were passed with the white majority shaking their fists in the air in triumph, and white marriages into other races were blocked by fiat.
By the 1920s this had expanded to 38 states where the "darker" races (including blacks, Philippinos, Amerinds, and Chinese) couldn't marry into whites, and the common-law marriage was on the downslide.
If you can get past the pay-wall, check this article out. Keep in mind that many of those interracial ban states were northern, not southern states.
Now back to what you were talking about with the middle ages. Back then, the ruler felt that he had first right to everything in your life, whether it was your increase (taxes), property (more taxes), progeny (conscription), or estate (yet more taxes. Right now the median tax bracket is 38 percent in the US, and everything you buy with that is taxed in some way, produced by companies that were double taxed on employment and buried under the weight of regulations, and those companies were owned by people that were basically triple taxes (corporate tax + capital gains on shares + income tax). The colonies revolted in part over a 10 percent tax to Geo III, and for the most part the British left the people alone here. I'm not saying we'd be better off with their system - because it obviously has gotten much, much worse for people in the UK - but I am saying look at how stalwart the people were there to take the risk of secession back in 1775 when they had so much to lose. The people in this country will put up with anything as long as they get an extra couple hundred cable channels full of sports, more porn, and more reality shows.
Once u give up any info, u loose privacy, that's always been my take on it. and that's how it will stay
After all. if a company lays out exactly what they do, and no other one does, wouldn't u more likely hand over your money to them ? of course.
Cook even said it himself ""No one should have to decide between privacy or security."
to my reply: why not ? we have think for ourselves..
It's good Apple's being all good about privacy, BUT in the end of the day. users decide what they give up... That's how it should always be... and if a company says "we'll think on your behalf",then my question to them is "ok... what is your (real) purpose"
I think you're confusing two separate situations.
It is completely your choice to give up your privacy voluntarily to these companies for services rendered. You're an adult, you can enter into a legally binding contract and do whatever you want with your information including put it on a billboard for all to see or bury it in your yard in a lockbox, and then put a patio over it, or any use between those two extremes. Just don't go crying to the state when someone does something with your information that you didn't foresee. This is living at your own risk, and its the way things should be.
Leaving aside your right to contract for mutual benefit, we look at the state. It claims a monopoly on your life and they collect your information and you have no say in what they're going to do with your information. Anything you say or do can lead you to a locked cell with no escape, and trying to hide yourself to avoid that will eventually lead you to the cell next door for suspicious behavior. They may or may not tell you what you're being charged with, and since you're suspected of a "treasonous act", not an actual crime, you won't even have a chance in a court before a jury of your peers. At best you might appear in front of a grand jury who will simply rubber stamp what the government tells them they want. You don't get a chance to have a say in it.
Don't kid yourself about your vote mattering, either.
dk001
macrumors demi-god
The NYTimes? ( I have a subscription via work ).
Have to do a bit more digging if I feel like it.
But the NYT - I always always always treat any article they publish like it is a modified half truth with an agenda unless I can prove to myself it isn't.