Campaigners Rally to Support Apple's Stance on Government Backdoors

[mw360]

Well... when your daughter is possibly getting raped in a dark parking lot, I promise not to stop the perpetrator with my guns. I'll keep walking by. Hope that makes you sleep better at night.

Hey if you and all the other John McClane fantasists are successfully fending off 30,000 rapists every year, then the 30,000 gun deaths might be worth it. Not sure you are though. I suspect my imaginary daughter is statistically more likely to be murdered or accidentally shot by you, than rescued in a blaze of heroic gunfire.

 

[Rogifan]

Well, I actually agree that a company, given a court order, should be compelled to supply the government with any personal data that the company might have on you. That is entirely different than the government compelling a company to design a product that will allow them to access data you personally stored either on a physical device or in the cloud.

Well this is something then that congress or the Supreme Court needs to decide. I don't want companies and individual citizens deciding what laws and court orders they're going to chose to obey. If Apple believes it's in the right let it argue in front of the Supreme Court. If it's as cut and dry as most posters here claim it should be an easy win for Apple. And then we have precedence for when this situation arises again (which it will).

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I look at a thread about Apple's spat with the FBI, and what do I find? Claims that Obama is a criminal, global warming denials and imaginary firearms-based rape-rescue fantasies. Yep, this is the PRSI.

Anyway, the real story we're supposed to be discussing here is interesting. The FBI can obtain a search warrant to access a deceased person's private dwelling to search for evidence; if the house is locked I imagine they are empowered to demand a key from a person known to have one, call the locksmith or break the door in. Metaphorically speaking, the same should be true for an iPhone, but the question is, does Apple have to open the door or is it the FBI's responsibility to break in themselves?

It sounds like Apple's security must be pretty effective if the FBI feel the need to go after them for a piece of backdoor software.

 

[doelcm82]

Did you support Kim Davis when she refused to sign same sex marriage licenses because it went against her beliefs? I have no problem with Apple fighting this using whatever legal means are at their disposal but I don't think they get to decide what court orders they follow or not. And no where is Tim Cook saying Apple from a technical standpoint can't follow this court order.

Kim Davis was on the wrong side of the argument, but I supported her right to take the stand that she did. It wasn't preventing the couples from receiving marriage licenses (they could have gone to another county). I also supported the rights of the couples who decided to keep applying for licenses in their own county. In the end, they got their licenses, and Kim Davis didn't have to personally sign them. Nor was her name on the licenses they received.

 

[pooleman]

So what is the end result here? It's a court order so I'm assuming Apple can't just ignore it. Is Apple able to appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court? Even if Apple is right on the substance this shouldn't be their decision to make. It should be either congress or the Supreme Court that decides for all companies.

Here is the end result. Tim Cook will comply with the order. Stalling like this allows Apple to appear to be standing up for the rights of its users. If Cook complied immediately the iPhone user base would backlash and sales could be affected. Apple has already complied with this kind of court order 20 times to date. After this dies down Apple will quietly comply with the order. Tim Cook will not write an open letter after he complies as he did when he defied the order.

This "demonstration" outside the Apple store has illustrated Tim Cook's and Apples masterful puppetry skills. Tim Cook is simply protecting the cash flow.

 

[Thunderbird]

When I seen the headlines of this all I could say is I am damn proud of Apple being a Tech company that is standing their ground and holding firm on this because at the end of the day it doesn't matter who or what the invasive government wants that they think they can just set forth orders and get while violating the rights and privacy of every person in this country regardless if foreign or domestic.

Tim really is doing a fine job with Apple in his hands and this is also making for an even stronger company.

Lol...your hero Tim has unlocked iPhones for the FBI 70 times before:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html

 

[coolfactor]

Apple — made from the right blood. Honestly, how can people not respect a company with such high standards in so many places? Perfect? No. High standards and visible effort to make the best decisions for the people? Yes.

 

[bobenhaus]

Hah, that was my very first thought too.

Not if we get Berne'd they wont have to worry about a job. J/K
[doublepost=1455813152][/doublepost]

Some people think causes are more important than their jobs and they take vacation or flex time to do these types of things. My job is very flexible - if I need to attend something during daylight hours for an entire week, I would have no problem doing it. I would do my job at home in the evening, and make up time on the weekend, or the following week or so.

Most of these people are probably in the tech field, or students, so this option is open to them all.

You don't think out of the box, do you?

I work in the tech field and I just cant take off or delay my work for a week or two? Must be nice to have your job.

 

[pooleman]

Lol...your hero Tim has unlocked iPhones for the FBI 70 times before:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html

Dance Puppets!!!! Apple and Tim Cook are not the champions of justice their spin doctors are portraying them to be.

 

[bobenhaus]

The Grateful Dead has their "Deadheads".
Apple has their __________ ?

WORD!

 

[doelcm82]

Here is the end result. Tim Cook will comply with the order. Stalling like this allows Apple to appear to be standing up for the rights of its users. If Cook complied immediately the iPhone user base would backlash and sales could be affected. Apple has already complied with this kind of court order 20 times to date. After this dies down Apple will quietly comply with the order. Tim Cook will not write an open letter after he complies as he did when he defied the order.

This "demonstration" outside the Apple store has illustrated Tim Cook's and Apples masterful puppetry skills. Tim Cook is simply protecting the cash flow.

Why did they quietly comply with the previous court orders? Why didn't Tim Cook apply his masterful puppetry skills in the past? And who holds your strings now?

I'm not as impressed by the idea that Apple complied with requests in the past as I am with their taking a stand now. Was Rosa Parks a hypocrite because she quietly sat in the back of the bus dozens of times before deciding to take a seat in the "Whites Only" section? Or was she a hero for saying "enough is enough". If you've done the wrong thing in the past, does that make doing the right thing now impossible?

 

[CE3]

I know it was noble and all, but when I think about all the people who fought for civil rights, women's rights, and protested the Vietnam war in the 60s, I can't help but wonder if they were employed while doing so.

 

[pooleman]

Why did they quietly comply with the previous court orders? Why didn't Tim Cook apply his masterful puppetry skills in the past? And who holds your strings now?

I don't know why they did it earlier? Maybe they were able to keep it quiet. Maybe someone leaked to the public that this order was placed and Apple got word that people were getting upset. Any number of possible reasons could have affected each specific scenario. But it is a FACT that Apple has already done this to other phones. So Apple seems to have selective outrage about your privacy rights. For some reason an iPhone that was used by a terrorist to kill 14 people and that was given to him by the state of California (government property) is worthy of special privacy protection when dozens of other phones were not. The terrorist has no right to privacy on this iPhone because it was not his property.

As for your other question.....I'm married, so my wife holds my strings.

 

[sodapop1]

Well this is something then that congress or the Supreme Court needs to decide. I don't want companies and individual citizens deciding what laws and court orders they're going to chose to obey. If Apple believes it's in the right let it argue in front of the Supreme Court. If it's as cut and dry as most posters here claim it should be an easy win for Apple. And then we have precedence for when this situation arises again (which it will).

Yes, we are in uncharted waters and while I agree we need to establish a legal precedence going forward, the people who will ultimately establish that precedence need to be first educated on technology and not rely on abstract ideals.

 

[inhalexhale1]

[QUOTE
And yet again the entire heinous incident wouldn't have happened if you couldn't buy SEMI-AUTOMATIC Friclkin' guns ( or any gun for that matter ) over the counter like they are Meat Sub Sandwiches. The whole 'right to bear arms' is based on a piece of paper from over 200 years ago when they were talking about pitchforks and sabres and guns took a minute to reload.[/QUOTE]

So, you actually believe that if one particular type of firearm was unavailable, that this murder would not have taken place?

 

[phillipduran]

Law enforcement vs individual liberty has always been a tricky compromise. I don't support anyone at the extremes, and both sides have naive argments.

Choose your liberties wisely. That one about bearing arms isn't working out so well and now it can never be withdrawn.

No, you're just duped by media to think that owning arms is a bad idea.

We are a country where the power is enshrined in the citizenry. We have our voice, our press and our guns, among other things, to make sure that the power resides with us. Our voice and our press are our first lines of defense. Those will hopefully, through reason and integrity, allow us to come to reasonable solutions, but the day that they say religion is banned, expression is banned, the press is banned, gays are banned, liberalism is illegal, they will only be able to take those rights from us when they physically show up and stop you or take you away. At that point, everything about the 2nd amendment becomes clear. It is the right that ensures that this country will remain in the hands of and in the power of the citizenry. It is essential to the concept of, for the people and by the people. We are the power, not the government.

If you think armed citizens cant face off against military forces, you're wrong. They can. They can stop police action to round people up, they can put to halt any crazy tyrannical methodology short of carpet bombing our towns. The 2nd amendment is essential to liberty and is one of the pillars that preserves the power that is in our hands. Be just as quick to limit its power in our hands as you would want to limit your own freedom of speech.

 

[doelcm82]

Why did they quietly comply with the previous court orders? Why didn't Tim Cook apply his masterful puppetry skills in the past? And who holds your strings now?

I don't know why they did it earlier? Maybe they were able to keep it quiet. Maybe someone leaked to the public that this order was placed and Apple got word that people were getting upset. Any number of possible reasons could have affected each specific scenario. But it is a FACT that Apple has already done this to other phones. So Apple seems to have selective outrage about your privacy rights. For some reason an iPhone that was used by a terrorist to kill 14 people and that was given to him by the state of California (government property) is worthy of special privacy protection when dozens of other phones were not. The terrorist has no right to privacy on this iPhone because it was not his property.

If you can show evidence of Apple complying with such an order SINCE they took this stand, then I'll agree with you about selective outrage.

So far, this looks like another step in Apple's committed endeavor to provide increasing security for its customers' data, after failing to do so in the past.

 

[Wondercow]

Lol...your hero Tim has unlocked iPhones for the FBI 70 times before:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html

I don't think anyone's disputing that. Apple's been very clear that they stopped keeping copies of the encryption keys from iOS 8 onward. They certainly can, and have, decrypted devices running iOS 7 and below. Further, that's the reason why they changed the system in iOS 8: they didn't want to be forced by law to break the privacy of others.
[doublepost=1455815049][/doublepost]

Apple has already complied with this kind of court order 20 times to date.

Citation please

 

[phillipduran]

This is a beautiful thing. Too much power has been given to the government in the past few decades. It's time to tell them to back off. People are starting to get scared of their government and the consequences for doing things wrong. Some poor lady in New Jersey was facing 15 years in jail for crossing the border with pistol. Not a criminal, just a mom going to work. It's getting out of control and it's nice to see people standing up and getting mad about things like government all access to our datas.

 

[pooleman]

And yet again the entire heinous incident wouldn't have happened if you couldn't buy SEMI-AUTOMATIC Friclkin' guns ( or any gun for that matter ) over the counter like they are Meat Sub Sandwiches. The whole 'right to bear arms' is based on a piece of paper from over 200 years ago when they were talking about pitchforks and sabres and guns took a minute to reload.

You obviously didn't read about the Muslim in England who dismembered a British soldier in the streets of London 2 years ago with a machete. There are countless stories of these types of incidents where no guns are used. People still die at the hands of these fanatics, with or without guns. So guns aren't the issue.

Because no judge has made a stupid call ever before... this is ONE person, Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym, deciding something I bet she doesn't understand the full implication of and can you imagine the pressure the would be under from the friction' FBI.

The very fact this is "INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE" - Basically being forced to do something against your will with no remuneration is guess what... slavery! And no that is not overstating it. QUOTE]

So by your definition, your ex-husband who is forced to pay you alimony is a slave?

 

[phillipduran]

Tell you what.

Change the scenario so that these people and/or their direct families are being seriously affected, financial or life/death, and that accessing the guilty parties iPhone would solve things.
THEN let's see how many change their minds.

It's easy to be all big and shouting and standing up for things, when it's not you personally that's being affected.

Easy is not what it is, it is integrity. Even though it affects someone personally, they have to have the integrity to do what is right. You have to have the integrity to stand up for what is right and not buckle just because you gain a little from it. This is the government we are talking about which has already in hot water for scooping up all of our data and spying on our close allies. They have proven to be irresponsible and have twisted laws to assume power greater than they were intended to possess.

 

[pooleman]

I don't think anyone's disputing that. Apple's been very clear that they stopped keeping copies of the encryption keys from iOS 8 onward. They certainly can, and have, decrypted devices running iOS 7 and below. Further, that's the reason why they changed the system in iOS 8: they didn't want to be forced by law to break the privacy of others.
[doublepost=1455815049][/doublepost]
Citation please

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html

 

[zioxide]

How is it creating a backdoor on every device when only Apple has access to the firmware and only Apple can sign it?

This entire website is based on reporting leaks and rumors about Apple and its products. "Only Apple" has access to their unreleased products yet there's enough information that gets leaked to keep this website in business.

Why should we take the risk that the same thing will happen with this proposed software?
[doublepost=1455815577][/doublepost]

Tell you what.

Change the scenario so that these people and/or their direct families are being seriously affected, financial or life/death, and that accessing the guilty parties iPhone would solve things.
THEN let's see how many change their minds.

It's easy to be all big and shouting and standing up for things, when it's not you personally that's being affected.

How about we make policy decisions based on actual facts and logic and not fallacious appeals to emotions like this crap?

Appealing to emotion is a textbook logical fallacy and completely invalidates this argument.

 

[pooleman]

If you can show evidence of Apple complying with such an order SINCE they took this stand, then I'll agree with you about selective outrage.

So far, this looks like another step in Apple's committed endeavor to provide increasing security for its customers' data, after failing to do so in the past.

They took this stand 2 days ago. I don't think another order has been issued since then. Your argument justifies the "I voted against it before I voted for it" or " I voted for it before I voted against it" argument used by Clinton when she was a senator. Just silly.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html

 

[furi0usbee]

Yeah, maybe fingerprint scanners are not the best thing for security after all... I think I'll stick with a passcode.

http://inhomelandsecurity.com/fbi-c...ingerprints-open-iphones-might-cops-best-bet/