Damn right. If the police need to find evidence on my phone, they can get a warrant for ME and MY PHONE, not Apple.
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.
FBI Concerned With New Default Encryption Settings in iOS and Android Devices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Damn right. If the police need to find evidence on my phone, they can get a warrant for ME and MY PHONE, not Apple.
Well, I doubt that they are majorly concerned about device data.
I'd like to believe they need to pay more attention to secure messaging, aka a secure connection through the internet.
Glassed Silver:mac
Totally agree. If anyone needs my data, they can ask me. If I refuse, they can compel me, but they canNOT circumvent me to get it. My data is my data. Full stop.
Ah, but
But you do lock the bathroom door when you take a ****, do you not?
Whilst I am certainly on the side of keeping privacy private, I do see the point here.
If a court order is issued, and there is evidence pointing towards someone having broken the law, and that the person's phone or tablet or whatever may aid the law, I believe it should be possible to access the data, although not easily.
The government having access to anyone's data at all time (like PRISM) is another thing, and I am completely against that. Apple, show us that the future won't be 1984 either.
But you do lock the bathroom door when you take a ****, do you not?
Whilst I am certainly on the side of keeping privacy private, I do see the point here.
If a court order is issued, and there is evidence pointing towards someone having broken the law, and that the person's phone or tablet or whatever may aid the law, I believe it should be possible to access the data, although not easily.
The government having access to anyone's data at all time (like PRISM) is another thing, and I am completely against that. Apple, show us that the future won't be 1984 either.
If they have a warrant and you refuse to unlock you go to jail. It's pretty simple and highly effective.
They prefer the 6 and 6 Plus because it bows at their feet, as they want the world to do.
Are people who have a conversation out of earshot of the police or an informer placing themselves above the law too?
Using the subject of Children, to influence votes to strip privacy from law abiding citizens is getting as old as them using 'war on terror'.
Don't get me wrong, I am 100% for the protection of children, but they need to stop using our children's safety as a key to access personal data.
Don't get me wrong, I am 100% for the protection of children, but they need to stop using our children's safety as a key to access personal data.
You have our world intelligence agencies (NSA) and associated agencies (FBI) who have benefitted from the "get all the information we used to have to have a warrant for without having to have a warrant - and its really easy now" bonanza that smartphones have provided to the NSA and FBI (and police departments) up to this point (and the destruction of personal privacy that represents).
This is the kind of response you get from the leadership of these agencies as they are about to loose the ability to pilfer at will a small section of the personal property/data of their citizenry.
They'll still be able to use warrants to get all the targeted information they need (as well as people's wide open e-mail etc.)…they just won't be able to spy for a personal or political whim (in defiance of the U.S. constitution) on the iPhones on iOS 8 of citizens in the U.S. and elsewhere.
The fact that you can't have freedom and democracy without the privacy of it's citizenry, that these organizations have actively destroyed and pillaged over the last decade, always seems to fly over their shortsighted heads...
This is the kind of response you get from the leadership of these agencies as they are about to loose the ability to pilfer at will a small section of the personal property/data of their citizenry.
They'll still be able to use warrants to get all the targeted information they need (as well as people's wide open e-mail etc.)…they just won't be able to spy for a personal or political whim (in defiance of the U.S. constitution) on the iPhones on iOS 8 of citizens in the U.S. and elsewhere.
The fact that you can't have freedom and democracy without the privacy of it's citizenry, that these organizations have actively destroyed and pillaged over the last decade, always seems to fly over their shortsighted heads...
"Marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves above the law."
Change "law" to "law-breaking government agencies" and it might be more precise.
Change "law" to "law-breaking government agencies" and it might be more precise.
Comey should talk. This would not have occurred if certain agencies within the US chose to put themselves above the law and wantonly systematically violate the civil rights and privacy of citizens.
I hope Apple and Google tell them where to go when they start asking.
You know where this is heading, the FBI will want some kind of master decryption key or for Apple to introduce a vulnerability in to their encryption algorithm so that it can be cracked with the right tool.
These devices are an extension of our minds, we put our thoughts into them. We put intimate moments into them. We should have the right to deny that information from being put out there in the public domain and the courts have the right to hold anyone in contempt who refuses to unlock their device.
You know where this is heading, the FBI will want some kind of master decryption key or for Apple to introduce a vulnerability in to their encryption algorithm so that it can be cracked with the right tool.
These devices are an extension of our minds, we put our thoughts into them. We put intimate moments into them. We should have the right to deny that information from being put out there in the public domain and the courts have the right to hold anyone in contempt who refuses to unlock their device.
Of late the government only supports the 4th Amendment when it is convenient to them. This is the fundamental problem here.
Yep you hit the nail on the head here.
Beyond that if the device only uses a 4 digit pass code it ought to be pretty simple to eventually find the code the hard way. If they don't have the physical device and thus haven't served a warrant what are they complaining about. Simply put if they respect the 4 th amendment this is not a problem for anybody.