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
Patriot act happened under Republicans. Privacy violations are a bipartisan affair.
Then the suspect is arrested for not complying with the court ordered warrant to unlock their device.
The police have already done their due diligence at this point and obtained the warrant. Previously, investigators could circumvent the 4th amendment by subpoena to get 3rd parties to the investigation (read: Apple, Google, whoever hosts your data) to give them your data. And it was (and still is) legal to do so. They aren't coming to you, the suspect, to get the data; they are going to the third party hosting your data to git it, and they aren't privy to any warrant.
The government would already have a warrant to get to your belongings. The issue here is that if they do not have a warrant, they can get around getting the warrant by going to the third parties and having them do the work for them.
That is what Apple and Google are now preventing themselves from doing.
BL.
You didn't give it up, it was taken from you and you had no choice in the matter.
The FBI can go play with themselves. 
There are legitimate reasons for encryption. Quite apart from anything, my work requires encryption of any work-related data.
It sounds to me like the FBI are the ones who want to be above the law, and above the Constitution. Shame on them.
There are legitimate reasons for encryption. Quite apart from anything, my work requires encryption of any work-related data.
It sounds to me like the FBI are the ones who want to be above the law, and above the Constitution. Shame on them.
Yes and every other acronym agency at the federal level and dissolve them. Imagine the tax savings.
If you're searching for someone to blame, look in a mirror.
I'm tired of government hatred. Police states don't exist when people participate in the political process, (And yes, that sometimes means doing more than just voting. Especially when your choices are between bad and worse.)
We got the government we deserve.
It's almost by design, look at the quality of High School education these days... It should be required to pass a test in civics in order to get a HS diploma/GED. But both political parties want the population as stupid as possible... None of my coworkers in my office seemed to know that we even have 2 houses of congress...
The citizenry can also be blamed when they're more interested in watching XXXball games, DWTS, insert stupid reality show than watching a candidate debate and then VOTING.
Good point!! And, a vibrant sophisticated conversation (for the most part) going on here.
I disagree with Comey's analogy: The notion that someone would market a closet that could never be opened...does not make any sense.
Just because someone buys a paper diary, doesn't mean that the company that made it is responsible for providing the means to open it or worse, know it's contents.
Even more specific to Comey's analogy, a safe company can create a safe that they cannot open. They do so today. You would need a safe cracker. Even then, safes are clearly marketed as devices that are so secure, only the owner can open it. I am willing to bet there is case precedent on safes. Perhaps an attorney (criminal defense?) can chime in here.
I think some have got it wrong here--a warrant would allow the phone to be seized but it is up to the investigating authorities to figure out how to get the data off of it.
Or the FBI is saying it's concerned in order to create a false sense of security among criminals.
Well, bummer.
Then it should be easy to catch any other criminal since all we need is a warrant to search a members house. Tell the criminal "I know you used a gun and that it is here, turn it over". Criminal would have to do it.
Typically the police have to find it during the search but depending on how well hidden something may be, they may not find it.
What would be the difference?
Sweet. I guess we're all free to come by and take a look in your house whenever we please? You know, since privacy is overrated and all.
Both parties suck. That's the sham. Droner-in-Chief vs Mission-Accomplish-in-Chief.
It should be as hard as possible for the state to imprison or kill one of its citizens in a just society. Be wary of any law enforcement officer or agency suggesting that collecting evidence of a crime should be made easier.
If you have a warrant then search the phone to your hearts content.
I don't care if you have to put someone in a sleeper hold to use their finger to unlock the phone.
_However_ no warrant? Then go take a hike. It sounds like they want the good ole' BS days back (BS - before Snowden).
I don't care if you have to put someone in a sleeper hold to use their finger to unlock the phone.
_However_ no warrant? Then go take a hike. It sounds like they want the good ole' BS days back (BS - before Snowden).
Okay, what if we created a new law that required a person to be put to death immediately if they murdered a child and to enforce the law everyone had a cop hold a gun to their head 24/7. You know you're not going to murder a child, so why would you care? The cop isn't going to shoot you unless you do murder a child so what does it matter that there is a gun to your head at all times?
I want my children protected from the draconian overreach of an oppressive government that wants to violate their natural rights.
I wonder how the little matter of the Supreme Court's (unanimous) decision in Reily v. California has escaped everyone's attention.