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
How many people are affected by identity theft each year?
How many people are affected by terrorism each year?
Especially when we restrict our count to people in first world countries who are more likely to have Apple products, I think the comparison would provide a clear result.
It's nice to see our governments have the right idea, keeping us safe from "the terrorists" by making us more vulnerable to hackers. </sarcasm>
How many people are affected by terrorism each year?
Especially when we restrict our count to people in first world countries who are more likely to have Apple products, I think the comparison would provide a clear result.
It's nice to see our governments have the right idea, keeping us safe from "the terrorists" by making us more vulnerable to hackers. </sarcasm>
Analogies almost always miss important aspects and almost universally fall short.
Apple is not making the equivalent of a closet that can't be opened. It's a closet that can't be opened by the manufacturer. It certainly can be opened by the owner who has the key.
If there is probable cause to open anything I have, then present me with the warrant and allow me to choose if I want to incriminate myself by opening it or suffer the consequences of not opening it.
No where is the government promised that they can have anything they want even when there is compelling reasons for their desiring it.
Apple is not making the equivalent of a closet that can't be opened. It's a closet that can't be opened by the manufacturer. It certainly can be opened by the owner who has the key.
If there is probable cause to open anything I have, then present me with the warrant and allow me to choose if I want to incriminate myself by opening it or suffer the consequences of not opening it.
No where is the government promised that they can have anything they want even when there is compelling reasons for their desiring it.
What about the FBI opening its doors to the public? Let us all just tour every room in their facilities and sit in on every meeting. Nope, never going to happen. Double-standard.
The rules the Director believes the Bureau should follow flies in the face of those same rules that the FBI and other branches of the government have violated time and time again.
He wouldn't have this problem now if this hadn't been the case in recent times.
He wouldn't have this problem now if this hadn't been the case in recent times.
Above the law? What's above the law about protecting your privacy? The only people that think they're above the law are government employees who think their enemy is the people they are supposed to serve.
I for one am proud that Apple is taking such a strong stand against the government's attempts to turn the nation into an Orwellian police state.
I for one am proud that Apple is taking such a strong stand against the government's attempts to turn the nation into an Orwellian police state.
Excuse me? What facts have I ignored? If you're not totally incensed by this moron's (or worse) statements you're not paying attention.
What he's asking for is that Apple, or Google, or whoever, keep your keys in a way they can decrypt them if they get a lawful order from a judge. Which means, a back door. Which means, it's wide open to abuse, whatever the FBI does. Hackers, either thieves or political tricksters, will know there's a backdoor and be able to find a way to get in without a warrant. It's like Touch ID without the "secure enclave". Worthless.
Apparently you don't understand what probable cause or a search warrant are.
Both are used to ***obtain*** evidence in compliance with constitutional restrictions.
To be clear
I am for the ability of law enforcement to be able to search your smart phone if they can prove a reasonable suspicion to a judge. The problem is, since the furore in the '90s about encryption and the Clipper chip, I don't think anyone has come up with a way to give people complete security AND to allow a legal search with a warrant without compromising the security of all.
I am for the ability of law enforcement to be able to search your smart phone if they can prove a reasonable suspicion to a judge. The problem is, since the furore in the '90s about encryption and the Clipper chip, I don't think anyone has come up with a way to give people complete security AND to allow a legal search with a warrant without compromising the security of all.
They brought this on themselves... There has always been an argument about whether power should be granted to the government for security reasons and the government should be trusted to use proper restraint, or whether we should risk less security because such power would be abused. "Self regulation" has predictably failed under two administrations. Business has suffered because they're seen as the enablers and they're trying hard to distance themselves from the problem.
Any number are claiming it's a "privacy" issue. Any number are claiming that law enforcement access to personal data is inherently a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
----------
The first sentence of my reply stated that I did not understand the poster's argument.
Yes, in fact, I am. I am against any police agency dictating that a company's technology is a bad thing based on the chance that they might someday want to search my phone. Especially when the government has been so blatantly targeting citizens for surveillance with no probable cause.
So again, I ask: Is it legitimate for the FBI to be concerned that I have a shredder or an incinerator?
Thank you for getting it. We seem to be in a minority.
----------
I pointed out the ignored facts quite clearly. What I did not reckon with apparently was that only one view is valid: yours. Thank you for identifying the error of my ways.
if they cannot get the proof they need to serve as guilty someone for some crime without what is on that person's phone then they likely don't have a case anyway. learn to do your job without peoples phone data. pretty sure Sherlock Holmes never needed a phone warrant to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.
A backdoor is basically an open window in your house that must be opened at all the time and cannot be locked. I have the right to keep my windows locked at times. If a police has a search warrant, I can open the door to let them in (give up my password) or I can refuse entry and they can break down my doors (brute force attacks).
Simple, the suspect will be held in contempt of the court and placed in jail until he chooses to give the key to the law enforcement. That is how the law works with warrant and that's how it should be.
The ENTIRE country should not be exposed to backdoors because a few suspects won't give up their keys. The security of each person in the country must be protected at all costs against everybody, including unlawful government access, criminals, and foreign governmental agencies.
The problem is that encryption relies on a total trust system. If there is a weakness in it, it makes everybody vulnerable.
A warrant allows the police to conduct a lawful search with permissions from the court if the court find the police has probable cause (among a few other things).
The warrant can also mandate the suspect to give up his passwords or risk going to jail.
If the suspect doesn't, he can be in jail indefinitely.
That's the way it should be working.
It is NOT a justification to risk the entire world's security for the sake of a few bad apples who wouldn't give up their passwords. Encryption relies on the whole thing to be secured from the ground up and if you have one weakness spot, that'll be exploited by criminals, not just lawful police enforcement.
You start compromising your security to make the government's job easier, you no longer deserve any security nor privacy.
At this moment, the court has not decided what this is. Some district courts say yes, some say no. It'll take the supreme court to decide this.
That isn't the problem, though. The problem is that encryption requires both end to be secured in order to work as intended. You start violating this for the sake of making it easy for law enforcement to get the data they need with legal search warrant, you'll make it easy for criminals to do the same.
Unfortunately, while I understand the situation the law enforcement is in, I cannot abide them mandating backdoors in any encryption standards that I use to encrypt my data to protect it from everybody. The moment a backdoor exists, all my data is exposed to everybody, not just lawful enforcement.
Simple, the suspect will be held in contempt of the court and placed in jail until he chooses to give the key to the law enforcement. That is how the law works with warrant and that's how it should be.
The ENTIRE country should not be exposed to backdoors because a few suspects won't give up their keys. The security of each person in the country must be protected at all costs against everybody, including unlawful government access, criminals, and foreign governmental agencies.
The problem is that encryption relies on a total trust system. If there is a weakness in it, it makes everybody vulnerable.
A warrant allows the police to conduct a lawful search with permissions from the court if the court find the police has probable cause (among a few other things).
The warrant can also mandate the suspect to give up his passwords or risk going to jail.
If the suspect doesn't, he can be in jail indefinitely.
That's the way it should be working.
It is NOT a justification to risk the entire world's security for the sake of a few bad apples who wouldn't give up their passwords. Encryption relies on the whole thing to be secured from the ground up and if you have one weakness spot, that'll be exploited by criminals, not just lawful police enforcement.
You start compromising your security to make the government's job easier, you no longer deserve any security nor privacy.
At this moment, the court has not decided what this is. Some district courts say yes, some say no. It'll take the supreme court to decide this.
That isn't the problem, though. The problem is that encryption requires both end to be secured in order to work as intended. You start violating this for the sake of making it easy for law enforcement to get the data they need with legal search warrant, you'll make it easy for criminals to do the same.
Unfortunately, while I understand the situation the law enforcement is in, I cannot abide them mandating backdoors in any encryption standards that I use to encrypt my data to protect it from everybody. The moment a backdoor exists, all my data is exposed to everybody, not just lawful enforcement.
Fawk that. Using shock crimes as a means to monitor the populace that elected the officials for governance not spying on us. I have nothing to hide, but that's my business not theirs.
And Apple is saying, "We don't have those keys, and never will have those keys. Get a warrant to have the suspect unlock their phone for you."
I noted in this thread here the dangers of how the government can get around the 4th Amendment (read: your back door). An excerpt:
What Apple is saying is that the government can subpoena them all they want; they will not have access to the data the government is looking for, nor will they be able to give the government the access they are looking for.
In short, Apple and Google are taking it upon themselves to shut that back door, change the lock, and destroy the key, so they don't even have the ability to unlock the door.
BL.
The US govt created this problem. They were not illegally entering people's homes and going through their safes. But they were illegally gathering electronic data.
They created the need for this by their actions.
I'm not certain but isn't it the case that if you deny an officer the ability to carry out a warrant you would be arrested? It also seems that you would be held in jail until you provided them the access required within the restrictions of the warrant. I'm pretty sure they could act on the warrant one way or another but I'm no lawyer and don't know. This encryption makes it such that they have to come to ME with the warrant demanding access to MY data. It seems fair.
Apple is now the most secure and private smartphone choice.
Soon it will be the most secure and private contact-less payment system...
Look for Apple to lead the way in privacy and security in the coming years!!
Soon it will be the most secure and private contact-less payment system...
Look for Apple to lead the way in privacy and security in the coming years!!
Hell no, they don't expect trust. The government doesn't even pretend to respect civil liberties these days; you are a potential enemy and they will treat you as such.