Where did you get that? I did not choose accept. No Facebook, Chrome, etc. on my stuff. But, I do trust companies way more then the government. Especially the FBI.
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 Director Christopher Wray on Encryption: We Can't Have an 'Entirely Unfettered Space Beyond the Reach of Law Enforcement'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Where did you get that? I did not choose accept. No Facebook, Chrome, etc. on my stuff. But, I do trust companies way more then the government. Especially the FBI.
Dear Director Wray,
While you are out lobbying Congress for new laws to expand your power, how about asking for a 7 day waiting period on any Presidential candidate attempting to buy Bleach-Bit and sledge hammers? That way if cell phones and hard drives are ever subpoenaed in the future the FBI will have at least 7 days to collect them before they are wiped clean and physically destroyed. Or do your proposed anti-privacy rules not apply to the ruling class?
While you are out lobbying Congress for new laws to expand your power, how about asking for a 7 day waiting period on any Presidential candidate attempting to buy Bleach-Bit and sledge hammers? That way if cell phones and hard drives are ever subpoenaed in the future the FBI will have at least 7 days to collect them before they are wiped clean and physically destroyed. Or do your proposed anti-privacy rules not apply to the ruling class?
Everything the FBI has a backdoor for, our enemies have a backdoor as well. That includes the government's closely guarded secrets. The only way to ensure our enemies cannot freely spy on us is by making it mathematically impossible to do so. You cannot outlaw mathematics anyway. The algorithms are already out there in the open.
Let me guess, he is proposing ONLY the US gets access.
Or is he advocating that ALL governments have access ? If so, please let the USA go to the UN and tell all those nations that US lives are worth more than the lives of any of their citizens.
Perhaps the 96% of the world who are NOT US citizens and are NOT subject to US laws will continue with the best encryption possible and leave the US in a weaker position.
If the USA gets it, EVERY control will also get it unless the USA wants to see all of its technology blocked from everywhere else. The USA has been caught spying, inserting backdoors and should be trusted no more than China and Huawei.
The IRA went for decades with no computer based encryption, no internet, no scrambled telephones, etc etc, using techniques that anyone can use.
Oh, and stop trying to carpet bomb democracy into other countries when the USA is a poor example of democracy itself.
Or is he advocating that ALL governments have access ? If so, please let the USA go to the UN and tell all those nations that US lives are worth more than the lives of any of their citizens.
Perhaps the 96% of the world who are NOT US citizens and are NOT subject to US laws will continue with the best encryption possible and leave the US in a weaker position.
If the USA gets it, EVERY control will also get it unless the USA wants to see all of its technology blocked from everywhere else. The USA has been caught spying, inserting backdoors and should be trusted no more than China and Huawei.
The IRA went for decades with no computer based encryption, no internet, no scrambled telephones, etc etc, using techniques that anyone can use.
Oh, and stop trying to carpet bomb democracy into other countries when the USA is a poor example of democracy itself.
So for those Sites that you did accept, would you be opposed if then sold your information to your own Gov?
For profit ? To increase their margin ?
Eg credit card companies, telco , delivery companies UP/ DHL.
Would you be opposed if the FBI uses YOUR TAX DOLLAR to buy info about you ?
Comey was one of many. I am still waiting on the former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, to be prosecuted for perjury after ADMITTING he lied under oath to the Senate about mass surveillance. Oh, excuse me, he didn't admit he "lied", his exact words were that he gave the "least untruthful" answer he could think of. By failing to prosecute such a blatant, public example of perjury the DOJ has lowered the bar. If I am ever put on a witness stand I will raise my hand and swear to tell the least dishonest answers I can think of.
You're taking the quote out of context. That was a public hearing, at the time the surveillance programs were classified, and he is prohibited by law from disclosing classified information.
You on the other hand do not have a security clearance or any classified information, so the analogy is a very poor one.
Well, I think you are wrong Mr FBI guy, the stuff on my phone is nobody's business other than mine. Might I suggest investigative procedures to try and find out what they are doing instead of snooping on their electronic equipment. What about stakeouts, seems to work in the movies.
Decrypting devices will do more harm than the good that will come from it.
Yep, the DOJ proved over the last several years they have zero credibility. They were bought and paid for and had plans to illegally manipulate an election so as not to have a certain candidate in office. These hacks talk about there being no necessary precedent to have total encryption for a device as personal as a smartphone, which houses essentially all of our personal info. This is lunacy. It’s sad to live in a country who’s politicians and DOJ and justice system as a whole are no more honest, transparent, and qualified than Putin’s or Kim Jong-Un’s regimes. We should give up no more freedom for perceived security. In the end, we will find ourselves with neither one.
Indeed - what makes him think that the US is special, and that every nation in which Apple sells products (including those who have relationships with countries that the US considers enemies) won't demand the same level of access?
Oh, it's this thread again 
My thoughts:
edit to add: and I didn't even touch on what governments with less of a track record for human rights would do with weakened devices. This was very US-and-crime-centric.
My thoughts:
- Having access to unencrypted versions of encrypted data is not automatically synonymous with large scale (or even small) surveillance. There is a valid argument to be made about obtaining data with a warrant (in the USA)
- Backdoors can and do get exploited, they are dangerous to the overwhelming number of completely law abiding users of encryption
- If you attempt to outlaw secure devices those that really intend to do harm will find illegal ways to continue to encrypt the communications and data. Public Key Encryption is public knowledge (Phil Zimmerman even had t-shirts made) and there are many open source projects people could turn to as alternatives
- Law enforcement solved crimes over and over again prior to the existence of smart phones and for that matter phones at all. I believe that law enforcement has gotten a bit lazy with the smorgasbord of information available to them in the smart phone age (cell tower records, GPS, call and text records etc...) and doesn't want the ride to end. With the exception of some purely electronic crimes there is physical evidence available in most illegal activity and good old fashioned investigative work can continue regardless of encryption going dark.
edit to add: and I didn't even touch on what governments with less of a track record for human rights would do with weakened devices. This was very US-and-crime-centric.
So is not having it. That is the point for having it. It's pretty much true for any technology. There are good and bad uses for it. A government that has unfettered access to all information is definitionally dangerous.
[doublepost=1551831648][/doublepost]
I'll throw out anything the I determine is violating my privacy. An omnipotent and omniscient government is dangerous, if in the wrong hands and, the evil people invariably get their wrong hands on it. Are there consequences relative to power of non-corrupt government bureaucrats? Of course. Get back to us when someone invents one.If Apple ever gives up their encryption policy I'm switching to Android
(well that'll save me a lot of money too)
[doublepost=1551831737][/doublepost]
It will do harm and it will do good, just as with any other tool. Information though is power, a power unlike any other weapon that has ever been invented.
You are 100% right.
And I would also add that you definitely do: it is your brain. And you can't be compelled to testify against yourself - e.g. you can't be forced to give government access to your brain.
As implantable devices become more common, this will be uncharted territory for the law. If you have, for example, a cochlear implant today, what if it can record your environment and play it back. Who has access? What if 20 years from now you have an artificial eye that can record the events? Who has access?
If those were just in your brain, the answer is no one. At that point, if they are encrypted, only you have them. If not, anyone could hack in, government, spies, whomever.
Leaving it open to anyone who can get in is a recipe for disaster long term.
Encryption everywhere is the only solution.
If Apple ever gives up their encryption policy I'm switching to Android
(well that'll save me a lot of money too)
Action matters more than policy. macOS is full of zero-days we don't know about, purchasable exploits, etc. The cryptography is rarely the problem; it's everything built around it that isn't secure that allows exploitation.
Don't have the illusion that Apple = security. It would take some drastic changes to both the underlying stack and to the user experience to achieve better security. Apple is not even covering the basics very well (for example, by not encrypting iCloud backups, not shipping with FileVault on by default, etc.).
Yes we absolutely can have encryption beyond the reach of law enforcement.
Banning it or forcing circumvention won’t stop people from using encryption - that would be about as effective as the war on drugs.
These people who spew this drivel are simply authoritarians.
Banning it or forcing circumvention won’t stop people from using encryption - that would be about as effective as the war on drugs.
These people who spew this drivel are simply authoritarians.
You talking about Facebook's "privacy" team? Yes they would love if they could put a backdoor in all our phones... and cars, and houses, and toasters,...
Radical statement to make without substantiating evidence. Feels good?
[doublepost=1551835217][/doublepost]
Even if they don't abuse their powers, no point giving up these powers to "them".
Last edited:
I haven't had any non-Apple apps on my iPhone in over 2 years. Apple already has access to my phone so no loss there but no reason to risk it with anybody else.