FBI Looking Into 'Legal and Technical Options' for Entering Another Terrorist's iPhone

JohnGrey said:
That's a false syllogism and a bad one at that. There is no alternative when it comes to security, no solution, no magic bullet that only lets the 'good guys' in. It doesn't exist. How do I know? Six thousand years of recorded history, replete with examples of the cat-and-mouse efforts to protect information and break that protection. There is a reason for the old saying: 'three men may keep a secret if two of them are dead'.



You're just engaged in eternal regression. Who picks the panel of legal experts? Who picks the pickers? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? What you're demanding, in essence, is that your 'faith' in the system should trump the reasonable desire of people to be secure in the papers and persons. Well, and I mean this with all the respect I can muster, you can go perform an anatomically impossible act.
Click to expand...

Well thank you so much for generating "all respect you can muster", hope it didn't cause you too much energy.
You can keep it and "perform anatomically impossible act" on yourself, with the greatest respect of course.
.....
I think we are going to have to "agree to disagree" on this, only time will tell what solution is found for this problem. Perhaps we are both wrong but I think in 6 to 12 months time you may think back and say you were wrong in more ways than one.

can I guess you are a #1 trump fan (don't bother answering - I know the answer) one for you - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37593392
 
Last edited:
deany said:
Someone needs to hold the unlock key.

• extemely responsible job ideally person not employed by apple

• rules and regulations to unlock key to be of nuclear weapon type proportions.

• decision for GO is up to a judge and 12 person jury.
Click to expand...

No. Only the owner. The Government is NOT trustworthy in ANY regards.
 
ptb42 said:
Actually, I was almost quoting an attorney who handles self-defense cases.

In the US, if you shoot someone, you are assumed to be using deadly force. And there has to be justification for the use of deadly force, or you will be charged with a felony offense ranging from criminal negligence up to murder.

If the circumstances justify the use of deadly force in self-defense, there's no "shoot to wound". There's no "shoot to kill", either. It's "shoot to stop", period.

Even if your actions are completely justified, if you injure an innocent third party due to a miss or a shoot-through, you still face criminal charges for negligence or civil liability.



Your mileage may vary in Europe, and frankly I don't give a damn.



Did you bother to read my original posting, or did you just map your anti-US prejudice onto it and respond without doing so?

"Center of mass" means center of the torso. Headshots are for movies and video games.

But, let's talk about the case in question: 10 people were stabbed before an off-duty police officer intervened and attempted to take the perpetrator into custody. The perpetrator pretended to lie down on the floor and cooperate, but jumped up and tried to attack the officer. The perpetrator fell after being shot, but got up and attempted to attack the officer a second time. After being shot again, the perpetrator fell but again tries (and failed) to get up a third time.

Total shots fired: 10. Total number of bullets striking the perpetrator: 6. And that was attempted center-mass shots. That's why you only aim for a smaller target when it's printed on paper.
Click to expand...

No anti US prejudice here sir. Love the US and its people in fact.

Merely pointing out the massive and extremely factual and proven differences in the amount of police killings that happen in the US when compared to what happens in the EU.

You're misplaced in trusting that the US security forces' belief that 'deadly' force is the right way to go in every situation.
The police tactics in most of the countries of the EU are very different.
They are fighting many of the same circumstances and are in equally the same amount of danger to themselves, yet because of these different tactics, a hugely different outcome statistally appears.

Are you trying to somehow say that I am wrong in this statement? Here is a hint, I'm not wrong.

Have a wee google at how the police in the UK deal with knife wielding nutcases. I can't be bothered to educate you myself by providing links, but they are easy to find - I'm sure you can manage.

You might be surprised that killing somebody isn't necessary, even if they have killed someone of injured someone themselves. That way, they aren't actually dead if it turns out they didn't do anything wrong, or they were mentally ill, or if something else was involved.
Equally, if they did kill people, then they can be put to trial and punished according to the law, not according to a trigger happy policeman 'protecting himself'.
 
cupcakes2000 said:
No anti US prejudice here sir. Love the US and its people in fact.

Merely pointing out the massive and extremely factual and proven differences in the amount of police killings that happen in the US when compared to what happens in the EU.

You're misplaced in trusting that the US security forces' belief that 'deadly' force is the right way to go in every situation.
The police tactics in most of the countries of the EU are very different.
They are fighting many of the same circumstances and are in equally the same amount of danger to themselves, yet because of these different tactics, a hugely different outcome statistally appears.

Are you trying to somehow say that I am wrong in this statement? Here is a hint, I'm not wrong.

Have a wee google at how the police in the UK deal with knife wielding nutcases. I can't be bothered to educate you myself by providing links, but they are easy to find - I'm sure you can manage.

You might be surprised that killing somebody isn't necessary, even if they have killed someone of injured someone themselves. That way, they aren't actually dead if it turns out they didn't do anything wrong, or they were mentally ill, or if something else was involved.
Equally, if they did kill people, then they can be put to trial and punished according to the law, not according to a trigger happy policeman 'protecting himself'.
Click to expand...

Its 2016 why cant we invent a gun that doesn't kill, like rubber bullets (used in Northern Ireland during the troubles in the 70s and 80s) but better surely (not stun guns please) we can invent a non fatal gun.
 
deany said:
Its 2016 why cant we invent a gun that doesn't kill, like rubber bullets (used in Northern Ireland during the troubles in the 70s and 80s) but better surely (not stun guns please) we can invent a non fatal gun.
Click to expand...

That would be lovely! But in the meantime, a different type of training and a different outlook on policing would result in a different attitude to that which some police seem to have when confronted with perceived or real danger.

The amount of utterly pointless killings that occur are beyond my comprehension.

The police are becoming the judge and the jury, and that's not how it should work.

Who will police the police? The feeble framework in place to do this; police neglegance, civil liabilities and police prosecutions, that someone tried to bestow as a virtue in an earlier reply to me is hardly a deterrent. It's laughable in fact.

If it worked one US state's police force wouldn't be killing more people in a month than an entire EU country's force kills in ten years.
 
deany said:
Well thank you so much for generating "all respect you can muster", hope it didn't cause you too much energy.
You can keep it and "perform anatomically impossible act" on yourself, with the greatest respect of course.
.....
I think we are going to have to "agree to disagree" on this, only time will tell what solution is found for this problem. Perhaps we are both wrong but I think in 6 to 12 months time you may think back and say you were wrong in more ways than one.

can I guess you are a #1 trump fan (don't bother answering - I know the answer) one for you - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37593392
Click to expand...

No, I'm not a Trump fan; if you'll recall Trump was very vocal about how the government should force Apple to unlock the phone, which I obviously wouldn't agree with. I also don't agree with his inflammatory rhetoric. The only things that I agree with is his assertion in the belief of a Constitutional rule of law, which supercedes questions of sentiment or expedience. That said, because I do not trust the man so far as I can throw him or believe that he believes in that as a matter of principle, I do not support him nor will I vote for him.

cupcakes2000 said:
That would be lovely! But in the meantime, a different type of training and a different outlook on policing would result in a different attitude to that which some police seem to have when confronted with perceived or real danger.

The amount of utterly pointless killings that occur are beyond my comprehension.

The police are becoming the judge and the jury, and that's not how it should work.

Who will police the police? The feeble framework in place to do this; police neglegance, civil liabilities and police prosecutions, that someone tried to bestow as a virtue in an earlier reply to me is hardly a deterrent. It's laughable in fact.

If it worked one US state's police force wouldn't be killing more people in a month than an entire EU country's force kills in ten years.
Click to expand...

The issue is that post-9/11, LEOs were set to DEFCON2 by default. Suddenly, you had departments in communities of 10,000 that had full swat teams armed and trained like Blackwater, and riding round in APCs. Law enforcement ceased to be about keeping the peace and investigating crimes, and instead became about actively policing the populace in a manner consistent with martial law.
 
Last edited:
Apple maintains imessage chats for 30 days and would turn them over in a heart beat but your going to stand on not unlocking a phone? My messages are just as private. What am I missing here
 
JohnGrey said:
No, I'm not a Trump fan (if you'll recall Trump was very vocal


The issue is that post-9/11, LEOs were set to DEFCON2 by default. Suddenly, you had departments in communities of 10,000 that had full swat teams armed and trained like Blackwater, and riding round in APCs. Law enforcement ceased to be about keeping the peace and investigating crimes, and instead became about actively policing the populace in a manner consistent with martial law.
Click to expand...

I understand that. And France where I live is on its highest terror alert having suffered a string of terrible terrorist atrocities over the past few years .
We have the army patrolling the streets.
The police presence has gone up hugely, all armed (like always) but now with machine guns as well.
Likewise the Gendarmes and other French security forces.

They manage to not kill people, innocent or otherwise, at the same alarming rate!!
 
deany said:
Oh yes, of course, you use thinly veiled put downs, are you sure you are male?
Click to expand...

I hadn't actually intended to respond to your comment, I just started it and then stopped. The editor employed by the forum, unfortunately, has a habit of keeping things that you start writing even when you stop editing and close the window. When I responded to cupcakes2000, it kept the start of my response included. I've edited my post to include the full response that I had originally intended to provided.

That said, yes, I'm a male and there was nothing thinly veiled about what I suggested you go do. It was phrased in the manner it was so as not to get clipped for use of overt vulgarity.
 
JohnGrey said:
I hadn't actually intended to respond to your comment, I just started it and then stopped. The editor employed by the forum, unfortunately, has a habit of keeping things that you start writing even when you stop editing and close the window. When I responded to cupcakes2000, it kept the start of my response included. I've edited my post to include the full response that I had originally intended to provided.

That said, yes, I'm a male and there was nothing thinly veiled about what I suggested you go do. It was phrased in the manner it was so as not to get clipped for use of overt vulgarity.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can see you only use "vulgarity'' when hiding behind a computer screen, yet in real life no doubt your "vulgarity" are kept where they belong, within your said anatomy.
 
deany said:
Yes, I can see you only use "vulgarity'' when hiding behind a computer screen, yet in real life no doubt your "vulgarity" are kept where they belong, within your said anatomy.
Click to expand...

Whatever you say, mate. You get across to this side of the pond, you tell me when and where you want to meet to discuss my 'vulgarity'. My general area of residence is in my profile.
 
It's a local crime at a local mall involving local police. So why is the FBI involved?

I'll tell you why. The FBI doesn't care about unlocking an iPhone, the FBI has picked this up because it can be used to promote the FBI's agenda of forced back doors.

Where government is involved, there is always a hidden agenda.
 
Come on folks, can we please stick to the topic of the thread and stop trying to one – up each other? Take the argument elsewhere please.
 
michaelsviews said:
Apple maintains imessage chats for 30 days and would turn them over in a heart beat but your going to stand on not unlocking a phone? My messages are just as private. What am I missing here
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but my understanding is that Apple only saves the IP addresses of iMessage chats for 30 days.
 
michaelsviews said:
Apple maintains imessage chats for 30 days and would turn them over in a heart beat but your going to stand on not unlocking a phone? My messages are just as private. What am I missing here
Click to expand...

Your claims are completely off the mark. When you type in someone's number on your iPhone to send a message, your iPhone pings Apple's servers to determine if the recipient has an iMessage account or if the message is to be sent on the carrier's SMS network. Nowhere does it say that Apple can access the contents of the message being sent. Only the originator's and recipient's phone numbers are known.

Also, the iPhone pings Apple's servers. Apple has always maintained that it is capable of getting access to anything stored on its servers so if you put something on iCloud, it's not as secure as purely local storage. Apple has always maintained that starting with iOS 8, Apple removed its ability to gain access to locally stored information but it could still gain access to anything on iCloud. This is probably why Apple make such a big deal about the fact that fingerprint data for Touch ID and credit card info for Apple Pay are not stored on iCloud. There has been no evidence that Apple has a means to gain access to purely local data. Given enough time, Apple probably could make a tool to accomplish this but there is no evidence that one exists now.

In the San Bernardino case, Apple gave all the information it was capable of doing with existing measures. The government wouldn't accept the answer that Apple didn't have the tools to defeat the security measures on that iPhone. Instead, it wanted Apple to build a special tool to defeat those security measures, one that didn't exist.
 
dannyyankou said:
Did they plug it in to let it backup to iCloud? That's what Apple suggested last time.

Unless they're just being ignorant...
Click to expand...
You can't do that if the iCloud backup is turned off to begin with. As a matter of fact, I never use iCloud backup. I keep my backups on my Mac with encryption, that is not to guard my data but in order to backup passwords and health data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top