Tell that to the families of the thousands of people killed. Hey, it was a ten-thousand-times-less-likely-than-a-fatal-lightning-strike chance, and you're number came up. Sorry dude! Hey, at least our FB data is secure, amirite?
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 Unable to Retrieve Encrypted Data From 6,900 Devices Over the Last 11 Months
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The issue has already been to court and it was judged that it’s unconstitutional to make someone give up their passcode. That’s why folks are all up in arms about the notion of disabling Touch ID if you are pulled over
[doublepost=1508976268][/doublepost]
Yes and no. Someone might be able to get a warrant compelling apple to give up access to the contents of your iCloud account but an actual criminal or terrorist isn’t hopefully stupid enough to use iCloud and no warrant is going to be granted to give up access to all accounts in the hopes of finding a criminal that dumb.
So the only guaranteed source for your data is going to be your phone and apple can’t unlock that. They removed that ability years ago
[doublepost=1508976549][/doublepost]
And all of those requests were for the user created data on the devices? Speak truthfully because we can go and check your work by reading the actual report
[doublepost=1508976899][/doublepost]
That’s not even the case here. The FBI etc wanted Apple to create a backdoor key and to hand it over to the Feds so they could unlock any ios device they want at any time. It was only after folks screamed that they then said “okay will Apple can keep it but they have to use it for us whenever we ask” and then finally “by ask we mean we have a warrant”
Maybe I missed something. What exactly are you disagreeing with in my quote? There's no yes and no. It's a yes - point blank. If the FBI goes through the proper channels to get a warrant for data, they can get it. That's what I said in my original quote and that's what you agreed with in your reply. My quote has nothing to do with the relevancy of that data. So whether or not a criminal or terrorist is stupid is irrelevant.
How would I know if the data in those requests was user created or not? That strawman dog ain't gonna hunt. No one made a claim that all the data was user created. No one made any claim regarding the specificity of the data. But you sure introduced the hell out of that caveat though. Good job.
The original quote was that Apple doesn't turn over data and Apple doesn't have any data. Both of those things are 100% false. That's easily proven. I said that Apple will provide access to data if properly requested. That's 100% true and verifiable. Now is that truthful enough for you?
Appeal to emotion FAIL. It's a logical fallacy for a reason.
Hard cases make bad law.
"Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Sam Adams
[doublepost=1509066542][/doublepost]
The last Navajo code-talker passed from the earth not that long ago. Fewer people speak Navajo than speak Klingon.
But the thing is still documented, be it in US army archives. Whereas you simply can't read whatever is encrypted on the iPhone, because there's literally no way for you to access the key for it, but by trying to bypass Apple's protections.
I'm afraid you're being overly literal. The point is that even if you are forced to open the safe per a warrant, you are not required to decrypt the contents of the safe.
The purpose of encryption isn't just to safeguard our civil liberties. I would have thought that would be clear to most people and the FBI. Electronic communication is playing an increasing role in our lives. Sensitive information is sent electronically all the time. The best possible practices for protecting this information should be followed.
The whole point of encryption is to ensure someone without the right key can't get access to the protected information. Limiting access to the key to as few entities as possible falls under best practices for encryption. That's why companies like Apple, Google, WhatsApp and others provide E2E encryption.
Weaknesses are always there in encryption implementations. This is why Apple spends so much time patching weaknesses and why we hear about weaknesses/exploits/etc. in iOS all the time. It's a race to stay a step ahead of the bad actors. That's just the nature of the beast. There will always be something that Apple didn't anticipate and will find out about only after the fact.
The bottom line is that what the FBI is asking is for Apple to deliberately engineer a weakness into its encryption implementation. The FBI can sugarcoat it all it wants, but it's a deliberately engineered weakness. It's only a matter of time before someone who isn't law enforcement finds that flaw and exploits it.
From a civil liberties standpoint, the FBI has shown that it cannot be trusted to honor the Constitution. J. Edgar Hoover may have done positive things for the FBI but the fact remains that under his watch, the FBI committed gross violations of civil liberties.
The whole point of encryption is to ensure someone without the right key can't get access to the protected information. Limiting access to the key to as few entities as possible falls under best practices for encryption. That's why companies like Apple, Google, WhatsApp and others provide E2E encryption.
Weaknesses are always there in encryption implementations. This is why Apple spends so much time patching weaknesses and why we hear about weaknesses/exploits/etc. in iOS all the time. It's a race to stay a step ahead of the bad actors. That's just the nature of the beast. There will always be something that Apple didn't anticipate and will find out about only after the fact.
The bottom line is that what the FBI is asking is for Apple to deliberately engineer a weakness into its encryption implementation. The FBI can sugarcoat it all it wants, but it's a deliberately engineered weakness. It's only a matter of time before someone who isn't law enforcement finds that flaw and exploits it.
From a civil liberties standpoint, the FBI has shown that it cannot be trusted to honor the Constitution. J. Edgar Hoover may have done positive things for the FBI but the fact remains that under his watch, the FBI committed gross violations of civil liberties.
My point is that you're not forced to do it, but there's a possibility to do it, unlike in encryption cases.
So you cited an example of someone that actually got themselves off the no fly list. Nice. How about someone that didn't.
Tim Cook has said that he values privacy more than anything: "privacy is a basic fundamental right".
So Whether you get a used 6S+, 7, 7+, 8, 8+, X, XS or XS Max...do it to keep your privacy. Yes, the XR too, people think I'm against that phone, I'm not. They can get access to your Medical records even.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/28/tim...ase-came-up-again-they-would-fight-again.html
So Whether you get a used 6S+, 7, 7+, 8, 8+, X, XS or XS Max...do it to keep your privacy. Yes, the XR too, people think I'm against that phone, I'm not. They can get access to your Medical records even.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/28/tim...ase-came-up-again-they-would-fight-again.html
If they want what is on my device, get a warrant. My decision to cooperate or not has consequences.
If I fail to cooperate penalize me and get an expert to attempt to gain entry.
Just like laptop.
Just like my safe.
Just like my house.
Just like my ...
I fail to see why my smartphone is any different.
If I fail to cooperate penalize me and get an expert to attempt to gain entry.
Just like laptop.
Just like my safe.
Just like my house.
Just like my ...
I fail to see why my smartphone is any different.