Whatever it’s only a issue to people who causes issues. Gov should have no access to our phones period.
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
Really? So the next time hundreds of people get blown the **** up, and you find out this could've been prevented will you be saying the same thing?
I don't understand this mind set. I never will. The FBI doesn't give a **** about you and me. Are you planning to kill someone? They're looking for the people who will kill us and our families.
This is a problem that WILL eventually cause death and destruction, but thats fine right?
So we should give up freedom for the possibility of safety. In those terms the terrorists have won.
Apple has no data to give up. They don't hold the decryption keys, and they've been very careful to construct their system that way.
The government, even with the proper warrants, etc. don't have a right to force Apple to create something that they haven't created (backdoors). If the government could require it, it would be tantamount to forced slavery -- which, granted, the GOP seems to be perfectly ok with, as long as the person being forced to do something is a female, and the reason for which they're being forced to do something is to make a new taxpayer.
This is a good thing. Why does any law enforcement agency think they have a right to access private conversations or require anyone to archive them for future availability. Why would I have any less of an expectation of privacy over an electronic conversation than a physical one? What is next? Requiring phone providers to record all conversations? Requiring microphones be placed in my house so law enforcement can eavesdrop if they see the need?
The procedure for getting a warrant to access the raw data is well enshrined in our Constitutional law. People have been speaking and writing in codes for ages in an effort to ensure their conversations are only understood by the recipient party. Just because law enforcement can implement a wire tap on a phone or get access to written data doesn't mean they will automatically get the information in plain text. Same principle applies here.
I am firmly against requiring the creators of products that I use as a consumer capture the information I put in for the benefit of law enforcement at a later date. Besides, any backdoor to encryption is something that can be utilized by other adversaries to get that same information. Are we really going to have two tiers of encryption? One for the government that is truly secure and one for everyone else that is crippled?
The procedure for getting a warrant to access the raw data is well enshrined in our Constitutional law. People have been speaking and writing in codes for ages in an effort to ensure their conversations are only understood by the recipient party. Just because law enforcement can implement a wire tap on a phone or get access to written data doesn't mean they will automatically get the information in plain text. Same principle applies here.
I am firmly against requiring the creators of products that I use as a consumer capture the information I put in for the benefit of law enforcement at a later date. Besides, any backdoor to encryption is something that can be utilized by other adversaries to get that same information. Are we really going to have two tiers of encryption? One for the government that is truly secure and one for everyone else that is crippled?
Notice I said, a way and not the or only way.
It doesn't matter. Encryption is pure math and terrorists can easily come up with their own encryption that is not backdoor'ed.
You cannot have the middle ground when encryption is involved, it is either none or encryption. Given that there are FAR more benefits to encryption, it trumps the government's rights to your data.
If only it was that easyYes you can serve people with a warrant compelling them to enter their password, but under duress one could easily claim to have forgotten it. And I highly doubt a judge would convict solely based off a forgotten password, so no "jail time until they give up"
Sadly, there is no other established way to do this without a backdoor and a backdoor will allow anyone in, not just government.
Like I said above, you either have encryption or you don't, there is no middle ground.
Far more people have been harmed by illegal government abuses, stalking, domestic spouse abuses and other crimes than terrorism, the former can be helped by encryption.
Terrorism has and will always be a part of the society, you cannot eliminate terrorism but you can reduce it. Weakening encryption does nothing to stop or reduce terrorism. The smart terrorist groups has already switched to creating their own encryption tools.
You mean kick some doors in, break some bones, and press in the perp's eyes until they squeal their passcode?
Can I have your name, address, social, and passwords? I won't do anything with it.
Then they certainly have no reason for "back doors" or other encryption-evading arrangements. Glad Apple agrees.
Not necessarily. They supposedly have no way into your iPhone since the passcode encrypts it.
It's one of those issues that is almost impossible to see a solution for.
If something terrible happened to you and unlocking your attackers phone was the only way to get evidence needed 99% would want to weaken security. However, if you are someone who was the victim of crime or ID theft because security was weakened you might want it strengthened.
A phone falls in the grey area between thoughts and actions. It's scary to think that it isn't secure, I'm sure just about everyone has something on their phone they'd be embarrassed of if it became public. I believe you have a right to keep that private and the company selling you the phone doesn't have the right to circumvent their own protections they've sold to you. It's like a shop selling locks that the police can have access to with a warrant but the locks were for your thoughts and private moments.
If something terrible happened to you and unlocking your attackers phone was the only way to get evidence needed 99% would want to weaken security. However, if you are someone who was the victim of crime or ID theft because security was weakened you might want it strengthened.
A phone falls in the grey area between thoughts and actions. It's scary to think that it isn't secure, I'm sure just about everyone has something on their phone they'd be embarrassed of if it became public. I believe you have a right to keep that private and the company selling you the phone doesn't have the right to circumvent their own protections they've sold to you. It's like a shop selling locks that the police can have access to with a warrant but the locks were for your thoughts and private moments.
Honestly, I trust the FBI at least as much as the government orgs I'm forced to trust with all my other sensitive personal info like SSN. As long as they have access to all that stuff, them getting into my phone is the least of my worries. But I'd consider this a serious issue in countries where freedom of speech isn't guaranteed, which is most of them (e.g. UK, France, Russia, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia).
I also doubt the usefulness of law enforcement being able to access phones, assuming that criminals know they have this ability, but I don't have much knowledge in this area.
I also doubt the usefulness of law enforcement being able to access phones, assuming that criminals know they have this ability, but I don't have much knowledge in this area.
Last edited:
"In the United States, Apple received 4,479 requests for 8,958 devices and provided data 80 percent of the time (in 3,565 cases). Worldwide, Apple received 30,814 requests for data from 233,052 devices and provided data 80 percent of the time (in 23,856 cases)." Source.
You're conflating one issue with another. You're also misunderstanding what's encrypted and where that encryption is in force. There's plenty of your data that Apple can access.
The government does not have ANY business in the phones. I stand by my original statement. Under NO circumstance on this planet does the federal government ever need in our phones. PERIOD!
I don't support backdoor legislation or anything that weakens encryption, I don't think it's that easy. The government already has pretty much free reign to search anything of yours when you are arrested. The issue is when someone refuses, it takes them off the street but not their associates.
The government does have a legitimate interest in finding evidence against Person B on Person A's phone. However, Person C has a legitimate expectation of privacy too. So it's a tough situation.
I do think you're on the right track though with the suggestion. The way to solve this problem isn't through breaking encryption, it's through applying the right kind of incentives and pressures so that people voluntarily unlock their phones. Perhaps immunity from prosecution as to a certain crime if Person A unlocks their phone to search for evidence against Person B.
I see many of our freedoms quickly eroding with the current administration in Washington. It's very "Sad." If they really need to get into a phone, figure it out, but don't force us to allow your backdoor methods to tap in on what you want!
It doesn’t work like that. You can’t be compelled to give your password because it would violate your fifth amendment rights. I have very mixed feelings about the whole thing. I think if we have a warrant, then we should be able to have access to your phone. On the other hand, I feel relatively safe that a hacker won’t be able to get to my files.
Source: I’m a cop.
Then serve it to the person in question. They will have to unlock it or face jail time. Apple already gives the Gov’t access to iCloud info as they did in the iPhone C case. What the Gov’t wants is a way around the constitution.
This, this, this. Individuals are supposed to be presumed innocent. If law enforcement has enough evidence to get a warrant, they can lock up anyone who doesn't comply - either way they're off the streets.
Some people's priorities are so skewed. Even if you factor in the 9/11 attacks (which could and should have been solved with old-fashioned detective work, since the clues were all there) - fewer Americans have died in terrorist attacks on an annual basis than die every year in non-robbery-related handgun assaults. And the number who die annually due to drunk driving exceeds it by a couple orders of magnitude.
Last edited:
If the government has their ducks in a row and have done everything above board, Apple will fork over the relevant data they have access to. They tell you that in their transparency reports. That's not to say Apple has access to all of your data or that they fork over all of your data. That is to say if the warrant requested data can be accessed by Apple, Apple will fork it over.
Except they can't. Apple is increasingly building security such that they literally cannot hand over your secured data (at least, unencrypted). Apple may be able to hand over the encrypted data, but without the owner's secret key or other biometrics (which literally cannot be extracted from the "secure enclave") neither Apple nor the police can do anything with it.
The core point which so many people seem to utterly fail to understand: encrypted data CANNOT be decrypted just by "going thru proper channels, dotting I's & crossing T's". If the police do not have the actual decryption key (hint: Apple does NOT have it), then it is IMPOSSIBLE* to "break" the security. There is no "master key". There is no "back door". We're talking provably, mathematically, impossible to decode within any timeframe less than cosmological.
(* - there may [MAY] be flaw or two which _might_ be exploited to crack encrypted files. At this point, however, such flaws are extremely rare and usually involve many millions of dollars to exploit, only to have them promptly fixed in the next release of hardware or software.)