I thought they can share your iCloud data with a proper warrant. iCloud data encryption keys are available with Apple.
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
I thought they can share your iCloud data with a proper warrant. iCloud data encryption keys are available with Apple.
Such a childlike simple minded response. Let’s weaken security for everyone knowing fine we’ll that there are third party encryption tools that terrorists/bad actors can use which will still keep their communications hidden.
So, people will still get killed and the data of everyone else is potentially exposed due to backdoors etc.
Well done...
To put this 6,900 figure into context, there are approximately 2.3 BILLION smart phones in world wide use in 2017.
Even if you agree that's the right way to handle it, what if they got hit in the head and have amnesia and can't remember the code. Don't laugh, that would be rare but it's far from impossible. Do you let them rot in jail for the rest of their life?
Let's say the wife of a defendant knows the passcode for her husband's phone. Should she also be compelled to divulge it? Should she also be imprisoned? What about a child who knows it?
What if there's a bug in an OS update that causes a passcode to fail in certain cases? What if the phone is damaged? Does the damage cause the passcode to fail? How could you be sure?
There's all kinds of fringe issues that could pop up with this method and I don't see how it could work.
Exactly. And what I'd like to know is... where are the owners of these 6,900 phones?
Are they still alive? Or are they being held in jail until they divulge their passcodes?
I support Apple 100%. I don't trust any government police force or military.
Face ID will solve this, and for at home also.
Someone will only have to hold your phone up, and call you, or tap you on the shoulder.
You will turn around, then see your phone, and Boom, by the time you register in your brain that your phone is being held up, and you are looking at it, it will be unlocked
Someone will only have to hold your phone up, and call you, or tap you on the shoulder.
You will turn around, then see your phone, and Boom, by the time you register in your brain that your phone is being held up, and you are looking at it, it will be unlocked
Thats you. But the laws and privacy are not just about you, they are about what is best for everyone.
For example you could have a prominent judge who likes to dress in womens clothes, or a surgeon who likes to be spanked while wearing leather, etc etc etc. This is their personal lives, however the knowledge of those behaviours may open them up to blackmail by law enforcement.
Information of peoples private lives could be used to keep people out of politics , stop funding of certain projects and so on.
This is why privacy is important.
In fairness. The Patriot Act is no longer the "We can do anything" document it once was. Many substantial changes were made after Mr. Snowden.
And if it wasn't for him more of our liberty would of been taken away. Follow history OUR government DOES NOT have our best interest when it comes to privacy or freedom
James
This same old nonsense makes me think of a city where a house lock is mandated. All the same skeleton key.
Once a crook gets a copy, they can open all locks.
Once the government wants to open the lock they can.
There is a sudden market for alternative procedures.
"For every prohibition, you create an underground."
Once a crook gets a copy, they can open all locks.
Once the government wants to open the lock they can.
There is a sudden market for alternative procedures.
"For every prohibition, you create an underground."
The problem is that "No person (...) shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".
This argument is annoying. You just simply don't take into account the fact that long before there were smartphones, most of the communication wasn't encrypted between two devices you simply cannot access.
I could plan everything on an encrypted phone and nobody could ever find out what i said, who i planned to kill or whatever people do.
So yeah, you can do any detective work you want, but even then you're allowed to break into a safe if you have a reason to, which you can't do with a phone (the equivalent of a numeric safe).
My freedom of privacy is a bigger issue.
[doublepost=1508846545][/doublepost]I think the FBI is just lazy and relies waaay too much on this being their golden ticket to solve all the countries problems. Tell me when the information on an iphone has solved or stopped an attack.
Indeed, privacy is the space in which individuality is born. Therefor there can be no freedom in a society without privacy.
When the FBI wants to CHANGE the way people secure their phones to enable law enforcement to access information on those phones, then the CRIMINALS also will be able to access our information that is now unavailable to them.
I hope this is sarcasm, because it is scary to me that people would feel this way.
Nope, disagree completely. In the 1960 the investigators actually worked outside of the office, today they just want to sit around and monitor a computer in the air conditioning and heat, with the corresponding fewer number of investigators. They want the cheap and lazy way to solve crimes that dictators use. Unfortunately, the cheap and easy ways they want are also very open to government abuse. This abuse has no trusted way to be monitored or stopped.
Remember the old saying, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.", John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, KCVO DL, 1887. It is as true today as it has been for centuries.
To me, the "huge, huge problem" is the half of phones the FBI was able to retrieve data from.
What a naive view. Read anything at all about security and you'll come to understand that wholesale monitoring will never lead to more security. It will never stop crime. Why? Because criminals, I mean real criminals and terrorists, won't use any device that can be monitored. This whole thing about needing to get into phones to prevent crime and terrorism is a false statement to get uninformed people to give up their rights.
Today its for terrorism, but once you have given up these rights, you will no longer be able to get them back. Then all you have to have is a President/FBI/CIA/etc. that wants to stay in power and that monitoring will be used to target political opponents.
In other countries, privacy is essential for dissidents, but for some reason, some in the USA, feel that privacy is not important. We can trust our government. Anyone that feels this way should read anything about the history of the FBI and Hoover's secret files and the associated blackmail. Or the CIA's gross violation of almost every law the US has to offer. The people in the American war machine already have too much power, but the snowflakes just want to give them more because it'll be ok.
There is no police force in America that has the responsibility to protect you. Go read about the Supreme Court rulings regarding this. Their job is to find criminals (after the fact) and put them before a judge. We do not need to give up our rights for this, the crime has already happened.
There is always a happy middle ground and its called the 4th Amendment.
If they get a court order, device should be decrypted.
No court order? No decryption.
Crazy concept I know....
I don't disagree with this. My earlier post was simply pointing out the early post 9-11 Patriot Act no longer exists in that form.
And firearm homicides are committed by strangers about 22% of the time (Siegel, Michael, et al. "The relationship between gun ownership and stranger and nonstranger firearm homicide rates in the United States, 1981–2010." American Journal of Public Health (2014)). Even then, many of those are not completely random (e.g., gang-related). Further (although there is overlap in these numbers), black men are more than 2x as likely to be killed by firearm homicide than white men are and about 10x as likely as black and white women. For black men between ages 20-29, the disparity is much greater. So, if you are not a black man between the ages of 20-29, the likelihood that you will be killed by a firearm (other than suicide) is very low. Even if you are a young black man the likelihood is low.
Fear of terrorism is irrational (not totally because it does happen) but so is fear of dying by firearm homicide (for most people). To be pedantic, fear usually is not rational.
It’s not possible to decrypt iPhones hence why they couldn’t get in to half the devices they wanted to.