Justice Department Wants Apple to Extract Data From 12 Other iPhones

[pat500000]

Hey, Bill Gate....what was that you were saying?

 

[JGRE]

Explain how how foreign country is going to have their court or the US court, force this on an American company?

Explain what? You think the European Court needs to come to the US to enforce something on Apple? Apple is a multinational company with assets, operations and employees everywhere and can therefore be sued everywhere.

PS: remember that small fine emposed on Microsoft some years ago? This was in Europe.

 

[mw360]

I believe that I am innocent of even minor offences, and I know, as an absolute certainty, that there is nothing that any normal, average person would consider to be incriminating on my phone. Still, I have everything to hide from the government (yours, mine, or anyone's).

In no particular order, these are a few of the things that I would like to hide from prying eyes: my music, my notes, my Angry Birds scores, my passwords, my calendar, my address book, what apps I use, my banking info, the books I read, my photos, and how many characters I've unlocked in Crossy Road.

No one, neither government nor citizen, has any right, need, or reason to look at any of my stuff.

You know they can break into your house though? And look through your meds and your underwear drawer? And they can tap your phone? And put a camera in your toilet? And look through all your bank accounts? And lock you up in a room for years? And electrocute you?*

Why are smartphones so sacred?


–––

*American readers only

 

[gnasher729]

So you have General Michael Hayden, former NSA Director and former CIA Director saying what the FBI is trying to do with respect to Apple's encryption is NOT in the best interest of the main body (American Public) for security reasons and he doesn't support it. He understands the FBI's position but sides with Apple on this. He also state that his view on encryption is the same as Mike Chertoff (former Secretary of Homeland Security), Bill Lynn (former Deputy of Secretary of Defense), and Mike McConnell (former NSA Director). Given the high profile of these individuals who have been involved in various levels of security for the US, who do you want to believe on this issue? I think they know what essentially is a backdoor. Don't you think they know something more than the average joe on the street who doesn't recognize how this will affect national/worldwide computer security?

They just know more than the average joe on the street is told. If you read a headline in a British newspaper "Apple refuses to unlock TERROR PHONE", instead of the headline "Apple protects its users from EVIL HACKERS", people will get the wrong idea and come to the wrong conclusions.

One should also mention that according to Michael Hayden, respecting the encryption has pros and cons but is overall better for national security - if all you look at is national security. He then goes on saying that if you look at financial consequences, like US companies competing in international markets, that decision goes from "slight advantage for encryption" to a "slam dunk", as he calls it.
[doublepost=1456308375][/doublepost]

I believe that I am innocent of even minor offences, and I know, as an absolute certainty, that there is nothing that any normal, average person would consider to be incriminating on my phone. Still, I have everything to hide from the government (yours, mine, or anyone's).

In no particular order, these are a few of the things that I would like to hide from prying eyes: my music, my notes, my Angry Birds scores, my passwords, my calendar, my address book, what apps I use, my banking info, the books I read, my photos, and how many characters I've unlocked in Crossy Road.

No one, neither government nor citizen, has any right, need, or reason to look at any of my stuff.

Regarding "nothing to hide": Did you know that in the UK, after it was found that many members of parliament had been fiddling their expenses, these expenses are now hidden from the public? "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. We better hide our expenses". Funny detail: Among the expenses they found that the husband of the then home secretary was charging his porn to his wife's expenses. You couldn't make it up. Did you know that the public in the UK is not to be informed if criminal proceedings are started against any member of parliament unless that person is convicted?

The FBI did this probably to put pressure on the courts and politicians, the non elected imposing their rule onto us all through demagogic manipulation.

Whatever the reason, it was the height of stupidity, because now all terrorists know that they need to remove anything incriminating from their iPhones. These guys can't think further than their nose. Now if they could have convinced Apple _secretly_ to recover the data from that phone... And if they had learned from British codebreakers in World War II and instead of bragging what they found keep it very quiet. For example, whatever the Brits found out in World War II, they would _first_ arrange some coincidence how they found the information, and only _then_ act on it. The Americans? "We found the location of this terrorists because he tweeted on Twitter, and we got him". Great. Now they stay away from Twitter.

 

[digitalcuriosity]

I still feel the only phone call the FBI would find on the phone,is a call to a local pizza joint to order a pizza.

 

[maxsix]

"Just one phone."

"Just 12 phones."

"Just the world."

You were saying, James Comey?

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And Hussein keeps growing the government further. The most slavish spender ever, he's in a race with time to bring capitalism down, meeting with BLM they're eager to help.

 

[Wondercow]

You know they can break into your house though? And look through your meds and your underwear drawer? And they can tap your phone? And put a camera in your toilet? And look through all your bank accounts? And lock you up in a room for years? And electrocute you?*

Why are smartphones so sacred?


–––

*American readers only

So, to quote Homer Simpson, "you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try."

Smartphones aren't "so sacred", privacy is. It is exceedingly unlikely that anyone would come to my home and try to break in; however, it is 100% likely that the US government wants to intercept, have access to, and spy on my data even though I'm not a US citizen, not in the US, and have not done anything to warrant surveillance.

I have my home and my computers secured to the best of my ability, why should I not want the same for my cell phone?

 

[farmboy]

A couple different things:

First, although I'm usually a skeptic about "slippery slopes", I can't see any other way this can go if Apple has to knuckle under. "Lawful orders" can be issued by any judge friendly to your case, and then Apple must comply--federal, state, county, city, local law enforcement will all request data dumps. Hundreds of thousand of cases per year. Apple either has to set up an entire division to handle this or widely distribute the back door code. So no privacy.

From an intelligence perspective, you never want the surveilled to know exactly what you know about them or how you got it. NSA etc. have certain capabilities that likely far exceed what most analysts understand. So they would prefer that this type of capability not be widely known. So how do you think the "dark suits in dark places" guys feel about the FBI erasing this advantage if they get what they want from Apple for a terrorism case that is unlikely to reveal anything more than they already know from previous data dumps from Apple, Verizon and others in this case.

 

[digitalcuriosity]

A couple different things:

First, although I'm usually a skeptic about "slippery slopes", I can't see any other way this can go if Apple has to knuckle under. "Lawful orders" can be issued by any judge friendly to your case, and then Apple must comply--federal, state, county, city, local law enforcement will all request data dumps. Hundreds of thousand of cases per year. Apple either has to set up an entire division to handle this or widely distribute the back door code. So no privacy.

From an intelligence perspective, you never want the surveilled to know exactly what you know about them or how you got it. NSA etc. have certain capabilities that likely far exceed what most analysts understand. So they would prefer that this type of capability not be widely known. So how do you think the "dark suits in dark places" guys feel about the FBI erasing this advantage if they get what they want from Apple for a terrorism case that is unlikely to reveal anything more than they already know from previous data dumps from Apple, Verizon and others in this case.

I still feel the FBI is using the shooters iPhone, as a good excuse to get the master key to everyones iPhones.

 

[sotorious]

Well, surprise surprise. So they use the terorism case to set the precedent and then use it everywhere?

Now for those with older IOS where Apple stores the keys, no issue with Apple turning over those keys like they have before. Where Apple has to brak their own security - no way.

There is politics for you ladies and gentlemen. This is how they always get what they want

 

[dk001]

So you have General Michael Hayden, former NSA Director and former CIA Director saying what the FBI is trying to do with respect to Apple's encryption is NOT in the best interest of the main body (American Public) for security reasons and he doesn't support it. He understands the FBI's position but sides with Apple on this. He also state that his view on encryption is the same as Mike Chertoff (former Secretary of Homeland Security), Bill Lynn (former Deputy of Secretary of Defense), and Mike McConnell (former NSA Director). Given the high profile of these individuals who have been involved in various levels of security for the US, who do you want to believe on this issue? I think they know what essentially is a backdoor. Don't you think they know something more than the average joe on the street who doesn't recognize how this will affect national/worldwide computer security?

http://fortune.com/2016/02/19/hayden-apple-fbi/?iid=sr-link1

From 12/16/15 http://fortune.com/2015/12/16/national-security-encryption/?iid=sr-link6

While I agree I have to wonder what game they are playing to come out like that. Interesting none the less.
[doublepost=1456679053][/doublepost]

This day I find it hard to believe when people say, "we live in the greatest country on Earth". Really? Our liberties are being taken away from us on a daily basis, rampid crime and thus country is becoming a police state. We sure our fooling ourselves that we live in greatest country on Earth. Certainly not the worst, but I don't think it's the best. God help us if Trump becomes president, we can miss all our Constitutional rights goodbye.

and our alternative is a crooked lawyer who wants backdoor's into everything?
Yeah buddy! Choices.
[doublepost=1456679252][/doublepost]

Maybe they just don't call them crimes anymore, good way to just lower their ratings.

There is always the option to relabel.
Still, tread carefully. Overall crime (violent crime) is down however the trend of "news" to highlight and sensationalize is on the upswing. We know the news is always "right".
[doublepost=1456679330][/doublepost]

Apparently there's a poll going around saying that 51% of Americans actually agree with the FBI while only 38% side with Apple.

The "scary terrorist" theme seems to be the best method for making people give up their rights in exchange for the perception of more security.

Just wait until we have massive iPhone hacks and millions of credit card numbers lost/stolen by hackers. Or when iPhone thefts increase again so that criminals can brute force their way into your phone and access all of its data.

That depends on the poll being headlined. There are a number of them that show both sides winning and losing.
Take your pick.
[doublepost=1456679571][/doublepost]

You mean like the old saying "trust us we're from the government"

"... and we are here to help. "

mustn't forget the second part
[doublepost=1456679756][/doublepost]

“It is easy to go down into Hell...; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air---there's the rub...”
― Virgil

This is a poor translation of Virgil's Aeneid. My Latin Prof put it into simpler terms: "The way into Hell is greased..."

That is always a good one. In this day and age should we replace "greased" with "well lubed"?
[doublepost=1456679881][/doublepost]

You know they can break into your house though? And look through your meds and your underwear drawer? And they can tap your phone? And put a camera in your toilet? And look through all your bank accounts? And lock you up in a room for years? And electrocute you?*

Why are smartphones so sacred?


–––

*American readers only

Because my smartphones have more information about me and that I use in one single location than any other domicile I inhabit or item I own/use.
and you wonder why mine are encrypted.
[doublepost=1456680263][/doublepost]

A couple different things:

First, although I'm usually a skeptic about "slippery slopes", I can't see any other way this can go if Apple has to knuckle under. "Lawful orders" can be issued by any judge friendly to your case, and then Apple must comply--federal, state, county, city, local law enforcement will all request data dumps. Hundreds of thousand of cases per year. Apple either has to set up an entire division to handle this or widely distribute the back door code. So no privacy.

From an intelligence perspective, you never want the surveilled to know exactly what you know about them or how you got it. NSA etc. have certain capabilities that likely far exceed what most analysts understand. So they would prefer that this type of capability not be widely known. So how do you think the "dark suits in dark places" guys feel about the FBI erasing this advantage if they get what they want from Apple for a terrorism case that is unlikely to reveal anything more than they already know from previous data dumps from Apple, Verizon and others in this case.

Right and ... not quite.
Let's say the FBI wins this. Move forward a few months and now you have the same request with the following additions:

• Remote access and the smartphone user is unaware of it
• Gag order so you can't talk about it

Scary...

 

[thewitt]

Why shouldn't it happen? As long as the guy is a suspected criminal and there is a court order from a judge.

Your neighbor accuses you of child abuse. Without proof, Child Protective Services comes and takes your children today, for their safety. It doesn't wait for a judge or a court order. You have to prove you are not guilty to get your kids back.

The same thing is going to happen when you are arrested as a potential threat to national security. Your neighbor reported he heard you talking about how much you hate the president. You are arrested. Your phone is unlocked and it turns out that someone in your LinkedIn has financial ties to a suspected terrorist funding group.

You go to Gitmo.

Have a nice vacation.

No crimes were committed. No judges were involved. You have just been victimized by The Patriot Act.

You still want the government in your phone with only suspicion of a possible crime?

 

[dk001]

Hmm.... and the count grows...
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has as many as 150 phones in evidence lockers that investigators can’t crack. The LAPD has about 300. In Sacramento, sheriff’s officials have nearly 90.
Yup... the list be growing by leaps and bounds.