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.
Justice Department Wants Apple to Extract Data From 12 Other iPhones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So tired of this story even after just a week. Oh my gosh, 12 phones! Can you imagine that? Twelve. You know what? I'm sure the FBI has more too. Lots more. Because reality is, criminals and terrorists use phones to carry out their evil deeds. I know, what a concept.
I (and apparently 51% of the US public, as of this morning) want law enforcement to able to do their job and find others who are connected with such horrible acts. Apple has a moral obligation here. Yes, they do. Just like social media companies have (finally, after being guilt tripped) started suppressing 'free speech' from ISIS and other such groups.
Many of you are acting like this is such a grievous act, like this will constitute such a privacy and security violation. As if this isn't already happening. PRISM? No one has cared. Phone conversations being listened to and recorded? No one has cared. Being video recorded while out in public? No one has cared. Google and Facebook data mining EVERY click and EVERY conversation and EVERY piece of content you create across the web? No one has cared.
There is nothing special about your iPhone or my iPhone and the content on it, unless you're ashamed or have something to hide. People waived their rights in the digital age awhile ago.
I (and apparently 51% of the US public, as of this morning) want law enforcement to able to do their job and find others who are connected with such horrible acts. Apple has a moral obligation here. Yes, they do. Just like social media companies have (finally, after being guilt tripped) started suppressing 'free speech' from ISIS and other such groups.
Many of you are acting like this is such a grievous act, like this will constitute such a privacy and security violation. As if this isn't already happening. PRISM? No one has cared. Phone conversations being listened to and recorded? No one has cared. Being video recorded while out in public? No one has cared. Google and Facebook data mining EVERY click and EVERY conversation and EVERY piece of content you create across the web? No one has cared.
There is nothing special about your iPhone or my iPhone and the content on it, unless you're ashamed or have something to hide. People waived their rights in the digital age awhile ago.
That's why the government must first establish probable cause to search the phone, then petition a judge to issue a warrant (in this case an order under the All Writs act). The process at hand also provides Apple with an opportunity to contest this (which they are doing as is their right to do). This is all being done fairly, by the book, and in compliance with safeguards that have been in use for decades.
Go ahead, join the freak show.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...gainst-doj-show-up-at-an-apple-store-tuesday/
I suppose my issue is that you presented it as partisan when you brought D's and R's into it, or at least the White House. This is Obamas Justice Department, which functions under the executive branch (president) the head of the Justice Department is nominated by the president, Obama has put in Eric Holder, now Loretta Lynch. To suggest that one occupant of the White House is more benevolent than the other, or that an R's FBI would be more aggressive in trying to diminish civil rights doesn't fit this narrative and is little more than speculation and hyperbole.
The issue here is regardless of the initial-civil liberties and the bill of rights are under siege by the government, limiting privacy and expression. That this FBI and now we can safety add the US Justice Department are in the wrong here, and in the worst light seeking a backdoor/master key, at best they are trying to cover there ass for messing up and changing pass codes. The constitutional aggument really sides with Apple, the emotional "make 'merica great"/git 'em sides with the FBI/DOJ, more broadly as we see in this thread is that there are many who disregard the notion of setting this dangerous precedent and have stated their case-and it seems the majority do, and not because of the Apple kool-ade, but sound reasonable logic.
I agree with you that this hasn't been a partisan debate and one of policy- I really wish that were the case in all of the PRSI threads, it's really been a breath of fresh air to have a calm discourse without the endless back and forth name calling (there have been one or two personal attacks that another poster had corrected). With that said let's focus on what is happening with the specific real life situation at hand and war-game if it was Trumps or Bernies DOJ another thread, another time.
(LOL -"macrumors fantasy political war room" it's gonna be 'udge)
Addition: as for the NSA most people don't understand and neither side has been able to clearly make the case so it's kinda blah.
They built this massive data storage center in the middle of a desert because they needed water to cool the tech, yeah right.
Yes I agree with you that they are storing lots of personal information-why no outcry, because it's far away (meaning not something relatable or as obviously connected to you or tangible as your phone the FBI is now asking for help getting into).
My own case against the NSA is they didn't catch the Boston bombers FBI resulted in asking local businesses for surveillance footage, and then the publics help to identify the Tsarnaev brothers, or to indicate any threat prior to San Bernadino, if the government has all this mass surveillance going on, why do they seem so inept? Why sacrifice privacy and convenience for security?
Last edited:
Do you not have any private or personal information in your phone? Two areas that come to mind quickly would be credit card information for apple pay, and online banking. If the phone is not secure then you leave the information in those areas potentially open to a thief. I'm not too worried about the government having access, but you can't give it to them without giving it to any hacker that wants in as well, and identity theft is a real issue that would be much easier for someone having full access to your phone.
Almost, but not quite. If a safe manufacturer refused to help the FBI open a safe after they obtained a legal warrant, the FBI would just get another safe company to crack it, or drill into it ("brute force"). But this is a slightly different situation. Brute force won't work on this phone lest the phone get wiped. The FBI needs Apple's assistance to get into it because there is no other way. If the FBI could get into the phone without Apple's assistance I assure you they would.
What cynical ********! As if violating our rights in the past is justification for violating them in the future. Our rights aren't something to be set aside to make law enforcement easier. Law enforcement exists to protect our rights.
And, as Snowden tweeted, "Pew poll finds when the government misinforms the public, the public is misinformed. Scientists baffled."
It's as open as a locked house that is so tightly secured that they can't open it without destroying the contents.If it was "open", they wouldn't be asking for this
What the FBI wants to do is ensure that you can lock your door, but only if they also have a key. Buy a stronger, less pickable lock, it still has to open easily if they use their key.
Just read this article. It sums the problem up pretty decently.
"This is about an overblown national security apparatus — one that has regularly played Snakes and Ladders with the Constitution, jeopardized all of the most important technology companies in America, spied on its own Government, lied about it all, and really only exists to protect us from something that kills about as many Americans each year as sharks — that is now throwing its toys out of the cot.
All because one company is willing to stand up to it.
On principle.
A principle that the US Government wants everyone else to adhere to. But thinks that the same rules don’t apply to it."
"This is about an overblown national security apparatus — one that has regularly played Snakes and Ladders with the Constitution, jeopardized all of the most important technology companies in America, spied on its own Government, lied about it all, and really only exists to protect us from something that kills about as many Americans each year as sharks — that is now throwing its toys out of the cot.
All because one company is willing to stand up to it.
On principle.
A principle that the US Government wants everyone else to adhere to. But thinks that the same rules don’t apply to it."
Last edited:
So you would be opposed to anyone building a safe that could destroy the contents if someone tried to drill into it? Or a safe made of material strong enough to resist a drill?
If you built a Death Star you'd make sure there was an exhaust port where a single blast from an X-wing could cause a chain reaction and blow the whole thing up.
Why? Because the FBI claimed that is true? Snowden has implied on Twitter that the FBI has alternatives. Particularly the NSA.
I don't know which claim is true, but I certainly wouldn't be making assurances about things that I know nothing about.
Just ask John McAfee he will do it for free lol. Seriously if the FBI can't do their jobs on their own such as cracking into a cell phone than their should be a investigation in the fbi.
Either way I'm going to remove my tin foil now hopefully the government won't mind control me.
[doublepost=1456248223][/doublepost]
Apple said they can't even get in the iPhone because how strong the encryption is which cracks me up because they still track how you use the iPhone and it is bs if anyone believes Apple doesn't track your iPhone after the whole Map issue.
Either way I'm going to remove my tin foil now hopefully the government won't mind control me.
[doublepost=1456248223][/doublepost]
Apple said they can't even get in the iPhone because how strong the encryption is which cracks me up because they still track how you use the iPhone and it is bs if anyone believes Apple doesn't track your iPhone after the whole Map issue.
No, they don't.
If Apple makes a backdoor for the government, Apple can no longer tout that their devices -- which many folks in government use -- are secure. This is a classic case of the government wanting what they want right now without thinking through the ramifications of this request in the long-term. The government wants their iPhones to be completely secure but they want to be able to break into other people's iPhones. Those two statements are incongruent. They can't have it both ways.
To protect consumer's right to Privacy has been high up on Apple's strategic map for a long time. It is part of their strategic business model and Apple are absolutely unique in that way.
Most big tech companies greedily try to get access to their customer's private information, by hook or by crook. Microsoft is the prime example of that (excluded the social media companies that is all about getting access to your private information), they've like most others have become like slimy Gollums greedy after any Privacy info that could be turned into gold.
Now, since Privacy is of such strategic importance to Apple, rest assured they have a plan for fulfilling that strategic objective.
They might not have anticipated in what form it would manifest, but they could assume with 100% certainty that at one point a challenge like this would come up.
Apple is acting principle centered. Their principle is protect Privacy. They have a strategy, they've designed the infrastructure to support their strategy etc.
Tim Cook's reply on the website, wasn't a reactive statement, it was well planned for and I bet the've had their legal team looking at all different ways a situation like this could play out.
They know what they are doing, they are well prepared and the crooks in Washington will not stand a chance in getting anywhere close to what they want.
Compared to the geopolitical scenario, Apple is playing with integrity and dignity based on sound principles, yes that would be Putin, Lavrov and the Russian Federation in Syria.
The FBI is playing the part of the opportunistic US state dep politicians, neocons and assorted psychopaths like Victoria "**** the EU" Nuland. Put those two next to each other and it's easy to see who is the real statesman and who is the poor clown.
Most big tech companies greedily try to get access to their customer's private information, by hook or by crook. Microsoft is the prime example of that (excluded the social media companies that is all about getting access to your private information), they've like most others have become like slimy Gollums greedy after any Privacy info that could be turned into gold.
Now, since Privacy is of such strategic importance to Apple, rest assured they have a plan for fulfilling that strategic objective.
They might not have anticipated in what form it would manifest, but they could assume with 100% certainty that at one point a challenge like this would come up.
Apple is acting principle centered. Their principle is protect Privacy. They have a strategy, they've designed the infrastructure to support their strategy etc.
Tim Cook's reply on the website, wasn't a reactive statement, it was well planned for and I bet the've had their legal team looking at all different ways a situation like this could play out.
They know what they are doing, they are well prepared and the crooks in Washington will not stand a chance in getting anywhere close to what they want.
Compared to the geopolitical scenario, Apple is playing with integrity and dignity based on sound principles, yes that would be Putin, Lavrov and the Russian Federation in Syria.
The FBI is playing the part of the opportunistic US state dep politicians, neocons and assorted psychopaths like Victoria "**** the EU" Nuland. Put those two next to each other and it's easy to see who is the real statesman and who is the poor clown.
Last edited:
It is all down to how you ask the question. In isolation "do you think Apple should help the FBI prevent a terrorist attack?" would illicit a positive response from lots of people.
"do you think Apple should create a backdoor to their phones that could be exploited by criminals to steal your personal data, in order to help the FBI prevent a terrorist attack?" would probably push more people into the negative camp.
Vote them all out.
Take a chance on a third party candidate.
Time to clean house and rebuild.
Take a chance on a third party candidate.
Time to clean house and rebuild.
You (and apparently 51% of the US public) haven't been told that the same technology that would allow the FBI to read data on the phones of terrorists would allow terrorists to read information on the phones of FBI agents, plus it would allow hackers and criminals to read the information on your phone. Do you think you have nothing to hide from the government? I doubt it, but even if we assume that you are right, you have something to hide from criminals.
Hah. And meanwhile they say they aren't trying to create a precedent. What a farce.
Stay strong Apple.
It is quite sad though that America has degraded so far that we need private companies to try to fight the government for our constitutional rights.
Stay strong Apple.
It is quite sad though that America has degraded so far that we need private companies to try to fight the government for our constitutional rights.
There have been alternatives in the past. For example, they could intercept a brand new phone in an unopened box that is sent in the mail (they can obviously still do that), open the box, install some evil software on the phone, and send it to you. The difference is that now the phone won't behave like a brand new phone. As the receiver, everyone will tell you that you need to set up your AppleID and password, and you can only do that if you erase whatever is on the phone. Including any hacks by the NSA.
Remember also that this isn't Apple's phone. A trivial example: The police has a search warrant for my neighbours house. The door is locked. So they knock on my door and ask me for permission to enter my garden and climb over the fence into my neighbour's garden. They absolutely have the right to enter my neighbour's garden, but they don't have the right to enter mine. I may be polite and let them in, but I don't have to.