I happily forfeit whatever lack of safety comes from not living in some horrible surveillance state. Yeah freedom comes with a risk - that's fine.
Thank you - yours is the voice of reason.
I happily forfeit whatever lack of safety comes from not living in some horrible surveillance state. Yeah freedom comes with a risk - that's fine.
Politicians should first vote for politicians no longer being allowed to use any kind of encryption on all their personal and non-personal devices and leaving a backdoor open for law enforcement and criminal use.
Ps: why is this posed on the Mac page and not on iOS?
Yes, they could *ask* you to unlock or request your password, and you are NOT obligated to tell them anything. Ever hear of that little thing called the 5th amendment? You have the right not to answer such questions and the right not to self incriminate by *helping* their investigation. It's dumb if you are innocent, and dumber if you are guilty of something and the phone could further incriminate you.
My phone, my rules I'll tell them.
Fingerprints are different, and you can be compelled by court order to have your fingerprint used to unlock a phone where a warrant has been issued for its contents. This is why I will never use fingerprints to unlock my phone.
[doublepost=1452749096][/doublepost]
Yeah, but kinda hard if they see the phone in plain view and grab it, or they search you and take it from you before you can do that. You don't really want to go grab it from them and try to do a reset or power down. Also, if pulled over, you really don't want to make sudden movements reaching for things... can get you kinda dead in some parts.
Well, since they have your fingerprints and with 5 attempts before the device is locked, TouchId is the most simple way for law enforcement to get to your dataHere's a tip - if law enforcement forces you to use Touch ID, restart the phone. A passcode will be required after a restart and fingerprints won't be accepted.
View attachment 610415
I honestly am. If I am going to weigh an extreme level of privacy for my personal communications against the potential for innocent people to be hurt because some criminal can prevent law enforcement from being effective by refusing to decrypt their phone, I'm going to go with letting law enforcement do their job.
If this passed, criminals would just find other stuff to use that are still encrypted. Maybe even better-encrypted than Apple's stuff.
That date came and went already. How is it possible for them to pass a new law and apply it in retrospect? Here in the Netherlands you can't do that. A new law can be passed and go into effect for a future date. But you can't fine companies or people for an act that's illegal today, but wasn't at the time it was committed.Any smartphone sold or leased in New York after January 1, 2016 would have to be capable of being decrypted or unlocked by its manufacturer or OS provider.
Tim Cook goes to Washington to say what Apple buyers / owners want to hear. Pre-programmed to believe their hero Apple, the devotees actually believe every word Apple utters. Just like the progressive liberals believe the Pro Muslim, ISIS isn't a threat, everything's wonderful potus.
But reality is Tim Cook, Apple, et al... aren't about to upset their liberal partners in the White House. Hillary, Golfer Boy, Bubba, they're Masterful Liars with endless influence and a massive war chest of cash. The can get away with anything, anytime, anywhere.
Think not? Think Again.
Scenarios:
1) Your baby, toddler, kid(s), and/or spouse/friend/mistress are missing. Only way to find out is from the location stored in an iPhone from the suspect - which is also dead. Sorry folks, can't help you because we can't decrypt.
2) codes to diffuse a nuclear bomb is stored on an iPhone and it's encrypted. Can't save the world because we can't decrypt it.
3) The last message written by your dad before he suddenly died was written on his iPhone and encrypted. Sorry, can't even have you see his last words because we can't decrypt it.
4) Child porn of your kid(s) stored on an iPhone but encrypted and not stored in iCloud either. Sorry, can't prosecute the perv because we don't have evidence we need from his iPhone. It's encrypted, we can't decrypt it.
5) Car accident and you were not at fault because while you were driving you were also v-logging with the iPhone clamped on the dash and someone hits you and the camera caught a pic of the accident but obviously from the accident your head was injured enough you can't access your code (the phone was off (battery drained) then restarted so the passcode is needed). You're screwed.
6) Before a police officer was murdered, he was recording himself and the camera on the iPhone caught the sounds and part of the suspect killing the police officer. The phone dies of low battery but the video is on the phone and encrypted. You can't prosecute the suspect because the evidence is on the phone.
7) the list goes on and on.
Now if you argue that oh, I want to prevent mike who works at the FBI from eavesdropping or looking at my personal naked pictures I took while drunk, then of course you're trying to make a case about your privacy. I think the point of encryption is to protect the owner but then there are times when you hope and pray that you can access it because the one you loved who happened be have evidence on the device is no longer here and it's crucial to gain access to it but you can't, then you can see how desperate one will want access.
This is very hard to decide....
Don't they know they are only pushing me and others like me TO encryption? If Apple really has no backdoor, then NY's only recourse is to ban Apple products in the state. Can't make Apple do something that technically is not possible. I use FileVault 2, but DO NOT let Apple store my key. I DO NOT keep a copy of my key. My password is in my head.
Also, if/when I get a an iPhone in the future (still have the 5), I will NEVER use the fingerprint reader, as you can be legally compelled to offer your prints, whereas you cannot be compelled to offer a password. I don't use my stuff for anything illegal, but that's nobody's business. I go out of my way now to setup encryption.
Thanks government!
That date came and went already. How is it possible for them to pass a new law and apply it in retrospect? Here in the Netherlands you can't do that. A new law can be passed and go into effect for a future date. But you can't fine companies or people for an act that's illegal today, but wasn't at the time it was committed.
Never stopped liberal politicians in the past and won't end here either. Amazing really.Seems unconstitutional. Dormant Commerce Clause. At first impression, I would argue this law would substantially burden interstate commerce, which is exclusively for congress to regulate, and thus states cannot do it.
This is what prompted me to look at the comments.That date came and went already. How is it possible for them to pass a new law and apply it in retrospect? Here in the Netherlands you can't do that. A new law can be passed and go into effect for a future date. But you can't fine companies or people for an act that's illegal today, but wasn't at the time it was committed.
#2 Can't happen. You're not allowed encryption, so it must be possible to turn off the bomb with a single switch. Or set whatever nuke you fancy to detonate in the same way. "Wargames", anyone?Scenarios:
1) Your baby, toddler, kid(s), and/or spouse/friend/mistress are missing. Only way to find out is from the location stored in an iPhone from the suspect - which is also dead. Sorry folks, can't help you because we can't decrypt.
2) codes to diffuse a nuclear bomb is stored on an iPhone and it's encrypted. Can't save the world because we can't decrypt it.
3) The last message written by your dad before he suddenly died was written on his iPhone and encrypted. Sorry, can't even have you see his last words because we can't decrypt it.
4) Child porn of your kid(s) stored on an iPhone but encrypted and not stored in iCloud either. Sorry, can't prosecute the perv because we don't have evidence we need from his iPhone. It's encrypted, we can't decrypt it.
5) Car accident and you were not at fault because while you were driving you were also v-logging with the iPhone clamped on the dash and someone hits you and the camera caught a pic of the accident but obviously from the accident your head was injured enough you can't access your code (the phone was off (battery drained) then restarted so the passcode is needed). You're screwed.
6) Before a police officer was murdered, he was recording himself and the camera on the iPhone caught the sounds and part of the suspect killing the police officer. The phone dies of low battery but the video is on the phone and encrypted. You can't prosecute the suspect because the evidence is on the phone.
7) the list goes on and on.
Now if you argue that oh, I want to prevent mike who works at the FBI from eavesdropping or looking at my personal naked pictures I took while drunk, then of course you're trying to make a case about your privacy. I think the point of encryption is to protect the owner but then there are times when you hope and pray that you can access it because the one you loved who happened be have evidence on the device is no longer here and it's crucial to gain access to it but you can't, then you can see how desperate one will want access.
This is very hard to decide....
If criminals really want to keep secrets they will. Encryption can't be beat..
This bill just sets up a police state.
As a NY resident, I sure hope not.will Tim stand up to his pledge for user privacy and stop selling iPhones in NY? #notbloodylikely
Profits trump pledges
Personally I'm all for an individual's right to privacy and security. But do the majority of the public (not your general MacRumors forum population) even care?
They seem perfectly happy to plaster almost every detail of their life all over Facebook, Twitter and any other social platforms.
Not to mention allowing Facebook, Google and the likes to skim through their information for the sake of targeted advertising and so on.
When people are more than willing to allow any of that nonsense, I doubt they're caring how secure their phone is.
I will NEVER use the fingerprint reader, as you can be legally compelled to offer your prints, whereas you cannot be compelled to offer a password.
Ignorant and stubborn to be more precise.
[doublepost=1452743985][/doublepost]
They could ask the suspect to unlock their phone or surrender passwords, or be charged with obstruction of justice.
Scenarios:
1) Your baby, toddler, kid(s), and/or spouse/friend/mistress are missing. Only way to find out is from the location stored in an iPhone from the suspect - which is also dead. Sorry folks, can't help you because we can't decrypt.
2) codes to diffuse a nuclear bomb is stored on an iPhone and it's encrypted. Can't save the world because we can't decrypt it.
3) The last message written by your dad before he suddenly died was written on his iPhone and encrypted. Sorry, can't even have you see his last words because we can't decrypt it.
4) Child porn of your kid(s) stored on an iPhone but encrypted and not stored in iCloud either. Sorry, can't prosecute the perv because we don't have evidence we need from his iPhone. It's encrypted, we can't decrypt it.
5) Car accident and you were not at fault because while you were driving you were also v-logging with the iPhone clamped on the dash and someone hits you and the camera caught a pic of the accident but obviously from the accident your head was injured enough you can't access your code (the phone was off (battery drained) then restarted so the passcode is needed). You're screwed.
6) Before a police officer was murdered, he was recording himself and the camera on the iPhone caught the sounds and part of the suspect killing the police officer. The phone dies of low battery but the video is on the phone and encrypted. You can't prosecute the suspect because the evidence is on the phone.
7) the list goes on and on.
Now if you argue that oh, I want to prevent mike who works at the FBI from eavesdropping or looking at my personal naked pictures I took while drunk, then of course you're trying to make a case about your privacy. I think the point of encryption is to protect the owner but then there are times when you hope and pray that you can access it because the one you loved who happened be have evidence on the device is no longer here and it's crucial to gain access to it but you can't, then you can see how desperate one will want access.
This is very hard to decide....
Solutions:
...
4) Have judge issue a warrant. Either the suspect unlocks his phone or he will be charged with obstruction of justice. If he's innocent, then he's got nothing to fear.
...
Here's a tip - if law enforcement forces you to use Touch ID, restart the phone. A passcode will be required after a restart and fingerprints won't be accepted.