So the people cannot, but he and the government can ?
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.
President Obama: 'You Cannot Take an Absolutist View' on Encryption Issue
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So the people cannot, but he and the government can ?
It scales on the lower end of things that can get you killed statistically. Chance of dying to a drunk driver is higher. Or a random mugging gone bad. This why we pick on the fear mongering. It works all too well on the sheeple. Sheeple too stupid to see their death will most likely not come from a terrorist.
And it won't be orchestrated by several people using iPhones to crack. It will be some asshat who should had gotten a cab instead of driving. It will be some street thug not happy you only had 20 in your wallet and blows your brains out for that. None of this organized....you just die because wrong place wrong time.
2001 (plus some years for chronic effect) about 4000-5000 people died total associated from the 9/11 event. In 2001....about 17000 people died in alcohol related events. Not trying to belittle terrorism....its just yearly its at the bottom of the list for what will get you killed. IIRC its ranked lower than anaphylactic shock resulting in death from bee stings. Some guy posts a pic in these threads with the top x killers and terrorism at the bottom...will turn up again I am sure.
You know there is evidence in this world that isn't on a smartphone, right?
[doublepost=1457834165][/doublepost]
This argument sounds great in theory. However, it doesn't stand up to the reality of what happens if there is a master key or backdoor. Here's a paper from MIT - I believe they know what they're talking about:
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/97690/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2015-026.pdf?sequence=8
Since you mentioned September 11th, let me mention something to you. I haven't heard of any public official on record for saying that the government could have foiled 9/11 that if it had more information. If anything, the consensus seems to be that the government had credible information that something was about to happen but the inability of law enforcement and intelligence prevented the government from acting on it.
If the government wants to expand its powers, it's the government's job to prove that the expanded powers are actually needed and that there are adequate safeguards in place to prevent abuse. The burden of proof rests entirely on the government.
Because politicians in other countries only speak the truth.
Someone had posted something about the government using drones over US land. So I read the link that I guess you can happen upon somehow from the story. (I'm not sure why s/he posted it). So I took a look at that article to see what the US was doing over its own soil with drones. It was something like 20 uses in 10 years, mostly for surveying damage, helping rescue teams, etc... I dunno, maybe part of it is nefarious too, but it wasn't in the article referenced.
So I was being a sarcastic jerk when I made my comment.It's obviously not horrifying.
What kills me is this. The US and other countries are no angels. Each sovereign does what it thinks protects its interests. Sometimes they do good. Sometimes they do bad. But to just go out and say that the US is spying on its citizens with drones and then link to an article that states the drones are used for search and rescue, it kills me. It takes what can otherwise be a good discussion and just kills it. It allows for easy dismissal of the issue.
Do I think Obama is perfect? No. Has he done a lot of good? Yes. Has he made mistakes? Of course.
OK, now I understand the context: allegedly spying with drones in the U.S.
Obama can go **** himself. Funny how totalitarianism has never been so apparent as when he has been in office. As a country, we have much bigger problem, yet he and his puppet turn a blind eye. The reason is he and his administration are only concern with issues that only threaten the current oligarchy.
Last edited:
Wow, somebody overlooked the entire Bush administration. A few facts for you:
Patriot Act: Republican inspired.
Comey: Is a Republican.
Trump: Wants a boycott of Apple over this.
News Flash, not as much as you think they are.
You are about 500 times more likely to be shot by someone you know, a neighbour, a friend, family member, work mate than being shot by a muslim, and you are about 1000 times more likely to be shot by another american. Hell you are are about 100 times more likely to be shot by a US police office than by a muslim extremist.
Sorry if I gave an alien aspect to the post. I said the "president of the USA" because I wanted to highlight the gravitas, as in, such a big job, and he does THIS!
Politicians abroad are worse - just take a look at Australia or India!
Mr. President here has two daughters - just what do you and I believe he will say if this was applied to them?
PS: I edit-highlighted the president on my original post to emphasize the point above.
Last edited:
But the government never said it didn't have the means. Matter of fact all the FBI limited it to was whomever would talk to the FBI. Never said who or would not. No detail on who was approached. Matter of fact that has been an area of ... silence...
Obama - the difference is this:
You arrive to my house for a warrant to search. I know you arrived and will be searching.
I pass my luggage through screening including myself. I know I am being screened.
My phone.. well I won't know you are accessing it. I won't know what you are accessing either. SO STAY THE *Y*UCK OFF MY PHONE!
You arrive to my house for a warrant to search. I know you arrived and will be searching.
I pass my luggage through screening including myself. I know I am being screened.
My phone.. well I won't know you are accessing it. I won't know what you are accessing either. SO STAY THE *Y*UCK OFF MY PHONE!
What is being said is that while muslim extremists are a threat, it does not undermine threat from the next door neighbour who is as much a threat as the muslim extremist. So, why just put the spotlight on the muslim and keep ignoring the local threats around us everyday in form of what he mentioned? That's all.
Free speech. I don't live in your communist country. Besides, why shouldn't I state that the obamanation has owners when it's true? Are you saying because it's black that I can't say it has owners? If so, that would make you the racist.
391 posts before me and I'm dismayed that no one pointed out this quote: "What mechanisms do we have available to even do simple things like tax enforcement if in fact you cant crack that at all. If the government can't get in, everyone is walking around with a swiss bank account in their pocket."
So it's really about the governments ability to take as much money from the population as possible. Oh yeah, because terrorists.
So it's really about the governments ability to take as much money from the population as possible. Oh yeah, because terrorists.
It's been there for quite a while. I had a pc back in the 80's with encryption.
The adoption of the smartphone just made it easier and a bit more prevalent.
Evolutionary progression of technology.
Now, your point is?
[doublepost=1457848937][/doublepost]
Actually my Note 5 has encryption security on par with my iPhone 6S+.
No, it isn't Samsung's version.
Essentially, this is about rights on US soil. So, in theory, Apple could take its business out of US, and still sell phones to people around the world the way they want to, and the way people want their phones. US citizens would not get iPhones because they are secure and Apple refused to build insecure OS. We will then see what the parliament chooses to work with.
Fallacious argument. Physical objects need to be transferred in all of the scenarios cited as "horrible things we need to sacrifice privacy to protect against", and that will not change any time soon.
Right now, law enforcement has access to more data about the particulars of citizens' lives, and available with less effort, than any other time in history. In the US, which is a relative bastion of privacy compared to much of the rest of the world, the police department can, if needed, recreate exactly what you did and who you talked to last night than was possible in the most totalitarian states of the first half of the 20th century - Germany and Italy for example.
Does encryption take some of that data away? Absolutely. But we have a long way to go before we get to the level of law enforcement omniscience that an officer in the first half of last century would have killed to achieve.
As I've said before, it really doesn't matter what we say about this. Encryption is out and freely available and cheap to implement. You can't put that genie back in the bottle. If you want to encrypt data, it is incredibly easy to do so. That means that all of those bogeymen that Obama and Comey keep citing as the impetus behind them seeking these new powers will not at all be affected by any kind of law against encryption. They will use non-backdoored encryption. They will encrypt data not trusting that Apple won't rat them out. They will destroy permanently and completely any phone they used which has double-encrypted data on it just to make sure (as the folks in this case did). What these laws are good for are to catch the low-end stupid criminals, not to roll up organizations. Which might be a worthwhile thing, but I'd much rather us actually talk about what we are trying to actually help with by giving up our privacy.
[doublepost=1457858683][/doublepost]
Yes, you can easily open any luggage lock with a pair of pliers. But the owner of the luggage will know that it has happened immediately. Even if you are clever and put a new lock on there, the owner will see that their key doesn't work and at least has a very good shot at catching on.
Importantly, your luggage goes through a lot of hands between you handing it over to the ticketing agent and you picking it up at the baggage claim. The idea with the TSA locks was that only a select few of those hands would be able to get into it, and only when they had reasonable suspicion of a need to look. This breach of security means that every pair of hands touching luggage might unlock it, pilfer whatever they find inside of value, and lock it back up again with no one the wiser until someone notices that something is missing.
The analogy to what the FBI is requesting in general (not on this specific case, but what they have been asking of Congress) is obvious. They want a key that they can use to get into any encrypted device, and promise that it will only be used after having obtained a warrant, and will be kept safe. Same promise. As security experts everywhere have pointed out, the outcome will be exactly the same.
If you are in the US the SCOTUS has repeatedly interpreted the US Constitution to guarantee a right to privacy. There are limits to it, just like every right. But you can't just dismiss it as a "false sense of entitlement".
Not legally, and definitely not admissible in a US (non-military) court of law. The fifth amendment specifically addresses the fact that you can not be forced to reveal any incriminating information or information which you believe might be incriminating or really, any information you can claim with a straight face might be incriminating from a practical perspective.
It is also worth noting that people who actually have worked with waterboarding and other forms of torture know that torture rarely exposes the truth, but rather exposes what the tortured person thinks the torturer wants to hear. So even there it isn't a good counter to "your mind is not visible to law enforcement".
I'd applaud him, but I know he's only saying it to take the neutral view and take zero action as always.
You are entirely mistaken. Apple replied by the date specified in the original order (I believe they did request a few extra days, but the judge amended the order to allow that extra time) with an official Motion to Vacate.
Yes, Apple did speak to the public before their official response. Not sure why that makes them a "petulant child". Apple had to talk to their customers because the FBI insisted on making the whole ordeal public rather than keeping it under wraps, and taking a week to say anything would have cause irrevocable brand damage. Frankly, I think that was the right decision on the FBI's part as well; I would much rather be having this discussion now than being kept in the dark while my rights are being negotiated away in secret.
It hasn't even been a month yet. Far too soon to be forgetting the basic facts and timeline.
[doublepost=1457860698][/doublepost]
Again, wrong. There are a number of ways into the iPhone without new Apple firmware, ranging from the scary (clone the flash ram, decap the processor, laser-etch to uncover the hardware ID, use that and Apple's algorithm which is available to cycle through all the passwords until you find the one which decrypts the volume, then decrypt the volume) to hopeful (wait until a jailbreak-fueling vulnerability is found, which might not happen but to date always has) to just time/resource consuming (clone the flash ram, try ten passwords, IF the installed ram's file system key is wiped then remove the original RAM and replace with the cloned chip then try the next ten and repeat).
The route the FBI is asking for is definitely the safest as well as most convenient for the FBI. It is also the most repeatable for the other ten thousand phones standing in line to be similarly compromised. Which is why they want it. But it is not the only way in.