President Obama: 'You Cannot Take an Absolutist View' on Encryption Issue

[gnasher729]

The government has been fighting personal encryption since the 90’s with the clipper chip affair back when Clinton was back in office. They were using the same arguments back then too. They lost back then and they should today.

Actually, the guy who was in charge of the NSA back then and told the government that the clipper chip wouldn't actually help national security has come forward and told the world that forcing Apple to destroy the phone security would also be damaging to national security. In his case the argument is totally unrelated to privacy (it never was his job to look after your privacy), but just entirely based on national security.

 

[Wallabe]

"You Cannot Take an Absolutist View"

That's his way of saying bend over so we can access the backdoor.

Exit only!

 

[vvswarup]

Yes, have you read my post or the original article?
The question was: what do we do when the only evidence (for child pornography, terrorist plot, money laundering/tax evasion, etc) is on encrypted systems? While this doesn't apply to the San Bernardino case (the FBI already has all the evidence they should need), there is and there will be increasingly more people using these systems to hide incriminating evidence. And the question is, what do we do when it's the only evidence against them?

This post is indicative of the disturbing and dangerous thinking that has taken hold in the United States as of late. The burden of proof rests on the party bringing the case. If the government charges someone with a crime, it is the government's sole responsibility to procure the evidence by any legal means necessary. Everyone is "innocent until proven guilty." If the government cannot prove a crime was committed, the defendant is not guilty. It's that simple.

If the government claims that someone produced child pornography, plotted a terrorist attack, laundered money, evaded taxes or committed some other crime, then it's the government's job to produce evidence. If the government cannot produce evidence, then the conclusions is that that person is innocent, simple as that.

In the past, when the government encountered barriers to procuring evidence, it found ways around them. But today, when it comes to encryption, instead of finding ways around encrypted communication, the government is asking the populace not to employ encrypted communication. It is asking companies like Apple to sell deliberately weakened encryption.

Let's take it a step further than encrypted systems. What if the only evidence of a crime was buried in someone's brain?

 

[eac25]

I've read this entire thread and I have only two things to say:

(1) I am reminded by this thread of a quote I picked up somewhere along the course of life, though I cannot offer a source:

One must always remember that about half the people are below average.

I cannot remember ever seeing in one place such an amount of proof of this tenet. The amount of FUD, misinformation, fallacious "logic," vitriol, closed-mindedness and sheer bull*** is completely mystifying to me.

This is an important topic. Its importance is reflected, I guess, at some level, in the passion of some of this "discourse." But to muddy the water with crap like so much of what's in this thread is a disservice to solving the issue.

Some have posed legitimate, on topic questions and some have posted thoughtful, informed answers - or at least attempted to. Some have tried to set the record (or some part of it) straight for others that have strayed. For these few, a tip of the hat - keep fighting the good fight.

For the rest - you're entitled to your opinions and you're entitled to express them. But don't expect to be taken seriously. If you are not part of the solution then remember that you are instead part of the problem. All of these rants and ravings do not in any way help advance finding an equitable answer to this quandary, and in many cases they do not even help to advance your own worldview. Remember that just because you believe something to be true does not make it true, and that just because you believe something should be a particular way does not make it so.

To all - open your ears and eyes, and your mind, and even your heart; question what you believe and why you believe it; do what you can to become better informed with facts rather than opinions (especially opinions that only serve to bolster what you already believe); learn to modulate your expression in ways that reflect thoughtfulness and intelligence - and if we all did these things regularly we might actually and collectively make the world a better place with happier people in it. And that goes just as much for the ones among us who are "well above" average...

(2) I've noticed throughout this thread a common recurring misperception of what President Obama was talking about regarding taking an absolutist position. He was not referring to encryption. He was not referring to a master key or back door.

He was referring to the balance between the need for law enforcement to gather information and the expectation citizens have to privacy - that neither polar position is correct. To say that the government should have access to everything is incorrect. To say that the government should have no access is, likewise, incorrect. That it's a trade-off.

He also went on to say that he (like so many others of us) didn't know exactly where the correct middle ground lies but that he leans towards supporting the citizenry's right to privacy and security (even from its own government).

 

[gnasher729]

I'm no lawyer, but just as devil's advocate what is the difference between this and lets say a physical search of a house with a warrant. I suppose we would compare encryption with the physical door locks of the house, once these are defeated then the search warrant allows inspection of what is behind them. I'm curious, if LE encountered a lock they couldn't break would the lockmaker be able to be forced to open the lock? If they encountered say a physical vault would the vault maker be required to open the vault? These are harder to answer because physical methods can work, but what does the law say about forcing the manufacturer to open a lock?

I don't see this as an issue with the information in the phone itself, as that is similar to having a piece of paper in your house. I understand the issues with security and how this might affect the use of the phone and services, but that has no bearing in determining if it follows law and precedent. Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather have encryption and find the argument of trading privacy for safety poor and alarming. But at the same time I'm not so sure Apple is right.

Absolutely, the FBI has a legal search warrant and the right to unlock the phone and see what's on it. If they killer hadn't used the feature where the iPhone erases itself after ten incorrect passcodes, they would have asked an intern to type all 10,000 passcodes and in a day or two the iPhone would be unlocked. The FBI also was handed all the information that Apple could access, including a slightly older backup of that iPhone.

The FBI's problem is first that Apple can rightfully say: This has nothing to do with us. We built the phone, but then we sold it, and it's not in any way our responsibility to help the FBI. A simple analogy would be the FBI having a legal search warrant for my neighbours home, but they can't get in, so they ask me to let them into my garden and climb over the garden fence into my neighbours garden. Do I have to let them? Now my fence is three meters high so they can't climb it, and the FBI asks me to cut a hole into my garden fence. Do I have to do that? I don't know, but it seems reasonable that a search warrant against my criminal neighbour shouldn't affect me and my property.

The second problem is that Apple says: This particular help that you want affects the security of all our customers. Now that is a pretty strong argument. Should Apple expose millions and millions of customers to evil hackers (including police officers, army personnel, politicians etc. ) to help getting additional information about this crime? That's highly debatable.

They can take my phone with a warrant. That's true.

They can take my manually encrypted payment records as well - assuming I had them.

What they cannot do is force me to decrypt them, as that would violate my rights to not incriminate myself.

Actually, it's not self incriminating, just as opening the house door to police officers with a search warrant isn't self incriminating. The exception is when the police doesn't actually know for sure that the device is yours, and be decrypting it you give them the evidence that it _is_ indeed yours.

Now I'm not exactly sure what can be done to "force" you to decrypt the device. They can't exactly beat you up until you decrypt the device.

 

[Jakexb]

"then how do we apprehend the child pornographer?"​

Really sad to see Obama use the child pornography excuse.
People who are actually doing illegal things are just going to use non-os encryption.

 

[duffman9000]

This post is indicative of the disturbing and dangerous thinking that has taken hold in the United States as of late. The burden of proof rests on the party bringing the case. If the government charges someone with a crime, it is the government's sole responsibility to procure the evidence by any legal means necessary. Everyone is "innocent until proven guilty." If the government cannot prove a crime was committed, the defendant is not guilty. It's that simple.

If the government claims that someone produced child pornography, plotted a terrorist attack, laundered money, evaded taxes or committed some other crime, then it's the government's job to produce evidence. If the government cannot produce evidence, then the conclusions is that that person is innocent, simple as that.

In the past, when the government encountered barriers to procuring evidence, it found ways around them. But today, when it comes to encryption, instead of finding ways around encrypted communication, the government is asking the populace not to employ encrypted communication. It is asking companies like Apple to sell deliberately weakened encryption.

Let's take it a step further than encrypted systems. What if the only evidence of a crime was buried in someone's brain?

They will want a brain tap. And after abusing every other method to tap data they will tell us only a trusted few will ever have access.

 

[sir1963nz]

Absolutely, the FBI has a legal search warrant and the right to unlock the phone and see what's on it. If they killer hadn't used the feature where the iPhone erases itself after ten incorrect passcodes, they would have asked an intern to type all 10,000 passcodes and in a day or two the iPhone would be unlocked. The FBI also was handed all the information that Apple could access, including a slightly older backup of that iPhone.

The FBI's problem is first that Apple can rightfully say: This has nothing to do with us. We built the phone, but then we sold it, and it's not in any way our responsibility to help the FBI. A simple analogy would be the FBI having a legal search warrant for my neighbours home, but they can't get in, so they ask me to let them into my garden and climb over the garden fence into my neighbours garden. Do I have to let them? Now my fence is three meters high so they can't climb it, and the FBI asks me to cut a hole into my garden fence. Do I have to do that? I don't know, but it seems reasonable that a search warrant against my criminal neighbour shouldn't affect me and my property.

The second problem is that Apple says: This particular help that you want affects the security of all our customers. Now that is a pretty strong argument. Should Apple expose millions and millions of customers to evil hackers (including police officers, army personnel, politicians etc. ) to help getting additional information about this crime? That's highly debatable.



Actually, it's not self incriminating, just as opening the house door to police officers with a search warrant isn't self incriminating. The exception is when the police doesn't actually know for sure that the device is yours, and be decrypting it you give them the evidence that it _is_ indeed yours.

Now I'm not exactly sure what can be done to "force" you to decrypt the device. They can't exactly beat you up until you decrypt the device.

The nest issue is
If the FBI gets access, who is next.
Turkey has just suffered a terrorist bombing, killing 27 injuring 75
Ivory Coast has just suffered a terrorist shooting, killing 12
France, UK, Thailand, Bali, Indonesia Russia, China have all suffered terrorist attacks

If the FBI gets access, so do these other countries. To deny them says
1) The USA supports terrorism except in their own country
2) Lives of non-US citizens are worth less than lives of Americans.

No, the USA is NOT the most important country in the world, you make up only 4% of the worlds population.

If the US treats the rest of the world with contempt, can the rest of the world reciprocate ? i.e. the lives of US citizens in the rest of the world are "less valuable" than locals, so crimes agains US citizens do not get investigated. US companies have far greater difficulties operating off shore, etc etc etc.

The US needs to get over its self and realise they are only 1 country in the world and they are no more important than any other. You are only an american though accident of birth, nothing more.

 

[diddl14]

The top rated comment is petty much a disgrace for the MacRumor community.

"The Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum is provided for forum members who have interests in Apple and also in social issues. Our goals are to encourage fair and constructive discussions that deal with facts and opinions without flaming, name-calling, or personal insults."

Now read this: https://forums.macrumors.com/search/member?user_id=652433&content=thread

Don't get it why this poster doesn't get banned...

 

[stockcerts]

Why is it he's always telling us what is right and what is wrong?!

United States President Barack Obama today spoke with Texas Tribune editor Evan Smith at South by Southwest (SXSW), where he indirectly addressed Apple's dispute with the FBI. While Obama said he could not comment specifically on the ongoing encryption battle between the two, he spoke on larger issues of privacy and security.

Obama cautioned against taking an "absolutist" view on encryption and said American citizens already make concessions to balance privacy with security in other aspects of their lives. He used warrants to search homes and possessions, something the public agrees is necessary, as a parallel to accessing data on a smartphone.

He also pointed towards airport security as an example of a compromise made between security and privacy. "It's not fun going through security," he said, "but we recognize it as important." He went on to say that the notion that data can be "walled off" from those "other tradeoffs we make" is incorrect.Obama said that while he wants to make sure the government cannot "willy-nilly" get into everyone's iPhones without oversight and probable cause, there are "constraints we impose" to make sure we live in a safe and civilized society. He advocated for finding a balance between encryption and privacy and the government's need to investigate crimes.Obama went on to call on software engineers and technology companies to help the government solve the problem, and he said a thorough, well-formed encryption solution should be established before it's desperately needed. He cautioned against the tech community disengaging or taking a position that "is not sustainable for the general public as a whole over time," as it could lead to a stalemate that will ultimately lead to "sloppy" legislation should the political climate change after something "really bad happens." Apple, too, has urged for the issue to be solved in Congress instead of the courts.

The president's comments come as Apple is facing off against the U.S. government in a fierce public battle over the order that would require Apple to help the FBI break into the iPhone used by San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook by creating new software to circumvent passcode restrictions on the device. Apple believes complying with the demand would set a dangerous precedent that could lead to the overall weakening of encryption on smartphones and other electronic devices.

The Department of Justice has dismissed Apple's concerns, calling its fears overblown and insisting the request will not result in a universal "master key." Just yesterday, a government filing accused Apple of "deliberately" raising technological barriers preventing law enforcement from accessing data on Apple devices, something Apple lawyer Bruce Sewell went on to call an "unsupported, unsubstantiated effort to vilify Apple."

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: President Obama: 'You Cannot Take an Absolutist View' on Encryption Issue

 

[macfacts]

A request which is even more fraught with Constitutional issues, not the least of which is the fourth amendment's limit on eminent domain (the Just Compensation clause) which requires fair market value be offered for this. Will Congress approve a single legislative action which will cost a trillion dollars? And which would make that trillion dollar investment worthless in less than six months?

Apple made $234B in 2015 in revenues, most of which was from iOS products. They don't break out the value of the software from the hardware but I would expect them to claim quite convincingly that half of the value is in the software. So assign a yearly revenue of $100B. Apply a reasonable market-derived value per revenue factor of about 10 and you end up with $1 Trillion being the cost of this little endeavor. That is about two years' worth of defense spending, by the way.

Coming from market value, the market cap of Apple could convincingly be claimed as at least 75% based on the viability of iOS. Which means that 0.75 x $567B or about $425.5B would be a market-based valuation of iOS, very conservatively.

Between the two methods of valuation, we have a $0.4-1.0 Trillion valuation at the low end, and up to $2.3 Trillion on the higher end (well, much much more, like $25Trillion, if you apply the EV or RV ratios to iOS instead of the lower Apple EV ratio).

If they did this, Apple's business would plummet. Nationalizing iOS would force the vast majority of customers to look to alternative mobile OS products. Apple obviously loses here, but so does the US economy. Android would obviously be the big winner, but then the DoJ needs to float the idea of declaring eminent domain on Android too, maybe Windows next, at which point we end up with non-US ventures like Tizen owning the market and the DoJ with at least $3 Trillion invested in worthless software.

Yeah, that is an empty threat from Comey and he knows it. As sensible as the Florida sheriff threatening to arrest Tim Cook because Apple has filed a motion to vacate the order.

I hope you do know the Chinese Government got access to the iOS source code (but not the signing keys) as well, before Apple was allowed to do business in China. And the Chinese Government did not have to pay 1 cent.

If the FBI had a search warrant for a physical safe, what is wrong with the FBI getting access to the blueprints of the safe from the safe maker?

 

[duffman9000]

If the FBI had a search warrant for a physical safe, what is wrong with the FBI getting access to the blueprints of the safe from the safe maker?

The search warrant doesn't involve the manufacturer. If you don't understand that you should seek help elsewhere.

 

[gnasher729]

I hope you do know the Chinese Government got access to the iOS source code (but not the signing keys) as well, before Apple was allowed to do business in China. And the Chinese Government did not have to pay 1 cent.

If the FBI had a search warrant for a physical safe, what is wrong with the FBI getting access to the blueprints of the safe from the safe maker?

That's not what the FBI is asking for. But I think you know that, don't you? They ask for a tool to break the safemaker's unbreakable safe.

The search warrant doesn't involve the manufacturer. If you don't understand that you should seek help elsewhere.

What makes you think he doesn't fully understand that?

 

[jase1125]

Ok...
How many Americans have died from Muslims including 911 (which was orchestrated by Bush by the way) and how many have been by other religion in U.S. soil from 911 until today? Show me numbers....

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-mom-shot-in-back-by-4-year-old-son-police-say/

You just lost all credibility with that nonsense that Bush caused 9/11.
[doublepost=1457902863][/doublepost]

Are you a Republican? The party that can't name check any President other than Lincoln and Reagan at the debates because the rest in the past 50 years were so terrible?

Anybody who calls Obama a community organizer loses before they even begin.

Whatever. You gave us an incompetent peanut farmer. Republicans have had just as many good Presidents as democrats. Both sides have had their stinkers too. Just admit this one has been a mega stinker. About all he has accomplished was increase healthcare costs with his stupid ACA Bill and cause more class and racial divisions.

 

[gnasher729]

The nest issue is
If the FBI gets access, who is next.
Turkey has just suffered a terrorist bombing, killing 27 injuring 75
Ivory Coast has just suffered a terrorist shooting, killing 12
France, UK, Thailand, Bali, Indonesia Russia, China have all suffered terrorist attacks

If the FBI gets access, so do these other countries. To deny them says
1) The USA supports terrorism except in their own country
2) Lives of non-US citizens are worth less than lives of Americans.

No, the USA is NOT the most important country in the world, you make up only 4% of the worlds population.

If the US treats the rest of the world with contempt, can the rest of the world reciprocate ? i.e. the lives of US citizens in the rest of the world are "less valuable" than locals, so crimes agains US citizens do not get investigated. US companies have far greater difficulties operating off shore, etc etc etc.

The US needs to get over its self and realise they are only 1 country in the world and they are no more important than any other. You are only an american though accident of birth, nothing more.

Yeah, and all this would have been stopped if Apple gave the keys to the iPhone to the FBI. Not.

What you seem to want is for the world to give in to terrorists. I say f*** them. I'll go to the shop tomorrow and buy some very nice pork sausages in the hope that it offends some terrorists.

In the case of Turkey, the country has for many many years brutally suppressed its large Kurdish minority. The government there clear doesn't mind terrorist attacks as long as the victims are Kurdish. Absolutely not a government that I would want to give more technological power. Russia actively supporting attacks in the Ukraine. UK a net exporter of terrorism. A country with a history of home secretaries turning into something Hitler would be proud of as soon as they get power.

You don't stop terrorism by fear mongering. You definitely don't stop terrorism by destroying the freedom of your citizens. You don't stop terrorism by claiming that 1.6 billion muslims hate the USA. You stop terrorism by patience and education.

 

[tgara]

Did you read the report? Or are just trying to spread FUD?

"Thus all known methods of achieving third-party escrow are incompatible with forward secrecy."

Another explanation of why key escrow weakens security. Thanks for helping the protectors of privacy make our case. Thanks for exposing yourself too.

Umm, did you read the report and understand it? Yes, they described that scenario as what they were examining in section 2.2. They then spent the next ten pages discussing in detail why it would not work and why it is a horrible idea.

Yes I read it. But apparently you didn’t, or if you did, you didn’t understand it. So let me explain it to you.

The quote duffman posted is made in the context of network security (2.1), not physical device security (2.2) There’s a big difference, and many folks who think like you do apparently don’t have the critical reasoning skills to see it. I’m guessing it’s the public school educations, but I digress…

The current debate, and the government’s request, have nothing to do with network security. The government is asking for access to a particular iPhone DEVICE pursuant to a legal search warrant and in compliance with Riley v. California, and asking Apple for a special OS that will disable the built-in self destruct mechanisms so that they can gather evidence about a terrorist event where 14 innocent people were killed in cold blood. They are NOT asking for any access for any kind of network access, not to anyone’s network, not Apple’s, not yours, and not mine. People who say they are are the ones spreading FUD.

In section 2.2, the paper states

Another alternative is to require that law enforcement ship devices back to the vendor for exceptional access decryption. However, it will still be necessary to store over long periods of time keys that can decrypt all of the sensitive data on devices. This only shifts the risks of protecting these keys to the device manufacturers.

This is the option that the government has been advocating from the get-go. Yes, it does shift the risk. But if you are concerned about privacy, it is better for Apple to be involved in this way, and not the government. Why? Because there is no reason to think that the code Apple writes in compliance with the order will ever leave Apple’s possession. Nothing in the current court order requires Apple to provide that code to the government or to explain to the government how it works. And Apple has shown it is amply capable of protecting code that could compromise its security. It’s one of the most secretive and secure corporations on the planet. Consider that Apple currently protects (1) the source code to iOS and other core Apple software and (2) Apple’s electronic signature, which allows software to be run on Apple hardware. Those things, which the government has NOT requested, are the keys to the kingdom. If Apple can guard them, it can guard software to comply with legal court orders as well.

So now we know where you stand. Thanks for exposing yourselves as enablers for terrorists, kidnappers, drug dealers and pedophiles.

 

[IbisDoc]

Any Obama voters in this thread should be disqualified from complaining about government overreach. You voted for it, and celebrated it for the last 7 years.

When you vote for someone who wants to have federal government involvement in everything, isn't that inevitably............ a slippery slope (to borrow the term everyone is using these days)? Stop complaining, you have exactly the leader you wanted.

 

[kas23]

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.

I did not ignore Bush or Republicans. They have nothing to do with the argument at hand, do they? If you think they have anything to do with Obama's statements, then please explain.

If you want to bring up the Patriot Act, please be aware that Obama has not repealed it, but has strengthened it. That may be only tie to 2 administrations ago I can think of. Otherwise, this current fight and Obama's comments have nothing to do with Republicans or a showboating candidate who claims he is a Republican, but has everything to do with himself and the incompetent AG he appointed.

 

[alexgowers]

I don't see what the big deal is. Of course privacy is important, but we are talking about a frigging phone. If there is crucial information to prevent terrorism or prosecute a suspect, then just crack the damned thing. What privacy are we talking about anyways? Someone might be able to find out what apps I have? I'd gladly give up a little privacy if it means being better able to fight terrorism.

I think you missed the point. A phone is not a phone anymore, it is someone's entire digital life to the nth degree. It's everything, bank details, photos, videos, private thoughts, correspondence everything. Encryption isn't just crackable on one phone, it doesn't work like that.

If you create a back door who will use it. Will it be sold to others, can it be used to destabilise an economy. Yes. It doesn't benefit anyone to prevent the very few threats it could stop and it could only prevent crimes if access was granted before the crime. If a system is insecure those who are committing then will use other methods of encryption. Itll only impact those who aren't committing crimes and be used by those who shouldn't be using it.

 

[maxsix]

Hussein is feeling the fear that insecure leaders feel as they realize their days in power are dwindling. Given that fact, and facing a rather obscure future, it follows that he is becoming more and more erratic in his behavior.

 

[MasterRyu2011]

Yes. It seems crazy because you're so used to it, but I use the train and bus as often as the plane, and there are no checks whatsoever there. I haven't had to show up two hours early, I can turn up minutes before, and walk straight on.

So far, none of the trains and busses I've been on have crashed, exploded, or been hijacked. And funnily enough, it's very rare for any of that to happen to planes - that's why it makes the news if it does happen. Cars kill thousands of people every year, hundreds crash every day. Everybody has been involved in a car crash, or knows somebody who has. So why not ensure ludicrous security for cars? Has everybody forgotten about the truck bomb in Oklahoma? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
What is it about planes that makes everyone so paranoid?

Serious question. Would you rather they get rid of all security at the airport? Yes or No?

Comparing trains and buses to airplanes is straight up silly. You can do a lot more damage to human population centers hijacking an airplane than trains or buses. Did 911 not teach you anything?
[doublepost=1457907084][/doublepost]

I think you missed the point. A phone is not a phone anymore, it is someone's entire digital life to the nth degree. It's everything, bank details, photos, videos, private thoughts, correspondence everything. Encryption isn't just crackable on one phone, it doesn't work like that.

If you create a back door who will use it. Will it be sold to others, can it be used to destabilise an economy. Yes. It doesn't benefit anyone to prevent the very few threats it could stop and it could only prevent crimes if access was granted before the crime. If a system is insecure those who are committing then will use other methods of encryption. Itll only impact those who aren't committing crimes and be used by those who shouldn't be using it.

I don't know about you, but nobody stores bank information on the phone. Al that data --- it's all on some company's servers. The only things that are normally stored on the phones are photos, texts, some notes maybe and some apps. Then again, all those are often backed to some server as well be it iCloud, gmail, dropbox, etc. Anything that can be retrieved the through phone can be retrieved via other methods --- texts, phone calls, etc. So yes -- privacy is an illusion. It's out there already. If those servers are hacked (and they often do), we're screwed

 

[alexgowers]

If you weaken encryption on the iPhone and stock Android. People will just turn to open source solutions and load those onto their Android phones. The only thing that will happen is the privacy conscious will leave iOS and go to Android where they'll be able to install any hard encryption system they want.

And the people this hurts most are consumers. Hard criminals will always have access to encryption without shared keys to the government or their device manufacturer. Only consumers with nothing criminal will have their security diminished.

What Obama doesn't understand about encryption is that if you have a shared key a "master key" that key has to be stored somewhere. You can either use the same key for every device or generate a key at the point of encryption and store each key in a database.

This master key or these master keys will eventually get stolen and that puts every device at risk. You can't simply make an encrypted system with a flaw like this, it undermines the security so much that it makes having the encryption pointless in the first place. It's like having a front door with tons of impervious locks on it and then right next to it is an open window.

Honestly I see Obama as a traitor to the American people and of humanity as a whole after reading his statements. He is so consumed with catching bad guys that the freedoms America stands for have gone completely out of the window.

Benjamin Franklin once said “Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Obama should heed those words and switch his position on this. What a traitor.

Lol Oh Wait you're being serious. Since when was android secure? No one running Android really thinks it's safe, the number of exploits are insane. You don't hear the fbi asking google for a backdoor or Microsoft for a windows back door do you! Cos they already got one.

 

[firewood]

In the past, when the government encountered barriers to procuring evidence, it found ways around them.

Sometimes overstepping legal bounds when "going around them", and thus resulting in the courts ruling the evidence to be inadmissible, sometimes letting the provably guilty (murderers, etc.) go free. And that's what the U.S. Constitution appears to require for certain types of evidence.

 

[MasterRyu2011]

And how many weapons has the TSA allowed on planes, how many depressed pilots have been stopped? Or unauthorized employees in the cargo hold?

Ok I ask you too. Would you rather they have not security at airports? Do you want every to not need to screen their carryons? Yes or no?

 

[alexgowers]

Serious question. Would you rather they get rid of all security at the airport? Yes or No?

Comparing trains and buses to airplanes is straight up silly. You can do a lot more damage to human population centers hijacking an airplane than trains or buses. Did 911 not teach you anything?
[doublepost=1457907084][/doublepost]

I don't know about you, but nobody stores bank information on the phone. Al that data --- it's all on some company's servers. The only things that are normally stored on the phones are photos, texts, some notes maybe and some apps. Then again, all those are often backed to some server as well be it iCloud, gmail, dropbox, etc. Anything that can be retrieved the through phone can be retrieved via other methods --- texts, phone calls, etc. So yes -- privacy is an illusion. It's out there already. If those servers are hacked (and they often do), we're screwed

It doesn't need to be stored on the phone, if you have the key. For example apple ID has card attached so you have bank details. You have mothers maiden name in contacts, date of birth, potentially notes people make contain more info about you. They got your email home address and more. From that you can pretty much reset back details etc. So much sensitive data is there and social engineering is very real. If you give someone the ability to get in you give everyone the chance to get in.

I feel like the issue is getting blurred.

Its not that Apple won't unlock a phone when requested because they do and will. Its that Apple can't undermine and break their encryption. It's a totally different issue. Apple is saying they can't compromise the system. The fbi messed up the phone preventing normal unlock that didn't require any messing with encryption. The point Obama doesn't seem to get is that apple hacking into its own phone undermines every iphone on the planet.