Twitter, eBay, Airbnb, Reddit and More Officially Supporting Apple in FBI Fight [Updated]

[robbyx]

I don't find this troubling at all. Who cares if someone has something on their phone. That something is just a picture or words. Pictures and words should not be against the law. When people really break the law is when they do something physical, like take the pictures, make the bomb, hit the kid, etc. Needing pictures and words from a phone are just excuses for government overreach and for the government to take the easy way out. There were not any smart phones 50 years ago, yet we still caught terrorists, thieves, child pornographers, etc.

Bad people cannot hide from the authorities even if they have encrypted phones. They will still make mistakes. They will still get caught. We don't need to make all phones easy to read in order to catch criminals. If that is the goal, they you have to be OK with the government monitoring every phone call and every email. Because that makes catching the criminal really really easy.

The other issue is that once the government can read the phone, then the bad guys and gals will find another way to store information and the only result of this goody-too-shoes approach is the LACK of security us good-guys and good-gals have against hackers.

Are you kidding? If someone has a picture of a kid getting raping on his phone, that's totally fine? Who cares?

It's not just pictures and words. It's a person's life. It's a kid whose entire life is destroyed. What kind of utterly broken human being can't see that?

Yes, 50 years ago there were no smart phones. We have a genius in the house! And yes we still caught terrorists and child pornographers and all the other bad guys. Because the evidence was often tangible and could be gathered via a search warrant, via legal wire tapping, etc. But in the age of encryption, much of the evidence that once existed in a tangible form is now digital and locked away behind an impenetrable wall.

Your attitude is incredibly naive. More and more of the incriminating evidence that law enforcement needs lives on encrypted phones, not in filing cabinets, not in shoeboxes in the basement, not buried in the back yard.

I find the entire issue very troubling as I value my privacy. But the belief that all of our digital information should be a no-go zone for law enforcement and that we somehow have a right to absolute 100% privacy above all else in the digital realm is unethical.

 

[bradl]

I'm not particularly interested in the current situation. I side with Apple and don't think the government should be able to force Apple to develop a software master key for them. There's no way to guarantee that code wouldn't escape. It almost certainly would.

That said, when we consider this issue moving forward, the position that strong encryption is somehow a right and no one (i.e.: law enforcement) should ever, under any circumstances, be able to access an encrypted digital device is absurd. More and more of who we are is being stored digitally. I don't want the government spying on my business. But if they collect enough evidence that someone is committing a crime, it's very dangerous to say that law enforcement shouldn't be able to access electronic devices that store data. Not only is it dangerous, but it is an untenable position.

The way I see it, tech companies can either devise a way to secure our devices but provide - via them, not in the form of a master key to the government - access when a legitimate warrant is served...or government will enact legislation that is far more damaging to the individual's privacy. Apple and other tech companies have put themselves in this position. They should devise a more balanced solution moving forward. Or government will step in and force one upon them. If tech companies are going to provide these kind of services and capabilities, they shouldn't be able to wash their hands of all responsibility when it comes to assisting law enforcement.

Here's the other side to that coin: The tech companies would not be a party to a search warrant to go through your data. If the warrant is to search for your data, and your data is stored at a place or site that is owned/controlled by a tech company, as the tech company is 3rd party to the search warrant, only a subpoena for that data would need to be presented to that company to retrieve your data. No warrant is needed.

Furthermore, since subpoenas can be written, requested and granted by any clerk of the court, any attorney/lawyer is a clerk of the court. They could effectively request and grant a subpoena for that data at any point during an investigation, and you would not be privy to that subpoena.

I posted about this a little over a year ago in another thread here that got completely ignored because it was apparently more important to shut down the government over the ACA than worry about the threats to one's privacy and data.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/your-personal-data-versus-the-4th-amendment.1649516/

Also, it's interesting to know how Comey had his concerns and wanting a backdoor for this going back two years, when IOS8 was released.

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-settings-in-ios-and-android-devices.1790041/

BL.
[doublepost=1457049950][/doublepost]

Come back when you can tell us how Apple should distinguish between phones owned by criminals and phones owned by law-abiding citizens who want to stay safe from criminals.

You seem to be obsessed with criminals.

And may I remind you that the case starting this discussion is unusual, because the criminal owning the phone is DEAD and cannot be asked to unlock the phone. In all the other cases that you mention, for example the person defrauding Medicare, the police gets a search warrant, and with that search warrant they can politely ask them to unlock the phone. If they don't, a judge will order them. If they refuse, at the very least the judge will assume that there is evidence against them hidden on that phone.

The bold is not true, so sayeth SCOTUS:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/scotus-police-need-a-warrant-to-search-your-phone.1748502/

BL.

 

[robbyx]

Come back when you can tell us how Apple should distinguish between phones owned by criminals and phones owned by law-abiding citizens who want to stay safe from criminals.

You seem to be obsessed with criminals.

And may I remind you that the case starting this discussion is unusual, because the criminal owning the phone is DEAD and cannot be asked to unlock the phone. In all the other cases that you mention, for example the person defrauding Medicare, the police gets a search warrant, and with that search warrant they can politely ask them to unlock the phone. If they don't, a judge will order them. If they refuse, at the very least the judge will assume that there is evidence against them hidden on that phone.

Crime is a reality.

The police cannot force you to unlock your phone. They can force you to place your thumb on the scanner, but they cannot force you to incriminate yourself by revealing your pass code.

As for a solution, I laid that out pretty clearly in my first post. Go back and read it. If you're a tech company and you offer unbreakable encryption to your customer, you also become a key master and provide that key to law enforcement when you are served a legal warrant. This is completely different than providing a back door that can be used indiscriminately. It has nothing to do with distinguishing law-abiding citizens from criminals.

And yes, such a solution has its own set of challenges and compromises. But it's a far better solution than the government mandated back door that is coming.

 

[bradl]

Any US Citizen or legal resident can file an amicus brief if they hold a public office position or not. If they are an elected Federal official, it has more influence.

Good to know. Thanks.

BL.

 

[brianvictor7]

Oh, and Oculus said they will support Apple in the ongoing dispute when they improve their graphics hardware.

Okay, that was too funny.

 

[JohnGrey]

Actually Apple does think privacy trumps everything. They built, practically speaking, an unbreakable encryption system for their phone. They could have approached the issue in a more measured way if they had wanted to, but they decided privacy was of the utmost importance.

In this particular case, the damage is done and I support Apple's position. If they engineered a version of iOS to bypass the existing security system, it would be a disaster, essentially a master key for anyone who had the software. But that doesn't mean Apple holds any sort of moral or ethical high ground here.

They are providing a means to secure information with 99.99999999% certainty that no one will ever be able to access it, yet washing their hands of all responsibility when it comes to people using the fruits of their labor for terrible things. Some are sensational, like organizing a terrorist attack or running a child porn ring. Some are more mundane, like defrauding Medicare or making shady real estate deals that trample on low income people. The data, the evidence, that once existed in filing cabinets, notes on the fridge, floppy disks, etc. and could be collected using a legal search warrant is now locked away behind an impenetrable wall. And that's ok?

Absolutely, that's okay. I do not accept that the world is made a safer place by deliberate attempts to undermine encryption that does far more to keep us safe that the police that blind our children with flashbangs serving no-knock warrants on the wrong address, or allow someone to 'paralyse themselves' whilst in custody, or the establishment politicians that perpetuate wars of imperialism, violate our rights on a daily basis under colour of authority, and then demand that we surrender our rights.

This country was founded on a Constitution, and on the concept of limited government. The rights enumerated in the founding documents are not grants from the state but those things which it recognises as being inalienable and possessed of every human being irrespective of the state's feeling on that. It has, in the very recent past, shown itself less and less interested in abiding by those precepts, yet you want to surrender your rights, make them conditional to the whim of that same body.

Not ever. Not even once, if it can be helped. Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
[doublepost=1457050922][/doublepost]

I find the entire issue very troubling as I value my privacy. But the belief that all of our digital information should be a no-go zone for law enforcement and that we somehow have a right to absolute 100% privacy above all else in the digital realm is unethical.

Then go to your local police station and hand over all of your digital passwords, keys to your house, etc. That's your prerogative but don't sacrifice my rights so that you feel better about things.

 

[Makosuke]

It's interesting that, between explicit and less-explicit support of Apple's position, you have Microsoft, Google, Oracle, Intel, IBM, AT&T, and Mozilla, and CloudFlare which is to say that the makers of every significant closed-source OS on the planet (mobile, desktop, or server), every significant web browser on the planet, a substantial fraction of the large-scale ecommerce and online services backend in the US, and around 80% of all desktop and laptop CPUs in the US think that this is a bad idea.

I'm not saying I trust big companies much, but when literally the entire technology industry is agreeing that something is a terrible idea, and the people on the other side of the argument have a loophole in a 200 year old law and "terrorists" (who would have to be, by definition, dumb and lazy enough to only use built-in consumer-grade encryption for their sensitive communication) as their grounds for violating universally-accepted good-security policies that directly affect nearly everyone on earth that uses an electronic device... I think I might listen to the technology professionals.

I mean, when has a US government agency ever used questionably legal means to spy on its own citizens and those of other countries? Oh, wait...

 

[robbyx]

It's not about some moral/ethical high ground. The world isn't perfect. There are necessary evils. As if Apple wants to purposely make the FBI's job difficult.

I actually think they do. Again, I'm not talking about this one case. The damage is done and I support Apple's position here. But they have intentionally devised a way of securing one's electronic device that makes it totally impenetrable to law enforcement. They made no effort to balance the public good with the privacy of customer data stored on the phone.

If the FBI's only means of catching a suspect is the suspect's iPhone, then that makes me even less confident of the competency of the FBI.

I think you're being a bit naive. It's not just the iPhone. It's computers too. It used to be that the FBI raided your office, carried our your computers, and went through the data. Now those hard drives are protected by unbreakable full-disk encryption. Everything from the most mundane to the most incriminating bit of evidence is locked away. And information that once existed in tangible form, a picture for example, is now a digital file. While I agree with your sentiment to a point, times are changing and a lot of information is now digital and protected from prying eyes.

This is not even mentioning the fact that the FBI may have already shot themselves in the foot by making it public, since I'm willing to bet that the majority of people(including criminals) didn't even know the iPhone was so secure before this widely publicized case.

This is the beginning of the legislative process. Strong encryption that is inaccessible to law enforcement will not stand. Whoever ends up in the White House won't be a die-hard privacy fanatic. By making this public, Comey might have shot himself in the foot on his one case. In fact, he might have intentionally done so. After all, the case is about terrorism! It plays more effectively in the media. He might very well know that Apple will prevail, but this gets the issue into the public discourse and his long-term goal is clearly changing the law.

 

[nt5672]

. . .
It's not just pictures and words. It's a person's life. It's a kid whose entire life is destroyed. What kind of utterly broken human being can't see that?
. . .

Fear is a powerful motivator. You are the perfect citizen, willing to give anything and everything away to protect the children. The part you don't understand is that if we don't give into the fear, the government will find other ways to get their job done.

By the time it is on the phone, the damage has been done. None of this, as related to data on the phone, protects anyone, except the government, unless you give the government the OK to read every email, every text message, every document, etc. before needing a warrant. In fact I will say it right here, what kind of "utterly broken human being" would not want the government to have full access to all devices all the time. Think of the crime they could prevent.

 

[robbyx]

Absolutely, that's okay. I do not accept that the world is made a safer place by deliberate attempts to undermine encryption that does far more to keep us safe that the police that blind our children with flashbangs serving no-knock warrants on the wrong address, or allow someone to 'paralyse themselves' whilst in custody, or the establishment politicians that perpetuate wars of imperialism, violate our rights on a daily basis under colour of authority, and then demand that we surrender our rights.

This country was founded on a Constitution, and on the concept of limited government. The rights enumerated in the founding documents are not grants from the state but those things which it recognises as being inalienable and possessed of every human being irrespective of the state's feeling on that. It has, in the very recent past, shown itself less and less interested in abiding by those precepts, yet you want to surrender your rights, make them conditional to the whim of that same body.

Not ever. Not even once, if it can be helped. Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
[doublepost=1457050922][/doublepost]

Then go to your local police station and hand over all of your digital passwords, keys to your house, etc. That's your prerogative but don't sacrifice my rights so that you feel better about things.

I never said anything about surrendering my rights. I would reply, but the words would be wasted.
[doublepost=1457051746][/doublepost]

Fear is a powerful motivator. You are the perfect citizen, willing to give anything and everything away to protect the children. The part you don't understand is that if we don't give into the fear, the government will find other ways to get their job done.

By the time it is on the phone, the damage has been done. None of this, as related to data on the phone, protects anyone, except the government, unless you give the government the OK to read every email, every text message, every document, etc. before needing a warrant. In fact I will say it right here, what kind of "utterly broken human being" would not want the government to have full access to all devices all the time. Think of the crime they could prevent.

You really need to learn to read. You haven't made any effort to understand my position. If you believe that the government never ever ever ever has a compelling interest to see what's on someone's phone, then I'm done. I consider that position both incredibly naive and immature. It's no different than saying the government never ever ever ever has a compelling reason to search someone's house or office. The issue is how do you balance privacy and security. Giving the government a backdoor isn't any more of a balance than corporations offering unbreakable encryption sold as a privacy right.

 

[JohnGrey]

I never said anything about surrendering my rights. I would reply, but the words would be wasted.

Because the words would be hollow. There have always been men like you, born with the benefit of a free society of laws, and spineless enough to give them away rather than make difficult decisions, ready to sacrifice a good that is real and material and present even now for a potential good later. If you accept that, that's your decision, but don't you dare bloviate at me as though my intractable desire to protect the rights guaranteed each of us, even you, is somehow a mark of stupidity.

 

[firewood]

If the FBI ... should they not be allowed to serve a warrant and search the home? Should X have the right to an unsearchable room in his home?

The FBI doesn't need a warrant! They are in full legal possession of the house and all its contents, and can search the "unsearchable" room at will... if they can.

But instead the FBI got lazy, and issued a writ to some home building company to stop building houses, and instead send a bunch of its carpenters and plumbers (against their will?) to build a brand new giant cannon that can blow a big hole in the wall of the room (just this one house? Yeah right.)

Not good. Forced slavery should be illegal (even for white male carpenters... or OS developers.)

 

[robbyx]

Because the words would be hollow. There have always been men like you, born with the benefit of a free society of laws, and spineless enough to give them away rather than make difficult decisions, ready to sacrifice a good that is real and material and present even now for a potential good later. If you accept that, that's your decision, but don't you dare bloviate at me as though my intractable desire to protect the rights guaranteed each of us, even you, is somehow a mark of stupidity.

Pretty hilarious that you've figured all of this out in a few posts. There have also always been men like you, too blind by ideology and irrational hate of the government to approach difficult issues from a position of reason. You bore me. And, more importantly, you're losing. Maybe you should go take over a wild life refuge???

 

[Rocketman]

Google/Alphabet might be d**kless, but at least they are last in line. And first for installing classified back doors already in ALL their services.

THAT'S why this Apple response is so notable. They are designing their goods and services to not be subject to warrant in the first place. Soon iCloud too.

Google on the other hand is, was and will be the NSA's lapdog supreme.

Open systems indeed.

I like closed. I can withstand a few limitations and quirks.

 

[JohnGrey]

Pretty hilarious that you've figured all of this out in a few posts. There have also always been men like you, too blind by ideology and irrational hate of the government to approach difficult issues from a position of reason. You bore me. And, more importantly, you're losing. Maybe you should go take over a wild life refuge???

Keep making jokes. Better men will take up the cause to see that you're free to make them.

 

[robbyx]

The FBI doesn't need a warrant! They are in full legal possession of the house and all its contents, and can search the "unsearchable" room at will... if they can.

But instead the FBI got lazy, and issued a writ to some home building company to stop building houses, and instead send a bunch of its carpenters and plumbers (against their will?) to build a brand new giant cannon that can blow a big hole in the wall of the room (just this one house? Yeah right.)

Not good. Forced slavery should be illegal (even for white male carpenters... or OS developers.)

I know you worked hard on that analogy, but did you even read my post? I clearly stated that I support Apple on this issue, especially when it comes to forcing them to write code.

What I find troubling is the idea that there's never a compelling reason for law enforcement to access the contents of a phone. Never. Ever. Ever. That seems like as extreme to me as the government mandating a back door into all encrypted systems. If the tech industry doesn't find a way to balance privacy and security, government will do it and it won't be balanced.

 

[Tycho24]

Are you kidding? If someone has a picture of a kid getting raping on his phone, that's totally fine? Who cares?

It's not just pictures and words. It's a person's life. It's a kid whose entire life is destroyed. What kind of utterly broken human being can't see that?

Yes, 50 years ago there were no smart phones. We have a genius in the house! And yes we still caught terrorists and child pornographers and all the other bad guys. Because the evidence was often tangible and could be gathered via a search warrant, via legal wire tapping, etc. But in the age of encryption, much of the evidence that once existed in a tangible form is now digital and locked away behind an impenetrable wall.

Your attitude is incredibly naive. More and more of the incriminating evidence that law enforcement needs lives on encrypted phones, not in filing cabinets, not in shoeboxes in the basement, not buried in the back yard.

I find the entire issue very troubling as I value my privacy. But the belief that all of our digital information should be a no-go zone for law enforcement and that we somehow have a right to absolute 100% privacy above all else in the digital realm is unethical.

Actually...
YOU are the one acting naive & (dare I say) foolish.
Sooooooo..... in this "child rape" that you conjure up because it's heinous, so you think your point can be weak or nonexistent and due to the crime... will somehow still stand.
Sorry. This is REALITY calling!!!!
So this rape had no witnesses??
The victim can't testify??
There was no evidence of rape on the child?? No damage to the sex organs?? No semen?? No DNA at the scene WHATSOEVER??
Lol, soooooo.... in your weird scenario this child rapist has gone to EXTREMELY UNLIKELY lengths to overcome the science of catching criminals & dodge the law; yet they have a video of this crime on their phone???????!!!!
Omg, could you POSSIBLY have come up with a more ridiculous & outlandish justification for the erosion of millions of people's privacy??
Your "arguments" (if I may even call them such) carry NO weight.
You are running on 100% irrational emotion & 0% carefully thought out position.
Try again.

 

[robbyx]

Keep making jokes. Better men will take up the cause to see that you're free to make them.

Yeah, like the 10 or so "patriots" that joined good ol' Ammon? Your kind is dying out my friend. Enjoy your last gasp. Maybe Donald will make it great again for you!
[doublepost=1457052576][/doublepost]

Actually...
YOU are the one acting naive & (dare I say) foolish.
Sooooooo..... in this "child rape" that you conjure up because it's heinous, so you think your point can be weak or nonexistent and due to the crime... and will somehow still stand.
Sorry. This is REALITY calling!!!!
So this rape had no witnesses??
The victim can't testify??
There was no evidence of rape on the child?? No damage to the sex organs?? No semen?? No DNA at the scene WHATSOEVER??
Lol, soooooo.... in your weird scenario this child rapist has gone to EXTREMELY UNLIKELY lengths to overcome the science of catching criminals & dodge the law; yet they have a video of this crime on their phone???????!!!!
Omg, could you POSSIBLY have come up with a more ridiculous & outlandish justification for the erosion of millions of people's privacy??
Your "arguments" (if I may even call them such) carry NO weight.
You are running on 100% irrational emotion & 0% carefully thought out position.
Try again.

So, let me get this straight...

You think it's perfectly ok for people to possess images of children engaged in sex acts, either with each other or with an adult?

 

[AngerDanger]

In other related comments the price of shrimp has remained steady.

Did you actually read my comment? I made a joke that directly pertained to this article and alluded to another; it's far more related than the price of shrimp.

 

[Tycho24]

Yeah, like the 10 or so "patriots" that joined good ol' Ammon? Your kind is dying out my friend. Enjoy your last gasp. Maybe Donald will make it great again for you!
[doublepost=1457052576][/doublepost]


So, let me get this straight...

You think it's perfectly ok for people to possess images of children engaged in sex acts, either with each other or with an adult?

Lol!!!!!!
Omg, NICE straw man!
I think that only works if you're like eight years old & arguing against other eight year olds though.
Let me explain to you how the adults carry on conversations.
I believe- 100% that if a criminal is sloppy enough to have some damning physical evidence as videos of their crime on their telephone (a fairly silly supposition for the "mastermind criminals" you describe) that they CLEARLY would have left another shred of evidence in say.... victim testimony, caught on camera, receipts tying them to an area, DNA evidence, or any number of other ways criminals have been caught this whole century.
I am NOT willing to give up my privacy based on your idiotic notion that there are crimes that rely 100% on video evidence procured from smartphones to get a prosecution!
Was the San Bernadino shootings such a crime?? No!! Can you name ANY?? No!!
So make a point or don't- but trying to put the most ridiculous words in the mouths of the people calling you out for not having a valid point is either disingenuous if you realize what you're doing, or grossly embarassing, if you don't.

 

[nt5672]

. . .You really need to learn to read. You haven't made any effort to understand my position. . . . .

I understand you position exactly. You make decision based on feelings only. "We need to protect the children"!!!!! That is why you lash out at my reading ability. The government will find another way without me giving up any privacy rights. You don't want to believe me because you been indoctrinated to believe that if you think my way you are a bad person. That is not my fault, nor the fault of my reading ability.

 

[tentales]

Because the words would be hollow. There have always been men like you, born with the benefit of a free society of laws, and spineless enough to give them away rather than make difficult decisions, ready to sacrifice a good that is real and material and present even now for a potential good later. If you accept that, that's your decision, but don't you dare bloviate at me as though my intractable desire to protect the rights guaranteed each of us, even you, is somehow a mark of stupidity.

You succinctly hit the nail on the head.
Humans are imperfect creatures. Including those working in government and law enforcement. Errors in judgement cost people's lives and even more people are wrongfully jailed for another person's misdeeds or misguided personal beliefs.
That's why governments *should* have limits.

Men like him are always citing horrible crimes as a wedge to eliminate privacy completely under the false premise of absolute crime prevention. The FBI's wet dream is probably the tools depicted in the movie "Minority Report".
Although, I understand the righteousness comes from a good place, the ignorance and absolutism displayed is what has lead many societies to a totalitarian state and less freedom for all.

 

[firewood]

So, let me get this straight...

You think it's perfectly ok for people to ...

Even in depraved violent 1st degree murder cases, the U.S. courts have ruled vital evidence to be inadmissible, due to the interpretation that one or more Constitutional rights was violated during the gathering of said evidence.

This does not make murder "perfectly ok".

 

[Mac2me]

If you guys read only 1 amicus brief, let it be this one from the crytographers, who lay out in pretty easily understood layman's terms what this order really means to us all and why it should not be executed.

https://www.apple.com/pr/pdf/iPhone_security_and_applied_cryptography_experts.pdf

As mentioned in the original article at the beginning of this thread, Apple has a website page (see link there) with links to all the amicus briefs being filed in their support. BTW today is the last day for filing so we should have a complete listing posted by tomorrow morning.

 

[duffman9000]

This is going to be a title heavyweight fight!