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

[diegogaja]

The more I see these companies sign up the funnier it gets, considering they data mine the hell out of you and sell that data on for millions and millions. Yeah real moral corps for privacy rights

Except for the fact that by signing up for those services you are giving said companies permission to use specified data in or related to your profile. People are choosing to allow those services to mine their data in return for a service they value. It's an agreement between two parties. Has nothing to do with privacy...

 

[MasterMac]

That said, the idea that we, as a society, should accept that phones, computers, and other digital devices protected by strong encryption are 100% private zones is like saying we should allow rooms the government may never, under any circumstance, access in a home. We're essentially saying that the individual's right to privacy trumps EVERYTHING. I was listening to Sam Harris the other day and he calls the obsession with privacy a new religion, one he deems just as dangerous as existing God-based ones. I can see his point.

How is this room any different than how we store information in our head? Right now, anyway, at our current technological level, anything we know and memorize is 100% completely safe.

 

[diegogaja]

You do realize that even if Apple did not encrypt their iMessage and FaceTime and such that there are other apps that people can use install or even sideload onto their iPhone it would still produce the same encryption that nobody can break and Apple would have had nothing to do with it. If the FBI wins then every other technology company is next. Don't you think the FBI will then go after those app developers who have created end to end encrypted messaging and storage apps that are used on android and iOS? Would it still be there fault?

Apple actually has a history of helping out authorities when it comes to Apple hardware. And they were working with the FBI on different solutions. It's the FBI that took this and used to the situation to garner public support using an emotional cause so they can force Apple to break their own encryption, so they don't have to do it. This has never been about one phone. And if Apple loses, the implications from the loss will have far reaching affects.

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?

 

[Tech198]

Jesus Christ ... Its a stampeded of companies !!

on the face of it, they all come together to support one another..

The government lies allot of things, so tell us one reason we should even believe them now ?

 

[tongxinshe]

I have very mixed feelings on this issue. I don't think Apple should be forced to write software for the government. I'm more bothered by that than I am by the idea of decrypting the phone. No doubt this is one of the main reasons so many companies are supporting Apple. Once the government can demand that Apple write code for them, they can demand it of anyone.

That said, the idea that we, as a society, should accept that phones, computers, and other digital devices protected by strong encryption are 100% private zones is like saying we should allow rooms the government may never, under any circumstance, access in a home. We're essentially saying that the individual's right to privacy trumps EVERYTHING. I was listening to Sam Harris the other day and he calls the obsession with privacy a new religion, one he deems just as dangerous as existing God-based ones. I can see his point.

If the FBI knows that X is a pedophile and has shoeboxes full of kiddie porn pictures in a room at his house, 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? What if X is found dead and the only way to bust the child porn ring is by searching that room? I think most sensible people would find it absurd not to search the room. But, instead, X has all of his child porn on his encrypted phone and there's no way to access it, even though the need is completely legitimate. I find this very troubling.

The only sensible way forward that I see is for companies like Apple to become key masters, something they, understandably, don't want to do. If they don't move in that direction, however, government will start to legislate and it will be a disaster. If Apple provides unbreakable encryption on their phone, they should store the key and be able to provide it when served with a legal search warrant. If they do this, they short-circuit the need for legislation. Otherwise we are guaranteed to see a day when every tech company, every online service, must log everything and somehow provide the government with access. And when that day comes, the burden will be far more onerous and loss of privacy far greater than if these companies got proactive now and came up with a reasonable solution.

To search your room, FBI needs to get the court warrant, and you are notified. To search your phone, as long as they get the tool they desired, they can do it at a blink without letting anyone know, as a result, an average Joe FBI agent can easily do it to win away your girlfriend, when he desires.

 

[bradl]

To search your room, FBI needs to get the court warrant, and you are notified. To search your phone, as long as they get the tool they desired, they can do it at a blink without letting anyone know, as a result, an average Joe FBI agent can easily do it to win away your girlfriend, when he desires.

No.

To search your phone, the FBI needs a separate warrant. SCOTUS affirmed that last year.

BL.

 

[TitoC]

Funny how Amazon is on this list when they just got rid of encryption on ALL of their devices. Way to go losers! Maybe they should walk the walk instead of being nothing but talk.

 

[diegogaja]

The misguided attitude that the govt has a right to anything at anytime is unethical and dangerous.

A picture itself is not the crime btw. Possession of a pic of a crime doesn't make them a criminal. If it's something they took themselves then it still isn't a crime. Instead, it's proof of a crime.

I, and others, may be more inclined to agree with you if this was the only absolute way the FBI could have stopped this crime. However, the crime has been committed. The killers primary communication devices were both destroyed. This was his work phone that very likely, as stated by the FBI and many experts, it has zero value in terms of the investigation. And as a matter fact 90 to 95% of what's on this phone could be discovered through other methods such as using phone calls and data records in the metadata from the phone companies (or through other messages the FBI hadn't screwed up).

Hard to take the side of the FBI when there are so many other options if they just do their own work. But they use this as a way to try to force the hand of private companies and the government.

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.

 

[TitoC]

To anyone who thinks that this has always been or ever was just a "one time" deal should read this article by Jonathan Zdziarski (a forensic scientist among other things). In it he states in a very clear way what the FBI has asked for (basically a forensics tool). Quite different than just a simple brute force attack on the iPhone PIN code. If this doesn't open your eyes to what the FBI really wants, I don't know what will.

 

[pat500000]

Sixteen technology companies today teamed up to officially support Apple in its ongoing encryption dispute with the FBI, a copy of which has been shared by Apple. Twitter, Airbnb, eBay, LinkedIn, Square, Atlassian, Automattic, Cloudflare, GitHub, Kickstarter, Mapbox, Meetup, Reddit, Squarespace, Twilio, and Wickr filed an amicus brief [PDF] backing Apple's assertion that the FBI's use of the All Writs Act to force Apple to help the government unlock the iPhone used by San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook is both unprecedented and dangerous.

The filing, which urges the court to vacate the government's motion to compel Apple to unlock the phone, argues that handling user data in a "safe, secure, and transparent manner" that protects privacy is of the "utmost importance" to protect consumers from hackers and other wrongdoers, while also recognizing the government's "important work" in law enforcement and national security. It says the companies oppose forced backdoors, but will continue to comply with "proper and reasonable" requests for data.

Dozens of technology companies, industry trade groups, and encryption experts have been submitting documents to support Apple, all catalogued on Apple's website. AT&T, Intel, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed separate amicus briefs this morning, as did the Consumer Technology Association in partnership with the Business Software Alliance [PDF], a group that includes Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle, IBM, and Autodesk.

Other amicus briefs have come from Access Now and the Wickr Foundation, ACT/The App Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and a group of cryptography experts including Jonathan Zdziarski.

More amicus briefs are expected to be filed throughout the day, including one from a consortium that includes Google, Nest Labs, Facebook, WhatsApp, Evernote, Snapchat, and Mozilla.

All "Friend of the court" or amicus briefs supporting Apple are due by Thursday evening to give Sheri Pym, the judge presiding over the case, time to read through them before a court hearing. Apple is set to face off against the FBI in court on Tuesday, March 22.

Update: As expected, another consortium of technology companies that includes Google, Amazon, Box, Cisco, Dropbox, Evernote, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Nest, Pinterest, Slack, Snapchat, Whatsapp, and Yahoo has submitted an amicus brief in support of Apple.

Additional amicus briefs have been filed by the Center for Democracy & Technology, The Media Institute, Privacy International and Human Rights Watch, a group of 32 law professors, and a consortium including AVG Technologies, Data Foundry, Golden Frog, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, the Internet Association, and the Internet Infrastructure Coalition.

Five families of San Bernardino victims have filed in support of the FBI.

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

Ahh...bunch of bandwagoners! Just because apple giant started to fight back...these digital midgets starts following TIm. It's one of those....snow white and the 7 the dwarves.

 

[apolloa]

Except for the fact that by signing up for those services you are giving said companies permission to use specified data in or related to your profile. People are choosing to allow those services to mine their data in return for a service they value. It's an agreement between two parties. Has nothing to do with privacy...

Perhaps, but they do not make it very clear in the terms and conditions and I bet people don't know LinkedIn does it too.

 

[ProjectManager101]

Ok... the US has to fight terrorism 19 carriers, a huge fleet of submarines and other stuff, thousands of warplanes with stealth and lasers and stuff, close to two million active soldiers, satellites... and the FBI need to open an iPhone otherwise "we are doomed". That is a very low self-esteem.

 

[drumcat]

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

 

[You are the One]

The us govt and FBI has completely lost the public trust on this matter. Yes national security is important. But please don't think the American people especially techies like us on macrumors don't see right through their lies.

"National security is where the executive branch hides its crimes against law, both domestic and international, its crimes against the Constitution, its crimes against innocent citizens both at home and abroad and its secret agendas that it knows that the American public would never support.

"National security" is the cloak that the executive branch uses to make certain that the US government is unaccountable.

Without accountable government there is no civil liberty and no democracy except for the sham voting that existed in the Soviet Union and now exists in the US."

I find the entire issue very troubling as I value my privacy.

You, my dear lady, argue like a brain dead idiot. Here is a picture for you. Now go be a good slave.

 

[Wondercow]

Thanks to all the corps adding their voice. However, don't be fooled, they (including Apple) are not taking this position because they see it as morally right. It is about keeping consumer trust.
Regardless of the motivation, in the end, it is good they are publicly sticking up for our rights!

People keep saying this, but have you considered that Apple asked for this to be kept out of public purview? If Apple had its way we wouldn't even know that this was going on, thus, I feel it safe to say, Apple is fighting mainly because it's the right thing to do.

 

[JohnGrey]

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Oh, good ol' 'axe'. Lasted all of a week.

 

[Mac2me]

People keep saying this, but have you considered that Apple asked for this to be kept out of public purview? If Apple had its way we wouldn't even know that this was going on, thus, I feel it safe to say, Apple is fighting mainly because it's the right thing to do.

I believe I read that these govt requests are made behind the scenes in court and that the companies are not allowed to discuss it. In this case, the FBI chose to make it public hoping to embarrass Apple as they saw it and put public pressure on them. Somewhere in one of these threads someone had linked to an Apple page or article where Apple kind of gave the numbers of cases for requests like these. They apparently couldn't say anything definitive but only in a range of numbers. So I suspect you are incorrect on Apple wanting to keep this quiet. Sounded more like a gag order on them and surely on many other companies in these type of cases.

 

[Wondercow]

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?

Yes, that is ok. Encryption has been around for, well, I have no idea how long, but long enough for the paper-based notes you reference to have been written in code in case the authorities got warrants. The data on the floppy has been able to be encrypted as well. This is nothing new, but the scope the US government wants is.

 

[Tech198]

This seems to be ruthless, but i wished we all this the same with PRISM this extent...

In actual fact, phone calls are just as personal

 

[GonzagaDynasty]

Lots of you seem to have a lot to hide

If not, THEY DONT GIVE A **** ABOUT YOU

 

[Frobozz]

Well, it's not a shocker that the victims would look past logic. It's sad and I think we all wish we could help them. But to do what the FBI is specifically asking for would be ridiculous and irresponsible.

 

[Wondercow]

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.

I don't think anyone here has made that claim; hyperbole maybe?

 

[Tech198]

Apple does know it only the iPhone right ?

Privacy is all good to fight for even if u'r focused on privacy and security, but would u rather be homeless and say "thank god i still have my phone."

Phones do not provide shelter if u can't get basic needs, but it feels its gotten that bad with the term "personal"

I think this is more than just privacy and security....

 

[IbisDoc]

Tim Cook has successfully locked up the blossoming terrorist market.

 

[diegogaja]

Is it unclear, or do people just not read it? Agreeing to T&C without reading it is commensurate with signing a contract without reading it...someone who does that has only themselves to blame.

Perhaps, but they do not make it very clear in the terms and conditions and I bet people don't know LinkedIn does it too.