That’s not entirely clear from the article, but the pathetic thing is that the chief lawyer of the country obviously doesn’t.
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.
U.S. Attorney General Asks Apple to Unlock iPhones Used by Florida Mass Shooter [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hmmm... this is the first time I’ve seen AG Barr actually do something that I don’t approve of. That’s lame...
If I recall correctly, most of those wide-scale surveillance powers got signed into law by Obama's predecessor.
Exactly. A better comparison, unlike the invalid TSA one, would be if all manufacturers of home door locks, deadbolts, etc were required to create a master key to every lock they make and provide it to law enforcement. Additionally, it would be illegal for a homeowner to add any other type of lock (slider, chain, wedge) that would prevent law enforcement from using their master key.
I wouldn’t count myself among those who think that’s a good idea either.
True, but they're points that don't have a lot to do with the situation at hand, except in the shallowest "all arguments in favor of privacy are making the same point" sense. Which I'm sure a lot of people here will agree with. I see both sides of this situation. I understand the arguments against putting in a back door. On the other hand, people celebrating the FBI's inability to access this phone seem not to have any grasp of what it means to try to be protecting lives. The flip side of the argument for uncrackable security is that IRL in the USA no one an absolute right to privacy anywhere, not even in their homes. You do not have a right to be protected from any and all kinds of search and seizure. You have a right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. And there's a difference. The zealot is the person who thinks that in a complicated equation, only one term gets 100% weight. There are a lot of them in this debate. Most seem to fall only on one side of this issue. Zealotry make things simple, but not in a way that really solves problems.
[automerge]1578972045[/automerge]
Your better comparison doesn't hold water, because your home can easily be entered and searched without that key. You realize that, don't you? Your house might have a draft afterwards. But firefighters and police have to enter locked houses all the time.
Last edited:
Seems more likely the right wing trumpists wanted to suppress a Saudi military pilot training at US Air Force base got vetted to be here, passed all security protocols, and came from a country who’s leader has news men murdered and chopped up. Remember the majority of 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. Maybe bush attacked wrong country?This one didn’t fit the leftist media’s narrative, so it didn’t get nearly as much coverage.
Shooting at Pensacola Navy base was 'act of terrorism,' attorney general says
Saudi pilot Mohammed Alshamrani opened fire Dec. 6 on service members at Naval Air Station Pensacola, killing three and injuring eight.www.usatoday.com
[automerge]1578973240[/automerge]
Last edited:
So you aren't "all for privacy" then.
Also, as others have mentioned, Apple can NOT unlock the phones even if they wanted to, it doesn't work that way. In order to get it to work that way Apple has to introduce a backdoor, aka a massive potential security hole that if broken once would render all iPhones insecure.
You have three choices
1. Don't upload your photos to a third party service
2. Upload only to a service that end to end encrypts your photos (which means things like image recognition and cataloguing will be impossible)
3. Upload your photos to a service that supports functions like photo recognition, but in doing so you sacrifice your right to absolute privacy.
Its a choice between how much privacy and how much functionality you want, not a question of what hypocrisy. Apple could set a policy not to share iPhoto data, but it couldn't fight such a policy on technological grounds. It DOES have the capability to share those photos with law enforcement A court order can (and likely would) force that. Apple does NOT have the capability to unlock encrypted iPhones, no amount of court orders can change that.
Yes, it's acceptable for Apple to ensure that iCloud is not being used for criminal activity, and it is acceptable for Apple to comply with a subpoena for the contents of a user's iCloud account (and it did in this case). If you read the terms of service that you agreed to, you will see that it states exactly that.
Suggest you read the article. The dispute is about the contents of an iPhones, not an iCloud account. Apple does not scan iPhones for evidence of child abuse, nor does it unlock iPhones for the government to sneak a peak (because it can't).
Make sense now?
[automerge]1578974748[/automerge]
Wrong. Apple has already stated that it create a version of iOS that can provide access to a locked iPhone.
Your government allowed a temporary visitor to legally buy a 9mm semi-automatic pistol for “hunting”, but sure the problem is reliable device encryption.
Funny how no one is questioning who the **** will hunt with a pistol. Oh sweet Jesus no can’t threaten the ability to murder and maim your fellow citizens.
[automerge]1578975548[/automerge]
did you actually read that? It says they were asked to, and that it is technically feasible (but with major risks). They famously didn’t do what the fbi asked them to.
Funny how no one is questioning who the **** will hunt with a pistol. Oh sweet Jesus no can’t threaten the ability to murder and maim your fellow citizens.
[automerge]1578975548[/automerge]
did you actually read that? It says they were asked to, and that it is technically feasible (but with major risks). They famously didn’t do what the fbi asked them to.
Barr needs to go back to his main job: Trump Butt sniffing and licking.
More than a dozen Saudi service members undergoing training at U.S. military facilities are expected to be expelled from the U.S. following an investigation into last month's deadly shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida, according to reports.
None of the Saudis targeted for expulsion is accused of aiding the Saudi second lieutenant whom authorities say killed three U.S. sailors and injured eight other people in the Dec. 6 rampage, CNN reported. But some of them were found to have ties to extremist groups and others are accused of possessing child pornography, the report said.
NAVY PILOTS DEMAND MORE BE ARMED ON BASES IN LETTER TO LAWMAKERS AND MILITARY BRASS
The Justice Department is also expected to conclude that the Pensacola attack was an act of terrorism, CNN reported. The FBI has been investigating the case as possible terrorism since discovering writings by the gunman, who was killed by reponding sheriff's deputies, The Washington Post reported.
Following the attack, about a dozen Saudi trainees were confined to their quarters in Pensacola as the FBI investigated the shooting as a possible terror attack and the Pentagon launched a review of some 850 Saudis undergoing training throughout the U.S., the report said.
"In the wake of the Pensacola tragedy, the Department of Defense restricted to classroom training programs foreign military students from Saudi Arabia while we conducted a review and enhancement of our foreign student vetting procedures. That training pause is still in place while we implement new screening and security measures," Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Robert Carver told Fox News.
CNN said its report was based on conversations with "multiple sources." Officials from the FBI and Justice Department would not comment. CNN said U.S. Navy officials referred questions to the Defense Department, which had not responded to the network.
The gunman, identified as Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, was believed to have acted alone. He is said to have become angered when an instructor at Pensacola referred to him as "Porn Stash," comparing his mustache to that of a stereotype of an actor in pornography films, The New York Times reported.
Meanwhile, the FBI has asked Apple for help in accessing data from a pair of iPhones owned by the gunman.
Investigators are hoping that data stored on the phone may help them learn more about a possible motive behind the killings.
Apple has previously resisted efforts by government authorities to access phone customers' data, citing a company commitment to its customers' privacy. But Apple told Fox News it is cooperating in the Pensacola investigation.
"We have the greatest respect for law enforcement and have always worked cooperatively to help in their investigations," the Apple statement said. "When the FBI requested information from us relating to this case a month ago we gave them all of the data in our possession and we will continue to support them with the data we have available."
None of the Saudis targeted for expulsion is accused of aiding the Saudi second lieutenant whom authorities say killed three U.S. sailors and injured eight other people in the Dec. 6 rampage, CNN reported. But some of them were found to have ties to extremist groups and others are accused of possessing child pornography, the report said.
NAVY PILOTS DEMAND MORE BE ARMED ON BASES IN LETTER TO LAWMAKERS AND MILITARY BRASS
The Justice Department is also expected to conclude that the Pensacola attack was an act of terrorism, CNN reported. The FBI has been investigating the case as possible terrorism since discovering writings by the gunman, who was killed by reponding sheriff's deputies, The Washington Post reported.
Following the attack, about a dozen Saudi trainees were confined to their quarters in Pensacola as the FBI investigated the shooting as a possible terror attack and the Pentagon launched a review of some 850 Saudis undergoing training throughout the U.S., the report said.
"In the wake of the Pensacola tragedy, the Department of Defense restricted to classroom training programs foreign military students from Saudi Arabia while we conducted a review and enhancement of our foreign student vetting procedures. That training pause is still in place while we implement new screening and security measures," Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Robert Carver told Fox News.
CNN said its report was based on conversations with "multiple sources." Officials from the FBI and Justice Department would not comment. CNN said U.S. Navy officials referred questions to the Defense Department, which had not responded to the network.
The gunman, identified as Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, was believed to have acted alone. He is said to have become angered when an instructor at Pensacola referred to him as "Porn Stash," comparing his mustache to that of a stereotype of an actor in pornography films, The New York Times reported.
Meanwhile, the FBI has asked Apple for help in accessing data from a pair of iPhones owned by the gunman.
Investigators are hoping that data stored on the phone may help them learn more about a possible motive behind the killings.
Apple has previously resisted efforts by government authorities to access phone customers' data, citing a company commitment to its customers' privacy. But Apple told Fox News it is cooperating in the Pensacola investigation.
"We have the greatest respect for law enforcement and have always worked cooperatively to help in their investigations," the Apple statement said. "When the FBI requested information from us relating to this case a month ago we gave them all of the data in our possession and we will continue to support them with the data we have available."
Wrong.
The TSA does not order bag or lock manufacturers to make bags and locks that they can open with their own special key. There is a standard lock design that allows the TSA can get into and out of a bag to inspect it without breaking the lock. Use of these locks is optional, and the purpose is to secure your baggage while allowing the TSA to do their job.
The TSA is authorized to conduct security screenings that include inspecting checked baggage. While the TSA does not need permission to inspect a bag, there is no law that requires you to use "special locks," nor are you required to unlock your bag on demand by the TSA. You can lock your bag up with whatever you want. You can even weld it shut inside of 10 inches of hardened steel. If the TSA can't get into your bag to inspect it, the bag will not get on the airplane.
What the FBI is trying to do here would be more analogous to enacting a law requiring all padlocks, deadbolts, and car door locks to be manufactured so they could be opened with a special master key that the government can use whenever it wants. The problem with that is twofold: First, security is now dependent not the government not abusing, misplacing, or failing to secure that key, and second, that once a bad actor gets a hold of that key no one's home, car, or valuables are safe.
"This situation perfectly illustrates why it is critical that the public be able to get access to digital evidence," Mr. Barr said, calling on Apple and other technology companies to find a solution and complaining that Apple has provided no "substantive assistance."
I have purchased a few movies read a few ebooks that perfectly illustrates why it is critical that the public be able to get access to digital goods and resell them to recoup their loss.
I have purchased a few movies read a few ebooks that perfectly illustrates why it is critical that the public be able to get access to digital goods and resell them to recoup their loss.
Yes, Apple can. Geez.
OP fully understands.
Apple has gone on record several times, stating that it can, in fact, create a version of iOS that allows the access the FBI seeks.
Right. Which is why any encryption that can be broken with brute force isn't considered secure.
[automerge]1578977171[/automerge]
Hmmm. So what if they offered a trade? Apple will provide a key that unlocks devices but if any of those things you listed ever happens then everyone, *everyone*, who ever had access to the key ever in their life goes to one of those fancy Colorado prisons. For the rest of their life. That way if you agree to take the key you are held liable for the action of anyone else who agreed to take it. That way we can say well, 'we offered it'.
Last edited:
You misunderstand.
Yes, Apple could (but shouldn't) create a version of iOS that would allow FBI access in the future.
No, Apple can NOT unlock phones that are not yet running such a version of iOS, and there would be no way to install such a version on an already locked phone. So even if Apple complied with the government's request that Apple build such a version of iOS with a government "back door", that would have no effect on the fact that Apple cannot unlock devices that are currently locked (running iOS 8 or later.)
Exactly. Just like they can enter my house without the key, law enforcement is legally allowed to use any means available to open my phone without a key. They did it with the San Bernardino phone.
Except no, you are wrong. Such a version of iOS would only work on FUTURE uses of the device. Installing that version on the current phone would require wiping the device in the first place because of the security architecture of the iPhone, designed to prevent people from doing exactly what you are suggesting in order to access data. The whole point is to make it so no one can access the data without the passcode, even you (should you forget it).
[automerge]1578980665[/automerge]
Yes, actually we do, its publicly available information. Its built in to the OS and the hardware of modern iOS devices. Its the whole point of the Secure Enclave.
"This situation perfectly illustrates why it is critical that the public be able to get access to digital evidence," Mr. Barr said
This is a lie. There is no evidence that it’s ‘critical’ that the public sees what’s on those phones (and the public wouldn’t get to see anyway).
But nowadays politicians just lie and feed the public statements and a large enough part of the population just accept those statements without asking ‘why?’ Or if the statement is true.
This is a lie. There is no evidence that it’s ‘critical’ that the public sees what’s on those phones (and the public wouldn’t get to see anyway).
But nowadays politicians just lie and feed the public statements and a large enough part of the population just accept those statements without asking ‘why?’ Or if the statement is true.
