Being able to protect own's name is within the inalienable rights of every individual and corporation in the US.
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. Government Calls Apple's Opposition to iPhone Unlocking Order a 'Diversion,' Says Fears Are 'Overblown'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Being able to protect own's name is within the inalienable rights of every individual and corporation in the US.
BACKDOORS ARE:
TO SECURITY & PRIVACY
TO SECURITY & PRIVACY
I'm getting nervous that my government is getting paranoid delusional.
They have, but the average voter does not. When the case is stated in simple, unequivocal terms then it is easier to find broader support for this. Many people seem to think this already, as recent polls have shown. The government is ultimately interested in more power to sustain its independence from the legislature.
I thought this is America? Do they really say that Apple is not free to make its products secure?
Worse. They're saying that Apple has no right to appeal a court order... kinda like it happened in the USSR
These guys. They have no idea what the hell they're talking about huh?
It's funny and scary at the same time. Funny that such a bunch of dumb ****s are allowed to run a country, and scary that the same dumb ****s are so sure of themselves that they're willing to expose over 850 million iOS users (with iOS 8 or higher) all over the globe.
It's funny and scary at the same time. Funny that such a bunch of dumb ****s are allowed to run a country, and scary that the same dumb ****s are so sure of themselves that they're willing to expose over 850 million iOS users (with iOS 8 or higher) all over the globe.
Coming to you this summer "Fears are Overblown!"
Produced by the same studio that brought you "Dormant Cyber Pathogens!"
Produced by the same studio that brought you "Dormant Cyber Pathogens!"
Hahahaha.
**** these guys. They still think people are going to believe their lies after the Snowden revelations? Fat chance.
**** these guys. They still think people are going to believe their lies after the Snowden revelations? Fat chance.
Yes they do, that's why they're pushing it the way they are. Director Comey is not an idiot, he almost crashed the Bush administration and he's ready to do the same with the Obama admin. He won't stop for Apple.
I thought about what could be the explanation for the behaviour of the FBI.
One explanation is ludicrous: That the FBI is convinced that important information can be found on the phone. The reason why this is ludicrous is that the killer had two personal phones, which he destroyed, plus a personal computer, from which he removed the hard drive which hasn't been found. With two personal phones and a personal computer at his disposal, why would a criminal put anything incriminating on his work phone, where it could easily be detected? And if there was incriminating evidence on it, why wouldn't he have destroyed the phone like the other two?
One other explanation is simple: The FBI is irritated that Apple dares to not just roll over and do as they are told. We can't have that. If the FBI says "jump", the company is supposed to ask "how high", and not do things like questioning the legitimacy of the FBI's request. Comey just can't handle the idea that someone dares saying publicly that he is wrong.
The third explanation is of course that the FBI just hates when people can have secrets from them, and they will do anything in their power to work against that.
One explanation is ludicrous: That the FBI is convinced that important information can be found on the phone. The reason why this is ludicrous is that the killer had two personal phones, which he destroyed, plus a personal computer, from which he removed the hard drive which hasn't been found. With two personal phones and a personal computer at his disposal, why would a criminal put anything incriminating on his work phone, where it could easily be detected? And if there was incriminating evidence on it, why wouldn't he have destroyed the phone like the other two?
One other explanation is simple: The FBI is irritated that Apple dares to not just roll over and do as they are told. We can't have that. If the FBI says "jump", the company is supposed to ask "how high", and not do things like questioning the legitimacy of the FBI's request. Comey just can't handle the idea that someone dares saying publicly that he is wrong.
The third explanation is of course that the FBI just hates when people can have secrets from them, and they will do anything in their power to work against that.
Of course it's overblown... nothing to worry about, just like the NSA.
Can someone explain how exactly will they be able to load such a firmware on the phone if it is locked? I heard something about background updating but I though you always needed to unlock the iPhone to accept an update.
Also Apple could create a firmware which has checks in it that only runs on that particular iPhone using UDID for example. Once they sign the firmware nobody can modify this check for use on another device otherwise people like FBI and other hackers would have already used this method to create their own hacked firmwares based on the current stock ones. In other worlds - if someone can modify this hypothetical firmware they may be compelled to create in order to use on any iPhone, then they already have the technology to hack existing firmwares.
Also Apple could create a firmware which has checks in it that only runs on that particular iPhone using UDID for example. Once they sign the firmware nobody can modify this check for use on another device otherwise people like FBI and other hackers would have already used this method to create their own hacked firmwares based on the current stock ones. In other worlds - if someone can modify this hypothetical firmware they may be compelled to create in order to use on any iPhone, then they already have the technology to hack existing firmwares.
They are not wrong, it is just that they are safeguarding the governments liberty and rights, not that of the people which is what they are supposed to be doing.
The crazies out there complaining about the government and their power grabs are looking less and less crazy these days.
Hi Guys.
FBI states Apple has not charged them for past cooperation as allowed by law. Item #1. Bill them for all past cooperation so some bean counter has to notice fallout from this action.
Item #2, raise the issue of chip shimming to gain access.
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/john-mcafee-lied-iphone-apple-fbi/
Item #3. Amicus briefs. So many with so much depth to them. FBI/DoJ so little substance so much reliance on "bad precedent". The President himself emphasized today "stare decisis", which lets courts hang their hats on bad precedent because no identifiable court is allowed to look at a case with "fresh eyes". I wish someone would ask the President himself this question.
What court can I go to to exercise my right to redress without the constraints of bad precedent, thus "stare decisis", a concept not in any founding documents?
Rocketman
cite Wikipedia:
Criticism of precedent
In a 1997 book, attorney Michael Trotter blamed over-reliance by American lawyers on binding and persuasive authority, rather than the merits of the case at hand, as a major factor behind the escalation of legal costs during the 20th century.
The disadvantages of stare decisis include its rigidity, the complexity of learning law, the differences between some cases may be very small and appear illogical, and the slow growth or incremental changes to the law that are in need of major overhaul.
An argument often used against the system is that it is undemocratic as it allows judges, which may or may not be elected, to make law.
Regarding constitutional interpretations, there is concern that over-reliance on the doctrine of stare decisis can be subversive. An erroneous precedent may at first be only slightly inconsistent with the Constitution, and then this error in interpretation can be propagated and increased by further precedent until a result is obtained that is greatly different from the original understanding of the Constitution. Stare decisis is not mandated by the Constitution, and if it causes unconstitutional results then the historical evidence of original understanding can be re-examined. In this opinion, predictable fidelity to the Constitution is more important than fidelity to unconstitutional precedent.
Solution:
Add two seats to the Supreme Court and legislatively enact the right to redress provision with a procedure for SCOTUS to go into a form of "executive session" as all non-profits do when considering legal actions.
Then make the FED a single mandate system to have "stable money".
FBI states Apple has not charged them for past cooperation as allowed by law. Item #1. Bill them for all past cooperation so some bean counter has to notice fallout from this action.
Item #2, raise the issue of chip shimming to gain access.
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/john-mcafee-lied-iphone-apple-fbi/
Item #3. Amicus briefs. So many with so much depth to them. FBI/DoJ so little substance so much reliance on "bad precedent". The President himself emphasized today "stare decisis", which lets courts hang their hats on bad precedent because no identifiable court is allowed to look at a case with "fresh eyes". I wish someone would ask the President himself this question.
What court can I go to to exercise my right to redress without the constraints of bad precedent, thus "stare decisis", a concept not in any founding documents?
Rocketman
cite Wikipedia:
Criticism of precedent
In a 1997 book, attorney Michael Trotter blamed over-reliance by American lawyers on binding and persuasive authority, rather than the merits of the case at hand, as a major factor behind the escalation of legal costs during the 20th century.
The disadvantages of stare decisis include its rigidity, the complexity of learning law, the differences between some cases may be very small and appear illogical, and the slow growth or incremental changes to the law that are in need of major overhaul.
An argument often used against the system is that it is undemocratic as it allows judges, which may or may not be elected, to make law.
Regarding constitutional interpretations, there is concern that over-reliance on the doctrine of stare decisis can be subversive. An erroneous precedent may at first be only slightly inconsistent with the Constitution, and then this error in interpretation can be propagated and increased by further precedent until a result is obtained that is greatly different from the original understanding of the Constitution. Stare decisis is not mandated by the Constitution, and if it causes unconstitutional results then the historical evidence of original understanding can be re-examined. In this opinion, predictable fidelity to the Constitution is more important than fidelity to unconstitutional precedent.
Solution:
Add two seats to the Supreme Court and legislatively enact the right to redress provision with a procedure for SCOTUS to go into a form of "executive session" as all non-profits do when considering legal actions.
Then make the FED a single mandate system to have "stable money".
Last edited:
Here is my take.
year from now if this happens.....
Apple's labs get backed up.
DOJ is not liking the lost time in FedEx.
DOJ is not liking because of scheduling conflicts when called for trials the apple tech who unlocked the phone misses a trial.
DOJ has that case where hours count and is going great now we have 4 day turnaround on this phone.
All this will lead to the DOJ asking for localized copies. They say there is nothing in the order that will remove apple's control. This is accurate. Its written by lawyers.....they mix vague and specific quite well. This is why contract law exists...what didn't the contract say? Even iron clad prenups with the right lawyer become very expensive toilet paper in terms of usefulness.
Nothing says it will stay in apple's control either. Nor does anything say a year from now a new writ will be presented to up the ante on this as it were to cover my scenarios above.
That and the usual...when you make a secure system weak by design, it opens doors. Found once...it will be found again. I know application A has encryption. I know application A has the out of sending/calling tech support to reset password if I forgot it. I now know...they put a backdoor in. Just have to find that backdoor....or work social engineering at the company who makes the application.
year from now if this happens.....
Apple's labs get backed up.
DOJ is not liking the lost time in FedEx.
DOJ is not liking because of scheduling conflicts when called for trials the apple tech who unlocked the phone misses a trial.
DOJ has that case where hours count and is going great now we have 4 day turnaround on this phone.
All this will lead to the DOJ asking for localized copies. They say there is nothing in the order that will remove apple's control. This is accurate. Its written by lawyers.....they mix vague and specific quite well. This is why contract law exists...what didn't the contract say? Even iron clad prenups with the right lawyer become very expensive toilet paper in terms of usefulness.
Nothing says it will stay in apple's control either. Nor does anything say a year from now a new writ will be presented to up the ante on this as it were to cover my scenarios above.
That and the usual...when you make a secure system weak by design, it opens doors. Found once...it will be found again. I know application A has encryption. I know application A has the out of sending/calling tech support to reset password if I forgot it. I now know...they put a backdoor in. Just have to find that backdoor....or work social engineering at the company who makes the application.
It already has more.
What bothers many is how many people prefer corporations governing we the people, instead of we the people. The anti-government folk have yet to put out anything that makes having big business do governing being a superior choice.
[doublepost=1457649956][/doublepost]
In rarefied cases as proven by deliberation to ask and receive a court order... people are blowing things so grossly out of proportion that it is beyond belief.
Especially as many of the people claiming "human rights!!" are anti-human rights when it comes to worker conditions or things that worsen worker conditions with the factories they use or choose to hire. Now if anybody knows why Apple supports the TPP trade agreement and what the TPP contains, maybe I'm entirely wrong on the issue - at which point I will humbly and unreservedly apologize for my ignorance.
Obama...is there anything his administration won't do?
they already have means to do all of the things they request, they just want to make them legal.
Absolutely. As a computer science student and political party member, it often shocks me how out of touch senior politicians are in relation to Internet regulation and data sensitivity.
Um, no.
Before Apple gets to have a go at that phone, they will need to have repeated tries of a range of phones to ensure it does not accidentally break. The need to guarantee that the software will work, not modifications get done to the firmware/storage etc. This means it needs, by design, to work on multiple devices .
There are also other law enforcement agencies waiting in the wings to get their hundreds of phones cracked, just as soon as the precedent can be created.
If this goes ahead, the FBI wins, godwins law may start applying to the US.
They won't be forced to do it. The Government cannot force a private company to create something that doesn't exist. That is slavery.