Apple protests FBI iPhone backdoor order in open letter: government is asking us to 'hack our own users'
14 March Why does Apple need encryption? John Oliver explains
13 March Florida sheriff says he would put Tim Cook in jail if Apple were to refuse to open an iPhone for him
12 March Obama: We need to stop fetishizing our phones
12 March Government threatens to force Apple to turn over iOS source code if it won't unlock Farook's iPhone
10 March Justice Department files "hostile" response to Apple's last brief
1. Inotamira (Posts: 173; Member since: 06 Feb 2016)
For once I'm actually on the side of Apple, yes, I understand, the people in question where breaking the law. However, what good will come of this besides blowing security out of the water so "big brother" can continue to wave it's "big daddy" around.
2. xondk (Posts: 1410; Member since: 25 Mar 2014)
Well, they are doing the right thing now, people quickly forget that previous to the privacy outcry, Apple gave information freely. Makes you think that they might dislike the back door for other reasons, but at least they are on the road to improvement on the whole privacy matter now.
12. neops (Posts: 287; Member since: 28 Jan 2014)
Αnd all that on the occasion of a case in which the accused has already plead guilty
17. My1cent (Posts: 347; Member since: 30 Jan 2014)
Ape: "Do we share it now?"
Another Ape: "Not now, not yet! or people will know we had it!"
22. o0Exia0o (Posts: 900; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
The accused plead guilty? That's wrong, the accused were shot dead by police in a shootout with them.
I can see what the government perceives that they are trying to do here; Trying to find other people that had knowledge or helped the San Bernadino shooters. But for once a tech company is doing the right thing by telling the government that they will not help them violate the privacy of tens-of-millions of users for a quick look at the information contained on 1 device...
110. engineer-1701d (unregistered)
because they may not have acted alone you buffoon
16. bambamboogy02 (Posts: 548; Member since: 23 Jun 2012)
Why can't Apple just unlock the device? Dump the data into another IPhone, with out a security lock on it. How would this expose a backdoor? Don't hand over the key to unlocking, just unlock the device. There is a huge difference in unlocking a car remotely and letting someone in VS. Handing them the keys to enter your car.
28. o0Exia0o (Posts: 900; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
Apple is saying that they have no way to decrypt user data on an Apple branded device. Whether that is true or not, we the people may never know. But be mindful of this, if Apple has the ability to do what the government is asking and if they end up doing what the government wants has huge ramifications not only for Apple users but also Android and Windows users. I am, for once, siding with Apple on this that the government has no right to ask or compel a company to violate the rights of the end user for sake of getting information from 1 device...
42. willard12 (Posts: 1693; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
"violate the rights of the end user "
Which right are you referring to?
47. marorun (Posts: 3605; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)
Right to privacy.
If they want the info they can ask the guy to unlock it himself and give him an extra 5 year prison if he dont comply.
Thats would be the right way to do it.
52. NexusKoolaid (Posts: 480; Member since: 24 Oct 2011)
Except the guy in question is dead, so I don't think the extra 5 years of prison will upset him much.
56. marorun (Posts: 3605; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)
Still if they allow it for this case then the door is open to allow it for anything.
65. willard12 (Posts: 1693; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
Which article or amendment to the Constitution grants the right to privacy? ....don't look too hard for it. It doesn't exist.
In this particular case, the couple is dead. So, I don't think a 5 year prison sentence is a threat to someone doing an eternity in hell. I'm also not sure how you'd go about asking him.
However, in our country, there is an amendment that protects citizens against self-incrimination. So, no, asking an alleged criminal to turn over evidence against himself is not the right thing to do. But, law enforcement, with probable cause, asking a judge for an order to compel the accused, or for a warrant to search (as was done in this case) is the right thing to do.
In your imiginery world (and apparently many others), child pornographers with videos on their phones, pedophiles who exchange texts with children, should just hand-over evidence to their crimes at their leisure. And therefore, they should all be free.
70. MrElectrifyer (Posts: 3020; Member since: 21 Oct 2014)
Who says the guy should be free? If they have valid evidence and reason to suspect child pornography or any other criminal offence, they should threaten life time imprisonment (for child pornography) or some other appropriate long term imprisonment if the criminal refuses to comply with the request for the password. If the suspect complies, they shorten it to something like 30 years.
71. o0Exia0o (Posts: 900; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
For start the 4th amendment of the Constitution of The United States deals with personal property.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
The police seized the phone believing there to be evidence of the plot of the crime on it and that's all fine and good.
But where the water starts to get muddy is when the police try to compel a Tech company to decrypt the phone's contents. Apple by its own admission has no way to break its own encryption protocol and by breaking the encryption on the device there exists a danger to other people's property/privacy.
76. willard12 (Posts: 1693; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
I absolutely agree with most of your last on compelling the corporation to act. But, this case has nothing to do with the privacy of the accused. The only question is Apple's involvement.
If law enforcement could decrypt the device themselves, the government would already have gone through his phone and pulled every bit of data from it.
In compliance with the 4th amendment that you just quoted, landlords open doors to their tenant's apartments for law enforcement with warrants every day of the week. And if Tony Soprano doesn't have a landlord, and the Feds have a warrant, then Tony Soprano opens the door.
But people keep saying "privacy, privacy, privacy." There is privacy, right up until there is probable cause and a warrant is issued. You don't have a right to privacy. You have a right to due process. And in this case, that right has been fulfilled.
82. o0Exia0o (Posts: 900; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
A landlord is also the owner of the property that the tenant rents. In this case, a cellphone, the property has been sold by a company. That's like the cops going to the manufacturer of your car, asking the manufacturer to make a key for your car and then searching your cars contents.
Apple does not own the phone in question. Then government can ask Apple to decrypt and unlock the phone but Apple has no obligation to comply with that request.
91. willard12 (Posts: 1693; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
I absolutely agree with most of your last on compelling the corporation to act. But, this case has nothing to do with the privacy of the accused. The only question is Apple's involvement.
93. o0Exia0o (Posts: 900; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
What legal standing does the Government have to force a company that made a private sale to then provide the Government with means to gain forced entry into that product?
96. willard12 (Posts: 1693; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
Man, I completely agree that Apple being compelled to be involved is questionable. But, a court of law, with a judge paid and trained to interpret the constitution has made a ruling based on his interpretation of the 4th amendment. Apple should appeal and would probably win. But, for many to say that this is a violation of the constitution is false. This process is exactly what the constitution calls for. I disagree with Lucy Koh's rulings. But, once she makes them, they are common law and the people involved all exercised their rights to due process. I don't say that Lucy Koh's rulings are illegal and she can't make Samsung pay.
I am disagreeing with most everyone else who believes that the government has no right to look into his phone. As I stated, if his phone wasn't encrypted there would be no issue with Apple at all. But, people would still be complaining about "big brother" going through his phone and spying on him just as they did in a previous article about the drug dealer where the phone wasn't encrypted
103. ablopez (Posts: 228; Member since: 15 Apr 2014)
But what if that phone was a government issued phone, and that government gave permission to view the contents? I thought I heard on the news that San Bernardino actually issued the phone to him.
111. engineer-1701d (unregistered)
think first exia unreasonable searches , they killed 14 people as that act the phones are evidence that others maybe next week will do the same think, and the fact that they used work given phones its not there property its the states. and i think the state of california will go with find out if they had help from others or acted alone they tried leaving the country after doing it.
113. chebner (Posts: 233; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)
Ever heard of a search warrant?
I think everyone is being a bit over dramatic about this. Yes, if implemented incorrectly it could give authorities a master key as Tim Cook suggests. But anything found without a warrant would be inadmissible. And boy what a scandal that would be if the govt got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. If they have probable cause and go through the correct channels to get a search warrant, why shouldn't they be able to search through someone's phone or computer?
Want to maintain your privacy? Don't do anything that makes you look like a criminal.
45. QWERTYphone (Posts: 654; Member since: 22 Sep 2014)
Some of the idiots on this site make me sick.
Make a choice.
Freedom VS Islamic State
Apple VS Justice
It's never been more clear. Apple is an evil company. I can't wait for that Queen, and his company, to join Jobs' rotted corpse in the ground where they all belong.,
50. marorun (Posts: 3605; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)
Governement are as evil as Apple if not more they want to be able to check everything we do..
112. engineer-1701d (unregistered)
maybe in your country.
100. downphoenix (Posts: 3165; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)
Brain Surgery: you're quite overdue for it, aren't you?
63. MSi_GS70 (unregistered)
I am not EVEN touching that device! Any Apple device!
97. downphoenix (Posts: 3165; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)
Indeed. And even if Apple wasn't thinking of good intentions here, they surely know if they comply with the government's requests, there will be millions of iphones that will get deactivated within a day's time.
4. Podrick (Posts: 745; Member since: 19 Aug 2015)
Good thing Apple. I don't like them much but the protection of privacy no matter how small it may be is always welcome. If those creeps at Government want to spy, then they can spy inside their own arse, just leave the people alone.
66. willard12 (Posts: 1693; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
The pedophiles, child molesters, terrorists, all applaud you. Just leave the people alone and quit trying to get evidence against them.
But, I'm not sure how when law enforcement goes to a judge, gets an order, in a public court room, in a proceeding on the record, is served with a warrant by law enforcement is spying. Worst Bond movie ever.
119. Inotamira (Posts: 173; Member since: 06 Feb 2016)
According to the government, everyone is all three at the same time at all times, guilty first, innocent never unless they can't make something up or the person in questions pays the court or has a horribly expensive lawyer. When children can be put on trial for "child porn trafficking" for relatively tame pictures, or being labled "pedophiles" for sexting, your point kind of falls flat on it's ass.
5. Planterz (Posts: 2080; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
As much as I hate Apple as a company, and also hate crazy radical f#^&kers that kill people, Apple is doing the right thing here. Giving in to Big Brother's demands would set a horrible precedent that the government could abuse in the future.
6. spiderpig2894 (Posts: 588; Member since: 10 Jan 2012)
So there isn't a way to unlock one specific phone? Or if the phone is unlocked, the government will do reverse engineering and create an unlock software?
Anyways, that is a great move, Apple.
7. HugoBarraCyanogenmod (Posts: 1133; Member since: 06 Jul 2014)
Instead of asking for hack, how about get the things right in the beginning, by impose gun control to avoid another mass shooting happen.
15. Wiencon (Posts: 1883; Member since: 06 Aug 2014)
No matter what terrorists will always find a way to buy weapons, IMO every country should allow guns possesion. Look what happened in Paris, you can't theoretically buy guns in Europe yet those muslims somehow got them and because you can't own a gun there, those poor people who were shot and killed had no way to protect themselves. This is crazy, guy shoots at you and the only thing you can do is run and hide until police arrives
I have no numbers to back me up here but I read once that most shootings in US are stopped before even any innocent people got hurt because some pedestrian happened to have gun and he did something
20. HonestRealist (Posts: 196; Member since: 25 Jan 2016)
Gun control, and gun possession are 2 seperate things,,, kinda. The 2nd amendment allows you to keep and bear arms, and that hasn't changed. It's just a bit harder for you to acquire that gun via a background check. But if you are legit and have nothing to hide, you will get that gun, and you can posses the s**t out of it.
25. lyndon420 (Posts: 4403; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)
The solution isn't more guns...it's no guns period. Tobacco companies have been sued because their 'products' have killed people, so gun makers in my opinion should feel the heat as well. These brainwashed lunatics wouldn't have been able to pull off mass murders if all they had at their disposal was a bow and arrow or knife. In my ideal world, you get caught with a gun and your whole family (including cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents etc) should be either imprisoned or put to death provided they are over the age of 12. Yeah...I hate guns because they were created for one thing - killing people.
34. o0Exia0o (Posts: 900; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
Do you really think that a criminal is really concerned with the law or what is legal?
Pot is also illegal (in most areas of the USA) yet there is as nearly twice as much of it flowing the streets than all of the tobacco legally sold in the USA.
Instead of more legislation, how about we enforce the laws that are already on the books and quit letting the government have free passes when they break the laws like the did in the "Fast and Furious" operation.... Just sayin.....
57. marorun (Posts: 3605; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)
I am sure the military around the world will agree to only use bow and arrow... I hate narrow minded ppl.
29. RoboticEngi (Posts: 722; Member since: 03 Dec 2014)
But how many school massacres do you see in europe???
35. o0Exia0o (Posts: 900; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
You do realize that the shooting that took place in Paris France had more people that were killed or injured than all of the school shootings that have taken place in the USA in the last 10 years, RIGHT?
43. willard12 (Posts: 1693; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
So, you're looking at the number of people killed in a terrorist attack and limiting the comparison to the number of people killed solely, only, singularly at schools. Now, let's compare the number of shootings in Paris vs. the total number of shootings in New York and see what that looks like
Either way, there were 112 deaths from the Paris attacks and 163 deaths from school shootings in the US since February 2006. You do realizing you're spreading complete BS, RIGHT?
49. o0Exia0o (Posts: 900; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
Since February of 2006 there have been 165 Deaths and 188 injured in school shooting in the US (and that's sighting your Wikipedia source) for a total of 353.
In the Paris France November 2015 attacks alone there were 130 deaths and 368 injuries for a total of 498 and that's not counting the 17 gunman that were also killed. Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
And that's just the terrorist attacks in November of 2015 not any of the other terrorist attacks like the Charlie Hebdo shooting. If we include those numbers there were 152 killed and 388 injured for a total of 540 killed or injured for all of 2015 in terrorist attacks and that number grows from there if you want to compare the same timeframe of 2006-2016 terrorist attacks in France to school shootings in the US.
So tell me again how 353 killed or injured from February 2006-2016 in the US is higher than the 498 killed or injured in just the November attacks in Paris France?
68. willard12 (Posts: 1693; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
"The shooting" = singular = one. Your words not mine.
I see that when you say killed "or" injured you really mean the total number killed AND (not or) the total number injured. Which, the number killed still exceeds the total.
I see you are still only limiting the comparison to shootings that occurred within the confines of a place where kids are learning. Not churches, not temples, not movie theaters, not parks, not malls. So eventually, if you apply selective criteria, you'll always eventually find numbers that support your ideology.
But, the real question is, are school children safer in Paris, FR or Newtown, CT? Also, if being armed makes people safer, why are so many police officers being killed. We still arm them, right?
75. o0Exia0o (Posts: 900; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
Law abiding citizens are not roaming the streets shooting things up, criminals are. Lets take a look at the tragedies that have occurred, how many of the shooters in these incidents were LEGIALLY aloud to have or possess the firearms that they used?
The church Shooting in South Carolina; The shooter was facing Ccriminal charges which would have barred him from possession of the handgun that was used.
Newtown Connecticut: The shooter killed his mother, the person who purchased & registered the firearms, before taking the weapons to the school and committing the shooting. Adam Lanza had a history of mental health issues and would not have been sold the firearms by any gun dealer.
And I could keep gong but the point is that more of the massacres are committed by people who shouldn't have had possession and would have not been sold the guns that they used in these crimes.
We have a people issue not a gun issue. How many other countries in the world have outlawed or banned citizens from owning firearms only to be gunned down by criminals who have them?
83. willard12 (Posts: 1693; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
In the case of the article you are commenting on, the owner possessed the gun legally.
You shot down your argument on fewer gun laws by suggesting there should be laws against the mentally ill residing in a residence with access to guns. Good job, you're making progress.
Dylan Roof was able to buy a gun because of a failed background check system between SC and the FBI, which would have been fixed with the law proposed after Newtown for a national system used by each state, which was filibustered by the senate. So, now, you are for another new law on background checks.
The ATF hasn't had a director confirmed by the Senate in 5 years and have had their budget slashed almost in half. So, we'll just cut up your arguments on better enforcement of existing laws, too.
Law abiding citizens should be able to possess a fire arm. So, exactly how does a background check prevent a law abiding citizen from owning one?
58. marorun (Posts: 3605; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)
So 1 shooting in paris = more than 2/3 of all shooting death in USA since 10 years? Exia may be wrong with what he said but you just confirmed part of it yourself..
69. willard12 (Posts: 1693; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
SCHOOL SHOOTINGS and only school shootings. Please come back when you learn reading comprehension. You are truly special and you just confirmed part of it yourself. You are the reason why we need to ensure our schools are safe and children can learn freely. If not, look what happens.
77. RoboticEngi (Posts: 722; Member since: 03 Dec 2014)
And you do realise that a lot more got killed on the 11. September? Terrorists will always get their guns or what ever, no matter what. How many accidents in homes with guns do you find in Europe? Close to 0, and I read about it often in the US. I find it extremely stupid that people from such a well educated society still are pro guns....
81. o0Exia0o (Posts: 900; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
And how many people in Europe own guns compared to Americans? Guns are tools. Tools, if used improperly, can kill or disfigure. More people are killed every year by cars than guns, should we outlaw cars? I can kill a person with a hammer or a screw driver, should I not be allowed to own them?
84. MANOFSTEEL (Posts: 67; Member since: 25 Nov 2015)
Yeaaahhh we need more guns on the streets so the gun lobby can be richer and more powerful, I got it....!!!!!
90. o0Exia0o (Posts: 900; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
No what we need is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable people while not encroaching on the rights of citizens who are legally allowed by our Constitution to own them.
We also need to be educating people about guns and responsible gun ownership instead of trying to make people afraid of them. Guns are a tool and just like any tool they can kill and disfigure if used improperly.
More people are killed by cars every year than guns, why aren't we passing anti-car legislation?
89. willard12 (Posts: 1693; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
With cars, I don't think people are largely Intentionally killing people with them. Yet, we still pass laws on air bags, seat belts, the placement of the gas tank, drinking and driving, etc. A driver has to be licensed and pass an exam. With guns....not so much.
There are 9000 homicides in the US each year. With the attacks in Paris, all of France may get to 350 this year. I'm sure Marorun can whip out is calculator and let us know how those percentages compare. But, I'm sure he'll still get it wrong. But, when death by hammer reaches 9000, we should look at passing some common sense hammer control laws, just as we've done with cars, but haven't done with guns.
92. o0Exia0o (Posts: 900; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
Ok. What you don't understand is that there is a large amount of laws that have to do with the control and possession of guns already. Criminals don't care about laws.
Murder is illegal, but it still happens every day.
Theft is illegal, but it still happens every day.
Certain substances (Drugs) are illegal to possess, distribute and/or use. But it still happens every day.
Criminals don't care about what is legal or illegal. Look at where most gun violence happens. Criminals are shooting up schools and businesses where guns are not allowed for the most part you don't see them walk into somewhere that guns are allowed or encouraged to be.
What we have in the United States is a people problem. People who are not or should not have been allowed to possess a firearm get them then they want their 15 minuets of fame so they shoot up a "gun free" area such as a school or church.
What if any law(s) (that would be constitutional) that would have prevented a mass shooting such as Sandyhook in Newtown, Ct?
95. willard12 (Posts: 1693; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
....and without laws, all of those things you just mentioned would happen a lot more frequently.
Theft does still happen. But, without laws against theft, I don't think banks would stand a chance and car dealers wouldn't be able to keep a car on the lot.... and not through sales.
If everyone carries a fire-arm with impunity, you will have soccer players shooting referees during the game for giving them a red card. (by the way, that really happened yesterday in Argentina). But, in your world, you think the players, referees, fans should all come to the stadium strapped. Well, let's try it your way and see what happens. Or, do we continue with the NFL and NBA's policy of not allowing guns in the stadium and searching everyone before entering, creating a "gun-free area"? Aren't they making everyone less safe by doing this?
There will always be crime, but without deterrence, there would be more of it. But, to say that "because we can't prevent all crimes, then we should prevent none" is probably not the right answer.
As for your question, I think we went over your suggestion on laws preventing the mentally-ill from residing in a home with a fire arms in a previous comment. But, I still don't have your answer to why armed, well-trained police officers with guns still get killed.
99. ShadowHammer (Posts: 98; Member since: 13 Mar 2015)
"But, I still don't have your answer to why armed, well-trained police officers with guns still get killed."
The presence of a firearm + training doesn't equal 100% survival rates in life-threatening situations. It can improve your odds however.
The essence of a firearm for self-defense is that it's the great equalizer. It turns the 100 lb woman into the 800 lb gorilla against the 300 lb man. Without such tools, a society is pretty much left with might equals right, and the strong preying on the weak. If you prefer that type of society, then disarming the populace works. If you prefer to not be a victim, then allowing your populace proper tools to defend themselves makes sense.
108. willard12 (Posts: 1693; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
Unless you are carrying that weapon at the ready, locked and loaded, with the selector switch moved from safe to semi, it is not an equalizer to anything. If you have a gun and it's in your holster, and someone points theirs at you, you aren't equal, you're dead.
As previously mentioned, even with the terrorist attacks in Paris, the entire country of France will have less than 400 people "preyed upon" over the next year. That's the society that exists in Canada, Great Britain...well, pretty much every other civilized society. The other society with the population that defends itself sounds very similar to Iraq, where everyone owns an AK.
Once again, you're intentionally mixing the term "disarm" with common sense gun laws that don't allow felons to by a gun at a gun show or off Craig's List without a background check. Anytime someone says pass common sense gun laws, you start with your "they're coming for all our guns and disarming us" propaganda. Believe me, you'll still be able to go to Wal Mart and buy your gun in under 20 minutes with a background check (assuming you pass).
117. ShadowHammer (Posts: 98; Member since: 13 Mar 2015)
Your missing the point. It's not about what-if scenarios in which a firearm doesn't help you - it's about the ones where it might. It doesn't guarantee survival, it just might give you more options. I can think of many scenarios in which the presence of a firearm could be very beneficial. Does your example outweigh all of those other hypotheticals?
It's also sketchy territory to try to compare crime rates between countries as an apples to apples comparison. Each country has their own unique history, laws, reporting, and culture that affect those rates that should be taken into account. It also doesn't help that the US has 5 times the population and 15 times the area of France. Plus, it's not like US crime rates are consistent throughout the country. Most of that crime occurs in urban areas. Go out to the rural areas and it's way different.
Common sense gun laws won't reduce crime or make society safer. Background checks for all firearm transactions will not only be ridiculously hard to track and police, it will be very expensive. It also won't make a dent in criminals obtaining firearms. In essence, you are saying "hey, pass these common sense gun laws that become onerous for the law abiding, but have no effect on criminals." But at least you'll feel like you did something. The US's crime problems are much more complex than just availability of firearms. It's a pipe dream to think restricting law abiding citizens = criminals can't get firearms. I will also mention that gun crime rates have been steadily declining since 1991, while firearms have been increasing.
Also, it would be nice if you would quit spreading the misinformation about gun shows. There are no special rules at gun shows. If you are a licensed gun dealer, anyone who purchases a firearm through you, goes through a NICS check just like at a gun store.