- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Encryption isn't at stake, the FBI knows Apple already has the desired key
|
|
|
Comments (35)
15 earlier comments in the full thread.
> I really don't see how Apple wins in court with their argument as presented in the Cook public letter.
Cook's not their lawyers. :) They'll be the ones working on the court case, not him. Let's let the system work it's way through and see what happens.
Cook's not their lawyers. :) They'll be the ones working on the court case, not him. Let's let the system work it's way through and see what happens.
DOJ now wants in to 12 more iPhones. Who couldn't see this coming?
>DOJ now wants in to 12 more iPhones. Who couldn't see this coming?
If the phones may contain evidence related to a crime and there are valid search warrants, then I don't see a problem.
The abuse of power is when there is no warrant and/or the phone has not been used in a crime.
If the phones may contain evidence related to a crime and there are valid search warrants, then I don't see a problem.
The abuse of power is when there is no warrant and/or the phone has not been used in a crime.
> The abuse of power is when there is no warrant and/or the phone has not been used in a crime.
Have you looked into the FISA warrants fiasco? A warrant is supposed to have strict court scrutiny. The FISA court is effectively a rubber stamp on whatever fishing expedition the current administration wants to pursue.
Have you looked into the FISA warrants fiasco? A warrant is supposed to have strict court scrutiny. The FISA court is effectively a rubber stamp on whatever fishing expedition the current administration wants to pursue.
>Have you looked into the FISA warrants fiasco? A warrant is supposed to have strict court scrutiny. The FISA court is effectively a rubber stamp on whatever fishing expedition the current administration wants to pursue.
And this is the problem... you can't win an argument about a specific case by applying a generalized bogeyman.
Is the specific FBI warrant a FISA warrant?
Are any of the 12 'newly found' warrants FISA warrants?
Are any FISA warrants not simply a rubber stamp on fishing expeditions?
Are at least some of them valid and in the public interest?
One can argue that restraint of power is a good thing -- but total abandonment of state power is a mistake.
The police are not on your side, but if you are the victim of a crime -- who else you got?
"Search and Seizure" is a valid state power. And when exercised properly with restraint is definitely in the public good.
And Apple is wrong to argue that this particular case is an abuse of that power.
And this is the problem... you can't win an argument about a specific case by applying a generalized bogeyman.
Is the specific FBI warrant a FISA warrant?
Are any of the 12 'newly found' warrants FISA warrants?
Are any FISA warrants not simply a rubber stamp on fishing expeditions?
Are at least some of them valid and in the public interest?
One can argue that restraint of power is a good thing -- but total abandonment of state power is a mistake.
The police are not on your side, but if you are the victim of a crime -- who else you got?
"Search and Seizure" is a valid state power. And when exercised properly with restraint is definitely in the public good.
And Apple is wrong to argue that this particular case is an abuse of that power.
> And this is the problem... you can't win an argument about a specific case by applying a generalized bogeyman.
I wasn't arguing a specific case. I was arguing the general case I quoted in my response. A "legally issued" warrant can still be an abuse of power.
> Are any FISA warrants not simply a rubber stamp on fishing expeditions?
You'd have to ask the people who are authorized to see them. The general public isn't.
> Are at least some of them valid and in the public interest?
Based on the limited evidence that has been provided to me, I'd have to say no.
> The police are not on your side, but if you are the victim of a crime -- who else you got?
In our world today, I have far more to worry about from the police and government that I do from any criminal. It's a sorry state of affairs, but it's the world we live in.
I wasn't arguing a specific case. I was arguing the general case I quoted in my response. A "legally issued" warrant can still be an abuse of power.
> Are any FISA warrants not simply a rubber stamp on fishing expeditions?
You'd have to ask the people who are authorized to see them. The general public isn't.
> Are at least some of them valid and in the public interest?
Based on the limited evidence that has been provided to me, I'd have to say no.
> The police are not on your side, but if you are the victim of a crime -- who else you got?
In our world today, I have far more to worry about from the police and government that I do from any criminal. It's a sorry state of affairs, but it's the world we live in.
>In our world today, I have far more to worry about from the police and government that I do from any criminal. It's a sorry state of affairs, but it's the world we live in.
I'm not so sure this could possibly be accurate.
In my own life, I have suffered far more at the hands of my fellow citizens than I have at the hands of Law Enforcement. I have suffered far more at the hands of corporations than at the hands of my government.
Meanwhile...
Of course, I'm white... so my treatment history may be biased. However, it has been my experience that government and law enforcement are generally not the problem. And certainly, my fellow citizens have inflicted far more pain, suffering, and damage to me than the government or law enforcement.
This is not to say that "I don't care about privacy because I have nothing to hide." ... I think that's also a mistake.
This is not to say that the police on your side either. I don't believe that to be true... but even mass murders generally get their day in court -- even if the accused is innocent and being targeted by the DA because the DA wants an upgrade in career.
The idea of America [post-racist, slave owning, mass-murdering Columbus] was to create a government that was less corruptible, but still effective...
I'm not so sure this could possibly be accurate.
In my own life, I have suffered far more at the hands of my fellow citizens than I have at the hands of Law Enforcement. I have suffered far more at the hands of corporations than at the hands of my government.
- I have had my expensive property stolen by other citizens.
- I have had my life threatened by other citizens.
- I have had my personal information held unprotected by corporations.
- I have had my personal information stolen from the shoddy protections of corporations.
- I have had my personal freedom held at risk through knowingly untruthful statements by other citizens.
- I have been insulted and ridiculed by other citizens.
Meanwhile...
- I have been given a fair shake by the government when it was my 'turn' to get the speeding ticket on the highway filled with speeding cars.
- Police and detectives listened to my identity theft story and apprehended the criminals.
- Police and detectives listened to my side of the untruths told about me in other cases, and could easily see that my story was correct.
- In more than 85% of my various brushes with the law, I have been treated fairly if not kindly.
Of course, I'm white... so my treatment history may be biased. However, it has been my experience that government and law enforcement are generally not the problem. And certainly, my fellow citizens have inflicted far more pain, suffering, and damage to me than the government or law enforcement.
This is not to say that "I don't care about privacy because I have nothing to hide." ... I think that's also a mistake.
This is not to say that the police on your side either. I don't believe that to be true... but even mass murders generally get their day in court -- even if the accused is innocent and being targeted by the DA because the DA wants an upgrade in career.
The idea of America [post-racist, slave owning, mass-murdering Columbus] was to create a government that was less corruptible, but still effective...
Quoting:The police are not on your side
The government steals our hard earned money, through taxes, to pay the police to protect that same government.
The government now wants into our personal devices to find people that don't like the government, for doing things like stealing from us.
Don't pay your taxes and the police are sent by the government to put you in a cage.
>The police are paid with our money (taxed earnings) to protect the government. How much more perverted can it get?
The police are paid to 'serve and protect' ... this does not translate into 'to forgive and forget.'
If a crime occurs, the police are paid to find and punish the criminal... even if that criminal happens to be a taxpaying citizen.
***Edit: I can't hit the moving target.... should I refashion my posting to match the reworded one above?
I suppose my ideas are anomalous... agree to disagree and so forth.
The police are paid to 'serve and protect' ... this does not translate into 'to forgive and forget.'
If a crime occurs, the police are paid to find and punish the criminal... even if that criminal happens to be a taxpaying citizen.
***Edit: I can't hit the moving target.... should I refashion my posting to match the reworded one above?
I suppose my ideas are anomalous... agree to disagree and so forth.
Quoting:The police are paid to 'serve and protect'
Most police are out looking for people 'committing' victimless crimes, like driving too fast, or smoking a non government approved plant, so a fine can be paid, in turn to keep the police funded. This is why most violent crimes are not convicted.
The government wants into iPhones to find people plotting against them.
The government likes to get it's foot in the door, like they did with a 1% income tax. Since that door was opened look what has happened to us.
Now they want into our private devices. Once they get in, and they will, eventually backdoors for the government will become mandatory across all devices.
Now they want into our private devices. Once they get in, and they will, eventually backdoors for the government will become mandatory across all devices.
@linuxscreenshot:
There was a prior call for me to see the movie "Minority Report" ... you should watch "Cube" ...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123755/
And if it's OK to post youtube stuff... here's the apropos line:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4HdF1lqVVw
BTW: Once upon a time I was a government engineer... perhaps my work was part of the real Cube
= þ
There was a prior call for me to see the movie "Minority Report" ... you should watch "Cube" ...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123755/
And if it's OK to post youtube stuff... here's the apropos line:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4HdF1lqVVw
BTW: Once upon a time I was a government engineer... perhaps my work was part of the real Cube
= þ
Can't say I'm convinced by anti establishment based argument with a Tom Cruise movie (that was an aweful interpretation of Philip K Dick's story) for a reference.
Quoting:BTW: Once upon a time I was a government engineer
Are you saying you have some insider information that guarantees the FBI has honourable intentions this time around, and is not again interested in monitoring our mobile devices.?
Don't be naive.
Do you really think this case may go to the supreme court just so the FBI can get into this one phone, when they already have plenty of other incriminating evidence? It's most likely the FBI wants into this iPhone - wait, now it's 13 iPhones, so that a precedent is set, so it can next get into all phones and devices, including Linux based ones :(
> I'm not so sure this could possibly be accurate.
I can only wish you were correct. But more detailed discussions would derail us into TOS violation territory, so we'll have to let both assertions stand and let people research for themselves to make up their own minds. The information on government abuses of power is fairly easy to find, as are the crime rates in various areas. I should note that I live in a very low crime rate area (city data crime index of 39.5 in 2007, versus a national average of 319.1, and that's the highest rate in the prior 5 year period).
> I suppose my ideas are anomalous... agree to disagree and so forth.
Not really anomalous, no. Misinformed, perhaps, but even that is debatable. But agree to disagree, certainly. It's not like I'm always right.
I can only wish you were correct. But more detailed discussions would derail us into TOS violation territory, so we'll have to let both assertions stand and let people research for themselves to make up their own minds. The information on government abuses of power is fairly easy to find, as are the crime rates in various areas. I should note that I live in a very low crime rate area (city data crime index of 39.5 in 2007, versus a national average of 319.1, and that's the highest rate in the prior 5 year period).
> I suppose my ideas are anomalous... agree to disagree and so forth.
Not really anomalous, no. Misinformed, perhaps, but even that is debatable. But agree to disagree, certainly. It's not like I'm always right.
>Are you saying you have some insider information that guarantees the FBI has honourable intentions this time around, and is not again interested in monitoring our mobile devices.?
Whether the FBI is interested or not in monitoring citizen mobile devices, the actual paper document that the FBI wrote contains a request which does not provide for that capability.
>Don't be naive.
I'm definitely not naive.
>Do you really think this case may go to the supreme court just so the FBI can get into this one phone, when they already have plenty of other incriminating evidence?
The phone may contain information which may help to solve other crimes and/or prevent other attacks. The FBI is not looking for evidence of the current crime -- the bullets, guns, explosives, and dead people provide enough of that. The FBI is looking for information about possible unknown accomplices and/or activities about other terror cells.
>It's most likely the FBI wants into this iPhone - wait, now it's 13 iPhones, so that a precedent is set, so it can next get into all phones and devices, including Linux based ones :(
I'm sure the FBI probably has a growing stack of phones to search. I don't think this is any more of problem than the FBI having a growing stack of any sort of other kinds of evidence of crimes.
What exactly are you asking the FBI to do or not to do?
If there ever was a legitimate use for the FBI, it would be to investigate crimes of the sort and magnitude of San Bernardino. As I wrote earlier, the legal framework for the FBI's request has been in place since at least the 1970s -- so either you gotta say that that framework is wrong and go back to vacate those legal decisions, SCOTUS opinions, and legislation -- or you gotta say that the framework is valid for the FBI's current request.
BTW:
In my opinion -- and again this going to be controversial -- it is the individual citizen's responsibility to protect personal information. There are hard lessons to be learned, but corporations can not be and should not be trusted to provide that personal information or data protection...
A corporation is essentially an instrument of the state. Although, some people may argue it's the other way around -- that government is an instrument of the corporations. However, if you have an iPhone and are using its transparent encryption option - you are not protecting your data and Apple can not and should not protect your data from lawful and warranted access by LE. Doing so, in an active way, makes Apple an accomplice to the crime.
If, on the other hand, you as a private citizen encrypt your own data with your own key and do the key management correctly -- you can protect your data and cannot be made to provide the key for the data. You, as a private citizen, have the right not help LE and not provide self-incriminating information. However, corporations are under a different set of laws regarding your information.
Whether the FBI is interested or not in monitoring citizen mobile devices, the actual paper document that the FBI wrote contains a request which does not provide for that capability.
>Don't be naive.
I'm definitely not naive.
>Do you really think this case may go to the supreme court just so the FBI can get into this one phone, when they already have plenty of other incriminating evidence?
The phone may contain information which may help to solve other crimes and/or prevent other attacks. The FBI is not looking for evidence of the current crime -- the bullets, guns, explosives, and dead people provide enough of that. The FBI is looking for information about possible unknown accomplices and/or activities about other terror cells.
>It's most likely the FBI wants into this iPhone - wait, now it's 13 iPhones, so that a precedent is set, so it can next get into all phones and devices, including Linux based ones :(
I'm sure the FBI probably has a growing stack of phones to search. I don't think this is any more of problem than the FBI having a growing stack of any sort of other kinds of evidence of crimes.
What exactly are you asking the FBI to do or not to do?
If there ever was a legitimate use for the FBI, it would be to investigate crimes of the sort and magnitude of San Bernardino. As I wrote earlier, the legal framework for the FBI's request has been in place since at least the 1970s -- so either you gotta say that that framework is wrong and go back to vacate those legal decisions, SCOTUS opinions, and legislation -- or you gotta say that the framework is valid for the FBI's current request.
BTW:
In my opinion -- and again this going to be controversial -- it is the individual citizen's responsibility to protect personal information. There are hard lessons to be learned, but corporations can not be and should not be trusted to provide that personal information or data protection...
A corporation is essentially an instrument of the state. Although, some people may argue it's the other way around -- that government is an instrument of the corporations. However, if you have an iPhone and are using its transparent encryption option - you are not protecting your data and Apple can not and should not protect your data from lawful and warranted access by LE. Doing so, in an active way, makes Apple an accomplice to the crime.
If, on the other hand, you as a private citizen encrypt your own data with your own key and do the key management correctly -- you can protect your data and cannot be made to provide the key for the data. You, as a private citizen, have the right not help LE and not provide self-incriminating information. However, corporations are under a different set of laws regarding your information.
> What exactly are you asking the FBI to do or not to do?
The people who made the decisions that allowed these people into the country in the first place share much of the blame. Why are they and the government agencies involved not being investigated and forced to provide the documentation about their decisions?
The people who made the decisions that allowed these people into the country in the first place share much of the blame. Why are they and the government agencies involved not being investigated and forced to provide the documentation about their decisions?
>> What exactly are you asking the FBI to do or not to do?
>The people who made the decisions that allowed these people into the country in the first place share much of the blame. Why are they and the government agencies involved not being investigated and forced to provide the documentation about their decisions?
Now that's something I can agree with...
However, I think that discussion will definitely go over into the political realm... In the encryption debate, I can at least call out "It's all about FOSS... see GPG? see openssl?" ... etc...
As far as vetting foreign persons entering the country: Hindsight is always 20/20 or at least 20/40... Foresight is generally around 20/200. Crimes are going to happen.
>The people who made the decisions that allowed these people into the country in the first place share much of the blame. Why are they and the government agencies involved not being investigated and forced to provide the documentation about their decisions?
Now that's something I can agree with...
However, I think that discussion will definitely go over into the political realm... In the encryption debate, I can at least call out "It's all about FOSS... see GPG? see openssl?" ... etc...
As far as vetting foreign persons entering the country: Hindsight is always 20/20 or at least 20/40... Foresight is generally around 20/200. Crimes are going to happen.
> However, I think that discussion will definitely go over into the political realm
You think? :) But you asked, so I answered. I don't plan on going any farther with that discussion either, for exactly those reasons.
You think? :) But you asked, so I answered. I don't plan on going any farther with that discussion either, for exactly those reasons.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
My point is: In order to sway public opinion, Apple needs to argue that the government was wrong when the courts indicated that POTS phone company of the 1970s were required to install government requested changes to the system in order to collect evidence.
>You rally think Cook would risk a contempt of court charge?
I have no idea, I'm not him and I don't work for Apple and I'm not a decision maker for Apple. I do know that companies and individuals make silly and/or illogical errors in life. I really don't see how Apple wins in court with their argument as presented in the Cook public letter. About the only way Apple may 'win' would be: