Apple is fighting the FBI
-
@NattNatt said:
Obviously It would be hell if it were widespread...but in this individual case (A mass murdered that killed innocent children before being gunned down) is it not worth allowing access to potentially find the sites he got help from/acquaintances that might be planning similar attacks?
Sure, that one case. How do you make it work for "one case" and not others? By that logic, you could do anything. It's how it affects people broadly. And this one case wasn't thousands of people, it was a few. And there is no reason to believe that having no privacy would have helped the FBI stop it. That access to phone data is going to help the FBI is purely a theory. The FBI does not have a good technology track record, but their enemies do. Any reduction of security at the request of the FBI is actually handing that information to people much more nefarious....
which begs the question, why would the FBI do this as they certainly know that. What ends are their seeking?
-
@coliver said:
Although I doubt anyone wants the FBI circumventing the courts to get access to these phones, or to do so in a manner that is secret or hidden.
People who are armed, put the citizenry at risk, spread fear and seek to subjugate the legal and government system... sounds like a terrorist coup plot anywhere else. In the US, we call it the FBI.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@NattNatt said:
Strict protocol will have to be adhered to, in order to perform it, but if it can help save Thousands of lives, is it not worth it?
Absolutely not. There are so many problems with this...
- Strict protocol was skipped to get to this point, that's out of the question.
- FBI does not follow protocol at all, you can't expect this from that organization.
- FBI has no track record of saving lives, the idea that there are lives to save is purely made up.
- FBI doing things like this is used to empower terrible things like terrorist groups. You see savings lives, I see killing people.
- Any thing like this can never be done for the purpose of safety, that's a myth. What it is is an attempt to subvert the legal process and cripple the people's power, to build a state where people are not free.
Fair enough, I just assumed they were like the cousins of our security guys at Mi5/Mi6...?
-
Are you saying you want your Mi5/Mi6 guys to have this ability? What makes them so trust worthy?
-
As @coliver said - once there is a back door, it's only a matter of time before the "real" bad guys (which frankly I include the 3 letter agencies as part of - but that's another matter) figure it out.
Look at all of these security exploits that are discovered day after day - many of them only discovered because they were in use by the "real" bad guys.
-
@NattNatt said:
Fair enough, I just assumed they were like the cousins of our security guys at Mi5/Mi6...?
They are, and we are afraid of them, too.
I've been to the UK at times (when Bush was in office) that people actually avoided me. Someone finally told me that they were afraid of US agencies making people "disappear", the degree of FBI and CIA "terrorism" outside of the US was that strong that in the UK people actually thought MI5/6 were abducting and killing people on behalf of US agencies... just for having spoken to Americans!!
-
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
What makes them so trust worthy?
The accent.
And how cool James Bond is.
-
Between precedent and law of unintended consequences, I don't see how any thinking person could buy that it would be used strictly as stated and never be leaked/hacked, and never used by government agencies in whatever way they internally justify as acceptable. This is the typical model for the erosion of freedoms in the good ol' USA. Create something that should never be and that no one wants, because there is an extreme case that is so important that the public decides it would be ok, but only in this case. Then, it becomes institutionalized, and it's on the books. Once a mechanism is institutionalized, the only limitation is in the definition of the terms surrounding utilization. Definitions are changed over time, and the powerful "tool" becomes another weapon to be used against whoever we want to call an offender, as defined by whoever wields the power to define the terms. Freedom sacrificed in the name of security yields tyranny. It's not a new idea.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@NattNatt said:
Fair enough, I just assumed they were like the cousins of our security guys at Mi5/Mi6...?
They are, and we are afraid of them, too.
I've been to the UK at times (when Bush was in office) that people actually avoided me. Someone finally told me that they were afraid of US agencies making people "disappear", the degree of FBI and CIA "terrorism" outside of the US was that strong that in the UK people actually thought MI5/6 were abducting and killing people on behalf of US agencies... just for having spoken to Americans!!
Never heard of that before o.O You probably just found some weirdo's
Or southerners...but then, they're the same thing...@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
What makes them so trust worthy?
The accent.
Hells yeah
-
@art_of_shred said:
Between precedent and law of unintended consequences, I don't see how any thinking person could buy that it would be used strictly as stated and never be leaked/hacked, and never used by government agencies in whatever way they internally justify as acceptable. This is the typical model for the erosion of freedoms in the good ol' USA. Create something that should never be and that no one wants, because there is an extreme case that is so important that the public decides it would be ok, but only in this case. Then, it becomes institutionalized, and it's on the books. Once a mechanism is institutionalized, the only limitation is in the definition of the terms surrounding utilization. Definitions are changed over time, and the powerful "tool" becomes another weapon to be used against whoever we want to call an offender, as defined by whoever wields the power to define the terms. Freedom sacrificed in the name of security yields tyranny. It's not a new idea.
They haven't realized that security through obscurity doesn't work yet I suppose.
-
Like the Alien and Sedition Acts. They were great, for that one case of one powerful figure trying to destabilize the government, but outside of that one threat, they were horrible and dangerous and, unlike most things, reversed. The idea for which they were founded was good, the reality of what they meant, was not.
-
@NattNatt said:
Never heard of that before o.O You probably just found some weirdo's
Or southerners...but then, they're the same thing...Canary Wharf bankers.
-
This was around 2007. Fear of the US was at a pretty high point then with the Bush administration.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@NattNatt said:
Never heard of that before o.O You probably just found some weirdo's
Or southerners...but then, they're the same thing...Canary Wharf bankers.
nuff said...
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Like the Alien and Sedition Acts. They were great, for that one case of one powerful figure trying to destabilize the government, but outside of that one threat, they were horrible and dangerous and, unlike most things, reversed. The idea for which they were founded was good, the reality of what they meant, was not.
It's a slippery slope. Haven't we learned that designing software, thinking no one will use it for evil, is extremely idealistic?
-
I think I'm probably being very hypocritical in this thread because security is one of my biggest weaknesses knowledge wise. I might be turning into one of my users where I don't fully understand the situation and instead of accepting that fact I try to apply every day logic to the situation where it doesn't really apply.
If that's the case here guys I apologize--not that anyone is jumping on me. I'm just trying to be self-aware.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Although I doubt anyone wants the FBI circumventing the courts to get access to these phones, or to do so in a manner that is secret or hidden.
People who are armed, put the citizenry at risk, spread fear and seek to subjugate the legal and government system... sounds like a terrorist coup plot anywhere else. In the US, we call it the FBI.
We also call drug dealers the CIA... so I guess crime and 3 letter agencies go hand-in-hand.
-
I should point out that I don't feel that the FBI is in any way involved in a conspiracy, only that they are generally non-ethical, not law abiding and have no interest in protecting Americans and the results are generally poor because of it. There isn't any organized effort to do something big and awful, just lots of people looking to gain power and don't care why they hurt or put at risk to do so. Nothing like a conspiracy. Not like they are aiding a foreign power intentionally, they just don't care if bad people take advantage of the things that they do.
-
I would agree with Scott on this one. They are worried about the here and now. Not the consequences that will happen because they forced things to be available now for the one thing they need. Best of intentions and all that
