Apple is fighting the FBI
-
I agree it's great that Apple is openly reporting what is being asked of them by the FBI, and that it's horrible what the FBI is even asking.
I don't understand how this in anyway would actually assist them in anyway that is measurable versus the number of people who would be monitored simply because they have a Smartphone.
The FBI is stepping far outside of their reach, which also means that they should never use an Apple iPhone (or android or Windows Mobile) device ever if they want their communications to be secure.
They're effectively asking for a hole in the basic security of the devices that everyone is using today. Apply rightfully so is telling the FBI to piss off, because the request is insane.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
I don't understand how this in anyway would actually assist them in anyway that is measurable versus the number of people who would be monitored simply because they have a Smartphone.
We don't know what their goals are. It has some major effects, just not ones in the interest of Americans. But there are many pressures that could get an agency like the FBI to have interests that do not align with the people (or the law, or the government.)
-
@DustinB3403 said:
The FBI is stepping far outside of their reach, which also means that they should never use an Apple iPhone (or android or Windows Mobile) device ever if they want their communications to be secure.
This isn't quite correct. The FBI could still continue to use those devices, they would just need to install additional software on top of iOS that gave them the security they need. Being who they are, they would be more willing to deal with the extra complexities of this setup than normal citizens would.
-
We can be sure this would never leak out of the FBI's poorly secured computer networks.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
TL/DR The FBI is requesting a dangerous backdoor in the iPhone.
But not so they can remote into billy bob's phone, it's so they can help in the investigation they're looking into etc of the murders? 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?
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?
-
Nothing with any branch of governmental agency is a 'one time" thing. If they force Apple to do this then it will be used to spy and get what they want in any and all things. We already know that they have spied on the US population for no apparent reason other than they wanted to.
-
@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.
-
The problem with backdoors is that they are backdoors for everyone. Not only would the FBI and other government agencies have access to this but anyone with the knowledge/ability to access it would also have this access.
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.
-
@Minion-Queen said:
Nothing with any branch of governmental agency is a 'one time" thing. If they force them to do this then it will be used to spy and get what they want in any and all things. We already know that they have spied on the US population for no apparent reason other than they wanted to.
"for our benefit"
It's encroaching on our liberty. For a long time if you went to www.google.cn (China's google) and you searched Tiananmen Square in the images it would be blurred out entirely. You can't let the the FBI, or government for that matter, control information in any capacity IMO.
-
@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.
