Community Reacts to Apple vs FBI Story

[zoobyshoe]

That isn't what the quote says.

Correct. It's what I said continuing forward from the quote into greater explication.

That's mistaking opinion for fact.

No. The "truth" in question is the truth about what the comedian's (social critic's) opinion is: "I truly think X is acting like an idiot," as opposed to pulling your punches, "I don't feel X is analyzing this situation as well as he might be if he gave it more thought." The social critic has a serious message as opposed to some kinds of comedy where, yeah, the only point seems to be to tickle you into mindless laughter. The social critic isn't bound by conventional debate tactics, or academic reasoning (facts), but ought to have the same integrity of purpose behind him to be considered a social critic (a George Carlin), rather than one of the three stooges.

 

[russ_watters]

Correct. It's what I said continuing forward from the quote into greater explication.

Agreed.

No. The "truth" in question is the truth about what the comedian's (social critic's) opinion is: "I truly think X is acting like an idiot,"...

Agreed. I'm not seeing that in what you wrote, but thanks for clarifying.

 

[1oldman2]

same integrity of purpose behind him to be considered a social critic (a George Carlin), rather than one of the three stooges.

 

[Borg]

I only posted the video because I thought that it brought up some interesting points that I don't remember being discussed such as past encryption back-door failures and the plethora of apps that provide encryption. Oliver is a comedian and has to deliver his content in that respect. However, he does provide social commentary as Zooby points out.

While Oliver stated that he thinks that the government shouldn't be able to force Apple to help the FBI, I still believe that they have a social obligation to do otherwise. No matter the outcome - this issue will always be a cat and mouse game and I do not believe in giving aid to those who are intent on harming others. I guess that I am not swayed by comedic pauses or laugh tracks.

BTW, after it was moved to another thread, I saw the mod note on the video about profanity. I had forgotten about that part and asked for it to be deleted in case anyone is wondering. I like John Oliver's videos but he can be a bit vulgar at time.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I only posted the video because I thought that it brought up some interesting points that I don't remember being discussed such as past encryption back-door failures and the plethora of apps that provide encryption. Oliver is a comedian and has to deliver his content in that respect. However, he does provide social commentary as Zooby points out.

While Oliver stated that he thinks that the government shouldn't be able to force Apple to help the FBI, I still believe that they have a social obligation to do otherwise. No matter the outcome - this issue will always be a cat and mouse game and I do not believe in giving aid to those who are intent on harming others. I guess that I am not swayed by comedic pauses or laugh tracks.

The important information that video communicated was that the issue is vastly more complicated than what most people who come down on the FBIs side in a quick knee-jerk reflex realize. I didn't see it as summing to a pro-Apple stance. I saw it as summing to "this issue is nowhere near as clear cut as you thought!"

 

[Borg]

The important information that video communicated was that the issue is vastly more complicated than what most people who come down on the FBIs side in a quick knee-jerk reflex realize. I didn't see it as summing to a pro-Apple stance. I saw it as summing to "this issue is nowhere near as clear cut as you thought!"

I agree that the main point is that this isn't a clear cut issue - which is why I thought that it was a worthy submission. However, at 15:30, he clearly states that he is on Apple's side in this case which is why I made the point that I wasn't swayed by his video.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I agree that the main point is that this isn't a clear cut issue - which is why I thought that it was a worthy submission. However, at 15:30, he clearly states that he is on Apple's side in this case which is why I made the point that I wasn't swayed by his video.

Ah. I don't even recall him saying that. If he did, then I must have dismissed it, not considering it a summary, just his opinion: "I'm on Apple's side," is not the same as "And so, everyone can now see, Apple is clearly right, here." I don't recall hearing anything amounting to the latter.

 

[gjonesy]

Ok I been thinking and I understand the need for privacy. Gonna play devils advocate for a moment here, there are those troubling "what ifs" Hypothetically speaking what if cracking this phone would incidentally lead to the location of hostages (American or allied) being held by ISIS due to be executed by beheading within the next 5 days. Let's say apple wins its appeals and later the FBI challenges and appeals the court ruling and ultimately wins and this information is discovered to late to do anything about it? How will the public and apple feel about these petty squabbles then? There is a solution, apple needs to have its own investigational division that can comply with court orders without compromising the security of everyone else's phone. Just hack phones on a case by case basis for the government without giving them the tools and know how to do it themselves.

My understanding is there is a third dimension to this argument "money" which apple stands to lose a ton of by complying with the order. Consumers may be less likely to buy an iPhone if they know that apple can and will crack it with a court order. Those dirty little secrets of craigslist, infidelity and compromising photos are great motivators to argue against any kind of intrusion cause it establishes case law.

 

[nsaspook]

Ok I been thinking and I understand the need for privacy. Gonna play devils advocate for a moment here, there are those troubling "what ifs" Hypothetically speaking what if cracking this phone would incidentally lead to the location of hostages (American or allied) being held by ISIS due to be executed by beheading within the next 5 days. Let's say apple wins its appeals and later the FBI challenges and appeals the court ruling and ultimately wins and this information is discovered to late to do anything about it? How will the public and apple feel about these petty squabbles then? There is a solution, apple needs to have its own investigational division that can comply with court orders without compromising the security of everyone else's phone. Just hack phones on a case by case basis for the government without giving them the tools and know how to do it themselves.

Why don't we just let Apple be in the business of selling secure products without known back doors. Apple is in this mess because Apple left a back door in it's product that made Apple instead of the owner/operators of the device in question open to demands from law enforcement in a hypothetical. There are plenty of tools available to use other than requiring all phones be open to hacking in the odd case where there might be critical information. The information on the phone might be intentionally misleading if it's known the FBI can read it with the help of Apples investigation division.

 

[gjonesy]

Why don't we just let Apple be in the business of selling secure products without known back doors.

That's exactly my point, leave it to the product maker. I do not see the need for a master key to be used in conjunction with the patriot act, that's not at all what I am suggesting. I say if there is a strong issue of importance to everyone such as a terrorist attack. Or some other threat to the well being of the general population or information on a phone of any kind that could prevent crime and tragedies from happening, then the maker of said device of any make or model should have a way of retrieving it without compromising everyone's phone in the process.

We don't limit law enforcement from executing search warrants on a house, car, business or computer. WHY should phones be any different?

 

[nsaspook]

We don't limit law enforcement from executing search warrants on a house, car, business or computer. WHY should phones be any different?

I agree they should be able to execute search warrants but there is nothing that demands the targets of that search be displayed on the kitchen table to make it easy for them.

 

[gjonesy]

there is nothing that demands the results of that search be displayed on the kitchen table to make it easy for them.

Agreed BUT...if left to discover a way to decrypt this information on their own the (FBI) would undoubtedly misuse the technology if they can develop it. If the manufacture is involved there is no risk of proprietary copy or misuse...they have a stake in HELPING the FBI. The product itself would be less compromised and proprietary secrets could remain secrets. Although I'm sure the FBI would demand "how they did it" and the company apple could fight any further litigation via copyright laws. There is no need to give away the secret recipe just give them a peek under the crust. IMHO.

 

[vela]

We don't limit law enforcement from executing search warrants on a house, car, business or computer. WHY should phones be any different?

Because it's technically possible to create a phone which no one can break into. Your suggestion that Apple form an investigational division amounts to requiring companies become an arm of law enforcement.

As far as hypotheticals go, I can easily counter with what happens if the backdoor is used by some repressive government to spy on its citizens and massacre of political opponents?

 

[gjonesy]

As far as hypotheticals go, I can easily counter with what happens if the backdoor is used by some repressive government to spy on its citizens and massacre of political opponents?

I'm not even talking about a backdoor or hidden code, I'm talking about serviceable software that only the manufacture can access. There is no such thing as a totally secure device. They have to be serviceable which means someone will know how to access the content of the phone without destroying the information. And just because a company retains a way of accessing a device doesn't mean it has to publish a how to manual or make proprietary technical developer tools available to anyone who wants it. Keep the encryption but comply with court orders.

This seem to be more about a selling point of the iPhone than it is about privacy and security in the first place. I broke into an old cheapo droid to unlock it for a friend and the only information lost was the contact list, text messages email accounts and photos were still on the phone.

FYI most mobile phone companies already have (information security divisions) and you can obtain information up to a certain point with a simple subpoena.

 

[nsaspook]

I'm not even talking about a backdoor or hidden code, I'm talking about serviceable software that only the manufacture can access. There is no such thing as a totally secure device.

The someone who will know how to access the contents of the phone without destroying the information is the person who created and entered the device password or key. Apple or the FBI can service the device after the user unlocks it for them. If you don't wish to unlock the device and only you have access several things could happen. With Apple you don't get help or updates, with the FBI you could possibly be fined and/or jailed until you unlock the device.

 

[gjonesy]

The someone who will know how to access the contents of the phone without destroying the information is the person who created and entered the device password or key.

Well in this case the one who created the password is dead. And from what I've read apple says it can unlock the phone, they just don't want to because the main selling point of this phone is its encryption and security in other words if they crack it they destroy some credibility and confidence in the product (tisk tisk boohoo who really cares). As I said before if the FBI recruits some disgruntle apple employee with the right technical background and learns how to crack the phone themselves (especially if it can be done remotely) then we all are subject to having our iPhones cracked, privacy invaded without our knowledge. People with power usually abuse it, remember J. Edgar Hover ? He had dirt on everyone back in the day and he abused that power. I'd much rather a company that stands to lose business if they abuse that power able to look at my phone content, then have a branch of the government who can and will over step certain boundaries and perhaps use certain influences/manipulation having that ability. Apple has more to lose by not helping. Its only a matter of time before someone somewhere figures out how to crack that iPhone(maybe some computer kid that does it for fun and post a how to video on youtube) and then hackers are going to have a field day.

 

[Borg]

Apple has more to lose by not helping. Its only a matter of time before someone somewhere figures out how to crack that iPhone(maybe some computer kid that does it for fun and post a how to video on youtube) and then hackers are going to have a field day.

What difference does it make whether Apple unlocks the phone when it comes to hackers cracking their software (assuming that it could even be done)? Apple's point is that by creating the software to unlock the phone, then hackers could get the code that they created. You seem to be implying that if Apple doesn't create the software, then it will be likely for hackers to create it instead.

 

[gjonesy]

(assuming that it could even be done)

then it will be likely for hackers to create it instead.

If apple "can" do it, then its entirely possible someone familiar enough with the software can. I'd almost bet the bureau is working on a plan "B" as we speak. Now I am a novice, but I figured out how to crack a droid. I figured out how to get around certain web filters without using a thumb drive. I have gotten around other things relating to electronic security. Based on my own experience, if apple itself is saying its possible for them, then its possible period. Its Just a matter of time I'm betting.

 

[Hornbein]

I do not understand how Apple's alleged concerns for customer privacy have any credibility at all after Apple enthusiastically cooperated with the NSA in bulk collection of "private" information. My belief is that this case is a marketing exercise intended to forestall exit of customers to possibly more reliable European vendors.

I personally am in the process of deGooglizing my life. Google has made this as inconvenient as is possible. Google no longer allows me to export gmail contacts. Fortunately I did that a few months before this feature was disabled.

Getting my ten years of email out of Google is so difficult I will never have the time (how many hundreds of hours?). But at least I can keep my newer work out of their hands. I don't want to feed their AI any more than I have to. If it can defeat the Go champion of the world, what can it do to me? I do not care to find out the hard way.

Keeping data out of their hands is too difficult. Posts to extremely obscure web sites show up in their data base immediately. I don't want to spend months installing software to try to block this. But at least I can make a symbolic gesture.

 

[Borg]

If apple "can" do it, then its entirely possible someone familiar enough with the software can. I'd almost bet the bureau is working on a plan "B" as we speak. Now I am a novice, but I figured out how to crack a droid. I figured out how to get around certain web filters without using a thumb drive. I have gotten around other things relating to electronic security. Based on my own experience, if apple itself is saying its possible for them, then its possible period. Its Just a matter of time I'm betting.

You are ignoring the point that I made about your post. The likelihood of hackers defeating the encryption on their own has nothing to do with whether Apple does it. Your speculation about what the FBI is doing is just that - speculation. Getting around miscellaneous security features on a phone is far different than cracking encryption algorithms.

 

[gjonesy]

Getting around miscellaneous security features on a phone is far different than cracking encryption algorithms.

Yes very true, and I get what you're saying, I'm just saying that the company itself has a stake in this. And who's to say that if they help the software they create is going to fall into the wrong hands? they don't even have to create the key on a computer connected to the web, stuff like that can be made as secure as the encryption itself, the real danger is leaving it to the FBI unaided to find out on their own. What if they find and hire someone who can, what if they let the information leak. They just might do that for spite cause apple fought them on it.

 

[Borg]

Yes very true, and I get what you're saying, I'm just saying that the company itself has a stake in this. And who's to say that if they help the software they create is going to fall into the wrong hands? they don't even have to create the key on a computer connected to the web, stuff like that can be made as secure as the encryption itself, the real danger is leaving it to the FBI unaided to find out on their own. What if they find and hire someone who can, what if they let the information leak. They just might do that for spite cause apple fought them on it.

This is just a trail of misc. statements that have nothing to do with each other. There are no relationships between these things.

 

[DiracPool]

Finally, Time magazine is weighing in on the Apple vs FBI debate, and the editor Nancy Gibbs is saying that, increasingly, those "in the know" are starting to come over to our, I mean Apples, side:



And let's face it, you have to trust Time magazine, right? I mean, they're sitting there at the grocery store checkout line so you can get in a quick article while the old lady in line in front of you is taking 20 minutes to write out a check. Time wouldn't risk losing that valuable exposure by printing something inaccurate

 

[gjonesy]

This is just a trail of misc. statements that have nothing to do with each other. There are no relationships between these things.

Um ok if you say so...lol That relationship you don't think exist is plastered all over the news, in fact the (op) apple vs the FBI was my biggest clue its all related lol
but what ever you say borg don't assimilate me.

 

[DiracPool]

In all seriousness, though, I think what I'm getting from all the press on this subject and from the 338 posts in this thread is that what this whole thing boils down to is NOT just a simple technical issue as to whether this single phone of the terrorists can be hacked uniquely or not. What it really comes down to is that 100,000 things must all go perfectly right and not one thing can go wrong and then yes, maybe this can be confined to this one instance. But the likelihood of that is essentially zero. So you have to ask yourself, "Do you feel lucky?" Well, do you?

What are they going to find on this phone? Considering the worldwide publicity this case has gotten, any terrorist who knows they had an association with this phone in any way has already changed their phone number, name, location, and identity anyway, so what do they hope to get out of it even if there is some relevant info on there. But there's a good chance there's nothing on there. The FBI's going to have an omelette-sized egg on their face if all they find out is that there's a few selfies on there and the phone number to dominoes pizza on speed-dial. Meanwhile, someone somewhere is selling the backdoor though the backdoor...

 

[Borg]

Um ok if you say so...lol That relationship you don't think exist is plastered all over the news, in fact the (op) apple vs the FBI was my biggest clue its all related lol
but what ever you say borg don't assimilate me.

Please feel free to take any two statements from your post #336 and show how one leads to the other.

 

[vela]

I do not understand how Apple's alleged concerns for customer privacy have any credibility at all after Apple enthusiastically cooperated with the NSA in bulk collection of "private" information.

This claim I'd like to see a credible source for. The only company I know of who "enthusiastically cooperated with the NSA" is AT&T. The other telecoms may have as well.

 

[Hornbein]

This claim I'd like to see a credible source for. The only company I know of who "enthusiastically cooperated with the NSA" is AT&T. The other telecoms may have as well.

Apple began bulk data collection in October 2012.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-a...ion-documents/images/prism-slide-5.jpg&w=1484

Some resisted. Yahoo! fought the collection in court. Twitter complied but was unenthusiastic, doing the minimum. While this was going on, Microsoft/Skype were promising their users they were "committed to respecting your privacy and confidentiality." Perhaps you may understand why I am skeptical of Apple.

 

[vela]

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-a...ion-documents/images/prism-slide-5.jpg&w=1484

Some resisted. Yahoo! fought the collection in court. Twitter complied but was unenthusiastic, doing the minimum. While this was going on, Microsoft/Skype were promising their users they were "committed to respecting your privacy and confidentiality." Perhaps you may understand why I am skeptical of Apple.

It's a big jump between being "skeptical" and claiming Apple "enthusiastically supported" the NSA's efforts. Also, it's not like the companies could legally disclose what the government was asking/requiring them to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#Companies

 

[gjonesy]

https://www.staradvertiser.com/busi...can-unlock-terrorists-iphone-prosecutors-say/
Statement 1. apple can open this phone and has a stake in doing it "in house" to protect its own product.

Yes very true, and I get what you're saying, I'm just saying that the company itself has a stake in this.

And who's to say that if they help the software they create is going to fall into the wrong hands?

refer to statement one.

the real danger is leaving it to the FBI unaided to find out on their own.

2. The FBI has cracked cell phones in the past and has the capability to do so, they have been aided by other mobile phone companies in the past so there is a president set as far as co-operation between mobile communication companies and the FBI. To think the FBI is totally incompetent in this area is wishful thinking, ask anyone convicted of possessing (illegal images) on their computer or phone.

https://leb.fbi.gov/2013/december/legal-digest-searches-incident-to-arrest-in-the-smartphone-age

they don't even have to create the key on a computer connected to the web, stuff like that can be made as secure as the encryption itself,

3. Refer to statement 1 again. apple obviously didn't use an open source template, or software you can buy at office depot, their method is proprietary therefore it is secure FOR NOW. We have malware worms Trojans ect...how do you think they operate? They target certain systems for the purpose of intrusion. To imply that the system is unbeatable is a bet I would never take. Someone is probably working on that as we speak.

What if they find and hire someone who can, what if they let the information leak. They just might do that for spite cause apple fought them on it.

4. Does the Name J Edgar Hover ring a bell, according to what I have read he was notorious for using surveillance information against politicians to get his way.
He was the head of the (FBI) and AGAIN refer to statement 1. if they were to create a master key who's to say what they might use it for, sell it to, use it against or trade in return for? Its been done in the past.

Now if you can't make sense of that then I can't help you.

 

[Borg]

Now if you can make sense of that then I can't help you.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[vela]

If apple "can" do it, then its entirely possible someone familiar enough with the software can. I'd almost bet the bureau is working on a plan "B" as we speak. Now I am a novice, but I figured out how to crack a droid. I figured out how to get around certain web filters without using a thumb drive. I have gotten around other things relating to electronic security. Based on my own experience, if apple itself is saying its possible for them, then its possible period. Its Just a matter of time I'm betting.

I doubt you cracked the Android phone in any way nearly analogous to what the FBI is asking Apple to do.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016...hones-encrypted-and-should-you-encrypt-yours/

From this and your other comments, I don't think you have a good understanding of what's Apple's being asked to do. The FBI isn't demanding Apple exploit some weakness in encryption, some weakness that someone else could find with a bit of effort. The FBI wants Apple to write and install software with security provisions removed so that the FBI can brute force its way into the phone. Only Apple can do this because only it holds the cryptographic keys necessary to sign the software so it can be installed onto the phone. Now if you can find a hole in this cryptography method—and experts have been looking for these for a long time now—congrats, you now know how to compromise every secure web session, every secure remote login, etc.

 

[nsaspook]

In all seriousness, though, I think what I'm getting from all the press on this subject and from the 338 posts in this thread is that what this whole thing boils down to is NOT just a simple technical issue as to whether this single phone of the terrorists can be hacked uniquely or not. What it really comes down to is that 100,000 things must all go perfectly right and not one thing can go wrong and then yes, maybe this can be confined to this one instance. But the likelihood of that is essentially zero. So you have to ask yourself, "Do you feel lucky?" Well, do you?

The problem is that Apples phones user security model is fundamentally flawed if Apple is the gate keeper to methods to access your private data by hacking simple passcodes (a much easier job than cracking full RSA signatures). Apple with always be one OS release from allowing the FBI to access an iPhone with their current security model of them having an override key that can install OS software to a currently user data locked phone. The problem for Apple is IMO they don't seem to want to give up this power over their products (it has value for them) to actually increase user security in future products, the FBI knows it and is playing the mandatory backdoor drum in a effort to pressure them to work a deal for future access with court orders.

 

[gjonesy]

The FBI wants Apple to write and install software with security provisions removed so that the FBI can brute force its way into the phone.

You are right in one respect, I have only read a hand full of stories on the case. But is it just this 1 phone or is the FBI asking apple to give them a remote backdoor to all iPhones? It really depends on what all they are asking. I do not see a problem with apple securing the information off the phone and giving the feds a copy...we aren't talking about remote controlling a minuteman nuclear war head here...its a phone, just a phone, that belongs to, a dead terrorist. If the FBI is asking for more than that then apple has every right to refuse, and on of all things copyright law!

 

[gjonesy]

The summation of everything I know about the case, FBI wants phone open...Apple says nope... reason given, product integrity, they made the phones secure and per policy the owner isn't asking for help so apple isn't inclined to do so. The court ordered apple to help and they appealed and are fighting that order. as far as I can see this is still more about apples reputation then it is about the security of all cell phone users.

Wont affect me cause I have a droid so I really don't care.