The Apple Iphone Unlock Controversy

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cheryl

Rosie Moderator
Staff member
Mod
I support Apple as well. Does the FBI really think they are that trustworthy and we believe that they will only use it on ONE phone?

But then....Is possible to create software that will self destruct after one use?
 

pds

Registered
Could not be prouder of Apple's position on this. The very idea of the government forcing a company to expend its resources (not that they don't have lots of that) to create a tool that does not exist is heinous. Governments (and policing agencies specifically) tend towards tyranny and the only way to stop that is to refuse to roll over.

I also have a big problem with the whole "OMG it's a terrorist" panic. There have been numerous cases in our recent past of people going ape on the job. There is even a coined phrase for it. Do we forget about people "going postal"? I am not trying to defend the San Bernadino bad guys - they got what they deserved - but put it in perspective.

And if we do find that the SB bad guys have a cadre of other baddies and we grab them all and kill them too - did we solve any problems or bring any real justice? Society has issues that need to be addressed but I fear a stronger police force may be exactly the opposite of what's needed
 

pds

Registered
Apple will use a 1st Amendment defense. I guess that means they will call the request coerced speech.

Aside from the privacy and security concerns this is what concerns me most, the government coercing cooperation in their investigation. When we talk about precedents, that one is ominous.
 

Cheryl

Rosie Moderator
Staff member
Mod
It is more than just one phone. Another case has been in the courts in Brooklyn. Cook is right.
 

Cheryl

Rosie Moderator
Staff member
Mod
The latest - over 40 companies and several dozen individuals are supporting Apple in this case. It will be interesting just how far the Justice department will go on this.
 

Cheryl

Rosie Moderator
Staff member
Mod
There are law enforcements in the US just waiting for the FBI to win. NY alone has 175 phones they need to unlock for ‘investigative’ purposes. It opens the door to pandora’s box.
Did Amazon change their mind since siding with Apple? Why did they remove the encryption in the first place?
 

Cheryl

Rosie Moderator
Staff member
Mod
They already listen in to many phone conversations but the chatter they hear is ignored. ‘We didn’t think it was viable information’. They have more information than they could possible act on, yet they want more. There are many more phones sitting in evidence lockers waiting to be broken into.

Remember the FBI went to court because they thought it was impossible to break into the phone without a back door from Apple and fought for months. Now it is ‘never mind’?

Funny - they will try to outlaw encryption for everyone but themselves.
 

pds

Registered
California Dianne Senator Feinstein recently authored of a really bad bill concerning encryption, requiring all encryptors to provide backdoors. The only good news is it has only a snowball's chance of getting passed and may actually make people realize how dumb the idea is.

And...
today the WSJ says the Justice Dept has reapplied in a NYC case to compel Apple to open a drug dealer's phone. In that case the owner - convicted of some drug-related crime - can't remember his pass code. So since they can't force him to remember the code, they will force Apple to by-pass it. (link is to a WSJ related site. The original article is behind a paywall.)
 

Cheryl

Rosie Moderator
Staff member
Mod
And the circle begins again. The DOJ also has a phone in Boston they are fighting to get opened,
 

pds

Registered
Good thing Apple has a cash hoard - they may wind up using a chunk of it to fight the onslaught.
 

Cheryl

Rosie Moderator
Staff member
Mod
In the New York case, someone gave them the passcode. It was ‘I forgot' to 'Now I remember’

Of course, why didn’t the FBI just search YouTube in the CA case.

There are more cases. One state’s attorney (or county) said he has 175 phones he needs unlocked.
 

Cheryl

Rosie Moderator
Staff member
Mod
LOL - only if you have your phone set with fingerprint lock. It won’t work if that was never set up or turned off.

But that article you linked is from 2014....
 

pds

Registered
Not to go off-topic, but there is an underlying problem here, and that is the expansion of police authority and subsequent abuse thereof. I was overseas for many years and can't say when it began, but law enforcement is badder and bolder now than it was when I left in the 80s. The police are armed to the teeth to keep us safe from terrorism, but then abuse that commission by tazing unarmed homeless people, shooting innocent citizens, choking suspects and manhandling teenagers on bicycles.

The idea of "shoot first and ask questions later" used to be a dumb joke. Now it's SOP and it's scary. Add to that the fear-mongering of the current election cycle and scary is too simple a description.

How is the ruling in Satcomer's link not coercion to self-incrimination??? In the past these things may have been written on paper and accessible, but I did not have to go get them for you. If the cops had warrant for my house they could make me open a locked closet, but not force me to provide a combination to a safe. The courts are split on whether a password is a key or a combination. To me it's a combination, but that won't help _you_ when some magistrate says it's a key.

It is a new world, but I'm not sure how brave it is. This will hit the Supreme Court in the next few years. How that plays out could be decide in November.
 

Cheryl

Rosie Moderator
Staff member
Mod
All in the name of terrorists. But the phone controversy has been expanded to include phones from gang members and drug dealers. I sure don’t like what is happening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top