Lordsteve666 Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 26 minutes ago, GrapefruitPerrier said: Agree. What could be on the phone that they cannot get from the carrier? It looks to me that the FBI is just making a statement here. This is my biggest issue here. All the data on that phone had to go through some electronic system to get onto it, or would have been passed on to somewhere else such as a cloud storage. So if, as we are led to believe by some circles, the NSA etc. are monitoring and storing all your data and cyber-movements why is there anything on that phone they don't already know? Surely all they could ever possibly need to know on this guy is on some hard drive in some NSA monitoring station! Either the surveillance conspiracy nuts are overly paranoid and have vastly exaggerated the abilities of the NSA, CIA, FBI etc. Or the Feds are lying about their abilities in order to try and force through some new technique to make their spying job easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 4 hours ago, Risto said: But, isn't the lifting of the number of attempts you can make at passkey literally lifting one of the major security measures of any iPhone? I am far from being an expert, but with those two pieces of software they can literally crack into any iPhone out there without much time or effort spent. Or at least, that is the conclusion I came to. Yes, but the FBI doesn't want the software as far as I've seen. They don't care how Apple does it they just want the restriction lifted on this specific phone. As I read it Apple could do the entire thing in house with the phone on their premises and everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Slate Article has an interesting take on this. To sum up, (i) this iphone is vanishingly unlikely to have any useful information on it (ii) they have had it for a while, not clear why it is so urgent to get into it now, so (iii) this really probably is the FBI fishing (phishing?) for a backdoor that they can use for law enforcement purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 36 minutes ago, Shryke said: Yes, but the FBI doesn't want the software as far as I've seen. They don't care how Apple does it they just want the restriction lifted on this specific phone. As I read it Apple could do the entire thing in house with the phone on their premises and everything. But the existence of such software raises a lot of red flags, which is why Apple is not so lenient to the request. And lastly, if it can be done on one specific phone, it can be done on all of them. And that is opening Pandora's box. Regardless of FBI's intentions, there are lines... And if they can't build the case, that speaks more about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Agrippa Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 On 2/18/2016 at 3:41 PM, NestorMakhnosLovechild said: This is a huge mistake. You should NEVER use your debit card online - it is ALWAYS safer to use a credit card. Your debit card is a direct line to your bank account - if someone gets a hold of that and takes out all your money, your money is gone and you are fucked. Credit cards just allow you to accrue unsecured debt, AND they almost all have some sort of fraud protection. If someone gets a hold of your credit card and charges it up, you can dispute the charges and/or refuse to pay and you are most certainly going to be better off than if someone had access to your bank account. I have nothing in there. I am student- but that is a lesson to learn for later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 5 hours ago, Risto said: But the existence of such software raises a lot of red flags, which is why Apple is not so lenient to the request. And lastly, if it can be done on one specific phone, it can be done on all of them. And that is opening Pandora's box. Regardless of FBI's intentions, there are lines... And if they can't build the case, that speaks more about them. Not if the FBI doesn't have the software, no. Which as far as I've seen they aren't asking for. They could likely have Apple do it again next time they have a valid warrant or whatever which, I mean, what's wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 The government never made these extraordinary requests/orders for assistance deciphering through Bin Ladens alleged trove of data. If they weren't compelled to do so in that instance, I do not see why they should force someone to do their job now? To me this is no different than forceably making a manafacturer build military items against their will. We may as well be under a WW2 era dictatorship if that's what it's come to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said: The government never made these extraordinary requests/orders for assistance deciphering through Bin Ladens alleged trove of data. If they weren't compelled to do so in that instance, I do not see why they should force someone to do their job now? To me this is no different than forceably making a manafacturer build military items against their will. We may as well be under a WW2 era dictatorship if that's what it's come to? Um, because that was an entirely different situation with a completely different system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Even during WW2 no companies were REQUIRED to switch to making armaments. It was of their own volition and they were contractually compensated. So yes, of course it was a different circumstance, which is exactly what was implied. I said the govt forcing Apple to create a backdoor to the encryption would be NO DIFFERENT than REQUIRING a manafacturer (forceably) to switch from building something like trucks to tanks (something that never happened forceably). The operative words being require/required because in the WW2 era it wasn't coerced, the manafacturers chose that course. In this instance the govt. is seeking to force a private company to build something against their will, whether its a tank, a Gibson guitar or software, it's still the same concept at work. Edit- Just noticed your remarks were over the bolded portion of my post. I was responding with the 2nd part of my original post in mind ( the part unbolded). Never mind then, I see the point you made about the bolded. I missed what you were emphasizing there at first really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Alright it's not different, so what's wrong with it? It's not self evidently wrong. Indeed if during WW2 had private companies refused to make the military goods that country needed I would see nothing wrong in the government forcing companies to produce those goods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 12 minutes ago, TrueMetis said: Alright it's not different, so what's wrong with it? It's not self evidently wrong. Indeed if during WW2 had private companies refused to make the military goods that country needed I would see nothing wrong in the government forcing companies to produce those goods. If the govt. wants to declare Marshal Law then they could go that route I suppose? But we aren't under either Marshal Law or a Dictatorship currently and the govt. should have some check and balance to what it can force on citizens, especially outside an declared war or Marshal Law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 "Martial." It's "martial" law. *twitch* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Yep. "Martial" and "Marshal" may sound almost the same to you, but they have vastly different meaning and etymology... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Just because the govt is incredibly large and powerful isn't a high enough standard to give them a blank slate of powers to force private citizens to do certain things against our wishes. We put several restrictions on the govt's power (Posse Comitatus, require warrants, referendums, recalls, due process, the whole system of checks and balances really). In the FBI v Apple case there are warnings over the consequences involved if the govt. forces this backdoor to the encryption. I believe those dangers are real and the govt. should be curtailed here through the courts hopefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baxus Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 13 hours ago, Shryke said: Yes, but the FBI doesn't want the software as far as I've seen. They don't care how Apple does it they just want the restriction lifted on this specific phone. As I read it Apple could do the entire thing in house with the phone on their premises and everything. And what's going to make FBI just leave the phone with Apple, instead of requesting it back as "evidence"? Even if they leave it, this software would never be 100% safe and all it would take is one person willing to sell it to the highest bidder. On top of that, as was mentioned in the video posted here recently, what's stopping any other government asking Apple to do the same with some other phones? What happens when China officials come and ask the same "favour"? Bear in mind that they could use a very broad definition of "criminal investigation" or "national security". Would Apple be bound by Chinese court orders? If not, why not? 12 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Slate Article has an interesting take on this. To sum up, (i) this iphone is vanishingly unlikely to have any useful information on it (ii) they have had it for a while, not clear why it is so urgent to get into it now, so (iii) this really probably is the FBI fishing (phishing?) for a backdoor that they can use for law enforcement purposes. Of course they are phishing (I think that's the spelling) for it. Even if we assume there's someone to be implicated with data found on that phone, that someone has had months to leave the US and find a country with no extradition policy so it's not really likely that there is any urgency to the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 8 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said: Yep. "Martial" and "Marshal" may sound almost the same to you, but they have vastly different meaning and etymology... Lol yeah I screwed the pooch on that spelling, must've thought it was spelled like the Mashal plan or something. Apparently Eminem spells it that way as well, I blame him ! "Oh yeah.....well don't Lose Yoself over it or I may declare Marshal Mathers Law and use my power of Eminem domain n chit." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 5 hours ago, baxus said: And what's going to make FBI just leave the phone with Apple, instead of requesting it back as "evidence"? Even if they leave it, this software would never be 100% safe and all it would take is one person willing to sell it to the highest bidder. There's no indication the FBI could do anything with the phone anyway to break other phones. And if the software getting out is Apple's concern, they can apply whatever security measures they want. As far as I can tell, the FBI doesn't care how they do it and is more then willing to let them secure the process however they choose. Quote On top of that, as was mentioned in the video posted here recently, what's stopping any other government asking Apple to do the same with some other phones? What happens when China officials come and ask the same "favour"? Bear in mind that they could use a very broad definition of "criminal investigation" or "national security". Would Apple be bound by Chinese court orders? If not, why not? The same thing stopping other governments from demanding anything they want of Apple already. Like, you don't even seem to be thinking very clearly about this. There is nothing stopping China right now from passing a law saying "All cellphones must upload all their data into our government's central database once a day". They can do whatever the hell they want with their own laws. Nothing about this situation effects that. Non-US governments don't need precedent from US courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baxus Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 15 hours ago, Shryke said: The same thing stopping other governments from demanding anything they want of Apple already. Like, you don't even seem to be thinking very clearly about this. There is nothing stopping China right now from passing a law saying "All cellphones must upload all their data into our government's central database once a day". They can do whatever the hell they want with their own laws. Nothing about this situation effects that. Non-US governments don't need precedent from US courts. Are you seriously saying that China can exert the same kind of pressure on Apple as USA can? Could China ask this of Apple? Of course not, but if Apple does it for USA then China can ask for the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 34 minutes ago, baxus said: Are you seriously saying that China can exert the same kind of pressure on Apple as USA can? Could China ask this of Apple? Of course not, but if Apple does it for USA then China can ask for the same. If anything China could apply more pressure than the USA. What with Iphones being assembled in China and how huge of a market China is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 16 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said: Lol yeah I screwed the pooch on that spelling, must've thought it was spelled like the Mashal plan or something. Apparently Eminem spells it that way as well, I blame him ! "Oh yeah.....well don't Lose Yoself over it or I may declare Marshal Mathers Law and use my power of Eminem domain n chit." That would actually be Marshall, his name, not Marshal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.