The Apple / FBI / Back Door Debate.....

[DBRUCE]

This is not only an American problem, the terrorist that attacked the Paris nightclub used the same encryption program

National Security Agency director Michael Rogers was quoted in a Yahoo News report Wednesday as confirming speculation about the use of encryption in the November massacre on the streets of Paris by supporters of the Islamic State organization that killed 130.

 

Rogers told Yahoo that "some of the communications" of the Paris attackers "were encrypted," preventing intelligence officials from picking up the trail.

 

As a result, he was quoted as saying, "we did not generate the insights ahead of time. Clearly, had we known, Paris would not have happened."

 

Rogers, who made the comments last week, has joined US law enforcement officials in warning about the dangers of new encrypted devices that make it difficult if not impossible to tap, even with a warrant.

 

The report comes as Apple has challenged a US court order to provide assistance to the FBI to crack an iPhone used in attacks in San Bernardino, California, opening a new front in the encryption debate.

 

The iphone they have was the dead guy's work phone. It belongs to the City or County of San Bernadino. The dead guy worked for them before he got dead. He and his dead wife destroyed their cellphones and their Laptop before they began their attack on our people. So, if they didn't bother to destroy the work phone, I would say there's nothing Terrorist related on it. By the way, I hear what the FBI can't crack is the 4 digit pin encryption. Wouldn't ya think some Personnel Manager has that pin # written down somewhere? This is an attack on our freedom, our Liberty. Those currently in power do not love this country. They do not love the Constitution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

 

 

http://www.thelocal....scape-detection

 

 

 

 

 

[quapman]

Welcome to the new age.

Give me back my wire.

[DBRUCE]

Because of my tinfoil hat which also repels the CIA, but not the IRS!

 

The Media is the "News wing" of the new Democrat/Socialist Party. This thread, and all of us communicating here on this forum is what they want to control.

[Hall]

'quapman'

Welcome to the new age.

Give me back my wire.

 

Agreed! ........ Wholeheartedly AGREED!

[RevDavidLee]

The Media is the "News wing" of the new Democrat/Socialist Party. This thread, and all of us communicating here on this forum is what they want to control.

 

WTF?

[Retired]

1455786594[/url]' post='1742275']

I don't know all the details under consideration but from what I've heard about it on the news media in the UK it's not simply a case of the FBI asking Apple for help in accessing this one particular 'phone; rather they want a 'back-door' solution which can be used by them to access information from anyone's 'phone anytime they happen to deem it 'necessary'.

 

This, I think, is the sticking-point here and, if so, I'm with Apple.

 

Pip.

 

I totally agree! But if they want to check my ph, they can. I never have anything bad or to hide. There are times my wife will grab it and scroll through it. But I never do that with hers.

[Retired]

1455805983[/url]' post='1742352']

I missed that part of it when I wrote my post...guess that's what I get for getting my "news" from Facebook.

 

 

 

Ha! Never believe half of what you hear on Facebook. There's so many lies on it. Even the paper has been known to print lies as told from the media. There were a couple of times in the past when I was interviewed, and when the story came out it was blown out of proportion to add or take away from the truth to make the story fit their desire. The media loves to do that.

[OldCowboy]

I carry my phone down my plumbers asscrack just to confuse the FBI.

It must cost you big $ to have a plumber on duty 24/7!

[rct]

Jesus Christ everybodys social security number and salary and all that other identity theft crap is on the back of cereal boxes and we can't get the friends list off some jackoffs phone? And nobody sees anything wrong with all of this, like not in a good way and not in the way they want you to think?

 

rct

[Golden]

No not at all the "fact" is by the 4th amendment in the US you have a "reasonable" expectation to privacy. What the Feds/DOJ have is probable cause and a possible third terrorist not ruled out. Bottom line, no one is above the law and that includes Apple. The nonsensical propaganda proposed by Apple is just that, They made a mountain put of a mole-hill and have China and Korea involved in their nonsense now. Apple, it was ruled in court Friday "has the technical feasibility" to help in the investigation. No one said they had to give away trade secrets and there could also be a sunset clause with their technical help. They "have" already helped with over 90 cases already. This one involves national security. No one is attempting to trample anyones freedom, they are trying to stop sickening killers who love death apparently more than we love life from ushering in the 12th Imam bs.

 

The aspect that both sides agree on is that Apple has the ability to do, is to defeat the auto-wipe after 10 tries and provide a way to test each passcode in 80 milliseconds. That is not a back door to the encryption, and it will only work if Farook used a short enough passcode to guess, which Brenden says was required by Farook's employer who owns the phone, but who knows if Farook abided by county policy. However, legally Apple has a losing case and for sure is gonna provide technical support or be prosecuted.

[jaxson50]

I could care less if the government wants to look at my cellphone. We had a party line till I was 15, everyone knew everyone else's business,

[jaxson50]

1455988738[/url]' post='1743126']

No not at all the "fact" is by the 4th amendment in the US you have a "reasonable" expectation to privacy. What the Feds/DOJ have is probable cause and a possible third terrorist not ruled out. Bottom line, no one is above the law and that includes Apple. The nonsensical propaganda proposed by Apple is just that, They made a mountain put of a mole-hill and have China and Korea involved in their nonsense now. Apple, it was ruled in court Friday "has the technical feasibility" to help in the investigation. No one said they had to give away trade secrets and there could also be a sunset clause with their technical help. They "have" already helped with over 90 cases already. This one involves national security. No one is attempting to trample anyones freedom, they are trying to stop sickening killers who love death apparently more than we love life from ushering in the 12th Imam bs.

 

The aspect that both sides agree on is that Apple has the ability to do, is to defeat the auto-wipe after 10 tries and provide a way to test each passcode in 80 milliseconds. That is not a back door to the encryption, and it will only work if Farook used a short enough passcode to guess, which Brenden says was required by Farook's employer who owns the phone, but who knows if Farook abided by county policy. However, legally Apple has a losing case and for sure is gonna provide technical support or be prosecuted.

 

[Murph]

The Gov. wants the ability to crack ALL iPhones.

 

Period.

 

I'm against that.

[badbluesplayer]

I like to look at stuff from a kid's perspective. Imagine if you were playing telephone with your sister - where you have two cups with a string between them. And your other sister comes along and ties another cup to the string to listen in. No way!! Go find your own secrets, ya creep!!

[stein]

The Gov. wants the ability to crack ALL iPhones.

 

Period.

 

I'm against that.

Question: Given a choice, is it better to have the Gov have the ability to crack all I-phones, or better to have "terrorist" or enemies with the ability to freely communicate in secret?

 

Not saying you or I are wrong or right, but it IS a very good question we will have to all ask ourselves. And, it's not just a legitimate question, but it's a real question.

 

There are implications and consequences on each side of that question.

[surfpup]

Question: Given a choice, is it better to have the Gov have the ability to crack all I-phones, or better to have "terrorist" or enemies with the ability to freely communicate in secret?

 

Not saying you or I are wrong or right, but it IS a very good question we will have to all ask ourselves. And, it's not just a legitimate question, but it's a real question.

 

There are implications and consequences on each side of that question.

 

It is a difficult and complex question, and I agree we must ask it of ourselves - as have people for centuries. But I disagree that it has to be either/or - black or white. Admittedly the easiest route to safety is for citizens to give up freedoms - and we have. But is that the only way? Because it seems to me that once we give up liberties we rarely get them back.

 

Post 9/11 the Patriot Act resulted in a massive loss of civil liberties, and we accepted it because we wanted to feel safe. But is there any way to know if wire tapping and the suspension of Habeus Corpus have made us safer? Or is it possible that we could find a way to ensure safety and preserve those liberties? I tend to think we could - but not if we always take the easy way out and abandon our liberties at every terrorist act.

[stein]

It is a difficult and complex question, and I agree we must ask it of ourselves - as have people for centuries. But I disagree that it has to be either/or - black or white. Admittedly the easiest route to safety is for citizens to give up freedoms - and we have. But is that the only way? Because it seems to me that once we give up liberties we rarely get them back.

 

Post 9/11 the Patriot Act resulted in a massive loss of civil liberties, and we accepted it because we wanted to feel safe. But is there any way to know if wire tapping and the suspension of Habeus Corpus have made us safer? Or is it possible that we could find a way to ensure safety and preserve those liberties? I tend to think we could - but not if we always take the easy way out and abandon our liberties at every terrorist act.

Indeed.

 

I wonder, though, what are we giving up? I mean, are we giving up any freedoms here?

 

Or maybe, where did we, or should we, draw that line? I mean, the line of what IS freedom?

 

If my questions or statements might sound confusing, or leaning one way, I might say here, I AM willing to risk, even die, for liberty and freedom. I don't put the loss of liberty as more important than safety. (I feel REALLY American saying that).

 

I am not for the idea of giving up ANY rights, don't agree with the fact we have to spend money and time at the airport for security. I say that, even knowing, some Americans may die if we were to go back to the "freedom" we once had traveling or getting drivers licences.

 

Having said that, I am failing to see where an un-tappable phone fits into that, or what I might be giving up there.

[jaxson50]

1456075352[/url]' post='1743518']

It is a difficult and complex question, and I agree we must ask it of ourselves - as have people for centuries. But I disagree that it has to be either/or - black or white. Admittedly the easiest route to safety is for citizens to give up freedoms - and we have. But is that the only way? Because it seems to me that once we give up liberties we rarely get them back.

 

Post 9/11 the Patriot Act resulted in a massive loss of civil liberties, and we accepted it because we wanted to feel safe. But is there any way to know if wire tapping and the suspension of Habeus Corpus have made us safer? Or is it possible that we could find a way to ensure safety and preserve those liberties? I tend to think we could - but not if we always take the easy way out and abandon our liberties at every terrorist act.

 

I share those fears and concerns, but at the same time I do not want to become a victim because evil used those same freedoms granted the law abiding citizen to destroy those freedoms. Nobody would condone the treatment of the Americans of Japanese descent during WWII, but few would complain about the total censorship that took place, or the limits of news broadcasts within 250 miles of the coast line out of fears enemies may be monitoring the airways. Or the heavy handed editing of news from the fronts even to the point that letters from soliders and sailors were censored.It was understood, we were all in. It is a razor edge we dance on.

[Murph]

The Government will not even seal the freakin' border to protect us.

 

The have no desire to protect us.

 

They simply want more control over our information.

 

What would possibly make you think they have our SECURITY in mind?

[OldCowboy]

The Government will not even seal the freakin' border to protect us.

 

The have no desire to protect us.

 

They simply want more control over our information.

 

What would possibly make you think they have our SECURITY in mind?

Makes one wonder if the more dependent we become on technology, the more vulnerable and less secure we become as well....

[stein]

Makes one wonder if the more dependent we become on technology, the more vulnerable and less secure we become as well....

This is one area I am way behind, and a lot is for that very reason.

 

I don't do banking online, and I don't give or use my Email for bills. I do enjoy being able to call in my bills with a card, but I like to talk to a person, not an automated system.

 

The thought of having a phone, or device, that someone could get and have everything, that stresses me out.

 

I have to admit though, as far as bills and money, I just have household stuff. If it was a business, it would be more complex and I might not spare the time. For work and correspondence, I sparingly use my email, mostly, because I don't want to give up opportunities for real conversations. That part is good, but the lack of smart-phone is and does frustrate others at times, more and more.

 

But backtracking a bit here, THIS brings up a good point: IF we are to move to a society that uses smart-phones for everything from communication to banking, there WILL be more crime in that very area. We are gonna go there without law enforcement?

[stein]

Question: Given a choice, is it better to have the Gov have the ability to crack all I-phones, or better to have "terrorist" or enemies with the ability to freely communicate in secret?

 

Not saying you or I are wrong or right, but it IS a very good question we will have to all ask ourselves. And, it's not just a legitimate question, but it's a real question.

 

There are implications and consequences on each side of that question.

 

 

The Government will not even seal the freakin' border to protect us.

 

The have no desire to protect us.

 

They simply want more control over our information.

 

What would possibly make you think they have our SECURITY in mind?

I know it's your thread, but you haven't really joined the conversation.

 

YOU have brought up some good points, and they are worth talking about, but we should be talking about it, not just pointing fingers. There's a lot to this, don't you think?

 

I do believe that law enforcement isn't always concerned with protecting ones "rights", but I DO believe that individuals in law enforcement ARE interested in busting those who do wrong and care for our security.

 

Ideally, Government IS us, not supposed to be a separate entity, and certainly, not an "us against them" situation. And law enforcement, that's supposed to be employees for US, doing our bidding.

 

So...how much of a leash do you want to give them? And what do YOU expect from them as far as doing our bidding? What you gonna ask of them and what are you going to let them do?

[pippy]

...The thought of having a phone, or device, that someone could get and have everything, that stresses me out...

This is a major part of the argument against Apple developing/handing the 'key' over to anyone.

 

Many (most?) folks have certain banking details logged-in so that if they were to want to buy apps, games etc. they don't need to re-load all the necessary info; it's logged against their 'phone. I'm guessing everyone with a regular monthly direct-debit payment for a mobile/cell-phone has bank details tied-in to the number of their 'phone. I do. It's a 'required field' and cannot, in any way, be circumvented.

If the 'phone gets stolen this info is not available to your average thief so there's no problem (unless the thief runs up a massive bill before the 'phone is registered as stolen) but if a key to all information to do with any particular 'phone was to be made available whereby all security is by-passed this is a serious cause for concern considering how crap various governments are at keeping personal information safe.

 

Also as has been said; once Apple has produced a key how long would it be before Criminal Organisations manage to crack the code?

 

Lastly; hacking into any particular 'phone is, apparently, not as hard as we might imagine. This case in the UK caused rather a scandal at the time. Just read the first paragraph to give you a rough idea of what was going on;

https://en.wikipedia...hacking_scandal

 

Pip.

[Pin]

Two observations, take them as you will:

 

1) If and when there is a Court Order it should be obeyed. That is how we do things.

 

2) Nothing will convince me that this stuff hasn't already been cracked long ago and all this is for public consumption. The resources available to the American NSA are vast and our own GCHQ is probably involved in it up to its neck.

[rct]

Sherlock will fix this. Provided you people get cracking on the next season.

 

rct