@scottalanmiller said in Cambridge Proves FBI Lied About Needing iPhone Backdoor:

@NattNatt said in Cambridge Proves FBI Lied About Needing iPhone Backdoor:

@pchiodo said in Cambridge Proves FBI Lied About Needing iPhone Backdoor:

The goal was never to get into just one phone. They wanted a legal precedent that would allow them to force a manufacturer to assist in breaking any phone, along with the potential to use the same case to force manufacturers to provide an encryption back door.

But they already have that? The smurf toolset gives all of that anyways doesn't it...?

Yes, but they'd have to admit having it. So mostly this was probably an attempt to get people to think (And it worked too) that they didn't have a capability that they already clearly have. It wasn't just about getting legal power, it was about trying to hide their actual toolsets.

It's not called Smurf in the US, but we buy Smurf from the UK and rebrand it, I'm told.

Yeah, the good old Snowden leak gave away far more than they ever wanted to be known...

Yeah, I knew it's a joint op between GCHQ and the NSA, wasn't sure as to which side "made" more of it etc

@dafyre said:

@scottalanmiller said:

I want even suggesting that our liberties, security and protection be removed be a criminal request that would land you in jail. But sadly, he still roams free.

I agree, Scott... Maybe we should start petitioning our state and national leaders to craft a bill of some sort... We'll call it the "Lock 'em up and throw away the key" bill.

The Law: Any elected or appointed government official, national, state, or local, that in any form, being verbal, written, or otherwise tries to push through, pass, or create a bill that that would infringe upon rights granted to all non-incarcerated citezens by the Constitution of the United States of America shall be immediately locked up in the nearest maximum security correctional facility, stripped of their title and elected privileges, and shall remain there until they are dead.

Gosh... that sounds kinda harsh, don't it?

Harsh is what is needed. Someone intending to oppress and terrorize the citizenry should be treated very harshly. Just because our laws currently allow such unethical, immoral behaviour doesn't mean it supports our ethical code, our social code or the freedom of our people.

@scottalanmiller said:

@IRJ said:

@Breffni-Potter said:

@IRJ said:

Good thing the NSA has stopped dozens of terrorist attacks...oh wait they haven't stopped a single one.

Can you prove that they have not? 🙂

If the NSA ever stopped anything they would be gloating about it to justify their exsistence. As discussed before, even if they saved 50 lives a year it still isn't worth the invasion of privacy. More people die from hornets and wasps every year.

I wonder how many people die every year commuting to work at the NSA, of stress caused by the NSA, actually killed by the NSA, due to trying to hide from the NSA, etc.

More than the NSA has saved, that's for sure.