Apple is fighting the FBI
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Other governments don't have our constitution.
I think you are implying something but I don't know what it is.
@dafyre asked if other governments are doing the same / similar things - and of course they are, but their citizens aren't protected from these things by something like our constitution.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
I am wondering if the FBI asked Google to do the same thing.
I don't think that they can, because the phone makers would just remove the back door. Only the OEM phone maker can be coerced to do this. Making Apple unique in the US.
Samsung and HTC would cover a big percentage of Android phones. The FBI may be talking to them.
-
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
I am wondering if the FBI asked Google to do the same thing.
I don't think that they can, because the phone makers would just remove the back door. Only the OEM phone maker can be coerced to do this. Making Apple unique in the US.
Samsung and HTC would cover a big percentage of Android phones. The FBI may be talking to them.
But as non US companies, I'm not sure what kind of control the FBI can exert on them?
-
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre asked if other governments are doing the same / similar things - and of course they are, but their citizens aren't protected from these things by something like our constitution.
In what way is the US protected by the constitution in this case and why do you feel that it is stronger in protecting its citizens than other country's constitutions? The US constitutions famously does not protect a lot of things and is pretty weak compared to most free countries. And unlike the EU, lacks a secondary shield from a higher level.
What aspect of the constitution applies here? The issue is the dissolvement of government oversight. Constitution didn't protect us from the Patriot Act. Nor the Alien and Sedition Acts. It has no power here if the FBI dissolves the court system.
-
@Dashrender said:
But as non US companies, I'm not sure what kind of control the FBI can exert on them?
A lot. They can threaten, extort, block trade, scare their people, etc.
-
@IRJ said:
Samsung and HTC would cover a big percentage of Android phones. The FBI may be talking to them.
I think there is no question there.
-
I agree it's great that Apple is openly reporting what is being asked of them by the FBI, and that it's horrible what the FBI is even asking.
I don't understand how this in anyway would actually assist them in anyway that is measurable versus the number of people who would be monitored simply because they have a Smartphone.
The FBI is stepping far outside of their reach, which also means that they should never use an Apple iPhone (or android or Windows Mobile) device ever if they want their communications to be secure.
They're effectively asking for a hole in the basic security of the devices that everyone is using today. Apply rightfully so is telling the FBI to piss off, because the request is insane.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
I don't understand how this in anyway would actually assist them in anyway that is measurable versus the number of people who would be monitored simply because they have a Smartphone.
We don't know what their goals are. It has some major effects, just not ones in the interest of Americans. But there are many pressures that could get an agency like the FBI to have interests that do not align with the people (or the law, or the government.)
-
@DustinB3403 said:
The FBI is stepping far outside of their reach, which also means that they should never use an Apple iPhone (or android or Windows Mobile) device ever if they want their communications to be secure.
This isn't quite correct. The FBI could still continue to use those devices, they would just need to install additional software on top of iOS that gave them the security they need. Being who they are, they would be more willing to deal with the extra complexities of this setup than normal citizens would.
-
We can be sure this would never leak out of the FBI's poorly secured computer networks.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
TL/DR The FBI is requesting a dangerous backdoor in the iPhone.
But not so they can remote into billy bob's phone, it's so they can help in the investigation they're looking into etc of the murders? Strict protocol will have to be adhered to, in order to perform it, but if it can help save Thousands of lives, is it not worth it?
Obviously It would be hell if it were widespread...but in this individual case (A mass murdered that killed innocent children before being gunned down) is it not worth allowing access to potentially find the sites he got help from/acquaintances that might be planning similar attacks?
-
Nothing with any branch of governmental agency is a 'one time" thing. If they force Apple to do this then it will be used to spy and get what they want in any and all things. We already know that they have spied on the US population for no apparent reason other than they wanted to.
-
@NattNatt said:
Strict protocol will have to be adhered to, in order to perform it, but if it can help save Thousands of lives, is it not worth it?
Absolutely not. There are so many problems with this...
- Strict protocol was skipped to get to this point, that's out of the question.
- FBI does not follow protocol at all, you can't expect this from that organization.
- FBI has no track record of saving lives, the idea that there are lives to save is purely made up.
- FBI doing things like this is used to empower terrible things like terrorist groups. You see savings lives, I see killing people.
- Any thing like this can never be done for the purpose of safety, that's a myth. What it is is an attempt to subvert the legal process and cripple the people's power, to build a state where people are not free.
-
The problem with backdoors is that they are backdoors for everyone. Not only would the FBI and other government agencies have access to this but anyone with the knowledge/ability to access it would also have this access.
Although I doubt anyone wants the FBI circumventing the courts to get access to these phones, or to do so in a manner that is secret or hidden.
-
@Minion-Queen said:
Nothing with any branch of governmental agency is a 'one time" thing. If they force them to do this then it will be used to spy and get what they want in any and all things. We already know that they have spied on the US population for no apparent reason other than they wanted to.
"for our benefit"
It's encroaching on our liberty. For a long time if you went to www.google.cn (China's google) and you searched Tiananmen Square in the images it would be blurred out entirely. You can't let the the FBI, or government for that matter, control information in any capacity IMO.
-
@NattNatt said:
Obviously It would be hell if it were widespread...but in this individual case (A mass murdered that killed innocent children before being gunned down) is it not worth allowing access to potentially find the sites he got help from/acquaintances that might be planning similar attacks?
Sure, that one case. How do you make it work for "one case" and not others? By that logic, you could do anything. It's how it affects people broadly. And this one case wasn't thousands of people, it was a few. And there is no reason to believe that having no privacy would have helped the FBI stop it. That access to phone data is going to help the FBI is purely a theory. The FBI does not have a good technology track record, but their enemies do. Any reduction of security at the request of the FBI is actually handing that information to people much more nefarious....
which begs the question, why would the FBI do this as they certainly know that. What ends are their seeking?
-
@coliver said:
Although I doubt anyone wants the FBI circumventing the courts to get access to these phones, or to do so in a manner that is secret or hidden.
People who are armed, put the citizenry at risk, spread fear and seek to subjugate the legal and government system... sounds like a terrorist coup plot anywhere else. In the US, we call it the FBI.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@NattNatt said:
Strict protocol will have to be adhered to, in order to perform it, but if it can help save Thousands of lives, is it not worth it?
Absolutely not. There are so many problems with this...
- Strict protocol was skipped to get to this point, that's out of the question.
- FBI does not follow protocol at all, you can't expect this from that organization.
- FBI has no track record of saving lives, the idea that there are lives to save is purely made up.
- FBI doing things like this is used to empower terrible things like terrorist groups. You see savings lives, I see killing people.
- Any thing like this can never be done for the purpose of safety, that's a myth. What it is is an attempt to subvert the legal process and cripple the people's power, to build a state where people are not free.
Fair enough, I just assumed they were like the cousins of our security guys at Mi5/Mi6...?
-
Are you saying you want your Mi5/Mi6 guys to have this ability? What makes them so trust worthy?
-
As @coliver said - once there is a back door, it's only a matter of time before the "real" bad guys (which frankly I include the 3 letter agencies as part of - but that's another matter) figure it out.
Look at all of these security exploits that are discovered day after day - many of them only discovered because they were in use by the "real" bad guys.
