Apple challenges 'chilling' demand to decrypt San Bernardino shooter's iPhone

[Town Heretic]

The FBI wants us to believe that this is about one phone. It's definitely not, and they came close to admitting as much to Congress:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/james-comey-ducks-most-important-question-in-apple-fbi-fight

Well it is about the one phone, but it's also about the principle in play. Make Apple a bank with a vault containing information about criminal activity stored there. They can argue that if they let the government have those records it will shake the trust of everyone with a strongbox stored there, but here's the thing, no one should have confidence that their criminal enterprise will be safe from examination. And the argument that everyone else is suddenly vulnerable flies in the face of due process and the understanding that any access has to pass muster with the courts and is subject to intense scrutiny and comes with recourse on the part of the party whose privacy is otherwise protected.

 

[ok doser]

Well it is about the one phone, but it's also about the principle in play. Make Apple a bank with a vault containing information about criminal activity stored there. They can argue that if they let the government have those records it will shake the trust of everyone with a strongbox stored there, but here's the thing, no one should have confidence that their criminal enterprise will be safe from examination. And the argument that everyone else is suddenly vulnerable flies in the face of due process and the understanding that any access has to pass muster with the courts and is subject to intense scrutiny and comes with recourse on the part of the party whose privacy is otherwise protected.

i'm amazed that anybody over the age of seven is retarded enough to still believe this after snowden/assange, et al. :dizzy:

 

[rexlunae]

Well it is about the one phone, but it's also about the principle in play.

I don't think there's anyone, including Apple, objecting to getting into this one phone in principle. Just not by means that weakens the security (and devalues the investment Apple has made) in every single iPhone and the security architecture overall.

Make Apple a bank with a vault containing information about criminal activity stored there. They can argue that if they let the government have those records it will shake the trust of everyone with a strongbox stored there, but here's the thing, no one should have confidence that their criminal enterprise will be safe from examination.

If you've got nothing to hide..., right?

Well, Apple's argument is not that they want to make anything immune from the law. It's just a natural consequence of the reasonable (and Constitutionally validated) desire for security. Of course some people will use the means of privacy to evade legal scrutiny, but that is a price we've always paid to some extent to live without the threat of constant scrutiny of our lives.

And the argument that everyone else is suddenly vulnerable flies in the face of due process and the understanding that any access has to pass muster with the courts and is subject to intense scrutiny and comes with recourse on the part of the party whose privacy is otherwise protected.

Due process can't offer the technical means of security, and in a world and domain where borders and geography are less and less meaningful, it's especially critical that the technical means of security be more than symbolic.

 

[chrysostom]

-you can trust apple
-and
-you can't trust the government
-the irs proved that

 

[ok doser]

-you can trust apple
-and
-you can't trust the government
-the irs proved that

town trusts the government :doh:

 

[rexlunae]

-you can trust apple

Not sure I'd go that far. But in this case, their incentives align with personal security.

-and
-you can't trust the government
-the irs proved that

It's always a little bit hard to maintain a sense of security with the IRS. But they aren't the only government agency that let my personal information out this year.

 

[Town Heretic]

If you've got nothing to hide..., right?

It's a way of seeing it, but not really my point, since that philosophical bent invites intrusion without reason or due process. Mine doesn't.

Well, Apple's argument is not that they want to make anything immune from the law.

What they want isn't important if what they do is that very thing.

It's just a natural consequence of the reasonable (and Constitutionally validated) desire for security.

You don't have a right to be secure in criminal enterprise or to make safe the criminal enterprise of another though.

Of course some people will use the means of privacy to evade legal scrutiny, but that is a price we've always paid to some extent to live without the threat of constant scrutiny of our lives.

It isn't a price we have to pay. It isn't a price we pay with any other record and there's no reason to exempt Apple.

Due process can't offer the technical means of security, and in a world and domain where borders and geography are less and less meaningful, it's especially critical that the technical means of security be more than symbolic.

Due process is the only real security you have. Recourse. The rest is mousetraps and mice.

 

[chrysostom]

-you can trust apple

Not sure I'd go that far.

then don't buy it
-with the government
-you don't get that option

 

[Christ's Word]

This thread is full of retarded arguments. McCaffy says he well hack the one phone in less than 3 weeks and give the Fedcoats all the info, for FREE. There is no reason to give the Fedcoats a backdoor to anything, they are not capable of securing their own underwear much less encryption that secures our lives.

 

[rexlunae]

It's a way of seeing it, but not really my point, since that philosophical bent invites intrusion without reason or due process. Mine doesn't.


What they want isn't important if what they do is that very thing.


You don't have a right to be secure in criminal enterprise or to make safe the criminal enterprise of another though.

Most of the data protected by iPhones isn't a part of a criminal enterprise. What of the security of that majority?

It isn't a price we have to pay. It isn't a price we pay with any other record and there's no reason to exempt Apple.

I'm not aware of another case where the law has required that locks be weakened across the board to give law enforcement easier access and where that law has been enforced.

Due process is the only real security you have. Recourse. The rest is mousetraps and mice.

It strikes me that this is just the sort of discussion that you'd expect a lawyer and a computer scientist to have about encryption. You have faith in the law as the final guarantor of right. I have faith in the math and the technology, and I don't feel obligated to submit myself to inspection on demand, and I'm not willing to assume against the evidence that the government will respect my privacy.

 

[THall]

Rex is dead on. The Federal Government
has a horrible history of violating
citizen's rights and the Constitution.
Every section of the Patriot Act that
has been challenged in court has been
struck down as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[rexlunae]

This thread is full of retarded arguments. McCaffy says he well hack the one phone in less than 3 weeks and give the Fedcoats all the info, for FREE. There is no reason to give the Fedcoats a backdoor to anything, they are not capable of securing their own underwear much less encryption that secures our lives.

Call me skeptical that he could fulfill that promise.

 

[THall]

Here you go, somebody with some common sense,

A judge in fact....

" A New York judge says the U.S. Justice Department cannot force Apple to provide the FBI with access to locked iPhone data in a routine Brooklyn drug case."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-29-17-20-39

 

[kmoney]

Here you go, somebody with some common sense,

A judge in fact....

" A New York judge says the U.S. Justice Department cannot force Apple to provide the FBI with access to locked iPhone data in a routine Brooklyn drug case."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-29-17-20-39

No reasoning behind it? :idunno:

 

[THall]

No reasoning behind it? :idunno:

Read the link ya squirrel,
I am not copying the whole thing,
just because you are too lazy to
click your mouse.

 

[kmoney]

Read the link ya squirrel,
I am not copying the whole thing,
just because you are too lazy to
click your mouse.

I did click it. Here is what is in the link.

NEW YORK (AP) -- A New York judge says the U.S. Justice Department cannot force Apple to provide the FBI with access to locked iPhone data in a routine Brooklyn drug case.

U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled Monday. The decision follows a California magistrate judge's order requiring Apple to create software to help the U.S. hack the iPhone of a shooter in the Dec. 2 killing of 14 people in San Bernardino, California.

In October, Orenstein invited Apple to challenge the government's use of a 1789 law to compel Apple to help it recover iPhone data in criminal cases. Since then, lawyers say Apple has opposed the requests to help extract information from over a dozen iPhones in California, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York.

EDIT - nevermind, another link from that page has more.

EDIT2 - even the other link doesn't explain much

 

[Town Heretic]

Most of the data protected by iPhones isn't a part of a criminal enterprise.

And none of that is being sought by court order.

What of the security of that majority?

The hypothetical potential injury that should be preventable compared to the actual need arising?

I'm not aware of another case where the law has required that locks be weakened across the board to give law enforcement easier access and where that law has been enforced.

You're not aware of one now. Rather, a key is needed for access. It's really no different than a subpoena for records held closely by a bank. Especially if the instrument itself remains in Apple's possession (the means to the end, not the phone itself).

It strikes me that this is just the sort of discussion that you'd expect a lawyer and a computer scientist to have about encryption.

That sounds about right.

You have faith in the law as the final guarantor of right. I have faith in the math and the technology, and I don't feel obligated to submit myself to inspection on demand, and I'm not willing to assume against the evidence that the government will respect my privacy.

I know the law is the guarantor of recourse for the violation of right and I'd say your obligation rests within the confines of the law, as does that recourse. Lastly, the government needn't be in possession of the key that could be misused.

:cheers:

 

[patrick jane]

I know the law is the guarantor of recourse for the violation of right and I'd say your obligation rests within the confines of the law, as does that recourse. Lastly, the government needn't be in possession of the key that could be misused.

:cheers:

Big Brother is everywhere :noid:

 

[Nihilo]

Porno scanners at airports are legal. Liberty/freedom/privacy versus safety. The less frightened we are the more rationally we balance these conflicting needs. But the more wealthy we become, the more ideal our solution. And I mean more wealthy as in a rising tide lifts all the boats---we saw it here in the 1940s-1960s.

 

[ok doser]

And none of that is being sought by court order.

is the justice department asking apple to unlock this particular device, or are they asking apple to give them a key that will unlock all devices?