Aren't Microsoft working with NSA? is this just a publicity stunt?
Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
121–130 of 261 posts
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't see anything wrong with 'Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI' It is what it is. You guys focuses more on how to limit FBI to abuse the terrorist card to violate privacy. But in case of a true terrorist, the answer should not be not that hard.
This is exactly what the FBI want's you to think and why they've carefully handpicked this case to try and set this legal precedent on - ridding us of our fundamental rights to privacy and security. Out of all the 13 pending cases the FBI have with Apple using the All Writs Act (they've also said they have another 175 iPhones to unlock), this has the least chance of holding anything meaningful given it's his consent-…
> trillions fighting wars, billions changing Airport security
That's only the means, not the goal, because...
> bewilderment
Spending massive amounts of money on wars makes a lot more sense once you realize that it's intended to channel money into their friends (and their jobs post-public service) in the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower warned[1] us, but the public didn't listen.
[1] his farewell address was amazingly prescient: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." That's far too long and complicated for average citizens to parse and grasp implications immediately and intuitively. The second half of your question veers heavily into leading a person toward the conclusion you want them to have. Not ideal. Moreover, I think an average poll respo…
I think Tim Cook's letter put it well. We should be focusing on the specific law invoked here. The All Writs Act says that people need to hand over all information pertinent to a crime investigation. Traditionally, this has been interpreted to mean all documents that already exist. Should we expand our interpretation to include information that doesn't exist but could be created? If you had the ability to create info…
Oh, I absolutely agree. This is somewhat closer to what I'm trying to invoke here, but it's slightly different, and requires a different approach to engage the average American citizen in the conversation.
I think getting people involved in understanding this aspect of the case is critically important, as this is the part of the case that would be precedent-setting and [I believe rightly] concerns Apple and others with the requisite technical background. The danger is this precedent could be extended in untold tangential ways outside the realm of preventing device-wiping after n failed password attempts.
The trouble here, to me, is a majority of the average citizen who wonders what the All Writs Act is aren't going to bother finding out. They'll just accept the government's position that it allows them to ask for what they're asking. A smaller minority of those same citizens might go look up the All Writs Act, are probably not going to understand what it means. "What's a writ?" Hmmm. "What's "an alternative writ or rule nisi"?" I don't even understand what this means, much less how it applies. Oh well." Average people aren't going to become armchair legal (or encryption) experts overnight to resolve in their head where they stand on this issue. Thus, they're probably going to choose the path of least mental resistance, which will look something like, "Well, it is a terrorist's phone ... and I'm not a terrorist, so this probably doesn't actually affect me in any way ..."
Anyway, I think you're definitely on the right track with this part of the order, and the specific law invoked. We just have to get that into simpler terms an average American can understand, minus the expert/legal/technical jargon, and then get them to understand the implications. Your questions and phrasing are pretty good starters, I think. I can imagine, with perhaps a wording change or two for personal taste, I could ask a non-lawyer, non-technologist that question and they'd react with something like, "Why the hell should the government be able to force me to create something that doesn't exist so they can conduct an investigation?"
And that's exactly where we want people to be on this part of the issue at hand.
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's accurate to say. The White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in his briefing a day or two ago that the administration backs Comey's efforts. US attorney general Loretta Lynch said she backs Comey too. Obama is the only one who hasn't made a public statement about this issue. Chain of command, by the way, is Obama > Lynch > Comey. They're certainly in communication and agreement about this i…
> The highest ranking official who understands this issue is Ted Lieu. You mean the highest ranking official who agrees with us. It's easy to see how, if you trust the US judicial system, you'd be okay with this. If you think warrants are only given in valid and justified situations, this wouldn't bother you, because this'd only be used for "good". We know better, but that's probably not the position the head of one…
> You mean the highest ranking official who agrees with us
Yup that's what I meant.
> Obama probably very much trusts the US justice system
Hmm, Obama certainly wants Apple to comply here. However, he has no power to sway the justices.
Obama didn't want to go to congress for a new law surrounding this issue, and seems to have directed Comey to use the AWA. Obama hasn't said why he didn't go to congress. It seems like he wants to set precedent while acting like it's only for this one phone. Pretty sneaky if that's the case.
Personally I trust our right to express our views both in speech and through our votes. I trust that elected officials can represent those of us who voted and wish to be represented. The problem is we have not yet elected enough people who understand computers. And, that's not entirely our fault. It's a new field and there are not many people with exposure to it who can represent our views.
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#125I thought it was an alleged terrorist's phone? Or has innocent until proven guilty gone out the window?
Good point. "terrorist" is almost always misused anyway, since no-one fears to be blown up tomorrow in the US. The only thing to fear is the power of the government, its officers and the low-level education of their thugs. The thugs with the law on their side are the ones who currently reign with terror, not like terrorists, but like Nazi law enforcement officers in 1936. Wow. I might have escalated quickly, but I'll leave it here to see what you people think.
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#126From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about: "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Indus…
"From recent polls most people think this debate is about..." ...or maybe people understand the debate, and they simply disagree with your opinion on the matter. For example, even as phrased in the second form, my answer is "yes, sometimes" , with an additional "there is no such thing as a 'customer's right to security'" , added for good measure. Even if I believed there were an absolute "right" to security, I don't…
The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one.
I agree it should be the user's job and not Apple's to enforce security, however I also think that is something that we can focus on later. We can both support Apple now in this fight against government overreach and put pressure on them later to make their phone securable by the user. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive, despite appearing to be both pro Apple and anti-Apple.
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#127Couldn't Apple give the data of the terrorist's phone without creating a backdoor? I.e. making it an exceptional case rather than something that could easily be done again and again? To be clear, I'm against the backdoor, but as an engineer I know that Apple could give the data back if they wanted. I guess it's bad PR from them to say so though. I'm also very surprised at how transparent the FBI is about their incapa…
> To be clear, I'm against the backdoor, but as an engineer I know that Apple could give the data back if they wanted.
What do you know? How are you suggesting they can extract encrypted data that requires a passcode to decrypt when no existing version of iOS allows electronic brute forcing?
Tim's already attested that they don't know any other way to access the data: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-coo...
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Tim Cook's letter put it well. We should be focusing on the specific law invoked here. The All Writs Act says that people need to hand over all information pertinent to a crime investigation. Traditionally, this has been interpreted to mean all documents that already exist. Should we expand our interpretation to include information that doesn't exist but could be created? If you had the ability to create info…
Oh, I absolutely agree. This is somewhat closer to what I'm trying to invoke here, but it's slightly different, and requires a different approach to engage the average American citizen in the conversation. I think getting people involved in understanding this aspect of the case is critically important , as this is the part of the case that would be precedent-setting and [I believe rightly] concerns Apple and others w…
It's an interesting case because the people who are most worried about terrorists tend to be the people who are also most concerned with the government expanding power, especially by reinterpreting old laws. It needs to be clear that this is about expanding government powers to force people to work for them because so far the War on Terror has been a way to get past the opposition to expanding powers in most cases. But there has to be a line at some point where people think that it's been taken too far, no matter how scared of terrorists people might be. This idea of forced work might be that line.
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#129From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about: "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Indus…
> "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." For europe and the rest of the world, the answer was a resounding YES by the american government, their intelligence agencies and the american people at large, and it came years ago. So, this is not about their customers or their rights or any other abstract moral universals (which…
So you are assuming the court will find against Apple? And that America will watch this and say they are cool with that?
The first is a possibility, of course. I don't think the second is likely. I personally do not plan to stop shouting about this, and informing my representatives on my position.
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#130Google has been awfully silent about the whole thing, how secure are Android phones (Nexus phones in particular) against a similar attack?
I'm wondering if they are so easy to crack that this hasn't been a problem for Google. Either that, or their phones are just as secure as iPhones, and they caved to FBI demands immediately.