111–120 of 350 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, it gets better. "The notion that someone would market a closet that could never be opened – even if it involves a case involving a child kidnapper and a court order – to me does not make any sense."
Seriously. Perhaps one would call this sort of exotic and nefarious contraption a "safe"?
I hypothesize that this is a coordinated yet simple ruse to rebuild trust in these brands post-Snowden [1][2]. There was similar press coverage regarding the DEA and iCloud encryption that was misreported in a similar way [3]. The Intercept (where Glenn Greenwald is now reporting from) has a story on what data Apple can still easily give away if you do believe they can't decrypt individual machines [4]. But maybe you…
This is a bit like protesting door locks because they make it harder to pop in and look around.
I don't support what the government is trying to do here, but minimizing this issue like this is not doing us any favors. The issue isn't that law enforcement can no longer "look around" your phone. The issue is that they can no longer get a warrant and use what is on your phone as evidence in an investigation or court case without the phone owner's cooperation. Basically your phone goes from being personal property…
I hypothesize that this is a coordinated yet simple ruse to rebuild trust in these brands post-Snowden [1][2]. There was similar press coverage regarding the DEA and iCloud encryption that was misreported in a similar way [3]. The Intercept (where Glenn Greenwald is now reporting from) has a story on what data Apple can still easily give away if you do believe they can't decrypt individual machines [4]. But maybe you…
Maybe they're lying. Maybe Snowden 2.0 will come out next year and tell us the truth and instantly destroy their credibility. That's a gamble I wouldn't take with my company, but it's plausible.
See I figure, if you're a threat to National Security, the NSA still has options. They just don't include monitoring over the wire or asking Apple or Google for it.
edit: The Intercept article [4] you mention above suggests to me more that they aren't yet finished implementing it properly and less that they are lying. I would take it as a work in progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't support what the government is trying to do here, but minimizing this issue like this is not doing us any favors. The issue isn't that law enforcement can no longer "look around" your phone. The issue is that they can no longer get a warrant and use what is on your phone as evidence in an investigation or court case without the phone owner's cooperation. Basically your phone goes from being personal property…
There have always been tools and procedures for destroying documents to prevent unwanted access. What's very very bad about this, in addition to the direct effects on people's privacy, is that it creates a class system of people who are allowed access to strong encryption while the cattle being farmed on this plantation are not.
What do you mean?
I hypothesize that this is a coordinated yet simple ruse to rebuild trust in these brands post-Snowden [1][2]. There was similar press coverage regarding the DEA and iCloud encryption that was misreported in a similar way [3]. The Intercept (where Glenn Greenwald is now reporting from) has a story on what data Apple can still easily give away if you do believe they can't decrypt individual machines [4]. But maybe you…
Apple has staked their reputation on the line and said "send us an NSL if you like, we have nothing we can give you". And the cryptographic principles, if executed properly, are sound. Maybe they're lying. Maybe Snowden 2.0 will come out next year and tell us the truth and instantly destroy their credibility. That's a gamble I wouldn't take with my company, but it's plausible. See I figure, if you're a threat to Nati…
Since Apple's software isn't open source, it's possible they're lying. However, if they are, at some point the government is going to try to present evidence they gleaned through this lie, and that fact will leak out.
I think it would be an enormous risk for Apple to blatantly lie about something they put in black and white on their website. So I tend to think they're telling the truth.
Maybe one day, we'll get a real, bonafide, non-niche open source based phone where these things can be audited.
My reply is... "What about the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution?" Would we really be having these discussions if Americans (speaking as an American here) were better-educated on our own rights, our own foundation, the very fibers of our own history? I mean, this is such a simple amendment, so crystal-clear and eloquent. After reading it (see below), how can there possibly be any doubt as to how the…
You should better educate yourself, the article is about seizure with a warrant, with which Apple and Google will no longer be able to help them.
They are going straight into "think of the children mode" " Smartphone communication is “going to be the preferred method of the pedophile and the criminal. We are going to lose a lot of investigative opportunities." Apparently "what about the terrorists?" isn't as effective anymore. Let's hope the public will see through their manipulative talking points.
Quote from Cathy Lanier, the police chief whose ridiculous uniform resembles that of a four star general. fwiw my friend's dad was our chief of police for years, and he only ever wore a shirt and tie.
"Beyond lobbying the companies, there is little law enforcement can do without congressional action. " Wait, what? Even with the privacy Apple and Google are offering there are huge amounts of ways to access data useful to law enforcement and the law enforcement seems to have the tools to force the companies to give it.
My reply is... "What about the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution?" Would we really be having these discussions if Americans (speaking as an American here) were better-educated on our own rights, our own foundation, the very fibers of our own history? I mean, this is such a simple amendment, so crystal-clear and eloquent. After reading it (see below), how can there possibly be any doubt as to how the…
You should better educate yourself, the article is about seizure with a warrant, with which Apple and Google will no longer be able to help them.
To add to the other great comments:
I understand that it is via warrant. In fact, the article states that Apple said, "It's not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants [...]".
My concern is perhaps more nuanced. Put aside the warrant issue for a moment. That is to say, where do we draw the line and say, "This type of sweeping, 'open everything up and stop encrypting' request is a violation of, 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects?'"
In summary, my contention is that forcing companies to open up in this manner violates the explicit right of the people to be secure.