- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Surprise Surprise - FBI wants Apple to unlock additional phones
Posted on 2/24/16 at 4:23 pm to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 2/24/16 at 4:23 pm to NYNolaguy1
The 4th amendment says the people have the right to be secure in their effects but says this right is to be upheld against unreasonable, warrantless searches. Certainly we can all agree that the government wanting to access the phones of terrorists involved in a mass shooting is reasonable.
However, the ability to access certain phones requires that ALL phones be compromised.
Encrypted cell phones were not imaginable for the framers but it is clear that the intent of the 4th Amendment is to protect the people from government intrusion into their effects. The entire concept of the Constitution is grounded in the protection of the individual citizen from abuses by the government.
Therefore, it is ludicrous for anyone to think that it is within the spirit of the Constitution to force each individual in the U.S. into a position of compromised security in order to facilitate the wishes of the Federal Government.
However, the ability to access certain phones requires that ALL phones be compromised.
Encrypted cell phones were not imaginable for the framers but it is clear that the intent of the 4th Amendment is to protect the people from government intrusion into their effects. The entire concept of the Constitution is grounded in the protection of the individual citizen from abuses by the government.
Therefore, it is ludicrous for anyone to think that it is within the spirit of the Constitution to force each individual in the U.S. into a position of compromised security in order to facilitate the wishes of the Federal Government.
1
Posted on 2/24/16 at 4:44 pm to tygeray
quote:
But just take away the worries of how shite was in the 1700s, and take away the worries u have that the government will completely control your life and think with just common sense.
This is the argument used when someone can't reason themselves into a valid position. Call it "common sense" and suggest the other position lacks it.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 4:45 pm to GeauxTigerTM
Apple is legally correct on this matter, I hope they take it up the chain.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 4:47 pm to Scoop
quote:
The 4th amendment says the people have the right to be secure in their effects but says this right is to be upheld against unreasonable, warrantless searches. Certainly we can all agree that the government wanting to access the phones of terrorists involved in a mass shooting is reasonable.
However, the ability to access certain phones requires that ALL phones be compromised.
Encrypted cell phones were not imaginable for the framers but it is clear that the intent of the 4th Amendment is to protect the people from government intrusion into their effects. The entire concept of the Constitution is grounded in the protection of the individual citizen from abuses by the government.
Therefore, it is ludicrous for anyone to think that it is within the spirit of the Constitution to force each individual in the U.S. into a position of compromised security in order to facilitate the wishes of the Federal Government.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 5:19 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:good job completely stretching the circumstances to fit your analogy
Asking the manufacturer of the phone to compromise the security of millions of other phones because the FBI doesn't like encryption is another mess altogether. It's equivalent to asking for the key to your house because they are having trouble breaking into your neighbor's. They'll only use it with a warrant- they promise.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 5:22 pm to jeff5891
quote:
good job completely stretching the circumstances to fit your analogy
you realize this is basically the same analogy the Apple CEO gave dont you?
Posted on 2/24/16 at 9:25 pm to gmrkr5
quote:oh well then it must be true if he said it in a public statement. No exaggeration or scare tactic at all.
you realize this is basically the same analogy the Apple CEO gave dont you
Posted on 3/1/16 at 7:36 am to jeff5891
Posted on 3/1/16 at 7:43 am to Spirit of Dunson
It's 4 fricking numbers, how hard could it be to get into the phone?
Posted on 3/1/16 at 8:06 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
It's 4 fricking numbers, how hard could it be to get into the phone?
Unless you have 10,000 possible attempts, pretty hard
Posted on 3/1/16 at 8:09 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
t's 4 fricking numbers, how hard could it be to get into the phone?
The fear is that after 10 or so incorrect numbers the phone's software will "self-destruct" and eliminate all of the data on the phone.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, you can change the passcode to alpha-numeric and it can be much longer than 4 characters.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 8:10 am to jeff5891
quote:
oh well then it must be true if he said it in a public statement. No exaggeration or scare tactic at all.
At least one courtroom didn't buy the govt's argument to get into Apples phones and agrees with these 'scare tactics'. The Cali US Court could very well agree with their NY counterparts.
LINK
quote:
The U.S. government cannot force Apple Inc (AAPL.O) to unlock an iPhone in a New York drug case, a federal judge in Brooklyn said on Monday, a ruling that bolsters the company's arguments in its landmark legal showdown with the Justice Department over encryption and privacy.
The government sought access to the phone in the Brooklyn case in October, months before a judge in California ordered Apple to take special measures to give the government access to the phone used by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino, California, attacks.
U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein in Brooklyn ruled that he did not have the legal authority to order Apple to disable the security of an iPhone that was seized during a drug investigation.
His ruling echoed many of the arguments that Apple has made in the San Bernardino case, particularly his finding that a 1789 law called the All Writs Act cannot be used to force Apple to open the phone. Orenstein also found that Apple was largely exempt from complying with such requests by a 1994 law that updated wiretapping laws.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 8:10 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
You have 10 tries before bricking the phone.
So a 1 in 9,989 chance is your answer.
So a 1 in 9,989 chance is your answer.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 8:11 am to gmrkr5
quote:
Good thing the Law Enforcement community understands its just for this one case... Right?
If they have a warrant, what is the problem again?
As I've said many times in this thread, either Apple can or cannot get into the phone. If they can, then they should. If they cannot, then they should come out and praise their impressive encryption and security.
My belief is that they can, but they've been touting the fact that "even Apple themselves cannot get into their phones" so long that they don't want to end up with egg on their face when it is determined that a backdoor to bypass the passcode security actually exists, or can exist.
This post was edited on 3/1/16 at 8:11 am
Posted on 3/1/16 at 8:13 am to slackster
quote:
either Apple can or cannot get into the phone.
They can't. All they do is write code to allow the FBI to try and brute force the password.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 8:14 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
At least one courtroom didn't buy the govt's argument to get into Apples phones and agrees with these 'scare tactics'. The Cali US Court could very well agree with their NY counterparts.
That is well and good, but California and New York both have bills that will be presented in their legislature that would require all phone manufacturers to install a backdoor that allows federal, state, and local agencies access when needed in criminal matters. If the phone doesn't have the backdoor, it cannot be sold in those states. That is a legitimate concern the more Apple holdouts out over some new-found moral obligation.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 8:17 am to SG_Geaux
quote:
They can't. All they do is write code to allow the FBI to try and brute force the password.
So they can then. If a little code and Apple's signature can allow the phone to be brute forced, then the backdoor exists. I'm not sure how that is really debatable. The bottom line, IMO, is that the phone isn't as secure as Apple says it was, but they are holding fast to this principle that they just pulled out of thin air in order to hide the flaws.
I don't want the government intruding on anyone/anything, but if a judge has signed a warrant for the information, I'm not comfortable with Apple's stance if they can in fact help the FBI.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 8:19 am to SG_Geaux
quote:
They can't. All they do is write code to allow the FBI to try and brute force the password.
Also, I suggest everyone read this article: Why Apple Should Comply: Cybersecurity Expert
It is written by a professor at the USC Information Sciences Institute and it lays out the pros and cons of compliance in this case.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 8:22 am to slackster
quote:
That is well and good, but California and New York both have bills that will be presented in their legislature that would require all phone manufacturers to install a backdoor that allows federal, state, and local agencies access when needed in criminal matters. If the phone doesn't have the backdoor, it cannot be sold in those states. That is a legitimate concern the more Apple holdouts out over some new-found moral obligation.
All that will do is make sure NYC residents go to NJ or some other state to purchase their phones when Apple refuses to sell in NY. Here's another thought- what happens when international visitors or out of state residents come to NYC? Will they be stopped at the state line and have their phones confiscated while they are here, and be given wiretapped phones for their visit?
Besides, are we now going to have phone control making sure the govt always has access to our phones the moment they cross the state lines? Does that strike you as ever so slightly fascist? That's the equivalent of installing cameras in your home for use when the govt has a warrant (they promise). That's a lot of freedom to give up for questionable amounts of security.
ETA- I find it hilarious that China has the exact same requirement as what the NYS and Cali legislatures want. I guess it's a sign of the times for our people's republic.
This post was edited on 3/1/16 at 8:26 am
Posted on 3/1/16 at 8:39 am to jeff5891
quote:
FBI still needs a warrant signed by a judge, meaning they have a damn good reason for search and seizure. And if you think the judicial system is just handing those out at anytime, then you probably shouldn't live in the US
Um.
Look at some of the data of how the Patriot Act was used. There are legal institutions in place that rubber stamp these requests, and in situations that far exceeds the written intent of the Act.
It's not kookiness to be concerned anymore that a warrant may not be a strong defense of the balance of civil liberties and public safety.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News