Apple Tells U.S. Judge 'Impossible' To Unlock New iPhones

[lcpiper]

cry me a f'ing river. You're the one who decided on his own to work for them. Just like my employer has the right to spy on me. Should I be crying like a pansy ass like you?

Not a hypocrite.

The government should be in fear of the people, otherwise if the government gains too much power then repression begins. This is the very sentiment of the forefathers. Gov't MUST be held accountable to the people. Not the other way around. The government makes you live in fear saying, "If we don't get this you will die" BS That is the people living in fear of the government. And that was your very statement. "Apple if you don't give me this, I will f'ing crush you." That is not democracy.

Any country that puts any major attack on us is just asking for their ass to get kicked. If you can't stand a bloody nose for being the big player on the block, then you shouldn't be on the f'ing playground.

Democracy and Freedom are not free, but have to fought for. By passive peaceful disagreement I am fighting for the freedom of everyone on the net even if I don't agree with their ideals.

Your employer monitors your online activity when you are at home on your personal time and computers?

Been working for them for a very long time, this is new, this is different.

Like I said, all fucking indignant until it's being actually done to citizens and now you aare all accepting of it. Like I said, I have told people about this several times and no one ever responds to it in any way. I gota get beligerant to even get you guys to fucking pay attention.

You are so worried about abuse, "oh they are collecting my meta-data" But here they are specificly targeting and actively monitoring US Citizens who not the subjects of any kind of criminal investigation but you have nothing to say about it.

Here is something for you to worry about......

In a few more years when these guys decide to do the same thing to everyone, I'll think of your "cry me a river" statement when they ask me if I think it's a good idea. How's that for you?

If it's good for a guy like me it's gotta be reasonable for everyone.

 

[spintroniX]

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041923597&postcount=23

Alright, plenty want to take pot shots and make absurb cross takes on my posts, but after 40 posts no one wishes to address this one. Like I said, just ignore it, this isn't happening right. So many of you flip your wigs and raise your voices in rabid indignation but I point this out for like the 10th time and no one wants to touch it.

I.....:

I believe you. I believe that clearance holders are under constant supervision. I don't really care, as they are complicit with a federal government that routinely violates the rights of its citizens, as well as engaging in heinous acts against citizens of foreign nations (i.e. blowing up hospitals).

clearance holders have a choice to quit their job if they don't like being spied on. Citizens don't really have much choice when it comes to being spied on by their government. These are not comparable.

 

[nilepez]

Your employer monitors your online activity when you are at home on your personal time and computers?

Been working for them for a very long time, this is new, this is different.

Like I said, all fucking indignant until it's being actually done to citizens and now you aare all accepting of it. Like I said, I have told people about this several times and no one ever responds to it in any way. I gota get beligerant to even get you guys to fucking pay attention.

You are so worried about abuse, "oh they are collecting my meta-data" But here they are specificly targeting and actively monitoring US Citizens who not the subjects of any kind of criminal investigation but you have nothing to say about it.

Here is something for you to worry about......

In a few more years when these guys decide to do the same thing to everyone, I'll think of your "cry me a river" statement when they ask me if I think it's a good idea. How's that for you?

If it's good for a guy like me it's gotta be reasonable for everyone.

I'm against this too. Sounds like something the the old Soviet Union would have done.

 

[xJ321x]

Sounds like something they're gonna try and do to all US citizens given enough time.

 

[krotch]

Stops, no, minimizes, yes. No one would claim they can be 100% successful at anything though. I'm also sure there were steps that could've helped prevent Snowden from doing what he did and I'm also sure some new policies were put in place after Snowden to help prevent it in the future. I'm sure Apple has some pretty high tech physical security as well (Intelligent monitoring, split responsibilities, etc).

If you have access, you have access. Doesn't matter how high tech your physical security is. Access is access. That's the whole point of someone paying a mole. They have access to everything, so they can get everything.

And they're ever changing, too. That's a great reason to break encryption right there. Imagine if the door to your house was in a new spot every so often. That would sure be annoying, especially if you're in a hurry.

For the person who lives there, sure. For the person trying to break in, just go in through the window that doesn't move.

And risk their entire company's reputation? That sounds way less plausible. If that were the case then we probably wouldn't be hearing about Apple telling a judge they can't unlock a phone right now. They would've just not brought the topic up at all. We're only talking about it because this debate is happening with Apple and the courts.

Ya, because Apple hasn't ever told a lie. Like you know, when they say bent iPhones are "rare". Overheating Nvidia cards. Paint flaking. Yellowing screens. Price fixing. You know, all the things they were lying about. Apple will do whatever or say whatever, until they get caught.

Worse than ever? Older firewalls were simple packet filters. I'm pretty sure it's just that more people are online now and thus more company's are being targeted more now online than ever before. To assume they don't adapt to it though in anyway is naive. Especially considering they see others getting hacked and don't want it to happen to them. Are some lazy, absolutely, some are not though.

The more complex things become, the more vulnerabilities exist. Sure, security measures are stronger and become stronger as time goes on. Too bad, it doesn't move as fast as the technology it's trying to protect, nor will it. I mean, can't expect firewall companies to build a secure firewall for a product they know nothing about until it releases.

I think that's what this is all about. The government(s) want to see how hard they can push the big corporate players around without them calling foul in the public spectrum.

Governments can pretty much push whatever laws out and force the companies to do it. The problem is, if they want to get reelected, they'll want to not look like the bad guy. I really wouldn't be surprised if this pops up again after election time and the government makes some new "Gimme your Electronic Data cause Terrorists are Bad Act of 2017" and forces the companies to do it.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

I think the writing is on the wall. The Federal Government is not going to sit there and do nothing when a company like Apple threatens to make it impossible to ever get any corporate or private records for Judicial review. Does anyone here think the Feds are just going to throw their hands up in the air and say "Well guys, it was good while it lasted" ?

Sheeeiiitttt. Apple is going to play this card right up until the Feds take them behind closed doors and threaten them with castigation and then if Apple is suicidal and still refuses that the hammer will fall and Apple will burn. The US Government will destroy Apple before they allow companies like Apple to make it "impossible" to comply with regulations.

*HEADDESK*

You can't possibly be this clueless.

First, personal privacy trumps the government's "need to know".

Second, putting a backdoor in an encryption algorithm is like installing screen doors on a submarine.

If you provide an easy way to circumvent encryption, it isn't just the "good guys" who are going to find and access it. If there even WAS such a thing as a "good guy" nowadays.

The government can rant and rave and suck its thumb all it wants. You cannot, I repeat YOU CANNOT meet the dual requirements of security and ease of circumvention for limited "types" of people. That's like asking people to rewrite math so that 2 and 2 makes 37.

And if anyone, conceivably, could fight the US, it'd be Apple. They sure as fuck have the cash warchest for it...

The sooner we get over this big brother/nanny-state bullshit, the better.

 

[lcpiper]

I believe you. I believe that clearance holders are under constant supervision. I don't really care, as they are complicit with a federal government that routinely violates the rights of its citizens, as well as engaging in heinous acts against citizens of foreign nations (i.e. blowing up hospitals).

clearance holders have a choice to quit their job if they don't like being spied on. Citizens don't really have much choice when it comes to being spied on by their government. These are not comparable.

Great ideals, not so great in the reality department. Please understand, this is new, I didn't sign up for it and I have never been asked to accept it as a condition of employment. They just decided they wanted to start doing this and we have to suck it up or leave. Leaving though doesn't guerantee they still won't monitor us because we still have the stuff in our heads right?

As for you not feeling sorry and saying you have no compassion because I signed up with baby killers and hospitol bombers all I have to say is the real world is a bitch. The US Military didn't call in that hospitol attack, the Pakistani's did. They got on the radio, said they were under fire, the attacks were being coordinated from a building and sent the coordinates. Did you think the term "war is hell" was coined as a joke? In WW2 countries bombed entire cities just for the terror factor. War is much nicer these days but it's not devoid of the "hell" part for those who are unlucky enough to get in the middle of it.

Like I said earlier, you can sit there all smug and anti-gov all you want but once they start doing this to some of us, the ones they consider good guys, how long before they decide it's good for everyone. You act like my meta-data wasn't being sucked up with alol the rest, like there was an immunity clause. Until you accept that we really aren't seperate and treated different your going to continue to see this issue from a bad point of view. It's in your own best interest to see this as a bad thing and not some sort of "just deserts" for the deserving.

 

[lcpiper]

*HEADDESK*

You can't possibly be this clueless.

First, personal privacy trumps the government's "need to know".

Second, putting a backdoor in an encryption algorithm is like installing screen doors on a submarine.

If you provide an easy way to circumvent encryption, it isn't just the "good guys" who are going to find and access it. If there even WAS such a thing as a "good guy" nowadays.

The government can rant and rave and suck its thumb all it wants. You cannot, I repeat YOU CANNOT meet the dual requirements of security and ease of circumvention for limited "types" of people. That's like asking people to rewrite math so that 2 and 2 makes 37.

And if anyone, conceivably, could fight the US, it'd be Apple. They sure as fuck have the cash warchest for it...

The sooner we get over this big brother/nanny-state bullshit, the better.

You still don't get it, the Government is not asking for backdoors. They aren't even if there are reporters making that claim. The Federal Government does, by law, have the power to demand that companies turn over records related to legal actions, both criminal and civil. If they can't do this then they can't punish Enron's and Haliburtons cause they can't proove guilt. Allowing companies like Apple to claim that they "can't comply is not a good thing and if it comes down to it then they will not allow it to stand.

 

[lcpiper]

Asking Apple to engineer a method to access data that is under company control is not asking for a backdoor or even using a backdoor, it's just asking for what is being asked and it doesn't require implimentation of a vulnerability.

 

[lcpiper]

I see there are some who are starting to see my point. I want to thank them for this. This is all so hard when it's nothing but counter accusations with no discussion at all.

 

[krotch]

Asking Apple to engineer a method to access data that is under company control is not asking for a backdoor or even using a backdoor, it's just asking for what is being asked and it doesn't require implimentation of a vulnerability.

When it's dealing with encryption, then yes. The government is essentially asking for a backdoor, as that's pretty much the only way Apple would be able to get that data. Unless they setup the phone to simply copy everything on it over to Apple servers on a continuous basis.

 

[xJ321x]

If you have access, you have access. Doesn't matter how high tech your physical security is. Access is access. That's the whole point of someone paying a mole. They have access to everything, so they can get everything.

Just because you can walk into a casino doesn't mean you can successfully rob it. Access to a computer doesn't get you into its encrypted hard drive. That should be clear. Split responsibilities can and in real life does thwart one person from being able to do something sneaky without another person knowing about it.

For the person who lives there, sure. For the person trying to break in, just go in through the window that doesn't move.

There were no windows in this home in my analogy as it was my analogy and I built it to be self contained. I made this house/software and its rules so in this analogy you just hit a brick wall (yes, brick walls too). I think you're missing the bigger picture though and now I know my house is safe from you = encrypted. And now that you just tried to jump through a window that wasn't there I've notified the authorities. Have a nice day.

Ya, because Apple hasn't ever told a lie. Like you know, when they say bent iPhones are "rare". Overheating Nvidia cards. Paint flaking. Yellowing screens. Price fixing. You know, all the things they were lying about. Apple will do whatever or say whatever, until they get caught.

Unless you have proof Apple is lying about them having a key to encrypted devices you're only trying to smear them today with things they did wrong before (attacking the company and not the current evidence). If you've ever lied even once in your life then how can I listen to you right now? According to your own logic I shouldn't. End of discussion then I guess.

 

[nilepez]

You still don't get it, the Government is not asking for backdoors. They aren't even if there are reporters making that claim. The Federal Government does, by law, have the power to demand that companies turn over records related to legal actions, both criminal and civil. If they can't do this then they can't punish Enron's and Haliburtons cause they can't proove guilt. Allowing companies like Apple to claim that they "can't comply is not a good thing and if it comes down to it then they will not allow it to stand.

How do you figure? If Apple doesn't have the key to the encrypted data, then how can they turn it over? How is this different from a company that wrote drive encryption s/w telling the government they don't have a way to decrypt a HD?

 

[krotch]

Just because you can walk into a casino doesn't mean you can successfully rob it. Access to a computer doesn't get you into its encrypted hard drive. That should be clear. Split responsibilities can and in real life does thwart one person from being able to do something sneaky without another person knowing about it.

Then you bought the wrong mole if they don't have access to what you want. Again, the point of paying for a mole. They have access to what you want.

There were no windows in this home in my analogy as it was my analogy and I built it to be self contained. I made this house/software and its rules so in this analogy you just hit a brick wall (yes, brick walls too). I think you're missing the bigger picture though and now I know my house is safe from you = encrypted. And now that you just tried to jump through a window that wasn't there I've notified the authorities. Have a nice day.

Ya, but you didn't notice that I put a camera on your clothes and am watching what you're doing (malware).

Unless you have proof Apple is lying about them having a key to encrypted devices you're only trying to smear them today with things they did wrong before (attacking the company and not the current evidence). If you've ever lied even once in your life then how can I listen to you right now? According to your own logic I shouldn't. End of discussion then I guess.

You were talking about reputation and history has proven that Apple has lied before on multiple occasions. How can anyone trust Apple's word? There's no proof they're telling the truth. There's no proof they're telling lies.

Also what current evidence? The only evidence in all this is they made a statement with a reputation of making false statements. False statements done less than a year ago under their current management.

 

[xJ321x]

Then you bought the wrong mole if they don't have access to what you want. Again, the point of paying for a mole. They have access to what you want.

The definition of a mole.

In espionage jargon, a mole (also called a penetration agent, deep cover agent, or sleeper agent) is a long-term spy (espionage agent) who is recruited before he or she has access to secret intelligence, and subsequently works his or her way into the target organization.

I'm positive there are bad moles all around the tech industry and in government. This isn't a movie, movies only shows that/when it works. I'm also sure the potential for moles go into consideration when protecting hundred billion dollar corporations. I watch out for people social engineering me and I'm a nobody.

Ya, but you didn't notice that I put a camera on your clothes and am watching what you're doing (malware).

Those weren't my clothes though man so you better remove it before you see what your Grandmother is up to. I also strip down naked before entering my house (I also pay a company tens/hundreds of millions every year to protect me from everything including up to zero day exploits).

You were talking about reputation and history has proven that Apple has lied before on multiple occasions.

If I'm not mistaken Apple products have a great reputation and that's why Apple is worth so much $$$. Lies, everyone lies, who doesn't tell lies? However their actual hardware has a very high rep though. I wasn't talking about what some CEO at Apple said, I was talking about what their reputation for quality products is. Underplaying the seriousness of them making a mistake in the iphone frame design isn't on the same level as them claiming to not monetize user information or having backdoors installed in encrypted devices. One is a design slip up and downplayed for PR purposes, the other would be a blatant lie that's been being perpetuated for year and years. It'd hurt sales today and tomorrow and far into the future. I don't think the bending iphone controversy hurt sales at all. Apples and Orangutans.

 

[krotch]

The definition of a mole.
I'm positive there are bad moles all around the tech industry and in government. This isn't a movie, movies only shows that/when it works. I'm also sure the potential for moles go into consideration when protecting hundred billion dollar corporations. I watch out for people social engineering me and I'm a nobody.

You do now that the definition of mole isn't all encompassing to actual moles. Just read the wiki page further about two moles that weren't recruited, but offered their service to the Russians, well after they were already working within the intelligence community.

Those weren't my clothes though man so you better remove it before you see what your Grandmother is up to. I also strip down naked before entering my house (I also pay a company tens/hundreds of millions every year to protect me from everything including up to zero day exploits).

If you didn't know, I stole the whole house and put a fake replica of the house in place. Then I stole the password and keys you used (man-in-the-middle, keylogger, etc).

If I'm not mistaken Apple products have a great reputation and that's why Apple is worth so much $$$. Lies, everyone lies, who doesn't tell lies? However their actual hardware has a very high rep though. I wasn't talking about what some CEO at Apple said, I was talking about what their reputation for quality products is. Underplaying the seriousness of them making a mistake in the iphone frame design isn't on the same level as them claiming to not monetize user information or having backdoors installed in encrypted devices. One is a design slip up and downplayed for PR purposes, the other would be a blatant lie that's been being perpetuated for year and years. It'd hurt sales today and tomorrow and far into the future. I don't think the bending iphone controversy hurt sales at all. Apples and Orangutans.

Apple products have a "I want it" reputation and that leads to others thinking they are quality products. When they started coming out with their industrial design, the Macbooks had flaking black paint. Then yellowing screens. Then overheating Nvidia cards. Then there's the current weird monitor separating issue or whatever it is they are having. With the iphone it's been bad antennas, bent phones, broken audio jacks, crap cameras, etc. iPhone camera was junk, why they now and have been using Sony cameras in them.

Also, remember when Apple said they didn't know anything about PRISM, even though they were part of that whole NSA data collection program? Sales still did fine.

 

[mope54]

How do you figure? If Apple doesn't have the key to the encrypted data, then how can they turn it over? How is this different from a company that wrote drive encryption s/w telling the government they don't have a way to decrypt a HD?

don't even have to go that far.

government doesn't hold safe manufacturers responsible for what owners put in them. nor do they require that of any other lock manufacturers. it's a spurious argument when it comes to encryption.

 

[krotch]

don't even have to go that far.

government doesn't hold safe manufacturers responsible for what owners put in them. nor do they require that of any other lock manufacturers. it's a spurious argument when it comes to encryption.

That's cause they have an easy means of getting into the safe (drill or grinder). As cost to research ways to break-in increase, the government is more likely to force manufacturers to give them an easier means to get in.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

You still don't get it, the Government is not asking for backdoors. They aren't even if there are reporters making that claim. The Federal Government does, by law, have the power to demand that companies turn over records related to legal actions, both criminal and civil. If they can't do this then they can't punish Enron's and Haliburtons cause they can't proove guilt. Allowing companies like Apple to claim that they "can't comply is not a good thing and if it comes down to it then they will not allow it to stand.

The thing is, in this case, Apple CANNOT comply. They have NO WAY of complying. If their encryption is done right, the discussion about "compliance" is over before the question is even asked.

While, YES, device encryption with no flaws and no back doors CAN be used by criminals to protect themselves from prosecution, it can also be used by people for more legitimate means as well. This is why you can still go out and buy a knife, even if some whack-job has used one to carve up his victims in the past.

And, again, law enforcement does not trump personal privacy. And YES, that means even if the bad guys get away with their misdeeds. Not all of us have the luxury of living in a happy fairyland where math is arbitrary and law enforcement doesn't have to work for a living.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

Asking Apple to engineer a method to access data that is under company control is not asking for a backdoor or even using a backdoor, it's just asking for what is being asked and it doesn't require implimentation of a vulnerability.

*HEADDESK*

Yeah. Because there's no such thing as "under company control".

Either the encryption is flawless or it isn't.

If there's a way to bypass it, there's NO WAY that it can actually be kept under company control.

Sure, they can obfuscate the fact that such a flaw exists. For a while. But, eventually, it's going to be figured out and exploited by someone other than the "duly designated people".

Something Apple could use to access data through encryption or other security measures is, by definition A BACK DOOR. Trying to protest otherwise shows either gross ignorance or something even worse.

 

[xJ321x]

You do now that the definition of mole isn't all encompassing to actual moles. Just read the wiki page further about two moles that weren't recruited, but offered their service to the Russians, well after they were already working within the intelligence community.

Buying a complete stranger off with enough money to make them betray the company that put them on the map (let alone their inner paranoia of the event) is way more rare (your example was two people, we've had more people on the moon) than placing a mole on the inside and working their way up to the necessary position needed to attain the goal which is a long game and super hard to accomplish. I'm sure it does happen and people win the lottery, too.

If you didn't know, I stole the whole house and put a fake replica of the house in place. Then I stole the password and keys you used (man-in-the-middle, keylogger, etc).

You actually just stole what I was told to setup and allow you to steal (my exploit people are very good at what they do). However now I have to re-image the server running that honeypot and patch the hole you just came in through. Thanks though, we didn't have to pay someone to highlight that vulnerability.

Apple products have a "I want it" reputation and that leads to others thinking they are quality products.

That's not a bad thing, that's the goal of any company or human for that matter.

When they started coming out with their industrial design, the Macbooks had flaking black paint. Then yellowing screens. Then overheating Nvidia cards. Then there's the current weird monitor separating issue or whatever it is they are having. With the iphone it's been bad antennas, bent phones, broken audio jacks, crap cameras, etc. iPhone camera was junk, why they now and have been using Sony cameras in them.

Can you name one company in the existence of humanity that was flawless out of the gate and never stumbled? Because what you just mentioned in my opinion comes with the business of selling people billions of dollars worth of merchandise.

Also, remember when Apple said they didn't know anything about PRISM, even though they were part of that whole NSA data collection program? Sales still did fine.

https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/

http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/17/apple-nsa/

 

[krotch]

Buying a complete stranger off with enough money to make them betray the company that put them on the map (let alone their inner paranoia of the event) is way more rare (your example was two people, we've had more people on the moon) than placing a mole on the inside and working their way up to the necessary position needed to attain the goal which is a long game and super hard to accomplish. I'm sure it does happen and people win the lottery, too.

The 2 examples were just from the wiki page of moles that weren't recruited before they started working for wherever they were working. In those cases, it was the US government. There's been a whole lot more. That's because of the lure of money.

That's not a bad thing, that's the goal of any company or human for that matter.

Never said it was a bad thing to get ppl to want to buy your product. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a quality product though. Most "luxury" products aren't any better than normal products.

Can you name one company in the existence of humanity that was flawless out of the gate and never stumbled? Because what you just mentioned in my opinion comes with the business of selling people billions of dollars worth of merchandise.

Except the sheer amount of times they stumble. Not to mention, with products that they have built before. Ever since they went with their industrial design, it's like they've stumbled over and over and over again. Year after year. That's a pretty big accomplishment for a large company, seeing as damn near every other company doesn't stumble that much.

https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/

http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/17/apple-nsa/

[/quote]

So Apple gave away data.

Also a year later, Apple started collecting all the data they said they don't collect.

http://www.ibtimes.com/apple-automa...-searches-user-location-os-x-yosemite-1708185

 

[spintroniX]

....

you make a fair point in that if they can get away with doing it to people with clearance, it's only a matter of time before they try it on the rest of us.

What do you think can be done?

 

[xJ321x]

So Apple gave away data.

Also a year later, Apple started collecting all the data they said they don't collect.

Looks to me like Apple didn't collect any data at all back then which is why the government was trying to force them to start doing so (and the government still is today). So Apple was being coerced to start collecting all user data and instead of outright complying they encrypted everything instead so they have the legitimate excuse that they don't have access to it. That'd bring us right up to present day. Now go back and read the article this thread is about.

 

[lcpiper]

How do you figure? If Apple doesn't have the key to the encrypted data, then how can they turn it over? How is this different from a company that wrote drive encryption s/w telling the government they don't have a way to decrypt a HD?

The way I figure is to not try and figure it out at all. I don't have to think of a solution that is both secure for the user within reasonable limits and still allows businesses to respond to legitimate requests from the government for records. that is what the government is asking industry to do. I am just saying there is nothing wrong with this request, in fact, it's admirable that the government should work with and help industry do this. It's an engineering problem not an ethics issue. Every one of us can see the need for this particularly when business stores more and more of it's data (records) in cloud serviced storage and not filing cabnets in the basement.

It's easy to take a simplistic and myopic view and say "privacy trumps all", it sounds nice. But how will you guys feel if the next Thalidomide incident leaves your family hurt, you want help and redress for the harm some pharma has done to you, and all the test results and data on the drug, everything, it's all encrypted and it's "impossible" the get it for legal proof of liability. Where will that road take us? See the problems?

 

[lcpiper]

you make a fair point in that if they can get away with doing it to people with clearance, it's only a matter of time before they try it on the rest of us.

What do you think can be done?

I don't really know. They have done this as a defensive reflex to the Snowden thing. The figure that Snowden caused a lot of damage and if his background investigation had been done properly maybe they wouldn't have given him a clearance to begin with. As usual, they go overboard on things, use a sledgehammer when a tackhammer is more fitting. They don't want another Snowden or another Manning so they are hoping to spot them in their online activity at home. They can do it, it's a condition of employment for very sensative positionsso they make you agree to it. Funny thing is, they haven't actually put that down in paper and make us sign on the dotted line. They just say that they have started the program up and warned us that we will be monitored, mostly by referencing the same statements I just linked to. You would think it would be, I don't, more official, formal.

It's very hard for us to complain, for most they would just point to the door and probably tell us we are still subject to monitoring anyway even after we leave, we would be "disgruntled" right? All the more reason to keep an eye on us.

This is exactly what I have been warning about for a year now, and it's exactly what has come to pass. The beast we fear is born it's justified existance is to prevent another Snowden.

The real legacy of Ed Snowden isn't that he has led us into a more enlightened era of privacy, it's that his actions have given birth to a Big Brother like has never existed in the US before.

 

[/usr/sbin]

The way I figure is to not try and figure it out at all. I don't have to think of a solution that is both secure for the user within reasonable limits and still allows businesses to respond to legitimate requests from the government for records. that is what the government is asking industry to do. I am just saying there is nothing wrong with this request, in fact, it's admirable that the government should work with and help industry do this. It's an engineering problem not an ethics issue. Every one of us can see the need for this particularly when business stores more and more of it's data (records) in cloud serviced storage and not filing cabnets in the basement

Fuck that noise. "Reasonable" requests leave too much to interpretation. The only way I'd agree is extremely specific reasons for a data pull with no exceptions outside of that scope.

It's easy to take a simplistic and myopic view and say "privacy trumps all", it sounds nice. But how will you guys feel if the next Thalidomide incident leaves your family hurt, you want help and redress for the harm some pharma has done to you, and all the test results and data on the drug, everything, it's all encrypted and it's "impossible" the get it for legal proof of liability. Where will that road take us? See the problems

Fine with me. Privacy is more important than death IMO. It sounds cold, but people are replaceable - freedom and privacy is not. This includes you, me, your kids, and my kids. There is not much I can guarantee you, but one of those things is that you WILL die. If you think otherwise, eventually you will find out that you are wrong.

 

[westrock2000]

With the iphone it's been bad antennas, bent phones, broken audio jacks, crap cameras, etc. iPhone camera was junk, why they now and have been using Sony cameras in them.

I can't think if any iPhone that came out and had below average quality at the time it was released. In fact iPhone cameras have generally been very high on quality, especially low light. Sure their pixel count has been average, but people want quality pictures. Don't care about pixel count. There may be certain lines, like the Lumina phones that specialized in the camera, but as far as general phones that most people have iPhones are very good quality.

A Lumina 1020 is not a standard phone. Its a niche phone.

 

[krotch]

Looks to me like Apple didn't collect any data at all back then which is why the government was trying to force them to start doing so (and the government still is today). So Apple was being coerced to start collecting all user data and instead of outright complying they encrypted everything instead so they have the legitimate excuse that they don't have access to it. That'd bring us right up to present day. Now go back and read the article this thread is about.

Huh? You do know that Apple collects that data and stores it on your own servers. What does encryption on the phone have to do with that?

 

[krotch]

on their own servers*

Stupid lack of edit

 

[krotch]

I can't think if any iPhone that came out and had below average quality at the time it was released. In fact iPhone cameras have generally been very high on quality, especially low light. Sure their pixel count has been average, but people want quality pictures. Don't care about pixel count. There may be certain lines, like the Lumina phones that specialized in the camera, but as far as general phones that most people have iPhones are very good quality.

A Lumina 1020 is not a standard phone. Its a niche phone.

Huh? The iPhone has always been below average compared to the other flagship phones. Which is what the iPhone is been touted as being. Sure, it's not below average, if you were comparing them with average phones.

There was complaining about the iPhone 4's yellow tint for indoor shots and wrong color balance for outside shots. Hardly what I'd consider "very high on quality".

Hence why they moved to Sony in the iPhone 5 and 6. They still have the crap OmniVision for the front facing camera.

 

[lcpiper]

Fuck that noise. "Reasonable" requests leave too much to interpretation. The only way I'd agree is extremely specific reasons for a data pull with no exceptions outside of that scope.



Fine with me. Privacy is more important than death IMO. It sounds cold, but people are replaceable - freedom and privacy is not. This includes you, me, your kids, and my kids. There is not much I can guarantee you, but one of those things is that you WILL die. If you think otherwise, eventually you will find out that you are wrong.

See, Here is canna, a shinning example of exactly the attitude I am talking about.

A reasonable request is a subpeona, a court order, a warrant, and for someone who is NOT A US Citizen, a National Security letter.

You are exactly what I am talking about when it comes to people who cry so load and fociferously that the Feds decide to they can't reason with you so all they can do is institute full on monitoring of it's own workforce and ruthlessly cull anyone who is at all suspicious. What kind of work environment does this create canna, what kind of people will hold these jobs in the future canna? Next time around will there be any William Binneys left to say anything at all. Remember it was William Binney who motivated Ed Snowden. Think with something more then just your indignant brain tumor.

 

[lcpiper]

Looks to me like Apple didn't collect any data at all back then which is why the government was trying to force them to start doing so (and the government still is today). So Apple was being coerced to start collecting all user data and instead of outright complying they encrypted everything instead so they have the legitimate excuse that they don't have access to it. That'd bring us right up to present day. Now go back and read the article this thread is about.

So you think Apple didn't keep records of who buys their phones and who keeps a data plane, names of people with their account information, the phone number of their phone and it's ESN number? And that the Feds are trying to force them to keep this? How would they bill you with no billing address on record. These are just average account records.

Too many of you think the only data being requested is photos, recordings, websites you go to, emails you send. But you forget there are more mundane forms of data. Before the digital world there was a simpler analog one and back then the authorities subpoenaed records and found people's addresses from businesses as well.

Apple threatens to set a precident where no one's records can be obtained by the government for any reason. Be sure this is what you really want. Be sure you don't want to be able to prove a hospital fucked you up with a bad diagnosis, your electric company over-billed all their customers by 10% for 20 years, that Toyota knew their accelerators stick, and it will go both ways, that the government knew the building it was bombing was a hospital before they bombed it.

Sorry, we have no access to those records, they are encrypted

 

[DocSavage]

So you think Apple didn't keep records of who buys their phones and who keeps a data plane, names of people with their account information, the phone number of their phone and it's ESN number? And that the Feds are trying to force them to keep this? How would they bill you with no billing address on record. These are just average account records.

Too many of you think the only data being requested is photos, recordings, websites you go to, emails you send. But you forget there are more mundane forms of data. Before the digital world there was a simpler analog one and back then the authorities subpoenaed records and found people's addresses from businesses as well.

Apple threatens to set a precident where no one's records can be obtained by the government for any reason. Be sure this is what you really want. Be sure you don't want to be able to prove a hospital fucked you up with a bad diagnosis, your electric company over-billed all their customers by 10% for 20 years, that Toyota knew their accelerators stick, and it will go both ways, that the government knew the building it was bombing was a hospital before they bombed it.

Sorry, we have no access to those records, they are encrypted

Apple has no problem giving pertinent account records to a judge. What they are unable to do is crack the lock password on a person's locked and encrypted phone to directly retrieve data from it. Two totally separate tasks, one reasonably possible and one not.

 

[lcpiper]

Apple has no problem giving pertinent account records to a judge. What they are unable to do is crack the lock password on a person's locked and encrypted phone to directly retrieve data from it. Two totally separate tasks, one reasonably possible and one not.

And do you believe that there is no way to engineer the ability for Apple to retrieve user data from a customer's phone in a secure manner? Not for Apple to engineer a "backdoor" for the government to access it, but for Apple to be able to retrieve that data?

 

[pxc]

Microsoft tells US intelligence agencies: all requested upgrades are in place on Windows 10 and available with the simplest request

 

[xJ321x]

And do you believe that there is no way to engineer the ability for Apple to retrieve user data from a customer's phone [That's supposed to be encrypted] in a secure manner?

Of course not, it wouldn't be secure for the 'users data' which is the entire point of having something encrypted in the first place.

Not for Apple to engineer a "backdoor" for the government to access it, but for Apple to be able to retrieve that data?

1. If Apple did this then they'd have the 'backdoor'.

2. The government would demand access to it.

3. Apple backdoor = government backdoor = users encryption completely invalidated.

‘Look, if law enforcement wants something, they should go to the user and get it. It’s not for me to do that.’

“Better that the company didn’t design its products with the keys under the mat”

"We’re not Big Brother, we’ll leave that to others.”

—Tim Cook, Apple CEO

 

[xJ321x]

Huh? You do know that Apple collects that data and stores it on your own servers. What does encryption on the phone have to do with that?

Apple collects some data about the device and user (Like for your account), but, not about the users personal life and what the user puts on their personal device (That's the encrypted part ). I thought this was clear on page one but I guess not. Plus, this post here I guess you didn't read.The obvious key point being that they claim not to build profiles from the info they do collect. No user profile = no user profile. Should be simple to absorb.


This thread went in a big circle.

 

[lcpiper]

Of course not, it wouldn't be secure for the 'users data' which is the entire point of having something encrypted in the first place.

1. If Apple did this then they'd have the 'backdoor'.

2. The government would demand access to it.

3. Apple backdoor = government backdoor = users encryption completely invalidated.

​

For #1, you are not correct, you can't say that just because Apple has engineered a secure manner for recovering data from a users encrypted account that this means the Government will demand direct access to this utility. What it does mean i that they would be able to make legitimate demands for the data and Apple would be able to comply as per law with that demand.

Again, I call to the front the obvious extension of Apples' current stance, that because they have engineered a method of protecting a users data in a manner that it can only be retrieved by the user, that now anyone can make use of such a service to avoid prosecution for wrongdoing, an individual, or a business, to the loss of one, or millions.

You guys need to keep this point in mind and be careful what you wish for. If this move by Apple is allowed to stand then no one and no group will ever able to be held accountable for their actions again as long as the proof is encrypted.

 

[nilepez]

I don't really know. They have done this as a defensive reflex to the Snowden thing. The figure that Snowden caused a lot of damage and if his background investigation had been done properly maybe they wouldn't have given him a clearance to begin with. As usual, they go overboard on things, use a sledgehammer when a tackhammer is more fitting. They don't want another Snowden or another Manning so they are hoping to spot them in their online activity at home. They can do it, it's a condition of employment for very sensative positionsso they make you agree to it. Funny thing is, they haven't actually put that down in paper and make us sign on the dotted line. They just say that they have started the program up and warned us that we will be monitored, mostly by referencing the same statements I just linked to. You would think it would be, I don't, more official, formal.

It's very hard for us to complain, for most they would just point to the door and probably tell us we are still subject to monitoring anyway even after we leave, we would be "disgruntled" right? All the more reason to keep an eye on us.

This is exactly what I have been warning about for a year now, and it's exactly what has come to pass. The beast we fear is born it's justified existance is to prevent another Snowden.

The real legacy of Ed Snowden isn't that he has led us into a more enlightened era of privacy, it's that his actions have given birth to a Big Brother like has never existed in the US before.

So basically, "We were caught violating the 4th amendment, so we have no choice to to violate it more than we did before to prevent people from turning us in for violating the law.

And they wonder why people don't trust them.