Feds Unlock iPhone 5C Used By San Bernardino Terrorist

wgm3446 said:
Those saying you have nothing to hide, you miss the whole point of encryption. Encryption is to keep the bad guys out! Look at all of the breaches, peoples' social security numbers, credit cards, bank accounts, etc. are being compromised on a daily basis. Look at the massive OPM hack. Every federal worker's information put in enemy hands. The whole purpose of that is to keep it away from people that shouldn't have access to that. Justice Scalia said it best:

I'm all for the feds trying to break it and going through the legal forensic process to gain information. But, having the Government tell Apple come out and undermine millions of peoples' privacy right that we enabled by creating software to break it is not legal.

I'm sure we'll see Apple put in whole disk encryption on the device where you have to put in a PIN into a separate TPM prior to OS bootup.
Click to expand...
That is what the ideal reasoning would be. But the government has been trying for decades to preclude digital property from the protections of the 4th Amendment. If the government has no reasonable suspicion as to the activities you're performing are criminal, then there is no reason they should be invading anyone's privacy.
 
Any of you idiots see enemy of the state?? You'll be singing a totally different tune after you see that. And that was almost 20 years ago. The government and the NSA have much more advanced ways now than ever before, AND THEY HAVE NO OVERSIGHT! So until your life gets turned upside down, thinking 'I ain't never done nothing wrong, and I ain't got nothing to hide!" Its all BS until they target you, and oh, wait a second....where did my privacy go? Why am I in custody? You guys are idiots.
 
natos said:
Any of you idiots see enemy of the state?? You'll be singing a totally different tune after you see that. And that was almost 20 years ago. The government and the NSA have much more advanced ways now than ever before, AND THEY HAVE NO OVERSIGHT! So until your life gets turned upside down, thinking 'I ain't never done nothing wrong, and I ain't got nothing to hide!" Its all BS until they target you, and oh, wait a second....where did my privacy go? Why am I in custody? You guys are idiots.
Click to expand...
Because a dramatic movie is an accurate representation of real life.
 
natos said:
Any of you idiots see enemy of the state?? You'll be singing a totally different tune after you see that. And that was almost 20 years ago. The government and the NSA have much more advanced ways now than ever before, AND THEY HAVE NO OVERSIGHT! So until your life gets turned upside down, thinking 'I ain't never done nothing wrong, and I ain't got nothing to hide!" Its all BS until they target you, and oh, wait a second....where did my privacy go? Why am I in custody? You guys are idiots.
Click to expand...

So do you know of anyone personally that's ever had their life turned upside down in the US because they were just being spied on arbitrarily by the government and rounded up?
 
Let me guess. The found the following text constantly repeating, "0xDEADBEEF 0xDEADBEEF 0xDEADBEEF 0xDEADBEEF"
 
heatlesssun said:
So do you know of anyone personally that's ever had their life turned upside down in the US because they were just being spied on arbitrarily by the government and rounded up?
Click to expand...

Personally, no. But it happens on a daily basis to honest people who get caught up in the nonsense of someone close to them. The 7 Most Egregious Examples Of Civil Asset Forfeiture or this Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture The government only behaves when the people DEMAND they behave. They repeatedly violate the laws of the land and seek to twist and turn them to their will. While I find some of the ACLU's positions personally repugnant; I'm grateful they exist.
 
fadedlogic said:
Personally, no. But it happens on a daily basis to honest people who get caught up in the nonsense of someone close to them. The 7 Most Egregious Examples Of Civil Asset Forfeiture or this Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture The government only behaves when the people DEMAND they behave. They repeatedly violate the laws of the land and seek to twist and turn them to their will. While I find some of the ACLU's positions personally repugnant; I'm grateful they exist.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of this particular issue. None of these examples are spy related. I'm not saying government doesn't overreach. I do think that the idea that the government is spying on people just to round up whomever is vastly over stated in the US.
 
There are those that are just paranoid and think at the next moment, they will become a victim. These type of people welcome freedom restricting measures in order to make themselves feel safer. They're perfect candidates for a police state, exactly what my immigrant grandparents fled from.

Nothing to hide. My ass. This is yet another selfish entitled view of "As long as it doesn't affect me, I don't care. But I will do something about it if it becomes a problem for me." sentiment.
 
Last edited:
All you guys crying about government infringing on your rights...it's in the constitution.
Besides that, the government owns the phone, don't even need a court order to hack it.

Finally: There is no device that is totally private, or it would be unusable by even the owner.
 
BBA said:
All you guys crying about government infringing on your rights...it's in the constitution.
Besides that, the government owns the phone, don't even need a court order to hack it.

Finally: There is no device that is totally private, or it would be unusable by even the owner.
Click to expand...

None of this has anything to do with the issue that was at stake. No one said the FBI didnt have the right to hack the phone.

The controversy was whether a third party - Apple - could be compelled against their will to create a custom version of iOS for the Feds.
 
Our company is in the process of switching our corporate iPhones to android devices because of this whole brouhaha. Our US offices made the switch to Android devices less than 1 week after this case started. Many of our clients have already done the same.

We're a Canadian company, based in Canada, but we do business all over the world; privacy matters to us and our clients. It's why we don't store any of our corporate data in the U.S.A. (the patriot act has some disgusting abuses of power), why we use encrypted connections to our head office from our American offices, and why we never carry sensitive data on our corporate laptops when we travel to our Southern neighbor.

I guess my point is that the impact of this case hasn't really been felt yet; franky, your government is scary. It's already having an economic impact, and I believe we're only seeing the beginning of an exodus from American made products.
 
Daroller said:
Our company is in the process of switching our corporate iPhones to android devices because of this whole brouhaha. Our US offices made the switch to Android devices less than 1 week after this case started. Many of our clients have already done the same.

We're a Canadian company, based in Canada, but we do business all over the world; privacy matters to us and our clients. It's why we don't store any of our corporate data in the U.S.A. (the patriot act has some disgusting abuses of power), why we use encrypted connections to our head office from our American offices, and why we never carry sensitive data on our corporate laptops when we travel to our Southern neighbor.

I guess my point is that the impact of this case hasn't really been felt yet; franky, your government is scary. It's already having an economic impact, and I believe we're only seeing the beginning of an exodus from American made products.
Click to expand...

What leads you to believe that Android is more secure than iOS? Google has been extreme lax on end user data security while Apple has long been championing for more and better data security.
 
Ocellaris said:
What leads you to believe that Android is more secure than iOS? Google has been extreme lax on end user data security while Apple has long been championing for more and better data security.
Click to expand...

They aren't inherently more secure; they also aren't in the news. I'm not saying it's logical (I didn't make the decision), but it's the way the market works. The FBI has *already* done major damage to Apple.
 
Daroller said:
They aren't inherently more secure, but they aren't in the news. I'm not saying it's logical (I didn't make the decision), but it's the way the market works. The FBI has *already* done major damage to Apple.
Click to expand...

I find that logic completely backwards, though not surprising. Were they like "Holy shit, the government can't even get into that iPhone... Better switch to Android where the devices won't likely even get security updates after the first year".
 
Cases like this are great since the amount of encryption SW and HW gets increased and better! Cat and mouse...cat and mouse.
 
Osirus said:
He's trying to save face and find a "victory" here after weeks of claiming Apple was going to feel the righteous hand of God up their ass as the feds sieze the entire company and put Tim Cook in prison.
Click to expand...
Osirus I never said such things.

But had this case continued Apple would have been forced to kowtow.

I have no need to save face as I was not proven wrong by events. In fact I have been correct on a big one. Industry has refused to work with the Government to come up with solutions to our privacy issues, as such, the government has created a body of "experts" hiring others to fill the positions that real industry Leaders should have accepted. The Government is still going to do what they think needs to be done but by refusing to take part, people like Tim Cook will have little influence. I think we might be better off with the real guys who have real influence instead of these other "appointed experts" who have filled their seats.

The bigger events are still to come and my predictions are still out there posted. I still believe this group I referenced above will be advising Congress, that Laws will certainly come out of this. These laws will make it unlawful for Apple and other companies to engineer things so that it is so "burdensome" to respond to basic phone unlock and data extraction court orders. At the same time, I don't have much faith that the government's solution will be as good for us as what they could have come up with if industry had helped define it.

I can't say that I understand your thinking on this or why you believe such things of me. Perhaps being told that you are incorrect about something is too much for your ego to handle, whatever, it's immaterial. Events will either show me right or wrong or maybe a little of both.
 
scobar said:
The more I hear about Apple standing up to the government regardless the cause as it relates to data privacy is impressive. Makes me think I might take the red pill knowing that my shit stays my shit.
Click to expand...

Let's keep it in perspective please. People act like Apple really went to the mat for them but let's keep in mind what Apple actually did do.

Other than making a lot of noise in the media, just what kind of a fight did Apple really put up?

Let's see, they showed up in court and received a court order from Judge Pym and was told to respond by the end of the week on Friday.
They drafted a document asking the Judge to vacate the order with the Judge over-ruled.
They gave their response as ordered on Friday and of course it said how much trouble it would be for Apple to help the FBI.
The Judge set a hearing data for the next week so that they could all discuss Apple's response and claim of burden.
And that was it.
The day before the hearing the FBI said they had a 3rd party that might could help, the Judge issued a stay on the court order. And yesterday the FBI says they cracked the phone and don't need Apple's help anymore, Judge dismisses the case.

Now just how much of a fight did Apple really put up here? A couple of Lawyers hours for a couple of weeks tops. I suppose they could have been better employed working on their next Samsung law suite.

All I am saying is keep it in perspective. This wasn't horribly expensive or risky because it's a process and at all they did was follow the legal dance steps.
 
chenw said:
Makes one wonder if the officials had already found the way to crack the phone a while ago, but was trying to get Apple to unlock the phone to both legitimise the act (of unlocking) and setting a precedent for other LEA to follow suit, rather than actually needing Apple to do it for them.
Click to expand...

There is no precedent involved with this case. People keep focusing on the idea that it's different because Apple would be forced to create something. You need to understand how the law works. Judge Issues Court Order, Apple accepts or claims that what is being asked is unreasonably burdensome for their company. See, having to write the code is the burden that Apple gets to present no matter how any other case has every been decided before. Precedent has nothing at all to do with the Apple's or anyone else's right to present unreasonable burden.

Apple has unlocked many phones before their is nothing here to legitimize. The only thing that is different is that because Apple has re-engineered their product to make it more secure, the burden has "arguably" increased.

As I said, Apple probably missed the boat on this one. Judge Pym might have sided with Apple, found the Government's request as unreasonably burdensome, and it would have been over unless the FBI appealed the decision to a higher court.

But your premise that the FBI already could unlock the phone and was just trying to create excuses and such is ridiculous. They don't need excuses, they just have to do their thing and let everything fall as it may.
 
heatlesssun said:
So do you know of anyone personally that's ever had their life turned upside down in the US because they were just being spied on arbitrarily by the government and rounded up?
Click to expand...

WWII Internment camps come to mind.
Commie fear during the CW era.
Now we how terrorism era
 
heatlesssun said:
Most everyone has something to hide. And I'm guessing for most folks it's not hiding from the government but those closest to them.
Click to expand...
And once we becomes a police state, everything is open secret to the government and everyone else but not the other way around. Everyone is presumed guilty instead of innocent until proven guilty.
 
Osirus said:
Tell yourself whatever you need to to feel better. I wont stop you.
Click to expand...

Oh man, what kind of child do you think I am?

You have some very wrong ideas about me.

Your like the guy who keeps calling me a "Statist" even though I am the one who keeps telling people here that I think the federal government is too big, that they should look to local and state government for solutions to their problems. that asking the Feds to do things for them just makes them bigger. That the Feds shouldn't be passing laws requiring background checks on the private sale of personal firearms because it's not interstate commerce and the States all have the ability to this for themselves.

Why do my messages not fit the picture?

The same is true here. I say that legally we don't want Apple to win this thing because "we", (that's us, you, me, the rest of us little people), do not want anyone to be able to hide data, records, email, etc, from a valid warrant. I say this because we need to be able to force others to produce this data when it's us that are getting fucked. We need it in order to be able to prove when businesses are screwing us over.

Don't you lose any sleep over me Osirus, I'm feel just fine. I am comfortable that I have no online privacy at all. I am just peachy that all of my medical, financial, and travel records are open to the government, perhaps forever, they haven't told us. I am over fucking joyed that while they are monitoring my social networking, they must be grabbing your comments to me as well.

I'm feel just fine about myself.

And thank you so much for allowing me this opportunity to express myself on Kyle's website forums :rolleyes:
 
alxlwson said:
WWII Internment camps come to mind.
Commie fear during the CW era.
Now we how terrorism era
Click to expand...

Obviously there is a history of people being rounded up in the US but the criteria I was placing on it was as a result widespread use of arbitrary spying.
 
alxlwson said:
WWII Internment camps come to mind.
Commie fear during the CW era.
Now we how terrorism era
Click to expand...

This is false unless you have something to back it up.

Abuses during WW2 and the Cold War are not proof of recent wrongs. If you can't answer a question straight don't think no one will call you on it.
 
m_isom said:
Ben Franklin Quotes. “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” ”He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”

1984, thought police, rabble rabble rabble... there are some clear terrorists, and some called terrorists like the man who shot up that abortion clinic so it can be made easier to attack the 2nd amendment. Rights are being eroded. Then again, George Carlin called them 'temporary privileges'

'Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. You see all, sooner or later. Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government does not give a f--- about them! The government doesn't care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. It simply does not give a f--- about you! It's interested in its own power. That's the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it wherever possible.'

WARNING: LANGUAGE

Click to expand...


Too idealistic a view. Rights can be taken away just like they can be surrendered. There are far far too many examples of rights being upheld and protected to uphold your claim, all good comedians aside.
 
noko said:
It pays to have spys in corporations that deal with communications. Now if terrorist can hack into your phone, bombs may not be as damaging as millions of users data, whereabouts, bank information etc. are exposed. So if Apple can be hacked into or their devices, do you really want to use them for any kind of sensitive stuff?

Really, the Feds should have just been quiet about breaking into the phone (leave it neither a confirm or deny of the status). If useful information was then extracted that lead to some kind of arrest then it may be exposed but just blurting out it was hacked into sounds more like revenge on Apple from the Feds (it served no purpose).
Click to expand...

Wait a second. Are you thinking that the FBI can just start a court case on the claim that they need someone's help, and then just call it off without showing valid cause? You don't think the FBI actually has to justify such things, the use of government resources, etc? That they can play games like this?

And you think this is more likely then it all is just exactly what they say it is?

Are you going to say I am naive now?

Tell you what. Since there are many other iPhones in many other cases where the FBI is looking for Apple to unlock them. Let's see what happens to those cases. Will the FBI drop all of those cases as well? I wonder what the world will make of that?
 
lcpiper said:
This is false unless you have something to back it up.

Abuses during WW2 and the Cold War are not proof of recent wrongs. If you can't answer a question straight don't think no one will call you on it.
Click to expand...

Where it starts:

NSA: Some used spying power to snoop on lovers - CNNPolitics.com

More Surveillance Abuse Exposed! Special DEA Unit Is Spying On Americans And Covering It Up

Conservative Journalist on Fox: Feds Raided My Home and Took My Notes, ‘Clearly Intimidation’
 
Last edited:
Mike89 said:
Apple not willing to help fight terrorism is pretty fucked up to me all in the name of so called privacy. Glad the phone was cracked. Fuck Apple
Click to expand...
None of this was ever about terrorism.

Government agencies & law enforcement have thousands and thousands of confiscated cell phones, and they want the ability to crack them and ravage people's privacy. They want the ability to stop you at a traffic stop and freely go through your phone, even if you haven't done anything. They we're just waiting for a case like this, so that they could claim terrorism, gain sympathy, and empower themselves with the ability to violate YOUR privacy.

It's not about the San Bernardino shooter's privacy, it's about OUR privacy.
 
Last edited:
lcpiper said:
Wait a second. Are you thinking that the FBI can just start a court case on the claim that they need someone's help, and then just call it off without showing valid cause? You don't think the FBI actually has to justify such things, the use of government resources, etc? That they can play games like this?

And you think this is more likely then it all is just exactly what they say it is?

Are you going to say I am naive now?

Tell you what. Since there are many other iPhones in many other cases where the FBI is looking for Apple to unlock them. Let's see what happens to those cases. Will the FBI drop all of those cases as well? I wonder what the world will make of that?
Click to expand...

You are naive. The FISA court works in exactly that way.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Giving up your right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is like giving up your freedom of speech because you have nothing to say.
 
Shameless Liar said:
Giving up your right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is like giving up your freedom of speech because you have nothing to say.
Click to expand...

I've never liked this analogy because everyone has something to hide, it's just a matter of what and from whom and most people have little to say that most would care about that much about.
 
heatlesssun said:
I've never liked this analogy because everyone has something to hide, it's just a matter of what and from whom and most people have little to say that most would care about that much about.
Click to expand...
So if you do have something to hide, why is that wrong? It doesn't mean it's illegal or that anybody else has any right to see it.
 
alxlwson said:
NSA: Some used spying power to snoop on lovers - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/politics/nsa-snooping/

Great article does more to prove the NSA polices the activities of it's employees then it does show any systemic abuse by the organization.

More Surveillance Abuse Exposed! Special DEA Unit Is Spying On Americans And Covering It UpMore Surveillance Abuse Exposed! Special DEA Unit Is Spying On Americans And Covering It Up
Interesting read right up until this horseshit;

The unit of the DEA that is conducting the surveillance is known as the Special Operations Division (“SOD”) and is made up of a partnership of numerous government agencies including the NSA, CIA, FBI, IRS and the Department of Homeland Security.
Click to expand...
Either the SOD is a Joint Task Force or it's part of the DEA. If it's part of the DEA then no one in this SOD can be from another part of the government. nothing works like this. First off, FBI and DEA are DOJ organizations, the NSA is DoD, and the CIA is a standalone Intelligence Agency. The DoD can not do Law Enforcement work in the US, forbidden by law, Posse Comitatus). This SOD can not possibly be made up of these groups AND be under the DEA. Sounds much more likely that there is a Joint Task Force with elements from many of these groups and that the SOD is the DEA's contribution to the Task Force. But claiming what can't be makes the rest suspect.

Anyway. this quote;
In this case, the Americans who are being subjected to these investigations are suspected drug dealers.
Click to expand...
Because we don't want to investigate drug dealers.

This quote sums things up and I'll present the reasoning why it is not correct.
Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey defense lawyer, said any systematic government effort to conceal the circumstances under which cases begin "would not only be alarming but pretty blatantly unconstitutional."
Click to expand...
In this quote the writer is involved with the practice of "parallel reconstruction". The Lawyer above is correct if you assume that the activity that started the initial investigation is a Law Enforcement Agency. but if it is a DoD Agency that, in the routine course of targeted surveillance of a foreign intelligence threat, they discover a US Person who is breaking the Law, they are required by law to report what they found, but they can not report how, the surveillance method and program that turned up the tip as that could jeopardize the program and risk the source.

And that is the Law as it stands today to the best of my knowledge.

Conservative Journalist on Fox: Feds Raided My Home and Took My Notes, ‘Clearly Intimidation’[/QUOTE]

And this one might be completely true, but has nothing at all to do with surveillance issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top