Apple, the FBI and unlocking a customer's phone - Page 7

Mominohio · ‎08-08-2010

@Buck-i-Nana wrote:
@truffle wrote:
@Buck-i-Nana wrote:
@truffle - The very sad truth is if the government and law enforcement and politicians want the American people to jump in blindly in support of something all they have to do is include the word terrorist. Bingo.

Fact is that the American people are more in danger of being killed or injured in a non-terrorist related criminal act. Fact is that people are already much more at risk of identity theft by common criminals, and forcing this action to build in a backdoor will make every single American even more vulnerable to criminal theft of personal data as well as the possibility of those very terrorists to hijack your cellphone identity!

We're talking about a crime that has already been committed and the FBI's investigation into that crime. Apple should cooperate and I hope they suffer dire consequences by refusing. I will boycott them as will millions of other people around the world.
Again, this cannot, CANNOT, be limited to just one phone.

Please DO boycott Apple. For every person who will boycott, I imagine there will be one standing in line who in the past only made fun of Apple products and apple users.

This is not such a 'black and white' issue to me, the way many others are that we discuss on these forums.

I tend not to trust our government, their motives, or their handling of things.

But IF this isn't worked out, and something happens that is later found to be in this phone and could have been prevented, Apple and people who support them standing firm have blood on their hands.

There is a price to pay for protecting our freedoms, and it can include the lost lives of innocent people. Collateral damage.

I want to be the eternal Constitutionalist, but I also believe we are only beginning to see the tip of the iceberg on terrorism in this country, and question if there is some balancing act we need to do, to address both sides of the issues.

I don't have the answers for this one.

RainCityWoman · ‎06-16-2015

The thing is the phone they are trying to break into was issued by the center where the killer worked. He had his own private phone as well. He destroyed his private phone before the shootout. I doubt very much if he was stupid enough to put his terrorist plans on a company phone. The thing is we are now dealing with an entirely new kind of warfare and public safety issues. There was once a time when Ma Belle was the go to source for government spying on its citizens and others in the world. Wire tapping was the technique of the day. The internet happened and mushroomed so suddently that there were no rules for it. Now we have to decide whether we want to deal with our safety or our privacy. We can't have it both ways. It's definitely a dilemma. J Edgar Hoover was obsessed with delving into the private behavior of the citizens, and he got away with it often. Today is a completely different kind of animal with technological innovations. It got out of hand before any of us knew it.

Mominohio · ‎08-08-2010

@Buck-i-Nana wrote:
@MacDUFF - No, the technology is not there. Apple has made a point of ensuring that the data contained in an iPhone is even secure from Apple itself. The only one with access to the iPhone data on any individual phone is the iPhone user or anyone they give the passkey to.

I don't know much about technology, but I do know Apple's reputation.

Since you are more informed on the technicalities of the technology, do you really believe that the data on the iPhone is REALLy not accessable by Apple? If it is, do you think it will be that way much longer? Meaning that someone will figure out how to hack it.

I tend to be doubtful about such by companies or governments, and assume that even if they are true, it could change quickly.

MacDUFF · ‎05-29-2015

Some precedent setting issues to untangle.

Knowing that the phone the FBi wants access to didn't belong to the terrorist(s) but to an American citizen or entity seems important, but I don't know if I could articulate why LOL. (I'm assuming the terrorists were not American citizens...?)

~~~ I call dibs on the popcorn concession!! ~~~

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

@MacDUFF wrote:
Some precedent setting issues to untangle.

Knowing that the phone the FBi wants access to didn't belong to the terrorist(s) but to an American citizen or entity seems important, but I don't know if I could articulate why LOL. (I'm assuming the terrorists were not American citizens...?)

******************************

@MacDUFF

If you mean the two married terrorists, I think they both were US citizens.

He was by birth.

september · ‎03-09-2010

@RainCityWoman wrote:
The thing is the phone they are trying to break into was issued by the center where the killer worked. He had his own private phone as well. He destroyed his private phone before the shootout. I doubt very much if he was stupid enough to put his terrorist plans on a company phone. The thing is we are now dealing with an entirely new kind of warfare and public safety issues. There was once a time when Ma Belle was the go to source for government spying on its citizens and others in the world. Wire tapping was the technique of the day. The internet happened and mushroomed so suddently that there were no rules for it. Now we have to decide whether we want to deal with our safety or our privacy. We can't have it both ways. It's definitely a dilemma. J Edgar Hoover was obsessed with delving into the private behavior of the citizens, and he got away with it often. Today is a completely different kind of animal with technological innovations. It got out of hand before any of us knew it.

I personally doubt there was any sensitive info on this phone. If they were in communication with anyone else (and I think they acted alone)...they would have been using throw away phones. They were evil, but they weren't stupid.

occasionalrain · ‎03-10-2010

@Goldengate8361 wrote:
I'm totally with Apple on this one. The issue is much larger than this one incident. Tim Cook is correct.

I am as well. It's reassuring that Apple has made our information safe from snoopers. Sad that all the money spent by our gov agencies couldn't discover and prevent what happened, now they want help from a private company. Perhaps our money would be better spent paying Apple to keep us safe.

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

From what I've heard, it could be hacked. I think Apple knows that, too, which is why they don't want to allow it or let the info get out.

Personally, I have no problem with allowing Apple to hack the phones of known terrorists.

I also strongly believe known terrorists should be banned from getting guns. That's a no brainer.

Lucky Charm · ‎03-09-2010

So an Apple is un-crackable?

That's great for the Apple consumer as long as his laptop/computer or credit cards aren't hacked/stolen.

It would also be a good product for a terrorist, a drug dealer (are there drug dealers still?) or a pedophile.

MacDUFF · ‎05-29-2015

@occasionalrain wrote:
...Sad that all the money spent by our gov agencies couldn't discover and prevent what happened...

@occasionalrain

This is something I'm wondering about, too. What was the FBI doing before this terrorist act? Didn't the woman post things on her facebook page that should have given them a clue (IIRC)? Was she vetted before "marrying" him and moving here? Now they want to trample on the Constitution in the name of national security? If they are successful in forcing Apple to do this, what assurance do we have that the "bad guys" won't get the technology? Once a precedent has been established, what else can TPTB then claim must be done in the name of national security?

Right now, I'm leaning in favor of Apple.

My Dad used to say that we'd be sorry some day with all this technology running ahead of us.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

What a mess!

~~~ I call dibs on the popcorn concession!! ~~~