Community Chat

[Tinkrbl44]

I come late to this conversation and have not read every post.

First, IMO, people are putting too much private information on their cell phones.   Not relevant to this argument, but JMO.

Secondly, I think this has already been settled .... Tim Cook is going to stand his ground and the FBI will find a judge (or the Supreme Court) that will "force" Apple to comply.  In the end, Apple will save face.

Thirdly, if the police and/or government can confiscate a person's property in the investigation of criminal activity, then the cell phone (or laptop ... or tablet) is part of that property.  

Perhaps the FBI needs an elite Hackers Division that will do what they need done, and contacting any computer company won't even be necessary.

Anyone else here watch CSI Cyber Division on Sunday nights?

[Irshgrl31201]

---

@dooBdoo wrote:

---

@sunshine 919 wrote:

---

---

---

It is not hype, just fact.  I am just saying if they helped the FBI before they can do it again.  

---

        I can understand why it seems to be a fact.  In actuality, though, they helped the FBI before with a different process on a different system.  (The "previous cases where Apple has complied with legitimate government requests for information" cited in the first article I posted.)   This is not the same, what is being requested has never been done before, and that's why it's being appealed as setting a dangerous precedent.   The articles explain all this.

---

@dooBdoo, I do not think that Yellow919 really understands the vast differences between the two despite the vast amount of information you gave her. It really perfectly explains it so it would seem she is refusing to see that big differences between the two. I guess maybe it is possible she really just doesn't understand but I find that hard to believe. Thanks for putting up that info. It was really helpful in understanding. I thought too before reading all the ins and outs "well if they did it before, what is the difference?" but there is quite a lot of differences. Thanks again!

[MacDUFF]

---

@MaggieMack wrote:

---

...If the IRS can be political, imagine the ways that the FBI could be.

---

@MaggieMack

That bears repeating!

[MacDUFF]

I tend to agree with @Cakers3 that, at this point, any info that might be gleaned from the phone might be obsolete.  However, I do know that sometimes investigations turn on the smallest, seemingly inconsequential bits of info.  Plus, in the war on terror, any intelligence gathering on these crazies could be helpful in the long run...names, places, numbers, strategies...who knows.

[dooBdoo]

---

@silkyk wrote:

I was wondering about this and then read what Bill Gates had to say about it and it's true.

Gates stated in a handful of interviews that it's not uncommon for phone companies and banks to hand over customer information to investigators. He questioned why tech companies should be treated differently.

---

        Thanks for posting that, @silkyk!  I looked for Bill Gates' interview and found a good article/video.

Some excerpts:

"Mr Gates’s stance sets him apart from the rest of the technology industry, including the company he founded.

Satya Nadella, Microsoft chief, has not publicly commented on the matter, but a spokesperson for the Seattle-based company pointed to a statement by the Reform Government Surveillance organisation, of which it is a member, opposing the order...

...Mr Gates told the FT that there were benefits to the government being able to enforce taxation, stop crime and investigate terror threats, but said there must be rules on when the information can be accessed.

“I hope that we have that debate so that the safeguards are built and so people do not opt — and this will be country by country — [to say] it is better that the government does not have access to any information,” he said..."

Bill Gates:

"Any time a bank is told, hey, turn over a bank account information, as soon as they do that on one person they are admitting they can do it on many people, so yes, they are waiting for a high court to make clear what they should do."

source:  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3559f46e-d9c5-11e5-98fd-06d75973fe09.html#axzz41I0VUWKq

[dooBdoo]

I thought this was interesting, too, in another article (by a Professor of Information Systems and Management, Carnegie Mellon University).

"...But there is an irony to this debate. Government once pushed industry to improve personal data privacy and security – now it’s the tech companies who are trumpeting better security...

Not too long ago, everyone seemed to be bemoaning that companies aren’t doing enough to protect customer security and privacy.

The White House, for example, published a widely cited report saying that the lack of online privacy is essentially a market failure. It highlighted that users simply are in no position to control how their data are collected, analyzed and traded. Thus, a market-based approach to privacy will be ineffective, and regulations were necessary to force firms to to protect the security and privacy of consumer data...

...It seems we have come a full circle in the privacy debate. A few years ago, regulators were lamenting how businesses were invading consumers' privacy, lacked the proper incentives to do so and how markets needed stronger rules to make it happen. Today, some of the same regulators are complaining that products are too secure and firms need to relax it in some special cases..."

article at:  https://theconversation.com/in-fbi-versus-apple-government-strengthened-techs-hand-on-privacy-55353

[Cha1k]

---

@silkyk wrote:

I was wondering about this and then read what Bill Gates had to say about it and it's true.

Gates stated in a handful of interviews that it's not uncommon for phone companies and banks to hand over customer information to investigators. He questioned why tech companies should be treated differently.

---

@silkyk

The difference is in the term you used -- "hand over".  In this case Apple has "handed over"all the information they have access to on that iPhone.

What the FBI/DOJ wants now is for Apple to rewrite the software that runs all iPhones, iOS 9.  They want Apple to write new computer code that will hack the iPhone to override the security system that is already in place to protect customer privacy.

The FBI/DOJ wants to use that rewritten operating system allowing them to attach the phone to a super computer and override the PassCode that has the phone locked.

Some posts on this thread state that Apple has done this before.

NO -- Apple has never hacked its own operating system to allow the government access to any device they manufacture.

We are in brand new territory. 

[Cha1k]

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

I come late to this conversation and have not read every post.

First, IMO, people are putting too much private information on their cell phones.   Not relevant to this argument, but JMO.

Secondly, I think this has already been settled .... Tim Cook is going to stand his ground and the FBI will find a judge (or the Supreme Court) that will "force" Apple to comply.  In the end, Apple will save face.

Thirdly, if the police and/or government can confiscate a person's property in the investigation of criminal activity, then the cell phone (or laptop ... or tablet) is part of that property.  

Perhaps the FBI needs an elite Hackers Division that will do what they need done, and contacting any computer company won't even be necessary.

Anyone else here watch CSI Cyber Division on Sunday nights?

---

@Tinkrbl44

For many of those younger than 30 and for those who live in parts of the world without the broadband infrastructure we have, their cell phone is their only computer.  Therefore, they keep ALL their information on their cell phones.

In many countries, cell phones are the most secure method of communicating with the rest of the world -- away from the prying eyes of their government.

Remember, other countries are looking at this case to see if Apple will be ordered, successfully, to open up the encryption to their operating system on iPhones.  

[Cha1k]

---

@MacDUFF wrote:

---

@MaggieMack wrote:

---

...If the IRS can be political, imagine the ways that the FBI could be.

---

@MaggieMack

That bears repeating!

---

AMEN!

I remember reading about the shennigans of J. Edgar Hoover.

[Cha1k]

Apple submitted its response to the FBI yesterday (Thursday, February 25th).

This is an anaylsis of eight points Apple made in their legal motion. (A link to the entire motion is included in the article).

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/26/eight-memorable-passages-from-apples-fiery-response-to-the-fbi/