Community Chat

[Mominohio]

---

@september wrote:

---

@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.

---

Never underestimate the possibility that they were. It is amazing how many stupid things people do when they think they are invincible.

[Mominohio]

---

@MacDUFF wrote:

---

@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!

---

And we may well be on the way to having neither.

[dooBdoo]

---

@Lucky Charm wrote:

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.

---

        @Lucky Charm,  There are other ways to access some information from Apple mobile devices (by the way, this is about the mobile iOS, not Apple computers). 

        Here’s a link to an article that’s a little old but still has good information:  http://mashable.com/2014/09/27/police-can-still-get-your-iphone-data/#wQMwpHwh.qqK.   My understanding is all these other avenues have already been checked by the FBI and found nothing useful.   

        So, yes there are several other ways to look at some things on an iPhone and most criminals probably don’t know enough to protect everything from the already-available scrutiny.   In the same way, criminals can use the darknet, or can destroy physical evidence by shredding, burning, etc.   There's no way anyone can find every piece of evidence a criminal has created, and I'm not convinced this current situation is a reason to undermine the security of this operating system. 

        It sounds simple to say let them hack this one.  This is much more than a simple hack of one iPhone…  it’s basically about a very complex redesign of the iOS and turning it over to government officials (part of the problem, if I understand it correctly,  is the way the order is drafted).  The article I posted from Ars Technica explains that.   With all the outcry for someone to protect our security, Apple answered and designed the iOS this way.   If they’re forced to accomplish this proposed, complex redesign and share with the government… well, frankly, look at all the leaks and security failures with our government, and think about how easily the information can get into the wrong  hands.  

        If this is allowed, Apple’s choice to offer a more secure device is basically useless and we might as well decide we’re willing to allow every device holding our private, personal information to be hackable.   Are we willing to give in to one demand for one iPhone and, likely, turn all iPhones into un-secure devices, and possibly set a dangerous legal precedence?  I guess that’s the question.

[Lila Belle]

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@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.

---

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

I don't think she was. She came in on a spouse- type visa.

[Noel7]

---

@Lila Belle wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@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.

---

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

I don't think she was. She came in on a spouse- type visa.

---

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

That's what I was thinking, too. 

[Noel7]

Just looked, he was by birth, she was considered a permanent resident.

[MacDUFF]

---

@Mominohio wrote:

---

@MacDUFF wrote:

---

 ...

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

 ...

---

And we may well be on the way to having neither.

---

@Mominohio

Yes...therein lies the heart of the matter. 

[dooBdoo]

---

MacDuff wrote:

@Buck-i-Nana

@dooBdoo

@ChynnaBlue

Okay...so the tech can be developed, but not for just one phone...it would have to be for all Apple iPhones?

---

        @MacDUFF, I think the Ars Technica article and my other post answers that, but the problem is that it's not a simple hack and I believe the way the government's demands are written would mean they (not just Apple) would have the newly-designed software and unfortunately the likelihood of that secret staying in their hands, or applying to only one iPhone, is slim.   eta:  In addition, this very well could set a dangerous precedent affecting the safety and security of all electronic devices.

       I'm sure someone else could explain this better than I can.   I have the beginnings of a migraine, and my brain is more jumbled than usual (that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it).  Also it will help all of us to see more details as they're revealed (I hope) in the coming days.

[Noel7]

Liberty is not absolute, it never has been.

I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would think that selling guns to known terrorists should be acceptable and is a matter of their personal freedom.

Or that hacking a dead terrorist's phone was too much of a danger to them. 

No, allowing those things for known terrorists is idiocy, imo.

[MacDUFF]

Thanks @dooBdoo...I'm still trying to wrap my head around all the issues this brings up!  I'd like to read that court order.  I will read the article tomorrow.  Have a great evening dooB.