Security of data

Eloise posted:

Hmack posted:

 

However, are these not two entirely different issues, because obviously a new version of IOS would have no impact on the FBI's ability to gain access to the proven terrorist's phone? Am I wrong in my belief that the FBI has asked Apple to provide them with a way of accessing data on this specific phone?

If I am not wrong, then I do not support Apple in their stance with respect to this particular phone, but I do support Apple in declining to releases a generic version of IOS that would be released to all phones.  

I think the argument is that if they are forced to release a "hacked" (to all intents and purposes) version of iOS for this one phone, the next step will be being forced to release the same hacked version for somewhere between 12 and 100s of other iPhones that law enforcement agencies want to gain access to.

Its not just opening one iPhone.  It's creating the ability to do the same to any iPhone.

Eloise is 100% correct. In the New York Times today, NYPD Commissioner William Bratton and NYPD Intelligence and Counterterrorism Deputy Commissioner James J. Miller admitted that what Apple has been asked to do will drive how the government demands tech companies provide access to secured devices in the future.

This is clearly a bigger issue than one terrorist's iPhone, and no one can say where the eventual limits of such a percedent will be set. Everyone agrees we should fight terrorism. Everyone agrees that murder and rape are horrible. But what about lesser crimes like robbery or fraud?  Do we concede once and for all that it is up to individual judges to determine the limits of individual privacy on a case by case basis? If yes, then I suspect the number of warrant requests by law enforcement would quickly grow to many thousands. At what point does privacy protection in the US become indistinguishable from, say, East Germany?

Needless to say, these are not simple, easy questions to answer. In my view, technology has forced us to have a constitutional debate, and decide very soon what kind of world we are going to live in. I believe voters need to demand that elected officials take a firm position on security versus privacy (and live with the consequences in subsequent elections).

ATB.

Hook

I bet a lot of pen pushers are happy that this will keep a roof over their heads for a good while !      .....so long as I'm not paying them from my Taxes.

Hook posted:

....Everyone agrees we should fight terrorism.....

ATB.

Hook

Nope. Not me.  Seek out and punish those responsible for attacks as we would do for any other crime, but as for waging some sort of strategic "war on terrorism" at the expense of our liberties/privacy and in a manner that causes the fear we purport to prevent is simply not appropriate in my opinion.

Hmack posted:

Yes, I get your general argument, but I don't understand how a hacked version of IOS could get the FBI into this particular phone. The phone is locked, and so it won't be possible to install the new IOS without first hacking into it, which is the FBI's problem to begin with.

There is an assumption (not sure if its correct or not) that Apple could force an update to a new version of iOS.  Once that version of iOS is installed the FBI can run through the 10000 4-digit unlock codes quite quickly.

Just heard an interview with one of the attorneys representing Apple on the morning NPR radio show.  It is the difference of a landlord having to unlock an apartment for the authorities (with which he/Apple agrees) vs. having to build a separate door that the government can use any time it deems necessary.

He made the point this encryption can literally save peoples' lives in countries where governments put people to death for the possible info that might be stored on their phone.  (Think that good American ally and human rights champion Saudi Arabia.)

Two interesting points:

1) Apple already gave the FBI access to cloud data from this case.  The FBI f***ed up the 4 digit code and now the data is secured or encrypted and no longer accessible.  Well played Feds.

2) Lest anyone think this particular attorney is "soft" on terrorism...he is a man who lost his wife at 9/11.  So I think he has a much bigger skin in the game than almost all bloviators, especially a gas-bag s***head like Marco Rubio.

I think it is particularly frightening (and extremely telling about the sad direction this country is heading) that not one of the running presidential candidates will even talk about the ramifications to personal liberty.  But they are all hot to start WW III given the opportunity.

"All government,  of course, is against liberty" - H.L. Mencken