Probably one of the biggest questions of our time. Personally At this point I think the US G.is totally full of shit. But then I always do! So help me find the balance point here, How much should we tear down so "Terrorists" don't tear it down? I fear the US government WAY WAY more that I fear a lighting strike and a Lighting strike is far more to be feared than a terrorist... if statistics mean anything... So help me out here. Where do you stand?
The gummint is pressuring Apple to do something that's patently un-Consitutional. What a singular situation--I sincerely wish.
I'm not sure which situation you are talking about, so I'm going to assume you mean where the government is pressuring Apple to break into an iPhone used in the San Bernardino incident. In that case, I think the government is totally within their rights. Apple has the ability to modify the firmware and then install it on any phone of their choosing, without user intervention or approval. Let me repeat that, just in case you weren't paying attention: APPLE HAS THE ABILITY TO INSTALL ARBITRARY FIRMWARE ON YOUR PHONE WITHOUT YOUR APPROVAL. Since Apple has that capability, all the government is asking is that Apple use that capability in this particular case to provide a modified firmware that will then let the government attempt to brute-force the password used to secure the phone. Source: http://www.wired.com/2016/02/apples-fbi-battle-is-complicated-heres-whats-really-going-on/ Note that this is completely different from the government compelling Apple to deliberately weaken the security of its products in order to ensure the government has access. That is NOT what has happened in this case; in this case the government is simply asking Apple to USE A CAPABILITY APPLE ALREADY HAS, to assist in an investigation. Essentially, what Apple is saying here (IMO) is "We want to keep this control we have over user devices to ourselves". The wrong here is not in the government asking, but rather that Apple even has the capability. You're quite right to not trust the government; it has not shown itself to be trustworthy. But is Apple (or any other corporation) any more so?
I'm surprised that Apple have admitted to having that capability. After all, the only thing Apple cares about is money and their precious image. The same is true for all companies, but Apple goes to disgusting lengths.
Apple fervently denies it has that capability! It claims it would have to create it and once created, well we would know it was there wouldn't we? So if we KNOW it is there it's well worth the criminal classes time to find it.... So says apple the enslaver of children. Word now is that Apple is pulling out all the stops to create an unbreakable encryption... The government is being totally disingenuous in claiming this is a one time thing. The NY DA alone says he has a 175 phones it wants apple to crack as well. The way I see it...at this point... is that the gov wants apple to destroy it's product so terrorists can't use it without government being able to find out what it wants to from our, I mean the terrorist, phones. Odd this comes just 9 months after the forced shut down of other Gov. surveillance programs...I still fear the Gov. WAY more than the terrorist.
Daniel, I get that you are upset about this, and you should be. But I fear you are still not getting what I'm saying. This isn't about breaking the encryption on the phone. Apple can create any kind of encryption they want, and it will still be worthless. Why? 1. APPLE CAN LOAD CRIPPLED FIRMWARE ON YOUR PHONE! 2. APPLE CAN DO THIS ANYTIME THEY WANT! 3. APPLE DOESN'T REQUIRE YOUR PERMISSION! This is a known and documented fact. Anyone who tries to dispute it need only go look in Apple's support forums where people are complaining about getting forced system updates while e.g. roaming in a foreign country and having to pay outrageous data charges. Apple's response is disingenuous. They are saying they don't have the capability to do what the government wants. As a statement of fact, it is both completely accurate and completely beside the point. Apple simply hasn't written the binary the government wants yet, hence they don't have the capability to give the government access to the data. However, Apple most certainly DOES have the capability to write the binary and put the binary onto the phone. Let me see if I can make this simpler: 1) I buy a phone. It has a perfectly legitimate, healthy, non-backdoored version of iOS on it. 2) I go through the steps necessary to encrypt my phone. 3) Apple builds a compromised iOS with a back door in it and then pushes it to my phone. Refer back to what I said above: APPLE CAN do this, ANYTIME they want, WITHOUT my permission. 4) Now, anyone who knows that my phone has a back door can attempt to crack my encrypted data. Apple didn't give away the keys to my encryption, nor did they actively compromise my encryption. All they did was upload a compromised binary that allowed someone else the attempt to crack my encryption. At this point, all bets are off: ANY ENCRYPTION CAN BE CRACKED. As long as APPLE possesses the ability to push firmware to my phone any time they want, they can do whatever they wish with 'unbreakable' encryption and in the long run it won't matter. Yes, modern encryption methods are very sophisticated and VERY hard to crack, but that doesn't mean that someone with sufficient motivation and access can't do it. The greater wrong here is not that the government asked, but that Apple even has the ability to do this. Forget the government for a moment; with sufficient determination, a Bad Guy could push out an update that could compromise a great many Apple iPhones. In principle, the government could do this themselves, and you can bet that after this public fracas they are going to be looking into exactly that. What Apple are doing here is a classic PR misdirection campaign, getting people mad at the government so no-one considers that Apple are guilty as sin here as well. BTW, while Apple are the ones being picked on in this particular case, they are by no means the only company guilty of this; pretty much EVERY cell-phone is a potential security nightmare.
If you hadn't said this, it was going to be my add-on statement to your post. You took the words out of my mouth. Incidentally, Bill Gates himself has stated that he agrees with the government here, for pretty much the same reasons. Not to say that is a surprise, but interesting that he would be public about it.
And...today's development, in the 'other' Brooklyn drug dealer case involving Apple: http://nypost.com/2016/02/29/ny-judge-us-cannot-make-apple-provide-iphone-data-to-fbi/
Yeah, the more I look at this, the more I think this is all just the puppet theatre for the masses. Apple are only doing this because they don't want people thinking too hard about what they actually CAN do. The government's only doing this because they can then justify building their own tools to hack the phones. In fact, I wouldn't be overly surprised to learn there's a 'wink wink, nudge nudge' deal behind the scenes where Apple is actually working with the government to show them how to do this on their own. It's exactly the sort of thing I'd do if I were a devious duplicitous individual. It lets Apple stay in the government's good graces while maintaining plausible deniability.
Both sides have claimed they want congress to produce new law on this. A magistrate is our lowest ranking federal judge, If congress is unable to act because it might make Obama look good in some way... then it will most diffidently make it's way to the Supremes (Thank God Scliia resides among us no more!) My feeling remains that if we "need" to do this.. to stop the terrorist..then .first we should attach lighting rods to our phones to ward off the real threat! ":O}
I was making a jest. Knowing apple and what kind of company they are it's unlikely that they will ever admit to any wrong doing. I remain sceptical towards any company that is for profit. In general I'm just a sceptical person.
**Weekend Update** Emily Litella: I hope it does go to the Supremes. I'm willing to bet Diana Ross will help to make Obama look good. Chevy Chase: Err.. Ms Litella...that would be the Supreme Court...of the United States. Emily: Oh, that's very different then, Cheddar Cheese ... [shuffles papers confusedly] ... um... never mind. Chevy: Yes. Please don't be an ignorant slut, like Jane over there. Emily: Maybe we can talk about the presidential erection, instead? [If you're trying to figure this out, you're under 50.]
Wait, I thought Dan Aykroyd was the one who always called her an ignorant slut? In any case, those old SNLs were comedy gold. I introduced my son to the Land Shark and the Samurai Deli the other day.
I'm at the point in my life where I've lost more than I hope to gain... Both Gilda and Jane gave me relief from my oppressive self... something invaluable.
