CA - 14 killed in San Bernardino mass shooting, 2 Dec 2015 #5

[bluesneakers]

If Apple gave the government a back door into people’s iPhones, they could search anyones iPhone, and people would never even know it. I think Benjamin Franklin was right. Giving up liberty for temporary safety, is a really bad idea.

There are other ways to do what they want done. This is ridiculous.

Also ridiculous is the suggestion to boycott Apple. JMO

 

[jadejazzkayla]

There are other ways to do what they want done. This is ridiculous.

Also ridiculous is the suggestion to boycott Apple. JMO

if an iPhone has at least ios8 installed and is password protected- the only way to break in is to guess the password within 10 attempts.

after 10 unsuccessful attempts, the phone will wipe itself clean.

no one in the world - including Apple - has the technology to break into your iPhone with the aforementioned configuration.

this configuration of iPhone, which my iPhone has -keeps my phone safe from the entire world. and I want it to stay that way.

 

[Really?]

RSBM

Agree with you about our rights needing to be protected ... but wonder if some people --by their criminal behavior -- relinquish certain rights ?
As in, loss of a phone password doesn't compare to the loss of lives. The phone's owners are deceased-- so their rights aren't being trampled.
I would like to see some more possible future terrorists get caught, ( by the fbi going through their contact list) or at least id' ; before another tragedy happens.
Thinking out loud here.
MOO

Yes, yes ......and yes. I agree. People who are criminals should have no right to secrecy.......especially when murder is involved.

Macafee will do it.....lol.

moo

 

[jadejazzkayla]

Yes, yes ......and yes. I agree. People who are criminals should have no right to secrecy.......especially when murder is involved.

Macafee will do it.....lol.

moo

if Macafee or Apple or any other company or individual creates a software program to break into one phone - this hacking software can then break into every iPhone in the world - including mine and president obama's iPhone and Donald trump 's iPhone etc.....

identity theft protection would fly out the window. we can't have it both ways. either all phones are secure or none of them are.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Apple should stand firm..

The problem is people are trading safety for freedom. I want my privacy and my freedom. The feds are the ones that screwed up so too bad so sad..

Apple is doing the right thing.

 

[Hope4More]

Apple should stand firm..

The problem is people are trading safety for freedom. I want my privacy and my freedom. The feds are the ones that screwed up so too bad so sad..

Apple is doing the right thing.

I agree. But.....the feds didn't screw up. The FBI ordered local LE to destroy the only chance any LE had to access the phone's contents without going through an encryption-breaking backdoor (that has yet to be created). Both Apple and the local LE have said this happened.

Why did the FBI do that? If their chief concern is to access what's on that phone, and if they really believe there is info on it that could help prevent a terrorist attack or link this attack to Isis, or to provide highly significant info, does anyone believe they would deliberately destroy their only chance to try, immediately, to access via that auto backup via the cloud solution Apple explicitly advised them to attempt? No.

So what's really going on? The latest salvo by US intelligence agencies in a campaign against encryption that predates Sept 11 by many years.

This attempt is the most brazen and deceitful yet. The cellphone of a terrorist with info that might save lives and Apple won't help because not helping is a "marketing strategy!!!!!"

Liars. Force Apple to program that magical key and not one of us will ever again have the means to defend our privacy.

Now THAT is almost worth taking over a giftshop on federal land somewhere to protest. (Just kidding.. ).

 

[Momoffourboys]

McAfee offered to do it. They should take him up on it and leave Apple be.

With all the money we spend on cyber security...its hard to imagine that the gov't doesn't employ ONE savvy techy who can hack that one phone.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/19/john-mcafee-fbi-should-let-me-hack-iphone.html

 

[Cubby]

If this is the wrong thread, mods please move or delete.

Does anyone really think there is anything of relevance on SF's iphone? IDKW but my gut tells me there isn't .

 

[LietKynes]

If Apple gave the government a back door into people’s iPhones, they could search anyones iPhone, and people would never even know it. I think Benjamin Franklin was right. Giving up liberty for temporary safety, is a really bad idea.

Well, when you put it that way... seems like a double-edged sword. What are other ways to track what they did -- both before and immediately after the shooting ?
I'm interested in what websites they visited and who they communicated with online. That should be doable --to search their activities.
MOO

 

[i.b.nora]

“Software costing just $4 a month (could) have easily unlocked the San Bernardino killer's iPhone and despite being paid for it was never installed on the device, it has been revealed.

The county of San Bernardino, owned the phone, which was given to Syed Farook, who shot dead 14 people at a Christmas party in California in December along with his wife Tashfeen Malik.”

*

“Now, it has been revealed that a programme, known as mobile device management, would have easily allowed officials in San Bernardino unlock the phone remotely for the FBI without the current court case, that is pitting digital privacy right against national security concerns.

The service, which costs just $4 per month, per phone, had been paid for by local government officials but was never installed on the phone.”​

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-device-despite-paid-for.html#ixzz40uzXBrbw

 

[Hatfield]

I agree. But.....the feds didn't screw up. The FBI ordered local LE to destroy the only chance any LE had to access the phone's contents without going through an encryption-breaking backdoor (that has yet to be created). Both Apple and the local LE have said this happened.

Why did the FBI do that? If their chief concern is to access what's on that phone, and if they really believe there is info on it that could help prevent a terrorist attack or link this attack to Isis, or to provide highly significant info, does anyone believe they would deliberately destroy their only chance to try, immediately, to access via that auto backup via the cloud solution Apple explicitly advised them to attempt? No.

So what's really going on? The latest salvo by US intelligence agencies in a campaign against encryption that predates Sept 11 by many years.

This attempt is the most brazen and deceitful yet. The cellphone of a terrorist with info that might save lives and Apple won't help because not helping is a "marketing strategy!!!!!"

Liars. Force Apple to program that magical key and not one of us will ever again have the means to defend our privacy.

Now THAT is almost worth taking over a giftshop on federal land somewhere to protest. (Just kidding.. ).

JMO
I tend to agree. I think there is more going on here than what seems to be at the surface.

I think the government maybe trying to use this case to get it on record as a legal decision to help them in the future with future cases.
If they are doing something like that then that is real sneaky and not very honest thing to do.
The phone part should be thrown out at any sign of this.

One possible way to solve this dilemna for a particular case is to create some new legislation that would be very specific to a life or death scenario of a particular person or persons.
It could be written in such a way that it would have to be shown that a persons life is on the line and the likely information on the phone could save that life or lives. If it cannot be shown that a life really is in jeapordy and it cannot be shown that the information on the phone would likely help to save that life then the phone could not be accessed.

Then the important part of the legislation would be that a 3rd party would be the one to gain access and determine the parts of the information that is directly relative to what is needed and only that information. Having a 3rd party could be what is needed to allow legislation like this to be written.

So for example in this case it could be shown that information is likely to be found that could prevent future lives being lost. A 3rd party would be given access to read the information and if it is shown there was planning with others then that information only would be shared and LE could pursue with those individuals by further surveillance or interviews or whatever.

The key to it working is a 3rd party being independent as the one who gets to determine what information if any is allowed to be used.

Wonder if something like that would be agreed upon by all parties?

A more clear example is one where lets say some hostage is being held somewhere by an abductor and the abductor was killed in a shootout. The phone of the abductor is on his person.

Most people would agree to save the life of the hostage it is beneficial to access the phone. Having legislation like this could help in the matter and still give privacy to everyone else.

It does get to be a grey area like in this case but the 3rd party getting the access and making the decisions seems to be the way to get around any concerns that the info will be used for some other purpose than to truly save lives.

 

[EllieBee]

I am an Apple user, and I love my iphone. One of the major reasons being the level of security offered. I feel quite confident that my personal info stored in my iphone is safe from hacks.

I applaud Apple's stand on this, and expect no less. I am not quite ready to live in a police state where the government claims rights to any and all of my personal information. Frankly, they have more than I am comfortable with as it is.

 

[smeck]

I am an Apple user, and I love my iphone. One of the major reasons being the level of security offered. I feel quite confident that my personal info stored in my iphone is safe from hacks.

I applaud Apple's stand on this, and expect no less. I am not quite ready to live in a police state where the government claims rights to any and all of my personal information. Frankly, they have more than I am comfortable with as it is.

Also Apple household but I want the terrorists phone opened and examined as soon as possible! I am sure it has probably already been done and all is talk from Apple is just a cover!

 

[Cubby]

JMO
I tend to agree. I think there is more going on here than what seems to be at the surface.

I think the government maybe trying to use this case to get it on record as a legal decision to help them in the future with future cases.
If they are doing something like that then that is real sneaky and not very honest thing to do.
The phone part should be thrown out at any sign of this.

One possible way to solve this dilemna for a particular case is to create some new legislation that would be very specific to a life or death scenario of a particular person or persons.
It could be written in such a way that it would have to be shown that a persons life is on the line and the likely information on the phone could save that life or lives. If it cannot be shown that a life really is in jeapordy and it cannot be shown that the information on the phone would likely help to save that life then the phone could not be accessed.

Then the important part of the legislation would be that a 3rd party would be the one to gain access and determine the parts of the information that is directly relative to what is needed and only that information. Having a 3rd party could be what is needed to allow legislation like this to be written.

So for example in this case it could be shown that information is likely to be found that could prevent future lives being lost. A 3rd party would be given access to read the information and if it is shown there was planning with others then that information only would be shared and LE could pursue with those individuals by further surveillance or interviews or whatever.

The key to it working is a 3rd party being independent as the one who gets to determine what information if any is allowed to be used.

Wonder if something like that would be agreed upon by all parties?

A more clear example is one where lets say some hostage is being held somewhere by an abductor and the abductor was killed in a shootout. The phone of the abductor is on his person.

Most people would agree to save the life of the hostage it is beneficial to access the phone. Having legislation like this could help in the matter and still give privacy to everyone else.

It does get to be a grey area like in this case but the 3rd party getting the access and making the decisions seems to be the way to get around any concerns that the info will be used for some other purpose than to truly save lives.

The first thing that came to mind when I read this post was the WMD fiasco. What happens when there was no danger to life/lives after the government obtains the private info?


I think they left the phone on purpose as bait so the FBI would try and force the back door software with the main goal being giving hackers the ability to get the info. They weren't stupid and they didn't just inadvertently forget to destroy the phone in question.

 

[EllieBee]

The first thing that came to mind when I read this post was the WMD fiasco. What happens when there was no danger to life/lives after the government obtains the private info?


I think they left the phone on purpose as bait so the FBI would try and force the back door software with the main goal being giving hackers the ability to get the info. They weren't stupid and they didn't just inadvertently forget to destroy the phone in question.

Cubby! You just creeped me out!

I used WMD as an example not 45 minutes ago when discussing this with the hubs.

IMO, there will always be an "extenuating" circumstance that the govt will try to use to violate our trust and privacy. One of the benefits of being older than dirt is that I no longer swallow the pablum and have no problem challenging what "they" try to have me believe.

 

[pappa rob]

I am an Apple user, and I love my iphone. One of the major reasons being the level of security offered. I feel quite confident that my personal info stored in my iphone is safe from hacks.

I applaud Apple's stand on this, and expect no less. I am not quite ready to live in a police state where the government claims rights to any and all of my personal information. Frankly, they have more than I am comfortable with as it is.

I on the other hand have zero security on my phone and would have no qualms about handing over to anyone. I don't keep anything vital on my phone. Now if some one goes out and attacks someone else, I'd say they gave up any expectation of privacy on any electronic items they ever owned. I think as long as you don't do something silly like these people there would be no reason to expect to give up your personal info..

 

[EllieBee]

I on the other hand have zero security on my phone and would have no qualms about handing over to anyone. I don't keep anything vital on my phone. Now if some one goes out and attacks someone else, I'd say they gave up any expectation of privacy on any electronic items they ever owned. I think as long as you don't do something silly like these people there would be no reason to expect to give up your personal info..

Yet the FBI did not ask Apple to break into this one specific phone, but to develop a back door break so that ALL iphones could be accessed by FBI (as needed, of course).

This is where I have a problem and 100% support Apple for refusing to develop and provide such tools to the government "just fer cause".

 

[Hope4More]

JMO
I tend to agree. I think there is more going on here than what seems to be at the surface.

I think the government maybe trying to use this case to get it on record as a legal decision to help them in the future with future cases.
If they are doing something like that then that is real sneaky and not very honest thing to do.
The phone part should be thrown out at any sign of this.

One possible way to solve this dilemna for a particular case is to create some new legislation that would be very specific to a life or death scenario of a particular person or persons.
It could be written in such a way that it would have to be shown that a persons life is on the line and the likely information on the phone could save that life or lives. If it cannot be shown that a life really is in jeapordy and it cannot be shown that the information on the phone would likely help to save that life then the phone could not be accessed.

Then the important part of the legislation would be that a 3rd party would be the one to gain access and determine the parts of the information that is directly relative to what is needed and only that information. Having a 3rd party could be what is needed to allow legislation like this to be written.

So for example in this case it could be shown that information is likely to be found that could prevent future lives being lost. A 3rd party would be given access to read the information and if it is shown there was planning with others then that information only would be shared and LE could pursue with those individuals by further surveillance or interviews or whatever.

The key to it working is a 3rd party being independent as the one who gets to determine what information if any is allowed to be used.

Wonder if something like that would be agreed upon by all parties?

A more clear example is one where lets say some hostage is being held somewhere by an abductor and the abductor was killed in a shootout. The phone of the abductor is on his person.

Most people would agree to save the life of the hostage it is beneficial to access the phone. Having legislation like this could help in the matter and still give privacy to everyone else.

It does get to be a grey area like in this case but the 3rd party getting the access and making the decisions seems to be the way to get around any concerns that the info will be used for some other purpose than to truly save lives.

That third party used to be a secret court nobody ever heard much about; the court would decide whether or not to require LE to observe the Constitutional rights of targets.

Those niceties were dispensed with a long time ago, as Snowden has amply proven.

There is no trustworthy 3rd party to make sure private and public interests don't abuse the power such a key would offer them.

 

[ArianeEmory]

http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/23/justice-department-wants-12-more-iphone-backdoors/

Remember when the head of the FBI swore blind that authorities only wanted backdoor access to the iPhone in this one, special case? Turns out that his friends over at the Justice Department just blew that claim miles out of the water. The Wall Street Journal has revealed that the DOJ is currently pushing court cases to get access to the data on no less than 12 different iPhones. The paper's sources say that officials are using the All Writs Act, the same 18th-century law that the FBI feels justifies its request for a backdoor.

 

[rob]

Also Apple household but I want the terrorists phone opened and examined as soon as possible! I am sure it has probably already been done and all is talk from Apple is just a cover!

Why is this even in the media? The FBI should take the phone to Apple, sit there while they open it, see if there is anything they want in it, and never say a word it ever happened. WTH, you let Tim Cook get kidnapped and held , and his only chance is the FBI looking into HIS phone, and it would be opened before you could blink.

I also felt the same with killing Bin Laden, go kill the sucker, come on back home smiling, and when the Taliban starts yelling the Americans killed him, ???? we don't know what you talking about. But people want credit, Apple wants to be in the news. Ask the families of the victims, ask the victims of the next attack, if it happens to be your family, you will feel different.

I guess for me, I'm just glad my phone is not the center of my universe, and if you could get into it, you'd just laugh at what you found.