The DnD Sanctuary

General => DnD Central => Topic started by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-28, 05:54:35

Title: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-28, 05:54:35
I assume everybody is aware of this "problem"... (Let me know if you require more background.)

I'm interested to hear the opinions of others. (I've recently finished reading Apple's latest response (https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/02/25/apple_motion_to_vacate.pdf)... And I've formed an opinion. :) )
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2016-02-28, 16:14:11
I, too, have formed an opinion, and side with Apple largely because I don't trust government intrusiveness. Yesterday I watched a nicely done documentary on PBS, http://terrordocumentary.org/ (http://terrordocumentary.org/), which many of our users won't have access to.

Look around and you might fine a way to get access to it.

You (Oakdale) should be able to find it at
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/videos/terror/ (http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/videos/terror/).

I watched it online.

After hounding one man endlessly as a suspected terrorist, he was finally jailed for having a gun in his apartment.

Finally,
Quote
a team of researchers offered a version of it last year when they published the prescient paper "Keys Under Doormats."

"As computer scientists with extensive security and systems experience, we believe that law enforcement has failed to account for the risks inherent in exceptional access systems," the group wrote in July. The risks of that type of backdoor include adding complexity to an already intricate system that's difficult keep secure, and the impossibility of creating access that would be used solely by the FBI. Any backdoor accessible to law enforcement can and also would be used by a hacker for any number of nefarious reasons."


https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/97690/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2015-026.pdf (https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/97690/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2015-026.pdf)

The long and short of it is that extraordinary FBI access would find it's way into the hands of others.

What's your view, Oak?
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-28, 21:46:26
I too side with Apple... For the practical reasons you mention. But also for their legal arguments, which boil down to a simple statement:
Congress has repeatedly, and thoughtfully so, refused to grant law enforcement the power to conscript private companies the way the FBI (and others) demand.

Have you noticed that a lot of people -including some at the FBI- seem to think technology is like a genie in a bottle? That all you have to do is rub it the right way and you'll be granted three wishes?
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-02-29, 00:09:18
I would also side with Apple as the matter of governments just getting access does not seem principally right at all. There have been other companies who have just given into pressures but the basic right of the individual to have privacy is paramount. The point has also been made that it does open things right up for others and iffy information access. Security excuses are well just that and all that does is give each of us less control and is a worrying direction. Too many in a recent poll just believe what they are told as the official "excuse" and that is a veritable worry in itself.  Apple is morally right.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: jax on 2016-02-29, 01:12:12
It must be... why yes it is...a leap day for the three of you to agree.

Not that I would dissent either.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-29, 05:08:40
Sometimes, the facts and laws and traditions are too plain to spin...
I'm for national security. I don't want terrorists to have an easy time of killing Americans. This couple, and their "friend" who bought them the weapons they used, should be investigated. And, indeed, the iPhone that was recovered should be opened to see if it holds clues to any others who might have been involved... And, perhaps, plotting something further.
But that information was made almost impossible to get, by the actions of law enforcement. Why, I ask, did the authorities demand a re-set of the phone's password?
All the information the FBI is seeking would have been available -on the cloud- and readily given over by Apple, pursuant to a court order... But the "authorities" precluded that.
One wonders why.

Until I see such explanation, I'll assume they're incompetents -- who, now, want to cover their asses.
"Nationalizing" Apple is a bad idea, I think.

(I'd like to hear what our various candidates for the presidency think about this. Am I the only one who would...?)

We don't need to reject the constitution to fight terrorism. Just the opposite, I think: We need to recognize those rights and privileges the Founders sought to protect. To understand why they were paramount. And to apply them to new circumstances and technologies.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: ersi on 2016-02-29, 14:15:45
The weird thing in this story is that FBI seems to be *asking* for backdoor access. Apple itself, CIA, KGB, and all other interested parties already have it without asking. What gives?
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2016-02-29, 16:48:54
It must be... why yes it is...a leap day for the three of you to agree.

Athos, Porthos, and Aramis.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fstaticarchive%2F82143cd13623d1f1c6da9eead3b9eee6bb47b995.jpg&hash=2d44f0bdbfce6c1a52d8b1590648c17a" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/82143cd13623d1f1c6da9eead3b9eee6bb47b995.jpg)

Or, perhaps, the Three Stooges.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ae/Healthywealthy.jpg)
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-02-29, 23:35:11
The weird thing in this story is that FBI seems to be *asking* for backdoor access. Apple itself, CIA, KGB, and all other interested parties already have it without asking. What gives?

Let the Americans play the idiots. They love it.
Just imagine, the FBI needs to ask in their knees for Apple to do something for them...
There's no limits for people stupidity.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-03-01, 04:08:42
Only problem being the 3 Stoogies is we might disagree with which one each of us would be.  :blush:
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-01, 05:15:23
I'd be any of the three... Curly was the most creative performer. Moe was the most savvy businessman, and "writer". And Larry was the most consistent and talented of the trio.
I liked them all! They made me laugh...
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-01, 07:41:17
The weird thing in this story is that FBI seems to be *asking* for backdoor access. Apple itself, CIA, KGB, and all other interested parties already have it without asking. What gives?
You haven't been keeping up with the technology, have you? :)
You're just another would-be Aladdin. Fantasy seems to be your milieu.

So: Here's a new scenario for your consideration.
Biochemical extraction of memories becomes possible. All it takes is slicing and dicing the brain that contains the relevant memories... How long do you think it would be before law enforcement would "ask" for access to such memories, before they had a corpse...? :( (Specially if they could get the same thing from a "core"-man, heh? :) Technology does advance.)
And if it were possible to clone the individual, what would be the harm? "Hey, you honor, we'll make an exact copy of him... What's the problem? We're only destroying a copy..." Are there not judges that would find no constitutional problems with such?

(See what you've missed out on, Jaybro, by ignoring the genre of Science Fiction? :) This "argument" occurred to me immediately. I thank ersi for giving me the necessary point against which to mention it: He assumes too much and knows too little, so I had to challenge his presumptions.)

The "magic" solution is presumed by law enforcement; but -as everyone knows- magic entails a cost... :)

Apple can either cripple its encryption or go out of business... Will it matter, that every other provider of such devices will be left in the same position?
I don't think so. This is the watershed case: The 4th Amendment means something, doesn't it?
Ask Trump. Ask Clinton, or Sanders.

The only one I know who will answer based upon a consistent understanding of the U.S. constitution is Ted Cruz.
Sorry! But the rest of the field is wishy-washy... :) You perhaps disagree?

(I've sent him a specific question, via email. If I receive an answer, I'll -of course- pass it on. But I don't know him personally, and I can't guarantee that I'll get an answer. My intimation is -- well, what you'd expect. But I could be wrong...
The worst case would be that my question is ignored. If he doesn't answer me, he's not the candidate I think he is...
That will matter, to me.)

@Jaybro: Do you think I miss-used my last comma here...? :)
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2016-03-01, 10:34:05
The worst case would be that my question is ignored. If he doesn't answer me, he's not the candidate I think he is...
That will matter, to me.)

Prepare yourself for the worst case. He won't even see your email. A campaign factotum might, but he won't. Don't hold that against him...he's a busy man.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: ersi on 2016-03-01, 10:45:47

You haven't been keeping up with the technology, have you? :)

You evidently haven't. Ever installed an app on an Android phone? Saw the permissions they ask for? And the apps that don't ask for permissions do the same things regardless...


This is the watershed case: The 4th Amendment means something, doesn't it?

Dream on. The 4th Amendment only seems to mean something now for the moment because FBI stupidly asked for access that more competent authorities and other interested parties have without asking. This story is "the watershed case" only for the technologically challenged.

Edit: FBI's request is not a problem for the 4th amendment. Rather, when an authority has the so-called permission to encrypted content, it's against the definition of encryption. When such a permission is granted, it would mean that there was no encryption to begin with.

However, in order for the content to be usable for the regular user, there's the passphrase which unencrypts the content and during that while it's all out in the open, insofar as the apps connect to the world wide web. Everybody should be aware of this.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-01, 19:54:14
Of course, ersi, you know better than Apple's engineers! :)
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: ersi on 2016-03-01, 20:38:17
And of course you know that it's Apple's engineers speaking and not its political branch.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-01, 22:15:38
And of course you know that it's Apple's engineers speaking and not its political branch.
Ah! Another conspiracy theory!
Did you read Apple's Motion to Vacate? The link, via The Register, is in the originating post...
Skip down to Erik Neuenschwander's supporting declaration... :)

Is it possible that the NSA, say, can unlock this phone? Sure. But not necessarily... They too might flub it.

It's plain that law enforcement shot themselves in the foot when they opted to change the phone's password: That prevented the automatic upload of the phone's data to the cloud -- from which Apple would have the access the court order presumes.
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine may well be a consideration, too.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-03-03, 23:16:49
Apple vs. the FBI

Apple is the FBI.
FBI is the NSA.
NSA is the CIA.
All that shit is the same.
Including Microsoft, Google, Facebook, whathever.

Free the internet.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-04, 22:02:19
Bel, you're off your rocker... :) It's getting harder and harder to tell you from Howie... But at least there's an understandable reason for your mistakes of grammar and spelling: You have a first language, and not so much practice with English!
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-03-04, 23:18:09
your mistakes

My mistakes? or your "it" paleolithic language?
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-04, 23:49:05
 "Paleolithic language"? And yet it's still too complicated for you? :) (Spell-check is also, I presume... When posting in English-ish, wouldn't it make sense to clue your spell-check in? :) )
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-03-05, 04:14:38
The way so many over in nutjobland misuse the English language,mis-pronounce it along with the spelling of some words and more is in the mildest way a hoot. But in wide practice takes away any stance from Oakland. But I suppose Oakdale the hermit has been brought up by the usual education system that even the Hill is concerned about.  :blush:
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-03-05, 13:58:55
it's

Is not. I'm liberating you from the it nonsense dictatorship.
The devil hides in it.  :lol:

It's a much more noble intent than try to convince us that American polices needs to ask for having access to any American company in strategic areas such as communications.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-03-06, 01:57:59
I think the more deeper and tragic matter is that the FBI is so much part of the corporate and security State. Why does the number of security agencies total well into the double figures especially if a country is not a totalitarian one??  They cost billions of dollars and as I have oft said far more than the historical dictatorships we all know of. One can almost understand the hmph of the FBI lot as they are so much part of the control system but it is still in principle not right. The other good thing is that it has stirred other internet companies to have the courage to support the stand of Apple.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-06, 04:32:33
Why does the number of security agencies total well into the double figures especially if a country is not a totalitarian one??  They cost billions of dollars and as I have oft said far more than the historical dictatorships we all know of. One can almost understand the hmph of the FBI lot as they are so much part of the control system but it is still in principle not right.
We should just be like the Brits, and ignore the over-reach? :)

Still, there's more to consider:
Quote
Godfather of encryption explains why Apple should help the FBI hack the terrorist's iPhone (http://bgr.com/2016/03/03/san-berdardino-iphone-hack-godfather-of-encryption-apple-fbi-iphone/)
I'm beginning to think that this was the plan all along...
Get a "legal" president  to conscript Apple into the NSA. Does anyone think that's a good idea?
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: ersi on 2016-03-06, 06:47:54
The key quote from Adi Shamir: "Even though Apple has helped in countless cases," Shamir continued, "they decided not to comply this time. My advice is that they comply this time and wait for a better test case to fight where the case is not so clearly in favor of the FBI."

Even without checking it up, I also assume Apple has already "helped in countless cases", so playing headstrong this time is mainly just for show.

Quote from: http://bgr.com/2016/03/03/san-berdardino-iphone-hack-godfather-of-encryption-apple-fbi-iphone/

If the FBI gets its way, Apple argues that there's nothing to stop the FBI or other law enforcement agencies from requesting that Apple develop all sorts of specialized software designed for particular surveillance purposes.

This would be a fair point if the companies themselves didn't do surveillance on their customers on their own. So, specialized software for particular surveillance purposes is not the issue. From customers' point of view, it's a problem when companies share customers' sensitive data with the authorities, but this has been going on all along too.

What could possibly be the problem from Apple's point of view? Maybe that they are being requested to do some work to unencrypt the phone. After all, it is truly an effort to break encryption, if it's really encryption. So, maybe Apple doesn't feel adequately compensated for an employment task. Which, again, happens to ordinary people every day...
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-06, 07:12:19
ersi, you grew up in a "surveillance" state; so, you don't know any better.
What the FBI has asked Apple to do is onerous. You wouldn't know it: You've never had the kind of freedom we have. (Get back to me in a hundred years, or more... :) ) What the FBI asks is that an American company become a subsidiary of the intelligence and law enforcement arms of the federal government.
Of course, you see no problem with that!

We -and, certainly, I- do... Must I explain why, to you?
------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but the stuff keeps coming...
Quote
Cyrus Farivar reports at ArsTechnica that Congressman David Jolly has introduced the "No Taxpayer Support for Apple Act," a bill that would forbid federal agencies from purchasing Apple products until the company cooperates with the federal court order to assist the unlocking of a seized iPhone 5C associated with the San Bernardino terrorist attack. "Taxpayers should not be subsidizing a company that refuses to cooperate in a terror investigation that left 14 Americans dead on American soil," said Jolly, who announced in 2015 that he's running for Senate, joining the crowded GOP primary field to replace Sen. Marco Rubio. "Following the horrific events of September 11, 2001, every citizen and every company was willing to do whatever it took to side with law enforcement and defeat terror. It's time Apple shows that same conviction to further protect our nation today." Jolly's bill echoes a call from Donald Trump last month to boycott Apple until it agrees to assist the FBI. Not to fear, GovTrack gives Jolly's bill a 1% chance of being enacted.
(source (http://news.slashdot.org/story/16/03/04/2156256/new-legislation-would-ban-us-government-from-purchasing-apple-products))
Does anyone else see something wrong with this "reasoning"...?
But if the Dems win big in the upcoming election, that 1% becomes 90%... That's how they do business.

I suppose it's too much to ask, that police do police work...
We've seen, many times, good police work come to nought -- because of procedural problems. Most often, such are based upon rights granted by the U.S. constitution; and have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
We'd want to keep such precedent, wouldn't we?

Likewise, we'd want to preclude the precedent the FBI (and other LEAs) seek now: They go far beyond what the constitution prescribes; and much beyond what the constitution permits.

Let the next president argue this case... :)
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: ersi on 2016-03-06, 08:27:08

What the FBI has asked Apple to do is onerous.

Have I denied this? Have I justified the FBI somehow?


You wouldn't know it: You've never had the kind of freedom we have.

Having never lost a freedom (at least, in your opinion you haven't), you don't know the true nature or value of it.


What the FBI asks is that an American company become a subsidiary of the intelligence and law enforcement arms of the federal government.
Of course, you see no problem with that!

Of course, you refuse to see all the cases when Apple already happily served as a subsidiary of the government. And you see no problem with your refusal to see that, even though the article you found informs you about it.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-06, 08:41:02
ersi, I know my county's history -- and that of a few others.
You think I need to suffer under a totalitarian government before I can appreciate the freedoms I've enjoyed? :)
You need to be a girl trapped in a male body before you can understand what a lesbian "feels"... And even then you won't. :)
You're playing your usual word-games.

You try not to say anything, and you're skilled at that. You usually succeed.
But sometimes you can't help yourself: You want to say something!

But you don't really have anything to say... Do you? :)
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-03-07, 02:06:37
You may read a lot but that does not mean a superior stance is automatic at all and that last insertion was to sum it up concisely...guff!
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-08, 05:12:06
You may read a lot but that does not mean a superior stance is automatic at all [...}
Of course not! I'd expect anyone to consider my arguments! Well, any one who has the intellectual capacity... :)
You get a free pass, RJ!
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: ersi on 2016-03-08, 06:34:49

I'd expect anyone to consider my arguments! Well, any one who has the intellectual capacity... :)

But your argument is the same old "Americans have freedom, because the constitution says...!" It actually requires a suspension of the intellectual capacity to consider such an argument.

You are saying that this is the watershed case because it's "onerous" of the FBI to ask Apple what they asked, and that it would be a problem if an American company became a subsidiary of the federal government. This argument would be worthy of consideration, if "onerous" were a legal or moral concept and if other American software companies were somehow not subsidiaries of the federal government, a la http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-early-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-03-09, 02:16:41
Unfortunately the idea that the peoplemhave freedom has been a ling time and very clever propaganda exercise and the constitution has made little difference to the facts of life. Too many secret government snooping organisations access to the private affairs of people and so on. Many people who basically value their country are equally aware that there are very great flaws in the principles meant to be not just secured but practiced. The recent FBI stance is part of the very clever government control and much of what is contradictory to basic constitution matters, rights and freedoms. A decent people but conned terribly.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: midnight raccoon on 2016-03-09, 08:56:19
Does anyone else see something wrong with this "reasoning"...?
But if the Dems win big in the upcoming election, that 1% becomes 90%... That's how they do business.

You do know that Jolly is a Republican, right? From  a link in the Slashdot article  (http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/270054-trump-calls-for-apple-boycott), it seems that it's the Republicans demanding Apple unlock the phone, including the notorious Donald Trump. What decade was it that Republicans even remotely stood for freedom? It must have been damn near half a century ago when they understood that or technology (given the problem that Apple complying with the request would create serious security issues for iPhones and government agencies moved onto them from Blackberries.) I understand. Perhaps at one time the GOP was the party of small government; but now they're the party of surveillance, restricting people's constitutional rights, the religious right, seemingly complete ignorance of technology, and the military industrial complex -which old-school Republican Eisenhower warned us about. In other words, they are the party of big government as those you call "liberal" are opposed to all those things. If you're truly opposed to how you hallucinate that  Democrats do business, do some soul-searching, research and switch sides. But you won't. You don't have the balls.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: ersi on 2016-03-09, 09:31:18

From  a link in the Slashdot article  (http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/270054-trump-calls-for-apple-boycott), it seems that it's the Republicans demanding Apple unlock the phone, including the notorious Donald Trump. What decade was it that Republicans even remotely stood for freedom? It must have been damn near half a century ago when they understood that or technology (given the problem that Apple complying with the request would create serious security issues for iPhones and government agencies moved onto them from Blackberries.) I understand. Perhaps at one time the GOP was the party of small government; but now they're the party of surveillance, restricting people's constitutional rights,...

From this side of the pond it looks like both of the US parties are in perfect agreement on the issues of surveillance, random kidnapping and torture of people. President W. ushered in the century with wars and by setting up the Patriot Act. President O. promised change, but he hasn't even closed Guantanamo, which was the single specific promise that he actually gave, and he hasn't revoked any of W's laws, regulations, and policies.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-09, 10:35:11
it seems that it's the Republicans demanding Apple unlock the phone
And not the Democrats? :) Polling (http://theweek.com/speedreads/607630/democrats-republicans-are-nearly-agreement-over-apple-vs-fbi-faceoff) says... The news (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/fbi-apple/) says...
I say: The FBI deliberately asked for a pass-word reset, to maneuver into this power grab. (I know, it sounds conspiratorial -- but there's no explanation, other than gross incompetence, that explains it; and the FBI is seldom grossly incompetent. This had to be a policy decision...

This is not a party issue, for me. I know what the FBI is asking Apple to do, and its ramifications... And I reject the idea that the loss of freedom entailed if they succeed is worth the meager advantage it would gain law enforcement in this case.
Of course, that's not what this is really about -- from the government's perspective, is it? :) But for you, Sang, everything is political... Isn't it? Good guys (Democrats) vs. bad guys (Republicans)!

BTW: I think Ted Cruz is wrong on this issue... Would you like me to tell him so? :)

My politics are something you don't have the capacity to understand: There are principles involved. You -it seems to me- only to have desires...

@ersi: Maybe Putin will be nice, take over your country again; and you can return to being a propagandist... But maybe not.
You may have lost your touch. (How's life with a modicum of freedom treating you? :) )
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-03-10, 05:33:49
Obama was a waste of time. He has used more drones and done more killings even going over the borders elsewhere to do it than the criticise Bush.  And to still have that base in Cuba is disgusting and ridiculous when the US is not wanted on it's territory. The US has the temerity of having ships around those Chinese Sea islands trying to lean on China for being un-principled and wrong when itself should get the hell out of Cuba. Why oh why have all those security departments at all and the numbers far exceed the 3rd Reich and USSR lot. So why would a 'democracy need so many? One never gets an answer to that. Apple and the other companies coming to support are so right because giving in just gives these secret clowns even more control over the basic rights of the individual.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-11, 00:22:29
Obama was a waste of time.
Never had a PM you didn't like...? :)
He was legitimately elected, twice. "We done our crime, and served our time... :)"  Now, we expect something different...
In the mean-time, the FBI doesn't want to serve search warrants, it wants to conscript companies -hell, industries!- to do their bidding.

Who -here- thinks this is a good thing? (Sang, ask our fellow posters here: What good comes from the precedent of letting law enforcement dictate what private companies must create, to facilitate the aims of --or, alternatively, "correct" the mistakes of-- incompetent agents?)

Does the doctrine of Fruit of the poisonous tree no longer have meaning? Shall we scrap the 4th Amendment, as "inconvenient"...?

The FBI (and the court) is not asking Apple to turn over what it has. It is demanding that Apple become a vassal, to do the bidding of the FBI (and the court) as if it were a bondsman -- and create and deploy what the FBI says it requires!
Didn't the 13th Amendment outlaw slavery? :)
Quote
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, nor any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Some may prefer the "involuntary servitude" trope... But I'll bet they'd prefer not to: How would they answer the "except" clause's obvious question? :)

In short: This is not a slippery slope. It's a ski jump!
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-03-12, 14:41:17
For goodness sake house hermit. The power of a Prime Minister compared topa President is so different. All that rubbish about "yes we can" (groan). Obama time after time mumbled and wandered about before decisions and he sent more drones out than even the Republican man before him killing more. Ignoring the sovereignty of Cuba with an unwanted base for America's protection (another groan). So damn ignorant and un-democratic. But then you have been propagated into all these security organisations for what? For a change try and answer the questions that contradict the claimed principles so this tim - why so many secret organisations as well as getting away with too much.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-13, 06:02:36
Howie, you seldom have any idea what you're talking about -- but you're so inarticulate that few notice! :)

In the meantime, the government has responded to Apple's Motion to Vacate... (See here (https://www.scribd.com/doc/303738452/Gov-t-Response-to-Apple), if you'd like to read it. I haven't finished it yet...) See one of the first reactions to it here (http://apple.slashdot.org/story/16/03/11/1835227/apple-might-be-forced-to-hand-over-ios-source-code-to-the-fbi)....

Given the over-reach of the All Writs Act as the FBI has tried to apply it, Congress might want to consider legislation! (I do see a similarity with the Writs of Assistance (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1205.html) cases...)
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-03-13, 14:57:38
Usual standard tripe from a hermit Yank. Why does your country need so many secret organisations causing so much bother? Try and answer the basic that you lot are a bunch of nervous twits hence all those government secret organisations exist. In recent times you added yet another one with that Homeland Security Gestapo. Try answering a direct question...why so many?
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-14, 00:54:28
The art of bureaucracy, Howie, which we learned from Britain...! :)
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: midnight raccoon on 2016-03-14, 03:40:27
Ignoring the sovereignty of Cuba with an unwanted base for America's protection (another groan).

How many countries has the UK ignored the sovereignty of again? There are so many it's hard to keep track of :left:
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-03-14, 11:25:22
The usual utter guff from an restricted brain slot. We are living we are told in a modern environment yet who is the country that intimidates countries time after time since WW2 but America. It has more military bases than anyone and still doing so. One never gets a proper answer to the modern USA situation and instead we get surfed into a past age and the truth totally ignored. Not once do you ever get a proper answer to any charge on the present. The biggest danger today is the country ruled by corporates and spy agencies and thinks it has the right to tell the world how it should be run when it cannot even deal with it's own internal farce. Even my simple question on why the USA needs so many spy agencies running into double figures cannot be answered intelligently and the usual method here is to do a misdirection. This is a typical situation when the obvious cannot be refuted and part of the way people are brought up with flags everywhere, sel-praising whilxt niggling countries and acting imperialistic. So come on smart moths explain a perfectly interesting answer to why so many agencies that outdo dictatorships. Or are you lot just a bunch of kindergarten mind slots.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: midnight raccoon on 2016-03-14, 14:26:34
Or are you lot just a bunch of kindergarten mind slots.

And you're so intelligent that you post the same thing in every thread, regardless of the topic. Is that because your brain isn't capable of more advanced "reasoning" than America=bad? :left: :right: Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to enjoy my new Mac :yes: Why is it that your country can't invent something like this, if we're the "kindergarten mind slots?" Where is the British Google,Apple,Microsoft? Maybe you couldn't come up with them because there are too many of you doing things like still celebrating bringing a genderqueer Dutch prince to the throne.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: jax on 2016-03-14, 15:53:44
Apple as a company does not care deeply for privacy. Some believe that they do, but I think they are mistaken. They do care, and should care, about security. They have opened their door for law enforcement before, and will do again, but this is more akin to picking the lock to a door they have installed.

There are companies that care about privacy, but it has been the companies that care less that have grown huge.

I think it is reasonable that people who have committed a crime have forfeited their privacy for any activities done in the process of that crime, but not for activities unrelated to it.

We have lost privacy in the last couple decades. I don't think it would be easy to regain it. What we do, what we say, increasingly what we think, is exposed to interested parties. This issue wouldn't directly affect it (though less security also means less privacy from anyone able to abuse that flaw).
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-03-15, 18:44:31
You neatly fall into my straightforward view raccoon. Instead of answering a direct point you lot fall back on doing a bodyswerve then go into the slagging off mode. I will remind you of the question....

Why does a 'democracy' need so many spy agencies that outnumber those in dictatorships?
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-15, 18:54:34
Why does a 'democracy' need so many spy agencies that outnumber those in dictatorships?
Why is that the question, here?
Please explain it again, RJ... :)
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-16, 02:41:02
Meanwhile, Apple has filed another brief (http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-just-filed-its-final-response-before-it-meets-the-fbi-in-court-2016-3)...
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-03-16, 18:31:10
Why are you being so dashed silly Oakdale. The FBI is amongst the double figure list of spying agencies in your country so answer the question. All you are doing is doing the usual body-swerving. Why have so many? Simple but you are unable to even deal with straightforward questions.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: Frenzie on 2016-03-16, 19:44:21
Here is a list of the 9 UK intelligence agencies, which I lifted from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_agencies_of_the_United_Kingdom):

[html]
AgencyDescription
Domestic intelligenceSecurity Service/MI5[1]Domestic counter terrorism intelligence gathering and analysis.
National Domestic Extremism and Disorder Intelligence Unit (NDEDIU)[2]Domestic counter extremism intelligence gathering and analysis.
National Crime Agency (NCA)[3]Organised crime intelligence gathering and analysis.
National Ballistics Intelligence Service (NBIS)[4]Illegal firearms intelligence analysis.
National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB)[5]Economic crime intelligence gathering and analysis.
Foreign intelligenceSecret Intelligence Service (SIS)/MI6[6]Foreign intelligence gathering and analysis.
Defence Intelligence (DI)[7]Military intelligence analysis.
Signals intelligenceGovernment Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)[8]Signals intelligence gathering and analysis.
Joint intelligenceJoint Intelligence Organisation (JIO)[9]Joint intelligence analysis.
[/html]

Like with the US, most of the names are reasonably self-explanatory. Incidentally, here is a list of all 16 in the US, again thanks to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community#Members).

[html]
AgencyParent AgencyFederal Department
Twenty-Fifth Air ForceUnited States Air ForceDefense
Intelligence and Security CommandUnited States ArmyDefense
Central Intelligence AgencynoneIndependent agency
Coast Guard IntelligenceUnited States Coast GuardHomeland Security
Defense Intelligence AgencynoneDefense
Office of Intelligence and CounterintelligencenoneEnergy
Office of Intelligence and AnalysisnoneHomeland Security
Bureau of Intelligence and ResearchnoneState
Office of Terrorism and Financial IntelligencenoneTreasury
Office of National Security IntelligenceDrug Enforcement AdministrationJustice
Intelligence BranchFederal Bureau of InvestigationJustice
Marine Corps Intelligence ActivityUnited States Marine CorpsDefense
National Geospatial-Intelligence AgencynoneDefense
National Reconnaissance OfficenoneDefense
National Security Agency/Central Security ServicenoneDefense
Office of Naval IntelligenceUnited States NavyDefense
[/html]

The big difference would seem to be that in the UK the department of defense has one big intelligence agency, while in the US it has multiple. To what extent that is actually a difference in practice is as of yet unclear to me. A quick peek at the DI's description on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Intelligence) suggests it has largely analogous departments (or "groups" and "centres") to those of the US military.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: ensbb3 on 2016-03-16, 21:01:39
The FBI is amongst the double figure list of spying agencies

Lol, it wasn't on that list.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-03-17, 19:08:31
And neither was Homeland Security amongst the missing.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: Frenzie on 2016-03-17, 20:22:41
I suggest a Ctrl + F for "Federal Bureau of Investigation" and "Homeland Security". They're on the list alright, just as a parent agency and a federal department, respectively.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: ensbb3 on 2016-03-17, 23:16:33
There's egg on my face. :P

Reactionary posts like to cause me grief. :insane:
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-18, 03:07:41
That's probably only the second time in my (long) life that I've heard the term "reactionary" used in this manner...
Thanks! :)
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-03-18, 12:29:12
Well there's nowhere to beat the good old place for security!
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: ensbb3 on 2016-03-19, 00:57:29
Thanks!  :)

Eh, you win some, you lose some... It's open door n all, but, you don't have to thank me for sharing. Coffee's in the back if you want some tho.  ;) :coffee:

Well there's nowhere to beat the good old place for security!

[BestGeorgiaAccent] Mercy no! Whatever shall we do? [/bga]
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: ersi on 2016-03-29, 09:53:12
FBI breaks into San Bernardino gunman's iPhone without Apple's help, ending court case (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03/29/fbi-breaks-into-san-bernardino-gunmans-iphone-without-apples-help-ending-court-case.html)
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: midnight raccoon on 2016-03-29, 10:25:22
Good. Now it's taken care off without creating a security risk for iOS devices :)
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: ensbb3 on 2016-03-30, 01:55:41
Good. Now it's taken care off without creating a security risk for iOS devices


I guess I can give my opinion now. That security risk has existed. Does exist. Will continue to. There isn't a device that is "secure". Not from Apple's end and certainly not from the user's end. What keeps that device secure are updates and good user habits. Exploits exist and Apple's position in this has been to keep you thinking otherwise.

I don't understand the FBI's play in this other than to bring Apple more in line. I'm finding it hard to believe the Feds couldn't break that phone. There isn't a chip that can't be bypassed when you're holding the device. Perhaps there's something I don't know. If so. I'd like to know. But it doesn't feel right.    
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: krake on 2016-03-30, 08:44:24

FBI breaks into San Bernardino gunman's iPhone without Apple's help, ending court case (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03/29/fbi-breaks-into-san-bernardino-gunmans-iphone-without-apples-help-ending-court-case.html)


What does this basically mean?
Apples' encryption schema has a security hole. A highly critical one. The FBI managed to exploit it successfully. Something others might have been done some time ago already.
The fishy part of the story:
Why did the FBI made public their successfully break in? It simply doesn't make any sense except it's another smoke-bomb placed on purpose into the media...
According to US regulations they are obliged now to hand over all the details of the exploit to Apple, so the company can fix the hole.

The more one thinks about the whole story the more fishy it gets.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-30, 09:21:14
According to US regulations they are obliged now to hand over all the details of the exploit to Apple, so the company can fix the hole.
Cite, please!?
There are agreements between tech companies and law enforcement. But -so far as I know- there is no law that requires the government to give tech companies their tech...!
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: krake on 2016-03-30, 10:16:56
Cite, please!?


Quote
The FBI's new tactic may be subject to a relatively new and little-known rule that would require the government to tell Apple about any vulnerability potentially affecting millions of iPhones unless it can show a group of administration officials that there's a substantial national security need to keep the flaw secret. This process, known as an equities review, was created by the Obama administration to determine if new security flaws should be kept secret or disclosed, and gives the government a specific time frame for alerting companies to the flaws.

source (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-23/thank-you-for-hacking-iphone-now-tell-apple-how-you-did-it)
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-30, 19:36:03
Thanks, Krake. But -as I said- there's no law (https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/04/28/heartbleed-understanding-when-we-disclose-cyber-vulnerabilities)...
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-03-30, 23:31:07
Interesting that the FBI have broke through the phone and it is being said the US pals in Tel Aviv wre the people.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2016-04-01, 10:09:30

Interesting that the FBI have broke through the phone and it is being said the US pals in Tel Aviv wre the people.

Any number of people could have done it.
Quote

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden says the FBI is full of, well, something, in its iPhone case.

Speaking on a video link from Moscow on Tuesday, Snowden used colorful language to explain why the FBI's claim that it needs Apple's help in unlocking the iPhone owned by Syed Farook isn't true.

"The FBI says Apple has the 'exclusive technical means' of getting into this phone," Snowden said at the Common Cause Blueprint for Democracy conference. "Respectfully, that's bullshit."
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-04-03, 00:45:10
If any number why no list?
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: string on 2016-04-19, 20:08:39
The whole business has been fishy from the start.

It must surely have been in Apple's interest to have it put about that their phones were invulnerable to hacking into. Sell more phones that way.

It must also have been in the FBI / CIA / the whole lot of them, to have it thought that they did not know what was in the phones until such time as it became common knowledge. Catch more villains that way.

Now it's gone into muddying-the-water time.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2016-04-19, 20:54:41
I knew that was BS from the git-go. Snowden said so early on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtZLyvmKfV4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtZLyvmKfV4)
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-04-21, 23:04:16
You are security daft over there. Talk about immature.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-04-21, 23:19:40
And you, dear democrat that you are, are too naive and -might I add- too stupid! You have no idea what your government does; and you don't care, because you don't have the abilities required to understand... As long as you've got your National Health and your telly, you're good! :)

Indeed, the UK provides the processors for iPhones. (You likely didn't know that.) But they were developed at UC Berkeley... What last came out of Scotland? :)
I mean, besides your bile...?
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-04-22, 17:32:53
Bile? Limited ex-colonist logic to the routine fore so just as well I know there are a couple of sensible ex-colonials here on the forum. Your country has more secret organisations overcrowding each other than any other country including dictatorships than anyone else. You are a bunch of emotional and political retards and the cost is massive along with the imperial cost of a million military people. You even started a new organisation with that Homeland Security lot and have so brained the population into thinking that all the stuff you do through them and on your own is morally right. A damn waste of money and when the spy clubs run well into double figures it shows how hopeless you are.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: ersi on 2016-04-22, 18:03:11
F.B.I. Director Suggests Bill for iPhone Hacking Topped $1.3 Million (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/us/politics/fbi-director-suggests-bill-for-iphone-hacking-was-1-3-million.html?_r=0)

They hired some expensive hackers...
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-04-24, 19:24:24
Unfortunately with all those secret service agencies in such a "nervous" country that is small cheese!
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: ersi on 2018-10-14, 07:32:37
Apple's iPhone X has a workable Face ID. Hold up the phone to your face and
 it will unlock.

But Face ID only has five tries, so here is a suggestion to law enforcement officers who have detained an iPhone X owner: Do not look into the phone before holding it up to the detainee's face. Face ID might be close to the try limit already and holding it up to your own face first would waste another try.

And a tip to iPhone X owners, courtesy of 9to5mac.
Quote from: https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/13/cops-disable-face-id/
To [quickly disable Face ID], simply press and hold the side button and either power button for several seconds. You'll then see a slider for powering the device off and Emergency SOS. At this point, Face ID has been disabled and you'll have to input your passcode to reenable it.
Title: Re: Apple vs. the FBI
Post by: Frenzie on 2018-10-15, 20:43:41
Huh, interesting. They could remove it in an update, of course.