Privacy

[BarryBobPosthole]

Man, this encryption deal is an issue that is really tpugh. I couldn't begin to say which way right. And for me, when its that close I lean more towards looking at privacy as fundamental to liberty. If anyone else knows a better way, please enlighten me.

if you're not familiar with it, some cellphones nowadays provide encryption that can't be broken. Thus the encrypted traffic on those phones can't be snooped on by anyone. The question is whether phone manufacturers should be compelled to provide the encryption algorithm to law enforcement. If they evencan and I'm not sure they can. If they can't the inevitable question is whether they should offer such a technology.

Its a sticky wicket.

BKB

Apple opposes judge's order to hack San Bernardino shooter's iPhone
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/us/san-bernardino-shooter-phone-apple/index.html

[airbud7]

Yea Barry that's a tough one there.

[Captain]

I totally agree. I don't know the answer to this situation.
If there was some way Apple could work with the FBI to unlock this ONE phone with a proper search warrant to recover the info I could see that, however if they have to make a "back door" that applies to all iPhone's, that would be a horse of a different color.
Not sure the government should compel a private company to do that.
It's above my paygrade...

[HideHunter]

I agree.. I'm torn.. but I'm leaning towards "privacy"'.. Slippery slope.

[quercus alba]

uh, we've got people breaking into Pentagon and CIA files and the guvment can't crack an Iphone? Where's Abby and agent Magee when you need them?

[Chicken Dinner]

I'm not torn at all. I think the gummit can go pound sand on this one. I honestly find it hard to believe they can't crack the encryption in my iPhone.

[airbud7]

A good read on the subject...http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/17/467096705/apple-the-fbi-and-iphone-encryption-a-look-at-whats-at-stake

[Thumper]

I'm torn also. What I don't persactly understand is ... CAN it be done by Apple? If the method does not exist at this time, but they can do it if forced ... why couldn't someone else figure it out? It's either possible or impossible ... if possible, somebody else will figure it out eventually. Possibly another "Edward Snowden type" ... a disgruntled ex-employee of Apple for example.

[LJ3]

Yes Apple can do it. The knowledge and process is baked in to locking it down in the first place.

Apple shouldn't be forced to build the tool for anyone. That's too far.

Is it too far to order Apple to provide specific data from a specific phone? How does that differ legally from seizing records and files from an accused suspect?

[Chicken Dinner]

I'll defer to you on the technology. However, that's not what they're being asked to do. They're being asked to give the government the key that would work on everyone's.


Yes Apple can do it. The knowledge and process is baked in to locking it down in the first place.

Apple shouldn't be forced to build the tool for anyone. That's too far.

Is it too far to order Apple to provide specific data from a specific phone? How does that differ legally from seizing records and files from an accused suspect?

[Thumper]

On the flip side, why couldn't Apple develop and keep the "key" under their control? Essentially, Apple "owns" it and only Apple could use it, when presented with a valid search warrant, then release the data to the proper authorities.

Times are changing. Aren't our rights being compromised daily at every airport in the nation? They can dig through your wife's packed underwear and "personal" items while in line with a bazillon other people. You can be x-rayed and felt-up by TSA Agents. Is that a violation of our rights? The world is at the point "some" rights need to be compromised (within reason) for public safety. We need to make sure we have ethical judges who take the process seriously and don't issue warrants willy-nilly. I don't see that being a big problem.

[airbud7]

I'll defer to you on the technology. However, that's not what they're being asked to do. They're being asked to give the government the key that would work on everyone's.

This^
Once the government has the backdoor there gonna keep it...then when china hacks into the government computer AGAIN they will have it...

[airbud7]

Times are changing. Aren't our rights being compromised daily at every airport in the nation? They can dig through your wife's packed underwear and "personal" items while in line with a bazillon other people. You can be x-rayed and felt-up by TSA Agents. Is that a violation of our rights?

Big difference in a physical Bomb and all your personal records/passwords/nakid pictures/porno/sex with your secretary...

[DeputyDog]

Times are changing. Aren't our rights being compromised daily at every airport in the nation? They can dig through your wife's packed underwear and "personal" items while in line with a bazillon other people. You can be x-rayed and felt-up by TSA Agents. Is that a violation of our rights? The world is at the point "some" rights need to be compromised (within reason) for public safety. We need to make sure we have ethical judges who take the process seriously and don't issue warrants willy-nilly. I don't see that being a big problem.

Jim, the difference is, you aren't guaranteed a "right" to fly on an airplane. If you don't like the procedures for air travel, you can travel a different way.

[jb]

It's hard for me to believe that someone out there already knows how to do this, more than likely a teenager with to much time on their hands.
They'll find a way, or already know how to do it, just trying to find a way to show it's legal.

[Thumper]

Deppity, I also don't HAVE to own a cell phone. I have the choice to use a landline.

Playing Devil's Advocate here for the sake of discussion, I fail to grasp the difference. Wire as well as electronic surveillance is allowable by warrant under the Fourth Ammendment. I don't see much of a difference here.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Feds have probable cause, they know they want to "search the phone" and they know what info they want to seize. Correct?

[Chicken Dinner]

Right, and they are free to search it to their heart's content. They're not free to force a private enterprise to create the methodology for them to do so.


Deppity, I also don't HAVE to own a cell phone. I have the choice to use a landline.

Playing Devil's Advocate here for the sake of discussion, I fail to grasp the difference. Wire as well as electronic surveillance is allowable by warrant under the Fourth Ammendment. I don't see much of a difference here.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Feds have probable cause, they know they want to "search the phone" and they know what info they want to seize. Correct?

[BarryBobPosthole]

To make it a little more complicated, some states have said that if you are arrested, and that would be for any offense, police can search your cell phone without a warrant. i know at least one state Supreme Court has upheld that.

BKB

[Thumper]

Looking at it another way. IF Apple is capable of developing that methodology, but refuses to do so, would that constitute "withholding evidence"? It's a VERY thin line ... but worth questioning.

If I have a possible murder weapon locked in my gun safe and do not have the combination ... but know where I can probably find the combination if I turned my house upside down looking for it ... where would I stand legally if served with a warrant to open that safe, but refused to do so?

[airbud7]

If I have a possible murder weapon locked in my gun safe and do not have the combination ... but know where I can probably find the combination if I turned my house upside down looking for it ... where would I stand legally if served with a warrant to open that safe and refused to do so?


They want the combination to all safe's in the world...not just your's.

[Thumper]

I'm past all that A/B ... scan up ... we're dealing with a hypothetical question here.

Thump quote:


why couldn't Apple develop and keep the "key" under their control? Essentially, Apple "owns" it and only Apple could use it, when presented with a valid search warrant, then release the data to the proper authorities.

[LJ3]

I get that the gubmint is asking for the key to the backdoor. That is BS. What I'm asking is if the gubmint says "Apple, we have a warrant and we're subpoenaing everything on this phone, you must pull all data from that phone and provide it to us"; how is that different from seizing files form a personal home with a search warrant?

[Chicken Dinner]

The difference is that Apple has said they don't currently have access to the data.

[Thumper]

I get that the gubmint is asking for the key to the backdoor. That is BS. What I'm asking is if the gubmint says "Apple, we have a warrant and we're subpoenaing everything on this phone, you must pull all data from that phone and provide it to us"; how is that different from seizing files form a personal home with a search warrant?

Ditto. I think I've been asking the same question ... in a "Thump" sort'a way. ;)

[LJ3]

The difference is that Apple has said they don't currently have access to the data.

Which I believe to be true (I agree with you maroons, BTW). But if it can be engineered, it can be reversed engineered. If I'm apple, I tell the Feds to eat a bag of dick unless they pay a very heavy price for the work to be completed by Apple to produce the information.

[Arty]

Which I believe to be true (I agree with you maroons, BTW). But if it can be engineered, it can be reversed engineered. If I'm apple, I tell the Feds to eat a bag of dick unless they pay a very heavy price for the work to be completed by Apple to produce the information. and that may be exactly what Apple is out for.

[DeputyDog]

Deppity, I also don't HAVE to own a cell phone. I have the choice to use a landline.

Playing Devil's Advocate here for the sake of discussion, I fail to grasp the difference. Wire as well as electronic surveillance is allowable by warrant under the Fourth Ammendment. I don't see much of a difference here.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Feds have probable cause, they know they want to "search the phone" and they know what info they want to seize. Correct?

But your landline isn't a portable computer that has almost your entire life stored in it. That's the difference. If I get your phone records from a land line all I get is the number you called, what numbers called you and the duration of the calls. If I get my hands on your cell phone I can see all of your contacts, calendar, Facebook, and probably your banking info as well, and probably a lot more info about you.

[Thumper]

Yes, BUT ... a search warrant states the specific info they're looking for. If they're looking on my phone for child porn photos and that's what's named in the warrant, they aren't going to be seizing my Good Hunting slush fund account info. Correct?

[DeputyDog]

Correct.

[LJ3]

He's a copper, don't trust what he says! #applelivesmatter

[johnboy]

If Apple can access encrypted data on one or all of their devices then why not just print it out and give that to law enforcement? No keys given, just the data in question in hardcopy form.

What if this was an android phone running a third party encryption program? Who would they go after?

[LJ3]

The google fucks in Reston, VA.

[Chicken Dinner]

You android users are fuqued.

[Captain]

A 6 year old can hack a droid. That's what I been telling y'all for years.

[quercus alba]

This isn't about getting into a phone, this is about getting into everybody's phone.

What are we willing to sacrifice for our so called security?

[Nandy]

There is not such thing as apple making a backdoor and keeping it secure, it will leak like anything else that has leaked from apple, android, winblows, etc.

[BarryBobPosthole]

This isn't about getting into a phone, this is about getting into everybody's phone.

What are we willing to sacrifice for our so called security?

I think too, because cell phones didn't exist when privacy laws were made we have to decide if the law gets a supeona, does that mean absolutely every thing we own and do is open to the law's view? What kind of new fishing expeditions can they go on given what they've asked for in the supeona?

it could be as simple as pulling someone over because the cop sees someone looking at a phone and then demanding to see the phone to see if the driver has been texting or not. Is that an invasion of privacy? Could he look at it if the person had been pulled over for a tail light out?

Those aren't he most onerous examples, but they are examples of how open we are to scrutny.

Here's a question about current law. If someone has a warrant to search my house, do I have to provide the combinatin of my gun safe? Can they legally destroy it to open it if I won't give it up?

Same go for any locked up shit?

BKB

[Hombre]

Apple can do it, and I'm certain that there are lots of people that can do it without engaging Apple at all.

Mcafee said:

“And why do the best hackers on the planet not work for the FBI? Because the FBI will not hire anyone with a 24-inch purple mohawk, 10-gauge ear piercings, and a tattooed face who demands to smoke weed while working and won’t work for less than a half-million dollars a year. But you bet your ass that the Chinese and Russians are hiring similar people with similar demands and have been for many years. It’s why we are decades behind in the cyber race.”

I think he's right. The suit and tie government is radically behind and the bureaucracy has caught up. Why would anyone in their right mind think it is a good idea to give a government a backdoor. If they don't have the ability to create this themselves how will they keep it safe. I mean wholly shit they couldn't even create a running website for ACA (Had to call in Google) now they want to have a golden key to everyone's system.

[Nandy]

I think the reason the FBI is not building the tool is because in order to do that they would have to reverse engineer the iphone OS and that is illegal.

[Thumper]

I think the reason the FBI is not building the tool is because in order to do that they would have to reverse engineer the iphone OS and that is illegal.

Ha ha ha! I seriously doubt that's the reason. ;)

[airbud7]

John McAfee offers to hack shooter’s iPhone for FBI

“I would eat my shoe on the Neil Cavuto show if we could not break the encryption on the San Bernardino phone, McAfee said. “This is a pure and simple fact.”

http://www.cultofmac.com/413087/john-mcafee-offers-to-hack-shooters-iphone-for-fbi/

also http://arstechnica.com/staff/2016/02/mcafee-will-break-iphone-crypto-for-fbi-in-3-weeks-or-eat-shoe-on-live-tv/

[Hombre]

I think the reason the FBI is not building the tool is because in order to do that they would have to reverse engineer the iphone OS and that is illegal.

I can only assume this is sarcasm, just not translating well via the printed word

[Nandy]

What part is hard to understand, they are working in a case trying to get intel and in the future they might have to prosecute someone and if the evidence has been obtain by illegal ways then wouldnt that info not been able to use in court? I get it, they could go and get in, but if they are going to make the information public then they will have to disclose how they uncovered the data.

[Hombre]

What part is hard to understand, they are working in a case trying to get intel and in the future they might have to prosecute someone and if the evidence has been obtain by illegal ways then wouldnt that info not been able to use in court? I get it, they could go and get in, but if they are going to make the information public then they will have to disclose how they uncovered the data.

Two parts:

1. That a government that needed the assistance of the private sector to right a website somehow has the ability to crack Apples encryption.

2. That a government which has been maligned for breaking privacy rules, and spying on personal data would care about breaking a law to gain information, and pull a mea culpa in court and admit to attaining information illegally.

I truly believe they do not have the skills to do this on their own.

[LJ3]

What Hombre said :)

[BarryBobPosthole]

Yup.
BKB

[BarryBobPosthole]

After hearing y'all and thinking about this, I kind of look at it like this: much of the roots of my belief in the second amendment comes from what I'd like to think the intent that the founders intended. And that would be the part that says I can be responsible for my own defense, free to choose how, and confident that our government will always respect and protect that freedom. And that might be defense against robbers or it might be defense against the government itself, there's no judgement to be made about it by anyone. Its my own business. The federal government, by the way, handled the arrests and standoff in Oregon with every respect for the second amendment. The 2nd gives me no right to go use those arms to do harm to the public, nor to commit well known, well tested, and documented for years, offenses against the government. Job well done! It could have easily gone otherwise.
I also believe that the 4th amendment says that governments, city, state, and federal, can spy, observe, and eavesdrop on its citizens in many ways to gather information about criminal activity as long as the specific activity and purpose are sanctioned by an appropriate judge. It doesn't say however that I am duty bound in any way to live my live in full view of the government so it can exercize its fourth amendment rights. I believe that is what we commonly refer to as our personal privacy. And where I thnk the commonality of the fourth and second amendments is, is that in both cases the Constitution puts as much faith in its government as it does its people to not be bad actors in exercizing those rights. And in the instances where they are found to be, like in the NSA spying on us, we don't change or re-interpret the Constitution, we change out the bad actors for good ones and fix the process and move on, knowing and believing that the good faith necessary to live with those liberties makes us better off as a society too.

And thats that.

At least as far as I can tell.

So I guess I've gotten off the fence.

BKB
Here's another pretty good article on the subject and the capabilities and motivations of the gubmint
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/secret-memo-details-u-s-s-broader-strategy-to-crack-phones

[LJ3]

Good stuff BBP. I wish there was an easy button to remove the bad actors.

[BarryBobPosthole]

And the scary part is that once Apple is forced to comply, how long will it be before Congress makes it illegal to own or make a cell phone that can't be decrypted by the government?

BKB

[Chicken Dinner]

I'd almost feel better if the Congress did enact legislation. To me, that'd be better than some judge perverting the constitution.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Then it probably shouldn't bother you if they enact legislation make semi automatic weapons illegal. Its kind of the same thing: reimagining the Constitution that is.

[airbud7]

Ouch...Good point Barry.