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...ple/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-w...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