CDZ Apple vs FBI

[RoccoR]

beagle9, et al,

Well, there are a couple of issues here.

Guns can be traced...

A phone that can't be traced...

Exactly wrong. Both can be traced back to a point of sale but only a phone can have a record of who/what/where it was used. If a gun is sold privately there may be no record of it's current owner, not so for a phone that always needs to connect to a network. Way more people are killed in this country by guns than by phone-toting terrorists.

. Interesting that you speak of a record being kept by networks, and this being of people's accessing & activity upon the networks. Now in the spirit of freedom and privacy, I think that the networks should scrub their servers of anything that is not criminal related (two years old or older), from the networks. Networks should have standards in which are gone by or in place that captures any criminal activity that is used upon the network of course, and that activity should be saved for possible investigation by law enforcement by way of a warrant or supeona if it is requested or called for. The innocent citizens doing business or conducting themselves in a legal and ethical manor upon the networks, should not have their activities or history saved beyond two years max on the networks.

(COMMENT)

Actually, the privacy of the citizen customer/consumer is actually more at risk --- with the database that can be used to make association between one caller and another. Among other things, Counterintelligence, Counter Terrorism and Major Crimes Task Forces are looking for connections between and associations made by numbers called with know espionage, terrorists and criminals.

When Congress mandate that data be maintained by a non-Government entity, they just increased the cost of doing business.

When Congress mandates the data be maintained by a non-Government entity, they just put the data that much closer to intruders and hackers that collect and sell that information commercially.

When Congress mandates the data be maintained by a non-Government entity, that adds another layer of administration that takes time to negotiate; and for which is vulnerable to technical tunneling.

Sometimes, what may appear to be an innocent business or private activity, is not necessarily the case. How can anyone set an arbitrary records destruction date when there is no way of determining the point at which it is no longer needed for reference.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[beagle9]

Interesting that you speak of a record being kept by networks, and this being of people's accessing & activity upon the networks. Now in the spirit of freedom and privacy, I think that the networks should scrub their servers of anything that is not criminal related (two years old or older), from the networks. Networks should have standards in which are gone by or in place that captures any criminal activity that is used upon the network of course, and that activity should be saved for possible investigation by law enforcement by way of a warrant or supeona if it is requested or called for. The innocent citizens doing business or conducting themselves in a legal and ethical manor upon the networks, should not have their activities or history saved beyond two years max on the networks.

An absurd idea. In practice who determines what texts are about criminal activity? Do you want Verizon to read every text or email you send and some intern flagging you as a criminal? Who would pay for it?

. If If I engage in criminal activities on the networks, then it should be flagged and kept for future review by law enforcement. If I don't engage in criminal activity on the networks, then anything recorded should be scrubbed after two years max. No one should have their activities if legal kept after two years or less, and this would be all depending on the standards of the networks being used in agreement there of. On this site for example: If I engage in criminal activity on this site, it should be flagged, saved and even reported to law enforcement. I would have no problem seeing that take place, but to keep and save legal correspondence and activities for any reason beyond two years or less is and should be unacceptable to most citizen who value their privacy, liberties and freedoms.

 

[beagle9]

beagle9, et al,

Well, there are a couple of issues here.

Guns can be traced...

A phone that can't be traced...

Exactly wrong. Both can be traced back to a point of sale but only a phone can have a record of who/what/where it was used. If a gun is sold privately there may be no record of it's current owner, not so for a phone that always needs to connect to a network. Way more people are killed in this country by guns than by phone-toting terrorists.

. Interesting that you speak of a record being kept by networks, and this being of people's accessing & activity upon the networks. Now in the spirit of freedom and privacy, I think that the networks should scrub their servers of anything that is not criminal related (two years old or older), from the networks. Networks should have standards in which are gone by or in place that captures any criminal activity that is used upon the network of course, and that activity should be saved for possible investigation by law enforcement by way of a warrant or supeona if it is requested or called for. The innocent citizens doing business or conducting themselves in a legal and ethical manor upon the networks, should not have their activities or history saved beyond two years max on the networks.

(COMMENT)

Actually, the privacy of the citizen customer/consumer is actually more at risk --- with the database that can be used to make association between one caller and another. Among other things, Counterintelligence, Counter Terrorism and Major Crimes Task Forces are looking for connections between and associations made by numbers called with know espionage, terrorists and criminals.

When Congress mandate that data be maintained by a non-Government entity, they just increased the cost of doing business.

When Congress mandates the data be maintained by a non-Government entity, they just put the data that much closer to intruders and hackers that collect and sell that information commercially.

When Congress mandates the data be maintained by a non-Government entity, that adds another layer of administration that takes time to negotiate; and for which is vulnerable to technical tunneling.

Sometimes, what may appear to be an innocent business or private activity, is not necessarily the case. How can anyone set an arbitrary records destruction date when there is no way of determining the point at which it is no longer needed for reference.

Most Respectfully,
R

. I think we all agree on what constitutes criminal activity in this nation, so after that it's very easy to understand what is not criminal activity and what is. Separating the two should be very easy when it comes to scrubing the networks. So much has happened to innocent people because of all the invading of people's privacy in selling peoples information, tracking people with tracking cookies, recording peoples information without their permission in which is a crime in many states, and it should have never been allowed in this nation.

 

[FA_Q2]

Should this nation allow a device to be used or created that can be used by criminals, terrorist, and bad people, where as the criminal, terrorist or bad people can gain total anomitity from the law all because of ?

That describes the guns used by the terrorists too.

. Guns can be traced, and if illegal then the guns need to be aprehended, traced and the irresponsible taken to task on the matter.... No one should have guns that can't be traced or tracked if were somehow used in a crime. Now there are many good citizens who have many guns, and many are probably not registered or traceable, but as long as those guns are in the possession of good people, then they are no threat and safe. However, if such guns are stolen from the good people, and they are used in a crime, then the citizens end up losing big time in that type of situation.
An untraceable, and unregistered gun if stolen or sold on the black market is a traggic situation.
Death caused by muder and mayhem needs no place of refuge, comfort or peace among us. We are smarter than that.
A phone that can't be traced, studied or investigated in light of a murder or murders, is also a traggic situation. How long will we allow corporations to keep killing us for profits, without us having a defense against these sort of things ?

How long will we allow corporations to keep killing us for profits, without us having a defense against these sort of things ?

What hyperbolic bullshit.

No one has died because of encryption.

. Isn't that what this case embodies now ? Isn't this why the feds can't break the phone and access the info on it ? Didn't people die in which is the reason for this case that is being brought now ? Hyperbolic eh ?

Nope.

People died because of a terrorist. They are coming in AFTER the fact and want to investigate a phone that has virtually no chance of containing anything of value for the investigation. No one has (or will) die because the FBI is having a temper tantrum about Apple breaking the phones encryption safeguards for them.

Again, I would reiterate that the idea the government with the largest budget on the planet and access to the most sophisticated technology and some very good talent is incapable of breaking the phone themselves. They just want the legal precedent to force the companies to do it for them (and that causes them to build in back doors).

 

[alang1216]

I think we all agree on what constitutes criminal activity in this nation, so after that it's very easy to understand what is not criminal activity and what is. Separating the two should be very easy when it comes to scrubing the networks.

Sound very naïve to me. Do you think terrorists will use a hash tag (e.g., #TerrorismPlans) to flag their messages or talk openly about their plans?

 

[beagle9]

I think we all agree on what constitutes criminal activity in this nation, so after that it's very easy to understand what is not criminal activity and what is. Separating the two should be very easy when it comes to scrubing the networks.

Sound very naïve to me. Do you think terrorists will use a hash tag (e.g., #TerrorismPlans) to flag their messages or talk openly about their plans?

. So your saying that because of terrorist we lose our freedoms of privacy, and the freedom to adhere to the very word itself in this nation ? Now the case of the phone is an isolated thing in which can be resolved, but the rest of this mess that corporations have been doing to us is downright dirty, and is robbing us of our freedoms without excuse for it.

 

[alang1216]

I think we all agree on what constitutes criminal activity in this nation, so after that it's very easy to understand what is not criminal activity and what is. Separating the two should be very easy when it comes to scrubing the networks.

Sound very naïve to me. Do you think terrorists will use a hash tag (e.g., #TerrorismPlans) to flag their messages or talk openly about their plans?

. So your saying that because of terrorist we lose our freedoms of privacy, and the freedom to adhere to the very word itself in this nation ? Now the case of the phone is an isolated thing in which can be resolved, but the rest of this mess that corporations have been doing to us is downright dirty, and is robbing us of our freedoms without excuse for it.

I'm saying not to force Apple to alter their product and don't put the burden of determining criminal guilt or innocence on a corporation. How long we keep network records if a matter I've never addressed

 

[beagle9]

I think we all agree on what constitutes criminal activity in this nation, so after that it's very easy to understand what is not criminal activity and what is. Separating the two should be very easy when it comes to scrubing the networks.

Sound very naïve to me. Do you think terrorists will use a hash tag (e.g., #TerrorismPlans) to flag their messages or talk openly about their plans?

. So your saying that because of terrorist we lose our freedoms of privacy, and the freedom to adhere to the very word itself in this nation ? Now the case of the phone is an isolated thing in which can be resolved, but the rest of this mess that corporations have been doing to us is downright dirty, and is robbing us of our freedoms without excuse for it.

I'm saying not to force Apple to alter their product and don't put the burden of determining criminal guilt or innocence on a corporation. How long we keep network records if a matter I've never addressed

. We will agree to disagree on the phone, because I think the one case of the phone can be resolved with Apples help hopefully.

 

[candycorn]

Where does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?

Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?

As I understand it, the FBI convinced a judge to issue a ruling directing Apple to break into the phone. Apple has found (as I recall) another judge to set aside the ruling.

This is a very tough subject. The case before us is a slam dunk; you have a terrorist who has an Apple I-Phone and there may be intel in it that will help prevent another mass shooting. I don' think there is a question...if you can hack into the phone, you do so if you're Apple.

And save the "we'd be unlocking every I-Phone" argument. There are safeguards in place you can install to prevent this from resulting in that.

What is difficult is what the ruling means. For example, if they found a scanner in the house of the terrorist, can they direct HP or Epson to write a program that would hack into the memory of the device to see what was scanned? Can they direct GM or Ford to hack into the black box on the vehicles to tell you where the car was driven? In this case, the guy was a terrorist, he was seen by victims and intended victims shooting up the meeting where he was attending, and apparently shooting it out with the Cops. Case pretty much closed.

What about if you are just suspected of a crime, can they do all of the above to see who you've been talking to, what you've been scanning, and where you have been driving your car?

At the end of the day, I'm glad I am not making the decision, I'll put it that way. Would be kind of nice if we had a Supreme Court fully staffed to hear the case and hand down a ruling.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Where does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?

Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?

If the FBI has a warrant that does cover due process. That being said I'm hesitant in giving the Government more tools to spy on its citizens. You know they will use any encryption breaking program against the public its the Fed.

 

[FA_Q2]

Where does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?

Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?

As I understand it, the FBI convinced a judge to issue a ruling directing Apple to break into the phone. Apple has found (as I recall) another judge to set aside the ruling.

This is a very tough subject. The case before us is a slam dunk; you have a terrorist who has an Apple I-Phone and there may be intel in it that will help prevent another mass shooting. I don' think there is a question...if you can hack into the phone, you do so if you're Apple.

And save the "we'd be unlocking every I-Phone" argument. There are safeguards in place you can install to prevent this from resulting in that.

What is difficult is what the ruling means. For example, if they found a scanner in the house of the terrorist, can they direct HP or Epson to write a program that would hack into the memory of the device to see what was scanned? Can they direct GM or Ford to hack into the black box on the vehicles to tell you where the car was driven? In this case, the guy was a terrorist, he was seen by victims and intended victims shooting up the meeting where he was attending, and apparently shooting it out with the Cops. Case pretty much closed.

What about if you are just suspected of a crime, can they do all of the above to see who you've been talking to, what you've been scanning, and where you have been driving your car?

At the end of the day, I'm glad I am not making the decision, I'll put it that way. Would be kind of nice if we had a Supreme Court fully staffed to hear the case and hand down a ruling.

I think that you have skipped over the core issue with what the FBI is demanding though. Do you believe that the government has the right to force a company to write (IOW - work) code for them? I think that is the crux of the issue. It would be different if Apple already had the code - the FBI could get a warrant that required access to it and use it. It is a different story if the code does not even exist.

 

[alang1216]

And save the "we'd be unlocking every I-Phone" argument. There are safeguards in place you can install to prevent this from resulting in that.

What safeguards are foolproof? Once Pandora's box is opened the genie can never be put back in. (Mixed metaphor but you know what I mean.)

 

[RoccoR]

alang1216, et al,

Americans must know, although they often forget, that they don't live in a vacuum. The i-Phne is not a US Manufactured product; but rather a Chinese product; manufactured by Foxconn (Hon Hai Precision Industry) and Pegatron (known for making Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and Dell components).

And save the "we'd be unlocking every I-Phone" argument. There are safeguards in place you can install to prevent this from resulting in that.

What safeguards are foolproof? Once Pandora's box is opened the genie can never be put back in. (Mixed metaphor but you know what I mean.)

(COMMENT)

No safeguard is foolproof. At some point is will be cheaper for US Intelligence to outsource intercept activities, rather than contend with US Laws and public outcries about NSA's activities.

People seem to be always concerned about the NSA storing information about US Citizens. A company like Huawei Technologies which is getting ever more present in the US Communications infrastructure --- a position that allows Chinese Intelligence backdoor access to computer networks and telecommunications, with potential for surveillance --- and remote maintenance capability that can be used to disrupt communications or intercept economic and military secrets. It is a very health source of personal information on prominent people in America used for manipulative purposes.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[candycorn]

Where does the government get the authority to order Apple to hack one of it's customer's phones?

Why do Republican candidates who claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government side with the government on this issue?

As I understand it, the FBI convinced a judge to issue a ruling directing Apple to break into the phone. Apple has found (as I recall) another judge to set aside the ruling.

This is a very tough subject. The case before us is a slam dunk; you have a terrorist who has an Apple I-Phone and there may be intel in it that will help prevent another mass shooting. I don' think there is a question...if you can hack into the phone, you do so if you're Apple.

And save the "we'd be unlocking every I-Phone" argument. There are safeguards in place you can install to prevent this from resulting in that.

What is difficult is what the ruling means. For example, if they found a scanner in the house of the terrorist, can they direct HP or Epson to write a program that would hack into the memory of the device to see what was scanned? Can they direct GM or Ford to hack into the black box on the vehicles to tell you where the car was driven? In this case, the guy was a terrorist, he was seen by victims and intended victims shooting up the meeting where he was attending, and apparently shooting it out with the Cops. Case pretty much closed.

What about if you are just suspected of a crime, can they do all of the above to see who you've been talking to, what you've been scanning, and where you have been driving your car?

At the end of the day, I'm glad I am not making the decision, I'll put it that way. Would be kind of nice if we had a Supreme Court fully staffed to hear the case and hand down a ruling.

I think that you have skipped over the core issue with what the FBI is demanding though. Do you believe that the government has the right to force a company to write (IOW - work) code for them? I think that is the crux of the issue. It would be different if Apple already had the code - the FBI could get a warrant that required access to it and use it. It is a different story if the code does not even exist.

In this case, I don't see that as an issue. Every objective piece of data (and there are several) points toward the owner of the cell phone being a terrorist. It stands to reason that (if this is the only phone he had) that there will be valuable information for the FBI on that phone. The "greater good" is best served by the FBI making such a request and Apple complying. Now, lets say it's 1 or 2 degrees removed to the yutz that bought the weapons for him or his father or his cousin; I'm not so sure the FBI can or should make orders for their cell phones.

 

[alang1216]

In this case, I don't see that as an issue. Every objective piece of data (and there are several) points toward the owner of the cell phone being a terrorist. It stands to reason that (if this is the only phone he had) that there will be valuable information for the FBI on that phone. The "greater good" is best served by the FBI making such a request and Apple complying. Now, lets say it's 1 or 2 degrees removed to the yutz that bought the weapons for him or his father or his cousin; I'm not so sure the FBI can or should make orders for their cell phones.

Don't forget that anything the phone owner backed up to the cloud was already turned over to the FBI. No one knows if there is ANY value to cracking the phone.

 

[RoccoR]

alang1216, et al,

This is not necessarily true.

In this case, I don't see that as an issue. Every objective piece of data (and there are several) points toward the owner of the cell phone being a terrorist. It stands to reason that (if this is the only phone he had) that there will be valuable information for the FBI on that phone. The "greater good" is best served by the FBI making such a request and Apple complying. Now, lets say it's 1 or 2 degrees removed to the yutz that bought the weapons for him or his father or his cousin; I'm not so sure the FBI can or should make orders for their cell phones.

Don't forget that anything the phone owner backed up to the cloud was already turned over to the FBI. No one knows if there is ANY value to cracking the phone.

(COMMENT)

Data Storage on the "cloud" is no more accessible by the FBI (which has very small and very limited surveillance capabilities --- I think you mean NSA) than to anyone else.

The same same legal protections (less what is approved in the terms of service) that cover leased or rented server space --- cover the cloud.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[candycorn]

In this case, I don't see that as an issue. Every objective piece of data (and there are several) points toward the owner of the cell phone being a terrorist. It stands to reason that (if this is the only phone he had) that there will be valuable information for the FBI on that phone. The "greater good" is best served by the FBI making such a request and Apple complying. Now, lets say it's 1 or 2 degrees removed to the yutz that bought the weapons for him or his father or his cousin; I'm not so sure the FBI can or should make orders for their cell phones.

Don't forget that anything the phone owner backed up to the cloud was already turned over to the FBI. No one knows if there is ANY value to cracking the phone.

No one knows if there ISN'T any value either...

 

[candycorn]

alang1216, et al,

This is not necessarily true.

In this case, I don't see that as an issue. Every objective piece of data (and there are several) points toward the owner of the cell phone being a terrorist. It stands to reason that (if this is the only phone he had) that there will be valuable information for the FBI on that phone. The "greater good" is best served by the FBI making such a request and Apple complying. Now, lets say it's 1 or 2 degrees removed to the yutz that bought the weapons for him or his father or his cousin; I'm not so sure the FBI can or should make orders for their cell phones.

Don't forget that anything the phone owner backed up to the cloud was already turned over to the FBI. No one knows if there is ANY value to cracking the phone.

(COMMENT)

Data Storage on the "cloud" is no more accessible by the FBI (which has very small and very limited surveillance capabilities --- I think you mean NSA) than to anyone else.

The same same legal protections (less what is approved in the terms of service) that cover leased or rented server space --- cover the cloud.

Most Respectfully,
R

When you start gunning people down, I think a reasonable jurist would conclude that your rights to privacy are trumped by the public's right to continue breathing.

 

[alang1216]

(COMMENT)

Data Storage on the "cloud" is no more accessible by the FBI (which has very small and very limited surveillance capabilities --- I think you mean NSA) than to anyone else.

The same same legal protections (less what is approved in the terms of service) that cover leased or rented server space --- cover the cloud.

Most Respectfully,
R

Quite wrong. Data stored in the iCloud in the USA is subject to US subpoenas just like any other document storage system. Apple has the means in place to access any and all data stored there. In fact the FBI has already subpoenaed the data and Apple complied.

 

[alang1216]

When you start gunning people down, I think a reasonable jurist would conclude that your rights to privacy are trumped by the public's right to continue breathing.

Not according to existing US laws. If you confided in a priest or a doctor your privacy is NOT trumped. There may be some caveats to that but at any rate it is not automatically trumped.