Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Judge: Apple must help US hack San Bernardino killer's phone

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Persephone View Post
    It would really be something when the FBI finally do get access to the phone's data and they find nothing of value on it.
    I'll bet there's very little of any value on it. It's a kind of Pandoras box; the less you see what's in it, the more you want to open it. The best they'll ever get out of it will be who they talked or messaged to. Whether that will even mean anything at this stage is fairly dubious. If they have any tracking of phone or email activity from the bad guys recent past, that would be more useful. Probably more useful to see what the broader connections of their family are attached to.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Persephone View Post
      It would really be something when the FBI finally do get access to the phone's data and they find nothing of value on it.
      Given the amount of time that has gone by, and the public nature of this inquiry, I'd say that's pretty much inevitable.

      Its a contest of wills between the Reds and Apple, period.

      Originally posted by boomer400 View Post
      Uh, extreme hyperbole. Pretty sure the Soviet Union had it all over us with regard to power over the people. Last time we had a gulag was in WW2 with the Japanese and even that was no comparison.
      "It can't happen here" is something they have been saying since the start of recorded history.
      Guess how many times they have been right.


      A gallery of pics of people protesting in favor of Apple across the US-

      http://photos.mercurynews.com/2016/0...nationwide/#10
      "Why is the Rum gone?"

      -Captain Jack

      Comment


      • Since the iPhone in question was a work phone it is not the terrorist's phone, it belongs to the agency that employed him. As such, the phone actually belongs to the government. They are the customer, it's their damn phone. If they want Apple to help them break into it Apple should comply. I don't understand the issue here really...if San Bernardino county owns the phone they have every right to see what's on it, to smash it, burn it, whatever they want to do with it. The terrorist was the end user but had no real rights to anything contained on the phone, as far as I know the device itself and its contents belong to the owner organization. Apple's argument is ridiculous and Tim Cook should be prosecuted and jailed if he persists.
        That may seem extreme but imagine a similar circumstance, which in my view is really identical but for the technology involved: the FBI has reason to believe that a file cabinet in an office has information that could help with an investigation. They show up and find that the file cabinet is locked, and the office manager refuses to give them the key. They threaten, plead, criticize publicly but the office manager has swallowed the key and adamantly refuses to give it up. I think most of us would think the office manager is some kind of psycho or is involved in the criminal activity themselves. I also think the office manager would be arrested and charged with something...I don't know the legalese but obstruction or something along those lines. Why is this case different...especially given that this isn't even the terrorist's phone?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by boomer400 View Post
          Uh, extreme hyperbole. Pretty sure the Soviet Union had it all over us with regard to power over the people. Last time we had a gulag was in WW2 with the Japanese and even that was no comparison.
          No gulags? We have more people in prison than anyone else and the 2nd highest incarceration rate. Pretty darn close to a gulag system.
          Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by R. Evans View Post
            No gulags? We have more people in prison than anyone else and the 2nd highest incarceration rate. Pretty darn close to a gulag system.
            But still not a gulag. Besides, the mass incarceration rates is a product of populist sentiment. Everyone in the '90s believed that '3 strikes' was the way to go to eliminate crime. In fact, here in CA, we had 70% + approval voting which is like the 2nd coming of Christ to get that kind of vote percentage. Plenty of other states jumped on board. So that was not a 'Government' thing, that was a populist voter thing. Hardly the equivalent of a Stalinist edict enforced by the NKVD or KGB. It's really surprising to see so many conservatives here looking at the prison system as a gulag....
            OTOH, if I were black, I'd probably be inclined to agree with you.

            Originally posted by Exorcist
            "It can't happen here" is something they have been saying since the start of recorded history.
            Guess how many times they have been right.
            You may very well be right, good thing I never said that!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Persephone View Post
              It would really be something when the FBI finally do get access to the phone's data and they find nothing of value on it.
              That it would. Or it can hold a gold mine of information.

              We're at war. We need to know what is on that phone. And that phone only.
              ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

              BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

              BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

              Comment


              • It's been a fascinating discussion but I think many people are missing a fundamental part of the problem. How much privacy does the government need? I understand that it may not be relevant to this case but couldn't the logic be turned around to say that it the government works for us we have an absolute need to know what it is doing. Unless we know what the government is doing you can imagine a world where the government is a bigger threat than the terrorist. I would call that the equal transparency theory of moral agents.

                Some people have hinted at this problem by talking about Orwellian states and the Gulag but what are the practical limits of government transparency.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Forgive me for this Drusus, but:

                  1. Once the government gets the means to do anything, they never stop. NSA already listens to far too much, and none of the "security measures" taken since 9/11 have gone away - they have expanding in ways we never imagined when they were first promulgated.

                  2. Under the Patriot Act, the government defines what it considers a "crime" - you as a citizen have no recourse, no representation and no rights what soever thereafter. This makes this a very, very dangerous course for the government to take, and makes it very dangerous for you and I as citizens to carry on a simple conversation. Take a good look at this forum and note how many key words associated with terrorism are used routinely throughout the posts. Now think about what you actually say over a cellphone - not the things you mean to say - but the specific words you actually do say that could be used against you without any recourse on your part. Think especially hard about what you are most likely to say jokingly to a friend or a colleague, and then look at those words the way your government will, looking for evidence that you are a threat, and remember...they decide of you are. You have no say in it.

                  3. We spend billions per year on the NSA, so why isn't the Federal government pushing them to crack the phone? Unsaid but very real - obviously, the NSA can't do it, even with the latest generation Crays, so we're wasting all that money, so what is the NSA doing with all of that money?

                  4. Finally, I'm totally in favor of the rights of the citizenry, most of which have been taken from us while the government dithers about terrorism and every other threat and lets them go at every opportunity.

                  I am not, nor will I ever be, a proponent of Orwell's vision of 1984, which we are on the very brink of as we speak. CCTV surveillance everywhere, cellphone and communications surveillance, rapidly growing DNA "databases", "data mining - say "surveillance" by every entity including the businesses we frequent and now the exponentially growing number of drones from the very top all the way down to local sheriffs, and all for the single most abused reason ever given in history - "it's for our own safety".

                  No, it isn't. It's a means of propagating the ever expanding power of the government to control and suppress its citizens in gross violation of the Constitution and the founding principles of our nation.

                  If the government wants the info, they can ask nicely, and pay for, Apple to give them the specific information from that specific cellphone, after obtaining the appropriate judicial warrant. They have no right, nor do they need, the ability to crack everyone's cellphones at will, and no judge would ever grant that, so this is our government being the biggest asshat in the room...again.


                  One of best posts i read.

                  To add, data mining became big problem.
                  For example, win10 is one big data mining tool.
                  And MS practically force it "free of charge"

                  Biggest problem is that people just don't care anymore. In near future there won't be any privacy.
                  Privacy will die "for our protection because they know better what is good for us"


                  Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
                  Fortess fortuan adiuvat

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    Forgive me for this Drusus, but:

                    1. Once the government gets the means to do anything, they never stop. NSA already listens to far too much, and none of the "security measures" taken since 9/11 have gone away - they have expanding in ways we never imagined when they were first promulgated.

                    2. Under the Patriot Act, the government defines what it considers a "crime" - you as a citizen have no recourse, no representation and no rights what soever thereafter. This makes this a very, very dangerous course for the government to take, and makes it very dangerous for you and I as citizens to carry on a simple conversation. Take a good look at this forum and note how many key words associated with terrorism are used routinely throughout the posts. Now think about what you actually say over a cellphone - not the things you mean to say - but the specific words you actually do say that could be used against you without any recourse on your part. Think especially hard about what you are most likely to say jokingly to a friend or a colleague, and then look at those words the way your government will, looking for evidence that you are a threat, and remember...they decide of you are. You have no say in it.

                    3. We spend billions per year on the NSA, so why isn't the Federal government pushing them to crack the phone? Unsaid but very real - obviously, the NSA can't do it, even with the latest generation Crays, so we're wasting all that money, so what is the NSA doing with all of that money?

                    4. Finally, I'm totally in favor of the rights of the citizenry, most of which have been taken from us while the government dithers about terrorism and every other threat and lets them go at every opportunity.

                    I am not, nor will I ever be, a proponent of Orwell's vision of 1984, which we are on the very brink of as we speak. CCTV surveillance everywhere, cellphone and communications surveillance, rapidly growing DNA "databases", "data mining - say "surveillance" by every entity including the businesses we frequent and now the exponentially growing number of drones from the very top all the way down to local sheriffs, and all for the single most abused reason ever given in history - "it's for our own safety".

                    No, it isn't. It's a means of propagating the ever expanding power of the government to control and suppress its citizens in gross violation of the Constitution and the founding principles of our nation.

                    If the government wants the info, they can ask nicely, and pay for, Apple to give them the specific information from that specific cellphone, after obtaining the appropriate judicial warrant. They have no right, nor do they need, the ability to crack everyone's cellphones at will, and no judge would ever grant that, so this is our government being the biggest asshat in the room...again.


                    Originally posted by hawker_gb View Post
                    One of best posts i read.

                    To add, data mining became big problem.
                    For example, win10 is one big data mining tool.
                    And MS practically force it "free of charge"

                    Biggest problem is that people just don't care anymore. In near future there won't be any privacy.
                    Privacy will die "for our protection because they know better what is good for us"


                    Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
                    Yup, great post from the Mountain Man, and the irony is as someone else said, there probably is nothing of value on the phone which - as many forget - was a work phone. The shooters smashed two other phones, bet everyone forgot that detail. Not sure what make they were - whether they were smartphones (Apple or Android) or simple mobiles for which I gather sms and call records would be in the hands of the telcoms anyway.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                      It's been a fascinating discussion but I think many people are missing a fundamental part of the problem. How much privacy does the government need? I understand that it may not be relevant to this case but couldn't the logic be turned around to say that it the government works for us we have an absolute need to know what it is doing. Unless we know what the government is doing you can imagine a world where the government is a bigger threat than the terrorist. I would call that the equal transparency theory of moral agents.

                      Some people have hinted at this problem by talking about Orwellian states and the Gulag but what are the practical limits of government transparency.
                      Good question, which can also pose the transparency issue as a matter of what becomes reasonable privacy. After all, we should also remember that the government is one side of the compass and the middle is composed of corporate entities that handle our data in quite nebulous ways. If we use our communications on a daily basis, what is the reasonable level of privacy which protects that data?
                      After all, 40 years ago when the only method of communicating to other people on a rapid basis was the telephone, what did we consider to be reasonable? In the earlier era of the phone, the mechanical phone exchanges were monitored by telecom operators who could listen in on occasion. Plus, it wasn't that hard for a lineman to tap in or for someone to build a black/blue box. Yet the general public outcry wasn't much. Is that because we're more aware now or because government transparency (what there is of it anyways) informs us?
                      In my sector, I've always been told that one should treat general things like email, chat, skype, etc. as mediums that are essentially public. If there's stuff in there that you wouldn't want your grandmother to see, it shouldn't be in there. While that's the concept I've tried to pass on to everyone who asks me (decades), it's clear that most of public doesn't bother to be embarassed or careful much. Some friends and acquaintances of mine who work up in the Bay area relay stories about what people post in public folders for popular apps which are just frightening and disgusting. Even though a lot of it is deemed "inappropriate" and removed, much of it makes it up past the human filters there and sometimes it's very objectionable stuff to the general population.

                      Somewhere there's a middle ground for privacy and no privacy, damned if I know where it is.

                      Comment


                      • I work for a government agency and we are told that our emails and other communications are subject to public scrutiny...basically that we are transparent for the most part. We have local new people asking us for info all the time and we generally give it to them no questions asked. There are exceptions though, and I think they are examples of why government does need to have some protected information. In this case it's information related to students...disciplinary actions, emails about parents troubles, custody issues, child protection actions, etc that we simply can't disclose. We destroy hard drives rather than disclose that type of info and I think that's appropriate. We are entrusted with personal and private info that we must protect. There are also military programs that need to remain secret in order to be as effective as possible, State Department info which is in large part classified (which is why we complain about Hillary using private email), and many other government functions that would be inappropriate to make 100% open to public viewing. To suggest that we should have a government which is completely open and transparent, that must comply with every freedom of info request etc is not living in the real world.
                        That said when the cops show up with a warrant we don't stand in front of the file cabinet in defiance we give them what they need. Apple is defying law enforcement for their own financial gain in my opinion, and especially since the phone in question is county property (I think that's who owns it anyway) it's not even the terrorist's personal data that's on it, it's county property too. For Apple to say they won't help the government hack into a government owned phone...if I were in charge of purchasing for the FBI or San Bernardino county I'd make sure we didn't buy any more Apple products. They're crap anyway so no big loss!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                          It's been a fascinating discussion but I think many people are missing a fundamental part of the problem. How much privacy does the government need? I understand that it may not be relevant to this case but couldn't the logic be turned around to say that it the government works for us we have an absolute need to know what it is doing. Unless we know what the government is doing you can imagine a world where the government is a bigger threat than the terrorist. I would call that the equal transparency theory of moral agents.

                          Some people have hinted at this problem by talking about Orwellian states and the Gulag but what are the practical limits of government transparency.
                          As I briefly hinted at in my last post, the counter-situation exists for every individual who decides to have an online presence. How careful is everyone to protect themselves? How alert are they to the actual negative effects of going online? Do they choose to be tracked deliberately or out of sheer "ignorance"? In this day and age, it's hard to believe that people don't understand how easy it is for crimininals and ne'er-do-wells to take advantage of online activity. Yet, the pervasiveness of individuals who have been compromised informs me that most people pay, at best, cursory attention to their own problems. In fact, I know IT people who have essentially bought entirely into the IoT concept of tracking and have abandoned privacy as a general issue and compartmentalized it into smaller security structures so that "bigdata" can be nourished.

                          It's more than easy for us to point at the government and blame it for privacy incursions, but, god forbid, that we don't bother to secure our own house. That's why it's very disingenuous for Apple to claim privacy precedents when they are actually a major part of the online ecosystem and take advantage of it without making their partners as equally responsible as the government. If all the major ISPs undertook privacy as the foremost issue of their agenda, we wouldn't be having this debate. But as it is, every single one of the ISPs and IT providers contributes greatly to the problem. In fact, "freedom of speech"-style legalese probably makes this entirely a moot point.

                          Comment

                          Latest Topics

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X