Topic: Apple or the FBI… whose side are you on in the iPhone privacy battle? - page 3. (Read 1945 times)

Do you really think that they don't try to listen to everything, permission or not? It really doesn't matter anymore.

Also it is worth remembering, the NSA is said to break many weaker encryptions

https://thehackernews.com/2015/10/nsa-crack-encryption.html

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/haldermanheninger/how-is-nsa-breaking-so-much-crypto/

I'll stick to an android phone and let them do whatever they want.

Snowden have said many times that companies like Apple and Facebook and Google and major ISPs do work with NSA. NSA or FBI, both are government.

Snowden is about the NSA, the US government. I'm sure that in the terms of use of Apple, this is mentionned somewhere that they will collect your data, but you never signed any contract with the NSA...

To all people with short term memory, please try to recollect the name 'Snowden' and the revelations of Snowden about companies like Google or Apple or Facebook.

I think this is a PR stunt or even a political stunt.

If Tim Cook really care about privacy, maybe he shouldn't collect too many userdata. The same for Google. Maybe stop reading emails for starters.

Also, it is worth remembering that Obama and his administration was always trying to break encryption and get into phones by legislating it.


Obama administration explored ways to bypass smartphone encryption

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-ponders-how-to-seek-access-to-encrypted-data/2015/09/23/107a811c-5b22-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html


But after the backlash against it, he took a far subtle way but he is still trying.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/obama-administration-wont-seek-encryption-backdoor-legislation/

Then, if its that particular phone of the terrorist, then Apple should break the encryption just this once for this particular phone if it is technically possible.

But if the government is asking for a backdoor on each phone, then they shouldn't.

I don't like to say that, but I'm in the Apple side. Even if I hate this company, her action and her leader, it can't be worst than THE terrorist nation, the USA, devil's country.

Yep, on the side of Apple here and I'm not against them as a company by any means.  The issue of privacy is far bigger than justice for one terrorist.

I don't like Apple as a company, but of course I'm on their side in this debate. I don't care what the terrorist did, unlocking the phone would set a precedent and be very dangerous for everyone.

It's funny how everyone asking Apple to do this are technologically clueless, when all the tech-related people are on Apple's side. That should tell us something.

It's a bit like politicians in general saying silly things like "encryption should be banned", they don't know what they're talking about and just want to secure votes from the clueless electorate so it looks like they're doing something against terrorism and child porn etc. It makes me mad.

Apple or the FBI… whose side are you on in the iPhone privacy battle?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/21/apple-smartphone-personal-data

So is Apple fighting for everyone's liberty? It is defying the US government's request that it must help open up the iPhone of the terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, because the software so created will compromise the integrity of every iPhone. Or is it another example of a hi-tech company bogusly invoking the threats to privacy mounted by the new digital age as a marketing strategy – and carelessly putting the lives of every citizen a little more at risk?

The US is riven by the argument, with the need for security counterbalanced with the need for personal privacy. Donald Trump has called for a boycott of Apple products, while most – but not all – of California's tech giants have lined up behind Apple. It is an argument that Britain needs to have with no less urgency. These issues confront us too, in a country perhaps far too ready to trade off personal freedom before any call for security.

The FBI wants the details of Farook's last months of calls for obvious reasons: it will reveal the extent to which he and his accomplices were lone operators or part of a terrorist network operating in the US; if the latter, there could not be a more vital interest than knowing who they are. The trouble is that the iPhone is so encrypted that the call history cannot be disclosed without the right password and will close down once 10 wrong passwords are entered. It will need special software, written by Apple, to get at what the justice and police authorities need so desperately.

The FBI and Justice Department have been careful to insist that they don't want general software. They are targeting the iPhone of just one terrorist and need Apple's one-off support to open it. President Obama, steering a path between the needs of privacy and his government's appetite for surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden, has on this case come down on the side of security. A federal judge has backed the FBI and ruled, following the All Writs Act of 1789, that the rule of law is everyone’s business: the young American republic wanted to establish it was a republic of laws and thus it was the duty of any person or any business, even if not involved directly in a case, to ensure court orders were executed. The court has ruled that Apple help the FBI in the name of the rule of law.

But Apple CEO, Tim Cook, in a letter to his customers that everyone should read sets out powerful reasons why his company should not create what would in effect be a back door not just to Farook's iPhone but to everyone's. Smartphones have become our civilisation's indispensable personal data treasure trove – details of our contacts, finances, health and private conversations are all housed in one device. As he writes: "The government suggests this tool (special software to open the phone) could only be used once, on one phone. But that's simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks – from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable."

Source: The Guardian