Privacy VS Security
Forums › General Discussion › Privacy VS Security-
This is a community of fairly tech savvy individuals. Wondering what yalls thoughts are on the ruling that Apple has to unlock a phone and their refusal. Do they have that right?
-
Government is probably only asking because they want to use evidence in court, they've probably already read through it all lol
-
Apple put out an awesome letter on their website outlining their objections. I'm with them on this one.
-
I haven't gotten all the info yet, but really hard to decide what side to be on for this.
-
I'm with Apple on this one.
-
Does it matter that the phone was owned by the county government?
-
★MΛΥΗΞΜ★ wrote:
Who is the government looking to take to court? The owner f the phone is dead. He/she would be the only person with standing to say their fourth amendment right to privacy was infringed by a warrantless examination of the phone.Government is probably only asking because they want to use evidence in court, they've probably already read through it all lol
If somebody else was charged with a crime based on information gained from the phone and tried to suppress the evidence from the phone I don't think they would have standing. I cannot quote direct precedent, but I've seen similar arguments attempted by defendants but they did not prevail.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
If the phone belonged to the county and if the county knew the password they could provide the password to the FBI if they were inclined to do so. In most cases that would not be a violation of the user's fourth amendment rights. However, if that County is like the agency I work for the user sets the password.Does it matter that the phone was owned by the county government?
Here, because the user is dead if the County owned the phone there would be no problem at all if the County granted the FBI permission to review the contents of the phone. The problem is without the code to unlock the phone the FBI cannot break the encryption.
-
The headphone ports getting taken out of mobile devices for apple
-
Privacy, ill take care of my own security ;)
-
"Larkin" Morris wrote:
What does that have to do with privacy or security?The headphone ports getting taken out of mobile devices for apple
-
I understand the value of public safety, but I still side with privacy 100%.
I don't believe you can put back doors in cryptography without severely weakening it. Not only will government be able to easily read your data and monitor your transactions, but so will criminals and our enemies. You won't be able to do secure electronic financial transactions anymore. Your online passwords will be compromised.
A lot of what I do at work involves keeping bad guys out of our federal computer networks and keeping PII safe. I can't believe the FBI server security people want to open up their servers to outside attackers.
I guarantee they won't be dropping strong encryption, but they expect everyone else to?
-
The Feds are so good at protecting PII they are paying for my, and tens of thousands of other federal employees, credit monitoring services.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
True. Mine, too. But I wouldn't say that is a very reasoned argument. The federal government has thousands of data centers (for some reason), right? Compared to private industry we do very well, especially considering the organizations trying to steal the data. There is a long list of companies who have leaked even more personal data, including the credit monitoring companies.The Feds are so good at protecting PII they are paying for my, and tens of thousands of other federal employees, credit monitoring services.
My data centers have had massive improvements in security over the last decade and we have thankfully (knock knock) stayed ahead of the constant external attacks. Most of the government systems are like this due to continuous pressure to improve. I only run "medium" systems, and the security engineers outnumber the server admins 3 to 1 in my office.
No way those guys will allow weak encryption for us.
-
The person of the iPhone isn't dead... The San bernideno (idk how to spell it) it's their phone
-
ᏠᑕҍΩᎾΠҽ wrote:
The person of the iPhone isn't dead... The San bernideno (idk how to spell it) it's their phone
That's why I was asking if that mattered. It their phone, but not their information
-
Most companies use some sort of MDM (mobile device management) on devices they may issue to their users; even low-level MDM will let them at least to reset a users password remotely. No need to crack the device. So...there's more to the story.
-
thepunk wrote:
At my agency I'm issued a phone because in my position I am on call pretty much all the time. Right now we are provided iPhone 5S. The phone came direct from Apple still in the box. The agency has proprietary apps that run the agency's various programs. By our policy I can load my own music and use my own iTunes account on the phone. Of course the agency has control over and can monitor what I do over their secure network, but I don't think they could access the rest of the phone without my password. Of course if they wanted into my phone, and I wanted to keep my employment I'd have to let them into the phone.Most companies use some sort of MDM (mobile device management) on devices they may issue to their users; even low-level MDM will let them at least to reset a users password remotely. No need to crack the device. So...there's more to the story.
-
Fiberian Hufky wrote:
Apple has assisted the government in similar situations in the past. I don't view this a principled stand more as grandstanding in an effort to increase profits.Apple put out an awesome letter on their website outlining their objections. I'm with them on this one.
-
★★BЯOШИИOTΞ★★ wrote:
They don't have to put a back door into the encryption. Apple could break the encryption and reset the password on the device leaving the government still unable to gain access to other devices. With the reset password the government could then conduct it's forensic examination at it's leisure, on this specific phone the court has ruled the government has probable cause to exam.I understand the value of public safety, but I still side with privacy 100%.
I don't believe you can put back doors in cryptography without severely weakening it. Not only will government be able to easily read your data and monitor your transactions, but so will criminals and our enemies. You won't be able to do secure electronic financial transactions anymore. Your online passwords will be compromised.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
Thanks for your opinion.Fiberian Hufky wrote:
Apple has assisted the government in similar situations in the past. I don't view this a principled stand more as grandstanding in an effort to increase profits.Apple put out an awesome letter on their website outlining their objections. I'm with them on this one.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote: They don't have to put a back door into the encryption. Apple could break the encryption and reset the password on the device leaving the government still unable to gain access to other devices. With the reset password the government could then conduct it's forensic examination at it's leisure, on this specific phone the court has ruled the government has probable cause to exam.
We don't know exactly what was asked for, but Tim Cook is insisting in this letter that they are specifically asking to weaken the security on all devices so that their as-of-yet unwritten "unlocking" app would work on individual phones.I also have a GFE iPhone 6, and I agree the installed management software can wipe the phone, but not access data. When users lock themselves out by forgetting their password, there is no recourse but to wipe it. Now that we have Touch ID, people frequently forget their passwords.
-
Fiberian Hufky wrote:
I agree Apple is milking this to impress their customers, but I also think Apple is doing the right thing.✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
Thanks for your opinion.Fiberian Hufky wrote:
Apple has assisted the government in similar situations in the past. I don't view this a principled stand more as grandstanding in an effort to increase profits.Apple put out an awesome letter on their website outlining their objections. I'm with them on this one.
-
It seems to me that Apple could provide the iCloud password fairly easily. With that, just buy a new phone and download everything to it. They don't have to break the encryption.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
"Find my iPhone" must be turned off on the old phone for that to work, and then they need to opt in to cloud backups.It seems to me that Apple could provide the iCloud password fairly easily. With that, just buy a new phone and download everything to it. They don't have to break the encryption.
-
★★BЯOШИИOTΞ★★ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
"Find my iPhone" must be turned off on the old phone for that to work, and then they need to opt in to cloud backups.It seems to me that Apple could provide the iCloud password fairly easily. With that, just buy a new phone and download everything to it. They don't have to break the encryption.
Not sure how it all works. I just know every time I get a new iPhone it all comes back.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Yes... Let gov paid hackers figure it out if they want to.This is a community of fairly tech savvy individuals. Wondering what yalls thoughts are on the ruling that Apple has to unlock a phone and their refusal. Do they have that right?
-
Who is to say the government aren't already listening to your calls or reading messages you send?
We currently live in a world where technology is a ruler.
-
ƊIƧƓƲIƧƷ wrote:
Only while you are on the toilet. We run the listening devices through the sewers. If you put cling wrap around the toilet seat before you use it you can block the signal. Outdoors you have to wear tinfoil hats.Who is to say the government aren't already listening to your calls or reading messages you send?
We currently live in a world where technology is a ruler.
-
If you think of a phone as a safety deposit box then it's pretty clear. If you've committed a crime or a judge seems that there's probable cause to search your personal belongings, dead or alive, a bank is required to drill the box.
The same is likely to be true for your electronic device. The question here is that electronic devices aren't, in fact, safety deposit boxes because if you can hack one you can hack them all. I think Apple will lose this eventually, but I think we'll get a new evolution of security in our phones because of it.
-
ƊIƧƓƲIƧƷ wrote:
I was hanging with the IT people at a college and they have a cool drone that goes around and intercepts information like that, it's just for fun though because that if they use any of the information it makes it illegal.Who is to say the government aren't already listening to your calls or reading messages you send?
We currently live in a world where technology is a ruler.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC