OT: Apple and Privacy vs. National Security

Unlock the damn phone these people were mass murderers and Apple has done it 70 times in the past. It would be the same as a locksmith refusing to drill open a safe. They could be preventing future murders. Zero problem with this.

If Apple gives in I am tossing the iphone ang going back to Android. There is zero chance a backdoor makes it into a Linux-based system while Linus is still living.

I see this all the time in my line of work where people immediately think of information differently solely because it's sitting on a piece of silicon instead of a piece of paper. If the terrorists had all their evil plans in a notebook somewhere and only Apple knew the location, wouldn't they be compelled to spill it under court order. Is there really that big of a difference?

Apple should not help open the phone in any way. If they do then every iPhone will be subject to being unlocked by the government. What good is "safety" if we lose our freedoms along the way.

Did anyone buy the iPhone primarily because of its encryption capabilities? Or did they buy it for its cutting edge coolness factor? Or because everyone was buying it? I have a Samsung Galaxy (something something) and cannot tell you what kind of privacy protections it has other than I have to type in my password a hundred times a day because my employer requires me to. I am responsible for who I call and what pictures I take and the messages I send. I have never thought for a moment that Samsung owed me a duty to protect my privacy.

Does the government seriously not have the resources to figure out how to unlock/get info off of a cell phone without Apple's help?

You don't need Apple to look at phone and text records.  The NSA can (legally) get that information from the wireless carrier.  It won't reveal all of the phone contacts, but it provides quite a bit of data they can use as leads.  Each wireless carrier has a department dedicated to assisting law enforcement with call/text records.

That with all the resources the FBI has, that they can't unlock an i-phone. I know it's encrypted and all, but my gawd.... your the FBI........

I would rather the FBI figure out who did building 7. And who told the media hours before it happened?

It was owned by his employer and the employer has no problem hacking it.  Employers can take their devices back and all the information on them - theirs and yours.  It's just that the phone can't be opened because of how Apple architected their security.  I can see Apple's concern and I certainly want my personal privacy protected, but in this case, I would hope they can find a middle ground.  Similar to how encryption keys can be held by a third party (such as for the cloud storage service I use), perhaps one can be found for the eventual solution.  Make the government file a petition to access as they should.  Search warrant approved, then third party applies the tool.

No politics.

This can become nothing but a political discussion.

 

allowing the government to literally force Apple into creating new software in this case sets a dangerous precedent.  Historically, the biggest threat to humanity has been an overly powerful and/or irresponsible government.  By far.  The government should not be given the power to literally enslave a private company, innocent of any wrongdoing, at its whim.  And in this case, it would be forcing the company to destroy its security systems.  The "backdoor" once created would easily fall into the wrong hands, especially with the incompetent government involved.  Then, all of our sensitive data would be at risk of exploitation by anybody, including terrorists.

This is a really tough issue, and while this is likely to be unpopular, I think that I lean in favor of the government on this one (something that I rarely do).  Here is my reasoning:

As a starting premise, let's all agree that civil liberties and privacy are, in fact, important.  Regardless of whether the government is being run by republicans or democrats, there needs to be a limit into the level to which the government can meddle in the private affairs of its citizens, provided that those citizens are not breaking the law or harming others.  So, as a general matter, I think that most of us would agree that the government should not have the ability ot right to hack into our cell phones, computers, tablets, etc., or to monitor our day to day activities. 

However, there are exceptions.  The San Bernadino case involves what is now accepted to be a terrorist incident.  One or both of the killers was radicalized, and there is documented evidence of at least one of them visiting known terrorist webpages.  The fact that their home was littered with bomb-making materials, unused pipe bombs, etc., indicates the possibility that they - OR OTHERS - were planning further attacks. 

So, there is a real possibility that their iphones might contain other valuable information that would lead the FBI and Homeland Security to (1) identify other would be terrorists, or (2) thwart another potential terrorist attack.  Is the infringement upon privacy IN THIS CASE worth it, if it accomplishes either of these goals?  As someone who was in NY on 9/11, I would say, unquestionably, yes. 

While it is not a pretty reality, the reality in which we live is that there are misguided individuals and groups of individuals who seek to do harm to our country and our citizens.  While civil liberties and privacy MUST be safeguarded whenever possible, it is my belief that we also MUST protect the lives of our citizens from another terrorist attack. 

This thread is more evidence Mgoblog is turning into Reddit Lite

Can Apple get into this phone without damaging the data?  Of course.

Do they want to?  No.  For several reasons:

• If they wrote this separate iOS (iPhone, iPad, iWatch, etc.. operating system) like the government wants them to, this would mean that there exists an iOS that allows anyone in possession of it to forcibly break into any iOS device so as long as they had said iOS and a solid knowledge of brute force algorithms.  The problem with this?  Software is transmitted incredibly easy.  Think about how long it takes you to download and install a new operating system for your laptop.  Depending on your machine's limitations, anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour, and remember that an iPhone is significantly less complex device than say even a Macbook Air.  Considering that a mobile operating system's file size is many degrees smaller than the average high quality movie file, it could be very easily transferred to anyone, at any time.  
• You might say, "Well, just put it on a super-encrypted hard drive that only certain members of the government are ever able to see."  See, the problem with this is, information is power, and no system is without corruption.  Even if it were given to a select group of people (even 1 person), I have serious doubts that it would remain only within that individual's possession forever (forever is a long time).  
• Additionally, all of the above assumes that granting the government access to this kind of software is even something that we as a society want.  I believe that this is not what our society wants or needs.  As Tim Cook said very shrewdly, "this would set a very dangerous precedent" for future government / technology company interactions.  The federal government (not to mention, state, and even local districts) would claim in the future that they "need" this technology to solve certain crimes that might not (and very likely would not) necessarily carry with them the same importance that the San Bernardino attacks did.  Remember, if you give a mouse a cookie... 
• Furthermore, the Federal government does not realistically even need to break into Syd Farook's iPhone.  Why?  Well, all of the information that the Fed wants from the phone is available in other places.  Phones are only very small computers, and a computer can't establish correspondence with people (read: ISIS terrorist cells) without a bijectional transference of data with another computer, which happens in the form of either cellular data, internet connection, or satellite communication, I suppose.  In my opinion, it would be both easier and safer for the Fed to subpoena companies like Verizon, AT&T, or Vodafone for this information they want so much.  Actually, now that I think about it, they probably don't even need to subpoena any companies...In the AT&T building in L.A. (I think) the NSA splits (like, clones) the huge optical connection (probably 5 feet in diameter) that processes most of the information that flows in and out of the United States.  

1. Could the government, in theory, require lock or safe manufacturers to use weaker metal in their products if it became too difficult to break through them in cases where they wanted to do a search? Because they're basically asking Apple to weaken everyone's phone, not just one they're interested in.

2. Once Apple writes the new software that creates the backdoor, and 3 hours later the Russian and Chinese govts have the code (because obviously) and start imprisoning/murdering human rights and democracy activists after accessing their encrypted messages, will the FBI/DOJ feel any moral responsibility to those people? Should they?

3. If we all agreed repealing the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments would objectively be likely to reduce crime and keep everyone safer from everyday crime as well as terrorism, shouldn't we consider that, too? Would make policing 100x easier.

A conversation like this comes up, and someone says I don't have anything to hide. Why not just wipe your ass with the Constitution? Give me liberty, or give me death. This country was built on that philosophy.