There is one tactic Apple hasn’t tried that might provide them with some traction.
They could tell the US Government that if they are required to divulge their encryption, that they will immediately move all Apple operations and jobs to Canada, and then do it. They could start making arrangements now. Then the US Government would have no control over Apple’s security systems.
I’m sure Canada would be glad to have them, and it isn’t such a big move. They even speak a form of American English there.
If Canada doesn’t work out, almost any country would love to have them. Maybe there would be a bidding war. A government that would promise not to interfere with Apple’s security systems would be worth billions.
Lois
Apple lawyers cited news articles, including one published in the Guardian, showing that officials within the Obama administration and on Capitol Hill are at odds over how much technology companies should be required to weaken security settings to help law enforcement. Apple argues the FBI is frustrated by Washington gridlock and is effectively seeking to make the law it wants through the courts.
They could tell the US Government that if they are required to divulge their encryption, that they will immediately move all Apple operations and jobs to Canada,
As long as we are issuing threats maybe the USA could then threaten to cut Apple off from the US market for (then) importing tools to be used by criminals and international jihadists to obstruct justice by thwarting a legally obtained court order to conduct a search.
Access to that phone is a national security need. Hopefully, the FBI will prevail legally and if not, then hopefully our experts at the NSA will succeed in hacking that phone with an invasive attack.
More details here:
https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/us-fight-over-gunmans-locked-iphone-could-have-big-impact/#li-comment-198634
As long as we are issuing threats maybe the USA could then threaten to cut Apple off from the US market for (then) importing tools to be used by criminals and international jihadists to obstruct justice by thwarting a legally obtained court order to conduct a search.
Access to that phone is a national security need. Hopefully, the FBI will prevail legally and if not, then hopefully our experts at the NSA will succeed in hacking that phone with an invasive attack.
Very good points Stardusty.
The govt. will prevail.
Apple will just have to come up with a PR scheme that convinces these consumer shills that they still care about their privacy.
Apple is fighting for profit share, not people's privacy.
Apple is fighting for profit share, not people's privacy.
Do you have any evidence for that statement or are you just making an assumption? I ask because what you said makes Tim Cook a liar.
Who the heck is Tim Cook?
Is he someone that would be interested in profits? I don't know who he is.
Should I? :lol:
Is he a Big Kahuna to you Darron?
Apple is fighting for profit share, not people's privacy.
Do you have any evidence for that statement or are you just making an assumption? I ask because what you said makes Tim Cook a liar.
Who the heck is Tim Cook?
Is he someone that would be interested in profits? I don't know who he is.
Should I? :lol:
Is he a Big Kahuna to you Darron?
No he's not a Big Kahuna to me, and yes you should now who he is. Your ignorance on this subject is telling.
I think VYAZMA was being factitious, the smiley face kind of gives it away.
Ultimately, attributing motives with accuracy would require mind reading skills, and mine are a bit rusty. But, it is fairly safe to say that the CEO of the world's largest corporation is first and foremost profit driven, as is the corporation he is chief executive officer of.
If appearing to be concerned, or being genuinely concerned, with the well being of individuals increases profitability then that is a stance a corporate executive will take, not for altruistic reasons, but because the primary fiduciary responsibility of a CEO is to maximize corporate profits.
Anyone asserting a CEO is taking a public stand against profitability and for altruistic reasons, therefore, bears the burden of proof.
Ultimately, attributing motives with accuracy would require mind reading skills, and mine are a bit rusty.
Which was my point. Vyazma calls out others for logical fallacies, then thinks he knows how Tim Cook makes decisions.
Anyone asserting a CEO is taking a public stand against profitability and for altruistic reasons, therefore, bears the burden of proof.
You are assuming all CEOs are alike. Tim Cook has done an excellent job maximizing Apple's profits since taking over from Steve Jobs, but that does not mean he's taking a stand for profit instead of principal.
I heard a discussion of this today although I can’t remember which of the many podcasts it was on, but the speaker gave a good response to a common bu misguided claim that “you shouldn’t have anything to worry about unless you;re doing something wrong” or in a similar vein “If its something you wouldn’t want others to know about maybe you shouldn’t be doing it”. It seems that anyone with even the least common sense should be able to see the flaw in this argument. I doubt there is anyone here who wold want every moment or every detail of their life available for public scrutiny.
The speaker who had spoken on this topic to audiences before said he offered a challenge to those who felt privacy was not necessary if you were pure. He asked them to back up their words with simple demonstration. All they had to do was to give him the passwords to all of their email accounts. Not just their business account or the one they showed their spouse but also their private accounts. How many people would be willing to allow a stranger to examine every email in every one of their accounts? In all the talks he’s given unsurprising not a single person has taken him up on his offer.
The point is we all need the security of a private life to be ourselves. With the amount of information stored on our cell phones getting access to someone’s mobile phone is nearly as revealing as if you opened a window directly into their mind. Giving the government the ability to access this level of information would have a chilling effect. It would make us the ultimate surveillance state. Unlike 1984 they wouldn’t need to put a camera in every apartment because we would have provided them with cameras, microphones, tracking devices, a record of our inner thoughts, a list of our acquaintances, A record of your preferences in food, music, lovers and almost everything else.
The government has abused nearly every power they have ever been given. Once acquired this power will be abused as well. If the government wants access to this we should not make it easy for them.
macgyver Once acquired this power will be abused as well.
The government has always had the ability to tap a phone, obtain phone records, search files, examine banking records, and access everything an individual has recorded...with a legally obtained warrant. The sky has not fallen.
The FBI is seeking no new capability to invade privacy. They are seeking a means to defeat a new capability of criminals to obstruct justice.
Apple is on the side of the jihadists and criminals who wish to block law enforcement from doing what they have always been able to do, conduct a legal search.
Which was my point. Vyazma calls out others for logical fallacies, then thinks he knows how Tim Cook makes decisions.
Do you know Tim Cook Darron? Is he a close personal friend of yours?
I think it's safe to say Tim Cook's Number 1 decision making process revolves around shareholders and profit margins.
Unless of course you're intimately familiar with Tim Cook....
Apple is on the side of the jihadists and criminals who wish to block law enforcement from doing what they have always been able to do, conduct a legal search.
Darn right they are.
Dangerous Corporate Globalists.
Apple has no trouble complying with China's and other countries strict rules regarding transparency.
Of course privacy isn't a big marketing sell in China.
The Tin Foil Hat crowd in the US though...."It's all an Orwellian nightmare!"
Giving the government the ability to access this level of information would have a chilling effect. It would make us the ultimate surveillance state. Unlike 1984 they wouldn't need to put a camera in every apartment because we would have provided them with cameras, microphones, tracking devices, a record of our inner thoughts, a list of our acquaintances, A record of your preferences in food, music, lovers and almost everything else.
I'm going to have to assume you really are serious with this stuff....
"A record of our inner thoughts....."
And you're a doctor? Wow!! Eye opening.
“A record of our inner thoughts….."
And you’re a doctor? Wow!! Eye opening.
C'mon Vy, it's pretty easy to discern an individual's inner thoughts just by tracking their emails, text messages, sites they visit, videos they order, commercials they watch, organizations they are members of, educational background, race and ethnicity, friends they hang out with, word patterns they use on social media, tax returns, books we purchase, how we vote, etc. etc. ad infinitum. Our lives are already an open book for any agency to pry into if they wanted to do so why give them even more information? Hell, we passed 1984 thirty two years ago. I imagine the only stumbling block the NSA has is maintaining 320,000,000 dossiers. It's a bit frightening in the extreme but now it's well nigh impossible for someone to disappear from the radar.
Cap't Jack
macgyver Once acquired this power will be abused as well.
The government has always had the ability to tap a phone, obtain phone records, search files, examine banking records, and access everything an individual has recorded...with a legally obtained warrant. The sky has not fallen.
The FBI is seeking no new capability to invade privacy. They are seeking a means to defeat a new capability of criminals to obstruct justice.
You are incorrect. Do you own a smart phone? Do you understand how it works and the data it stores? Every email you every sent to your boss or coworkers, your spouse or significant other, and your friends. Every text in jest or sincerely that could be taken out of context ("I could kill you for disagreeing with me"), every internet search - I searched for the formula for cyanide last week because the subject of cyanides triple carbon nitrogen bond came up on a TV show and I was curious about the structure - of course my search history doesn't have the back story on that. It just shows that I searched for the formula for cyanide. It has a list of everyone you have ever called and every location you have ever gone to with your phone - It tracks you in the background and stores this information in a log file.
The government is absolutely seeking a new capability that would allow them to invade everyone's privacy. And for what? To protect us against a threat that will affect almost no one.
This is an unprecedented level of personal data collection that the government has never had access to before and shouldn't have access to. Are we really about to cross a line where everyone is required to make their entire life to an open book just so we can enjoy the illusion that we are somehow safer?
Apple should never help them.
By the way for a good non-partisan discussion of the constitutional pros and cons of this issue there is a good We the People podcast here: http://constitutioncenter.org/experience/programs-initiatives/podcasts. The constitution center does these podcasts and is a great resource for anyone interested in the constitution and how it applies to many of the stories that are in the news.
macgyver Once acquired this power will be abused as well.
Apple is on the side of the jihadists and criminals who wish to block law enforcement from doing what they have always been able to do, conduct a legal search.
There are plenty of tools and apps that sophisticated terrorists groups can use to hide their communications and other data on their phones if they choose to. These aren't the sort of things that the average individual is aware of even likely to use, so giving the government a key to everyone's phone is unlikely to help the government in the long run. All it will do is give the government and local law enforcement access to personal information on innocent individuals and low level criminals.
Apple is on the side of the jihadists and criminals who wish to block law enforcement from doing what they have always been able to do, conduct a legal search.
Darn right they are.
Dangerous Corporate Globalists.
Apple has no trouble complying with China's and other countries strict rules regarding transparency.
Of course privacy isn't a big marketing sell in China.
The Tin Foil Hat crowd in the US though...."It's all an Orwellian nightmare!"
Apple has not allowed China or any other government to unlock a locked iPhone. You appear to have gone to the D.Trump university of research.
Would you call Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson members of the Tin Foil Hat crowd? Our founders were very concerned about the dangers of unrestricted government power. Law enforcement will always push for more access and more tools to do their job because they think they can do no wrong, but law enforcement agencies are all corrupt to some degree and will always abuse the tools they are given. Its up to the people to push back when their request goes too far.
Apple has not allowed China or any other government to unlock a locked iPhone. You appear to have gone to the D.Trump university of research.
China has a Telecom/cyber-security/terrorist law. Written in the law is language that is the exact opposite of what you claim.
It's only a matter of time before another high profile case blows these phones wide open.
You're an extremely naive person if you think China doesn't have a way of peeping into any of it's telecom/cyber products.
Same for here.....it's just a matter of degrees and time.
At what point does Apple just start fighting for the right to "appear" like they aren't hackable.
Do you really think governments around the world are going to allow devices which can be used by criminals and terrorists to communicate and transfer data
with total secrecy?
This San Bernardino case isn't even the first straw.