The FBI should hire a hacker. A hacker would know how to break the Apple code in minutes. It would give the FBI what it wants and Apple would be off the hook. Why are they wasting time, money and manpower hounding Apple?
Lois
I basically agree. I’m no defender of corporations, but I don’t think the government should be able to force one to build a device to do their job for them. If the governmental agencies don’t have the wherewithal, to do this themselves, perhaps they should promote legislation to ban the original device capability that is causing the problem. And if that doesn’t fly, then we will all just have to live (or die) with terrorists having the capability to communicate privately.
However, I disagree that a hacker would be able to break the Apple code in minutes. As I understand it, they need to defeat the mechanism that limits guessing the code to ten tries, after which the data is gone forever. If they have unlimited tries, they can use a very powerful computer to keep guessing at the code, until it is found. What the govt wants, now, is for Apple to create a mechanism that will defeat the 10 try limit mechanism.
Isn’t hacking a cybercrime?
Isn't hacking a cybercrime?Not if you have a court order to do it. But this situation goes beyond just the governmental agencies conducting a "search". The governmental agencies are, also, trying to force a private entity to help conduct the search. To what degree that could be considered Constitutional, I do not know. Perhaps we could ask the Supreme Court to weigh in, although it might be a 4-4 decision, these days.
If hacking Apple devices was that easy it would have been done already. Ask any IT security expert about Android phones.
The FBI should hire a hacker. A hacker would know how to break the Apple code in minutes. It would give the FBI what it wants and Apple would be off the hook. Why are they wasting time, money and manpower hounding Apple? LoisBecause Edward Snowden became a hero to how many clueless, paranoid people? So now, the FBI may have reason to think those 2 wingnuts in San Bernardino contacted other people-other terrorists. But Apple, a purveyor of products to the textbook Snowden worshiper, want's to resist that FBI diligence. It's good for Apple's Nerdy/Independent image. That's the bottom line. Bank on it.
The hacker idea is a non-starter because if it can be done, it would have already, that’s what hackers live for. Plus, the FBI has their own computer geniuses who have likely been trying to do the same thing for years.
This topic is all about each persons stance on personal privacy, so there isn’t a right or wrong answer. My position on this is that Apple should do it and help whatever agency needs their help, if the seriousness warrants it. Safety should trump privacy in some cases.
Safety should trump privacy in some cases.I don't want to nit-pick, but safety should trump privacy in almost all cases. Naturally. Of course the "meta" argument will revolve around what safety is. And there could be valid arguments on that matter. But that's the thing...Safety Departments like the FBI don't have time to screw around arguing about what "safety" is. Plus they can't afford high profile exposure like this when they're trying to go after elusive and cunning suspects.
Safety should trump privacy in some cases.I don't want to nit-pick, but safety should trump privacy in almost all cases. Naturally. Of course the "meta" argument will revolve around what safety is. And there could be valid arguments on that matter. But that's the thing...Safety Departments like the FBI don't have time to screw around arguing about what "safety" is. Plus they can't afford high profile exposure like this when they're trying to go after elusive and cunning suspects. Ya, "some" wasn't a good word to use. I meant that there is no definable number since it's a case by case decision. But there are lots and lots of instances where safety comes second to privacy and other personal rights. I agree with some of them, but our society is based on freedoms like that, so the law-makers have to do the impossible balancing act of deciding where to draw the lines. Unfortunately since each case is unique, too many cases aren't able to be dealt with appropriately (this Apple one for instance). I personally have little issue with fewer privacy rights in order to improve safety. But I'm a bit of an idealist when it comes to governments and law agencies, so involving people always screws up my ideal scenarios. (If only I were in charge of everything, then the world would be as perfect as possible!)
Ya, "some" wasn't a good word to use. I meant that there is no definable number since it's a case by case decision. But there are lots and lots of instances where safety comes second to privacy and other personal rights. I agree with some of them, but our society is based on freedoms like that, so the law-makers have to do the impossible balancing act of deciding where to draw the lines. Unfortunately since each case is unique, too many cases aren't able to be dealt with appropriately (this Apple one for instance). I personally have little issue with fewer privacy rights in order to improve safety. But I'm a bit of an idealist when it comes to governments and law agencies, so involving people always screws up my ideal scenarios. (If only I were in charge of everything, then the world would be as perfect as possible!)Yeah I knew what you meant. Hence "nitpicking". I'm an idealist too when it comes to government.
I personally have little issue with fewer privacy rights in order to improve safety. But I'm a bit of an idealist when it comes to governments and law agencies, so involving people always screws up my ideal scenarios. (If only I were in charge of everything, then the world would be as perfect as possible!)Alot of people don't understand Constitutional Rights. Privacy for example. The protections we have with our privacy per se, is not the privacy itself. It's the protection of those private "things" not being used against us. So the government can, and does see what we are doing privately. In many cases. But it can't wantonly act on this. It's the 4th Amendment. What proves my point so vividly is the actual mechanics of the government lawfully engaging in searches and seizures. This takes Probable Cause. Therefore the Government already has a good idea about what one is doing "privately". They only need a warrant to use those private things against that person in a court of law. Legal investigation techniques are used to get that Probable Cause. In other words, a good idea on what is going on privately. If things are obtained illegally they become "Fruits of the Poisoned Tree". They cannot be used in courts against that person. In the case of this Phone Data screening BS, the government is trying to get the courts to widen their ability to legally investigate things. Which in this day and age, with the amounts and types of data that can be used, it doesn't seem Unreasonable to me. And that's what courts have to decide-what's reasonable? The people's hysterical reaction to this is frustrating. It's fueled by so much fringe propaganda, outsiders, America Haters etc etc. Obviously there will always be cause for concerns and questions. But this thing with Snowden just shows how uninformed people are. It shows how out of whack the people's views can become in this Hyper-Information age. It's laughable.
But this situation goes beyond just the governmental agencies conducting a "search". The governmental agencies are, also, trying to force a private entity to help conduct the search. To what degree that could be considered Constitutional, I do not know.That would be no different than if the police had a search warrant on an apartment unit. The occupant wasn't home so the cops get the landlord to unlock the door. That's how I interpret it. Pretty basic.
The FBI should hire a hacker. A hacker would know how to break the Apple code in minutes. It would give the FBI what it wants and Apple would be off the hook. Why are they wasting time, money and manpower hounding Apple? LoisBecause Edward Snowden became a hero to how many clueless, paranoid people? So now, the FBI may have reason to think those 2 wingnuts in San Bernardino contacted other people-other terrorists. But Apple, a purveyor of products to the textbook Snowden worshiper, want's to resist that FBI diligence. It's good for Apple's Nerdy/Independent image. That's the bottom line. Bank on it. There's more to it than that. If our personal information is available to the govt, then there are the potential "Big Brother" concerns. But if all of our personal information is available to Apple, and other corporate interests, it very probably would be used in manipulative, if not exploitative ways.
Yeah!! Called that out.]
:lol: Consumerism overrides common sense yet again.
Apple-hiring slaves and obstructing Justice to appeal to weirdos!
Love it!!
But this situation goes beyond just the governmental agencies conducting a "search". The governmental agencies are, also, trying to force a private entity to help conduct the search. To what degree that could be considered Constitutional, I do not know.That would be no different than if the police had a search warrant on an apartment unit. The occupant wasn't home so the cops get the landlord to unlock the door. That's how I interpret it. Pretty basic. No, using your analogy, the landlord would have built an absolutely unbeatable secure system that allows no entry by anyone other than the tenant. (And that is, BTW, part of the reason the tenant chose that apartment.) Then the police, (continuing with your analogy), would be requiring the landlord, to, now, create a new device that would overcome the, unbeatable, security system, that the landlord used to market the apartment to the renter, to begin with.) Not so basic, as you suggest.
Yeah!! Called that out.] :lol: Consumerism overrides common sense yet again. Apple-hiring slaves and obstructing Justice to appeal to weirdos! Love it!!If Apple already has a way to over-ride the protection device, then the story IS different. But do they? That they haven't said that they don't, could mean they do. Or it could mean that they don't want to admit that they don't.
Yeah!! Called that out.] :lol: Consumerism overrides common sense yet again. Apple-hiring slaves and obstructing Justice to appeal to weirdos! Love it!!When corporations like Apple have access to your personal info, it's just the free market in action. When the government has it, it's Big Brother watching you and repressing you and building FEMA Death Camps where they send you if they don't like what they see. In my mind, the good and bad are the more the other way around (maybe my Canadianness is to blame.)
If Apple already has a way to over-ride the protection device, then the story IS different. But do they? That they haven't said that they don't, could mean they do. Or it could mean that they don't want to admit that they don't.Does anyone really doubt that Apple doesn't already know how to access info on any phone they make? I'll be gobsmacked if their phones are absolutely secure. I naturally don't know for sure, but it would be hard to imagine anyone ever making a system that even they can't break into. But the story is that they don't want to even try to help - whether they already can is less relevant to me than their position on the matter. An unhappy consequence of Apple's attitude is that if they decide to help and fail, many will doubt their sincerity and the effort they put into helping. Marketing their products is their only goal in life, so maybe they should have thought of all the consequences of their (in)actions.
If Apple already has a way to over-ride the protection device, then the story IS different. But do they? That they haven't said that they don't, could mean they do. Or it could mean that they don't want to admit that they don't.Does anyone really doubt that Apple doesn't already know how to access info on any phone they make? I'll be gobsmacked if their phones are absolutely secure. I naturally don't know for sure, but it would be hard to imagine anyone ever making a system that even they can't break into. But the story is that they don't want to even try to help - whether they already can is less relevant to me than their position on the matter. An unhappy consequence of Apple's attitude is that if they decide to help and fail, many will doubt their sincerity and the effort they put into helping. Marketing their products is their only goal in life, so maybe they should have thought of all the consequences of their (in)actions. Since they haven't said they don't have the over-ride capability, if I had to bet, I would bet that they do. I don't know Apple's mission statement, but like most corporations, I suspect that the bottom line is to make as much money as they can possibly get away with making. So, I imagine that, they will, ultimately, do whatever will most likely lead to that result. But generally, throughout the tech community, I suspect that there are plenty of individuals who are genuinely concerned about issues of privacy and confidentiality vs. the security of society as a whole.
No, using your analogy, the landlord would have built an absolutely unbeatable secure system that allows no entry by anyone other than the tenant. (And that is, BTW, part of the reason the tenant chose that apartment.) Then the police, (continuing with your analogy), would be requiring the landlord, to, now, create a new device that would overcome the, unbeatable, security system, that the landlord used to market the apartment to the renter, to begin with.) Not so basic, as you suggest.Well we don't know that. Point taken, but we don't know that. Frankly I'm not buying it though. I believe it is just as simple as "getting the key" analogy. Obviously Apple would want to market their security system as such....we do know that.