I have the answer to the Apple/FBI problem

No one seems to focus on the fact that once the code is broken anyone might get access to it--that means the US government, other governments, including the governmemts of our enemies, identity thieves, terrorists and who knows who else? Are all of you comfortable knowing that the most private, possibly most intimate nformation on your iPhone or someone else's supposedly secure iPhone will be available to ANYONE who wants it--people you would not want accessing your private information? Don't fool yourselves that there would be technology in place to prevent that. Once the cat's out of the bag there is no putting it back in. I don't know if there are any 2nd amendment types here but they have often said they fear our own government knowing who has guns. With the privacy controls removed, any information about gun ownership that found its way onto phones will be PUBLIC INFORMATION available to the big bad US government, who we know will come to confiscate their guns, and will also be available to any foreign government or terrorist organization who wants to know who has guns and where they are. In addition, who thinks terrorist organizations won't find a way to access your private information and a lot of other information no one in his right mind would want them to know? Is that what you all want? You have NO concerns about that? And don't think that deleting everything sensitive from your own phone will protect you. Once that information is in someone else's phone you won't be able to delete it. It will be available for anyone to access. It won't matter if YOU don't have an iPhone. Your information is probably on someone else's phone and you may not know whose. This is much more of an issue than Apple's desire to keep its technology secret for its own bottom line. Apple is doing every person in the country who has a secure iPhone or whose private information may be on someone else's secure iPhone by keeping their information secure too. Does anyone think through the unintended consequences of forcing Apple to either reveal its code or develop one to get into the phone the FBI thinks MAY contain information? Are you all willing to give up your own private information to anyone, anywhere, who wants to access it--for any reason? How would you feel about having your private information splashed all over social media? ALL of it, especially anything salacious. What fun that would be! Money, banking information, credit card information, sex, the identities of your kids and other loved ones? Their photographs? Their likely wherabouts? Where they go to school? Your employer? Your spouse's employer? Information about your cars? The possibilities are endless. Please! THINK before you join those who would force Apple to break its security code because they're a big bad corporation, who only wants to make a lot of money and doesn’t care about terrorism. They may be doing more to prevent terrorism by keeping the code locked down. Yet people run around calling Apple traitors and demons because they want to keep their technology secret. THINK!
How about this narrative: "Those who will sacrifice freedom for the sake of security, deserve neither." True or False? (Discuss amongst yourselves.)
Quotes like this are true to a point. I'm in complete agreement that handing over all of your rights to someone else means you didn't deserve them in the first place. But no society could exist without some loss or freedom for the greater good - anarchy and chaos are what wait behind the 'Door to Complete Freedom". Every law is a restriction on your rights. What we are talking about here is how one of those laws is interpreted. It can reasonably be argued that our freedom is increased by giving enforcement agencies more access to some of our personal data. Living in fear of terrorism or other crime and experiencing the effects of the terrorism or other crime is very much an infringement on our right to safety and peace of mind and property rights and many other basic rights. The balancing act is a tough one, and we all have our personal views, but I really think that Spock said it best, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (I know there is the opposite quote by Kirk from the next movie, but in this case, I think Spock's quote is the better one.)

Hold on. Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, has NOW said:
“…we strongly believe the only way to guarantee that such a powerful tool isn’t abused and doesn’t fall into the wrong hands is to never create it.”
In this statement are 2 important points relevant to this thread:

  1. Apple has NOT yet created the required tool.
  2. Cook points out that the tool, itself, (if created) could potentially be an over-riding threat to our security.
The balancing act is a tough one, and we all have our personal views, but I really think that Spock said it best, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (I know there is the opposite quote by Kirk from the next movie, but in this case, I think Spock's quote is the better one.)
There is another way to interpret this quote. The needs of the many to have their privacy and freedoms preserved outweighs the needs of the very few who will ever be directly injured by terrorism.
The balancing act is a tough one, and we all have our personal views, but I really think that Spock said it best, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (I know there is the opposite quote by Kirk from the next movie, but in this case, I think Spock's quote is the better one.)
There is another way to interpret this quote. The needs of the many to have their privacy and freedoms preserved outweighs the needs of the very few who will ever be directly injured by terrorism. Exactly. Armed U.S. citizens kill far more people per year than terrorists. Helping the FBI hack into this iPhone will set a frightening precedent for our privacy rights.
The balancing act is a tough one, and we all have our personal views, but I really think that Spock said it best, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (I know there is the opposite quote by Kirk from the next movie, but in this case, I think Spock's quote is the better one.)
There is another way to interpret this quote. The needs of the many to have their privacy and freedoms preserved outweighs the needs of the very few who will ever be directly injured by terrorism. Exactly. Armed U.S. citizens kill far more people per year than terrorists. Helping the FBI hack into this iPhone will set a frightening precedent for our privacy rights.I guess living in fear and possibly allowing other terrorist attacks to occur is, in my opinion, worse than a relatively minimal loss of privacy rights. It's not as though these powers are going to be used all the time. There is a process that must take place before anything like the search of a cell phone takes place, no different that a police search of your house. Like I said already, the loss of security through crime is already a lost human right, so we are trading one for the other, not simply losing one. And the security of me and my fellow citizens trumps my cell phone data. Just a question, can't security agencies already find all your financial info and search your house and car and place of work and look on your computer and a million other things? Why is the cell phone such a huge issue when it isn't going to provide any information that can't already be found, except who you placed some phone call to (which can already be done for your land line)? What's the big deal with cell phones in particular?
I guess living in fear and possibly allowing other terrorist attacks to occur is, in my opinion, worse than a relatively minimal loss of privacy rights.
Why are you afraid? You're far more likely to die in a traffic accident than a terrorist attack. You are also more likely to die in a random shooting by a white, Anglo-Saxon native U.S. citizen than by a terrorist. You are more likely to die from police using excessive force than you are by a terrorist attack. Fear is the mind killer.
Fear is the mind killer.
ACLU Article-For the government, every device connected to the Internet will be more than just a novel convenience—it will be a new window into your home. The fridge that responds to your verbal commands might have a backdoor to allow for remote listening. The TV that allows you to video chat with your family might be commandeered into a ready-made spy camera. Lois- I don’t know if there are any 2nd amendment types here but they have often said they fear our own government knowing who has guns. With the privacy controls removed, any information about gun ownership that found its way onto phones will be PUBLIC INFORMATION available to the big bad US government, who we know will come to confiscate their guns, and will also be available to any foreign government or terrorist organization who wants to know who has guns and where they are. In addition, who thinks terrorist organizations won’t find a way to access your private information and a lot of other information no one in his right mind would want them to know? Is that what you all want? You have NO concerns about that? Yes, fear is a serious Mind Killer. This stuff is laughable. But then again I always find the stuff people buy into as completely hilarious.
Just a question, can't security agencies already find all your financial info and search your house and car and place of work and look on your computer and a million other things? Why is the cell phone such a huge issue when it isn't going to provide any information that can't already be found, except who you placed some phone call to (which can already be done for your land line)? What's the big deal with cell phones in particular?
The simple answer is no. If it were the case the government wouldn't be trying so hard to get into this one phone. There are secure email services which can only be accessed by gaining access to the phone. There is also tracking information that the government would be unable to obtain any other way. Also while other information may be available through other sources you first have to know the info is there. Its a lot easier to track every single breadcrumb of a persons life if you can gain access to that phone. To answer Vyazma I am not at all concerned that terrorist organizations will gain access to my cell phone data given the current situation. If the NSA and CIA can't do it there is no way ISIS will ever do it. Also unlike the federal government, ISIS has little use for this sort of information. The Soviets or Chinese might but they will have an equally difficult time unless Apple makes it easier for everyone by creating a back door.
I guess living in fear and possibly allowing other terrorist attacks to occur is, in my opinion, worse than a relatively minimal loss of privacy rights.
Why are you afraid? You're far more likely to die in a traffic accident than a terrorist attack. You are also more likely to die in a random shooting by a white, Anglo-Saxon native U.S. citizen than by a terrorist. You are more likely to die from police using excessive force than you are by a terrorist attack. Fear is the mind killer.I know I have way way less to fear from the police than a criminal, so I am naturally more interested than stopping crime than preventing an abuse of power that will likely never happen. (Again, is my Canadianness allowing me to think differently from others?) I don't care who does any crime (white/black, Christian/Muslim, American/Canadian... makes no difference to me). The ability to investigate a crime shouldn't be determined by who committed it, so suggesting I have more to fear from a white, Anglo-Saxon native U.S. citizen than by a terrorist is irrelevant. Let all tools be used to solve very serious crimes (where appropriate). And we both have our 'fears' (mine is crime and yours is abuse of power), so the saying 'fear is the mind killer' applies to both of us. Actually, I don't live in fear, but I worry far more about true crimes than abuse of power. My position is more nuanced than it sounds. I totally believe in due process, following the rules, using as light a hand as possible when investigating, innocence until proven guilty, and checks-and-balances, etc. We can't have every cell phone and front door open to the police, but in extreme cases, it makes sense. And I know abuse of power exists, but you can't eliminate a police force because abuse of power happens. It's all about what is the lesser of two evils, crime or abuse of power. And regarding the closing question in my last post, aren't any of those things true? Aren't all of the search powers already there and we're just talking about extending them to our phone?
...I know I have way way less to fear from the police than a criminal, so I am naturally more interested than stopping crime than preventing an abuse of power that will likely never happen...
If you were black in the USA, your equation might change a bit. But that is another issue, i.e. Black Lives Matter (as much as others).
... ...Aren't all of the search powers already there and we're just talking about extending them to our phone?
Again in this case, it's a bit different. It goes beyond the typical power of a court to order a simple search and seizure. It would involve a court order that requires a private entity to create a device that enables the search and seizure. (And beyond, this, if Tim Cook is correct, the creation of such a device could have repercussions that are not only invasive of any privacy rights, but which may also put our general security at greater risk.)
...I know I have way way less to fear from the police than a criminal, so I am naturally more interested than stopping crime than preventing an abuse of power that will likely never happen...
If you were black in the USA, your equation might change a bit. But that is another issue, i.e. Black Lives Matter (as much as others).
... ...Aren't all of the search powers already there and we're just talking about extending them to our phone?
Again in this case, it's a bit different. It goes beyond the typical power of a court to order a simple search and seizure. It would involve a court order that requires a private entity to create a device that enables the search and seizure. (And beyond, this, if Tim Cook is correct, the creation of such a device could have repercussions that are not only invasive of any privacy rights, but which may also put our general security at greater risk.)All lives matter. That's why I advocate for catching people who would kill other people. Tim Cook can stir up the waters as much as he wants, but I would hope that we wouldn't accept the 'slippery slope' argument, since every ability law enforcement already has is susceptible to abuse. And although there are abuses, I don't think there's much argument that we are safer with those abilities in place. Start taking away powers that can be abused and we'll have a much less safe place to live. Once again, I am only different from you in that I worry less about abuse of power than I do about the criminals. I like limits on law enforcement too, but I can accept slightly fewer rights than you.

I brought up the Black Lives Matter (as much as others lives) Movement, in order to illustrate the point that, in our society, as it exists today, some people sometimes have a real reason to fear the authorities in addition to fearing criminals.
Honestly, I don’t know which side that I come down on, in the particular topic of this thread. But I AM sure that there must be limits on the power of those in authority. The trick is to give authorities powers to effectively perform their duties, while ALSO insuring that they do not willy-nilly abuse, or unwisely use, those powers. Err on the side of providing power to those who keep us safe, and a lot of us should be safer (at least for awhile), but some number of us will be exposed to the undesirable effects of the unbridled use of power.

I brought up the Black Lives Matter (as much as others lives) Movement, in order to illustrate the point that, in our society, as it exists today, some people sometimes have a real reason to fear the authorities in addition to fearing criminals. Honestly, I don't know which side that I come down on, in the particular topic of this thread. But I AM sure that there must be limits on the power of those in authority. The trick is to give authorities powers to effectively perform their duties, while ALSO insuring that they do not willy-nilly abuse, or unwisely use, those powers. Err on the side of providing power to those who keep us safe, and a lot of us should be safer (at least for awhile), but some number of us will be exposed to the undesirable effects of the unbridled use of power.
I totally agree that not everyone has the ability to be as calm about increasing law enforcement. But I still think that even they will be better off with stronger protection. I don't care who you are, if a crime is committed against you, you want the perpetrator caught and justice to take place. Our systems of law enforcement are far from perfect, but if you take an unbiased look at them their track record is overwhelmingly positive with a few terrible instances that taint the rest. I will never say they can't be improved, but they do more good that 99.9% of us are even aware of. (I know a couple of RCMP officers very well, and they see and handle situations that no one would ever know about unless you are directly involved. If all of the great officers were to be limited in their abilities, I guarantee you, we will all be much less safe.
I brought up the Black Lives Matter (as much as others lives) Movement, in order to illustrate the point that, in our society, as it exists today, some people sometimes have a real reason to fear the authorities in addition to fearing criminals. Honestly, I don't know which side that I come down on, in the particular topic of this thread. But I AM sure that there must be limits on the power of those in authority. The trick is to give authorities powers to effectively perform their duties, while ALSO insuring that they do not willy-nilly abuse, or unwisely use, those powers. Err on the side of providing power to those who keep us safe, and a lot of us should be safer (at least for awhile), but some number of us will be exposed to the undesirable effects of the unbridled use of power.
I totally agree that not everyone has the ability to be as calm about increasing law enforcement. But I still think that even they will be better off with stronger protection. I don't care who you are, if a crime is committed against you, you want the perpetrator caught and justice to take place. Our systems of law enforcement are far from perfect, but if you take an unbiased look at them their track record is overwhelmingly positive with a few terrible instances that taint the rest. I will never say they can't be improved, but they do more good that 99.9% of us are even aware of. (I know a couple of RCMP officers very well, and they see and handle situations that no one would ever know about unless you are directly involved. If all of the great officers were to be limited in their abilities, I guarantee you, we will all be much less safe. If I were black, in Canada, I don't think that I would fear Dudley-Do-Right. (But, then my knowledge of Canada, is substantially derived from cartoons.) If, however, I were driving while black in the USA, and I saw police lights in my rear-view mirror, I would probably experience some extraordinary anxiety.

https://bgr.com/2016/02/18/apple-fbi-backdoor-will-strafach-opinion/
This seems to be a pretty cogent perspective on the topic of this thread.

www.sbsun.com/general-news/20160224/apple-on-cracking-terrorists-iphone-congress-not-courts-must-decide
If Farook and his wife were so careful to destroy their own hard drives and phones, how likely is it that they would have been careless enough to have used his work phone for any communications having to do with the attack or with culpable people and not have destroyed that one, too? They would have destroyed that phone, too, if there was anything likely to be helpful to the FBI on it. Why wouldn’t they? Does the FBI think Farook suddenly became too ethical to destroy his work phone because it belonged to his employer, and that he would have left incriminating evidence on it? Why would any terrorist or any criminal in his right mind do that? I suspect Farook and his wife were able to run circles around the FBI. I predict that if the FBI ever gets into that phone there will be absolutely nothing on it that’s of any use to the FBI. I agree that the FBI is more interested in being able to get into any locked phone and are using this situation as a way to accomplish that. If they have any sense at all, they must know that there won’t be anything on the phone that will help them with this case. They are using the emotions of the public in order to get into the phone so no Apple phone will be off limits to the FBI.
Lois

https://bgr.com/2016/02/18/apple-fbi-backdoor-will-strafach-opinion/ This seems to be a pretty cogent perspective on the topic of this thread.
The following quote is one of the more important points in the article... "This solution would allow Apple to use existing technologies in the firmware file format to grant access to the phone ensuring that there is no possible way the same solution would work on another device." A quick online search for "apple fbi poll" shows that a slight majority might be in favour of Apple agreeing to help the FBI. I saw a few poll results in various articles, but there was no info on the polls themselves, so I don't know how accurate or reliable the results were. But at least is shows there is a sizable portion of the population who don't think privacy trumps all. (It was interesting that one poll showed that the higher the income, the more a person thought Apple should help.)
https://bgr.com/2016/02/18/apple-fbi-backdoor-will-strafach-opinion/ This seems to be a pretty cogent perspective on the topic of this thread.
The following quote is one of the more important points in the article... "This solution would allow Apple to use existing technologies in the firmware file format to grant access to the phone ensuring that there is no possible way the same solution would work on another device." ... But the author makes that point within the context of claiming that the FBI has "laid a clever trap" for Apple, in that it would set a precedent for Apple (and presumably others) to take such extraordinary measures with each and every device that Security and Law Enforcement Agencies say need to be accessible. I think I would be okay with that if a Court determines in advance, in each and every case that this is warranted and if Apple (or whoever) was reimbursed the cost of taking the extraordinary measures (assuming that the Supreme Court eventually deems that the process is not inconsistent with Constitution in any way).
A quick online search for "apple fbi poll" shows that a slight majority might be in favour of Apple agreeing to help the FBI. I saw a few poll results in various articles, but there was no info on the polls themselves, so I don't know how accurate or reliable the results were. But at least is shows there is a sizable portion of the population who don't think privacy trumps all. (It was interesting that one poll showed that the higher the income, the more a person thought Apple should help.)
Obviously we live in a democracy but I don't remember any time in history in which we let the mob take away rights of others in an informal internet poll. Is there some new clause in the constitution that I am unaware of?