Tim Cook Email Explains Why Apple Won't Help Hack Shooter's iPhone

[mountainbikermark]

Anybody see the debate last night? All 5 candidates support fbi and not Apple. All 5 think it's just a simple unlock the phone and nothing more. They have no idea of what it would take to unlock it or the possible ramifications. "Security" was used over and over along with "terrorist".
This is why I support Apple the most.

Support Our Troops!!!
Beast Mode 4
<><

 

[cr6]

This fear mongering by our local/state/federal govt is out of control!

 

[thunderbolt_nick]

Anybody see the debate last night? All 5 candidates support fbi and not Apple. All 5 think it's just a simple unlock the phone and nothing more. They have no idea of what it would take to unlock it or the possible ramifications. "Security" was used over and over along with "terrorist".
This is why I support Apple the most.

Support Our Troops!!!
Beast Mode 4
<><

That's the exact point me and Cook are trying to make too. It's literally too difficult to carry out without making custom software for a back door. Cook even admits that in a 'perfect world' he would be happy to comply with the court order unless public safety, not privacy, was compromised. He also suggested not using this case as the precedence and getting everyone in a room to talk about these issues and what society really wants. I agree with him on this. Not talking about it and hashing out laws and values is just asking for a bad situation. I despise Cook a lot for some of his business practices but on this issue he has the right idea in my opinion. We are a land of laws that need guidance because if it keeps going then what privacy advocates and people who side against this issue's fears can and will come to fruition.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[mountainbikermark]

That's the exact point me and Cook are trying to make too. It's literally too difficult to carry out without making custom software for a back door. Cook even admits that in a 'perfect world' he would be happy to comply with the court order unless public safety, not privacy, was compromised. He also suggested not using this case as the precedence and getting everyone in a room to talk about these issues and what society really wants. I agree with him on this. Not talking about it and hashing out laws and values is just asking for a bad situation. I despise Cook a lot for some of his business practices but on this issue he has the right idea in my opinion. We are a land of laws that need guidance because if it keeps going then what privacy advocates and people who side against this issue's fears can and will come to fruition.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Another reason I'm not a fan of non removable batteries. Doesn't Apple know their customers will now be a target of "hackers from China and Russia" ?
Anyone remember the ancient Nokia phones that you could power off but still use their alarm clock?

Support Our Troops!!!
Beast Mode 4
<><

 

[UrbanBounca]

There are cases in China, Russia and other countries that want unlock from Apple. We aren't talking about them, we are discussing this one instance where the phone is a terrorist's accessory and fbi has every right to demand assistance from its manufacturer.

They absolutely do have the right to request assistance, but at this point, Apple is not required. The FBI is attempting to force a private entity to create a program. Do you work for free? Nope, and Apple doesn't either.

 

[zinethar]

A lot of interesting give and take here, however, several points I have not seen (or noticed). The FBI HAS permission from the owner to do what is necessary to get needed info from the phone. The terrorist did not own it, his business did (and at the request of the FBI changed the password causing all kinds of problems showing neither knew what they were doing. The ONLY was Apple can "win" is the show it is unreasonably difficult to do and places an unreasonable burden on them.Apple changed their encryption on purpose to create this problem - does that make them complicit in abetting terrorists? My brother was a very good attorney who was certified to bring cases to the supreme court. He argued with me all the time when I said something was unjust. His point was we do not now or have never had a justice system. We have a legal system. Different. The prosecuter must show you broke the law - not that you did something wrong. I always asked him if he would ever defend someone he knew was guilty. His response was no one is guilty of breaking a law until found guilty. The was the prosecutor's job not his as defense. I see no way Apple can win. If they prove it is too hard to do what the court orders and the owner agrees to then the next question is why did they produce something they knew would eventually violate court orders.

 

[tech_head]

You don't get it either. The NSA created SHA256 as secure encryption. The government of Ca and Ney York asked for technology that would render a phone useless if stolen. That means no updates on locked phones and secure boot loaders that are signed by Apple alone. Be careful what you ask for...

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[mountainbikermark]

A lot of interesting give and take here, however, several points I have not seen (or noticed). The FBI HAS permission from the owner to do what is necessary to get needed info from the phone. The terrorist did not own it, his business did (and at the request of the FBI changed the password causing all kinds of problems showing neither knew what they were doing. The ONLY was Apple can "win" is the show it is unreasonably difficult to do and places an unreasonable burden on them.Apple changed their encryption on purpose to create this problem - does that make them complicit in abetting terrorists? My brother was a very good attorney who was certified to bring cases to the supreme court. He argued with me all the time when I said something was unjust. His point was we do not now or have never had a justice system. We have a legal system. Different. The prosecuter must show you broke the law - not that you did something wrong. I always asked him if he would ever defend someone he knew was guilty. His response was no one is guilty of breaking a law until found guilty. The was the prosecutor's job not his as defense. I see no way Apple can win. If they prove it is too hard to do what the court orders and the owner agrees to then the next question is why did they produce something they knew would eventually violate court orders.

Department of law would not sound very comforting to the American public so they call it the department of justice. When this country was founded there was the department of war but that sounded to aggressive to the American people so it was changed to the department of defense even though it carries out declarations of war made by others.
You hit the constitution on the head while also showing the problem today.

You don't get it either. The NSA created SHA256 as secure encryption. The government of Ca and Ney York asked for technology that would render a phone useless if stolen. That means no updates on locked phones and secure boot loaders that are signed by Apple alone. Be careful what you ask for...

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Government
Be careful what you ask for
Again making the point above. They wanted a law that'll create justice, a paradox in and of itself. Interpretation of the law is justice, not the law itself. As I wrote before, the constitution is vague on these issues because the founding fathers had no idea that the definition of justice would be bastardized into its present form.
By law,Apple is correct. By the definition of justice the government is correct but the constitution says is law is supposed to trump justice .

Support Our Troops!!!
Beast Mode 4
<><

 

[pc747]

Nearly 15 years ago (hard to believe it was that long) many of us were witness to an attack on our country and out freedoms. As Americans we wanted to do anything to help our country to prevent such an attack from happening again. What ever it took to find the cells in our country we were willing to do. Here we are now, TSA have failed test after test after test to where it is almost a joke now. They have failed on numerous occasions to find contraband. Many of our basic rights have been violated, and we still have attacks.

This is a tough subject because at the end of the day we all want to not only side with the victims but prevent our loved ones from being next. But if we lived in a world where I had complete trust in my government to not use such power for other than intended, as well as being able to keep out the bad cops and FBI agents then I would maybe consider. But unfortunately that is not the case. On more than one occasion we know of our government making unethical moves to "get the bigger fish" and it at times resulting in the innocence being effected. Because of that I side with Cook, especially if this has gone from one iPhone to 12....because what is to keep it from going from 12 to demanding all smartphone companies are in compliance?

And what would keep a crooked law enforcement personnel from using this to go through people's device?

If we are willing to open the door for our neighbor's rights to be violated then we can not be surprised when later it is our rights that are violated.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[tech_head]

Exactly.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[thunderbolt_nick]

And what would keep a crooked law enforcement personnel from using this to go through people's device?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

The law, Internal Affairs, and the courts just like it does now which is why this case has gone the way it has. Again, I don't see the slippery slope argument holding weight IF we set the rules up as a society of what law enforcement can and can't do.


Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[mountainbikermark]

Many here are too young to remember how companies such as Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc volunteered to throw the American people under the bus right after 911 as the patriot act was being drawn up. Americans were on board with it too. It wasn't until exposure of misuse began to surface that they took a stand, except for Verizon. Verizon stood firm against voluntary government intrusion. Sure they all claim to be for individual rights and are only doing what they're forced to do now but it wasn't always so. Back then anyone who spoke out against it was considered a tin hatter conspiracy nut job that'd watched too many episodes of X Files.

Support Our Troops!!!
Beast Mode 4
<><

 

[tech_head]

I knew the Patriot Act was dangerous to begin with. Anytime the government starts using terms like patriot, homeland, terrorist, etc be afraid. "Those that would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither the security or the liberty they desire." In a free society there are always risks. You trade those risks for freedom and liberty.

I don't trust the government. I'm not a tin hat wearer. Just Google any of the following: MKultra, Tuskegee Bad Blood, Alan Dulles, Eugenics and see if you still trust the government.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[mountainbikermark]

I knew the Patriot Act was dangerous to begin with. Anytime the government starts using terms like patriot, homeland, terrorist, etc be afraid. "Those that would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither the security or the liberty they desire." In a free society there are always risks. You trade those risks for freedom and liberty.

I don't trust the government. I'm not a tin hat wearer. Just Google any of the following: MKultra, Tuskegee Bad Blood, Alan Dulles, Eugenics and see if you still trust the government.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

This link started years ago but if you follow the links into other links deeply enough it'll lead you to the present
No Lies About Iraq (Updated)

Support Our Troops!!!
Beast Mode 4
<><

 

[Sajo]

I knew the Patriot Act was dangerous to begin with.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Seriously?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk