Apple vs the FBI

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 1 of 2 1 2 > Last >>

Lyons550 Shirley 18 Feb 16 12.42pm
[Link] What are peoples thoughts on Apple challenging the US Court order to allow the FBI access to phone data? Lets be honest ...they can get in anyway and all this is, is to 'legitimise' what already happens. Apples stance is clear and is about ( as everything Apple stands for) one thing....money. They're not worried about an individuals security or anonymity at all...its typical Apple spin. They're only worried that if the allow the FBI's request that they'll lose market share as a result. For me...if you've committed a crime ALL data should be accessible to the authorities. Thoughts? The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550

Shirley 18 Feb 16 12.42pm

[Link]

What are peoples thoughts on Apple challenging the US Court order to allow the FBI access to phone data?

Lets be honest ...they can get in anyway and all this is, is to 'legitimise' what already happens.

Apples stance is clear and is about ( as everything Apple stands for) one thing....money.

They're not worried about an individuals security or anonymity at all...its typical Apple spin. They're only worried that if the allow the FBI's request that they'll lose market share as a result.

For me...if you've committed a crime ALL data should be accessible to the authorities.

Thoughts?

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 18 Feb 16 12.48pm
What about if they only think you've committed a crime? Should they be able to access your private data then? Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 18 Feb 16 12.48pm

What about if they only think you've committed a crime? Should they be able to access your private data then?

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 18 Feb 16 12.49pm
To be honest it's piss poor that they haven't got someone able to break that without asking for permission. I agree that they should have to provide the data in a case this serious. They could always do what happened with Blackberry and threaten to ban them unless they decrypt it. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 18 Feb 16 12.49pm

To be honest it's piss poor that they haven't got someone able to break that without asking for permission.

I agree that they should have to provide the data in a case this serious.

They could always do what happened with Blackberry and threaten to ban them unless they decrypt it.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550 Shirley 18 Feb 16 12.57pm
Originally posted by Cucking Funt What about if they only think you've committed a crime? Should they be able to access your private data then? TBH I'm firmly in the camp of if you have nothing to hide then its never an issue. If you're not guilty and there's nothing in the data that would prove otherwise its not an issue. If you are and the data will help prove your guilt then that's exactly why they should have access. The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550

Shirley 18 Feb 16 12.57pm

Originally posted by Cucking Funt

What about if they only think you've committed a crime? Should they be able to access your private data then?

TBH I'm firmly in the camp of if you have nothing to hide then its never an issue.

If you're not guilty and there's nothing in the data that would prove otherwise its not an issue.

If you are and the data will help prove your guilt then that's exactly why they should have access.

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Feb 16 12.58pm
Originally posted by Cucking Funt What about if they only think you've committed a crime? Should they be able to access your private data then? Quite agree. Information should only be available on the production of a warrant for that data and information. The blurring of the lines between how Security Services operate and how Law Enforcement operate, along with increasing collusion between them, is a bigger threat to society than terrorism is. Traditionally Security Services have operated in a manner distanced from general law enforcement, focusing entirely on counter-espionage and counter-terrorism - and as such they have operated under greater freedom, because they are not capable of bringing criminal charges, and focused entirely on real threats to national security. The US also has bad history for this, during the 60s and 70s, with the FBI's COINTPRO and similar schemes, rather than resolve genuine social problems. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 18 Feb 16 12.58pm

Originally posted by Cucking Funt

What about if they only think you've committed a crime? Should they be able to access your private data then?

Quite agree. Information should only be available on the production of a warrant for that data and information.

The blurring of the lines between how Security Services operate and how Law Enforcement operate, along with increasing collusion between them, is a bigger threat to society than terrorism is.

Traditionally Security Services have operated in a manner distanced from general law enforcement, focusing entirely on counter-espionage and counter-terrorism - and as such they have operated under greater freedom, because they are not capable of bringing criminal charges, and focused entirely on real threats to national security.

The US also has bad history for this, during the 60s and 70s, with the FBI's COINTPRO and similar schemes, rather than resolve genuine social problems.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550 Shirley 18 Feb 16 1.02pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Quite agree. Information should only be available on the production of a warrant for that data and information. The blurring of the lines between how Security Services operate and how Law Enforcement operate, along with increasing collusion between them, is a bigger threat to society than terrorism is. Traditionally Security Services have operated in a manner distanced from general law enforcement, focusing entirely on counter-espionage and counter-terrorism - and as such they have operated under greater freedom, because they are not capable of bringing criminal charges, and focused entirely on real threats to national security. The US also has bad history for this, during the 60s and 70s, with the FBI's COINTPRO and similar schemes, rather than resolve genuine social problems. Clearly it'd have to be obtained via a warrant and with justifiable suspicion. I'm not for the services having cart blanche access only in criminal cases. The simple answer for people who are against this is not to have a phone or electronic device; remove themselves from the web and go back to pen paper and talking to people face to face...it was only 25 years ago where this was the norm! The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550

Shirley 18 Feb 16 1.02pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Quite agree. Information should only be available on the production of a warrant for that data and information.

The blurring of the lines between how Security Services operate and how Law Enforcement operate, along with increasing collusion between them, is a bigger threat to society than terrorism is.

The US also has bad history for this, during the 60s and 70s, with the FBI's COINTPRO and similar schemes, rather than resolve genuine social problems.

Clearly it'd have to be obtained via a warrant and with justifiable suspicion. I'm not for the services having cart blanche access only in criminal cases.

The simple answer for people who are against this is not to have a phone or electronic device; remove themselves from the web and go back to pen paper and talking to people face to face...it was only 25 years ago where this was the norm!

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Feb 16 1.12pm
Originally posted by Lyons550 TBH I'm firmly in the camp of if you have nothing to hide then its never an issue. If you're not guilty and there's nothing in the data that would prove otherwise its not an issue. If you are and the data will help prove your guilt then that's exactly why they should have access. Problem in the US system, is no one is trying to prove you are innocent. They're trying to prove you are guilty, and things like texts, phone logs are very good at making people look like conspirators, even when they have done nothing of the sort. The kind of information they'll obtain isn't about proof of guilt or innocence, its about making you appear more guilty. Both in the UK, and US, the typical approach to terrorism is to load defendents up with charges, so as to ensure one will stick, and then look to getting the best conviction they can. And in a 'Conspiracy to commit terrorism' charge its down to the defendant to prove themselves Not Guilty, the prosecution only has to demonstrate a basis of joint association with someone engaged in, or known terrorist (or individuals associated with a prohibited group etc). Its very very hard to prove you are innocent. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 18 Feb 16 1.12pm

Originally posted by Lyons550

TBH I'm firmly in the camp of if you have nothing to hide then its never an issue.

If you're not guilty and there's nothing in the data that would prove otherwise its not an issue.

If you are and the data will help prove your guilt then that's exactly why they should have access.

Problem in the US system, is no one is trying to prove you are innocent. They're trying to prove you are guilty, and things like texts, phone logs are very good at making people look like conspirators, even when they have done nothing of the sort.

The kind of information they'll obtain isn't about proof of guilt or innocence, its about making you appear more guilty.

Both in the UK, and US, the typical approach to terrorism is to load defendents up with charges, so as to ensure one will stick, and then look to getting the best conviction they can.

And in a 'Conspiracy to commit terrorism' charge its down to the defendant to prove themselves Not Guilty, the prosecution only has to demonstrate a basis of joint association with someone engaged in, or known terrorist (or individuals associated with a prohibited group etc).

Its very very hard to prove you are innocent.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Feb 16 1.34pm
Also what the FBI is asking Apple to do, is to also remove functions that protect innocent people. For example, an iPhone can be set to delete all information on 10 failed logins. That's a massive feature for anyone who stores personal information on their phone (banking apps, cash points, purchase) It also can only be unlocked manually. You can't electronically unlock it. Which means you have 10,000 combinations, an ten attempts to get it right. Where as if you use an electronic intrusion system, you get 10,000 attempts to get 10,000 combinations, in a matter of minutes. The thing is, if Apple do this for the FBI, it won't be too long before the demanded exploits are being used criminally. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 18 Feb 16 1.34pm

Also what the FBI is asking Apple to do, is to also remove functions that protect innocent people. For example, an iPhone can be set to delete all information on 10 failed logins. That's a massive feature for anyone who stores personal information on their phone (banking apps, cash points, purchase)

It also can only be unlocked manually. You can't electronically unlock it. Which means you have 10,000 combinations, an ten attempts to get it right. Where as if you use an electronic intrusion system, you get 10,000 attempts to get 10,000 combinations, in a matter of minutes.

The thing is, if Apple do this for the FBI, it won't be too long before the demanded exploits are being used criminally.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Feb 16 1.37pm
Originally posted by Lyons550 Clearly it'd have to be obtained via a warrant and with justifiable suspicion. I'm not for the services having cart blanche access only in criminal cases. The simple answer for people who are against this is not to have a phone or electronic device; remove themselves from the web and go back to pen paper and talking to people face to face...it was only 25 years ago where this was the norm! Having re-read the case, that's not what is happening here. The FBI want to force Apple to change functionality on their phones that restrict the FBI from obtaining information on any Apple phone. Not just this particular phone. With a warrant, Apple would be legally obliged to provide them with the data requested. But what the FBI seem to want is Apple to remove the lockout and non-electronic login systems from all their phones. Which also means they'd be more vulnerable to exploitation and hacking. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 18 Feb 16 1.37pm

Originally posted by Lyons550

Clearly it'd have to be obtained via a warrant and with justifiable suspicion. I'm not for the services having cart blanche access only in criminal cases.

Having re-read the case, that's not what is happening here. The FBI want to force Apple to change functionality on their phones that restrict the FBI from obtaining information on any Apple phone. Not just this particular phone.

With a warrant, Apple would be legally obliged to provide them with the data requested. But what the FBI seem to want is Apple to remove the lockout and non-electronic login systems from all their phones.

Which also means they'd be more vulnerable to exploitation and hacking.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 18 Feb 16 1.39pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Problem in the US system, is no one is trying to prove you are innocent. They're trying to prove you are guilty, and things like texts, phone logs are very good at making people look like conspirators, even when they have done nothing of the sort. The kind of information they'll obtain isn't about proof of guilt or innocence, its about making you appear more guilty. Both in the UK, and US, the typical approach to terrorism is to load defendents up with charges, so as to ensure one will stick, and then look to getting the best conviction they can. And in a 'Conspiracy to commit terrorism' charge its down to the defendant to prove themselves Not Guilty, the prosecution only has to demonstrate a basis of joint association with someone engaged in, or known terrorist (or individuals associated with a prohibited group etc). Its very very hard to prove you are innocent. Absolutely right. The notion of 'if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide' is ridiculous because firstly, the 'state' should have absolutely no right whatsoever to access your private information unless it can prove to a court otherwise and even then the reasons need to be pretty fcking compelling. Supporting such a notion gives carte-blanche to the use of covert surveillance. Secondly, as Jamie rightly points out, the use of information so acquired can be used to make you appear 'more guilty' (or at least cast doubts over your innocence) even if you haven't actually done anything wrong. The default position, in a so-called 'free society', must always be that the individual's right to privacy is utterly paramount and inviolable unless there is irrefutable evidence to the contraryand that the bar should be set very, very high to allow that principle to be overridden. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham*
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 18 Feb 16 1.39pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

The kind of information they'll obtain isn't about proof of guilt or innocence, its about making you appear more guilty.

Both in the UK, and US, the typical approach to terrorism is to load defendents up with charges, so as to ensure one will stick, and then look to getting the best conviction they can.

Its very very hard to prove you are innocent.

Absolutely right. The notion of 'if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide' is ridiculous because firstly, the 'state' should have absolutely no right whatsoever to access your private information unless it can prove to a court otherwise and even then the reasons need to be pretty f*cking compelling. Supporting such a notion gives carte-blanche to the use of covert surveillance. Secondly, as Jamie rightly points out, the use of information so acquired can be used to make you appear 'more guilty' (or at least cast doubts over your innocence) even if you haven't actually done anything wrong.

The default position, in a so-called 'free society', must always be that the individual's right to privacy is utterly paramount and inviolable unless there is irrefutable evidence to the contraryand that the bar should be set very, very high to allow that principle to be overridden.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 18 Feb 16 1.45pm
In this case 'The Terrorists' are dead so I really cant see what the problem is if this is a one off. Pro USA & Israel
Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez

SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 18 Feb 16 1.45pm

In this case 'The Terrorists' are dead so I really cant see what the problem is if this is a one off.

Pro USA & Israel

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Feb 16 1.55pm
Originally posted by Jimenez In this case 'The Terrorists' are dead so I really cant see what the problem is if this is a one off. It isn't. They could obtain all the information held by Apple etc via a warrant. But what they are trying to do seems to be aimed at getting Apple to change access to their phone system to benefit law enforcement - which is at a consequential threat to their users. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 18 Feb 16 1.55pm

Originally posted by Jimenez

In this case 'The Terrorists' are dead so I really cant see what the problem is if this is a one off.

It isn't. They could obtain all the information held by Apple etc via a warrant. But what they are trying to do seems to be aimed at getting Apple to change access to their phone system to benefit law enforcement - which is at a consequential threat to their users.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 1 of 2 1 2 > Last >>

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Apple vs the FBI

Site Map

Sponsors