Mock

All governments use diversionary tactics and subversive technics to get what they deem is "useful" be it politically motivated or just because. Its up to everyone to use verbal communication whenever possible and not put anything sensitive in text. The U.S. mail is still one of the most secure ways to send a message that a person may not want advertised. Any paper mail that is used in most countries are secure due to the high load of parcels that flow every day. the only way to open a letter is to know who it came from and just open it but using proxy addresses and different names and or towns will get around this.

This phone record collecting is supposedly stopped now. If you can believe it.[/b]

Patriot Act 2.0?
Who's right -- the government or the technology CEO?

The second largest terrorist attack in the U.S. went down in San Bernadino, California on December 2, 2015 when American Syed Farook and his Pakistanti/Saudi wife Tashfeen Malik gunned down and killed 14 of Farook's colleagues at a company luncheon.

The terrorist couple was killed by LE after the attack. LE found two cell phones smashed beyond usability. Their computer hard drive was missing and LE searched the area and a nearby lake, with no luck.

However, LE did find Farook's work cell phone in the home. It is unknown whether Farook forgot about it or just didn't care if it was located. LE desperately wants to access the phone data to search for evidence related to the crime, contacts, etc... However, it's an iPhone and they do not have the password.

So...................Judge Sheri Pym of U.S. District Court in Los Angeles made a first of its kind ruling this week declaring that Apple must provide 'reasonable technical assistance' to investigators seeking to unlock the data on an iPhone 5C that had been owned by Syed Rizwan Farook.

That assistance includes disabling the phone's auto-erase function, which activates after 10 consecutive unsuccessful passcode attempts, and helping investigators to submit passcode guesses electronically.

(continued)


Apple CEO Tim Cook has indicated that he plans to defy the court order.

Cook said in a website posting that the U.S. government order would undermine encryption by using specialized software to create an essential back door that he compared to a 'master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks.'

In the wrong hands, this software - which does not exist today - would have the potential to unlock an iPhone in someone's physical possession...And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control,said Cook. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z40RsUbJSa

So, now that the Patriot Act has been limited and LE/govt is required to secure a warrant in order to monitor phone data and electronic communications in their attempts to ferret out potential terrorists, we have a similar privacy vs. safety issue to consider once a terrorist act has already been committed.

Should the government be able to force technology companies to get around security encryption in terrorism investigations?

Apple should just give the government that one password, not an entire software program.

(02-17-2016, 03:33 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]Apple should just give the government that one password, not an entire software program.

Apple doesn't have the password. Only the user and anyone with whom he might have shared it could access the data in the phone.

In 2014, Apple announced it was throwing away the encryption keys that had previously allowed it to help law enforcement unlock customers' iPhones. At the time, the company was trying to beef up its reputation for customer security in the wake of revelations that it had participated in the National Security Administration's data collection efforts.

With the new Apple technology, there is no "back door" or "master/skeleton key" to unlock a user's phone data. To comply with the court order, Apple would need to develop software that could hack the encryption. They don't want to go there and set a precedent.

(02-17-2016, 03:33 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]Apple should just give the government that one password, not an entire software program.

The password is: n0cart00nMo . . . or TRumP2016

Just give them the phone. They can do it. Gimme dat phone.

That's like demanding Kentucky Fried chickens secret recipe to coerce Kim Jong to stop his missile testing.

The owners of these phones are dead and their rights died with them.

Why not use this as the basis for and specifically limiting the government's hack?

Specifics . . . DETAILED SPECIFICS . . . limit alleged slippery slopes.

Besides, it will give LEO the opportunity to shoot suspected bastards just to get hold of their playlists!

I'm having difficulty distinguishing the benefit between saving lives and infringing on people's rights . . . kinda like proposed gun legislation.

I supported the NSA skimming individuals' communications for data that might help them prevent a terror attack, even though I greatly dislike the privacy infringement. If any data related to crimes which were not "terror-related" was ever used to prosecute a citizen, I never heard about it and I'd think defense attorneys would shout it from the rooftops if that had occurred or they suspected that it had occurred. I expect the same limited "terror-related" scope would be applied to searching specific phone data after the fact as well.

I want LE to unlock the San Bernadino terrorist's phone so they can gather data that might prevent future terrorist attacks, of course. But, I completely understand why Apple is vehemently opposed to being ordered to make that possible. Security is part of the their competitive advantage and something their customers generally value; Apple and other technology companies have invested much and fought hard to earn back customer trust after the Snowden leaks. The OS/software they'd need to develop in order to disable the auto erase of data when the wrong password is entered more than 10 times would be usable to hack any iPhone, not just the one in question in this case (sure, they'd guard it best they could, but that's a huge responsibility/burden to bear). Plus, Apple is a private corporation, not a branch of LE/ government -- I understand why they don't want to be in a position of needing to have resources dedicated to such government activity (which I think they're right to expect would be a continuing request).

Anyway, I don't blame Apple for appealing the court order and I don't think doing so in any way means their leadership is apathetic about terrorism. I think Apple will probably lose its appeal and be forced to comply, but having fought the court order will minimize the negative impact to their brand.

The FBI and NSA are probably going to have to meet with the leaders of the technology companies and agree upon guidelines, scope and assurances regarding corporate cooperation with criminal investigations. And, this time, the details of that agreement will need to be transparent to the public instead of hidden from us. Then, it won't put any one technology company between a rock and a hard place when it is compelled to cooperate by warrant/court order.

Apple should send a team in and get on the government payroll. They could milk this one. At least until a new phone is created.

For those of you keeping score, mark this day on your calendar. I was wrong!

Yup. My statement that an owner, of one of the phones in question, is dead, is false.

Therefore, my premise that a person's right to privacy ended with his death is NOT applicable, in this situation.

The iPhone used by Farook was a work phone, provided by his employer . . . the San Bernardino County Department of Health.

SBC is on board with the FBI and wants the release of info from their phone, too.

Ironically, San Bernardino County requires some, BUT NOT ALL, of its departments to use a mobile-management app (MobileIron), on government issued phones, to secure "corporate data".

This software allows remote unlocking of phones WITHOUT THE USER'S
ASSISTANCE OR ACCESS TO THE PASSWORD to both open the phone and unscramble ALL data.

Unfortunately, this software install was not required within Farook's department.

However . . .

I believe Apple must give their blessing before allowing any app to run on one of their devices . . . isn't this type of software a blatant example of Apple NOT vigorously protecting the information of the user/owner?

Seriously. Why would Apple condone an app that can hack personal information?

A bit of the ol' double talk. More of a PC posture than a core, ideological corporate principle, to me.

Hmmm . . . Didn't Hillary use Apple devices?

Maybe that's the real reason Apple won't comply with the judicial order.

Naked selfies while reading Mao?

Cankles with cigars and lesbians? C'mon . . . those coughing jags are caused by something.

Pedophiles, kiddie porn and sex traffickers gotta be lovin' Apple! * insert Apple "Boing" sound effect *

I'm liking Apple's new ad campaign.

"An Apple in play keeps LEO away!".

Time for the FCC to develop common sense, mandatory device regulations and legislation.

* currently dabbing tears . . . thinking of exploited and sexually abused children . . . and Apple's unwillingness to protect them *

This is a very good, relatively short overview of the issues at play between Apple and the FBI.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/17/11037748/fb...bernardino

It looks like Apple hates slippery slopes. It seems like an all or none affair. After reading the VOX commentary and the Comey FBI wants I would have to say that what Ben Franklin said many years ago still means something.

(02-19-2016, 10:33 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]Apple should send a team in and get on the government payroll. They could milk this one. At least until a new phone is created.

Or...Take John Mcafee up on his offer

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcaf...ree-2016-2

I believe the password automatically reset after the FBI used up its chances to get past it. I don't doubt that Apple and Mcafee have been working on dummy phones attempting to get at it before attempting the killers phone.

The NRA must be high-fivin' Apple's staunch public stance on protecting an individual's civil liberties.

Gun manufacturers, too.

Phones don't kill people . . . or do they?

Criminals know their nefarious crimes and conspiracies will be protected and concealed, by Apple. It is reasonable to conclude Apple is aware of the potential abuse and deadly consequences caused by using their devices and their unwillingness to protect the public's safety.

Now that Apple stated that an individual's data is sacrosanct, I'm wondering if politicians, like Hillary, will support prosecution against Apple . . . as she does against gun manufacturers . . . when the phones are used to promote and facilitate criminal acts causing death or harm to children?

Additionally, since Apple specifically stated personal health data, as an example of sacred information, this could seriously screw-the-pooch to obtain mental health records, for prospective gun owners.

I see a different slippery slope . . . and it ain't looking good for supporters of stronger gun legislation.

I understand and respect the sanctity of private conversations, as does Apple.

Unfortunately, the public (that Apple claims to be supportive of their position) didn't feel the same way when an NBA owner's private conversation/musings/opinions were made public.

A fickle lot they be!

NOTE: This post was sent from my iPad.