Apple Opposes Judge Order to Break Encryption

What if Apple gets hacked or software leaked? What then?


What happens when nuclear launch procedures and codes get compromised? What happens when deadly super contagious virus gets out of their facilities? Can play "what ifs" all day long with stuff.

Treat it with the same sense of urgency and criticality. You saying that can't be done? It's impossible?
 
What happens when nuclear launch procedures and codes get compromised? What happens when deadly super contagious virus gets out of their facilities? Can play "what ifs" all day long with stuff.

Treat it with the same sense of urgency and criticality. You saying that can't be done? It's impossible?

Sony, Target, Google, Microsoft etc are never hacked. And consequences of these hacks are small. No worries.

China and Russia wants it too. Those citizens don't need stinking basic rights at all!
 
What happens when nuclear launch procedures and codes get compromised? What happens when deadly super contagious virus gets out of their facilities? Can play "what ifs" all day long with stuff.

Treat it with the same sense of urgency and criticality. You saying that can't be done? It's impossible?

I was going to say what if a bunch of zombie velociraptors came to life and lived on a iPhone diet but those are good what ifs also.
 
I was going to say what if a bunch of zombie velociraptors came to life and lived on a iPhone diet but those are good what ifs also.

You're right...big corporation hacking never happens! What was i thinking?! :ybrick:
 
He clearly has his points but he is not and cannot be above the judicial system.....and it will end accordingly.

Did you also see the very last piece of the clip after the interview? The Federal government does not want the code or software or "secret" and wants Apple to be the only one to know of it and secure it.

Thats because the FBI does not want responsibility of it because they know it is going to cause a shit storm for others wanting access. They would rather Apple take the brunt of all that while they sit back and smile because they got theirs.
 
It is going on 3 days now and no one supporting the government has been able to address the basic legal question I posed.

How is it legal for the executive branch to order an individual or corporation to create a brand new product that can never be sold?
 
It is going on 3 days now and no one supporting the government has been able to address the basic legal question I posed.

How is it legal for the executive branch to order an individual or corporation to create a brand new product that can never be sold?

I have been giving this question some serious thought, i just can't come up with an answer.
 
It is going on 3 days now and no one supporting the government has been able to address the basic legal question I posed.



How is it legal for the executive branch to order an individual or corporation to create a brand new product that can never be sold?


The gov supporters have yet to address the issue of the law that is being used is from 1789. Yet the founding fathers never conceived smart phones.
 
Thats because the FBI does not want responsibility of it because they know it is going to cause a shit storm for others wanting access. They would rather Apple take the brunt of all that while they sit back and smile because they got theirs.

Exactly, none of the liability of keeping the metaphorical tiger in its cage, but they would have the freedom (not to mention the precedent) to show up on Apple's doorstep anytime they would want to with "Just one more phone we need you to break for us", over and over again.
 
Exactly, none of the liability of keeping the metaphorical tiger in its cage, but they would have the freedom (not to mention the precedent) to show up on Apple's doorstep anytime they would want to with "Just one more phone we need you to break for us", over and over again.

Exactly.
 
Few quotes from the net:

Even Michael Hayden, a former chief of both the CIA and the NSA — who served as the NSA's director as it conducted the controversial surveillance program that collected telephone metadata on millions of Americans — called out Comey as not shooting straight about his real intent.

"In general I oppose the government's effort, personified by FBI Director Jim Comey," Hayden said in an interview. "Jim would like a back door available to American law enforcement in all devices globally. And, frankly, I think on balance that actually harms American safety and security, even though it might make Jim's job a bit easier in some specific circumstances."

Hayden added, "when you step back and look at the whole question of American security and safety writ large, we are a safer, more secure nation without back doors." If there's a back door, he said, "a lot of other people would take advantage of it."

Comey's FBI and the Obama administration are gaining some cover from the media as well, which keeps suggesting that the issue in question is whether or not "Apple should help the police to unlock a terrorist phone."

This is also absolutely untrue. Apple isn't being asked to unlock a device.

The FBI knows Apple can't unlock it, because there is no master key that exists anywhere.

What it is demanding is new software that would bypass iOS's existing security features to allow the FBI itself to guess the passcode for as long as it needed to access the device.

Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook called this new software a "cancer," suggesting that once unleashed, it would be impossible to control. And of course, if the U.S. federal government already has nine other requests in the queue for a security bypassing back door to get past encryption, setting a new precedent for the "Mother of All Back Doors" means that there will be a steady stream of new demands.

And if the U.S. can achieve its goals via a court order, clearly any other country Apple does business in can also demand access to the same capabilities, without even needing to establish any sort of democratically-originated legal basis in law.
 
Comey's FBI and the Obama administration are gaining some cover from the media as well, which keeps suggesting that the issue in question is whether or not "Apple should help the police to unlock a terrorist phone."

This is the part that pisses me off when trying to talk to people on this topic; Apple HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL working with the FBI in trying to extract data from this phone. Its just that now that the FBI has admitted that they messed with the phone to the point that Apple no longer has the ability to help them, and that engineering that ability would go against their (and society's) best interests as a business, the Feds are trying to paint Apple as being uncooperative and "siding with the terrorists". Its BS.
 
This is the part that pisses me off when trying to talk to people on this topic; Apple HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL working with the FBI in trying to extract data from this phone. Its just that now that the FBI has admitted that they messed with the phone to the point that Apple no longer has the ability to help them, and that engineering that ability would go against their (and society's) best interests as a business, the Feds are trying to paint Apple as being uncooperative and "siding with the terrorists". Its BS.

Agreed. They have been and its unfortunate they are being painted that way but that's only by people who have a very superficial interest in this anyway.....and Trump is a complete buffoon (as always) with regard to boycotts.
 
He clearly has his points but he is not and cannot be above the judicial system.....and it will end accordingly.

Did you also see the very last piece of the clip after the interview? The Federal government does not want the code or software or "secret" and wants Apple to be the only one to know of it and secure it.

how is this a lawful order?


the last part is bs. IF such a thing exists, it can be found/exploited/used/abused.

quite literally like a back door on a building. no matter how good the security on the door, the fact that it exists means it can be breached given enough time. which is exactly what the FBI is asking for, and trying to accomplish.

if there is NO back door on said building, you cant very well open it, can you?
 
He clearly has his points but he is not and cannot be above the judicial system.....and it will end accordingly.

Did you also see the very last piece of the clip after the interview? The Federal government does not want the code or software or "secret" and wants Apple to be the only one to know of it and secure it.


Interesting. The gov isn't above the law either. But yet they hold themselves above the law every day.
 
Microsoft now fully behind Apple's privacy stance

Link: Microsoft 'wholeheartedly' supports Apple in FBI encryption case | The Verge

Quote:

Speaking at a congressional hearing today, Microsoft president and chief legal officer Brad Smith said that his company "wholeheartedly" supports Apple in the ongoing case that's pitted the iPhone maker against the FBI. "We at Microsoft support Apple and will be filing an amicus brief next week," Smith said.

In protest of the FBI citing the All Writs Act — a federal statute first passed in 1911 — to make its case against Apple, Smith pulled out an adding machine manufactured in 1912 while speaking at today's hearing. "We do not believe that courts should seek to resolve issues of 21st century technology with a law that was written in the era of the adding machine," he said. Smith also warned of this particular case setting precedent for others in the technology industry.
 
Apple filing to vacate court order

Link: Apple Files to Vacate Court Order in San Bernardino iPhone Case - ABC News

Quote:

Apple filed a motion today to vacate a federal order asking the company to help unlock an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters.

"This is not a case about one isolated iPhone. Rather, this case is about the Department of Justice and the FBI seeking through the courts a dangerous power that Congress and the American people have withheld: the ability to force companies like Apple to undermine the basic security and privacy interests of hundreds of millions of individuals around the globe," Apple's attorneys wrote in the filing.

Apple's motion to vacate the federal court order alleges "rather than pursue new legislation, the government backed away from Congress and turned to the courts, a forum ill-suited to address the myriad competing interests, potential ramifications, and unintended consequences presented by the government’s unprecedented demand."

It goes on to say by invoking "terrorism," the government "sought to cut off debate and circumvent thoughtful analysis."
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
278,316
Messages
3,554,120
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top