By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Apple vs the FBI

mornelithe on 20 February 2016
LurkerJ said:
barneystinson69 said:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-apple-has-unlocked-iphones-before/

 

There was a source which said Apple has done this over 70 times, though I've seemed to have lost it. This is just a big case, as to make themselves look good. If the press wasn't watching this like a microscope, they'd be giving it over with ease.

You haven't even read the article you linked. The FBI wants them to create a version of the operating system they can then load onto the phone so they can try hacking the passcode without the phone erasing itself. The FBI wants this software themselves, it is in the article you linked. 

And you think Apple is getting good publicity out of this? Really? Really?

That's actually not the case, the FBI wants the special OS made, yes.  However, they are not requesting ownership of the OS, they simply want it to be available if another such issue arises (where they've obtained a warrant).  And they have been ordered to do just that, Apple can still appeal.  What I find more intriguing is what happens if Apple closes this loophole afterwards, which could be considered obstruction, and then Congress decides to step in and make a law prohibiting tech companies from making electronics devices inaccessible.  Which they can most certainly do.

This is a real sticky pickle, Apple finds themselves in.  It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.



Around the Network
LurkerJ on 20 February 2016
mornelithe said:
LurkerJ said:

You haven't even read the article you linked. The FBI wants them to create a version of the operating system they can then load onto the phone so they can try hacking the passcode without the phone erasing itself. The FBI wants this software themselves, it is in the article you linked. 

And you think Apple is getting good publicity out of this? Really? Really?

That's actually not the case, the FBI wants the special OS made, yes.  However, they are not requesting ownership of the OS, they simply want it to be available if another such issue arises (where they've obtained a warrant).  And they have been ordered to do just that, Apple can still appeal.  What I find more intriguing is what happens if Apple closes this loophole afterwards, which could be considered obstruction, and then Congress decides to step in and make a law prohibiting tech companies from making electronics devices inaccessible.  Which they can most certainly do.

This is a real sticky pickle, Apple finds themselves in.  It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

There is no reason the FBI wouldn't be able to do this again and again, for Apple and every software company, if their demands are met. As you said or implied, this isn't really about just this case, this isn't really about just Apple. 



MoscowPuzzles on 20 February 2016

FBI can't find a way in then the FBI is shit. Good job Apple. Send that shit to the NSA and they'll be inside in 3 seconds.



mornelithe on 20 February 2016
LurkerJ said:
mornelithe said:

That's actually not the case, the FBI wants the special OS made, yes.  However, they are not requesting ownership of the OS, they simply want it to be available if another such issue arises (where they've obtained a warrant).  And they have been ordered to do just that, Apple can still appeal.  What I find more intriguing is what happens if Apple closes this loophole afterwards, which could be considered obstruction, and then Congress decides to step in and make a law prohibiting tech companies from making electronics devices inaccessible.  Which they can most certainly do.

This is a real sticky pickle, Apple finds themselves in.  It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

There is no reason the FBI wouldn't be able to do this again and again, for Apple and every software company, if their demands are met. As you said or implied, this isn't really about just this case, this isn't really about just Apple. 

Other than, you know, the whole needing a warrant thing, yes, you're correct.  This was the decision Apple made, they will now have to fight tooth and nail against every request for access, made via whatever intelligence community.  So, if Apple really is all about the consumer and privacy etc... they should have no problem going to the mats w/ the intelligence community, every single time they make the request.



barneystinson69 on 20 February 2016
LurkerJ said:
barneystinson69 said:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-apple-has-unlocked-iphones-before/

 

There was a source which said Apple has done this over 70 times, though I've seemed to have lost it. This is just a big case, as to make themselves look good. If the press wasn't watching this like a microscope, they'd be giving it over with ease.

You haven't even read the article you linked. The FBI wants them to create a version of the operating system they can then load onto the phone so they can try hacking the passcode without the phone erasing itself. The FBI wants this software themselves, it is in the article you linked. 

And you think Apple is getting good publicity out of this? Really? Really?

Didn't you read the article? Apple has handed information out plenty of times. And yes, they do get "good publicity". Its in their best interest to look good...



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

Around the Network
Azuren on 20 February 2016
mornelithe said:
Azuren said:
Turning this into such a debacle has surely tipped off the murderer into switching to Android, anyway.

That'd be a rather nifty trick, considering Syed Rizwan Farook (the man in question), was killed by police four hours after the San Bernadino shooting, following a pursuit.  His wife (Tashfeen Malik) and accomplice also died in the shootout.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Baryonyx on 20 February 2016

Privacy is a part of being human, to be able to fight against corrupted goverment without being punished for it, which activist's who have tried to fight for the people have been arrested and harrassed for since that patriot act was written. The freedom that people believe they have, is no longer a rule, just check the laws yourself and you would be suprised how much the US declaration is no longer a part of the law in US.



 

PSN: Opticstrike90
Steam: opticstrike90

mornelithe on 20 February 2016
Azuren said:
mornelithe said:

That'd be a rather nifty trick, considering Syed Rizwan Farook (the man in question), was killed by police four hours after the San Bernadino shooting, following a pursuit.  His wife (Tashfeen Malik) and accomplice also died in the shootout.

Not applicable, really.  Syed and Tashfeen would've had to have both survived the initial shootout, and continued on killing for over a decade for it to work out.



LurkerJ on 21 February 2016
mornelithe said:
LurkerJ said:

There is no reason the FBI wouldn't be able to do this again and again, for Apple and every software company, if their demands are met. As you said or implied, this isn't really about just this case, this isn't really about just Apple. 

Other than, you know, the whole needing a warrant thing, yes, you're correct.  This was the decision Apple made, they will now have to fight tooth and nail against every request for access, made via whatever intelligence community.  So, if Apple really is all about the consumer and privacy etc... they should have no problem going to the mats w/ the intelligence community, every single time they make the request.

Apple has positioned itself as a market leader when it comes to securing the storage and transmission of data, previously that title belonged to RIM. A position Google, and others, are actively seeking to share with Apple. Whether that positioning strategy is the result of competition or a sincere moral stance on the issue of privacy is not as important as whether big government can force tech giants to compromise their free market position and ensure all future encryption is readable by the FBI. Soon enough, others will fight the same fight.

Needing a warrent might make it seem OK for the FBI to make such demands but let's not forget that Apple is an international company, what happens when less progressive countries start taking down activists by publishing their dick pix. 



LurkerJ on 21 February 2016
barneystinson69 said:
LurkerJ said:

You haven't even read the article you linked. The FBI wants them to create a version of the operating system they can then load onto the phone so they can try hacking the passcode without the phone erasing itself. The FBI wants this software themselves, it is in the article you linked. 

And you think Apple is getting good publicity out of this? Really? Really?

Didn't you read the article? Apple has handed information out plenty of times. And yes, they do get "good publicity". Its in their best interest to look good...

Yes, Apple handed information out plenty of times. This isn't new, we all know it, you are not revealing a secret. Apple isn't get good publicity, if anything, this is the perfect opportunity for the FBI to get the public behind them and they know it very well. Using fear to restrict freedom is the oldest trick in the book. I guess Google, and many others, are also making themselves "look good".  Come on dude, the fight concerns everyone and everyone is free to choose a side. But let's not restrict the discussion to Apple is/isn't pro-consumer. For starters, let me know where you stand on the issue.