Apple vs the Government

[esmith]

As we have all have probably heard there is a major difference in opinion between Apple and the government about requiring Apple to unlock the San Bernardino shooters phone.
What is your opinion on the subject?

 

[George-ananda]

Apple should be very willing to do it and not even need to be forced. I see a lot of people being contradictory on this question, They want privacy AND they want the government to thwart terrorism. So when people die in a terrorist attack that could have been prevented given more information maybe they will see my point.

We are fortunate that there have not been more attacks from organized groups but likely that is because of government agencies efforts to thwart them. A couple more attacks may be needed to turn the tide against Apple.

 

[Revoltingest]

I side with Apple.
Their need for perception of a secure product outweighs government's need to surveil us.

 

[metis]

Yes, but under the provision suggested that Apple will be the only ones with the software whereas they can destroy it after use.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

If Apple is telling the truth that they'd need to create a backdoor for every iPhone in the world, then I'm on their side.

Otherwise they have been given a court order to hack into this particular person's phone, if they can do it specifically with this one phone then they should, because there is judicial oversight and accountability.

 

[YmirGF]

Apple MUST comply with the government on this one. If they do not they will see an uptick in sales to every unsavory criminal on the planet who knows that their information and plans are all perfectly safe on the iPhone and that no one will ever be able to retrieve them.

If Apple is telling the truth that they'd need to create a backdoor for every iPhone in the world, then I'm on their side.

Otherwise they have been given a court order to hack into this particular person's phone, if they can do it specifically with this one phone then they should, because there is judicial oversight and accountability.

Agreed. The "unlocking" should be done only after a court order is issued.

 

[freethinker44]

I didn't really care for Apple before this, but I gained much respect for them after hearing they were standing up to the government.
But then I had to help my kid with her iPod and I immediately remembered why I didn't like them before.

 

[Covellite]

It's just too strange to be true - Apple and the Government drama about something so normal and simple.
With a court order that phone should be unlocked.
Apple is a Steve Job's legacy, interesting, but controversial man. Among other bizarre facts, The Government gave him access to classified information in late 80's.
My guess it's a mysterious game between Apple and the Government... we will never know for sure.

 

[Covellite]

Their need for perception of a secure product outweighs government's need to surveil us

Do you find it's a secure product, or Apple need to create to be perceived as secure?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you find it's a secure product, or Apple need to create to be perceived as secure?

I don't know enuf about electronic security to say.
But if the feds are putting up such a fight, this gives me some confidence.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We aren't talking about a regular citizen, but someone who committed a mass murder and had connections with terrorists. Apple should cooperate, because this is a situation in which the government is attempting to seize information based upon established cause and justification.

Their need for perception of a secure product outweighs government's need to surveil us.

Or, how about prying the information from the phone of a murderer, someone who had connections to Muslim extremists, in order to obtain information that can potentially track down other terrorists? We are not dealing with a routine Patriot Act of surveillance, but obtaining information from a terrorist that could potentially prevent future attacks.

Do you find it's a secure product, or Apple need to create to be perceived as secure?

I can promise you there are plenty of people out there who can open up the software and OS of any Apple product like a book. However, these people largely and mostly do not work for the government.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or, how about prying the information from the phone of a murderer, someone who had connections to Muslim extremists, in order to obtain information that can potentially track down other terrorists? We are not dealing with a routine Patriot Act of surveillance, but obtaining information from a terrorist that could potentially prevent future attacks.

That's a reasonable argument to crack the phone.
But weighing that & the larger privacy issue, I'm currently sticking with Apple.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's a reasonable argument to crack the phone.
But weighing that & the larger privacy issue, I'm currently sticking with Apple.

It's not a larger privacy issue when they are taking the information of someone who is already guilty. During a criminal investigation - which this is - your life is put under a microscope, computer forensic experts are called in, and you will have no secrets.
This guy should not get off easy because the government doesn't have hackers with adequate abilities.

 

[freethinker44]

I can promise you there are plenty of people out there who can open up the software and OS of any Apple product like a book. However, these people largely and mostly do not work for the government.

I don't know how Apple encrypts their products, because I don't use their products, but I know the most difficult encryption isn't that hard to implement and there's no one alive that can crack it.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not a larger privacy issue when they are taking the information of someone who is already guilty. During a criminal investigation - which this is - your life is put under a microscope, computer forensic experts are called in, and you will have no secrets.
This guy should not get off easy because the government doesn't have hackers with adequate abilities.

I don't think the benefit outweighs the cost.

 

[Thanda]

We aren't talking about a regular citizen, but someone who committed a mass murder and had connections with terrorists.

That is how it always starts.

In such situations I am always reminded of this conversation in A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!​

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't know how Apple encrypts their products, but I know the most difficult encryption isn't that hard to implement and there's no one alive that can crack it.

Even simple encryptions can be notoriously difficult for anyone alive to crack. That's why we have computers that can do it far quicker and easier.
In the world of computers, there is no such thing as "guaranteed" or "100%" safety.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is how it always starts.

When you have someone who is guilty of murder as well as having established connections with extremists, there is no slippery slope. There is no vagueness in this scenario. He is a murderer with known terrorists connections.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't think the benefit outweighs the cost.

What costs?

 

[Revoltingest]

What costs?

The cost of security to us iphone users.