Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-23-2016, 11:59 AM   #181
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,967
I don't get why some people (here and law enforcement spokespersons) keep acting like Apple enhanced their encryption out of the blue for no reason. It was because the NSA overstepped their authority from the perspective of many, gathering metadata on everyone. As a result - Apple, Google/Samsung and others didn't want that capability/responsibility - and made it much harder for anyone to break in, on themselves as well.

They're caught in the middle here to some extent. They are resisting the ruling of a lower court, and they want some public discussion and a higher court ruling before they consider obliging. Some buyers, not terrorists, bought newer smartphones because they wanted more privacy/encryption - I did. Once they do this, it seems unlikely there won't be endless requests to follow. DA's are already lining up to break into hundreds of phones.

Governments need information to fulfill their role. But it's not out of line for Apple and the tech industry to fight for setting well thought out legal boundaries on behalf of the public either. The FBI will get what they're asking for in the end, and the public will be better served this time - unlike the pre Snowden days. 'Court orders' were often being rubber stamped.

And the SB terrorists did destroy their personal phones. The phone in question is a work phone, how likely is it there's anything useful? Seems unlikely to me.
__________________

__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 02-23-2016, 12:10 PM   #182
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,094
this may be difficult to watch due to poor interviewing skills by the news anchor but Ron Paul is pretty spot on here

MUST-SEE: Ron Paul Says Apple 'on Side of Liberty' in Phone Feud With FBI | Fox News Insider
__________________

__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2016, 12:42 PM   #183
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Assuming Apple won't be selling this new software/procedure, why would we call it a "product?"

The government, using the established legal procedures, is asking Apple to perform a service. Just like it asks a bank or phone company to perform a service ("use your expertise to discover and provide all information available on your system pertaining to the activities of Mr John Smith between 1 Jan 2014 and 31 Dec 2015.") Responding to these requests is just part of the cost of doing business, as Apple has acknowledged through their past acquiescence to these requests.

Because it is a product. It is software produced by Apple, intended for use on Apple hardware, which will have to pass through the entire software production process, including test and verification, and the deliberately complex product signing procedure, just like any other software release.

Limiting the production run to a single copy, or a few hundred for the various agencies who have announced intent to use what they hope will be new case law to compel businesses to build products to government specifications, following in the FBI's boot prints, is not relevant.




Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2016, 12:43 PM   #184
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Just North of Boston
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by redduck View Post
I also wonder if the long-term view would mean much to a parent who had children that were in immediate danger and the information on the phone would save them. I bet those parents wouldn't be all that concerned about China's eventually taking advantage of the Iphone's backdoor situation with the FBI.
True, but this is the exact same reason to justify torture... If someone knows of a plot to set off a bomb, is it right to torture them?
__________________
ChiliPepr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2016, 12:50 PM   #185
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
I don't get why some people (here and law enforcement spokespersons) keep acting like Apple enhanced their encryption out of the blue for no reason. It was because the NSA overstepped their authority from the perspective of many, gathering metadata on everyone.
Nothing in this case or on this phone has anything to do with the live collection of metadata (who called who and for how long, etc). If people believe the features of this phone prevent the collection of metadata, then they are misinformed.

Rather than ascribe lofty altruistic motives to Apple's product development decisions, I'd believe they were just trying to meet market demand (as they did in your case) and make more money. Which is just fine, but they still need to meet their obligations under the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
DA's are already lining up to break into hundreds of phones.
Great. Nothing has changed in this regard: If a judge issues a subpoena or a warrant, then presumably getting the information advances the cause of justice and protection of individual rights (a terrorist or criminal violates my rights when they harm/kill me. Law enforcement helps prevent that with their investigations). If we believe there's something wrong with the process the government uses to get access to information then we should fix that process (because it affects physical searches of premises, in-stream capture of communications in motion, etc as well as this "data at rest" in an iPhone or elsewhere).
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2016, 01:09 PM   #186
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Device encryption was enhanced and the user interface changed to encourage users to lock down their phones to combat a spike in phone thefts, and the abuse of technology such as the CelleBrite 'forensic data extraction device' by criminals and others.

Some background on the device:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...h-a-warrant/1/





Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2016, 01:30 PM   #187
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Just North of Boston
Posts: 517
Justice Department Seeks to Force Apple to Extract Data From About 12 Other iPhones

Quote:
The Justice Department is pursuing court orders to make Apple Inc. help investigators extract data from iPhones in about a dozen undisclosed cases around the country, in disputes similar to the current battle over a terrorist’s locked phone, according to a newly-unsealed court document.

The other phones are evidence in cases where prosecutors have sought, as in the San Bernardino, Calif., terror case, to use an 18th-century law called the All Writs Act to compel the company to help them bypass the passcode security feature of phones that may hold evidence, according to a letter from Apple which was unsealed in Brooklyn federal court Tuesday.

The letter, written last week from an Apple lawyer to a federal judge, lists the locations of those phone cases: Four in Illinois, three in New York, two in California, two in Ohio, and one in Massachusetts.
__________________
ChiliPepr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2016, 02:40 PM   #188
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelover View Post
If the Supreme court is deadlocked the lower ruling stands.

I saw a discussion by constitutional lawyers on the court and what would happen to 4-4 decisions.... they said that one is that they issue the tied decision and the lower ruling stands... but that there is no precedence in the ruling...

However, they did say that they can choose to table the case and wait for a full court... hence, no decision issued and the lower court ruling is in limbo... at least that is what they seemed to be saying...
__________________
Texas Proud is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2016, 07:45 AM   #189
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
DFW_M5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
I don't get why some people (here and law enforcement spokespersons) keep acting like Apple enhanced their encryption out of the blue for no reason. It was because the NSA overstepped their authority from the perspective of many, gathering metadata on everyone. As a result - Apple, Google/Samsung and others didn't want that capability/responsibility - and made it much harder for anyone to break in, on themselves as well.
I am not totally clear on the scope of this issue. Does Apple's encryption protect against the NSA from tapping iPhone conversations/texts or only to prevent a stolen phone from being accessed? I was under the impression, it is the later case.
__________________
Doing things today that others won't, to do things tomorrow that others can't. Of course I'm referring to workouts, not robbing banks.
DFW_M5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2016, 08:03 AM   #190
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Nothing in this case or on this phone has anything to do with the live collection of metadata (who called who and for how long, etc). If people believe the features of this phone prevent the collection of metadata, then they are misinformed.
No one said this case involved metadata. But the NSA metadata gathering swung the privacy pendulum, and was a significant factor in how private companies subsequently treated customer privacy. I have seen people here and in the news act as if Apple just changed their encryption methodology for no reason. That's ignorant, short memory or more likely lying by omission.

And most post Snowden Google Android smartphones use full encryption now too.
Quote:
In November, Android’s security chief, Adrian Ludwig, wrote that Google is not able to tap open encrypted Androids even if it wanted to. And he said that inability extends to unencrypted phones where the users have entered a passcode — a statement that reads like it’s pushing back on claims from Apple that Google could readily share phone data with authorities.
This is a broader issue than Apple, and that's why the tech industry is right to push for an open discussion to establish legal boundaries between privacy and security. Not a case by case lower court case.

http://recode.net/2016/02/21/what-if...-of-an-iphone/
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2016, 08:06 AM   #191
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,419
It's also about securing personal data. Millions of devices are lost it stolen every year.

One thing to lose the device but the personal data on the device is much more valuable.
__________________
explanade is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2016, 08:39 AM   #192
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFW_M5 View Post
I am not totally clear on the scope of this issue. Does Apple's encryption protect against the NSA from tapping iPhone conversations/texts or only to prevent a stolen phone from being accessed? I was under the impression, it is the later case.
Clearly it was later and not the former. Apple's encryption changes don't protect metadata.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2016, 08:46 AM   #193
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 417
Quote:
I saw a discussion by constitutional lawyers on the court and what would happen to 4-4 decisions.... they said that one is that they issue the tied decision and the lower ruling stands...
However, they did say that they can choose to table the case and wait for a full court... hence, no decision issued and the lower court ruling is in limbo... at least that is what they seemed to be saying...
That is the difference between whether the SC decides to hear a case, or once heard, what the ruling is. In the former, they (the 8 Justices) can decide to delay the hearing. In the latter, once heard, the 8 justices cannot delay ruling until the 9th Justice is appointed. At least that is my thought.




Quote:
but that there is no precedence in the ruling...
Precedence has been set albeit not exactly in this situation. Justices have in the past recused themselves from hearing a particular case. In that situation, there are 8 justices left to vote. The last time there was a 4-4 split was in 2010 over a copyright-infringement case involving Costco and a Swatch Group unit. At least that is what Google told me.
__________________
CRLLS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2016, 10:07 AM   #194
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Clearly it was later and not the former. Apple's encryption changes don't protect metadata.
Not sure why you've conflated metadata into the current Apple issue, misses the original point entirely.
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2016, 10:20 AM   #195
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
DFW_M5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
Not sure why you've conflated metadata into the current Apple issue, misses the original point entirely.
Actually he was responding to my post where I was questioning a comment you made which seemed to confuse the two issues. At least your comment confused me.
__________________
Doing things today that others won't, to do things tomorrow that others can't. Of course I'm referring to workouts, not robbing banks.
DFW_M5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2016, 10:48 AM   #196
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,410
I can see a face-saving way out of this one situation. As I understand it the phone is owned by the terrorist's employer. If that is the case, then the employer could request that Apple unlock its phone. Apple, as a consumer responsive company, could accede to the customer's request and unlock the phone and the employer could then had the phone over to the FBI. Apple could then claim that it is being true to its principles of protecting the consumer and could stand its ground on situations where the owner of the phone is the suspect and live to fight another day.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2016, 10:55 AM   #197
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 16,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
Device encryption was enhanced and the user interface changed to encourage users to lock down their phones to combat a spike in phone thefts, and the abuse of technology such as the CelleBrite 'forensic data extraction device' by criminals and others.

Some background on the device:
The gadgets police use to snarf cell phone data | Ars Technica





Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
Exactly! Much of this was to reduce iPhone theft, and protect the user when a phone is stolen.
__________________
Well, I thought I was retired. But it seems that now I'm working as a travel agent instead!
audreyh1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2016, 10:57 AM   #198
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 16,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
I can see a face-saving way out of this one situation. As I understand it the phone is owned by the terrorist's employer. If that is the case, then the employer could request that Apple unlock its phone. Apple, as a consumer responsive company, could accede to the customer's request and unlock the phone and the employer could then had the phone over to the FBI. Apple could then claim that it is being true to its principles of protecting the consumer and could stand its ground on situations where the owner of the phone is the suspect and live to fight another day.
Huh? If that were possible it would have already happened.

There is an extra piece that has to be created, and that is what Apple is fighting, as creating that extra piece nullifies the security of all iPhones.
__________________
Well, I thought I was retired. But it seems that now I'm working as a travel agent instead!
audreyh1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2016, 11:14 AM   #199
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,410
But if that extra piece allows the customer to get into their phone wouldn't that be responsive to customers?

As a spin-off let's say my spouse or child or parent dies and I inherit their i-phone and want to open it but don't know the code.... wouldn't it be consumer responsive for Apple to open the i-phone for me? Ditto if they become incapacitated and I am the POA.

I'm thinking it would be sort of like the formula for Coca-Cola.... highly secured, taken out of the vault for use when needed and then put back in the vault. And they could make access to the unlock software like the i-phone and have it self destruct if an unauthorized person gained access (like in if the government decided to raid the vault).
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2016, 11:20 AM   #200
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRLLS View Post
That is the difference between whether the SC decides to hear a case, or once heard, what the ruling is. In the former, they (the 8 Justices) can decide to delay the hearing. In the latter, once heard, the 8 justices cannot delay ruling until the 9th Justice is appointed. At least that is my thought.

I read an article last night that said exactly the opposite of what you say... it was in the middle of an article talking about the Texas case on abortion... that if it comes out 4-4 they can issue the ruling or wait until next year and then bring it back up... IOW, they do not have to issue a ruling just because they heard the case...




Quote:
Originally Posted by CRLLS View Post
Precedence has been set albeit not exactly in this situation. Justices have in the past recused themselves from hearing a particular case. In that situation, there are 8 justices left to vote. The last time there was a 4-4 split was in 2010 over a copyright-infringement case involving Costco and a Swatch Group unit. At least that is what Google told me.

I was talking about a precedence on a ruling by the SC... IOW, a 4-4 decision keeps the lower court ruling in place, but another district can ignore that decision since the SC has not really 'ruled'.... Now, why would they not issue a ruling?... it keeps in place what was in place... again, the abortion article I read... since the SC issued a stay on the lower court decision, that stay is what stays in place, not the lower court decision. If they do issue an opinion then that stay goes away and the lower court ruling takes affect....




EDIT TO ADD: BTW, just wanted to put down that the article I read this morning said that they think it will take 3 years to get to the SC, so as of now the 4-4 possibility is not an issue...
__________________

__________________
Texas Proud is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Way to go FBI Mwsinron Other topics 30 05-10-2007 07:57 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:24 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.