IGX

what would the founding fathers say?

now that scalia is dead, we'll never know.

It is a fascinating question. Washington State's Constitution contains an explicit right to privacy, something the Bill of Rights does not have. At my local level these sorts of issues might play different but at Fed level with all the histrionics we're willing to endure of DHS, it will take an ugly tack before it's over.

Sam Harris had an interesting podcast on this subject taking the position that Apple should unlock not just this phone but provide the Feebs the key to all their phones. I found it wholly unconvincing but he made a number of unique arguments. His bias agaisnt privacy of any kind and lying specifically (one of the most corrosives of all anti social behaviors from his perspective) definitely shows through.

the apple material on the subject argues that helping the feds poses the risk that the wrong people could eventually get the software they would create. apple wrote:

it is certainly possible to create an entirely new operating system to undermine our security features as the government wants. But it’s something we believe is too dangerous to do. The only way to guarantee that such a powerful tool isn’t abused and doesn’t fall into the wrong hands is to never create it.

this argument isn't about govt v privacy, but about vulnerability to hackers. so while hardasses may want to get the terrorists and have privacy be second, no one wants hackers stealing all his data.

kinda clever of apple

Fuck Apple...Torture the shit out of the guy to get answers.

dead man walking wrote:the apple material on the subject argues that helping the feds poses the risk that the wrong people could eventually get the software they would create. apple wrote:

it is certainly possible to create an entirely new operating system to undermine our security features as the government wants. But it’s something we believe is too dangerous to do. The only way to guarantee that such a powerful tool isn’t abused and doesn’t fall into the wrong hands is to never create it.

this argument isn't about govt v privacy, but about vulnerability to hackers. so while hardasses may want to get the terrorists and have privacy be second, no one wants hackers stealing all his data.

kinda clever of apple

I think for most people watching, AND in reality for Apple, the message does seem to come across as personal privacy first, security second. I thought calling it a marketing ploy was a little bit brilliant becuase it's really good marketing for Apple to tell the Feebs to suck it. Does anyone with an ounce of sense think they want a key for THIS PHONE ONLY? That notion is 100% unmitigated bullshit. They want access to all phones all of the time in real time...which they will do exactly what the NSA is doing now, drowning in data and feverishly developing logarithms that probably don't work.

The privacy argument that I find so compelling is this. In the idea of unreasonable searches is this idea that a man's home is his castle that the state can't willy nilly or under color of bullshit warrants, go tramping about. Though I would never willingly let an officer of any kind in my home ever under any circumstances, I can say with some confidence, that other than my gun safe and a single file cabinet, there's not any place in my home that I'd feel intruded upon. Now...if you want to dig through my fucking phone (private communications, transaction records, account information, GIS location etc...) I can't think of a grown man who would feel it reasonable to allow someone to do that. Especially when you think of the level of interconnection in communication, you're not just invading the castle of one person, but literally hundreds of other people with whom you've have conversations...in my case, many of those communications are in fact privileged.

It's a very messy question.

I've been finding all of it pretty interesting. As I understand it, Apple has unlocked phones before...70 seems to be the number I've read in several places. But in this particular case, the feds aren't handing them the phone to do it. They want the software. Even though the court order, (which by the way do some googling on the "All Writs Act" interesting as well) I believe specifically only references that particular serial numbered 5C, the fear is the code could be easily reverse engineered to unlock everything.

what expectation of privacy does a dead person have?

if the feds wanted the owner of a storage facility to open up a locker to give them access to records some dead terrorist, the fed would be inside in a twinkling.

an iphone is just a more technogological storage locker. why can't the feds get in?

the problem is, apparently, that the key to the dead guy's locker is the same key that opens up everyone's locker. i guess we'd all be able see video of shape's camping trips, and shit like that.

apparently under the older operating system on iphones, the feds could get in. they can't with the latest system that the phones have. so they need apple's help.

Ever since iOS 8 came out, the Feds have been whining that encrypted phones are a national security threat. Only a moron would trust the Feds with this shit.
They will get what they want, too.

if Apple won't give up what the FBI needs can't they just reset the password and then coerce the internet provider and/or mail account provider to give them access to the email account?

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:if Apple won't give up what the FBI needs can't they just reset the password and then coerce the internet provider and/or mail account provider to give them access to the email account?

http://www.computerworld.com/article/30 ... ttack.html

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:Ever since iOS 8 came out, the Feds have been whining that encrypted phones are a national security threat. Only a moron would trust the Feds with this shit.
They will get what they want, too.

Yes, only a moron. Or a huge pussy

My theory alone is Obama got to Tim Cook who's a friend and doesn't want all the "good" Muslims and Mosques exposed, that the shooters were undoubtedly in contact with. We'll never know.