Apple vs FBI, Encryption Battle Round 2: New York "Drug Dealer" Edition

[TirielWoW]

I mean, the choices are obvious:

A) Choose to have privacy, and very possibly get bombed by a terrorist organization

B) Give it up in some way(oh boo fucking hoo, the government has access to what porn you peruse), and stay much safer.

Some people will choose to die in privacy, but I am pretty sure that most human beings want to simply live, regardless of what lofty ideals they claim to subscribe to.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[PosPosPos]

I will take my privacy and the knowledge that it is very very very unlikely I will be killed by a terrorist no matter what the government does or does not do.

You do realize that, you are safe today because your security organizations obtains information ahead of time and prevents armchair freedom activists like you from getting blown to grisly bits?

Oh wait, you don't. People like you with serious cases of frog-in-the-well syndrome don't at least.

[zoroku]

I just want to see the results...

[PosPosPos]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Yeah well, I am sure your sky angels will descend to earth and save you from the next 9-11.

And I will be laughing in my cozy armchair in a safe nation knowing that some people would rather die in vain than not blindly cling to a quote made by a man who lived in a time where terrorism didn't remotely exist in the scope and scale of today.

So naive to think that the forces threatening your safety will play by the rules.

[Kellhound]

You do realize that, you are safe today because your security organizations obtains information ahead of time and prevents armchair freedom activists like you from getting blown to grisly bits?

Oh wait, you don't. People like you with serious cases of frog-in-the-well syndrome don't at least.

Actually, statistics and location have more to do with it than anything. As for the security organisations of the US, I have full faith in them to conduct counter terrorism without infringing on Americans' privacy inside the US.

[PosPosPos]

Actually, statistics and location have more to do with it than anything. As for the security organisations of the US, I have full faith in them to conduct counter terrorism without infringing on Americans' privacy inside the US.

Exactly, the fact that they infringe on your privacy, is why you are safe today. That is statistics.

Yeah, and with psychic powers I presume.

[TirielWoW]

Yeah well, I am sure your sky angels will descend to earth and save you from the next 9-11.

And I will be laughing in my cozy armchair in a safe nation knowing that some people would rather die in vain than not blindly cling to a quote made by a man who lived in a time where terrorism didn't remotely exist in the scope and scale of today.

So naive to think that the forces threatening your safety will play by the rules.

If you are okay with giving up your privacy, that's fine. That is your choice. I, however, will not.

[Kellhound]

Exactly, the fact that they infringe on your privacy, is why you are safe today. That is statistics.

Actually, the value of the intelligence gathered from inside the US has been rather tiny. The bulk of the success has been overseas. However, even if all collection stopped I still would not likely die in a terrorist bombing. You are letting the terrorist win by showing you are afraid of them.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

You know how Toothbrush Commercials always say things like "9/10 dentists reccomend Oral B Toothbrushes"?

PosPosPos is the 10th dentist.

[Dendrek]

I mean, the choices are obvious:

A) Choose to have privacy, and very possibly get bombed by a terrorist organization

B) Give it up in some way(oh boo fucking hoo, the government has access to what porn you peruse), and stay much safer.

Some people will choose to die in privacy, but I am pretty sure that most human beings want to simply live, regardless of what lofty ideals they claim to subscribe to.

This may not apply to you since I don't know your political leanings, but I always find it funny that the political party that claims to HATE big government tends to also be the biggest supporter to the government having nearly unlimited access to all of their private information.

Also, a warning: if you are ever the subject of a criminal investigation for any reason, being completely open with those investigating you is generally a very bad idea. It doesn't matter if you're innocent or guilty. Circumstantial evidence does lead to convictions. You can never convince an investigator you're innocent, you can only incriminate yourself to varying degrees based on what you say. That's why most lawyers advise you never talk to cops without a lawyer present. There are a whole range of reasons why it's a bad idea, from the possibility you provide the cops motive or opportunity, to the possibility that they catch you in a lie (even if it's unintentional, or even if it's not actually a lie, but the evidence suggests it is, or even if the investigator misremembers what you said and interprets it as a lie -- this does happen). This is the reason cops are required to have warrants before they can perform searches and seizures.

Now imagine the cops had unlimited access to all of your information. Imagine the things they could find you guilty of, even if you're completely innocent. And now imagine it's not just the cops who have access to that information, but practically every governmental agency does. No warrant required. Do you think the government will only ever use that information to catch terrorists? I hope you're not that naive.

When people worry about the government violating our privacy, it has very little to do with them being able to see what porn we look at. It's about preventing tyranny.

[PosPosPos]

This may not apply to you since I don't know your political leanings, but I always find it funny that the political party that claims to HATE big government tends to also be the biggest supporter to the government having nearly unlimited access to all of their private information.

I don't hate big government. Surprise, I know.

Now imagine the cops had unlimited access to all of your information. Imagine the things they could find you guilty of, even if you're completely innocent. And now imagine it's not just the cops who have access to that information, but practically every governmental agency does. No warrant required. Do you think the government will only ever use that information to catch terrorists? I hope you're not that naive.

When people worry about the government violating our privacy, it has very little to do with them being able to see what porn we look at. It's about preventing tyranny.

Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater!

- - - Updated - - -

If you are okay with giving up your privacy, that's fine. That is your choice. I, however, will not.

Thanks to majority rule, you are protected from harming your own self-interests.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, the value of the intelligence gathered from inside the US has been rather tiny. The bulk of the success has been overseas.

That does not preclude gathering intelligence from within the country. Shocking, I know, to cover all avenues.

However, even if all collection stopped I still would not likely die in a terrorist bombing.

Citation required

Oh, it's also like saying that even if everyone owns firearms, one would still be unlikely to die from firearms. It's not about whether "it's likely or not", but whether "it's increasing the odds of it happening or not".

You are letting the terrorist win by showing you are afraid of them.

Spoken like a true idealist, with no real world experience. As if being the bravest person in the world is going to stop a bomb from exploding you into grisly bits.

What's next? True love will conquer all? Oh wait, I've got a better one "We will make America great again".

Roflmao

[Dendrek]

Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater!

How many terrorist plots do you think the government has succeeded in stopping thanks to the NSA or the Patriot Act? You seem really concerned about terrorism, but not really all that concerned with governmental overreach. When the biggest danger to your own personal security is probably the latter.

Consider: How likely is it that you might ever get hit by a terrorist attack? Compare that to how likely it is that you might ever become a person of interest or a suspect in a criminal investigation. Compare that to how likely it is that terrorism might ever become a more serious threat in our (I assume you're American) nation. Compare that to how likely it is that the government will continue to chip away at our privacy and our liberties in the name of safety until you've finally uncomfortable with the level of invasiveness and control they're exerting.

If anything, I'd say it's you who is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Freedom and privacy means a small chance for terrorist plots to go unnoticed, so lets completely do away with the former in the vain attempt to completely eradicate the latter.

[Oktoberfest]

Some really funny and really relevant quotes here

“This administration (Bush) acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security." - Barack Obama 2007







One of the guys before Snowden

[TirielWoW]

Thanks to majority rule, you are protected from harming your own self-interests.

I don't think you understand how the courts work, but sure. Whatever you say.

[lazypeon100]

Yeah well, I am sure your sky angels will descend to earth and save you from the next 9-11.

And I will be laughing in my cozy armchair in a safe nation knowing that some people would rather die in vain than not blindly cling to a quote made by a man who lived in a time where terrorism didn't remotely exist in the scope and scale of today.

So naive to think that the forces threatening your safety will play by the rules.

You'll be laughing after the next 9-11...?

The point I think that shpuld be made is that it is questionable whether or not the FBI is actually fighting for the security of the people. They managed to break into the first phone on their own, so we know if it comes down to it they can still access our information. If they have a warrant or reasonable suspicion, I don't mind them going through a phone. What people are worried about though is that even though have already proven they can get in, they want apple to be forced to let them in. It sets a bad precedent that goes against our freedoms.

[satimy]

remember how the patriot act was only to be used for terrorism cases?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...EBAK_blog.html

"So how has the Patriot Act fared as a defense against terrorism? The act has been used in1,618 drug cases and only 15 terrorism cases."

[Masark]

You'll be laughing after the next 9-11...?

I guess the people Trump was going on about actually do exist.

[Kellhound]

I don't hate big government. Surprise, I know.



Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater!

- - - Updated - - -



Thanks to majority rule, you are protected from harming your own self-interests.

- - - Updated - - -



That does not preclude gathering intelligence from within the country. Shocking, I know, to cover all avenues.




Citation required

Oh, it's also like saying that even if everyone owns firearms, one would still be unlikely to die from firearms. It's not about whether "it's likely or not", but whether "it's increasing the odds of it happening or not".



Spoken like a true idealist, with no real world experience. As if being the bravest person in the world is going to stop a bomb from exploding you into grisly bits.

What's next? True love will conquer all? Oh wait, I've got a better one "We will make America great again".

Roflmao

The violation of US citizens rights within the US does not make up for the VERY slight (if not non existent) increase in perceived safety. Cost-benefit is not in your favor.

Your point was the domestic surveillance was preventing "very possibly" getting killed in a terrorist attack. Between 2004 and 2014 a grand total of less than 400 Americans were killed by terrorism world wide. That averages out to 40 per year. That means you are more than 10X more likely to get hit by lightning in any given year than to be killed by terrorism throughout the world as an American. So, if the end of all domestic counter-terrorism resulted in a ten fold increase in the terror related deaths, you would STILL be more likely to be hit by lightning.

Fear is power, it is the whole point of terrorism. You are wallowing in your fear.

[hrugner]

So we know the story so far: Round 1 saw an Apple vs FBI standoff surrounding access to a gunman-who-killed-14's iphone. Case dropped, FBI is given access via 3rd party instead.

Enter round 2, except replace 'gunman' with 'drug dealer' and 'killed 14 people' with 'has a potential network of drug contacts':

and heres a few articles to start us off:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...dino-hack.html
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/04/...ion-fight.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-k...ase-1460128066

So this brings up a bunch of very interesting questions and comments:

Remember when the FBI made a big deal proclaiming the proposed access to the terrorists iphone was a one-time event? (/sarcasm) Well here we are just weeks later, except now they want access to a drug dealers phone to get access to 'his contacts'.

Will be interesting to see public sentiment/stance when the words 'gunman/terrorist/murderer' are replaced with 'drug dealer'. Will the greater public be more or less sympathetic to Apples stance in this case under these circumstances?

I have to say, for a country with so many mass shootings - the FBI seemed to have picked a 'pretty boring' case to publicly battle Apple with in round 1 of the encryption saga. Surely of all the shit going on in their country, there are other iphones they need access to, involving more compelling and emotion-invoking cases. Because the reality, for better or for worse, is that most people couldnt give a shit about granting the FBI supreme authority to access some drug dealers phone, and will read the headline then forget it. (What would the public care more about: Granting access to a gunmans phone who killed 14 people, or granting access to a drug dealers phone to 'get access to his network contacts'.).

And what does this mean for the meta-debate about encryption and privacy going forward?

During the gunman case discussions, this case was brought up as well as a method of scrubbing the fear of violence problem off of the discussion so we could focus on just the safety and security issue. Remember, as always, the NSA just has this information already and the FBI is trying to jockey for more interdepartmental transparency with the NSA and CIA to aid in their enforcement. It's nice to think of this as the FBI versus Apple, but it's more the FBI putting pressure on the judicial system so that they will in turn put pressure on the other law enforcement branches to share info. These cases specifically target info known to be captured by NSA metadata collection efforts already.

More or less, the FBI wants a backdoor to flip on iphone fingerprinting to strengthen their database. The target phone isn't as important as getting the desired solution.

[Kujako]

A) Choose to have privacy, and very possibly get bombed by a terrorist organization

I dare you to make less sense. A) the two things are in no way related because B) even if your phone is 100% open, there is no reason the "bad guys" couldn't just use encrypted messages on burner phones, you know like they do already.