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

[Bullettime]

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.

Not to mention that the Patriot Act was implemented for anti terrorism but the provisions it allows are more commonly used for drug and gang based investigations.

[maizensh]

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

Check Merriam-Webster, nowhere it says that liberty = privacy. Not even close. One of the definitions is no despotic control, but last time I checked Obama is not really a tyrant...
No idea how it's for you, but for me liberty is the freedom of speech and expression, which is not related to privacy at all and in many cases is the exact opposite of that.
And btw, how awesome is to take an anti-tax evading quote and put into the context of privacy? Or in other words this quote defends the legislature's decisions and that they're made in the best interest of the citizens. Haha

[PACOX]

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.

Thats all they want. Meanwhile they will keep up their crusade against Apple though sueing Apple, dropping the case, and then unlocking the phone anyway. All to tarnish the reputation of Apple's security measures. All because they want Apple to give them a skeleton key into all iPhones.

And like you said, the NSA doesn't need Apple the FBI doesn't want to have to rely on the NSA for its investigations, especially since the NSA isn't in the business of releasing/retrieving data for others outside of their own investigations. Nor should they or threat of the NSA spying on you is certainly more real.

[Damajin]

Check Merriam-Webster, nowhere it says that liberty = privacy. Not even close. One of the definitions is no despotic control, but last time I checked Obama is not really a tyrant...
No idea how it's for you, but for me liberty is the freedom of speech and expression, which is not related to privacy at all and in many cases is the exact opposite of that.
And btw, how awesome is to take an anti-tax evading quote and put into the context of privacy? Or in other words this quote defends the legislature's decisions and that they're made in the best interest of the citizens. Haha

Good thing we’re not basing our definition of liberty on what Mirriam Webster tells us it means. The quote and its’ context is left open ended as it was intended that the citizen have as much discretionary control over the entirety of liberty as they chose. But hey, good job on bowing to a definition that is subject to change every new printing.

[dextersmith]

@TyrianFC:
Excellent op for giving us your thoughts!

ot: I think we all knew the fbi would've used the hack every chance they had.

[lockedout]

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?

Ahead of time? You're so naive.

[Deleted]

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.

Would still choose A.. cause 1) there are other ways to fight terrorism that dont involve giving away rights and freedoms of the citizens and 2) You can use fear to get rid of other rights and freedoms as well.

[Deleted]

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.

I am not particularily scared or worried about something like that happening to me, so I, personally, still choose privacy. Thanks.

[dextersmith]

Couldn't they hire that third party again? They forget Apple doesn't work for them.

[satimy]

Check Merriam-Webster, nowhere it says that liberty = privacy. Not even close. One of the definitions is no despotic control, but last time I checked Obama is not really a tyrant...
No idea how it's for you, but for me liberty is the freedom of speech and expression, which is not related to privacy at all and in many cases is the exact opposite of that.
And btw, how awesome is to take an anti-tax evading quote and put into the context of privacy? Or in other words this quote defends the legislature's decisions and that they're made in the best interest of the citizens. Haha

If privacy wasn't an implicit right than the 4th amendment or the very idea of warrants would be pointless.

[Kellhound]

Check Merriam-Webster, nowhere it says that liberty = privacy. Not even close. One of the definitions is no despotic control, but last time I checked Obama is not really a tyrant...
No idea how it's for you, but for me liberty is the freedom of speech and expression, which is not related to privacy at all and in many cases is the exact opposite of that.
And btw, how awesome is to take an anti-tax evading quote and put into the context of privacy? Or in other words this quote defends the legislature's decisions and that they're made in the best interest of the citizens. Haha

Privacy is often considered a cornerstone of freedom of speech, as the ability of the government to listen to all you say has a chilling effect on all but mainstream ideas.

[frogger237]

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.

Your more likely to die from getting your dick stuck in a hot tub jet than to die in a terrorist attack in the US, guess we need the government to monitor all hot tubs as well.

[oxymoronic]

You're missing the point, unsurprisingly, given your name. It doesn't matter if my life is interesting, or if your life isn't interesting. What matters is that US Citizens have a right to privacy. It's in the Constitution.

who cares, change the constitution... will you be happy then?

- - - Updated - - -

Your more likely to die from getting your dick stuck in a hot tub jet than to die in a terrorist attack in the US, guess we need the government to monitor all hot tubs as well.

considering ive never heard somebody dying that way i think you're wrong... and hot tub jets blow.. not suck

- - - Updated - - -

Would still choose A.. cause 1) there are other ways to fight terrorism that dont involve giving away rights and freedoms of the citizens and 2) You can use fear to get rid of other rights and freedoms as well.

give me one example

- - - Updated - - -

Not to mention that the Patriot Act was implemented for anti terrorism but the provisions it allows are more commonly used for drug and gang based investigations.

and thats a bad thing? really?

[Kellhound]

who cares, change the constitution... will you be happy then?

- - - Updated - - -



considering ive never heard somebody dying that way i think you're wrong... and hot tub jets blow.. not suck

- - - Updated - - -



give me one example

- - - Updated - - -



and thats a bad thing? really?

Enough people care that there is zero chance of a change to the Constitution to increase the Governments ability to spy on its own citizens.

Yes its a bad thing, it is a VERY bad thing. There used to be a very hard and fast break between domestic law enforcement and military/international intelligence gathering. It needs to go back to that way.

[xChurch]

No they can't have his dick pics, not now, not ever.

[TirielWoW]

Check Merriam-Webster, nowhere it says that liberty = privacy. Not even close. One of the definitions is no despotic control, but last time I checked Obama is not really a tyrant...
No idea how it's for you, but for me liberty is the freedom of speech and expression, which is not related to privacy at all and in many cases is the exact opposite of that.
And btw, how awesome is to take an anti-tax evading quote and put into the context of privacy? Or in other words this quote defends the legislature's decisions and that they're made in the best interest of the citizens. Haha

The right to privacy is explicitly defined in our Constitution as one of our liberties.

- - - Updated - - -

who cares, change the constitution... will you be happy then?

No, and good luck with that. You'll have to convince many, many more people than I to manage that.

[Masark]

Couldn't they hire that third party again? They forget Apple doesn't work for them.

The method they used previously likely won't work on anything except the 5C.

[holyforce]

If the god damned FBI cannot crack an iPhone, they really really need to hire better crackers. apple products are not that secure, the only reason they've never been hacked to pieces is because of they're low market share in the PC sales.

[warzerotwo]

I wonder how likely that scenario really is.

The FBI spying on people with no just cause? Very likely. They've done it before in fact.

[Kujako]

If the god damned FBI cannot crack an iPhone, they really really need to hire better crackers. apple products are not that secure, the only reason they've never been hacked to pieces is because of they're low market share in the PC sales.

Point to a consumer device with better encryption. Claiming that AES-256 with hardware biometrics is "not that secure" just makes you look silly.