Feds reset the iCloud password before getting access to the cloud backup.
That was smart. And now they want the backdoor because of it.
That was smart. And now they want the backdoor because of it.
Feds vs. Apple, more to the story
- Thread starter TarHeelEer
- Start date
So the feds screw up and now want Apple to cover their ***, and families of the victims want to sue Apple over it?
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help." [eyeroll]
Actually the Feds didn't do it, someone from the county did at their direction, but that's neither here nor there. The Fourth Amendment was written as it is for a reason -- but it cuts both ways. The application as written is not an unreasonable search, and it does very particularly describe what's to be searched, and I'm not convinced there's no way for Apple to get the data off the phone without unleashing Cthulu on the world as they claim. And their privacy argument in this case is BS -- it wasn't Farook's personal phone, it's a county (government) device, and those of us who work in government are reminded every day that we "have NO expectation of privacy" when using said devices. In fact, if he were alive, Farook probably could be fired simply for disabling the auto backup feature on that phone.
I am not in favor of law enforcement or intelligence agencies having the kind of master key that would allow them to bypass the Fourth Amendment and snoop on anyone's devices at any time.
I am not in favor of law enforcement or intelligence agencies having the kind of master key that would allow them to bypass the Fourth Amendment and snoop on anyone's devices at any time.
If the article has any merit, and the Feds did instruct to have the the account password reset, then that screw up is on them, not Apple. They shouldn't be forcing Apple into a position that could have negative ramifications on their product or business because of it, and in essence forcing Apple to break the DMCA laws.
It really is.
A record of all phone calls is stored at the phone companies, and due to the Patriot Act, they already have access.
All email will be stored by his government server, unlike Hillary.
The only thing missing are text messages, which I'm sure they have a record of as well, we just aren't aware of it.
This cannot be that hard unless someone is withholding info as to what is actually happening.
Give Apple THE PHONE. Tell Apple what FBI wants. FBI gets a list of contacts that went thru THE PHONE. Give the requested hard copy list extracted to the FBI and nothing more. There is only one unit involved and it should be kept secure by Apple.
Go back to courts for order if this is not what iss being requested.
If Apple doesn't have enough institutional control to prevent some "back door program" from leaking into the world and creating havoc, they are a pretty piss poor company. I call ******** on this one.
That's been my thinking as well. Keys can be destroyed after one use. Somebody somewhere posited that the phone could be taken to the same kind of secure facility where devices captured in Iraq and Afghanistan were taken, and that Apple could open it up there -- a one-time only deal. Write code, open the phone, erase the code. Apple claims that they don't want to do it because it would confirm for hackers that it could be done. Please -- hackers are already convinced it can be done, even though as far as we know, none have been able to do it.
What you've described is pretty much what the FBI has asked for. Here's the full text of the brief filed by DOJ: http://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/file/826836/download
Really? Go destroy your post I replied to. Hill tried to destroy her email server, and it didn't work too well. That's not the way computers work.
That's not what the case is about, and not what the government wants.
Says you. The DoJ brief says differently. And Hillary didn't try to destroy her email server, she just deleted a bunch of emails. If she had wanted to destroy it there were plenty of ways she could have done that.
Ah, the old slippery slope argument. Yes, law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been trying for years to force mobile phone manufacturers to build in remote access for their use, but the companies have successfully resisted ... and have you never wondered why it's never been taken to court? Because of the Fourth Amendment, and that pesky factor called probable cause.
Easy fix: Change court order that reads "Apple to Assist FBI" to "Apple to deliver hard copy of(list target) to FBI". I can see Apple's ***** when they are directed to "assist" FBI to crack into the phone. FBI should ask for nothing but the information between the terrorist and other parties.
As far as the questioning the FBI to introduce their security code onto the phone, I would think that would be SOP to secure the evidence and be able to testify that it was totally under their security and no chance to alter the info contained.
Sounds reasonable to me too. But Apple is resisting doing anything that would let anybody into that phone.
In this case, probably the NSA. It's really exactly what they do. Regardless, Apple doesn't have any special way to get into the phone. They have to develop a tool that has the potential to make every iPhone less secure. If the FBI wants this info, they could seek assistance from within their own division that works on communications or enlist the assistance of the NSA.
According to Tim Cook, Apple could have easily gotten into the phone if the FBI had come to them immediately instead of having the county employee reset the password. But Cook's assertion that they've given everything in their possession to the FBI is as much an obfuscation as Hillary saying she turned over all of her relevant e-mail or Bill saying he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky -- Cook knows as well as the rest of us that Farook had turned off the auto-backup feature 6 weeks before the attack, and that tells me that there's information on that phone that he didn't want on the cloud where law enforcement or intelligence agencies (or even his employer, it's their phone) could access it. And here we are.
I thought part of Homeland Security bridged that gap. Was that not the original purpose to consolidate the agencies involved to keep that gap from being an issue again. Someone on this venue said it was behind us just a few days ago.
They can share information and truth be told, they could probably assist with. It gets sticky quick