Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Apple vs. FBI


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

Poll: APPLES ARE DELICIOUS

Should Apple unlock the San Bernardino terrorist's iPhone?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,916 posts


Users Awards

Posted 10 March 2016 - 06:07 PM

I would usually provide a summary about debacles, but there have been literally thousands of articles written on the subject that I'm just going to assume everyone knows about it. What are your thoughts on this matter?



#2 Keil

Keil
  • Above Average Mediocrity


  • 6,353 posts


Users Awards

Posted 10 March 2016 - 06:19 PM

I'm just going to assume everyone knows about it.

 

You assumed wrong. 

 

I just googled it and there are 4 different "subtopics" on the matter. Which one do you want to talk about?



#3 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,916 posts


Users Awards

Posted 10 March 2016 - 06:26 PM

You assumed wrong. 

 

I just googled it and there are 4 different "subtopics" on the matter. Which one do you want to talk about?

Any aspect you want to. Up to you :p



#4 KyloRen

KyloRen
  • Snoke says I'm special.



  • 5,125 posts


Users Awards

Posted 10 March 2016 - 06:31 PM

I feel like maybe a poll might be helpful to the discussion, just to see how many people support each side and the difference or numbers between the two. I'm kind of in the middle. I understand Apple's thing about a persons privacy, but I also understand the FBI needing the data to help them with understanding the attack and preventing more like it from happening.

So I guess with the poll idea you'd need an "other, please explain" option, if a poll is added.

#5 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,916 posts


Users Awards

Posted 10 March 2016 - 06:41 PM

I feel like maybe a poll might be helpful to the discussion, just to see how many people support each side and the difference or numbers between the two. I'm kind of in the middle. I understand Apple's thing about a persons privacy, but I also understand the FBI needing the data to help them with understanding the attack and preventing more like it from happening.

So I guess with the poll idea you'd need an "other, please explain" option, if a poll is added.

Added a super basic poll. Does this work? 



#6 Padme

Padme
  • 1,577 posts


Users Awards

Posted 10 March 2016 - 07:26 PM

Considering the passcode was changed after it came into custody of the police it's fishy. If that hadn't happened they would have access by now to the information for the iphone's cloud account.

On top of this, there have been dozens of other cases of the FBI asking to unlock a phone and chose to zone in on this case specifically because it is the most prolific. 

If anyone is interested Snowden came out and said he is certain that the FBI would be able to unlock the phone if they really want to.

The former NSA and CIA director are on Apple's side. This has NOTHING to do with actually trying to help out American citizens unless you things like the Patriot act as something that's helped you out. 

The FBI could in fact force Apple to turn on the mic and camera on your phone if this case goes in the favour of the FBI, it would set wild precedents.

 

No, they shouldn't unlock the phone. If they want to unlock the phone the FBI can figure out how to do it on its own.

 

The FBI mucked this up and now they want Apple to go back on one of its core values which is the EXTREME reverence held for customers privacy and personal information.

 

Here's the director of the FBI admitting he FUBAR'ed this:

http://recode.net/20...apple-password/



#7 Wynd

Wynd
  • 390 posts


Users Awards

Posted 10 March 2016 - 07:49 PM

Personally, I don't think it's worth risking an entirely new data-breaching system so that they can get access to that phone. I understand that with that risk comes rewards of knowing those that were related to the case, but I just don't think it's worth it. Millions of people across the world use Apple products and it directly affects all of them if the backdoor was opened to someone that wasn't the FBI. Apple understands the risk and wants their customers to feel safe using their products. It's part of their code. To allow this would totally blow.



#8 kimster

kimster
  • 1 posts

Posted 10 March 2016 - 09:27 PM

Tbh Apple shouldn't create this system. All iphones would get hacked then. Even if Apple destroys the device that they create the system for. The system and its files would get leaked. So yah no. 



#9 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,916 posts


Users Awards

Posted 10 March 2016 - 09:48 PM

Considering the passcode was changed after it came into custody of the police it's fishy. If that hadn't happened they would have access by now to the information for the iphone's cloud account.

 

The government claims that the guy turned off iCloud backups right after the final backup. 

The evidence on Farook’s iCloud account suggests that he had already changed his iCloud password himself on October 22, 2015—shortly after the last backup—and that the autobackup feature was disabled. A forced backup of Farook’s iPhone was never going to be successful, and the decision to obtain whatever iCloud evidence was immediately available via the password change was the reasoned decision of experienced FBI agents investigating a deadly terrorist conspiracy

 

Source: http://www.theverge....assword-changed


Tbh Apple shouldn't create this system. All iphones would get hacked then. Even if Apple destroys the device that they create the system for. The system and its files would get leaked. So yah no. 

The FBI is asking Apple to make a single unique iOS system that would be able to unlock a single iPhone with very specific hardware and software installed on it. So, it's misleading to claim that Apple's system that would only work on one device will directly lead to every iPhone being hacked. 

 

Also, how do you leak something that is destroyed?

 

What is dangerous isn't necessarily the iOS system the government is asking for, it's the precedent. If the FBI wins this round, then what is preventing law enforcement from requesting Apple to do the same in lesser crimes? Where does it end? 



#10 DonValentino

DonValentino
  • Neocodex Handegg League Champion/Daddy

  • 2,462 posts


Users Awards

Posted 10 March 2016 - 10:04 PM

"What is dangerous isn't necessarily the iOS system the government is asking for, it's the precedent. If the FBI wins this round, then what is preventing law enforcement from requesting Apple to do the same in lesser crimes? Where does it end?"

 

It's the same thing...if the precedent is dangerous, then so is the act that sets the precedent. And furthermore, I do think the act itself is dangerous. This is how shit like 1984 starts. Sacrificing privacy in the name of "security". We already fucked up with the Patriot Act, we don't need this to continue. 



#11 Padme

Padme
  • 1,577 posts


Users Awards

Posted 10 March 2016 - 10:07 PM

"What is dangerous isn't necessarily the iOS system the government is asking for, it's the precedent. If the FBI wins this round, then what is preventing law enforcement from requesting Apple to do the same in lesser crimes? Where does it end?"

 

It's the same thing...if the precedent is dangerous, then so is the act that sets the precedent. And furthermore, I do think the act itself is dangerous. This is how shit like 1984 starts. Sacrificing privacy in the name of "security". We already fucked up with the Patriot Act, we don't need this to continue. 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^ +rep for you 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users