6 ms·

One of those sides is being fatuously disingenuous. The San Bernardino shooters demonstrated rather competent op-sec, and the 5c the FBI wants Apple to backdoo

by rosser 11y ago

One of those sides is being fatuously disingenuous. The San Bernardino shooters demonstrated rather competent op-sec, and the 5c the FBI wants Apple to backdoor was a work phone, not even a personal one. I'm spectacularly skeptical they used that phone in any way whatsoever relevant to the attack. More to the point, the attackers are already dead. There is nothing to prosecute here. They picked this case as the one to push because they thought it had the best PR value for their purposes, not because of any exigence or concern over further impending attacks. That is to say, the FBI is cynically leveraging the outrage at a mass-shooting, inflicted by "brown people", to further their anti-crypto, "We must have access to ALL OF THE THINGS!" agenda. It's pretty disgusting, frankly. EDIT: snark.

mc32 11y ago
Both sides are positioning themselves for maximum advantage vis a vis their publics. Neither one is acting without self interest. The USG says it wants to prosecute crime and associates, Apple say they want to protect the privacy of their customers and not doing so tarnishes their image which damages their business proposition. The courts, the congress and the people will ultimately determine who prevails.
- rosser 11y ago
  You'll note that I didn't dispute Apple's self-interest in their position. But they're being up-front about it: "Our customers will lose trust in us if we do this thing, and that hurts us as a business, as well as them." That's not merely PR. That's a fact. The FBI's stated position, "These people did a terrible thing and we have to investigate it" is pure PR; the phone the case is proximally about is not at all what it's ultimately about.
  - chrisdbaldwin 11y ago
    Irony being that the real shooters were 3 tall white dudes from Craft Intl.
    - beedogs 11y ago
      Is this just sarcasm, or is there really any evidence for this? Craft were also at the Boston Marathon.
  - hartpuff 11y ago
    > The FBI's stated position, "These people did a terrible thing and we have to investigate it" is pure PR How is this not a fact?
    - rosser 11y ago
      There's nothing to investigate. Everyone except the conspiracy theorists have stipulated that these two committed the attack, and they're dead so prosecution is moot. Referring again to my point up-thread about the shooters' op-sec, there wouldn't be any useful intel on their (once again!) work phone, anyway. "Investigation" is a red-herring to disguise their actual motive.
      - mc32 11y ago
        There are companies and agencies and other entities which allow employees to use their work-issued phones for personal use [some require re-imbursement]. And even if they explicitly forbade it, it's not like a perp will necessarily obey those stipulations, so it's not a forgone conclusion there would be no useful daate there.
        rosser 11y ago
        As meticulous and careful as these two were about keeping what they were up to secret, encrypting the evidence they didn't destroy, and so-on, do you really think they're going to be stupid and sloppy enough to call Terrorist HQ on their fucking work phone? Red. Herring. EDIT: Aside, I just went down a diverting and entertaining little web-hole on the etymology of the expression "red herring". It is, indeed, a deliberate diversion: in the 19th century, fugitives would cover their tracks with smoked (red) herring, because it would put the bloodhounds off their scent.
        mc32 11y ago
        More like dual purpose. It has legs, but they may be weak, but the possibility that they did trip up is not infinitesimal --it could be a small lead, or it could turn up nothing. Given its potential dual purpose, if I were the FBI, I'd go for it. They'd be remiss if they did not pursue this.
lern_too_spel 11y ago
Most people who use a work phone do not use a personal phone. This phone could have evidence to implicate their neighbor (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/san-bernardino-shooters-neighbor-enrique-marquez-pleads-guilty/story?id=36117532 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/san-bernardino-shooters-neighb...) in a crime. I see nothing "disgusting" about the FBI's behavior here.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- rosser 11y ago
  You're perfectly within your rights to trust law enforcement as much as you'd like, believe that any investigative power they're given won't be abused, and that this isn't a cynically calculated grab for exactly that purpose. I don't.
  - lern_too_spel 11y ago
    This isn't a grab for power — this is a power that they already have. They went through the courts to get the proper order, following the letter of the law. We give the government the power to open bank safes, seize property, and wiretap; but we make laws that allow them to do so only when it's in society's best interests. If you don't think the law serves society's best interests, it's up to you as a citizen that your government represents to help change it. In this case, I think you'll find that a majority of people will say it is in society's best interests to open the San Bernardino shooters' bank safes, obtain their phone records, and decrypt their phone in order to look for accomplices.
    - rosser 11y ago
      FISA warrants and NSLs are "following the letter of the law", too. You don't think they're subject to egregious abuse? As for what the "majority of people" find reasonable, all I have to do is look at the polling numbers in the current presidential race to find myself in abject disgust at what the "majority of people" appear to think. They seem not to give half a shit what happens to anyone else, as long as they can watch the next episode of American Idol without fear of "getting blowed up by terr'ists" — despite the fact that more people have won the lottery than have died from terrorism in the US since September 11th. EDIT: Anyway, there's nothing new or informative to be found in this discussion. We disagree. Let's leave it at that.

by rosser 11y ago

mc32 11y ago

Both sides are positioning themselves for maximum advantage vis a vis their publics. Neither one is acting without self interest. The USG says it wants to prosecute crime and associates, Apple say they want to protect the privacy of their customers and not doing so tarnishes their image which damages their business proposition. The courts, the congress and the people will ultimately determine who prevails.

rosser 11y ago
You'll note that I didn't dispute Apple's self-interest in their position. But they're being up-front about it: "Our customers will lose trust in us if we do this thing, and that hurts us as a business, as well as them." That's not merely PR. That's a fact. The FBI's stated position, "These people did a terrible thing and we have to investigate it" is pure PR; the phone the case is proximally about is not at all what it's ultimately about.
- chrisdbaldwin 11y ago
  Irony being that the real shooters were 3 tall white dudes from Craft Intl.
  - beedogs 11y ago
    Is this just sarcasm, or is there really any evidence for this? Craft were also at the Boston Marathon.
- hartpuff 11y ago
  > The FBI's stated position, "These people did a terrible thing and we have to investigate it" is pure PR How is this not a fact?
  - rosser 11y ago
    There's nothing to investigate. Everyone except the conspiracy theorists have stipulated that these two committed the attack, and they're dead so prosecution is moot. Referring again to my point up-thread about the shooters' op-sec, there wouldn't be any useful intel on their (once again!) work phone, anyway. "Investigation" is a red-herring to disguise their actual motive.
    - mc32 11y ago
      There are companies and agencies and other entities which allow employees to use their work-issued phones for personal use [some require re-imbursement]. And even if they explicitly forbade it, it's not like a perp will necessarily obey those stipulations, so it's not a forgone conclusion there would be no useful daate there.
      - rosser 11y ago
        As meticulous and careful as these two were about keeping what they were up to secret, encrypting the evidence they didn't destroy, and so-on, do you really think they're going to be stupid and sloppy enough to call Terrorist HQ on their fucking work phone? Red. Herring. EDIT: Aside, I just went down a diverting and entertaining little web-hole on the etymology of the expression "red herring". It is, indeed, a deliberate diversion: in the 19th century, fugitives would cover their tracks with smoked (red) herring, because it would put the bloodhounds off their scent.
        mc32 11y ago
        More like dual purpose. It has legs, but they may be weak, but the possibility that they did trip up is not infinitesimal --it could be a small lead, or it could turn up nothing. Given its potential dual purpose, if I were the FBI, I'd go for it. They'd be remiss if they did not pursue this.

lern_too_spel 11y ago

Most people who use a work phone do not use a personal phone. This phone could have evidence to implicate their neighbor (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/san-bernardino-shooters-neighbor-enrique-marquez-pleads-guilty/story?id=36117532 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/san-bernardino-shooters-neighb...) in a crime. I see nothing "disgusting" about the FBI's behavior here.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rosser 11y ago
You're perfectly within your rights to trust law enforcement as much as you'd like, believe that any investigative power they're given won't be abused, and that this isn't a cynically calculated grab for exactly that purpose. I don't.
- lern_too_spel 11y ago
  This isn't a grab for power — this is a power that they already have. They went through the courts to get the proper order, following the letter of the law. We give the government the power to open bank safes, seize property, and wiretap; but we make laws that allow them to do so only when it's in society's best interests. If you don't think the law serves society's best interests, it's up to you as a citizen that your government represents to help change it. In this case, I think you'll find that a majority of people will say it is in society's best interests to open the San Bernardino shooters' bank safes, obtain their phone records, and decrypt their phone in order to look for accomplices.
  - rosser 11y ago
    FISA warrants and NSLs are "following the letter of the law", too. You don't think they're subject to egregious abuse? As for what the "majority of people" find reasonable, all I have to do is look at the polling numbers in the current presidential race to find myself in abject disgust at what the "majority of people" appear to think. They seem not to give half a shit what happens to anyone else, as long as they can watch the next episode of American Idol without fear of "getting blowed up by terr'ists" — despite the fact that more people have won the lottery than have died from terrorism in the US since September 11th. EDIT: Anyway, there's nothing new or informative to be found in this discussion. We disagree. Let's leave it at that.