3 ms·

If there is a subpoena against that phone, I don't really have an issue with the government gaining full access to it. But there needs to be a subpoena and that

If there is a subpoena against that phone, I don't really have an issue with the government gaining full access to it. But there needs to be a subpoena and that backdoor can't be activated without one. It's a similar, albeit stronger, idea as "probable cause": giving law enforcement a temporary waiver of rights that regular citizens are usually afforded.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>If there is a subpoena against that phone, I don't really have an issue with the government gaining full access to it. Say the year is 2000 and the US government has a subpoena to access the phone because they want to collect evidence to prosecute a homosexual couple for having consensual sex (which back in 2000 was illegal in some states). The reasoning behind the subpoena matters, and 'OMG TERRORIST' has been so abused that I take issue with it by default.
- incepted 11y ago
  Then take issues with illegal subpoenas. Siding with Apple on the current Apple/government discussion is trying to cure a symptom instead of a cause.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >Then take issues with illegal subpoenas. There was nothing illegal in my example. Maybe now it would be after Lawrence v. Texas, but not before. Saying one should support the law because it is the law is supporting the tyranny of the law.
    - incepted 11y ago
      I never said that, I recommended to address the cause (unjustified subpoenas) rather than the symptom (the government asking for access to phones owned by criminals or alleged criminals).
jpgvm 11y ago
The thing is, while ever a backdoor exists and can be activated at will the fact a subpeona is require to compel someone to use it doesn't mean that it can't be hacked by someone else to use for more nefarious purposes. Deliberate backdoors can't exist, Apple needs to put the foot down and make that clear.
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  There is so much misinformation floating around. The FBI wouldn't get a backdoor to all phones. It would literally only work on this one phone. Or put another way, the backdoor is already there and Apple is being compelled to open it for this phone.
  - jpgvm 11y ago
    You completely missunderstand. It's not about this phone, or even this singular backdoor. All backdoors are poison. End of story. If the FBI wanted access to the data on the phone they would have it already. But they don't. Probably because the already concluded they were acting alone and not part of a terrorist cell or network and no longer have need of the rest of the information or they really just don't care enough about it. However they do want to use this case to get precedent for industry to produce new backdoors for them into previously secure-ish systems in the name of "terrorists". This very idea is cancer, a cancer that will spread to other technological systems they feel aren't easy enough for them to tap into whenever they want. A cancer that will spread across the world as it sets a precedent for nation states to force private companies into deliberately weakening the security in their products to please whatever government finds their citizens having access to encyption to be reprehensible. So no, it's not mis-information. You and anyone else that thinks this is ok just don't grasp the gravity of the situation.
    - vectorjohn 11y ago
      I don't misunderstand at all. I just have a different opinion than you do. However, a lot of misinformation is being spread. The FBI isn't asking for Apple to create a backdoor. End of story. They're compelling Apple to open a backdoor that Apple already created. Apple made an insecure system. They can, and I think should fix it, but in this phone at least the back door is there. So, wait to use a slippery slope argument when it actually becomes applicable. You're so trigger happy to jump on the privacy, precedent setting bandwagon you didn't stop to think what this case actually is. Basically, as long as you make insecure systems, the government can (by the fourth amendment no less) demand you let them in if they have probable cause and a warrant. If you make something impossible to get into, and the government starts demanding you stop making devices like that, then we have a problem. But this particular case doesn't get us any closer to that outcome. Not even symbolically. I think you and everyone else overreacting to this case grasps gravity that isn't there. You're tilting at windmills.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>If there is a subpoena against that phone, I don't really have an issue with the government gaining full access to it. Say the year is 2000 and the US government has a subpoena to access the phone because they want to collect evidence to prosecute a homosexual couple for having consensual sex (which back in 2000 was illegal in some states). The reasoning behind the subpoena matters, and 'OMG TERRORIST' has been so abused that I take issue with it by default.

incepted 11y ago
Then take issues with illegal subpoenas. Siding with Apple on the current Apple/government discussion is trying to cure a symptom instead of a cause.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >Then take issues with illegal subpoenas. There was nothing illegal in my example. Maybe now it would be after Lawrence v. Texas, but not before. Saying one should support the law because it is the law is supporting the tyranny of the law.
  - incepted 11y ago
    I never said that, I recommended to address the cause (unjustified subpoenas) rather than the symptom (the government asking for access to phones owned by criminals or alleged criminals).

jpgvm 11y ago

The thing is, while ever a backdoor exists and can be activated at will the fact a subpeona is require to compel someone to use it doesn't mean that it can't be hacked by someone else to use for more nefarious purposes. Deliberate backdoors can't exist, Apple needs to put the foot down and make that clear.

vectorjohn 11y ago
There is so much misinformation floating around. The FBI wouldn't get a backdoor to all phones. It would literally only work on this one phone. Or put another way, the backdoor is already there and Apple is being compelled to open it for this phone.
- jpgvm 11y ago
  You completely missunderstand. It's not about this phone, or even this singular backdoor. All backdoors are poison. End of story. If the FBI wanted access to the data on the phone they would have it already. But they don't. Probably because the already concluded they were acting alone and not part of a terrorist cell or network and no longer have need of the rest of the information or they really just don't care enough about it. However they do want to use this case to get precedent for industry to produce new backdoors for them into previously secure-ish systems in the name of "terrorists". This very idea is cancer, a cancer that will spread to other technological systems they feel aren't easy enough for them to tap into whenever they want. A cancer that will spread across the world as it sets a precedent for nation states to force private companies into deliberately weakening the security in their products to please whatever government finds their citizens having access to encyption to be reprehensible. So no, it's not mis-information. You and anyone else that thinks this is ok just don't grasp the gravity of the situation.
  - vectorjohn 11y ago
    I don't misunderstand at all. I just have a different opinion than you do. However, a lot of misinformation is being spread. The FBI isn't asking for Apple to create a backdoor. End of story. They're compelling Apple to open a backdoor that Apple already created. Apple made an insecure system. They can, and I think should fix it, but in this phone at least the back door is there. So, wait to use a slippery slope argument when it actually becomes applicable. You're so trigger happy to jump on the privacy, precedent setting bandwagon you didn't stop to think what this case actually is. Basically, as long as you make insecure systems, the government can (by the fourth amendment no less) demand you let them in if they have probable cause and a warrant. If you make something impossible to get into, and the government starts demanding you stop making devices like that, then we have a problem. But this particular case doesn't get us any closer to that outcome. Not even symbolically. I think you and everyone else overreacting to this case grasps gravity that isn't there. You're tilting at windmills.