Jump to content


Apple rejects order to unlock gunman's phone

Absolute right to keep mobile phone encrypted? Apple v Govt  

77 members have voted

  1. 1. Absolute right to keep mobile phone encrypted? Apple v Govt

    • Apple are right and the mans phone should remain encrypted
      43
    • Govt are right and in this case Apple should give them access.
      34


Recommended Posts

He's still wrong, even if you concur...

 

Who the hell asked you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a discussion forum, did you imagine that people wouldn't comment without being asked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who the hell asked you?

 

This is an open forum you know? So people will respond to posts whether they are aimed at them or not, just like I've just done.

 

Zamo is wrong as the phone is specifically designed to wipe itself after 10 incorrect entries so there is no way to brute force the phone open. Do you honestly think if there was that the FBI wouldn't have just done that rather than this convoluted way of trying to make Apple design a new OS? Occam's Razor and all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you only get a few attempts with an i-telephone before it locks out?

 

It doesn't lock out, it wipes itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who the hell asked you?

 

The same people who asked you ton contribute.

 

For many various reasons, Zamo is talking rubbish about how easy it isn't to break this phone. Cyclone is doing you a favour by pointing out that Zamo, and as such yourself are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then there are the very very very bad things that they do without even referring to a FISA court, and we only know because Snowden for lifted the lid by stealing the secrets that they had been stealing from us.

 

Totally.

The US government, and the UK government agencies have been exceeding their lawful authority and/or finding ways around legal limits.

 

That doesn't alter my belief that the state needs the power to search and seize when an independent court thinks it's necessary. The court should be open and visible though.

I'd also support apple in creating technology that can't be cracked. But if it can be, then I think that legally they should comply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you only get a few attempts with an i-telephone before it locks out?
That's the point of the court case and this thread! :hihi:

Totally.

The US government, and the UK government agencies have been exceeding their lawful authority and/or finding ways around legal limits.

 

That doesn't alter my belief that the state needs the power to search and seize when an independent court thinks it's necessary. The court should be open and visible though.

TBH Cyclone, that's the exact boundary which this case is testing.

 

Apple deliberately created their security features so that it could not be cracked (without wiping the data contents). What the FBI is doing is not 'searching and seizing' (they already have the phone and the data thereon), it is coercing Apple into doing something which they never wanted to do, and still refuse to do.

I'd also support apple in creating technology that can't be cracked. But if it can be, then I think that legally they should comply.
There's nothing that can't be cracked, given enough smarts, resources and time thrown at it. So that's a bit of a non-sequitur I'm afraid. Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally.

The US government, and the UK government agencies have been exceeding their lawful authority and/or finding ways around legal limits.

 

That doesn't alter my belief that the state needs the power to search and seize when an independent court thinks it's necessary. The court should be open and visible though.

I'd also support apple in creating technology that can't be cracked. But if it can be, then I think that legally they should comply.

 

Totally!

 

Sometimes

If it was illegal in the USA, the NSA got GCHQ to do it.

If it was illegal in the UK, GCHQ got the NSA to do it.

Then they shared intelligence to get the information that was illegal to get in the first place.

 

They usually just broke the law though, and they are still doing it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the point of the court case and this thread! :hihi:

TBH Cyclone, that's the exact boundary which this case is testing.

 

Apple deliberately created their security features so that it could not be cracked (without wiping the data contents). What the FBI is doing is not 'searching and seizing' (they already have the phone and the data thereon), it is coercing Apple into doing something which they never wanted to do, and still refuse to do.

There's nothing that can't be cracked, given enough smarts, resources and time thrown at it. So that's a bit of a non-sequitur I'm afraid.

 

I think it's showing a much bigger picture that a company can effectively have a huge amount of power, potentially bigger than a government has. While this has been the case in the background for a long time, this saga is really demonstrating just how powerful some of the companies in the world are. I'm on Apple's side on this particular case, but it does concern me that you can have a company who can refuse a legal request from a government appointed body. Sets a dangerous precedent as the next decision Apple decide to ignore might be one the majority don't agree with...then what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing that can't be cracked, given enough smarts, resources and time thrown at it. So that's a bit of a non-sequitur I'm afraid.

 

One time pads.....

 

They are pretty good. Rather unwieldy though :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's showing a much bigger picture that a company can effectively have a huge amount of power, potentially bigger than a government has. While this has been the case in the background for a long time, this saga is really demonstrating just how powerful some of the companies in the world are. I'm on Apple's side on this particular case, but it does concern me that you can have a company who can refuse a legal request from a government appointed body. Sets a dangerous precedent as the next decision Apple decide to ignore might be one the majority don't agree with...then what?

 

They can ignore the FBI all day long. They can't and haven't ignored the court order, they've appealed it to a higher court. If it goes all the way to the US Supreme court and they lose then they will comply or people will start going to jail and the company will have fines imposed on it.

 

---------- Post added 24-02-2016 at 14:27 ----------

 

One time pads.....

 

They are pretty good. Rather unwieldy though :)

 

Short of mathematical breakthroughs (that do happen) plenty of encryption schemes are impossible to crack within the expected lifetime of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They can ignore the FBI all day long. They can't and haven't ignored the court order, they've appealed it to a higher court. If it goes all the way to the US Supreme court and they lose then they will comply or people will start going to jail and the company will have fines imposed on it.

 

I wasn't aware of that about it still going through the courts. I thought that has run it's course and Apple were still refusing to comply. On that note, has a new supreme justice been appointed yet since the extremely right-wing died recently? That could have a massive impact on this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.