Apple and security (OT and destined to be moved)

[Eagle60]

I'd thought I'd start this here and move it to the other page. What do you guys think about this issue? I don't understand what the big deal is. If it's OK for the FBI to take the guy's phone and look at it, why is apple fighting helping them about unlocking it? What's the difference from them grabbing your computer and looking through that? I guess there are some privacy issues involved, but if the courts say it's OK why is apple so hung up on it? I realize that they have spent decades making this stuff safe, but it seems to me they could help the government out here. I understand that they have in the past. What am I missing?

[FRESH]

Well, Apple makes a lot of money based on the fact that they have such impenetrable encoding on their devices. There is a lot of financial benefit tied to their security. So, that is certainly a huge part of the reason they don't want to give it up.

On the part of he general public, if Apple created software to de-code the security, there is a risk that it could fall into bad hands. Right now such a program doesn't exist, they have never created it. And they don't want to. But that is exactly wha they would have to do to assist the govt in this case.

It's a tricky deal. In my mind, you have to be concerned about the "greater good". But is that greater good the govt's ability to access this info in the name of national security.......or is the greater good served by protecting individual rights of our citizens?

[NoDakIggle]

First I will tell you that my technology knowledge went out the window with the easy bake oven. Having said that, if the media reports are to be believed (and I am not saying they are not) Apple says they don't have the program to do want is wanted. For example every program can be hacked into yet Apple is saying they made the programs so airtight that they, nor anyone else, has the program to be able to hack into it. And if they do make it in a way that could be hacked into it then others could hack into it. So to protect everyone's privacy they don't want to have programs to hack into this.
If the FBI or whoever tries to hack in a certain number of times the data on the phone would be erased so they don't just want to start entering false passcodes in the hope of hitting it.
My gut tells me Apple could do this and all my experience tells me the FBI should have to get a court order (and not just request Apple do it). If there is a court order I think the should be able to access the phone. The question in my mind is whether the courts will hold a high enough standard and not just let law enforcement have access when they want

[Eagle60]

First I will tell you that my technology knowledge went out the window with the easy bake oven. Having said that, if the media reports are to be believed (and I am not saying they are not) Apple says they don't have the program to do want is wanted. For example every program can be hacked into yet Apple is saying they made the programs so airtight that they, nor anyone else, has the program to be able to hack into it. And if they do make it in a way that could be hacked into it then others could hack into it. So to protect everyone's privacy they don't want to have programs to hack into this.
If the FBI or whoever tries to hack in a certain number of times the data on the phone would be erased so they don't just want to start entering false passcodes in the hope of hitting it.
My gut tells me Apple could do this and all my experience tells me the FBI should have to get a court order (and not just request Apple do it). If there is a court order I think the should be able to access the phone. The question in my mind is whether the courts will hold a high enough standard and not just let law enforcement have access when they want

A couple of things. First, I think they could have handled it behind closed doors. After all, apple claims that they've done it before. I heard Steve Wozniak today (owns apple with the late Steve Jobs) and he sounded like a real left winger and he's trying to make some kind of point. I understand that they don't want to give software to the government because it will most likely be compromised, but there has to be some kind of compromise here.

[bird is da word]

Always choose privacy and the rights of the individual

[FRESH]

Always choose privacy and the rights of the individual

Generally agree, but in matters of national security that is a much tougher call. A deceased individual in this case as well who is a mass murderer.

[Eagle60]

Always choose privacy and the rights of the individual

I think that we need to get away from extremes. Unless the Birds are involved of course!

[tinopuno]

Leaving aside the very important and tougher issue of 'the individual's right to privacy' vs 'the common good of society as a whole', it's worth remembering that the world today faces a well financed and well organized enemy in 'The Islamic State' that is zealously driven to engage in acts of violence so depraved and so barbarous that they defy comprehension. Does anyone doubt that, were they able, they would hesitate a moment to employ a biological or nuclear device that would kill thousands.

This is now the world we live in.

As to the much narrower issue of Apple's motivation in zealously protecting the sanctity of their encryption schemes, is their motivation primarily protection of personal privacy or is it primarily protection of Apple's bottom line.

Just as Deep Throat suggested many years ago to Woodward and Bernstein, I'm inclined to 'Follow the money'.

[FairOaks]

Generally agree, but in matters of national security that is a much tougher call. A deceased individual in this case as well who is a mass murderer.

It's a tough call. Apple has given the FBI all the data that the guy backed up from the iPhone, which was on their servers. That's not the issue.

Modern computer encryption is pretty good... maybe the NSA can crack it, but they wouldn't tell the public about it, and even if they could do so in this case, the FBI would want to use this case to wedge in stuff they want in all cases, not just ones like this.

The main issue is that the PIN on the phone is basically the password. It's not hard to run through all the possible combinations until you find it... so to protect against that, the operating system has two main features. One, after 10 failures the operating system will wipe the data on the phone. Two, they force a small delay if you guess the PIN wrong before you can try again. The delay is not enough to matter to a human user, but to a computer program which is trying many PINs in succession, it can extend the time to try all possibilities out to years and years.

The FBI is asking Apple to write a version of the operating system which removes those protections, and then get the phone to auto-update to that new operating system version. With those two features removed, it will be relatively easy for the FBI to run through all the possibilities until they find the PIN and unlock the phone.

That is, then, basically a backdoor version of the operating system. If the government gets that, no way will they want it to only exist for this one case. They will try to get it so they can use on with any case they want, maybe with a FISA warrant which never gets made public -- so they will use it in a great deal more cases, and in much wider situations, than just this type of case. The FBI obviously feels (with good reason) that many people would agree with this type of case, the government should get that evidence -- but then hopefully those same people won't notice if the government also gets the right to force the use in many cases which are not publicized. Human nature generally dictates that if they get the power, at some point it will be abused if they can get away with it (even if not any time soon). Maybe a future administration will want to use it on anyone they consider a "gun nut" -- should that be allowed, etc. How much difference is there between the San Bernardino folks and the guys at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge? If it's OK to use it on them, then how much further could it go?

Apple of course may want to use this as advertising, showing that not even the FBI can get in. They don't trade on selling personal data as much as some other vendors, so they could also use this as a selling point to differentiate themselves with competitors.

This is actually part of the danger with auto-updating operating systems (or other software) -- it won't always have features you want, or may have "features" which harm the user but help the software company. There have been researchers which have found ways to hijiack that type of update process to get rogue versions of the operating system installed, at least for Android.

It's possible that Apple could be forced to comply with this one in particular, but find a way to make it such a narrow definition that it's not likely to be able to be used again. Or, perhaps Apple could thereafter change the operating system to require an affirmative action on the phone itself (and not a just a controlling home computer) in order to install an update; that might prevent the technique used here from being possible ever again.

It's all about the balance. Law enforcement definitely needs some ability to get evidence, but they can always go too far. The Constitution has some of those balances, and it's not out of the question they could find something in this case. It's a good public debate.

[stocknowledge]

That is, then, basically a backdoor version of the operating system. If the government gets that, no way will they want it to only exist for this one case. They will try to get it so they can use on with any case they want, maybe with a FISA warrant which never gets made public -- so they will use it in a great deal more cases, and in much wider situations, than just this type of case. The FBI obviously feels (with good reason) that many people would agree with this type of case, the government should get that evidence -- but then hopefully those same people won't notice if the government also gets the right to force the use in many cases which are not publicized. Human nature generally dictates that if they get the power, at some point it will be abused if they can get away with it (even if not any time soon). Maybe a future administration will want to use it on anyone they consider a "gun nut" -- should that be allowed, etc. How much difference is there between the San Bernardino folks and the guys at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge? If it's OK to use it on them, then how much further could it go?

Good explanation. It is a slippery slope. If the government is allowed to gain access to information in this case, then it can use the same means of access in other cases perhaps without using a warrant.

IMO, with the passage of the Patriot Act, many of the protections of privacy authorized by the Fourth Amendment have been infringed upon. I don't want to make it any easier for the government to invade my privacy. So I am in favor of anything that restricts or prevents the government from making any further inroads on my rights under the Fourth Amendment.

I find it interesting that those who are in favor of less government so they can pay less taxes are usually so much in favor of the government having greater power to search and seize information. It is the same people who cling to the Constitution - except in those instances where it speaks against their interests.

[tinopuno]

Good explanation. It is a slippery slope. If the government is allowed to gain access to information in this case, then it can use the same means of access in other cases perhaps without using a warrant.

IMO, with the passage of the Patriot Act, many of the protections of privacy authorized by the Fourth Amendment have been infringed upon. I don't want to make it any easier for the government to invade my privacy. So I am in favor of anything that restricts or prevents the government from making any further inroads on my rights under the Fourth Amendment.

I find it interesting that those who are in favor of less government so they can pay less taxes are usually so much in favor of the government having greater power to search and seize information. It is the same people who cling to the Constitution - except in those instances where it speaks against their interests.

[FRESH]

Good explanation. It is a slippery slope. If the government is allowed to gain access to information in this case, then it can use the same means of access in other cases perhaps without using a warrant.

IMO, with the passage of the Patriot Act, many of the protections of privacy authorized by the Fourth Amendment have been infringed upon. I don't want to make it any easier for the government to invade my privacy. So I am in favor of anything that restricts or prevents the government from making any further inroads on my rights under the Fourth Amendment.

I find it interesting that those who are in favor of less government so they can pay less taxes are usually so much in favor of the government having greater power to search and seize information. It is the same people who cling to the Constitution - except in those instances where it speaks against their interests.

Not interesting at all. Its actually very simple and consistent. Those in favor of less government are usually also very much concerned with greter national/public security. THere is the link that goes hand in hand.

[stocknowledge]

Not interesting at all. Its actually very simple and consistent. Those in favor of less government are usually also very much concerned with greter national/public security. THere is the link that goes hand in hand.

And that, unfortunately, is why we have a defense budget that is greater than the next 8 countries, COMBINED, yet we don't have universal health care or education. We are no longer the "Home of the Brave," and have become a nation of fearful sheep.

People who complain about the size of government always overlook where there is most waste - our defense budget.

[Eagle60]

And that, unfortunately, is why we have a defense budget that is greater than the next 8 countries, COMBINED, yet we don't have universal health care or education. We are no longer the "Home of the Brave," and have become a nation of fearful sheep.

Depends who you listen to when they give you the facts Stock. Every source I've seen says we spend 20% on defense. That doesn't sound very high to me.

http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget

[stocknowledge]

Depends who you listen to when they give you the facts Stock. Every source I've seen says we spend 20% on defense. That doesn't sound very high to me.

http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget

From the Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita..._United_States

Comparison with other countries




The U.S. military budget is higher than the nine other biggest military budgets in the World combined.





Military spending as a percentage of GDP


The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending. The 2012 budget is 6–7 times larger than the $106 billion military budget of China The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority).[34][35][36] The US also maintains the largest number of military bases on foreign soil across the world.[37]
In 2005, the United States spent 4.06% of its GDP on its military (considering only basic Department of Defense budget spending), more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[38]information 2006 This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3.0% in 1999–2001). Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.[39]
The US Military’s budget has plateaued as of late, but is still considerably larger than any other military power.