Apple to fight absurd order to allow a backdoor for the flawless Feds

[Kick Strickland]

The feds probably already have access. This is just to make people think they don't.

 

[Skarr]

All of this was inevitable when the iPhone came out and everyone decided that everything they ever do belongs on that phone. The public is entirely complicit in robbing itself of its own freedoms and privacy, just for the sake of a little extra convenience.

+1 and
to take that even further... this seems like complete showboating to me from Apple since they are all about identification,location and data mining to begin with

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

+1 and
to take that even further... this seems like complete showboating to me from Apple since they are all about identification,location and data mining to begin with

Their current stance is absurdly hypocritical. Fuck them.

 

[45ACP]

We have cameras on street corners to catch traffic and other law breakers.
It's a knowing stretch between that, for example, and putting a camera in every home, which is sky-high rhetoric.

I don't feel that I'm adequately knowledgeable about the threats or the responses to those threats to be able to speculate about where lines should be drawn.
I only know that where the lines are NOW will seem antiquated sometime in the next century.

Looks like cameras in the home is too much for you. So you are willing to draw a line at some point.

You missed my other question though. What will you say when we continue giving up privacy for the sake of security, and not only do terrorist attacks continue, but our government is shown to have been once again abusing the power we've entrusted them with?

It sounds like you think that just because something is inevitable (complete loss of privacy, continued abuse of power) that makes it ok.

 

[Literally Bricked]

Would you apply this too other tools terrorist use like say firearms? If in the future the tech exists to have safeties that render a gun inoperable be remotely activated by the Feds because they say "hey he's a terrorist" you'd support them forcing manfactures to build it in?

I know people will say no i don't support that because the 2nd amendment is about the ability to stand up to the Feds but I also see our ability to keep our technology operating and the I nformation on it out of there hands as also pretty important. Granted they already have mass surveillance tools threatening that but I don't think that means we should force Apple to make easier.

Considering I am not a resident on the US, I have no personal ties to the 2nd amendment if that is at all a concern.

If there was something that one could look to make guns unable to operate, I do believe that there could pose potential issues from individuals being able to protect themselves, even in the time of war where you have groups shutting down weapons of those who are looking to defend my family, etc. If there was some perfect bubble where one could only target those who are known terrorists and fit a defined definition/criteria then sure. But I don't see a reason to have this built into items as what we are looking at is assistance after the fact, not beforehand.

However, that technology presently does not exist so we are speaking about a hypothetical issue instead of a very realistic issue of should Apple assist the federal government in an investigation into a terrorist.

 

[TheGZA]

He's a fucking hero. He should have his own holiday.

At least he got a statue.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Looks like cameras in the home is too much for you. So you are willing to draw a line at some point.

You missed my other question though. What will you say when we continue giving up privacy for the sake of security, and not only do terrorist attacks continue, but our government is shown to have been once again abusing the power we've entrusted them with?

It sounds like you think that just because something is inevitable (complete loss of privacy, continued abuse of power) that makes it ok.

I think there isa difference between the government walking into you home and installing a recording device and the government confiscating information you recorded yourself as long as confiscating that information doesn't violate the 4th amendment.

I would think that the 4th amendment protects us from the slippery slope argument of the government installing recording devices in private property.

 

[Skarr]

It was the dumbest thing he ever said.
Of course every citizen deserves the protection of the state, regardless of their opinions.
Nobody should ever trot out that brainless quote again, his legacy would be better off for it.

Ive always enjoyed that quote personally, to me hes saying that Liberty and freedoms must be protected at all cost and without any notion of concession or compromise, if you dont...if you open that door well the age old proverb stands true...

if you give an inch, they take a mile
you give them the finger....they take the arm

so in that sense, if you open that door by giving an inch on your liberties then you deserve the mile that they will take thereafter

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Looks like cameras in the home is too much for you. So you are willing to draw a line at some point.

You missed my other question though. What will you say when we continue giving up privacy for the sake of security, and not only do terrorist attacks continue, but our government is shown to have been once again abusing the power we've entrusted them with?

It sounds like you think that just because something is inevitable (complete loss of privacy, continued abuse of power) that makes it ok.

Wrong.
I don't even address something as silly as "cameras in the home" because it will never happen. It's unrealistic except to those who don't consider what such a thing would imply: limitless resources and manpower to staff multiple, enormous processing centers. And even with the processing centers in existence, using software to filter for keywords, we have a backlog of data to analyze.

Again, we already knew there were data sweeps happening. And they need to happen, that should be obvious to even the meanest intelligence.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Ive always enjoyed that quote personally, to me hes saying that Liberty and freedoms must be protected at all cost and without any notion of concession or compromise, if you dont...if you open that door well the age old proverb stands true...

if you give an inch, they take a mile
you give them the finger....they take the arm

so in that sense, if you open that door by giving an inch on your liberties then you deserve the mile that they will take thereafter

To me the quote says, "You only deserve protection if you agree with Ben Franklin about the nature of threats and the appropriate response to them."
Your interpretation assumes an evil, pervasively corrupt government that is not in evidence.

 

[ralphc1]

The feds probably already have access. This is just to make people think they don't.

This makes sense. I couldn't understand why Apple would feel that they didn't have to obey a court order and then coming out publicly accusing the government of wanting them to modify all of the phones. It would make co conspirators believe that the information wasn't retrieved.

 

[D Train]

As far as I know, this is about Apple unlocking one phone. Apple appears to be making it about more than that.

Let's be real though, it's never about just one phone.

 

[Guestx]

To me they look unwilling to help us investigate a terror attack.
If I was ever dumb enough to pay for their products I certainly wouldn't now.

As Ben Franklin said:

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

As Ben Franklin said:

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Christ almighty, look a few posts back.
He said something incredibly stupid and it should never be repeated.

 

[Guestx]

Christ almighty, look a few posts back.
He said something incredibly stupid and it should never be repeated.

There have been way too many abuses of governmental power over the years to just blow it off and be like, "Ehh, that's pretty stupid."

 

[Execute]

I'm fucking terrified that people are willing to give up all freedom to investigate a terrorist attack that already happened. It is far more cost effective to help the regions / folks who generate extremists. The government has proven they aren't competent with data.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

There have been way too many abuses of governmental power over the years to just blow it off and be like, "Ehh, that's pretty stupid."

There are always abuses of government power, but they'd have to be threatening to me as a citizen by the wholesale removal of rights, at which point I'd pick up a weapon.
But threatening my conveniences and luxuries? Hardly qualifies to me.
They want to do mass data sweeps to find the people who are planning shit before they can carry out an act of terror? It's not only no skin off my nose, if they stop it, no skin off anyone else's nose either.

Except, of course, domestic and foreign wanna-be terrorists. They sure won't like it.
I'm sure that if the husband and wife terrorist shits were alive to know Apple isn't cooperating in unlocking their phones, they'd laugh their evil asses off.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I'm fucking terrified that people are willing to give up all freedom to investigate a terrorist attack that already happened. It is far more cost effective to help the regions / folks who generate extremists. The government has proven they aren't competent with data.

All freedom?
Show where anyone advocated that please.

 

[Joe]

lol at anyone thinking this will only be used for only cases like this. they are clearly using this to push this ability. you are for terrorists if you dont support us!

 

[Seano]

Apple gets applauded because they don't want to help the FBI hack a phone that could possibly contain info that could save others or be significant in the fight on terror?

What a weird world we live in.

When you commit a criminal act like that, don't you sort of give up your right to privacy, especially if you're dead?