Apple and phone privacy etc

[DaveB]

Wow, what a jumped-up, patronising prat you are. PG was right, no point arguing, you'll just use the ban stick.

NAT is right on this. You only have human rights while you are alive. Once you are dead it's fair game. This was never about the human rights of the guy involved, it's about the rights of everyone else.

[NotAllThere]

...PG was right....

I did wonder if you two might be related.

[LondonManc]

NAT is right on this. You only have human rights while you are alive. Once you are dead it's fair game. This was never about the human rights of the guy involved, it's about the rights of everyone else.

It was his inane babbling about driving offences that I was referring to.

[DaveB]

It was his inane babbling about driving offences that I was referring to.

It wasn't inane, it was the logical extension of the argument. If you give a government the power to do something under once set of circumstances it gives them the leverage they need to claim they have to do it under another, and there is no guarantee they will tell you about it until after the fact. Or they will, and no-one will kick up a fuss because they didn't pay attention or there was a bigger story that day.

[NickFitz]

If you give a government the power to do something under once set of circumstances it gives them the leverage they need to claim they have to do it under another…

Particularly given that this case was brought under the All Writs Act, which is a law that basically allows the US government to say "We have no legal power to do this, but we want to do it anyway, so we're going to."

[LondonManc]

It wasn't inane, it was the logical extension of the argument. If you give a government the power to do something under once set of circumstances it gives them the leverage they need to claim they have to do it under another, and there is no guarantee they will tell you about it until after the fact. Or they will, and no-one will kick up a fuss because they didn't pay attention or there was a bigger story that day.

Someone's taken a life. A bit different to driving without documentation. Perspective.

[AtW]

Were Apple right to make a level of protection that even they could not break?

Yes.

I'm just shocked that the FBI haven't forced paper shredding companies to come up with a method to restore documents to their original unshredded state...

Shredders got scanners built into them, that's why they are so slow...

[Willapp]

Someone's taken a life. A bit different to driving without documentation. Perspective.

You're missing his point which DaveB has already clarified. Once you give a government the means to do something, there isn't a cat in hell's chance that every department isn't going to say "ooh we need access to that data too! You know, for XYZ..."

As much as I sympathize with the authorities about encryption, they don't have any right to expect all citizens to willing give up their own privacy just so that it makes their job easier. I hate criminals (whether terrorists, pedophiles etc) as much as the next person but banning or weakening encryption won't stop their behaviour and I don't think society as a whole should be prepared to sacrifice that freedom for the small benefit it might give in some specific cases.

[bobspud]

I must admit Im also divided on this one as well but one thing I'm sure of is that Apple should not get the information on how to fix the flaws. They dug their heels in wrongly or rightly so no way should the solution to fix it be handed over. They can't have their cake and eat it.

+100

Sounds like you are both under the impression that its a good idea to have multi million node attack vector available to the highest bidder. That hole needs closing NOW regardless of the politics. There is a police/expert known method for attacking and capturing untouched data from ANY phone and the law enforcement agencies have had access to it for ages. This whole thing was rubbish from the start all we will end up with is all three mobile phone platforms being inherently unsafe for inexperienced users.

[NickFitz]

You're missing his point which DaveB has already clarified. Once you give a government the means to do something, there isn't a cat in hell's chance that every department isn't going to say "ooh we need access to that data too! You know, for XYZ..."

As we saw with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which was supposed to grant government extraordinary powers needed to prevent terrorism, and ended up being used by local authorities to investigate such important matters as bins, dog fouling, smoking in public places, and the movement of pigs