Reply to: Apple and phone privacy etc

[NickFitz]

The cases keep coming - linky

If the kid wanted his photos shared he would have uploaded them to somewhere.

Also, it's an iPhone 6. No reason to suppose the FBI's one cool trick will work on it, given the much more sophisticated hardware security.

[Acme Thunderer]

The FBI have been stupid from the beginning.

They wrongly thought that they would get full public support by winning a court case against a tech company over a terrorist's phone.

They forget loads of Americans don't trust the government and them.

I was trying to be kind to them - an odd concept in General I'll agree

[SueEllen]

The cases keep coming - linky

If the kid wanted his photos shared he would have uploaded them to somewhere.

[SueEllen]

I think the FBI has been a bit stupid here.

The FBI have been stupid from the beginning.

They wrongly thought that they would get full public support by winning a court case against a tech company over a terrorist's phone.

They forget loads of Americans don't trust the government and them.

[Acme Thunderer]

I think the FBI has been a bit stupid here. Apple will now be hunting for a flaw that they didn't know existed before and the bad guys will know not to use the older models.

Why do you think we kept Bletchley Park so secret during and after the war.

[NickFitz]

I wouldn't be surprised if this has been on going for years, it just happens to be newsworthy now.

There's loads of such cases all over the US, which is one of the reasons Apple was standing so firm over the No Writs Act order. The FBI's already agreed to help with one from NY that's been dragging through the courts for ages.

Of course, not all of them will involve older models, so there's no guarantee the FBI/Israeli technique will work on many of them.

[northernladuk]

Well, that didn't take long.

Beeby Linky

Police in Arkansas wish to unlock an iPhone and iPod belonging to two teenagers accused of killing a couple, according to the Associated Press (AP).

A judge agreed to postpone the Arkansas case on 28 March to allow prosecutors to ask the FBI for help.
Hunter Drexler, 18, and Justin Staton, 15, are accused of killing Robert and Patricia Cogdell at their home in Conway, Arkansas last July.

I wouldn't be surprised if this has been on going for years, it just happens to be newsworthy now.

[Pondlife]

Well, that didn't take long.

Beeby Linky

Police in Arkansas wish to unlock an iPhone and iPod belonging to two teenagers accused of killing a couple, according to the Associated Press (AP).

A judge agreed to postpone the Arkansas case on 28 March to allow prosecutors to ask the FBI for help.
Hunter Drexler, 18, and Justin Staton, 15, are accused of killing Robert and Patricia Cogdell at their home in Conway, Arkansas last July.

[LondonManc]

Nope.

I couldn't think of a modern day massacre committed by one person/two people where the bodies were hidden.

Given the moors murders were more serial killings (like the two rippers), then I suppose it is different. I don't think the point of killing sprees is to conceal the victims - it's more shock and awe of the devastation inflicted, be that Columbine, Hungerford, wherever. Hiding the bodies typically indicates that there are more planned.

[SueEllen]

In terms of your second comment, does that relate to your first? If so, I'm guessing you've never been up through Delph or Denshaw to the moors.

Nope.

I couldn't think of a modern day massacre committed by one person/two people where the bodies were hidden.

[LondonManc]

You mean like Ian Brady refusing to tell where he buried all his victims?

If you were in the UK with the amount of cameras, electronic transaction and telecommunications data they would be able to piece things together.

Correct. Very sad and quite an emotive subject for a friend of mine from Grasscroft, the village near Saddleworth.

In terms of your second comment, does that relate to your first? If so, I'm guessing you've never been up through Delph or Denshaw to the moors.

[SueEllen]

Scenario:
I've just gunned down 30 in cold blood. Why would I give a toss about doing time for not telling you what my passcode is given I'm clearly in for a long stretch anyway?

You mean like Ian Brady refusing to tell where he buried all his victims?

If you were in the UK with the amount of cameras, electronic transaction and telecommunications data they would be able to piece things together.

[LondonManc]

If the owner of the phone is still alive then they already have the power to compel them to reveal the password / pin number under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act in the UK and equivalent legislation in the US. Failure to comply carries a prison sentence all on it's own which gives the authorities years to follow up other sources etc. in the knowledge that the person in question isn't going to be going anywhere.

There is no ethical conundrum about accessing the phone. The dead have no rights. This case was about how they intended to go about it, which was to create a means of accessing the data on the phone that could be applied to any phone thereafter, regardless of the status of the owner.

Scenario:
I've just gunned down 30 in cold blood. Why would I give a toss about doing time for not telling you what my passcode is given I'm clearly in for a long stretch anyway?

[Chuck]

This is brilliant for Apple. Both sides have got what they want without resorting to the courts. Apple can also tell their legacy users to upgrade to iPhone 6 (or whatever) for security that can't be hacked (yet).

[DaveB]

I remember the Birmingham Six case very well. Paddy Hill's stories of it were fascinating. The case in hand seems a bit more sound to be fair

In terms of the actual ethics of unlocking a perpetrator's phone; for me it should be on a case by case basis to go before a judge to discuss the reasons to or no to "violate" their privacy rather than the heavy-handed give us a skeleton key approach adopted by the Feds. The whole situation has been handled badly from the start.

If the owner of the phone is still alive then they already have the power to compel them to reveal the password / pin number under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act in the UK and equivalent legislation in the US. Failure to comply carries a prison sentence all on it's own which gives the authorities years to follow up other sources etc. in the knowledge that the person in question isn't going to be going anywhere.

There is no ethical conundrum about accessing the phone. The dead have no rights. This case was about how they intended to go about it, which was to create a means of accessing the data on the phone that could be applied to any phone thereafter, regardless of the status of the owner.