Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Broun Hall => Topic started by: Snaggletiger on February 25, 2016, 12:41:27 PM
-
Talked to a guy this morning that was quite concerned about this battle and the long term privacy/security implications if the FBI gets their way. I've read a little on the subject so I know just enough not to be dangerous. My definite lack of electronic/computer/techno-beat knowledge is well documented. Therefore, I'm asking for input from some of you guys that are well versed in downloading videos to facebook.
As I understand it, the FBI wants to force Apple to create a tool that would allow more access to the iPhone. The FBI is claiming it's a one-time request to allow them to unlock the phones used by the San Bernadino terrorists.
That seems to be the basic premise of the argument, but even my technology challenged brain can see some serious privacy issues on the horizon if this happens. I'm not a big conspiracy theorist kind of guy but does anyone think this is a one-time deal? Does anyone think it wouldn't be just a matter of time before this ability to further hack into a phone falls into the wrong hands? If the government can force Apple to make their devices less secure....who is next?
-
From my understanding, the San Bernadino phone has already been unlocked. The feds want the ability to unlock any phone without having to ask Apple. Sure, they will get a warrant first...SURE!
I say they get a warrant and apple unlock it for them on a warrant by warrant basis.
Others say they are waiting on hundreds of phones to be unlocked already and they want to speed the process up. If that is the case, then pass legislation that says, barring a court order, phone carriers have a limited amount of time to unlock the phones until heavy fines set in.
But do not give up the codes.
-
The FBI are idiots. I guess the want to spy all of the time, in real time. Otherwise there is this.
https://www.elcomsoft.com/purchase/purchase.php?product=eift&additional=ELCOM_PROG_PAGE.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X
-
Hell, I got everything off of an iPhone 4 using ubuntu.
-
Hell, I got everything off of an iPhone 4 using ubuntu.
Yeah. Uh move into the 2000s please.
The mew iPhones have a much better encryption package.
-
Yeah. Uh move into the 2000s please.
The mew iPhones have a much better encryption package.
CLEARS THROAT
That was 2010.
-
I will only have an apple product. They won't lose this battle.
-
I think Mark Cuban nails it:
http://blogmaverick.com/2016/02/18/apple-vs-the-fbi-vs-a-suggestion/ (http://blogmaverick.com/2016/02/18/apple-vs-the-fbi-vs-a-suggestion/)
-
The gubermint caused this problem, so they must find a way to six it. Fucking idiotic public sector.
-
CLEARS THROAT
That was 2010.
YOU.....cannot get into a locked iPhone 6 or up. I can promise you that. And you really have no idea what you are talking about here.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-denies-governments-motion-apple-unlock-iphone-narcotics/story?id=37293929
Eat a dick, over reaching assholes.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-denies-governments-motion-apple-unlock-iphone-narcotics/story?id=37293929
Eat a dick, over reaching assholes.
This^^ is where I'm at. Well....not the dick eating part. The other..
-
Judge's statement:
In short, whatever else the AWA's "usages and principles" clause may be intended to accomplish, it cannot be a means for the executive branch to achieve a legislative goal that Congress has considered and rejected.
The government's position also produces a wholly different kind of absurdity: the idea that the First Congress might so thoroughly undermine fundamental principles of the Constitution that many of its members had personally just helped to write or to ratify. Its preferred reading of the law – which allows a court to confer on the executive branch any investigative authority Congress has decided to withhold, so long as it has not affirmatively outlawed it – would transform the AWA from a limited gap-filing statute that ensures the smooth functioning of the judiciary itself into a mechanism for upending the separation of powers by delegating to the judiciary a legislative power bounded only by Congress's superior ability to prohibit or preempt. I conclude that the constitutionality of such an interpretation is so doubtful as to render it impermissible as a matter of statutory construction.
It is also clear that the government has made the considered decision that it is better off securing such crypto-legislative authority from the courts (in proceedings that had always been, at the time it filed the instant Application, shielded from public scrutiny) rather than taking the chance that open legislative debate might produce a result less to its liking. Indeed, on the very same day that the government filed the ex parte Application in this case (as well as a similar application in the Southern District of New York, see DE 27 at 2), it made a public announcement that after months of discussion about the need to update CALEA to provide the kind of authority it seeks here, it would not seek such legislation.
BOOM MOTHAFUCKA!
War Damn Tim Cook.
-
This is a good thing. If you want a device unlocked, get a court order.