Slashdot Mirror
Carole Adams, Mom Who Lost Son In San Bernardino Shooting, Sides With Apple (washingtontimes.com)
HughPickens.com writes: The Washington Times reports that Carole Adams, the mother of Robert Adams -- a 40-year-old environmental health specialist who was shot dead in the San Bernardino, Calif., massacre by Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife in December -- is siding with Apple in its battle to protect consumer's privacy rights. Adams says she stands by Apple's decision to fight a federal court order to create software that would allow federal authorities to access the shooter's password-blocked iPhone. She understands the FBI's need to search Farook's phone, but says it has to be done without putting others at risk. "This is what separates us from communism, isn't it? The fact we have the right to privacy," she told the New York Post. "I think Apple is definitely within their rights to protect the privacy of all Americans. This is what makes America great to begin with, that we abide by a Constitution that gives us the right of privacy, the right to bear arms, and the right to vote."
"This is what separates us from communism, isn't it?"
Umm, no.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
but privacy and voting not so much.
When you find yourself on the same side as one of their kind, you should question your position.
...as1) even as a capitalist I acknowledge that the Soviet bloc wasn't Communist; 2) the US is already way more intrusive than even the Stasi could have dreamed of... ...but that said, hoorah for Carole Adams! She GETS it. If you give the government free reign over the people, rather than the other way round - and the government uses "terror!" as justification - then the terrorists are getting exactly what they wanted.
I.e. to side with Apple is to carry on with the free lifestyle that makes America a less-than-despotic place to live; to side with the government is to kowtow to terror AND to encourage more of it, as terrorists will be strengthened by the knowledge that it works.
In the world of Facebook, who has privacy anymore?
The fact we have the right to privacy,
I seriously doubt that .
Since this is an Apple device any software loaded onto it should have been downloaded from the Apple app store using the shooters Apple account. I'd like to know specifically which apps were downloaded onto this device that supposedly contain data of value to this investigation. Until the government comes forward with that information the request to create an OS image that allows brute force cracking of the lockscreen code seems unreasonable.
Where does she stand on gun laws. #hidingTheRealProblem
You always become what you hate.
It's a curious thing, but the U.S. Constitution is rather vague about a "right to privacy." There is no explicit right to privacy to be found anywhere in the Constitution or amendments. However, there's a long judicial history of interpretations and precedents that, in aggregate, creates something like a right to privacy. But, again, it is an implied right, not an explicit right, which is partly why we found ourselves in the present situation. A fun way to get a bunch of first-year law students in a twist is to propose a privacy amendment for the Constitution, then have them argue about what it actually means.
Would it make much difference? Could the things that Snowden revealed have taken place if an explicit privacy amendment had existed? (Many here would argue that the 4th amendment ought to have prevented it, so what good would another amendment do?) Would the FBI have much of an argument against Apple if such an amendment existed? Could Google do what it does and not run afoul of violating citizens' privacy rights, a la the "right to be forgotten" rulings in Europe? Could Roe v. Wade, which hinged heavily on an implied right to privacy, ever be overturned?
CA and NY have proposed legislation to require that phones have law enforcement backdoors to encryption turned on by default. FBI director James Comey has testified before Congress saying they need the ability to read encrypted communications over services like iMessage. I don't think the FBI is picking this fight because they need information about the San Bernardino shooter. They're making a scene because they want backdoors to all encryption. While they may not be able to see the contents of messages sent by the shooter, the can see the metadata and know who he was in touch with. They can see who the other shooter was in touch with, too. It's probably reasonable if there's any suspicion about any of their contacts to grant a search warrant. That might reveal some of the contents of the messages. I suspect the FBI can answer a lot of their questions through other means. I just don't think they're making this fuss because they care so much about this one shooting. I suspect this is done to push their agenda of getting backdoors in all encryption. I shouldn't have to explain to this audience why that's an awful idea.
I know it's extremely unlikely you'll ever see this, but - thank you.
It's easy for those of us who haven't experienced a loss like this to weigh in with our opinions. In all honesty, I think these sorts of subjects are best discussed dispassionately, as much as possible. But, having said that, it takes a lot of character and wisdom to see what's important and to stand for your principles in a matter that has impacted you in such a horrible, tragic way.
Thank you.
#DeleteChrome
implied argument that underlie this story, that one of the victims or victim's family has a morally superior right/claim over others(which includes both other victims or possible future direct or indirect victims) on the choice of legal process and procedure, is simply wrong.
btw just to be clear, i support apple's stance on this issue on principle.
Of course the primary separation between our capitalist society and a communist society is who owns the means of production.
But, historically, communism has been associated with an extremely intrusive government that monitors its citizens tightly, and affords them little-to-no privacy. America patted itself on the back for a very long time for being a free country, conflating the freedom to maintain a bit of privacy with the freedom to own the means of production.
So, there is a sense in which she is right....this is one thing that separates us from many communistic governments, in addition to the means-of-production bit.
Sadly, our government has been hard at work trying to eliminate these differences between our country and a communist one.
If you know and have talked with people that lived in the USSR in it's heyday, you know that she's right. People didn't have privacy in that society. When the concept of private property went out of style, so to did the concept of personal privacy - not just privacy from the government, but from others as well.
I think Apple is definitely within their rights to protect the privacy of all Americans.
We're now in a world where a for-profit corporation (two, if you count Google) is directly battling the US Government to protect human rights. I'm don't know if there's even a term to describe this political/societal situation.
I don't get it. Granted all the feds was asking is to make sure the auto-wipe feature is disabled so they can do a brute force attack. However, if US gov can order the companies to modify software so security is broken, why should anyone trust the company's software? I remember the congress declaring Hauwei a security risk because of the ties to the Chinese gov. This means the gears they produce such as routers is a security risk since the Chinese gov can order Hauwi to break security. http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/feature/The-Huawei-security-risk-Factors-to-consider-before-buying-Chinese-IT
So if US gov start to pull this kind of crap what makes other countries won't declare US electronic gears a security risk? This is why I don't get why the US gov is hostile to US based tech businesses and is willing to damage US companies on an international scale. This is now beyond Apple, the entire tech sector that deals with security is now at risk.
She never had the power of attorney over the person who died, she can't speak for them even if their wishes were relevant, which they are not.
It is a matter of what legal rights Apple has to refuse to cooperate, that would be a question to put to an expert in constitutional law.
What is it with the media that make them think that having some connection to a victim of crime somehow makes you an expert at anything other than how the event impacted on you and how you feel about it?
Everyone here appreciates your standing up for America's right to privacy and safety. Even the ones who nitpick about your using "communism" as a synonym for "authoritarian".
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
...saying - she's correct.
That IS what made America a great country. That we weren't such cowards that we traded liberty for a false sense of security.
Loading...
History has taught us that communism leads to poverty and Orwellian government control. The former is a consequence of removing the incentive for innovation & hard work, the latter is necessary to enforce a planned economy and to prevent an uprising once the population notices that the grass sure looks greener on the capitalist side of the fence.
Can you provide a list of these, please?
Maybe this woman understands how authoritarianism is an inevitable consequence of communism.
Apparently the government has asked Apple to undertake a very exhaustive and expensive effort to develop new software to enable breaking the encryption. In essence, the government wants this done gratis and the programmers would be paid by Apple and not the government. It might also mean hiring some very special engineers and perhaps mathematicians to do this work. Since when can the US government point a finger and demand work? It does strike me as being fascist. Further Apple would lose a great deal of business with people in other nations as they really don't want their phones wide open to US spy agencies.
IF you guys in the USA want the government 100% access to your gadgets, passwords, bank accounts and all other accounts and family settlements then why not set up some sort of constitutional amendment? HOW EASY WOULD THAT BE?
Of course you could continue as the USA and GB are doing and get the data anyway by hook or crook and fudge.
A tipping moment for you guys. Obviously going to the Supreme Court. (Watching with cynical interest.)
No, no, the red peril is the best part of this! It was perfect.
Nothing undermines the government better than associating their behavior with that of totalitarian communism. It's so perfect because the irony is like kryptonite -- the security state always uses protecting freedom and the American way as their justification and mission, they can't possibly doing something in contradiction to their mission, can they?
It's like the Star Trek episode with Nomad, where their give it an illogical problem to solve and it self destructs.
This woman is either a idiot savant, or she's a political genius who should have run for office, because it's a transcendent response that manages to be both right (America's freedom IS what is/was made it great) and manages to smear the government in a way that appears to be a factual assessment, not a smear.
Who gives a FUCK who she sides with?
I'll side with the constitution, thankyouverymuch.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!"
It was the availibility of grounds due to the local having the greatest dying off the continent (thought to have died by 70-90% due to an epidemy shortly before the settlers arrived), the fact that the continent was already semi tame, the fact a great deal of raw resource were discovered there, the fact it was semi isolated from the rest of the world. All combined led the US to become a powerhouse that it is now. Now on the consitutional level, the US is a good country, but so are many of the countries which have privacy and freedom of opinion laws (one can argue to the end whether freedom of speech or freedom of opinion with some limitation make any difference, but it is a detail which does not seem to stop western europe citizen to be happy and feel free, sometimes more free than their US counterpart - heck we can even have gun even if they are not sold as freely as candy). Basically on the freedom level arguably the US is as good as many other countries. The only reason it feel so "great" is only because due to the combination of local and historical ground, the US was nigh not exploited and thus gave a LOT of opportunities to the american, opportunities which were not open to the rest of the world world, if only by the virtue of being older.
...and he'll open your door.
Of course, this is different in that Apple doesn't have a key themselves.
The only sort of backdoor I'd allow would be one that requires a complete tear-down of the phone. That's the equivalent of busting down a door.
What's amazing to me is when the government tries to pass policy "in the name of" victims who they use to create a propaganda framework for the policy... who then resist and speak up against the proposed policy...
The classic examples of bogus narratives for propaganda include Pat Tillman and his family as well as Jessica Lynch. The military tried to use both to help bolster support for the war. In both cases, there was resistance from the very people being "used" for that purpose, and it turns out that these people were more patriotic, strong, heroic, and complex than their "handlers" expected.
Can anyone think of other examples of this propaganda-backfires phenomenon?
So now Govern.org taking bait of deceased child's mother and family. Very bad move
WTF, are all the privacy nuts really this stupid?
Attorney: Unlikely Malik could 'carry a weapon or wear some type of a vest or do any of this' ref
I disagree entirely with the cynical 'marketing' viewpoint. Apple's CEO spent decades keeping his sexual preferences and personal life private. I think he understands the value of privacy far better than the average person.
It's a shame that the DOJ is asking specifically for Apple to create something that, once created, could be used to attack the innocent. Had they made a less specific request, there might not be this problem. Yesterday, I posted a submission (http://slashdot.org/submission/5584621/how-apple-can-strike-a-balance-between-the-needs-of-the-doj-and-its-customers) suggesting that maybe we can help them come up a technological solution that balances everyone's needs. If you care about privacy, please take a second to click the link and vote up the submission so that more people will see it, on the off chance that the idea will make its way to the right person and actually allow them to resolve this conflict.
The presumption is that apple can update the OS running in the phone in a way that it circumvents the cryptography in the phone, i.e. disables the HW mechanism securing the key storage.
There are several options:
a) the keystore mechanisms (which i would have supposed to be on a lower level) ignores such a change.
a1) the keystore mechanism accepts "signed binaries" as OS (like TPM does), which makes the request to apple less a "make changes to the OS" but more a "sign off the changes for us"
b) it does not ignore it - and deletes the key. (This could be done if everything is really happening inside the SoC and runs on an independent machine/microcontroller, very much like the HW token on you bank chip card).
If a) is true (and i suppose it is, since otherwise Apple could openly state that just replacing the OS is impossible), then the mechanism of deleting the key store after a given amount of attempts is completely worthless against state-level actors (Which is my Hypothesis all along) - FBI is not a state-level actor since they are pretty much tied up by laws. Which makes this case just a case of marketing (in both directions!)
If a1) is true, it's more interesting. Signing a code as "non-malicious" and "conforming to the description of the device" is less a technical service, but has more implications. It's not about "i help you to find the position in the binary to set the limit to 1 billion attempts" but it's more the "i sign that devices accepting this binary will follow the specifications i promised, even though i know that this is not true". And as apple said, would such a signed version get out in the wild (and it would, since lawyers of possible defendants who phone with the owner of the phone could request access to it to verify that it does what it says), all iphones in the world are open to manipulation.
The real point (and that is the same as with TPM/UEFI boot): would you give the power to sign off/approve changes to his device completely to the user, then you would never run into this problem.
The discussion right now is about a company who love to control everything on their devices - and doesnt even think about giving this choice to the user - but now is not willing to accept the consequences).
The problem arises from a totalitarian society, which can exist at both extremes, whether is is left or right. We saw this in the USSR, but we also saw this with Hitler's Germany. In certain way we are seeing elements of this in the current UK system, which while not being far right has an extrodinary amount of monitoring.
Getting the balance of freedom and checking for dangerous societal elements is hard, but important if we aren't to slip into constant oversight and control.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
And doesn't want them to decrypt her phone either.
Make the Feds eat their own dog food: anytime a phone is within DC or owner has a .gov email address turn on the mic dor all to hear. Maybe then they would understand why customers need privacy. Go Tim Cook and Apple!!
Can someone explain to me why this is an issue at all? The FBI is not asking Apple to create a backdoor to encryption, they want a firmware update for this specific phone to bypass the pin lockout/self-destruct features. They have asked Apple to tailor it to this specific device, if the FBI were to try and change the code to use it on other phones it would effectively break Apples digital signature and be useless on other devices (or so I've heard).
"San Bernardino jihadi Syed Rizwan Farook inspected more than 40 elementary schools, junior high schools, and high schools in his job as a county health inspector, records show." ref
She had my sympathy for the loss of her child. She now has my admiration and respect for speaking out to protect the rights of everyone's children.
If the US government wins this fight, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll be making "drop your pants and grab your ankles" access to peoples' devices into law across every nation in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership.
To say the implications are unsettling would be a gross understatement.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
every technology can eventually be cracked the fact that apple doesn't want its clueless buyers to understand this is foolish. They think if you are someone who commits crime or is a pervert then that secret will be yours and no one elses. if you buy an apple phone. the fact is thats just not true. From my understanding what has to happen is someone has to sideload a hacked os on to this phone that has been authenticated.. not the most impossible thing in the world to do but when you are talking about data that could lead back to contacts with ISIS Leaders both in syria and outside of syria then this has to be done perfectly or you can screw it up bad... and there won't be a second try. Apple has admitted they have the ability to do this.. its not the end of the world if they didn't do this.. but heres the thing .. when is it more of a benefit to keep your porn safe vs catch criminals? It could be a single murder victim or a rapist or in this case the possibility of a ISIS terror cell in the USA that needs to be stopped. The Judge makes that decision. There should be times when Apple unlocks phones and that should be when a court order is requiring them to do that.. what if your loved one snaps a pic of their murderer and you can't get in to find out who..
I work in IT, nevertheless NONE of my colleagues knew all the not so unimportant details of WTF FBI has actualy asked Apple to do, so here it is, just in case you also missed it:
FBI asked Apple to provide update that would:
1) Prevent the phone from erasing itself.
2) Allow to automate the process for trying out passcode combinations.
3) and without unnecessary delay.
4) and last, but not least: Control the process, but not know how it's done.
Source (BBC)
Now, pay attention to point 4.
FBI is fine with all that happening at Apple's HQ.
Where the FUCK did the "privacy concerns" come from, please? Would Apple itself leak that update? If so, couldn't they also somehow leak private key used to sign firmware updates?
1. Apple's reason for not breaking the phone is that the cops already would have access to it if they had not reset the lock code.
2. Apple is lying to us saying it is about privacy, when that has nothing to do with it.
3. This mom doesn't realize #1 and #2, so please disregard her comments.
As a former CALEA programmer, I remember that since 1996,all phone manufacturers have been required to allow this kind of of phone hacking.
Today, Apple and the FBI are playing a game to make the idiot criminals think iPhones can not be hacked by the Feds. LOL!
Bullshit. Jonathan Gruber, widely recognized as a main "architect" of Obamacare, said the American public would NOT support the plan if they any clue about what it really was. Just saying. It's been, putting it *very* mildly. Me? A poor homeless fucker (with food stamps and bandwidth)? Fuck all you SJW's who act all high and mighty and sanctimoniously "compassionate." You don't really care any more about me than Hillary Cankles Clinton. Yet you try to portray the "average" conservative as evil and ignorant. "THEY" vote "Republican." Yeah? And you fucking libtards vote "Democratic." Stupid. Really stupid. All of you Red/Blue-voting ignoramuses. Big Brother doesn't care. Hope you enjoy your Soylent ... uh, purple.
You're gonna get the government you deserveâ"all the while pointing your hypocritical finger at the *other* party.
-- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
Bullshit. Jonathan Gruber, widely recognized as a main "architect" of Obamacare, said the American public would NOT support the plan if they any clue about what it really was. Just saying. It's been (putting it *very* mildly) spectacularly unsuccessful. Typically wasteful and inefficient. Woefully so. Me? A poor homeless fucker (with food stamps and bandwidth)? Fuck all you SJW's who act all high and mighty and sanctimoniously "compassionate." You don't really care any more about me than Hillary Cankles Clinton. Yet you try to portray the "average" conservative as evil and ignorant. "THEY" vote "Republican." Yeah? And you fucking libtards vote "Democratic." Stupid. Really stupid. All of you Red/Blue-voting ignoramuses. Big Brother doesn't care. Hope you enjoy your Soylent ... uh, purple.
You're gonna get the government you deserveâ"all the while pointing your hypocritical finger at the *other* party.
-- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy