More Than Half of Americans Think Apple Should Comply With FBI, Finds Pew Survey (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Apple may not have the public's support in its legal fight with the FBI, according to a recently published Pew report. In a survey that reached 1,000 respondents by phone over the weekend, Pew researchers found 51 percent of respondents believed Apple should comply with FBI demands to weaken security measures on an iPhone used in the San Bernardino attacks, in order to further the ongoing investigation. Only 38 percent of respondents agreed with the company's position.

Limiting the sample to respondents who own a smartphone only improved the numbers somewhat, changing them to a 50-41 split in the FBI's favor. Among those who own an iPhone, the numbers are even closer, but still in the FBI's favor 47 to 43 percent.

Comments

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

More than half of Americans are wrong.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Republican 56 to 32 in favor of unlocking
Democrat 55 to 37 in favor of unlocking
Independent 45 to 42 in favor of unlocking

Re:Wrong

[Dutch Gun]

Keep in mind that most people don't understand the nuances of the technology at all. They don't understand that any chink in the encryption armor means their own security is also at risk. As for the social aspects, try to explain to people how this is any different than a warrant allowing the government to unlock a safe. I've listed to some conversations about this on the radio, and those two aspects seem to be the foundation of most of the "Apple should unlock phone" arguments.

One issue I've not heard addressed so much is what the implications of a backdoor would mean for the larger world, and honestly, I wonder if this is part of the reason Apple is fighting so hard against this - they don't want be in a position of having to collaborate. That is, if the US demands the ability to unlock an iPhone, China is sure as hell going to demand the same ability, and I'm going to bet they'll be a lot less discerning about the legalities before asking to do so (not that our government is some shining beacon at this point either, I guess). There are actually some larger human rights issues involved. One could make an argument that it's worth incurring a very tiny risk that we can't unlock a terrorist's phone in order to safeguard the many people who rely on encryption to keep much more oppressive governments from spying on their own citizens.

And don't worry... the liberal socialists are quite ready to give all the power in the world to that very same government that's currently spying on us and regulating us to death - all for our own good, of course. I've never understood that disconnect. The conservatives are just as bad in reverse, claiming to hate big government, but kowtowing to any agency or department involved in law enforcement or defense.

Re:Wrong

[LostMyBeaver]

Consider that 40% of humans on earth probably doesn't even understand the question. For that fact, probably most people lack the ability to understand cause and effect beyond what is clearly spelled out to them at the given time in the given context. As such, their decision making process is limited to "Terrorism bad. Terrorism scary. Stop terrorism."

It's the world's dilemma. How do you give people freedom and give them the rights of humanity to be part of the process of choosing representation? Consider what you end up with as leaders using fair rules. You get Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama. With those kind of choices, we know it's obvious that the current system is failing. The Romans tried an alternative which was to provide weights for voters based on social class. This of course was a less than optimal system because a higher class didn't necessarily mean a smarter person... in fact, it really only meant a wealthier person. So, do we try a system which provides weights to votes based on IQ tests?

Consider this... I've asked this question in rooms full of technical people. I asked how many of them were likely to spend the time on the phone answering questions. The result was an overwhelming "not me". Does this mean that the technical people are giving up their right to be represented because some idiot at Pew report couldn't get anyone but rednecks that can't comprehend the repercussions of such a decision?

Notice, it clearly said telephone calls. What kind of people even talk to these people anymore? What's worse is... do we have an alternative that is better? How would you sample "The American Public"? How would you choose 1000 people throughout America that would represent a sample set? Would you include a physicist from MIT? Would you find a black woman in a trailer home in Alabama? Would you find a 18 year old Jew studying talmud in Omaha? Would you find a 67 year old Imam in a Mosque in Mississippi (is there such a thing?). After you ask them the obvious question, would you explain to them why it's even worth asking the about? Would you explain that this would set a legal precedent that could give the government the power they need to snoop more and more into their own information? Would you ask the again after that? Would you note how their opinions changed when you gave them a new "This is bad... don't do this" feeling? Would you be gaining their opinions or would you be dictating your opinion to them? Would that change whether this represented the Americans as now you've "educated them" and changed their perspective?

The system is completely flawed, but there's no alternative. mass stupidity represents the wide scale human species.We have no way to limit the vast scope of stupid and we can't cure it and we can't leave stupid unrepresented because they do in fact represent the majority.

The problem is... we also can't use the results of some telephone survey to make decisions because it leaves too many other groups unrepresented. Why not ask Pew how many phone calls they had to make to get 1000 responses? That should be enough to disprove the validity of such a report.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[Darinbob]

I'm in Silicon Valley, and almost no one here thinkgs Apple should cave in. But then there are lots more engineers here who think about devices and security.

The polls are probably skewed towards elderly

[dgatwood]

One big problem with Pew studies is how they are conducted. They're often done using random telephone calling, and the people who are most educated on technology issues are also the ones least likely to pick up the phone.

Response rates are only something like 10%, and they're likely to be skewed towards the elderly. Take a look at the Snowden studies, where people over about 40 were highly skewed towards believing the government, whereas people under 40 were highly skewed towards believing Snowden, and you now understand why this poll should be taken with a grain of salt.

FEAR

[jellomizer]

We keep on getting fed media of fear. Rational discourse of events and ideas showing the actual scale of things, just doesn't make money.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[flopsquad]

Absolutely this. Plus, how was the question worded? Because when I hear or read popular accounts of this situation, Apple is being asked to "unlock the phone"... like they've had this magic key the whole time and all they have to do is stop being terrorist-protecting jerks and let the FBI in.

They might get slightly different numbers if they asked instead, "Is it right for Apple to be compelled by the government to create a new, insecure version of its operating system?"

Followed by, "Would your answer change, knowing that the government had a chance to obtain this data on the day of the shooting, but instead changed the password that could've been used to access the data?"

Good thing this isn't a democracy

[blindseer]

A funny thing about a republic is that no one can vote away another person's rights.

Let's say we do live in a true democracy. I get enough people to agree with me on something, like perhaps that people that take welfare should not get to vote. If you don't pay a net income to the government then you cannot have a say on how that money is spent. Then next year I get a smaller group of people to agree with me, only landowners get to vote. Why not? If you don't actually own the land then why should you get to vote?

Now that I've narrowed the field quite a bit I might have to be a bit more careful on picking my allies. I might be able to find a majority of men that think that women should not be able to vote. Perhaps I make this a religious cause. Those that do not pray to the great pasta in the sky should not be allowed to vote. Then I keep redefining who gets to vote year after year until it's just me and my inner circle of friends. We used democracy to become what is effectively a monarchy.

But it doesn't have to be a vote on who gets to vote. It could be a vote on who gets the guns. No guns for you and yours, we'll just leave you to fight off the armed thugs with your fists, feet, and teeth. Perhaps I vote away your healthcare, let you die off from a lack of shots against tetanus, flu, and meningitis.

Or here's an idea, I vote away your right against unwarranted search and seizure. I'm trying to protect you from the evil terrorists in the world. So I go about listening to phone calls, poke around your backyard. If I find a wild marijuana plant then I can assume you're growing the stuff in your basement, then I take your house. Your kid thought it would be "cute" to fashion a bong in art class, obviously you are selling drugs so I take your house. I think you bought too much cold medicine, so I lock you up for five years. I think you bought too much diesel fuel, ammonia, and fertilizer, I don't care if you have 600 acres of farmland, you are obviously making bombs and meth. I take your farm and lock you up.

Oh, wait, maybe we don't live in a republic any more.

A republic means that an individual has rights, in spite of what removal of those rights might mean to the benefit of the whole. If we can vote away the rights of any one person, even if we think that person is evil incarnate, then no one's rights are safe. The FBI lost the ability to snoop on us as it wished through a series of gains in technology and civil rights cases. They want that back. If we believe we live in a democracy, and lose the basis of a republic in our laws, then we'll have the government prop up one bogeyman after another to convince us to vote our rights away.

Those that choose security over liberty will get neither. I think a wise man warned us about this many years ago.