Good thing the Constitution & the law aren't a 'popularity contest'...I don't CARE what 'the public thinks'...the question is one of 'legal rights'...society can't be beholden to the '50% below the curve'..
Correct, which is why we must support whatever judgement that the court makes (are you willing to commit to that - or do the rules change again when it doesn't go your way?)
Interesting comment. I'm not American so take this with a grain of salt. But what stick do you use to measure train wreckedness?
This little graphic seem to indicate it hasn't been as wrecky as you believe? https://rationalopinionsblog.f...
So strange. I even pointed out that this is forcing a company to do something on behalf of the government.
And the govt represents the people. So in essence, the Justice system is to determine if a private company should be forced to help The People determine justice in a high profile murder case.
I see no problem here, once you take the tin foil hat speak out of the equation.
Perhaps the question should be reworded to "Should the FBI be able to force Apple to rewrite their systems so that an Apple phone will unzip your pants to see if you have a penis or not?" Because at this point there is no evidence (that I've heard) that there is anything pertinent on the phone.
Stupid analogy.
1. The NSA actions were warrant-less, the FBI have gone to the court for a warrant.
2. There's no evidence on the phone because at this point they can't fucking read it! That is precisely what we're trying to figure out (and Metadata backs up that there is likely to be useful info there)
I like John Oliver, but it pains me to see how many clueless idiots regurgitate his stuff without really understanding the context of his jibes.
What the government is asking is that Apple divert its private resources away from Apple's priorities in order to develop a product for the government
Just like if you were a witness to a crime you'd have to turn up at court to give a testimony? Or if you get selected for Jury service you have to take time off work?
Oh boohoo, justice comes at a cost, and sometimes we have to give a little once in a while to get something back.
This is the stupidest argument I heard so far...
However, once that altered firmware gets on that particular iPhone, the FBI has that firmware permanently and can re-use it at a later date on some other iPhone.
Wrong.
The request is for one firmware, for one device, which Apple can sign (you know, using encryption) so that it can't be used on any other device.
Take off the tinfoil hats, the very technology everyone is defending here can be used to ensure it is used only once (as per court order).
This is why I have no problem with it.
Apple may not be able to unlock this phone, but as was said in another article on/., Apple CAN update iOS on the device without user interaction.
The back door is ALREADY THERE.
The FBI is just calling Apple out on that fact and asking for a change in the code from "if attempts > 10 then wipe" to "if attempts != attempts then wipe". the FBI will do the unlocking from there.
Firstly capitalising your test is equivalent to screaming a the top of your voice and screaming at people is not polite so stop screaming
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.
And nothing about geopolitical security or how to actually run a functioning democracy...
I find it odd. I don't know anyone who thinks Apple should help the government. I realize this is the definition of anecdote... but still, this seems odd.
Well here I am, so feel free to ask questions.
From what I've read, I have no problem with Apple complying with the government's actual request. But what you'll find on this topic is 99.9% strawmen and hyperbole about things the FBI hasn't asked for, and who cares about logic and reason, when hating on the FBI and proposing imaginary end-of-world scenarios feels better right?
The elephant in the room that no one addresses in this argument is, after the killers have killed and been killed, why does the FBI need access to this one iPhone so bad?
This has been addressed. You might have been asleep when it was discussed numerous times.
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.
What security?
At some point security is about trust. If you know maths and cryptography, you trust it. But some who doesn't, can't be expected to.
A lot of people do actually trust the government. They trust that conceptually, the govt is there to provide security via the Police, courts and if really necessary the military (and it does actually do this. The only reason you are alive right now is that the government prevents the psychos and gangsters from enslaving and murdering everyone).
Also, for Joe Average, your choice is between the courts asking for access to the murderers phone, or a multi-national with a history of avoiding tax now also not helping solve a terrorism case.
Not all problems are mathematical, and I think the people are entitled to choose who they trust the most (or least).
Also bear in mind that most people happily share the entire contents of their phones on Facebook, so you idea of security is a lot different from theirs.
But it's the Democrats who target the irrational crowd.
Rubbish. Rationality means facts based on reason. The Republicans are by far the worst at "because I said so".
They are the ones who try to get all the "desperate" vote (poor, traditionally disadvantaged, etc.) The Democrats are the one who try to capitalize on the emotional response.
I didn't realise that being poor or disadvantaged was irrational...
The musical parts of that song were courtesy of Jamie Foxx and Ray Charles.
Ok I'm going to argue this, just because I hear it so many times and it's wrong.
A sample might contribute to the song, but there is still many other original elements still there that qualify as "musical parts". A beat is music, timing is music, arrangement is music, production is music, and even if you don't like it, rapping is still music too.
You know there was a time not long along when some people tried to claim that The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath etc weren't music either (my old music teacher being one of them).
Don't be that guy...
Are you really that clueless or do you live under a rug?
I asked for a citation. If it's easier for your to insult anyone who questions you than actually provide a reference then it's usually a strong sign that you're full of shit.
This was in the news repeatedly over the last two years AND on the john oliver show.
I don't recall any cases of a specific court order that requested a specific action, which then got used out of the original scope of the request after actually specifying in writing to the court that it is only being applied for in this one case.
I'm not going to waste my time citing something that should be that widely known- educate your self.
Google stingray-- read how it was abused, how often, and by how many departments.
Maybe it's widely known, or maybe it's widely misunderstood? the easiest way to check would be some references.
I know about Stingray but failing to see any connection here. Maybe you could clarify since you claim to know all about it?
Google civil forfeiture-- read how it was abused, how often, and by how many departments.
I know about Civil Forfeiture but failing to see any connection here. Maybe you could clarify since you claim to know all about it?
Google FBI,abuse,communist- for bonus points, FBI, martin luther king.
It's typical. You can't be that clueless.
No, but you are clearly grasping at straws now. Why don't you throw in fake moon landings too?
None of those things have any relevance to the specific court order applied for here: https://assets.documentcloud.o...
Did you actually read that, or is the extent of your analysis, govt is bad mmkay?
How about appreciation for lyrics that actually require interpretation?
Well go find someone who shares your interest and discuss with them. You replied to someone has already said they don't share your tastes, and you're trying to convince them they are wrong.
You sound like a shallow, bland shit that would be incapable of having an originally artistic opinion on anything...
Yeah, yeah whatever... and I suck too right? Man I miss high school....
These shooters did not have the backing of a foreign military.
If you read the thread, I was replying to a specific comment about "All terrorists are just asshat nutcases. They are only criminals..."
This statement and the logic that supports it is blatantly false.
As for this specific case, which neither the GP or I referred to, but will now, there is evidence that suggests this couple were under the influence of external third parties. To dismiss some connection at this stage without waiting for a full investigation seems a bit short sighted.
The criminal justice system however *is* set up to be able to handle spying by foreign agents
There is a big difference between a cop telling you not to speed, and cop or court telling you MUST speed.
No there isn't. And even if there were, cops will also tell you to hurry up if you are going too slow on a major road.
The govt telling you to do stuff can serve a valid purpose sometimes. Whether or not this is one of those times is up to the courts, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the response rate to: "Should Apple give the FBI a key to unlock all iPhones?"
That isn't what the FBI have asked for.
Add yourself to group below the line.
Good thing the Constitution & the law aren't a 'popularity contest'...I don't CARE what 'the public thinks'...the question is one of 'legal rights'...society can't be beholden to the '50% below the curve'..
Correct, which is why we must support whatever judgement that the court makes (are you willing to commit to that - or do the rules change again when it doesn't go your way?)
This is year 7 of the Obama train wreck
Interesting comment. I'm not American so take this with a grain of salt. But what stick do you use to measure train wreckedness?
This little graphic seem to indicate it hasn't been as wrecky as you believe?
https://rationalopinionsblog.f...
You have to admit, the last guy was a lot worse.
So strange. I even pointed out that this is forcing a company to do something on behalf of the government.
And the govt represents the people. So in essence, the Justice system is to determine if a private company should be forced to help The People determine justice in a high profile murder case.
I see no problem here, once you take the tin foil hat speak out of the equation.
Perhaps the question should be reworded to "Should the FBI be able to force Apple to rewrite their systems so that an Apple phone will unzip your pants to see if you have a penis or not?" Because at this point there is no evidence (that I've heard) that there is anything pertinent on the phone.
Stupid analogy.
1. The NSA actions were warrant-less, the FBI have gone to the court for a warrant.
2. There's no evidence on the phone because at this point they can't fucking read it! That is precisely what we're trying to figure out (and Metadata backs up that there is likely to be useful info there)
I like John Oliver, but it pains me to see how many clueless idiots regurgitate his stuff without really understanding the context of his jibes.
Rather than 500 group-think Slashdot users who all wear tin foil hats?
What the government is asking is that Apple divert its private resources away from Apple's priorities in order to develop a product for the government
Just like if you were a witness to a crime you'd have to turn up at court to give a testimony? Or if you get selected for Jury service you have to take time off work?
Oh boohoo, justice comes at a cost, and sometimes we have to give a little once in a while to get something back.
This is the stupidest argument I heard so far...
However, once that altered firmware gets on that particular iPhone, the FBI has that firmware permanently and can re-use it at a later date on some other iPhone.
Wrong.
The request is for one firmware, for one device, which Apple can sign (you know, using encryption) so that it can't be used on any other device.
Take off the tinfoil hats, the very technology everyone is defending here can be used to ensure it is used only once (as per court order).
This is why I have no problem with it.
Apple may not be able to unlock this phone, but as was said in another article on /., Apple CAN update iOS on the device without user interaction.
The back door is ALREADY THERE.
The FBI is just calling Apple out on that fact and asking for a change in the code from "if attempts > 10 then wipe" to "if attempts != attempts then wipe". the FBI will do the unlocking from there.
Firstly capitalising your test is equivalent to screaming a the top of your voice and screaming at people is not polite so stop screaming
1999 called, they want their meme back...
But if you can get the cats and the dogs to talk to each other and come to a mutual understanding? Then you've got something.
But what if they can't talk because everything they say is encrypted?
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.
And nothing about geopolitical security or how to actually run a functioning democracy...
I find it odd. I don't know anyone who thinks Apple should help the government. I realize this is the definition of anecdote ... but still, this seems odd.
Well here I am, so feel free to ask questions.
From what I've read, I have no problem with Apple complying with the government's actual request. But what you'll find on this topic is 99.9% strawmen and hyperbole about things the FBI hasn't asked for, and who cares about logic and reason, when hating on the FBI and proposing imaginary end-of-world scenarios feels better right?
The elephant in the room that no one addresses in this argument is, after the killers have killed and been killed, why does the FBI need access to this one iPhone so bad?
This has been addressed. You might have been asleep when it was discussed numerous times.
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.
What security?
At some point security is about trust. If you know maths and cryptography, you trust it. But some who doesn't, can't be expected to.
A lot of people do actually trust the government. They trust that conceptually, the govt is there to provide security via the Police, courts and if really necessary the military (and it does actually do this. The only reason you are alive right now is that the government prevents the psychos and gangsters from enslaving and murdering everyone).
Also, for Joe Average, your choice is between the courts asking for access to the murderers phone, or a multi-national with a history of avoiding tax now also not helping solve a terrorism case.
Not all problems are mathematical, and I think the people are entitled to choose who they trust the most (or least).
Also bear in mind that most people happily share the entire contents of their phones on Facebook, so you idea of security is a lot different from theirs.
Mixing it up only gets Trump 30% of the Republican vote. Not exactly a winning number.
Only 25% of the eligible voters voted for Bush. That seems to winning enough.
But it's the Democrats who target the irrational crowd.
Rubbish. Rationality means facts based on reason. The Republicans are by far the worst at "because I said so".
They are the ones who try to get all the "desperate" vote (poor, traditionally disadvantaged, etc.) The Democrats are the one who try to capitalize on the emotional response.
I didn't realise that being poor or disadvantaged was irrational...
The musical parts of that song were courtesy of Jamie Foxx and Ray Charles.
Ok I'm going to argue this, just because I hear it so many times and it's wrong.
A sample might contribute to the song, but there is still many other original elements still there that qualify as "musical parts". A beat is music, timing is music, arrangement is music, production is music, and even if you don't like it, rapping is still music too.
You know there was a time not long along when some people tried to claim that The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath etc weren't music either (my old music teacher being one of them).
Don't be that guy...
Cops work for the entity which owns public roads -- the government.
Govt owns the country in which Apple is based. I don't get where you're going with this?
Are you really that clueless or do you live under a rug?
I asked for a citation. If it's easier for your to insult anyone who questions you than actually provide a reference then it's usually a strong sign that you're full of shit.
This was in the news repeatedly over the last two years AND on the john oliver show.
I don't recall any cases of a specific court order that requested a specific action, which then got used out of the original scope of the request after actually specifying in writing to the court that it is only being applied for in this one case.
I'm not going to waste my time citing something that should be that widely known- educate your self.
Google stingray-- read how it was abused, how often, and by how many departments.
Maybe it's widely known, or maybe it's widely misunderstood? the easiest way to check would be some references.
I know about Stingray but failing to see any connection here. Maybe you could clarify since you claim to know all about it?
Google civil forfeiture-- read how it was abused, how often, and by how many departments.
I know about Civil Forfeiture but failing to see any connection here. Maybe you could clarify since you claim to know all about it?
Google FBI,abuse,communist- for bonus points, FBI, martin luther king.
It's typical. You can't be that clueless.
No, but you are clearly grasping at straws now. Why don't you throw in fake moon landings too?
None of those things have any relevance to the specific court order applied for here: https://assets.documentcloud.o...
Did you actually read that, or is the extent of your analysis, govt is bad mmkay?
How about appreciation for lyrics that actually require interpretation? Well go find someone who shares your interest and discuss with them. You replied to someone has already said they don't share your tastes, and you're trying to convince them they are wrong.
You sound like a shallow, bland shit that would be incapable of having an originally artistic opinion on anything...
Yeah, yeah whatever... and I suck too right? Man I miss high school....
These shooters did not have the backing of a foreign military.
If you read the thread, I was replying to a specific comment about "All terrorists are just asshat nutcases. They are only criminals..."
This statement and the logic that supports it is blatantly false.
As for this specific case, which neither the GP or I referred to, but will now, there is evidence that suggests this couple were under the influence of external third parties. To dismiss some connection at this stage without waiting for a full investigation seems a bit short sighted.
The criminal justice system however *is* set up to be able to handle spying by foreign agents
Unless they use encryption, then they aren't...
They are right. It's very typical behavior by the u.s. government and really all governments.
Citation? If it's "typical", you'll be able to provide plenty of previous examples?
I won't hold my breath...
Yeah, yeah whatever. Conspiracy this, conspiracy that, your words mean nothing...
Wow - way off to the land of Oz! No army here, just a couple of murderers in California - please try to make it back to the topic Toto.
Er that was the topic that I replied to thanks toolbag...
There is a big difference between a cop telling you not to speed, and cop or court telling you MUST speed.
No there isn't. And even if there were, cops will also tell you to hurry up if you are going too slow on a major road. The govt telling you to do stuff can serve a valid purpose sometimes. Whether or not this is one of those times is up to the courts, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.