Impressed Apple vs the FBI

[Gwadien]

I suspect either they gained access another way or, besides what Scouse may think, the terrorists left easier trails.

But they didn't, they CAN'T.

 

[Embattle]

But they didn't, they CAN'T.

As I stated I suspect there was more traditional methods although I suspect the angle you are trying to reach is that the FBI will use this method once they know it to access more of the same type of iphone etc?

 

[Gwadien]

As I stated I suspect there was more traditional methods although I suspect the angle you are trying to reach is that the FBI will use this method once they know it to access more of the same type of iphone etc?

No, the approach I'm having is that Terrorists make good headlines, if it wasn't a terrorist, the headlines would be 'FBI trying to legally snoop on iPhone users' but it's 'FBI trying to save America from Terrorists whilst Apple are traitors!'

 

[Embattle]

Ah I see well personally I don't care as long as they can prove there is a valid reason which so far the judiciary in the US believes they have, however I realise what you are saying and it plays well to the American psyche of fear which they believe might give them unfettered access in the future.

 

[Gwadien]

Ah I see well personally I don't care as long as they can prove there is a valid reason which so far the judiciary in the US believes they have, however I realise what you are saying and it plays well to the American psyche of fear which they believe might give them unfettered access in the future.

But it's not a fear. It's reality.

 

[Embattle]

Not really anything to do with what I mean.

 

[Tom]

I wonder, if scientists discovered that human memories could be reliably probed for information; would the FBI require that doctors do the probing?

 

[Gwadien]

I wonder, if scientists discovered that human memories could be reliably probed for information; would the FBI require that doctors do the probing?

This is the point I made earlier.

Oh, you had a patient who did X, we want you to break the oath which makes you a completely neutral body in the name of 'national security'

Now we want you to assess all your patients for their political stances and see if they've met the Aliens we found.

 

[Job]

This is what I am trying to say without coming across all tinhat, technology makes it all mute...yes we will be able to read minds and break any encryption, individual rights are fantasy, in the near future the very idea that you might want to hide anything from law enforcement will be deemed as suspicious, imagine how good people who want to destroy our culture will be at attacking us, slippery slopes?
We haven't even got a slope.

 

[Embattle]

I wonder, if scientists discovered that human memories could be reliably probed for information; would the FBI require that doctors do the probing?

Naa they could do it themselves and lobotomise you instead

I think this is the stereotypical response for some who go to the extreme as an example to defend privacy, it is kind of the polar opposite of people like Donald duck trump who almost imply that every Muslim who wants to come to America wants to blow themselves up thus they should allow government organisations unfettered access to everything and everyone....except themselves of course.

It is funny that communication is required to plan terrorist attacks which a lot seem to want to deny the FBI etc access to, in turn who knows perhaps your extreme example becomes a little bit more realistic although without telepathy it wouldn't work well


It is ironic how silly Americans can get under fear, it'll generally include arming themselves to the teeth and results in more of them killing each other than terrorists will ever manage.

 

[Tom]

Well for me, it's as simple as this: I'd rather risk a few hundred people being killed by terrorism than give up my privacy. Governments of all flavours continuously demonstrate they cannot be trusted with our data, so they can keep their hands off it.

 

[Job]

Lol...as long as it was someone else.

 

[Scouse]

in essence a process should exist.

It can't if you want strong encryption that provides security for the masses.

Black and white. Shit security for all and government access to police a tiny proportion of the population, or strong encryption for the masses

 

[Gwadien]

Was my post not tin-hat foilery enough for you Scouse?

 

[Tom]

Lol...as long as it was someone else.

I'm quite happy to risk my safety so I can live in a society not controlled by fear. I'm not like you, reading the Daily Mail and fearing every tiny little change that happens.

 

[Job]

Things are ramping up.

DOJ threatened to seize iOS source code unless Apple complies with court order in FBI case

 

[Bob007]

Apple should give them the source code.


Encrypted.

 

[Job]

All this chest beating from intellectuals, the FBI will simply kick the door in and seize the code.

 

[Scouse]

All this chest beating from intellectuals

Or, 'all these objections to government interference from people better equipped to understand ramifications than Mail readers', eh?

The use of the word 'intellectuals' as an insult makes me wish Hitler had managed to purge the weak and feeble-minded from society.

However, I'm glad the intellectuals were there to mobilise a counter-argument. God knows the average nationalistic twat was full-on ready to gas-and-burn other humans on nothing more intellectually solid than than the rantings of a bigot.

 

[Job]

Well, I would count myself as one of them in many situations, but this is national security, allready been a court order..if Apple try anymore dodging, they will literally seize the entire headquarters.

 

[Ormorof]

Intellectuals as an insult has always puzzled me

 

[caLLous]

 

[Gwadien]

@Job out of interest, what's your limits to the need of national security?

IE, if there was a suicide bomber, and they got the street they were from, and guess what, it's your street - and then the Police came a' knocking and said 'Can we check your phone and your PC please sir? It's in the name of national security' would you accept?

I know it's a bit kinda unrelated to this topic - but this guy wants his phone checking due to 'national security' but if he was a part of a terror cell of sorts, wouldn't he have covered his tracks anyway?

 

[Wij]

@Job out of interest, what's your limits to the need of national security?

IE, if there was a suicide bomber, and they got the street they were from, and guess what, it's your street - and then the Police came a' knocking and said 'Can we check your phone and your PC please sir? It's in the name of national security' would you accept?

I know it's a bit kinda unrelated to this topic - but this guy wants his phone checking due to 'national security' but if he was a part of a terror cell of sorts, wouldn't he have covered his tracks anyway?

"Mr Job. We have no idea why it might help but in the interest of National Security we are going to publish a list of every porn vid you've watched and bikini-shot you've checked out on Facebook. I take it you're cool with that. Peace!"

 

[Job]

If they wanted to they could , my browsing history has no privacy guarantee whatsoever, the isp has it..google have it and me saying no, they would just apply to the courts...your isp is legally bound to keep such records for two years..in reality much longer.

 

[Scouse]

If they wanted to they could , my browsing history has no privacy guarantee whatsoever, the isp has it..google have it and me saying no, they would just apply to the courts...your isp is legally bound to keep such records for two years..in reality much longer.

We're not talking about 'can', we're talking about 'should'.

Plus, you're clearly being disingenuous.

 

[Job]

Well Gwad started it.
My main point through these posts, is privacy is an illusion, we went from no privacy in small hunter gatherer groups to privacy by sheer numbers, now that has been shot down by the capabilities of the internet, so we try encryption , which quite simply attracts attention to itself.
Not unlike hiding behind a screen...'whatya doing in there?'
The security services will not allow the masses to hide from them, it's fundamental.
As I have posted before, when BT's electronic exchanges were first put in, the government security services enforced a built in spying protocol, as soon as you pick up your house phone, the first thing an exchange does is check to see if the government wants to listen to the call.
It's the very first parameter in a long line of code, if it flags up, then the call immediately leaves the normal network and is routed to 'spy' headquarters..no court order, no comebacks.
They can listen in anytime , totally undetectable.

 

[TdC]

Yes, and since you can't tell if this is happening you use encryption. It's like me banging my gf in the kitchen. I draw the blinds so the creepy old man over the road can't see me. I can't tell he's watching because the window is angled slightly and I can't see him due to the reflection. That doesn't mean he's not there, and I'm not letting him have a perv-wank by proxy. Now if I were going to be arrested for drawing my blinds I would find that somewhat odd. If the creepy old geeze called the po-po because he couldn't state for sure that I was banging my gf and not having a terrorist tea party I would find that extremely odd, and if Old Creepy decides to manipulate scared people into taking away my blinds altogether I'll just go bang my gf somewhere else and everybody loses. So there.

 

[Jupitus]

Yes, and since you can't tell if this is happening you use encryption. It's like me banging my gf in the kitchen. I draw the blinds so the creepy old man over the road can't see me. I can't tell he's watching because the window is angled slightly and I can't see him due to the reflection. That doesn't mean he's not there, and I'm not letting him have a perv-wank by proxy. Now if I were going to be arrested for drawing my blinds I would find that somewhat odd. If the creepy old geeze called the po-po because he couldn't state for sure that I was banging my gf and not having a terrorist tea party I would find that extremely odd, and if Old Creepy decides to manipulate scared people into taking away my blinds altogether I'll just go bang my gf somewhere else and everybody loses. So there.

Bit of a shit example though... You??? GF????????

 

[TdC]

You're right. I don't draw my blinds because IM SO ALONE

Spoiler