Security or Privacy?
-
Which do you prefer? In the latest installment of security versus privacy, the US government has apparently asked apple to allow 'back door' entry to the content on any iPhone (or apple device), in the name of security.
How do you feel about this?
On the one hand, I'm quite concerned about my privacy, don't like the idea of people reading my personal messages - it doesn't bother me either way that it's the government. On the other, when you hear things like 'the assailants had apparently coordinated the attack over whatsapp' (or your IM of choice), I think "well surely we could have intercepted that and found it out?"
So personally, I'm conflicted on the issue. Is it cut and dry for anyone here in either direction, and if so, why?
Which do you prefer? In the latest installment of security versus privacy, the US government has apparently asked apple to allow 'back door' entry to the content on any iPhone (or apple device), in the name of security.
How do you feel about this?
On the one hand, I'm quite concerned about my privacy, don't like the idea of people reading my personal messages - it doesn't bother me either way that it's the government. On the other, when you hear things like 'the assailants had apparently coordinated the attack over whatsapp' (or your IM of choice), I think "well surely we could have intercepted that and found it out?"
So personally, I'm conflicted on the issue. Is it cut and dry for anyone here in either direction, and if so, why?
Actually I think a Federal Judge ordered it. They are going to fight the order. And fuck Apple.
-
Privacy
If you have a warrant sure, take my computer or obtain files from services I use like facebook or whatever.
I oppose policing the internet for the most part.
Myself also. But how about things like phone calls and text messages?
And, assuming the government needs to obtain a warrant, should they be obliged to inform you that they've obtained said warrant?
Myself also. But how about things like phone calls and text messages?
And, assuming the government needs to obtain a warrant, should they be obliged to inform you that they've obtained said warrant?
I'd like all of my conversations to be private - no matter my method of conversation.
Sometimes you give private companies information and they own it and can give it away - usually in the fine print nobody reads when you sign up for something like facebook.
It's tough but ultimately don't watch me. If I'm putting information I want to remain private on servers like Ashley Madison or Facebook then it's my fault because I'm putting private information on servers that I don't own, know where they're at, or know who has access.
I think communications should be private, but it's also pretty tough because usually you're using servers or infrastructure that isn't yours. I still think they need a warrant, even though they would argue that if google says "yes" then I don't need a warrant it's their information.
-
Security.
I don't have anything to hide so security. If anyone wants to get in my privacy I guess security measures are in order?
-
The government should simply turn the phone over to Apple to recover the information on the phone and let Apple do it. Wouldn't that solve the problem?
-
The government should simply turn the phone over to Apple to recover the information on the phone and let Apple do it. Wouldn't that solve the problem?
The government should simply turn the phone over to Apple to recover the information on the phone and let Apple do it. Wouldn't that solve the problem?
The point is you can't have any backdoor through encryption.
If Apple can get into anybody's encrypted phone, then so could I and the government and you and everybody.
-
The government should simply turn the phone over to Apple to recover the information on the phone and let Apple do it. Wouldn't that solve the problem?
The point is you can't have any backdoor through encryption.
If Apple can get into anybody's encrypted phone, then so could I and the government and you and everybody.
The point is you can't have any backdoor through encryption.
If Apple can get into anybody's encrypted phone, then so could I and the government and you and everybody.
But Apple alone would have and keep that knowledge about how to unlock the phone. The only thing Apple would turn over to the government would be the information on that one phone. Seems like good advertisement for Apple that the FBI with all it's resources after 2 months could not unlock it.
-
The point is you can't have any backdoor through encryption.
If Apple can get into anybody's encrypted phone, then so could I and the government and you and everybody.
But Apple alone would have and keep that knowledge about how to unlock the phone. The only thing Apple would turn over to the government would be the information on that one phone. Seems like good advertisement for Apple that the FBI with all it's resources after 2 months could not unlock it.
But Apple alone would have and keep that knowledge about how to unlock the phone. Seems like good advertisement for Apple that the FBI with all it's resources after 2 months could not unlock it.
It just doesn't work like that in the real world - if an encryption has a way in it isn't a very good encryption method. Everybody can use it to get in, the secret will be discovered eventually it is even easier when there'd be a bunch of people who already know the weakness.
-
The point is you can't have any backdoor through encryption.
If Apple can get into anybody's encrypted phone, then so could I and the government and you and everybody.
But Apple alone would have and keep that knowledge about how to unlock the phone. The only thing Apple would turn over to the government would be the information on that one phone. Seems like good advertisement for Apple that the FBI with all it's resources after 2 months could not unlock it.
But Apple alone would have and keep that knowledge about how to unlock the phone. The only thing Apple would turn over to the government would be the information on that one phone. Seems like good advertisement for Apple that the FBI with all it's resources after 2 months could not unlock it.
It just doesn't work like that in the real world - if an encryption has a way in it isn't a very good encryption method. Everybody can use it to get in, the secret will be discovered eventually it is even easier when there'd be a bunch of people who already know the weakness.
Pretty much, yeah. Think of a door with no handle/lock, it's just closed. Then compare with one with a lock - sure, it's locked, and only the right people have the key, but a sufficiently dedicated lock picker could pick it given enough time. With the amount of people out there interested in being able to access that information, combined with those that just do it for fun, it would take - if it was announced there was a back door - less than a week to crack in to it, my guess.
-
But Apple alone would have and keep that knowledge about how to unlock the phone. The only thing Apple would turn over to the government would be the information on that one phone. Seems like good advertisement for Apple that the FBI with all it's resources after 2 months could not unlock it.
It just doesn't work like that in the real world - if an encryption has a way in it isn't a very good encryption method. Everybody can use it to get in, the secret will be discovered eventually it is even easier when there'd be a bunch of people who already know the weakness.
Pretty much, yeah. Think of a door with no handle/lock, it's just closed. Then compare with one with a lock - sure, it's locked, and only the right people have the key, but a sufficiently dedicated lock picker could pick it given enough time. With the amount of people out there interested in being able to access that information, combined with those that just do it for fun, it would take - if it was announced there was a back door - less than a week to crack in to it, my guess.
sounds like a John Travolta movie.Pretty much, yeah. Think of a door with no handle/lock, it's just closed. Then compare with one with a lock - sure, it's locked, and only the right people have the key, but a sufficiently dedicated lock picker could pick it given enough time. With the amount of people out there interested in being able to access that information, combined with those that just do it for fun, it would take - if it was announced there was a back door - less than a week to crack in to it, my guess.
-
Am I the only one who can see a small correlation between this and the 2nd amendment?
-
Am I the only one who can see a small correlation between this and the 2nd amendment?
Maybe - explain?
-
wait, I think it's a false choice.
terrorists/legit connections-suspects should have zero privacy.
Every other American must have privacy.
-
wait, I think it's a false choice.
terrorists/legit connections-suspects should have zero privacy.
Every other American must have privacy.
wait, I think it's a false choice.
terrorists/legit connections-suspects should have zero privacy.
Every other American must have privacy.
Seems sensible - but if I recall correctly you were not particularly pleased with people being put on the terrorist watch list, no? So who determines if someone is worthy of watching?
-
wait, I think it's a false choice.
terrorists/legit connections-suspects should have zero privacy.
Every other American must have privacy.
-
It just doesn't work like that in the real world - if an encryption has a way in it isn't a very good encryption method. Everybody can use it to get in, the secret will be discovered eventually it is even easier when there'd be a bunch of people who already know the weakness. Edw
************************
I disagree. All encryption has a way to create a backdoor. This one must be excellent, since the
FBI is helpless to crack it.
But Apple is being buttheaded. They could get the information off THAT phone for the FBI, under
an open order by a judge. Then they can store that back door (edited) under layers of high-tech security until needed again.
Any attempt by the gov to get it, would be met with the solution being fried.
Ideally, the gov will never get it's hands on it. With apple's refusal, the frantic work will be done, well invested in,
to do it themselves.
Then, the gov will have it, and the next dirtbag obamao type will use it to go after any political opponent.
Meanwhile, Apple had better pray they didn't keep us from preventing a major terrorist attack.
-
So who determines if someone is worthy of watching?
****************************************************You have to read my follow-up. "watch list" doesn't warrant invasion of privacy of your cell phone, wire tapping, etc.But we are talking flat out, guilty terrorists. The cell phone is legit EVIDENCE from the terrorists, who were obviouslyguilty.The gov doesn't have the "back door" to use any time they want it. We are talking serious national security issues,not obaMao the trashhearted traitor comming after me because I'd a Tea Party advocate....
-
Am I the only one who can see a small correlation between this and the 2nd amendment?
Maybe - explain?
-
Apple has the right thought, however if they refuse to play ball and the fbi develops their own method for cracking the devices thered going to be a lot more privacy issues
-
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
-
The problem is that the government already has world class hackers working for them and if you think they're not already working behind the scenes on this technology you're crazy
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login