FBI Vs. Apple

[Work-for-ur-muny]

Should Apple have to give in to the FBI and unlock the San Bernardino shooter's phone, or is customers' privacy more important than security concerns?

[yoshyosh]

http://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/02/the-lowdown-on-the-apple-fbi-showdown/

[ShlockDoc]

Should Apple have to give in to the FBI and unlock the San Bernardino shooter's phone, or is customers' privacy more important than security concerns?

Those aren't the only two choices.  Contrary to the oversimplification in the media, this is a super nuanced, complex case...

[Aaaron]

Those aren't the only two choices.  Contrary to the oversimplification in the media, this is a super nuanced, complex case...

+1.

You can easily have another polling option:

"Don't force them to open it.  Security First!"

[ShlockDoc]

Or open a phone on a case by case basis with a court order but don't force Apple to write the software that bypasses all iphone security.   Complicated and fascinating case.

[Work-for-ur-muny]

+1.

You can easily have another polling option:

"Don't force them to open it.  Security First!"

The media's noise is focusing mainly on privacy concerns, should apple be forced to open it.

[Aaaron]

The media's noise is focusing mainly on privacy concerns, should apple be forced to open it.

Not from what I've seen.  Every article I've read references the dangers of creating a backdoor. 

[hide4]

Force them!!!

[JoeyShmoe]

IMO the only one to do it should be Apple, not a government entity, and the order should be public and only on a case by case basis (as opposed to the way the NSA works with their non public court requests and orders)

[Work-for-ur-muny]

My first thought when this topic came up was that the FBI has in reality long gotten into his phone and gotten whatever they need from there. Only once they were done did they spark this topic in public and play a fight with apple, letting apple win. They want to lull the public into thinking that their phones are secure.

[ShlockDoc]

IMO the only one to do it should be Apple, not a government entity, and the order should be public and only on a case by case basis (as opposed to the way the NSA works with their non public court requests and orders)

Right now there is no way for Apple to do it, the data in encrypted.  The government wants Apple to create a way to do it.  Once it exists, then whoever gets their hands on the code can do it.  Once it's written it's only a matter of time before malicious actors and governments (and both) exploit it...

[hide4]

My first thought when this topic came up was that the FBI has in reality long gotten into his phone and gotten whatever they need from there. Only once they were done did they spark this topic in public and play a fight with apple, letting apple win. They want to lull the public into thinking that their phones are secure.

So you also think the fbi wants to give free advertising to apple? They prob have stocks in apple, too!

[Work-for-ur-muny]

So you also think the fbi wants to give free advertising to apple? They prob have stocks in apple, too!

In order to pursue their agenda? What do they care?

[jj1000]

Right now there is no way for Apple to do it, the data in encrypted.  The government wants Apple to create a way to do it.  Once it exists, then whoever gets their hands on the code can do it.  Once it's written it's only a matter of time before malicious actors and governments (and both) exploit it...

Bill Gates doesn't think so.

[Work-for-ur-muny]

Right now there is no way for Apple to do it, the data in encrypted.  The government wants Apple to create a way to do it.  Once it exists, then whoever gets their hands on the code can do it.  Once it's written it's only a matter of time before malicious actors and governments (and both) exploit it...

Are you really convinced that Apple with their infinite wisdom, resources and innovations cannot come up with a one-time based software, or at least permanently delete the software once it has achieved its goal?

[ShlockDoc]

Bill Gates doesn't think so.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-02-23/gates-disputes-report-that-he-backs-fbi-in-apple-dispute

There's nuance. 

[jj1000]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-02-23/gates-disputes-report-that-he-backs-fbi-in-apple-dispute

There's nuance. 

He's still saying he thinks it should be done.

[Freddie]

What I don't get is this: Apparently, I have come to learn that if you put in the wrong password 10 times on an iphone... it irretrievably deletes all content.

 

Huh?! So then why isn't this a "thing"? You know, to delete someone's iphone as a prank. Like, why don't I see youtube videos of people doing this to their roommates?

Any intelligent answers to this?

[ShlockDoc]

What I don't get is this: Apparently, I have come to learn that if you put in the wrong password 10 times on an iphone... it irretrievably deletes all content.

 

Huh?! So then why isn't this a "thing"? You know, to delete someone's iphone as a prank. Like, why don't I see youtube videos of people doing this to their roommates?

Any intelligent answers to this?

1.  Not everyone has that setting enabled.
2.  If your phone is backed up to iCloud you can just restore it and it's back how it was before the wipe in 15 minutes.

[Work-for-ur-muny]

What I don't get is this: Apparently, I have come to learn that if you put in the wrong password 10 times on an iphone... it irretrievably deletes all content.

 

Huh?! So then why isn't this a "thing"? You know, to delete someone's iphone as a prank. Like, why don't I see youtube videos of people doing this to their roommates?

Any intelligent answers to this?

+1 Had the same question. But the county offices did make some changes to the phone before the FBI laid their hands on it. It is possible that this data loss is only after such changes.