Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Is that how it played out?
Pretty much, yeah.
Dare I say you did not follow it closely?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Expectation of privacy was nice while it lasted
Expectation of privacy was nice while it lastedFollow
Pretty much, yeah.
Dare I say you did not follow it closely?
Your soul was made of fists.
Jar the Sam
Jar the Sam
You might dare. I might care. From over there.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
You might dare. I might care. From over there.
If it was Christmas, I would say double dog dare, but timing is not always on my side. Based on your response it would appear that I was not wrong though. Since I am not a mean person, I figured I leave you with a link to the basic timeline of that particular event. It has a fair amount of information that you either did not know, or omitted for reasons beyond my understanding.
I hope it will assist you in understanding it[this case] better.
Cheers. Sleepy time for me.
Your soul was made of fists.
Jar the Sam
Jar the Sam
I'm not sure why you think that timeline changes anything. FBI asks Apple for help, Apple refuses, FBI tries to force the issue, realizes they don't need Apple and lets the world know that they were able to crack Apple's security just fine without them using outside sources. Again, Apple both fails to assist in the terrorist investigation AND has the fallibility of their security demonstrated (yet again). Whatever bright face you want to put on that is up to you.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
yes, but they don't establish a precedent for putting back doors in all consumer devices, so, uh, that's something.
Just as Planned.
They wouldn't have anyway. So it's a pretty small something.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
They wouldn't have anyway. So it's a pretty small something.
Were you not following this case at all?
Just as Planned.
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not sure why you think that timeline changes anything. FBI asks Apple for help, Apple refuses, FBI tries to force the issue, realizes they don't need Apple and lets the world know that they were able to crack Apple's security just fine without them using outside sources. Again, Apple both fails to assist in the terrorist investigation AND has the fallibility of their security demonstrated (yet again). Whatever bright face you want to put on that is up to you.
I am only trying to help you Joph. Help me help you. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, but thus far it seems like you are aware of it the same way I know about recent personnel changes in India's central bank. Yeah, I know something happened. I read something about it, but nothing beyond basics. And here details happen to be important.
Edited, Jul 13th 2016 8:17am by angrymnk
Your soul was made of fists.
Jar the Sam
Jar the Sam
Timelordwho wrote:
Were you not following this case at all?
I was. Both sides of the argument, even and not just Apple's PR department. The FBI wasn't asking for a backdoor in all consumer devices, they were asking for a specific device to be forwarded a specific version of a firmware update taking advantage of its already obsolete security features.
Vox wrote:
Apple has tried to tie the debate over the San Bernardino request to this larger debate over back doors, arguing that it shouldn't be forced to provide law enforcement with a back door into its products. But a crucial difference here is that Apple isn't being asked to proactively introduce a security vulnerability into every iPhone. Rather, it's being asked to help hack into the phone of a dead terrorism suspect.
The FBI, having heard the concerns of technology companies, has asked Apple to make custom software that is tied specifically to the device ID of Farook's iPhone.
The FBI, having heard the concerns of technology companies, has asked Apple to make custom software that is tied specifically to the device ID of Farook's iPhone.
I get the points for not wanting Apple to comply but "this sets a precedent to put back doors in all consumer devices" isn't really a strong one.
angrymnk wrote:
I am only trying to help you Joph.
You did. You linked to a timeline that reinforced what I said. Thanks!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
I was. Both sides of the argument, even and not just Apple's PR department. The FBI wasn't asking for a backdoor in all consumer devices, they were asking for a specific device to be forwarded a specific version of a firmware update taking advantage of its already obsolete security features.
Ok, you understand that that is exactly what a back door is, right?
Just as Planned.
I also understand the difference between a specific device and "all consumer devices".
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Timelordwho wrote:
In fact it does, in certain jurisdictions, like in Missouri where it can be a class D felony.
Edited, Jul 13th 2016 9:37am by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Uh ok, good to know, but you also get the point of precedence, right? You establish that if the gov't needs access to a device, the company is obligated to provide backsolve access, or be penalized? Once you have proved this, is can be trivially cited as justification for the same on any device.
Just as Planned.
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
In fact it does, in certain jurisdictions, like in Missouri where it can be a class D felony.
Edited, Jul 13th 2016 9:37am by lolgaxe
Sure. I assume you prefer a press release over sifting through full text.
The search term was "Missouri Cyberbullying Laws", second result, by the way.
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
Uh ok, good to know, but you also get the point of precedence, right?
You get the point of "narrow ruling"? Or, for that matter, the idea of a company voluntarily complying on their own terms in an exceptional situation to avoid the risk of a broader precedent?
Apple complying, or even Apple being compelled, to assist the FBI would not necessarily translate into a broad mandate to hack every phone law enforcement comes across. Which is why I said that it didn't really avoid such a precedent although Apple took pains to throw that specter out there for PR reasons.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Timelordwho wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
all I found were updates to pre-existing harassment and stalking laws to include "computers, text messages, and other electronic devices."
link wrote:
On June 30th, Missouri governor, Matt Blunt, signed a bill updating state laws against harassment by removing the requirement in the legislation requiring that such harassing communication be written or made over the telephone.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
It sets a precedent that the government can require a backdoor be created in any device it wants if certain criteria are met. It's not restricted at all along the vector of 'particular device vs. devices as a class' but rather whether there is found to be sufficient justification for a backdoor enabled search.
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
Kavekkk wrote:
It sets a precedent that the government can require a backdoor be created in any device it wants if certain criteria are met
As noted in the article, that's not even a realistic demand simply based on technology. The FBI in this instance was asking for assistance via a specific exploit in an older operating system and how it updates its firmware. Had the guy in question owned a newer model, everyone would have been out of luck.
That said, assisting the government if "certain criteria are met" doesn't strike me as a terrible thing. I realize that's a philosophical difference not everyone shares.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Yes, but that "narrow ruling" as you call it, basically guarantees that there will be hundreds of pile on cases seeking to expand and define the scope right? It won't be a question of "Can the FBI demand backdoor access" it will be " what's the minimal crime that backdoor access can be demanded" and "what agencies can demand backdoor access", "can other governments demand this access from US/multinational corps, and can the US demand the same of other countries consumer electronics firms" and knowing the GOP probably something about how transgender a bathroom needs to be for backdoor access not to count as gay.
Edited, Jul 13th 2016 10:14am by Timelordwho
Edited, Jul 13th 2016 10:14am by Timelordwho
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
Yes, but that "narrow ruling" as you call it, basically guarantees that there will be hundreds of pile on cases seeking to expand and define the scope right? It won't be a question of "Can the FBI demand backdoor access" it will be " what's the minimal crime that backdoor access can be demanded"
More likely "What crimes and under which scenarios where all other avenues have been exhausted" but, yeah, that's how law works. Defined scopes are important or else you get people mad that the FBI didn't investigate a candidate's website while determining if they lied during an specific interview.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Yes, but that "narrow ruling" as you call it, basically guarantees that there will be hundreds of pile on cases seeking to expand and define the scope right? It won't be a question of "Can the FBI demand backdoor access" it will be " what's the minimal crime that backdoor access can be demanded"
More likely "What crimes and under which scenarios where all other avenues have been exhausted" but, yeah, that's how law works. Defined scopes are important or else you get people mad that the FBI didn't investigate a candidate's website while determining if they lied during an specific interview.
Why even exhaust other avenues if you can just get a corp to dredge their PW? Just kibosh the whole expectation of privacy on personal devices. Why even have a Miranda warning at that point?
Just as Planned.
Quote:
As noted in the article, that's not even a realistic demand simply based on technology.
Yes, that's part of the problem. If you accept that the government has a right to require backdoor access from companies then one can easily argue that backdoor access has to be made possible, hence all the fears about weakening security.
The government in the UK was making a big noise about requiring a 'police only' backdoor a while ago, and personally I'm glad they didn't have any case law to buttress their crusade.
Quote:
That said, assisting the government if "certain criteria are met" doesn't strike me as a terrible thing.
Depends how broad the criteria are held to be, I'd expect.
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
Quote:
As noted in the article, that's not even a realistic demand simply based on technology.
Yes, that's part of the problem. If you accept that the government has a right to require backdoor access from companies then one can easily argue that backdoor access has to be made possible, hence all the fears about weakening security.
The government in the UK was making a big noise about requiring a 'police only' backdoor a while ago, and personally I'm glad they didn't have any case law to buttress their crusade.
Quote:
That said, assisting the government if "certain criteria are met" doesn't strike me as a terrible thing.
Depends how broad the criteria are held to be, I'd expect.
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
Timelordwho wrote:
Why even exhaust other avenues if you can just get a corp to dredge their PW?
Hence "narrow ruling".
Vox wrote:
But in this specific case, the FBI is asking for much less than a general back door into encrypted iPhones, and the Bureau argues there's ample precedent for its request. The police have long asked telephone companies, banks, landlords, and other businesses to help them spy on the activities of criminal suspects. As long as the requests are narrowly targeted and receive proper judicial oversight, they have not been especially controversial
[...]
Still, much depends on the details of the precedent that gets set in this case. Part of the FBI's argument is that because the iPhone is programmed to only accept software updates from Apple, getting Apple to write custom software is the only way for law enforcement to get access to the data on Farook's iPhone.
That argument might not work as well in the kinds of cases Sanchez cites: Hacking into a drug kingpin's iPhone might be a particularly convenient way to spy on him, but there are likely other ways to spy on drug dealers that don't involve forcing Apple to help spy on its customers. Courts might tell the DEA to use those other approaches instead.
[...]
Still, much depends on the details of the precedent that gets set in this case. Part of the FBI's argument is that because the iPhone is programmed to only accept software updates from Apple, getting Apple to write custom software is the only way for law enforcement to get access to the data on Farook's iPhone.
That argument might not work as well in the kinds of cases Sanchez cites: Hacking into a drug kingpin's iPhone might be a particularly convenient way to spy on him, but there are likely other ways to spy on drug dealers that don't involve forcing Apple to help spy on its customers. Courts might tell the DEA to use those other approaches instead.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
"might".
If the other methods were ineffective, they "might not".
What if they weren't a suspected drug dealer, how about, say, on some watchlist, but not accused of a specific crime? Maybe the FBI should just check their location metadata to see if they've gone anywhere suspicious, or looked at or wrote anything suspicious. It's not like anyone has any legitimate reason to look into the price of ball bearings or pressure cookers. This guy seem to be really into the history of the Crusades, and cleansing the holy land. Should we take action? If it comes out that we knew and did nothing, we could be fired.
If the other methods were ineffective, they "might not".
What if they weren't a suspected drug dealer, how about, say, on some watchlist, but not accused of a specific crime? Maybe the FBI should just check their location metadata to see if they've gone anywhere suspicious, or looked at or wrote anything suspicious. It's not like anyone has any legitimate reason to look into the price of ball bearings or pressure cookers. This guy seem to be really into the history of the Crusades, and cleansing the holy land. Should we take action? If it comes out that we knew and did nothing, we could be fired.
Just as Planned.
Recent Visitors: 386
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (386)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Expectation of privacy was nice while it lasted
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC