Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    This is a badly thought out argument.

    The example you provide is not analogous to this situation. The Bureau isn't asking Apple for a Skeleton Key to unlock the door - that doesn't exist. What they're asking them for is to flash the phone with a fundamentally broken version of the operating system that doesn't currently exist and would need to be specially developed from source for this purpose.

    And to what end? What if Apple do capitulate or get forced to do it? What kind of tinpot terrorist organisation is going to "stick to the plan" when a person that apparently knows, in great detail, the entire plan has been arrested by a government agency with an alleged history of complicity in methods of torture and unlawful interrogation? Anyone with a bit of common sense would have to assume that the entire operation is compromised and that any element of the plan - people, method, location etc. was likely to be now known in detail by the enemy. So what's the first thing you're going to do? Abort, go underground, burn everything and start again. This is counter-intelligence 101 - it's not rocket science. Even if the Bureau got hold of this data, its likely intelligence value at that point would be practically nil.

    To think that this request is a "one off" is frankly naïve - you don't get a capability like this once and say "never again"; you wheel it out repeatedly - "you did it for this terrorist, now you should do it for this terrorist and this bad guy, and while you're at it, all of these criminals' phones..."

    And as for the notion of holding the executives of Apple Inc to account if there is a terrorist attack, how can you prove that their "non-compliance" was the root cause of that intelligence failure? Good luck prosecuting that. Without the contents of the phone available, it's not possible to make that claim.

    And besides, the Supreme Court forces big tech companies to unlock their devices on demand, what are the bad guys going to do? Change their tactics. Everyone else suffers while the bad guys keep doing their thing, just in a different (and uncompromised) way.

    This is a cat and mouse game that traditional law-making cannot outmanoeuvre and any attempt to do so has a high price for the liberty of law-abiding citizens while delivering practically no benefit to our security. It's a fallacy to think that curtailing people's rights and endlessly making things illegal are going to stop people that are willing to take the most extreme illegal courses of action to achieve their objectives.
    +1
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Apple is not above the government. I get Apple makes millions of dollars and super duper popular and stuff but at the end of the day Apple has to follow the law.
    Sure it might be an "invasion of privacy" but what if there are clues or useful info that phone?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    They should do it. This is a terrorist we're talking about, and his phone could contain important intel.

    (Original post by Good bloke)

    I won't be buying an more Apple products.
    I'm sure that decision by you will devastate their stock levels on the market as well as the moral of all their employees worldwide.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    New development. The FBI is looking very fishy now.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Attachment 506205

    Name:  1456053598321.jpg
Views: 63
Size:  45.1 KB

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    This sets a precedent
    How? On what legal basis does it set a precedent?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    New development. The FBI is looking very fishy now.
    That "development" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. In fact, it doesn't really mean anything
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    How? On what legal basis does it set a precedent?
    It's not on a legal basis, it simply signals that it is cool to force a company to help you get around their own security system to get data on individuals. Today is this one (which is a fair case) but tomorrow it will be someone like Assante or Snowden. And in a few years, other countries might do likewise with Apple or other tech companies to get data on anyone they want to track.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    It's not on a legal basis, it simply signals that it is cool to force a company to help you get around their own security system to get data on individuals.
    So you agree it sets no legal precedent. So what's the problem?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    That "development" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. In fact, it doesn't really mean anything
    It seems to indicate whoever made that decision was technologically illiterate. It begs the question whether they should be the arbiters of the use of encryption in technology.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    So you agree it sets no legal precedent. So what's the problem?
    Governments will point to the event as a precedent. Whether it has legal basis or not is up to interpretation. What matters is that it happened.
    • Specialist Advisor
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Specialist Advisor
    Is there any chance Apple back down on their stance?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex from almanis)
    Is there any chance Apple back down on their stance?
    Hopefully not.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex from almanis)
    Is there any chance Apple back down on their stance?
    Unless they're legally forced to and have no further means of appeal, not likely.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Staffordshire University)
    You've probably heard in the news that Apple has opposed a US order to unlock an iPhone of one of the suspects involved in the San Bernardino attack. This would involve Apple making "a new version of the iPhone operating system... and install[ing] it on an iPhone that was recovered during the investigation."

    One of our computing lecturers has written a blog post about this.

    He asks: "should Governments be able to wield and exercise power that forces the hand of technology companies?"

    What do you think? Are Apple right in refusing? Are you concerned about your data security...?
    They are correct to not allow them to access, but this does cause issues as terrorist could just buy the iPhone thats blockable to the governments and cause terrorist attacks that government are unable to find it. They should monitor who buy theses, if they have a crimial record, not like stealing an apple but something dangerous then they shouldn't be allowed to buy, or have an alternative.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckfeister)
    They are correct to not allow them to access, but this does cause issues as terrorist could just buy the iPhone thats blockable to the governments and cause terrorist attacks that government are unable to find it. They should monitor who buy theses, if they have a crimial record, not like stealing an apple but something dangerous then they shouldn't be allowed to buy, or have an alternative.
    This is ridiculous. You ban terrorists from buying iPhones, what's the impact of that? They'll buy android phones. There are loads of security features and apps available on Android to support strong encryption. Ban terrorists from buying smartphones, they'll use tablets. Ban them from tablets, they'll use open source encryption software on a laptop. Ban them from using PCs and laptops, they'll use game consoles. Right, ban them from using computers altogether, they'll use payphones. Ban them from using technology! They'll meet in person and use good old fashioned pre-internet tradecraft like dead drops and one time pad encryption schemes with a pen and paper.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    Unless they're legally forced to and have no further means of appeal, not likely.
    Do you remember the old Psions? that company seemed happy to recover data from seized criminal hardware and it led to a few convictions. I don't remember anyone thinking it was the wrong thing to do at the time tbh.


    https://purpleport.com/group/general...-d-have-them-/
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...sc/N5jw0L9pFNQ

    What's the difference? the psions iirc weren't being sold as encrypted devices but the users naively thought that deleting a file permanently destroyed its contents.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    Do you remember the old Psions? that company seemed happy to recover data from seized criminal hardware and it led to a few convictions. I don't remember anyone thinking it was the wrong thing to do at the time tbh.


    https://purpleport.com/group/general...-d-have-them-/
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...sc/N5jw0L9pFNQ

    What's the difference? the psions iirc weren't being sold as encrypted devices but the users naively thought that deleting a file permanently destroyed its contents.
    iPhones are. And encryption is a fundamental part of modern privacy. I'm a forensics expert - I recover data from phones and computers for a living. Forensics almost exclusively uses extant means to extract data. What is being asked here is for Apple to destroy it's users' trust in them and build dedicated versions of firmware and use their unique ability to defeat the built in security technologies implemented on a secure device to extract data that may not even exist for a pretty speculative and weak reason.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    This is ridiculous. You ban terrorists from buying iPhones, what's the impact of that? They'll buy android phones. There are loads of security features and apps available on Android to support strong encryption. Ban terrorists from buying smartphones, they'll use tablets. Ban them from tablets, they'll use open source encryption software on a laptop. Ban them from using PCs and laptops, they'll use game consoles. Right, ban them from using computers altogether, they'll use payphones. Ban them from using technology! They'll meet in person and use good old fashioned pre-internet tradecraft like dead drops and one time pad encryption schemes with a pen and paper.
    Ban people!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    This is a badly thought out argument.

    The example you provide is not analogous to this situation. The Bureau isn't asking Apple for a Skeleton Key to unlock the door - that doesn't exist. What they're asking them for is to flash the phone with a fundamentally broken version of the operating system that doesn't currently exist and would need to be specially developed from source for this purpose.

    And to what end? What if Apple do capitulate or get forced to do it? What kind of tinpot terrorist organisation is going to "stick to the plan" when a person that apparently knows, in great detail, the entire plan has been arrested by a government agency with an alleged history of complicity in methods of torture and unlawful interrogation? Anyone with a bit of common sense would have to assume that the entire operation is compromised and that any element of the plan - people, method, location etc. was likely to be now known in detail by the enemy. So what's the first thing you're going to do? Abort, go underground, burn everything and start again. This is counter-intelligence 101 - it's not rocket science. Even if the Bureau got hold of this data, its likely intelligence value at that point would be practically nil.

    To think that this request is a "one off" is frankly naïve - you don't get a capability like this once and say "never again"; you wheel it out repeatedly - "you did it for this terrorist, now you should do it for this terrorist and this bad guy, and while you're at it, all of these criminals' phones..."

    And as for the notion of holding the executives of Apple Inc to account if there is a terrorist attack, how can you prove that their "non-compliance" was the root cause of that intelligence failure? Good luck prosecuting that. Without the contents of the phone available, it's not possible to make that claim.

    And besides, the Supreme Court forces big tech companies to unlock their devices on demand, what are the bad guys going to do? Change their tactics. Everyone else suffers while the bad guys keep doing their thing, just in a different (and uncompromised) way.

    This is a cat and mouse game that traditional law-making cannot outmanoeuvre and any attempt to do so has a high price for the liberty of law-abiding citizens while delivering practically no benefit to our security. It's a fallacy to think that curtailing people's rights and endlessly making things illegal are going to stop people that are willing to take the most extreme illegal courses of action to achieve their objectives.
    I'm afraid with all respect your argument is also flawed;
    You nor I know what is on the phone - it could contain information about other conspirators, or it could contain no useful information at all. Let's go on the assumption that it has details of another terrorist attack, the bad guys will then have to plan a new attack from scratch. This is a good thing, because it saves lives and would certainly give more time and information about the terrorist cell than we know currently.

    We have also heard from several experts in security on this thread, and even my common sense tells me that unlocking one terrorists phone will not affect the liberty of everyone else. This man is obviously guilty of terrorism, he is dead, he therefore is not an ordinary citizen so should not be given the same rights to privacy as a law-abiding one.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 18, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.