I'm surprised that we haven't seen an FOSS cell phone.
Or, an "add on" that allows a commodity cell phone to
be used simply as a "wire" -- in much the same way that
a network interface chip provides only an interface
(and doesn't muck with content).
Treat the phone as a modem that bolts onto a "handheld computer".
Then, YOU control the computations instead of letting some
other entity have the final say ("Trust Us")
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:26:25 PM UTC-5, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Baloney. In a court hearing, the two sides can't refuse to testify.
Either side can call any person they wish, the judge can ask any
questions he sees fit, etc. And of course it's seeing a court room,
it's already started. Unless Apple complies, there will soon be
court hearings and both sides will have to present their cases.
The latest from Tim Cook:
"Instead, Cook said in an email to employees Monday, he wants Congress to form a commission to "discuss the implications for law enforcement, national security, privacy and personal freedoms."
Apparently Cook doesn't understand how govt works. Congress discussing
doesn't solve this issue. There is law already on the books, precedent,
and from what I've seen so far, it sure isn't in Apple's favor.
We could have terrorists plotting their next attack on America,
leads to which are in that one phone and
Cook wants Congress to start "discussing". Once Congress gets involved,
it's more likely they will pass new laws that Apple doesn't want, like
requiring a backdoor actually be built into all phones, which is the
bogus spin Cook is putting on what the govt has actually asked for.
When it says "communications and data", what is it referring to?
Doesn't the cell phone company have any texts sent or received?
And doesn't the email provider have any email sent or received?
And aren't oral phone calls lost forever, unless someone recorded them
and no one records phone calls on a cellphone?
So what does communicatons mean?
Does data refer to the phone directory? Mine has no names because
they are too long. I just use 2 or 3 letters, and a h,w, or c suffix
for home, work, or cell. But the phone numbers are all valid. Of
course my closest co-conspirators, I've actually talked to on the
phone so the cell phone company has those numbers already, but maybe
they want the ones he's never called.
If not, what else does data refer to? I have my niece's bachelor's
thesis, but only so I could read it on the plane. I don't see people
putting much terrorist data on their cell phones, in place of paper,
unless they were email attachments, and doesn't the cell phone company
have copies of all the attachments? or not?
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 07:59:48 -0800 (PST), trader_4
Lets say they can protect it. Why should they become an arm of the
gvt to break into people's phones simply because they "know how to"?
Remember, it's not their phone, it's not their data, it's not the job.
What right does gvt have to make you their slave and force you to work
for them? That is the main part I find objectionable.
I'm not familiar with Apple systems but I assume it's like android,
when a new OS comes out the Carrier pushes the new OS to your phone.
You see a pop up saying "Do you want to allow this update". But
that's just housekeeping as far as I'm concerned. The real question is
still, under what authority does the FBI make Apple their slave and
force them to do work for them?
If the FBI can do this, why can't they say "You're a good friend of
Joe and we need to spy on Joe. So from now on you will be wearing this
wire whether you want to or not and we will be recording your
conversations. Further, you will be wearing this earpiece and asking
him the questions we tell you to ask him."
That is what the FBI is trying to do to Apple, make the company the
FBI's technical slave because they don't know how to do it themselves.
I would not grant them that right. They have the right to ASK, not to
compel IMHO. Otherwise it's just one more police state nail in the
coffin the US is becoming.
That's not reasonable, it still makes apple the FBI's slave. What if
the FBI needs technical work in some other area when the investigate a
crime? If someone blows up a plane does the FBI have the right to
COMPELL Boeing to assist them whether Boeing wishes to or not? Can
the FBI ORDER Boeings engineers to report to FBI headquarters and do
whatever the FBI wants them to do simply because "You guys know how
and we don't."
I wouldn't say it's the same. All that stuff is stuff CURRENT
technology already EXISTS to do. It's the situation where the FBI
would be saying "You (apple) can't hide from us the stuff you can
ALREADY SEE". In the apple case, Apple can't "already see" this info.
Nobody can, that's the purpose of encryption, so no one can see it. If
the FBI wins the case there would be no limit to who and how many
people they could commandeer from private companies to facilitate
decrypting stuff. In this case it's Apple because they made the phone
but lets say Apple's tech guy who can do this dies. Using the same
logic they went to Apple the FBI can go to Google and say, "You guys
work on encryption and we think you can decrypt this Apple phone and
we've convinced a judge to let us make you our slave to work on it so
I'd be alot more comfortable with that approach. The FBI takes the
source code and hires programmers to try and figure out how to change
it. The caveat is that they would have to be prepared to pay out
millions/billions to apple if in the process the code gets disclosed
and apple can prove damages. I'm not at all comfortable with the
Gvt/FBI saying "you folks are our slaves and will do what we want or
you go to jail."
And what will teh gvt do if "apple" the company, says to the gvt, OK,
we give up, we "the company" will break into this phone but ALL of
their flesh and blood tech people say "I won't work on that project."
Is the gvt going to jail them?
I have not read the legal history but this "all writs" law was written
in the 1700's and probably not intended for this purpose.
On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 5:54:57 PM UTC-5, >>>Ashton Crusher wrote:
For the same reason the phone company complies with court orders
to trace calls and help with wiretaps. For the same reason an alarm
company that installed the alarm system for a drug lord's house
would be compelled to honor a court order to help bypass the security
system pursuant to a warrant. In fact, as cited in the Govts brief,
Apple has provided help with getting into phones in the past.
Read the govt brief and the case law cited. For the same reason
that all kinds of companies have been compelled to cooperate in
similar circumstances. As long as it's necessary, within their
ability and not an undo burden, courts have held that the company
has to comply.
Irrelevant, because this modified code would be put onto one phone,
at Apple. There is no carrier, no distribution, etc.
Because you're not in the business of spying on Joe, or spying on
anyone and it almost certainly would be considered an undo burden,
put you personally at risk of harm, etc. Apple is in the business
of making cell phones and has the best capability to do what the govt wants,
without unreasonable burden. They can try to argue that last part,
but I doubt they will prevail.
See the case law cited, where the govt did exactly that. And it's
really a stretch to say that for Apple to unlock a TERRORISTS phone
is a step toward a police state. It's no more a step than requiring
phone companies to help with wire taps, call traces, finding where a
GPS is located, etc.
That's a big stretch. If the FBI gets a court order for Sears to
pull all the sales records of a Winchester Model XXX gun sold in
the past 10 years, is that making Sears a govt slave? Seems a
bit of a stretch. You would think Sears, Apple, etc would be
interested in defending America and saving lives, but Tim Cook
is more interested in selling phones to terrorists and hippies.
If they can convince a court that they need a warrant to get something
that Boeing has, pursuant to a criminal investigation, I'd say yes.
If a Boeing jet went down, it looked like there was a terrorist act,
the govt wants some data from the plane and needs Boeing's help to
be able to extract it, I think again, the court would say YES.
Yes, as long as it's pursuant to a legitimate need, Boeing has the
expertise, and it's not an unreasonable burden.
And the technology already exists to do what the govt is asking.
Give me the source code to the Apple OS and I could do it.
You modify the source code, recompile it, replace the OS with it.
It's the situation where the FBI
In the case of wire taps, the phone company isn't listening in on the
calls routinely either, it takes some special effort to set up.
It would be just as limited as wiretaps are. And again, the govt isn't
asking to specifically decrypt anything in this case.
In this case it's Apple because they made the phone
Any competent programmer that has access to the OS source code
can do what's required.
Using the same
They could try, but that would be much harder to win. The key differences
are "thinking" Google can do it, versus in this case Apple doesn't deny
that it can do it and the product is not Google's to begin with.
OMG. That's orders of magnitude worse for Apple and for your
position of fearing what the govt will do with it.
The caveat is that they would have to be prepared to pay out
I guess you're also not comfortable with people being subpoenaed to
testify in court. Woman walking down the street, sees a robbery,
what happens? She gets questioned by the police and eventually
they can and will subpoena her to appear in court to testify.
If she doesn't, she will be arrested, hauled before a judge
and if she refuses to testify, she can go to jail.
They probably could, but it's unlikely that it will ever get to
that. Plenty of people think Apple is wrong and I'm sure the govt
could find Apple engineers who would comply. If I was there, I
There is apparently case law covering companies that didn't want to cooperate
with wire taps and similar in modern times that flows from it.
I have not read the case law. I remain un-persuaded by the arguments
I've heard. I think it's gvt overreach. I don't believe that when I
am not the subject of the investigation it's should be MY decision,
not the gvts, as to how much burden, if any, I am willing to take on.
The gvt does exactly ZERO in the way of accommodating me and that's
about as much as I care to accommodate them, zero.
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:34:14 -0800 (PST), trader_4
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 4:35:50 AM UTC-5, WTF wrote:
Why Apple chose to do this grandstand play, IDK. The govt brief says that
Apple has cooperated in the past in opening phones. They could have done
this one, quietly, and it's unlikely the public would even know exactly how
the FBI got into it. And the one thing I can't stand in all this is how
Tim Cook lies. He keeps saying that the govt is asking them to build a
backdoor into their product. Per the clear, limited court order, that is
totally untrue. He's lying and spinning, instead of sticking to the facts.
In this case Trump is right. People should boycott Apple products unless
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 8:46:20 AM UTC-5, email@example.com wrote:
Apple doesn't have anything it "needs" that the FBI has. The FBI does have
something it "needs" from Apple, ie help in getting into the phone. Yes,
I think the FBI could do it without help from Apple. But the govt could
also probably do wiretaps and similar without help from the phone company
too, it's just that it would be much harder. In this case, with the FBI
not knowing for sure how the phone actually works, they could wind up
destroying the very data they are trying to get if they try to do it
Sure, they've brought up that issue. But that issue is entirely separate
from this one narrow case. And do you think Tim Cook's idea of getting
Congress involved is going to turn out good for Apple? For those that
think that Apple shouldn't help even with this limited request? Very
good chance that the outcome would be that Congress would require that
a real backdoor be built into all products, it's not an unreasonable position.
Factor in guys like Trump, how smart is it for Apple to be on this path
to Congress again? Sure there will be some guys like Rand Paul on
Apples side, but most of Congress? Even Obama is against them.
On 2/26/2016 7:08 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Exactly. No such thing as "just this once" and "just THIS particular hack".
The spooks are afraid that a ruling AGAINST them will close the doors,
When PGP was written, technically illegal to take it out of the country.
OTOH, nothing prevents publishing it in book form and carrying the BOOK out
of the country (1st Amendment).
"Hey, let's use this really AWFUL typeface -- that happens to be very
easy to recognize with OCR. And, let's include a hash of each page's
contents *on* each page..."
IIRC, the FOSS world now *imports* the encryption algorithms -- to ensure
access while remaining within the letter of the law.
Perhaps Apple needs to become a *foreign* company to escape US laws?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.