Can one of you geniuses please explain the Apple-FBI controversy over unlocking the terrorist's iPhone? I get that people are saying that unlocking this phone will have far reaching implications for every iPhone user's privacy but I don't understand why.
/g/ isn't here to cure you of your stupidity
>>53078907
That's rude man. I've already admitted that I'm ignorant on this subject which is why I'm asking the question. I've read about it elsewhere but there is a lot of contradictory opinions being tossed around. Just wanted to get the official /g/ consensus.
>>53078764
If it can be done once, it can be done every single time. Also they werent supposed to break the encryption, just remove failsafe which deletes *all* data after a few password tries which didn't match.
Breaking the encryption through brute force even on shit like iphone, depending on the hardware, is weeks if not months. They just asked apple for a hand so they can actually do that.
Also don't worry. On android you just shut the phone down, go to recovery menu, connect it through adb and you are good to go. Fuck this world.
Apple wants their users to believe that their privacy is safe and therefore it would be bad for their business model and trust of their users to publicly unlock the iPhone. It's already public knowledge that Apple actually can unlock iPhones, and they've done it in the past, they just don't want their users bubble of Apple marketing to be popped.
>>53078764
Because it sets precedent. If they get the ruling on this here now, and get Apple to do this then they can in theory, get any judge in the country to agree to get them to do it again forever.
That they are using a 300 year old act to enforce this says it all.
>>53078764
It basically boils down to two parts.
1) Everyone is angry because Apple can't do time travel and install a backdoor to the terrorist telephone in the past so the FBI can hack it now.
2) They want to force Apple into making a backdoor into all iPhones in present time, because apparently the court doesn't know how linear time works, so they think that this will help them crack the terrorist phone while in reality it will just be a massive security risk on all iphones.
>>53078985
While it will still not help the government hack into the phone in question.
>>53078963
>>53078968
Thanks for the honest replies fellas. I'm still at square one though. I mean I understand the arguments. I was just hoping someone could provide an in-depth explanation that would guide me towards a more conclusive answer on the subject.
>>53078985
>>53078983
Ok this makes sense. Basically the FBI is asking for Apple to make a master key of sorts that can be used on all Apple products?
tl;dr version
fbi gives no shits about whats on fone, guy is already dead.
but forcing apple to produce a backdoor means fbi can hax all the fones.
it's the right case to push for master key into consumer devices because national security. anyone who opposes is obviously a terrorist sympathizer.
>>53079023
You just recited what Tim Cook wrote in the original letter. Did you even read it?
>>53079035
I did but because I don't know enough to call him out on BS I wanted a more neutral opinion on whether this was indeed the case.
>>53079023
>Basically the FBI is asking for Apple to make a master key of sorts that can be used on all Apple products?
Yes, but half the problem is that it still wont help them crack the terrorists' phones. Just all future phones.
>>53079031
>who opposes is obviously a terrorist sympathizer
Or a pedophile.
>>53079051
>/g/
>neutral opinion
>>53079051
You did right to trust us. We hate Apple more than anyone.
>>53079093
Meh, I trust techies more than I would someone with an ideological/political axe to grind. Also >>53079103
>>53078764
Simple as that:
>FBI wants in on the NSA's PRISM bounty
>NSA dgaf
>Apple uses it as a PR stunt to distract from their history of cooperation
>Apple faggots be all like 'muh privacy ensured' and 'windows 10 fags on suicide watch'
Simple minds, simple explanations.
If the owner of the phone is dead what's the problem?. Doing it to a persons phone that is still alive should be illegal though.
>>53079051
Well, he could be lying. People are trying to say Apple has unlocked 70+ iPhones for law enforcement in the past, but as this guy explains in his autistic fashion
http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/no-apple-has-not-unlocked-70-iphones-for-law-enforcement/
they never "unlocked" any iPhone but simply extracted data not protected by the security enclave to aid in investigations.
This extraction has already taken place in the San Bernardino case, and the FBI wants the security of the device weakened so they can access data that is properly protected.
This, as you already understand, would also enable them to unlock every iPhone unless Apple redesigned the security features of future releases.
My personal opinion is that Apple's potential loss in this battle would be a disgusting overreach of our law enforcement's power, but that wouldn't be anything new.
>>53079123
>/g/
>techies
>/g/
>no ideological/political axe to grind
If you're not trolling I feel sincerely sorry for you.
>>53079184
They literally can't do it to the dead guy's phone. What FBI is asking is for Apple to put a security vulnerability in all *future* phones.
>>53079208
> What FBI is asking is for Apple to put a security vulnerability in all *future* phones.
Well, if that's the case I would tell the FBI to fuck off.
>>53079276
>Well, if that's the case I would tell the FBI to fuck off.
That's what Apple did, but now everyone is giving them hell for it because they protect terrorists and pedophiles.
>>53079196
>This extraction has already taken place in the San Bernardino case, and the FBI wants the security of the device weakened so they can access data that is properly protected.
If I've read right it's because the final 6 weeks had no icloud backups. Even Apple are shocked that it had no icloud backups for that long and they can't break it because the password was also changed.
They need the fappening guys on this.
>>53079293
Seems the PR stunt worked on you.
>>53079293
>now everyone is giving them hell for it because they protect terrorists and pedophiles.
I think that Apple should crack the phone and give the FBI the relevant data to the FBI. As far as anything else is concerned, I would tell them (the FBI) to go and jump off of a cliff.
>>53079296
>develops their own software
>is shocked why they can't break into it
How do they expect to be one step ahead of hackers if they have IT-tier knowledge of their own fucking products?
>>53079353
You really need to pay more attention to the part where "cracking" the phone would unavoidably compromise the security of all devices.
>>53079365
They weren't actually "shocked" for fucks sake, they were just surprised that the guy actually had the foresight to prevent his phone from automatically syncing to a PRISM partner's data bank.
>>53079406
>You really need to pay more attention to the part where "cracking" the phone
I said Apple should crack the phone and give the data they get off of the phone to the FBI. The part of how Apple cracked it should not, under any circumstances, be made available to the FBI or anyone else, ever.
>Hugs tracfone bought with cash and registered under fake name/address with PiA, mobile date/gps off, and Protonmail.
The only possible way to get any privacy on any electronica device is not to tie it to your personal data in any way. My phone is android, and I know there's shit in it spying on me, but nobody has any clue it's me and that's all that matters.
Phone calls are probably recorded, but there's nothing I can do about it and I just have to watch what I say until someone does (don't say bomb, terrorist, etc.). I've got 99 problems, but worrying about spying isn't one.
Why doesn't the government just buy every single burner phone company?
>>53079470
that would be too obvious but soon they will brother.
>>53078968
http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/no-apple-has-not-unlocked-70-iphones-for-law-enforcement/
Because pedos, degenerates, and other criminals know that they're fucked if the FBI breaks the encryption. Apple should just do it
>>53079462
Do you have the slightest clue of how cell phones work?
As long as you are in a service area, your carrier always knows your location.
Imagine if the police had a key that could unlock every door in the country. Would you be safer?
Why don't they just set the dead guy's finger on the fingerprint sensor?
>>53079441
You're basically saying that Apple should crack something that has been mathematically proven to be uncrackable.
>>53079322
I hate Apple, their products and their customers with a passion, but in this case my hate for the sinister intentions of the government is bigger.
What would Apple do if dead terrorist called and said he forgot the PIN to unlock his phone? How would they proceed? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have to disable the auto-delete function and brute force their way into the guy's phone to unlock it.
>>53079792
Brute forcing pin codes tends to be easy because they are short and often just numbers.
>>53079607
>Carrier knows your location
>Your contacts are incredibly similar to another phone's contacts, striking amount of 1<->1 connections
>Audibly, voice recognition hears everyone call you by "Anon" on phone, matches other phone device's holder name
>ITSHAPPENING.GIF
>>53079441
>>53079756
This is not what you're saying. It is not uncrackable.
What you are saying, however, is that Apple should do what the FBI wants without allowing the FBI direct access to the method, and then the destroy the method they create.
Two things you haven't considered...
1. The FBI probably doesn't want Apple's engineers to handle the data.
2. If Apple does this, and tells everyone that's what they did, there will be reasonable doubt that it actually is what took place and the tech world will no longer be able to hold confidence in the security enclave.
So your suggestion does not work in our favor or Apple's.
>>53079912 (cont.)
Of course, there's always a chance that this has all been a waste of time, or the FBI was full of shit to begin with:
http://9to5mac.com/2016/02/19/apple-doj-response-fbi-backdoor/
>>53079730
because he's dead and probably half rotten somewhere in a hole in the ground.
Your skin breaks down once you die, doesn't take long for skin to decay, especially on low surface area spots like fingers and toes.
Why do you think they use dental records and DNA testing to identify a dead body?
>>53079895
Thanks to CALEA, you can't trust any U.S. carrier or ISP to not sell you out to the feds.
tl;dr
Apple could crack the phone for them, but they aren't going to because it goes against their security ideals and also the FBI will keep coming back with more phones to crack.
>>53078764
>I get that people are saying that unlocking this phone will have far reaching implications for every iPhone user's privacy but I don't understand why.
Because if police can unlock it then criminals will as well. Narcos already have people working in the FBI, they would just swipe the backdoor and hand it over to their bosses and then every iphone can be milked and unlocked just like before.
>>53079730
because the iphone looks for flowing blood in the finger. cutting it off or copy the fingerprint on silicon or something wont help..
>>53079987
This will just spur Apple to make security measures like delayed password attempts and auto wipe are hardware enforced in future iPhones, and any attempt to get around them (e.g. by installing custom iOS builds) would effectively destroy the data.
>>53079974
They have these facilities where you can keep a body in a cold environment to preserve it for forensic purposes, you know.
>>53080063
does not matter, the blood is not flowing and the finger is not alive.
>>53080048
On Mythbusters they were able to fool a sensor with a silicon fingerprint stuck onto their finger.
It just seems to me like there are a number of ways the FBI could access the device since its in their possession, but they want Apple to capitulate and give them something much more than a way to access this specific device that they have physical access to.
>>53079730
iPhone 5c doesn't have touchid
>>53078985
>1) Everyone is angry because Apple can't do time travel and install a backdoor to the terrorist telephone in the past so the FBI can hack it now.
Except it doesn't require time travel. Apple can sideload signed firmware in a cold boot attack, then the PIN can be programmatically attacked.
This attack can happen today, so it's important that Apple is NOT forced to set this precedent.
>>53078764
,>implying the government doesn't already have iOS backdoored
>>53080190
>failing at the meme arrow
>pretending to understand things
>>53078764
>unlocking
People keep using this work, but it actually doesn't involve any "unlocking" but rather a "reprogramming" of iOS in order to disable certain security features that prevent bruteforcing iPhone passwords.
You can read the details here:
https://thehackernews.com/2016/02/unlock-iphone-device.html
>>53080054
You're probably right and at least we can take solace in that if this whole thing doesn't work out in Apple's favor.
What would happen if the FBI needed access to one of those super fancy safes with lockout protection and anti-drilling/cutting features and stuff and the owner was the only one with a combination and he died and any attempt to breach the safe would destroy the contents?
At the launch didn't apple say they couldn't access what's on a device? Now they say they can but won't. I smell bullshit.....
>>53080384
Apparently they would ask the safe manufacturer to engineer an alternative lockout protection system for them to flash onto the safe. If even that would destroy the data, they'd be SOL and everyone would buy that safe.
>>53080443
They can access what isn't properly protected, and you use their device willfully submitting your data to the reaches of the PRISM program and such.
There are things that they can't access. It just depends on how it's stored.
>>53078764
Its a huge assumption, but this is what I suspect:
1. FBI can already get into iPhones, but the solution is top secret.
2. They have evidence for the case, but they cannot admit it to court without revealing their methods.
3. So pressure Apple into publicly announcing a back door.
4. Apple won't do it because of their customer base.
So, it doesn't matter whether Apple can get into their phones or not. It's about FBI/NSA covering up their methods and ensuring the evidence they provide is admissible in court.
>>53079518
They can't unlock them, but they can flash custom firmware to make it easy to brute force... That's a completely different thing, right?
>>53078938
>I've already admitted that I'm ignorant on this subject which is why I'm asking the question.
OP, it's because that's what everyone does on /g/. They say they don't know something, then ask us to educate them. In your case, it's a legitimate tech question. But 90% of the time it's people asking for tech support or product / service recommendations.
>>53078963
what if people use LMV or similar shit to encrypt their phone/data?
>>53080666
That's what Apple is fighting.
Currently there exists no private iOS build that disables delayed passcode attempts and auto wipe, or allows remote passcode entry. The feds want Apple to make one for the shooter's iPhone so they can brute-force the 4-digit PIN in a trivial amount of time.
Think for a minute. Let's say apple complies, and the precedent for forcing computer makers to Crack their own systems is set. The logical consequence would be apple making hardware that they themselves can't crack. And the logical consequence of this happening would be the government forcing them to add a HARDWARE backdoor to their devices. And the logical consequence of this would be the backdoor leaking, all cybersecurity being compromised, and all e-commerce and banking being completely fucked overnight.
Inb4 some dumbass suggest: dude you're bluepilled lmao, the NSA already has backdoors on all our shit!
No it doesn't, if this supposed backdoor existed, it would have been found, and IT security would be non-existent. There's a difference between collecting logs and data and having the means to straight up break encryption on any device.
>>53080937
But it goes deeper. If Apple can write custom firmware, why wouldn't the NSA be able to? They say it's safe because there's no encryption master key, but this makes the difference very subtle.
>>53081017
No one but Apple can sign iOS builds.
If the NSA modified the build they would also alter the signature and be unable to flash it.
This is why the feds need Apple's cooperation.
>>53080937
Can someone be coerced by the government to produce a product or perform a service?
>>53078764
If you read exactly what the FBI was asking for, they wanted a decryption tool that was loaded into the phone's ram, and modified none of the OS or data files.
I don't know where this meme of 'a custom iOS version' comes from - that is absolutely not what is in the court papers.
They were not just asking for the files; they want apple to develop a specific technology / tool.
I think they asked explicitly for this tool to be created so that they could legislate that explicit tool to be created for all phones.
The FBI is quite smart and aware of how to get the politicians to create the law environment that it wants. I don't think that it is in the best interest of everyone to have PRISM or anything related out there.
>>53081200
Yes.
>>53081200
That's a big question too. In the past when a company has been compelled to provide something for law enforcement, it has been data or using some tool it already has and uses.
This is going to take some non-negligible engineering, I think.
I question if the bootloader has the functionality to do what the FBI wants - load an executable directly into ram and jump into it. It might only have enough functionality to read/write flash and buffer data in ram.
>>53078764
All of their amateur gay porn would be vulnerable.
>>53080944
>forcing computer makers to Crack their own systems is set
Companies already do this on their own. In order to find vulnerabilities in their system, they hire ethical hackers to work for them by cracking their system. Of course these methods are confidential within the company (that's probably why apple deny being able to hack into it after the password change because it would alert the bad hackers) but getting a warrant or filing court order is well within the legal system to access private information using said methods, as long as the 'method' doesn't go into the clients (FBI in this case) hands.
And this is where the speculation begins because the FBI has given Apple the option to install the cracked OS on their facilities (see pic for court order) but wants to 'conduct the passcode attempts'. This means Apple 'could' have the ability to safeguard their method of de-encryption since it would be in their HQ under their control, but it seems that the password attempts will be fed in electronically by the FBI (something to be weary about).
The FBI hasn't made the claim that they want the OS in their hands but Apple are nonetheless cautious about that claim. We shouldn't rule out the possibility of the FBI playing it dirty and stealing the altered SFI, perhaps through coercion.
I think the FBI already has all the information contained on the phone. This demand has nothing to do with muh terrorists and more to do with tracking regular people.
>>53081644
This is less about the technical aspects of the security, and more about setting a precedent for governments to demand that companies break their security on demand, at which point such "security" becomes just a façade.
There's a couple of different problems here.
Do you believe encryption should be weakened for everyone because of the bad actions of a handful of people?
Do you believe all devices should be weakened for the same reasons?
Do you believe the government should have the right to take over a business and then force them to do their bidding, turning them into a de-facto branch of the government with no oversight or accountability?
>>53081921
>Do you believe the government should have the right to take over a business and then force them to do their bidding, turning them into a de-facto branch of the government with no oversight or accountability?
That's what a government is made for. Are you an anarchist?
>>53081953
Turning the government into a decentralized network of unaccountable businesses is not what the constitution intended,
Either;
1) Apple are total faggots who won't unlock Farook's phone and told the Feds to go fuck themselves and then lied about the Feds and said they don't want access to just his phone they "want to access every phone with a back door!!!"
2) The Feds are legitimately trying to get a backdoor into every iphone somehow and have lied about only wanting to access Farook's phone. Apple is bravely telling them to fuck off.
I do not know which of these it is. Why couldn't they just say to Apple "please let us into this shitcan's phone" and they do it and say "here you go, have a nice day" Why didn't that happen?
>>53081953
>Are you an anarchist?
You say that like it's a bad thing.
>>53081844
>setting a precedent for governments to demand that companies break their security on demand
But there's no precedence to be set, governments can already do this under the probable cause clause of the 4th amendment. Experts say apple has the capability to do this without compromising it's digital infrastructure but you're worried about it getting 'leaked' by the FBI which is semi-justifiable since they've been known to be shady.
But the thing is, there is a probable cause in this case because we know for a fact that he was a terrorist and likely contacted other people within the country/state so the argument for security goes both ways.
>>53081921
No, but that isn't whats happening here you fucking iShill
>>53080944
Why should Apple even be able to refuse to break into the phones of criminals and mass murderers on a by case basis? They have zero fucking moral authority with which to do this. They should be proud and willing to get into the phones of these pieces of shit.
>>53082022
slippery slope
>>53082022
>Why couldn't they just say to Apple "please let us into this shitcan's phone" and they do it and say "here you go, have a nice day" Why didn't that happen?
Because they know apple is full arrogant hipsters who think the FBI was created under the Bush administration and will never comply.
>>53078764
it's all about the government wanting to improve the economics of mass surveillance
The FBI are retards and don't have exploits like being able to to hit the baseband processor and get into the phone from that vector, but someone like the NSA has WARRIORPRIDE and other exploits on tap for this very situation. Of course they aren't going to release them to a corrupt (in their eyes) institution like the FBI. They don't like to share their toys.
>>53082075
They want the ability to tamper with a device without tripping the security features of the device. If their methods are released it could easily damage Apple's reputation severely and put the personal information of millions of their customers at risk. Why should Apple be expected put themselves and their customers in harms way?
>>53082012
You're so naive. The true nature of the government is to be a dictatorship tool. The ruling class will use it to do what it wants.
>>53082060
They can technically force them, but what if companies make systems that they themselves can't Crack without destroying the data? Would the law justify forbidding them from even developing such technology?
So Apple doesn't have a way to assign a new PIN to somebody who forgot theirs?
>Apple support one candidate
>Get rewarded with this marketing BS so people will have false sense of security
> FBI can (not of already) access the data on that phone by simply request the icloud data
> FBI win ( have the data)
>Apple win ( marketing and make people forget unix bug in thier phones)
>that candidate win (by getting the support)
>Public lose
>>53082129
>They want the ability
Nope, they didn't say that. They just want install the SFI under apple's own facilities (or the FBI's whichever they choose). They never said 'hey give us a cracked SFI of this phone'. Apple could easily administer a system wipe after retrieving the data.
>If their methods are released
>If
You sound like it will definitely happen under controlled situations. Let's argue with actual facts and not mere hypotheticals, there's no evil gubmint boogeyman anon.
>>53082203
The cloud data is encrypted.
>>53082263
You say that like you trust the FBI to not do shady stuff. They demanded to remote in and conduct the bruteforce attack themselves after the OS is flashed.
>>53082022
>I do not know which of these it is. Why couldn't they just say to Apple "please let us into this shitcan's phone" and they do it and say "here you go, have a nice day" Why didn't that happen?
For two reasons:
1 it sets a precedent: any LEO can now request any device to be decrypted without so much legal effort.
2 I believe if data is obtained this way (apple cooperating with the FBI) then the details of how it was achieved must also made public, which means the hacked firmware must also be exposed publicly... pandora's box and all that
God fucking forbid using the argument "but anon, won't Apple have all control and be able to destroy whatever backdoor the FBI gets?" "I don't see the issue with that."
>>53082263
You are missing the point: If the FBI can coerce Apple into unlocking a single iPhone, they and others will come back again and again with other iPhones -- at which point, if your device has been seized for any reason, you can kiss your privacy goodbye.
It will start with one high-profile terrorism case and eventually snowball to include anyone the government doesn't like. And this power will extend to other countries with even more abusive governments.
>>53082159
I don't know if the law would but in this specific case apple hasn't denied it can't crack without destroying data (they haven't admitted it either), tech experts said it's possible for apple to do it so if it's legal and it's possible I don't see why it would be something 'precedent setting'.
>>53082263
>They didn't say that. They just said that but in a different location.
Okay then.
>You sound like it will definitely happen under controlled situations.
Given enough time and resources any system will be broken into at some point. Advertising to the world that there is a flaw in Apple's devices will certainly accelerate the process of finding them. Also if Apple complies with this order does that meant the government's of Russia, China, etc can do the same? Whether or not you say yes it doesn't matter, Apple will probably be forced to do it anyway or face import bans and either option hurts their business.
>>53082324
>1 it sets a precedent: any LEO can now request any device to be decrypted without so much legal effort.
Why should this be a problem if Apple are still the only authority on decrypting their products and if it is only requested of them in criminal cases?
>then the details of how it was achieved must also made public
I don't see why this needs to be the case either. Although from what I understand this case isn't cut and dry anymore, it's a powerplay by the Feds which Apple are resisting.
>>53082292
Assuming the encryption isn't vulnerable, it doesn't have the limitation to crack (wipe or delay) like iphone, which is what FBI asking to remove in the first place.
Also
>implying apple dosn't have backdoor in the cloud
This such a publicity stunt. If Apple were that concerned about privacy the OS that's on their computers wouldn't have backdoors which western security agencies can use. BSD (The OS Apple uses, they rebrand it) doesn't come with backdoors, they add them. Windows also have these backdoors. It's only Linux and native BSD (such as PC-BSD for example) that doesn't come with these holes. Linus Torvalds went public when the NSA approached him and he made it clear he refused to put backdoors in Linux in that very colourful manner of his.
>>53082370
>I don't know if the law would
>so if it's legal
Didn't think that one through there, did you?
>>53082370
Usually the firmware and the personal data are stored in different partitions of the same storage device, modifying one witthout affecting the other is possible. The issue is that providing the modified SFI under these conditions sets a bad precedent bound to be abused in the near future.
>>53082370
As far as I understand, ever since the secure enclave chips were introduced, the phones are indeed impossible to decrypt, even for apple. Whether that's true or not, only apple knows, but it's not an unreasonable assumption. I want to know of the implications of this. Is the government ok with such strong cryptography being available in a mainstream product?
>>53082343
>If the FBI can coerce Apple into unlocking a single iPhone, they and others will come back again and again with other iPhones
If they can receive a lawful warrant for those cases, then by all means.
>It will start with one high-profile terrorism case and eventually snowball to include anyone the government doesn't like
Again with the tyrannical boogeyman. Please be an autist somewhere else, let the adults converse.
Apple supports Islamic terrorists by not letting the FBI crack the terrorists phones.
>>53082387
How would this hypothetical backdoor work? Also, again, you can't access the icloud backup without unlocking the phone, since it's encrypted.
>>53082381
>Why should this be a problem if Apple are still the only authority on decrypting their products and if it is only requested of them in criminal cases?
LOL no, the only authority on this is a judge which is out of Apple's hands, in other words, judge says jump, apple must reply 'how high?'
>I don't see why this needs to be the case either.
Because if they prosecute (or attempt to) anyone with data from this source, the defense must also have access to this tool to have it analyzed so it can guarantee that the data was extracted without corruption... so now the SFI is in the hands of the FBI, the lawyers and some third party forensic lab.
>>53082324
>then the details of how it was achieved must also made public
You have no ground to make that claim, there's no reason for it to be made public and no reason to assume the FBI or Apple would make it public.
>>53078764
Basically, the FBI wants apple to install a universal government backdoor on their devices.
They can get warrants for specific devices, which is the case currently and has been done before, but they need to go through apple to get things done.
In this case, they want to avoid apple and be able to do things on their own.
Apple said "oh, yeah, we won't do that. We love our customers <3" but in reality they're probably going to get paid by the FBI and install it anyway.
>>53082493
>judge says jump, apple must reply 'how high?'
Yes. We call that justice.
>>53082496
uh, yes, if the data is used to prosecute others its method of extraction must be made public, see >>53082496
>>53082401
You autistic or something?
It is legal and backdoors have been used in the past to catch people out... Dude I did think it through... Apple OS X on their computers already have these back doors. But hay it good marketing for Apple.
>>53082507
Actually, the most likely scenario is that the FBI already cracked it and have the data but they need to legally justify the method they used. Maybe they don't want to disclose that particular method because the methods to obtain information from locked devices are very limited so they rather have Apple pony up a modified SFI to justify how they extracted the data.
Two scenarios:
>Apple doesn't comply -- the feds can't prosecute a guy that's already been shot dead by police
>Apple does comply -- not only those this give the government a tool they should not have, any russian or chinese hacker with too much time on their hand can reverse engineer this, privacy is out the window, business secrets are out the window, nobody buy apple phones anymore and the company goes bankrupt as 90% of their revenue is from iphone sales
It's simply unamerican in every possible way, yet /g/'s beloved tronal dump supports it
>>53082567
Are you really saying that hardware, cpu-level backdoors that can be used to circumvent or compromise encryption exist and have been used? If that were the case, nobody would ever do online banking or use credit cards ever, and everyone's computers would be filled to the brim with malware.
>>53082507
Apple would much rather make it impossible for them to access the data by any means, saving them the resources they would have spent on cooperating with LEAs. Instead of saying "We don't want to," they can instead say "We can't" and that's that.
Whatever iOS/iPhone security issues have been brought under scrutiny as a result of this case are already being dealt with inside Apple.
>>53082567
>thinking that Apple actually have backdoors just because you read it on /g/
Look at the retard. Look at him and laugh.
>>53082596
Every possible candidate has some flaw. I guess this one is his.
>>53082525
Not really, you don't need to hack a banks security system to use it's cctv surveillance footage in court for example.
>>53082596
Your first scenario was never the intended target, they dont want the data to 'prosecute' the dead guy (killing the 14 others is more than enough to warrant a few life sentences and 14 individual executions).
The second one is just hyperbolic, Apple will lose sales to this but it won't bankrupt them. It might affect them in the way that anything related to privacy coming out of their PR department is considered hypocritical at best.
Isn't the iPhone 6s immune because of its encryption hardware? Apple could just make the backdoor for the 6c then upgrade the 7c to include the encryption hardware.
>>53082622
That's what I'm wondering. Can the government force apple to abstain from making cryptography-secured mainstream computing devices that even Apple can't crack?
>>53082592
By this logic, which actually makes sense, I suppose you can assume that it's true if the court order goes through, followed by the FBI announcement of success within days. Even with the decryption tech, and the apple backdoor, this should take fairly longer.
>>53082641
Different scenario, it only makes sense if the bank refuses to provide CCTV recordings to protect their customer's privacy/bank integrity.
>>53082596
>any russian or chinese hacker with too much time on their hand can reverse engineer this
If that was true then it wouldn't have been done already.
>>53082637
He also wants to kill net neutrality and the anonymous principle by forcing some DRD-like policy.
>>53082650
>The second one is just hyperbolic, Apple will lose sales to this but it won't bankrupt them. It might affect them in the way that anything related to privacy coming out of their PR department is considered hypocritical at best.
I know plenty of businesses that will find it completely unacceptable to use products that have known backdoors in it.
>>53079165
Your humor was not wasted good Sir.
>>53082680
>If that was true then it wouldn't have been done already.
It would, hence it proves that Apple do not actually have a backdoor like /g/ likes to pretend.
Yep. How they do it is a secret. *One* of the reasons why Windows is prone to attacks is because these backdoors are easily discoverable on the system if you know what you're doing. I wouldn't do online banking on Windows. The system is a lot more secure than what it used to be.
>>53078764
Applelfags are being manipulated into thinking and spreading the misinformation that responding to a targeted court order is the same thing as providing information to the NSA one-sidedly. The reason why aplel is spreading this falsehood is to encourage intelligence agencies to approve of and make use of automatic information collection as demo'd with the NSA instead of passing through the proper channels, since it would give legal authority to companies like applel to collect and sell any amount of private data from their consumers as they want.
>>53082656
Yes, not without a lot of public backslash and lots of media attention but they could 'try' to pass a law that forbids encryption methods that the government cannot reverse.
>>53082678
Yes but the 'method' of extraction is what we're talking about, not whether a company uses said extractions or not.
>>53082714
>hating Apple so much that you resort to shilling for the NSA
>>53082656
A law would need to be signed by the President that officially mandates weak/compromised security on all devices, which would utterly devastate American tech companies.
Good to hear they are using entrerprise Linux or prue BSD ;-)
>>53082707
but then you'd have to explain how this would lead the russian/chinese hackers into 'reverse engineering' it.
>>53082713
We're talking about hardware backdoors here, retard. Why are you even mentioning windows?
>>53082733
Case in point, ladies and gentlemen. The applelfag in his natural habitat! Facts? Truth? Into the trash it goes! With applelfags, it's strawmen and fabrications!
>>53082748
Because they do all the fucking time.
>>53082681
>I know plenty of businesses that will find it completely unacceptable to use products that have known backdoors in it.
Agreed, but plenty does not mean 'most', even less 'all' which means Apple won't go down on for this single incident, in addition, Apple majority consumers are regular people,not business (yes, they could be employed and their IT dept might force them to use an approved device, but this only happens where there is an actual IT department and someone who cares enough to enforce this policy). It will still hurt them in future sales though.
>>53082720
If they were to do that, they would risk most of the IT and banking industry to leave the country.
>>53082656
I think so. But legislative backdoors to crypto have been beaten back before.
Any backdoor that is there can be broken and exploited (ex the fappening) Any mandated crypto will be broken (ex. hdmi keys).
If any of these technology companies want to sell any sort of cloud based services, they have to be 100% certain that their systems are secure, otherwise fuckthatshit.
I really like apple's solution, at least as far as I have looked. Everything is encrypted. end-to-end. The user (or their hardware) is responsible for maintaining the keys and doing the decryption.
Do you want a ghost-in-the-shell type hyper-connected world? The systems have to be bulletproof. Zero backdoors. Governments will have to get their Intel by good old fashioned techniques.
Any criminal is probably going to distrust all infrastructure anyway, and use their own systems, whether it be PGP or something else.
>>53082468
Like any backdoor in any encryption,and as it is closed source, you can't verify it is not.
No you don't need an iPhone, it's already stored on the cloud , only encrypted
>>53078938
Most of the threads on here are either tech support threads (they shouldn't even be here), generals, not-tech threads or people complaining about linux/windows. This IS a legit tech question though.
>>53078938
if you were actually ignorant of the subject, you woudn't ask
>>53082652
>Apple says that the things that the FBI is asking for are also possible on newer devices with the Secure Enclave. The technical solutions to the asks would be different (no specifics were provided) than they are on the iPhone 5c (and other older iPhones), but not impossible.
http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/why-apple-is-fighting-not-to-unlock-iphones-for-the-government/
Apple has openly admitted that all of its current devices are vulnerable to signed "attack" builds of iOS.
>>53082724
Yes, but it would be like asking the manufacturer of the cameras to provide a backdoor to access the recordings as the bank is not cooperating, assuming that the bank owner are somehow immune to the authority and cannot be coerced into cooperating.
>>53082744
I'm not sure what lie you were told but namefagging, genuinely or ironically, is still retarded.
>>53082652
Oh, the naivety.
This thread is pretty much dildos.
>>53082759
If there's a leak yes but you'd be the one having to make that assumption.
ITT: We pretend that apple is not part of PRISM and that their products aren't already full to the brim with backdoors.
How horrible! What a bad precedent it would set if apple complied! I'm so glad that apple does not have backdoors!
Am I doing this right?
>>53082774
But the key to decrypting the icloud backup is on the phone.
Do you have any proof and examples of existing crypto systems having backdoors?
>>53080542
This would not surprise me in the least. I can't help but feel that both sides aren't being completely transparent about this matter. There's gotta be something more to this than meets the eye.
>>53082828
Give proof that backdoors and exploits that compromise the encryption on their devices exist.
>>53078764
Master keys and intentional backdoors were ordered from the FBI.
>>53082772
Agreed, that why I said that it could happen but it will be very public and with lots of public reactions. Of course, it could also pass in a hidden bill (see SOPA/TPP)
>>53082858
Congratulations on being the dumbest bread in the toaster.
>>53082897
That's the best you can do?
>>53082078
>Why should Apple even be able to refuse to break into the phones of criminals and mass murderers on a by case basis?
They want nothing to do with it period. They make consumer products, not societal decisions. This is a basic concept in a democratic society.
>>53082897
Congratulations on not having any substance to back up your hollow conspiracy theory.
>>53082828
>ITT: We pretend that apple is not part of PRISM and that their products aren't already full to the brim with backdoors.
then why the pony and dog show? Apple stands to lose sales/take a significant PR hit in the times where privacy is being actually relevant by cooperating with the government publicly and it also stands to lose the favor with the government if they decline to help.
>>53082910
They want nothing to do with helping society protect itself against criminals who've murdered 16 people? That's insane and wrong. They're not snooping into grandma's emails here, this Farook guy was a genuine piece of shit mass murderer.
>>53082949
By arguing this way you are pretty much saying that encryption must not exist, because bad people may use it to do bad things. Is this really what you think?
>>53082949
All of the government's surveillance programs didn't stop him from killing his coworkers.
Also, this whole thing is a joke and the FBI knows there's nothing on the iPhone. Farook and his wife destroyed their personal phones and removed and destroyed the hard drive for their computer. They left this iPhone which was his work provided phone in their Lexus which was parked in their garage.
>>53082949
Apple isn't in the business of fighting crime. They leave that to the appropriate agencies.
Just because their products end up in the hands of bad people doesn't make them responsible for said people.
>>53078764
Do Government Officials have a right to break and enter into your home if you're suspected of a serious crime or think they you might be responsible for terrorist activity or can prevent a terrorist attack?
Fuck yeah they do and your shitty rights can rot in hell for all I care.
What you should be concerned about is abuse of the law and prosecutorial misconduct and not gubment having backdoors to certain tech.
Just because you do it on a computer doesn't make it so spehshul that you get to hide your crimes in a sealed box under the shroud of 'privacy'
Courts will always weigh up your 'right to privacy' over society's right to be protected.
When you're an asshole who breaks the law you deserve everything you get.
Now the real problem is that some prosecutors and investigators will abuse this shit.
This is where transparency comes into play.
Now at least they're literally asking for a backdoor and not fucking hiding in the shadows in some secrit court.
>>53082828
So the FBI is just putting on a show? why are they wasting everyone's time if they already have access to all these backdoors?
>>53082972
Encryption that Apple (not the Feds) can break must exist. If Apple are compelled by the courts into breaking it in criminal cases, they should comply.
>>53082996
As a society everybody is in the business of fighting crime whether you like it or not. If agencies need Apple's help, there is no reason they should deny them unless it seriously undermines the security of their business, which I have yet to see evidence that it does.
I think the only way for Apple to win amid divided opinion is to let FBI privately acquire the data only (through apple directly ie no remote access) and make sure the phone is destroyed. No one would know about it in public because apple and the FBI to cover up, making it think apple has won and rights have been secured. The FBI gets the information and Apple get the applause. The FBI supporters can cry all day and the applefags the last laugh (or so they think).
It's a win win situation.
>>53082949
>They want nothing to do with helping society protect itself against criminals who've murdered 16 people?
No, they want nothing to do with opening a can of worms that COULD have far reaching effects on generations to come. Why in the fuck would you want a corporation being involved in decision making at this level anyways? We get it. You want justice. The suspects are dead,the victims are dead, and delving into the most autistic levels of minutia on that phone isn't going to change anything.
>>53082812
>>53082816
I looked it up and the secure enclave in the 6s can have its firmware modified too. Maybe Apple can make it unmodifiable in the next generation of iPhones.
>>53083093
>delving into the most autistic levels of minutia on that phone isn't going to change anything.
You can't run from Justice, anon.
>>53083095
>Maybe Apple can make it unmodifiable in the next generation of iPhones.
If the appeals court upholds the lower court's order they probably will.
At which point the house and senate will need to pass a bill that requires companies to compromise the security of their products.
>>53083021
>hiding in the shadows in some secrit court.
This is what is most concerning. They've never stopped at these tactics before. There's more to this. It's pretty plain to see.
>>53083036
It's not apple's business what customers do with their phones. They are not accountable. You may as well sue arms manufacturers because their products kill people.
Also, if Apple has a way of breaking the crypto, and the feds can force them, how is it different to the feds being able to crack it outright?
>>53083036
>As a society everybody is in the business of fighting crime whether you like it or not.
Haha! Oh what a quaint little mind you have.
I didn't know they had Internet service in Podunk Midwestern backwaters with double-digit populations.
>>53083093
>far reaching effects on generations to come
>the suspects are dead and the victims are dead so it's okay
Man, you're literally retarded.
The phone has fucking clues to who directed the attack or are responsible in planning the fucking attack.
There are still people involved who are literally free to do this shit again.
You're such a naive little shit.
This isn't showing your password to the whole universe fucktard. It's for use in investing serious fucking crimes not browsing through your embarassing fetish porn for kicks.
>>53083166
Should cryptography exist and be legal?
>>53083150
>how is it different to the feds being able to crack it outright?
Because the courts wouldn't allow the feds to force Apple to open every trivial phone without a good reason.
>>53083163
I'm British, and you have a responsibility to your society. So does Apple.
>society should prioritise against crime
I know, what a crazy fucking notion?
>>53083150
approved methods. If you can get money by robbing a bank or by working, why should you be prosecuted if you can use the former to make money when it is obviously faster?
>>53083148
>it's pretty plain to see
Actually there probably isn't.
The FBI/NSA/CIA are very different government bodies and are all highly secretive. I doubt they even share databases with each other and often keep secrets from one another.
They do very different things and are not one giant big brother looking to get after you.
>>53083186
Yes, however keys should exist for government enforcement agencies made available on warrants being issued by an open, transparent court.
>>53082996
If you refuse to help a dying human you'd get charged with negligent homicide, it would be the same if a terrorist attack happened as a result of apples refusal to pursue blatant terrorist connections under a lawful warrant.
>>53083166
>The phone has fucking clues to who directed the attack or are responsible in planning the fucking attack.
No it doesn't you mouth breathing retard, the phone was a work provided iPhone that the killers intentionally left in their parked Lexus
They destroyed their personal phones and the hard drive from their computer. It is clear that they understood that their data could be recovered which is why they destroyed their other devices. If they left this phone untampered with, it was definitely intentional.
>>53082949
No one gives a shit about him nigger, he's dead and he destroyed his personal phone. The iphone was his work phone and probably has nothing useful, the FBI are just using this case to gain easy access to every iphone.
You think the FBI are making a big fuss just to get access to one dead guy's phone?
If they can bruteforce an iOS update on the phone then why don't they just make one version for that phone only?
>>53083204
>government enforcement agencies
>visit Russia or China
>Russian customs get to look through all of your devices for subversive material
no thx
>>53083032
>So the FBI is just putting on a show?
I'm willing to bet they are. If they had never admitted they had the phone they could have possibly used a backdoor to get in. As it stands now, they would basically be forced to admit they have a backdoor if they reveal what is on that phone without Apples help.. By forcing Apple publicly, they have an alibi and the backdoor can remain unpatched.
>>53083205
Would this also be true if Apple made the tech in such a way that they themselves can't crack it?
>>53083210
>no it doesn't
And you should know this because?
>they destroyed their personal phones and hard drive from their computer
>It was definitely intentional
Yeah it couldn't be because they, you know at the time they were being shot at panicked and overlooked it.
Regardless the Feds should still have fucking access to it and it's not some civil liberty intrusion. Feds having access to terrorists' phones isn't a breach of your privacy or rights fucktard.
>>53083236
>and probably has nothing useful
>>53083244
Because the device ID is encrypted in the phones memory while it is locked. You can't tailor-make an OS for just this phone for this reason.
>>53083253
yes but since we know apple can crack it, then we hold them partially responsible.
>>53083032
No, Apple is putting on a show. The NSA and FBI don't cooperate closely and US government agencies typically dislike each other enough not to share useful information.
>>53083245
And look how many terrorist attacks have happened in China and Russia.
>>53083205
>If you refuse to help a dying human you'd get charged with negligent homicide
this is not true at all in the United States you stupid nigger, you have no affirmative duty to rescue someone unless you begin commencing rescue and stop or are responsible for causing their peril
>>53083204
If that was the case, then the encryption wouldn't be secure and nobody would trust it. Nobody would buy it and the IT and banking sector would Fuck off out of the country.
>>53083263
They destroyed their phones and hard drive before the attack began.
>>53083281
Russia has terrorist attacks regularly
>>53083205
>If you refuse to help a dying human you'd get charged with negligent homicide.
What? Who told you this?
>it would be the same if a terrorist attack happened as a result of apples refusal to pursue blatant terrorist connections under a lawful warrant.
Holy fucking hyperbole... it does not work that way. There is no way to prove that there are 'blatant terrorist connections' inside the phone because they want to know what is inside the phone.
>>53083292
>encryption wouldn't be secure and nobody would trust it.
Plenty of people who aren't criminals would trust it.
The only people who have the keys are court officials.
They use it once and destroy it and it becomes unusable after that instance.
This should be the way it works.
>>53083150
>Also, if Apple has a way of breaking the crypto, and the feds can force them, how is it different to the feds being able to crack it outright?
The feds aren't asking Apple to break the crypto, only to disable other security roadblocks and allow for computer-controlled passcode entry, and only for the one device used by Syed Farook.
To do this, they need Apple to build and sign the modified iOS code. Otherwise the iPhone won't install it.
Once the "attack" iOS build is installed, the feds visit Apple's campus, hook up a computer to the compromised iPhone, and brute force the 4-digit passcode once every 80ms, and in 13 minutes or less they get into the phone.
The feds leave with only the data, and Apple is free to destroy the phone and any trace of the "attack" iOS code.
>>53083312
>This should be the way it works.
That's the way it works when you don't understand how encryption works.
>>53083294
Russia and China are fuckhuge countries.
>>53083166
All the metadata associated with this phone is all the eveidence you need, retard. Who they called, messaged, everything. You think the carrier doesn't have this information? Kill yourself you emotional twit.
>>53083326
>Russia and China are fuckhuge countries.
And how the fuck is this relevant?
>>53083312
>The only people who have the keys are court officials
who watches the watchers?
>>53083312
The security of the entire system would still be compromised. Courts and governing bodies aren't infallible, they would be hacked, the keys would leak. Such keys must not exist if you want encryption security. Without this security, you are undermining the entire IT sector.
>>53083339
>All the metadata associated with this phone is all the eveidence you need, retard.
This, we kill people based on metadata, they don't need whatever useless work bullshit is on this locked iPhone.
>>53083346
>who watches the watchers?
Judges appointed by the Executive? Who are in turn appointed through democratic elections?
>>53083339
What if both parties were using iMessage and FaceTime?
>>53083353
>they would be hacked, the keys would leak
This, the Chinese are constantly hacking government databases so they'd definitely get their hands on any backdoor the government routinely used.
>>53083282
http://www.tncrimlaw.com/TPI_Crim/07_07.htm
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.233
It's true for Tennessee and Minnesota for example. You really thought you'd get away with it? kek
>>53083353
>they would be hacked
Yeah, because encryption is unhackable amirite?
>>53083204
>The FBI/NSA/CIA are very different government bodies and are all highly secretive. I doubt they even share databases with each other and often keep secrets from one another.
>They do very different things and are not one giant big brother looking to get after you.
What the fuck does that have to do with secret courts? Secret courts rarely follow standard procedures, hence the need for secrecy.
>>53083311
>What? Who told you this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide
>There is no way to prove that there are 'blatant terrorist connections' inside the phone because they want to know what is inside the phone.
>>53083353
by that logic anyone can get their hands on nuclear codes.
Protip: they can't.
>>53083393
Secret courts should be outlawed.
It defeats the entire purpose of having a court in the first place which is to be a hearing accessible to the public.
>>53083399
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide
>wikipedia
>This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed
really? this is your source?
>>53083379
You don't know how to read
The Minnesota law is describing when you have a special duty, for example you are a baby sitter, parent, teacher, etc responsible for the person.
The Tennessee law says you are criminally liable when YOUR CONDUCT causes their danger. I am not negligent if I see a kid that I have no relation to drowning in a lake and decide not to rescue him.
>>53083263
>Yeah it couldn't be because they, you know at the time they were being shot at panicked and overlooked it.
They did this fully expecting to be dead in the end. They knew exactly what they were doing.
>>53079912
Thats stupid. You cannot hold any convidence in security as long it wasnt publicaly audited
>>53083399
accidentally entered submit
>There is no way to prove that there are 'blatant terrorist connections' inside the phone because they want to know what is inside the phone.
>known terrorist
>planned all this out
>likely did it with other people
>likely with a web of underground networks
>we can all prove this by actually getting into the phone
>we have a lawful warrant
it's not hard to put the pieces together
>>53083435
http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/negligent-homicide.htm
http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/negligent-homicide/
wait you actually thought this didn't exist? How old are you btw?
>>53083379
learn what a fiduciary is.
If you're a paramedic/nurse/doctor and don't help if someone is injured you are committing homicide. It's pretty common in common law countries and long established.
If you owe someone a duty of care and neglect it you're committing a negligent act.
>>53083458
Do you even know the elements of negligence?
Apple not unlocking an iPhone is not the proximate cause of a terrorist attack.
>>53079462
As if you were Jason Bourne? Get some perspective because your tinfoil is showing.
>>53083447
I'm sure you know exactly what was happening in their minds at the time Mr. Terrorist.
>>53082834
>Do you have any proof and examples of existing crypto systems having backdoors?
Any encryption? almost all of it of what WE know is broken:
>RSA with 1024 bit moduli
>MD4, MD5, and SHA1
Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html?_r=0
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/sep/05/nsa-classification-guide-cryptanalysis
>>53083467
You are literally fucking retarded and don't know what negligence is
>>53083489
Apple not unlocking an iPhone is obstruction to justice when there is a warrant from a court to do so.
I hope Tim Cook likes it up the butt.
>>53083505
>Apple not unlocking an iPhone is obstruction to justice when there is a warrant from a court to do so.
No it's not, obstruction of justice is a mens rea crime and creating a secure product does not mean they intend to obstruct justice.
>>53083493
You too.
>>53083492
If you don't think that everything you do in public or an any public computer network is recorded, you're wrong. If you know it's happening and you're okay with it, you're stupid.
>>53078938
>official /g/ consensus
>OFFICIAL
>/G/
>CONSENSUS
HA!
This is a troll thread
>>53083531
I don't understand why the FBI would ask Apple if they can ask the NSA for cooperation, which already have the backdoors set on that phone.
>>53083437
kek the amount of mental gymastics needed for you to defend your false position is astounding
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/940/I/02
here's another in wisconsin. Face it, you are legally liable for letting people die that you would have other wise would have saved.
>>53078963
>Breaking the encryption through brute force even on shit like iphone, depending on the hardware, is weeks if not months.
This is not accurate. Brute forcing an iPhone passcode is not difficult. iPhone passcodes are either 4 or 6 digits long. So 10,000 or 1,000,000 possible combinations. A human could manually enter every possible combination in the time frame you gave. A computer, just about any computer, could do it in a second.
What would be hard is brute forcing the encryption key. The encryption key is probably at least 256 binary digits long. So 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible combinations. There is no computer powerful enough to get through that before the heat death of the universe.
The encryption key is stored on a tamper-resistant chip that only spits out the encryption key when the correct passcode is entered. Also on that tamper-resistant chip is software that will restrict how often you can try to enter a passcode and software that will permanently destroy the encryption key if you enter too many incorrect passcodes.
Brute forcing the passcode is made impossible by software on the tamper-resistant chip, and brute forcing the encryption key is made impossible by the laws of physics.
What the FBI wants is for Apple to change the software on the tamper-resistant chip so that they can brute force the passcode. Apple rightly points out that if they gave the FBI this software update for the tamper-resistant chip, the FBI, and anyone else it leaks to, would be able to decrypt and unlock any iPhone instantly.
You should understand that because Apple is capable of changing the software on the tamper-resistant chips in their phones, they already have a back door (And they've used it to unlock phones for law enforcement before). They are simply refusing to give the FBI access to it forever.
>>53082987
>Lexus
I think Lexus should hang for aiding in a terrorist plot. Opinions?
>>53083503
I have sources, you don't. Please come back with some substance.
>>53083419
Exactly.
>>53083577
They want to set the precedent that they can order companies to put back doors in security software.
>retarded politicians with no understanding of technology side with the FBI
>everyone in the tech industry sides with Apple
This thread shows how many retards browse /g/
>>53083467
>How old are you btw?
Obviously older than you... at least to know that you should never use wikipedia as a reliable source and maybe read the sources when they are not from wiki to check if they are at least somehow related to the issue at hand, for example:
>http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/negligent-homicide/
>It is characterized as a death caused by death by conduct that grossly deviated from ordinary care.
Nowhere in the article is any mention of 'letting someone die and not helping prevent it is grounds for criminal charges'. Not even implied
Lets see your second source:
>http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/negligent-homicide.htm
>When the defendant refused to seek medical attention, he disregarded an unjustifiable risk, which was the possible death of his friend.
damn you got me here... oh wait you didn't:
>if the victim and the defendant were playing with a gun, and the victim was shot but the defendant refused to call for medical help, the defendant could be charged with negligent homicide because most people know the risks associated with a gunshot wound...
again, no where in your citations is even implied that ignoring someone to death (unless it is your duty/job) is grounds for criminal charges.
Yes, you can be considered an asshole for not helping someone in need, even worse if that causes that someone to actually die but legally, you are free to walk. You have no obligation to help.
>>53083579
You don't even read what you link, do you? That's a first degree murder statute, how the fuck is that related to negligence.
>>53083582
Trump?
>>53083597
That's not even a source you dumbass, you're linking statutes you don't even understand because you're a mouth breathing retard. I'd pull up all of your statutes on West law to show you how dumb you are but that would be a waste of both time and money.
>>53082923
So considering that Android and iPhones are compromised by the botnet, does anyone know how private and secure Blackberry phones are?
>>53083653
dude what link is that, that's not the one I posted idiot. The one I posted says
>(1)Whoever recklessly causes the death of another human being under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life is guilty of a Class B felony.
>>53083709
Deciding whether or not proprietary software is secure can only be guesswork by definition.
>>53083690
>I-I-I can prove it!
>b-but why would I waste my time right?
lol you got nothing, you just wanna run away from the debate and act like you've won right? Pathetic.
>>53083753
>https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/940/I/02
holy shit... he does not read his own fucking links
