|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 19 2016 01:47 Plansix wrote:
You can’t defend against a wire tap. You don’t get to know it I happening, that is the point. If people want to have encryption on their hard drive that never interacts with the internet, that would be different. But this is a phone that uses the US cellular network.
Do you believe the police should be prohibited from obtaining phone taps?
Your computer accesses the internet, so all Online Banking you do should be available to anyone connected to the internet lines.
This is your logic.
|
On February 19 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:Despite the growing threat from the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Libya, the Obama administration has turned down a U.S. military plan for an assault on ISIS’s regional hub there, three defense officials told The Daily Beast.
In recent weeks, the U.S. military—led by its Africa and Special Operations Commands—have pushed for more airstrikes and the deployment of elite troops, particularly in the city of Sirte. The hometown of former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, the city is now under ISIS control and serving as a regional epicenter for the terror group.
The airstrikes would target ISIS resources while a small band of Special Operations Forces would train Libyans to eventually be members of a national army, the officials said.
Weeks ago, defense officials told The New York Times that they were crafting military plans for such strikes, but needed more time to develop intelligence so that they could launch a sustained air campaign on ISIS in Sirte.
But those plans have since been put on the back burner.
“There is little to no appetite for that in this administration,” one defense official explained. Read the rest here. It looks like creating one massive power vacuum in the Middle East wasn't enough. Obama wants to double down on his foreign policy negligence and do the same thing in Libya. You can bet that Hillary is going to be answering some uncomfortable questions on the subject. Because arming middle eastern 'rebels' has such a wonderful history of success.
I'm not advocating arming the rebels or even any particular solution. I'm merely pointing out that Obama (and Hillary) toppled Gaddafi, creating a power vacuum, and has done nothing to fill the void. The adverse results speak for themselves.
|
On February 19 2016 01:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 01:47 Plansix wrote:
You can’t defend against a wire tap. You don’t get to know it I happening, that is the point. If people want to have encryption on their hard drive that never interacts with the internet, that would be different. But this is a phone that uses the US cellular network.
Do you believe the police should be prohibited from obtaining phone taps? Your computer accesses the internet, so all Online Banking you do should be available to anyone connected to the internet lines. This is your logic.
What part of court order confuses you? Did I say “unlimited access for everyone”? No, I said it was like a wire tap. Do you think the government can’t monitor someone’s internet usage if they obtain a warrant to do so?
|
I don't think the people advocating that Apple comply with this request actually understand the implications of having such a tool out there and the precedent that it sets. Some seem to not even understand what encryption is and what it does.
But this is the same problem in the courts I find, judges are passing rulings on a topic they are not at all informed about. Technology has always been in this iffy place. Years ago they locked people up in solitary confinement because prosecutors convinced the court that they could launch nukes by playing notes into a telephone, now they are trying to convince the courts that this is a perfectly fine line to take for national security. People who are ignorant of technology shouldn't be making these decisions as they can't possibly make well informed ones.
But like I said, I'll just wait until better encryption is developed to where no one has access to or knows the private keys and then laugh since there is no way to make a company comply when they literally can't do anything.
|
United States43754 Posts
On February 19 2016 01:47 Plansix wrote:
You can’t defend against a wire tap. You don’t get to know it I happening, that is the point. If people want to have encryption on their hard drive that never interacts with the internet, that would be different. But this is a phone that uses the US cellular network.
Do you believe the police should be prohibited from obtaining phone taps?
I think there needs to be a complete overhaul of the concepts involved and a bill of rights created. The organic evolutionary progress made has left the entire area legally grey to the point that legislators and security agencies are working from completely different playbooks with one hand not knowing what the other is doing. With regard to phone taps, I think a specific order being required for every phone tapped, issued by a skeptical judge with a working understanding of civic duty and technology is not unreasonable. So you can't just see an ancient judge and tell them that the Soviets will win unless you get permission to spy on every American. There should be a presumption of privacy which is overridden only by a conscious and deliberate ruling by a judge who is disinclined to make such a ruling.
|
On February 19 2016 01:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On February 19 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:Despite the growing threat from the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Libya, the Obama administration has turned down a U.S. military plan for an assault on ISIS’s regional hub there, three defense officials told The Daily Beast.
In recent weeks, the U.S. military—led by its Africa and Special Operations Commands—have pushed for more airstrikes and the deployment of elite troops, particularly in the city of Sirte. The hometown of former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, the city is now under ISIS control and serving as a regional epicenter for the terror group.
The airstrikes would target ISIS resources while a small band of Special Operations Forces would train Libyans to eventually be members of a national army, the officials said.
Weeks ago, defense officials told The New York Times that they were crafting military plans for such strikes, but needed more time to develop intelligence so that they could launch a sustained air campaign on ISIS in Sirte.
But those plans have since been put on the back burner.
“There is little to no appetite for that in this administration,” one defense official explained. Read the rest here. It looks like creating one massive power vacuum in the Middle East wasn't enough. Obama wants to double down on his foreign policy negligence and do the same thing in Libya. You can bet that Hillary is going to be answering some uncomfortable questions on the subject. Because arming middle eastern 'rebels' has such a wonderful history of success. I'm not advocating arming the rebels or even any particular solution. I'm merely pointing out that Obama (and Hillary) topped Gaddafi, creating a power vacuum, and has done nothing to fill the void. The adverse results speak for themselves.
I was not aware we took direct military action against him. Didn’t his own people rebel and we decided not to prop up a dictator again? And didn’t the rest of the world also create a power vacuum if that is true?
Are you advocating we stop every coup and rebellion worldwide to avoid power vacuums?
|
On February 19 2016 01:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On February 19 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:Despite the growing threat from the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Libya, the Obama administration has turned down a U.S. military plan for an assault on ISIS’s regional hub there, three defense officials told The Daily Beast.
In recent weeks, the U.S. military—led by its Africa and Special Operations Commands—have pushed for more airstrikes and the deployment of elite troops, particularly in the city of Sirte. The hometown of former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, the city is now under ISIS control and serving as a regional epicenter for the terror group.
The airstrikes would target ISIS resources while a small band of Special Operations Forces would train Libyans to eventually be members of a national army, the officials said.
Weeks ago, defense officials told The New York Times that they were crafting military plans for such strikes, but needed more time to develop intelligence so that they could launch a sustained air campaign on ISIS in Sirte.
But those plans have since been put on the back burner.
“There is little to no appetite for that in this administration,” one defense official explained. Read the rest here. It looks like creating one massive power vacuum in the Middle East wasn't enough. Obama wants to double down on his foreign policy negligence and do the same thing in Libya. You can bet that Hillary is going to be answering some uncomfortable questions on the subject. Because arming middle eastern 'rebels' has such a wonderful history of success. I'm not advocating arming the rebels or even any particular solution. I'm merely pointing out that Obama (and Hillary) topped Gaddafi, creating a power vacuum, and has done nothing to fill the void. The adverse results speak for themselves.
Wasn't most of that the french?
And yes the aftermath was not handled well, but the fix is not acceptable at the moment (boots on the ground for many years) so instead of fucking it up even more by training rebels who will end up being just as bad or throwing away billions in barely effective bombings he is not interfering.
|
On February 19 2016 01:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On February 19 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:Despite the growing threat from the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Libya, the Obama administration has turned down a U.S. military plan for an assault on ISIS’s regional hub there, three defense officials told The Daily Beast.
In recent weeks, the U.S. military—led by its Africa and Special Operations Commands—have pushed for more airstrikes and the deployment of elite troops, particularly in the city of Sirte. The hometown of former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, the city is now under ISIS control and serving as a regional epicenter for the terror group.
The airstrikes would target ISIS resources while a small band of Special Operations Forces would train Libyans to eventually be members of a national army, the officials said.
Weeks ago, defense officials told The New York Times that they were crafting military plans for such strikes, but needed more time to develop intelligence so that they could launch a sustained air campaign on ISIS in Sirte.
But those plans have since been put on the back burner.
“There is little to no appetite for that in this administration,” one defense official explained. Read the rest here. It looks like creating one massive power vacuum in the Middle East wasn't enough. Obama wants to double down on his foreign policy negligence and do the same thing in Libya. You can bet that Hillary is going to be answering some uncomfortable questions on the subject. Because arming middle eastern 'rebels' has such a wonderful history of success. I'm not advocating arming the rebels or even any particular solution. I'm merely pointing out that Obama (and Hillary) topped Gaddafi, creating a power vacuum, and has done nothing to fill the void. The adverse results speak for themselves.
What should be done then?
|
On February 19 2016 01:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 01:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 19 2016 01:47 Plansix wrote:
You can’t defend against a wire tap. You don’t get to know it I happening, that is the point. If people want to have encryption on their hard drive that never interacts with the internet, that would be different. But this is a phone that uses the US cellular network.
Do you believe the police should be prohibited from obtaining phone taps? Your computer accesses the internet, so all Online Banking you do should be available to anyone connected to the internet lines. This is your logic. What part of court order confuses you? Did I say “unlimited access for everyone”? No, I said it was like a wire tap. Do you think the government can’t monitor someone’s internet usage if they obtain a warrant to do so?
I think you're the one that's severely confused.
They already have their wiretap and their internet usage. They have the whole phone. They aren't asking for that.
This discussion will go absolutely no where if you keep using the wrong analogies.
|
On February 19 2016 01:52 Kickstart wrote:
I don't think the people advocating that Apple comply with this request actually understand the implications of having such a tool out there and the precedent that it sets. Some seem to not even understand what encryption is and what it does.
But this is the same problem in the courts I find, judges are passing rulings on a topic they are not at all informed about. Technology has always been in this iffy place. Years ago they locked people up in solitary confinement because prosecutors convinced the court that they could launch nukes by playing notes into a telephone, now they are trying to convince the courts that this is a perfectly fine line to take for national security. People who are ignorant of technology shouldn't be making these decisions as they can't possibly make well informed ones.
But like I said, I'll just wait until better encryption is developed to where no one has access to or knows the private keys and then laugh since there is no way to make a company comply when they literally can't do anything.
And then countries will make the sale of that encryption as integrated parts of mass market products illegal. No one is going to allow a top secret communication system that no one can access to exist. All of these systems, including the internet, run on cables and networks regulated and controlled by governments.
|
On February 19 2016 01:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 01:52 Kickstart wrote:
I don't think the people advocating that Apple comply with this request actually understand the implications of having such a tool out there and the precedent that it sets. Some seem to not even understand what encryption is and what it does.
But this is the same problem in the courts I find, judges are passing rulings on a topic they are not at all informed about. Technology has always been in this iffy place. Years ago they locked people up in solitary confinement because prosecutors convinced the court that they could launch nukes by playing notes into a telephone, now they are trying to convince the courts that this is a perfectly fine line to take for national security. People who are ignorant of technology shouldn't be making these decisions as they can't possibly make well informed ones.
But like I said, I'll just wait until better encryption is developed to where no one has access to or knows the private keys and then laugh since there is no way to make a company comply when they literally can't do anything. And then countries will make the sale of that encryption as integrated parts of mass market products illegal. No one is going to allow a top secret communication system that no one can access to exist. All of these systems, including the internet, run on cables and networks regulated and controlled by governments.
Under what circumstances do you believe something should be 100% private such that no one can unlock it? Is it that by using a government-provided spectrum/cable/protocol, you are surrendering a certain amount of freedom?
|
On February 19 2016 01:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 01:52 Kickstart wrote:
I don't think the people advocating that Apple comply with this request actually understand the implications of having such a tool out there and the precedent that it sets. Some seem to not even understand what encryption is and what it does.
But this is the same problem in the courts I find, judges are passing rulings on a topic they are not at all informed about. Technology has always been in this iffy place. Years ago they locked people up in solitary confinement because prosecutors convinced the court that they could launch nukes by playing notes into a telephone, now they are trying to convince the courts that this is a perfectly fine line to take for national security. People who are ignorant of technology shouldn't be making these decisions as they can't possibly make well informed ones.
But like I said, I'll just wait until better encryption is developed to where no one has access to or knows the private keys and then laugh since there is no way to make a company comply when they literally can't do anything. And then countries will make the sale of that encryption as integrated parts of mass market products illegal. No one is going to allow a top secret communication system that no one can access to exist. All of these systems, including the internet, run on cables and networks regulated and controlled by governments.
Who cares. Anyone who wants to use it just downloads it from anywhere off the internet and boom they have it.
This is another reason why this is dumb. Such legislation might stop an idiot who knows nothing about technology, but anyone who is aware can just download whatever security tools they need, they in no way need to rely on the manufacturer including it.
|
On February 19 2016 01:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 01:52 Kickstart wrote:
I don't think the people advocating that Apple comply with this request actually understand the implications of having such a tool out there and the precedent that it sets. Some seem to not even understand what encryption is and what it does.
But this is the same problem in the courts I find, judges are passing rulings on a topic they are not at all informed about. Technology has always been in this iffy place. Years ago they locked people up in solitary confinement because prosecutors convinced the court that they could launch nukes by playing notes into a telephone, now they are trying to convince the courts that this is a perfectly fine line to take for national security. People who are ignorant of technology shouldn't be making these decisions as they can't possibly make well informed ones.
But like I said, I'll just wait until better encryption is developed to where no one has access to or knows the private keys and then laugh since there is no way to make a company comply when they literally can't do anything. And then countries will make the sale of that encryption as integrated parts of mass market products illegal. No one is going to allow a top secret communication system that no one can access to exist. All of these systems, including the internet, run on cables and networks regulated and controlled by governments.
It's clear you don't understand any of the technology involved in this...
Encryption has existed for thousands of years, and is completely independent of what anyone "allows".
You could stand right in front of my face and say "I have banned all encryption". Then I will take a sheet of paper and pen and write a message that only I can understand. And if I tell only one other person how to decrypt that message, then we can communicate securely while you're staring at us. There is nothing complicated about it.
|
On February 19 2016 01:47 Plansix wrote:
You can’t defend against a wire tap. You don’t get to know it I happening, that is the point. If people want to have encryption on their hard drive that never interacts with the internet, that would be different. But this is a phone that uses the US cellular network.
Do you believe the police should be prohibited from obtaining phone taps?
Let's say that, instead of hiding the data on his phone, he stuck it in a box and buried it in the desert.
There's ways of getting that data. The FBI knows it's in a box somewhere in the desert. They can send an army of people with metal detectors to comb the desert. But it's not feasible.
Now they can get the court to order the couple of million people living around that desert to comb the desert for them. This speeds up their process. Is the data that might be hidden in the desert worth this severe disruption of these people's rights?
This doesn't translate 1:1 to the case with Apple. But the FBI is threatening to put a large number of people's data in danger to get to that one box the bad guy hid in the middle of the desert.
|
On February 19 2016 01:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 00:38 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 00:32 KwarK wrote:On February 19 2016 00:31 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On February 19 2016 00:14 Plansix wrote:I find that argument only slightly compelling because currently they created a tool that is dangerous in the wrong hands, just in a different way. Creating another tool doesn’t really seem that terrible. The difference is that they are making money off the first tool. And the government can force people to do things. They can force me to go to war and fight. Or stay in my home. But I have conflicts with a lot of the tech/silicon valley passive, unconcerned attitude about the impacts of the tech they create. The whole “I just make the thing, I can’t control how or who uses it” to be hollow when they sell the products internationally to anyone. This is clearly a case for the Supreme Court. On February 19 2016 00:05 KwarK wrote:On February 18 2016 23:41 Silvanel wrote:
Its not new software, its an update of existing software. And its not adding new features but removing features that are already there (which is much cheaper usually). Yeah its not free, but it isnt super expansive either. And complying with courts orders often comes with a cost. Its not first times courts order company to modify their software. The cost in this case is likely to be a multibillion dollar loss in consumer goodwill, trust and ultimately sales. They deliberately built a product so secure they couldn't get into it, that was a feature. Compelling them to invent a way to undermine their own product is absurd. By all means pay them to do it if you can agree upon a price but they've complied sufficiently with the FBI already. Apple are happy to use help the FBI with data stored on the cloud or on devices that can be readily unlocked but the tools to do what the FBI are asking just don't exist. My firm loses tens of thousands complying with government regulations and requirements. We have complied with numerous court orders relating any number of cases brought against our clients for any number of reasons. Don’t get into the encryption business if those costs are a concern, because they are going to happen. One of the most profitable companies in the US can afford it. Afford it is irrelevant, Apple's duty is to its shareholders, not the US government. Once you accept that the US government can demand that Apple invent custom software for them because "they can afford it" you might as well demand that Bill Gates reimburse Apple for their trouble because "he can afford it". If someone has information you can get a warrant for it. Apple readily comply with warrants and anything they have access to is given to the police/FBI when needed. In this case Apple has no information and the FBI are not asking for information. They're asking for custom software to be designed so that they can obtain the information for themselves. Buy it or gtfo. If we are going to go down the road of duty, the US government doesn’t care about the quarterly earnings of Apple stock holders. Just like they give zero fucks about my client’s overhead costs. Why should they care in any way about that? And courts can compel specific actions from people and companies. My clients have been required to create databases that didn’t exist due to court orders. Create systems and controls to deal compliance. None of this is new. And if they don’t, the government can just restrict the sale of this encryption. Apple isn’t above the US government. Absolutely they can ban encryption in the US. I wish them good luck in trying. They restricted lots of technology. Commercial GPS’s were limited in their accuracy for a long time and still are in some ways. Drones are limited in how they are allowed to operate and how large they can be and be sold commercially. My grandfather developed camera’s and lenses for decades and they were limited as to who they could sell them to. It isn’t crazy that the government might limit globally solid encryption software. The point is that Apple can’t expect to invent things, sell them to whoever will pay and then claim they have zero responsibility if bad people us them. Its like twitter and it claiming they can’t figure out how to stop ISIS from making recruiting accounts. Its not that they can't do it, its they don't really think its their problem. 1) Encryption is entirely math and algorithms. You can limit software sales, but anyone with any knowledge of CS who has access to public knowledge can implement it. This isn't GPS where you need a satellite in space, or a piece of hardware that you can't MacGuyver in your own back yard. A more apt comparison is banning Alcohol. Sounds nice in theory, fails completely when anyone can make it in their bathtub. 2) Encryption is critical for any business or organization that keeps sensitive data for anything. Banking, person identification, official records, on and on. And despite what incompetent politicians will tell you, there is no such thing as a magic key that only good guys can use. You build an intentional vulnerability into a system that lets you bypass encryption, and people will find it and will use it. And unlike the encrypted information for a single individual, which may not be worth the time and effort to break it, the encrypted information for everyone that uses a system is a gigantic gold mine.The problem isn't the FBI getting access to one person's encrypted data. It's that the only way to get it is to compromise the data of millions of people by intentionally breaking a secure system, which is a far bigger threat to the average Joe than having some evidence inaccessible.
This is the problem with judges and politicians venturing into fields they are ignorant about (or rather don't care for). The ramifications of this will go beyond the question of whether a single phone's encryption system can be bypassed.
|
On February 19 2016 02:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 01:58 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 01:52 Kickstart wrote:
I don't think the people advocating that Apple comply with this request actually understand the implications of having such a tool out there and the precedent that it sets. Some seem to not even understand what encryption is and what it does.
But this is the same problem in the courts I find, judges are passing rulings on a topic they are not at all informed about. Technology has always been in this iffy place. Years ago they locked people up in solitary confinement because prosecutors convinced the court that they could launch nukes by playing notes into a telephone, now they are trying to convince the courts that this is a perfectly fine line to take for national security. People who are ignorant of technology shouldn't be making these decisions as they can't possibly make well informed ones.
But like I said, I'll just wait until better encryption is developed to where no one has access to or knows the private keys and then laugh since there is no way to make a company comply when they literally can't do anything. And then countries will make the sale of that encryption as integrated parts of mass market products illegal. No one is going to allow a top secret communication system that no one can access to exist. All of these systems, including the internet, run on cables and networks regulated and controlled by governments. It's clear you don't understand any of the technology involved in this... Encryption has existed for thousands of years, and is completely independent of what anyone "allows". You could stand right in front of my face and say "I have banned all encryption". Then I will take a sheet of paper and pen and write a message that only I can understand. And if I tell only one other person how to decrypt that message, then we can communicate securely while you're staring at us. There is nothing complicated about it.
Do you not understand the difference between “banning” and “your mass market cell phone that you sell millions of cannot have this encryption on it and interact with our government regulated cell phone system,”?
Sure the encryption will exist, it just won’t be provided to every single person using an Iphone.
|
On February 19 2016 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 01:49 xDaunt wrote:On February 19 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On February 19 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:Despite the growing threat from the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Libya, the Obama administration has turned down a U.S. military plan for an assault on ISIS’s regional hub there, three defense officials told The Daily Beast.
In recent weeks, the U.S. military—led by its Africa and Special Operations Commands—have pushed for more airstrikes and the deployment of elite troops, particularly in the city of Sirte. The hometown of former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, the city is now under ISIS control and serving as a regional epicenter for the terror group.
The airstrikes would target ISIS resources while a small band of Special Operations Forces would train Libyans to eventually be members of a national army, the officials said.
Weeks ago, defense officials told The New York Times that they were crafting military plans for such strikes, but needed more time to develop intelligence so that they could launch a sustained air campaign on ISIS in Sirte.
But those plans have since been put on the back burner.
“There is little to no appetite for that in this administration,” one defense official explained. Read the rest here. It looks like creating one massive power vacuum in the Middle East wasn't enough. Obama wants to double down on his foreign policy negligence and do the same thing in Libya. You can bet that Hillary is going to be answering some uncomfortable questions on the subject. Because arming middle eastern 'rebels' has such a wonderful history of success. I'm not advocating arming the rebels or even any particular solution. I'm merely pointing out that Obama (and Hillary) topped Gaddafi, creating a power vacuum, and has done nothing to fill the void. The adverse results speak for themselves. What should be done then?
Beats me, but it's pretty clear that the current strategy (or lack thereof) is going to lead to Libya becoming another Syria. That's a foreign policy disaster no matter how you cut it.
|
On February 19 2016 02:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 02:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 19 2016 01:58 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 01:52 Kickstart wrote:
I don't think the people advocating that Apple comply with this request actually understand the implications of having such a tool out there and the precedent that it sets. Some seem to not even understand what encryption is and what it does.
But this is the same problem in the courts I find, judges are passing rulings on a topic they are not at all informed about. Technology has always been in this iffy place. Years ago they locked people up in solitary confinement because prosecutors convinced the court that they could launch nukes by playing notes into a telephone, now they are trying to convince the courts that this is a perfectly fine line to take for national security. People who are ignorant of technology shouldn't be making these decisions as they can't possibly make well informed ones.
But like I said, I'll just wait until better encryption is developed to where no one has access to or knows the private keys and then laugh since there is no way to make a company comply when they literally can't do anything. And then countries will make the sale of that encryption as integrated parts of mass market products illegal. No one is going to allow a top secret communication system that no one can access to exist. All of these systems, including the internet, run on cables and networks regulated and controlled by governments. It's clear you don't understand any of the technology involved in this... Encryption has existed for thousands of years, and is completely independent of what anyone "allows". You could stand right in front of my face and say "I have banned all encryption". Then I will take a sheet of paper and pen and write a message that only I can understand. And if I tell only one other person how to decrypt that message, then we can communicate securely while you're staring at us. There is nothing complicated about it. Do you not understand the difference between “banning” and “your mass market cell phone that you sell millions of cannot have this encryption on it and interact with our government regulated cell phone system,”? Sure the encryption will exist, it just won’t be provided to every single person using an Iphone.
There is zero reason to do that. The ONLY reason is so that they could have easier access to 'everyone's' information. Because as everyone has been pointing out, the well informed 'bad guys' can still just go get some sort of encryption from wherever and use it. That is not a meaningful solution to the problem, in fact it is a non solution in that it actually accomplishes nothing.
|
On February 19 2016 02:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 02:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 19 2016 01:58 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 01:52 Kickstart wrote:
I don't think the people advocating that Apple comply with this request actually understand the implications of having such a tool out there and the precedent that it sets. Some seem to not even understand what encryption is and what it does.
But this is the same problem in the courts I find, judges are passing rulings on a topic they are not at all informed about. Technology has always been in this iffy place. Years ago they locked people up in solitary confinement because prosecutors convinced the court that they could launch nukes by playing notes into a telephone, now they are trying to convince the courts that this is a perfectly fine line to take for national security. People who are ignorant of technology shouldn't be making these decisions as they can't possibly make well informed ones.
But like I said, I'll just wait until better encryption is developed to where no one has access to or knows the private keys and then laugh since there is no way to make a company comply when they literally can't do anything. And then countries will make the sale of that encryption as integrated parts of mass market products illegal. No one is going to allow a top secret communication system that no one can access to exist. All of these systems, including the internet, run on cables and networks regulated and controlled by governments. It's clear you don't understand any of the technology involved in this... Encryption has existed for thousands of years, and is completely independent of what anyone "allows". You could stand right in front of my face and say "I have banned all encryption". Then I will take a sheet of paper and pen and write a message that only I can understand. And if I tell only one other person how to decrypt that message, then we can communicate securely while you're staring at us. There is nothing complicated about it. Do you not understand the difference between “banning” and “your mass market cell phone that you sell millions of cannot have this encryption on it and interact with our government regulated cell phone system,”? Sure the encryption will exist, it just won’t be provided to every single person using an Iphone.
Sure it will. There's hundreds of free apps capable of encryption, most of them made by people the FBI can't touch somewhere in India. All Apple did was recognize the market and figure out a way to ensure you don't really need those apps, because your shit is encrypted securely enough by default.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
privacy hawks are making this harder than necessary. there are ways to make iphones unlock without thereby propagating said tools or methods. the means could itself be protected by encryption in some secure location.
strawmanning open access when it need not go so far is just a waste of time
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
