Holder wants backdoor to iOS8. Its for the children

[Darwin333]

What makes the above comment even funnier is that Holder is not very pro-police to begin with and this point of view of allowing access to the device for law enforcement would be considered to be a conservative point of view from a very liberal Attorney General.

- Merg

When it comes to real privacy, both sides of the aisle are fairly well aligned with each other.

 

[Darwin333]

We should have the right to have devices with no backdoors. I don't give a damn about the children. We may need these devices one day to deal with the government that "protects" us.

You do have that right.

 

[Darwin333]

There has been no ruling on this. Some courts have said that's ok, others have said that violates the 5th amendment. I firmly believe it does.

I agree with you on it clearly violating the 5th amendment but I recall someone being held in contempt, for quite some time iirc, for not giving their passwords.

 

[Knowing]

"Think of the children" is the Democrats' "WMD." If they had an argument that didn't depend on the irrationality of helicopter parents, they'd have used it instead.

This wouldn't get anything other than low hanging fruit anyway. Child pornographers generally know what they're getting in to and take precautions.

Also, remember that the FBI abused NSLs for things that weren't even remotely related to national security.

tl;dr- this isn't for the children and only a fool would believe otherwise.

 

[The Merg]

Technically speaking, the sought data is still there. It would just be in a different language via a math algorithm. Law enforcement is more than welcome to decipher it with their own resources.

I'll have to check, but I thought that the new encryption prevented Apple from even bypassing the passcode, which is how law enforcement is currently accessing iPhones. Or rather, how Apple is accessing the phone and then providing the results to law enforcement.

- Merg

 

[Fern]

You have no right against a search authorized by a legal warrant. Literally none. Nor should you.

The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches, not all searches. How do we determine if a search is reasonable? Warrants.

Do you remember a case about a hard drive (or something similar) that was password protected (or maybe encrypted)? IIRC, the suspect needed to provide the password to the police so they could search it. They had a warrant.

IIRC, the case was about whether forcing the suspect to provide the password violated his 5th amendment right against self incrimination.

In any case, this Apple issue reminds me of that. If the 5th amendment argument stood, without the backdoor the govt is SOL.

Fern

 

[Fern]

What could be on a locked iphone that the NSA doesn't already have anyway?

Fern

 

[Knowing]

Do you remember a case about a hard drive (or something similar) that was password protected (or maybe encrypted)? IIRC, the suspect needed to provide the password to the police so they could search it. They had a warrant.

IIRC, the case was about whether forcing the suspect to provide the password violated his 5th amendment right against self incrimination.

In any case, this Apple issue reminds me of that. If the 5th amendment argument stood, without the backdoor the govt is SOL.

Fern

There have been a lot of them, I referenced two in a reply a little bit before this one. It's why they want the back door- since it's hard to get a warrant for the contents of a person's mind.

 

[smackababy]

I agree with Holder. Any time I am going in the backdoor, it is always because I was thinking of the children, I won't be having.

 

[momeNt]

What could be on a locked iphone that the NSA doesn't already have anyway?

Fern

Perhaps Prism isn't real. Or that NSA doesn't want to give law enforcement access because catching a pedophile doesn't rank nearly as high as stopping legitimate threats to the nation.

 

[Jhhnn]

What could be on a locked iphone that the NSA doesn't already have anyway?

Fern

Gave me a chuckle. Thank you.

Anybody who thinks there's more than a thin veneer of privacy wrt electronic communication of any sort probably isn't too bright or they're using Tor. I wouldn't bet on that really working, either. Cellphones? Drug dealers know them as "rat phones". Not only does it track you around, it & the provider's database know who all your friends are, too.

Pay phones, if you can find 'em, don't ring & don't have the number on 'em anymore, either. It's been that way for many years.

All AG's want a backdoor around encryption. Holder just happened to be the guy when this particular aspect of it came to the surface, and he happens to be outspoken as well.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Conservatards gonna 'tard.

 

[The Merg]

Since this does not cover nsa actions it's of little comfort.

Meant to reply to this...

The NSA doesn't care about this issue. They'd get the information as it is being transmitted so there is no need for them to bypass the passcode of the phone.

- Merg

 

[momeNt]

Meant to reply to this...

The NSA doesn't care about this issue. They'd get the information as it is being transmitted so there is no need for them to bypass the passcode of the phone.

- Merg

This is about stuff stored on the phone, behind the encryption, is it not?

 

[The Merg]

This is about stuff stored on the phone, behind the encryption, is it not?

The thread is yes. I was just having fun with that the NSA doesn't care about that as they would get that information while you send and receive it so they don't care about what's actually on the phone.

- Merg

 

[BoberFett]

Conservatards gonna 'tard.

So what's your excuse, King Tard?

 

[gevorg]

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Meant to reply to this...

The NSA doesn't care about this issue. They'd get the information as it is being transmitted so there is no need for them to bypass the passcode of the phone.

- Merg

Heh probably true. Regardless, devices have been used which grab data from phones. That the SCOTUS said no to that doesn't mean they go away. If I have a safe I don't give the police a back door. If they presented a proper warrant and I didn't comply and open it then I pay the price. That's how I see it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Conservatards gonna 'tard.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

All AG's want a backdoor around encryption. Holder just happened to be the guy when this particular aspect of it came to the surface, and he happens to be outspoken as well.

Well gee golly whiz that makes it all better! A regular Alberto Gonzalez.

 

[The Merg]

Heh probably true. Regardless, devices have been used which grab data from phones. That the SCOTUS said no to that doesn't mean they go away. If I have a safe I don't give the police a back door. If they presented a proper warrant and I didn't comply and open it then I pay the price. That's how I see it.

The issue is not that the data is going away, but rather that there is absolutely no way to access the data. Currently (iOS 7 and earlier), there is no tool to access data on an iPhone 4S or newer. Only Apple can access the data on those phones by bypassing the lock code. As I understand it with iOS 8, Apple cannot bypass the lock code. Without bypassing the lock code, the data cannot be extracted. I'll try to find out if the issue is the accessibility of the data or if when the data is accessed that it is encrypted so that Apple can't even decipher it.

- Merg

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The issue is not that the data is going away, but rather that there is absolutely no way to access the data. Currently (iOS 7 and earlier), there is no tool to access data on an iPhone 4S or newer. Only Apple can access the data on those phones by bypassing the lock code. As I understand it with iOS 8, Apple cannot bypass the lock code. Without bypassing the lock code, the data cannot be extracted. I'll try to find out if the issue is the accessibility of the data or if when the data is accessed that it is encrypted so that Apple can't even decipher it.

- Merg

I understand the technical problem, but there's a matter of principle and rights here. The government has taken a position that information available electronically is not the same as written documents. Frankly I find that absurd in that it is what is stored on whatever media which is important. That it isn't written on paper is clearly not what mattered to Founders or ourselves today. That those with power disregard what properly passes a common sense test is my concern. My information is mine. If I should be served with a proper warrant for any of it, it becomes my obligation to provide the material. If I do not comply, yes they can break into my home and take whatever they want, and so I expect you or someone to say this is a difference. Yes, it is, however that does not mean I have to give them all combinations to all safes because someone might be hiding something in them. What would you say if Holder asked for those? I'd say piss up a rope

Does that mean that I can deny a warrant with impunity? By no means. If I refuse I can be put away for as long as I do not comply and/or financially destroyed, which brings us to another issue. Trust. The sole reason this level of encryption exists is because the government has shown time and again that it will go through considerable contortions to justify or outright lie about what it does or will do. They have broken trust repeatedly. If police have access and abuse it then what? Do they suffer the same proportional penalties as one who stands before a judge and doesn't unlock their phone when served with a warrant? Will they be locked up or ruined as easily? Hardly.

Now I'm not naive to think that the new encryption won't be problematic to legitimate needs but this really isn't about a phone OS, it's about abuse done with impunity and I object to the latter. Holder nor anyone else I can think of is willing to even discuss this larger problem much less properly address it. Obama lies when he says that information gathered won't be used against us. It has in the form of parallel construction. An untrustworthy government who shows it does not trust its citizens gets little sympathy or support as far as I'm concerned and so I say Apple and others are showing a similar level of "trust". It's too bad that it has come to this but so be it.

 

[The Merg]

The issue is not that the data is going away, but rather that there is absolutely no way to access the data. Currently (iOS 7 and earlier), there is no tool to access data on an iPhone 4S or newer. Only Apple can access the data on those phones by bypassing the lock code. As I understand it with iOS 8, Apple cannot bypass the lock code. Without bypassing the lock code, the data cannot be extracted. I'll try to find out if the issue is the accessibility of the data or if when the data is accessed that it is encrypted so that Apple can't even decipher it.

- Merg

I was able to find out that the Apple could still bypass the lockcode, but they won't have the key to the encrypted data on the phone. So, technically, Apple could still access the data, but it won't be of any use so they are not going to even attempt to access it.

- Merg

 

[NoStateofMind]

I understand the technical problem, but there's a matter of principle and rights here. The government has taken a position that information available electronically is not the same as written documents. Frankly I find that absurd in that it is what is stored on whatever media which is important. That it isn't written on paper is clearly not what mattered to Founders or ourselves today. That those with power disregard what properly passes a common sense test is my concern. My information is mine. If I should be served with a proper warrant for any of it, it becomes my obligation to provide the material. If I do not comply, yes they can break into my home and take whatever they want, and so I expect you or someone to say this is a difference. Yes, it is, however that does not mean I have to give them all combinations to all safes because someone might be hiding something in them. What would you say if Holder asked for those? I'd say piss up a rope

Does that mean that I can deny a warrant with impunity? By no means. If I refuse I can be put away for as long as I do not comply and/or financially destroyed, which brings us to another issue. Trust. The sole reason this level of encryption exists is because the government has shown time and again that it will go through considerable contortions to justify or outright lie about what it does or will do. They have broken trust repeatedly. If police have access and abuse it then what? Do they suffer the same proportional penalties as one who stands before a judge and doesn't unlock their phone when served with a warrant? Will they be locked up or ruined as easily? Hardly.

Now I'm not naive to think that the new encryption won't be problematic to legitimate needs but this really isn't about a phone OS, it's about abuse done with impunity and I object to the latter. Holder nor anyone else I can think of is willing to even discuss this larger problem much less properly address it. Obama lies when he says that information gathered won't be used against us. It has in the form of parallel construction. An untrustworthy government who shows it does not trust its citizens gets little sympathy or support as far as I'm concerned and so I say Apple and others are showing a similar level of "trust". It's too bad that it has come to this but so be it.

This deserves another read. Good post.

 

[hal2kilo]

Not even close. Currently, with a valid search warrant, an iPhone can be sent to Apple and Apple will pull the information requested in the search warrant from the phone. With iOS8, the phone cannot be searched even with a valid search warrant. So, if there is incriminating evidence on the phone, it can never be accessed unless the owner opts to give up their passcode.

So that pedophile that uses their iPhone to take pictures or video might very well get away with their crime as the police would not be able to obtain the incriminating photos/videos even if they have probable cause to search the phone.

- Merg

So that last paragraph is the typical "think of the children excuse".