A message from Apple

[Dukasaur]

Because this is a great chance for them to peacock and make a big deal about how trustworthy and 'on your side' they are after the whole 'Apple, Google and co gave the NSA backdoors to their systems' fuss.

I agree with you on that. This is a PR exercise more than a principled stand.

Still, if someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons, I'll take it. It's not a perfect world.

[iAmCaffeine]

Because this is a great chance for them to peacock and make a big deal about how trustworthy and 'on your side' they are after the whole 'Apple, Google and co gave the NSA backdoors to their systems' fuss.

I agree with you on that. This is a PR exercise more than a principled stand.

Still, if someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons, I'll take it. It's not a perfect world.

Agreed.

Citizens are entitled to their privacy. An act such as this would remove a very large portion of one's privacy. In some ways, it almost makes a democracy pointless.

[mrswdk]

Citizens are entitled to their privacy. An act such as this would remove a very large portion of one's privacy. In some ways, it almost makes a democracy pointless.

Yeah, there's no point in being able to influence policy-making decisions if the police are able to read your Snapchats.

[iAmCaffeine]

Citizens are entitled to their privacy. An act such as this would remove a very large portion of one's privacy. In some ways, it almost makes a democracy pointless.

Yeah, there's no point in being able to influence policy-making decisions if the police are able to read your Snapchats.

That was totally my point, well done.

[mrswdk]

Citizens are entitled to their privacy. An act such as this would remove a very large portion of one's privacy. In some ways, it almost makes a democracy pointless.

Yeah, there's no point in being able to influence policy-making decisions if the police are able to read your Snapchats.

That was totally my point, well done.

I mean, how exactly does giving the police the power to read criminals' / suspected criminals' messages undermine democracy?

[iAmCaffeine]

Citizens are entitled to their privacy. An act such as this would remove a very large portion of one's privacy. In some ways, it almost makes a democracy pointless.

Yeah, there's no point in being able to influence policy-making decisions if the police are able to read your Snapchats.

That was totally my point, well done.

I mean, how exactly does giving the police the power to read criminals' / suspected criminals' messages undermine democracy?

Since when was that an argument? I wouldn't class FBI in the same league as the police, their capabilities are too great, and if you want to become specific on USA police we all know a lot of that system is fucked up.

[mrswdk]

Citizens are entitled to their privacy. An act such as this would remove a very large portion of one's privacy. In some ways, it almost makes a democracy pointless.

Yeah, there's no point in being able to influence policy-making decisions if the police are able to read your Snapchats.

That was totally my point, well done.

I mean, how exactly does giving the police the power to read criminals' / suspected criminals' messages undermine democracy?

Since when was that an argument?

An argument for what? You said that rulings such as the one Apple has been told to comply with make democracy pointless, and I am asking how.

[rishaed]

Citizens are entitled to their privacy. An act such as this would remove a very large portion of one's privacy. In some ways, it almost makes a democracy pointless.

Yeah, there's no point in being able to influence policy-making decisions if the police are able to read your Snapchats.

That was totally my point, well done.

I mean, how exactly does giving the police the power to read criminals' / suspected criminals' messages undermine democracy?

Since when was that an argument?

An argument for what? You said that rulings such as the one Apple has been told to comply with make democracy pointless, and I am asking how.

OOOOh. Just make anyone that disagrees with you or the government a "suspected criminal" and get it authorized through a court by and for the government, and suddenly you have China. Well done wdk, well done.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Similarly, is there anything wrong with Stores using contactless transactions to make payments quicker? No of course not, I trust the stores.

However, your mate Dave.....

http://metro.co.uk/2016/02/17/use-a-con ... s-5700472/

He's a b1tch.

[mrswdk]

An argument for what? You said that rulings such as the one Apple has been told to comply with make democracy pointless, and I am asking how.

OOOOh. Just make anyone that disagrees with you or the government a "suspected criminal" and get it authorized through a court by and for the government, and suddenly you have China. Well done wdk, well done.

Except we're discussing whether or not law enforcement should have the right to access people's phones for the purposes of conducting a criminal investigation, not whether the government should have the power to label anyone it wants as a criminal and then prosecute them regardless of whether or not they have reasonable grounds to suspect a crime. So my question is:

How does giving law enforcement the power to access a confirmed terrorist's phone make democracy pointless?

not

How does arbitrary detention of your political opponents make democracy pointless?

I hope that clarifies things for you, and look forward to reading your response to the question I actually asked, which is the first one.

[Bernie Sanders]

Ben Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[jgordon1111]

Still amused, how many posting here have cell phones, and carry them with you everywhere?

Why do you think you can't turn off the (emergency) GPS its for your safety right?

Big brother knows where you are at all times and who you are with,
So I repeat this thing with Apple is a smoke screen, designed to make you feel better about your so called privacy and security.
If social security and other parts of the gov't already got hacked, way to late to worry about privacy or security.

[DaGip]

The funniest thing of all is that Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc...have already been working with the government. What makes you think that some "letter" from Apple should make any difference at all. Just a ruse of something that has already been in the works since 20 Arabs ran airplanes into skyscrapers and the Pentagon. Say goodbye to your rights to personal privacy. Get use to it. It's what must be. Stand against it if you may...you will just be annoying, that's all.

The real problem isn't iPhones and Twitter...the problem is ISLAM! Get it through your skulls!

So you still think 9/11 wasn't done by your govt... Get THAT through your skull. The war on terror is just a part of the agenda. Keep trusting your govt and you'll figure that out soon enough.

You are missing my point.

Apple is just "saying" this to candy coat what the government has been doing for years. The American public is all worried about their privacy being infringed, so Apple just "acts" like they are being the viceroy of liberty, when in actuality behind closed doors...they are indeed working with the government.

It's all a sham.

[UCAbears]

The funniest thing of all is that Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc...have already been working with the government. What makes you think that some "letter" from Apple should make any difference at all. Just a ruse of something that has already been in the works since 20 Arabs ran airplanes into skyscrapers and the Pentagon. Say goodbye to your rights to personal privacy. Get use to it. It's what must be. Stand against it if you may...you will just be annoying, that's all.

The real problem isn't iPhones and Twitter...the problem is ISLAM! Get it through your skulls!

So you still think 9/11 wasn't done by your govt... Get THAT through your skull. The war on terror is just a part of the agenda. Keep trusting your govt and you'll figure that out soon enough.

You are missing my point.

Apple is just "saying" this to candy coat what the government has been doing for years. The American public is all worried about their privacy being infringed, so Apple just "acts" like they are being the viceroy of liberty, when in actuality behind closed doors...they are indeed working with the government.

It's all a sham.

I see your point.. And you're most likely right.

[patches70]

Haha, Trump might have actually messed up. He has proposed that people boycott Apple products until which time Apple agrees to the FBI's demands.
Trump tweeted his great idea from his i-phone.

What a tool.

[mrswdk]

John McAfee offers to unlock killer's iPhone for FBI

Anti-virus software creator John McAfee has said he will break the encryption on an iPhone that belonged to San Bernardino killer Syed Farook.

Mr McAfee made the offer to the FBI in an article published by Business Insider.

Apple has refused to comply with a court order asking it to unlock the device, dividing opinion over whether the firm should be compelled to do so.

Mr McAfee said he and his team would take on the task "free of charge".

The offer came as Mr McAfee continues his campaign as a US presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party.

"It will take us three weeks," he claimed in his article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35611763

[UCAbears]

Hacked While writing an FBI-Apple story

[mrswdk]

The Way The FBI Shut This Guy Down Will Shock You

[UCAbears]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 5334324092

[betiko]

I personally think that the government should have access to this information, within restricted and supervised terms.
Basically if you arrest a terrorist, you can't access anything on his phone cause he's using an apple device... and apple would say "we're loyal to our customers?"
BS.

In case ofemergency, governments should access all the info they need on any citizen. They can search your house why couldn t they search your phone or your facebook?

[mrswdk]

I personally think that the government should have access to this information, within restricted and supervised terms.
Basically if you arrest a terrorist, you can't access anything on his phone cause he's using an apple device... and apple would say "we're loyal to our customers?"
BS.

In case ofemergency, governments should access all the info they need on any citizen. They can search your house why couldn t they search your phone or your facebook?

Yeah but Benjamin Franklin once said those who will give up freedom in return for safety deserve neither so there

[betiko]

I personally think that the government should have access to this information, within restricted and supervised terms.
Basically if you arrest a terrorist, you can't access anything on his phone cause he's using an apple device... and apple would say "we're loyal to our customers?"
BS.

In case ofemergency, governments should access all the info they need on any citizen. They can search your house why couldn t they search your phone or your facebook?

Yeah but Benjamin Franklin once said those who will give up freedom in return for safety deserve neither so there

well, if you respect a certain protocol with different organisations required to access the data... I don't think that too many abuses could be perpetrated.
there's a few head of states with the power to use a nuclear weapon on whatever they like. Isn't that already a renounciation of freedom for safety by its citizens?

you shouldn't feel bad if the government sees that you bought justin's new album on the apple store, or that you called a massage parlour to get a few apointments.

[mrswdk]

I personally think that the government should have access to this information, within restricted and supervised terms.
Basically if you arrest a terrorist, you can't access anything on his phone cause he's using an apple device... and apple would say "we're loyal to our customers?"
BS.

In case ofemergency, governments should access all the info they need on any citizen. They can search your house why couldn t they search your phone or your facebook?

Yeah but Benjamin Franklin once said those who will give up freedom in return for safety deserve neither so there

well, if you respect a certain protocol with different organisations required to access the data... I don't think that too many abuses could be perpetrated.
there's a few head of states with the power to use a nuclear weapon on whatever they like. Isn't that already a renounciation of freedom for safety by its citizens?

Exactly. But we're not talking about those countries, where people let their governments take away their guns (power). We're talking about America, where people still have power (guns) and are not slaves to their government.

First they convince you to let them look at criminal's phones, then they take away the guns (protection), then they're spying on everyone's phones under the pretense of thinking everyone's a criminal, then they're locking up the opposition in jail and you can't stop them because you don't have a gun any more.

Thanks, betiko. You just let Assad win.

[UCAbears]

I personally think that the government should have access to this information, within restricted and supervised terms.
Basically if you arrest a terrorist, you can't access anything on his phone cause he's using an apple device... and apple would say "we're loyal to our customers?"
BS.

In case ofemergency, governments should access all the info they need on any citizen. They can search your house why couldn t they search your phone or your facebook?

Yeah but Benjamin Franklin once said those who will give up freedom in return for safety deserve neither so there

well, if you respect a certain protocol with different organisations required to access the data... I don't think that too many abuses could be perpetrated.
there's a few head of states with the power to use a nuclear weapon on whatever they like. Isn't that already a renounciation of freedom for safety by its citizens?

Exactly. But we're not talking about those countries, where people let their governments take away their guns (power). We're talking about America, where people still have power (guns) and are not slaves to their government.

First they convince you to let them look at criminal's phones, then they take away the guns (protection), then they're spying on everyone's phones under the pretense of thinking everyone's a criminal, then they're locking up the opposition in jail and you can't stop them because you don't have a gun any more.

Thanks, betiko. You just let Assad win.

Excellent response! Once the backdoor is opened, it's a slippery slope.

[waauw]

I personally think that the government should have access to this information, within restricted and supervised terms.
Basically if you arrest a terrorist, you can't access anything on his phone cause he's using an apple device... and apple would say "we're loyal to our customers?"
BS.

In case ofemergency, governments should access all the info they need on any citizen. They can search your house why couldn t they search your phone or your facebook?

Yeah but Benjamin Franklin once said those who will give up freedom in return for safety deserve neither so there

well, if you respect a certain protocol with different organisations required to access the data... I don't think that too many abuses could be perpetrated.
there's a few head of states with the power to use a nuclear weapon on whatever they like. Isn't that already a renounciation of freedom for safety by its citizens?

you shouldn't feel bad if the government sees that you bought justin's new album on the apple store, or that you called a massage parlour to get a few apointments.

Apparently if that were to happen it could potentially also threaten Apple's position in europe. It would infringe privacy laws here and the only way to resolve that would be for the EU and the US-government to come to a new accord on the issue.

So, from that perspective Apple's position really is a very difficult one. If it doesn't submit to the US government, well how knows what the US government might do. If it does submit, its market position abroad could be jeopardized.(and it's probably not just in europe)