Apple vs. the Feds: Who is right?

[Kung Wu]

I think you are close. The FBI asked Apple to open the one phone and give them the data. Apple replied that they couldn't do that, the phone was built without a back door to make accessing the data, as the FBI wants, impossible. The FBI then went to court to demand that Apple design and prosuce a code that will allow the phone to be opened and data retrieved. Apple doesn't currently have the ability to retrieve the data and doesn't want to even attempt to write the code that could open the phone.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I tried to say.

[MoValley John]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I tried to say.

I think it's Brownback's fault. Oh wait, wrong thread.

[Kung Wu]

I think it's Brownback's fault. Oh wait, wrong thread.

Bush senior's illegitimate son.

[shockmonster]

I think that Apple should help save lives and want to write the code to break it if the request is reasonable, prudent, and the courts. Saving lives should a priority to maximizing profits. Companies in the past wouldn't have questioned this. JMO.

[Cdizzle]

Sometimes saving lives one day is eliminating rights the next and perhaps even leading to more life-destroying later.

There are inherent risks associated with living in a truly free society.

[RoyalShock]

Pew asks stupid, misleading question about FBI/Apple fight

[ShockerDropOut]

Sometimes saving lives one day is eliminating rights the next and perhaps even leading to more life-destroying later.

There are inherent risks associated with living in a truly free society.

Re: Patriot Act

[wu_shizzle]

I think that Apple should help save lives and want to write the code to break it if the request is reasonable, prudent, and the courts. Saving lives should a priority to maximizing profits. Companies in the past wouldn't have questioned this. JMO.

I have to reject every premise you're trying to make.

This is about "profit" as much as Apple wants to provide their customer with a product that meets the market demand of liberty and property rights.

If Apple really thought the greater risk to their customers was terrorism, they'd create a new OS in a heartbeat.

I'm ok not giving away my freedoms for the promise of "security" from the federal government.

[shockmonster]

Sometimes saving lives one day is eliminating rights the next and perhaps even leading to more life-destrying later.

How is going into one phone eliminating the rights (after going to the courts for a court order) from anyone? With the new technology, the terrorists and gangsters have more rights than the law abiding citizen. They can say whatever they want, recruit anyone they want, recruit from millions who have access on the internet, and then when they find some people who are vulnerable, they can hide what they say from anyone for forever.

Apple likes it when they can sell a technology for those who want to be dishonest, unlawful, and lead double secret filled lives. If the courts don't feel like it contributes to the interests of the society, then law enforcement should be banned from the information. It's no different than search and seizure of a house or business.

I'm not big on boycotting, but in this case, I think it may be a good idea.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

do you still sleep with a nightlight because of the boogie man?

[Kung Wu]

How is going into one phone eliminating the rights (after going to the courts for a court order) from anyone? With the new technology, the terrorists and gangsters have more rights than the law abiding citizen. They can say whatever they want, recruit anyone they want, recruit from millions who have access on the internet, and then when they find some people who are vulnerable, they can hide what they say from anyone for forever.

Apple likes it when they can sell a technology for those who want to be dishonest, unlawful, and lead double secret filled lives. If the courts don't feel like it contributes to the interests of the society, then law enforcement should be banned from the information. It's no different than search and seizure of a house or business.

I'm not big on boycotting, but in this case, I think it may be a good idea.

See @Cdizzle:'s post #20.

[SHOCKvalue]

How is going into one phone eliminating the rights (after going to the courts for a court order) from anyone? With the new technology, the terrorists and gangsters have more rights than the law abiding citizen. They can say whatever they want, recruit anyone they want, recruit from millions who have access on the internet, and then when they find some people who are vulnerable, they can hide what they say from anyone for forever.

Apple likes it when they can sell a technology for those who want to be dishonest, unlawful, and lead double secret filled lives. If the courts don't feel like it contributes to the interests of the society, then law enforcement should be banned from the information. It's no different than search and seizure of a house or business.

I'm not big on boycotting, but in this case, I think it may be a good idea.

I think it would help your perspective here a great deal if you took some time to perhaps understand the mechanics in this situation. To those of us who know what's going on - on either side of the issue - you sound obtuse. Like asking someone what 2+2 equals and some senile looking type screams out "purple!"

[wufan]

How is going into one phone eliminating the rights (after going to the courts for a court order) from anyone? With the new technology, the terrorists and gangsters have more rights than the law abiding citizen. They can say whatever they want, recruit anyone they want, recruit from millions who have access on the internet, and then when they find some people who are vulnerable, they can hide what they say from anyone for forever.

Apple likes it when they can sell a technology for those who want to be dishonest, unlawful, and lead double secret filled lives. If the courts don't feel like it contributes to the interests of the society, then law enforcement should be banned from the information. It's no different than search and seizure of a house or business.

I'm not big on boycotting, but in this case, I think it may be a good idea.

I will say again what others have already stated: In order to break into this iPhone the FBI is requesting that Apple write an entirely new operating system and mandate that they download to their phones. That way, everybody will get the system that the FBI can easily hack.

The above definitely has the potential to deny the rights of the population in order to prosecute the accused.

Apple has previously provided any and all information to the government when requested. Apple does not believe that the government has the right to force a private company to install a hackable OS on all phones.

[ShockerEngineer]

As a software engineer, I applaud Apple for taking this stance. My buddy has converted over to Apple in the past couple of years in part because of their stance on user privacy. If they wanted to profit off of it, they would sell it and then offer free services (like Google).

[wufan]

I switched over to Apple because my apple products are intuitive and work well together. When I was using Windows products, it seemed that every time I upgrade something, none of my stuff worked together anymore. I was constantly trying to upgrade and connect certain programs, then something would crash and I was at square one again.

My understanding is that this is not as much of a problem anymore, but I've already made the conversion.