Apple engineers may quit if forced by FBI to unlock iPhones

Like a few of the others, this has nothing to do with YOUR phone. You can cry about it as much as you want, scream as loud as you can, throw a tantrum to gain as much attention as you can possible get, but in the end, it has nothing to do with YOUR phone (unless there is reason for it to be). Same goes for house searches, mail search, travel history search etc etc etc. This "backdoor" you all fear isn't what you think it is.

Can you just answer the question I asked instead of repeating the same irrelevant facts?

I'm going to repeat my point; this is a security issue, not a privacy issue.

EDIT: on a fundamental level that is, sure, impeding security raises privacy concerns but that's not even the question here.
 
Your privacy is not at jeopardy here. To you the sky is falling, but in reality, its not different then simple searches.

hey.. look at this.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/21/europe/belgium-appeal-paris-suspect/

1) I bet you are suggesting DO NOT go into the suspects house (since that would mean they could go into anyones house)
2) I bet you are suggesting DO NOT go into the suspects computer (since that would mean they could go into anyones computer)
3) I bet you are suggesting DO NOT go into the suspects history (since that would mean they could go into anyones travel history)
4) I bet you are suggesting DO NOT go into the suspects background (since that would mean they could go into anyones background)
 
Your privacy is not at jeopardy here. To you the sky is falling, but in reality, its not different then simple searches.

hey.. look at this.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/21/europe/belgium-appeal-paris-suspect/

1) I bet you are suggesting DO NOT go into the suspects house (since that would mean they could go into anyones house)
2) I bet you are suggesting DO NOT go into the suspects computer (since that would mean they could go into anyones computer)
3) I bet you are suggesting DO NOT go into the suspects history (since that would mean they could go into anyones travel history)
4) I bet you are suggesting DO NOT go into the suspects background (since that would mean they could go into anyones background)
You're right, it isn't at jeopardy. The sky isn't falling. But this is very much different from simple searches. Impeding commonly used encryption won't help to solve the problem.

1) I do support it.
2) I do support it.
3) I do support it.
4) I do support it.

Can you finally answer my questions, or are you actually trying to troll your way out of a losing argument?
 
You're right, it isn't at jeopardy. The sky isn't falling. But this is very much different from simple searches. Impeding commonly used encryption won't help to solve the problem.

1) I do support it.
2) I do support it.
3) I do support it.
4) I do support it.

Can you finally answer my questions, or are you actually trying to troll your way out of a losing argument?
I was just responding to him but you summed it up perfectly.

The only thing I had to add was that:

1) I bet you are suggesting DO NOT go into the suspects house (since that would mean they could go into anyones house)
2) I bet you are suggesting DO NOT go into the suspects computer (since that would mean they could go into anyones computer)
3) I bet you are suggesting DO NOT go into the suspects history (since that would mean they could go into anyones travel history)
4) I bet you are suggesting DO NOT go into the suspects background (since that would mean they could go into anyones background)

1) The FBI don't hold a key to get into the house, they break in.
2) The FBI do not have the password to the computer, they have to break in.
3) The FBI have to request to get hold of that information.
4) Again, done by request.

Let's add a fifth, what they are trying to legalise at this very moment:

5) The FBI doesn't have to break into the phone because they already hold the keys.

Do you see where this is going Rippleman?
 
You're right, it isn't at jeopardy. The sky isn't falling. But this is very much different from simple searches. Impeding commonly used encryption won't help to solve the problem.

1) I do support it.
2) I do support it.
3) I do support it.
4) I do support it.

Can you finally answer my questions, or are you actually trying to troll your way out of a losing argument?

It seems you do not know the definition of what a troll is. I do not see questions. I seem the implying of a possible question of me understanding what encryption is, however, was that not in sarcasm? If you are looking for an obvious answer that should easily be apparent to all... then I guess I will tell you (even though you already know): Yes.
 
I was just responding to him but you summed it up perfectly.

what they are trying to legalise at this very moment:

5) The FBI doesn't have to break into the phone because they already hold the keys.

Do you see where this is going Rippleman?

You are incorrect. Again like I have said many times, the sky isn't falling and the government is not trying to take your guns (said for comparison of the straw man). I think the conversion should stop since we are simply going in circles.
 
You are incorrect. Again like I have said many times, the sky isn't falling and the government is not trying to take your guns (said for comparison of the straw man). I think the conversion should stop since we are simply going in circles.
I'm not incorrect, once they have the keys to all smartphones they don't need to break in unlike all the examples you've given in this entire thread. The sky hasn't got anything to do with encryption and neither have guns.

And you wonder where the troll comments are coming from?

You are completely unable to grasp (or even acknowledge) the basic principles of what keys and locks are for and how they are related to encryption on a smartphone. I sincerely hope you do not work within the govourment anywhere...
 
It seems you do not know the definition of what a troll is. I do not see questions. I seem the implying of a possible question of me understanding what encryption is, however, was that not in sarcasm? If you are looking for an obvious answer that should easily be apparent to all... then I guess I will tell you (even though you already know): Yes.
Troll according to Urban Dictionary: "One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument"
Isn't this exactly what you've been doing? As for the conversation going in circles, I see well worded arguments on the other side and irrelevant rants on the other.

And one would think the answer would be apparent for anyone, but you keep proving that's not so. What really boggles my mind is that if you actually understand the concept involved here, it's logically impossible to arrive at your hypothesis. Time and time again you try to derail the conversation from data encryption to search and seizure. Also, seeing as I always carefully left the question in the last verse, I find it hard to believe you can't see my questions. (Sorry if they're a bit broad, this is a complicated topic)

We're not agreeing to disagree, we're discussing different topics. You seem to think we're privacy alarmists, (when we're not) whereas we're discussing data security.
 
Well, looks like the FBI realized they were gonna lose the case against Apple...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...eak-into-seized-iphone-wants-hearing-vacated/

They've filed to have the hearing they were supposed to have tomorrow cancelled (and it was granted) as they think they have another method of getting the info...

Those bashing Apple might wonder why the FBI would have done this.... maybe Apple isn't the evil SOBs you all thought?
 
I have a very easy and simple answer to this hypothetical question. The issues of national security and crime fighting should overide any stupid arguments about privacy. Any company or individual who deliberately act in any way to impede the process of protecting the country and it's people and/or block the effective criminal investigations of any law enforcement agencies can and should be considered as committing treason and be subject to the death penalty automatically and immediately, whether that person or company as represented by it's CEO and Board of Directors and top corporate officers as well as all of it's attorneys and lawyers are local or foreign does not matter. They will all be subjected to the most severe penalty as prescribed by the laws of the country. Enough said.
 
Except who decides that something is in the "national interest"? The non-democratically appointed directors of the FBI or NSA? Who have 0 accountability after the fact? If that's what you think, go live in communist Russia back in the Cold War days...
 
I have a very easy and simple answer to this hypothetical question. The issues of national security and crime fighting should overide any stupid arguments about privacy. Any company or individual who deliberately act in any way to impede the process of protecting the country and it's people and/or block the effective criminal investigations of any law enforcement agencies can and should be considered as committing treason and be subject to the death penalty automatically and immediately, whether that person or company as represented by it's CEO and Board of Directors and top corporate officers as well as all of it's attorneys and lawyers are local or foreign does not matter. They will all be subjected to the most severe penalty as prescribed by the laws of the country. Enough said.
That is possibly the most stupid comment I have read in a VERY long time...
 
I have a very easy and simple answer to this hypothetical question. The issues of national security and crime fighting should overide any stupid arguments about privacy. Any company or individual who deliberately act in any way to impede the process of protecting the country and it's people and/or block the effective criminal investigations of any law enforcement agencies can and should be considered as committing treason and be subject to the death penalty automatically and immediately, whether that person or company as represented by it's CEO and Board of Directors and top corporate officers as well as all of it's attorneys and lawyers are local or foreign does not matter. They will all be subjected to the most severe penalty as prescribed by the laws of the country. Enough said.
Trying out for a position in Government are we?
 
If all of Apple's engineers quit, do you think that would mean the end of Crapple products, or would Tim Cook just hire a bunch of scabs and blame it on the FBI?
 
Back