So how about that Tim Cook?

[Libre]

I think he's a hero.
His courage is admirable, in an extremely tenuous position.
I've suddenly developed a profound respect for the man I had heretofore considered a mere clone of Steve Jobs.

If you don't know what I'm talking about (highly unlikely, but who knows):

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html

What do you think?
I have some predictions on who will agree/disagree with me, that he is a national hero.
Weigh in and discuss.
This is the most important thing in the news right now.

 

[Libre]

Since you brought it up.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/w...some-point-wrongly-to-vatican-walls.html?_r=0

Trump has been very successful in finding the words to deflect the fusillade of arrows shot at him after each outrageous statement he makes - I'll give him that.

But I didn't really want to discuss Trump.
I'm editing my OP to get him OUT where he belongs.

 

[Alc]

For what it's worth, I agree with Tim Cook on this.

In this case, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been useful to have had access to this person's phone calls. However, you can't unbreak a window - once the backdoor exists, it WOULD be abused at some point, in the same way that every other type of surveillance has been, throughout history. I have no problems with security cameras in public places, extra security checks at airports, anti money laundering laws, etc. but I do feel that a distinction should be drawn between that activity and what the FBI is proposing.

I also get the distinct impression that many of those who will criticize Apple's actions in this case are:
a) the same people who would be up in arms about the government and their lack of rights to access people's personal information under any other circumstances
b) the same people who would criticize Mr Cook if he said he wanted to rescue orphans from a burning building, purely because he ticks all of the boxes for what they see as wrong with the USA (liberal, gay, etc.). They've been waiting, salivating at the idea of bringing him down a peg or two and if they can tar him with the 'terrorist sympathizer' brush, however incorrect that might be, they're going to jump at the chance. They know that every country has a large percentage of idiots and all you have to do is call someone something for those same idiots to assume there must be some truth to it.

 

[Steve R.]

Apple is correct, strong encryption is required.

The "break" encryption hysteria gripping the country now; ignores at least three themes.

1. Encryption is necessary for the "good" people and companies in conducting legitimate business. Think of all the hacks into retail stores, credit card companies, etc. that could be prevented with strong encryption.
   
2. Currently the security community is also hysterically beating the drum of cyberwarfare. In this situation they assert that "bad" players such as Russia and China are hacking into our computer systems and that this is a massive security issue. Yes, it is a massive security issue, but these so called experts seem to have cognitive dissonance by demanding that encryption be made less secure, not better. Hypocrites.
   
3. Suppose (for the sake of argument) a "back-door" is implemented. Law enforcement would then be able to break into any device that they want. Well, the terrorists will adapt, they will simply develop their own encryption. Consequently the terrorists get to keep their stuff private and secret, and the public is left with insecure computers. Not a good "trade". That would seem to make this whole overly dramatic Kabuki Theater moot.

An outstanding question; why all this grandstanding over one iPhone?

The fact that this one iPhone has created this much publicity and orchestrated outrage implies that the government wants to use this incident as an "icebreaker" to start moving down the slippery slope of continuing to weaken "security" in the name of "protecting" the public. Very Orwellian.

Link to TechDirt article concerning encryption.

 

[Libre]

Needless to say, I agree with both Alc and Steve.
There are a number of things at play here.
I believe that this issue in front of us now, has ENORMOUS implications.
There are implications beyond the most obvious ones.
How about the fact that - well, did you actually KNOW that the FBI could not hack into an iPhone already? I mean, if you had to put money on it, would you have bet that the "authorities" could or could not hack into any iPhone? I would have put my money on the feds, and lost it, so it seems. I can't think of a more convincing demonstration of the iPhone's security - the fact that even the feds have to demand that Apple help them get into this phone. It's astonishing, really.
Good for you Apple!
Restores at least a little of my faith that there are some shreds of integrity left - here and there - in giant corporations and the people that run them.

 

[Alc]

How about the fact that - well, did you actually KNOW that the FBI could not hack into an iPhone already? I mean, if you had to put money on it, would you have bet that the "authorities" could or could not hack into any iPhone? I would have put my money on the feds, and lost it, so it seems. I can't think of a more convincing demonstration of the iPhone's security - the fact that even the feds have to demand that Apple help them get into this phone. It's astonishing, really.

Or IS it? If I wanted to make sure the terrorists communicated using a device I could comfortably hack into at any point I wanted, I think it'd be a good piece of misdirection to publicly say that I couldn't do it. Remember the lessons of Br'er Rabbit?

Needless to say, I agree with both Alc and Steve.

Sorry about that. In the spirit of other discussions the forum, I'm willing to change my answer to say he's an anti-American, terrorist-loving liberal.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

I suspect they are bluffing that they cannot get into the iphone - bit like pretending the enigma code hadnt been broken in WWII.

 

[Libre]

I suspect they are bluffing that they cannot get into the iphone - bit like pretending the enigma code hadnt been broken in WWII.

I believe the days of foisting sweeping deceptions on the public where shareholders, courts, and government agencies are all in on nefarious conspiracies are long gone. Hundreds if not thousands of people (all with Facebook accounts) would have to be in on it.
It's absurd to think this is a made-up ploy. That's my belief.

And Alc - so you changed your initial answer so to be consistent with other things you've said in the past.
That's the kind of thinking that has put the world in the dire state it is today.
Enough said about that.

 

[Alc]

IAnd Alc - so you changed your initial answer so to be consistent with other things you've said in the past.
That's the kind of thinking that has put the world in the dire state it is today.

One, it was joke. Sorry it fell flat.

Two, how did what I said on this post contradict anything I've said elsewhere? And I mean specifics.

 

[Libre]

One, it was joke. Sorry it fell flat.

Two, how did what I said on this post contradict anything I've said elsewhere? And I mean specifics.

I didn't know it was a joke.
If I new you better I may have worked that out.
Also I misunderstood your statement
(Can't quote you because this freaking iPhone won't copy your text)
Words to the effect of:
In the spirit of other posts I'm changing my answer to say he's a no good liberal...

So complete misunderstanding. Thought you meant you were changing your answer to agree with the spirit of your other posts.
The exact wording of what you wrote there is immaterial- I misunderstood your meaning. I don't know what else you've posted.

 

[Steve R.]

A subtle point of law in favor of Apple Computers by Judge Napolitano. From the article linked below, Judge Napolitano remarked:

"But, there are serious problems with forcing a private person to work against their will. That’s called slavery. If the FBI wants to go out and hire people, even hire them away from Apple, it has every ability to do that. But, to force Apple to do something against its will, at its own expense, is prohibited by the Constitution."

Judge Napolitano Applauds Apple's Tim Cook for Defending the Constitution

Also see: Apple, Americans, and Security vs. FBI

 

[Alc]

Words to the effect of:
In the spirit of other posts I'm changing my answer to say he's a no good liberal...

"Sorry about that. In the spirit of other discussions the forum, I'm willing to change my answer to say he's an anti-American, terrorist-loving liberal."
I meant that every other thread that starts out as reasonable as this one seems to attract one or two posters who think along the lines I jokingly suggested and, as everyone thus far is more or less in agreement, I'd pretend change my stance just to get at least one angry republican on the thread. Very hard to read intent/irony in text. No harm done.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

I believe the days of foisting sweeping deceptions on the public where shareholders, courts, and government agencies are all in on nefarious conspiracies are long gone. Hundreds if not thousands of people (all with Facebook accounts) would have to be in on it.
It's absurd to think this is a made-up ploy. That's my belief.

In this case it only takes the security services to pretend they cant access the phone. Noone else needs to involved.

You really find that asbsurd, you have you cases from history of exactly this occureance.

 

[Steve R.]

In this case it only takes the security services to pretend they cant access the phone. Noone else needs to involved.

You really find that asbsurd, you have you cases from history of exactly this occureance.

I reiterate, based on the tidal weave of one-sided biased media stories, that this appears to be a "manufactured" crisis to manipulate public opinion:

An outstanding question; why all this grandstanding over one iPhone?

The fact that this one iPhone has created this much publicity and orchestrated outrage implies that the government wants to use this incident as an "icebreaker" to start moving down the slippery slope of continuing to weaken "security" in the name of "protecting" the public. Very Orwellian.

 

[Libre]

In this case it only takes the security services to pretend they cant access the phone. Noone else needs to involved.

You really find that asbsurd, you have you cases from history of exactly this occureance.

Yes I do. Completely and totally absurd.
Cases in history of exactly this occurrence (you'll forgive me if I allow the built in spell checker to do it's work) do not exist so I can't find one. I guess by "exactly" you're discounting that it is an iPhone, a court order to unlock it, dealing with lone wolf terrorists who may or may not have been connected to ISIL, after slaughtering a score of people in San Bernardino CA on December 2, 2015. Sorry but I can't find another such example.

Oh, maybe you didn't mean exactly the same thing. You said so, but I guess it's implied that exactly means not exactly in all respects.

Now, forget all that because it's obvious that this exact thing has never happen before and will never happen again. The shooters are dead for one thing. But forget that. So, the so called "security services" will act like idiots, even though they are actually quite savvy, to convince people that they really are idiots (which we think anyway), and then force Apple to do something that they really can already do, just to fool everyone - up until Apple complies with the order and unlocks the phone, and then their ruse is blown anyway because then they CAN hack into an iPhone.

Yes, completely absurd. There are lots of absurd things that are POSSIBLE - but they are still absurd. There are a far greater number of absurd things that have never happened and will never happen - in this universe and not in hypothetical alternate universes - in case you are going to go there.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Yes I do. Completely and totally absurd.
Cases in history of exactly this occurrence (you'll forgive me if I allow the built in spell checker to do it's work) do not exist so I can't find one. I guess by "exactly" you're discounting that it is an iPhone, a court order to unlock it, dealing with lone wolf terrorists who may or may not have been connected to ISIL, after slaughtering a score of people in San Bernardino CA on December 2, 2015. Sorry but I can't find another such example.

Oh, maybe you didn't mean exactly the same thing. You said so, but I guess it's implied that exactly means not exactly in all respects.

Now, forget all that because it's obvious that this exact thing has never happen before and will never happen again. The shooters are dead for one thing. But forget that. So, the so called "security services" will act like idiots, even though they are actually quite savvy, to convince people that they really are idiots (which we think anyway), and then force Apple to do something that they really can already do, just to fool everyone - up until Apple complies with the order and unlocks the phone, and then their ruse is blown anyway because then they CAN hack into an iPhone.

Yes, completely absurd. There are lots of absurd things that are POSSIBLE - but they are still absurd. There are a far greater number of absurd things that have never happened and will never happen - in this universe and not in hypothetical alternate universes - in case you are going to go there.

Well done on the spell checker! You need a little more work on the pedantry, sarcasm and logic, though marks for effort!. They are not built in? The ruse isn't over if apple are forced to comply at all? It simply shifts the idea that the next techology is supposedly secure till a court says otherwise. Sorry yes , security forces have misrepresented their capabilites before. They have done exactly that. Not on Tuesday 12 in X to a man named y before exactly though no. Well noticed!

 

[Libre]

It is not pedantic or sarcastic to point out that no two events are exactly the same, and that even small details are important. You want to say that X=Y because X is close enough to Y to be considered equal to Y. That's your logic. So go ahead and fault me for mine. We clearly view the world from different perspectives.

If you carelessly scatter misspellings in your post (when you can obviously do better) then please forgive me for noticing. Why should it bother you?

All pedantry and sarcasm aside, there are some people who will assume a conspiracy for everything that happens, and there are others who don't.

 

[Alc]

Yes I do. Completely and totally absurd.
Cases in history of exactly this occurrence (you'll forgive me if I allow the built in spell checker to do it's work) do not exist so I can't find one. I guess by "exactly" you're discounting that it is an iPhone, a court order to unlock it, dealing with lone wolf terrorists who may or may not have been connected to ISIL, after slaughtering a score of people in San Bernardino CA on December 2, 2015. Sorry but I can't find another such example.

Oh, maybe you didn't mean exactly the same thing. You said so, but I guess it's implied that exactly means not exactly in all respects.

Now, forget all that because it's obvious that this exact thing has never happen before and will never happen again. The shooters are dead for one thing. But forget that. So, the so called "security services" will act like idiots, even though they are actually quite savvy, to convince people that they really are idiots (which we think anyway), and then force Apple to do something that they really can already do, just to fool everyone - up until Apple complies with the order and unlocks the phone, and then their ruse is blown anyway because then they CAN hack into an iPhone.

Yes, completely absurd. There are lots of absurd things that are POSSIBLE - but they are still absurd. There are a far greater number of absurd things that have never happened and will never happen - in this universe and not in hypothetical alternate universes - in case you are going to go there.

Ah, but that's just what they WANT you to think

 

[Libre]

Ah, but that's just what they WANT you to think

Well, reverse logic can work in either direction.
Maybe they want you to think that people will assume a ruse/conspiracy and wind up thinking that they CAN when they really CAN'T.

 

[Alc]

Well, reverse logic can work in either direction.
Maybe they want you to think that people will assume a ruse/conspiracy and wind up thinking that they CAN when they really CAN'T.

Oh wow, man, it's like "the man" is gonna get you either way!