Re: Apple wins a round in fight over accessing locked iPhones in criminal investigati
No it is not an oversimplification.
When you boil an argument down to two words...yes, it is an over simplification.
Correct... which means Apple already has a way to get onto the phone, else they could not add the new code.
Wrong, they have to create a way to get that new coding onto the phone, if forced to do this.
Which is why the FBI has suggested that Apple do all the work and give them the information... you forgot to mention that part eh? And chances are the NSA already has the ability to gain access to any iPhone they want, but does not want to share this with the FBI due to departmental infighting and exposing that they can... it is the NSA after all.
I don't recall the FBI ever saying that they're willing to give Apple sole custody of that iPhone and never wanting that iPhone back. If they have then it would be a complete lie due to evidentiary laws. As for the NSA, its quite possible that they do have it. Until such evidence that they do comes out then we can't say for definitively that they do. I'm quite willing to go with the possibility that they don't and as such I don't want Apple to give them the ability.
And yet you have no problem with private companies having the information, using it and selling it?
There are laws on what type of information that they sell. Otherwise I agree to the TOS that they have if I want to use their products. The TOS for the Government is outlined in the Constitution, when the government tries to abuse the power outlined in that Constitution then yeah, I have a problem with it. Just liked I'd have a problem with a private company that sold information about me that is against the law to sell.
Listen I dont like government or private companies have so much information about me, but I do understand that to make society work that this is needed. One of the things that is acceptable is the ability of government via a warrant to gain access to criminals information so they can put them away for crimes. So when a private company like Apple first says it cant and then changes to it wont, then my alarm bells start running. Then they claim security for its users, and yet Apple is not know for its security nor caring much about its users.. which I have pointed out and proved many times.
Society can work just fine without the government knowing every single little thing that there is to know about us. It's done that for thousands of years.
And perhaps you can point out where exactly that Apple said that they
can't do what the government wants them to do. Let's get some context here.
So we are back to why Apple does not want to do it.. and it is clear now that it is because of marketing and keeping a myth alive instead of actually caring about their users. Why? Because they have already (many times) given to the government, the information on users iCloud accounts. If Apple were soooo bent on defending their users privacy, then why did they never fight those cases? Or why was Apple not part of the protest against the US law that requires cloud services to hand over information on non-US based users? Microsoft and Google are fighting it.. but Apple is never mentioned..why is that?
And in each of those 70 times that Apple has done this previously they were using a different iOS. Tell me Pete, why is it that everyone in the tech industry is supporting Apple in this? And I'm not just talking about companies, but individuals. Individuals that don't even own a company and yet know more about the tech world than both you and me combined? All of them agreeing with Apple.
Privacy is fine and dandy.. but protecting your privacy also protects the privacy of pedophiles and terrorists... you like that?
There's an old saying here in the US. It is better to let 100 criminals go than to convict one innocent person. The meaning being that the innocents rights are far more important than getting the bad guy at all costs. So, to answer your question, no I don't like it. I do however recognize that in a free society it is sometimes necessary to let those pedophiles and terrorists escape in order to preserve what it is exactly that made America so great in the first place.
Another old saying that we have in the US. Coined by Franklin...
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I happen to agree with him.
One more old saying... "The road to hell is paved with good intentions.".
So, yes, I'm quite willing to protect the privacy of a pedophile and a terrorist in order to protect not only my right to privacy, but also everyone else's right to privacy and even further, our future generations privacy.