• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why the FBI Director really wants to be able to access your iPhone

One thing law enforcement and the NSA have shown over and over and over again is that they cannot or will not follow proper procedures.

If that happens bust them for it but in the meantime we can't let terrorist communicate freely
 
If that happens bust them for it but in the meantime we can't let terrorist communicate freely

Have they been busted yet? Not that I can see. Sure the President made some noise some months back but that's it.

I worry more about my own government than I do terrorists. Terrorists can kill some people. A government can kill a country.
 
To me, the real news is that Apple and Google plan to release phones that are encryption-secure. Where even they themselves cannot access data without the user's password.

No more wire taps...no more being able to track calls...

Should this be allowed?

The only "example" I could think of would be if gun manufacturers could manufacture guns with no ballistics.
I am unsympathetic. Here's the thing... these phones were developed in large part because the public was clamoring for them. Why was the public clamoring for them? Precisely because the government... including Comey's FBI... was caught doing things it knew it shouldn't have been doing. In other words, they've proven themselves not trustworthy (yet again, imagine that!). While there is a fair point in his comments, he/they really have no one to blame but themselves.
 
To me, the real news is that Apple and Google plan to release phones that are encryption-secure. Where even they themselves cannot access data without the user's password.

No more wire taps...no more being able to track calls...

Should this be allowed?

The only "example" I could think of would be if gun manufacturers could manufacture guns with no ballistics.

I have a hack that prevents the FBI from snooping into what you do on an iPhone. It really works. The hack is the following.....

Wait for it....

Don't buy one. :mrgreen:
 
I am unsympathetic. Here's the thing... these phones were developed in large part because the public was clamoring for them. Why was the public clamoring for them? Precisely because the government... including Comey's FBI... was caught doing things it knew it shouldn't have been doing. In other words, they've proven themselves not trustworthy (yet again, imagine that!). While there is a fair point in his comments, he/they really have no one to blame but themselves.

The public was clamoring?? Everyone I know has a cell phone. I've never heard one person say, "I want a phone that can't be tapped by the government." That's Oscar Mayer material.
 
If that happens bust them for it but in the meantime we can't let terrorist communicate freely

Terrorists already know how to use open source technology to encrypt their communications. This just allows the average person who is less tech savvy to enjoy the same COMSEC. That's a good thing, IMO.

Personally, I am FAR more concerned about an over reaching government than I am getting hurt in a terrorist attack.
 
The public was clamoring?? Everyone I know has a cell phone. I've never heard one person say, "I want a phone that can't be tapped by the government." That's Oscar Mayer material.
Well. I guess that settles it. Because YOU have never heard anyone say so, then that must be indicative of everybody. It is spoken!

:roll:

I've heard it from a couple different sources, one being a blurb by Tom Brokaw that I listen to in the morning on the radio as I drive to work. Sorry, no link for the radio, though I'm pretty sure Tom Brokaw isn't prone to unwarranted fantasy.
 
I don't see a terrorist behind every tree. I don't see crooks behind every tree, but every Big Bank seems to be a different story. Local politicians seem OK, but any office with Power draws crooks, thieves, liars, and worse. Those are the people that rule and regulate us and the ones that we are supposed to trust to do good things for us. I think the terrorists are in Washington. I think we are being worked like cattle to make sure capital flows to the 1% and I don't like it. The electronic eavesdropping is just another tool being use for suppression. If I saw some good result of all the electronic eavesdropping, it might be justifiable. I don't see those results. I just see more Corporate control to establish the NWO, and that's not a good thing.
 
Terrorists already know how to use open source technology to encrypt their communications. This just allows the average person who is less tech savvy to enjoy the same COMSEC. That's a good thing, IMO.

Personally, I am FAR more concerned about an over reaching government than I am getting hurt in a terrorist attack.

Why make it easy for the bad guys? As long As the FBI needs warrants to search phones just as they do to search houses I don't see the problem. I assume you are fine with them searching homes with a warrant so what is the big deal with phones? Seems silly to me.
 
Why make it easy for the bad guys? As long As the FBI needs warrants to search phones just as they do to search houses I don't see the problem. I assume you are fine with them searching homes with a warrant so what is the big deal with phones? Seems silly to me.

So I shouldn't have the best encryption possible available for my use?
 
So I shouldn't have the best encryption possible available for my use?

Not if it is so good the FBI can be locked out of it even with a court order. These are perilous times and we can't have secret communication so easily obtained by those who would do us harm.
 
Well, first, I often disagree with the government on what constitutes a "bad guy". If the technology were feasible would you be in favor of home manufacturers putting surveillance equipment in ALL homes to record the activities of its occupants? Don't worry, the recorded archives could only be accessed with a warrant. I would be against that just as I am against back doors being built into software I use, which is one reason I use open source whenever possible.

I do not trust the government to do what is right with the power they have.

Perhaps if I felt I was any safer with such backdoors built in I would feel differently. But I'm not safer. I was never in much danger to begin with.
 
Criminals and terrorists could communicate with impunity.

And? They don't now? Here's a thought just because something is encrypted doesn't mean that you cannot tease information from its circumstance, hence the hubbub over metadata from the phones. I guarantee you the terrorists and criminals know this. Even if the Feds were allowed unlimited access by Apple and Google and the rest, you can run your own encryption which they cant bypass. So really all your doing is leaving people open to hackers. Hackers IMHO are a far more dangerous and present threat. Savy criminals and terrorist already have a communication strategy in place to defeat our attempts to crack their communications.
 
Not if it is so good the FBI can be locked out of it even with a court order. These are perilous times and we can't have secret communication so easily obtained by those who would do us harm.
Well here's the problem. The FBI and the NSA is too late. The encryption has been in existence the PPG encryption schemes. Further cryptography has been in existence since essentially the beginning of the spoken and written words, of communication itself. I personally encrypt sensitive data and utilize various methods and strategies to make sure information I want privileged remains that way. I guarantee the NSA would require a large amount of resource and time to begin the process of uncovering my sensitive data. It would take them so much time that it would be a pointless endeavor for them. The likelihood of them recovering a major part of it would be statistically low for any reasonable time period. (Reasonable would be less than a decade. Most information is usually of a time sensitive nature.) Hence the reason for encryption strategies. Encryption in and of itself is but a tool in a very large garage of tools to utilize in making and receiving surreptitious messages and keeping data secure. Our criminal friends and our terrorist friends are being schooled in these dark arts by us as we write, though the hard task master of conflict were you learn or you die. So really what truly is the FBI after because lets be blunt Johnny Jihad may be an murdering psychopathic jackass amongst other things, but stupid aint one of those things. The criminals and the terrorists can hide their messages just fine without Apple and Google. Otherwise we would already have them in hand.
 
The FBI (or any other government entity for that matter) has no business what's on my phone, who I'm talking to, or what I'm saying to them. Even with a court order I'm not giving them that information. I refuse to self incriminate myself. Anybody here hear about the 5th amendment?
 
Private conversations away from listening devices and hand delivered written docs are also hard to eavesdrop.

People have no obligation to facilitate government surveillance. A law requiring such facilitation would violate the fifth amendment.
Absolutely it would but with THIS supreme court I think the 5th Amendment might become the second one to be deemed irrelevant (the first being the 10th).
 
If that happens bust them for it but in the meantime we can't let terrorist communicate freely
When was the last time the government getting "busted" amounted to anything?
 
Absolutely it would but with THIS supreme court I think the 5th Amendment might become the second one to be deemed irrelevant (the first being the 10th).

The fifth is already irrelevant. The courts just bypass it with lame excuses like claiming something is in the state interest to do.
 
The fifth is already irrelevant. The courts just bypass it with lame excuses like claiming something is in the state interest to do.
"Compelling interest" has always translated in my mind to "We know it's not right, but we're going to do it anyway and we dare you to do anything about it."
 
Well. I guess that settles it. Because YOU have never heard anyone say so, then that must be indicative of everybody. It is spoken!

:roll:

I've heard it from a couple different sources, one being a blurb by Tom Brokaw that I listen to in the morning on the radio as I drive to work. Sorry, no link for the radio, though I'm pretty sure Tom Brokaw isn't prone to unwarranted fantasy.

No. I'll take my own experience over what Tom Brokaw says Main Street's thinking every day of the week. Tom Brokaw operates a Kool Ade stand.
 
The less the government is able to monitor private citizens - the better.

I will take my chances with criminals.

Besides, criminals could always use pre-paid cell phones (and if they had properly working brains in their heads, they would) that cannot be easily traced. Only a moronic criminal would use their personal, registered cell phone to plan/commit a crime with.

The FBI just wants more Big Brother power over the masses...that is by FAR the main reason why they don't like encrypted phones (imo).
 
Back
Top Bottom