It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tim Cook: Apple Won’t Create “Backdoor” To Unlock San Bernardino Attacker’s iPhone

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 05:42 AM
link   
So, basically the head cheese @ Apple is ultimately asking the customers opinions about the latest request from the FBI. The FBI WANTS Apple to create a back door into the new iPhone.

This will/would (although the software does not exist to this day so THEY say) have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

In other words, Apple is drawing the line, to protect the privacy of its valued clientele.

So, the question is, do they, or don't they? Is it going to far? If it is, look at the San Bernardino investigation... yea/neh? What say you ATS?


Apple CEO Tim Cook has posted an open letter to Apple customers announcing that the company would oppose an order from a U.S. Federal judge to help the FBI access data on an iPhone 5c used by San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook. Cook says that this moment is one for public discussion, and that the company wants its customers to understand what's at stake.




Cook starts the letter noting that smartphones have become an essential part of people's lives and that many people store private conversations, photos, music, notes, calendars and both financial and health information on their devices. Ultimately, Cook says, encryption helps keep people's data safe, which in turn keeps people's personal safety from being at risk.

He then goes on to say that Apple and its employees were "shocked and outraged" by the San Bernardino attack and that Apple has complied with valid subpoenas and search warrants from federal investigators. Apple has also made engineers available to advise the FBI in addition to providing general advice on how they could go about investigating the case. However, Cook says that's where Apple will draw the line.



L I N K




posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

Kinda funny how tragedies always lead to the further erosion of our rights.

Also I doubt that Apple does not already share all the information possible with certain intelligence agencies.

I would go on to say that Apple is the backdoor, appearing like the benevolent defenders of said rights!
edit on America/ChicagoWednesdayAmerica/Chicago02America/Chicago229amWednesday5 by elementalgrove because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: ReadLeader

Kinda funny how tragedies always lead to the further erosion of our rights.

Also I doubt that Apple does not already share all the information possible with certain intelligence agencies.

Apple is the backdoor!


Element, spot on target! This is my opinion as well.

Thanks for posting




posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

I sometimes, at my most paranoid moments, feel like these kind of public displays are all part of the pony show. Look at what we could have here:

The FBI pretend they need a backdoor - they already have it, now the public thinks they still need it.

Apple publicly says no and appears 'transparent' about the encounter - they already gave it, but now the public thinks they company is standing up for them and protecting their privacy.

Win/Win situation?

Not sure I actually believe that, but sometimes I think things like that lol. I certainly wouldn't call that an impossible scenario.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

"Find my iphone" and other such apps, freely available to Joe public, give us an insight as to the possible level of monitoring and other such "intelligence tools" that may actually be available.

You know, I'm looking up washing machines and Bali holidays one day and the next there are washing machine and Bali holiday adverts all over my screen.

So, this situation is simple - it needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis with the proper authorizations in place to protect the end user customer as well as the victims of crimes - there should not be a blanket law that ultimately usurps my privacy & consequently gives questionable law enforcement agents carte' blanche access to my personal equipment because someone who is completely unaffiliated with me might be a terrorist.
edit on 17-2-2016 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

I think the choice here is simple, and it is down to the customers to make that choice for themselves, where the US customer base is concerned specifically.

Do you, the consumer, and resident of a nation which has a constitution which, if followed religiously, would make your society the envy of the globe, believe that your security is worth the removal of your Liberty. Yes, or no.

Personally speaking, if I were in their shoes, I would choose no, because no ones security is worth the removal of liberty, because without that enshrined liberty, unassailable, unquestionable, without chink or gap, without loophole or weakness, ones security is of no value. A nuclear bunker is a safe place to be. Thick walls, near invisible from outside, independent air supplies, water supplies, food, no muggers, no house breakers, no gangsters, no terrorist is ever getting in. Sounds good? Sure, until you realise that you cannot see the sky, you cannot taste the rain, or feel the wind, or walk beyond the confines of the walls.

Safety is a prison. Liberty is a risk, but one without which life has no meaning. Choose Liberty, or death, and nothing in between.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Unfortunately it doesn't really say they are not going to allow this. All they have said is that they will listen to the public.
If they want to allow this backdoor to be implemented then we will se a large push by certain groups to influence these discussions. Fear is a useful tool to achieve your target.

Terrorism is possibly the biggest booming business in the world today.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: InMyShell

"Terrorism is possibly the biggest booming business in the world today. "

#Thisisrightonpoint

2nd

Thanks for posting!



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   


the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession


Oh come on, this is a publicity stunt if I ever saw one!

Do not tell me that the phone/operating system that is laden with software flaws (really, it is, to those in the know - many of which is on this site, I guess) is impenetrable to government entities!

This is a bull# statement that a) looks good for Apple and b) make people trust a compromised platform to the benefit of law enforcement and the intelligence community. No more, no less.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

"Safety is a prison. Liberty is a risk, but one without which life has no meaning. Choose Liberty, or death, and nothing in between. "

True to the 10th! Well stated T.B.

Thanks for posting




posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   
If they wont the phone opened send it to Apple, let them do it? Why is this even a question? Because they want to give the impression they can't read your stuff. If you make a call or type on the internet its already out there, stored in the basement of some fusion data center.

Imo, they already can tap any data on any device any time they want, just playing like they can't to preserve the notion you have privacy or security.

Preserves apples revenue, and hides their complicity with gubment spy agencies.

Why ever would the state controlled media knowingly tell us in this era of terra that if you want to keep secrets, hide them over here?



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Exactly. In the case of proven terrorists, such as these two killers, of course, open it up. Nobody cares about their privacy anymore.

But for others, no thanks. Make it a case by case judgment, not a free for all.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
It simply amazes me that people who don't want their private information to get out or have things they don't want known, carry it around on a machine that is constantly hooked in to a world wide system. One that is known to have people that steal that information for profit.
No matter what Apple or any other company says, There Is No Privacy if your secrets are stored on a device.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Meanwhile, at the rat cave. Google is coding a new backdoor as we speak, you should receive it in your next update. Giving government backdoor access to cellphones is definitely a stupid idea no matter the reason. It's not like you had much privacy anyway, but if this is a new precedent, you may ass well just smash your phone and live in the wilderness.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   
It is a company phone. The owner(Farrok's boss) consented to the search.

This man and his wife went on a killing spree at the owners business...I think they have and deserve the right to allow a search of THEIR phone which may have information relating to the terrorist attack which saw so many of its employees die..

This is a cut and dry situation. If Farook owned the phone himself and had not been a murderous thug then the phone wouldn't be searched.

I do agree that President Obama never misses an opportunity to exploit a tragedy but in this case no ones rights are being infringed..

Note to all: if they pay for it, your boss owns your computer at work(and all that resides on the drive) and the phone's data regardless of what you believe....

-Christosterone



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

Apple should have, as part of their agreement, a statement stating that all information is subject to government inspection at any time for anyone.
If they capitulate.

Or people could just give up their smart phones. I did.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: ReadLeader
a reply to: TrueBrit

"Safety is a prison. Liberty is a risk, but one without which life has no meaning. Choose Liberty, or death, and nothing in between. "

True to the 10th! Well stated T.B.

Thanks for posting



Actually, that's catchy, but a little dramatic. Safety doesn't have to be a prison, and there is ground in between. We must simply be cautious, while at the same time -- don't be fools. There is a middle ground to this.

If they were already doing this, there would have been no attack in France. They used their phones to engineer the entire attack, right up to 'go time'. If there had been a more sophisticated intelligence, it wouldn't have happened.

We absolutely have to understand that until terrorism is eradicated, there will be some (hopefully prudent) tweaks to our everyday lives.

Look, I don't like it either. I don't like being scrutinized at the airport either. But I'm going to put up with it, because I don't want another mass killing from a bunch of freaks.
edit on 2/17/2016 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Good on that CEO. He knows where this would lead. A future ISIS attack is going to happen regardless. I think it's going to be nasty with lots of casualties, and is going to coincide with the political conventions this summer.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

If that is the case then why isn't the owner of the phone able to unlock it? I know that enterprise level phone management software like Blackberry Enterprise subscriptions have the ability to remotely wipe a phone, this would be so a stolen or non-returned company phone could be wiped of proprietary info. Are services like BBE unable to unlock a user locked phone?

I really don't have a problem with Apple unlocking this if possible as there is certainly a warrant involved. If they are currently unable to, I'm not sure they should be compelled to create that ability. However, companies and governments should be aware of this and that should heavily influence their decisions about what devices they both purchase, and allow their employees to use on their enterprise servers. I personally would not allow anyone to use a device in my business I could not unlock if they returned it to me locked at separation.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: jefwane

The owner of the phone can't unlock it because they made a mistake and allowed a Muslim extremist secure it without their knowledge.

Again, if a company pays for your phone then don't expect privacy...
If you want to have a private phone then pony up the $75 and pay the bills yourself...
Dilemma solved!!

-Christosterone

Edit: in addition to buying your phone, don't kill innocents...because if you mow down a bunch of people at a party then you surrender your rights and become an outlaw(you know, outside the rules of law)
edit on 17-2-2016 by Christosterone because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join