Apple CEO Tim Cook Opposes Court Order to allow Govt. Acess to it's iOS devices

[Commander Wallace]

Apple CEO Tim Cook of Apple is vehemently opposing a court order to enable governmental snooping into phone messages, texts and emails. The U.S government has ordered Apple to build software that would allow the government to hack into your cell phones or iOS devices at will. The U.S government has long been at odds with Silicon Valley and the tech industry for it's refusal to allow governmental access to it's software and servers. To be fair, other companies “ mine “ your data and sell it to 3rd parties for the purpose of making sales.


Quote : But Apple CEO Tim Cook bit back, claiming the creation of such a hacking tool would threaten the security of all iPhone owners. It is, as Edward Snowden said, one of the most important privacy and security cases currently being fought between government and the technology industry.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbr.../#1ec0da0a7d87

Nov 27 of 2015 found a new law enacted by congress to abolish mass and bulk collection of phone records. This law was put into effect after NSA employee Edward Snowden released information regarding clandestine actions involving snooping and surveillance of it's populace.


Quote : The program began in secret 14 years ago under the authority of President George W. Bush, and for years, the government kept it mostly secret. But in the summer of 2013, it was forced to acknowledge the program after Snowden’s leak of a court order showing that the agency was gathering from a Verizon phone company “all call detail records” of its customers on a daily basis.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...b1f_story.html


The government will now have to obtain a court order to obtain phone records. Apple CEO Tim Cook has gone on record as saying that he would comply with any “ valid “ court order regarding specific phone records. Mr Cook however has said he draws the line at allowing their I phones to be able to hacked into at will or creating a “ backdoor “ Mr Cook has further said that he has no interest in who you talk to, what time you go to bed or what you have for dinner. Apparently, the Government does.


It goes without saying that allowing unfettered Government access to their I phone establishes a dangerous precedence and furthers over reach by the government. Other tech companies are watching developments as the battle lines are being drawn that will undoubtedly see this case end up before the Federal Supreme Court. This case may well set boundaries that will protect other tech companies from governmental interference. A well written article appeared in Subsim last weekend detailing the loss of Justice Anton Scalia .( http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=224340 )
Interestingly enough, this loss leaves the Supreme court with an even number of justices without a new appointment.


This tension between the tech industry and the U.S government came to a head after the cowardly terrorist attacks in San Bernadine California December 2, 2015 in which 14 people tragically lost their lives. Law enforcement officials have said they need access to the the perpetrators phones to solve this case. This is ridiculous as law enforcement solved this case long ago. This is nothing more than a poorly made excuse by governmental official to once again make attempts to bring it's populace under surveillance. There has always been a danger when the technological abilities of a government exceeds it's wisdom to employ that technology fairly and without prejudice and for the good of it's people.


Law enforcement has said this surveillance is to ostensibly help keep it's people safe. The wiser among us feel differently. I suppose it would help law enforcement if they could know where you were every minute of your life. Interestingly enough, all electronic consumer products are being fitted with chips whereby when you watch TV, it can also literally watch you. Electronic consumer products like refrigerators can let those who want to know if you are home. People should ask themselves why this would be important and to whom. There is not a lot of data on the web to support that but executives at the consumer electronics shows have confirmed that. Further, if the security of those devices made in America like apple I phones are compromised, this will inevitably open the door to phones made in China or Japan or somewhere else that enjoy freedom from access from a 3rd party like the government. This would economically damage Apple and other companies in the U.S . It's reasonable to assume the U.S would demand the same access to phones made outside the U.S.

Republican Presidential Candidates Ted Cruz, retired Neuro Surgeon Benjamin Carson and front runner Donald Trump have all said they are in favor of more and continued surveillance. Something to keep in mind when it comes time to vote.


Quote :


Law enforcement and intelligence services in the United Kingdom and the United States possess technology to activate the microphones in cell phones remotely, by accessing phones' diagnostic or maintenance features in order to listen to conversations that take place near the person who holds the phone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance



Benjamin Franklin Has been quoted as saying :
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety


"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, as well. Both of these gentleman were some of the founding fathers who were instrumental in the framing of the Constitution.



Where do you stand on this issue ?

[Sailor Steve]

I am against any government intrusion into citizen's privacy. In specific instances where police have obtained a warrant from a judge to listen into individuals' conversations, based on prior evidence that such people are almost certainly involved in criminal activities, then as long as the correct procedures are followed for that individual case it is allowable. General "fishing" for anything that might indict somebody by sheer chance is not.

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

Republican Presidential Candidates Ted Cruz, retired Neuro Surgeon Benjamin Carson and front runner Donald Trump have all said they are in favor of more and continued surveillance. Something to keep in mind when it comes time to vote.

And I definitely will. I'm always stumped by how the people who cry the loudest about "getting the government off our backs" can be first in line supporting government interference.

Benjamin Franklin Has been quoted as saying :
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

"Attributed" might be the better word. There is no existing written evidence by Franklin with that quote in it. There is a letter alleged to have been written by Franklin, with that quote in it, but its intent was to support government involvement, not deny it.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben...in-really-said

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, as well.

Falsely attributed in this case, as the phrase did not exist before 1961.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2005...patriotism.htm

Both of these gentleman were some of the founding fathers who were instrumental in the framing of the Constitution.

Absolutely not true in Jefferson's case. He was America's Minister (Ambassador) to France at the time, and had no knowledge of the Constitution at all until James Madison, who was so directly involved as to later be called "The Father of The Constitution" wrote him about it. Jefferson did influence the Bill of Rights when he wrote Madison that he would not support the Constitution if it did not have a listing of individual rights attached to it. He believed the Constitution granted too much power to the Federal Government and was opposed to people like Alexander Hamilton, who used his position as Secretary of the Treasure to create a National Bank.

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

"Attributed" might be the better word. There is no existing written evidence by Franklin with that quote in it. There is a letter alleged to have been written by Franklin, with that quote in it, but its intent was to support government involvement, not deny it.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben...in-really-said


Falsely attributed in this case, as the phrase did not exist before 1961.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2005...patriotism.htm


Absolutely not true in Jefferson's case. He was America's Minister (Ambassador) to France at the time, and had no knowledge of the Constitution at all until James Madison, who was so directly involved as to later be called "The Father of The Constitution" wrote him about it. Jefferson did influence the Bill of Rights when he wrote Madison that he would not support the Constitution if it did not have a listing of individual rights attached to it. He believed the Constitution granted too much power to the Federal Government and was opposed to people like Alexander Hamilton, who used his position as Secretary of the Treasure to create a National Bank.

I suggest you read up on the subject a bit more .

Thomas Jefferson (April 13 [O.S. April 2] 1743 – July 4, 1826) was an American Founding Father who was principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776).

During the American Revolution, he represented Virginia in the Continental Congress that adopted the Declaration, drafted the law for religious freedom as a Virginia legislator, and served as a wartime governor (1779–1781).
Jefferson served as a delegate to the Second Continental Congress beginning in 1775 at the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. He sought out John Adams who, along with the latter's cousin Samuel, had emerged as a leader of the Congress. Jefferson and Adams established a permanent friendship which led to Jefferson's work on the Declaration of Independence. Adams supported Jefferson's appointment to the Committee of Five formed to write the Declaration in furtherance of the Lee Resolution passed by the Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

Apparently ,Wikipedia disagrees with you. Perhaps you should send them a note and site your expertise. If you notice, I had said " one of the framers " of the Constitution. Wikipedia agrees with that .

Your time might be better spent reading up on the material instead of trying to make others look foolish.

The article I wrote was to inform others of what issues are taking shape in Federal Court and how far reaching the implications of these questions are and the ramifications and consequences of any decisions.

The article was further written to invite discussion and debate among our more learned and intelligent Subsim members.

[Betonov]

I'd love to say ''good job'' and ''stick it to the goverment'' and I'm so glad he leaked the offer to the public.

But I won't go as far to say that this won't happen after some serious money is thrown at him

CEO's aren't as sleazy as politicians, but are still shifty

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Betonov

I'd love to say ''good job'' and ''stick it to the goverment'' and I'm so glad he leaked the offer to the public.

But I won't go as far to say that this won't happen after some serious money is thrown at him

CEO's aren't as sleazy as politicians, but are still shifty

Cook is just doing a CYA action in regards to his customer base, shareholders, and his fellow techmeisters. What most probably will happen is the Feds will offer him and his company the same sort of indemnity against legal action, civil or criminal, as was extended to the telecoms under the GW Bush Administration and the Patriot Act. As long as his butt isn't in the sling, he probably won't be too worried about some other person's being hung out to dry...


<O>

[Sailor Steve]

"You suggest"?

I am well aware of Jefferson's position as a "Founding Father", and said nothing to the contrary. You cited Jefferson as "one of the framers of the Constitution", and I pointed out that he had nothing to do with the creation of that document. You now go on to reiterate the "Founding Father" claim and to cite his involvement with the Declaration of Independence. I have many times on this forum told the story of the Declaration, and Jefferson's involvement as a member of the "Committee of Five".

You spend a lot of time quoting several links talking about Jefferson and the Declaration, but not one line pertaining to the Constitution.

You say Wiki disagrees with me. Where? I challenge you to read your linked article in depth and quote the lines that indicate Jefferson's involvement with the Constitution.

Apparently ,Wikipedia disagrees with you. Perhaps you should send them a note and site your expertise.

For your information, I am a Wikipedia team member and have been involved in correcting the site on several occasions.

If you notice, I had said " one of the framers " of the Constitution. Wikipedia agrees with that .

No, it doesn't. I again ask you to quote the exact line from that article that connects Jefferson with the Constitution. The next time you "suggest" someone read up on a subject more, you might want to do the same yourself. Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with the framing of the Constitution at all.

Your time might be better spent reading up on the material instead of trying to make others look foolish.

Point out an error is not trying to make someone look foolish. It's merely pointing out an error.

The article I wrote was to inform others of what issues are taking shape in Federal Court and how far reaching the implications of these questions are and the ramifications and consequences of any decisions.

And I gave my opinion on the subject, which happens to agree with yours.

[Commander Wallace]

And I did appreciate your feedback Steve. What was important was the body of work in the article, not Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson .

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

I suggest you read up on the subject a bit more .

Thomas Jefferson (April 13 [O.S. April 2] 1743 – July 4, 1826) was an American Founding Father who was principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776).

During the American Revolution, he represented Virginia in the Continental Congress that adopted the Declaration, drafted the law for religious freedom as a Virginia legislator, and served as a wartime governor (1779–1781).
Jefferson served as a delegate to the Second Continental Congress beginning in 1775 at the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. He sought out John Adams who, along with the latter's cousin Samuel, had emerged as a leader of the Congress. Jefferson and Adams established a permanent friendship which led to Jefferson's work on the Declaration of Independence. Adams supported Jefferson's appointment to the Committee of Five formed to write the Declaration in furtherance of the Lee Resolution passed by the Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

Apparently ,Wikipedia disagrees with you. Perhaps you should send them a note and site your expertise. If you notice, I had said " one of the framers " of the Constitution. Wikipedia agrees with that .

Your time might be better spent reading up on the material instead of trying to make others look foolish.

The article I wrote was to inform others of what issues are taking shape in Federal Court and how far reaching the implications of these questions are and the ramifications and consequences of any decisions.

The article was further written to invite discussion and debate among our more learned and intelligent Subsim members.

Apparently you should actually read what Wikipedia has to say. Where does it say that Jeffereson was one of the framers of the US Constitution? It does not. And he was not.

Steve is exactly right and your "evidence" bears that out. Your time might better be spent......etc.

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Apparently you should actually read what Wikipedia has to say. Where does it say that Jeffereson was one of the framers of the US Constitution? It does not. And he was not.

Steve is exactly right and your "evidence" bears that out. Your time might better be spent......etc.

In fact, I was referring to the fact Ben Franklin was a signer and framer of
the Constitution and also the Declaration of Independence although I made no reference to the Declaration.With regards to Thomas Jefferson, I listed what Wilkepedia had said as far as his being one of the founding fathers of the U.S along with Ben Franklin and other notables.

I should have made the distinction but I had no idea there was going to be a test today. I just assumed most would intelligently infer what I meant and make the distinction for themselves and have better things to do than hang me out to dry. Most here were classy enough to do just that and focus on the body of work I wrote and have an intelligent and rational discussion.


Enough said. Lets move on.

[Eichhörnchen]

This is all very well, but none of it explains exactly why they gave the part of the chimney sweep to Dick Van Dyke.

[August]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

I had no idea there was going to be a test today.

Think of it this way, you're turning in a test paper every time you hit the Submit Reply button.

I think they should compromise and in certain "rare" cases, apple should decrypt the data and turn it over if they have a warrant. something done "in house" and completely "secret" known only to apple keeps things as they should be and only provides access for national security reasons only such as getting phone records used to be.

I do NOT think they should create software to give to anyone to allow decrypting it, that would be stupid and wrong. way too many bad things can happen there.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Webster

I think they should compromise and in certain "rare" cases, apple should decrypt the data and turn it over if they have a warrant. something done "in house" and completely "secret" known only to apple keeps things as they should be and only provides access for national security reasons only such as getting phone records used to be.

I do NOT think they should create software to give to anyone to allow decrypting it, that would be stupid and wrong. way too many bad things can happen there.

Here's my question. Why is a scheme never attempted where law enforcement is permitted to do these things, but it will cost them automatically even in the best case? Why must Legality always mean complete immunity?

For example, any investigator that wants access to oh, my tablet will generally get it. BUT he loses a year's pay, even if he's right. If he's wrong, he loses two years. If he's wrong and some collateral damage occurs, he loses even more. If he tries to evade the regulation, that's a criminal action.

Would I, having my rights infringed, not be somewhat comforted by the thought the investigator is losing at least one years' pay for this privilege?

Would not actually having to personally pay for the privilege help restrict it to cases of real necessity?

Would not this penalty be a constant reminder that while the People may accept such measures as necessary, it is never actually right?

Just a thought.

[Gargamel]

While this may seem like a simple case, the suspect is dead, and they are looking for loose ends and leads for conspirators, it's not a path we want to take.

If apple does this once, just once, then the precedent is set to keep doing it. This is a pandora's box scenario.

First off, the tech. They can't (supposedly) do it right now. They would have to engineer a solution to break their own security. That itself is a bad idea. Companies get hacked, all the time. If this security crack got loose, it would destroy their entire business model, or at least a good portion of it. Every other phone out there that would be accessible by this crack would be vulnerable to hacking.

Then there's the precedent of it. If they did it in this one case, then what's stopping the government from 'forcing' them to do it again? Nothing. And in fact, we all know it will happen.

I'll paraphrase Franklin here. Those would give up some freedom for a little security, deserve neither freedom nor security.

[Catfish]

Thank god Google with its Android and the Microsoft phones do not have any restrictions of that kind