from the will-the-government-stop-using-crypto-too? dept.
The suits working for the federal three-letter agencies are at it again according to this article published in Ars, citing a pay-walled Wall Street Journal article.
The No. 2 official at the Justice Department recently warned top Apple executives that stronger encryption protections added to iPhones would lead to a horrific tragedy, such as a child dying, because police couldn't access a suspect's device, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.
The beefed up protections, Apple recently disclosed, mean that even when company officials are served with a court order, they will be unable to retrieve potentially crucial evidence such as photos, messages, or contacts stored on iPhones and iPads. Instead, the data can be accessed only by people who know the passcode that serves as the encryption key.
Justice Department officials wasted no time objecting to the changes and used the scenario of a child being kidnapped and murdered to drive home their claim that Apple was "marketing to criminals." According to the WSJ, Justice Department officials including Deputy Attorney General James Cole met with Apple General Counsel Bruce Sewell and two other company employees on October 1.
The article goes on to quote the WSJ article's description of that meeting:
Mr. Cole offered the Apple team a gruesome prediction: At some future date, a child will die, and police will say they would have been able to rescue the child, or capture the killer, if only they could have looked inside a certain phone. His statements reflected concern within the FBI that a careful criminal can shield much activity from police surveillance by minimizing use of cellphone towers and not backing up data.
The Apple representatives viewed Mr. Cole’s suggestion as inflammatory and inaccurate. Police have other ways to get information, they said, including call logs and location information from cellphone carriers. In addition, many users store copies of a phone’s data elsewhere.
How long will these "Think of the children!" arguments actually be made before the government realizes this situation came about because it cannot be trusted?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by quadrox on Friday November 21 2014, @09:49AM
This is actually somewhat irrelevant, government should never be implicitly trusted, even if they have a perfect track record. Blind faith and trust in politicians is how we got into this mess in the first place, as government has been allowed to do whatever it wants for a long time now. Unfortunately there are too many people who just can't be bothered to care, so this is not going to change anytime soon.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by zocalo on Friday November 21 2014, @10:00AM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by AnonTechie on Friday November 21 2014, @10:10AM
Can Mr. Cole guarantee that no child will die, in future, if Apple removes the proposed encryption scheme ?
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by arashi no garou on Friday November 21 2014, @03:31PM
This is exactly the argument Apple should respond with. The government's position flies in the face of logic and reason, and they only went there because they are desperate to preserve their ability to monitor innocent individuals. They don't give two shits about whether a child is murdered, as long as they can maintain their status quo.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday November 21 2014, @05:43PM
Sponsored militarization of the local police, combined with incentivizing programs for "Asset Forfeiture" [thinkprogress.org] with Federal coverage and "Fusion centers" that blur scope and mission. [techdirt.com]
And so it goes...
And so it goes...
Are we living in a police state?
- There has been a 4000% increase in “no knock,” militarily-armed swat team raids over the past thirty years.
- Mid 80′s: 2,000-3,000 raids per year[1]
- Present day: 80,000 raid estimate[1]
- ——————
- Pros:
- –Element of Surprise
- –Suspect can’t destroy evidence
- Cons:
- –Invasion of privacy
- –Seconds for suspect to decide if these or cops or break in.
- –Faulty intelligence
- ————
Case Study
- Basics:[4]
- Ogden, Utah. 1/4/12 8:40 pm.
- Local swat team battered down Matthew David Stewart’s door with no warning. Thinking his home was being invaded, Stewart readied his pistol.
- Stewart: 31 rounds fired
- Swat: 250 rounds fired
- Tip: Stewart’s girlfriend saying he might be growing weed.
- Previous record: Clean, veteran.
- Result: 6 wounded swat. 1 killed. Stewart shot twice.
- Findings: 16 small pot plants. No intent to sell.
- Outcome: Upon losing hearing about search warrent legality. Stewart hangs himself in jail cell.
- ————-
And that’s just one of potentially hundreds of similar tragedies.
- Spotlight: NY
- 1994: 1,447 swat style drug raids
- 2002: 5,117
- “I have my own army in the NYPD–the seventh largest army in the world.” Michael Bloomberg
- ————
- Swat Armament:[3]
- Submachine Guns
- Automatic Weapons
- Breaching Shotguns
- Sniper Rifles
- Stun Grenades
- Heavy Body Armor
- Motion Detectors
- Advanced Night Vision Wear
- Armored Personal Carriers
- “From the Gulf war to the drug war–Battle proven” Heckler and Koch’s slogan for the M5[6]
- ————-
These “criminals” are heavily armed too, right?
- WRONG:
- [Weapon used in violent crime: %]
- Gun: 12.7%
- Knife: 10.1%
- Other: 12.1%
- Unknown weapon: 1.8%
- None: 55.8%
- Don’t Know: 5.8%
- —-
- So how can we allow this? The fact is, we don’t.
- 1970: The “no-knock” law is passed with the beginning of the war on drugs.
- 1974: The law was repealed.
- Today: “No knock” happens ALL THE TIME.
- ——
- Leading to more and more unnecessary, intrusive, illegal, and deadly SWAT raids.
- Raids leading to civilian injuries, death, or intrusion of the privacy of innocents.
- While injuries from “no knock” raids have been around since the inception of the swat team. Paramilitary like brutality has become a feature of the increasing armed SWAT of the last 10 years.
- Using the military in civic life is like using a hammer when you need a butter knife. There’s bound to be collateral damage. It could happen to you, your neighbors, your friends, or your family.
Speak out against the militarization of the police.
Citations
-http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-14-noknock14_ST_N.htm [usatoday.com]
-https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-free-speech-technology-and-liberty/too-many-cops-are-told-theyre-soldiers [aclu.org]
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT [wikipedia.org]
-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323848804578608040780519904.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories [wsj.com]
-http://www.cato.org/raidmap [cato.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 22 2014, @08:04PM
OUTSTANDING POST!!! d(^_^d)
Thank you very much for this post!
After 2001-09-11, America began its decent into the 'police state' era.
And here we are 13+ years later, living with the outcome of that decision as you have cited so powerfully and vividly in your post.
Again, a big thank you!
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday November 21 2014, @08:36PM
And, can Mr. Cole guarantee that such surveillance powers will not be abused, resulting in the death of a child? Ironic outcomes are all too frequent.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Friday November 21 2014, @01:35PM
Putting on my "grumpy old man" hat for a moment (the checkered one, with earlaps), let me just say that it often seems that nothing will change until suddenly it does. My canonical example is the Cold War, which seemed a permanent state of the world until suddenly Gorbachev let Hungary open the border to East Germany, and the next thing you know the Berlin Wall is getting torn down, and it seemed the day after that the Soviet Union broke up. Or, more relevant to the topic at hand, J. Edgar Hoover's reign of terror seemed like it would last forever, but then Hoover died and the Watergate scandal broke and Congress pushed through the post-Watergate reforms [wikipedia.org] that made a small but noticeable difference.
I don't want to sound too optimistic, because I'm not. I could give you a dozen examples of sudden changes for the worse, but I'll just say "Patriot Act" and leave you to extrapolate from that. We don't need another one of those! But it seems to me that public opinion doesn't change slowly like the tide, it rushes in like a tsunami, and it destroys that illusion the world will never change.
So I would amend your statement that "this is not going to change anytime soon" to instead say, "there is no sign this is going to change anytime soon." My hope and my fear has become that the next big change is sure to come and the only thing I can be sure about is that we won't feel ready.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by emg on Friday November 21 2014, @02:24PM
Well, obviously, if abuse of Federal power does continue, America will eventually break up like the Soviet Union. But I'm not sure many Americans will consider that a good thing.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Friday November 21 2014, @04:30PM
I would say the USA is beginning to have a swing to the left, whether that will bode more compassion or a "big mommy" government who can say. The reason I believe this is that I've noticed a sudden and very strong change in the comments sections of many mainstream news sites, even the ones that tend to lean right like Yahoo News, pretty jarring swing AAMOF.
As an example they had one of the tea party think tanks on there talking about how having a republican congress meant they could gut Obamacare and foodstamps and whereas just a year ago it would have been filled with complaints about "welfare queens" and how anyone needing help was just lazy instead it was filled with over 3k posts that were nearly all along the lines of "fuck you you greedy bastard, sitting there in a 5K suit while you brag about trying to stomp poor Americans and keep the weakest among us from seeing a doctor, may you rot in hell!". I've seen the same with regard to gays getting married and legalizing pot, issues just a few years ago didn't have a snowball's chance in hell. I'd say the only issue that still leaned heavily right was against amnesty for illegals, but considering the fact that congress hasn't done shit about the border after promising to if the 86 amnesty went through I can't say I blame 'em there.
As for TFA the "think of the children/catching pedos/terrorists" shit isn't gonna fly anymore, too many have seen how badly they lie thanks to Snowden and Manning. I live in the bible belt and talk to hardcore right wingers often and even they aren't buying it anymore, they have cried wolf one time too many and the trust is now gone. The "catching pedos" bit seems to have a bit more weight but even that one is losing ground thanks to them busting guys with dirty cartoons, too many of the older folks remember the Tijuana Bibles and don't like the idea of getting 60 years for some old Betty Boop 8 pager.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by emg on Friday November 21 2014, @05:36PM
So, that'll be the 'swing to the left' where Democrats were massacred in the last election, then?
The left are outraged because they lost, and because the Republicans probably will scrap Obamacare, and are out shouting about it. Outrage is what they do, and they're masters of astroturfing to make their opinions look far more popular than they are.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by arashi no garou on Friday November 21 2014, @07:04PM
Speaking as a left-leaning independent, I say let Obamacare die. It was the right idea, and long past due, but the wrong implementation. Fining the poor for not being able to afford government-mandated insurance shows a complete lack of logical thinking. I know they only did that to try to appease the Right and get it passed (given the Right's "fuck the poor, let them starve" attitude), but it was the wrong way to go about it.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday November 22 2014, @01:03AM
Uhhh...you no read the polls? NOBODY VOTES ON THE MIDTERMS so you suddenly get the entire country's politicians decided by white men over 60. Needless to say white men over 60 are pretty damned far from the majority anymore and if the mood of the populace is correct they are gonna be obliterated in 2016.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 4, Informative) by opinionated_science on Friday November 21 2014, @02:00PM
government of the $people , by the $people , for the $people
The problem is $people != $population
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 21 2014, @03:15PM
They are playing to the crypto nerds fantasy ...
http://xkcd.com/538/ [xkcd.com]
That is how it will go down if there is a small child stuck somewhere and that guy knows. These guys know it too. They are being lazy and do not want to get a warrant. Those things are practically rubber stamped anyway...
What judge would deny a warrant to search a phone if some kid is in danger? None, thats who.
This attitude is actually the one thing that drives me bonkers about cell phones. Everyone likes to think they are for their convenience. No. My cell phone is for *my* convenience, not for you. What did you guys do before cell phones? Oh thats right police work.
The attitude of our police of 'hah hah caught you'. Is a poor attitude and one that does not help us at all.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 21 2014, @03:17PM
"People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people." [imdb.com]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday November 21 2014, @10:01AM
"Of the child whiche kepte the sheep" [mythfolklore.net]
Or desensitization [wikipedia.org]
Serves them right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Funny) by Bot on Friday November 21 2014, @02:14PM
Oh now I got it.
I thought the DOJ kidnapped a son of an Apple exec and wrote an email like: "Give us the crypto keys or your child gets it".
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by zugedneb on Friday November 21 2014, @10:17AM
How long will these "_insert phrase_" arguments actually be made before the government realizes this situation came about because it cannot be trusted?
This sentence above is the kind of shit that made me ruin my slashdot account, man do I miss it... SO LETS FUCKING TROLL!!!!11!1!!
What the fuck do you think, you moron? That the actual PEOPLE in the US government are there because they want to help the fucking little people?
And then they are going to realize, and then embrace the poor people and the corpses littering the ground and weep?
You mean, that the same fuckers who meddle all across the world and start wars and contribute to shady groups in secret with YOUR TAX MONEY are actually for real going to realize something different than what they already are doing?
Lets not forget, YOU do not have to bring a revolution and fight in it, the GUNS you are allowed to carry you only use at porn parties? Where you fuck anuses instead of shooting those that betrayed?
This quoted sentence is the most funny misunderstanding in entire evolution. The idiot natural born civilian, the cattle, waiting for the owners to make that barn a bit more comfy...
AM I TROLLING? WHAT, DO YOU FEEL UNFAIRLY TREATED?
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 0) by zugedneb on Friday November 21 2014, @11:15AM
did I not tell? troll moderation
the almighty flawless civilian can not be told otherwise...
everyone who does not think great of the little people are trolls
the little people rules, you are the reatest
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 3) by bradley13 on Friday November 21 2014, @12:25PM
Why is your comment moderated troll? Here's a hint: it has nothing to do with the content, but everything to do with the presentation.
I actually probably agree with your point, but I'm not entirely sure, because you didn't actually explain it in a rational, understandable fashion.
If you had made your point with a coherent argument rather than profanity, I would like to think you would have been modded "interesting" or "insightful". Incoherent rants get modded "troll" pretty automatically...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday November 21 2014, @01:03PM
Agreed, the tone was that of a troll, and GP was literally challenging the moderators to downmod him.
I would add, if you sift through the attitude and the profanity, what you find at the kernel of the post is just a repetition of a sentiment that has been said better elsewhere 10 times in this thread already, and in a thousand other threads since the short history of Soylent began, every day. So I wouldn't call it "insightful" or "interesting" by any stretch, even though the essential sentiment is well-founded and widely shared. The government isn't entirely honest, what a brilliant breakthrough.
I'm not saying repeating the obvious necessarily deserves a downmod. I personally find it wearisome but I don't see the need to punish someone's karma just for making background noise. I just hope we can get to the point where we reserve upmods for posts whose content could not have been fully predicted in advance upon reading the headline.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 0, Troll) by zugedneb on Friday November 21 2014, @01:49PM
exactly... it has been said 10 times by people more kind than me... now, did it work?
there are 2 ways of looking at the meaning of your life in society:
1: I am here to contribute
2: I am here to be educated
now, being a grown man I am frankly tired of the second type of people, they are fucking everywhere:
on forums, at your job, in local politics, in the bus stop...
they have no empathy or sense of reality, they are just like fucking bots: they show up, and regardless of the gravity of the topic, the hight of the corpse mountain, the destruction, they always have one and only one (composite) thing in mind:
WHY CAN U NOT TALK TO ME KINDLY? AND EXPLAIN THINGS IN A RATIONAL MANNER? Y NO ONE SEEZ HOW SENSITIVE I AM?
because if I could, I would take your clueless allaboutme civilian fucking ass and transport you all the way to the concentration camp, where, in the line to get gased you will have plenty of time figuring out how you get others into ragekilling you...
have you ever asked yourself if the people in ISIS and the russian army and the terrorist dudes, how they can just kill civilians?
hmm?
just drive over them with a fucking truck, set them on fire, cut their fucking throats and watch the clueless fuckers bleed to death?
hmm?
tell me you fucking mature sensible antitroll civilian - what do you do to make others so angry?
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Friday November 21 2014, @03:06PM
Activist moderators do not care if you are interesting, informative, or right. The only care if they agree with what you say and if you were a "nice person" about how you said it.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday November 21 2014, @03:46PM
Schizophrenic generalized death threats, however, do merit a downmod.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Friday November 21 2014, @07:06PM
I upmodded https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=4955&cid=118432 [soylentnews.org] on the basis that it appears to be an attempt to paraphrase public opinion. However, I'll agree that it superficially appears to be a ranting troll. A significant but crucial difference is that such messages rarely have perfect punctuation.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 21 2014, @03:26PM
because you didn't actually explain it in a rational, understandable fashion.
Personally, I thought it was more eloquent than a lot of stuff I've read around here.
Being rude about the truth does not change that it's still the truth. And sometimes the only way to say the truth is to say things that people will retort with, "That offends me!" Life is offensive.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by zugedneb on Friday November 21 2014, @11:18AM
by the way, what did I say that is not true?
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday November 21 2014, @12:57PM
Kind of hard to tell, because your point is not clear in your original post. The only content that does come through clearly is anger and profanity. (Not that I'm against profanity, as my posting history testifies, but when used without any other apparent content or message to back it up it can look pretty trollish.)
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 21 2014, @03:31PM
I got the point pretty clearly as "Waiting for the government to stop doing stupid shit like this based on catchphrases like 'think of the children' is pointless. Why would they want to stop doing so?"
Not quite sure what the "porn party gun" bit was about, though.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Friday November 21 2014, @07:12PM
You appear to hold a genuine opinion about the genuine opinion of other people. It is hard to falsify an opinion and particularly hard to falsify a second hand opinion. However, I cannot find anything false in your recent messages.
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 21 2014, @11:56AM
You forgot to mention the TPP
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 21 2014, @10:34AM
Great! You first Mr. Cole.
I'm sure we can prevent and find some very serious crimes if we start looking thru the information of the rich, powerful, and political.
And find more than a few pedos in the mix as well. Children saved! Mission acomplished!
Be the change you want in others. Open up your lives DOJ!
If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about!
If you're not willing to open up your own life and information. And that of your peers...
You can fuck right off.
Change starts at the top of the pyramid. Not the bottom.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Wootery on Friday November 21 2014, @11:54AM
While I too oppose this all-knowing-government idea, there is a difference between making data available to an institution, and making it public to all. Without this distinction, medical records (for example) could not exist.
The obvious counterpoint is that if this data is harvested for, say, the NSA, then it's open to abuse from within the NSA, and a leak could be disastrous. These points are valid, but I feel you've entirely ignored the distinction I pointed out in my above paragraph.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 21 2014, @12:34PM
If the data can be accessed by the US government due to lack of strong encryption now.
Doesn't that also mean hackers in any country could with the right tools access it too?
Is the US gov pro cyber crime now?
How many bank/credit data breaches have occurred in the past year? I've lost count now, thanks Obama.
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Friday November 21 2014, @03:35PM
there is a difference between making data available to an institution, and making it public to all
Sort of. The downside of "making it public to all" boils down to the fact that it will be misused in the hands of those who can't be trusted with it. When the "institution" in question has proven that it can't be trusted (Repeatedly. At great length. Whether you want it to or not), the difference sort of fades away.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ian Johnson on Friday November 21 2014, @04:05PM
While what you say is true, the government's actions have divided society into two groups - the government and the people, them and us. If the government wants complete access to the people's information (to make sure we're not terrorists/paedophiles/whatever), then the people should have complete access to the government's information.
Only once the government is prepared to reveal their information should they consider monitoring the people. If the government doesn't like the idea of revealing their information to the people, then maybe they should consider that the people might not want to reveal their information to the government.
Better yet, maybe the government should take action to bridge the divide between itself and the people. A good way to start would be to stop acting like rulers and start acting like representatives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 22 2014, @06:14AM
Within the last couple of years, in New Zealand, a couple of women dared to criticise the (right wing) government.
Rather than tolerate this, one of the government's MPs decided that she would release confidential files held by the national health insurer.
So having a governmental institution hold your information is no different to having a corrupt or dangerous individual hold it.
In this particular case, the corrupt or dangerous individual held a position of power, as they tend to.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday November 25 2014, @12:38PM
Rather than tolerate this, one of the government's MPs decided that she would release confidential files held by the national health insurer.
Link please.
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Friday November 21 2014, @03:18PM
One of these times someone is going to agree when you threaten with "Ok, you first!"
Because a leader in the intelligence service has the means to keep himself secure even when his private details are opened up to the public. All other intelligence services already have personal details on everyone, but he can have people assigned to keep him secure, to watch his finances. If someone opened a credit card in the name of the director of the CIA, you could damn well bet that person would be found out and "disappeared", or that foreign government would be publicly shamed. Credit agencies and banks would clear his name right damn quick because they know they do not want that kind of scrutiny on them.
Can you or I do that? No. When our identity is stolen we have to beg and grovel to the financial institutions until we get our credit restored.
It is about damn time the laws of the nation start applying to the government of the nation.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Friday November 21 2014, @07:25PM
That may be true for one person but what would happen if a large number of people attempted to get credit and/or services in the name of one unpopular official?
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Friday November 21 2014, @07:48PM
Then a large number of people would go to jail.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Friday November 21 2014, @07:22PM
That argument seemed to be quite fashionable when CCTV became very affordable for government and big business. However, when we could afford to point camera phones back at them, it seemed to fall out of fashion.
1702845791×2
(Score: 3, Insightful) by francois.barbier on Friday November 21 2014, @12:25PM
Seems to me that those people think a little too much about others children...
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Friday November 21 2014, @06:59PM
I've previously made trite references to people thinking too much about children [soylentnews.org]. However, it is worrying that people in power are too concerned about children in an unwholesome way [soylentnews.org]. I believe that Robert Mugabe said that the British Government was full of gays and pedophiles. While the former is a matter of cultural difference, he's [thedailybeast.com] probably [rense.com] correct [soylentnews.org] about the latter. And from what I've seen, it is entirely plausible for similar to occur within the US Government.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Friday November 21 2014, @12:46PM
I'm going to avoid my usual remark about just how little shame they have now since it's self-evident. But I love how he accuses Apple of marketing to criminals because they decided to do the obvious (but since this is Apple they're trying their damnedest to make it look like something novel and security conscious that the always-high-integrity "Tech Journalists(TM)" are giving them a loving and passionate bit of fellatio for) that plenty of other hosts like SpiderOak do (better) while completely missing that he pretty much did better marketing towards the murderous pedophile market than they ever could by basically saying "Yep, we're failures at the task that supposedly justifies our existence so bad that a company known in the last 15 years or so mostly for giving idiots overpriced toys beat us".
Of course I'm sure Apple appreciates it. If we go by how often they pull out the children card that particular market is bigger than some first world countries. Good job DOJ!
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday November 21 2014, @01:07PM
They don't care about "specialist" tools like spideroak. They are only used by geeks and hippies and for that minority they can just use protocol 538. Nobody will complain because nobody will care about a few geeks and hippies.
Apple products, on the other hand, are used by millions. You can't incarcerate and torture half the western world (although the US does seem to be trying) so they need a bulk collection method for the mainstream crowd. It seems they are interested in quantity of data, not quality.
And/or this is all about corporate interests - industrial espionage, corporate interests spying on users... I bet a lot of the bulk data on innocent people ends up getting passed on to certain business interests fo advertising / marketting / whatever the fuck they do with it..
Also, iphones are used by hot women. How else will the LEAs steal their nude selfies?
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Friday November 21 2014, @07:44PM
Likewise, where will officials get content for sting operations?
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 21 2014, @03:15PM
This was an incredibly trolly and disingenuous article when they posted it on The Other Site months back, and it's still trolly now. We don't have to dupe EVERYTHING from TOS.
And in that article (not sure whether this is the same one) Apple said that looser security that the government guys were bitching about *wouldn't* have actually helped the situation anyway.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by scial on Friday November 21 2014, @03:28PM
At some future date, a child will die, and police will say they would have been able to rescue the child, or capture the killer, if only they could have looked inside a certain phone.
How would they know? Schrödinger's evidence?
What if the boogieman doesn't use a mobile phone while committing his evil deeds or doesn't have one at all? Will they just throw up their hands and say "Hell, I don't know."
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday November 21 2014, @04:12PM
Children die in traffic accidents every day. Should we ban the use of roads?
(Score: 1) by Refugee from beyond on Friday November 21 2014, @04:41PM
Future date? My impression is that they say thay any day for any reason whatsoever right now.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 21 2014, @05:03PM
(Score: 1) by VitalMoss on Friday November 21 2014, @05:11PM
I believe that my information is my own, and if you need to get it, you better not only have a warrant, but my consent.
People keep saying "well do you want all of that info to be public?!?!?!!"
Yes, yes I do.
Because that is the only way this system will work. If you can see that information, so can I. Otherwise don't collect the information in the first place.
Cops are "Law Enforcement," not peacekeepers. They are judicially authorized to only work in the interest of the state, not the people. "Protect and Serve" Is just marketing bullshit.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Friday November 21 2014, @06:06PM
So, a corporation exercising its First Amendment Rights to distribute cryptography software to allow customers to enforce their Fourth Amendment Rights is equated to aiding and abetting criminals and if that argument does work, think of the children!
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 21 2014, @07:57PM
Screw that. Just shoot the hostages. With them out of the way, it's a hell of a lot easier to shoot the perps.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 22 2014, @12:10AM
Raping my hands around teh tender neck, I choke ze life out of le small child. My erection stiffened instantly. Little girl struggled and flailed, but gradually her movements slowed and she became pale. This is the moment I chose to penetr...-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
- Posted from my iPhone 6X