Heretic;1782311 wrote:There's nothing quite so entertaining as watching the "GO BIG BUSINESS, KEEP THE GUBMENT AWAY!!!!" people suddenly doing about-faces and demanding that a business bend over backwards to comply with government, even if doing so potentially puts them at risk security-wise.

Carry on.

Haha, reps.

Heretic;1782311 wrote:There's nothing quite so entertaining as watching the "GO BIG BUSINESS, KEEP THE GUBMENT AWAY!!!!" people suddenly doing about-faces and demanding that a business bend over backwards to comply with government, even if doing so potentially puts them at risk security-wise.

Carry on.

I presume this was directed at me. I am pro-business, not necessarily BIG business, but business in general and most particularly small business. BIG business is big enough to be able to play both sides of the fence with BIG government, and does so regularly. In this instance, Apple, (a regular supporter of BIG liberal government) is not being asked to "bend over backwards"; they could easily comply with the request related to this one particular phone. They could also do it in a way as to not create consequential effects. Further, this is not an instance of government intruding and overreaching with regulatory demands and onerous taxation on business, which is obviously something I oppose. This is a national security-related investigation; the one thing that government should be involved with. So trying to paint with a broad brush about "GUBMENT" to make your point, would be disingenuous - no? Apple can either assist (easily) with the investigation, or they can turn it into an issue bigger than it needs to be. And, as I indicated previously, the FBI could have gone the one-off route first, without going to court, and maybe the parties could have resolved the matter under the radar.

rrfan;1782315 wrote:I don't buy this at all. There is always a way and they probably already know how to do it.

if there was a way to do it im sure the Russians and Chinese would've already broken it

rrfan;1782315 wrote:I don't buy this at all. There is always a way and they probably already know how to do it.

Believe it. They designed it specifically to be as hard as possible to hack.

I do believe with time, money, and their talent they could absolutely break it but I doubt they have this already built.

Heretic;1782311 wrote:There's nothing quite so entertaining as watching the "GO BIG BUSINESS, KEEP THE GUBMENT AWAY!!!!" people suddenly doing about-faces and demanding that a business bend over backwards to comply with government, even if doing so potentially puts them at risk security-wise.

Carry on.

This. It's exactly how we get massive overreaches like the Patriot Act that oddly outlive the threat.

sleeper;1782327 wrote:Believe it. They designed it specifically to be as hard as possible to hack.

I do believe with time, money, and their talent they could absolutely break it but I doubt they have this already built.

I read this on another site:


I have heard several tech savvy people try to explain this, and here is the version that made it most clear to me.

Apple "claims" they have no ability to go back door on this phone, but the FBI has presented a method to them that would work to break in, but only if Apple helps by writing new code for the phone.

The issue is the 10 attempts they would have to try to find a password to get into the phones data archive. On the tenth wrong entry all data would be erased forever rendering the phone useless to them as a piece containing potential value in identifying any terrorist they may have communicated with prior to their demise.

What the FBI wants Apple to do is to write a new program that tells the phone to allow infinity attempts rather than the ten for which it is currently written.

It makes complete sense that Apple would have the capability to write such code into the phone since they are the ones who originally wrote 10 attempts into the phone. They could have written it to be 5, 6 , 1000 whatever they wanted the number to be. Essentially the FBI is calling to light Apple does already have a back door available to them, but for public confidence sake, Apple has to continue to act like they could not bring themselves to breech the phones safety wall or all claims of such impossible penetration are lost, and they suffer financial loss.

They could write such code, put it onto this one phone, and then destroy the code afterwords, rendering every other phone still impenetrable, they would just suffer the hit of admitting it could be done.

We (the government) are asking a company to prove it is wrong in asserting to the public the phone can never have it's contents retrieved by anyone, for good or bad. Should a company and it's investors be forced to defeat it's own safeguards, thus suffering loss? Should a company who invested millions of dollars into the technology which provides such public confidence in their product be required to flush all their investment in their current and future products through public perception that they have lied to them?

I think Apple had no choice but to try to protect it's image and protect it's statements made to users of their product. As a stockholder I am wanting my value protected. Perhaps the government could offer a fair price for requiring Apple to destroy such public confidence. A few billion dollars may just be enough to get it done.

However, the FBI has made it abundantly clear, there is a way in, just install infinity locks to put a key into rather than the ten locks that are currently installed on the door.

sleeper;1782312 wrote:Again, not that simple.

#1) There is no current back door designed for Apple's products. Apple would have to dedicate their own staff and potentially millions of dollars to design the software needed to circumvent their security system.

#2) The only way to circumvent the security mechanism on the chip is to release a software update through Apple iOS update that would affect ALL phones. There is zero way to hack one phone and be done with it.

1) And so? Just about all major businesses have compliance departments that spend all day responding to law enforcement requests. Guess who pays for it, the business.

2) False. The court order only applies to this specific phone and there would be absolutely no reason to release a global update for this "new" IOS. That is what Apple doesn't get, if they fight this battle and lose, they will be forced to build in a back door when congress makes it a law. If they complied and just disabled this single phone's data wipe feature, everyone would move on.

Heretic;1782311 wrote:There's nothing quite so entertaining as watching the "GO BIG BUSINESS, KEEP THE GUBMENT AWAY!!!!" people suddenly doing about-faces and demanding that a business bend over backwards to comply with government, even if doing so potentially puts them at risk security-wise.

Carry on.

Apple also sells iphones in China. Imagine the Chinese govt was demanding apple code a backdoor so they could listen in on their citizens to protect their national security. Still feel like it should be done?

Let's not get to distracted over Apple refusing to unlock the code. Ok now that Apple has agreed to do it the right way and not let government get the code.
If homeland sercurity requires private business to help then government must comply with the business demands, policy and less government interference.

Let ask this question of our homeland sercurity department first:
this was a county issued phone issued to a individual ( on the list) a suspected individual of terroist connection and our home land security failed to monitor the phone...... Why?

FatHobbit;1782428 wrote:Apple also sells iphones in China. Imagine the Chinese govt was demanding apple code a backdoor so they could listen in on their citizens to protect their national security. Still feel like it should be done?

I don't remember saying that I feel like it should be done in the first place.

I saw this breakdown that makes a whole lot of sense. So for those of you who are against Apple in this case, think of it this way:

You own a group of 100 rental properties. One tenant has done something wrong, and the police ask you to let them into the apartment so they could look around. You would absolutely let that happen. But if the police came to you and said, "Hey, give us a skeleton key that works on every single one of your rental properties in case someone does something bad in the future we can just get in there and look around" you would tell them to piss off.

That's what the FBI is asking Apple to do. It's not right. Apple is doing the right thing in fighting this.

Heretic;1782433 wrote:I don't remember saying that I feel like it should be done in the first place.

I probably shouldn't have quoted you there. I was attempting to add to your point, but I think I could have just posted on my own.

sherm03;1782434 wrote:I saw this breakdown that makes a whole lot of sense. So for those of you who are against Apple in this case, think of it this way:

You own a group of 100 rental properties. One tenant has done something wrong, and the police ask you to let them into the apartment so they could look around. You would absolutely let that happen. But if the police came to you and said, "Hey, give us a skeleton key that works on every single one of your rental properties in case someone does something bad in the future we can just get in there and look around" you would tell them to piss off.

That's what the FBI is asking Apple to do. It's not right. Apple is doing the right thing in fighting this.

Nope, that isn't at all what the FBI is asking. What is really happening in your scenario is the police are asking you as the apartment manager to disable the alarm on the back door so when the police kick in the door, it doesn't set the alarm off and alert the resident and they run out the door.

The FBI is not asking for Apple to unlock the phone. ONLY to disable the 10 password limit so all the data on the phone isnt erased when the FBI unlocks the phone themselves. and its only for this specific phone, not any other iPhone.

Hey guys, listen to Glory Days, he knows way more about this situation than Apples CEO. Thanks for setting these idiots straight buddy, keep up the good fight!!

Well, it's a simple matter of reading. I think Glory Days is right on this one.

And believe me, I'm one of those people who don't actually love government overreach. I don't like them in my back pocket concerning every little thing I do.

Can't there be a compromise? Can't Apple take this one phone, open it up and gather the data that the FBI wants and give it to them? They can keep the phone or perhaps lock it back up and return it? I don't know. But this seems to be something that can be a win/win for both sides IMO

Rotinaj;1782497 wrote:Hey guys, listen to Glory Days, he knows way more about this situation than Apples CEO. Thanks for setting these idiots straight buddy, keep up the good fight!!

He's a cop bro. He knows what he's saying.

CenterBHSFan;1782502 wrote:Well, it's a simple matter of reading. I think Glory Days is right on this one.

And believe me, I'm one of those people who don't actually love government overreach. I don't like them in my back pocket concerning every little thing I do.

Can't there be a compromise? Can't Apple take this one phone, open it up and gather the data that the FBI wants and give it to them? They can keep the phone or perhaps lock it back up and return it? I don't know. But this seems to be something that can be a win/win for both sides IMO

Slippery slope. Once the tool is created, there's no reason the FBI can't ask for it again in other benign cases.

sleeper;1782517 wrote:Slippery slope. Once the tool is created, there's no reason the FBI can't ask for it again in other benign cases.

That, and the fact that Apple had nothing to do with the crime that is spurring the investigation. How much should uninvolved parties be forced to do in such situations?

Glory Days;1782495 wrote:Nope, that isn't at all what the FBI is asking. What is really happening in your scenario is the police are asking you as the apartment manager to disable the alarm on the back door so when the police kick in the door, it doesn't set the alarm off and alert the resident and they run out the door.

The FBI is not asking for Apple to unlock the phone. ONLY to disable the 10 password limit so all the data on the phone isnt erased when the FBI unlocks the phone themselves. and its only for this specific phone, not any other iPhone.

No, that's not correct. You can't do that to just one phone. It's a system thing. So at best, it's the police asking you to disable all of the alarms so they can kick in the doors whenever they need to. But in the process, all of the alarms are disabled for everyone else all the time. So anyone else will be able to kick in the doors when they want with no issues.

Still absolutely ridiculous of the FBI to ask this.

CenterBHSFan;1782502 wrote:Well, it's a simple matter of reading. I think Glory Days is right on this one.

And believe me, I'm one of those people who don't actually love government overreach. I don't like them in my back pocket concerning every little thing I do.

Can't there be a compromise? Can't Apple take this one phone, open it up and gather the data that the FBI wants and give it to them? They can keep the phone or perhaps lock it back up and return it? I don't know. But this seems to be something that can be a win/win for both sides IMO

If they do this one, why not the next one or the next twenty? Why not Google , Facebook, Microsoft? Why not report what YouTube videos you watch or TV shows you watch.

This is always the scenario the Government puts out there. Oh we could stop the next 9/11 or a nuclear bomb going off in New York. What they will find if they open the phone is probably some porn history or naked pictures not the masterminds of some huge ISIS plot coming in the future.

Just last night some lunatic just went on a random killing spree in Kalamazoo Michigan. I am more likely to be killed by some crazy white guy, a twenty something year old Virgin or hell even my wife is probably more likely to kill me than some terrorist.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

If Apple does this for the FBI what protect from revenge terrorist does the FBI going to give to Apple employees that will be targeted? IMO Apple the Company and Apple employees have just been ask to wear a target.
Ask yourself this : two dead terroist, 14 killed, one phone, one situation that the government should have been on top of ... And your ask to jeapardizing the security of your company, the integrity of your product, the security of yourself, family and employees.. To a Federal agency that is out of control, untrustworthy administration, failure homeland security and most of all a hacked system daily....

hey feds ... Bite me..

rrfan;1782315 wrote:I don't buy this at all. There is always a way and they probably already know how to do it.

Just because you're not capable of comprehending the technology involved with this situation doesn't mean it's not the case. Apple is 100% in the right on this. Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't mean it's not true.

It's mind boggling how many people on this thread are posting with complete ignorance of what Apple is actually being asked to do.


What they're being asked to do is a HUGE deal. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/02/16/heres-why-fbi-forcing-apple-break-into-iphone-big-deal/80481766/

sherm03;1782546 wrote:No, that's not correct. You can't do that to just one phone. It's a system thing. So at best, it's the police asking you to disable all of the alarms so they can kick in the doors whenever they need to. But in the process, all of the alarms are disabled for everyone else all the time. So anyone else will be able to kick in the doors when they want with no issues.

Still absolutely ridiculous of the FBI to ask this.

Yeah, its a system thing that they can upload from their computer onto that single phone direct via a cable, not some over the air update. you are telling me Apple does not have that capability in their lab?

Rotinaj;1782497 wrote:Hey guys, listen to Glory Days, he knows way more about this situation than Apples CEO. Thanks for setting these idiots straight buddy, keep up the good fight!!

SportsAndLady;1782510 wrote:He's a cop bro. He knows what he's saying.

Reading is fundamental.