[oldfriend]

Currently in the U.S. there is a big controversy of Apple opening up a back door so the FBI can get into the phone and get hidden information.

Apple says if they make this back door, then sooner or later, everyone will be able to hack into their phone.

I am of the opinion that the information on "MY IPHONE" is mine own personal business.

I rely on it being secure for my transactions.

The phone was owned by the County that this man worked for and the County had the availability and opportunity to completely monitor this IPHONE 100% but chose not use the Data Package because of costs. (Under $5 a phone would give the county the 100% control of the phone.)

Your opinions and comments welcomed.

Oldfriend

[cessy_08]

I think I will have to agree to Apple's sentiments and also, by allowing a backdoor, it will pose more security threats to the general public using it. It is really easy to find a "hack" in anything we use these days and if Apple make a backdoor, it is only a matter of time it becomes available for generic consumption.

[Happyland]

I agree with apple but let's also look at the other side. At some point almost anything becomes hackable. Even companies who have boasted that their data and systems are safe have been hacked more than once. Some of the best minds in technology belong to the hackers. Blackberry has one of the safest if not the safest platforms that exist.

When safety of the public is at risk then perhaps some kind of compromise should be reached so that data can be examined. Why not allow it to be done in a safe and secure manner that is well-controlled. Many high level and sensitive projects are completed with complete and utter privacy right now without rustling anyone's feathers and without causing a massive breach of some sort. Why give would-be evildoers a safe haven on a phone or network? Why wait until an evil event touches close to home before standing up and doing something about it? Why let companies get free goodwill and (stars and points if you will0, and thus more phone sales, from for letting it seem like they want to protect something? A lot of information about you is already shared. Just look at all the ads that are specifically targeted at you. Companies watch your every move and share it with others with or without your explicit consent.

[DreekLass]

I had heard about this story, and was under the impression that Apple DID have a way to get into the phone, but just chose not to, as agreeing to do so would have made many Apple customers feel like their information and privacy was not secure. I understand why they did it, but there is a moral choice to be made here.

[nela13]

According to what I read Apple won a legal battle on court against the FBI. The FBI cannot force Apple to participate in the investigation. If Apple open the back door in this case, millions of apple users will fell that their privacy is no longer safe.

[DreekLass]

According to what I read Apple won a legal battle on court against the FBI. The FBI cannot force Apple to participate in the investigation. If Apple open the back door in this case, millions of apple users will fell that their privacy is no longer safe.

Exactly. But it also bothers me that it is more important for a company to try to make money over the morality of getting a criminal put behind bars. At the same time I understand why they would refuse.

[thisnthat]

Exactly. But it also bothers me that it is more important for a company to try to make money over the morality of getting a criminal put behind bars. At the same time I understand why they would refuse.

I don't see it that way. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that it's more than just retrieving the information on that guy's phone. The government wants a backdoor so they will be able to access any phone if need be (or if they claim there is a need). If my scenario is correct, I do not agree with them being able to do that.

[DreekLass]

Exactly. But it also bothers me that it is more important for a company to try to make money over the morality of getting a criminal put behind bars. At the same time I understand why they would refuse.

I don't see it that way. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that it's more than just retrieving the information on that guy's phone. The government wants a backdoor so they will be able to access any phone if need be (or if they claim there is a need). If my scenario is correct, I do not agree with them being able to do that.

If it comes down to choosing whether or not a dangerous criminal remains at large and a company not wanting to comply because they are afraid of losing money, then I don't agree with that.

[singhabhishek251]

I do not think that Apple should do the that and they should not agree to the FBI, how can FBI force a company which is running on investors money and not government money to risk their customers. Everyone has their right to privacy. It will ultimately harm the company as well.

[darrensurrey]

It's fine to uphold your values when it's about losing personal data but this is potentially about lives being lost. Apple are wrong. Governments are often criticised for not keeping up with technology. We now have a tech company not keeping up with changing times. Terrorists will now choose Apple products knowing that their plans are safely hidden. It's a free kick for terrorists just outside the penalty area.

https://youtu.be/axNHsOC5h1k

[nela13]

According to what I read Apple won a legal battle on court against the FBI. The FBI cannot force Apple to participate in the investigation. If Apple open the back door in this case, millions of apple users will fell that their privacy is no longer safe.

Exactly. But it also bothers me that it is more important for a company to try to make money over the morality of getting a criminal put behind bars. At the same time I understand why they would refuse.

I understand that, but I think that waht FBI wanted was free access to proceed an investigation whenever they want and not only of those criminals of San Bernardino's. Maybe if the FBI have asked only for those informations, I think Apple will give it to them, without openning a back door to all apple users informations.

[thisnthat]

If it comes down to choosing whether or not a dangerous criminal remains at large and a company not wanting to comply because they are afraid of losing money, then I don't agree with that.

I don't think it's that cut and dried. I see a bigger issue here, which is the privacy of every other user. You can't just violate everybody's privacy on a whim, because some people are bad. It leads to tyranny. If the government presents probable cause to access specific information from a specific person's device, that's one thing. To have a backdoor into everyone's business "just in case," is just plain wrong, in my opinion.

[oldfriend]

There will always be bad guys and terrorists.

The main topic is "Freedom."

Does the government have the right to encroach on an individual's personal affairs as a means to catch criminals?

In America, we have a bill of rights that states "it is unlawful to search and seize information without a warrant."

The are not asking for a warrant to search the phone. The Government is asking for a "back door" where they can go in unannounced and look at your private information on anyone they feel is a threat.

Just recently, Christians were labeled as terrorists and haters because they were opposing abortion and selling of baby parts.

With the government's track record of managing information, in my opinion, they have not shown themselves to be trustworthy and should not allowed this request.

Oldfriend

[thisnthat]

There will always be bad guys and terrorists.

The main topic is "Freedom."

Does the government have the right to encroach on an individual's personal affairs as a means to catch criminals?

In America, we have a bill of rights that states "it is unlawful to search and seize information without a warrant."

The are not asking for a warrant to search the phone. The Government is asking for a "back door" where they can go in unannounced and look at your private information on anyone they feel is a threat.

Just recently, Christians were labeled as terrorists and haters because they were opposing abortion and selling of baby parts.

With the government's track record of managing information, in my opinion, they have not shown themselves to be trustworthy and should not allowed this request.

Oldfriend

Exactly right. There are so many quotes about this kind of thing, but of course, I can't find the ones I want right now. There is one about sacrificing liberty for safety, Ben Franklin I believe. Another says something about violating rights under the pretext of protecting the people. We have to stay vigilant.

It is way too easy to brand someone a "terrorist" or whatever the word of the day might be, and violate our rights under the guise of protecting us from them. The scary part is that so many people are willing to give up their rights so easily.

Indeed. Government track records are what makes me ever more cautious.

Getting back to the business side of this, company's do have a reputation to uphold. Losing the trust of the customers will not only hurt the bottom line, it could also put people out of jobs. Big picture.

[DreekLass]

If it comes down to choosing whether or not a dangerous criminal remains at large and a company not wanting to comply because they are afraid of losing money, then I don't agree with that.

I don't think it's that cut and dried. I see a bigger issue here, which is the privacy of every other user. You can't just violate everybody's privacy on a whim, because some people are bad. It leads to tyranny. If the government presents probable cause to access specific information from a specific person's device, that's one thing. To have a backdoor into everyone's business "just in case," is just plain wrong, in my opinion.

I don't agree with them having a backdoor into everyone's business, but it is clear that they could if they wanted to, so the threat is already there. My point is, is it will get a criminal off of the streets, then they should provide the backdoor.

[thisnthat]

I don't agree with them having a backdoor into everyone's business, but it is clear that they could if they wanted to, so the threat is already there. My point is, is it will get a criminal off of the streets, then they should provide the backdoor.

But, that is exactly what will happen. It will be into everyone's business.

Yes, they could, but they aren't using (or more accurately, abusing) it now. I think that's a good thing. No one should be accessing our private info without cause.

I get that, but like I said, accessing this one criminal's info is far different than opening the door to everyone's business. They don't need a backdoor to lock up this one guy. Get his info, lock him up if he's proven guilty. Any other issues should be dealt with on a case by case basis, not an open door .. in my opinion.

[DreekLass]

I don't agree with them having a backdoor into everyone's business, but it is clear that they could if they wanted to, so the threat is already there. My point is, is it will get a criminal off of the streets, then they should provide the backdoor.

But, that is exactly what will happen. It will be into everyone's business.

Yes, they could, but they aren't using (or more accurately, abusing) it now. I think that's a good thing. No one should be accessing our private info without cause.

I get that, but like I said, accessing this one criminal's info is far different than opening the door to everyone's business. They don't need a backdoor to lock up this one guy. Get his info, lock him up if he's proven guilty. Any other issues should be dealt with on a case by case basis, not an open door .. in my opinion.

I am pretty sure that the government is already in everybody's business. That is just not public knowledge. A lot of the privacy breaching is actually in our faces with all of the app permissions and such. What I want is for them to only access his information to get him off the streets. That is what I think should happen.

[thisnthat]

I am pretty sure that the government is already in everybody's business. That is just not public knowledge. A lot of the privacy breaching is actually in our faces with all of the app permissions and such. What I want is for them to only access his information to get him off the streets. That is what I think should happen.

I agree with that. They are all up in our business. I'm really glad to see people saying, "Stop it!" because of this situation.

Yes, if they have probable cause, they should get his info and only his, and use it to convict him.

[DreekLass]

I am pretty sure that the government is already in everybody's business. That is just not public knowledge. A lot of the privacy breaching is actually in our faces with all of the app permissions and such. What I want is for them to only access his information to get him off the streets. That is what I think should happen.

I agree with that. They are all up in our business. I'm really glad to see people saying, "Stop it!" because of this situation.

Yes, if they have probable cause, they should get his info and only his, and use it to convict him.

Well that is one thing to come out of it - seeing and hearing people saying that that kind of privacy breech is going to far, and recognizing that if we let it happen to one then it is consenting to allowing it to happen to us all.

[thisnthat]

I am pretty sure that the government is already in everybody's business. That is just not public knowledge. A lot of the privacy breaching is actually in our faces with all of the app permissions and such. What I want is for them to only access his information to get him off the streets. That is what I think should happen.

I agree with that. They are all up in our business. I'm really glad to see people saying, "Stop it!" because of this situation.

Yes, if they have probable cause, they should get his info and only his, and use it to convict him.

Well that is one thing to come out of it - seeing and hearing people saying that that kind of privacy breech is going to far, and recognizing that if we let it happen to one then it is consenting to allowing it to happen to us all.

Okay, we are on the same page. I guess I wasn't understanding before. Yes, I think that's a really good thing.

I also think it's important for a company to show its customers that it has their interests in mind. There has to be at least some trust... that the product will do what it says it will, that it's worth the money spent, and that the company is reputable. If they were just free and easy with our info, that would definitely hurt their rep.