APPLE Should or Shouldn't?

Re: APPLE Should or Shouldn't?

Postby Ruffian_fan » Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:06 am

Admin wrote:
BaroqueAgain1 wrote:IMHO, the safe deposit box/safe comparison isn't quite apples and apples.
If you get a court order to open one particular safe deposit box or safe, the action doesn't open EVERY other similar deposit box or safe in the country. And it doesn't make that one open-it-all key available then to any nefarious person/group who knows how to use it...which, if I understand the situation correctly, might be what would happen if Apple designs a "back door" to their encryption code.
I see both sides, but there has to be a compromise somewhere. :?


If Apple is worried that their coding can be stolen, then aren't they admitting to a lack of proper security?


I don't see that as admitting a lack of security. I see that as acknowledging that somewhere, sometime, someone might get through.
Ruffian_fan
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:52 pm

Re: APPLE Should or Shouldn't?

Postby Ruffian_fan » Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:09 am

stark wrote:Who's in charge of the slippery slope?

For the folks that think 100,000,000's of innocent folks at Starbucks are going to be impacted by this decision.....doesn't that responsibility lie with APPLE?
Are they saying that once it's invented that they can't control it and it would be available for mass release?

Hogwash!

APPLE is in control of the destiny period.

If they write the code, use it for this one request, get reimbursed for their labor and then drag it to the recycle bin, doesn't the slippery slope concept dry up rather quickly? At least it does from the Government's side of things, there's nothing Washington DC can do to slide down the slope, if it fails it would be on APPLE, no?

Now if APPLE wants to think that the Government's request might happen again in April, and elect not to destroy the secret proprietary codes, that's okay but they're the ones in total control of mass hysteria, which there won't be any if APPLE controls things the way they should, are they really afraid they'll fail at that?


The human brain is not very good at unlearning things, as a general rule. Once something has been created, it cannot be uncreated. You may trash it destroy it, whatever, but there will still be those with the knowledge of how it was created.

Apple is absolutely doing the right thing. I would have been highly disappointed to hear that they rolled over.
Ruffian_fan
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:52 pm

Re: APPLE Should or Shouldn't?

Postby stark » Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:48 pm

Ruffian_fan wrote:Apple is absolutely doing the right thing. I would have been highly disappointed to hear that they rolled over.


But wait, the story gets even better.....

The government now says to APPLE "we understand your hesitancy and you don't have to break the encryption code, we've got guys that can guess the user's password, but we understand that if we miss too many times then it'll automatically erase itself" So, can you APPLE just disconnect that feature and let our guys figure out how to break in?

The whole issue came up in the Republican debate last night and the distinguished gentleman from Ohio nailed it....."the problem here is that Obama (if it was ever necessary to go that high) failed to convene a meeting, lock the door and say we need to reach an agreement before anybody leaves". This NEVER should have been played out on the nightly news!

And as for the kids holding posters in front of Starbucks that read "Secure Phones Save Lives" and other such nonsense about privacy issues I have a question.....isn't that the same kid that posted pictures of his privates on Facebook along with other unimaginable details about his personal life that NEVER would be in the public domain without the aid of APPLE?
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
stark
 
Posts: 2778
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Re: APPLE Should or Shouldn't?

Postby BlindLucky » Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:35 pm

That's actually still the same story, though.

They can't just disconnect the feature, that's at the core of the issue. They have to write code that compromises the OS and allows brute force attacks to continue past their current safeguards that would lock/erase data. That's the backdoor/master key that the government wants them to create, and if they do it for one phone and set this precedent, Apple is arguing that it won't stop there. They'll want it again for another phone. And another. And another. And it could be expanded beyond just the use case for phone security and into other businesses/industries. It's the scary side of the government forcing a private company to weaken the security on a privately developed product that they're afraid sets a Big Brother precedent we can't go back from.

I tend to side with Apple on this one. And I don't even like Apple. Although I do tend to think that if you aren't doing anything wrong, then why should you care if someone looks at your phone--but then where do you draw the line at reasonable expectations of privacy? This issue isn't about one phone from a known terrorist. It's about opening Pandora's box and letting the government dictate security-weakening terms to a privately held company that can be used as a legal precedent to do it again in the future.

My boss just left to speak at a cyber security conference in D.C. tonight. I work at a software startup that's creating a mobile application development platform, so this topic has been discussed in the office almost every day since Apple went public with their press release. These guys can explain it down to the most minuscule detail, but my eyes glaze over once they start their technospeak.
Photos from my racing travels: ThoroughbredJourney.com
BlindLucky
 
Posts: 3314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:22 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: APPLE Should or Shouldn't?

Postby stark » Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:19 pm

BlindLucky wrote:Apple is arguing that it won't stop there. They'll want it again for another phone. And another. And another.


But that's all pure conjecture at this point, NOBODY really knows the actual answer to their concerns, but we do know that National Security should be the trump card today, and APPLE is still in control going forward. Will there be more one-off's, most likely, but how does anybody logically jump to millions of innocent users being negatively impacted?

p.s. why do they call it the Trump card? ;)
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
stark
 
Posts: 2778
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Re: APPLE Should or Shouldn't?

Postby BlindLucky » Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:40 pm

stark wrote:
BlindLucky wrote:Apple is arguing that it won't stop there. They'll want it again for another phone. And another. And another.


But that's all pure conjecture at this point, NOBODY really knows the actual answer to their concerns, but we do know that National Security should be the trump card today, and APPLE is still in control going forward. Will there be more one-off's, most likely, but how does anybody logically jump to millions of innocent users being negatively impacted?

Probably because of things like the NSA legally conducting warrantless wiretapping on who knows how many people, so it's not pure conjecture.

I really don't know what the answer is, and I'm still torn on how I feel about the whole thing.
Photos from my racing travels: ThoroughbredJourney.com
BlindLucky
 
Posts: 3314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:22 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: APPLE Should or Shouldn't?

Postby stark » Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:11 pm

BlindLucky wrote:I really don't know what the answer is, and I'm still torn on how I feel about the whole thing.


Yep, that's why it's a 50/50 issue when people get polled, no definitive right answer out there.

Could be as simple as there's 50% of the world is pessimistic fairly certain something will go wrong, while the other 50% have that EGBOK philosophy on a daily basis, everything's gonna be okay!

Count me in with the latter.

Curious if you can share anything related from your bosses speaking engagement in DC?
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
stark
 
Posts: 2778
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Re: APPLE Should or Shouldn't?

Postby BlindLucky » Sat Feb 27, 2016 2:57 pm

stark wrote:Curious if you can share anything related from your bosses speaking engagement in DC?

I don't even know what the conference is called--my eyes were glazing over at that point :lol:

I'll find out when he gets back. They may have recorded it, or at least have some info about it online somewhere.
Photos from my racing travels: ThoroughbredJourney.com
BlindLucky
 
Posts: 3314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:22 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: APPLE Should or Shouldn't?

Postby BlindLucky » Tue Mar 01, 2016 3:06 pm

stark wrote:Curious if you can share anything related from your bosses speaking engagement in DC?

So it turns out that there's not much he can share, because he and about 10 other tech CEOs were speaking to a Congressional panel on how to best explain cyber security issues to the general public. Seems that Congress mostly just had their fingers in their ears and wanted sound bites, not nuanced explanations. :roll:
Photos from my racing travels: ThoroughbredJourney.com
BlindLucky
 
Posts: 3314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:22 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: APPLE Should or Shouldn't?

Postby Bookman » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:49 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG0bAaK7p9s&app=desktop

Published on Feb 29, 2016
"Yes, it has gotten this bad. In language simple enough for even a child to understand, John McAfee explains for the world and for the FBI how to hack an iPhone or any computer that is in physical custody. No need for network-connected backdoors. Batteries included. "
“I wish you could run the races with no jocks and just put chickens on ’em.” - Billy Gowan
Bookman
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:16 am

PreviousNext

Return to Horsin' Around

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests