General Discussion

Whiskeytide

(4,657 posts)

41. I don't really fear being killed or injured ...

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 01:31 PM

Feb 2016

... in a terrorist attack. You're right, the risk is very, very low. But a terrorist attack tends to terrorize. It terrorizes the electorate, which results in bad decisions in the voting booth. It terrorizes politicians and law enforcement, which also results in bad decisions in policy making and policing.

All of that is plenty of reason to want to stop another terrorist attack, right? So the question is, how far do we allow that effort to go as balanced against our rights to privacy? In other words, is what the FBI is asking of Apple an example of lawfully and properly trying to stop further attacks, or is it an example of terror causing bad policy making and bad policing?

If Apple has the information requested, and a warrant is obtained for it, I have no problem with it being turned over to the FBI.

If Apple doesn't have the information, but can get it with an already existing program to by-pass the phone's security systems, I also have no problem with that.

If Apple can create such a program, I'm ready to assume they already have done so. They really just don't want to give it to the FBI. Fine. Unlock that phone for the FBI, hand it back to them and say "you're welcome".

In the unlikely event Apple doesn't already have the program to get to the information the FBI wants from the phone, then I don't think - legally - the FBI can make them create it.

The devil in all this will be in the actual details. Either the FBI is using this attack to try and acquire an investigative tool for wider-spread use, or Apple doesn't want it's customers to know what they can know about their customers.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

106 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If the FBI gets into the "terrorist's" iPhone, they'll get into yours [View all] NightWatcher Feb 2016 OP

Exactly! They have been taking advantage of 9-11 to use terrorists avebury Feb 2016 #1

The cell phone did not belong to the terrroists but to the county vinny9698 Feb 2016 #45

because the terrorist was using it with an expectation of privacy 6chars Feb 2016 #81

To many clueless people do not understand this. Nt Logical Feb 2016 #2

Too LannyDeVaney Feb 2016 #11

lol Glassunion Feb 2016 #29

two? Demonaut Feb 2016 #73

All my texts telling my wife where I dropped off the car! All my Instagrams of craft cocktails! alcibiades_mystery Feb 2016 #3

Why do you care if you have nothing to hide? TipTok Feb 2016 #23

Amazing, isn't it? Especially cuz these "tools to keep us safe" end up being used for the drug war Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #80

Hyperbole much? Do they 'get into' your bank & financial records? Do they tap your phone? randome Feb 2016 #4

With a person's phone, they can get into your bank, financial and health records. X_Digger Feb 2016 #19

Sigh.....they can get your bank records without a warrant, now. msanthrope Feb 2016 #27

Wait until someone here has the state comptroller go after them. nt Rex Feb 2016 #58

You Better Believe It!!! nt msanthrope Feb 2016 #59

And my fingerprint. Kittycat Feb 2016 #52

That was your choice to make your private information Jim Beard Feb 2016 #60

And how long before the hackers get the code to Ilsa Feb 2016 #82

Then the FBI should get right on that Nevernose Feb 2016 #86

We know the NSA fed spy data on US Citizens to the DEA to facilitate arrests of drug users. Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #97

As as they need a warrant, signed by a judge, for each and every instance... Nitram Feb 2016 #5

When you open a backdoor for law enforcement to get in.... davidn3600 Feb 2016 #7

My credit card hsa been stolen a number of times. Nitram Feb 2016 #8

The request from the FBI isn't for a widespread back door mythology Feb 2016 #36

Apple wants to be able to compete in selling its products with similar products that can or could JDPriestly Feb 2016 #101

What can they do to Apple? Atman Feb 2016 #6

The feds will back down... awoke_in_2003 Feb 2016 #10

Putting aside for a moment whether the FBI would abuse this (I believe the answer is yes) IDemo Feb 2016 #9

On this one I wish they could get into that phone flamingdem Feb 2016 #12

"Those who would give up liberty...." GoneOffShore Feb 2016 #14

As Bernie said tonight there's a middle way flamingdem Feb 2016 #15

So you don't worry because you believe YOU are safe? True Earthling Feb 2016 #25

I don't worry, because I believe that I am safe, that you are safe, and that the people you don't Glassunion Feb 2016 #30

Like the people in San Bernadino were safe? True Earthling Feb 2016 #32

Pfft. Who cares? They lived in San Bernardino. randome Feb 2016 #34

No they were not. Not on that day. Glassunion Feb 2016 #35

The risk of attack is low not because terrorists aren't trying... True Earthling Feb 2016 #37

The rougue attack will always be a possibility. Glassunion Feb 2016 #40

I would not call their approach a "back door" that can be unlocked with a universal key True Earthling Feb 2016 #43

I don't really fear being killed or injured ... Whiskeytide Feb 2016 #41

Bingo Glassunion Feb 2016 #42

I think this is reasonable alarimer Feb 2016 #51

There is a difference between one or two TexasMommaWithAHat Feb 2016 #54

Giving up liberty for security is never a good idea. GoneOffShore Feb 2016 #88

Those who would give up a little liberty for the illusion of security deserve neither. n/t X_Digger Feb 2016 #20

Any calls they made to "others" is already known by phone records. LiberalArkie Feb 2016 #28

What about potential maps and notes made on the phone that did not go through an ISP? randome Feb 2016 #33

this is the part i do not get questionseverything Feb 2016 #53

Apple offered to talk about it under a secret court order, the FBI refused and went public LiberalArkie Feb 2016 #55

i understand the illegal backdoor request questionseverything Feb 2016 #56

They might get a picture of their kid or something like that. but the main thing is to LiberalArkie Feb 2016 #57

Yeah, and just like the patriot act, we can trust them that they only want this special power to go Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #63

1000% agree FD ! Laura PourMeADrink Feb 2016 #87

Too right. And the "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" folks GoneOffShore Feb 2016 #13

They'll find out how boring I really am. Kaleva Feb 2016 #16

Then I'm sure you wouldn't mind having a government agent watch you take a piss. backscatter712 Feb 2016 #39

I had to put up with that for years while in the Navy Kaleva Feb 2016 #49

From what I read, the feds want to get data from a phone they have in their custody GummyBearz Feb 2016 #17

Yep. I didn't understand the issue at first because of Ilsa Feb 2016 #18

I agree fearmongering is not the way to persuade or influence people's minds..however... True Earthling Feb 2016 #21

They aren't "terrorists"... TipTok Feb 2016 #22

Yet some here think Loretta Lynch will be a great SCOTUS justice CommonSenseDemocrat Feb 2016 #24

No they won't!! RufusTFirefly Feb 2016 #26

Just like they're pouring over your financial records right now. randome Feb 2016 #31

It is impossible to make a backdoor that only the Good Guys can use. backscatter712 Feb 2016 #38

The cell phone did not belong to the terrroists but to the county vinny9698 Feb 2016 #44

The biggest problem is apple can not decrypt it Travis_0004 Feb 2016 #84

They can get into your physical home. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #46

A large corporation like Apple no doubt has a large legal team that includes developers. randome Feb 2016 #47

I don't disagree with anything you've said but Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #48

Apple was warned early on that this would create law enforcement and security issues. randome Feb 2016 #85

You make it sound as if they broke some law. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #89

No, even a massive corporation like Apple shouldn't have to kowtow to any government. randome Feb 2016 #90

A warrant applies to things that exist. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #105

odd that a pharmacist who refuses to fill a BC prescription has the right of "conscience" to refuse Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #62

I would submit both have an ironclad right to refuse being forced into labor. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #65

One difference is, pharmacists are licensed by the state. Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #66

All it would take would be for the government to invent a licensing law for coders and your Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #68

I suppose. But there isnt one now. Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #69

Considering some states demand hairdressers be licensed I can't see Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #70

Well I do think pharmacies are a state-regulated business for a reason. Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #71

I'm all for OTC birth control but I can't support "state license = state agent." Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #106

Yes. They are mad Apple won't comply alarimer Feb 2016 #50

They ask for the powers to "fight terror" and then use them to arrest pot smokers. Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #61

Theres a lot of people posting here that need to help the Bundy's Jim Beard Feb 2016 #64

Okay, justify this. Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #67

Did you thank Snowden for leaking all that information Jim Beard Feb 2016 #93

And Trump agrees with you. Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #96

then don't put shit that might incriminate you in your phone Demonaut Feb 2016 #72

Right, all those people sitting in prison for smoking pot should have known better. Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #74

I see your point...the data collected by the NSA was derived from????? Demonaut Feb 2016 #75

The point of the article is that the blanket NSA surveillance information- itself illegal Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #78

It's about both. Smarmie Doofus Feb 2016 #76

Then pass a law forbidding them from manfacturing and selling Jim Beard Feb 2016 #77

Yeah, everyone in silicon vally is a hillbilly rancher. Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #79

We have a system in this country Jim Beard Feb 2016 #91

You seem tense. Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #92

I probably am a little tense, accept my apology for that however Jim Beard Feb 2016 #100

bottom line in the context of the FBI, etc, they have given very little reason for people to trust Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #104

Rule #1. Never put anything on your phone or computer that you don't want known. hobbit709 Feb 2016 #83

If the government has a valid warrant it has a right to the content of your encrypted phone Sam_Fields Feb 2016 #94

They have the phone Bradical79 Feb 2016 #103

I seriously doubt they will ever be interested in mine treestar Feb 2016 #95

Hopefully they will answer my voicemails Major Nikon Feb 2016 #98

Apple's got your back, yeah right ! Angel Martin Feb 2016 #99

Definitely kicking this! d_legendary1 Feb 2016 #102