Because banning of end to end encryption has absolutely nothing to do with "protecting" us from anyone or anything whatsoever?
End to end encryption under threat
- Thread starter Mynight
- Start date
Because banning of end to end encryption has absolutely nothing to do with "protecting" us from anyone or anything whatsoever?
Of course it does. You may be surprised to hear that the FBI still hasn't been able to read the San Bernardino killers' messages - you'd have to agree that if they were able to do then it would likely yield some potentially useful leads.
No it doesn't. If end to end encryption got banned before the killers used it, doesn't mean the messages would have been magically decrypted, nor does it mean the messages would have been sent in plaintext.
It would simply mean they used a banned method of communication. Making encryption unlawful or banning it doesn't mean the FBI can suddenly start reading encrypted messages.
A criminal who wants to send a message relating to something highly illegal isn't going to automatically send his message in plaintext because "OMG David Cameron said encryption is banned to give people a false sense of security and to get more votes, better listen to him".
Last edited:
Suspended
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 5,707
- Location
- Buckingamshire
OMG! What is it? Tell us
Agreed. We need forum poll. Dirty secrets Y/N. Lets get this all out in the open. It will be better for everyone.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...hack-iphone-of-san-bernardino-shooter-for-fbi
Seems that Apple's technology is actively hindering the investigation into the San Bernardino killings and Apple itself is refusing to help unless ordered to by a court
Seems that Apple's technology is actively hindering the investigation into the San Bernardino killings and Apple itself is refusing to help unless ordered to by a court
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 2,742
As someone who doesn't really like Apple, that story makes me like them a little bit.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 10,856
- Location
- Nottingham
So what's the solution then Apple? Are you happy that bad actors are using your products to attack the USA and your technology is preventing the authorities from investigating the culprits which might prevent further attacks? I've bought many Apple products in the past and I was thinking about upgrading to the next Apple phone later in the year, but this sort of open hostility to law and order is making me think maybe it's time to start de-Apple'ing. Obviously that's not going to financially impact Apple but I can't in all conscience buy products from a company like that.
I bet they feel just as bad as Colt, Smith & Wesson, Berretta et al do when 'bad actors' use their products....
And the old 'stop future attacks' line is just as tired when it's used to support torture.
We're not talking about supporting torture here (I don't) - we're talking about the FBI not being able to find out who two terrorists have been messaging prior to them committing an atrocity on US soil. I don't regard the deceased's "right" to privacy as an essential liberty either.Man up ! We want answers now !
Not a fan of Apple but atleast they understand the issue here and have the right approach to it. Unfortunately the knee jerk emotive aspect of it will not go down well with the general public.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 2,742
They're not saying that the killers deserve their right to privacy, they're saying the rest of their customers do. Quite rightly imo.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 10,856
- Location
- Nottingham
Surely the Snowden leaks have shown that some of the people who want the power to be able to access iPhone's etc can't be trusted to act responsibly, stuff like the following.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...outinely-pass-around-intercepted-nude-photos/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-of-work-nsa-employee-spied-on-ex-girlfriend/
If Apple open a backdoor to one phone they are effectively opening a backdoor to all their devices.
And I'm sorry about that but the rights of everyone elses privacy trumps (no pun intended!) that
That doesn't explain why the FBI shouldn't be able to access the killers messages.
Firstly, I wouldn't believe too much what Snowden says - he's a straight up traitor, a defector, a modern day Kim Philby. Your second article demonstrates how the process forbids people to use the NSA's technology for personal reasons/amusement. I read three cases of non-compliance in that article which resulted in two resignations and one demotion, in other words the process is being enforced. I'd also make the point that the consequences of breach of process in all cases was relatively trivial. The consequences of the San Bernardino atrocity include:
Robert Adams 40
Isaac Amanios 60
Bennetta Betbadal 46
Harry Bowman 46
Sierra Clayborn 27
Juan Espinoza 50
Aurora Godoy 26
Shannon Johnson 45
Larry Daniel Kaufman 42
Damian Meins 58
Tin Nguyen 31
Nicholas Thalasinos 52
Yvette Velasco 27
Michael Wetzel 37
Because to give anyone access regardless of who they are requires weakening the system - which increases the exposure of all users whether simple privacy issues or making them more vulnerable to fraud, etc. so good people suffer while bad ones just move onto the next way of hiding what they are doing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 2,742
Well, it does if you actually read/understood what people/Apple are saying.