Obama, at SxSW, Calls for Access in Encryption Fight

[miniroller]

Agreed @bunnybean. I'm rather disappointed to read this, but am trying to understand that there are things that I don't understand. Nonetheless, I'm becoming ever more doubtful that the current concept of privacy will exist for too much longer. Sadly

[ttt]

Mar 12, 2016 12:48:37 GMT -5 @bunnybean said:

I disagree so fundamentally with this. Even if I assume the Justice System under the Obama White House is scrupulous with my information (which I'm not certain I do assume), I certainly don't assume the Clinton or Trump or Cruz White House is.

Look, the fact of the matter is if you want into a phone that bad, you can get in. Just like if you want into my personal home secure safe bad enough, you can get in. But I don't have to provide you access under the 5th amendment, and I damn well don't see how a private company has to be compelled to make software to make it easy.

FBI, you want in? Figure it the fuck out yourself.

But this is just not true. They can't "figure it out themselves" because they can't overwrite the firmware without a valid Apple signature, which they don't have and can't have without Apple. There is no possible way for them to do this without Apple's cooperation. 

If you believe that fundamentally, there are certain personal items and information that the government should never, ever be able to get access to, for any reason, even with a court order, even under a "ticking time bomb" scenario, then that's your belief. But it's not fair or correct to say that the FBI could just figure it out themselves. 

[ttt]

Mar 12, 2016 15:19:41 GMT -5 @bunnybean said:

Mar 12, 2016 13:21:59 GMT -5 ttt said:

But this is just not true. They can't "figure it out themselves" because they can't overwrite the firmware without a valid Apple signature, which they don't have and can't have without Apple. There is no possible way for them to do this without Apple's cooperation. 

If you believe that fundamentally, there are certain personal items and information that the government should never, ever be able to get access to, for any reason, even with a court order, even under a "ticking time bomb" scenario, then that's your belief. But it's not fair or correct to say that the FBI could just figure it out themselves. 

Fair enough. But they had access early on when the shooters turned on their iCloud backup, then the FBI had Apple reset the password. They very likely mishandled it purposely in order to open this court case. It's unbecoming at best.

If they did intentionally sabotage their own investigation in order to spark this legal fight, then I completely agree, that is appalling and incredibly unethical. 

[WanderingWinoZ]

well that's a twist I hadn't heard before....

I'm torn on this, but tend to fall on the side of privacy / not making apple comply.

If you have physical evidence (say in a locked box) can the government force you to open it or access it? Can they break it / destroy it to get in? What if it's a biometric (ie use a finger print to unlock) type of device? Or a security deposit box? can the gov get access to those types of things... i'm trying to understand how/why an electronic device would be any different (forget all the security concerns that it would create for other users). Just trying to understand how/when/where the government can compel you to give access to evidence that may incriminate you.

FWIW- i think we're talking about a national security issue (ie stopping more terrorists) vs. this guy's criminal charges - I'm sure they've got enough to charge him & convict him.

[ttt]

Mar 13, 2016 8:08:58 GMT -5 WanderingWinoZ said:

well that's a twist I hadn't heard before....

I'm torn on this, but tend to fall on the side of privacy / not making apple comply.

If you have physical evidence (say in a locked box) can the government force you to open it or access it? Can they break it / destroy it to get in? What if it's a biometric (ie use a finger print to unlock) type of device? Or a security deposit box? can the gov get access to those types of things... i'm trying to understand how/why an electronic device would be any different (forget all the security concerns that it would create for other users). Just trying to understand how/when/where the government can compel you to give access to evidence that may incriminate you.

FWIW- i think we're talking about a national security issue (ie stopping more terrorists) vs. this guy's criminal charges - I'm sure they've got enough to charge him & convict him.

Law enforcement can compel you to use your fingerprint to unlock a device:
www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-38641


ETA more on that ruling and its implications along with what else police can compel you to do :

gigaom.com/2014/11/04/suspect-must-use-finger-to-unlock-phone-as-debate-shifts-over-device-privacy/

[nursecramer]

Mar 13, 2016 8:59:00 GMT -5 ttt said:

Mar 13, 2016 8:08:58 GMT -5 WanderingWinoZ said:

well that's a twist I hadn't heard before....

I'm torn on this, but tend to fall on the side of privacy / not making apple comply.

If you have physical evidence (say in a locked box) can the government force you to open it or access it? Can they break it / destroy it to get in? What if it's a biometric (ie use a finger print to unlock) type of device? Or a security deposit box? can the gov get access to those types of things... i'm trying to understand how/why an electronic device would be any different (forget all the security concerns that it would create for other users). Just trying to understand how/when/where the government can compel you to give access to evidence that may incriminate you.

FWIW- i think we're talking about a national security issue (ie stopping more terrorists) vs. this guy's criminal charges - I'm sure they've got enough to charge him & convict him.

Law enforcement can compel you to use your fingerprint to unlock a device:
www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-38641


ETA more on that ruling and its implications along with what else police can compel you to do :

gigaom.com/2014/11/04/suspect-must-use-finger-to-unlock-phone-as-debate-shifts-over-device-privacy/        

Interesting that there's a distinction between unlocking with biometrics vs unlocking via passcode.

Also, I love their typo of "Firth amendment". Yes, please.

[decemberwedding07]

Mar 13, 2016 8:59:00 GMT -5 ttt said:

Mar 13, 2016 8:08:58 GMT -5 WanderingWinoZ said:

well that's a twist I hadn't heard before....

I'm torn on this, but tend to fall on the side of privacy / not making apple comply.

If you have physical evidence (say in a locked box) can the government force you to open it or access it? Can they break it / destroy it to get in? What if it's a biometric (ie use a finger print to unlock) type of device? Or a security deposit box? can the gov get access to those types of things... i'm trying to understand how/why an electronic device would be any different (forget all the security concerns that it would create for other users). Just trying to understand how/when/where the government can compel you to give access to evidence that may incriminate you.

FWIW- i think we're talking about a national security issue (ie stopping more terrorists) vs. this guy's criminal charges - I'm sure they've got enough to charge him & convict him.

Law enforcement can compel you to use your fingerprint to unlock a device:
www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-38641


ETA more on that ruling and its implications along with what else police can compel you to do :

gigaom.com/2014/11/04/suspect-must-use-finger-to-unlock-phone-as-debate-shifts-over-device-privacy/

Ok, very gross question. Why couldn't they use the San Bernadio shooters' fingers to unlock the phone?

[isabel]

Mar 13, 2016 16:14:56 GMT -5 decemberwedding07 said:

Mar 13, 2016 8:59:00 GMT -5 ttt said:

Law enforcement can compel you to use your fingerprint to unlock a device:
www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-38641


ETA more on that ruling and its implications along with what else police can compel you to do :

gigaom.com/2014/11/04/suspect-must-use-finger-to-unlock-phone-as-debate-shifts-over-device-privacy/

Ok, very gross question. Why couldn't they use the San Bernadio shooters' fingers to unlock the phone?

I actually wondered this myself. Do they have his body?

I'm a little surprised this is Obama's take. 

[ttt]

Mar 13, 2016 16:14:56 GMT -5 decemberwedding07 said:

Mar 13, 2016 8:59:00 GMT -5 ttt said:

Law enforcement can compel you to use your fingerprint to unlock a device:
www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-38641


ETA more on that ruling and its implications along with what else police can compel you to do :

gigaom.com/2014/11/04/suspect-must-use-finger-to-unlock-phone-as-debate-shifts-over-device-privacy/

Ok, very gross question. Why couldn't they use the San Bernadio shooters' fingers to unlock the phone?

I don't know but it's possible he didn't have fingerprint ID enabled.

[annieblah]

The fbi could have set it to never lock out and apple probably would have gone along with it. Back door in this? Nope. Sorry gov. Scream at the county who couldn't bE bothered to set the system so they could unlock as needed.

[decemberwedding07]

Mar 13, 2016 17:46:06 GMT -5 @bunnybean said:

Mar 13, 2016 16:14:56 GMT -5 decemberwedding07 said:

Ok, very gross question. Why couldn't they use the San Bernadio shooters' fingers to unlock the phone?

No, a dead finger cannot unlock a phone.

www.engadget.com/2013/09/16/why-a-disembodied-finger-cant-be-used-to-unlock-the-touch-id-se/

Huh. Interesting. It would totally work on TV, though! :-P

[lg28]

Even though I agree with @bunnybean, I do have concerns over impenetrable technology, for the reasons Obama listed and other things I probably haven't thought of.

It's a difficult thing - to allow citizens privacy while maintaining some level of security at a gov't level. I don't like it going to far in either direction.

[cattledogkisses]

I'm always wary when we start talking about risking innocent peoples' privacy for the sake of national security. We've already given up a lot of our privacies for this reason.

In light of the Patriot Act and all the phone data collection, do we really want the government to have the ability to hack into peoples' smart phones? Does that really make us safer?

[pedanticwench]

Obama is wrong on this one.