But I don’t have any confidence that the Fox panel would have been smarter if its members understood the issue better. The real problem was that they didn’t come down in principle on the side of privacy. They could have at least expressed regret, or been reluctant about siding with the FBI.
But they were slavering urgently for whatever measure the FBI demanded to get into Syed Farook’s iPhone – as if all our lives depended on giving law enforcement any privacy-busting capability it sees a need for.
Technology doesn’t change the fact that this perspective is the opposite of the perspective of the Fourth Amendment. If our highest priority should be opening the people’s lives up to law enforcement, in case there are terror links lurking in our coupon drawers, then we should throw the Fourth Amendment out and require the people to all give the police keys to our homes, so it will be less of a hassle for them to get in whenever they declare a need to.
Conservatives are supposed to be smarter than this. Let’s walk through it briefly to clarify why there is no need to bust the built-in security feature of the iPhone for the FBI’s general convenience.
Worth reading in full.
14 thoughts on ““Breaking the iPhone: Once again, conservative establishment is urgently, insistently wrong””
The capacity of a few moslem nutcases to damage the US is tiny compared to the capacity of the US government to do the same. In fact, the capacity of the former largely depends on their stimulating the latter into doing damage. That strategy has been a huge success so far.
The other day John McAfee offered to do it free of charge. He says he just needs three weeks and no limits on tattoos or mohawks.
Apple tried to help as much as possible and at one point gave instructions for forcing the phone to do an iCloud auto-backup, but the phone was tampered with.
As I understand it, the govt doesn’t want merely the phone’s data, which Apple would have surrendered if it could have, but is using this case as a way to get a back door to all iPhones.
Maybe it’s a put-up job to persuade other iPhone users that their data is safely encrypted. Maybe it’s turtles all the way down.
“soon found out that the Apple ID account password had been changed shortly after the phone was in the custody of law enforcement, possibly by someone from the county health department. ”
Hmmm. Why would anyone not an accomplice do such a thing ?
If a nation doesn’t have internal enemies then it has no need for a surveillance state. We have intrusive airport screenings, we have the NSA monitoring our communications and registering our calling networks, we have ever expanding boundaries on searches and the most significant justification offered is that the government wants to crack down on threats of Islamic terrorism.
We can have liberty within society but that means that we need to police the borders of society very aggressively and by borders I use a very expansive definition which includes a focus on the composition of the people who constitute the population of our society. We can’t have universal liberty in a universal society, we can have universal liberty in a homogeneous society.
If the US Government has a key to your phone and your data, the Chinese will have it in no time at all. The Russians will take about .01 milliseconds longer, because they have fewer moles in the US system. If foreign governments have the key, then every crook, hacker, and terrorist in the world worl will have it. A completely insecure system will quickly become useless. Forget the Secretary of State’s communications with her underlings, what happens when banks can’t use ATM systems, or credit card payment networks. Back to the 1950s, folks, and have fun.
The Federal government wants to eat some cake, and have a whole cake left over.
“Hmmm. Why would anyone not an accomplice do such a thing ?”
What does Subotai call them – TWANLOC
Of course the terrorist had friends there. They just gave him a baby shower.
It’s one thing when a faceless legion of bureaucrats in the halls of Waahington are employing doctrines of political correctness to endanger us. We have some legal recourse in that case.
These TWANLOC, however, are in our community. They walk among us, and they are now, unwittingly or not, a fifth column against us.
It is amazing how people are prepared to reveal all their inner secrets to Google, Netflix and Citibank for resale to others, but not allow the creation of a mechanism for the government to discover specific information under court review. Eventually Snowden will be seen to be a traitor of Benedict Arnold proportions, not a Nathan Hale.
I ran servers for many years, I have run mail and every kind of normal network service.
There is no privacy. Someone has access to root and they know everything. Well everything that they care to look at.
“There is no privacy. Someone has access to root and they know everything. Well everything that they care to look at.”
If I encrypt a document with sufficiently high-grade encryption (and the encryption is done outside of your system), you can look at it all you want but it won’t mean anything to you.
“Eventually Snowden will be seen to be a traitor of Benedict Arnold proportions, not a Nathan Hale.”
After Hillary, there are no traitors “like Benedict Arnold.”
Benedict Arnold was a patriot for a long time but despaired.
Despite Arnold’s successes, he was passed over for promotion by the Continental Congress while other officers claimed credit for some of his accomplishments. Adversaries in military and political circles brought charges of corruption or other malfeasance, but most often he was acquitted in formal inquiries. Congress investigated his accounts and found he was indebted to Congress after spending much of his own money on the war effort. Frustrated and bitter at this, as well the alliance with France and failure of Congress to accept Britain’s 1778 proposal to grant full self-governance in the colonies, Arnold decided to change sides and opened secret negotiations with the British.
Hillary is not interested in “changing sides” as she is well compensated for her treason. Arnold was bankrupt.
“If I encrypt a document with sufficiently high-grade encryption (and the encryption is done outside of your system), you can look at it all you want but it won’t mean anything to you.”
Outside my system is the key concept here. Everything is in someone’s system though. If I can have the document and am not constricted as to what I do with it, I will break anything with any weakness. If you have strong enough encryption you can keep it from me for quite a long time. ;)
Comments are closed.