FBI vs Apple
- Thread starter Pro-8250
- Start date
"McAfee:
I have offered to the FBI, for free, to take my team, take that one phone, take it apart, see what's in it, and give it to the FBI,” McAfee said. “That violates no one, it gives them no backdoors, and it cannot be applied to any other iPhone user.”
<iframe width="900" height="506" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vl77RcJPqGs?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
.
I have offered to the FBI, for free, to take my team, take that one phone, take it apart, see what's in it, and give it to the FBI,” McAfee said. “That violates no one, it gives them no backdoors, and it cannot be applied to any other iPhone user.”
<iframe width="900" height="506" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vl77RcJPqGs?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
.
Last edited:
It's very clear the FBI is not interested in only the certain phone they want Apple to be required to give them the back door to everyone's phone. Just what you would expect from a government out of control and very totalitarian.
One of the best opinions I've heard. Dude looks and acts a little crazy (now I know why McAfee anti-virus is so slow
), but he makes some very good points.Prior to smart phones, this is equivalent to the FBI wanting access to everyone's little black book of contacts. AND when and how each contact was made. AND the amount of info relayed in each contact. AND the exact information that was supplied. AND the locations of the transactions. AND what your internet preferences are (including p0rn favs). So, no Sir, the FBI does not need free access through any door of my phone!
I guess mine is what you said in your post #3 answer.
And I don't see it as a violation of the Fourth Amendment like some in the media do.
McAfee can do it... the result is the same... no need for the FBI to flex their muscle... moot point in the end... unless, the FBI is lying to apple and the people of the USA that it will be used on only this one phone.
.
.
I don't think they are flat out lying, seems more like they are curious to see how the public handles it and how willing people are to give up their privacy for "protection" Im sure if they wanted to do this behind our backs it could easily be pushed through. But gov't is getting cocky as the fear is getting the better of people, and why sneak around when you can do things right in plain sight!
IMO Mcafee can do it, end of story, Apple has a responsabilty to its customers and their privacy far above the gov't. Phone are no longer just a means of talking to other people, they are our lives, my phone has more value and private information then my house does. And when intrusion can be done secretly (vs warrant and searching your house) it needs FAR more security then my house does.
When someone can crack into 1000's of phones and steal everything from the saftey of their laptop, this is SO much bigger of a threat then someone breaking into your house and deserves to be treated accordingly.
A lot of good points. But we are a nation of laws. Is Apple because of their enormous wealth above the law? A judge ordered Apple to cooperate with the FBI. Not give up any trade secrets. On NPR yesterday one person summed it up as privacy vs national security. I'm not saying I agree or disagree but it is a compelling argument.
If that phone had the names and addresses of 1000 ISIS members that live here in the USA would that make a difference?
If that phone had the names and addresses of 1000 ISIS members that live here in the USA would that make a difference?
I
inspector01
Well-known member
Everything that I've seen so far has indicated they were pretty much lone wolves with no real connection to any serious terrorists, so the chance of there being any info in that phone that is of national security importance is slim to none. The Feds have been trying to prevent encryption they can't hack for a long time, this is just an easy excuse to try and get around one of the biggest and best.
You can't give up personal privacy for the potential to save a few lives, that is retarded. How many US citizens have been killed in terror attacks in the last 10 years? How many by guns this year? Every person reading this is far more likely to die from a gun than a terror attack, would you be willing to give up guns to POSSIBLY prevent a few deaths? Then why would you consider giving up privacy for something even less likely?
No.
First off, that statement would be nothing more than propaganda to gain public consent. There is no way to back up such claim unless they would get their way, and if it turned out to be a false claim, who is responsible?
Furthermore, this is a perfect example of the mentality of government that has put us into the dire economical situation we are in now....(To he11 with tomorrow, what's the easiest course today?)
The Donald
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Friday called for a boycott of Apple unless the computer company helps the FBI access encrypted data on the phone of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook.
Apple CEO Tim Cook is resisting a judge's order that Apple cooperate, saying the company is being asked to "build a backdoor to the iPhone" that could be used to access other users' phones, not just Farook's device.
"Tim Cook is looking to do a big number, probably to show how liberal he is. But Apple should give up, they should get the security, you'll find other people," Trump said Friday.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Friday called for a boycott of Apple unless the computer company helps the FBI access encrypted data on the phone of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook.
Apple CEO Tim Cook is resisting a judge's order that Apple cooperate, saying the company is being asked to "build a backdoor to the iPhone" that could be used to access other users' phones, not just Farook's device.
"Tim Cook is looking to do a big number, probably to show how liberal he is. But Apple should give up, they should get the security, you'll find other people," Trump said Friday.
