Google CEO Sundar Pichai, in a string of tweets this afternoon, has weighed in on the lengthy message Apple CEO Tim Cook penned to customers and the U.S. government — and, frankly, the world — regarding encryption on personal devices.
Cook was responding to a federal judge's order directing Apple to help the FBI unlock an iPhone used by one of the shooters in December's massacre in San Bernardino, Calif. "The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers," the open letter begins. "We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand." (You can read Cook's full letter here.)
Much of the day went by with many wondering if Apple would be standing alone in this debate. Later in the day, Google's Pichai, in a string of five tweets, finally broke that silence.
1/5 Important post by @tim_cook. Forcing companies to enable hacking could compromise users' privacy
— sundarpichai (@sundarpichai) February 17, 2016
2/5 We know that law enforcement and intelligence agencies face significant challenges in protecting the public against crime and terrorism
— sundarpichai (@sundarpichai) February 17, 2016
3/5 We build secure products to keep your information safe and we give law enforcement access to data based on valid legal orders
— sundarpichai (@sundarpichai) February 17, 2016
4/5 But that's wholly different than requiring companies to enable hacking of customer devices & data. Could be a troubling precedent
— sundarpichai (@sundarpichai) February 17, 2016
5/5 Looking forward to a thoughtful and open discussion on this important issue
— sundarpichai (@sundarpichai) February 17, 2016
Google has previously voiced displeasure with pressure from governments (foreign and domestic) requesting data that it holds on customers, and as Pichai states the company works hard to keep everything it stores safe. Though the data Google stores isn't directly influenced by the situation Apple is currently in, Pichai understands that the sentiment has wide-reaching implications for companies that are trusted with customer's personal data.
Reader comments
Google CEO tweets support for Apple's stance in encryption debate
Dude, techngro, actually, the govt cannot compel a doctor to violate doctor/ patient privilege or religious clergy either. How did you get through law school?
Techngro, you seem pretty incompetent at the whole law and attorney thing. I seriously doubt any Apple attorneys were present to get a warrant for Apple. I'm sure they will contest in court, but defense attorneys do not get to argue against warrants. Usually it's just a request from law enforcement, signed by a judge.
Vamp07 brings up a good point. If Apple grants US govt access to phone, China is demanding it next. Blackberry lost favor after letting India into blackberry messenger. This would spiral rather quickly. If you are OK with this, I'm guessing you are OK with violent no-knock warrants, even though they have shown to be very dangerous and not particularly useful in gathering evidence.
For y'all all worried about terrorism, not once has the FBI managed to stop a terrorist attack with all their snooping under the Patriot Act. It definitely didn't stop this one and probably won't stop the next one either. It's not Apple's job to make it easier for the FBI. If I were an iPhone user, and Apple complied, I would Sue for refund of the phone that is no longer secure.
Wow, some of y'all are pretty clueless on this. You would think that what Snowden revealed would scare you but obviously not. It's not about 1 phone. It's about the govt wanting Apple to find a backdoor into their own OS that thevtovt would then be able to use at their discretion to hack into iphones. These terrorists are already dead, I doubt there is anything valuable enough on there. The problem with electronic backdoors is that they completely kill the security of the phone. If the govt has it, hackers will get it. Then hackers could get your bank info, personal info, install tracking software, etc. The govt has every right to hack into the phone, but Apple doesn't have to help them if it means destroying security on all phones. Chances are that a hack would have to be built into the next update.
Interesting though to see so many security conscious people on Android Central. Considering most people hack their phones and decrypt them out of the box. Our govt doesn't have a good track record with this stuff. Until Snowden, most of us didn't know of the secret court they use to get most of their warrants.
I'm disappointed with the FBI cyber crimes division for not being able to hack this on their own. I'm also forced to defend Apple, a company I despise, because the government should not be allowed to violate the 4th amendment at will, we have an expectation of privacy that is strengthened by encryption. For a judge to ignorantly assume that Apple has some master key that they can hand the FBI to use just this once is both foolish and asinine. To believe that the FBI would only use it this one time is dangerously stupid. Imagine buying a safe room from a company but knowing that the company has the means to open the door any time they choose, is the room safe? Can someone get that information outside of the company? This is what the judge is demanding Apple do, violate every phone users privacy and install a key that the government can use anytime they want.
I understand and fully support what Apple and Google are saying - but then wonder what is the alternate we are presenting to FBI (especially where national security is at risk) ? when phone is part of our daily life, there got to be away to get into it especially for the bad guys.
This debate goes way beyond the US borders. Once we drop the ball on this issue every government will insist on complete access to it's citizen's phone data. Places in the world where having the right to privacy its really needed will loose that right based on US precedent. What exactly does this guys phone contain that is so valuable to the investigation beyond the phone records and all the meta data they already have? I'll tell you what. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Not only does it not have anything valuable but the government will never admit that once they get the data because it will be hidden behind a wall of secrecy.
How can you possibly make a statement about what information the government could get from the phone? You have absolutely no idea what the government will find.
Comments like yours just illustrate how ill-informed people who are praising Apple for their position are.
Somebody doesn't know the first thing about Crime Scene 101. A detective won't just search one little room of a house and call the search off from there--he's going to search the whole building.
In the same sense, the FBI is doing their job wanting to see the contents of the phone.
Is it sad that governments are requesting access to our devices? Yes. But as long as people are using them to carry out bad things, this will continue to happen.
It's like the old saying goes...one bad apple spoils it for the whole bunch (no pun intended).
Go Tim Cook and Apple. There shall not be any backdoor just because of a measly moron that became a criminal. We'll just be making the FBIs job easier
Posted via the Android Central App on my Frost Nexus 6P
And by going along with what Tim Cook says, we'll also be making it easier for other terrorists to get away with what they do. They could easily get an iPhone, store every single contact, plan, schematic, etc. on the device, and nobody would have access to it but them.
It's such information that could be used to help bring down other terrorists.
it's like my mother said last night when I was talking to her about this--all that privacy does you no good if you're dead.
They can't keep their own data safe and they want a skeleton key into ours?
http://cnn.it/1UZqX1H
This keeps happening, at least people are growing wise. Tragedy, then a stab at our civil liberties in the guise of national security. Tragedy, then a stab at our civil liberties in the guise of national security....rinse repeat.
I'm just glad that this time around they're trying to intimidate organizations that can actually fight back. Even if they're only fighting back for their own well being and motives, what Google and Apple etc stand to gain from winning this battle is a lot less ominous to me...
Nightmares loosely based on 1984 come to mind.
Posted via the Android Central App
i'm just glad somebody understand whats really going on here...
Ha glad to be in good company as well.
Posted via the Android Central App
I don't see what the major issue is. The right to privacy is not absolute. It never has been. People have been whining about 'warrantless wiretapping' for years now. But when the government actually goes and gets a warrant, they still want to whine about privacy. I'm sorry Apple, you're not above the law, nor do you define what is legally protected under privacy rights. That's for the courts and the elected officials to take care of. Any procedure can be 'abused', that's not a reason to keep the government from possibly vital information when it is relevant to an investigation regarding criminal acts.
The major issue is it is not Apple's data that the government issued a warrant for. It is someone else's data. Apple does not have a key to access that data. So the government has issued a warrant for something that Apple does not have, and currently does not have a way of getting. Apple would have to create a "key" (intentionally keeping it simple for you) to unlock something that does not belong to them. That's what's not so clear cut. Can the government force an individual or company to create a tool or key to open something that does not belong to them? In the case of Apple, there are not only moral implications, but also a violation of their stated business principles. I think the SCOTUS will eventually have to determine if a government agency can do that.
"Can the government force an individual or company to create a tool or key to open something that does not belong to them?"
I don't know, can the government force (or simply ask) a locksmith to pick/unlock a house that the locksmith doesn't own if they have a valid warrant? Yeah, you bet your butt they can. Can the police obtain a warrant and have your doctor hand over your medical records against your will, even though that information, and the privacy right, belongs to you, not the doctor? Yup.
Plenty of people have 'moral' objections to following certain laws, but the law and, (in this case) the judge's order, trumps their moral objection. And whether Apple creates a method for obtaining the information for this specific case, or has to create such a method going forward for their OS, the government's duty to carry out their function trumps Apple's moral objection. Apple doesn't get to decide what is protected under the Fourth Amendment. That's why we have lawmakers and judges.
While I could (easily) refute your points once again, I think it's wasted at this point. I have a feeling that Apple's team of lawyers might just have a better handle on this than you do. We'll have to wait to see what the court ultimately decides
Of course you can (easily) refute my points. but let me guess...you won't. How convenient.
Apple's lawyers are vigorously working on behalf of their client, and I would expect nothing less from them. As someone who has a law degree and who has passed the bar exam, even though I am not currently working as an attorney, I know that that is one of the things that is a source of pride for many lawyers. They work on behalf of their client even when they might disagree with the client's chosen position. But that doesn't make that position automatically correct.
You say that apple's lawyers might have a better handle on this than I do. Ok. But do you think that the JUDGE who listened to the arguments of both sides and came to the conclusion that Apple must assist the government has a better handle on the situation than you or I, or Apple's lawyers (who again, are simply paid to represent one position, not make a determination as to whether that position is the right one)?
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
+1 This
Posted via the Android Central App
Tell me about it.
Posted via the Android Central App on my Frost Nexus 6P
amen.
I have never owned an apple product, but I applaud Tim Cook and apple for their stance on this.
Stand up and never back down to this agreement.
Posted via the Android Central App
Easy!!!! Just don't see any freedoms we are losing by turning over a phone!! No need to get personal. I'm not attacking anyone. Just asking a question. This is a forum regarding cellphones and alike. Let's not make it more than it is.
Posted via the Android Central App
The FBI has been complaining about encryption for a couple years now. They see an opportunity here to finally kick in the door under the disguise of national security. Bottom line is the government should not be able to force a private company to develop software which invades personal privacy.
Posted via Nexus 6 running on any data plan I want
you hit the nail right on the head ... if there was a serious threat to national security, Tim Cook would've done what the FBI asked. But like you said, and as Apple certainly knows, they're using this event as an opportunity that they've been looking to get for years. Cook is doing the right thing here, even though people with no common sense will think otherwise.
You people are completely nuts.
When the government is conducting an investigation after the commission of a crime, there are all types of 'privacy' rights that are countered via the use of a properly executed warrant. What's more private than your home, or your car, or the emails on your computer? All things that the government, with probable cause, can go and get a warrant to access. So if a warrant is good enough for the police to enter your own home against your wishes, why would the access to an electronic device be any different?
The position you're holding has nothing to do with common sense. Because, if you thought about it for a minute, you'd see that you're just being reactionary.
fair point. I'm not 100% on Apple's side, it's more like 70/30 just like any debatable topic ... but you're wrong about my initial reaction, which was actually that Apple should comply with the FBI.
the more I read and thought about the more I realized the likelihood of the software being used to compromise personal privacy. and my common sense comment was out of line, I shouldn't have said that.
The argument that there could be abuse of anything Apple uses or creates to circumvent the encryption could be applied to anything. But steps can be taken to limit the possibility of that. The method of obtaining access can reside solely with the company (Apple in this case), and never be put into the hands of the government. And when the government seeks access to a device, only a warrant can force the company to use the method, and then the device can be returned to the government. Or the device can be kept to ensure that no residue of the method can be accessed by the government and the data can be turned over.
Either way, there are ample ways that the government's ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY function of policing and investigating doesn't have to be frustrated, while not allowing them to have unfettered access to every person's data. But simply refusing to help the government gain access to necessary information during a legal investigation and pursuant to properly executed warrant is the height of arrogance and idiocy. A few years ago, when warrantless wiretapping was the issue, people like you and Tim Cook were screaming that the government should 'get a warrant'. well, now the government has gone and gotten a warrant, and you people STILL won't cooperate. So how, exactly, do you expect the government to carry out their function if they can't get the information illegally or legally? That's like asking someone to make a free throw with both hands tied behind their back.
You know those super encrypted black phones? Did you know the NSA wrote the encryption for them? Do you think they left a back door for their own use? There is no such thing as security, the big companies sell your personal data.... But it's fun arguing about it.....
I've always had great respect for Tim Cook and this cements that feeling even more. Steve Jobs on the other hand, would have handed over the privacy of every iPhone user if it would have made him an extra dollar or political favors (at least if it were done secretly).
And you're sure cook didn't do it secretly amidst all the current theatrics we're seeing?
Posted via the Android Central App
Why can't Apple build the OS work said backdoor internally, unlock the phone and hand the government the data? This works keep the exploit from getting out and keep the government from being able to reverse engineer the OS.
Posted via the Android Central App
Way more complicated than that. New OS could not be installed with having the password, so it would have to be some type of firmware hack, And the firmware was specifically written to reject those hacks. It would require some type of tool, custom firmware, maybe hardware, something which does not currently exist to allow it to happen. That custom "whatever" is what they don't want to do for fear of where it will lead.
what happens when some hacker (terrorist or not) finds and exploits the back door?
then about half the phones out in the modern world can be unlocked and worse yet, no one may ever even know (something that was even mentioned in the article)
Evidentiary chain of custody comes to mind.
Look, the two are dead. What does the government need on the phone that they do not already have, assuming the NSA & HSA are monitoring all communications?
David W. Mitchell
Posted from LG V10 via Android Central app...
Hissygoose, what freedoms exactly do you have today that are fading away? Just curious.
Posted via the Android Central App
Listen Deputy "No Face", have fun disputing everyone, did not come here to argue. Came here to read articles and make a comment or 2. First, as far as terrorist pigs I personally would torture them to the point that waterboarding looks like a recreational activity. I never, ever want to see a couple thousand people have to decide whether to jump or burn to death, Mr. No Face.
But for example -
4. Freedom of Speech: While no one (that the government admits to) has been black-bagged for criticizing the government yet, the State has spent years incrementally criminalizing this fundamental right. In addition to designating anti-government activists, hippie communes, and Americans with seed libraries as potential terrorists, the federal government has made a habit of punishing individuals who attempt to shed light on the government’s crimes. From Bradley (Chelsea) Manning to Edward Snowden and countless others, those who attempt to inform the American people of the atrocities their government commits are promptly silenced. Though the story received little mainstream attention, the military’s new operating procedures condone killing journalists. Further, the people’s right to free speech has been widely suppressed. During the Bush years, protesters were cordoned off into “free speech zones” to air their grievances. Today, protests are heavily patrolled by police, who do not shy away from pestering — if not abusing — people peacefully exercising their most essential constitutional right.
Oh & lets not forget, I'm a Goose... I can shat where I want & fly South or not. Upload a pic guy & lighten up... at least to feather figures.
Posted from Lake Chillisquaque
He's talking about the freedom to be an *******. When you here conservatives talking about "loosing their freedoms", this is basically what they're referring to.
Posted via the Android Central App
well for one, not everybody had been granted due process or a speedy or public trial... there have been more that a few people detained indefinitely without formally being charged of a crime, all in the name of national security and stopping terrorism.
while I have no problem having terrorist get the **** beaten out of them and tortured every day, a lot of them are "suspected" of aiding terrorist or helping with terrorist acts. and with never being charged and tried, we have no idea just how guilty they could be do we... I guess we'll just have to take the governments word for it, they would never have any reason to lie to any one or hide anything.
so much for presumption of innocence...
Don't worry, all this will get better when President Trump gets into office... I kid, I kid. Boo FBI, Yay Tim Cook. Never thought I'd say those things, but seriously it's not like our freedoms aren't dwindling every day.
Posted from my Lake
I wouldn't be too sanguine about this. It's an international terrorism case, which means the CIA...The real spooks...are most certainly involved in the investigation and have access to the device. So here's a radical hypothesis:
They've already hacked the phone, with help from the Agency. This back and forth is just theater to make Apple look like ardent first amendment warriors (hint: they aren't), and comfort the rest of us with a robust-sounding back and forth about due process.
Yes, yes, conspiratorial I know!!!! But stranger things have happened lol ;)
Posted via my Moto X Pure
Stranger things like no autopsy on Scalia...Yep.
Honestly, I could see your hypothetical being carried out,and I thought of that myself.
Fundamentallyspeaking, republicans and democrats (democrats especially) need to be worried about how big government gets, in general, and as we continue on, I fear the size of government to be a paramount issue.
Posted via the Android Central App
Lobby monies and favors gained through the same, conspiracy? Not when the big corps & your "representatives" lie in the same bed...
David W. Mitchell
Posted from LG V10 via Android Central app...
Well the moron wants to ban the Internet
Posted via the Android Central App on my Frost Nexus 6P
Apple should do whatever is necessary to recover any information that they can from ONE phone that Islamic terrorists used to kill innocent American citizens. Anything else is unacceptable.
Posted via the Android Central App
This is what I don't understand. Why can't Apple simply access the device information, which i'm sure they can probably already do anyway, and hand the data over to the government? The actual process by which they access it, whether it be a decryption tool or what have you, never actually needs to be in the government's hand. And they only need to hand over such data when there is a warrant.
I just don't see why people are making it such a monstrous deal.
It's evident you really don't understand the issue. Research it. There's plenty of info about what's going on here if you really want to find out.
I did my research in law school. I know what the issues are, and I understand that there are people who value their privacy. But what you people have to understand is that no right is 100% bulletproof. Every right, no matter how precious you may feel it is, has to sometimes bow to the necessary role of the government in carrying out their duties.
The issue for most of the people commenting isn't whether Apple can actually defeat the encryption, which I am certain that they can. But even if they cannot defeat the encryption on this particular device and must build a method to do so in the next OS, the issue for most of the people commenting is that they seem to think that Apple should not have to take such a step. And I disagree. Even if you build the most secure house in the world, if you do something that requires access by the government in the course of an investigation or some other duty, the government has a right to break down your door. It's part of the contract that we make with our government. In order for them to carry out their function, which we REQUIRE that they do, they are granted certain rights that trump our own sometimes.
The government should NEVER have rights that trump ours.
Posted via Nexus 6 running on any data plan I want
+1
Posted via the Android Central App
Well, whether you like it or not, they do. When the courts speak of them, they are called 'legitimate interests'. But it boils down to the fact that the government has a right to obtain a warrant and access private information that would otherwise be protected. As an example of the language:
"In upholding the suspicionless drug testing of athletes, the Vernonia Court conducted a fact-specific balancing of the intrusion on the children's Fourth Amendment rights against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Applying Vernonia's principles to the somewhat different facts of this case demonstrates that Tecumseh's Policy is also constitutional.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/536/822.html#sthash.U4BYx7uU...
And I'm against this 100%. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. So you agree with every law or Supreme Court decision?
Posted via Nexus 6 running on any data plan I want
It's not about whether you agree with every Supreme Court decision, it's about whether you're being consistent.
The government uses warrants every single day to gain access, legally, to otherwise private data/property of persons under investigation. So do you have an issue with that?
Adolf Hitler adopted such a stance... See where it led the world? There is a reason our founding fathers established a separate nation, and instituted the Constitution and its "INALIENABLE" rights. Yes, law school, and that gives one the necessary credentials to do away with the Constitutional protections afforded the citizenry from their very own government? If taken out of context, as it oft is, I supposed your stance does indeed have SOME merit, erroneous as it is.
David W. Mitchell
Posted from LG V10 via Android Central app...
So much of what you said is complete nonsense.
First, Hitler.
Second, the fact that you have "inalienable rights" doesn't mean that your rights can never be curtailed in any way. That is an obviously flawed interpretation of the meaning of the founders. Every single right you can think of, from the most basic (such as your right to travel) to the most important (such as your right to life) can be taken from you with due process. A perfect example of the misinterpretation of the term can be found in the following section from the 5th Amendment
"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Wait...I thought 'inalienable rights' meant that they were unassailable by the government. But here we have the VERY core of the founding principles (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness/property) being allowed to be assailed by the very founders themselves. What gives? Here's what gives. People like you don't understand the first thing about the Constitution, yet go all over the place quoting it.
Now, you may personally think that you live in a state of perfect liberty on your Constitution Island, but the rest of us living in the real world already understand this to be true. On your Constitution Island, is the government allowed to execute warrants? Is the government allowed to take your property for public works like roads and schools? Is the government allowed to interfere with your contract rights by limiting interest rates on student loans?
So, ultimately, the fact that you believe that 'inalienable rights' should prevent the government from doing things like executing warrants shows just how little you actually understand about the Constitution. Allowing the government to carry out their required and prescribed duties does not 'set aside the constitution'. It is the very Constitution that gives them the authority to do it.
I have zero cares if the government reads my messages if that helps protect me and my family and the general public. I have nothing to hide. I rather be safe.
Good thing we're all not you then. I'm OK with this one phone but no an all u can eat data buffet for our government. That's exactly how they want us to be rest assured and thank God for the amendments. Thank Satan for the Patriot act
Posted via the Android Central App
Wow, you want a government that big, huh?
Just go ahead and set up a webcam in your house and send Joe Biden the live stream. After all, I'm sure you're not doing anything Joey wouldn't do
Posted via the Android Central App
Yeah, Republicans wouldn't do anything devious. Watergate comes to mind.... Hmmmm...
David W. Mitchell
Posted from LG V10 via Android Central app...
I may actually hold onto my iPhone 6s Plus because they value personal privacy very much. I really like that and Tim Cook is doing a great thing here.
Hey, we agree
Posted via Nexus 6 running on any data plan I want
The FBI only wanted access to one iPhone who was owned by a terrorist, Apple should have bent over backwards in trying to help them further with their investigation.
Access should be on a cases by case basis, not mass built in backdoor software.
Apple & Tim Cook, you really need to evaluate how you're perceived, because this will undoubtedly come back to bite you.
They can't give access. The data is encrypted with keys they do not possess.
.
If a kid on GSM hosting forums could do this in 2013, I have a hard time believing that Apple doesn't have an in-house tool to recover passwords or at least reset the lockout screen.
Are you joking or just ignorant?
How come the government is asking for all this when all that really needs to be done is they send the phone to Apple, Apple opens it for them and they send it back to uncle Sam. Am I missing something?
Posted via the Android Central App
Yes. The data is encrypted. Apple can't access it any more than the FBI can.
Posted via the Android Central App
Well this isn't entirely true, right? I mean, Apple could theoretically create the "backdoor", use it on this device ONLY (famous last words, I know...)...then hand over the device but keep the de-encryption process as privileged info.
Posted via my Moto X Pure
That's completely missing the point.
If the backdoor exists, it exists and can (and will) be exploited by third parties. Apple knows this, and that's why they don't want to do it.
The security risk isn't that the FBI can't be trusted, it's that compromised security is no security at all.
Posted via the Android Central App
I didn't make a value judgment that they SHOULD do it, so no point has been missed...completely or otherwise. I merely countered the claim that they "couldn't" do it, which had been asserted in the post I responded to.
Posted via my Moto X Pure
That's fair enough, but I honestly don't think they can do it.
The most they can do is build a backdoor into future versions of their encryption engine. The chances are that this particular phone will never be decrypted regardless of how things turn out. Apple's software engineers are good, but they aren't magic.
Posted via the Android Central App
No. You obviously don't understand how encryption works.
I thought about this too. Maybe there's a simple answer. I suppose having the data be unmolested by a third party might be reason enough from an investigative standpoint (i.e., if Apple opens it in the absence of the MIB, then Apple effectively becomes the gatekeeper for what is seen and not seen by law enforcement). Other than that I can't think of a reason this approach wouldn't work.
Posted via my Moto X Pure
Apple can't.
Even they can't break into encrypted info on their devices.
Cook's statement seems to suggest they CAN do it, but they won't:
"But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create."
I'm not in favor of them doing it, but this part of his letter appears to intimate it *is* possible.
Posted via my Moto X Pure
Well, I'm trying to say that right now, they can't do so.
They MAY somehow devise a method to get into it. They refuse to do so, for the reasons Cook stated.
It's much more complicated than that.
He's talking about a backdoor. You can't install a backdoor and expect to have access to encrypted data retroactively. It doesn't work that way.
Wasn't there a program that suppressed the "lock screen attempt" count? Essentially giving an infinite # of attempts before wiping data? Would the info still be encrypted in that case?
Posted via my Moto X Pure
This is exactly what the government wants Apple to do. Write a custom iOS build that eliminates that safeguard so that they can hook it up to a supercomputer and brute force their way in.
Posted via the Android Central App
Things will really get interesting if/when Apple's appeal is denied by a higher court.
Posted via my Moto X Pure
You mean the Supreme Court?
The decision will be 4-4 if it were held right now.
Well, if I remember correctly, the lower court ruling would stand in that case.
I doubt it would be 4-4.
Posted via the Android Central App
No it will go to an appeals court first...But yes, ultimately the supreme court is a possibility.
Posted via my Moto X Pure
This is one of our 3 letter agencies favorite stunts: co-opt a tragedy to pressure a company or person to set a terrible precedent, then expand the hell out of it. I've bashed Cook before, but I'm completely behind him on this one. The FBI already has virtually all their info: everything ever sent to the cloud, everything their service provider ever touched, etc. What they want is the precedent, and the software, to be used all the time with little or no oversight against everyone. This is where it starts.
Posted via the Android Central App
Completely agree. Give them a inch they will take a mile . Slippery slope. Whatever cliche you want to use.
Posted via Nexus 6 running on any data plan I want
patriot act comes to mind.
Precisely... Agreed.
David W. Mitchell
Posted from LG V10 via Android Central app...
I think that I like Blackberrys stand on this better. Your info is secure and Blackberry maintains the keys. If the government request info then Blackberry hands it on for that ONE case and that one suspect.
Posted via the Android Central App
No
So the government can't access ANY information? Do you support the government having the right to search your home with a warrant?
Yes
Posted via the Android Central App
But you disagree that when the federal government has a validly executed warrant based on probable cause, that they should be able to access information on the suspects phone/computer/device?
All of a sudden we have a bunch of conservatives around here, or maybe libertarians.
Posted via Nexus 6 running on any data plan I want
Even if you have total faith in your government and their agencies, the chance that they'll be able to hold onto this software if it is created is almost non existent.
Posted via the Android Central App
you say that as if people expecting other people to support themselves is a bad thing.
No. Belief in the bill of rights isn't a liberal/conservative thing. At least it shouldn't be.
This might be the first time we agree on something.
Posted via Nexus 6 running on any data plan I want
I'm as liberal as they come and I stand with Tim Cook. I value personal privacy and my Fourth Amendment rights.
Why? When did this become a liberal vs conservative thing especially when both groups are deluded
Posted via the Android Central App on my Frost Nexus 6P
Good show... I agree with you 100%. This is an issue with implications for both camps of extremists. Get my drift?
David W. Mitchell
Posted from LG V10 via Android Central app...
Good good. I never thought I'd say this, but Apple has my full support. And I'm glad they also have the support of people whose opinions might actually matter.
Posted via the Android Central App
Good thing Sundar is smart to agree in this case despite Google's business model showing otherwise. He could potentially damage Google's public image if he decides to go against Apple's stance against the FBI regarding security.
As much as I don't like Apple's walled garden and overpriced product policy, i very much agree with their action to deny the FBI's request.
Not sure what you mean by Google's business model. They are a private company and you can opt in or opt out. Your decision.
Posted via Nexus 6 running on any data plan I want
Google doesn't give your personal information to people, nor do they create backdoors to allow governments or other agencies to decrypt any data. You are completely wrong. You must be used to it by now.
I agree with Apple's stance too.
As much as we all would like to know what the attackers' motives were and who they were affiliated with, it shouldn't have to compromise our basic security.
I'm not overly paranoid about it, FYI, but I feel that there is a better way.
Just read Krill's response above me. It's excellent and explains the implications at hand.
What if the phone in question contained information about an imminent terrorist attack? Or location of hostages?
We don't know exactly what's on the phone yet.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying Apple should completely refuse to unlock the shooter's phone. Instead, what I think they should do is find a way to unlock that one iPhone in a way that doesn't require a backdoor or other exploit in the software or it'll affect other iOS devices.
I feel if companies built a back door to devices and law enforcement had access. It would eventually get exploited and therefore patched. Then we would be back in the same boat.
Posted via the Android Central App
You're right that it would be exploited... It definitely would.
It probably wouldn't be patched though, because they wouldn't be allowed to patch it. In fact, they wouldn't need to patch it, because it wouldn't be a bug.
Posted via the Android Central App
I liked Kirill's response.
https://plus.google.com/+KirillGrouchnikov/posts/fBSZzCo8BkS
Yes. K's was excellent.
Posted via the Android Central App
Yep, that was an excellent response
I got that too
Posted via the Android Central App
I got a survey in Google rewards today about if I agreed with Tim cooks stances I said yes
Posted via the Android Central App
They asked me if I went to T-Mobile.
Posted via the S6 Active
Note that those surveys aren't always "Google" asking the question — that platform is open for any sort of organization that wants to collect anonymous (or targeted) survey data on a certain subject. Google offers up the Opinion Rewards system for those orgs to ask the questions.
I got asked if I read bird watchers magazine
Posted via the Android Central App
I mean, he could have actually said more about it right?
If he says more, then the public will ask uncomfortable questions on their business model. Which of course allows outsiders to access Google's information to make money.
Quite the opposite of what Apple is against here.
Google makes money by keeping the info people give them secure. If they started giving out that information people will not trust them and they'll make less money. Google has everything to lose by giving out your information.
Exactly! Many people do not understand this.
Posted via the Android Central App
That's completely not true. 99% of people would not give a darn if Apple agreed to help the government pursuant to a warrant because It's their legal responsibility to do so. In addition, most people already know that the government can access your information already, whether it be a search of your home, the search of your computer, car, etc., via a warrant, so there's really nothing strange about the government using a warrant to access your mobile device.
Not many people are going to drop Apple if they comply with a warrant to provide the federal government with access to someone's data.
The warrant means you (the phone owner) have the responsibility to provide the government with access to your phone, not the phone company. They can try to break in if you refuse to let them in (just like into your home) but no backdoors need to be created. It's like giving some entity a spare key to your house just in case they want to get in. Absurd! Go Google and Apple for standing behind encryption!
Posted via the Android Central App
The warrant can direct anyone who can grant access to the property/device/data to provide such access. When the police need access to a safety deposit box, do you think they go and break down the door to the bank to get it? the property isn't the bank's, but a judge can and will order the bank to grant such access.
Or, if you'd like a closer analogy, take for example a new unbreakable security system created by SecureCo. Never been cracked physically or otherwise. Person X buys said security system and inputs his new code. SecureCo has no access to said code. Person X then proceeds to become a suspect in a murder. Police obtain a warrant for the house, but Person X refuses to give access and the police are unable to bypass the security system. Do you honestly think a judge would not order SecureCo to find a way to bypass the security system and grant the police access?
Apple is not some random company that the government went to. They created the device and would therefore have the knowledge and best skills to help them gain access. And the government has a right to force cooperation when they have the probable cause and a valid warrant.
And I'd like to point out that the issue is not encryption itself. The issue is having a situation where the government can NEVER gain access to said encrypted information. If you want to encrypt your device, that's fine. That's your right. But once the government has a legal and valid warrant, signed by a judge, your privacy rights are curtailed. they can enter and search your home, your car, your computer, your emails, etc. That's the way it has always been, and that's the way it will continue to be. People are making a big deal out of nothing and not understanding that a phone is no different from your other private places. And the government can access those with a warrant.
This warrant isn't asking for information. It is asking Apple to hand over the technology so the government can unlock the phone themselves.
Posted via the Android Central App
Google's business model is a well known thing.
Maybe it's just his personality, but he could have came out in strong support of device encryption. Just seems like a very passive response to me. "Could be a troubling precedence" - I mean, the order is already there. Isn't it ALREADY a troubling precedent? Apple is choosing to not follow the order.
Sounds like he wants to debate the process the government is trying to establish in this case. Was pretty clear to me. He had five points. Both Apple and Google and other companies will and have turned over anonymous data with proper warrants being served. They postured and fought it, but in the end they turn it over. Bulk data. What is happening this time, is Apple (and in the future many other companies) give the government the golden key. It's a pretty strong stance.
Posted via the Android Central App
What process is that exactly? The process of a court order?
Posted via the Android Central App
Apparently I'm not the only one that thought his comments were lacking.
As companies line up behind Apple on encryption, Google's response is lacking http://www.androidcentral.com/companies-line-behind-apple-encryption-goo...
Posted via the Android Central App
Sometimes less is more.
Posted via the Android Central App
Yeah especially when the .gov wants to ruin your business and take over the Internet!