FabSwingers.com forum: Should Apple

By *abphil OP Man
over a year ago

sheffield

Unlock terrorist phones, would it bother you. It wouldn't bother me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rijj73Man
over a year ago

croydon

And how would it affect swinging?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *easing_twoCouple
over a year ago

Bristol, Thornbury

Huh

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abphil OP Man
over a year ago

sheffield

"And how would it affect swinging?"

They would know you did for a start

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

How would they know who's a terrorist?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abphil OP Man
over a year ago

sheffield

"How would they know who's a terrorist? "

Don't have to know just think they are but Apple wont play ball

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"How would they know who's a terrorist?

Don't have to know just think they are but Apple wont play ball"

Good.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abphil OP Man
over a year ago

sheffield

"How would they know who's a terrorist?

Don't have to know just think they are but Apple wont play ball

Good. "

And if they were terrorist and access denied?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"How would they know who's a terrorist?

Don't have to know just think they are but Apple wont play ball

Good.

And if they were terrorist and access denied?"

Tough.

it's another small chip away from peoples civil liberties and right to privacy.

What next? Allow access to everybodys phone because after all..anyone COULD be up to anything.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abphil OP Man
over a year ago

sheffield

"How would they know who's a terrorist?

Don't have to know just think they are but Apple wont play ball

Good.

And if they were terrorist and access denied?

Tough.

it's another small chip away from peoples civil liberties and right to privacy.

What next? Allow access to everybodys phone because after all..anyone COULD be up to anything.

Know what you are saying but it is supposed to be a one off. And i know whats coming next.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

well if its to aid being able to track down and stop any suspected terror attacks etc then i say yeh they should have it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"How would they know who's a terrorist?

Don't have to know just think they are but Apple wont play ball

Good.

And if they were terrorist and access denied?

Tough.

it's another small chip away from peoples civil liberties and right to privacy.

What next? Allow access to everybodys phone because after all..anyone COULD be up to anything.

Know what you are saying but it is supposed to be a one off. And i know whats coming next."

Cool...we can leave it there then

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

That would be a slippery slope to the foundation of the Thought Police. It's a tricky one!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inky-MinxWoman
over a year ago

Grantham

"That would be a slippery slope to the foundation of the Thought Police. It's a tricky one!!"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Unlock terrorist phones, would it bother you. It wouldn't bother me."
.

Why isn't this in the lounge?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"That would be a slippery slope to the foundation of the Thought Police. It's a tricky one!!"

So it's perfectly hip for nerdy hackers to have free reign over all the world's data but helping a murder investigation is beyond the pale huh?

Apple could assist without ever giving the "man"the method in which they achieve it

At least one human has the ability to crack such codes and who regulates them

The slippery slope argument is fundamentaly flawed but will con a few of the dogmatic xx

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

No they shouldn't unlock it.

What next a policeman sat in every home listening to every conversation we have and deciding which is appropriate before it warrants detention?

Just like guns don't randomly kill people on their own - locked phones don't either.

Toyota Hilux trucks are used in large numbers as 50 cal machine guns beds in every civil

war across the planet, should Toyota put a kill switch in the computer of every engine if it senses machine gun fire? Because undoubtedly many innocents are killed every day.

This isn't a slippery slope argument - the genie is out or the genie isn't.

Well done Apple I hope they win.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"That would be a slippery slope to the foundation of the Thought Police. It's a tricky one!!

So it's perfectly hip for nerdy hackers to have free reign over all the world's data but helping a murder investigation is beyond the pale huh?

Apple could assist without ever giving the "man"the method in which they achieve it

At least one human has the ability to crack such codes and who regulates them

The slippery slope argument is fundamentaly flawed but will con a few of the dogmatic xx"

I said it was a tricky situation and who said black hat activity was "perfectly hip"?

I'm not a huge apple fan but I do think they are a principled organisation I think they are doing the right thing challenging the case. A wider sensible discussion on data security is needed and hopefully without Trump sticking his hair piece in.

Do you have an Apple product?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As on the BBC news this morning at 5.00. How come the fbi can't hack a phone jesus the press in England can do it. It makes you wonder how they got the other evidence apart from the obvious dead bodies

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *isdirtygirlCouple
over a year ago

somewhere out there

"As on the BBC news this morning at 5.00. How come the fbi can't hack a phone jesus the press in England can do it. It makes you wonder how they got the other evidence apart from the obvious dead bodies"

The hacking of insecure voicemail is something most of us could do with a little instruction. Hacking an encrypted device is a totally different ball game.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *isdirtygirlCouple
over a year ago

somewhere out there

Those of you championing Apple. Would you still feel this way if a terrorist cell were allowed to blow up your child because the security services were denied vital evidence that could have prevented the killing?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol

"Those of you championing Apple. Would you still feel this way if a terrorist cell were allowed to blow up your child because the security services were denied vital evidence that could have prevented the killing?"

As the chances of a terrorist cell being 'allowed' to blow up my child by being denied vital evidence are practically nil, the answer is yes.

I'll take personal privacy over unfounded fears, thanks.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think one of the main issues is that once it's been done once, that software is there, and people know its available. What's to stop the government demanding it and then using it on whoever they want.

For that matter, what's to prevent hackers going after it themselves so they can access anyone's iPhone.

I've not got a issue with the reason why they want the information , but once a program has been created that will do what they want, it's there for good, can't be undone, and can then be used for whatever they want too, justification or not.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rincesscaracoupleCouple
over a year ago

Saltburn

would somebody like to move this to the lounge wtf has it to do with swinging?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abphil OP Man
over a year ago

sheffield

"would somebody like to move this to the lounge wtf has it to do with swinging?"

Why do people say take it to lounge just dont read it ffs

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This challenge from the FBI is fuck all to do with fighting terrorism which is quite rightly why Apple are fighting it. Police forces across the globe have long been frustrated by security measures on IPhones as ever use terrorism as the justification but once they can access phones it will be far from just suspected terrorists phones they start unlocking

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"would somebody like to move this to the lounge wtf has it to do with swinging?

Why do people say take it to lounge just dont read it ffs"

Technically it is in the wrong forum, and I believe the comment was made in the hope a mod would move it over. No need to get narky over someone stating the obvious

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rincesscaracoupleCouple
over a year ago

Saltburn

"would somebody like to move this to the lounge wtf has it to do with swinging?

Why do people say take it to lounge just dont read it ffs"

And I quote "Swingers Chat: This is the place to discuss anything and everything about swinging"

FFS

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abphil OP Man
over a year ago

sheffield

"would somebody like to move this to the lounge wtf has it to do with swinging?

Why do people say take it to lounge just dont read it ffs

And I quote "Swingers Chat: This is the place to discuss anything and everything about swinging"

FFS"

As a swinger would you be happy if the fbi accessed your phone?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *isdirtygirlCouple
over a year ago

somewhere out there

"would somebody like to move this to the lounge wtf has it to do with swinging?

Why do people say take it to lounge just dont read it ffs

And I quote "Swingers Chat: This is the place to discuss anything and everything about swinging"

FFS

As a swinger would you be happy if the fbi accessed your phone?"

If it were to prevent terrorism or save lives I honestly don't care whose phone gets accessed.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"How would they know who's a terrorist?

Don't have to know just think they are but Apple wont play ball

Good.

And if they were terrorist and access denied?

Tough.

it's another small chip away from peoples civil liberties and right to privacy.

What next? Allow access to everybodys phone because after all..anyone COULD be up to anything.

Probably already doing this anyway!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abphil OP Man
over a year ago

sheffield

"How would they know who's a terrorist?

Don't have to know just think they are but Apple wont play ball

Good.

And if they were terrorist and access denied?

Tough.

it's another small chip away from peoples civil liberties and right to privacy.

What next? Allow access to everybodys phone because after all..anyone COULD be up to anything.

Probably already doing this anyway! "

Well if they are why ask apple

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I thought was a thread about making iPhones float.

Now that would be good.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As I see it the problem is that if Apple Wright a a program to enable the government to leagaly access the iPhone then it will only be a matter of time before it becomes an everyday occorance and then it will be leaked by someone and the hackers will have a field day.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Apple have spent many years ensuring that their phones cannot be accessed without knowledge of the password. Now they have been ordered to unlock a protected phone.

Apart from the fact that this may not be possible, they are worried about the wider security implications. They are quite right to raise the issue by challenging the court's ruling.

(And I am not entirely convinced that this will take the FBI much further forward, bearing in mind that the terrorist in question was shot dead).

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"How would they know who's a terrorist?

Don't have to know just think they are but Apple wont play ball

Good.

And if they were terrorist and access denied?

Tough.

it's another small chip away from peoples civil liberties and right to privacy.

What next? Allow access to everybodys phone because after all..anyone COULD be up to anything.

Probably already doing this anyway! "

probably. ..

solid argument there

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abphil OP Man
over a year ago

sheffield

"How would they know who's a terrorist?

Don't have to know just think they are but Apple wont play ball

Good.

And if they were terrorist and access denied?

Tough.

it's another small chip away from peoples civil liberties and right to privacy.

What next? Allow access to everybodys phone because after all..anyone COULD be up to anything.

Probably already doing this anyway!

probably. ..

solid argument there

But their mates are phoning each other now

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Unlock terrorist phones, would it bother you. It wouldn't bother me."

Yes they should.

No it wouldn't bother me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"would somebody like to move this to the lounge wtf has it to do with swinging?

Why do people say take it to lounge just dont read it ffs

And I quote "Swingers Chat: This is the place to discuss anything and everything about swinging"

FFS

As a swinger would you be happy if the fbi accessed your phone?"

I dont mind the fbi accessing my phone. I dont do anything ilegal. Swinging usnt ilegal.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"would somebody like to move this to the lounge wtf has it to do with swinging?

Why do people say take it to lounge just dont read it ffs

And I quote "Swingers Chat: This is the place to discuss anything and everything about swinging"

FFS

As a swinger would you be happy if the fbi accessed your phone?

If it were to prevent terrorism or save lives I honestly don't care whose phone gets accessed."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abphil OP Man
over a year ago

sheffield

"would somebody like to move this to the lounge wtf has it to do with swinging?

Why do people say take it to lounge just dont read it ffs

And I quote "Swingers Chat: This is the place to discuss anything and everything about swinging"

FFS

As a swinger would you be happy if the fbi accessed your phone?

I dont mind the fbi accessing my phone. I dont do anything ilegal. Swinging usnt ilegal."

Well said

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"would somebody like to move this to the lounge wtf has it to do with swinging?

Why do people say take it to lounge just dont read it ffs

And I quote "Swingers Chat: This is the place to discuss anything and everything about swinging"

FFS

As a swinger would you be happy if the fbi accessed your phone?

I dont mind the fbi accessing my phone. I dont do anything ilegal. Swinging usnt ilegal.

Well said"

No. ..I don't care if they see my fab. My face is my face and name is my real name on here because I don't care who sees.

What I do care about is removal of choice..its my choice to reveal what to who. They can get fucked eavesdropping and spying me as and when they want.

If you guys are happy being treat however someone else feels like they should be treating you then cool but no thanks from me...I have my own mind

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Some scumbags on here protecting the rights of terrorists! How pathetic. Probably just chavs who should be in prison. Look like them anyway.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"would somebody like to move this to the lounge wtf has it to do with swinging?

Why do people say take it to lounge just dont read it ffs

And I quote "Swingers Chat: This is the place to discuss anything and everything about swinging"

FFS

As a swinger would you be happy if the fbi accessed your phone?

I dont mind the fbi accessing my phone. I dont do anything ilegal. Swinging usnt ilegal.

Well said

No. ..I don't care if they see my fab. My face is my face and name is my real name on here because I don't care who sees.

What I do care about is removal of choice..its my choice to reveal what to who. They can get fucked eavesdropping and spying me as and when they want.

If you guys are happy being treat however someone else feels like they should be treating you then cool but no thanks from me...I have my own mind

I have my own mind too

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *osieWoman
over a year ago

Wembley

Some 'intelligence' agency knowing that I am a swinger vs me getting blown up by some Muslim terrorist? Tough call; this will require careful and considered thought

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abphil OP Man
over a year ago

sheffield

"Some 'intelligence' agency knowing that I am a swinger vs me getting blown up by some Muslim terrorist? Tough call; this will require careful and considered thought"

Yes it is very difficult, lifes a bitch

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

From my understanding the problem isn't with it being used on a terrorists phone, but with the wider implications of it.

What's to stop anyone then using the software to access your phone, get all your details off it, then its a possible case of identity theft, actually theft of your money etc etc.

Thats without the fact that the government could then access your phone and decide what you can and can not view/comment on/interact with, all without your say so, bassed on their own choices and beliefs. Your free will of what you want to view and do then goes out of the window.

Don't get me wrong that's taking it to extremes but its all highly possible, look at north Korea, or the great firewall of China for examples.

Personally, I'd be more wary of hackers. Once they know this software is there and gives them opportunity to access any iPhone at all, do you think they wouldn't go after it or stop until they get it ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London

With over a billion potential terrorist with access to mobile phones let them crack on and check on them. After all the other six billion people on the planet are using their phone purely to promote good: I feel safer already.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm rewriting the question for clarity:

"Should Apple, Microsoft or any other company put unlock "backdoor" software onto mobiles, devices and communication software which allows the U.S. or China or Russia or any other regime, oligarch, dictator or anyone else with money or political leverage to access an individual's private communications, thoughts, finances, photos and data; or even access this and process this information en masse? "

No.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I'm rewriting the question for clarity:

Should Apple, Microsoft or any other company put unlock "backdoor" software onto mobiles, devices and communication software which allows the U.S. or China or Russia or any other regime, oligarch, dictator or anyone else with money or political leverage to access an individual's private communications, thoughts, finances, photos and data; or even access this and process this information en masse?

No. "

Basically it's not about terrorism. It's about basic freedoms. And terrorism shouldn't be used as an excuse to erode them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London

"From my understanding the problem isn't with it being used on a terrorists phone, but with the wider implications of it.

What's to stop anyone then using the software to access your phone, get all your details off it, then its a possible case of identity theft, actually theft of your money etc etc.

Don't get me wrong that's taking it to extremes but its all highly possible, look at north Korea, or the great firewall of China for examples.

Could you please stop looking at the bigger picture! Tut!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen

Apparently, Apple has acknowledged that it can de-crypt it's phones. Most likely, they hold master encryption keys which they produced when they developed the encryption.

In a previous law suit, it was alleged that they had already decrypted 70 phones at the request of various authorities, since 2008. Apple has not disputed this.

It would be naive to think they do not have master encryption keys, but obviously they would not want these to escape into the wild.

I'm sure they could decrypt the phone without exposing the keys, as has previously been alleged.

I don't have a problem with them decrypting phones on a case by case basis, if just cause can be shown.

So I am left wondering, why, on this occasion, they are refusing. Yes the perp is dead, but there could still be valuable intelligence to be gleaned from his phone.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol

"Some 'intelligence' agency knowing that I am a swinger vs me getting blown up by some Muslim terrorist? Tough call; this will require careful and considered thought"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Apparently, Apple has acknowledged that it can de-crypt it's phones. Most likely, they hold master encryption keys which they produced when they developed the encryption.

In a previous law suit, it was alleged that they had already decrypted 70 phones at the request of various authorities, since 2008. Apple has not disputed this.

It would be naive to think they do not have master encryption keys, but obviously they would not want these to escape into the wild.

I'm sure they could decrypt the phone without exposing the keys, as has previously been alleged.

I don't have a problem with them decrypting phones on a case by case basis, if just cause can be shown.

So I am left wondering, why, on this occasion, they are refusing. Yes the perp is dead, but there could still be valuable intelligence to be gleaned from his phone."

That's based on phones prior to 2014, they changed encrypition protocal since then and have stated that even they cant break it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen

That's based on phones prior to 2014, they changed encrypition protocal since then and have stated that even they cant break it"

Ah, wasn't aware they changed the encryption protocol.

But then that begs the question, if it's not possible for them to do it, why is it even an issue? They can't reasonably be expected to do something that is impossible.

As I said, it would be naive to think that they didn't hold master encryption keys.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What they want done isn't actual decryption of the iPhone. They want a firmware made that doesn't include the automatic feature that the data is wiped after inputting the PIN incorrectly 10 times.

That gives them unlimited attempts to access the phone without it becoming bricked. It's a brute force approach to the problem but would still work.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford

"How would they know who's a terrorist?

Don't have to know just think they are but Apple wont play ball

Good.

And if they were terrorist and access denied?

Tough.

it's another small chip away from peoples civil liberties and right to privacy.

What next? Allow access to everybodys phone because after all..anyone COULD be up to anything.

"
. In this case the terrorist is dead , so access is needed to his phone to check contacts etc .

I put the prevention of terrorism a long way ahead of my personal privacy .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford

"Some 'intelligence' agency knowing that I am a swinger vs me getting blown up by some Muslim terrorist? Tough call; this will require careful and considered thought

When the chance of you 'getting blown up by some Muslim terrorist' is practically nil, and seeing as the relevant security agencies already have access to your phone contents as and when they need it (it's the FBI who are requesting this, not the CIA - they don't need to), unsurprisingly this requires much more careful and considered thought than you would give it."
. The risk may be low , but we need to do all we can to prevent terrorism and give the security forces out full CO operation . The risk is only low because our security forces and government are actively monitoring these terrorists and putting our safety first .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen

"What they want done isn't actual decryption of the iPhone. They want a firmware made that doesn't include the automatic feature that the data is wiped after inputting the PIN incorrectly 10 times.

That gives them unlimited attempts to access the phone without it becoming bricked. It's a brute force approach to the problem but would still work."

Ok, understand - yes that would be a problem.

I can see both sides of the issue.

The solution would be to let apple brute force the phone for the FBI and then remove the firmware before handing it over.

I would have thought it not beyond the capabilities of the security services to reverse engineer their own firmware - they might have to trash a few iphones in testing it, but obviously it would be quicker and easier for apple to do it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What they want done isn't actual decryption of the iPhone. They want a firmware made that doesn't include the automatic feature that the data is wiped after inputting the PIN incorrectly 10 times.

That gives them unlimited attempts to access the phone without it becoming bricked. It's a brute force approach to the problem but would still work.

Ok, understand - yes that would be a problem.

I can see both sides of the issue.

The solution would be to let apple brute force the phone for the FBI and then remove the firmware before handing it over.

The problem getting Apple to do it is that once the firmware is created, it's there and can't be undone. Whilst currently code is protected under freedom of speech in the US, you can bet one of the alphabet agency's will want it and go through all the hoops to get it.

That's without taking into account that you have to have complete 100% trust in every single Apple employee involved otherwise a copy could escape.

Then you have outside people trying to hack in for the software

Etc etc

Extremes i know. But all still possible, unfortunately

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen

yes, but securing the firmware is only the same as securing master encryption keys, and as I said, the security services could probably develop their own firmware to override the 10 pin attempts and you're out.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abphil OP Man
over a year ago

sheffield

It was just really a yes or no question a bit like;

He is absolutely guilty there is no chance of him being innocent he admited he did it etc and god broke his silence and said yes it was him.

Would you give him the death penalty.

Or so i thought.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If there is evidence that there is a threat to human life than they should have access to it. They should lose there rights of privacy as soon as they terrorise/intimadate another country's normal way of life for there own political/religious gain.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Some scumbags on here protecting the rights of terrorists! How pathetic. Probably just chavs who should be in prison. Look like them anyway."

Where did that come from?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otblondewife hornyMrCouple
over a year ago

Cambuslang

"How would they know who's a terrorist? "

And

"One man's terrorist....."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abphil OP Man
over a year ago

sheffield

"How would they know who's a terrorist?

And

"One man's terrorist.....""

Is another mans death

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"How would they know who's a terrorist?

And

"One man's terrorist.....""

Is another man's Nelson Mandela.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Unlock terrorist phones, would it bother you. It wouldn't bother me."

Yes they should. It wouldn't bother me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abphil OP Man
over a year ago

sheffield

"Unlock terrorist phones, would it bother you. It wouldn't bother me.

Yes they should. It wouldn't bother me."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abphil OP Man
over a year ago

sheffield

"How would they know who's a terrorist?

And

"One man's terrorist....."

Is another man's Nelson Mandela."

Ooh which other world wide terrorist could be added?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The only people that should be bothered is terrorists or people that have something incriminating on there phone so what does it matter to the average Joe.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No. Because it will be a very small amount of time before those with less than honest intentions get their hands on the technology. I don't want those people to be able to unlock my phone.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ahhhh. ..the vague and tiny threat of terrorism...let's all give up our civil liberties

fear really is an excellent tool for control..people freely willing and happy to see their freedoms eroded for nothing very specific at all.

I for one don't want that kind of precedent being set.

It'll just get used with less and less reason until it eventually becomes commonplace to snoop peoples phones for less and less reason.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"No. Because it will be a very small amount of time before those with less than honest intentions get their hands on the technology. I don't want those people to be able to unlock my phone."

I would even hazard to say that in the 'right' hands it will eventually come to be used less than honestly.

People just need to be told they should be scared and a surprising amount of people will freely give up their own liberties as shown by this thread.

Once the tools are there those who control them they just need to drip feed another 'reason ' to people as to why it should be used this time...and folk will buy it too.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"How would they know who's a terrorist?

And

"One man's terrorist....."

Is another man's Nelson Mandela.

Ooh which other world wide terrorist could be added?"

Perhaps a Chinese artist?

It is too easy to curtail civil liberties by the "If you are innocent, you have nothing to fear," argument.

Once a government gains a power in "time of need," it rarely gives it back.

You may have faith in the powers that be. Personally, I prefer to protect my privacy as best I can.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol

"The only people that should be bothered is terrorists or people that have something incriminating on there phone so what does it matter to the average Joe.

Here is a person without the foresight to realise that once security on a phone is broken by anyone for any reason, it becomes innately less secure and open to criminal abuse.

So what you should really be saying is that you should only be bothered if you object to criminals having access to the contents of your phone.

So, on that basis, I'm bothered. You may be happy for criminals to be able to root around in the personal information you keep on your phone - but anyone sensible will not be.

And once again, this has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. The agencies tasked with that have FULL access to your phone's contents ALREADY.

And still terrorist attacks happen.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"No. Because it will be a very small amount of time before those with less than honest intentions get their hands on the technology. I don't want those people to be able to unlock my phone.

I would even hazard to say that in the 'right' hands it will eventually come to be used less than honestly.

People just need to be told they should be scared and a surprising amount of people will freely give up their own liberties as shown by this thread.

Once the tools are there those who control them they just need to drip feed another 'reason ' to people as to why it should be used this time...and folk will buy it too. "

I was including the 'right' hands in the 'wrong' hands statement.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otblondewife hornyMrCouple
over a year ago

Cambuslang

The if you have nothing to hide argument doesn't hold up.

Tell that to young football fans in Scotland who get followed and filmed by police. Then when they go on holiday get constantly stopped and questioned for hours. These are not casuals btw. Just groups of fans who protest against heavy handed policing. Major abuse of power!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abphil OP Man
over a year ago

sheffield

"How would they know who's a terrorist?

And

"One man's terrorist....."

Is another man's Nelson Mandela.

Ooh which other world wide terrorist could be added?

Perhaps a Chinese artist?

It is too easy to curtail civil liberties by the "If you are innocent, you have nothing to fear," argument.

Once a government gains a power in "time of need," it rarely gives it back.

You may have faith in the powers that be. Personally, I prefer to protect my privacy as best I can."

Get rid of anything hi tech maybe?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"How would they know who's a terrorist?

And

"One man's terrorist....."

Is another man's Nelson Mandela.

Ooh which other world wide terrorist could be added?

Perhaps a Chinese artist?

It is too easy to curtail civil liberties by the "If you are innocent, you have nothing to fear," argument.

Once a government gains a power in "time of need," it rarely gives it back.

You may have faith in the powers that be. Personally, I prefer to protect my privacy as best I can.

Get rid of anything hi tech maybe?"

No. I don't want a goverment-appointed snooper going through my underwear drawer, either.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge

"If there is evidence that there is a threat to human life than they should have access to it. They should lose there rights of privacy as soon as they terrorise/intimadate another country's normal way of life for there own political/religious gain. "
and who provides the "evidence " of this terooroist activitey our "security services " that found the birmingham six or the guildford four " ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford

"Ahhhh. ..the vague and tiny threat of terrorism...let's all give up our civil liberties

fear really is an excellent tool for control..people freely willing and happy to see their freedoms eroded for nothing very specific at all.

I for one don't want that kind of precedent being set.

It'll just get used with less and less reason until it eventually becomes commonplace to snoop peoples phones for less and less reason.

"
. Why would anyone wish to scoop on anyone's phone unless they had valid reasons for doing so. The resources of the security services and police are limited . I do not think that they will be analysing someone's phone out of idol curiousity .

The current terrorism threat is probably the most dangerous that we have ever encountered and I value my life a lot more than civil liberties .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford

"If there is evidence that there is a threat to human life than they should have access to it. They should lose there rights of privacy as soon as they terrorise/intimadate another country's normal way of life for there own political/religious gain. and who provides the "evidence " of this terooroist activitey our "security services " that found the birmingham six or the guildford four " ?"
. They are very sad cases where forensic science was fatally flawed. Hopefully these type of convictions with flawed forensic evidence could not happy again .

However we face a really serious threat in the UK and must use all resources available to prevent it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obsrocketMan
over a year ago

Loughborough

As I understand it there was a shooting incident and people were killed. The FBI have the I Phone of one of the attackers. I assume the FBI want to be able to access the phone records to find out if the attackers worked alone or had assistance from others. Apple by not helping the FBI could potentially allow other terrorists to remain free and kill others, personally I'm all for the authorities being able to obtain information if a crime has been committed. Especially if it prevents further killings.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ethics and counter terrorism dont really mix.Does the hacking of the phone cause issues, does it open up a world where the government looks inside your phone if they wanted to? possibly. However, if you dont do anything wrong, what have you really got to worry about? Even if the government bulk collected all of our data, no one would ever be able to look throught the quantity produced. I would rather the government have the ability to hack every iphone and save one life than be bothered about people seeing my phone contents.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"As I understand it there was a shooting incident and people were killed. The FBI have the I Phone of one of the attackers. I assume the FBI want to be able to access the phone records to find out if the attackers worked alone or had assistance from others. Apple by not helping the FBI could potentially allow other terrorists to remain free and kill others, personally I'm all for the authorities being able to obtain information if a crime has been committed. Especially if it prevents further killings."

You misunderstand.

Apple can only access the phone of the shooters by building a back door into the operating system (which runs on all iPhones), which they will then load onto the phone. They could use this back door to access the iphone. Which all sounds fine.

Until you consider that this backdoor will then exist. The FBI could use it on any other phone they have. And anyone else could then attempt to use this backdoor for their own good.

If apple remove the 10x passcode attempt limit for example, anyone could then try and brute force any phone that they have in their possession. It would take less than an hour using a good computer program.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Ahhhh. ..the vague and tiny threat of terrorism...let's all give up our civil liberties

fear really is an excellent tool for control..people freely willing and happy to see their freedoms eroded for nothing very specific at all.

I for one don't want that kind of precedent being set.

It'll just get used with less and less reason until it eventually becomes commonplace to snoop peoples phones for less and less reason.

. Why would anyone wish to scoop on anyone's phone unless they had valid reasons for doing so. The resources of the security services and police are limited . I do not think that they will be analysing someone's phone out of idol curiousity .

The current terrorism threat is probably the most dangerous that we have ever encountered and I value my life a lot more than civil liberties ."

My heroes are those who have valued civil liberties above their lives.

You do know that Emily was a terrorist?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enard ArgenteMan
over a year ago

London and France

What makes you think that you need Apple to unlock a phone?

Any phone can be unlocked . ( and located).

Remotely.

The only ones that are difficult ( but not impossible) are blackberries.

However, if someone uses a "third party" messaging system, with good encryption ( such as "Telegraph", or a bespoke encrypted system) it takes a bit longer.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What makes you think that you need Apple to unlock a phone?

Any phone can be unlocked . ( and located).

Remotely.

The only ones that are difficult ( but not impossible) are blackberries.

However, if someone uses a "third party" messaging system, with good encryption ( such as "Telegraph", or a bespoke encrypted system) it takes a bit longer."

Well, that is not entirely correct. Even Mr MacAffee has stated that it would take him at least three days to unlock the iPhone - and he is fairly good at that security stuff.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

the other point being made is that apple as a us company can be "lent" on and they can be made to do this..... whereas if the person had a samsung phone.... they would not have this recourse of action.......

when does privacy end... they can already find out what numbers were called from the phone, they can listen into them... they know what texts were sent.... so how much more is going to be revealed by the phone itself....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enard ArgenteMan
over a year ago

London and France

"What makes you think that you need Apple to unlock a phone?

Any phone can be unlocked . ( and located).

Remotely.

The only ones that are difficult ( but not impossible) are blackberries.

However, if someone uses a "third party" messaging system, with good encryption ( such as "Telegraph", or a bespoke encrypted system) it takes a bit longer.

Well, that is not entirely correct. Even Mr MacAffee has stated that it would take him at least three days to unlock the iPhone - and he is fairly good at that security stuff."

That's what he might say;

( he has to justify making his money)

The reality is something like 3 minutes, if you know which phone you are targeting, the thing that takes time is choosing which phone, where.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What makes you think that you need Apple to unlock a phone?

Any phone can be unlocked . ( and located).

Remotely.

The only ones that are difficult ( but not impossible) are blackberries.

However, if someone uses a "third party" messaging system, with good encryption ( such as "Telegraph", or a bespoke encrypted system) it takes a bit longer.

Well, that is not entirely correct. Even Mr MacAffee has stated that it would take him at least three days to unlock the iPhone - and he is fairly good at that security stuff.

That's what he might say;

( he has to justify making his money)

The reality is something like 3 minutes, if you know which phone you are targeting, the thing that takes time is choosing which phone, where. "

Perhaps you should offer your services to the FBI?

I do appreciate that Apple have their own interests to protect, but their current stance is that it might be an impossible task.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The only people that should be bothered is terrorists or people that have something incriminating on there phone so what does it matter to the average Joe.

Here is a person without the foresight to realise that once security on a phone is broken by anyone for any reason, it becomes innately less secure and open to criminal abuse.

So what you should really be saying is that you should only be bothered if you object to criminals having access to the contents of your phone.

So, on that basis, I'm bothered. You may be happy for criminals to be able to root around in the personal information you keep on your phone - but anyone sensible will not be.

And once again, this has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. The agencies tasked with that have FULL access to your phone's contents ALREADY.

And still terrorist attacks happen.

Actually I don't have anything on my phone that I woukd be worried about people getting a hold of.

Obviously once one person can access the info people with undesirable intentions would be able to aswell.

It is no different to your laptop where people could download info off of it just by being in the vicinity of you. If you have nothing to hide then you shoukdnt be bothered by it.

The iPhone that this refers to belongs to some one that has been caught red handed in sighting terror to the public and causing a security threat to the country so why shouldn't they be able to access the info on his phone. Even if it only Leads to one extra person being under servailance to ensure they aren't planning a terrorist attacks then surely that is a worth while price to pay. Just think of the destruction and hurt that one person could cause with the right equipment.

If this extra info that coukd be gained from this phone protects even one innocent persons life then to me it is worth it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abphil OP Man
over a year ago

sheffield

"Ahhhh. ..the vague and tiny threat of terrorism...let's all give up our civil liberties

fear really is an excellent tool for control..people freely willing and happy to see their freedoms eroded for nothing very specific at all.

I for one don't want that kind of precedent being set.

It'll just get used with less and less reason until it eventually becomes commonplace to snoop peoples phones for less and less reason.

The current terrorism threat is probably the most dangerous that we have ever encountered and I value my life a lot more than civil liberties .

My heroes are those who have valued civil liberties above their lives.

You do know that Emily was a terrorist? "

Yes of course freedom fighters of course are different

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen

It's not so much about this phone, which I doubt anyone would have a problem with the FBI accessing.

If Apple develop an IOS patch to bypass the 10 attempts and the phone is bricked, then if this patch escapes into the wild, every iphone is compromised.

But it gets worse, it's not just the phone contents, it's all your cloud stuff, bank accounts, documents etc.

It's a bit like saying, we need to develop a master key, that if anyone gets a hold of a copy, they could hack all your bank account and personal details if you use apple devices and cloud services.

How long do you suppose such a key would remain out of the hands of criminals, let alone the government agencies.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol

"The only people that should be bothered is terrorists or people that have something incriminating on there phone so what does it matter to the average Joe.

Here is a person without the foresight to realise that once security on a phone is broken by anyone for any reason, it becomes innately less secure and open to criminal abuse.

So what you should really be saying is that you should only be bothered if you object to criminals having access to the contents of your phone.

So, on that basis, I'm bothered. You may be happy for criminals to be able to root around in the personal information you keep on your phone - but anyone sensible will not be.

And once again, this has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. The agencies tasked with that have FULL access to your phone's contents ALREADY.

And still terrorist attacks happen.

Actually I don't have anything on my phone that I woukd be worried about people getting a hold of.

Obviously once one person can access the info people with undesirable intentions would be able to aswell.

It is no different to your laptop where people could download info off of it just by being in the vicinity of you. If you have nothing to hide then you shoukdnt be bothered by it.

If this extra info that coukd be gained from this phone protects even one innocent persons life then to me it is worth it. "

You haven't made any financial transactions through your phone? You don't purchase anything through it? You don't store any passwords or use anything that requires passwords through it?

If that's the case, you probably aren't using a smartphone anyway, so your opinion is irrelevant. For the 99% of us who use s smartphone normally, this is a big issue.

And I am happy to risk the minuscule chance of one innocent life being list against the privacy of anyone on Earth using an Apple phone.

There is just as much of a justification for the police having a set of keys to your house and being able to come in and out of your home every day as they please, because it might save one life. If you've got nothing to hide, then you will be happy for them to do that.

If you aren't, then you have to reconsider your stance, because it's exactly the same thing.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Ahhhh. ..the vague and tiny threat of terrorism...let's all give up our civil liberties

fear really is an excellent tool for control..people freely willing and happy to see their freedoms eroded for nothing very specific at all.

I for one don't want that kind of precedent being set.

It'll just get used with less and less reason until it eventually becomes commonplace to snoop peoples phones for less and less reason.

The current terrorism threat is probably the most dangerous that we have ever encountered and I value my life a lot more than civil liberties .

My heroes are those who have valued civil liberties above their lives.

You do know that Emily was a terrorist?

Yes of course freedom fighters of course are different"

Was that sarcastic? I wasn't sure. If it was, then I question your previous responses. If it wasn't, then I question your previous responses.

Mandela was a terrorist (allegedly). So was Ms Pankhurst.

Civil liberties are more important than accessing a dead person's iPhone.

Do you recall our government asking to extend the time for detention for suspected terrorists? Theresa May had to admit that no one had yet been held for the current maximum time yet it was critical to our security.

We do need a balance. It should not be a balance in favour of the state.

Dixon of Dock Green is a lovely chap. Give him an app to your iPhone and a right to shoot on sight and he might not be quite so lovely.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The only people that should be bothered is terrorists or people that have something incriminating on there phone so what does it matter to the average Joe.

Here is a person without the foresight to realise that once security on a phone is broken by anyone for any reason, it becomes innately less secure and open to criminal abuse.

So what you should really be saying is that you should only be bothered if you object to criminals having access to the contents of your phone.

So, on that basis, I'm bothered. You may be happy for criminals to be able to root around in the personal information you keep on your phone - but anyone sensible will not be.

And once again, this has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. The agencies tasked with that have FULL access to your phone's contents ALREADY.

And still terrorist attacks happen.

Actually I don't have anything on my phone that I woukd be worried about people getting a hold of.

Obviously once one person can access the info people with undesirable intentions would be able to aswell.

It is no different to your laptop where people could download info off of it just by being in the vicinity of you. If you have nothing to hide then you shoukdnt be bothered by it.

If this extra info that coukd be gained from this phone protects even one innocent persons life then to me it is worth it.

You haven't made any financial transactions through your phone? You don't purchase anything through it? You don't store any passwords or use anything that requires passwords through it?

If that's the case, you probably aren't using a smartphone anyway, so your opinion is irrelevant. For the 99% of us who use s smartphone normally, this is a big issue.

And I am happy to risk the minuscule chance of one innocent life being list against the privacy of anyone on Earth using an Apple phone.

If you aren't, then you have to reconsider your stance, because it's exactly the same thing."

Yes I have used my phone for purchases but I use a top up debit card for any transactions over the Internet to ensure my bank details can't be used by anyone else.

No passwords are stored on my phone either. Any passwords are remembered by myself rather than having my phone store them. What's the point in having a password if your going to have an electronic device permanently store it. There isn't!!

Yes I am using smart phone btw I just understand what measures need to be taking to ensure my important info can't be accessed by anyone other than myself.

All your comment about one life shows is that your self centred. What if that person was a loved one or family member of yours. I don't think you would still think the same.

What if this was before the London bombings and they managed to get the info from his phone to stop that horrific act from happening. All those lives would of been saved. All those family's wouldn't of been ripped apart and devistated because of it.

Anything to stop or reduce the amount of innocent people from potentially losing there lives can't be a bad thing.