BlackBerry bashes Apple for protecting criminals’ privacy

[VAkena]

Article Source - Techno Buffalo: http://www.technobuffalo.com/2015/12/17/blackberry-bashes-apple-for-protecting-criminals-privacy/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

 

I stumbled upon this article whilst roaming my Facebook tech news feed. 

 

Opinion: I think if someone is convicted of committing a crime or accused of one, we should have at least some way of delving into personal information on any device they own in order to find out what we need to. Ultimately , to protect the community. I put 'personal' in bold because I want to also establish that this is extremely ethically wrong.

 

Apple puts a big emphasis on user privacy, and most of the time that works out for the best.

 

The article only goes through one scenario, and the CEO of Blackberry, John Chen takes the opportunity to call out Apple on this.

 

Apple also noted that any device running iOS 8 or higher can’t be unlocked by anyone (including Apple) without the owner’s passcode, though in this case the phone was actually running iOS 7.

 

CEO Chen replies with..

We are indeed in a dark place when companies put their reputations above the greater good,

​In conclusion, it's extremely hard to strike a perfect balance between public safety and infringement of personal privacy. 

[elfensky]

Those who give up privacy for protection deserve neither.

 

Then again, I somewhat agree with Blackberry, since access was wanted/granted only AFTER a warrant was received.

 

I will agree with you however, that the fine line between the two is indeed a fine one.

[Enderman]

Those who give up privacy for protection deserve neither.

i agree, but you didn't come up with that sentence

[thekeemo]

Im going to agree with BB

[Atmos]

Those who give up privacy for protection deserve neither.

 

Correction*

Those who forfeit privacy through criminal acts, deserve no protection.

 

Apple needs to hand over data from criminals if supplied with a warrant, that's just that. Just like any court can issue a warrant to search private belongings.

[elfensky]

Those who forfeit privacy through criminal acts, deserve no protection.

 

The actual quote is: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." but eh, who cares. Source

 

[techguru]

apple is totally right on this...no one should have access to your data even if your the worst criminal in history

[Sam Z Man]

If Apple cares so much about privacy:

Who was in possession of all thoes nudes of jennifer lawrence and all thoes other Hollywood stars?

[Atmos]

The actual quote is: ""Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." but eh, who cares.

 

Wasn't trying to provide you with the actual quote...

Just a show that your stance while not wrong, has flaws. And to stand by it means you stand by the statement that no court issued warrants should be upheld. Its the same thing, they were issued warrants for personal information, apple refused. Think of the consequences if you had a warrant pressed against you, and your mother/father refused the police entrance to the property. They'd end up in jail, apple is no different.

 

By committing a criminal act and being sentenced by a court, you are forfeiting your privacy, and freedom.

[Misanthrope]

Yeah, come to us instead we will totally surrender all information to the government that we know cheats by using secret courts to circumvent the legal system, because fuck terrorists!

[elfensky]

Wasn't trying to provide you with the actual quote...

Just a show that your stance while not wrong, has flaws. And to stand by it means you stand by the statement that no court issued warrants should be upheld. Its the same thing, they were issued warrants for personal information, apple refused. Think of the consequences if you had a warrant pressed against you, and your mother/father refused the police entrance to the property. They'd end up in jail, apple is no different.

 

By committing a criminal act and being sentenced by a court, you are forfeiting your privacy, and freedom.

 

Oh I see, I completely misunderstood.

[Atmos]

Oh I see, I completely misunderstood.

 

What im saying is the exact opposite of anarchy. I'm saying that we need laws, and for apple to refuse to adhere to those laws, they need to be penalized just like any other.

Apple was issued warrants for search and seizure of personal property they were in possession of. They refused. They consequently had nothing done against them.

If we compare that to what would happen if a person was issued warrants for search and seizure of personal belongings connected to a crime.

[Joe] was issued warrants for S&S of personal property he was in possession of. [Joe] refused. [Joe] spent the next 6 months in a county jail, and was levied several thousand dollars in fines.

 

When you commit a crime, and are found guilty by a sanctioned court, then you have forfeited your freedom as a citizen, and no longer receive protections of property. Apple has no right to stop any government from fulfilling those warrants.

 

Do you see the difference? Apple, had pretty much nothing done. [Joe] was penalized.

There's no difference between data, and personal belongings, because data is a personal belonging. Apple needs to adhere to the same laws as everyone else when it comes to warrants.

[SansVarnic]

Those who give up privacy for protection deserve neither.

 

Then again, I somewhat agree with Blackberry, since access was wanted/granted only AFTER a warrant was received.

 

I will agree with you however, that the fine line between the two is indeed a fine one.

 

 

i agree, but you didn't come up with that sentence

 

Benjamin Franklin (paraphrased)

[Yoinkerman]

What im saying is the exact opposite of anarchy. I'm saying that we need laws, and for apple to refuse to adhere to those laws, they need to be penalized just like any other.

Apple was issued warrants for search and seizure of personal property they were in possession of. They refused. They consequently had nothing done against them.

If we compare that to what would happen if a person was issued warrants for search and seizure of personal belongings connected to a crime.

[Joe] was issued warrants for S&S of personal property he was in possession of. [Joe] refused. [Joe] spent the next 6 months in a county jail, and was levied several thousand dollars in fines.

 

When you commit a crime, and are found guilty by a sanctioned court, then you have forfeited your freedom as a citizen, and no longer receive protections of property. Apple has no right to stop any government from fulfilling those warrants.

 

Do you see the difference? Apple, had pretty much nothing done. [Joe] was penalized.

There's no difference between data, and personal belongings, because data is a personal belonging. Apple needs to adhere to the same laws as everyone else when it comes to warrants.

 

Honestly with the way things are becoming "crimes" today, I prefer no one can access it.

[Atmos]

Honestly with the way things are becoming "crimes" today, I prefer no one can access it.

 

I can at least agree on that.

However, laws are laws, and until it is changed its our duty to uphold them, and abide by them.

[BobbyG2]

I don't see how's it's right to force Apple, or anyone/company, to assist in police/government affairs.

[Decon]

I can at least agree on that.

However, laws are laws, and until it is changed its our duty to uphold them, and abide by them.

 

 

Oh I see, I completely misunderstood.

 

 

Apple can't break its encryption security for police. While it should be available with a warrant, if Apple makes backdoors to help people with warrants it won't be long before those backdoor's will be used without warrants (or even by 3rd parties).  When you break encryption for one person, you break it for everyone.  With everything, it may seem immediately beneficial, but once you open the door, there's no shutting it. Same applies for freedom of speech, privacy, NSA etc... A smart man counts the all the costs before taking action.

 

and if someone's phone data is the only incriminating evidence the jury should think again before condemning the defendant

[Atmos]

Apple can't break its encryption security for police. While it should be available with a warrant, if Apple makes backdoors to help people with warrants it won't be long before those backdoor's will be used without warrants (or even by 3rd parties).  When you break encryption for one person, you break it for everyone.  With everything, it may seem immediately beneficial, but once you open the door, there's no shutting it. Same applies for freedom of speech, privacy, NSA etc... A smart man counts the all the costs before taking action.

 

and if someone's phone data is the only incriminating evidence the jury should think again before condemning the defendant

 

Apple could 100% break its own encryption. They just don't want to mate. And I never said that the laws work, or are perfect. What I said was that laws are laws, and you must abide by them, apple should be no different than anyone else.

[Decon]

Apple could 100% break its own encryption. They just don't want to mate. And I never said that the laws work, or are perfect. What I said was that laws are laws, and you must abide by them, apple should be no different than anyone else.

I think you missed my point, IF apple uses an algorithm with a master key, it 1. wouldn't be true encryption and 2. it's only a matter of time before either that key is used by people without warrant or by a third party.  If you only have to find one master key, any government/organization/hacker group, could wreck havoc on millions of users unchecked.  Disregarding that, who do you allow to break the encryption?  There are many countries where apple products are used where people could be prosecuted for things we would not agree with (freedom of speech in china for example)  If you break encryption for one government, who do you allow to use the master key(s)? Whose laws does an international corporation follow?  Will apple have to setup courts to decide which law enforcement groups/countries get aide in encryption cracking?  In my opinion it would be the lesser of two evils for apple to keep protecting encryption.  

[zMeul]

pot calling kettle black

BlackBerry just launched the PRIV - that stands for ... privacy

Whether it's your financial reports or your selfies, your data is encrypted by default on PRIV™ by BlackBerry®.

http://us.blackberry.com/campaigns/privacy-matters.html

just fuck off, BlackBerry!

[cesrai]

If Apple cares so much about privacy:

Who was in possession of all thoes nudes of jennifer lawrence and all thoes other Hollywood stars?

It was in the icloud account where they stored their photos.

[Albatross]

I cagree with Apple on this. No one forfeits his privacy just because he committed a crime (the only one I'd be willing to accept is mass murder/terrorism) and asking them to break into a customer's device is bad rep. Furthermore, what sorts of "crimes" warrant the removal of someone's privacy and rights?

 

Get a warrant (and then do it yourself) or you get nothing.

[Nurmi]

Few years ago Obama used himself stripped BlackBerry and I think he gave Merkel same one after the scandal as all of sudden she started using BlackBerry.

Whats this nonsense shift now?

 

BlackBerry Government-Secure Smartphones for $2,770: Why President Obama Still Uses BlackBerry

First Posted: Mar 11, 2014 04:05 PM EDT

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/8683/20140311/blackberry-government-secure-model-2-770-why-president-obama-still.htm

[cesrai]

I cagree with Apple on this. No one forfeits his privacy just because he committed a crime (the only one I'd be willing to accept is mass murder/terrorism) and asking them to break into a customer's device is bad rep. Furthermore, what sorts of "crimes" warrant the removal of someone's privacy and rights?

Get a warrant (and then do it yourself) or you get nothing.

If they has a warrant is it possible that Apple refused to break into user phone ?

[cesrai]

Few years ago Obama used himself stripped BlackBerry and I think he gave Merkel same one after the scandal as all of sudden she started using BlackBerry.

Whats this nonsense shift now?

BlackBerry Government-Secure Smartphones for $2,770: Why President Obama Still Uses BlackBerry

First Posted: Mar 11, 2014 04:05 PM EDT

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/8683/20140311/blackberry-government-secure-model-2-770-why-president-obama-still.htm

Blackberry is still providing privacy and is committed to buy it doesn't extend to criminals.

They also got out of Pakistan because they refused to give the gov a backdoor.