BlackBerry bashes Apple for protecting criminals’ privacy

[cesrai]

pot calling kettle black

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

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

just fuck off, BlackBerry!

What's your point ?

[zacRupnow]

Privacy is the greater good, not self interest by Apple.

[BobbyG2]

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

You get a warrant to search a suspects property. You don't get a warrant to get the maker of said property to break into the property for you.

[patrick3027]

I'm on Apple's side here. Finally a company that cares about my privacy.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

I'm on Apple's side here. Finally a company that cares about my privacy.

 

We're not talking about ​your privacy. We're talking about the whether or not a manufacturer should be obligated to unlock a device of a person that is subject to a warrant.

[patrick3027]

We're not talking about ​your privacy. We're talking about the whether or not a manufacturer should be obligated to unlock a device of a person that is subject to a warrant.

Force the person to unlock his phone or something, I don't care.

The FBI has gone too far with the snooping, I'm glad it's coming back at them.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

Force the person to unlock his phone or something, I don't care.

The FBI has gone too far with the snooping, I'm glad it's coming back at them.

 

At least in Canada, that will infringe on Section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."

 

So you can't force people to unlock their phones, it's not as simple as it may seem. They can refuse and what are you going to do? Threaten with force? Throw a tantrum until they do it? That's why warrants are issued and the handset manufacturer is brought in to unlock the phone. However, Apple is not budging claiming it is to "protect" the privacy of the accused, basically obstructing justice. You protect the privacy of the ones who are innocent and by no means should be subjected to unreasonable search or seizure, but for the ones who are issued a warrant, there is no reason to protect their privacy. 

 

Same can be said in the real world, you are by all means protected from search by the state (represented by the police) without a warrant. If a warrant is issued, then it does not infringe your right. Section 8 of Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

[MrDynamicMan]

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 the general public?

ftfy

[sof006]

We wouldn't have this issue if the internet didn't exist... Vote trump! J/k

[That Norwegian Guy]

Police have been around for centuries without needing to access personal data on devices like these.

 

Now Police wants a shortcut to not do their actual job, to save time and money, just because they magically assume they have a right to.

 

Who says they do?

[Whiskers]

I completely agree with Apple.

If they have the ability to unlock a bad guy's phone, they have the ability to unlock a good guy's phone. They would have the ability to access every device and consequently hand over the data of every device. No company, and certainly no government, can be trusted with such a position of absolute power.

If only the bad guys could be targeted, then having a backdoor to provide access to their data would be a good idea. But we do not live in such a world.

[asim1999]

Ironic, considering that BlackBerry themselves boast about how 'secure' they are 

[LAwLz]

To everyone saying that there must be a way to gain access to private information if the investigator/police/whoever has a warrant, think of the implications.
The ONLY way for such a system to work is if there is a backdoor in the encryption. Having a backdoor in encryption is a terrible idea because it fundamentally makes the system insecure. If Apple has access to it then it also means that there is the possibility that someone that is not Apple also has access to it. A third party such as a hacker could gain access to the same backdoor as Apple uses either by finding it for him/herself, or by someone at Apple leaking it.
So that's the first thing that's wrong with wanting a backdoor. It makes the entire system untrustworthy.
 
The other problem is the one @Decon talked about. If you have a backdoor and use it in for example the US to fight crimes, then you also need to allow other countries to use the same backdoor to fight "crimes" in their countries. In India it is punishable by imprisonment to be homosexual. That means that if Apple has to comply with someone in the US investigating a murder, Apple must also comply with someone in India investigating someone who is suspected for being gay. The prosecutor in India would be allowed to gain access to all the info on the phone. Does that sound like a good idea? I don't think so. There are countries where it is punishable by death as well. So a prosecutor could gain access to a homosexual's phone, find a bunch of messages and web history with gay content, and then have that person killed for it.
 
And before you say that Apple should not help those countries, sorry but Apple is selling products in more countries than the US and therefore has to follow the laws in those countries. There is also the problem that our idea of what is right and wrong differs from other peoples' ideas, and there is not really any way of proving that either side is right/wrong.

There sadly is no possible way to create a middle ground.

 

 

Apple is doing the right thing.

[DarkBlade2117]

If Apple cares so much about privacy:

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

Jennifer Lawrence is the best, best motivator for reading a book.

[DarkBlade2117]

Force the person to unlock his phone or something, I don't care.

The FBI has gone too far with the snooping, I'm glad it's coming back at them.

Lol, The FBI will get the information one way or another. Your telling me, if a homicide were to happen and they had enough evidence to prove it was a specific human, but to prove it they needed to get into his phone, you'd say no? What if it was someone who got sexual releases from brutally murdering, torturing, choking and plenty other ways? Karma can be a bitch and for all you know your family can be next.

[DarkBlade2117]

Ironic, considering that BlackBerry themselves boast about how 'secure' they are

There is a difference from being secure from say hackers and obstructing the catching a criminal.

[Tomsen]

[BobbyG2]

Alright, everyone posting that security is more important than privacy, do the following:

Post your text history

Post your commute history since when you first got your phone

Post all pictures on your phone

Post your Web history

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, right?

[Godlygamer23]

They're a company and their only interest is money and reputation. It's just that. They don't care about justice.

[Whiskers]

Of course they'll have the ability to unlock a good guys phone, but if you're worried about someone snooping around your personal data, then you clearly have something to hide. Don't post anything on the internet or technology that you don't want the whole world to see. Since the NSA/ Edward Snowden scandal, people have way over reacted. What the literal fuck would the government want to do with the data of some guy sitting behind a PC doing nothing suspicious?

Do you believe that a government or company can be trusted with access to the personal data of millions of people? Do you believe that they can be trusted to only seek out the data of those who commit crime, only use the data for those who break the law? Do you think that any group of people in this world can be trusted with such an absolute position of power?

We, as citizens of evolved and cultured nations, are supposed to have the right to privacy and free speech. We are supposed to be protected by the legal principle that we are "innocent until proven guilty". When our governments decide that mass-surveillance is an acceptable means to track down those who break the law, they destroy those rights. By surveilling every citizen, they declare that they believe us all to be potentially guilty. No longer are we innocent until proven guilty, instead we are surveilled under the expectation of guilt.

One may think that they are safe after having done nothing legally or morally wrong, but that is because they know what they have done in full detail and have full insight into their own actions and intentions. By searching through your emails, text messages, personal documents and web browsing history a third party will not have such insight and consequently they may well come to an inaccurate conclusion as to your actions or intentions based on circumstantial evidence. No-one is safe from such a system.

[TechGod]

To everyone saying that there must be a way to gain access to private information if the investigator/police/whoever has a warrant, think of the implications.

The ONLY way for such a system to work is if there is a backdoor in the encryption. Having a backdoor in encryption is a terrible idea because it fundamentally makes the system insecure. If Apple has access to it then it also means that there is the possibility that someone that is not Apple also has access to it. A third party such as a hacker could gain access to the same backdoor as Apple uses either by finding it for him/herself, or by someone at Apple leaking it.

So that's the first thing that's wrong with wanting a backdoor. It makes the entire system untrustworthy.

The other problem is the one @Decon talked about. If you have a backdoor and use it in for example the US to fight crimes, then you also need to allow other countries to use the same backdoor to fight "crimes" in their countries. In India it is punishable by imprisonment to be homosexual. That means that if Apple has to comply with someone in the US investigating a murder, Apple must also comply with someone in India investigating someone who is suspected for being gay. The prosecutor in India would be allowed to gain access to all the info on the phone. Does that sound like a good idea? I don't think so. There are countries where it is punishable by death as well. So a prosecutor could gain access to a homosexual's phone, find a bunch of messages and web history with gay content, and then have that person killed for it.

And before you say that Apple should not help those countries, sorry but Apple is selling products in more countries than the US and therefore has to follow the laws in those countries. There is also the problem that our idea of what is right and wrong differs from other peoples' ideas, and there is not really any way of proving that either side is right/wrong.

There sadly is no possible way to create a middle ground.

Apple is doing the right thing.

The whole thing about India, I didn't know that about my own birthplace. Wow. That's disturbing.

[CommandMan7]

About privacy and freedoms -

 

The government has always had the authority to take personal belongings, but under no circumstance should they also gain the power to steal our information and privacy. When that happens, the government may as well own you. Privacy must be protected at all costs, no exceptions. The terrorists want to reduce our freedoms - they want our freedoms and liberties removed, and the government is doing just that, ironically, for the purpose of fighting these terrorists. Sometimes it may take some resolve and perseverance - there will be terrorist attacks. People will die. Places will be destroyed. But that is the cost of freedom - if I were to die right now in some sort of terrorist dirty bomb attack, I would die knowing that I gave my life for the benefit of the freedoms my country provides. It's cowardly - or at the very least, unpatriotic - to sacrifice the freedoms and liberties that our ancestors fought and died to protect for the benefit of a few people. People die - ideas don't. We've played right into the hands of the terrorists ever since 9/11 - we are losing our privacy and freedoms, and yet terrorists have adapted and will continue to operate. Somebody needs to have the balls to say, "Those who attack us - you destroy our objects, you kill our people, but you will never destroy our freedoms. We believe these ideas are greater than any individual object or person, and deserve the utmost protection."

[gonnog]

Blackberry still exists?

[MonkeyFace]

No thank you. We already had something similar in the Patriot Act that was deemed unconstitutional.

[cesrai]

Blackberry still exists?

Nah man it's just a lie.