BlackBerry bashes Apple for protecting criminals’ privacy

[TechStyle]

And this is why BlackBerry has turned into a joke.

 

How can a system be secure if there's a backdoor that Apple can just unlock? That makes the system fundamentally unsafe. And as others have mentioned, it's a huge breach of privacy. 

[RagnarokDel]

Those who give up privacy for protection deserve neither.

hmm that's not the sentence.

[Belgarathian]

I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. As soon as you can hand over one person's data - be it for good, or bad - you can hand over everyone's data. 

 

Your device is either secure, or it isn't. It doesn't matter if it's to protect nudes, or messages relating to 9/11. 

[Vanderburg]

If Apple cares so much about privacy:

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

 

 

Oh, I was in possession of them, believe you me.

[StackUnderflow]

Oh please, BES doesn't let foreign governments snoop either, why should Apple, just because it's the US?

 

http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/11/blackberry-says-no-to-pakistani-backdoor-gambit/

 

Disclaimer: I just graduated Waterloo, I know many people who worked (at least as coops) at RIM.

[delanyinspiron6400]

To be honest, I think this is a great stance from Blackberry, as this is never an easy topic to bring up for the people on the internet, as they always seem to cling to "ultimate privacy, no access". 

 

I think, a fair balance should be struck and therefore im completely in line with Blackberry, they recently announced, that they would leave a market (in Pakistan), as they wanted unrestricted access to their servers and their data, which they obviously don't want to give in to, but Apple seems to have no problem with.

 

But to refuse an lawful request in case of a criminal seems to me a completely valid point to give access to. 

 

Go Blackberry

[patrick3027]

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."

This article explains my point of view better than what I could ever do with my crippled English : http://www.xda-developers.com/is-privacy-a-privilege-blackberry-thinks-so/

[Magnificient Potato]

I say make basic default security with a backdoor (it can be made very secure). While there would exist an option to download and get full no backdoor encryption and end-end encrypted communication. 

 

Those who want being anonymous and secure will do additional steps. Yet it would still help in many cases. Even terrorists are stupid enough to use even encrypted communications. 

[typographie]

Lots of comments here talking about a warrant but I don't see anything about a warrant in the article. Just that the individual was a "suspected criminal" with a lot of details missing as to what was suspected and on what legal basis. If there's no search warrant, Apple and BlackBerry should be protecting their users' privacy.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

Lots of comments here talking about a warrant but I don't see anything about a warrant in the article. Just that the individual was a "suspected criminal" with a lot of details missing as to what was suspected and on what legal basis. If there's no search warrant, Apple and BlackBerry should be protecting their users' privacy.

 

I agree; however, if someone is already convicted or charged with a crime, I don't see why a search warrant would not be issued.

[typographie]

I agree; however, if someone is already convicted or charged with a crime, I don't see why a search warrant would not be issued.

 

Again, the terminology the author used was "suspected criminal." If they've been charged with or convicted of a crime, you wouldn't know it from reading the article.

[Admiral Naismith]

[Lethal Seraph]

Warrantless wiretap is a no. Maybe with one, I'm okay with someone's ass is on FBIs radar.