Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg side with FBI in IPhone backdoor case

[Spongy141]

1 hour ago, Sunshine1868 said:

^FTFY

 

They are both dead.

Okay well I was wrong about that, but we are supposed to assume that no one else was aiding them? They killed 14 people on their own, either way my original point is still valid, if anyone linked to the original terrorists were to attack again then Apple will be who everyone is going to blame. IMO Apple should not have the option to do what they are doing, I see them as aiding terrorists right now, they CAN simply and very easily unlock the phone for the F.B.I. and refusing to is just aiding whoever else is involved with the terrorists.

 

(Me complaining about people who think they need more privacy)

There are over 300 million US citizens, are people honestly that dumb to think that they have no privacy? There is no fucking way the NSA or FBI could possibly monitor every citizen so closely that they know exactly what everyone is doing at once, sure they could do a few thousand at once maybe, but you only get monitored if you get flagged many times, normal citizens, which are the ones complaining the most are NOT the ones being monitored, why is this so hard to understand for people, your privacy is basically still there, allowing the F.B.I. to unlock iPhone's will just make it easier to catch the people that might kill you, I'd rather give up some privacy, that basically will still be there anyways to help catch more criminals, terrorist, ect.

[Blade of Grass]

On 2/24/2016 at 4:13 PM, GoodBytes said:

Yes, and? I was corrected here. iOS 7 and earlier had a master key, now iOS 8 doesn't (at least if Apple is to be believed. But I choose to believe that they do a master key, all non-open source encryption by a non-security company, have a master key, for the "just in case". But I fine, I'll apply the benefit of the doubt).

I highly doubt they're lying. It's one thing to misrepresent a product/lie to the public, but you can be held in contempt of court if you lie to a judge, and the ramifications of it are severe. 

On 2/24/2016 at 4:49 PM, GoodBytes said:

The warrant allows the police (and related departments such as the FBI), to go to your home go through all your stuff, take what they want, access what they want, and ask you for all passwords. Refusing will result in you being charged for obstructing of justice (that is why criminals, go "Oh I forgot my password that I enter daily on my computer, LOLz!", to not have that additional charge put on them.

This actually isn't true. You cannot be compelled to testify against yourself, or to aid the police in any way. 

USA

Quote

You do not have to hand over your encryption keys or passwords to law enforcement.

The Fifth Amendment protects you from being forced to give the government self-incriminating testimony. Courts have generally accepted that telling the government a password or encryption key is “testimony.” A police officer cannot force or threaten you into giving up your password or unlocking your electronic devices. However, a judge or a grand jury may be able to force you to decrypt your devices in some circumstances.

https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights#17

Canada

Canadian courts have similar precedent as the American ones, s. 11 (c) of the Charter protects you from being compelled to testify against yourself. 

In addition, we are afforded even more privacy in regards to our personal devices. 

If, given your scenario, the police have a warrant to search your house and they find that you have a device that is password protected they would actually have to go and get another warrant specifically for the device (see R. v. Little) to be able to attempt to get the data off of it. 

Quote

[2]   It is difficult to imagine a search more intrusive, extensive, or invasive of one's privacy than the search and seizure of a personal computer. 

[106]   It is therefore difficult to conceive a s. 8 breach with a greater impact on the Charter-protected privacy interests of the accused than occurred in this case.

R. v. Morelli, [2010] 1 SCR 253, 2010 SCC 8 (CanLII)

Quote

[75] If the cellphone had been password protected or otherwise "locked" to users other than the appellant, it would not have been appropriate to take steps to open the cellphone and examine its contents without first obtaining a search warrant.
R. v. Fearon, 2013 ONCA 106 (CanLII)

 

[GoodBytes]

Oh, I stand corrected. Thanks Blade, was genuinely very informative.

[corsairian]

It seema like The FBI shot themselves in the foot by changing the password to the iphone, otherwise they would of had their access to "this one" device.