I agree with that... in that case, I don't think that it would be reasonable for the FBI to force the company to make a key - if the company happens to have a key for the door, then I have no problem with forcing them to give it to the FBI, but I don't think it's reasonable or right to force them to create a key (which could potentially be very costly).
There's just one problem, that isn't the argument Apple seems to be using - they are saying they won't make a key because it would make everyone's door insecure... they aren't saying they can't do it, or that it's an unreasonable request that would be too costly to comply with. On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Travis Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > It would be like asking the manufacturer of the lock on your door to your > house to make a key to let the FBI into your house. Why doesn't the FBI > just break the door down?? They are claiming they can't, because the door > is too big. I don't think it's Apple's responsibility to make a key to > allow them in... if the FBI can get in on their own, then great. > > The latest news is now the code was actually changed several hours AFTER > the government had the phone in their possession... so now what does that > say? Is the FBI just trying to get Apple to write this code so they can > have it for other phones?? > > Travis > > > On 2/19/2016 6:01 PM, Chuck McCown wrote: > > If I have a business in Tooele, Utah, I have to have �Knox Box� on the > building with a key in it for the building.� The fire department has a > key for all the knox boxes.� Is that much more invasive than unlocking > your phone?� Nobody is screaming about that.� Happens in many > cities.� > � > If you have windows in your house, anyone� can punch one out and get > into your� house.� But� you all� have windows.� > � > Cops can pull you over with probable cause now.� > � > Are you suggesting that if the code gets released in the wild cops� are > going to engage in an illegal search using this tool?� If they are going > to mess with you they will simply plant something on you.� > � > If this code gets into the wild and is abused in this nature, abut 50 > milliseconds later there will be a new version of iOS that will not work > with it.� > � > So, firemen can be trusted, right?� More than the NSA?� Drunken > fireman buddy with a cop that wants to use the knox box key can be > trusted?� > � > The IRS can put all my banking and financial in the cloud now as can my > bank.� A disgruntled employee is all it would take.� The bank and the > IRS are more trustworthy than the NSA? > � > I don�t have any family pictures that I would be worried if they got > published.�� I am just not catching this paranoid cynicism that seems > to be attached to this issue.� > � > *From:* Travis Johnson <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 5:36 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT Apple > � > What if this path continues, and in the future the police officer that > just pulled you over for speeding, suspects you might be up to something > else... so he then takes your phone, unlocks it from his car, downloads > everything to his laptop, and then sends it off to be inspected? Do you > want all your private information (banking, financial, family pictures, > etc.) now "in the cloud" for anyone with access to see? > > Travis > > On 2/19/2016 5:23 PM, <[email protected]>[email protected] wrote: > > What is wrong with the FBI having this ability?� How does that have a > negative impact on me? > I could argue that it has a positive benefit to the nation.� > � > *From:* Travis Johnson <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 5:15 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT Apple > � > I don't think that's the case.... do you really see the FBI turning the > phone over to Apple? What happens if Apple comes back a week later and says > "oops, sorry... we nuked it". The FBI wants Apple to write a new IOS > version that will not erase the phone after 10 attempts at the login code. > Then the FBI would load that onto the phone, and attempt to brute force the > phone combo. > > At that point, the FBI could do that to any phone in the future as well. > > Apple is doing the right thing here. > > Travis > > > On 2/19/2016 4:05 PM, George Skorup wrote: > > As I understand it, that is exactly what the gov is asking them for. FBI > wants Apple to decrypt and send over the data. Nothing more. No "software > on every phone" to do this. Just that ONE phone. Get the data, then > incinerate the device. > > On 2/19/2016 4:59 PM, Nate Burke wrote: > > But they're not actually asking for a back door, are they?� They're just > saying 'hey, we have this physical device, can we give it to you, and you > get us the data off of it'?� I've got to think that the Engineers at > apple have a way to do this thought up.� > > Although at the same time, If they're trying to unlock the phone, couldn't > the Gov't with it's vast resources, just simply make a bit by bit copy of > the flash chip in the phone and just go through and try every unlock code? > > On 2/19/2016 4:54 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: > > Yup. Google agrees as well. > On Feb 19, 2016 4:52 PM, "Sam Lambie" < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Screw the govt. Apple is doing entirely doing the right thing. >> � >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Nate Burke < <[email protected]> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> My Boss and I just had a discussion about this, he think that Cook >>> should be in Jail for failing to comply with the order.� >>> � >>> On 2/19/2016 4:46 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: >>> >>> ... What? >>> >>> Seriously? >>> On Feb 19, 2016 4:44 PM, < <[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Treason? >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> *Sam Lambie* >> Taosnet Wireless Tech. >> 575-758-7598 Office >> www.Taosnet.com <http://www.newmex.com> >> > > > > > >
