Very, very good, you sum it up, and for my taste you and I agree (that should make the universe feel much better).
In the article it mentions: 74 out of a total of 10,000 cases local prosecutors handle annually that involved unlockable phones. The other 350 million in this country and the billions around the globe that depend on security should not give way to a remote happening, be it ever so horrible and deranged… This is going to be a hard one, we Apple folks have the most to lose as we have the most secure platform. I do feel passionate over letting your voice be heard, let Apple know of your support or lack of, let those that are suppose to represent the will of the people (outmoded ideology) know how you feel. If there is a compromise I feel it should be on a case by case basis, such as the one at hand. Prevention is impossible, be it from a knife, ax, truckload of fertilizer, etc. etc. but in the event of a known perpetrator then let Apple, Google, whomever, have the devise and do the work privately within their own shop, giving authorities what they need for this case…that seems right, but to put us all out there for the globe to become our bed partners, not my cup of tea. John > On Feb 20, 2016, at 12:07 PM, Lee Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 02/20/2016 10:56 AM, John Robinson wrote: >> >> Thank, hopefully you are correct. I had heard a reporter on TV discussing a >> bill to be introduced which would criminalize the encryption of our devices, >> however being we are in an election year it most likely would not make it to >> the floor for discussion…but the bait has now been cast..it’s a matter of >> time as the article below describes as the attack isn’t against our privacy >> rather Human Trafficking….the deployment of a socially sounding warm blanket >> hides the true cost as the article point out…there is SO much at stake here >> for believe me, our government won’t be the only government with the >> abilities to get our info…heavens, they can’t keep the hackers from their >> systems as it is….only Apple can do that. > John, > > This is a difficult issue. Which is more important, security or privacy? > > It's no surprise the three-letter agencies are coming down on the side of > security. Strong encryption makes their jobs a lot more difficult. They've > been wanting to bring this issue to a boil for several years. The cards they > always put on the table are terrorism, drug smuggling and child pornography. > > On the other hand, there are many who believe in a right to privacy. This was > one of the key arguments in the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling. During his > Senate hearings, Robert Bork, was strongly criticized because of his > rejection of such a right in the Constitution. > > But, there's another side. Antonin Scalia also rejected the constitutional > basis for privacy: "The Constitution is a very simple contract. The word > ‘privacy’ is absent from its text." He said privacy should be defined by > legislatures because there is no defined Right to Privacy. > > The congress-critters are in a difficult position here. If they side with > Apple and there's another big terrorist attack, they'll get skewered from the > right. If they undermine strong encryption, they'll get attacked by civil > liberties groups. > > According to an interview I saw on Fox News a few days ago, the FBI has > hundreds of encrypted phones they can't read. The New York police have > hundreds more. The FBI has carefully chosen this particular phone from among > many. They want to underline the security side of the debate by playing the > terrorist card in a high profile case. They also chose as their opponent the > strongest advocate for the privacy side. If they win this round, then it > will be the first of thousands of similar requests to all the cell phone > makers. > > My opinion on this is a little mixed. > > I understand the FBI's position. They are given a job to do and modern > technology is making it hard. There's nothing in the Constitution saying > their job should be easy. > > On the other hand, there are plenty of scared people out there who are > willing to trade a little privacy for a warm and fuzzy feeling of security. > Since no right is absolute, perhaps there are reasonable exceptions to a > Right to Privacy, if such a right does actually exist. We do make many > trade-offs between security and the Right to Free Speech. > > In this case, I come down on the privacy side. Forcing Apple to write a back > door for iPhones will have too many unintended consequences > > What happens when China, Russia, Pakistan, Mexico and Iran want the back-door > tool? > > Can international business travelers safely use any kind of cell phone any > more? > > How long will it be before it leaks out and the malware authors get their > chance to modify it? > > Will Schlage, Kwikset, et al. be forced to make master keys for all their > locks and give them to the FBI? > > How about the hundreds of third-party makers of encryption software? > > Is this the first time the government is trying to force a manufacturer to > create a tool undermining its own product? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > MacGroup mailing list > Posting address: [email protected] > Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/> > Answers to questions: <http://erdos.math.louisville.edu/macgroup/>
_______________________________________________ MacGroup mailing list Posting address: [email protected] Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/> Answers to questions: <http://erdos.math.louisville.edu/macgroup/>
