Posted:
#1
Yes
No.
Explain answer.
Should Apple unlock a terrorist's phone for the FBI?
Posted:
#4
This ruling would ultimately violate every single one of us on right to privacy and unlawful search.
True, but the rights to privacy and unlawful search are easily circumvented when it becomes a matter of national security. Information/intelligence is the name of the game in this world and if hacking the guy's phone can lead to a path that helps exterminate certain elements of barbarism then so be it.
Posted:
#8
Quote Originally Posted by Getty3:
This ruling would ultimately violate every single one of us on right to privacy and unlawful search.
This ruling would ultimately violate every single one of us on right to privacy and unlawful search.
True, but the rights to privacy and unlawful search are easily circumvented when it becomes a matter of national security. Information/intelligence is the name of the game in this world and if hacking the guy's phone can lead to a path that helps exterminate certain elements of barbarism then so be it.
Then they have to unlock phones for every other country they sell phones in if the country cries national security. They sell more iPhones in China than in the states. Ultimately, Apple doesn't care about us or our rights, they care about their product and their product becomes less desirable if they start unlocking phones when governments ask them to.
Posted:
#19
Absolutely not.. if they allow it it's just the beginning, people will be able to hack into things much easier. It's not about looking at what's in your phone or computer it's about obtaining all of your personal information.
Who are your kids? Where do they go to school? What time are you in the house, when do you leave? Where do you go? Hackers would have access to everything.
I have a hard time believing the government can't figure out how to get into an iphone that's locked with a 4 digit code, that sounds like a joke. The government that can put a man on the moon can't get into a locked iphone?
Posted:
#20
Just like most any other item, this case should be used as an opportunity to create a means test for deciding how this will be handled on a broader scale moving forward.
As an isolated incident, no question Apple should help (there have been options offered which include destroying the backdoor once the access has been granted) - all bets are off for the individuals when it comes to terrorism and homeland security. As for others (I also am an iPhone user), I agree in the idea and principle of individual security of our personal information, but as time goes on we have to start to recognize as consumers of this optional hardware (yes, having an iPhone is in fact option) then should the courts ultimately decide that this sort of access is in fact granted then we can take that into account during the evaluation of the purchasing process.
Posted:
#21
Apple is a worldwide company & if they cave to this court order & build a device to override this phones encryption-they'll have Governments from Russia & China & all over the world looking for them to do the exact same thing on other individuals phones in those other countries. Apple is simply not going to allow any Government to muscle them to build a device which overrides an I-Phones existing encryption & they're 100% correct in fighting this court order-bottom line.
Posted:
#22
Its a smoke screen. While you're sitting here debating this Apple has already broken into the phone. Apple tells the people they will never create such a program, the terrorists think Apple is on their side, they only purchase Apple products and we the people along with the gov't win be fighting terrorism.
Case closed. Next.
Case closed. Next.
Posted:
#23
The 5 is outdated the 6 encryption is unbreakable but the government is still reacting to water under the bridge in this particular case.
Apple will have to cave eventually unfortunately but its all smoke and mirrors as usual with the government lying person can't be trusted to do anything they promise after all our political history shows that quite clearly.
Posted:
#24
Quote Originally Posted by TRAIN69:
I hear ya search. I get it. However, if they want to search my house and car its fine with me.....they are wasting their time.
I hear ya search. I get it. However, if they want to search my house and car its fine with me.....they are wasting their time.
What if they plant something incriminating before they search? That is a main reason they need warrants to search in the first place.
Posted:
#25
Absolutely NOT. The "intelligence" agencies that soak us for hundreds of $billions should be more interested in terrorists prior to the bomb going off. How much do we have to pay for them to "connect the dots" again on Muhammad Atta's look-a-like sister? I'm shocked that she was a terrorist... It couldn't of been more obvious if she had jihadist tattooed on her forehead.
The moronic public falls for blaming the maker of the phone instead of the government responsible for failing once again in its responsibility "TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENRY".
Hopefully in about 10 months this b.s. is going to change...
The moronic public falls for blaming the maker of the phone instead of the government responsible for failing once again in its responsibility "TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENRY".
Hopefully in about 10 months this b.s. is going to change...
Hot Forum Topics
