08-22-16 07:47 AM
250 ... 23456 ...
tools
  1. John Vieira's Avatar
    I believe in an eye for an eye. Water boarding is God sent compared to what terrorists do in exchange. Not barbaric at all. It gives the feeling of drowning. Don't like it, don't go around bombing places and beheading people. It's that simple. Terrorists shouldn't have the same rights as others. They're not even human I think. Animals should have more rights then them yet they don't. I fully support torture on them. They should turn guantanamo into a theme park, just let angry people have their day on terrorists.

    I'm joking...or am I

    Posted via CB10
    Until you find out that multiple people who were waterboarded at Guantanamo were actually innocent.

    Posted via -sigh- Priv. Guess we have to get used to Android guys....
    02-17-16 08:24 PM
  2. xtremeled's Avatar
    The Government doesn't take away your rights all at once. This! This is how it's done. One little step at a time. We need it to break this one phone. Then another and another. They want Apple to build a version of iOS that allows entry into anyone's phone. Privacy has a value. don't give it away.
    Doggerz, FF22, JeepBB and 3 others like this.
    02-17-16 08:32 PM
  3. Cozz4ever's Avatar
    Until you find out that multiple people who were waterboarded at Guantanamo were actually innocent.

    Posted via -sigh- Priv. Guess we have to get used to Android guys....
    You didn't loose any sleep over it.

    Why not just free every prisoner out there. Because maybe 1% are in fact innocent. Or just understand that no system will ever be perfect. But it doesn't mean we need to be vigilant in stopping terror.

    Posted via CB10
    02-17-16 08:33 PM
  4. xtremeled's Avatar
    Does anyone here actually believe with untold billions of R&D at its disposal that Apple doesn't already have a way to defeat its own encryption technology? And do you think they would want their customers to know this? Yes, Tim Cook is a real hero for protecting his company's billion dollar secrets...all for the sake of some scumbag murderer.

    Posted via CB10
    Assuming you're right. Unless you have some knowledge that has escaped the rest of us, You have an opinion based on...what? You hate Apple and love Blackberry.
    02-17-16 08:37 PM
  5. Cozz4ever's Avatar
    The Government doesn't take away your rights all at once. This! This is how it's done. One little step at a time. We need it to break this one phone. Then another and another. They want Apple to build a version of iOS that allows entry into anyone's phone. Privacy has a value. don't give it away.
    Back in the days when the government got a warrant to enter your house and search your belongings your address books- all written down with names/ contacts, all your personal information was written down...now is all in your phone...technically you have more rights today then you did up until early 2000's since they can't search your phone.

    Technically, one would have more rights if it's in a phone rather than written down. How is this possible especially when the only difference is how it's stored?

    Food for thought, you're welcome

    Posted via CB10
    02-17-16 08:45 PM
  6. John Vieira's Avatar
    You didn't loose any sleep over it.

    Why not just free every prisoner out there. Because maybe 1% are in fact innocent. Or just understand that no system will ever be perfect. But it doesn't mean we need to be vigilant in stopping terror.

    Posted via CB10
    See, that's a fallacy. I agree that we should be Vigilant.

    Allowing unrestricted access to people's devices is not the way to do it.

    Do you leave your door unlocked?

    And I agree no system is perfect. You are definitely right about that.

    But stripping encryption from phones is not the way to make it better.

    Posted via -sigh- Priv. Guess we have to get used to Android guys....
    02-17-16 08:50 PM
  7. Cozz4ever's Avatar
    See, that's a fallacy. I agree that we should be Vigilant.

    Allowing unrestricted access to people's devices is not the way to do it.

    Do you leave your door unlocked?

    And I agree no system is perfect. You are definitely right about that.

    But stripping encryption from phones is not the way to make it better.

    Posted via -sigh- Priv. Guess we have to get used to Android guys....
    No one ever said unrestricted. You guys make it sound like getting a court approval is done easily and over night. Calm down a little.

    Posted via CB10
    02-17-16 08:55 PM
  8. eddy_berry's Avatar
    This all smells a bit fishy the way Apple is going about this. This is not some random "terrorist" caught out in the middle of the desert with possible intel. This is a homegrown terrorist who actually acted on it and took innocent lives. Apple is cooperating, but they are saying it is impossible to break into an iPhone (5C in this case) and there never was any way of doing this. Apple can do what the FBI is asking. Flash a signed update made specific to the phone in question with tweaked code that bypasses the lock. Only a manufacturer with signed keys can do that, no? Or is the FBI actually asking for an update to all iPhones so they can snoop whenever they want? Couldn't Apple just do that on site and give the FBI the data and then revert it back to whatever condition it was previously in? Is it strange that I'm being very sceptical of the way this is being handled and how Apple is making so much noise? Maybe they really can't do it and using that to tell people how secure the iPhone is. What if this was a 5S wouldn't law enforcement just need the suspects fingerprint to unlock the phone? Wouldn't that make this whole issue worthless to anyone with a new iPhone? I don't get that.

    Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2339
    02-17-16 09:00 PM
  9. John Vieira's Avatar
    See, the thing is. They're not asking for unrestricted access... yet.

    That's just the natural next step.

    Besides, let's assume the government is responsible with this tool, and we already know the government is NOT responsible with user's private data.

    What about as soon as it gets leaked and some hackers use it then? Now hackers have access, and you're not catching these guys.

    Posted via -sigh- Priv. Guess we have to get used to Android guys....
    02-17-16 09:17 PM
  10. Bishkin's Avatar
    As a last resort, Apple can sell variants of their iphones. The ones in the US can have the backdoor but not the ones in Europe and elsewhere.
    02-17-16 09:50 PM
  11. Bishkin's Avatar
    See, the thing is. They're not asking for unrestricted access... yet.

    That's just the natural next step.

    Besides, let's assume the government is responsible with this tool, and we already know the government is NOT responsible with user's private data.

    What about as soon as it gets leaked and some hackers use it then? Now hackers have access, and you're not catching these guys.

    Posted via -sigh- Priv. Guess we have to get used to Android guys....
    The NSA will use that access to set people up whenever they feel like it.
    Doggerz likes this.
    02-17-16 09:54 PM
  12. fof9l's Avatar
    At least Tim Cook is trying to stand for something.
    Is this Apple, saviour of the world's privacy, the same Apple who has secretly installed code in IOS9 to "brick" your iPhone if you have part of it repaired by a non-Apple repair shop?

    Read ?Error 53? fury mounts as Apple software update threatens to kill your iPhone 6 | Money | The Guardian and then tell me that Tim Cook actually cares about anything other than Apple's bottom,untaxed,line or his stock options.
    Last edited by fof9l; 02-17-16 at 11:06 PM. Reason: To clarify content
    02-17-16 11:05 PM
  13. FF22's Avatar
    This all smells a bit fishy the way Apple is going about this. This is not some random "terrorist" caught out in the middle of the desert with possible intel. This is a homegrown terrorist who actually acted on it and took innocent lives. Apple is cooperating, but they are saying it is impossible to break into an iPhone (5C in this case) and there never was any way of doing this. Apple can do what the FBI is asking. Flash a signed update made specific to the phone in question with tweaked code that bypasses the lock. Only a manufacturer with signed keys can do that, no? Or is the FBI actually asking for an update to all iPhones so they can snoop whenever they want? Couldn't Apple just do that on site and give the FBI the data and then revert it back to whatever condition it was previously in? Is it strange that I'm being very sceptical of the way this is being handled and how Apple is making so much noise? Maybe they really can't do it and using that to tell people how secure the iPhone is. What if this was a 5S wouldn't law enforcement just need the suspects fingerprint to unlock the phone? Wouldn't that make this whole issue worthless to anyone with a new iPhone? I don't get that.

    Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2339
    The problem is that no one can be sure that if Apply complies, that it will remain limited to this one phone. No one can be sure that once created (if it can be created) that it won't some how escape or be stolen and then used on anyone's iPhone or even everyone's iPhone. That seems to me to be a big problem.

    But next China suggests that they need it because some terrorist Democracy seeker's phone is password protected and he died in custody. But they need in to see who he/she was communicating their insurgent ideas to.
    Elephant_Canyon, TGR1 and JeepBB like this.
    02-17-16 11:08 PM
  14. LazyEvul's Avatar
    Is this Apple, saviour of the world's privacy, the same Apple who has secretly installed code in IOS9 to "brick" your iPhone if you have part of it repaired by a non-Apple repair shop?

    Read ?Error 53? fury mounts as Apple software update threatens to kill your iPhone 6 | Money | The Guardian and then tell me that Tim Cook actually cares about anything other than Apple's bottom,untaxed,line or his stock options.
    Except, ironically enough, Error 53 is there for security purposes: A short rant about Error 53 and why it exists | Gwynne's Blog

    (I know it's not the most authoritative source, but it's the most succinct and well-phrased one I've seen. I've corroborated much of what it says with info sec folks on Twitter)

    It could have been handled a lot better from a user experience standpoint (as that post notes), but it serves a legitimate security purpose. Now, I'm sure it helps that Apple stands to profit from it, because they're a corporation like any other, but it's not entirely nefarious.
    Last edited by LazyEvul; 02-17-16 at 11:26 PM.
    02-17-16 11:15 PM
  15. canuckvoip's Avatar
    The phone in question is a company phone, not a personal device. If the company agrees that the phone should be opened up and investigated (and they did) then who are any of us to argue? And who does Tim Cook think he is to say no?
    Personally I do not believe that the phone cannot be opened up, and likely it isn't all that dificult for the manufacturer to do.
    A court order goes out to investigate the computer of a suspected pedophile for porn on his/her computer. Cops have a warrant, go in and sieze the computer. Have a problem with that?
    This is worse than that, right?
    Those who say Chen bends over and does whatever anyone wants are wrong. BlackBerry respects the law of the country they are operating in, and only with a proper court order/warrant. Chen was ready to leave Pakistan over demands that are/were too high.
    Wire taps need a court order, etc.
    Just because it's a mobile computer does not put it above the law of the country it is operating in.
    Again, the court order is just for this single company owned device, not a blanket backdoor/key. That is just sensationalist BS designed to deflect.
    If Tim wants to stand up for something he should stand up for the law of the country he doesn't seem to want to pay taxes in.
    This is/was a terrorist act that killed many, and the perp is guilty. This is not a suspected corner store thief.
    Can you imagine if there's something in that company phone that could help stop another incident?
    C'mon Tim, quit thinking about your share price for a minute and help with this horrifying investigation, even if you refuse to help fund it with taxes.
    tinochiko likes this.
    02-18-16 01:33 AM
  16. Doggerz's Avatar
    The phone in question is a company phone, not a personal device. If the company agrees that the phone should be opened up and investigated (and they did) then who are any of us to argue? And who does Tim Cook think he is to say no?
    Personally I do not believe that the phone cannot be opened up, and likely it isn't all that dificult for the manufacturer to do.
    A court order goes out to investigate the computer of a suspected pedophile for porn on his/her computer. Cops have a warrant, go in and sieze the computer. Have a problem with that?
    This is worse than that, right?
    Those who say Chen bends over and does whatever anyone wants are wrong. BlackBerry respects the law of the country they are operating in, and only with a proper court order/warrant. Chen was ready to leave Pakistan over demands that are/were too high.
    Wire taps need a court order, etc.
    Just because it's a mobile computer does not put it above the law of the country it is operating in.
    Again, the court order is just for this single company owned device, not a blanket backdoor/key. That is just sensationalist BS designed to deflect.
    If Tim wants to stand up for something he should stand up for the law of the country he doesn't seem to want to pay taxes in.
    This is/was a terrorist act that killed many, and the perp is guilty. This is not a suspected corner store thief.
    Can you imagine if there's something in that company phone that could help stop another incident?
    C'mon Tim, quit thinking about your share price for a minute and help with this horrifying investigation, even if you refuse to help fund it with taxes.
    Chen would sell out his own mother. If there was kiddie porn on the phone and the phone is in police custody I guess they don't have to worry about anyone seeing it right? What if they invent probes to directly access someone's brain and extract information? Is that OK?

    To you, it's good to respect each countries laws? What about when those governments are out of control and over reaching?

    Chen should pull out of the United States. The US government wants the same thing Pakistan wants. But the US is good right? Let's pick and choose what laws to obey?

    How about everyone's phone is their own business and no government gets to invade that space? If they can't get the information some other way don't expect the property owner or the manufacturer to assist a tyrannical government.

    I've never had an iPhone and am not a apple fanboy but they are on the right side of this one. Islamic terrorists will get guns and shoot and kill people and no amount of looking at phones after the fact is going to help matters.

    The terrorists already cost this country everything after 9/11. We gave up our rights with the Patriot Act. The terrorists win! We take off our shoes at airports now! They haven't gotten enough? You want them to have our phones too? And what is next?

    I'd rather risk some occasional terrorist attack and live like it was the 1970's instead of living like this. In the name of safety. In the name of trusting the United States Government.

    Hell people have more freedom and privacy in Mexico.

    Z30STA100-5 / 10.3.2.2813 / T-Mobile
    arkenoi, bakron1 and jallister like this.
    02-18-16 02:46 AM
  17. Superdupont 2_0's Avatar
    I think people in this thread are confusing the available facts.

    DATA IN TRANSIT

    Example 1:Police investigations show even BlackBerry messages can be intercepted | CTV News

    Quote: "BlackBerry has traditionally encouraged its users to consider PIN to PIN messages as "scrambled" rather than "encrypted.""

    Take-home-message for seven (7) years now:
    If you are using a BBOS device, you need BES to protect all data in transit, otherwise BBRY can snoop your data in transit.
    If you are using BB10, however, you need only BBM Protected for BBM, because all other data in transit are no longer traveling through BBRY servers.

    Example 2: Argentina News - Demand for data access leads BlackBerry to close Pakistan operations

    As long as BBM Protected and BES are concerned, BlackBerry has exactly the same stance as Apple and a vital business interest that this will never change.


    DATA AT REST

    I have never heard of any case that BlackBerry assisted LEA in decrypting a locked device, just never.
    Noboy in this thread as provided any source or any case that this has happened.

    It's an established security standard for 10 years that BBRY cannot decrypt a properly locked BBOS or BB10 device.
    Again, they obviously share the same interest with Apple and Google.

    From a legal point of view it is just important to understand:
    The established standard is that BBRY cannot decrypt a propely locked device.
    If they would be forced by US law to build a tool to access a backdoor in BB10, it would *fundamentally* impact their business model.

    I think BBRY was very honest and clear how you can protect both your data in transit and at rest, and what could happen if you don't follow their advice.

    There is always a possibility that my landline provider is cooperating with LEA for my calls, or that my bank is cooperating with LEA regading my gold reserves etc etc... ALL of this is legit and absolutley okay!
    However, neither my landline provider nor my bank have a key to enter my appartment or to access my computer.
    It's not their job to do that.
    sebstarr likes this.
    02-18-16 05:25 AM
  18. pgg101's Avatar
    Perhaps I'm a dense here, but why couldn't the FBI give the phone to Apple, they unlock it or whatever, then just copy all the file content over onto an FBI server. Then they destroy the iPhone?


    RedBerry Passport /10.3.2.2876 / Telus
    02-18-16 05:43 AM
  19. early2bed's Avatar
    What if the FBI had asked Microsoft to create a special update of Windows that would be specifically installed on Osama Bin Laden's notebook computer via the ISP while he was under surveillance in Pakistan? It turns on the camera without the notification light and starts sending video. Microsoft certainly has the capability of doing that. Should they comply?
    02-18-16 05:49 AM
  20. Cozz4ever's Avatar
    Perhaps I'm a dense here, but why couldn't the FBI give the phone to Apple, they unlock it or whatever, then just copy all the file content over onto an FBI server. Then they destroy the iPhone?


    RedBerry Passport /10.3.2.2876 / Telus
    Because not even Apple can bypass the security. This is how this whole mess started. The government wants a "backdoor" on its software to by-pass it's security. Apple claims there is no such feature and they refuse to make one.



    Posted via CB10
    02-18-16 06:05 AM
  21. Elephant_Canyon's Avatar
    The fascist attitudes and factual distortions on display by certain posters in this thread are both abhorrent and mind-bogglingly stupid.
    kirson, jallister and bimmin like this.
    02-18-16 06:19 AM
  22. MmmHmm's Avatar
    Perhaps I'm a dense here, but why couldn't the FBI give the phone to Apple, they unlock it or whatever, then just copy all the file content over onto an FBI server. Then they destroy the iPhone?


    RedBerry Passport /10.3.2.2876 / Telus
    Because Apple would refuse to do that for the FBI. Apple's stance on this issue is clear (and correct in my opinion). Apple can't decrypt the iPhone, but it can weaken the iPhone's security with a custom OS to make a brute force attack possible. Then a hack would be written to try numerous passwords in a short period of time until one worked. Why should Apple be forced to write a custom OS update and to implement a brute force hack? Apple isn't an FBI crime lab and it shouldn't be forced to become one.

    For the life of me I can't understand why so many people want to make an exception to personal rights just when it comes to terrorists (actual or alleged). On this current topic, we are talking about the US, where terrorist attacks are very rare. There are so many kinds of criminals that cause much more widespread harm in this country than terrorists. If you really think privacy should be sacrificed to prevent harm, why focus only on terrorism which is rare and, relatively speaking, kills few people compared to other crimes and social problems. Why don't we force Apple to hack the phones of drunk drivers to find out if their friends are also out there driving drunk? For me, I'd say we shouldn't do that because I place a high value on civil rights.
    02-18-16 06:53 AM
  23. sorinv's Avatar
    "Apples emerging global brand is privacy; it has staked its corporate reputation, not to mention invested its considerable technical and financial resources, on limiting the sort of mass surveillance that was uncovered by Mr. Snowden. So now, for many cases involving governmental intrusions into data, once-lonely privacy advocates find themselves fighting alongside the most powerful company in the world."

    This quote is from today's New York Times.
    BlackBerry is no longer associated with privacy and security.
    02-18-16 07:07 AM
  24. sorinv's Avatar
    Another quote from today's NYT.

    "One relatively simple fix, Mr. Zdziarski said, would be for Apple to modify future versions of the iPhone to require a user to enter a passcode before the phone will accept the sort of modified operating system that the F.B.I. wants Apple to create. That way, Apple could not unilaterally introduce a code that weakens the iPhone a user would have to consent to it.

    Nothing is 100 percent hacker-proof, Mr. Zdziarski said, but he pointed out that the judges order in this case required Apple to provide reasonable security assistance to unlock Mr. Farooks phone. If Apple alters the security model of future iPhones so that even its own engineers reasonable assistance will not be able to crack a given device when compelled by the government, a precedent set in this case might lose its lasting force.

    In other words, even if the F.B.I. wins this case, in the long run, it loses."

    I am intrigued that Apple could download an OS on a locked phone without the user's permission.

    At least on my BlackBerry Passport and Z30, I have to agree to allow BlackBerry to update my OS.

    So, unless BlackBerry is just misleading us that we have that kind of control, bb10 phones already have the kind of protection suggested for future Iphones in the above quote from today's NYT.
    Last edited by sorinv; 02-18-16 at 07:58 AM.
    02-18-16 07:16 AM
  25. tickerguy's Avatar
    There is no basis in the law or Constitution to force someone to make something that does not exist.

    The government can compel you to produce something you have; that is, to provide testimony to the truth of some matter either via personal statement (on the stand) or its analog in "real" form (e.g. a document.)

    But the government has no authority to force you to create something you do not have; the 13th Amendment, incidentally, specifically bars "slavery or involuntary servitude" and it does not matter whether the government offers to pay or not -- there is simply no authority for them to demand that you WRITE SOFTWARE for them.
    02-18-16 07:17 AM
250 ... 23456 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-21-16, 01:05 AM
  2. How to keep safely my Z30
    By madh263362 in forum BlackBerry 10 OS
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-18-16, 08:20 PM
  3. cheaper way to buy priv?
    By eyeb in forum BlackBerry Priv
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-17-16, 06:30 PM
  4. How to install Service in BlackBerry Classic SR 10.3.2.2876?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum BlackBerry Classic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-17-16, 10:24 AM
  5. How to get BBM work on imported blackberry bold 4?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-17-16, 07:37 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD