04-18-16 12:33 AM
292 ... 34567 ...
tools
  1. al3azef's Avatar
    You question is too general. If you're refereeing to Bernardino's case, then this is has only to deal with unlocking the phone and decrypting the data. However, Blackberry has a lot more than that. It has security built into all layers starting from hardware all the way up to software layers. So, the answer is: No. Apple is a way behind Blackberry when it comes to security.
    02-23-16 11:19 AM
  2. jallister's Avatar
    You do know that Apple has stated exactly the same thing multiple times right? Cook even confirmed that they had provided assistance to law enforcement and governments in decrypting IPhones multiple times

    Posted via CB10
    Well according to Apple ,they have not;
    "Has Apple unlocked iPhones for law enforcement in the past?
    No.
    We regularly receive law enforcement requests for information about our customers and their Apple devices. In fact, we have a dedicated team that responds to these requests 24/7. We also provide guidelines on our website for law enforcement agencies so they know exactly what we are able to access and what legal authority we need to see before we can help them."
    Customer Letter - FAQ - Apple

    What Apple has done in the past is give law enforcement with a warrant or court order access to iCloud data for that user, but they have never decrypted an iPhone for law enforcement.

    On a separate note, I for one stand in support of Apple. I do not believe that American should have to give up liberties for security or the allusion of security. I strongly believe that this is larger than the this one case and this one phone. This will set up a very dangerous precedent. I agree that what those horrible people did was well horrible, but again Apple stance on this isn't about this one case. Apple has already handed over the FBI everything they could, but this is where they draw the line. Do you really believe that if the FBI is successful in forcing Apple to create this dangerous tool, that they would only use it one, because I don't. I mean they're is already a report out that the DOJ has another 12 iPhone theyre going to force Apple to unlock if Apple looses this case. And than Manhattan D.A. is next on the list. This case, if Apple looses set a very dangerous precedent. (That rant was not directed at bobshine, I just wanted to make my views on this case public)
    Last edited by jallister; 02-23-16 at 12:38 PM. Reason: Added my reasons for supporting Apple
    02-23-16 12:09 PM
  3. neoberry99's Avatar
    Maybe the FBI is just saying they can't get into it..

    An actual home-land terrorist attack happened and there is one remaining connection to the terrorists in a supposedly inaccessible phone. Looks like a great opportunity to set a legal precedent to backdoor all devices, just saying...

    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    My thoughts exactly. The FBI has the information already. The underlay for the overplay!

    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    Sulaco757 likes this.
    02-23-16 12:32 PM
  4. Alain_A's Avatar
    " Unfortunately, we learned that while the attacker’s iPhone was in FBI custody the Apple ID password associated with the phone was changed. Changing this password meant the phone could no longer access iCloud services."

    it would not surprised me that the LEA has done it on purposed just to go in court against Apple...Which is purely not right
    02-23-16 01:04 PM
  5. bobshine's Avatar
    Well according to Apple ,they have not;
    "Has Apple unlocked iPhones for law enforcement in the past?
    No.
    We regularly receive law enforcement requests for information about our customers and their Apple devices. In fact, we have a dedicated team that responds to these requests 24/7. We also provide guidelines on our website for law enforcement agencies so they know exactly what we are able to access and what legal authority we need to see before we can help them."
    Customer Letter - FAQ - Apple

    What Apple has done in the past is give law enforcement with a warrant or court order access to iCloud data for that user, but they have never decrypted an iPhone for law enforcement.

    On a separate note, I for one stand in support of Apple. I do not believe that American should have to give up liberties for security or the allusion of security. I strongly believe that this is larger than the this one case and this one phone. This will set up a very dangerous precedent. I agree that what those horrible people did was well horrible, but again Apple stance on this isn't about this one case. Apple has already handed over the FBI everything they could, but this is where they draw the line. Do you really believe that if the FBI is successful in forcing Apple to create this dangerous tool, that they would only use it one, because I don't. I mean they're is already a report out that the DOJ has another 12 iPhone theyre going to force Apple to unlock if Apple looses this case. And than Manhattan D.A. is next on the list. This case, if Apple looses set a very dangerous precedent. (That rant was not directed at bobshine, I just wanted to make my views on this case public)
    Actually they can't decrypt their own phone, even if they wanted to. Neither can BlackBerry decrypt their own phone. What they usually do, is that they go around it... like brute force attacks.

    Apple did in the past assisted many times law enforcement and governments... including extracting contents and providing images of locked IPhones (but not encrypted)

    Posted via CB10
    02-23-16 03:49 PM
  6. GadgetTravel's Avatar
    Actually this isn't the correct question. The correct question is whether Apple is secure enough for you use. In the vast majority of cases, yes.
    TGR1 and TgeekB like this.
    02-23-16 09:05 PM
  7. RubberChicken76's Avatar
    On a separate note, I for one stand in support of Apple. I do not believe that American should have to give up liberties for security or the allusion of security. I strongly believe that this is larger than the this one case and this one phone. This will set up a very dangerous precedent. I agree that what those horrible people did was well horrible, but again Apple stance on this isn't about this one case. Apple has already handed over the FBI everything they could, but this is where they draw the line. Do you really believe that if the FBI is successful in forcing Apple to create this dangerous tool, that they would only use it one, because I don't. I mean they're is already a report out that the DOJ has another 12 iPhone theyre going to force Apple to unlock if Apple looses this case. And than Manhattan D.A. is next on the list. This case, if Apple looses set a very dangerous precedent. (That rant was not directed at bobshine, I just wanted to make my views on this case public)
    I have never had an issue where I have trouble deciding, like this. It's because the use cases either way are horrific.

    If someone is plotting to kill thousands of people by coordinating on their phone, should governments be allowed to gather intel?

    If someone is using a photo to distribute child pornography involving 4 year olds, should law enforcement be able to access the phone to get evidence and lock them up?

    What if a government wants to snoop on political dissenters to squash them down?

    In truth, both sides have room for horrific things to happen if it's allowed or disallowed.

    Ugh
    02-23-16 11:46 PM
  8. RubberChicken76's Avatar
    Actually this isn't the correct question. The correct question is whether Apple is secure enough for you use. In the vast majority of cases, yes.

    Or rather, is BlackBerry, iPhone, Android and Windows phone secure enough for most cases? The answer is absolutely yes. Despite the ridiculous things posted throughout this thread.

    They're all more than good enough
    GadgetTravel, TGR1 and TgeekB like this.
    02-23-16 11:48 PM
  9. sorinv's Avatar
    Or rather, is BlackBerry, iPhone, Android and Windows phone secure enough for most cases? The answer is absolutely yes. Despite the ridiculous things posted throughout this thread.

    They're all more than good enough
    They have to be secure for ALL cases. It only takes one security breach to lose your data. They cannot be secure some of the time, as in one day per month when they submit the security patch.
    02-24-16 12:04 AM
  10. southlander's Avatar
    They have to be secure for ALL cases. It only takes one security breach to lose your data. They cannot be secure some of the time, as in one day per month when they submit the security patch.
    Impossible.

    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    GadgetTravel and TgeekB like this.
    02-24-16 02:23 AM
  11. Richard Buckley's Avatar
    I have never had an issue where I have trouble deciding, like this. It's because the use cases either way are horrific.

    If someone is plotting to kill thousands of people by coordinating on their phone, should governments be allowed to gather intel?

    If someone is using a photo to distribute child pornography involving 4 year olds, should law enforcement be able to access the phone to get evidence and lock them up?

    What if a government wants to snoop on political dissenters to squash them down?

    In truth, both sides have room for horrific things to happen if it's allowed or disallowed.

    Ugh
    This is why in a democracy law enforcement should need a warrant or court order to do this, the government or the people should choose a judiciary that is cognizant of and responsive to the will of the people, and the people should elect a government that is willing to ensure that this happens, by voting. This should never be left up to either a corporate CEO or a law enforcement agency to decide.

    I usually don't like this argument, but if you are an eligible voter in the US and didn't vote and haven't made your views clear to your representative, then you are stuck with what ever you get until you do.

    LeapSTR100-2/10.3.2.2876
    02-24-16 04:20 AM
  12. RubberChicken76's Avatar
    They have to be secure for ALL cases. It only takes one security breach to lose your data. They cannot be secure some of the time, as in one day per month when they submit the security patch.
    That's like saying, "A person must be perfect, all the time, and never make a mistake in history"

    Met anyone like that? I haven't.
    TgeekB likes this.
    02-24-16 06:55 AM
  13. RubberChicken76's Avatar
    This is why in a democracy law enforcement should need a warrant or court order to do this, the government or the people should choose a judiciary that is cognizant of and responsive to the will of the people, and the people should elect a government that is willing to ensure that this happens, by voting. This should never be left up to either a corporate CEO or a law enforcement agency to decide.
    That I absolutely agree! And I suspect that all these companies (Apple, Google, Microsoft, BlackBerry) currently allow access to different parts of the device/data when served by court order now.
    TgeekB likes this.
    02-24-16 06:57 AM
  14. sorinv's Avatar
    That's like saying, "A person must be perfect, all the time, and never make a mistake in history"

    Met anyone like that? I haven't.
    The problem is that smartphones are made to be intentionally not secure most of the time, since only "regulated" industries are entitled to security and privacy. People are potential terrorists and therefore must be permanently surveilled, as the FBI vs. Apple and John Chen's BlackBerry indicate.
    Why did blackberry not clearly state that it cannot decrypt an encrypted BlackBerry phone after they made such a fuss about the privacy and security of the priv?
    Superdupont 2_0 likes this.
    02-24-16 07:43 AM
  15. RubberChicken76's Avatar
    The problem is that smartphones are made to be intentionally not secure most of the time
    Thanks a very 'blanket' statement :-)
    02-24-16 08:05 AM
  16. sorinv's Avatar
    Thanks a very 'blanket' statement :-)
    You forgot to quote the rest of the post that explained it.
    If that were not the case, BlackBerry would clearly state, just like Apple, that they have no way of accessing the data on my phone without my permission, even if they received a legal warrant.
    I heard Mike Lazaridis state that on BBC World News in 2011.
    John Chen is not doing it.
    02-24-16 08:35 AM
  17. RubberChicken76's Avatar
    You forgot to quote the rest of the post that explained it.
    I don't think that qualifies as "most of the time", but your mileage clearly varies. I think all Smartphones have more than enough security for most users, in most scenarios, and protecting most data.

    Obviously, this is a complicated issue and it's not as simple as saying a phone is "secure" or "insecure" the way it has been positioned by many in this thread. It depends on the use-case, the scenario, the data in question, local laws etc.

    For example, let's take BBM which was discussed earlier. "It's not encrypted" people complain. Honestly, if BBM were being "hacked" by hackers, don't you think it would have come up by now? Yes, you can argue that it's security by obscurity, but tens of millions of people use it still. And even when BlackBerry was #1 wasn't being "hacked by hackers". Which means, for most people, it's good enough.

    Likewise, there are absolutely scenarios where BBM can be surveyed. For example, by BES policy if you are issued a corporate BlackBerry and they want to audit how you're using a corporate asset or communicating with parties using it. You get the BlackBerry, you accept terms of conditions with your employer and voila. You can see, your employer can see, hackers can't easily see.

    As another example, let's assume that there's a law enforcement officer who gets a judge's warrant because gangers are BBMing about elicit activities, or a bunch of child porn fans are sharing their photos on BBM. The judge agrees, BlackBerry is served a warrant and they go in and extract the conversations and photos for the police as evidence.

    User sees, BlackBerry sees, Law Enforcement sees under controlled conditions.

    Meanwhile, most of the millions of BBM users aren't being "hacked" or "watched" or having their conversations listened in on. Because the security is good enough and access is very specifically restricted.

    I know you know this. Just illustrating a point.



    If that were not the case, BlackBerry would clearly state, just like Apple, that they have no way of accessing the data on my phone without my permission, even if they received a legal warrant.
    I heard Mike Lazaridis state that on BBC World News in 2011.
    John Chen is not doing it.[/QUOTE]
    02-24-16 11:08 AM
  18. si001's Avatar
    It doesn't matter if one is more secure than the other. Never mind how this story will end, apple is buying themselves very good publicity. BlackBerry's sale pitch on security will be pretty much useless from now on.

    Posted via CB10
    Doggerz and Sulaco757 like this.
    02-24-16 11:28 AM
  19. Matt J's Avatar
    I think BBM Protected gives you more communications security. But you have to pay for that.
    02-24-16 12:09 PM
  20. Bluenoser63's Avatar
    BlackBerry is secure on BB10, it isn't on Android.
    02-24-16 12:18 PM
  21. Matt J's Avatar
    BlackBerry is secure on BB10, it isn't on Android.
    I've always wondered about this. If both a BB10 device and a Priv were locked with a password, and the contents of both devices are encrypted, then how can anyone access on-device content? I'm not talking about the apps, since apps send data to whomever on both devices. But if you had on-device files (like Word documents), can they really be accessed, ever?

    Just wondering. I think iOS, Android and BB10 are just as "secure" if someone is looking to pull files from the actual device. The cloud stuff is anybody's guess.
    02-24-16 01:56 PM
  22. anon(6038817)'s Avatar
    BlackBerry is secure on BB10, it isn't on Android.
    No BlackBerry phone is truly secure unless it is paired with a BES.

    Posted from my  Z10 via CB10
    02-24-16 02:46 PM
  23. Matt J's Avatar
    No BlackBerry phone is truly secure unless it is paired with a BES.

    Posted from my  Z10 via CB10
    I think BBM Protected is secure. But that is only for messaging.
    02-24-16 02:49 PM
  24. RubberChicken76's Avatar
    BlackBerry is secure on BB10, it isn't on Android.
    Based upon what data?

    Security is not a "It is" or "it isn't" thing.
    02-24-16 03:13 PM
  25. Bluenoser63's Avatar
    Based upon what data?

    Security is not a "It is" or "it isn't" thing.
    Certifications. BlackBerry Android doesn't have the levels that BlackBerry 10 does.
    02-24-16 03:18 PM
292 ... 34567 ...

Similar Threads

  1. How to submit a BB10 feature request to BlackBerry?
    By RootingForRIM in forum BlackBerry 10 Apps
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-02-16, 01:57 PM
  2. Is BlackBerry the way to go?
    By Jones Andrew in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-02-16, 01:22 AM
  3. Experience with BlackBerry support?
    By kksblueberry in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-19-16, 02:10 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-19-16, 06:59 AM
  5. Blaq for BlackBerry 10 gains Quote Tweet option, adaptive theme and more
    By CrackBerry News in forum CrackBerry.com News Discussion & Contests
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-19-16, 06:22 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD