[nismorg]

What I was thinking all along was.. the thousands of apps people install on their phone come with the warning that they can access most sections of the phone.. Why couldn't the govt go after the App developer to access a specific IMEI and retrieve the data that way?

In the end, I do agree that Apple had leverage over the government due to their size. Blackberry probably doesn't want to spend the money on lawsuits against the Govt. They will probably say, bring a court order and we will open it.

[bb10adopter111]

No, Apple is taking the position that Apple should not be the gatekeeper of the personal property of individuals. They're trying to make it so they cannot be asked by anyone (be it a relative of a deceased person, or the U.S. Government, or a North Korean tyrant) to unlock a product that was purchased from them, because ideally it would be technically impossible for them to do so.

I understand that's their position. My point is that it's never been possible before, and that most people do not understand the implications. There is currently a big legal difference between what is in your mind (ideas) and what you write down (on paper, in computers. etc.). You have a right to retain what's in your mind, but the government can obtain a warrant to search what you wrote down.

Currently, your mobile phone can be searched with a warrant without your consent, just like your house, bank accounts, phone conversations, etc. But, you cannot be compelled to provide the password.

Apple wants to distribute technology that would allow everyone to conceal information that has never been easily concealed on such a scale before, even from legitimate investigations.

I understand the concern about persistent surveillance, and I think it's a legitimate concern, but we also don't want to make it impossible to prosecute a lot of crime that causes real harm, including the trading of insider information, organized crime, terrorism, etc.

What Apple is proposing is a kind of nuclear option that could jeopardize law enforcement's ability to protect us from real criminals.

It's an anarchist solution to an issue that good laws and policy could better address. Corporations, who are not accountable to voters, should not use technology to circumvent the process of political decision-making.

Posted via CB10

[Litigator08]

Actually they were OK with getting access to just one phone--this one.

False. When Comey testified at the Congressional hearing on this issue he admitted that the case regarding this phone would set a precedent that would be followed in other cases.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-capitol-hill/

[Elephant_Canyon]

Corporations, who are not accountable to voters, should not use technology to circumvent the process of political decision-making.

Sorry, but it's all-or-nothing. If a way in exists, it won't stay exclusive to the good guys. Criminals and tyrants (who are not accountable to voters, either) will find their way in as well.

[TGR1]

I understand that's their position. My point is that it's never been possible before, and that most people do not understand the implications. There is currently a big legal difference between what is in your mind (ideas) and what you write down (on paper, in computers. etc.). You have a right to retain what's in your mind, but the government can obtain a warrant to search what you wrote down.

Currently, your mobile phone can be searched with a warrant without your consent, just like your house, bank accounts, phone conversations, etc. But, you cannot be compelled to provide the password.

Apple wants to distribute technology that would allow everyone to conceal information that has never been easily concealed on such a scale before, even from legitimate investigations.

I understand the concern about persistent surveillance, and I think it's a legitimate concern, but we also don't want to make it impossible to prosecute a lot of crime that causes real harm, including the trading of insider information, organized crime, terrorism, etc.

What Apple is proposing is a kind of nuclear option that could jeopardize law enforcement's ability to protect us from real criminals.

It's an anarchist solution to an issue that good laws and policy could better address. Corporations, who are not accountable to voters, should not use technology to circumvent the process of political decision-making.

Posted via CB10

As I understood it, RIM/BBRY always stated they could not access specific info on BES because they didn't have the keys. So it was ok when they had this? Or only ok for corporate types and not the average joe on the street?

[Litigator08]

It's an anarchist solution to an issue that good laws and policy could better address. Corporations, who are not accountable to voters, should not use technology to circumvent the process of political decision-making.

By that same logic, the federal judiciary (where all judges hold lifetime appointments) aren't accountable to voters either. Therefore, the corollary to your last sentence is that the FBI shouldn't use the courts to bypass political decision making because they assume that same political decision making will not cut in their favor.

I would note that corporations are accountable to voters. Ultimately, if voters don't agree with what Apple is doing, those voters can stop buying their products. And unlike political figures, for whom votes can only be cast at specific intervals which can be as many as six years long, voters dissatisfied with Apple can stop buying their products anytime.

[donnation]

Why is it a BlackBerry? Why not android or IoS or Microsoft or whatever?

It could be if they loaded a completely different OS on it and just keep the name of the phone which is what they've done here with the President's. That alone says that a Blackberry with BBOS or BB10 isn't secure by itself or he'd be using one.

[TGR1]

I have searched that before. Nothing comes up. Care to show what you found to support your statements? Listen, I dont go trolling into iphone sites like you do troll a blackberry site, so, inform me if you will of your findings. You are adult enough to support your claims in the face of trolling which I dont or arent you?

There are a lot of articles. I am surprised you had such difficulty. Mind you, no one is going to actually blurt out the exact setup but here are some sites to get an idea:

NSA engineer: 'I made Obama's BlackBerry' - May. 22, 2014

Obama's BlackBerry: This is how it is secured - Times of India

https://luxsci.com/blog/why-isnt-a-b...ack-obama.html

[sorinv]

It could be if they loaded a completely different OS on it and just keep the name of the phone which is what they've done here with the President's. That alone says that a Blackberry with BBOS or BB10 isn't secure by itself or he'd be using one.

But perhaps it says that only BlackBerry can be hardened or else they would have used a phone from an American company, like apple, and hardened it.

[raino]

False. When Comey testified at the Congressional hearing on this issue he admitted that the case regarding this phone would set a precedent that would be followed in other cases.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-capitol-hill/

A precedent of obtaining a warrant for a specific device(s) and then going to the manufacturer on a case-by-case basis to ask them to unlock, or a third party if manufacturer doesn't comply? I'm OK with that. The onus is on the manufacturer to make sure the third party can't get in...something at which Apple has miserably failed.

[greenpoise]

You're an adult, Google it. And please, the Obama line? Do you have any idea what his phone is? It's a Blackberry in name only. It doesn't run BBOS or BB10 and is massively modified.

I did the "adult" thing and I did find out that obamas is indeed a BlackBerry and is just stripped down (no games, no texting) still a BlackBerry with a reason.

[sorinv]

There are a lot of articles. I am surprised you had such difficulty. Mind you, no one is going to actually blurt out the exact setup but here are some sites to get an idea:

NSA engineer: 'I made Obama's BlackBerry' - May. 22, 2014

If you read this link, all they say is that they removed Angry Birds. They do not say that they changed the OS.

I am sure that they added more security features that we don't have , but it seems from this link at least that the OS was not changed. It's a blackberry.

[nismorg]

If you read this link, all they say is that they removed Angry Birds. They do not say that they changed the OS.

I am sure that they added more security features that we don't have , but it seems from this link at least that the OS was not changed. It's a blackberry.

Regardless of which Blackberry Device or OS he's running, we know for sure Obama doesn't know how to operate an iPhone.. Just watch the Bear Grill special in Alaska :-)

[TGR1]

If you read this link, all they say is that they removed Angry Birds. They do not say that they changed the OS.

I am sure that they added more security features that we don't have , but it seems from this link at least that the OS was not changed. It's a blackberry.

I would agree that it is most likely a BlackBerry OS at heart. But it also seems very crippled, not just enhanced, which makes it unattractive. It's not really a market for BBRY to survive on, I think. Too select.

[qwerty4ever]

Everyone here so happy about what has happened to the iPhone, thats just sad. Keep cheering on big brother.

The truth is that every phone, especially a BlackBerry is vulnerable to what just happened to iPhone. Why do I say especially? Because Chen will go out of his way to help governments get what they want.

To Apples credit, they are now trying to obtain information as to how their security was breached. The FBI in hiring an Israeli comapny to break in the iPhone did at least accomplish one thing. They made it clear that even if you have a comapny with good intentions of keeping you safe, the government will win anyway.

Chen is evil. Yes. Tim Cook is more moral. But in the end it doesn't matter.

And the government has the majority of you approving of their actions against "evil apple" and "evil Google". At least those companies tried. Chen / BlackBerry / FBI = all the same.

Z5 - E6853 / Android 6.0 / T-Mobile USA

My BlackBerry Priv is configured to melt the hand of any government employee who touches it. Automatic wipe after a single failed unlock attempt.

BlackBerry Priv with CrackBerry App for Android

[Irish Blues]

A precedent of obtaining a warrant for a specific device(s) and then going to the manufacturer on a case-by-case basis to ask them to unlock, or a third party if manufacturer doesn't comply? I'm OK with that. The onus is on the manufacturer to make sure the third party can't get in...something at which Apple has miserably failed.

Correct. I suspect that the government might have been previously willing to tip Apple off about possible security flaws in exchange for information on a case-by-case basis - but now? Not a chance in hell. It's not all bad for Apple, though - they did stand up to the government and didn't have to follow that court order!

"Alex, I'll take Pyrrhic Victories for $800, please."

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

My BlackBerry Priv is configured to melt the hand of any government employee who touches it. Automatic wipe after a single failed unlock attempt.

BlackBerry Priv with CrackBerry App for Android

och!

One thing I hated on the PlayBook was the security wipe after 10 tries... with kids that's not a good thing.

Heck I've had to go two or three times before on my Z10.

[Rustybronco]

I say, let to everyone carry a pocket shredder so they can, at the last minute, drop the device into it. Problem solved.

[Al moon]

The reason that I feel sad for the iPhone users is that they were so jubilant when Apple refused to help the FBI.

It must give them many sads that the FBI can open their phones regardless if Apple helps or not.

well whats worse the fbi forcing their way into the phone or chen just handing over the keys to the house, the car along with the doghouse

[raino]

well whats worse the fbi forcing their way into the phone or chen just handing over the keys to the house, the car along with the doghouse

Apple's quite OK doing the same. Read my first post in this thread quoting Apple's General Counsel.

[donnation]

Apple's quite OK doing the same. Read my first post in this thread quoting Apple's General Counsel.

So you'd have a problem with them opening a phone if a law was made starting they'd have to or you'd prefer them breaking the law and not opening a phone? Blackberry has said they would comply regardless of there was a law or not so I can only assume you'd be ok if Apple dos the same. I'm just not sure what your argument is why I am asking.

[Al moon]

Apple's quite OK doing the same. Read my first post in this thread quoting Apple's General Counsel.

passing a law to have them do it in the future if the law ever passes is not the same as chen saying sure come on in

[bb10adopter111]

By that same logic, the federal judiciary (where all judges hold lifetime appointments) aren't accountable to voters either. Therefore, the corollary to your last sentence is that the FBI shouldn't use the courts to bypass political decision making because they assume that same political decision making will not cut in their favor.

I would note that corporations are accountable to voters. Ultimately, if voters don't agree with what Apple is doing, those voters can stop buying their products. And unlike political figures, for whom votes can only be cast at specific intervals which can be as many as six years long, voters dissatisfied with Apple can stop buying their products anytime.

The federal judiciary is duly appointed and confirmed by elected officials. Perhaps you want to change the constitution?

Legislators make the laws and are accountable

Posted via CB10

[raino]

So you'd have a problem with them opening a phone if a law was made starting they'd have to or you'd prefer them breaking the law and not opening a phone? Blackberry has said they would comply regardless of there was a law or not so I can only assume you'd be ok if Apple dos the same. I'm just not sure what your argument is why I am asking.

Can you cite a source for "Blackberry has said they would comply regardless of there was a law or not?"

passing a law to have them do it in the future if the law ever passes is not the same as chen saying sure come on in

...that is what Chen said: BB would comply with "lawful access requests...within legal and ethical boundaries." Can you show me a source where BB/Chen has said they will hand over information when a warrant/court order has not been issued?

[Elephant_Canyon]

The federal judiciary is duly appointed and confirmed by elected officials.

Yes, and as soon as judges are appointed, they are no longer accountable to voters (or the elected officials who appointed them), because they have lifetime tenure.