Apple vs. The Government

[Al Doggity]

So you doubt that there are huge (but extremely well hidden) multi-billion dollar fabs out there that produce tech decades ahead of anything Intel or TSMC can produce, using principles that researchers worldwide have not even discovered yet?

Yes, I doubt it. It's just not possible. The competition for tech development talent is too stiff and the only way to fund high-level,cutting edge  research and development is to be a profitable corporation.  Advancements in technology don't occur in a vacuum. They are gradual and built upon previous advancements, so it just doesn't make sense that there are top secret organizations using undiscovered principles to create decades in the future technology.

[TuHolmes]

Yes, I doubt it. It's just not possible. The competition for tech development talent is too stiff and the only way to fund high-level,cutting edge  research and development is to be a profitable corporation.  Advancements in technology don't occur in a vacuum. They are gradual and built upon previous advancements, so it just doesn't make sense that there are top secret organizations using undiscovered principles to create decades in the future technology.

Agreed. This isn't like when the government was funding all of these top secret computer projects.

Even all of the ship building and newest aircrafts are designed and built by corporations.

Computing power is not built by the government. They are buying stuff built by Intel, AMD, and Oracle.

[Nails]

how long before the FBI supercomputers could crack this guys password 

[Thin Lizzy]

Yes, I doubt it. It's just not possible. The competition for tech development talent is too stiff and the only way to fund high-level,cutting edge  research and development is to be a profitable corporation.  Advancements in technology don't occur in a vacuum. They are gradual and built upon previous advancements, so it just doesn't make sense that there are top secret organizations using undiscovered principles to create decades in the future technology.

If the government does have it, it hasn't made its way to the White House

[Las Vegas]

Anyone care to offer an opinion as to why Apple claims this matter requires a "public discussion"?

[TuHolmes]

Anyone care to offer an opinion as to why Apple claims this matter requires a "public discussion"?

Because it affects 2 things in my mind.

1. It's a social and legal issue for the entire country so people (citizens) should be involved.
2. PR nightmare if they just do whatever the government says.

I saw where Google backed them as well.

[Thin Lizzy]

Also, to get out in front of the story.

A legal battle between the U.S Government and the biggest company in the world isn't gonna be a secret for very long.

[Las Vegas]

So "discussion" doesn't mean they're looking to soften the stand they claim, because lo and behold they've found the public "thinks it's more important" to seek some "compromise"?

We're talking about a terror attack on U.S. soil being the spark for the entire thing, a fact which couldn't possibly stay out of the "discussion".

How would this "discussion" go, exactly?

[HTexan]

Go apple!! Google CEO wants to give law enforcement citizens data!!

[Dave D]

So "discussion" doesn't mean they're looking to soften the stand they claim, because lo and behold they've found the public "thinks it's more important" to seek some "compromise"?

We're talking about a terror attack on U.S. soil being the spark for the entire thing, a fact which couldn't possibly stay out of the "discussion".

How would this "discussion" go, exactly?

"Terror attack"  is a media created term. This was more of a disgruntled employee losing his mind.

Do you think this would have been averted if the government had access to his cell phone prior to the attack?

There was the kid who lost it in California and he openly posted on bodybuilding.com and no one did anything to stop him from acting out on his rage.

Or do you really think there's vital "terrorist" information on that phone?

If the US government wanted to shut down terrorist attacks on homeland soil there are many useful steps they can take to  achieve such a goal. Mining a cell phone for information is the least important of these.

[ProudVirgin69]

It's not about them not doing it in this isolated case, it's about including some kind of backdoor in all future products.  If they did what the feds were asking them to do, it would be technically possible for anyone to get in which is essentially undermining their product.

[HTexan]

It's not about them not doing it in this isolated case, it's about including some kind of backdoor in all future products.  If they did what the feds were asking them to do, it would be technically possible for anyone to get in which is essentially undermining their product.

This. ^
They want a master key to everyone's data. So unconstitutional it is beyond belief .

[Al Doggity]

How would this "discussion" go, exactly?

They used the term "discussion" at the beginning of an open letter in which they discussed this issue. They were not calling for a discussion with the public. They were saying that the moment called for them to discuss THEIR POSITION in public.

[HTexan]

Apple encryption is the shit.

http://www.darthnull.org/2014/10/06/ios-encryption

Android sucks on older devices. Upgrade your phones people.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/phone-and-laptop-encryption-guide-protect-your-stuff-and-yourself/

[Las Vegas]

"Terror attack"  is a media created term. This was more of a disgruntled employee losing his mind.

Do you think this would have been averted if the government had access to his cell phone prior to the attack?

There was the kid who lost it in California and he openly posted on bodybuilding.com and no one did anything to stop him from acting out on his rage.

Or do you really think there's vital "terrorist" information on that phone?

If the US government wanted to shut down terrorist attacks on homeland soil there are many useful steps they can take to  achieve such a goal. Mining a cell phone for information is the least important of these.

I suspect that Apple has infested our government to the point they might as well be one and the same.

So I'm not entirely convinced this is what it's said to be, when it comes down to it.

[Las Vegas]

They used the term "discussion" at the beginning of an open letter in which they discussed this issue. They were not calling for a discussion with the public. They were saying that the moment called for them to discuss THEIR POSITION in public.

So you have full faith they aren't looking to soften the position.  Is that correct?

[HTexan]

So you have full faith they aren't looking to soften the position.  Is that correct?

I do. Why? Because how would buy a phone with a back door? Everybody was something on their phone, a nude pic, private texts, etc, that they don't want getting out. People are paranoid by nature.

[Al Doggity]

So you have full faith they aren't looking to soften the position.  Is that correct?

I have full faith that the meaning of that letter was not to call for a town hall meeting, which is what I said in that post.

[Las Vegas]

I do. Why? Because how would buy a phone with a back door? Everybody was something on their phone, a nude pic, private texts, etc, that they don't want getting out. People are paranoid by nature.

Because the "bad guys" may steal your info or cause you trouble, right?

[Las Vegas]

I have full faith that the meaning of that letter was not to call for a town hall meeting, which is what I said in that post.

What you said in the post, is this:

They were not calling for a discussion with the public.

What Apple says, is this:

This moment calls for public discussion

[beakdoctor]

Agreed however based on the comment I don't think this concept is understood.

I have a better understanding of it than you. Search warrants are issued upon probable cause, always have been. It's nothing new. The search is justified they need the assistance of apple because of the encryption. It's that simple.

There is nothing in this case that will be legal precedent. The FEDS will get in. Apple is only delaying the inevitable.

[Al Doggity]

What you said in the post, is this:

What Apple says, is this:

What I said in the post is this:

They were saying that the moment called for them to discuss THEIR POSITION in public.

Why did you clip that when you quoted me?

[Las Vegas]

What I said in the post is this:

Why did you clip that when you quoted me?

Are you aware of the definition of the word?

[Dave D]

I suspect that Apple has infested our government to the point they might as well be one and the same.

So I'm not entirely convinced this is what it's said to be, when it comes down to it.

That is a legitimate and valid point.

Usually these releases are "red herrings" to open the thought of what could be even though it has already happened.

I see your point.

[Las Vegas]

*The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.

*A conversation or debate about a certain topic.

You're welcome.