APPLE vs The FBI - Standoff continues....

The Federal court has ordered APPLE to comply with the FBI's demand in hacking the iPHONE of one the San Bernardino terrorists...

APPLE are refusing to comply with this directive...

Tim Cook ceo "US Govt has asked for something we don't have and something we consider DANGEROUS to create... A BACKDOOR to the Iphone"...

FBI - Are saying it's a National Security issue....

APPLE - See it as a privacy issue......and no doubt believing once the FBI has a backdoor the door is going to stay open...

My sympathies are with Apple......

Agreed. It's a slippery slope if the FBI get their way.

Pr4wn wrote:Agreed. It's a slippery slope if the FBI get their way.

I think it is inevitable mate...........Apple aren't naive but I'm sure the "Apple pie-ers" are.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35595474/dont-set-your-iphone-to-1-january-1970-or-youll-break-it

I think Apple have bigger issues at the minute...namely the stupidity of thousands of people who own an iphone.

Have enough trouble with a regular one..

DAVE667 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35595474/dont-set-your-iphone-to-1-january-1970-or-youll-break-it

I think Apple have bigger issues at the minute...namely the stupidity of thousands of people who own an iphone.

To be fair it sounds at least kinda legit. Unlike this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2768976/Emergency-services-forced-step-iPhone-users-fall-internet-prank-explains-use-microwave-charge-phone.html

kingraf wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35595474/dont-set-your-iphone-to-1-january-1970-or-youll-break-it

I think Apple have bigger issues at the minute...namely the stupidity of thousands of people who own an iphone.

To be fair it sounds at least kinda legit. Unlike this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2768976/Emergency-services-forced-step-iPhone-users-fall-internet-prank-explains-use-microwave-charge-phone.html

That is fantastic.

Also this

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/fake-waterproof-iphone-ad-tricks-users-into-destroying-their-smartphones-8835952.html

A software update to make it waterproof. I hope insurance companies didn't pay out.

No, no they didn't, I do believe that they should just take the warning labels off and see what happens...

If a member of my family had been killed, and the FBI could find out just by looking into a phone and its records, then that information should be available. Terrorists, and those who work with them, should have zero human rights.

Thats the problem - they're working with the fbi on a way to get into THAT phone. They're doing all they can. It's just they wont make a program for the FBI specifically so they can open ALL iphones and it's a stance I agree with.

I knew moving to Samsung 5 years ago was the right move. I hated my iPhones.

Azzy wrote:....Terrorists, and those who work with them, should have zero human rights.

Nah. Sorry. They have to be accorded their rights otherwise we're little better than them.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Azzy wrote:....Terrorists, and those who work with them, should have zero human rights.

Nah. Sorry. They have to be accorded their rights otherwise we're little better than them.

Why do people have rights to rights? We don't give rights to squirrels, does that mean we are little better than them?

We don't give criminals a right to vote when in prison. We also don't give them a right to walk as free men/women down the street during the period of incarceration.

We are mightily choosey when we grant people their supposed rights, therefore I was think the argument is a little rich to then say which should treat criminals/terrorists with kid gloves and cotton wool for risk of offending their 'rights' in other manners.

'We' already monitor phone calls and browsing activity of the general public, let alone terrorists or anyone suspected of criminal activity.

Eye-for-an-eye is a very basic way of conducting business, yet I feel that's the only way to treat people fairly. And yes, you occasionally get it wrong. But the 99% of the time you get it right makes up for that.

Worth remembering that there is a precedent for this case and it's another reason Apple aren't happy with the decision..

Supreme Court ruled in 1977 - "The govt could not compel a third party that is not involved in a crime to assist law enforcement if doing so would place "unreasonable burdens" on it...

Then again there wasn't any 9/11 incidents around that time..

Azzy wrote:Eye-for-an-eye is a very basic way of conducting business, yet I feel that's the only way to treat people fairly. And yes, you occasionally get it wrong. But the 99% of the time you get it right makes up for that.

Only if it's not you or yours at the wrong end of it. And 99 percent is a big stretch. I'd probably guess at around 80% for us and 70 for the americans.

ShahenshahG wrote:

Azzy wrote:Eye-for-an-eye is a very basic way of conducting business, yet I feel that's the only way to treat people fairly. And yes, you occasionally get it wrong. But the 99% of the time you get it right makes up for that.

Only if it's not you or yours at the wrong end of it. And 99 percent is a big stretch. I'd probably guess at around 80%  for us and 70 for the americans.

I'd take those odds. I can state for certain that I'll never get caught up in criminal activity, and my immediate family won't either. Uncles and cousins can rob the Bank of England for all I care.

Unlocking a criminal's phone to ensure more criminal activity is not carried out must surely be a requirement for a stable, policed society. Set compensation limits if access were granted and nothing is found, but to allow criminals and their associates rights is wrong. I can't believe any human being would defend a terrorist (and lawyers don't count, they aren't human).

Again apple are doing all they can to unlock this phone. They just don't want to give out access to all iPhones in a blanket loophole that criminals will exploit. They aren't defending terrorists they're just not offering an exploit for every burglar to bypass your alarms/locked front door.

Azzy wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Azzy wrote:....Terrorists, and those who work with them, should have zero human rights.

Nah. Sorry. They have to be accorded their rights otherwise we're little better than them.

Why do people have rights to rights? We don't give rights to squirrels, does that mean we are little better than them?

Of course squirrels have 'rights'. I daresay the RSPCA would have your guts for garters if, say, you were caught torturing squirrels for some sick bit of fun. Terrorists have the 'right', for example to a fair trial with appropriate representation. Your initial comment would suggest you don't even think they should have that.

Azzy wrote:Eye-for-an-eye is a very basic way of conducting business, yet I feel that's the only way to treat people fairly. And yes, you occasionally get it wrong. But the 99% of the time you get it right makes up for that.

Seriously??? Why don't you try it out and head off to Saudi or somewhere equally enlightened?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Azzy wrote:Eye-for-an-eye is a very basic way of conducting business, yet I feel that's the only way to treat people fairly. And yes, you occasionally get it wrong. But the 99% of the time you get it right makes up for that.

Seriously??? Why don't you try it out and head off to Saudi or somewhere equally enlightened?

Too hot for me.

Azzy wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Azzy wrote:Eye-for-an-eye is a very basic way of conducting business, yet I feel that's the only way to treat people fairly. And yes, you occasionally get it wrong. But the 99% of the time you get it right makes up for that.

Seriously??? Why don't you try it out and head off to Saudi or somewhere equally enlightened?

Too hot for me.

You could always have a nice cold beer?

I don't drink. Or smoke.