Ron Paul: First They Came for the iPhones ...

The New American ^ | 28 February 2016 | Ron Paul

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

They don’t want to hear our boring stuff. It would be overwhelming to wade through everyone’s stupid stuff. Besides, the Constitution and legislation already protects against overreach. If it falls short, address it. But to deny the threat is just being willfully blind. It ignores history. Technology and communication have changed drastically. All that is needed is an update to the level of the current technology. Other than that it would be no different than it has been for years and years. Unless you want to give New York and Chicago back to the mob bosses. Etc. That’s just an historical fact.

[Utmost Certainty]

I’d take the New York or Chicago mob bosses over the government mob any day.

I don’t want the government having invasive powers like this. Period. It’ll invariably be used to punish whoever the govt deems to be its political enemies.

What may seem boringly inconsequential can also turn out to be disparaging, humiliating, or otherwise ruinous to an individual. Especially when things are left to human imagination and get interpreted wildly out of context, etc.

Apple is doing the right thing by taking a stand against it. They should be praised as patriots in this respect.

[palmer]

I prefer ordered liberty to licentiousness disguised as liberty

Perhaps you should sign up for 24x7 monitoring then. I might even sign up for voluntary monitoring. But if I buy a device to keep my data secure after even after my death, I would expect that there would be no back door. That is in fact the case already:

No back door. FBI can't read one owned by a dead terrorist. To claim that Apple can't do this ignores the reality of technology. To say Apple can be overruled by a 200 year old law is dumb. The only thing that could overrule technology like this is a new law specific to the technology. That law would be detrimental to the long term interests of America, and would ultimately fail.

But a law banning encryption without a back door for data-at-rest is your only option. The 24x7 monitoring I mentioned at the beginning does not exist, but since it is active it would not and could not be protected by the data-at-rest technology. I think the FBI should set up a program for people like you who fear their own licentiousness.

[palmer]

All that is needed is an update to the level of the current technology.

At least you recognize that a new law is needed. The FBI will get shot down trying to use 200 year old law for this case (they are already toast in a similar case).

The issue for the new law is how to make a CALEA law that sort of works (barely) and not a Clipper chip law which failed miserably and led directly to the development of strong crypto outside of America.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

If you are a TERRORIST and die because you murdered lots of innocent people, you get no such right.

Even if the government wanted to snoop on everyone, there is just way too much data for them to even begin to keep up. All that is needed is access to those who use the device to commit crimes.

What are they going to see that they do not already know anyway? (For the non-criminal population.) Social Security number? Got it. Age? Got it? Weight? Got it. Health info? Got it in many cases (thanks obama). School records? Mostly got it. Political views? Hey we are giving that to them right here. What? Family members? They already know. Financial info. Got it.

Now there are instances where info needs to be private. I am not saying that does not exist. As long as you obey the laws, keep your encryption. No biggie.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I do not think the FBI will get shot down. This is a clear case of the government doing its job of keeping us safe. Laws can be updated and this case ruled in favor of the FBI. Every person in the entire country has an interest in this. It is a long way from being just about Apple and their rights or Apple users and their privacy paranoia. It is about the safety of every American.

There is no liberty without life.

[PapaBear3625]

Paul is on the right side of the issue (as is typical). And I'm not buying for a minute that this is only about the San Bernardino killers' phones. The government wants to be able to look at anyone's.

You can refuse to create something which does not currently exist. Once it exists, however, you cannot refuse a court order to hand it over.

Once Apple has software which can be used to bypass iPhone security, then they will get a demand to supply it to the US government. Then other governments will demand it as a pre-condition for being allowed to sell iPhones in their countries.

Shortly thereafter, it gets into the hands of criminal hacker gangs.

And then the security of Apple iPhones will no longer exist.

[from occupied ga]

the man shows no evidence of government spying on ordinary Americans. To make a false point he basically just lies

East Germany is no more and the Soviet Union is gone. Communist China is more laissez faire capitalistic that the USA. I think the only place left for you and people like you to be happy is North Korea.

[from occupied ga]

This is a clear case of the government doing its job of keeping us safe.

LOL I doubt even you believe that. in the 20th century 100 million people were murdered BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS. Government doesn't keep you safe. Government robs you to fill the coffers of itself and it's cronies.

There is no liberty without life.

Are you sure you didn't wander in from DU by mistake?

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

We do not yet live in a totalitarian state. Our government has checks and balances. This same means, only with the older technology, has often been used to prosecute corrupt politicians and government officials. With the new technology and without an ability to access the files of criminals, that will no longer be possible.

[palmer]

If you are a TERRORIST and die because you murdered lots of innocent people, you get no such right.

Wouldn't matter if the government merely went to Apple as they have done countless times in the past and asked for tech support. In this case they asked for a back door. The tech explanation is relatvely straighforward:

The Apple design accepts passcode inputs on a virtual keyboard and uses them to unlock the AES key. The design has a progressive timeout to prevent rapid guessing and AES key erasure to prevent more than 10 guesses. FBI asked to have the latter two features disabled, all well and good.

But they also demanded the ability to interface through bluetooth, wifi or usb. Those interfaces do not exist (for passcodes). That is the back door. Furthermore they demand that it be a standalone program which they could easily convert into an app to run on any unlocked phone.

That might not sound like a big deal to most people, but it is adds a serious flaw to the protection, previously only accessible by the passcode processing in flash. Once Apple removes the ability to update the passcode processing in flash, that will be it for the FBI, no technical possibility of asking for the development of the OS update that adds a back door.

As long as you obey the laws, keep your encryption.

Either I have encryption or I don't. If there is a back door, I don't.

[palmer]

It is about the safety of every American.

It's much bigger than overriding privacy. Once the government requires a back door there will be companies in other countries that create devices without back doors. I pictured one above that is actually designed and 100% built in USA and it can be trusted for that reason (unlike something from China). You would remove that advantage to the long term detriment of US safety. We do not want to have a situation where we must buy "security" from China.

[palmer]

With the new technology and without an ability to access the files of criminals, that will no longer be possible.

No, that is not correct. In 0.001% of the cases such as a dead terrorist, the access to the files will go away with the death of the terrorist. IN the other 99.99% of the cases the key will be available from the terrorist or the terrorist can go to jail until he reveals it. Or the terrorist suspect can continue to use his device and be intercepted 1000 different ways to gain evidence for conviction and prevention of crime.

[from occupied ga]

With the new technology and without an ability to access the files of criminals, that will no longer be possible.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I believe that quote is out of context. It is not counting investigation as suffering. If you go to trial and are found innocent it does not mean that you suffered because of the trial. It means, better to not convict someone innocent. Better to not convict the guilty than to convict the innocent. Entirely different. Without the ability to investigate, there will be no convicting the guilty to an increasing degree. They will have a place to hide their crimes provided courtesy of Apple Corp.

[brucedavis]

If Ron Paul was running, I’d vote for him as president again like in 2008!

[Holdem Or Foldem]

It is obvious that the government wants an unlimited ability to snoop your phone whenever it dam* well pleases. My suggestion is to go offshore now. No don’t leave :), buy a Samsung or some other phone. The foreign producers will be the last bastions of freedom to be sujugated.

[palmer]

They will have a place to hide their crimes provided courtesy of Apple Corp.

They won't mainly because Apple cooperates with LE. Also Apple is a US company which gives us a long term edge in tech from their suppliers. For example their secure environment is designed by an American company.

The worst case scenario is that the US bans Apple from making secure products causing terrorists to use secure products from China. Any American using a Chinese secure product would have to worry about potential back doors. You would of course probably argue that the US would ban such products and you would be wrong. It's been tried around the world and always fails miserably.

[Mr. Jeeves]

This is a clear case of the government doing its job of keeping us safe.

The government's job is to uphold the Constitution. As long as it does that, the people will have no trouble keeping themselves safe.