Posted on 03/11/2016 11:12:28 PM PST by Swordmaker
The FBI's attempts to force Apple to unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino terrorists is not just about accessing information about the attack, but changing the architecture of the device's mobile operating system, former CIA director James Woolsey said Friday.
"The last time I looked into the language on this with some care, it did seem to me as if the FBI was trying to get a right essentially to effectively decide what kind of an operating system Apple was going to have, and that they were not just trying to get into one phone. They were trying to change some important aspect of Apple's operating system," Woolsey told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
Lawmakers and tech companies have long been at odds over the encryption being built into consumer devices.
Tech companies generally say encryption is necessary to protect their customers' privacy in a world besieged by data breaches. But national security and law enforcement officials worry it is creating a powerful tool for terrorists to communicate covertly and putting up high-tech roadblocks to investigations.
The official seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is seen on an iPhone's camera screen outside the J. Edgar Hoover headquarters February 23, 2016 in Washington, DC.
The agency should not have the right to restructure Apple's iOS in perpetuity, Woolsey said.
"I don't think they're very good telephone designers, and I don't think that is their cache," he said.
The tech giant has refused a U.S. magistrate's order to create software that would allow the FBI to circumvent security measures built into the operating system on an iPhone 5C used by Syed Rizwan Farook, who along with his wife killed 14 people at a county government facility in San Bernardino, California, in December.
The bureau could likely unlock the iPhone, Woolsey said, but the manner in which it wants to accomplish that goal would make it necessary for Apple to create a backdoor into its phones. The company shouldn't have to do that, he said.
Woolsey, who is now the chairman at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, spoke from the Young Presidents' Organization Conference in Dubai.
The government does not have the right. End of discussion.
Ben Franklin held people like you in utter contempt. I do, too.
L
I think it Abe Lincoln who once observed that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact".
Do you yell "fire" in a crowded theater as well as tolerate Worldwide Jihad?
Look up the context of that quote and get back to me.
L
Because that’s what is at stake with this renegade government.
Because that’s what is at stake with renegade governments....
Yes, providing the FBI with the capability to unlock every iPhone on the planet is EXACTLY like the common sense ban on yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
And if one disagrees with you, they tolerate global jihad.
Yes, a very intuitive leap you have made here.
Why don't you look up "Italian Hall disaster" and then get back to *me* regarding reasonable restrictions on Constitutional rights.
There'll be no blanket permission to access phones.The FBI requested a court order to unlock *one* phone in connection to a jihadi attack that killed dozen of US citizens.Any authorization to unlock phones would be on a case-by-case basis and would come from at least one Federal judge.
And I must say that I'm curious about Precious Timmy Cook's histrionics here.Could there be a specific reason why he doesn't want *his* phone unlocked?
You posted an out of context quote in the first place, so the burden is upon you, my friend.
L
Are you really trying to suggest that the unlocking of one iPhone does not create a template for unlocking all iPhones?
I guess the Snowden fiasco occurred while you were hibernating. If we have technology, we use it. And the government really has few constraints, wouldn’t you agree?
I don't share your political or personal paranoia.
I close my argument with the same question I always ask...
Please give me the names of one or two Americans who have been verifiably injured, in their person or property, by unconstitutional invasion of their privacy.
Sheryl Atkinson from CBS news springs to mind. Look it up.
L
What do you accept as proof?
How do you expect such proof to be found?
We only learned about the massive abuses of the Stassi in East Germany *after* the secret files were finally opened.
The idea that people in power would not use such power is naive.
No.
I’m not going to look it up.
Summarize the important details.
Then, I will verify if you are telling the truth, or lying, or exaggerating.
Sheryl Atkinson from CBS news springs to mind. Look it up.
I thought of her. I predict that zeestephen will not accept it as “verified”.
There are also almost certain instances of pushback against accusers of Bill Clinton, such as Kathleen Wiley. It shows how much power can be brought to bear against an “enemy” of the state.
Abuses?
East Germany was a totalitarian police state.
Who, besides you, did not know its population was routinely spied on?
You don’t pay attention to the news much, do you?
Lady was recently charged with a crime for preventing a cop from killing her dog.
Cop outright lies.
http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2016/03/woman-that-stepped-between-dog-and-cop-about-to-shoot-acquitted/
We are routinely spied on.
Snowden proved that.
Deny the gaia cult, get persecuted.
Tell me we aren’t looking at a police state in the making.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.