I expect the same method I use to ensure no one retrieves data from my old hard drives is just as effective with a smart phone.
Posted on 03/10/2016 5:50:32 PM PST by Nachum
If the FBI wins in its case against Apple to help it unlock the San Bernardino killer’s iPhone 5C, it won’t be long before the government forces Apple to turn on users’ iPhone cameras and microphones to spy on them, according to the company’s head of services Eddy Cue.
The FBI has demanded that Apple creates custom software that bypasses certain security features of the company’s iOS to allow law enforcement to brute force the passcode of the gunman’s iPhone 5C.
But according to Apple, making the modifications necessary in this case would set a dangerous precedent in offering backdoors into users’ smartphones.
Cue said to Univision: “Someday they will want [Apple] to turn on [a user’s] camera or microphone. We can’t do that now, but what if we’re forced to do that?
“Where will this stop? In a divorce case? In an immigration case? In a tax case? Some day, someone will be able to turn on a phone’s microphone. That should not happen in this country.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I got one.
But it’ll still has a camera etc..
The ICs can be de-potted quite easily. It is done all of the time in waferfab forensic laboratories.
Sure but activating the camera - in my case means opening the flip else it takes a picture in my pocket or of the side of my face in extreme close up. So nothing interesting and so who cares.
The smart phones does not have that ‘feature.’
I still like this hack though: http://www.cnet.com/news/a-mobile-phone-with-a-rotary-dial-retro-cool-or-retro-fool/
So, cracking one dead terrorist’s phone is worth compromising the privacy of all Americans? Yeah, right, Comrade—why don’t you hike on back to China or Russia or wherever the hell you were raised?
Works OK on single level silicon, but not so well on multilevel chips. That's what these are. The technique becomes destructive. The current flow also won't work on multilevel either. As for probing, Apple has designed these to prevent such probes from working.
So how's the FBI doing on those email messages of Hillary's? If they can't do anything with those, they aren't fit to nose into cellphones and smart phones.
Remember what they used the phone taps they had on Martin Luther King for?
When King learned he would be the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, the FBI decided to take its harassment of King one step further, sending him an insulting and threatening note anonymously. A draft was found in the FBI files years later. In it the FBI wrote, "You are a colossal fraud and an evil, vicious one at that." The letter went on to say, "The American public ... will know you for what you are -- an evil, abnormal beast," and "Satan could not do more."
The letter's threat was ominous, if not specific: "King you are done." Some have theorized the intent of the letter was to drive King to commit suicide in order to avoid personal embarrassment. "King, there is only one thing left for you to do," the letter concluded. "You know what it is ... You better take it before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation."
Turning it on is one thing; decrypting it is a problem several orders of magnitude larger.
Я не думаю, что правительству нужно будет попросить Apple, чтобы включить микрофон или камеру чьей.
I expect the same method I use to ensure no one retrieves data from my old hard drives is just as effective with a smart phone.
If a terrorist knew of plans to attack a church where your family was going to pray tomorrow, would you approve of waterboarding him.... or looking into his employer’s cellphone?
Also, you may remember... or may not... that the “Right to Privacy” is NOT part of the US Constitution and was first advanced with any significance... some say invented.... in order to justify allowing abortion in Roe v. Wade.
And please, personal insults only make you look foolish.
bkmk
No, I would not approve of it.
I will not sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety.
Also, where did you come up with this nonsense about “right to privacy” not being in the Constitution? Have you ever actually READ the Bill of Rights? Why don’t you read it and come back to me and tell the class what you found.
I have read it, plead it, and taught it for years.
For your edification; here it is again:
The Bill of Rights – Full Text
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Now, if you would you please, little one, please try to find the phrase “Right to Privacy” therein.
For you, for remedial brain work, please read:
Janet Smith on the Right to Privacy
How Bad Laws Allowed the Culture of Death
October 17, 2008ZENIT StaffUncategorized
By Annamarie Adkins
ST. PAUL, Minnesota, OCT. 17, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Most Americans, even Catholics, probably take it for granted that the U.S. Constitution protects their right to privacy. But they may be surprised to find out that no such right is in the Constitution.
It was invented by lawyers to allow
Furthermore, the advent of the right to privacy in American constitutional law built a foundation for the culture of death to thrive in this country, according to philosopher Janet E. Smith.
The “right to privacy,” when originally formulated, referred to the right to have such things as one’s journal or conversations kept private.
But during the 1960s the courts invented a whole new meaning for the right to privacy. They were attempting to find some basis on which they could overturn laws against the sale, distribution and use of contraception.
For nearly a century many states and the federal government had laws against contraception. Planned Parenthood assiduously challenged those laws, but they were repeatedly affirmed by legislatures and courts.
In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court found constitutional protection for the sale, distribution and use of contraceptives — by married couples. As is well known, there is no right to privacy in the constitution nor were the justices clear on which amendment implied a right to privacy that would guarantee access to contraception.
Two short years later, the court expanded that right to the use of contraceptives by the unmarried. In 1973, the court found that the right to privacy extended to the right to have an abortion. There, too, laws of all 50 states were overturned by the votes of a few justices.
The right to privacy has become a very elastic right; it has been used to legalize contraception, abortion, assisted suicide and homosexual acts.
In Brown v The Board of Education, the it was judge made law, it was first used to to any significant assistance to make abortion law available everywhere.
Virtually no one can give a coherent explanation of what this right is and what it legitimately protects. It has become a wild card that permits the courts to advance a very liberal — not to say libertine agenda — often overriding the decisions of state legislatures and courts.
Understood, and if the Ninth Circus don’t want to recognize a right to be secure in one’s papers, they can always be overturned. Nevertheless, I argue that a plain reading supports privacy.
I’m sorry, but “plain reading” is another ways of saying “Well, the legislature really didn’t want to pass a law that meant what the law said it meant... but I can figure it out.”
The so-called “right of privacy” was never even a vocalized significant issue in America until it was invented to justify abortion buy Associate Justice Harry Blackman in the liberal court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade.
Abortion is not a good foundation on which to hang the refusal to comply with a court order in a national security case.
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.