Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 24, 2016 3:31:59 GMT -8
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 24, 2016 4:32:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by rob_london on Feb 24, 2016 4:57:52 GMT -8
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 24, 2016 8:06:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Feb 24, 2016 9:04:43 GMT -8
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 24, 2016 9:11:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Feb 24, 2016 9:21:15 GMT -8
I think the board is just catching it's collective breath. Thanks for posting the link, Since84. It's a very worthwhile read and I found this section of the article to be particularly interesting. ============ “The particular legal issue is actually quite narrow,” James B. Comey Jr., the director of the F.B.I., wrote in a blog post on Sunday. “We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist’s passcode without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. That’s it.”
But civil liberties activists say they’d have an easier time believing Mr. Comey’s assurances if there weren’t a long history of the government relying on legal cases based on old technology to decide how to handle newer technologies. Courts in the 1960s and 1970s created rules for the wiretapping of analog phone calls; those rulings were later applied as the basis for mass surveillance of the Internet.
“By and large you get very little constitutional protection for data housed by third parties, and that’s mostly a result of a Supreme Court case from the 1960s — before email, before search engines, before social networks,” said Chris Soghoian, the principal technologist at the American Civil Liberties Union.
Mr. Soghoian pointed out the government had already tried to turn connected devices into surveillance machines. In a mob case more than a decade ago, the F.B.I. asked a company that made an in-dash roadside assistance device — something like OnStar, which uses a cellular phone to connect to an operator in case of an emergency — to secretly record the private conversations of people inside a car. A court ruled against the F.B.I.’s request, but only on the very narrow ground that bugging the car would have interfered with the proper functioning of the in-dash device.
“The court left open the door to surveillance as long as the primary function of the device was intact,” Mr. Soghoian said. “So as long as Amazon Echo can tell you what temperature it is or can still play music, that case seems to suggest that the government might be able to force Amazon to spy on you.”
Mr. Soghoian was referring to Amazon’s handy digital assistant, a device that is constantly listening to your household conversations to try to offer you friendly help. The Echo listens for a keyword — “Alexa!” — which prompts it to start streaming your voice to Amazon’s servers to decipher your request. Amazon, which declined to comment on how the Apple case might affect Echo users’ privacy, has said it is not constantly recording people’s voices, and that it keeps voice recordings only to help the system learn to better understand you.============ I wonder how the owners of Amazon’s "handy digital assistant" are viewing this struggle between Apple and the FBI? Do they even understand the stake that they have in the outcome?
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Feb 24, 2016 9:33:54 GMT -8
These three short clips of Ted Olson's comments to Charlie Rose indicate, to me, that Apple's case is in good hands. He's impressive. Since84, we may be a little quieter than usual, but you're on a roll this morning!
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 24, 2016 9:33:58 GMT -8
I wonder how the owners of Amazon’s "handy digital assistant" are viewing this struggle between Apple and the FBI? Do they even understand the stake that they have in the outcome? Must admit this debate does give me pause as to whether I really want Siri running on my computers... car... phone... I know many people who already have tape over their computer's camera.
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 24, 2016 10:13:31 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by deasys on Feb 24, 2016 10:31:25 GMT -8
I wonder how the owners of Amazon’s "handy digital assistant" are viewing this struggle between Apple and the FBI? Do they even understand the stake that they have in the outcome? Must admit this debate does give me pause as to whether I really want Siri running on my computers... car... phone... Unlike Amazon's Alexa, the equivalent "Hey, Siri!" activation by voice feature on iOS devices is disabled by default. Normal interaction with Siri requires the user to explicitly activate it per use by pressing a button.
|
|
|
Post by deasys on Feb 24, 2016 10:32:34 GMT -8
Another supply chain rumor (remember last quarter?) Are you referring to the one in which Apple set yet another iPhone unit sales record? Yeah, I remember that.
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Feb 24, 2016 10:38:58 GMT -8
That's disturbing. Like I said earlier, you're on a roll this morning.
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Feb 24, 2016 10:45:25 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Feb 24, 2016 10:45:56 GMT -8
Must admit this debate does give me pause as to whether I really want Siri running on my computers... car... phone... Unlike Amazon's Alexa, the equivalent "Hey, Siri!" activation by voice feature on iOS devices is disabled by default. Normal interaction with Siri requires the user to explicitly activate it per use by pressing a button. That's reassuring, but if the activation could be done with software alone, I wouldn't be surprised if, in the future, the FBI tried to get a court order to require it. Just for that one targeted iPhone, of course.
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Feb 24, 2016 11:02:22 GMT -8
Another supply chain rumor (remember last quarter?) Are you referring to the one in which Apple set yet another iPhone unit sales record? Yeah, I remember that. You mean the sales record that caused our stock to jump by 50% in a day? Yeah, I don't remember that.
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Feb 24, 2016 11:10:56 GMT -8
Short but interesting article. Thanks for posting it. I think OPEC and Exxon are badly mistaken. This is a problem for oil markets. OPEC still contends that electric vehicles will make up just 1 percent of global car sales in 2040. Exxon's forecast is similarly dismissive.
So perhaps a certain pipeline wasn't needed after all? The oil price crash that started in 2014 was caused by a glut of unwanted oil, as producers started cranking out about 2 million barrels a day more than the market supported. Nobody saw it coming, despite the massively expanding oil fields across North America. The question is: How soon could electric vehicles trigger a similar oil glut by reducing demand by the same 2 million barrels? Continuing briefly on the subject of oil, Russia's economy appears to be headed further in a direction that will increasingly make that country "difficult" for it's citizens and for other nations. Selling Apple products in Russia will be the least of our problems. Can Things Get Any Worse for Russia? You're About to Find Out
Investors who’ve made a fortune in the country say that with oil's plunge, the ruble's collapse, and Putin in power, all bets are off www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-24/putin-s-oil-despair-drives-lucky-few-investors-toward-the-exits
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 24, 2016 11:14:18 GMT -8
Ars Technica has Snowden lawyer: Bill of Rights was meant to make government’s job “more difficult”. We sit down with Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union. I posted this because it speaks to the broader issues and how it relates to likely technological futures. Yes, there is some discussion on both Snowden and Apple/FBI. Also, referring to Ben Wizner 'Snowden's Lawyer' is like calling the Pope your Priest.
|
|
platon
Member
"All we can know is that we know nothing. And that's the height of human wisdom.? Tolstoy
Posts: 3,944
|
Post by platon on Feb 24, 2016 11:49:33 GMT -8
Olson was on Cavuto on Fox Business today and it got pretty heated and Cavuto is catching a lot of flak. I am at a loss how this issue can put two polar opposites (Firestorm and Cavuto) on the same side. Cavuto showed a lack of understanding about Apple's stance and Olson is a genius and staunch defender of the COTUS who quite clearly defined the problem with the government's case. I will hand it to Cavuto though, he had several follow up guests who backed Olson up. I also liked how Charlie Gasparino brought up the hypocrisy of Apple and other firms who say that this will encroach the Constitution and their 4th Amendment protections and then support infringement of the 2nd Amendment by Mr. Obama. This is typical of the Elitists within Silicon Valley and their seeming to pick and choose what part of the Constitution is valid. I bring this up only because it was perfectly demonstrated in the Monday thread in two different posts and because it directly relates to the cause and effect of the iPhone debate. People either support the COTUS or they don't. I support Apple's position on their phone but I acknowledge that their management team is hypocritical in their support of said document.
|
|
|
Post by mrentropy on Feb 24, 2016 12:42:05 GMT -8
Annnnnnd... Yesterday didn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by BillH on Feb 24, 2016 14:16:22 GMT -8
Tim Cook is going to be on ABC Nightly news but what I really want to know is that a black MacBook Air on his credenza?
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Feb 24, 2016 15:07:31 GMT -8
The lovely KYLOBBIST, a fellow member of the AAPL SANITY website is featured in the AARP magazine. Apple Stock Desireé Owen, duck farm owner, Barlow, Kentucky. When Owen was in the middle of a career that has included stints as a lobbyist, campaign manager and news anchor, she noticed a computer company that looked as if it had potential: Apple. In 1998, she bought shares. She was drawn to the company because she had an Apple computer and liked it. The stock is now worth over 100 times what she paid for it. Partly as a result of that early investment, Owen has purchased a 156-acre farm that she is turning into a duck hunting club, trading office life for rural paradise. Bottom line: With stocks, select what you know — and like.— Courtesy Desireé Owen www.aarp.org/money/investing/info-2016/best-investments-made-photo.html#slide2slide two!
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Feb 24, 2016 17:03:06 GMT -8
Tim Cook on ABC: abcnews.go.com/Technology/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-cook-iphone-cracking-software/story?id=37173343 In an exclusive interview with ABC News today, Apple CEO Tim Cook told "World News Tonight" anchor David Muir that what the U.S. government was asking of the tech giant -- to essentially create software enabling the FBI to unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino, California, shooters -- amounted to the "software equivalent of cancer." "The only way to get information -- at least currently, the only way we know -- would be to write a piece of software that we view as sort of the equivalent of cancer. We think it's bad news to write. We would never write it. We have never written it -- and that is what is at stake here," he said. "We believe that is a very dangerous operating system." The interview will also air on "Nightline" at 12:35 a.m. and Thursday on "Good Morning America." The FBI has called on Apple to help crack into the iPhone of Syed Farook, who along with wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 and injured 22 at a training session and holiday party in December. The FBI attempted to crack the pass code but failed because Apple phone systems have a function that automatically erases the access key and renders the phone "permanently inaccessible" after 10 failed attempts. Last week, at the request of the Justice Department, a federal judge told Apple to assist law enforcement. However, the tech giant refused and vowed to fight the order, sparking a continuing fight between federal authorities and Silicon Valley. Cook today called the issue "complex" but said the creation of such software would put hundreds of millions of customers at risk and "trample" civil liberties. "If a court can ask us to write this piece of software, think about what else they could ask us to write -- maybe it's an operating system for surveillance, maybe the ability for the law enforcement to turn on the camera," Cook said. "I don't know where this stops. But I do know that this is not what should be happening in this country."
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Feb 24, 2016 17:09:43 GMT -8
Today would have been Steve Jobs' 61st birthday.
|
|
|
Post by osx10 on Feb 24, 2016 17:13:56 GMT -8
I'm glad that Tim has given his last 2 big TV interviews to non-Comcast affiliated news organizations. Brian Roberts likely has a hotline right to the master control at CNBC to make sure that they bash Apple at least 1x per hour.
|
|
|
Post by macster on Feb 24, 2016 17:55:30 GMT -8
Some may have already seen this.... www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5714#more-5714On Ribbons and Ribbon Cutters With most non-technical people struggling to make sense of the battle between FBI and Apple, Bill Gates introduced an excellent analogy to explain cryptography to the average non-geek. Gates used the analogy of encryption as a “ribbon around a hard drive”. Good encryption is more like a chastity belt, but since Farook decided to use a weak passcode, I think it’s fair here to call it a ribbon. In any case, lets go with Gates’ ribbon analogy. Where Gates is wrong is that FBI is not ordering Apple to simply cut the ribbon. In fact, I think there would be more in the tech sector who would support Apple simply breaking the weak password that Farook chose to use if this had been the case. Apple’s encryption is virtually unbreakable when you use a strong alphanumeric passcode, and so by choosing to use a numeric pin, you get what you deserve. Instead of cutting the ribbon, which would be a much simpler task, FBI is ordering Apple to invent a ribbon cutter – a forensic tool capable of cutting the ribbon for FBI, and is promising to use it on just this one phone. In reality, there’s already a line beginning to form behind Comey should he get his way. NY DA Cy Vance has stated that NYC has 175 iPhones waiting to be unlocked (which translates to roughly 1/10th of 1% of all crime in NYC for an entire year). Documents have also shown DOJ has over a dozen more such requests pending. If FBI’s promise of “just this one phone” were authentic, there would be no need to order Apple to make this ribbon cutter; they’d simply tell them to cut the ribbon. Why has the government waited this long to order such a thing? Because in spite of all of iOS 8’s security, the Chinese invented a ribbon cutter for it called the IP BOX. IP BOX was capable of brute forcing any numeric passcode in iOS 8, and even though it was junky, Chinese-made hardware with zero forensic credibility (and actually called home to servers in China), our government used it widely to break into iOS devices without Apple’s help. The government has really gone dumpster diving for forensic solutions for iOS. This ribbon cutter was used by both law enforcement and anyone with $200 to break into iOS devices, and is a great example of how such a ribbon cutter is often abused for crime. So here’s the real question: Why is FBI asking for the invention of a ribbon cutter instead of just asking Apple to cut the ribbon? Well the answer to that comes back to precedent. If FBI can order the existence of this ribbon cutter, Cy Vance’s 175 phones will be much easier to push through the courts without the same level of scrutiny as a terrorism case. If FBI were simply asking for Apple to cut the ribbon, all future AWA orders would have to go through the same legal scrutiny in the courts for justification. Getting the ribbon cutter invented for a terrorism case opens the door for such a tool to then be justified by the DA for weaker cases – such as narcotics, computer crimes, or even simply investigations where the government can’t even prove to the courts that a crime was ever committed. Once it’s a tool, just like a Stingray box or a breathalyzer, the court’s leniency in permitting its use increases dramatically. The existence of a ribbon cutter is really only the first stepping stone in breathing a whole suite of forensic modules into existence, as I mentioned in another blog post. If you simply ask Apple to cut the ribbon, you have nothing to build on when expanding future requests for information from iPhone 6 devices, and the next generation. Also consider that the courts aren’t about to force Apple to hack into their own customer products. In fact, the customer purchased these products trusting that the manufacturer wouldn’t – even couldn’t – intentionally compromise them; ever since iOS 8, Apple has marketed these devices as so secure that Apple themselves cannot hack them. For Apple to be forced to backdoor their own devices would invite countless lawsuits from their own customers, betray consumer trust, and likely cost Apple millions, if not billions, in sales depending on how big of a PR nightmare it created. The courts, however, appear to be OK with forcing Apple to write what is being portrayed by the FBI as an innocent, fluffy tool for just this one device. In reality, the backdoor FBI is ordering Apple to create is incredibly dangerous. Once the backdoor is created, it can be used on over half a billion devices at the whim of the courts – both in this country, and in China, or other countries that oppress human rights. It will weaken our own national security and create an incredibly tangled legal web for Apple to fight through with every other country that follows in the US’ footsteps. While the analogy of a ribbon is easy to understand, the implications are far more serious than the frilly ribbon you probably think of.
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Feb 24, 2016 18:12:38 GMT -8
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin
There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all. – Justice Antonin Scalia
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Feb 24, 2016 18:19:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Feb 24, 2016 18:59:46 GMT -8
hip hip hooray! Sharp Corp. agreed to a 700 billion yen ($6.2 billion) rescue deal from Taiwan’s Foxconn Technology Group rather than a competing offer from a Japanese government-backed fund, the Nikkei reported Thursday. Foxconn, the parent of Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., beat out state-backed Innovation Network Corp. of Japan, the Japanese media service reported. Sharp climbed as much as 5.8 percent after the report emerged. Saddled with debt and struggling with chronic losses, the board of the century-old consumer electronics maker had to choose between INCJ’s plan to restructure by spinning off businesses, or staying whole but under a foreign parent. A successful bid would mean Foxconn, the main assembler of Apple Inc.’s iPhone, takes over one of the largest suppliers of screens for phones and tablets. Chairman Terry Gou is seeking to broaden Foxconn’s remit, transforming it into a company that also makes key electronics components and devices. The battle has been seen as a test of Japan’s willingness to open its economy, following Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s appeal for market reforms and overseas investments to boost growth. Struggling companies have long been able to rely on the country’s government and banks for support. Nikkei’s report follows years of on-off talks with Foxconn, which had offered 550 yen a share for a stake in Sharp in 2012, around which time the yen’s climb to a postwar high undermined profit and lower-cost challengers in South Korea and China trounced its pioneering liquid-crystal display television business. www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-25/sharp-agrees-to-6-2-billion-bailout-from-foxconn-nikkei-says
|
|
|
Post by dreamRaj on Feb 24, 2016 20:05:11 GMT -8
|
|