And the other shoe drops regarding Apple:

[Blue_Tires]

Apple’s response to US and UK government demands for backdoors to user data has been direct, bordering on defiant. Yesterday (Feb. 16), Apple CEO Tim Cook published a letter explaining the company’s refusal to comply with a US federal court order to help the FBI access data on a phone recovered from one of the attackers in the San Bernardino, California shootings.

Apple appears to take a different tack in dealing with data security demands from China, a key growth market for the company.

In January 2015, the state-run newspaper People’s Daily claimed, in a tweet, that Apple had agreed to security checks by the Chinese government. This followed a piece in the Beijing News (link in Chinese) that claimed Apple acceded to audits after a meeting between Cook and China’s top internet official, Lu Wei. China’s State Internet Information Office would reportedly be allowed to perform “security checks” on all Apple products sold on the mainland. According to the report, this was despite Cook’s assurances that the devices didn’t contain backdoors accessible by any government, including the US.

If Apple had indeed agreed to a Beijing security audit, it could have shared vital information with the Chinese government, such as its operating system’s source code, that could indirectly help government agents discover vulnerabilities on their own. It would have been a serious departure from Apple’s public, privacy-centric stance.

Cook has said on earnings calls that he believes the Greater China region, which includes Taiwan and Hong Kong along with the mainland, will eventually become Apple’s biggest market. Some could get the impression that Apple capitulated to Beijing’s security demands because it wanted access to a huge and growing market.

http://qz.com/618371/apple-is-openly-defying-us-security-orders-but-in-china-it-takes-a-very-different-approach/

[snooper2]

1. There is only one way this story ends- The government will get the data

Even though there are stupid people out there that thinks the government has every single email, phone call, chat, all content EVA! LOL...

There is a working process-

Get a warrant, turn over data...

It has been going on in telecom with encrypted data for a LONG time...just time for Apple to play by same rules.

[Logical]

6. Nope! Dont trust secret courts and sealed warrants. You sound scared. Nt

[snooper2]

8. Um, warrant might not be for public consumption but people do have to read them

It's called-

Having clearance...


One wouldn't know what number to put a trace on if one couldn't READ THE FUCKING WARRANT to know LOL

Need-to-Know basis

[Logical]

11. They love your type! So easy to give up privacy for security. Be afraid, very afraid! Nt

[TransitJohn]

22. Should the manufacturer of a safe

be required to design and build a skeleton key that opens all of their safes, just because the government wants inside one safe they manufactured years ago that an alleged criminal had in their house?

[dumbcat]

24. "Get a warrant, turn over data... "

There was no (search) warrant. Apple does not have the data the FBI is looking for.

Other than that...

[Kittycat]

2. Do you want to live under China's laws or the intent of the US Constitution?

I guess that's what it comes down to for me.

[Blue_Tires]

5. I'd prefer some ethical consistency, personally...

[Avalux]

3. Or some could say we have a constitution that protects from such things.

Sure Apple has a bigger market in China, but China is a communist country with little regard for its citizen's rights. I'm not giving Apple credit for being constitutionalists; but at least we still have that document where China doesn't.

[Blue_Tires]

9. Or some could say

Since Apple readily agrees to abide by Chinese Law in order to access their market, why would they not abide by U.S. law?

[dixiegrrrrl]

20. Because in this case, the Feds want something that Apple does not have.

Warrants are obtained to get/find something that exists.
Apple says it has complied with legal warrants in the past, for things that existed.

THIS case however is seeking to compel Apple to CREATE something, which does not exist.
It is a form of involuntary servitude.

[Blue_Tires]

21. So they need to frame the issue in that manner

and quit pretending this stunt has anything to do with "privacy"

It's a pure business decision and nothing more...

[randome]

17. The Constitution does not protect against warranted searches, though.

So Apple will no doubt have to maintain some sort of 'back door' to their phones here in the U.S., as well. A phone is nothing more than a digital filing cabinet so it should not be immune to reasonable searches.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[dixiegrrrrl]

23. THIS seems to have erased "that document":

Secret Memo Details U.S.’s Broader Strategy to Crack Phones

ilicon Valley celebrated last fall when the White House revealed it would not seek legislation forcing technology makers to install “backdoors” in their software -- secret listening posts where investigators could pierce the veil of secrecy on users’ encrypted data, from text messages to video chats. But while the companies may have thought that was the final word, in fact the government was working on a Plan B.

In a secret meeting convened by the White House around Thanksgiving, senior national security officials ordered agencies across the U.S. government to find ways to counter encryption software and gain access to the most heavily protected user data on the most secure consumer devices, including Apple Inc.’s iPhone, the marquee product of one of America’s most valuable companies, according to two people familiar with the decision.

The approach was formalized in a confidential National Security Council “decision memo,” tasking government agencies with developing encryption workarounds, estimating additional budgets and

identifying laws that may need to be changed to counter what FBI Director James Comey calls the “going dark” problem: investigators being unable to access the contents of encrypted data stored on mobile devices or traveling across the Internet.

Details of the memo reveal that, in private, the government was honing a sharper edge to its relationship with Silicon Valley alongside more public signs of rapprochement.

On Tuesday, the public got its first glimpse of what those efforts may look like when a federal judge ordered Apple to create a special tool for the FBI to bypass security protections on an iPhone 5c belonging to one of the shooters in the Dec. 2 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California that killed 14 people. Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook has vowed to fight the order, calling it a “chilling” demand that Apple “hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers.” The order was not a direct outcome of the memo but is in line with the broader government strategy.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/secret-memo-details-u-s-s-broader-strategy-to-crack-phones


"Going dark" is a "problem" for the Feds....

[jonno99]

4. Whats the big deal? You people got something to hide?!

[Logical]

7. Lol, i was ready to rip into you! 😄

[jonno99]

12. Come into my parlor - said the spider to the fly...

[Logical]

13. 😄

[LittleBlue]

10. So what? China is different than the west

There is no expectation of privacy in China, unlike the United States where we have a constitution. The concept of legal privacy against the government isn't valid there. You either accede to their demands, or their market is closed to you. They have no problem blocking anyone from their country who doesn't go along with their rules.

Their country, their rules. That's just the way it is.

[Atman]

14. "COULD HAVE."

Nothing in the article says Apple actually gave anything to the Chinese. Just that some writer speculated that they "could have." Apple agreed to "security checks." WTF does that even mean?

Apple is fun to hate on, regardless of any facts.

[Blue_Tires]

15. "COULD HAVE"

Isn't Apple's entire legal argument based on an action which "COULD HAVE" some slippery-slope ramifications down the road??

If you want to argue the story is wrong or incorrect, take it up with these people: https://twitter.com/PDChina/status/558353534958469123

You can say "COULD HAVE" until you turn blue in the face, but Apple hasn't denied it, either...

And quit acting like Apple's shit doesn't stink -- They've been caught doing highly questionable to outright dastardly things before, in case you'd forgotten....

[Sgent]

16. Even with the source code

which is what "security checks" seem to mean, there is no back door.

[Blue_Tires]

18. Then Apple should clarify by saying

What the court asks isn't feasably possible

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

19. If Apple provides this capability to China,

then the FBI's case is strengthened. Apple doesn't have to really "invent" the software, just reuse it.

[Rex]

25. How rich, China treats Apple like it treats America when it needs something.

Yeah those over seas companies that pretend to be American, great idea now to move and make money at slave wages? Apple better hope China allows them to stay and/or leave the country.

[steve2470]

26. This UK Register article has great details I was not aware of, highly recommended reading....

Confused as to WTF is happening with Apple, the FBI and a killer's iPhone? Let's fix that

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/17/apple_iphone_5c/

Water cooler Everyone is losing their mind over Apple being forced to help the FBI unlock an iPhone. Just what is going on?

Relax, don't spill your almond milk latte. We'll make it crystal clear for you.

The FBI wants to unlock an iPhone 5C belonging to Syed Farook, who with his wife Tashfeen Malik shot and killed 14 coworkers in December in San Bernardino, California. The couple were killed by cops in a shootout soon after.

The Feds, fearing a link between the pair and Islamic terrorists, want to break into Farook's phone. But the federal investigators don't know the passcode and fear the device will wipe itself after 10 wrong guesses. The handset – running either iOS 8 or 9 – has also encrypted its messages, photos and other data, and a valid code is needed to decrypt the files.

much more at link

[KG]

27. I lulz'd

as usual.