Do the San Bernadino Shooters deserve their privacy?

Post Reply New Topic

So I was talking to someone about the privacy issue around the San Bernadino Shooters phone and I effectively said: " the business model of an enforceable contract law between a person and a business that guarantees privacy between a company and customer is a good thing
I mean in this age virtually everyone keeps a recording device of some type
And some people have finally realized that idea of privacy has been twisting for quite sometime since Bush Junior.
Yeah it maybe a an extreme view of government. But the issue is at least coming into focus and the debate has been healthy so far.


And long the legal definition evolves the right way it can actually give citizens more power"

I argued: "The San Bernadino shooters are getting the best degree of Habeous Corpus and Client-Attorney money can buy by the CEO and by their business model. They were public workers who may have been midde class at the least but only had to pay for the phone itself which are getting cheaper and cheaper which is why everyone buys them.
But they are dead, and paid probably over a couple of the years. But Apple has standard as a business model they sell to people which gives them that privilege."

I mean those are their customers and it can in end sort of make the idea of privacy more democratic maybe.

It kinda got awkward and he politely made his objections, but I start to wonder if maybe what I said is not a great idea. What I was trying to get a across is that the people who obviously care about privacy are being represented against the government by a business model which is the adversarial but healthy conflict between government interests and a person's right to privacy. So in effect customers have legal representation as a customer of a business, as much as a defendant has the right to chose their counsel.

in this case I'd say since they are dead, in light of the damage they've done, they've forfeited that privacy.

Its not about their privacy.

No one is trying to protect the SB shooters' privacy.

The dispute is about your's, and my privacy, not the dead criminals' privacy.

One issue is that it sets a legal precedent: if the government can demand that company break into its products then Big Brother might demand that all of the time.

But the more important issue in technological. Supposedly if Apple cooked up a software program to break into this their own smart phone the fear is that this newly invented key cant be UN-invented. Hackers will find a way to get it and do nefarious things (including terrorism)with it.

If Apple cooperates then we are all at the mercy of both Big Brother (government) AND Little Brother ( criminals). Or thats the fear.

Sounded like a real concern to me. Maybe Apple should not bow to the Feds.

But just this afternoon I heard an expert interviewed on the radio say that " consumer technology is evolving so fast these days that if Apple programmed a key for this one device today it would be irrelevent and useless in six months anyway. So I am not worried about it."

Makes sense to me. Any new software wouldnt be usable long enough to be miss usable.

So maybe Apple SHOULD go ahead and cooperate with the Feds after all.

apple is working on an unbreakable code that not even they can crack.

I wonder if there ever will be DNA-based codes?

You can get DNA from a dead person.

but not the RIGHT DNA. only one person has the right DNA.

You can get the right DNA from the right cadaver.

In fact, investigators were disapointed to find that this iPhone was not set up to open with a finger scan, because they could arrange that with the dead terrorist.

But this case is not about this incident at all. It's about the FBI looking for a ruling from higher courts that will give them access to digital systems of all kinds.

^^^do you think they'll eventually succeed?

If so, identical siblings can be used to crack it.

I suppose there's always a fly in the ointment somehow.

Identical siblings have DNA that differs slightly.

imagine a world where everybody's dna were databanked and nobody could get away with squat.

The issue is indeed with the backdoor that would have to be installed.
Once it is possible to crack open a phone, agencies (FBI, CIA, KGB, whatever) will keep finding more and more reasons to peek in someones phone, and criminals will be close behind.

So, in general, i don't mind the San Bernadino shooters' phones being looked into, but i do mind that this will be done in a way that allows access to all phones.

This is an appeal to authority, because both sides of the discussion will not be held to the same level of scrutiny, nor will they have same capabilities.

I think this is inevitable.

In the absence of a collapse of global civilization, it seems likely we will genotype all children at birth, just as we note blood type today. Physicians will then pursue highly individualized courses of treatment informed by analysis of individual genomes throughout a patient's life.

Naturally, law enforcement agencies will be able to use this genetic data to quickly identify suspects based on forensic evidence gathered at crime scenes. They will also be able to quickly exonerate falsely accused individuals, even unpopular ones.

Neverthless, there will be countless large and small things that people "get away with" because circumstances will naturally prevent tying particular misdeeds to genetic evidence in many, many cases.

It's hard to think of compelling reasons not to do this, other than concerns about abuse of genotyping by eugenicists, but that is an issue that will have to be addressed in any case, so it should not preclude personalized medicine based on genetics or widespread use of genetic identification by law enforcement.