Apple: FBI Wants Access To Many Different iPhones - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
Mobile // Mobile Devices
News
2/24/2016
08:06 AM
Connect Directly
Google+
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Apple: FBI Wants Access To Many Different iPhones

Despite the FBI's insistence that it's focused on the San Bernardino terrorism case, authorities want access to more than one iPhone.

Samsung Galaxy S7, S7 Edge: An Up-Close Look
Samsung Galaxy S7, S7 Edge: An Up-Close Look
(Click image for larger view and slideshow.)

In the name of protecting people from terrorism, the US government has gone to war against the private sector and its ability to build secure technology products. The Justice Department is seeking a court order to force Apple to create software that will enable FBI investigators to crack the password protecting encrypted data on an iPhone used by one of the shooters in last year's San Bernardino terrorist attack.

The FBI insists it is making a narrow legal demand that's relevant only to a specific case. "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," said FBI director James Comey in a statement. "That's it. We don't want to break anyone's encryption or set a master key loose on the land."

However, according to an Apple legal filing last week, law enforcement authorities have sought court orders to compel Apple to unlock at least a dozen other iPhones in nine cases working their way through US courts. In a list of FAQs posted on Apple's website, the company claims that law enforcement agents have said they have hundreds of phones they'd like to unlock.

Apple insists the FBI's demand is broad because it would establish a legal precedent that would allow similar demands to be made to any company or individual in the future. "If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone's device to capture their data," said CEO Tim Cook in a letter to Apple customers.

(Image: Mutlu_Kurtbas/iStock)

(Image: Mutlu_Kurtbas/iStock)

In a New York Times op-ed column published on Monday, New York Police Department Commissioner William Bratton and NYPD Intelligence and Counterterrorism Deputy Commissioner James J. Miller acknowledge, "The ramifications of this fight extend beyond San Bernardino." They assert that they're not asking for a back door. "Complying with constitutionally legal court orders is not 'creating a back door'; in a democracy, that is a front door."

But it remains unsettled whether or not the FBI's demand is lawful.

In a democracy, this door, whether framed as a front door or back door, is barred when authorities impose an "unreasonable burden." As George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr suggests in The Washington Post, the court system will have to decide whether the FBI's request represents an unreasonable burden. That won't be an easy decision. Kerr asks if that standard should reflect whether "the subject company has a business strategy that includes opposing government surveillance requests."

In short, is uncompromising security a legal product?

The American public narrowly favors the government. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 51% of US adults surveyed say Apple should unlock the iPhone to help the FBI. About 38% disagreed and 11% said they didn't know.

Present and former leaders of technology companies, including Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google CEO Sundar Pichai, have voiced support for Apple.

[Read Tim Cook vs. FBI: Why Apple Is Fighting the Good Fight.]

Technical experts largely appear to agree with Apple's characterization of the situation and of the risks compliance poses to its business. In a blog post last week, Jonathan Zdziarski, a computer security researcher and iOS forensics expert, explains that the FBI isn't asking Apple to provide the data on the iPhone in question. It's asking the company to create a forensics tool, which requires exposure of Apple's technology to third-parties.

Zdziarski goes on to suggest that the Justice Department's assertion that Apple will be able to keep its tool secret is disingenuous, because doing so would violate the norms of forensic science, where digital tools must be validated independently.

"Not only is Apple being ordered to compromise their own devices; they're being ordered to give that golden key to the government, in a very roundabout sneaky way," explains Zdziarski. "What FBI has requested will inevitably force Apple's methods out into the open, where they can be ingested by government agencies looking to do the same thing."

Indeed, if the US government can demand Apple's assistance, governments of China and Russia can be expected to seek similar service, not just from Apple, but from Google, Microsoft, and every other company.

Does your company offer the most rewarding place to work in IT? Do you know of an organization that stands out from the pack when it comes to how IT workers are treated? Make your voice heard. Submit your entry now for InformationWeek's People's Choice Award. Full details and a submission form can be found here.

Thomas Claburn has been writing about business and technology since 1996, for publications such as New Architect, PC Computing, InformationWeek, Salon, Wired, and Ziff Davis Smart Business. Before that, he worked in film and television, having earned a not particularly useful ... View Full Bio

We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
Ashu001
100%
0%
Ashu001,
User Rank: Ninja
2/24/2016 | 8:46:37 AM
Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
Thomas,

What's your take on John McAfee(The US Presidential Candidate for the Libertarian Party) offer to Unlock the Terrorists iPhone for Free and that to WITHOUT a Backdoor?

What does the FBI have to lose by taking up that offer?

The more I read about the case,the more I realize that as it is all Previous iPhones(upto iOS 7) used to handover all consumer Data directly to the NSA(very clear in Snowden Documents);so what makes them feel they won't be able to get the same Data from the NSA even today?

All they have to do is Ask the NSA???

I am not surprised that there is next to Zero Coverage of the Libertarian Party in MSM but that does'nt mean he is'nt the Real Deal.

Why not takeup John McAfee on his offer on a test-run?As it is Apple has admitted that because the FBI changed the Passcode on that particular iPhone they won't be able to retreive most of the Data ;that's when we call the Pros,The real Pros. Don't we?
Thomas Claburn
100%
0%
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Author
2/24/2016 | 6:38:50 PM
Re: Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
>What does the FBI have to lose by taking up that offer?

Its data, after 10 incorrect guesses. I doubt the FBI would gamble on McAfee's attempt without some assurance of success.
Ashu001
100%
0%
Ashu001,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 8:39:44 AM
Re: Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
Thomas,

Yes I figured that must have been one of the obstacles(apart from further Politicizing this event);but is'nt that what happened eventually?

After the FBI handed over the same to Apple-This is precisely what they said-"We are unable to retrieve the data because the Passcode has been changed.";Why not take up the offer of McAfee's Team atleast for a few oppurtunities?

Anyways,no point in debating this issue any further as the data is now lost for all practical purposes thanks to typical Government Incompetence.

 
PedroGonzales
100%
0%
PedroGonzales,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 10:24:26 AM
Re: Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
I'm sure that if the American government is able to do this.  Dictatorial countries will no doubt use that as a precedent and regular citizens will suffer in the end.   What will be the alternatives; can the government really force tech companies to have any door whether is back or front access to the government watch?
Ashu001
100%
0%
Ashu001,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 12:56:32 PM
Re: Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
Pedro,

This is precisely the issue/worry raised by not just Apple but by most of the Tech Industry in America.

How would America react if Russia demanded that Apple unlocked a phone of a suspicious person in Russia?Or worse,provide a backdoor?

We (both society & IT industry in particular)just are'nt ready/prepared for such a situation today.

I have no doubt though about the Hue and Cry the US Govt will raise if the Putin Administration raises such a request.LOL!!!
mak63
50%
50%
mak63,
User Rank: Ninja
2/26/2016 | 3:25:42 AM
Re: Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
The American government would say we can't allow the Russian, Chinese or whoever to get their hands on this tech, because only the USA are the good guys.
Anyway, I don't believe the FBI can allow McAfee to get their hands on the iPhone being evidence and such.
Why I don't get is that, someone, at the FBI requests changed the iCloud password. It's my understanding that in order to do that, you need to have the old password. I think the FBI screwed up this case (read iPhone) really bad already.
Ashu001
50%
50%
Ashu001,
User Rank: Ninja
2/26/2016 | 9:04:01 AM
Re: Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
mak63,

Its not just that aspect(where FBI screwed up so royally when it comes to these iPhones);if you simply connect an iPhone to a "known" Wi-fi Network;it automatically backsup all its Data to the iCloud.

Could'nt the FBI have simulated a known "Wi-Fi Network" in their Tech Lab for this case?

Its not that difficult(all you need to do is find out the IP Address,MAC address,and Device Details of the existing Wi-Fi router which was on its list of Known Wi-Fi Networks) and then create a Pseudo Network in the Lab.Once you have this network connected to the iPhone its then a simple question of retrieving all the relevant data either before it leaks into the iCloud or then Serving a subpeoana with Apple to retrieve the relevant data.

This is what happens when you have Full-time Government Buearacratts and not Top-notch Pros handling such issues.

Frankly speaking I am not really surprised that the FBI screwed up so badly.

 

 
shakeeb
50%
50%
shakeeb,
User Rank: Ninja
2/29/2016 | 10:07:55 PM
Re: Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
@Ashu – True FBI without the knowledge could easily screw thing up. I'm glad they didn't format the phone remotely. I expected much worse from them.
stevew928
50%
50%
stevew928,
User Rank: Ninja
2/26/2016 | 12:06:13 PM
Re: Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
I don't think they wanted to be successful... IMO, that was the point.
PedroGonzales
50%
50%
PedroGonzales,
User Rank: Ninja
2/26/2016 | 9:43:05 AM
Re: Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
@Ashu.  You are right. Both the Government and tech companies will be making a huge fuss if that happened. Now that you mentioned, if it were to happen; we will be more like china, were any company that does business there must have a monitoring program.  There, 1984 is a reality. 
Ashu001
50%
50%
Ashu001,
User Rank: Ninja
2/27/2016 | 8:52:46 AM
Re: Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
Pedro,

As the Snowden revealations of the last 2-3 years have very clearly and conclusively pointed out;Apple had no problem shipping all its customers Data Wholesale to the NSA and their sister agencies in the UK,Australia,New Zealand,Canada & Israel(Before iOS7).

Its only now that Apple has started encrypting each and every iphone at source that these Agencies have some roadblocks on their way to Total Online surveillance(atleast as far as iPhones are concerned).So we always had the Orwell 1984 sceanario here in the US(If you were/are an iPHone user).

In China,well if you work with up do date Linux Distros(with Built-in Anonymouzers) and avoid Java,Flash and Reader like the plague you will be safer than most Chinese internet users out there.

Why blame what other countries do with their Citizens if our Countries do worse?
shakeeb
50%
50%
shakeeb,
User Rank: Ninja
2/29/2016 | 10:22:03 PM
Re: Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
@Ashu – That means the data is now going beyond US borders?
shakeeb
50%
50%
shakeeb,
User Rank: Ninja
2/29/2016 | 10:00:21 PM
Re: Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
@ PedroGonzale – Yes they can and have the authority to ask for access for National security reasons. If not given access I'm sure they would make Apple's life miserable. 
stevew928
100%
0%
stevew928,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 11:50:23 AM
Re: Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
I doubt it was incompetence. I think they knew exactly what they were doing. I doubt they even care about what is on THIS phone... it's simply a good emotional case to try and push through.

Why didn't they just wait until the phone made it's next backup?

If there is any incompetence, it was the shooters employer in how they set it up, otherwise they'd already be in. But, I'm doubting the FBI doesn't understand how these phones work and just went, oopsie!
Ashu001
50%
50%
Ashu001,
User Rank: Ninja
2/26/2016 | 9:10:26 AM
Re: Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
Steve,

My reading of the case so far gave me this basic idea-Only if you connect an iPhone to a known "Wi-Fi Network" does it backup to  the iCloud.

Apparently,the FBI was totally clueless to how this worked and try to force their hand against the in built safeguards in the iOS Operating System which eventually locked them out of the Phone entirely.

After that in their desperation they went over to Apple but then the phone was beyond useless.

If that on its own does'nt explain the total incompetence of the FBI nothing really will.

Will it?

 
stevew928
50%
50%
stevew928,
User Rank: Ninja
2/26/2016 | 12:04:05 PM
Re: Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
I don't think I'm buying it in this case. I think they want into phones really bad, and this seemed like the perfect case to do so, with all the emotion swirling around it. The incompetence, I guess we'll see, is around how they judged the reaction would play out, and if enough people are actually paying attention to make a difference.
shakeeb
50%
50%
shakeeb,
User Rank: Ninja
2/29/2016 | 10:02:55 PM
Re: Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
@stevew928 – Yes I doubt they have the technical expertise to go in an out of a phone unnoticed hence they try doing things they don't know and fail.
shakeeb
50%
50%
shakeeb,
User Rank: Ninja
2/29/2016 | 9:57:51 PM
Re: Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
FBI messed it up I don't think Apple should be helping them to unlock this phone. They could always take MacAfee's support on this. 
shakeeb
50%
50%
shakeeb,
User Rank: Ninja
2/29/2016 | 9:50:44 PM
Re: Did'nt John McAfee offer to do it for the FBI for Free?
Ohh never expected FBI to go through Apple user's personal information for any reason. To find one crime they might just go through almost all the phone data.
stevew928
100%
0%
stevew928,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 11:57:07 AM
Democracy???
re: "They assert that they're not asking for a back door. 'Complying with constitutionally legal court orders is not 'creating a back door'; in a democracy, that is a front door.'"

I'm not sure what 'a democracy' has to do with anything, but the USA is *supposed* to be a Constitutional Republic. So, it's irrelevant what that Pew poll says, unless enough of the public wants to push through a Constitutional ammendment overturning the 4th ammendment.

Given that the role of government is to 'protect and defend the Constitution' not 'protect the American people' it doesn't much matter that some crazy judge ordered Apple to do something unconstitutional, democracy or not.
Ashu001
50%
50%
Ashu001,
User Rank: Ninja
2/26/2016 | 9:16:18 AM
Re: Democracy???
Steve,

Its one of the Biggest Jokes to call the US a Democracy today(unless of course the current Presidential Election really ends up electing Bernie Sanders or Trump).

Its very simply a winner takes all market;where each and every Politician is on Sale for the Right Price.

With respect to your statement HERE-

Given that the role of government is to 'protect and defend the Constitution' not 'protect the American people' it doesn't much matter that some crazy judge ordered Apple to do something unconstitutional, democracy or not.

Am I the only person here who thinks hardly any section of the US Constitution still has'nt been trampled on by the various Governments of the last 3-4 decades???


 

 
stevew928
50%
50%
stevew928,
User Rank: Ninja
2/26/2016 | 12:00:50 PM
Re: Democracy???
I pretty much agree.

But, was just pointing out that I didn't see how being a democracy had much to do with the point being made. And, I wouldn't want the USA to be a democracy, as a constitutional republic (with a good constitution) is a better form of government.

But, yes, once you go postmodern (ie: reader responsive interpretation) and corrupt, with an uninformed (and propagandized public), it doesn't matter all that much how good the constitution is.
Ashu001
50%
50%
Ashu001,
User Rank: Ninja
2/27/2016 | 9:42:05 AM
Re: Democracy???
Steve,

Lets accept the fact that most Folks are lazy (intellectually) and hardly anybody does any research before Blindly believeing everything they watch on TV or read on the paper without even trying to understand the Context;especially when one realizes how Little Americans know about World History in general.

One of the Best examples was (this was before Obama became President) was this unneccesary Hostility of America towards Iran.

Because Bush Junior Says "Iran is a member of the Axis of Evil" so the American Administration caused an immense Amount of Suffering and Pain on ordinary Iranians.

When its the Iranians who have reason to be Mad at America.

How would you react if you were surrounded on all sides by an Opposing Hostile Militiary Force (which is Iran's Situation today-America has militiary bases on all its Borders);

Or, have a Civilian Airline was blown up in Mid-Air by the US Navy because they felt like it                       (www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/07/the_vincennes_downing_of_iran_air_flight_655_the_united_states_tried_to.html)

 

Or,had a Democratically Elected Government overthrown because some rich people in the US and UK wanted to keep on Bilking Iran's rightful resources without any checks and Balances(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) & replaced them with a Puppet of the CIA???

Or,you switch Sides in whom you support just because someone throws a few more dollars at you?

(This same sceanario also applies to Iraq-Who heaved a massive sigh of relief when they realized that the Bush Dynasty won't be making a comeback with Jeb Bush pulling out of the Race).

I could go on and on and on.

If Ordinary Americans only realized what Monsters members of their Government have unleashed Globally(Osama Bin Laden was a CIA Creation who then went rogue);the world would have been a much-much Safer place for all concerned.

I for one am not surprised that Iran hates the American Government so much(I would too if I was in the same position as the Iranians).

 
TerryB
50%
50%
TerryB,
User Rank: Ninja
2/26/2016 | 1:23:23 PM
Re: Democracy???
@ashu001, it started way longer than a few decades ago. The original plan was for states to have more power than the fed, that was the first power grab. Once that happened, it's all been downhill from there. That's kind of what I was alluding to saying all our systems are broken.

I'm not exactly sure where in history the government decided they needed to protect us from ourselves. Power corrupts, only leads to wanting to consolidate more power by any means necessary.

Only thing I'm not in agreement with you on is your statement Bernie and Trump are same thing. Whether you agree with Bernie on his policies, he is coming from position of really wanting to help the majority (read non rich) of Americans. Trump wants to help Trump. I don't think you'll go into Bernie's office and see pictures of himself posted all over the walls. You seen what Trump's office looks like in Trump Tower?

I'm guessing you didn't really mean it that way, just that you consider him way too left for your taste and Trump way too (fill in direction, crazy maybe?) something else. If so, pretty much how I feel also. But if push comes to shove, I'm giving Bernie a shot before Trump. It will end up being more gridlock if Bernie gets in anyway, nothing will really happen. I just hope he has a good VP because that job will kill the poor old guy.  :-)
Ashu001
50%
50%
Ashu001,
User Rank: Ninja
2/27/2016 | 9:04:44 AM
Re: Democracy???
Terry,

The way I look at it;a vote for either of these 2 candidates is a Vote against the Status Quo mentality that has inflicted DC all these years.

And about time too!

Somebody needed to step up to the plate and deliver;which they will if either of these 2 candidates wins.

I agree with all your other points as well.

 
stevew928
50%
50%
stevew928,
User Rank: Ninja
2/27/2016 | 12:13:35 PM
Re: Democracy???
Either Bernie or Trump might do some disrupting, etc. The question is whether how they would do so is a good thing and/or better than the corrupt mess of having any of the others.

While I don't know Trump, I've known people like him, and I'm not sure he even knows how crazy he is. And Bernie... my gosh, that *would* finish off the country for once and all.
Ashu001
50%
50%
Ashu001,
User Rank: Ninja
2/28/2016 | 8:35:27 AM
Re: Democracy???
Steve,

Maybe America really needs some disrupting /Creative Destruction.

The embedded Crony-Capitalistic political elite in place in DC have ruined this Beautiful country for way too long.

What have we got from these so-called Stable Candidates over the last 3-4 decades here in America?

After yesterday's primary results its quite clear we are looking at a Clinton vs Trump General Election or as ,Edward Snowden called it last night-

"Trump vs Goldman Sachs for US President"?

 

 
stevew928
100%
0%
stevew928,
User Rank: Ninja
2/28/2016 | 3:42:19 PM
Re: Democracy???
While I agree that Hillary would be really, really bad... more of the same only worse... I think we need more than just a wrecking ball. I think the idea that it's going to be fixed top-down is mistaken. We're going to have to elect good people Congress and Senate and eventually trickle up to the president (not that trying for a good president is a bad thing, but even with a good president, they'd be in such a broken system!).

My concern with Trump are a few things. First, the president has to have at least a bit of statesmen type capabilities. Maybe Trump can turn that on when he wants? But, I'm also not so sure, as he might be so ego-bound that this is just the way he is, and he's been able to get away with it for all these years because of who he is.... and that isn't a good thing!

Also, I have concerns over a number of issues and positions Trump holds, or if, in fact, he even knows why he holds his various positions. He doesn't seem very well thought through. That said, both the Republican and Democrat parties suffer from this complex, which is why I can no longer support either.

If it comes down to the the lesser evil, I'd have to think long and hard about whether to vote, or just sit it out.
TerryB
50%
50%
TerryB,
User Rank: Ninja
2/29/2016 | 1:16:17 PM
Re: Democracy???
Some of guys in office found an online survey that asks you questions on policy, and allows you to weight them like Not Important, Somewhat Important, Very Important, etc. It then shows you by pct where you allign with all candidates.

Not really knowing where any of these guys stand on anything (all they do is talk big picture on stuff, if even that), I took this with great curiousity. For full disclosure, I was an Obama voter in his two elections. I have voted for the first Bush and Reagan in the past.

I left priority out of any answer, took the middle Somewhat Important on every question. Here were results:

86% (agreement with) Bernie

83% Hillary

78% Rand Paul

73% O'Malley (the Dem who dropped out)

64% Trump (5th place)

The lowest match was Cruz at 46%. The takeaway for me was, policy wise, not big diff in Bernie and Hillary. The other was how Trump was so close to the two Dems on policies, in total. I was also surprised I agreed with Cruz on anything. :-)

My feelings about Trump are not policy based, more like apprehension @Steve talks about. It's a wild card knowing that guy has his finger on a nuclear trigger. For all Hillary's faults, she at least won't kill us all when Putin tells her to go pound sand on some issue. Sad thing is, in a normal year, no way I'd vote for Hillary. Doesn't look like I'll have choice this year.
stevew928
50%
50%
stevew928,
User Rank: Ninja
2/29/2016 | 1:31:10 PM
Re: Democracy???
Heh, that's funny... the little disclaimer probably said, paid for and developed by the DNC, huh? :)

But, yea, that's a tough choice. If we want more of the same, certainly Hillary and Cruz (in their respective camps). I think we know what we'd get with Bernie too, it's more a matter of whether that's a good thing. Trump, I just don't know. He's certainly the wild-card (and, that's his popularity, as people are incredibly sick of the same-ol, same-ol baloney).

Unfortunately, because this InfoWeek comment system is junk, I can't see what I previously wrote, but I think we've got a better shot at changing the system starting with Congress and more localized. Not that the president isn't important, but I think it steals too much of the spotlight from other just as important problems.

If I haven't mentioned it yet, check out Congressional Dish podcast, and you'll quickly see just how bad things are, regardless of who is in the White House.
TerryB
50%
50%
TerryB,
User Rank: Ninja
2/29/2016 | 1:42:54 PM
Re: Democracy???
@Steve, I'm actually one of few people in office who ever voted Dem. All these guys who did it were GOP. So it isn't biased in kinds of questions it asks.

The reason I hit the way I did was because I left priority out of match. Where I stand on abortion weighed just the same as whether to go after ISIS on the ground, or regulate Wall Street more, or whether to lower Corp tax rate. That's what was interesting, just taking all policies on an equal footing how much common ground there is across everyone of them.

But most people aren't like that or vote like that. They have their big issue which sets their basic party alignment and everything else is just window dressing.

You are right on about lower politics coming first. You should see some local alderman we get in the city gov, and it only gets worse as you move up. Unfortunately, the way they draw districts now, this is not likely to change. Blue and Red are getting more defined every day.
stevew928
50%
50%
stevew928,
User Rank: Ninja
3/1/2016 | 12:31:23 AM
Re: Democracy???
No, I'm saying if that's how the results came out, it seems like it was designed / weighted towards a Democrat slant, especially if Hillary came out near Bernie. (for example, if regulating Wall Street, abortion, and fighting ISIS are equally rated, how does Hillary even rank? Hillary should only rank if you're looking for a pro-establishment leftist.)

But, also thise 'rate the issue' things don't really work because all the issues aren't equal. For example, while I'm not necessarily for building a wall between the US and Mexico, it's *WAY* more important to me that the candidate is pro-life... and not just playing that card because they've signed onto the Republican ticket, but really believes that and can articulate why. If they can't, they just don't belong in a leadership capacity.

Or, I think going after ISIS (the real ISIS, not the fake one created by the State Department) is probably a good thing, but not the way it's being done. So, how would I even answer such a simple question? How would I weight that?

Here's the thing, often these single issues are actually pretty critical things the people feel strongly about. My problem is that neither party really even comes close to matching my positions.

I think we're going to have to, somewhat, put the red/blue thing out of our minds a bit (though not give up on our ideals) and get the corrupt people out, starting with Congress, no matter what party they are. They might take some voting across lines, encouraging good people to run, or even running ourselves if we're up to it. A good, semi-competent person with some integrity can't do worse!
TerryB
50%
50%
TerryB,
User Rank: Ninja
3/1/2016 | 9:40:27 AM
Re: Democracy???
Steve, it's not slanted. I'm sure when you do it you'll match GOP guys. Be sure and take the detailed questions (more in each category) to get best match. Funniest thing was girl in office who is GOP but hates Trump. She matched 99% with Trump, I'm not letting her live that down. :-)  She did not take detail questions.

https://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz
impactnow
50%
50%
impactnow,
User Rank: Author
2/29/2016 | 8:09:02 PM
National Security Access

 

While I understand the concern over privacy the government has access to every other private and public bit of information about individuals. They can monitor landline phones, internet communications, social media activity etc. In fact many companies do the same of their employees. While I understand the fight ultimately I think the government will win in the name of national security.

Broadway0474
50%
50%
Broadway0474,
User Rank: Ninja
2/29/2016 | 11:13:13 PM
Re: National Security Access
impactnow, you raise an incredible point. Is Apple's fight too little too late? The government's already got the capabilities to invade our digital and mobile space. I know the argument is that hackers will benefit from the iphone backdoor too, but as far as the government's concerned, I think there's more to this fight.
stevew928
50%
50%
stevew928,
User Rank: Ninja
3/1/2016 | 12:19:24 AM
Re: National Security Access
They've got the phone. It's actually owned by the shooters employer. They're welcome to have at it all they like.

What they can't do, is force Apple to create a tool to break the security mechanisms in general. That's unconstutional and VERY dangerous.

Is this still the USA we're talking about here? It seem the FBI thinks they are in North Korea or something.
batye
50%
50%
batye,
User Rank: Ninja
3/1/2016 | 1:10:40 AM
Re: National Security Access
@stevew928, interesting points and questions...
Slideshows
Reflections on Tech in 2019
James M. Connolly, Editorial Director, InformationWeek and Network Computing,  12/9/2019
Slideshows
What Digital Transformation Is (And Isn't)
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  12/4/2019
Commentary
Watch Out for New Barriers to Faster Software Development
Lisa Morgan, Freelance Writer,  12/3/2019
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Video
Current Issue
The Cloud Gets Ready for the 20's
This IT Trend Report explores how cloud computing is being shaped for the next phase in its maturation. It will help enterprise IT decision makers and business leaders understand some of the key trends reflected emerging cloud concepts and technologies, and in enterprise cloud usage patterns. Get it today!
Slideshows
Flash Poll