Liberty Safe giving codes to FBI

[tcook8296]

]

 

 

[vdep217]

25 minutes ago, Hunter115522 said:

I refuse to live in fear, and be paranoid like the tin foil guys. I have my opinions, and you guys have yours. 

 

And yes, obviously there's people within our government that would love to take the guns. But there's people that would like to do a lot of things, doesn't mean it will happen

I'm not a tinfoil hat guy but just look around they are slowly taking them away and trying to take more.  Yes there are those that oppose but they are being branded terrorists and those against safe regulation just look at the labels they have given the nra I firmly believe without them we would be much worse

[tcook8296]

Lmfao. I will take tinfoil over a blindfold anyday. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by tcook8296

[mazzgolf]

1 hour ago, Hunter115522 said:

there's people within our government that would love to take the guns. But there's people that would like to do a lot of things, doesn't mean it will happen

Remember the guy who won a Marlin .22 in a raffle that had a 17-round built-in magazine? (see NJ State vs. Peleteri)

The gun was never fired a single time, it never left his safe, and it still had the manufacturers tags hanging on it.

It allowed 2 more bullets in the magazine more than the state dictated was allowed, thus it was banned because it was considered an "assault weapon".

He was arrested and gun taken, eventually received probation.

For a .22LR!!! That could hold ONLY 2 (!!) more bullets than dictated by  law. And this happened in 1996.

Yeah, it has already started to happen. And if you think, after having successfully taken away .22LRs that hold more than 15 rounds, that the state won't take away semi-auto shotguns, or magazines (and guns with built-in magazines) that hold more than 5 rounds total, or whatever else they can think of, then you are naive because in the past few years bills have already been introduced within the NJ legislature that do exactly that.

I will quote the judges' final decision of State v Peleteri ... this is an ominous warning shot across the bow of every gun owner in New Jersey: "When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril."

[tick trawler]

While we may never know exactly what if anything transpired between a federal agency and the liberty safe company, being that we are barraged with lies and false narratives constantly, consider the following that we have learned over the years:

Having an expensive safe does not guarantee the security of its contents.

Increasing the complexity of components in systems does not increase security or reliability of said systems, but rather will decrease reliability and increase costs up front and long term.

Individuals such as Mr. Bloomberg have been stymied on the gun issue but they are most likely not done issuing their negative influences.

With things such as they are these days especially, corporations and governments in the U.S. will exploit anyone and anything for gain and self preservation.

 

 

 

[Lunatic]

1 hour ago, Hunter115522 said:

I refuse to live in fear, and be paranoid like the tin foil guys. I have my opinions, and you guys have yours. 

 

And yes, obviously there's people within our government that would love to take the guns. But there's people that would like to do a lot of things, doesn't mean it will happen

Our 2nd amendment is is under attack for a long time and we are losing. More and more, and never ending, unconstitutional restrictions design to eliminate guns from our society. This is not paranoia talking. This is reality in plain sight. 

[tjfslaughter]

And this is why I chose a manual lock (S&G).  Somebody will have to work at it if they want to get in. 

[Greybeard]

19 hours ago, nmc02 said:

I think all US companies should be required to cooperate with law enforcement agencies....as long as warrants are applied for, etc. That is the reason I will NEVER purchase an Apple product. When the terrorists bombed the Boston Marathon, Apple refused to assist the FBI with accessing a known terrorist's iphone.

 

 

February 16, 2016 A Message to Our Customers

The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand. 

This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.

Answers to your questions about privacy and security

The Need for Encryption

Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going.

All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data.

Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.

For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.

The San Bernardino Case

We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.

When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.

We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.

The Threat to Data Security

Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.

In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.

The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.

The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.

We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.

A Dangerous Precedent

Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority.

The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.

The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. 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. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.

Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.

We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.

While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

 

[Lunatic]

33 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

Remember the guy who won a Marlin .22 in a raffle that had a 17-round built-in magazine? (see NJ State vs. Peleteri)

The gun was never fired a single time, it never left his safe, and it still had the manufacturers tags hanging on it.

It allowed 2 more bullets in the magazine more than the state dictated was allowed, thus it was banned because it was considered an "assault weapon".

He was arrested and gun taken, eventually received probation.

For a .22LR!!! That could hold ONLY 2 (!!) more bullets than dictated by  law. And this happened in 1996.

Yeah, it has already started to happen. And if you think, after having successfully taken away .22LRs that hold more than 15 rounds, that the state won't take away semi-auto shotguns, or magazines (and guns with built-in magazines) that hold more than 5 rounds total, or whatever else they can think of, then you are naive because in the past few years bills have already been introduced within the NJ legislature that do exactly that.

I will quote the judges' final decision of State v Peleteri ... this is an ominous warning shot across the bow of every gun owner in New Jersey: "When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril."

“ It has already started to happen” is an understatement of a century. In my opinion we are halfway through he process of gun elimination in US. Never mind all of the unconstitutional restrictions already in place. How about the emergency powers they tested on us during covid? The left is masterful in circumventing our constitutional rights and what they are doing to our 2nd is a prime example. 

[Greybeard]

19 hours ago, nmc02 said:

I think all US companies should be required to cooperate with law enforcement agencies....as long as warrants are applied for, etc. That is the reason I will NEVER purchase an Apple product. When the terrorists bombed the Boston Marathon, Apple refused to assist the FBI with accessing a known terrorist's iphone.

Now read this

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-fbi-violated-privacy-rights-tens-thousands-americans

[hostak126]

update from guns & gadgets

 

 

[Lunatic]

2 minutes ago, Greybeard said:

Now read this

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-fbi-violated-privacy-rights-tens-thousands-americans

Unfortunately the FBI is now a political, bias arm of our liberal government. It grew too powerful without checks and balances acting like an entity without restrictions. 

[FeniQuest217]

There's tinfoil hats - and then there's whats actually happening. Opinions , thoughts, however you want to put it but if you're really paying attention to whats happening - there's a lot of things going on that are taking from the people and it isn't just guns and ammo folks. 

[BothBarrels]

55 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

... I will quote the judges' final decision of State v Peleteri ... this is an ominous warning shot across the bow of every gun owner in New Jersey: "When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril."

I think the point being .... we gunowners MUST know the gun laws. It's serious business. As also stated in the link you posted ... our legislature ruled that an "honest" error does not exonerate a defendant.

The maximum sentence for Peleteri's crime was 10 years in prison and/or huge fine. But, the court considered his ignorance of the law and sentenced only probation.

Two years ago I bought a used Marlin 60 from a man in Pa. for my grandkids. I carefully reviewed NJ's draconian gun laws ... again.

[vdep217]

59 minutes ago, BothBarrels said:

I think the point being .... we gunowners MUST know the gun laws. It's serious business. As also stated in the link you posted ... our legislature ruled that an "honest" error does not exonerate a defendant.

The maximum sentence for Peleteri's crime was 10 years in prison and/or huge fine. But, the court considered his ignorance of the law and sentenced only probation.

Two years ago I bought a used Marlin 60 from a man in Pa. for my grandkids. I carefully reviewed NJ's draconian gun laws ... again.

The point is mag laws are arbitrary at best at at the hands of our government.   Whenever it was 15 it was for any fire arm but now it's 10 tubular mags on 22s are exempt.  So now not only is it a 2nd ammendment issue but now we are ok with the gov depriving us of property legally obtained without compensation.   And it cost us more when the 10rnd mag ban started as we had to either pay to modify buy new mags and get rid of old ones.

Now take a firearm like s&w 459 a classic that they don't make 10 rnd mags for and very hard to find new ones should the value of the gun be diminished because the mag has to be pinned permanently  by law?

Same thing with the carry permits you damn well need to be a lawyer to comprehend.   Ex.  Technically you can carry on the boardwalk as long as there is no sign and busineses don't have signs you can enter.  But now casino pier has 2 bars is it only at the seating for them or I'd it casino pier in entirety.   And you can't walk on beach as that's a no go

Edited September 7, 2023 by vdep217