Readers React: Apple and the FBI play a game of phones

To the editor: Well, what do you know? Apple’s iPhones aren’t impervious to hackers after all. (“FBI accesses terrorist’s iPhone data,” March 29, and “Apple seeks FBI hacking method,” March 30)

Most people on the street know that whatever security system is put in place will eventually be hacked by someone, which then necessitates a newer, better system.

If Apple wants more secure phones, it needs to hire people who can create and then re-create them (apparently there’s at least one person out there now).

If Apple, perhaps understandably, doesn’t want to share its security expertise with the FBI, it shouldn’t expect the government to give it to Apple either — you can’t have it both ways.

Harry Greenwood, Pasadena

::

To the editor: In the world of hackers there are white hats and black hats, reminiscent of the days of the old cowboy movies. The good guys wore white hats, remember?

In the hacker world, the white hats find holes in security and help everyone to patch those holes in an altruistic effort to keep us all safe. The other guys exploit those vulnerabilities for their own purposes, leaving the public to suffer from their greed and lust for power.

In not giving (yes, for free) Apple the technology that exploits the security of its phones, the FBI clearly has gone over to the black hats.

Truly a sad day.

Gregg Ferry, Carlsbad

::

To the editor: Personally, I am glad the FBI found someone who could access the iPhone that had been owned by the terrorists.

As much as I respect privacy concerns, I don’t see much use in having your privacy retained if you die at the hands of some terrorist who wasn’t caught because a phone couldn’t be accessed.

Greg Dahlen, Glendale

::

To the editor: So, Apple would like a national conversation about privacy rights and national security. I agree.

For starters, what gives Apple the right to defy a court order?

Secondly, you have to appreciate the irony and hypocrisy of Apple now demanding that the government hand over the information describing the methods used to unlock its phone. Good luck with that.

Tim Cook may have thought he was showing the world that Apple would defend your privacy; he showed me that he will go to any length to protect Apple’s market share, even if it favors terrorists.

Rick Kern, Incline Village, Nev.

::

To the editor: This case and this election’s high anger level are closely related.

Apple controls the personal information of many to enrich a few. The government has a long history of privacy abuse. Both presented disingenuous arguments about principles.

Ideally, this iPhone would be cracked without future advantages for either.

It’s all posturing. “Principles” have devolved to marketing strategies used by unprincipled businesses, political operatives and two political parties that differ largely in which businesses own them. People instead want them doing the right thing, not just here but in general. That requires balancing equally legitimate competing principles. We want principled action applied with common sense, not blindly.

This would be easier case by case, but that requires discretion. Discretion is unallowable without trust. Trust is earned by showing good sense, which cannot be evaluated without honesty and transparency.

Lacking this from the establishment, the public is now listening to outsiders — “straight-talkers” — with or without merit.

Robert Neches, Los Angeles

::

To the editor: The refusal of Apple to help our nation was appalling. One of the main duties of all citizens — including Apple’s execs — is to help our country defend itself (even at the expense of corporate profits).

What has happened to the U.S.? Things are certainly out of joint when corporate greed has become the guiding principal.

Alvin Milder, Los Angeles

::

To the editor: Has anyone else noticed the similarities between the FBI/Apple issue and the gun violence issue? Both Apple and the NRA are protecting their “products” and “profits” over the safety of everyone else.

We must decide together which of our values is most important: more individual profit and private choices for a few, or more security and safety for us all?

Joanne Tatham, Irvine

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook