- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,635
So that makes search warrants invalid? I think this will go to court and Apple is going to lose.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Apple CEO Opposes Court Order To Help FBI Unlock iPhone
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
So that makes search warrants invalid? I think this will go to court and Apple is going to lose.
Because Judges don't issue warrants to require businesses or individuals to supply records. Judge's issue warrants to authorize law enforcement to perform searches as part of an investigation. In this case, a warrant to get the phone and search it was not needed because the phone was in the possession of the criminals at the time of the crime so the phone wads simply seized pursuant to the arrest. Now if that phone was a briefcase they would not need a warrant to search it, they would just open it and look inside. If the phone was an Android phone, same thing, they would either unlock it themselves or have Google do it. But this is an Apple phone and they are unable to unlock it, they have asked Apple to do it, Apple refuses, they have ordered Apple to do it, Apple is still refusing and what's more, the are not refusing and have no grounds to refuse within the scope of this case. They are refusing on the grounds of the "big picture".
Here is the bad part. Now we have a Judge trying to "suggest/demand" methods for Apple to use. This is because Apple won't sit down with the government and figure out the right way to do this for them and for us. I don't want anyone giving the government "the keys". I don't want Apple making their phone's insecure. But as an IT guy myself, I can not believe that Apple can't figure out how to get to the data on that phone in a manner that doesn't offer customers all the reasonable privacy a person deserves. By refusing to work with the government Apple is putting themselves into a position that now the government is making demands and coming up with stupid ways to force this issue. Apple is going to put itself into a corner and they will be forced to implement a solution of the government's choosing and that is not going to be good for us.
A Judge doesn't use a search warrant in this case, they use a subpoena which is a court order.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I don't think a lesson from 1984 is "Well we can't get into this dead alleged mass murder's phone. Let's just give up. "
And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
What the FBI did then was wrong, but that was like 50 years ago and we have changed a few laws since then. Point to the same thing still happening today and you have a point, otherwise you have nothing but a footnote in history.
Probably, but that'd require talking to another agency and they have cooties.
People are comparing Trump to Hitler? That's an insult .. Hitler at least had charisma.
From Tim Cook. and this relates to my last post.
February 16, 2016A 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.
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.
Tim Cook
February 16, 2016A 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.
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.
Tim Cook
The letter I read at Customer Letter - Apple gave a different impression:
"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."
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."
and
"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."
Because your personal property can become evidence when you commit crimes. Are you unable to make the leap of logic from Apple refusing to help the FBI retrieve data from this phone to Apple refusing to pull data from a drug dealers phone, a child pornographer's phone, a rapist's phone, a doctor's phone who fucked up your kid, a stock broker who stole your life's savings, a Food and Drug official who took bribes from a Pharma Company when he knew the drug was dangerous .... How far must the list go?
SparkedFire
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
- Messages
- 1,109
I don't understand why the government needs access anyways. The guy is dead, there is no further threat. Any information they could need, they probably have already obtained from other sources.
If you are really hardocp member you encrypt everything to AES 256 bit and at the same time more than 2 step verification on everything.
buy multiple samsung 850 pros, i just dont understand some of these rich people who get busted for computer crimes when they have all the money in the world to buy the ultimate setup with encryption galore.
Safeguard precious data without sacrificing performance
Protect your PC's hardware and personal data when you take your laptop on the road with the 850 PRO's SED technology. The drive includes an AES-256-bit hardware-based, full disk encryption engine that secures your data without performance degradation, often experienced with software-based encryption.
The 850 PRO's advanced security complies with the TCG™ Opal v2.0 standards, protecting PSID, and is compatible with the Microsoft® eDrive IEEE® 1667 protocol. Plus, you can erase or initialize data with the crypto erase service.
buy multiple samsung 850 pros, i just dont understand some of these rich people who get busted for computer crimes when they have all the money in the world to buy the ultimate setup with encryption galore.
Safeguard precious data without sacrificing performance
Protect your PC's hardware and personal data when you take your laptop on the road with the 850 PRO's SED technology. The drive includes an AES-256-bit hardware-based, full disk encryption engine that secures your data without performance degradation, often experienced with software-based encryption.
The 850 PRO's advanced security complies with the TCG™ Opal v2.0 standards, protecting PSID, and is compatible with the Microsoft® eDrive IEEE® 1667 protocol. Plus, you can erase or initialize data with the crypto erase service.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,635
So does killing 14 folks meet your standard to compel Apple to allow the government the ability to have the data on the phone?
Hallucinator
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 562
Let the FBI see what's shown on the surface of that terrorist's iPhone without giving them the "key". Isn't that hard?
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,635
You know, months ago the Government asked Apple to work with them to find a satisfactory way to handle this. Apple refused, Tim Cook refused. Now the Government is starting to make demands and I am sure of one thing. All of us would be much happier with a solution that Apple has a hand in creating then a solution that the Government forces down Apple's throat.
It's foolish to think that Apple is going to stand up to them on this or that a plea to the people is going to change the train wreck that coming and this is on Tim Cook.
I need to take a break from this one, go to lunch.
It's foolish to think that Apple is going to stand up to them on this or that a plea to the people is going to change the train wreck that coming and this is on Tim Cook.
I need to take a break from this one, go to lunch.
I think apple will win the court case and will present a team of lawyers that the u.s. government cant rival
Apple has pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenty of money
I am also sure the FBI has a team right now dedicated just to find out if Apple has evaded any taxes or securities fraud.
I hope apple has everything in order to fight this. Btw there are cases in the past where the u.s. government has lost to a IT company that was 1000x smaller trying to obtain private data that was stored. but since this is a terrorism act that made national headline news the government is going to exploit this case so the american people think the government is on their side. Nice brainwashing technique especially for americans that dont know crap about cyber security.
If this case goes the way of the government expect to have no privacy in very far future . Encryption will be just a gimmick and not real
Apple has pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenty of money
I am also sure the FBI has a team right now dedicated just to find out if Apple has evaded any taxes or securities fraud.
I hope apple has everything in order to fight this. Btw there are cases in the past where the u.s. government has lost to a IT company that was 1000x smaller trying to obtain private data that was stored. but since this is a terrorism act that made national headline news the government is going to exploit this case so the american people think the government is on their side. Nice brainwashing technique especially for americans that dont know crap about cyber security.
If this case goes the way of the government expect to have no privacy in very far future . Encryption will be just a gimmick and not real
Last edited:
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Did the government make these people murder? But it is government's responsibility to deal with the aftermath. Unless of course government should just ignore things like locked phones, because freedom? If the government goes after mass murders, whose next?
dangerouseddy
Gawd
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 639
well I dont think the us government would like a terrorist organisation to have secure phones and will do everything they can to get access to data on apple devices. I'm sure the us gov see it as a national security issue.
I wouldn't get too stressed out over this as it's out of our hands. I'm hoping that this causes our 4th amendment protections to be strengthened, or the DMCA act that protects media companies can be expanded to protect all of us. However this turns out, it's definitely interesting to see history in the making.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,635
I think this only has to do with LE knowing that is has all the information it can about this killer. Just that simple.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
But this goes both ways. So to protect the privacy of all we have to protect the privacy of dead mass murders?
You got it backwards my friend. This is about the government allowing Apple to set a precedent that allows businesses to refuse lawful demands for records and data. The situation prior to this case and Apple's new iOS was that the government did ask Apple and others to unlock their phones and when the request was legal and justified the companies did unlock the phones. It's Apple trying to change the rules, not the Government.
As for your clueless assumption regarding the FISA court, there is more than one explanation for that statistic and it has nothing to do with how hard a Judge is willing to look for proper justification. The FISA court is not a common court that sees common requests. The FISA court is a specific court which overseas very specific Intelligence related Surveillance requests, almost always against Foreign Nationals. The simple fact is that the greatest majority of those requests are for data on foreign nationals who have no protections under US law and the only reason a Request has to be served is because the data they want is held by a US business. It's a stupid formality and that's why they are not usually denied.
Just like when the media conveniently kept leaving out the little detail about the phone meta-data collection being only on overseas calls, they also leave out this little piece of info because they know that the average citizen assumes this thing is all about us when it is mostly all about them.
If for the last several years I had a data base of meta-data related to all foreign calls into and out of the country and every time I got my hands on a foreign bad guys' phone I searched that data-base for his number and then took every number he called and ran that past a Judge so that I could request phone records for who owned those numbers so I could figure out if they were other foreigners in this country, or Americans who have protected rights, or Pizza Delivery companies. Than I would think the Judge wouldn't have a hard time serving that request so the Intelligence Service could ask the Phone company who owned the phone so they could handle that case properly wouldn't you?
This is going to play out in an interesting fashion and I can see other large tech companies backing Apple on this as a way to get back a little goodwill since the NSA leaks.
My question is, can you even install a new version of the OS without the access key? I thought iTunes required you to unlock it to flash the new OS update, if you didn't, it'd just wipe the data. It'd make sense to be this way if the device is completely encrypted.
If that is the case, then Apple took an interesting PR approach here - instead of rightfully claiming it can't be done on a technical level and that loading a "hacked" OS will simply write over the phone's data (factory reset), they chose to PR crusade the shit out of it.
My question is, can you even install a new version of the OS without the access key? I thought iTunes required you to unlock it to flash the new OS update, if you didn't, it'd just wipe the data. It'd make sense to be this way if the device is completely encrypted.
If that is the case, then Apple took an interesting PR approach here - instead of rightfully claiming it can't be done on a technical level and that loading a "hacked" OS will simply write over the phone's data (factory reset), they chose to PR crusade the shit out of it.
D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
The court is not clear on this yet. There have been rulings on both sides.
It seems exceedingly likely to me that Apple has (or could fairly easily develop) the capability to ignore that part of the software update process.
That said, I think Apple's doing the right thing here. Firmware designed to do this would almost certainly be relatively easy to modify to work on arbitrary other phones and in that sense really is almost the equivalent of a digital master key. I expect the case to be appealed by one or the other all the way up to scotus, though.
If Apple does end up losing I expect them to modify iOS to eliminate that vector, so I guess some good would come out of that.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
How is this exploiting anything? If one goes a killing spree and then kills themselves in the act, the government is going to dig into EVERYTHING about you. Period. And I'm pretty sure that's the expectation that the overwhelming majority of the public holds. So let's keep it a bit real before launching conspiracy theories.
In this case all the government wants is perfectly normal and they have every right to get this information. I think it's just as easy to say that the other side is exploiting the issue. That even in the case of a deceased mass murderer, no allowance can be made to obtain encrypted information. If the level of privacy extended to dead mass murderers then that's an extremely high bar of privacy.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,635
Yes, you house has curtains, mainly for privacy, that however does not keep the government out with a search warrant. Your intent has little to do with the court saying that LEO can snoop.
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,690
They need the info for the investigation and it's a valid request.
I just don't trust that it will stop there. Trust in our government lately is extremely low. And most of that comes from the intelligence community. For me, it comes down to - I just don't trust them. Regardless of their current intentions, if you give them an inch they take a mile. I really think it's not that hard to accept that they lost the trust of a lot of American people. Even if their intent is 100% legit and wanting to get into this phone for legit reasons, people don't trust them to just keep it there. They'll ask for more, and get more.
And, dammit - Tim Cook misused the 'Backdoor' term in his letter.
I just don't trust that it will stop there. Trust in our government lately is extremely low. And most of that comes from the intelligence community. For me, it comes down to - I just don't trust them. Regardless of their current intentions, if you give them an inch they take a mile. I really think it's not that hard to accept that they lost the trust of a lot of American people. Even if their intent is 100% legit and wanting to get into this phone for legit reasons, people don't trust them to just keep it there. They'll ask for more, and get more.
And, dammit - Tim Cook misused the 'Backdoor' term in his letter.
Retronym
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 13,605
The football launch codes were 0000 for years.
Just sayin'.
Just sayin'.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
The slippery slope here is in "reasonable means". Could Apple create a version of iOS that bypasses all the key security mechanisms and get it installed on this phone (probably). Would they then be forced to work with the government to prevent that ability from falling into the hands of other governments, hackers, and criminals unless they then turn around and find some way to eliminate what they just created (almost certainly). That doesn't seem to fit the definition of reasonable.
To a level that protects a persons phone calls and data transfers, the communications element of the phones systems, as well as data at rest. Data at rest on the providers servers can be store encrypted in an encryption package where the keys are controlled by the provider therefor this data is available for transfer to courts under court order. As for data on the phone it can also be encrypted by keys that the phone owner has and therefor are just as secure, but when the courts order a phone like this unlocked, or a warrant is issued to that end, the provider should be able to unlock the phone for the courts. If that means the phone's kernel is encrypted with keys owned by the provider allowing only the provider access to update the OS allowing for an unlock and then subsequent access to the data without having to bust the encryption or divulge the keys, then that seems workable to me. Is there a reason anyone thinks that Apple can't figure out a way to pull this off as a future solution?
I support Apple on this, but they will probably get crushed in court. The one thing I can see preventing this is funding: Who is going to pay the Apple engineers to develop the solution the gov is asking for? I don't think they can force a company to do that, at least without some complications. Maybe if they passed a law requiring it they could force compliance with the law, but to force a company to develop a solution just because?
Why I support Apple on this goes beyond privacy, and if it came to pass that they have a tool to decrypt devices based on brand then it should be a simple matter of getting that tool to work remotely. Once that's done, all ur base are hacked. A phone has become the last safe refuge for pics of your girlfriend's beaver, which certainly shouldn't be evidence for anything (except maybe your bravery in wading through the weeds) but would get extracted as part of a search for evidence. When executing a search warrant, they only take evidence; with digital searches they'll take everything and sort it out later.
Thing regarding the terrorism issue is this - Anything transmitted to/from that phone has already been snatched, so decrypting the phone is pointless unless they want stuff that's on the phone and only on the phone. Maybe there's some encrypted messages that they caught and can't decrypt, so they're hoping that accessing the phone will be a workaround. Still, these aren't exactly criminal masterminds here and I think the DoJ is barking up the wrong tree.
Why I support Apple on this goes beyond privacy, and if it came to pass that they have a tool to decrypt devices based on brand then it should be a simple matter of getting that tool to work remotely. Once that's done, all ur base are hacked. A phone has become the last safe refuge for pics of your girlfriend's beaver, which certainly shouldn't be evidence for anything (except maybe your bravery in wading through the weeds) but would get extracted as part of a search for evidence. When executing a search warrant, they only take evidence; with digital searches they'll take everything and sort it out later.
Thing regarding the terrorism issue is this - Anything transmitted to/from that phone has already been snatched, so decrypting the phone is pointless unless they want stuff that's on the phone and only on the phone. Maybe there's some encrypted messages that they caught and can't decrypt, so they're hoping that accessing the phone will be a workaround. Still, these aren't exactly criminal masterminds here and I think the DoJ is barking up the wrong tree.
Oooor, it's possible that following Snowden's revelations and the impact it's had on foreign cybersecurity awareness that the NSA and other US intelligence Operators want to do all they can to convince all the bad guys that iPhone's can't be broke, when they are have been
How's that strike your paranoia bone?
Regardless of what you think about the other legal points, this one is pretty clear - Apple bills the government for the work and, so long as it isn't wildly unreasonable, the government pays.
Apple already has their old code prior to the new iOS. It's Apple's fault they went this direction full well knowing they were going to get into a fight over it. This is there doing, not the government's.
Some of you guys talk like it's always been like this when Apple used to unlock most all phone's the courts requested them to unlock.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,681
Agreed.
This is some really bad tinfoil hat logic.
Why on earth can't the Supreme Court hear the case, if it goes that far?
It's one case and asks for very specific access to a single phone, that belonged to a terrorist asshat now dead.
The government will prevail in this case and it should.