Apple Tells U.S. Judge 'Impossible' To Unlock New iPhones

[nilepez]

I can't think if any iPhone that came out and had below average quality at the time it was released. In fact iPhone cameras have generally been very high on quality, especially low light. Sure their pixel count has been average, but people want quality pictures. Don't care about pixel count. There may be certain lines, like the Lumina phones that specialized in the camera, but as far as general phones that most people have iPhones are very good quality.

A Lumina 1020 is not a standard phone. Its a niche phone.

I agree on quality (with the exception of whatever phone had problems with dropped calls), but the camera is not good in low light. It's horrible and the flash doesn't help either. Of course your definition of low light may be different from mine, but on a scale of 1-10, I'd give it a 3 in low light.

Now if you have 2 iPhones, then you can use the flash light on one to light your subject while the other one takes the picture (without the flash). It's not great, but it's acceptable.

OTOH, in good light, it's really good for a p/s jpg shooter.

 

[nilepez]

See, Here is canna, a shinning example of exactly the attitude I am talking about.

A reasonable request is a subpeona, a court order, a warrant, and for someone who is NOT A US Citizen, a National Security letter.

You are exactly what I am talking about when it comes to people who cry so load and fociferously that the Feds decide to they can't reason with you so all they can do is institute full on monitoring of it's own workforce and ruthlessly cull anyone who is at all suspicious. What kind of work environment does this create canna, what kind of people will hold these jobs in the future canna? Next time around will there be any William Binneys left to say anything at all. Remember it was William Binney who motivated Ed Snowden. Think with something more then just your indignant brain tumor.

But how do we trust them? There's little doubt that they can (or have) placed agents in these companies. If there's a way to decrypt the data, then what is to stop them from decrypting the data for U.S. citizens? We already know the agencies will do everything in their power to work around the law (e.g. when they got the Brits to spy on U.S. citizens).

 

[nilepez]

So you think Apple didn't keep records of who buys their phones and who keeps a data plane, names of people with their account information, the phone number of their phone and it's ESN number? And that the Feds are trying to force them to keep this? How would they bill you with no billing address on record. These are just average account records. Too many of you think the only data being requested is photos, recordings, websites you go to, emails you send. But you forget there are more mundane forms of data. Before the digital world there was a simpler analog one and back then the authorities subpoenaed records and found people's addresses from businesses as well.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Why would you subpoena Apple for my address (which they probably don't have), ESN (technically the MEID) or my Name (which they may or may not have)? Why wouldn't you go subpoena it from the carrier, where they'll gladly turn it over at the drop of hat.

 

[nilepez]

And do you believe that there is no way to engineer the ability for Apple to retrieve user data from a customer's phone in a secure manner? Not for Apple to engineer a "backdoor" for the government to access it, but for Apple to be able to retrieve that data?

Do you think Apple believes for a second that if they did that the government wouldn't work night and day for a way to exploit it? They'd have to be stupid to believe otherwise.

 

[xJ321x]

For #1, you are not correct, you can't say that just because Apple has engineered a secure manner for recovering data from a users encrypted account that this means the Government will demand direct access to this utility. What it does mean i that they would be able to make legitimate demands for the data and Apple would be able to comply as per law with that demand.

That would literally be breaking the point of encryption in the first place which means why have the encryption in place at all. I worry about the government overreaching its intended purpose more than I worry about some hacker stealing a dic pic. I also love how you say 'direct access' like it matters if it's indirect or direct. If that pathway is opened it won't matter one bit. We all know it'll only grow over time as well (get foot in door, first!). First they'll ask for 5 peoples personal info then over time 5 million peoples personal info. Apple should give them zero peoples info and I fully support Apple for doing this. Apple != Google

now anyone can make use of such a service to avoid prosecution for wrongdoing, an individual, or a business, to the loss of one, or millions.

It's called freedom of choice.

Bad people use forks sometimes, so we should have the ability to spy on all the forks because some bad people use them. Your kind of argument is getting extremely old on my nerves and I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over when topics like this arise. So let me make this as clear as possible to you.

I don't give one flying fuck that potential bad people might use the same thing that I use legally for their illegal purposes if it means I still have my privacy and my privacy and my privacy! Why? Because If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed. That's why!

You guys need to keep this point in mind and be careful what you wish for.

If I still have my privacy (my right to privacy) then I don't give one shit.

If this move by Apple is allowed to stand[

If this move by Apple isn't allowed to stand then we have a much (much) bigger problem in the USA.

 

[lcpiper]

Amazing at time. Are some of you living in denial?

The Bulk Meta-Data Program still exists and is still running. The purpose is to find links between known bad guy's and unknown bad guys. As such, they will still be going through much the same process with one of the big differences being the raw meta-data itself will remain with the carriers and not be stored by the government. But the rest of the process will remain.

The will still take a bad guy's number and search the meta-data and look for connecting numbers. They will still take those numbers to a judge for a national-security letter. The will then use this letter and go to the carriers and ask for the names of the owners of these connected numbers. If these people are foreign nationals then they can start collecting directly on them by whatever means they have available. If any turn out to be US Persons then they will have to get a warrant from a Judge to continue at all with the information or to start any targeted collection on them.

nilpez, you may think that the NSA does everything it can to break into all your shit but unless you are a foreign national then you are wrong. Do they do everything they can to be able to break into anything they might need to? Yes they do. But that's because everyone all over the world uses much of the same stuff. iPhones are sold world wide, of course they are going to try to find ways to defeat iPhones. The same is true for all the other phones. If iPhones were only sold and used by US Citizens then things might be different but that's not reality is it. And to further reality, sometimes even US Citizens are guilty of espionage so the NSA and FBI need to be able to do many things.

But we have been all over this before.

 

[lcpiper]

If this move by Apple isn't allowed to stand then we have a much (much) bigger problem in the USA.

Really? You think that it's more important to make sure that privacy is absolute then to ensure that you have the means to redress greivances against other citizens, businesses, and the government itself.

This move by Apple would mean that no one could ever be forced to produce any records whatsoever. The pattented excuse would be "Sorry, it's all been encrypted, it's impossible to access it".

Every Company in the US would immediately move to institute full encryption of all their data followed immediately by the greatest rape of the US Citizen ever concieved because no one could ever be proven guity of anything.

 

[lcpiper]

I don't give one flying fuck that potential bad people might use the same thing that I use legally for their illegal purposes if it means I still have my privacy and my privacy and my privacy! Why? Because If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed. That's why!.

And I am extremely gratified that many more people understand that the world isn't an idealistic black and white landscape. That both Law Enforcement and the DoD need to be able to do their jobs and that privacy doen't have to be "absolute". That encryption is a tool, not a guerantee, and that the government is not a multiheaded beast hell bent on subjucating it's citizens.

 

[xJ321x]

I see it took you 3 days to forget everything that has already been said before ( here and in many other threads). Rinse, repeat.

Freedom/privacy > (claimed) security

The end'

 

[DarkStar02]

Icpiper can you explain to us what the point of encryption is?

 

[lcpiper]

Hey DarkSatr02, late to the party?

Your going to as a SAN Administrator who works on classified government contract to the US Army if he knows what encryption is?

 

[xJ321x]

Whelp, that's all folks.

 

[lcpiper]

Oh, you didn't ask what encryption is, you asked the purpose encryption serves.

Here, I can't say it any better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption

In cryptography, encryption is the process of encoding messages or information in such a way that only authorized parties can read it.

Now we come to a new question, one for you. What do you suppose only authorized parties might mean?

I suppose that it could mean only the user and those the user "authorizes".

But since your phone and the service that powers it might decide that authorized parties would include them as well, since they might be tasked under law to provide such data to the government as directed by a court.

A Judge has asked Apple's input regarding a court case.

Apple claims that they can't comply with an order to turn over unencrypted data under any circumstances. It's impossible.

In discussions with Apple, the Federal Government wants Apple to "make it possible".

Some here believe that Apple can't do this in a reasonably secure manner.

I think they can. I also think that they will, because I believe that as much as some of you fear the government would abuse such a thing, I also believe that we must have it.

I think absolute privacy will be abused in the same manner that criminals have sought out and abused the darknet. I understand that just because a criminal might abuse such a thing that this doesn't warrant denying it to the rest of us. I also feel that there is a world of difference between reasonable and absolute and what we need is to find the middle point.

We need a point where our information can be accessed by our providers and surrendered to the governement under proper order. We also need a point where that proper order can be challenged and proven valid or not.

We should not give up our own ability to redress greivance in the pursuite of absolute privacy. Instead we should search for reasonable levels of privacy in order to ensure that others who might harm us can be proven responsible.

As I said before, this thing works both ways. If perfect security is good for us then it's good for everyone. Citizens, Servents, Administrators, Business, Mega-Corporations, Governments.

"I'm sorry sir but that data is not available, it's been encrypted and we can not access it."

 

[Damar]

I cant wait to see what the outcome of this stage of the game is.... <grabs popcorn>

The Department of Justice is trying to get Apple to unlock a defendant's iPhone. While Apple has stated that it can technically bypass the phone's passcode security, it has so far refused to do so for various reasons. So the DOJ has come up with a new strategy, force Apple to comply because it licenses the software on the phone. Because of that, the DOJ contends that the iPhone maker actually has a relationship with the phone that's currently evidence in a case. In a reply to Apple's response to the court order to unlock the phone, the government states, "Apple cannot reap the legal benefits of licensing its software in this manner and then later disclaim any ownership or obligation to assist law enforcement when that same software plays a critical role in thwarting execution of a search warrant." In other words, it's your software Apple, not the defendant's, unlock it.

As Boing Boing points out, if the government succeeds with this argument, it opens up a terrifying precedent. Nearly every piece of technology has software that is licensed and not sold to the end user. All of those companies could be compelled to unlock, decrypt and allow the authorities access to these devices because it doesn't belong to the defendant, it belongs to the person that owns the software.

 

[Ocellaris]

That iPhone in question is an iOS 7 device as well. Apple can't get into newer devices.

 

[lcpiper]

I cant wait to see what the outcome of this stage of the game is.... <grabs popcorn>

Limahl, Is this quote about the same case or is this something different? The article Steve quoted here is about the Court asking Apple for their professional opinion on a case. It's just that this quote isn't in the linked article, I was wandering where it came from since you didn't source the quote.

 

[sliverjazz]

How mentally deranged must a person be to hold a grudge against an entire race of people because of the actions of their ancestors?

 

[/usr/sbin]

Oh, you didn't ask what encryption is, you asked the purpose encryption serves.

Here, I can't say it any better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption


Now we come to a new question, one for you. What do you suppose only authorized parties might mean?

I suppose that it could mean only the user and those the user "authorizes".

I consider the authorized party the one that owns the device. If you own it, it's yours. Plain and simple. I personally encrypt all of my traffic, and knowing that the NSA captures all encrypted traffic and stores it, I intentionally transfer about 1 TB/month of useless encrypted data per month overnight from overseas from one of my VPS's just to mess with them and waste their resources.

 

[Darunion]

I consider the authorized party the one that owns the device. If you own it, it's yours. Plain and simple. I personally encrypt all of my traffic, and knowing that the NSA captures all encrypted traffic and stores it, I intentionally transfer about 1 TB/month of useless encrypted data per month overnight from overseas from one of my VPS's just to mess with them and waste their resources.

And then you talk about it on a public forum? Kinda defeated your own technique.

 

[Damar]

Limahl, Is this quote about the same case or is this something different? The article Steve quoted here is about the Court asking Apple for their professional opinion on a case. It's just that this quote isn't in the linked article, I was wandering where it came from since you didn't source the quote.

Sorry, the quote mentions Boing Boing which is the main source of that info, but the quoted text itself was off Engadget.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/23/apple-doj-iphone/

Its not the exact same case, but it seemed relevant to the discussion at hand with how much Apple and the DoJ seem to be going back and forth about this whole encryption thing.

If the DoJ succeeds in proving that Apple is legally obligated to decrypt information with a proper warrant, then Apple could be forced to ensure they are always able to access that data when required by law to do so. That would strip them of their current "Sorry we cant" excuse that's pissing off the DoJ something fierce.

Its going to be tied up in courts for years I'm sure, but the outcome is something to worry about imho.

 

[DarkStar02]

In discussions with Apple, the Federal Government wants Apple to "make it possible".

Some here believe that Apple can't do this in a reasonably secure manner.

I think they can. I also think that they will, because I believe that as much as some of you fear the government would abuse such a thing, I also believe that we must have it.

Would you feel the same way if it was a foreign government tries demanding the same thing? Say, China perhaps?

 

[lcpiper]

I consider the authorized party the one that owns the device. If you own it, it's yours. Plain and simple. I personally encrypt all of my traffic, and knowing that the NSA captures all encrypted traffic and stores it, I intentionally transfer about 1 TB/month of useless encrypted data per month overnight from overseas from one of my VPS's just to mess with them and waste their resources.

Wow, you know too much lol.

You'd be much better off, and much happier, if you forgott some of the bullshit you think you kow.

 

[lcpiper]

Would you feel the same way if it was a foreign government tries demanding the same thing? Say, China perhaps?

We are not citizens of China or any other federal government, their is a small question of sovereignty at issue regarding your question.

But, Apple does do business in foreign countries. If the Chinese Government asked for data from a Chinese Citizen well, what would be the outcome there do you think?

I bet we already know that answer don't we.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/15/us-apple-data-china-idUSKBN0GF0N720140815

Apple Inc (AAPL.O) has begun keeping the personal data of some Chinese users on servers in mainland China, marking the first time the tech giant is storing user data on Chinese soil.

So my answer is, China can ask for whatever they want, but unless I am talking to a Chinaman or I am in China, they can pound sand.

I guess my real question is why you think your question is relevent?

 

[DarkStar02]

We are not citizens of China or any other federal government, their is a small question of sovereignty at issue regarding your question.

But, Apple does do business in foreign countries. If the Chinese Government asked for data from a Chinese Citizen well, what would be the outcome there do you think?

I bet we already know that answer don't we.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/15/us-apple-data-china-idUSKBN0GF0N720140815



So my answer is, China can ask for whatever they want, but unless I am talking to a Chinaman or I am in China, they can pound sand.

I guess my real question is why you think your question is relevent?

Did you even read the article you just linked to? How does that answer my question?

Apple has said it has devised encryption systems for services such as iMessage that even Apple itself cannot unlock. But some experts expressed skepticism that Apple would be able to withhold user data in the event of a government request.

"If they're making out that the data is protected and secure that's a little disingenuous because if they want to operate a business here, that'd have to comply with demands from the authorities," said Jeremy Goldkorn, director of Danwei.com, a research firm focused on Chinese media, internet and consumers.

"On the other hand if they don't store Chinese user data on a Chinese server they're basically risking a crackdown from the authorities."

Goldkorn added that data stored in the United States is subject to similar U.S. regulations where the government can use court orders to demand private data.

A spokesman for China Telecom declined to comment.

My question is relevant because we are about to set a precedent by saying a citizen has no right to encrypt their devices to protect their data from the eyes of the government. Just because your line of work doesn't require you to work with "chinamen" doesn't mean hundreds of thousands of people in the United States don't. My work involves daily communication with a team of people located all over the world (Pakistan, India, Russia, etc.).

 

[evilsofa]

In an update to the case, the defendant has pleaded guilty, but federal prosecutors still want to force Apple to decrypt the iPhone. They didn't bother to explain why, so the judge wants an explanation:

"In light of the fact that the defendant against whom evidence from the subject telephone was to be used has pleaded guilty, I respectfully direct the government to explain why the application is not moot. To the extent the response requires the disclosure of information occurring before a grand jury, the government may file its response under seal, along with a redacted version suitable for public access."

 

[UnholyCarcass]

Saying something is "impossible" is just asking to be challenged LOL

 

[FLECOM]

Really? You think that it's more important to make sure that privacy is absolute then to ensure that you have the means to redress greivances against other citizens, businesses, and the government itself.

This move by Apple would mean that no one could ever be forced to produce any records whatsoever. The pattented excuse would be "Sorry, it's all been encrypted, it's impossible to access it".

Every Company in the US would immediately move to institute full encryption of all their data followed immediately by the greatest rape of the US Citizen ever concieved because no one could ever be proven guity of anything.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

[lcpiper]

Did you even read the article you just linked to? How does that answer my question?



My question is relevant because we are about to set a precedent by saying a citizen has no right to encrypt their devices to protect their data from the eyes of the government. Just because your line of work doesn't require you to work with "chinamen" doesn't mean hundreds of thousands of people in the United States don't. My work involves daily communication with a team of people located all over the world (Pakistan, India, Russia, etc.).

No, no one is going to set a precedent because that is not what anyone is saying. You have every right to encrypt your data. And you can have a legal agreement with your service providers that specify that they are responsible for protecting your data from illegal access. That they will not share your data unless you allow it.

What is in question is are we going to allow criminals and abusive businesses to hide their guilty records from the law and remove any chance of civil redress for injured citizens.

I fully understand your quest and idealistic drive for full protection from government spying. What I don't understand is why you can't see the obvious outcome of Apples' initiative.

If the courts and the government can't convince Apple to work with them in a responsible manner then government spying will be the last of your worries. The business world will eat you alive long before you'd have anything to worry about from the government.

 

[lcpiper]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Heard this a hundred times, mostly from people who don't understand the comment and prefer to ignore the word "essential" and it's intended meaning.

 

[lcpiper]

In an update to the case, the defendant has pleaded guilty, but federal prosecutors still want to force Apple to decrypt the iPhone. They didn't bother to explain why, so the judge wants an explanation:

"In light of the fact that the defendant against whom evidence from the subject telephone was to be used has pleaded guilty, I respectfully direct the government to explain why the application is not moot. To the extent the response requires the disclosure of information occurring before a grand jury, the government may file its response under seal, along with a redacted version suitable for public access."

This is not the original case that this topic was about, this is a similar case. The original topic is about a Judge asking Apple's input on a question.

This case is about something different. Apple is refusing to unlock the phone and in this case they can, and have in the past. The prosecutors have a valid search warrant. The phone may contain information that links the accused' crimes to other criminals. If this wasn't a phone, if it was a filling cabinet with paper documents, there would be no question. If the accused rented an office building and the documents were stored inside, the building owner would have any problem unlocking it for investigators. So I see full well why the prosecutors persist even though the defendant has change his plea to guilty.

On Thursday, defendant Jun Feng pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

People rarely "conspire" all by themselves

 

[xJ321x]

Heard this a hundred times, mostly from people who don't understand the comment and prefer to ignore the word "essential" and it's intended meaning.

Very simply - and I'm paraphrasing here - those who would trade privacy for a bit of security deserve neither privacy nor security. Privacy creates a space separate from political life, and allows personal autonomy, while ensuring democratic freedoms of association and expression. Encryption is now essential to this in the digital age. Anyone that wants to erode or hinder privacy online or offline are absolutely the bad guys that we have to get rid of or shutdown in society.

Freedom of choice / privacy from spying > anything the government (or you) makes up as an excuse because there is no justifiable reason for it. All these discussions and you still can't grasp this simple fact...smh. The right to be left alone is precisely what humans have fought to attain over the millenniums and people like you are so brainwashed by the idea of bad guys ("TERRORISTS") being around that you try and convince everyone to do what's against their best interests.

Just because there are bad guys in the streets (and there always will be) doesn't mean the government can kick my door down to my home and rifle through it. Kings used to, FYI, and the people fought for far too long to end it. Just because there's bad guys online doesn't mean the government can backdoor my encryption and rifle through my stuff.

The street is public, my home is private. The internet is public, my phone is private.

 

[xJ321x]

What is in question is are we going to allow criminals and abusive businesses to hide their guilty records from the law and remove any chance of civil redress for injured .

The government does this every single day. Now you want to hand them full access to all encryption. God you're a crazy one.

 

[lcpiper]

I understand what and why you have your view. The crazy thing and you may not believe it, I don't feel that different. But I also recognize that our lives are not only about our freedom. Life is more then just Freedom. If freedom is all there was then the Constitution could have been much shorter.

When you view this issue, ALL you see is shit like catching petty criminals and keeping us safe from terrorists. Your view is too myopic, too narrow, too unrealistic.

At the same time, no matter how many times I point out this problem in your thinking you ignore it and fall right back to square one.

You go in for a simple surgery and the doc prescribes the wrong drug and you come out all fucked up. How will you prove it if the court can't subpoena the records?

Your electric company overcharges your account and everyone else in your subdivision by 35% for 6 years. How can you prove it?

Your 401K was mismanaged, how will you prove it?

Aronold Swartzeneiger runs for President but he isn't a natural born US Citizen, how will you prove it?

As soon as business is allowed to shield records and information from review just by saying it's encrypted and it's impossible to get, we are all screwed and it will happen much faster then you can believe.

At some point you have to understand that there is a need, "we the people" have a need for the courts to be able to force business and individuals to produce records and other data when properly demanded. We must have this for ourselves.

And Apple's stance would destroy our protections under law. We would never be able to force anyone to produce anything if the use a third part to store their records and they are encrypted. Read "The Cloud".

This issue runs from a guy who is arrested and the cops go straight for his phone through a full range right up to this case where a Search Warrant has been issued to unlock a phone a company who can do so is refusing the court's order.

No need here to wander around dragging up hypotheticals, the accused is a drug trafficer and he is accused of conspiracy meaning others are probably involved. All the more likely that information that could expose and convict other criminals is present on the phone. The man has plead guilty, even more reason to open the phone.

The Constitution and our Laws are supposed to protect a person reasonable right to privacy, not your absolute right to privacy. If you are not suspected of a crime then no one has a reason to go digging in your shit, unreasonable search. If there is some evidence that you might be involved, reasonableness changes, warrants emerge, privacy is set aside in order to determine involvement or guilt/innocence.


Someone likes quoting old people, I have my own quote.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In this case, the DoJ and the warrant are reasonable in my opinion.

 

[lcpiper]

The government does this every single day. Now you want to hand them full access to all encryption. God you're a crazy one.

The court ordering Apple to unlock the phone of a guilty drug dealer is not "handing them full access to all encryption".

Jesus man, get your head out of your ass.

 

[nilepez]

No, no one is going to set a precedent because that is not what anyone is saying. You have every right to encrypt your data. And you can have a legal agreement with your service providers that specify that they are responsible for protecting your data from illegal access. That they will not share your data unless you allow it.

What is in question is are we going to allow criminals and abusive businesses to hide their guilty records from the law and remove any chance of civil redress for injured citizens.

I fully understand your quest and idealistic drive for full protection from government spying. What I don't understand is why you can't see the obvious outcome of Apples' initiative.

If the courts and the government can't convince Apple to work with them in a responsible manner then government spying will be the last of your worries. The business world will eat you alive long before you'd have anything to worry about from the government.

Did I miss something? When did this become a civil case? Last time I checked, it was a criminal case. Until I see an issue with civil cases that cannot be solved any other way, there's no reason to open up encryption.

 

[nilepez]

Heard this a hundred times, mostly from people who don't understand the comment and prefer to ignore the word "essential" and it's intended meaning.

Some of us consider the 4th amendment an essential right. Personally, I think we've already given up too much on the 4th in the name of safety.

 

[kirbyrj]

The Constitution and our Laws are supposed to protect a person reasonable right to privacy, not your absolute right to privacy. If you are not suspected of a crime then no one has a reason to go digging in your shit, unreasonable search. If there is some evidence that you might be involved, reasonableness changes, warrants emerge, privacy is set aside in order to determine involvement or guilt/innocence.

Some of us consider the 4th amendment an essential right. Personally, I think we've already given up too much on the 4th in the name of safety.

He already addressed that issue. The 4th amendment doesn't mean you are not subject to any government request to view/seize your house, papers, effects, etc. Only that you are subject to a search after judicial review of the probable cause to search it.

 

[xJ321x]

The court ordering Apple to unlock the phone of a guilty drug dealer is not "handing them full access to all encryption". Jesus man, get your head out of your ass.

1. The article in the OP says the judge asked Apple for input on the issue, not that the courts forced them to comply (they were considering an attempt to force). However Apple couldn't even if they wanted to (which is why the judge inquired about it) without breaking their own encryption, which has been explained to you over and over and over and over and over, again and again. The passcode to the phone unlocks the encryption!

2. That's actually precisely what the government wants outside of the courtroom. If Apple has the 'backdoor' - key to their own encryption then the US GOV will demand it also (WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS BEFORE). You're the one with your head in your ass. As the locked phone is literally encrypted. FFS, this shit with you gets extremely old. Now I know why all similar threads have you posting most of the comments and everyone else just browsing right passed them. The problem I have with you is that too many people will not understand how crazy and distorted your views really are and actually take you seriously. It's like every morning you default back to stock. Updating you everyday is a waste of resources. Have a nice day.

Adding two digits to the passcode makes it much harder to crack, requiring up to several months of effort. In fact, a strong six-digit alphanumeric passcode can take 196 years to crack, according to the iOS Hacker's Handbook.

The new iOS 9 security features make a compelling case for how seriously Apple is taking data security for its mobile devices. Apple wants to stop both thieves and law enforcement from getting their hands on data stored by Apple users.

But all that is merely theoretical, because after 10 failed attempts, an iOS 9 device will erase itself.

Source

The right to privacy is absolutely more important than claimed security. Especially by government.

 

[xJ321x]

He already addressed that issue. The 4th amendment doesn't mean you are not subject to any government request to view/seize your house, papers, effects, etc. Only that you are subject to a search after judicial review of the probable cause to search it.

So the government never uses their own interpretations of laws, secret court rulings, or loopholes to do what they want regardless of what the people demanded they want? Broken encryption absolutely means that the CIA/NSA/etc will use it for any means they want to use it for and whenever they want to with no recourse for those affected by doing so.

They'll just say we're not breaking US citizens encryption and illegally searching their stuff all while they have some agency outside the US doing it for them. Circumventing the law. This drug dealer or his accomplices are nothing compared to the US government having the keys to encryption.

 

[xJ321x]

If the courts and the government can't convince Apple to work with them in a responsible manner then government spying will be the last of your worries. The business world will eat you alive long before you'd have anything to worry about from the government.

The government and big business are eating everyone alive now so not much will change in reality. Regular people just wouldn't have any (any) online privacy anymore. Which is something you'd like.