Bill Gates Disputes Report That He Backs FBI in Apple Case

[HardOCP News]

Bill Gates is taking issue with recent reports claiming he backs the FBI in its case against Apple. Gates says he isn't taking sides but he believes in a more balanced approach to the matter:

Still, Gates took a more moderate stance than some of his counterparts in the tech industry, not fully backing either the FBI or Apple but calling for a broader "discussion" on the issues. "I do believe that with the right safeguards, there are cases where the government, on our behalf — like stopping terrorism, which could get worse in the future — that that is valuable." But he called for "striking [a] balance" between safeguards against government power and security.

 

[Yakk]

Hmm, either the government can have access, or not. Don't see much of a middle ground on "half" privacy.

 

[heatlesssun]

In this specific case there is no issue of privacy or violation of the 4th Amendment. The Apple side of the argument is saying that the process by which to hack this phone could be used to hack other phones and could be abused causing privacy concerns for millions. However, I think there is a body count ceiling to this argument. 14 dead people are easy to ignore. 140, 1400, 14,000, it starts to become harder to make the case of government abuse as the devastation increases. And that's my biggest concern here. Government overreach is certainly a problem. But just as big a problem are those that are working to create as much death and destruction as possible. These people can NEVER be allowed to have a finger on the proverbial button because at that point privacy becomes a moot point.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Here's my view on it

Apple will put up a strong public front, they will fight this in the courts.
However behind closed doors their reach an amicable solution, they're write their backdoor on the express word that it does not get announced to the public, instead they will publicly say they managed to hack the phone without the use of a backdoor, Apple saves face, the government gets what it wants and still looks like the "Bad guy" for requesting such a thing, meanwhile no one is the wiser.

 

[Deleted member 245375]

It's nice to see that Gates came out less than 24 hours after that Financial Times article to refute what words they were putting in his mouth so that's a positive thing, and also the Bloomberg reporter for questioning him about that specific article so he'd have that chance (of course that could have been the reason he decided to agree to this morning's interview in the first place).

It's not a black and white situation obviously (meaning the Apple/FBI/iPhone thing) so there won't be an easy answer or solution anytime soon if ever. As I've stated previously, to me the biggest issue here that people are not really focusing on is the All Writs Act and the fact that with that (and I'll be honest, I'd never even heard of it in the past, forgive my ignorance of everything Constitutional that exists) courts can literally just create new orders at will as long as they believe - because there appears to be absolutely no oversight on that - they have a justification for.

Man, that's like an Executive Order kind of situation gone awry.

 

[Loop242]

Is this a privacy issue for the shooter or all iphone users?
Is this a backdoor for the shooters account or all iphone users?
This is court ordered and Mr. Cook could be arrested for contempt of court.
I found this article a good look into what is going on.
No, A Judge Did Not Just Order Apple To Break Encryption On San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone, But To Create A New Backdoor | Techdirt

 

[Jagger100]

In this specific case there is no issue of privacy or violation of the 4th Amendment. The Apple side of the argument is saying that the process by which to hack this phone could be used to hack other phones and could be abused causing privacy concerns for millions. However, I think there is a body count ceiling to this argument. 14 dead people are easy to ignore. 140, 1400, 14,000, it starts to become harder to make the case of government abuse as the devastation increases. And that's my biggest concern here. Government overreach is certainly a problem. But just as big a problem are those that are working to create as much death and destruction as possible. These people can NEVER be allowed to have a finger on the proverbial button because at that point privacy becomes a moot point.

It's all the other phones that are lined up that will lose their privacy.

 

[dandirk]

Hmm, either the government can have access, or not. Don't see much of a middle ground on "half" privacy.

There is a lot of "middle room" imo. Could be the government doesn't get direct access to unlocks... They could do what they have been doing and provide the vendor with a court order and THEY unlock said device. Then there is the question of remote or physical ability to unlock IF they are given access...

Then there could be a question of WHAT circumstances would this be allowed? Bill alludes to this, no unlock for shop lifting charges... unlock legal for terrorism charges etc etc etc (how ever you want to define the rules).

Personally I would rather have the company unlock devices, this would allow another party to question court orders etc so some government agency isn't just running around unlocking everything like NY LE is using those cell tower phone tracking devices where usage is through the roof.

I completely agree with Bill G, this isn't a black and white issue and we have to seriously consider ramifications of precedent decided. IMO knee jerking and siding with an all or nothing is short sighted.

 

[Deleted member 245375]

Apple can't unlock this device, just for the record - they'd have to brute force their way in just as the FBI will if they actually comply with the order. As for Cook being arrested well, that's not how this works since with most any court order issued (especially one of this nature) Apple has the right to an appeal which they filed almost immediately afterward as expected.

The whole concept of a backdoor needs to be stopped in its tracks: this is not a backdoor they're being asked to create (because the actual security mechanism for protecting the data on the device - the encryption - is still in place), and they can't just sidestep their own device security they created any easier than the FBI might (John McAfee and his claims notwithstanding).

As for the privacy issue, well, it's for the whole ball of wax, kids - it's not just about iPhones or smartphones, it's about everything.

Just saw this image and laughed because it's simple but it expresses the situation rather brilliantly:

And just as further fuel to that fire, it's not just about the one iPhone as already mentioned:

Justice Department Seeks to Force Apple to Extract Data From About 12 Other iPhones

 

[lcpiper]

Hmm, either the government can have access, or not. Don't see much of a middle ground on "half" privacy.

Here's my view on it

Apple will put up a strong public front, they will fight this in the courts.
However behind closed doors their reach an amicable solution, they're write their backdoor on the express word that it does not get announced to the public, instead they will publicly say they managed to hack the phone without the use of a backdoor, Apple saves face, the government gets what it wants and still looks like the "Bad guy" for requesting such a thing, meanwhile no one is the wiser.

It's possible, but I think Apple is just stalling in California hoping that they can get the Judge in New York to rule that ordering Apple to unlock these phones is an overreach of the All Writs Act. If they get that, then at least for awhile, Apple doesn't have to unlock the phones and it saves them money while boosting their brand value for many of their customers and they will be seen by many as a champion of privacy rights. It would be a huge PR win for Apple.

 

[lcpiper]

It's all the other phones that are lined up that will lose their privacy.

I see this as a claim with no merit.

Explain how?

The Feds are even telling Apple all they want is the data so Apple can destroy their custom iOS or whatever they decide is the best way to do it. They don't have to tell anyone how they did it, and they don't have to give anyone the phone when their done or the software that's in it.

 

[lcpiper]

Apple can't unlock this device, just for the record - they'd have to brute force their way in just as the FBI will if they actually comply with the order. As for Cook being arrested well, that's not how this works since with most any court order issued (especially one of this nature) Apple has the right to an appeal which they filed almost immediately afterward as expected.

The whole concept of a backdoor needs to be stopped in its tracks: this is not a backdoor they're being asked to create (because the actual security mechanism for protecting the data on the device - the encryption - is still in place), and they can't just sidestep their own device security they created any easier than the FBI might (John McAfee and his claims notwithstanding).

As for the privacy issue, well, it's for the whole ball of wax, kids - it's not just about iPhones or smartphones, it's about everything.

Just saw this image and laughed because it's simple but it expresses the situation rather brilliantly:

And just as further fuel to that fire, it's not just about the one iPhone as already mentioned:

Justice Department Seeks to Force Apple to Extract Data From About 12 Other iPhones

Apple says they can, and it's an iOS9 Apple 5C

 

[heatlesssun]

It's all the other phones that are lined up that will lose their privacy.

And I get that that argument. But is this really the Pandora's Box that Apple makes it out to be? If Apple can unlock this phone I'm guessing a private 3rd party could as well though Apple can probably do it with certain success.

 

[Ordeith]

Ars had a good write up on it. It's a complicated issue, for sure.

Encryption isn’t at stake, the FBI knows Apple already has the desired key

 

[Jagger100]

I see this as a claim with no merit.

Explain how?

The Feds are even telling Apple all they want is the data so Apple can destroy their custom iOS or whatever they decide is the best way to do it. They don't have to tell anyone how they did it, and they don't have to give anyone the phone when their done or the software that's in it.

They are not asking for a unique anything. They have asked for technology that could be applied to any phone. 'replace firmware' - do you think the San Bernadino shooter's phone is unique? If you can replace the firmware in that phone you can replace it in all similar models. They essentially want to enable brute forcing. Enabling brute forcing requires nothing specific to one phone. Enable brute forcing on one phone, you have a method to enable brute forcing on all phones.

 

[Jagger100]

Ars had a good write up on it. It's a complicated issue, for sure.

Encryption isn’t at stake, the FBI knows Apple already has the desired key

your title doesn't even jive with the subtitle of the same article.
"The FBI knows it can't bypass the encryption; it just wants to try more than 10 PINs"

 

[Deleted member 245375]

Apple says they can, and it's an iOS9 Apple 5C

Yes I'm aware that it's an iPhone 5c and which version of iOS appears to be running on it based on reports, and I also know that in a very specific set of circumstances Apple might be able to provide the tool to allow for unlimited passcode entry attempts as well as reduce or remove the delay between entries of the passcode but also in this very specific situation there have been some other issues crop up including the altering of some of the iCloud related info the FBI has already admitted.

It's not a textbook situation here, there has been some modification of the device from what would be considered the ideal candidate for Apple to work with so at this point they cannot guarantee success in any manner nor can they be expected to do so.

The concern now is that if they do comply and create a tool (the custom iOS version) and it's not absolutely 100% perfect on this now not 100% qualified product (they'll have to do all the testing of the creation of said tool on devices that ARE 100% perfect for such a tool, mind you), and something goes wrong what happens then? Does Apple get slapped with a $100 billion fine or something as equally ridiculous as this whole situation? Is the company forced to go out of business? Are all iPhones using that type of security suddenly banned from use in the US or something?

See how it just kinda gets stupid really fast?

 

[Ordeith]

your title doesn't even jive with the subtitle of the same article.
"The FBI knows it can't bypass the encryption; it just wants to try more than 10 PINs"

Reading goes a long way toward understanding. Did you make it past the subtitle? Doesn't seem likely.

Let me help you out:

"The iPhone requires that its firmware have a digital signature that authentically demonstrates that the firmware was developed by Apple and has not been subsequently modified. The FBI does not have (and is not asking for) access to Apple's signing key. It is instead asking for Apple to use its signing key to sign the custom firmware so that the iPhone will accept it and run it. It is this signature requirement that means the FBI cannot create the software itself.

It's this same requirement that also means that iPhone users would be safe even if the special firmware leaked. Changing the embedded unique identifier within the special firmware would break the signature and thus cause targeted iPhones to reject the firmware. This is why complying with the court demand would not jeopardize the security of any other phones. The cryptographic safeguards don't allow it."

 

[Loop242]

As stated above and by others elsewhere:
"If they get access to one device then what is to stop them from access to all other device"

What is the difference between the above and this..
If they can walk-in one apt/house, then what is to stop them from walking in to all other houses?

The FBI did get access to the shooters house and searched the place. The owner of the rental opened the house by court order and allowed them access.
So why are people not worried about the FBI now walking into other houses?

 

[lcpiper]

They are not asking for a unique anything. They have asked for technology that could be applied to any phone. 'replace firmware' - do you think the San Bernadino shooter's phone is unique? If you can replace the firmware in that phone you can replace it in all similar models. They essentially want to enable brute forcing. Enabling brute forcing requires nothing specific to one phone. Enable brute forcing on one phone, you have a method to enable brute forcing on all phones.

You gota keep up jpm100, it's a fast changing issue

DOJ would allow Apple to keep or destroy software to help FBI hack iPhone | Fox News

Even Obama is in on it now;

The Obama administration told a magistrate judge Friday it would be willing to allow Apple to retain possession of and later destroy specialized software it was ordered to create to help federal authorities hack into the encrypted iPhone belong to Syed Rizwan Farook.

"Apple may maintain custody of the software, destroy it after its purpose under the order has been served, refuse to disseminate it outside of Apple and make clear to the world that it does not apply to other devices or users without lawful court orders," the Justice Department told Judge Sheri Pym. "No one outside Apple would have access to the software required by the order unless Apple itself chose to share it."

 

[kac77]

You gota keep up jpm100, it's a fast changing issue

DOJ would allow Apple to keep or destroy software to help FBI hack iPhone | Fox News

Even Obama is in on it now;

Allowing to destroy the "software" doesn't change the issue. For some reason the DOJ thinks that it should have carte blanche access to any device US citizen or no. This is problematic because your cellphone like it or not is an extension of your home. A cellphone contains all of the same information if not more about who you are as a person. It knows when you leave your home for work, when you get there ,what your next purchase might be, who your friends are, when you talk to those same friends, when you leave work to go home, when you arrive to your home, and even any late night content you like to watch before going to bed.

 

[kac77]

As stated above and by others elsewhere:
"If they get access to one device then what is to stop them from access to all other device"

What is the difference between the above and this..
If they can walk-in one apt/house, then what is to stop them from walking in to all other houses?

The FBI did get access to the shooters house and searched the place. The owner of the rental opened the house by court order and allowed them access.
So why are people not worried about the FBI now walking into other houses?

There's actually many cases where the FBI just walks into people's homes without a warrant. Police too. The term "probable cause" is so broad you could drive a truck through it.

 

[lcpiper]

Allowing to destroy the "software" doesn't change the issue. For some reason the DOJ thinks that it should have carte blanche access to any device US citizen or no. This is problematic because your cellphone like it or not is an extension of your home. A cellphone contains all of the same information if not more about who you are as a person. It knows when you leave your home for work, when you get there ,what your next purchase might be, who your friends are, when you talk to those same friends, when you leave work to go home, when you arrive to your home, and even any late night content you like to watch before going to bed.

This case has nothing at all to do with any of that. Old laundry is just smelling old laundry. Besides, your comments are immaterial if for no other reason than the phone's owner is San Bernadino County and they have agreed to the FBI's request. there is no privacy issue in this case.

And you may feel that your cellphone is an extension of your home but the law hasn't decided that. There are still very serious discussions being heard that suggest that we should have no expectation of privacy if our devices can't provide it. As long as we are broadcasting our data where anyone with the gear can intercept it, we may in fact not have a reason to expect it to be private any more then a conversation with a friend in a public place. You can wish it so but that won't make it so.

Apple has made real progress in making this a reality and this case may lay the groundwork for it. But between now and then, reality is, as long as your cellphone is at it's heart a radio transmitter, your claim to a reasonable expectation of privacy is subjective.

 

[heatlesssun]

The whole concept of a backdoor needs to be stopped in its tracks:

You can't really stop something that can be done. If Apple can do it, others can. Not saying that they should, just not something that can be stopped anymore than crime.

 

[spugm1r3]

When I heard about this on NPR, I thought "BS". Bill Gates, like many CEOs and former CEOs, tends to equivocate on issues not immediately in his focus. Talk to him about clean energy or philanthropy if you want a direct answer. I just had a hard time believing it. Besides, Bill Gates, having been on the receiving on end of government inquiries, would probably side with Apple on this one (though not publicly, not with Apple).

 

[nilepez]

In this specific case there is no issue of privacy or violation of the 4th Amendment. The Apple side of the argument is saying that the process by which to hack this phone could be used to hack other phones and could be abused causing privacy concerns for millions. However, I think there is a body count ceiling to this argument. 14 dead people are easy to ignore. 140, 1400, 14,000, it starts to become harder to make the case of government abuse as the devastation increases. And that's my biggest concern here. Government overreach is certainly a problem. But just as big a problem are those that are working to create as much death and destruction as possible. These people can NEVER be allowed to have a finger on the proverbial button because at that point privacy becomes a moot point.

The government has the phone, they can hack it. Why is it Apple's job to do it? As for the body count, I'll reiterate what someone else wrote (but is easily confirmed), more people die from lightning strikes than terrorism in this country. Why are we going to open Pandora's box for something that rarely occurs (and is generally not connected to any terrorist organization)?

 

[nilepez]

You gota keep up jpm100, it's a fast changing issue

DOJ would allow Apple to keep or destroy software to help FBI hack iPhone | Fox News

Even Obama is in on it now;

The Obama administration told a magistrate judge Friday it would be willing to allow Apple to retain possession of and later destroy specialized software it was ordered to create to help federal authorities hack into the encrypted iPhone belong to Syed Rizwan Farook.

"Apple may maintain custody of the software, destroy it after its purpose under the order has been served, refuse to disseminate it outside of Apple and make clear to the world that it does not apply to other devices or users without lawful court orders," the Justice Department told Judge Sheri Pym. "No one outside Apple would have access to the software required by the order unless Apple itself chose to share it."

Yes and then the next time they have a one time need they'll want them to do it again. Rinse and repeat.

This case has nothing at all to do with any of that. Old laundry is just smelling old laundry. Besides, your comments are immaterial if for no other reason than the phone's owner is San Bernadino County and they have agreed to the FBI's request. there is no privacy issue in this case.

And you may feel that your cellphone is an extension of your home but the law hasn't decided that. There are still very serious discussions being heard that suggest that we should have no expectation of privacy if our devices can't provide it. As long as we are broadcasting our data where anyone with the gear can intercept it, we may in fact not have a reason to expect it to be private any more then a conversation with a friend in a public place. You can wish it so but that won't make it so.

Apple has made real progress in making this a reality and this case may lay the groundwork for it. But between now and then, reality is, as long as your cellphone is at it's heart a radio transmitter, your claim to a reasonable expectation of privacy is subjective.

It's not just privacy, it's expecting Apple to compromise the system for the government. I see no reason why any individual or company is obligated to do that. About the only reason I can think that Apple should do it is to figure out a way to rewrite the code so that a similar attack won't be possible going forward. i.e. create a system that they're not capable of defeating.

 

[heatlesssun]

The government has the phone, they can hack it. Why is it Apple's job to do it? As for the body count, I'll reiterate what someone else wrote (but is easily confirmed), more people die from lightning strikes than terrorism in this country. Why are we going to open Pandora's box for something that rarely occurs (and is generally not connected to any terrorist organization)?

If Apple can hack this phone so can others so I do see your point and I understand Apple not wanting to look like a law enforcement agency. Terrorism and mass murder aren't exactly rare these days. And if one fears the escalation of government reach, and I do, it's hard to ignore that terrorists also like to escalate. For all we know these "low" body count terror attacks are a distraction away from the main events. As much as government is trying to get into everyone's business, there are those dedicated to killing as many as they can. If they are ever able to get the body count high enough, get ahold of the right weapon, privacy issues will simply take a back seat.

If a terrorist group ever successfully deploys a large scale nuclear, biochemical or cyber attack, Pandora's Box will open like never before. Maybe this is low probability scenario, but it's clearly one that will do nothing to enhance privacy. Indeed I'm guessing the first thing some will say if is that government nuked a city just to get into everyone's phones. If it really ever got that bad, not sure how many people would care about their privacy anyway.

At any rate, lots of slippery slopes, lots of what-ifs. Kind of sad that getting into one phone of a mass murder has become such a contentious issue. Meanwhile the victims are caught in the middle of what essentially is routine police work that's now some great social cause.

 

[lcpiper]

Yes and then the next time they have a one time need they'll want them to do it again. Rinse and repeat.



It's not just privacy, it's expecting Apple to compromise the system for the government. I see no reason why any individual or company is obligated to do that. About the only reason I can think that Apple should do it is to figure out a way to rewrite the code so that a similar attack won't be possible going forward. i.e. create a system that they're not capable of defeating.

Then you should go look up the All Writs Act and learn why the government feels they can do this. No reason to play ignorant and act like it has no bearing. There is a Judge in New York with a similar case considering whether to back Apple up and rule that the Law does not extend that degree of authority to the courts. And that is exactly why I think Apple is stonewalling in this case, playing for time hoping for the best, for Apple.

 

[Jagger100]

You gota keep up jpm100, it's a fast changing issue

DOJ would allow Apple to keep or destroy software to help FBI hack iPhone | Fox News

Even Obama is in on it now;

Political damage control for the people who realize whose policy this really stem's from?

 

[Jagger100]

As stated above and by others elsewhere:
"If they get access to one device then what is to stop them from access to all other device"

What is the difference between the above and this..
If they can walk-in one apt/house, then what is to stop them from walking in to all other houses?

The FBI did get access to the shooters house and searched the place. The owner of the rental opened the house by court order and allowed them access.
So why are people not worried about the FBI now walking into other houses?

A judge and a papertrail are involved in entering premises. The apartment was openned because the FBI or local police failed to secure it or block the request so a judge allowed it. Again a judge and a papertail.

This tool removes the need for any warrants or a judge to access it. Possession can come from multiple ways that do not require a warrant. Suprise and Intimidation to have you hand it over (for example police in Michigan were getting motorists to hand over their phones during a traffic ticket and doing data dumps on them), Confiscation from fivalous arrest is another method that takes a judge out of it.

 

[kac77]

This case has nothing at all to do with any of that. Old laundry is just smelling old laundry. Besides, your comments are immaterial if for no other reason than the phone's owner is San Bernadino County and they have agreed to the FBI's request. there is no privacy issue in this case.

Um "San Berbadino" isn't a person. It's a government entity or place. When you die the government doesn't just own your things. It has it in it's custody sure. But own it? No.

And you may feel that your cellphone is an extension of your home but the law hasn't decided that. There are still very serious discussions being heard that suggest that we should have no expectation of privacy if our devices can't provide it.

Except that the device DOES provide it, which is the point.

As long as we are broadcasting our data where anyone with the gear can intercept it, we may in fact not have a reason to expect it to be private any more then a conversation with a friend in a public place. You can wish it so but that won't make it so.

Apple has made real progress in making this a reality and this case may lay the groundwork for it. But between now and then, reality is, as long as your cellphone is at it's heart a radio transmitter, your claim to a reasonable expectation of privacy is subjective.

The government always thinks it's subjective until it thinks it isn't. When you want data on your congressman/woman everything is a secret. But when they want information on you for some strange reason they think they should just have it. That's one hell of a coincidence .

 

[Brian_B]

Here is kinda how I see it.

Court order compelled the land lord to open the door. The landlord had a key handy and ready. If he didn't happen to have one (as Apple doesn't happen to have one in this case), then what?

And the slippery slope side of this argument isn't so much that the software can't be used on other phones, it's that the FBI is asking Apple to do this, and if this is ultimately granted, there will be nearly nothing preventing the FBI (and other law enforcement agencies) from having Apple do so again in with other phones (as noted by the additional dozen or so phones Apple has been ordered to unlock just recently).

And while we here in the US do enjoy some protection against our own law enforcement - Apple sells in international markets. What if Pakistan want to unlock a phone just because they suspect a woman of cheating on her husband, or China for corporate secrets, or any number of other morally gray requests.

The best analogy I've seen to date is that the FBI doesn't require a locksmith to provide a key for every lock they sell to law enforcement. They are required to assist law enforcement, when compelled, to the best of their ability, but ultimately it's upon the law enforcement agency to open the lock, not the locksmith. I don't know if "best of their ability" goes in so far as creating a master key or not.

Apple hasn't created a master key, and states that creating this software (even if it has device-specific identifiers, those are variables and can be updated as needed) amounts to as much, and defeats the purpose of it's lock and disrupts a major technological advantage it currently enjoys over it's competition.

If a locksmith sold an "unbreakable lock" and millions of people installed them, then it turns out a master key exists - regardless of who holds that key - what does that do for the locksmith and his/her lock?

Right now I side with Apple, I value privacy. I can understand law enforcement's frustration, but I think it's upon them to do whatever with the phone, or acknowledge they cannot and go on about their investigation. I think asking the manufacturer's help with unlocking was a legitimate request - I think compelling them to create a "master key" is beyond reasonable assistance though.