Could Apple or somebody help direct us to how to exploit this loophole in security.
We have two iPhones, an iPad, and an iPod that our kids have blocked by entering the wrong code too many times in an effort to access the games in the devices without permission. Some of these had priceless photographs that didn’t get backed up to the iCloud. Apple doesn’t have an explanation other than the operating system wasn’t updated “enough”.
We’d love them to unblock the devices and help us get our kids photographic legacy back for our family. I don’t think we are the only ones.
Really makes one long for the days of shoe boxes, negatives, stacks of photos. At least you knew where everything was.
Help! Apple!
4
The title of this article is nonsense. It should be "Apple to Close iPhone Security Hole That ANYONE CAN USE to Crack Devices"
3
Apple gives law enforcement phone data from its servers - that way it can be sure the request is lawful. But allowing its phones to be hacked would open the door for criminals and foreign governments, without any control by the U.S. or by Apple.
At least two companies have already learned how to hack the iPhone with it's current software - almost surely criminals will create their own methods to do the same. As I heard in the early days of the atomic bomb, knowing for sure that something can be done gets you halfway there to doing it.
2
I have to laugh at people forever complaining about government electronic intrusion, when they voluntarily hand over ten times as much of their personal information to corporations whose only values are to maximize profit and whose accountability rests solely with investors.
In any case, the internet neither is nor can be secure and private, self-serving tech marketing claims notwithstanding.
3
I believe that since the blowup with the FBI, we have been under the impression that Apple's latest phones were secure against all known intrusions. Apparently not. They seem to have been aware for some time of this latest loophole.
I wonder what else they are aware of that they aren't telling us. It's up to them whether they tolerate ways into their phones, but not if they keep allowing us to believe that the phones are completely secure.
1
Can law enforcement officials also be incriminated for not adhering to the privacy policy/user agreement for Apples devices also?
Since they don't own the phones, they haven't agreed to the user agreement. so I would guess, no.
Perhaps some of our great tech companies can step-it-up with educational services and devices for children and their families in the hundreds of detention facilities across this country...? What else could you do with that windfall tax break and repatriation of profits stored overseas...?
The American people and the world needs to see and hear their stories and faces.
If not that, maybe to help the children navigate their paths thru the legal quagmire they face alone...?
2
"In China, for instance, Apple recently began storing its Chinese customers’ data on Chinese-run servers because of a new law there."
Hey Apple, why is the privacy of Chinese users who live in a Communist police state less valuable than the privacy of American users who live in freedom?
3
Tim Cook sold out. The police, FBI, have no interest in your private conversations, texts, emails -- unless you are under investigation for a crime, with there already being adequate evidence to obtain a warrant.
Tim Cook just awarded criminals another level of protection, for more pieces of silver in his -- Apple's -- pocket. Apple has been losing sales to Google's Android, and this is Cook's appeal to the "privacy at any cost" crowd.
It should be noted: This is to be accomplished by a software change download. Apple can always download another change that cancels this one. In short: This does not make iPad users invulnerable. Just that now Tim Cook will operate outside the law -- ignoring court orders to do just that.
When he does so: I hope he is jailed and Apple invaded by an army of warrant-laden FBI agents. We'll see how well their stockholders appreciate that.
6
Fairly obvious loophole. Apple’s closure method doesn’t seem secure. They should be able to limit the number of attempts through the Lightning port instead of setting a timer on it. There must be some inherent flaw in iOS or the hardware which is preventing them from implementing a proper solution.
Is not it a punishable under domestic act if one desists the police from doing its duty to catch criminals? By obstructing the FBI from accessing the data in an iPhone, in the process of detecting crime and criminals , Apple is punishable.
3
Everyone volunteered for 1984.
Hey Chuck Cohen, how about fighting the NRA corrupted by the profits of the gun manufacturers? What a corrupt government. Our forefathers only intended guns to be held by citizens in well regulated militias, despite what the lawyers have distorted. Read our constitution. Don't blame the iphone for kids being in danger, put the blame where the blame lies.
3
Is the next step requiring door lock companies to give a master key to the police?
4
With a warrant, the police can enter your home whether or not you give them a key. The problem is that, even with a warrant, the police cannot search an iPhone because (theoretically) they are unable to circumvent Apple's technology.
3
Apple should make iPhones secure. However, if you commit a crime and the police have a warrant to search your phone, then I think Apple should have to unlock it. If you murder someone you lose your right to privacy.
5
Apple cannot unlock it. They designed it that only you can do so.
You might as well ask Steve Jobs to rise from the dead.
And you do not lose my right to privacy if you commit, or are alleged to have committed, a crime. Even if you are convicted of a crime you retain your right to privacy.
4
C'mon, Thomas! A warrant overturns that "right to privacy" That's in the Constitution. (Which, BTW, does not mention "privacy" per se, it is merely implied by the Fourth.)
Only after you are convicted. Remember "innocent until proven guilty"?
2
WOW! - Wanna turn an iPhone into a paperweight? Just read between the lines of this article. Something is missing in Apple's logic.
1
And now about paying taxes and putting your cash back in the US...
8
Apple has the right to harden its phones. Nobody complains about Apple users buying assault rifles. Maybe, just maybe, we have the cart before horse. San Bernardino was a bummer, but maybe this back door should have been closed after Sandy Hook? Phone owners have the same right not to have their rights abridged as gun owners.
Unfortunately this country has its priorities backward and we have a Whitehouse to prove it. Maybe we need concealed carry laws for iPhones? Maybe a hackable iPhone light for non-Americans and felons? I hear phones referred to as “Burners” are the in thing for TrueCrime.
6
Chief Justice Roberts said in an opinion that due to the fact that modern smartphones contain so much personal data the police should always get a warrant. That is telling.
Between the NSA, NIST and other activities of our government, the Cell Phone has been under constant attack by lazy law enforcement that want to surveil you 24/7/365 without your consent or a warrant. NIST has submitted standards to international bodies that created back doors into computers- to include cell phones. The NSA is suspected in the hacking of SIM Cards at the factory that makes the majority used around the world. That is dangerously close to self-incrimination.
Do not forget the Stingrays that are being used widely throughout the country. These are imposter cell towers that suck up everything in a geographic location without probable cause or a warrant for many of those impacted. The maker signs the government from city to national to a Non-Disclosure Agreement so they will not even own up to having one, much less using it.
Apple is not perfect, but is in a far better place relative to security and privacy. I would remind all that Android is owned by Google who makes money by targeting you with ads based upon your personal data and browsing habits.
7
I say to Apple, why did this take so long? We see every day how badly our government wants the "right" to invade our privacy despite the US Constitution's specific protections for personal privacy.
Yea I know all those who argue about "search warrants" etc. but that only applies to those accused of crime, not the the millions of iPhone users who have done nothing wrong. No justification to demand their phones be left vulnerable.
http://4yourprivacy.com
3
IPhones still have the fingerprint scanner as a backdoor as long as the seized phone has not been not turned off. Phones are full of fingerprints as are forensic databases. Unfortunately, for law enforcement they will only get one shot at using a fake index finger and then the PIN kicks in.
2
The right to privacy is enshrined in the US Constitution. Apple, being an American company, is under no obligation to deliberately put in a loophole to its security for law enforcement. The fact is that if they did it would only be a matter of time before it was hacked. The potential damage from that hack could cost both the company and the economy billions.
6
Find "privacy" in the Constitution. It ain't there. It is implied by the Fourth Amendment, but only implied -- not explicit. The access desired by law enforcement is pursued with warrants, in complete conformance with that Amendment. That a hacker could use it . . . thieves can pick your door lock, invade your house without a warrant. Does that mean the police would be forbidden from doing the same, holding a warrant?
If you are truly worried about your privacy: Shut down your internet connection. Even if you are not a Facebook user, for example, every visit you make to a site showing their "f" symbol is captured, collated with other visits from your IP address to such sites, and the data collected used to build a complete dossier on you that is for sale. Getting from your IP address to your identity is easily accomplished by any hacker worth his salt.
Now that's privacy invasion -- not to convict criminals, but to separate you from your money. Get upset about that, not law enforcement trying to protect you from thieves (such as Facebook . . . let's hope).
2
I think Apple's intention from the beginning was to get 'out of the middle' of the government's efforts to obtain data from Apple's customers (as the phone companies now provide for profit). Yes, it makes for a good marketing message -- but one that is appreciated by those of us with no criminal behavior to hide, yet still believe in a right to privacy. Of course, Apple can afford to take this position, since it makes its money off of its hardware; while Google has always made its money gathering and marketing its customers' data. Everyone should think long and hard about giving up our privacy, however, as it can become a slippery slope toward losing our first amendment and other freedoms. Every government in the history of mankind has wanted to manipulate its citizens to varying degrees, and now technology makes that a very real possibility. Edward Snowden revealed that the surveillance state is already in place, and every citizen should be pushing the politicians to restrict what can be done with our data. Apathy can result in the loss of what is left of our democracy.
4
@nobody . . . Yours is a very incisive and insightful comment, thank you, and makes an important point that privacy, like freedom, is whittled and chipped away by governments and commercial interests. If privacy is not protected against those who casually argue that law enforcement should have easy access to peer into our lives, then privacy no longer exists in fact and what is left is an illusion.
An illusion of privacy may be all some people require to feel safe, however, abuses are rarely perpetrated in the glaring light of day and their damaging effects are always hidden until it is too late. This is why the bar for maintaining privacy must be set high and enforced vigorously.
1
Good. The State already has enough power. We don’t need to willingly it more in the name of so-called security. Rights should still count.
2
Absolutely Apple has every right to evolve the security of its phones for its customers. Law enforcement was having a field day with a new device that costs about $35,000 and can crack open an iPhone. The cat and mouse game between tech companies and the law is actually a good thing. Keeps everybody honest. I guess law enforcement has now bought a bunch of $35,000 iPhone unlocking devices that don't work anymore. Hope they had a money back guarantee.
2
Apple in my opinion has the right to do this. Congress if they want to can pass a law to change it and the courts can decide what is legal.
5
The Constitution demands that we prevent "unreasonable" searches and seizures of property, but the same words imply that some searches and seizures are reasonable and necessary. Communications of criminals have always been accessible to law enforcement via a warrant process, as imperfect as it may sometimes be. Access to communications, written or electronic, is a bedrock tool for investigating most criminal activity. The new Apple technology will be a large gift to those who would do us harm.
3
A warrant is an authorization to search -- it's not a guarantee of access. If the information simply is not accessible because the records have been burned or shredded or encrypted or whatnot, that's simply part of the reality the government has to deal with.
4
Cell phone's are not that great. I, and many friends, keep losing connections. I still have a home phone that works so well...
but nothing is private anymore. Apple is such a problem-financially, et al. I have never used the cell or home phone for anything but confirming dates. I never -ever-used FB or any social media from the beginning of its beginning. Hoover saw to the loss of privacy since the 30's. The gov,. has always been listening...
3
What do they say,"robbers rob banks because that's where the money is."
Something similar here with criminals using iPhones
Don't get me wrong, I love my iPhone X.
But I have no problems if police ask me for my phone to search any possible criminal activity, as I have no fears of them ever associating me with one.
While Apple may advertise this latest feature to sell even more phones - I suspect there is always a brighter mind one step ahead.
Comments below condemn police in forcing Apple to spend dollars on building additional security.
What about the flip side of our own tax funded police spending millions of more tax dollars for an activity that we asked them to do.
As with other Silly Valley folks, I suspect the high priest of Apple to issue another sanctimonious but a great marketing statement.
3
No one forces Apple to do anything. This is so important in part because Apple's trade secrets are constantly stolen - even by 'law enforcement', an enormous group in America, they can't all be law-abiding - for their competition and because Tim is gay and identifies very clearly with state-sponsored oppression.
Be careful of your opinion now. We're probably only a couple years from Trump arresting 'enemies of the state', ie journalists, professors, democrats, gays. You see how it works this week - once ICE follows orders, it makes them complicit and they'll double down because if they were wrong, they'd be evil and they know they're not evil. Same with the mafia, which Trump also admires.
You don't have to be guilty to want privacy. You don't have to be guilty to be arrested, that's why we have a court system and a bill of rights. That's why Christians fled persecution in Europe to come to America to begin with. History is a circle.
6
@Neil M . . . You advocate trading privacy off against easy, cheap access for police. I strongly suspect the vast majority of us support police in their job to solve crime and keep us safe and willingly agree they should be given adequate tools to carry out their work. On the other hand, police are not perfect and routinely transgress the laws they are charged with upholding. Therefore, reality dictates strong checks and balances should exist and be rigorously enforced to protect the public. If they weren't necessary, Bills of Rights wouldn't be common in democracies across the globe.
The bigger problem with weak protections of privacy, particularly in a digital world, is that weak safeguards are also breach-able by criminals. Theft of credit card, banking and identity information leads to billions of dollars of losses annually. These are direct costs citizens bear. The failure to protect privacy also consumes hundreds of millions of dollars more in ineffective policing costs because they can't prevent criminals from stealing data and can't effectively chase them down. Ask someone who is the victim of mortgage fraud, faced with the loss of all the equity in their home, how devastating this can be. Peoples' lives are ruined by easy access to personal information you advocate for.
Quite frankly, I'd rather have strong privacy measures, strictly and effectively enforced, than easy access for police and criminals alike.
2
The government compelling apple to decrypt phones means Apple applying an unknown number of manpower and man-hours in an "attempt" to break into a phone. Who knows how long it will take and cost Apple.
Do we really want the government forcing companies to utilize its corporate resources for pursuits other than profit?
Government and law enforcement have agencies that are designed to attempt such decryption feats-- they usually have three letter acronyms (NSA & FBI).
For those that say the government should compel Apple to design phones with "back doors"-- then I say the government should utilize its resources to develop a technology to extract information from people's minds who refuse to cooperate. Uh oh, watch out 5th amendment.
9
I have been developing cutting edge software since the days of the IBM 7090. All Apple has to do is download a software change into the phone -- something they can do to any version of its iOS, even this next one -- that undoes the latest upgrade. Trivial. The FBI will be thrilled to pay the few hours salary of the staff member doing so.
1
I think there is some important information missing in this article: what information was actually retrieved from the thousands of phones that have been searched by the police? Beyond that: the owner of the device can invoke the 4th amendment rights by refusing to unlock the device - but then law enforcement wants to get around that. Looks like a clear cut decison for me: apple is acting correct in this case. Let’s compare it to a hypothetical case: a person is accused of some crime (and we did not define here what sort of crime) and is eating a piece of paper with some evidence on it. Can the law enforcement then demand some emergent endoscopy to retrieve the piece of paper - not knowing if it has any relevance for the case?
3
If the Feds had ever gotten any sort of crucial information out of a phone that they couldn't get anywhere else, you'd know about it -- the news would be blasted out so loudly that it would make the current occupant of the White House look like "Donald Who?" in comparison.
"Security versus privacy..."
Just remember, than in nearly every dystopian narrative, the bad guys are always the "security forces". They aren't chosen for that role arbitrarily.
17
I have to laugh at people forever complaining about government electronic intrusion, when they voluntarily hand over ten times as much of their personal information to corporations whose only values are to maximize profit and whose accountability rests solely with investors.
And, of course, the internet neither is nor can be secure and private, self-serving tech marketing claims notwithstanding.
12
All you need to know is that this anti-American company gives up the data when China asks. Apple is a mercenary corporation that's loyal to no one, and certainly not their customers.
9
Apple is blatantly protecting the privacy of their users against government intrusion. If law enforcement officers don’t understand the importance of this action, they need a course in the Constitution.
19
Read the Constitution: Warrants, and all that. You need the course, not law enforcement.
I think what is missing is the President is working hard to become a dictator and we already know how he feels about what the police can do. In the long run this is only a stopgap to more and more intrusion on our privacy. Especially the young do not seem to have a problem with intrusion into their personal lives. I am 75 and say no to more intrusion into my life. I do not have a smart phone and do not feel I need one to live life.
11
But you are retired, probably set financially, and do not have to work in the modern world. You probably pay for software so you do not have to give personal info for free use of gmail or the like. Your choice is not available to most. So your situation is not relevant nor particularly insightful.
2
It's commendable on the part of Apple to take this measure. While passcodes are random and hence be difficult to crack, shouldn't there be a way to prevent unauthorized the fingerprint access and face unlock as well? Aren't they equally being used in the phones these days?
2
If you don't trust fingerprint or face access, you can turn them off.
Now I approve of Apple's position, so I will not explain the solution, but it seems to me that this is a simple engineering problem. If the United States government can not solve the problem, then a great many heads should roll.
Keep in mind that when (1) the software in an unlocked phone is available, (2) the physical locked phone is available, (3) there is unlimited money available, (4) there is unlimited computer power available (implied by 3), and (5) the password is simple (4-6 decimal digits), any device can be unlocked in a fairly short time notwithstanding the limit on wrong passwords.
3
Eugene, the short password you enter is not the encryption key. The actual encryption key is kept by the secure enclave chip, which is inaccessible to probing under the new scheme, unless perhaps you can decap the chip with solvents and delicately wire up electrical probes — which may be hard or even totally impractical, depending on how the chip is laid out.
1
It seems to me that there might be a simple solution for Apple in regards to this privacy issue and Government snoops. If Apple makes a software switch that the phone owner could use to activate this software to lock their phone if they are undertaking criminal activity. Then Apple would not be the libel one who has locked out "Big Brother." And anyone else who enjoys strangers rifling through their phone can just leave it unlocked.
1
This is precisely why I will never buy anything made by Apple.
11
but Tom, you get what you pay for....
1
We have a constitutionally protected right to privacy. If a person commits a crime, they lose that right. A house, a car, and even a persons body can be searched if a suspected crime has occurred. I really don't see how a cell phone should be any different.
The beef I have is when people who have not committed a crime have their property or person unjustly searched - That is the true problem as I see it. I think what makes most sense is the use of a search warrant system that is only used when there is just cause to search a device - When no evidence of a crime exists, no-one but the owner should be able to access the phone. The hackers solution to this problem as presented in the article is ripe for abuse and bound to fall into the hands of criminals.
10
"We have a constitutionally protected right to privacy."
This is a common misconception - most popular with liberals and progressives - but also held by may republicans and conservatives --
Despite these widely-held popular beliefs - there is no such thing as a "Constitutional Right to Privacy" -- in fact - the word "Privacy" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution - and yu can verify that by performing a simple word search --
The 4th Amendment guarantees -
"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."
But that speaks to unreasonable searches and seizures by the federal government -- which is exactly the topic this article addresses -
Our current privacy guarantees are a result of a mish-mash of state and local statutes - along with some loosely-jumbled "policies" which organizations often hide behind to avoid embarrassment and/or being sued --
People are very quick to jump up and claim that their so-called "Right to Privacy" has been violated -- when very often, there are no statutorily-protected "Privacy Rights to be violated...
21
Or to paraphrase the 4th amendment, which you helpfully quote verbatim, the people have a right to privacy of they bodies, homes, documents and possessions--including their phones.
4
excellent points.. maybe all of this encryption is a response to the government's abuse of the protections we are afforded under the 4th ammendment...amongst others..
7
Thank goodness for Apple I’d rather some criminals go free than every single person loose their right to privacy,
36
Good.....
7
One difficulty is that law enforcement agencies are liars. They are allowed to lie and do so on a regular basis. As chief law enforcement officer of the nation the president even knows this. Police across the nation now have the Supreme Court's blessed authority to arrest a person and physically strap them down on a table, hold them in a head lock and stick a needle in the vein of a subject to obtain an incriminating (or not incriminating) blood sample. They can then retain this blood sample for future use in DNA, etc, testing, all without the consent, or against the specific wishes, of the subject.
The police officers can also arbitrarily detain a person on the side of the road and force a person to submit to a search of their vagina or rectum by a gloved police officer. They can even haul a subject into a hospital and forcibly perform a colonoscopy on them. This has all been allowed by our Supreme Court.
The police can also force you to unlock your phone with your fingerprint if the phone is so equipped.
They are permitted by law to lie about it too. The police can lie to you, but if you lie to them it is punishable by law.
The police in America can claim they feared for their safety and kill a person in the streets. When they shoot they shoot to kill, dozens of times to make sure the subject will die and then delay medical care to ensure a dead subject.
All of this has already happened, it's not what-if speculation.
72
Great comment here. actually you can lie to the cops not with total impunity but with a modicum of safety. however if one lies to federal authorities it is a felony and they will prosecute if nothing else is found. yes AGM you are so correct with your comment. thank you
1
As I recall, the FBI recently got busted grossly inflating the number of encrypted phones that supposedly contained inaccessible evidence.
Anything to stop the tyranny and totalitarianism of the US police state. Good job Apple. Steve Jobs would have wanted that.
34
I don't get it. With a warrant, the government has the right to enter and search my home and office and review my bank and phone records (see,for example, the case of Michael Cohen), but Apple will defy orders to enable it look at the contents of my phone. Why the distinction? And Apple is ok with such searches in undemocratic China because there is money to be made?
11
To use your analogy, the government has the right to enter and search your home. But that doesn't mean the manufacturers of your filing cabinet, front door, and dead bolt lock are obliged to make their products open without a key.
24
You are mixing up two things. The government cannot force you to incriminate yourself, that is a basic right you omitted from your comment. The government with a warrant has a right to enter your home and get anything they can access. That would correspond to a door key or a safe key. But if you have a combination safe, the police cannot force you to give them the combination.
Of course, police can get equipment to break open a safe. And they could also get equipment to break encryption. But they cannot force you to give them the combination to your phone, following the safe combination analogy.
Finally I don't know if China has any privacy provisions comparable to those in our Constitution. I would bet that they don't. So that is not Apple's fault, although you are correct that they could choose not to do business in China. But being a business they are entitled to seek profits so they seem to balance this by at least striving for privacy in nations where privacy is (supposedly) supported.
10
N Yorker: You last para says it all. Apple is not interested in your privacy, just in its profits. It'll sell more phone in the US to "privacy is paramount" folks, but can't sell in China without giving the Chinese the keys. It's sales in the US are about flat, but the Chinese market awaiting iPhones is huge.
Apple is not operating in your interests. Strictly in its own. Cook is a model example for "hypocrisy".
Good for Apple. About time. The Fourth Amendment means what it says: if law enforcement has probable cause, get a warrant from an independent judge based upon sworn evidence admissible in court. If not, government must keep its prying eyes, fingers and ears out of my house, papers and effects. Period.
30
The problem is the phones can't be opened even with a warrant.
4
even better...less likely to be abused by corrupt government officials. it is a check on government corruption that fuels all of this. guarantee me a corruption free govenrment, you can have the keys to my home...sadly that will never be the reality...
2
Sure they can. All a judge has to do is order the owner to unlock the phone and hold him in contempt until he does.
I just don't think people understand the main problem, which is the reason why Apple is doing this.
If Apple can access the data on your device, absolutely anybody can. That's just how privacy and encryption work. It's not about them not wanting to give data to police, it's just a fundamental component of data security. The analogies being made such as "police can have access to your home if you have a warrant" are not comparable, it's more like granting the police access to your brain.
We either make decisions that provide data security or we do not. It just cannot be both ways. They can still subpoena ISP records, call logs, who you were texting, what apps you were using, where your phone was, etc...
39
I won't be convinced Apple has closed any loopholes until their software is free like e.g. GPG;[1] proprietary stuff remains an NSA, CIA, and Facebook dream. The megacorp has lied about keeping user data secure in the past, as well.
I hope they're right, of course. But we can't be sure yet.
[1] Apple and Facebook *use* and *release* free software, but their respective OS and website are not the copyleft kind, which leaves loopholes where they can and do just make secret changes for themselves—and other creeps.
4
Darwin is an open source Unix operating system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)
It forms the core component of many Apple operating systems. Mac OS X isn't entirely free but a lot of the components are open source.
It's not the same for FB (which is a different kind of animal) or Microsoft (similar to Apple computers).
2
Apple is the business of security, safety, privacy, functionality.
Government is going to have to find evidence some other way than requiring unsafe, unsecure, unprivate devices.
How many crimes are committed via phone anyway? Are there not less intrusive ways to get evidence rather than leaving us all vulnerable?
Freedom and privacy trump criminal prosecutions.
18
The Govt. of today are in the business of making everyone a criminal. That why they want a backdoor so bad.
11
Amen!
Why doesn't the government just ask the cellular service providers and ISPs for records of calls, texts and data? There is almost nothing on a person's phone that is of value that wasn't transmitted to or from the phone. Cracking the phone is more convenient, but is not the only way to get at this data.
3
Most of the companies claim to only retain the data for 90 days, and only the metadata, not the message material itself. This may or may not be true, but it would require significant server space to store everyone’s everything.
3
Another Human,
You are correct, the ISPs/cell service providers can supply some of the information you mention, but on iOS devices texts are encrypted end to end.
1
That's not a problem for the NSA, apparently.
Private information should require a warrant for the police to access them, just as they do if they want to search my house. But it seems strange to me that we applaud Apple for taking the law into their own hands by policing the police. Shouldn't that be the job of the courts to decide if the police can access my phone? If we don't trust the courts and want to put Apple in charge instead I think we are really in trouble! Fix the court system if there is a problem, do not allow big companies with very different ideas of right and wrong to push the police around.
9
What if the police demanded that phone companies record and save all your phone conversations so that at some point in the future if they wanted they could get a warrant and listen to them. Perhaps they could demand that we all have microphones in our house and record everything we say, they of course would get warrants to listen to it. The issue about requiring companies to to do certain things .
12
The last system I would trust is the corrupt Govt. you seem to want to grovel to. The courts are broken the police is broken and much of the Govt is now full of theocrats and racist. No thanks Apple is on the money your not.
3
Even if we can trust the courts (which is very much up for debate), the question still remains, can we trust the police? Given the well documented and disturbingly frequent abuse of power by the police, not many people do trust the police. I am 100% certain that if I were the victim of a crime and the police gained access to my phone, I would be terrified of what they would do. I'm a law abiding person and lead a pretty quiet life, but since police are not above planting evidence in buildings, it's only a matter of time before some desparate cop plants an incriminating photo or message on a phone. And if the abuse wasn't planting evidence, then they would still have my work schedule, the places where I get coffee or takeout, pictures of who I hang out with... everything a stalker (or killer) with a badge needs.
4
Gosh it would be so much easier to stop “bad guys” if we didn’t have that pesky 4th Amendment to the US Constitution which still provides the citizenry some protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by our government, despite the conservatives’ on SCOTUS best efforts.
It’s a balancing act that our democracy accepts lest we have a totalitarian state such as that described in Orwell’s 1984 or John Twelve Hawks The Traveller.
I’ll take the 4th Amendment every time, especially in these times, which are beginning to resemble Germany of the 30s with a autocratic demagogue as President unchecked by the those in government who are willing to sell their souls and reputations in the unsparing light of history, solely for the sake of political gain.
77
...and, if I might add, for the sake of financial gain as well.
11
Re: "The F.B.I. eventually paid a third party to get into the phone, "
My guess: An Apple employee. Everyone has a price.
Your phone is only as secure as the people who write the software want it to be.
7
Kudos to Apple for putting privacy first. Hey even our president indicated we can't trust law enforcement and the Dems were always saying the Sam thing until Trump got elected. Apple is under no obligation to make someone else's job easier when it jeopardizes their customers constitutional rights
15
Mass killers? Terrorists? With iphones? If the police need to really search in the tiny tiny number of such cases, let them kick the door in as they always have.
20
No, they only kick in the door when they are serving a no-knock drug warrant on the wrong person at the wrong address, in full SWAT gear.
1
Apple has the right to manufacture it's products for consumers as they see fit,
The Government apparently has found their own
sources to brake into the iPhone.
To me it is a simple matter. Lock smiths dont make
duplicate keys.
24
Well now the drug lords and terrorists know which phone to buy. I will take my business elsewhere.
9
That’s fine. The rest of us s will enjoy continuing to have our Constitutional Rights protected to the best ability.
30
Huh? Drug lords and terrorists will do what they have to do, any way they want to. Phones are disposable accessories, trivial even...
4
Thanks Apple for putting the criminals before law enforcement capacity to protect us.
9
FTFY: Thanks Apple for putting personal privacy above the desires of an increasingly authoritarian police force.
69
How is this “breaking news?” (As tagged on your Twitter stream.) This was spelled out clearly last week during WWDC.
Nothing wrong with the article, except for being a little late on the draw; try being a little less breathless on the tweet tags.
2
Science and technology have always been problematic for law enforcement. I wonder how all the outraged commenters would feel if every door lock sold required a master key be kept on file with the local police department? Of course when Congress demands American manufacturers build in back doors or intentionally broken security, they will just create one more overwhelming advantage to non-American manufacturers.
33
Poorly written article. You'd probably be the first to jump on Apple if there was a major breach that allowed passwords or financial accounts to be stolen from Apple devices. And yet you leave the impression Apple is just doing this because it wants to help criminals. Your data isn't safe unless even Apple can't break in.
27
i have never bought nor used apple products yet. but this is a great advertisement for privacy that every law enforcement group does not feel humans deserve. each time tech goes forward they L E O's cry about their job and how hard it is. tough for them. they took those jobs on their own knowing the difficulties they would constantly face. they do not deserve the right to anyone' else's privacy unless they feel like giving up Their's.
i still won't buy apple's products, i have no desire to put all aspects of my life in to a phone.
16
You don't need to put any of these details on your phone.
1
Thank you TIm Cook. I will continue to purchase Apple products because of their commitment to my privacy. I've been doing so for 15 years.
105
Yes, yes, yes, yes & yes.
2
This is very simple. A lawful order is issued for the search of an iPhone. When Apple refuses to comply and assist, the company and its chief executive are held in contempt i.e the CEO is imprisoned. And he sits until he relents.
17
Well, a phone is either manufactured to be secure or it's not. If it's secure, even a warrant cannot deliver compliance, no matter how much the manufacturer might wish to provide access. If it's not secure, no warrant is needed, because anyone, good or evil, can exploit the insecurity. But it's like Schroedinger's cat which is both dead and alive at any given moment. A phone is both secure and not secure, because criminals or grey hats always find new ways in, and then manufacturers plug the newly found exploits with each software/hardware upgrade.
7
But proper encryption has no back doors and there is no way for anyone who does not have the password to open the phone. Putting someone in jail for contempt won't change that reality.
And I realize you're playing the "... but think of the children!" card, but are you willing to carry a device that contains enough personal and financial information about you to let a hacker basically own you, knowing that it has a back door that hackers _will_ find?
14
Well that’s the thing: it is a legal gray area that Apple’s refusal is even contempt. In all cases, when legally asked for data that Apple has on hand, they have provided. This is about Apple purposefully limiting security on their devices to make access possible. I don’t think a court really has the power to order that. We literally need to rewrite the law if we think this is how it should work. Until then, Apple with act like every other American corporation: it will introduce the features that make its products appealing to customers.
11
Keep fighting the good fight, Apple. The government has plenty of other ways to do its job--like, oh, search warrants, contempt of court penalties, intercepting traffic at the server level, etc.
85
No, they actually don't. Is it so casual to let a child die, because the kidnapper's phone can't be unlocked?
8
$50 if you can name one case where that happened or was a possibility. I'll PayPal you. Not that one case would change my mind on the need to protect privacy, but this is a preposterous scenario.
35
We don't run into people's homes ... if there's reasonable suspicion, they can get a warrant, and if the phoneowner won't cooperate, I guess they can be jailed for contempt.
1
If Apple had "the greatest respect for law enforcement" - they'd respect a warrant for the data, and unlock the device themselves, rather than requiring police to use the same tools a criminal could.
Apple is tying it's own hands behind it's back, then pretending like it's not their fault that they can't open the door for the police.
11
If their encryption is designed properly, they can't. Not won't, it would be literally impossible.
If encryption and security is properly designed, there is one way in and one way only: Knowing the password. If there is any other "back door", anyone can discover and exploit it.
It is literally impossible to design a back door that only the manufacturer or only law enforcement could use. Not hard, not challenging, impossible.
104
A back door for cops is a back door for hackers. If the military can’t protect top secret info, do you really want to trust the police? Long before cellphones existed, the police did good old fashioned leg work, I’m sure not all of them have forgotten how.
87
Really? So, if I buy a Koehler or Yale lock - let's say, a fab one - then if Koehler or Yale don't come and assist the police with picking the lock [or if they don't give proprietary lock info to the police] then are they remiss in their duties? Apple is not the handmaiden of the police - the police are our handmaiden.
25
When the day arrives, as unfortunately it may, that a mass killer leaves evidence of his plans on his iPhone, but the police were unable to access it, Apple will have become an accomplice of the killer. This is all NOT about privacy, but a marketing ploy. I think it is deplorable.
12
Not really ... if the day comes when a mass killer leaves all kinds of notes around the house about his plans, and gruesome photos or sketches, the police can get a warrant if they want to see those. They can't just run into someone's house and start looking for such evidence. Same with the phone.
27
Not true. An accomplice is a person who knowingly and willingly aids another person to commit a crime, before or after the act. For Apple to be an accomplice, Apple would have to be a party to the intentions of the criminal actor. Clearly, that is not the case with encrypted data because Apple cannot know what information the data contains.
20
So when the wifebeaters and stalkers begin to hunt down and kill women through federally mandated security holes on their victims devices, will Congress be liable? Will Congress be an accomplice when foreign nations hack the devices of American government officials?
42
If warrantable trust existed between our citizenry and our government officials, the branch known as law enforcement would have no problem accessing the information they claim to need.
However it has been shown time and time again that those who seek and hold positions of power and trust are often the most untrustworthy.
Assuming there are fewer crooks than law enforcement officials, until our government employees can without question be held accountable for infractions at every level, it is difficult to even consider giving them or anyone access to private information.
82
Excellent point!
1
It seems to me that "probable cause" would be the operative concept here.
If there's probable cause that a crime has been committed, then it seems mobile devices naturally fall under that scope. Law enforcement should be able to access the data to conduct its investigation.
If a law enforcement officer asks me for my phone, because it may have something which might assist with solving a crime (or if I'm incapacitated because of a crime committed against me, and my phone may help solve it), you can bet I want law enforcement to have access ASAP.
It is not Apple's role to interpret the Constitution. If anything, it seems to me that Apple would be obstructing justice, for no higher purpose than generating more revenue.
I get that people hold their iPhones as little digital diaries that they don't want people to access. That's fine -- it's your law-abiding life to live the way you want. That's not the question here.
This is just Apple trying to get people to buy the latest upgrade out of some specious "privacy protection" argument; and disregarding public safety in exchange.
Very upsetting...
13
"It is not Apple's role to interpret the Constitution."
Everyone has the right to read and interpret and defend his interpretation.
15
I respectfully disagree with your assessment. In my personal view, their actions speak to a fundamental respect and advocacy for protecting the individual phone owner’s privacy and 4th Amendment rights. A Court can always compel an individual to open their phone or the telecommunications company can be compelled to divulge data associated with the phone. There is no reason law enforcement should have any capability to force their way into a phone.
8
Deep
Thought. Correct that's why Apple was taken to court and won
1
It is astounding to me that so many commentators believe that all-too-human and fallible law enforcement officers will not abuse the ability to sift through data on your Smartphone like they've been found to abuse every other power delegated to them. Of course the authorities invoke the spectre of terrorists and child-molesters to convince the public that Apple's unwillingness to comply means that an apocalypse of criminality will soon be upon us.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
76
It’s almost as though we need a constitutional amendment assuring the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
115
Best comment of this millennium!!!!!!!!!!
3
How shrewd. Too bad our founders didn't think of that.
3
Too bad the country's founders didn't think to write something about this and call it the Fourth Amendment...!
1
Hmmmm... lemme see. Should I support the whims of the Police State, or myself? Okay, got it. I choose me. Thanks, Apple.
55
“They are blatantly protecting criminal activity, and only under the guise of privacy for their clients,” he said.
That was a troubling line to read. Of course some people engage in criminal activity and use encryption to try to hide that activity. But that blanket statement without context sounds intended to tar everyone with the same brush. Privacy is so important that it made it into the Constitution - we need to be really, really careful about anything that corrodes that right to privacy by appealing to our emotions the way this line does.
49
Correct - this is a blatant appeal to emotion, but it's a carefully crafted appeal. Any rational, cool-headed police investigator, such as Mr Cohen, knows very well that such emotional appeals are effective, particularly when trying to influence public opinion, and persuade lawmakers who are slaves to that public opinion. Don't be fooled. Once law-enforcement can do something, they will do it indiscriminately, as demonstrated by Ed Snowden's exposure of the NSA's super-snooping.
13
I applaud Apple for improving the security of my iPhone for in case it gets lost or stolen. That’s the main point. The police issue is just a distraction. Most of us are not subject to police searches.
20
Try crossing an international border. Canadian border patrol fully expected us to provide the password to our phone so they could examine it fully--with us being detained 50 feet away. If we didn't, we ran the risk of appearing very suspicious indeed and would most certainly have been denied entry. We didn't have anything to hide on the phone so we provide the password. Would you do the same thing or say 'Give me back my phone I don't need to get in?'And that's assuming they weren't suspicious enough to hold you for an even longer amount of time.
5
I definitely agree with you that this situation is ridiculous but don’t you think in reality for virtually everyone that the real concern is someone stealing the phone or losing it and having all of one’s credit card, banking, and other financial info stolen? For me that is the reason why I want my phone secured. The border patrol can search your locked car, luggage, photo albums, journals, etc. The phone is just one more locked personal object.
4