Your position is bunk. Apple has unlocked phones in many instances to assist law enforcement agencies in the past. And they should do so again here. Privacy is nice. But we are at war. And the sooner we acknowledge that, the better off we are going to be.
7
The parade of horribles is unwarranted. I suspect someone has to write the code for Obama's nuclear football. How worried are we those code writers will botch that up and the codes get into the hands of ISIS? I hope that concern is zero.
Unreasonable burdens is likely the legal standard. A parade of potential horribles is not reasonable. Apple could sue the government for billions if the government leaked codes in this process. A judge and jury would be very sympathetic to Apple in such a case. Cracking a phone open for the government in a terrorism case of this nature is not only reasonable, its the right thing to do. Most pro-Apple supporters think this is about their privacy, like this is a Snowdon fishing case expedition issue. No, this is a terrorism issue, and that phone could actually tell us if an act of war was perpetrated in that attack (e.g., ISIS directed from ISIS territory). Again, this is not about your privacy and my privacy, it's about a dead terrorist's privacy. If you are afraid of code leaks, I'm sure that could be addressed (Apple goes on to a military base, cracks the phone open, all computers are wiped, etc.). If we can (and do) trust the government to write and keep secret nuclear launch codes, I guess we can trust them with an Apple 5s. If you disagree, then as a matter of consistency, you should be quaking about that nuclear football.
Unreasonable burdens is likely the legal standard. A parade of potential horribles is not reasonable. Apple could sue the government for billions if the government leaked codes in this process. A judge and jury would be very sympathetic to Apple in such a case. Cracking a phone open for the government in a terrorism case of this nature is not only reasonable, its the right thing to do. Most pro-Apple supporters think this is about their privacy, like this is a Snowdon fishing case expedition issue. No, this is a terrorism issue, and that phone could actually tell us if an act of war was perpetrated in that attack (e.g., ISIS directed from ISIS territory). Again, this is not about your privacy and my privacy, it's about a dead terrorist's privacy. If you are afraid of code leaks, I'm sure that could be addressed (Apple goes on to a military base, cracks the phone open, all computers are wiped, etc.). If we can (and do) trust the government to write and keep secret nuclear launch codes, I guess we can trust them with an Apple 5s. If you disagree, then as a matter of consistency, you should be quaking about that nuclear football.
11
I really have no idea where I stand on this dilemma. I see both sides. I would just like to point out that this is a real moral, political and business related issue. I look forward to a lively debate on this topic. It is a refreshing change from the majority of social issues plaguing this country that are causing the great divide at any given time. I look forward to greater minds then mine weighing in with their points of view.
8
This issue is one more problem in what constitutes privacy. There is not a clear idea of what information in our electronic accounts counts as entirely mine like the contents of my home or car and what is public like documents or signs posted in my front yard or loud speech in public places. It just isn't worked out. What is finally defined as private should require a search warrant; the rest should require nothing-- in the virtual world as in the real world.
The idea that a back door would make everyone vulnerable to criminals and intelligence services is specious. Criminals will be able to get in only randomly and rarely; intelligence services will have no need for a back door. The only actors inconvenienced by the absence thereof would be police or other government agencies making legitimate, court approved searches.
2
I'm not understanding the comparison some people are making between Apple providing sensitive information to the government and using the information they collect to use for marketing purposes.
No one likes the marketing, but when it comes to companies marketing to me, I still have choices on whether I purchase or use their products. Conversely, I have no choices as to what the government decides they want to do to me.
Some people need to research the McCarthy era, and if they think those things could never happen again, take another look at the extremists on the right and the current line-up of Republican presidential candidates and think again.
No one likes the marketing, but when it comes to companies marketing to me, I still have choices on whether I purchase or use their products. Conversely, I have no choices as to what the government decides they want to do to me.
Some people need to research the McCarthy era, and if they think those things could never happen again, take another look at the extremists on the right and the current line-up of Republican presidential candidates and think again.
17
This will only work on phones in someone's physical possession. It changes the way you can enter the phone's passcode so you can try - again and again - to guess the passcode. It doesn't open up the phone to hacking from across a network.
I don't have a problem with it.
I don't have a problem with it.
10
Apple faces a very difficult problem. But it is not a choice between privacy or security. There must be an alternative that prevents criminals, including most significantly terrorists, from hiding incriminating information from oversight by legitimate law enforcement officials. Apple has legitimate fears that China, for example, will require Apple or others to comply with its judicial system requirements like warrants, for what we might consider insidious reasons. But I would suggest that Apple's success and aggressive business plans (like doing business in China and elsewhere) places much of the onus on Apple for dealing with the issues raised by Judge Pym's order. What matters most? Apple's proprietary concerns, or the safety of our nation? Find a compromise.
3
What is it about the Tech giants - certainly world leaders in hubris, in inverse proportion to the amount of tax they pay... Donald Trump is sounding better every day.
3
This is a slam dunk.
The FBI wants to commandeer a private company's resources and the minds of its employees, to force them invent something that does not exist and may not be possible to invent, so that the government can forever open a backdoor to your data, just because of one crime that has already been committed.
Let there be no mistake. No backdoor can be uninvented. No government can keep it secure. No engineer will forget the methods once they've been learned. Foreign governments and criminal enterprises around the world want these backdoors more than anyone.
And why? All so, ostensibly, the FBI can learn more about a crime that they have already failed to prevent, with the ample tools they're already allowed, and the Constitutional line they've been allowed to cross time and time again?
No honest person believes this will be the only time the government asks for this kind of data. If we allow this, it will NEVER stop.
A precedent will be set that the government can, at any time, commander any resources it wants, under the vaguest grounds possible, "because terrorism".
I am scared. I'm not scared of terrorists. I'm more likely to get struck by lightning than killed by one. I'm scared that we have a society that will give up literally any right to privacy they have, in order to ward away the boogeyman hiding in the closet.
The FBI wants to commandeer a private company's resources and the minds of its employees, to force them invent something that does not exist and may not be possible to invent, so that the government can forever open a backdoor to your data, just because of one crime that has already been committed.
Let there be no mistake. No backdoor can be uninvented. No government can keep it secure. No engineer will forget the methods once they've been learned. Foreign governments and criminal enterprises around the world want these backdoors more than anyone.
And why? All so, ostensibly, the FBI can learn more about a crime that they have already failed to prevent, with the ample tools they're already allowed, and the Constitutional line they've been allowed to cross time and time again?
No honest person believes this will be the only time the government asks for this kind of data. If we allow this, it will NEVER stop.
A precedent will be set that the government can, at any time, commander any resources it wants, under the vaguest grounds possible, "because terrorism".
I am scared. I'm not scared of terrorists. I'm more likely to get struck by lightning than killed by one. I'm scared that we have a society that will give up literally any right to privacy they have, in order to ward away the boogeyman hiding in the closet.
35
Couldn't agree more. I might add that the US government has recently shown an alarming inability to protect its OWN data, let alone anyone else's. If they are given such a tool it's only a matter of time before it ends up in the wild and then no one's phones and data will be safe.
19
Of course Apple is right to fight this--we can't have a matter of such gravity finally decided by a district court. And Apple should win here.
The hard question, I think, is presented by the situation where the government needs the information to prevent an imminent crime--e.g. it knows of a plot to bomb a building, but not which building will be bombed.
I don't know the answer, but I know that our system contemplates having the legislative branch decide, within the bounds of constitutional restrictions, what requirements should be imposed on cell phone manufacturers. The courts exist primarily to determine whether Congress stayed within those bounds.
The hard question, I think, is presented by the situation where the government needs the information to prevent an imminent crime--e.g. it knows of a plot to bomb a building, but not which building will be bombed.
I don't know the answer, but I know that our system contemplates having the legislative branch decide, within the bounds of constitutional restrictions, what requirements should be imposed on cell phone manufacturers. The courts exist primarily to determine whether Congress stayed within those bounds.
1
The FBI's argument for unlocking the iPhone is no different from the argument used to justify water-boarding and other torture used against suspects in custody: maybe we'll find out something really important.
But torture didn't yield any really important information. And neither will this particular iPhone: we already know who the perpetrators were in contact with and there is no plausible reason to believe that unlocking the iPhone will yield information that could prevent an attack in the future.
But what a precedent it will set!
And that precedent is what the FBI really wants!
But torture didn't yield any really important information. And neither will this particular iPhone: we already know who the perpetrators were in contact with and there is no plausible reason to believe that unlocking the iPhone will yield information that could prevent an attack in the future.
But what a precedent it will set!
And that precedent is what the FBI really wants!
16
If Apple think this is a bad idea for their company and for their users, I'm prepared to take that at face value. Washington has done everything it possibly can to systematically shred the 4th amendment (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.) - not to mention the assumed right of privacy of every American (something we've enjoyed since the founding (See also 9th amendment). Even with all of the surveillance the government is carrying out on every single American, they failed to prevent the Boston Marathon bombers as well as the San Bernadino shooters (and have not prevented any other terrorist events). Civil liberties issues aside, I doubt very much I want to share anything else with Washington. I'm pretty sure they can't handle the data they already collect. Score one for the Bill of Rights.
15
Again, consider the implications if Apple wins on this.
Criminals & terrorists will put all of their sensitive info into their iPhones.
The hackers that you are so worried about would jump with glee, rather than cry that they can't hack into your iPhone, the hard way after they have to steal it. They'd still steal your private information using social engineering hacks, or using tricks to make you download an app with a virus or click a link to a phishing site. And these hackers would be the most tech savvy users of all, by making sure that they put their incriminating evidence into their iPhones, so that the FBI and police can't help you after they steal from you.
As for fears of government, if government goes rogue and starts disobeying the Constitution and rule of law, the least of your worries should be about your phone.
That fear is theoretical, pie in the sky.
However, on the other hand, the harm of Apple winning on this are real, present dangers. The US and ISIS are at war.
Terrorists will use this technology for advantage. But consumers have little to gain by using encryption that can't be cracked by government supercomputers, because identity theft will still occur as usual, and our government, flawed as it is, is still accountable to voters.
If government abuses our privacy against the law. It wouldn't be the fault of weak encryption; it would be due to poor news media advice, and poor voter decisions.
Criminals & terrorists will put all of their sensitive info into their iPhones.
The hackers that you are so worried about would jump with glee, rather than cry that they can't hack into your iPhone, the hard way after they have to steal it. They'd still steal your private information using social engineering hacks, or using tricks to make you download an app with a virus or click a link to a phishing site. And these hackers would be the most tech savvy users of all, by making sure that they put their incriminating evidence into their iPhones, so that the FBI and police can't help you after they steal from you.
As for fears of government, if government goes rogue and starts disobeying the Constitution and rule of law, the least of your worries should be about your phone.
That fear is theoretical, pie in the sky.
However, on the other hand, the harm of Apple winning on this are real, present dangers. The US and ISIS are at war.
Terrorists will use this technology for advantage. But consumers have little to gain by using encryption that can't be cracked by government supercomputers, because identity theft will still occur as usual, and our government, flawed as it is, is still accountable to voters.
If government abuses our privacy against the law. It wouldn't be the fault of weak encryption; it would be due to poor news media advice, and poor voter decisions.
5
The fear is not that the U.S. government will violate the Constitution if it is able to force Apple to create the software it is demanding. The fear is that the government (or criminals, or China) will then have a back door into any iPhone on Earth.
4
Thank God the president is for national security not Apple profits. He does not agree with Apple's petulance.
2
I hope that Apple prevails on appeal. If the FBI wins in this case the precedent would have been set. They’ll want the same thing the next time they want an iPhone unlocked. They’ll also use this precedent against other tech companies. The other tech companies know this. That’s why they’re making it known that they support Apple.
Another thing the government seems to have overlooked is reaction from foreign governments. Apple is an international company. If Apple supplies a backdoor for the US government, governments in foreign countries where Apple has a significant presence will expect the same level of cooperation. Some of those countries have very repressive government and could use the information gathered in this way to round up dissidents. It could not only be a slippery slope technologically in forcing companies to develop something they don’t already have, but it could be a slippery slope politically and morally where the information gathered in some countries could cost people their freedom or their lives.
Another thing the government seems to have overlooked is reaction from foreign governments. Apple is an international company. If Apple supplies a backdoor for the US government, governments in foreign countries where Apple has a significant presence will expect the same level of cooperation. Some of those countries have very repressive government and could use the information gathered in this way to round up dissidents. It could not only be a slippery slope technologically in forcing companies to develop something they don’t already have, but it could be a slippery slope politically and morally where the information gathered in some countries could cost people their freedom or their lives.
8
Why is this phone any different than any other information that law officials may seize through normal means of a search warrant or court order? If it was your computer or banking information, we would not be having this discussion. If this was a child porn ring the Feds were arresting and the information was stored on their phones. What would Apple do then? If people have a problem with government oversight, that is something else then that needs to be dealt with. This is a legitimate request.
8
For many of these comments, try replacing 'government' and/or 'FBI' with 'North Korea' (or Iran, Syria, China, Russia, or another country of your choice). Would that change the way you look at this issue? If Apple agrees to write software in this case, on what basis should it deny a similar request from any other country or organization? Based on religion? Based on its judicial system? Based on its support for issues the CEO of Apple deems important?
12
Sorry, NY Times, a judge should decide this matter, not you or Tim Cook. We've reached a point now where corporations -- since they are allowed to buy elections and not pay any federal taxes -- think they are bigger and more important than government or their customers.
Also, do not buy Apple's lies about the limits of its capability. For years, we have been told that the iPhone's battery can't be replaced as a way for Apple to sell more units. I believed that until I found myself sitting at a Genius Bar as my battery was being replaced under a recall. As I sat there, I watched customer after customer asking for the repair of their prematurely malfunctioning equipment and being told that they had to buy entirely new units at substantial cost.
As others have pointed out on here, we long ago lost our privacy in so many ways, from TSA scanners to license plate readers. What we still need is our security. Apple takes from the federal treasury, ships our jobs overseas and now wants to deny us our right to find criminals who could kill thousands. It's shameful.
Also, do not buy Apple's lies about the limits of its capability. For years, we have been told that the iPhone's battery can't be replaced as a way for Apple to sell more units. I believed that until I found myself sitting at a Genius Bar as my battery was being replaced under a recall. As I sat there, I watched customer after customer asking for the repair of their prematurely malfunctioning equipment and being told that they had to buy entirely new units at substantial cost.
As others have pointed out on here, we long ago lost our privacy in so many ways, from TSA scanners to license plate readers. What we still need is our security. Apple takes from the federal treasury, ships our jobs overseas and now wants to deny us our right to find criminals who could kill thousands. It's shameful.
5
Where is NYT claiming that anyone other than the judge should decide this matter? I read this editorial as an argument in favor of one of the two positions that will be before the judge.
4
For all of history those in whatever version of law enforcement was around at the time have been interested in one thing: pleasing those with wealth & power, and protecting their own. And typically they could care less about the little person. Nothing has changed. Good for Apple. We can hope, but it likely won't end well.
4
The government should pay Apple to reverse engineer the particular phone and turn over the results. But how it does that should remain Apple's trade secret like any other to which the government has no rights unless used by the owner in a crime.
1
You make the assumption that a backdoor code has never been, or will never be created. How is it that a private industry gets to decide if and for whom the code will be created? What are Apple’s management controls on preventing the code from being written? How secure is that?
How is it that private property owners get to decide which cars their factories will manufacture? Can't the government just order unwilling citizens to undertake tasks on its behalf?
2
How in the world is unlocking one iPhone, or even one hundred of them, going to "prevent" terrorist attacks? Terrorists and other nefarious people have long been using throwaways for extra sensitive information, and they also have a history of constantly changing tactics so law enforcement has a hard time predicting what they will do. Even still, they do a pretty good job of collecting data and other information. 9-11 happened because key people were not paying attention to the information that had already been collected, so the idea that being able to unlock everyone's phone will keep everyone safe while ignoring the data that is already being collected is disingenuous, at best.
6
Sometimes I feel this is more about Apple than it is about the issue of cracking an encryption key. Fact is that Research in Motion - the makers of Blackberry, you remember them - were excoriated for years by many countries law enforcement services, including those in the US about its robust network encryption. Accommodations were made that were neither burdensome for Blackberry or that obviously caused the downfall of civilization. Tim Cook and Apple are making much of nothing. The FBI are not asking that the fix be broadcast or established on every phone. They need to solve a heinous crime. Let them get to it.
2
I am glad to see this opinion by the Editorial Board of the NY Times. As a provider of journalism, the Times has a perspective on the balance between the need for and right to information and the right of privacy. Various government agencies have used "national security" as a rationale for obtaining information by any means, including violating the rights of private American citizens and torture. These government policies are not American, or at least they once were not American.
6
The FBI wishes to, in effect, force Apple to become an extension of them, and to be available to write code at their whim. It does not seem there is an end in sight to their pressure. This sort of pressure, by the government, is called coercion and it is illegal.
Apple is correct to fight back. The courts have gone far beyond a warrant to examine one telephone. They have obtained what they can by warrant. Now they want to exceed their grasp by demanding new software, at Apple's expense. Certainly, taxpayers would not vote to pay Apple to do this job.
If this judge's request becomes precedent, Apple could potentially be showered with software requests to help solve criminal cases everywhere. This is not the function of Apple. The company is not a part of the law enforcement sector.
All people have the right to privacy. Until Homeland Security started, warrants were required for all searches. The right to privacy is in the US Bill of Rights.
Apple products attempt to guarantee privacy to their clients. This includes encryption, no "back door" ports and, if necessary, software that requires the owner's permission for law enforcement to open the phone.
Rather than illegally coerce Apple, law enforcement needs to up its game and hire tech savvy individuals and teams to do, with pay, what they're trying to force Apple to do for free.
The Constitution would still be ignored, but Apple et al would be free to continue protecting privacy with their new technology.
Apple is correct to fight back. The courts have gone far beyond a warrant to examine one telephone. They have obtained what they can by warrant. Now they want to exceed their grasp by demanding new software, at Apple's expense. Certainly, taxpayers would not vote to pay Apple to do this job.
If this judge's request becomes precedent, Apple could potentially be showered with software requests to help solve criminal cases everywhere. This is not the function of Apple. The company is not a part of the law enforcement sector.
All people have the right to privacy. Until Homeland Security started, warrants were required for all searches. The right to privacy is in the US Bill of Rights.
Apple products attempt to guarantee privacy to their clients. This includes encryption, no "back door" ports and, if necessary, software that requires the owner's permission for law enforcement to open the phone.
Rather than illegally coerce Apple, law enforcement needs to up its game and hire tech savvy individuals and teams to do, with pay, what they're trying to force Apple to do for free.
The Constitution would still be ignored, but Apple et al would be free to continue protecting privacy with their new technology.
8
I wonder if some people here have considered the exigencies of engineering. Not one of the engineers and scientists at Apple would much care to be forced to crack the phone. I doubt morale would be conducive to performing such highly creative, intellectually challenging work. Will an FBI agent need to stand next to a brilliant engineer, holding a gun to said engineer's head, and say "Be brilliant. Solve that problem."
Crack this phone, or we'll shoot this dog?
Has anyone considered the extremes Apple, and the relevant software engineers will go? What if the FBI shows up at the labs to find all the necessary employees have quit? What immediate effect would this have on Apple's stock price? Just imagine what would happen on the all the stock markets.
What it the engineers and scientists are jailed for contempt of court? How would the markets react?
I wonder how many have really been so granular in their thinking. Maybe the feds will get a cracked phone, years from now, when it is of little use.
Crack this phone, or we'll shoot this dog?
Has anyone considered the extremes Apple, and the relevant software engineers will go? What if the FBI shows up at the labs to find all the necessary employees have quit? What immediate effect would this have on Apple's stock price? Just imagine what would happen on the all the stock markets.
What it the engineers and scientists are jailed for contempt of court? How would the markets react?
I wonder how many have really been so granular in their thinking. Maybe the feds will get a cracked phone, years from now, when it is of little use.
2
The 4th amendment says that a warrant must be particular with respect to "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." In this case there is nothing to be seized. If I were Tim cook I would tell the Deds in no uncertain terms that if they want Apple to create this software, that it's on Apple's count, with Apple's ball by Apple's rules, PERIOD. It must be done in a hermetically sealed environment with absolutely no chance of theft or leakage, and it will be retained by Apple and not fof general use by law enforcement.
2
I hate to say it, but our concerns of individual rights vs. the rights of the whole make our modern era the best time to commit a crime. It's admirable that the society we live in cares so much for its' citizens but handicapping law enforcement will only put the rights of liberty and life at even greater risk in the long run. Where to draw the line? I don't know, and I don't envy the people responsible for deciding.
2
Two quick points.
1. How can the NYT state that development of the requested code would put an "unreasonable burden" on Apple? Hardly. They, as the developers, know exactly what needs be done. Whether or not they can do it may be questionable to some but I believe they can.
2. If people want absolute privacy then start writing letters. Stay away from electronics. Oh, I forgot. We have been so technology crazed that that art is lost.
1. How can the NYT state that development of the requested code would put an "unreasonable burden" on Apple? Hardly. They, as the developers, know exactly what needs be done. Whether or not they can do it may be questionable to some but I believe they can.
2. If people want absolute privacy then start writing letters. Stay away from electronics. Oh, I forgot. We have been so technology crazed that that art is lost.
8
You might be willing to develop software for free, but there's no reason to assume everyone else is fine with being compelled to work for the government. That's unreasonable right there. The much larger burden, of course, is that some of the value of Apple's phones is based on their security, on the fact that no government backdoor exists. Destroying that state of security by creating a government backdoor would place a massive burden on Apple, especially regarding its promises and obligations to its customers.
23
Apple is on the right side of this argument. Just as the government can designate information as secret, so can American citizens. In some cases our freedom will be abused, but that is not ever a reason to give up our freedom.
5
As Cook has stated it is about the Apple brand in protecting so-called privacy. In reality, Apple is simply protecting its market share -- in other words, this hullabaloo is about greed. Having the encryption technology is viewed as an asset to the phone owner. Yet, the courts always have balanced the needs of privacy against immediate danger under the Bill of Rights. So Cook has an unsual perception of privacy. If a prisoner, who has NO rights to privacy at all, were using an Apple phone, how can Cook argue that this prisoner has a right to privacy? Or a terrorist with plans to blow up Apple headquarters. And more to the point, Apple can do work around its own encryption without compromising its technology. Keys to encryption have been developed for millenia. Julius Ceasar used one as well. Apple's position is all about greed -- not about privacy.
3
Somewhere, in a small backyard garage, there is someone working on his or her idea for a brain reader. Which soon will render all security features on every device we build completely unnecessary, totally laughable.
Everything in the memory banks in our heads will be open to scrutiny.
Trust me on this.
Everything in the memory banks in our heads will be open to scrutiny.
Trust me on this.
How about a law that forces government, (who issued the employee his iPhone) and other employers who provide Smartphones to workers so they're available 24/7, maintain some kind of control over those "work phones" just like the laptops they issue.
3
The argument Apple makes thst they do not want to open a back door to all iPhones is technically incorrect according to a very well-known IOS hacker Will Strafach. He points out that the main issue is Apple not wanting to set precedents for future unlocking requests.
Strafach states:
"This is not describing a technical issue, but is instead directly related to the later-mentioned issue of setting a precedent.
On a technical level, Apple could carry out the order by creating a RAM disk signed by the company’s production certificate for the specific ECID of the suspect’s iPhone. This solution would allow Apple to use existing technologies in the firmware file format to grant access to the phone ensuring that there is no possible way the same solution would work on another device."
http://bgr.com/2016/02/18/apple-fbi-backdoor-will-strafach-opinion/
National security requires a solution that protects both innocent iPhone holders and the citizens of our country. Such solutions are clearly possible and require full cooperation on both sides of this important issue.
Strafach states:
"This is not describing a technical issue, but is instead directly related to the later-mentioned issue of setting a precedent.
On a technical level, Apple could carry out the order by creating a RAM disk signed by the company’s production certificate for the specific ECID of the suspect’s iPhone. This solution would allow Apple to use existing technologies in the firmware file format to grant access to the phone ensuring that there is no possible way the same solution would work on another device."
http://bgr.com/2016/02/18/apple-fbi-backdoor-will-strafach-opinion/
National security requires a solution that protects both innocent iPhone holders and the citizens of our country. Such solutions are clearly possible and require full cooperation on both sides of this important issue.
5
Compelling arguments on both sides. Reading the actual court order can be helpful.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001/SB-Shooter-Order-Comp...
It applies very specifically to only the one phone in question, not creating a back door to any other devices. As far as difficulty, I'd be extremely surprised if the most technologically savvy company in the history of the world can't access data on one of it's own products. Is future abuse of the means for that possible? Perhaps. Society is always balancing risks vs. benefits. Should Apple, as a third party be forced to assist? Perhaps not, and the government is forced to hire someone else to do that.
In the order, Apple is also granted the option to use other means than a software key to access the data if they can reach agreement with the F.B.I. Perhaps this brilliant, ground breaking, billion dollar international company is capable of such a negotiation.
As it should, this will play out in our court system. I've been as horrified as many by government abuse: unjustified wars, illegal incarcerations and imprisonments and more. In this case, In this case innocent people were shot dead. I'd like the F.B.I. to know what's on that phone.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001/SB-Shooter-Order-Comp...
It applies very specifically to only the one phone in question, not creating a back door to any other devices. As far as difficulty, I'd be extremely surprised if the most technologically savvy company in the history of the world can't access data on one of it's own products. Is future abuse of the means for that possible? Perhaps. Society is always balancing risks vs. benefits. Should Apple, as a third party be forced to assist? Perhaps not, and the government is forced to hire someone else to do that.
In the order, Apple is also granted the option to use other means than a software key to access the data if they can reach agreement with the F.B.I. Perhaps this brilliant, ground breaking, billion dollar international company is capable of such a negotiation.
As it should, this will play out in our court system. I've been as horrified as many by government abuse: unjustified wars, illegal incarcerations and imprisonments and more. In this case, In this case innocent people were shot dead. I'd like the F.B.I. to know what's on that phone.
3
Obviously, Apple’s position is not based on any real concern over human rights; it’s business decision, pure and simple. The question posed by Apple’s defiance of the court order seems on its face to be narrowly confined to the question of “reasonableness” of what Apple is being ordered to do, and will be decided by our courts in due course. The more important question – on not yet raised -- is whether Apple and others should be granted an untrammeled right to have the ability to store encrypted data of their users without an ability to retrieve it. The answer to that question that question can be found in our Constitution and relevant Supreme Court decisions.
There is no Constitutional right to unconditional privacy; in fact, the Constitution does NOT expressly mention privacy. There is an implied right which has both its origin and its limitations in the language of the Fourth Amendment; but that right is not unconditional since it protects only “against unreasonable searches and seizures …” Therefore, how can it be rationally argued that Apple and others who want to do business in this country can be permitted to flout our laws by creating an impenetrable safe haven for terrorists and run-of-mine criminals?
Maybe all of us who use smartphones, computers, land the internet have to take responsibility for our affairs rather than entrusting our lives to the Tim Cooks of the world…
There is no Constitutional right to unconditional privacy; in fact, the Constitution does NOT expressly mention privacy. There is an implied right which has both its origin and its limitations in the language of the Fourth Amendment; but that right is not unconditional since it protects only “against unreasonable searches and seizures …” Therefore, how can it be rationally argued that Apple and others who want to do business in this country can be permitted to flout our laws by creating an impenetrable safe haven for terrorists and run-of-mine criminals?
Maybe all of us who use smartphones, computers, land the internet have to take responsibility for our affairs rather than entrusting our lives to the Tim Cooks of the world…
1
I think you're confused. The FBI has the phone in question in their possession. They can search it to their heart's content. No one is arguing that the owner's right to privacy, Constitutional or otherwise, is being harmed. Nor is anyone questioning whether Apple should be granted a right to store information without an ability to retrieve it. To the extent that's a "right" at all, it's one you already possess. These questions are not at issue.
1
Tim Cook is disingenuously hiding behind the principle of privacy, arguing that any concession on information access puts us on a slippery slope. Surely it can't be an "all or nothing" scenario. Absolutism on privacy from the government reminds me of the paranoid warnings from 2nd amendment purists. There are specific laws that have been passed to protect gun rights while reasonably placing controls on ownership and access. Why not take a similar approach to privacy protection? The individuals who are outraged by the fact that those on terrorist watch lists can get guns are often the same that argue for privacy at all cost - terrorist or not.
3
Software can do something that gun rights can't do: get into the wild. As long as Apple does not have the software to bypass security there is ZERO chance of the software getting into the wild. As soon as they create the software the probability exists. If you aren't a technologist then it is hard for you to form an opinion on this matter.
4
Liberty has risks, and we must accept them. Privacy is an essential component of liberty. I can't help but think of Ben Franklin's famous quote: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Will unlocking one phone prevent terrorism? Perhaps. Will doing so weaken our privacy rights and diminish our liberty? Definitely.
10
I see what you're saying. I just think you can extrapolate that out further to the inevitable scenario in which there are no nation states, just global corporate entities. I mean, I don't know, nation states have arguably historically caused a lot of trouble. Maybe this new way will be better. Personally, I doubt it. Not to be too HAL 9000, but I think human nature (Hal would have said human error) is the problem.
Once again, it rates pointing out that the Editorial Board has endorsed a candidate, Secretary Clinton, who opposes their view on a real world issue, that is, law enforcement backdoor access to private encrypted data.
The dissonance from the Board is amazing, these days.
The dissonance from the Board is amazing, these days.
4
They likely owe big favors to the Clintons and endorsed her based upon obligation rather than a rational decision.
1
The editorial board endorses the candidates that they feel are the best among the field currently running. In this election and in all past elections, the board has never said that they’ve found a perfect candidate or that the candidates that they’ve chosen agree with them on everything. It’s about who’s most qualified and who will do a better job.
Elections are about making choices. Even in the voting booth during the general election, most voters will be voting for the candidate who most closely matches their views, not a perfect candidate who agrees with them on every possible issue. Perfect candidates don’t exist.
Elections are about making choices. Even in the voting booth during the general election, most voters will be voting for the candidate who most closely matches their views, not a perfect candidate who agrees with them on every possible issue. Perfect candidates don’t exist.
1
The key for me is that Apple already complied with a warrant to produce the information they had on hand -- the phone's last backup to iCloud. I'm sure the carrier has also already produced under warrant the tracking of the phone from cell tower to cell tower, although with numbers called or received and call durations.
I fully support what Apple has done to date, but think that this court order proposes a systemic solution that has the potential to compromise everyone's privacy and security. It's hard not to have an emotional urge to "get the terrorists before they strike". After all, the government are "the good guys" and terrorists are "the bad guys." I don't like the idea, 'though, of a foreign power or criminals -- or even agencies of Federal and State government -- potentially having access to a tool that lets government invade my reasonable expectation of privacy without probable cause, or, in other hands, helps criminals commit a crime.
I fully support what Apple has done to date, but think that this court order proposes a systemic solution that has the potential to compromise everyone's privacy and security. It's hard not to have an emotional urge to "get the terrorists before they strike". After all, the government are "the good guys" and terrorists are "the bad guys." I don't like the idea, 'though, of a foreign power or criminals -- or even agencies of Federal and State government -- potentially having access to a tool that lets government invade my reasonable expectation of privacy without probable cause, or, in other hands, helps criminals commit a crime.
1
The Times is right, of course. We have learned, sadly, that the FBI can rarely be trusted. Why in God's name we would trust them with yet another way to pry into our lives? The simple truth is the government is never satisfied. Until the day we are required to have chips installed in our heads at birth that track our every move and thought every second of our lives, they will not be happy.
Resist, Apple, resist. You are the last line of defense.
Resist, Apple, resist. You are the last line of defense.
6
Is the "U.S. vs I-Phone" dispute better decided by way of constitutional "eminent domain" principles rather than the (alleged) constitutional "right to privacy" ?
Who is in favor of "water-boarding" Apple's corporate officers or technical personnel to potentially learn the "key" to a terrorist count-down clock ?
Has the Senator Warren school of "social justice industrial productivity" finally recognized a product that is actually, and exclusively, "built" by nongovernmental individual efforts ?
Who is in favor of "water-boarding" Apple's corporate officers or technical personnel to potentially learn the "key" to a terrorist count-down clock ?
Has the Senator Warren school of "social justice industrial productivity" finally recognized a product that is actually, and exclusively, "built" by nongovernmental individual efforts ?
1) If the FBI wants the phone unlocked, then find/hire the right people to do it themselves.
2) This is one case, today involving Apple, tomorrow who knows? But the fact is there are numerous (and growing) methods/tools available for people to use to communicate with a high degree of security. Is the FBI saying that there can be no device encryption without their being able to unlock it? Ludicrous. Terrorists are already using many other web-based applications to communicate securely.
3) While the crime that was committed in San Bernardino was certainly heinous, please let's not equate this to some Jack Bauer "24" scenario that's about to happen.
4) I wish Apple would pay their true share of taxes. I would absolutely love to pay 18% every year instead of the 34% I actually pay.
2) This is one case, today involving Apple, tomorrow who knows? But the fact is there are numerous (and growing) methods/tools available for people to use to communicate with a high degree of security. Is the FBI saying that there can be no device encryption without their being able to unlock it? Ludicrous. Terrorists are already using many other web-based applications to communicate securely.
3) While the crime that was committed in San Bernardino was certainly heinous, please let's not equate this to some Jack Bauer "24" scenario that's about to happen.
4) I wish Apple would pay their true share of taxes. I would absolutely love to pay 18% every year instead of the 34% I actually pay.
5
Although terrorists have consistently shown, in most cases, their incompetence in achieving their ends-I am nonetheless amazed that the FBI thinks the terrorists left anything on their phone that would incriminate others. Does it really take a lot of forethought to discard everything on your phone before committing a mass murder? Does the FBI think the terrorists sent a final email copying all their colleagues saying, "everything looks great for the attack, have a nice day"? Do we really need one more step towards living in a police state, when we are being monitored constantly by the NSA?
4
I'm having a little trouble understanding the real issue. The phone is owned by one of the terrorists' employer, who has given the government permission to hack the phone to obtain the terrorist's password. So, there is no issue of lack of permission from the owner of the phone. Further, as a general question, what if the owner of the phone simply forgot the password? Would Apple help him to at least change the password so that he could continue to use the phone and retrieve his data? I realize that Apple wants to sell phones all over the world without being bothered by oppressive governments for backdoor keys, but isn't the issue here much less complicated than Apple asserts? Let's take one case at a time.
1
Regardless of one's views of the merits, Apple's stance seems puzzlingly reckless as a matter of strategy. By picking a test case with such compelling facts, the FBI/DOJ maximizes its chance of winning in court, all the way up to SCOTUS, as well as in the court of public opinion. I think that's unlikely to be dispositive, though, because Congress will act first. Republican leaders have already blasted Apple's intransigence. Controlling both houses of Congress — in a presidential election year, no less — I would be shocked if the GOP didn't rush to enact legislation mandating the very kind of "backdoor" Silicon Valley and privacy advocates fear the most.
Would President Obama veto such a bill when its aim is to overcome private-sector refusal to comply with a valid, judicially issued search warrant issued under *his* administration in a case of this symbolic significance? If he did, improbably, wouldn't Congress muster the supermajority to override the veto (again, in an election year)? Recall that the PATRIOT Act passed the Senate 98-1. I fear that electronic privacy maximalists, including Apple and its supporters, are setting themselves up for a devastating defeat by taking such an uncompromising position. It didn't have to be this way.
Would President Obama veto such a bill when its aim is to overcome private-sector refusal to comply with a valid, judicially issued search warrant issued under *his* administration in a case of this symbolic significance? If he did, improbably, wouldn't Congress muster the supermajority to override the veto (again, in an election year)? Recall that the PATRIOT Act passed the Senate 98-1. I fear that electronic privacy maximalists, including Apple and its supporters, are setting themselves up for a devastating defeat by taking such an uncompromising position. It didn't have to be this way.
2
Maybe Apple is afraid that the world will find out that it had already built a back door into its encryption software.
Apple has demonstrated that it is not a paragon of ethical behavior. Its international labor practices are anathema to Progressive economic equality standards, and its tax avoidance policies regarding its obscene profits are the hallmark of capitalist greed.
Why wouldn't Apple back door its encryption software, and then lie to cover up its existence? That would be standard operating procedure for Apple.
Apple has demonstrated that it is not a paragon of ethical behavior. Its international labor practices are anathema to Progressive economic equality standards, and its tax avoidance policies regarding its obscene profits are the hallmark of capitalist greed.
Why wouldn't Apple back door its encryption software, and then lie to cover up its existence? That would be standard operating procedure for Apple.
1
It will be far more helpful to Al Qaeda and ISIS to have a backdoor into what were formerly secure devices, all because some dirt balls who are now dead anyway decided to shoot up San Bernardino. Why hand them a win by forcing Apple to compromise the security of all their customers' devices? Apple, if you read the article, has been assisting the FBI to the fullest extent possible without compromising their devices' security. Every time our government uses an act of terrorism to justify violating the rights of non-terrorists, the terrorists gain from their violence. In this instance, they gain both in principle and in potential inroads into digital security.
3
If the U.S. government's cybersecurity apparatus cannot defeat a technology that is already two-generations old, how can it be trusted to know what to do with something infinitely more powerful like a master key?
7
Assisting the fight against terrorism is the right thing to do. If you have put your whole life on an iPhone, you have made a terrible mistake.
3
Except for the right not to incriminate oneself, there has never existed a zone of absolute privacy for individuals. For valid cause and with judicial approval, federal and state governments have always been able to demand whatever information or evidence they needed, and punish those who refused to comply. I do not see why that should change, just because modern encryption technology makes it easier to keep communications secret. In fact, modern technology greatly increases the public danger from secret criminal or terrorist activity, with dozens, hundreds, even thousands potentially at risk.
That said, however, I wonder what the actual result of the government's case will be. Even if it gains access to Apple's hardware, people will still be able to use software to encrypt their communications, and I have no doubt that some of that software will be unbreakable, at least in real time. So the government may win the battle, but it seems inevitable that it must lose the communications access war.
That said, however, I wonder what the actual result of the government's case will be. Even if it gains access to Apple's hardware, people will still be able to use software to encrypt their communications, and I have no doubt that some of that software will be unbreakable, at least in real time. So the government may win the battle, but it seems inevitable that it must lose the communications access war.
3
It is wrong to put the focus on getting APPLE to assist the federal government.
Instead, if the federal government was properly doing it's job to screen immigrants to this country, this San Bernadino would not have happened.
A court order against APPLE is just a smoke screen to cover up how the government failed in the first place.
Instead, if the federal government was properly doing it's job to screen immigrants to this country, this San Bernadino would not have happened.
A court order against APPLE is just a smoke screen to cover up how the government failed in the first place.
3
No one doubts that Apple can hack the iphone 5c's security. The main question is: should it be legal to compel them? Maybe they should offer to do it voluntarily, as an exercise of their own corporate conscience, in this particular case?
Sorry, but the editorial is dead wrong. If you want a specific legal ground, it's that it's not unreasonable to require Apple to open up a cell phone so that those charged with protecting American security can investigate a deadly terrorist attack and prevent future terrorist attacks. Apple built the phone and wrote the software and is the party best able to crack the phone. If you want a larger ground, it's that any citizen (or corporation) ought to put itself on the right side of the law. There are situations (and this is one of them) where you have to side with law enforcement or take the side of the terrorist. This is one of those cases where the buzzword "privacy" doesn't trump the slogan "security." Whatever Apple feels about "privacy," it doesn't support the firm's knowingly carving out a dark space in which terrorists can operate.
2
Justice Jackson, echoing the sentiments of Abraham Lincoln, wrote, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." There are times when National security DOES trump (note the lower case t - no endorsement here) personal liberty; However, such measures must be rare and seriously justified. My solution - require a warrant, which could ONLY be obtained from the Supreme Court. That would set the bar high enough to protect personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
1
Apple should appeal and counter sue under the "just compensation clause" of the U. S. Constitution. It one thing to borrow ones horse and buggy to catch a fleeing thief as envisioned in the Writs Act of 1789 and quite another thing to demand that a company pay some of the country's most highly skilled computer scientist to undermine the very task that their product and indeed their brand was designed to preform. Apple has spent billions of dollars to design and build a secure means of communication and storage for everyday people to interact and transact commerce. Such trust is the very essence of Apple Pay.
9
@#%$&##
Well said. I'll add, if the FBI or US government circumvents the security on their own or with someone other than Apple fine go ahead. But Apple should not be forced to diminish their brand.
Well said. I'll add, if the FBI or US government circumvents the security on their own or with someone other than Apple fine go ahead. But Apple should not be forced to diminish their brand.
2
The "U.S. vs I-Phone" dispute would be better decided by way of constitutional "eminent domain" principles rather than the (alleged) constitutional "right to privacy" ?
Is this like the "Now all we need to agree upon is the price." punchline?
Is this like the "Now all we need to agree upon is the price." punchline?
Privacy Rights advocates, for which there is no specific Constitutional authority, are beginning to sound a lot like Gun Rights advocates, for which the Second Amendment does as least use the word "gun".
Maybe Apple can find its own Charlton Heston.
Maybe Apple can find its own Charlton Heston.
1
In the first place, we will all be safer if we admit to ourselves that no encryption should be considered unbreakable. The worst threat to security is the delusion that any particular code is absolutely unbreakable, or even unbroken.
2
Law enforcement has been a snoop jag since the advent of encryption. Always demanding keys, always warning darkly about consequences. Yet the sky never falls. Why? Because encrypted information *always* exists in unencrypted form: once before encryption and, if communicated, again when it's decrypted. The information still exists where it always did, and where the police always found it: among those who know it.
To those who think of a smartphone like a safe, or the mail, let me suggest another analogy: memory. We all have secrets. I have things I don't tell. I have things I tell you that you don't tell. What is the difference between telling you something, and telling you the password that reveals that same something? If they're the same, then encrypted information is protected by the fifth amendment. Perhaps today the decryption can be defeated, and the secret revealed. What if tomorrow the secret could be revealed by drugs or brain-imaging technology? Would that be permissible?
The constitution talks about us being secure in our persons and in our houses. Now technology offers a new kind of security concern: secure in our memories, the right not to divulge, even when the memory is stored outside the skull.
To those who think of a smartphone like a safe, or the mail, let me suggest another analogy: memory. We all have secrets. I have things I don't tell. I have things I tell you that you don't tell. What is the difference between telling you something, and telling you the password that reveals that same something? If they're the same, then encrypted information is protected by the fifth amendment. Perhaps today the decryption can be defeated, and the secret revealed. What if tomorrow the secret could be revealed by drugs or brain-imaging technology? Would that be permissible?
The constitution talks about us being secure in our persons and in our houses. Now technology offers a new kind of security concern: secure in our memories, the right not to divulge, even when the memory is stored outside the skull.
2
My copy of the Constitution contains the "due process" phrase in both the IV and V Amendment. Is that phrase missing in your copy?
2
A cell phone for most people in the USA today is an extension of their brain.
In it is a list of the people they talk to, the places they go, and the information that is important to them.
In the late 1700's that information was generally kept inside a persons brain. That brain was protected by the Fifth Amendment. I argue that since this information is nothing but an extension of a persons private brain, particularly if you are older and forgetful, that your right against self incrimination should protect that data.
The government cannot compel you to tell them something if you do not want to, the information on a phone should be the same.
If Apple is ordered to crack open the phones, it will be interesting to see if the CEO will go to jail in contempt to stand by his views or is this stance just a marketing opportunity? I suspect in the end Apple will cave but in the mean time they get great press and it makes their customers love them.
In it is a list of the people they talk to, the places they go, and the information that is important to them.
In the late 1700's that information was generally kept inside a persons brain. That brain was protected by the Fifth Amendment. I argue that since this information is nothing but an extension of a persons private brain, particularly if you are older and forgetful, that your right against self incrimination should protect that data.
The government cannot compel you to tell them something if you do not want to, the information on a phone should be the same.
If Apple is ordered to crack open the phones, it will be interesting to see if the CEO will go to jail in contempt to stand by his views or is this stance just a marketing opportunity? I suspect in the end Apple will cave but in the mean time they get great press and it makes their customers love them.
This particular case is not a matter of self-incrimination.
1
There is no evidence that the phone in question contains any "evidence ". This is merely a fishing expedition by the FBI, who once again failed to connect the dots beforehand. I would be more sympathetic to the FBI if there was good cause to believe that the phone actually held important information.
7
The FBI knows there is little to gain from decrypting the phone. These two were criminals, and certainly not in possession of any information that could threaten the existence of the United States. This case has zero to do with National Security, and everything to do with conning the courts into bypassing Congress and the President.
4
I am surprised that the FBI, NSA, CIA or any government agency is not able to break the encryption directly without the help of Apple or any hardware/software company. Perhaps I give these agencies more credit and think of them as Hollywood portrays them as having the latest tech abilities.
Will our govt go to other countries for help?
Will our govt go to other countries for help?
4
My high school exchange student from Brazil has been following this with much amusement. He says that Rio is filled with "street hackers" who unlock (stolen) iPhones on a daily basis, and in a matter of minutes, for about $10. Maybe the FBI should send a lucky agent to Ipanema and stop wasting time with Apple HQ.
1
The FBI wants what's on the phone not to be deleted when they unlock it. Not the case with street hackers - it's wiped clean.
1
Probably we need a discussion of whether to make encryption a constitutionally protected area.
For those who worry about what will happen if there is ever a large-scale, conventional war, like, say WWII, the Constitution has never stopped that kind of intrusion before.
For those who worry about what will happen if there is ever a large-scale, conventional war, like, say WWII, the Constitution has never stopped that kind of intrusion before.
We went through a similar set of demands when Bill Clinton was president and had those demands bypassed (for a while) by the Bush II administration. Edward Snowden did us all a favor by pointing out what the NSA and others were STILL doing, even though it violates the Fourth Amendment. And here it's back again, in the context of another terrorist attack. Sorry, I'm not buying it. Apple is right, the FBI is wrong. How about some better police work instead of placing everyone's data at risk.
5
Surely it is up to the courts to decide what is an unreasonable burden? The custom firmware the FBI are requesting could easily be implemented by anybody with access to a valid Apple signature key. The concern is obviously that the signed, hacked firmware may fall into the wrong hands, but the same could be said for their signature keys which they presumably manage to keep secure. All that is required therefore is to keep the hacked, signed software similarly secure. It's not clear how that is an unreasonable burden.
Exactly. The backdoor hack is not the secret sauce here. The real "god key" as Apple called it, is the OS source code and signing key that Apple possesses. Any competent engineer can take those and create any number of hacks and backdoors. The security vulnerability that Cook is saying would be created already exists!
1
It seems to me that Apple arguing that breaking the security features is too hard or too dangerous is not a good excuse.
The big picture for me is that our legal system and our courts cannot work if information subject to warrant, subpoena or discovery can be locked away under encryption. Courts must have access to the facts and the truth to be able to render impartial judgments. If Apple can say that stuff on a phone is inviolable while stuff in file cabinets isn't, then eventually everything will be under strong encryption. How can courts function when warrants, subpoenas and discovery no longer work?
Apple may win this round, but it seems to me that our legal system requires that all legally required information be available to the courts. That means that ways must be provided to enable access to encrypted information that is subject to legal warrants, subpoenas and discovery. I expect the laws to be changed to require that.
For those who worry about Big Brother I would say - I'm much more frightened by a system where the courts cannot find the facts and the truth than I am by encryption-breaking technology existing that is subject to legal constraints.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
The big picture for me is that our legal system and our courts cannot work if information subject to warrant, subpoena or discovery can be locked away under encryption. Courts must have access to the facts and the truth to be able to render impartial judgments. If Apple can say that stuff on a phone is inviolable while stuff in file cabinets isn't, then eventually everything will be under strong encryption. How can courts function when warrants, subpoenas and discovery no longer work?
Apple may win this round, but it seems to me that our legal system requires that all legally required information be available to the courts. That means that ways must be provided to enable access to encrypted information that is subject to legal warrants, subpoenas and discovery. I expect the laws to be changed to require that.
For those who worry about Big Brother I would say - I'm much more frightened by a system where the courts cannot find the facts and the truth than I am by encryption-breaking technology existing that is subject to legal constraints.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
1
Here’s the deal as far as I understand it.
Apple can do it. It will take a lot of work but they can.
If they do it there are legal requirements the FBI is not admitting too involved.
To make the process and the product of it legal in a court of law Apple will have to reveal how it is done in detail so that any defense from the evidence resulting can defend itself by pointing to flaws or subjective processes.
That is why Apple doesn’t want to do it. Revealing the details will open all of their phones to hacking.
There is nothing on the phones that the FBI ‘needs”. They already have the meta data of whom he contacted. This desire to know the exact words used is a desire that has never been possible through history and yet good effective Police work has gone on just fine.
Mr. Comey is using fear mongering to impose his personal and wrong view that no one should be able to have privacy he cannot beach. The Constitution was specifically designed to protect us against men like him and the false use of reason and fear mongering they always resort to, to achieve their goals.
Apple can do it. It will take a lot of work but they can.
If they do it there are legal requirements the FBI is not admitting too involved.
To make the process and the product of it legal in a court of law Apple will have to reveal how it is done in detail so that any defense from the evidence resulting can defend itself by pointing to flaws or subjective processes.
That is why Apple doesn’t want to do it. Revealing the details will open all of their phones to hacking.
There is nothing on the phones that the FBI ‘needs”. They already have the meta data of whom he contacted. This desire to know the exact words used is a desire that has never been possible through history and yet good effective Police work has gone on just fine.
Mr. Comey is using fear mongering to impose his personal and wrong view that no one should be able to have privacy he cannot beach. The Constitution was specifically designed to protect us against men like him and the false use of reason and fear mongering they always resort to, to achieve their goals.
1
Can't they use Farook's dead fingerprint to open the phone?
I am generally on Apple's side because countries like China, Russia, etc. would love for us to establish a precedent for "back doors". My only quibble that this is not exactly a case "under investigation" in that there is no doubt that Farook committed the crime and there is no defendant in the case because he's dead.
I am generally on Apple's side because countries like China, Russia, etc. would love for us to establish a precedent for "back doors". My only quibble that this is not exactly a case "under investigation" in that there is no doubt that Farook committed the crime and there is no defendant in the case because he's dead.
1
Here is a thought experiment - what if the phone contained information on the location of a Serin gas attack that was going to take place in a major US city. Should Apple be compelled to provide help to the FBI in that case?
If the answer to the above hypothetical is 'yes', then it is just a matter of seriousness of the situation. In that case who gets to decide which situation meets the threshold of seriousness - Apple? The FBI? A judge? Of the three, it should not be Apple as that puts them in the position of assessing national security, which obviously is not their responsibility.
If you think the answer to the hypothetical is 'no', well all I can say is we are all entitled to our opinions.
Personally, although I love my privacy, I think it takes a back seat to not letting thousands of people be killed in a terrorist attack. And as illustrated above in the thought experiment, Apple needs to be out of the loop in deciding when to help the government - it is really either always or never. Alth
If the answer to the above hypothetical is 'yes', then it is just a matter of seriousness of the situation. In that case who gets to decide which situation meets the threshold of seriousness - Apple? The FBI? A judge? Of the three, it should not be Apple as that puts them in the position of assessing national security, which obviously is not their responsibility.
If you think the answer to the hypothetical is 'no', well all I can say is we are all entitled to our opinions.
Personally, although I love my privacy, I think it takes a back seat to not letting thousands of people be killed in a terrorist attack. And as illustrated above in the thought experiment, Apple needs to be out of the loop in deciding when to help the government - it is really either always or never. Alth
1
Apple should comply with the order because it isn't an unreasonable order, and it isn't an unreasonable search or seizure.
I would nevertheless answer your hypothetical "no". My opinion, which I'm not dependent on your permission to be entitled to, is that it's a hypothetical with a vanishingly small probability of really occurring, and that it is misused to justify criminal behavior on the part of those who believe that their mission overrides the law. I neither believe that government officers are above the law, nor that Tim Cook and his company are above the law. Seeing your ticking bomb theory and Apple's contention that any coding is necessarily an attack on all encryption juxtaposed as opposites is jarring. They are of a color -- excuses for making an exception to the rule of law.
I would nevertheless answer your hypothetical "no". My opinion, which I'm not dependent on your permission to be entitled to, is that it's a hypothetical with a vanishingly small probability of really occurring, and that it is misused to justify criminal behavior on the part of those who believe that their mission overrides the law. I neither believe that government officers are above the law, nor that Tim Cook and his company are above the law. Seeing your ticking bomb theory and Apple's contention that any coding is necessarily an attack on all encryption juxtaposed as opposites is jarring. They are of a color -- excuses for making an exception to the rule of law.
Privacy no longer exist in this data-driven, peripheral-brain society. If the government wants my text contact telecommunication giant. Who I called contact telecommunication giant. My pictures go to facebook or another social media. Oh so they can't open imessages. We hand delivered our privacy to telecommunication giants and when it is time to protect our freedom we side with the giants.
It saddens me that our law enforcement officials seem to think so little about the privacy of law abiding citizens that they would try to force this issue in court and set a dangerous precedent. Do we really lack the creativity to protect ourselves from terrorists without giving away a big part of our personal freedom in the process?
3
First, there is a difference between a back door and a request to unlock one phone. It is the latter which is at issue here.
No matter Apple's incredible commercial success, it cannot arrogate itself above the laws of the jurisdiction where it makes most of its money. In the case you cite, US v. NY Tel. Co., the court specifically stated: "The power conferred by the [All Writs] Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice, and encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice."
That case involved the installation on NYT Co.'s lines of registers to intercept the numbers dialed from certain telephones. Here, the FBI is asking only that Apple use its technology, which the company acknowledges it has, to unlock the phone of a mass murderer, to determine whether there are others who may follow his lead. Apple has couched its argument in terms of a right to privacy, but make no mistake; Apple is not trying to protect its interest in its own privacy, it is trying to protect its commercial interest in ensuring its reputation for protecting the privacy of its users, murderers included.
Apple's argument revolves around money, not privacy, and its argument therefor fails. And there is no proof that unlocking this one phone will even damage that.
No matter Apple's incredible commercial success, it cannot arrogate itself above the laws of the jurisdiction where it makes most of its money. In the case you cite, US v. NY Tel. Co., the court specifically stated: "The power conferred by the [All Writs] Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice, and encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice."
That case involved the installation on NYT Co.'s lines of registers to intercept the numbers dialed from certain telephones. Here, the FBI is asking only that Apple use its technology, which the company acknowledges it has, to unlock the phone of a mass murderer, to determine whether there are others who may follow his lead. Apple has couched its argument in terms of a right to privacy, but make no mistake; Apple is not trying to protect its interest in its own privacy, it is trying to protect its commercial interest in ensuring its reputation for protecting the privacy of its users, murderers included.
Apple's argument revolves around money, not privacy, and its argument therefor fails. And there is no proof that unlocking this one phone will even damage that.
2
Perhaps there is a fine line here as phone's owner is deceased.
Nonsense! If Apple refuses to help the government obtain the information on the phone, then they should be considered an accessory to the terrorism. They are legally obligated to provide help in this instance and in any other, reasonable, Court-ordered case.
That is different from providing the government with a key to unlock all Apple phones. Such a skeleton key creates a host of problems that would put all people in repressive regimes at risk. The government's actions under the Bush Administration also suggest that such a key is inappropriate. However, that is qualitatively different from helping investigators get to the information contained on this terrorists phone.
If they refuse to provide help or are a party in destroying the information, Cook should go to jail and the company should be shut down. Simple solution.
That is different from providing the government with a key to unlock all Apple phones. Such a skeleton key creates a host of problems that would put all people in repressive regimes at risk. The government's actions under the Bush Administration also suggest that such a key is inappropriate. However, that is qualitatively different from helping investigators get to the information contained on this terrorists phone.
If they refuse to provide help or are a party in destroying the information, Cook should go to jail and the company should be shut down. Simple solution.
Apple Inc. is no saint. It's all about the bottom line. Tim Cook is a hypocrite and a demagogue. Apple made concessions to the Chinese communist government on security (storing Chinese owners' data in China, allowing the government to do a security audit of its software, etc.) Many other big U.S. corporations (Cisco, Yahoo, etc.) made security concession to the communist regime.
The court order on these terrorists' phone can be shaped to be limited to the facts and circumstances of the case which is law enforcement needs to protect public safety.
The court order on these terrorists' phone can be shaped to be limited to the facts and circumstances of the case which is law enforcement needs to protect public safety.
4
Apple is not right. They should be helping the country fight terrorism. There are no privacy rights the owners of the phone are dead. We are at war. Apple needs to be a responsible corporate citizen and help us fight terrorism. That phone may contain information that could help us uncover a network of terrorists and stop them before they strike . You may all think Apple looks like the good guys for " standing up" to the Government ... You won't feel that way after another mass shooting that could have been prevented had we simply had the information contained in the phone. Why should we fight terrorists with one arm behind our back?
Giving the government access to all of our private data sounds a lot like the Secret Police in many totalitarian states. It does not belong in our government. The FBI, CIA and NSA want all of their activities to be secret, but want no one else to have secrecy. I support Apple's position and I hope they will not get trampled by an overzealous government.
4
Hate to be so blunt but please do some research before writing about technology.
The assumption that phone companies can help is erroneous. Phone companies do not necessarily keep all text messages and they purge them quickly in as little as a few days. Cell phones can store voice messages and other communication/notes that are not at the phone company.
It's likely that China can already hack an iPhone quite well and will always continue to pour resources into breaking encryption and steal data. They also have the option of torturing or shooting whomever the please.
The bottom line is that data is inherently insecure. Apple is certainly not secure as witnessed by the hacking of the iCloud and naked pictures of celebrities are put on the internet. The only people that are locked out are the average citizen and law enforcement agencies that lack the best tech minds to crack encryption.
Data is inherently insecure so it's not about security it's about the perception of security and the phone sales made to people who want that illusion of security. Furthermore tech companies are hypocrites and only talk about data security when someone else wants access to it but they want to use it for their own personal gain 24/7.
Apple will lose this battle in the court of public opinion which could be very expensive and likely in court as well. Certainly every time we have a terrorist event going forward and an iphone is involved Apple is going to get blasted.
The assumption that phone companies can help is erroneous. Phone companies do not necessarily keep all text messages and they purge them quickly in as little as a few days. Cell phones can store voice messages and other communication/notes that are not at the phone company.
It's likely that China can already hack an iPhone quite well and will always continue to pour resources into breaking encryption and steal data. They also have the option of torturing or shooting whomever the please.
The bottom line is that data is inherently insecure. Apple is certainly not secure as witnessed by the hacking of the iCloud and naked pictures of celebrities are put on the internet. The only people that are locked out are the average citizen and law enforcement agencies that lack the best tech minds to crack encryption.
Data is inherently insecure so it's not about security it's about the perception of security and the phone sales made to people who want that illusion of security. Furthermore tech companies are hypocrites and only talk about data security when someone else wants access to it but they want to use it for their own personal gain 24/7.
Apple will lose this battle in the court of public opinion which could be very expensive and likely in court as well. Certainly every time we have a terrorist event going forward and an iphone is involved Apple is going to get blasted.
1
Beyond the fact that this bid by the FBI is so clearly a phishing expedition to further erode the fourth amendment, let's get practical. Do they expect Apple (if it so happens, but it won't) to pay for this extensive R&D themselves? Could easily be in the millions of dollars, with engineer time and security and beta-testing. If it comes to it, Apple should demand their fee up-front.
The Times' editorial echoes Apple's "slippery slope" argument, which is little more than a parade of imagined horribles. The argument goes: if the government can do this, then it could conceivably do that. The focus is always on the "could" and the "conceivably" instead of on the issue at hand. The issue at hand is to gain access to the contents of one bad guy's phone. Apple could easily avoid any further disturbance by destroying the code once it is used.
The editorial also rests on the unstated premise that we citizens have more to fear from government overreach than from invasions of privacy by businesses like Apple. Such fear mongering is more characteristic of the far right than the NYT. Apple is in business to make money, just like Koch Industries. When the consumer's interest in privacy threatens profits, Apple's "principled" stance will change.
The editorial also rests on the unstated premise that we citizens have more to fear from government overreach than from invasions of privacy by businesses like Apple. Such fear mongering is more characteristic of the far right than the NYT. Apple is in business to make money, just like Koch Industries. When the consumer's interest in privacy threatens profits, Apple's "principled" stance will change.
1
I understand that the phone in question belongs to the County of San Bernardino. It was the murderer's work phone. If the County says "go for it", that fact changes everything.
The government already has all of the data in this phone, backed up on icloud 1 month ago. They can get any email, IM, or phone call data. The only thing left seems to be possibly some personal notes.
As soon as the government develops the technology, they plan on requiring that all humans have a chip implanted in their brains so that their thoughts can be read. After all, why stop with just the material that we might write down?
As soon as the government develops the technology, they plan on requiring that all humans have a chip implanted in their brains so that their thoughts can be read. After all, why stop with just the material that we might write down?
The government wants to position this to make you think this is about terrorism. It is not. Farouk is dead. He is not part of ISIS. The government does not know what is on his phone - it could be nothing new.
The reason law enforcement shoots first and cracks phones later is exactly that - they don't need the suspect alive as long as they can access their phone. It used to be that criminals would be captured alive and brought to trial. Now, they are just shot dead on sight. Who is the one turning the world into the wild west?
The reason law enforcement shoots first and cracks phones later is exactly that - they don't need the suspect alive as long as they can access their phone. It used to be that criminals would be captured alive and brought to trial. Now, they are just shot dead on sight. Who is the one turning the world into the wild west?
1
This is not a black and white issue, which seems lost on far too many people. Privacy is like freedom, never absolute, always in context — we make many trade-offs for practical, functional reasons. The obtuse polarization in this country politically has created dysfunctional governance, impeded resolving many important issues and prevented intelligent, practical problem-solving. The distrust of government in the U.S. is simply more proof that American exceptionalism is alive and well — as in exceptionally negative.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
1
The biggest hacker on MY computer is Microsoft. They think because I use their software and e-mail service they own me. I've got news for them. Regulation now to protect ME from THEM.
8
An obvious solution to this mess is for Apple to include a narrow consent provision into its agreements with consumers that would give Apple permission to unlock or decode or otherwise extract information from Apple devices when law enforcement makes a compelling case for the in formation,as it certainly has here. I have no doubt consumers would accept this term, given that their only other choice is to not use the device.
To do otherwise is to surrender to those who use Apple devices to plan and carry out terrorist crimes and other types of criminal activity.
What Apple is doing is creating a safe haven for criminals of all kinds, which promotes a culture of impunity.
Finally, Apple's stance as a champion of data privacy is the height of hypocrisy given that Big Data regularly feasts on the personal data we give it and profits greatly thereby.
If and when Big Data takes down its ubiquitous icons that invite us to share everything with everyone through Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and when they stop inviting us to sign in to new sites with Facebook or Google Plus (whereupon they ransack our contacts list), Tim Cook and his ilk might gain some credibility as advocates of consumer data privacy.
To do otherwise is to surrender to those who use Apple devices to plan and carry out terrorist crimes and other types of criminal activity.
What Apple is doing is creating a safe haven for criminals of all kinds, which promotes a culture of impunity.
Finally, Apple's stance as a champion of data privacy is the height of hypocrisy given that Big Data regularly feasts on the personal data we give it and profits greatly thereby.
If and when Big Data takes down its ubiquitous icons that invite us to share everything with everyone through Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and when they stop inviting us to sign in to new sites with Facebook or Google Plus (whereupon they ransack our contacts list), Tim Cook and his ilk might gain some credibility as advocates of consumer data privacy.
2
Should any government anywhere around the world have the same power to force Apple to hack phones? Apple does business everywhere and is subject to the laws of just about every country.
4
Analogous to those who would make it difficult or even prevent law abiding citizens from acquiring guns, so as to keep guns out of the hands of wrongdoers.
1
The government's approved request is for this phone only. It is widely reported that it is trivial for Apple to unlock this model 5C because it was before the newer technologies came about. So Apple must comply to this order. They are not above the law.
If they wish to start a conversation on the "future possibilities", it is a different topic. In that topic I would likely be on the industry side. But it is inappropriate to use the unrelated arguments to the case in hand for this model 5C.
ps. At a logical level, we are talking about only a 4 digit password. That is only 1 in 10K probability. So talking about all these un-hackable Encryption technologies etc is laughable.
If they wish to start a conversation on the "future possibilities", it is a different topic. In that topic I would likely be on the industry side. But it is inappropriate to use the unrelated arguments to the case in hand for this model 5C.
ps. At a logical level, we are talking about only a 4 digit password. That is only 1 in 10K probability. So talking about all these un-hackable Encryption technologies etc is laughable.
2
It's the operating system at issue, not a single model of iPhone. That system and its successor are used on all the more recent models. And the four-digit security code to access the iPhone is entirely different from the complex passwords that protect cloud data.
2
Yes, Apple must comply with court orders, but has the right to have the magistrate's ruling reviewed. This one could go all the way to the Supreme Court before it's decided.
1
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the comment. I think the OS was updated after 5C. The newer models do not use the same OS.
The govt order is asking for the access to the 4 digit passcode only. They already got access to the encrypted cloud data. (Another inconsistency in Apple talk).
On a factual and logical level, it makes no sense for Apple to do this. As another article on NYT suggests, they have been resisting for over a year (and still complying, able to comply). But now using this case to draw a line in the sand. Probably a wrong instance to do so.
Thanks for the comment. I think the OS was updated after 5C. The newer models do not use the same OS.
The govt order is asking for the access to the 4 digit passcode only. They already got access to the encrypted cloud data. (Another inconsistency in Apple talk).
On a factual and logical level, it makes no sense for Apple to do this. As another article on NYT suggests, they have been resisting for over a year (and still complying, able to comply). But now using this case to draw a line in the sand. Probably a wrong instance to do so.
If anyone thinks Tim Cook cares about their privacy , I have a bridge to sell them. No, he is posturing and enjoying his position as an "outlaw." The government should make an example of Apple and charge the corporation a significant daily fine and throw Tim Cook in jail ( if it can do so ). Apple and Cook are setting a dangerous precedent that the government should not take lightly .
OK, but you're next when tomorrow's government decides it has a compelling need for your information. Maybe you and Cook can share a cell if you object to that claim.
3
I think Apple is worried that other countries may follow suit and that it will be forced hack phones for China, Russia, Saudi Arabia etc.
2
Apple's position is asinine. The government should have access to any information it requires to conduct a criminal investigation as long as it complies with the law. As with any other form of private communication such action requires a subpoena. There is absolutely no reason that anyone should have access to a form of communication that is completely invulnerable to eavesdropping. The right to privacy is not absolute, it is circumscribed by the judiciary.
2
Then, as illustrated by the "scrupulous" FISA court, you'l have no right at all.
1
You're missing the point. Apple doesn't have any information for the investigation. Rather, it is being forced to use its expertise to hack a phone it made. If the US can force Apple to do this for them, then the Chinese and Russians will do the same.
4
I agree with The NYT and strongly support Apple's position. My support rests on two core positions: (I) in a free, as opposed to a totalitarian, state, the government cannot simply force people to do its bidding. It's one thing to compel the turnover of existing data, it's another to force a company to figure out a way to retrieve potential data and to go and do it. If the government can do that, what's to stop them from forcing anyone to do anything if they can make a national security or good for the country argument. (ii) Developing the keys to bypass the security features on the iphone puts everyone's privacy at risk. On the later point, while I do not necessarily think its a good idea, if Congress were to pass a law requiring all phone makers to have a "back door" for every phone, that would be a legitimate law and would allow law enforcement to get the information it wants. It would be akin to requiring every maker of safes to have an override for every safe made. If the American people want such a law for their security, then they should pass it.
1
This is legally persuasive (maybe) but not politically so. Apple et al. must explain why they draw huge incomes, pay few taxes, exploit workers and (now) thumb their nose at the government and political system that protect them. And in the name of exactly what? It's a long-term indefensible position.
What a person or company earns, pays in taxes, etc. are all totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. That is the same sort of bias as using race or gender as a factor in evaluating an issue.
2
You're exaggerating, folks (and I'm all for keeping government noses out of citizens private records). The SOLE exception should be for national security purposes, and this (unlike the unrelated narcotics case) IS ONE. What DOJ/FBI intend to do is give the phone to Apple, have their tech guys "crack" it (thru whatever means) and return it to DOJ/FBI, with access thus available to them. They will not be providing the security codes or unlocking technique to anyone OUTSIDE Apple's (probably tiny) tech team that did the work. If Apple can't trust its own people not to disclose the very limited work they did, for a very specific national security necessity...well that's an entirely different can of worms, but that's not DOJ/FBI's problem. Apple's been pretty good at corporate security, thus far (except when their developers leave prototype iPhones on bar stools)...
Sounds like the data from the cloud backup was provided by Apple; and the matter of contention is the month old data on the phone, since the last backup. Was the iCloud data not encrypted? If not, the whole argument from Apple about not sharing customer's private data falls flat on its face.
Anybody who thinks that you can purge risk, contradiction, or danger from the world by creating the all powerful uber-state is living a fiction. That fiction has a title. It's George Orwell's 1984. This is a society riven by contradiction and the reason for the the Bill of Rights, in the first place, was the recognition of conflicting interests and the right of one party to lead a life that was not significantly under the thumb of which ever side happened to be in power at any given moment. Democracy was a repudiation of monarchy. There are limits on the exercise of Federal power and Tim Cook is absolutely correct to assert those limits. If that means that Apple should not be compelled to write backdoors to read a terrorist's cellphone - so be it. Last time I checked Apple was a private company, not a branch of government. I am fully prepared to live with the consequences of the Fourth Amendment and it is my right under the US Constitution to make and defend that choice. Anything else is going down the ill-advised and tragic Vietnam War road of, "We had to destroy the town to save it." Restated in the present context - "We had to shred the Constitution to defend it". Where are the originalists when we truly need them? As it turns out - they're hypocritical, self-serving opportunists behaving with a highly developed sense of expedience.
2
Those with iPhones and other phones store the necessarily complex passwords on our iPhones.
Providing a break in security allows anyone who can access our iPhone to also access all our passwords...and all our accounts.
The fear of some does not justify removing the liberties of all.
Providing a break in security allows anyone who can access our iPhone to also access all our passwords...and all our accounts.
The fear of some does not justify removing the liberties of all.
3
Clearly, terrorist and terrorist sympathizers will use only Apple telephones after this. I call that brilliant marketing by Apple as it seeks to expand markets in the Middle East and in Blue states. This could have a huge positive effect on iPhone sales.
What the FBI are asking Apple to do would compromise security for every single person who owns an iPhone. Take another phone which runs an Android based operating system - how many times does one see in the tech new of a new virus allowing a remote high jack of people's phones?
Android and iOS are completely different in terms of security. Android is open source so it's easier to find holes and the level of security enforced on the device is upto the use. IOS on the other hand has the users safety in mind, everything is sandboxed so a malicious app couldn't have access to the rest of the device and apps can't be downloaded adhoc for malicious purposes.
By weakening the security on iOS the federal government would be compromising the privacy of every iPhone holder worldwide which I for one would not want. Many have used references to the FBI obtaining warrants for access to houses etc however this goes farther than the FBI. If this back door is put in place it will be a matter of time before other governments and hackers find it and exploit it.
What Apple should do is write in what is essentially a override method for activation and unlocking which requires a token generated by them only under a valid warrant that is then valid for unlocking or activating a phone for a short period. This is quite like an RSA key which has been used in the industry for years. However again this in time could be thwarted making it vulnerable.
Android and iOS are completely different in terms of security. Android is open source so it's easier to find holes and the level of security enforced on the device is upto the use. IOS on the other hand has the users safety in mind, everything is sandboxed so a malicious app couldn't have access to the rest of the device and apps can't be downloaded adhoc for malicious purposes.
By weakening the security on iOS the federal government would be compromising the privacy of every iPhone holder worldwide which I for one would not want. Many have used references to the FBI obtaining warrants for access to houses etc however this goes farther than the FBI. If this back door is put in place it will be a matter of time before other governments and hackers find it and exploit it.
What Apple should do is write in what is essentially a override method for activation and unlocking which requires a token generated by them only under a valid warrant that is then valid for unlocking or activating a phone for a short period. This is quite like an RSA key which has been used in the industry for years. However again this in time could be thwarted making it vulnerable.
This is an excellent editorial with the old "one-two" punch.
1. "The company [i.e., Apple] changed how it encrypts phones after the surveillance revelations by Edward Snowden."
2. "Congress would do great harm by requiring such back doors. Criminals and domestic and foreign intelligence agencies could exploit such features to conduct mass surveillance and steal national and trade secrets."
I wonder if James Clapper is having his government employees working on "backdoors" as we speak. He has no problem lying to Congress, or anybody else, with impunity.
ABC News ran a story on February 17, 2016 entitled: "America's Top Spy James Clapper: 'I Made a Mistake But I Did Not Lie.'" ABC reported that in the "question and answer" session relating to the newscast, "He did not answer a question submitted by ABC News regarding the current Apple encryption debate."
1. "The company [i.e., Apple] changed how it encrypts phones after the surveillance revelations by Edward Snowden."
2. "Congress would do great harm by requiring such back doors. Criminals and domestic and foreign intelligence agencies could exploit such features to conduct mass surveillance and steal national and trade secrets."
I wonder if James Clapper is having his government employees working on "backdoors" as we speak. He has no problem lying to Congress, or anybody else, with impunity.
ABC News ran a story on February 17, 2016 entitled: "America's Top Spy James Clapper: 'I Made a Mistake But I Did Not Lie.'" ABC reported that in the "question and answer" session relating to the newscast, "He did not answer a question submitted by ABC News regarding the current Apple encryption debate."
1
With such a long and unbroken record of the failure of our government to voluntarily restrain itself from privacy invasion, it is hard to imagine it being argued to a thoughtful Court with a straight face that "just this once" it wants something. Once it can, it will.
3
I initially didn’t want to take a side on this. I have an iPhone 5c - a charming chartreuse color. My son bought it for me several years ago; he tells me it’s time for an upgrade, but I can’t part with its loveliness and declined the gift. I don’t keep a password on it. I did for a while, but deleted it. I realize this would give it value should it be stolen or lost; but, as far as personal accounts, one would still need the interior passwords to the bank or Livenation or my New York Times account. If you got into my email (and I’ve asked the 5c to remember that password, so you could), you’d pretty much find nothing more than conversation threads about which is my favorite X-file episode (without a doubt, ‘Jose Chung’s From Outer Space,” season three) and emailed YouTube posts of Sharon Jones and the Dap-Kings, etc.
I guess my point is, the 5c is a glorified typewriter, telephone, encyclopedia, post office, entertainment center. It’s not like it was handed down from the gods, or something. I am far more worried about the insidious intrusion of too-big-to-fail non-democratic corporations, than I am of anything various governments or criminal actors can dream up. I’m not happy about those people either; but, I believe our loss of democratic freedoms will be due to unregulated unfettered capitalism, specifically ubiquitous global corporate entities. Apple is a brand, a very cool, seductive (generally efficient) brand. Their mission, however, is not the salvation of mankind.
I guess my point is, the 5c is a glorified typewriter, telephone, encyclopedia, post office, entertainment center. It’s not like it was handed down from the gods, or something. I am far more worried about the insidious intrusion of too-big-to-fail non-democratic corporations, than I am of anything various governments or criminal actors can dream up. I’m not happy about those people either; but, I believe our loss of democratic freedoms will be due to unregulated unfettered capitalism, specifically ubiquitous global corporate entities. Apple is a brand, a very cool, seductive (generally efficient) brand. Their mission, however, is not the salvation of mankind.
2
Absolute security is a fine concept, but there are always going to be situations where it's necessary to have a way around it. This will be increasingly true in future, as this type of security is applied to other data. Apart from the obvious benefit to criminals, think of a family whose data is lost or inaccessible because the person who knows the password died, or simply forgot it. What Apple and other tech companies should be doing, rather than fighting the government, is work with them to define the rules for accessing data.
As an aside, security is only as secure as the code behind it. The source code, modified or not, is already "sitting on a server" somewhere. One hopes that it's as secure as the data it's protecting, particularly as the hardware is made in China.
As an aside, security is only as secure as the code behind it. The source code, modified or not, is already "sitting on a server" somewhere. One hopes that it's as secure as the data it's protecting, particularly as the hardware is made in China.
Should Apple prevail, they could - and should be - charged with numerous crimes, including conspiracy and accessory after the fact to murder.
As far as those concerned with their personal privacy, I must state that it is the height of hypocrisy and pure selfish arrogance to think that ones personal privacy should come at the expense of someone else's life.
As far as those concerned with their personal privacy, I must state that it is the height of hypocrisy and pure selfish arrogance to think that ones personal privacy should come at the expense of someone else's life.
1
This case needs to reach the Supreme Court to make a determination if electronic documents have protections above and beyond documents in print which have been subpoenaed for years, even by Congressional Committees. Of course it would help if the Supreme Court had a full bench of justices to conduct the nation's business so the ruling would be more definitive and not end up in a tie vote.
1
Apple should not be coerced to decrypt the telephone. It should jump at the request for help. This is not a typical situation involving an unruly teenager and an irate parent. Neither of these terrorists should find protection under the US Constitution, especially given the fact that they're dead. Tim Cook could have quietly helped the cause, instead of throwing a public tantrum.
There now exists an opportunity for Tim Cook's detractors to express disagreement by boycotting Apple products. Apple needs to grow up. iPhones aren't just for Twitter anymore; they're being used as weapons. Perhaps, if Apple stock tanks, Tim Cook might pay attention
There now exists an opportunity for Tim Cook's detractors to express disagreement by boycotting Apple products. Apple needs to grow up. iPhones aren't just for Twitter anymore; they're being used as weapons. Perhaps, if Apple stock tanks, Tim Cook might pay attention
1
If the iPhone in question was a newer model and ran a later OS, there is no way to overcome the encryption. For me, that's relevant b/c my biggest concern is the government using the ad hoc OS without court supervision. Nevertheless, the precedent the government is seeking by imposing extraordinary burdens on a company to advance its investigations is problematic.
More sophisticated encryption will likely obviate the government's attempts to access private information in cases like these. Maybe that's reason enough to deny the government in this case.
More sophisticated encryption will likely obviate the government's attempts to access private information in cases like these. Maybe that's reason enough to deny the government in this case.
I haven't read near all of what has been written and commented on in this matter but from what I have read it seems to me that everyone is missing the fact that all Police through the history of modern Policing has never had this kind of information and they did their work just fine.
The existence of modern communications developed in the last 20 years does not change the factual basis of the Police methods developed prior to that development.
The FBI is seeking the content of conversations they know took place because they have the meta data. They know who Farook spoke to or texted with.
They've never been able to know what was spoken of before why should we be creating new law that undermines all of our security and privacy rights now? I see no reason. The excuses posing as reasons being given are literally fear mongering and avarice for power.
The existence of modern communications developed in the last 20 years does not change the factual basis of the Police methods developed prior to that development.
The FBI is seeking the content of conversations they know took place because they have the meta data. They know who Farook spoke to or texted with.
They've never been able to know what was spoken of before why should we be creating new law that undermines all of our security and privacy rights now? I see no reason. The excuses posing as reasons being given are literally fear mongering and avarice for power.
It is not quite clear to me why Apple could not be requested to find out the information sought by and then share the result of this endeavor with the FBI, but without revealing the procedure implemented.
Anyone who buys the argument that there is important material on that phone not already accessible from a month-ago cloud backup, or phone company call records is buying into a naked attempt to enter new surveillance territory.
Considering how many of us use smartphones and related devices, as our memories and tools for life and business, hacking into one is equivalent to torturing a person, except much more likely to yield information.
Think of your phone as an extension of your being, and you may understand what's involved in these issues.
Considering how many of us use smartphones and related devices, as our memories and tools for life and business, hacking into one is equivalent to torturing a person, except much more likely to yield information.
Think of your phone as an extension of your being, and you may understand what's involved in these issues.
1
R,
The MOST important material on the phone is likely its users' physiacl locations before and immediately after the shootings and calls, texts, etc. made WITHIN the last 30 days since the iCloud back-up...e.g. Did they go to a safe house, get or receive outside assistance, communicate "job done" w. anyone East of US, list goes on ad infinitum...
The MOST important material on the phone is likely its users' physiacl locations before and immediately after the shootings and calls, texts, etc. made WITHIN the last 30 days since the iCloud back-up...e.g. Did they go to a safe house, get or receive outside assistance, communicate "job done" w. anyone East of US, list goes on ad infinitum...
Perhaps the public outcry would not be so supportive of Apple had the NSA not overreached in such a dramatic way. Edward Snowden is a hero for telling us what we needed to know about what the NSA was up to. That Obama, of all people-- supposedly a Constitutional scholar-- joins with the GOP to defend the government action and then defend the governments persecution of Snowden-- is the subtext to this story.
1
The Constitution guarantees the right to own lethal weapons but there is no explicit right to privacy. Perhaps the Constitution needs to be updated for the Information Age.
1
FBI misinformtion! The FBI can easily get the data from this phone (see below) but the opportunity to further their cause was just too good for them to pass up, shame on them! It's an iPhone 5C and after ten failed logins the phone gets erased - that's their supposed problem. They know the following method can get the info: remove the battery (so no erasure is possible), unsolder/remove all the flash memory chip(s) and read their contents externally. Use brute force to break the encryption.
I don't believe our right to privacy is trumped by the duty we have given our government to protect us. Don't we have limits to government power and intrusion for a reason?
History has shown that once a government erodes citizens' privacy, and can search us, our communications, and our possessions at will, they are free to become increasingly self-serving, to intimidate citizens who speak and protest against it, and may gain the means to become a dictatorship.
This conflicts with our country's founding principle of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people".
History has shown that once a government erodes citizens' privacy, and can search us, our communications, and our possessions at will, they are free to become increasingly self-serving, to intimidate citizens who speak and protest against it, and may gain the means to become a dictatorship.
This conflicts with our country's founding principle of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people".
Does Apple believe that if they do not give help to the FBI that other countries will not make similar requests/demands? Can they really avoid pressure/extortion etc., (from e.g. China, Russia) currently if the appropriate heat is applied? Haven't companies such as Google already given in to China for business reasons? Just asking.
It’s kind of weird that a communications company is blocking communications, or at the center of a privacy debate. My grandparents had a party line when they first got a phone. So the irony that the phone company is saying no one can listen is an odd development. Apple can and should unlock this one phone, and the rest of us should stop expecting privacy on communication devices. That was never part of the 4th amendment.
1
An a long time IT Professional, I am aware that data can almost always be retrieved, even when attempts are made to delete or destroy the device on which it resides. Apple's iPhone security model makes it appear that all local data can only be accessed by one individual, which I consider marketing. Why would we not want this data to be made available to law enforcement under proper subpoena? Apple and other vendors already allow access to email, text messages, phone data, all data in backups, gps data, browser activity, etc. Isn't this already the keys to the kingdom, which bad guys can exploit? Why would we want to exempt this one device from surveillance? I understand that Tim Cook wants to protect his customers, but I suspect many of those who died in San Bernardino were also his customers.
As someone who had a party line telephone through the 30's and on into the 70's I have never had an expectation of privacy over electronic devices. The only security system the FBI wants bypassed on this one phone is the locking up of the phone after 10 passcode failures. Maybe the government should offer a prize to a citizen who can do this.
Apple is right -- they must preserve privacy. If Apple creates a "back door" for the government, then criminals/terrorists will shift to other encryption tools. They only people and entities without privacy protections will be law-abiding citizens and corporations. A "back door" for the government will do nothing for security, but it will undermine privacy for law-abiding citizens and corporations. A "back door" will also undermine Apple. Businesses will stop using Apple products as they shift to products and services that ensure privacy. Apple is right and the government is wrong on this one (frankly, it is a no-brainer).
This is beginning to sound awfully Orwellian - Big Brother knows all / knows better. The technology has finally caught up with Orwell's vision of "the future", with built-in cameras in our laptops and smart phones, what's to keep Big Brother from asking Apple for a "fix" to track you while you're on your phone or computer? Oh, maybe some NSA-hack has already figured that out and we don't need and "App" for that.
Having worked in high security areas for all of my adult life, first in government and then in the financial industry, I've been "spied on" in hallways, stairwells, etc. My employer also has the capacity to monitor my on-line activity at any given time. I've grown used to my professional life being under the microscope, and I've adapted. But to let Big Brother have the same access to my personal life? No thank you!
Paranoid? Not really. If BB can force Apple and others to open Pandora's box, Orwell will have been right on target, just a little optimistic in his timing.
Having worked in high security areas for all of my adult life, first in government and then in the financial industry, I've been "spied on" in hallways, stairwells, etc. My employer also has the capacity to monitor my on-line activity at any given time. I've grown used to my professional life being under the microscope, and I've adapted. But to let Big Brother have the same access to my personal life? No thank you!
Paranoid? Not really. If BB can force Apple and others to open Pandora's box, Orwell will have been right on target, just a little optimistic in his timing.
1
How different is creating a path to by-pass necessary safeguards from the on-going efforts to stuff the insanity of nuclear weaponry back into the bottle? Einstein warned about such proliferation. Kim Jong-Un's North Korea has therm and a rogue Pakistani scientists made them available to Iran.
Do we really wish to establish such dangerous possibilities in the cyber-world? And keep in mind, the government is just guessing that access to a couple of terrorists iPhones will lead to some clues. Why take the risks on just a hunch?
Now, how important might that information be? Are we sure that it will justify the risks? Besides making cyber-access more available to hackers worldwide, remember that Apple might just have to self the "back-door" to other nations--China, Russia, etc!
Is that all worth it?
Do we really wish to establish such dangerous possibilities in the cyber-world? And keep in mind, the government is just guessing that access to a couple of terrorists iPhones will lead to some clues. Why take the risks on just a hunch?
Now, how important might that information be? Are we sure that it will justify the risks? Besides making cyber-access more available to hackers worldwide, remember that Apple might just have to self the "back-door" to other nations--China, Russia, etc!
Is that all worth it?
1
Let's put this in context: the FBI is not asking Apple to provide a general back door to all their Iphones. They're asking for Apple to take this one phone back to Apple's own labs and disable the feature that will erase all data after too many tries at the passcode. This one phone with a Federal warrant to serve a public interest that should be readily apparent to the editorial board of the Times after 9/11. I cannot fathom why the Times would seek to protect known terrorists from law enforcement officials. In the common law for centuries privacy has ended where it endangers the public good, and the Constitution has guarantees only against "unreasonable" search and seizure.
I believe Apple must comply with the order to develop a back door software. In fact it should be developed in conjunction with federal law enforcement and perhaps also the NSA and remain in the government's possession. The only problem with developing the such software in conjunction with the government is that the stoners and libertines who work in the tech sector probably could not get security clearances, especially with the NSA, as they probably could not pass the required lifestyle polygraph.
1
We protect our nuclear codes, I see no reason why Apple can't protect a "key" to their iPhones. They are clever enough to avoid paying US taxes and avoid manufacturing in the US. This should be a slam dunk.
If what is absent is the iPhone owner's consent to unlock the phone's data, the fact that the owner is dead should obviate the need for such consent. Apple is an outsourcing, tax-dodging business operation. Who do they think they are in not cooperating with the FBI to investigate these dead, murdering terrorists? If this is a slippery slope, sobeit. We'll just have to adjudicate each case as they come up. This one is a no-brainer.
"It is also theoretically possible that hackers could steal the software from the company’s servers."
I guess this is the rebuttal you were offered when you went back to fact check the claim that producing this software would open a back door to all of encryption, a claim you and many other outlets published direct from Apple without verifying?
It did happen, supposedly. At Juniper Networks last year. That is, if you accept Juniper's explanation of events. Most probably, when someone steals source code, it's an inside job. Companies aren't stupid, and rest assured, Apple won't be putting its source code in the same insecure places that Apple put Jennifer Lawrence's pictures.
If real persons defy a lawful court order, they go to jail for contempt. Corporate "persons" shouldn't be allowed to be above the law. Apple may be more of a Chinese-Irish-Dutch company than it is an American one, but that shouldn't allow them to pick and choose which U.S. laws they want to obey. Why is Tim Cook given your red carpet as opposed to Cliven Bundy?
I guess this is the rebuttal you were offered when you went back to fact check the claim that producing this software would open a back door to all of encryption, a claim you and many other outlets published direct from Apple without verifying?
It did happen, supposedly. At Juniper Networks last year. That is, if you accept Juniper's explanation of events. Most probably, when someone steals source code, it's an inside job. Companies aren't stupid, and rest assured, Apple won't be putting its source code in the same insecure places that Apple put Jennifer Lawrence's pictures.
If real persons defy a lawful court order, they go to jail for contempt. Corporate "persons" shouldn't be allowed to be above the law. Apple may be more of a Chinese-Irish-Dutch company than it is an American one, but that shouldn't allow them to pick and choose which U.S. laws they want to obey. Why is Tim Cook given your red carpet as opposed to Cliven Bundy?
Apple has every right to challenge the order legally.
But when they lose, as they most likely will, they better be willing to cooperate fully with the orders of the court, or some senior executives of Apple need to spend some time in jail.
But when they lose, as they most likely will, they better be willing to cooperate fully with the orders of the court, or some senior executives of Apple need to spend some time in jail.
2
This appears as overreach by the government only because it is not readily clear what the government hopes to find. If the government believes other terrorists will be uncovered, then Apple should comply. If they are just building a case against already dead terrorists, then it does not seem necessary. Apple can develop the software on a standalone computer and then destroy the hard drive. In the future, every case should be evaluated by determining if the new information can save lives. I think our personal data is at very little risk.
1
I agree that Apple should not be compelled to create software that unlocks the data on any iPhone. They should, however, assist the government to obtain all possible data on this particular phone. This man was a mass murderer.
Americans don't have an unlimited right to privacy when they have committed a felony or a judge is presented with reasonable evidence that they are engaging in criminal activity or pose a threat to others.
Hopefully, some workable solution will emerge here.
Americans don't have an unlimited right to privacy when they have committed a felony or a judge is presented with reasonable evidence that they are engaging in criminal activity or pose a threat to others.
Hopefully, some workable solution will emerge here.
Yeah, let's block the government from investigating terrorism and keep invasion of privacy where it belongs - in corporate hands like Google and Facebook.
1
What no one here seems to acknowledge is that this is not an American problem to be solved with pious debates about the Constitution. Apple technology is global. The iPhone is popular everywhere. Why should US lawmakers have the right, without broader consultation, to set the balance between freedom and security for the rest of the world?
1
As a citizen in a democracy I fully participated in my society's selection of the people who compose the federal government (and state and local governments). I did not "elect" the leaders of Apple or any other private company. In a democratic society the elected power of the people must finally supercede all private power or democracy has ended. Tim Cook has been elected to nothing.
And I would like to add that this statement by the New York Times Editorial Board indicates a crude level of understanding of this basic point which is actually shocking to me and leads me to reconsider my subscription.
I understand Apple's counterpoint to the Fed judge's ruling, but they will soon be accused of aiding and abetting terrorists if they don't comply , something which will coerce them toward compliance.
1
Law enforcement wants it too easy.
Computers, the Internet, cellphones, have all made it much easier for law enforcement to investigate crimes. All in the past 50 years. But their appetite is insatiable. And there is always a life and death justification.
Today my cellphone is an extension of myself. It has my diary, my thoughts, my feelings, my ideas. Breaking into it is tantamount to reading my mind without my consent. Something else that will probably be possible within the next 50-100 years.
We've already justified water boarding in the name of security. How much easier will it be when all we have to do is strap a helmet on someone and read their mind? What becomes of the 4th and 5th ammendment then?
The FBI is wrong. Our very humanity and individuality is at stake. No amount of security is worth that.
Computers, the Internet, cellphones, have all made it much easier for law enforcement to investigate crimes. All in the past 50 years. But their appetite is insatiable. And there is always a life and death justification.
Today my cellphone is an extension of myself. It has my diary, my thoughts, my feelings, my ideas. Breaking into it is tantamount to reading my mind without my consent. Something else that will probably be possible within the next 50-100 years.
We've already justified water boarding in the name of security. How much easier will it be when all we have to do is strap a helmet on someone and read their mind? What becomes of the 4th and 5th ammendment then?
The FBI is wrong. Our very humanity and individuality is at stake. No amount of security is worth that.
1
I can understand Apple's reluctance to comply with court order and do not understand why this problem had to be exercised in the courts. Surely this one phone could have been opened by a Top Secret classified method without all this publicity involved.
1
This article makes all the same points I made in my letter to my Senators and Representative. A backdoor or a key that can unlock one phone means all phones will have it. Foreign governments, terrorists, hackers and others will also have access whether we want them to or not. It's not something that the federal government and Apple can just contain. That is why Apple didn't create a key. A key for a good guy is a key for a bad guy. The ramifications of such a thing are far greater than what anyone could possibly imagine.
1
Somebody other than the people at Apple can surely get to this locked up information. What's so different about this type of information? Warrants get everything else. Would the outcry be just as loud if the government cracked the code itself? Or does difficulty make right? Why are people concerned about their privacy here when they give away so much elsewhere? This is becoming the left's gun rights. Maybe that's the whole point. Or is it Apple's bottom line?
Most of what a criminal does prior to commission of a crime is not available information. Therefore the authorities must rely on small slivers of information that IS available. Because of the encryption technology, the Government must accept that what is in an iPhone is NOT available, the same way that what is said on a land line, or conversation in an apartment, is not available information. The Government is asking Apple to go out of its way and develop software that would make the contents of an iPhone available. That is simply too much to ask!
1
There is nothing special about smartphones that should make them beyond the reach of a criminal investigation.
A smartphone is very similar to what a person's private desk or filing cabinet once was - a repository of information. And if such a repository is relevant to a criminal investigation, then the government has reasonable cause to search it.
A smartphone is very similar to what a person's private desk or filing cabinet once was - a repository of information. And if such a repository is relevant to a criminal investigation, then the government has reasonable cause to search it.
Except that the filing cabinet has been made inaccessible by a very complex, very good combination lock, made by a company whose sales depend on a reputation for providing very safe security for its customers.
The police aren't talking to the owners of that desk/cabinet, they're talking to the company that made it, essentially trying to order it to sabotage its own product for the sake of a pursuit of justice that may not yield the information the police want. And of course the company has to say no, not only to protect its own future sales but to reassure its current customer base as to the security of its product.
The police aren't talking to the owners of that desk/cabinet, they're talking to the company that made it, essentially trying to order it to sabotage its own product for the sake of a pursuit of justice that may not yield the information the police want. And of course the company has to say no, not only to protect its own future sales but to reassure its current customer base as to the security of its product.
I didn't think that Apple's future sales and customer base were more important than gathering facts in a crime that killed over a dozen people.
Phones, like filing cabinets and desks, are going to have to be unlocked in certain special situations, such as a criminal investigation, regardless of whether that hurts Apple's bottom line.
Phones, like filing cabinets and desks, are going to have to be unlocked in certain special situations, such as a criminal investigation, regardless of whether that hurts Apple's bottom line.
The last paragraph says it all. Watch out for the law of unintended consequences kicking in.
Maybe I don't understand what is going on, but I've been a professional technologist since 1964 so I do have a bit of credibility even if I never looked at an Apple 5c I-phone. I understand what Apple did to stymie a brute force attack but it seems to me Apple left a 'back door'. They made the phone so that Apple had the right to update the OS without requiring the phone's password. Obviously they could have give the phones owner the option to require his approval before downloading OS fixes, but that does not seem to be the case or it is the case the owner did not elect to use that option. Hence the phones encryption has a big back door. Apple is simply being told to reveal that backdoor. Structurally it seems no different than ordering the electrician that installed the marijuana grow lights with a hidden switch to explain the switch.
The side point that revealing the backdoor will compromise all the security that Apple promised their customers is a rouse. Apple made a system, then advertised it, but it was not what they advertised. Apple should not only have to reveal the backdoor but they should reimburse the customers for deceptive sales practices. To me it seems pretty much like the Volkswagen diesel story.
The side point that revealing the backdoor will compromise all the security that Apple promised their customers is a rouse. Apple made a system, then advertised it, but it was not what they advertised. Apple should not only have to reveal the backdoor but they should reimburse the customers for deceptive sales practices. To me it seems pretty much like the Volkswagen diesel story.
While I support Apple here, it's notable how many have sat silent as a right-wing Supreme Court extended the scope of warrantless searches, allowed searches based on a police officer's "good faith mistake," and otherwise slashed protections against unreasonable intrusions in situations involving mostly poor people, young people and minorities. But let the FBI want access to gather evidence from cell phones and suddenly the middle class no longer sees the constitution and privacy rights as abstractions.
"But let the FBI want access to gather evidence from cell phones and suddenly the middle class no longer sees the constitution and privacy rights as abstractions."
If that's what it takes, i'm thankful it happened.
If that's what it takes, i'm thankful it happened.
1
So in effect the FBI wants to make privacy illegal to combat terrorism. Terrorist and crimininals will always find ways to encode their communications and therfore be the only ones enjoying privacy.
1
A Corporation fighting for the rights of the people. Imagine that.
1
The government has a legitimate need to get into that phone. Cook is just blowing this out of proportion. Build the new operating system without the protections, feed it to that phone, get into that phone, change that phone's password, and update it back to what it was before. Then delete the build. No big deal. This is much ado about nothing. And I bet they do this all the time.
m
m
BIG BROTHER May not be the government, but organized crime that gathers data on citizens secretly. For example, a hospital in LA had to pay ransom on the order of $17K to have hackers give them back control of their computer system. So I ask you, Whom would you rather have get ahold of secret information? The government or organized crime. Those are the choices. The raison d'etre of organized crime is to sabotage commerce via electronic media for its own profit. The government, by contrast, is being transparent in its application for Apple to provide an access code for a single phone. That it is too much of a burden for Apple is simply untrue; the company has one of the widest profit margins of any business. So again, I ask you, Would you prefer to have organized crime, perhaps in the form of ISIS online intruding on your confidential information, or have the government seek evidence to fight crime? I strongly favor upholding the Constitution's clause for unreasonable search and seizure. Criminal organizations have no requirement to follow our Constitution or any other law. People pump vast amounts of personal data via the Internet to the Cloud, where it remains forever. Already that information is being sold by those who run the Internet and the Cloud. Why are computer companies seen as the unquestioned ally of US citizens, while the government is seen as the enemy? Ronnie Raygun's garbage and nonsense about government being the enemy must end! CRIME'S BETTER?
"Whom would you rather have get ahold of secret information? The government or organized crime"
Organized crime.
At least if they take my stuff or incarcerate or kill me, there's a chance they will be prosecuted for it.
Organized crime.
At least if they take my stuff or incarcerate or kill me, there's a chance they will be prosecuted for it.
The government will use the program one time and then all traces of it will vanish. Yeah, sure! Does anyone remember Edward Snowden. Is Las Vegas taking bets on how long it will take for the program to appear on Wikileaks?
1
When did this big, bad corporation, owned and run by members of the 1%, whose only raison d'etre is profit become the good guy? At the same time the bigger is better government has become the bad guy. How could this happen in a liberal, progressive world?
1
The privacy vs. encryption argument has "jumped the shark". The USG bears most, if not all, of the responsibility for this problem because of its grotesque pre-Snowden (ongoing?) digital surveillance abuses.
Apple and every other entity incorporated in the U.S., however, has responsibility to the public; a public which federal law enforcement (for better or worse) was created to serve.
Digital tech companies of every kind sell, share and make intraorganizational use of customers' private information without our explicit permission through disgraceful user agreements that most all of us would reject if we could do so and still use the related product or service. The issue before us is not about privacy, it is about corporate profit and "branding".
The geniuses at Apple should apply their intellectual and financial powers to creating a balanced solution to the encryption problem and allow law enforcement legitimate access to criminals information in the interests of civilization and public safety.
If Apple's big brains balk at this crucial time, we can be sure the tiny brains in Congress will legislate Mr. Cook's transparently self-serving pose into oblivion.
Apple and every other entity incorporated in the U.S., however, has responsibility to the public; a public which federal law enforcement (for better or worse) was created to serve.
Digital tech companies of every kind sell, share and make intraorganizational use of customers' private information without our explicit permission through disgraceful user agreements that most all of us would reject if we could do so and still use the related product or service. The issue before us is not about privacy, it is about corporate profit and "branding".
The geniuses at Apple should apply their intellectual and financial powers to creating a balanced solution to the encryption problem and allow law enforcement legitimate access to criminals information in the interests of civilization and public safety.
If Apple's big brains balk at this crucial time, we can be sure the tiny brains in Congress will legislate Mr. Cook's transparently self-serving pose into oblivion.
I don't remember the NYT or any of the other paladins of terrorists' privacy get so worked up about lock manufactures having to build locks that the TSA can open to inspect luggages. Is it because Apple has more money than Samsonite?
Apple (and others) are a business. Part of their business is to sell devices to customers that want secure device that NO ONE can hack into. People do not want other, including the government to spy on them. The fact that a criminal uses such device is irrelevant. It is not up to Apple or anyone else to provide others with the capability to eavesdrop upon court order. This is not privacy. Like it or not, good guys and bad guys all have the ability to seek privacy, whether it is a bunch of "Wise-Guys" talking on a busy street corner covering their mouths or whatever. The government can request a search warrant, but that only allows them to search things they find. In these cases, they have the phone, but cannot break a code. It is not up to third parties to break codes for them. Call the NSA.
1
Funny how Apple "challenges" the government on this issue, and is still happy to manufacture their products in other countries depriving US citizens of good paying jobs and avoiding paying taxes. Just another major corporation exploiting their customers, and now taking a "stand" that could possibly kill some of them.
A properly issued search warrant is constitutional and Apple who owns the operating software is compelled to follow it in providing the government lawful entry. Apple and Tim Cook are not incompetents so it is likely if not certain that the software entry keys already exist and there is no undue burden.
Challenging a search warrant or any other court order is also constitutional.
1
I don't understand the controversy here. If Apple has the capability to unlock this phone, it will only be a matter of time before some hacker also develops that capability.
If Apple does not have such a capability - that is, no backdoor exists or can be created - there is no need to litigate this. Just tell the Feds that their request is an unrealistic as asking Tim Cook to jump over the Empire State Building.
If Apple does not have such a capability - that is, no backdoor exists or can be created - there is no need to litigate this. Just tell the Feds that their request is an unrealistic as asking Tim Cook to jump over the Empire State Building.
If we at war with terror groups and they continue to be committed to killing civilians in soft targets and are willing to die in those efforts and if our government is to protect us, should not we use all methods to pre-empt those murderous deeds ?
No, we should definitely NOT use "all methods" in an effort to prevent terrorism, or any other bad consequence. When the cost of insurance is higher than the risk of loss, it's a bad bargain.
The court and the public who side with the FBI in this case don't understand the myopia of their request. This one team at the FBI is directly contradicting what the FBI, CIA and DHS has said about terrorist tactics. In 2015 after the Anthem Insurance the FBI reported that cyber crime, identity theft in particular is the next platform for terrorists and aggressive nation states. The FBI themselves noted (in 2015) that ISIS is quickly developing their own hacking capabilities. Some of the terrorists in Paris gained entry through identity spoofing. The dark net is an enormous market place for criminals and terrorists to buy stolen information like that of the Anthem Insurance hack.
What the FBI is requesting is essentially creating a hole in Apple's security which not only the FBI but any hacker can leverage, there by putting 100 million people at risk. Our smart devices have enough information (including our fingerprints) to allow a criminal to co-opt a citizen's identity, gain access to passports, airplane passes, office buildings, All of this for "potentially" finding new information. The NYPD counter-terrorism unit noted that none of the plots they spoilt ever relied on a single piece of the puzzle. Is putting the entire nation at risk for potentially finding nothing the balance in the law?
The public also needs to understand, what the FBI wants is for Apple to weaken the OS to allow them a "brute force" attack, something which any novice computer programmer can perform.
What the FBI is requesting is essentially creating a hole in Apple's security which not only the FBI but any hacker can leverage, there by putting 100 million people at risk. Our smart devices have enough information (including our fingerprints) to allow a criminal to co-opt a citizen's identity, gain access to passports, airplane passes, office buildings, All of this for "potentially" finding new information. The NYPD counter-terrorism unit noted that none of the plots they spoilt ever relied on a single piece of the puzzle. Is putting the entire nation at risk for potentially finding nothing the balance in the law?
The public also needs to understand, what the FBI wants is for Apple to weaken the OS to allow them a "brute force" attack, something which any novice computer programmer can perform.
3
End result if the FBI wins: terrorists will find other ways to communicate with each other, while Apple will have given the U.S. government the master key to every I-phone in existence That's a pretty steep price to pay against the mere possibility that the San Bernadino phone does store any useful evidence.
I'm with Apple on this one.
I'm with Apple on this one.
4
When it comes to fighting terror, unprecedented governmental overreach has becomes routine, as Bush/Cheney routinely demonstrated. Though Apple's stand is noble and righteous, I believe government will prevail because the fear of terrorism outweighs traditional standards of jurisprudence. In this age of terror, governmental officials hold the trump cards, and have discovered the political advantages of playing them.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
1
Apple does not have the ability to crack this phone, they have to go back to the drawing board, develop a plan, allocate resources, test the solution, then implement it. Immediately upon spending millions at the request of the FBI to implement a hack, one of the biggest selling points of their product, security, is 100% officially a verified failure. The quasi-government agency I previously worked for made the switch from BlackBerry to Apple because, I would imagine, the Apple product was secure. No longer the case.
The statement that Apple software can be stolen from its servers is false. This particular software, owing to its sensitivity, can be air-gapped in a secure physical environment that would prevent theft.
I never thought I would get to see the 13th amendment violated in my life.
1
Remember always, this conflict is between a government trying to maintain public safety and a company selling a consumer product.
1
There is a simple face-saving solution for all in this standoff between Apple and the FBI. The most reasonable option is that the FBI turn over the cell phone to Apple and then Apple will later turn over the contents of the cell phone to the FBI.
This one-off operation should be permitted by Apple for two reasons: (1) the cell phone was used by criminals and the FBI must have access to its contents to complete their criminal investigation and (2) the management of law and order must proceed without the spectre of a company holding the FBI hostage to its prerogatives.
This straight forward and simple procedure will still protect Apple and its customers. This one-off effort will protect Apple’s privacy requirements for its customers both in the US and globally. Apple can simply refuse to perform similar transactions with foreign countries such as China, Iran, etc.
This also sidesteps the requirement for Apple to create special code for the FBI to enable the latter to access the contents of the cell phone. This step would create (1) the feared precedent of other requests by the US and similar requests by other foreign countries such as China, Iran, etc. for suspicious reasons and (2) the high risk that if Apple should create special code for the FBI to access the content of the cell phone then such code could be used by criminals and foreign governments.
This one-off operation should be permitted by Apple for two reasons: (1) the cell phone was used by criminals and the FBI must have access to its contents to complete their criminal investigation and (2) the management of law and order must proceed without the spectre of a company holding the FBI hostage to its prerogatives.
This straight forward and simple procedure will still protect Apple and its customers. This one-off effort will protect Apple’s privacy requirements for its customers both in the US and globally. Apple can simply refuse to perform similar transactions with foreign countries such as China, Iran, etc.
This also sidesteps the requirement for Apple to create special code for the FBI to enable the latter to access the contents of the cell phone. This step would create (1) the feared precedent of other requests by the US and similar requests by other foreign countries such as China, Iran, etc. for suspicious reasons and (2) the high risk that if Apple should create special code for the FBI to access the content of the cell phone then such code could be used by criminals and foreign governments.
1
Here's my theory: The Government has already learned everything there is to know about the San Bernadino shooters, but are exploiting the attack as a way to improve their ability to spy on U.S. citizens. 9/11? Attack Iraq! San Bernadino? Get access to everybody's iPhone! I trust Tim Cook more than I trust Paul Rosen, and it will be interesting to see what kind of pressure the Government brings to bear on Apple. To be fair, I'd say at least 2% of the reason the Government is after Apple is because they think there might be some good info on the phone in question.
3
I've wondered if they already know what is on the phone - via NSA hacking, perhaps - but they need a parallel construction in order to introduce it in court.
From Bloomberg Business, today: "In a secret meeting convened by the White House around Thanksgiving, senior national security officials ordered agencies across the U.S. government to find ways to counter encryption software and gain access to the most heavily protected user data on the most secure consumer devices, including Apple Inc.’s iPhone, the marquee product of one of America’s most valuable companies, according to two people familiar with the decision.
The approach was formalized in a confidential National Security Council “decision memo,” tasking government agencies with developing encryption workarounds, estimating additional budgets and identifying laws that may need to be changed to counter what FBI Director James Comey calls the “going dark” problem: investigators being unable to access the contents of encrypted data stored on mobile devices or traveling across the Internet. Details of the memo reveal that, in private, the government was honing a sharper edge to its relationship with Silicon Valley alongside more public signs of rapprochement."
Roughly translated: get the public to buy into the fearmongering and hand over their privacy rights, at the same time coerce phone companies to give up a backdoor entrance to all communications. This isn't about the Calif. shooter. It's about keeping tabs on all Americans. A few years from now, you can kiss ALL your other rights adios. Maybe we won't even have to wait that long…
The approach was formalized in a confidential National Security Council “decision memo,” tasking government agencies with developing encryption workarounds, estimating additional budgets and identifying laws that may need to be changed to counter what FBI Director James Comey calls the “going dark” problem: investigators being unable to access the contents of encrypted data stored on mobile devices or traveling across the Internet. Details of the memo reveal that, in private, the government was honing a sharper edge to its relationship with Silicon Valley alongside more public signs of rapprochement."
Roughly translated: get the public to buy into the fearmongering and hand over their privacy rights, at the same time coerce phone companies to give up a backdoor entrance to all communications. This isn't about the Calif. shooter. It's about keeping tabs on all Americans. A few years from now, you can kiss ALL your other rights adios. Maybe we won't even have to wait that long…
5
Of course Apple has the right to challenge the court order. Like everyone else.
However, after all the legal recourses are exhausted Apple must comply. Like everyone else. Otherwise Tim Cook has to be held in contempt and jailed. Like everyone else.
BTW, Tim Cook's arguments are bogus, as any software developer knows. Apple already has the capability to access the locked phone since they run debug (steppable) builds of the OS on test devices and simulators. They don't need to develop anything. He'd either lying or doesn't undestand sofware.
However, after all the legal recourses are exhausted Apple must comply. Like everyone else. Otherwise Tim Cook has to be held in contempt and jailed. Like everyone else.
BTW, Tim Cook's arguments are bogus, as any software developer knows. Apple already has the capability to access the locked phone since they run debug (steppable) builds of the OS on test devices and simulators. They don't need to develop anything. He'd either lying or doesn't undestand sofware.
It is time the inept US government catch up to the hackers of the World. It seems to me that if the hackers are able to get into just about any secure computer that they choose to, as evidence by all the data stolen over the past couple of years, they should be able to hack their way into an iPhone 5c. With our money and resources, we should not have to ask Apple to help. We should have the capability to do it ourselves so we do not have to rely on "Nazi" type organizations like Apple. Maybe we should take a tip from British intelligence. Does any remember what helped win WWII? The Brits broke the unbreakable Nazi designed Enigma Machine coding.
The gravest threat to the freedom and liberty we cherish has always been domestic one resting in our own government run amok in conspiracy with the military-industrial complex.
By creating a government of divided limited powers in a democratic republic, the Founding Fathers clearly intended that the individual rights of every person occupied the key stone upon which the nation is connected. The government must have enough reasonable suspicion based upon probable cause to convince a judge that a warrant is justified. And the government law enforcement agencies should be expected to have the technical competence to gather evidence to prosecute crimes within the bounds of the law.
Americans need and deserve both liberty and security. But with the balance always tilted in favor of liberty. After all the President of the United States takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" as the primary obligation of faithfully executing the duties of President.
By creating a government of divided limited powers in a democratic republic, the Founding Fathers clearly intended that the individual rights of every person occupied the key stone upon which the nation is connected. The government must have enough reasonable suspicion based upon probable cause to convince a judge that a warrant is justified. And the government law enforcement agencies should be expected to have the technical competence to gather evidence to prosecute crimes within the bounds of the law.
Americans need and deserve both liberty and security. But with the balance always tilted in favor of liberty. After all the President of the United States takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" as the primary obligation of faithfully executing the duties of President.
1
Proud to say (on my Samsung phone) that I never owned an Apple product, and never will. Although Apple unlocked phones prior to last year, they suddenly stopped, including a phone used by a guy who shot 2 cops. Especially confusing in the San Bernadino case, because the county owns the phone, and a right to privacy doesn’t extend to dead people. Online privacy is a myth -- get over it Even for those with a right to PRIVACY (which is limited once one breaks the law), there's no such thing as a right to ANONYMITY. We all know Apple is concerned with one thing: PROFIT. This is how a company behaves that has done nothing but benefit from every advantage this country (and cheap labor overseas) has to offer. Look up "bad corporate citizen" and the definition should be the Apple logo. The court should do what it'd do to me if I refused to comply with a court order: a contempt charge, huge fine, and jail.
"Apple has already given the F.B.I. data from the phone that was backed up and stored on its iCloud service"
This underscores the lack of privacy inherent in "clouds." Many people don't realize that the owner of a cloud can typically read and "mine" everything that is stored by the user. If you want privacy, look for "zero knowledge" clouds, run your own server (for uber-nerds only), or look towards evolving, open-source distributed clouds such as Maidsafe.
This underscores the lack of privacy inherent in "clouds." Many people don't realize that the owner of a cloud can typically read and "mine" everything that is stored by the user. If you want privacy, look for "zero knowledge" clouds, run your own server (for uber-nerds only), or look towards evolving, open-source distributed clouds such as Maidsafe.
As I understand it. . . the FBI has requested from Apple's CEO, Timothy Cook, access to the iPhone(s) of the San Bernardino killer(s) to determine if they were in contact with terrorist cells. The FBI has been charged to protect the homeland and with these extraordinary times. . . extraordinary measures are called for. Common sense prevails here. By Mr. Cook's refusal to assist in rooting out possible terrorist cells by allowing the FBI access to the San Bernardino killer(s) iPhone is questionable. . . .let us hope he won't have blood on his hands if it is shown that these two killer(s) were in contact with terrorist cells. . . whether in our Nation or elsewhere and we suffer another attack.
A NYT news article today indicates that the CIA previously altered Apple products and applications software to gain access to private information. It is not clear from that article if Apple cooperated to make physical changes to its products or if CIA somehow accomplished its goals without cooperation. That article also describes how Apple cooperated with the government to obtain information on a case-by-case basis by unlocking phones brought to them. That is the right way to obtain information, tedious though it may be for both Apple and the government.
It is clear from the our recent history that nothing in government hands will remain confidential. If they compel Apple (and other firms) to provide access to devices owned by their customers, that information will eventually fall into the wrong hands, either within our government itself or to third parties. It can also be surmised that product or software changes made to assist the US government will be exploited by foreign governments and hackers.
I believe that our government, by going public, is using the San Bernardino case to create political support to drive the courts or Congress to put Apple in the untenable situation they are now in. It is not clear if Apple can unlock this particular phone if it is brought to them or if that request was even made. I expect the next steps will be a legal battle and contempt of court rulings that could put Timothy Cook in jail or put Apple out of business, unless they roll over.
It is clear from the our recent history that nothing in government hands will remain confidential. If they compel Apple (and other firms) to provide access to devices owned by their customers, that information will eventually fall into the wrong hands, either within our government itself or to third parties. It can also be surmised that product or software changes made to assist the US government will be exploited by foreign governments and hackers.
I believe that our government, by going public, is using the San Bernardino case to create political support to drive the courts or Congress to put Apple in the untenable situation they are now in. It is not clear if Apple can unlock this particular phone if it is brought to them or if that request was even made. I expect the next steps will be a legal battle and contempt of court rulings that could put Timothy Cook in jail or put Apple out of business, unless they roll over.
Law enforcement has always been able to search our communications, our address books, our calendars, etc. Law enforcement can search our homes in their entirety. There's no reason that storing information on silicon, instead of paper, should change the equation. Apple is seeking an entitlement here, purely for their own profit motive. Apple wants to say "We made it super easy for people to store information, so law enforcement should have it harder." Makes no sense at all.
Unlocking the data on this one phone suggests a Pandora’s Box scenario, having massive implications for the general security of the public domain and the public and for Apple and similar companies. Hacking and data theft is unquestionably a massive problem.
Much of the information about the phone and the calls and messages related to it are already in the hands of the FBI.
Part of the problem here is the government itself and its thirst for extraordinary access to data with questionable regard for how extraconstitutional or blatantly egregious the level of intrusion may finally prove to be. This at the same time that the government massively uses security classification often as a means of putting information into a locked box as much for the protection of sensitive information relating to the preservation of national security as for burying material that might impinge the competency of actions taken. Such material routinely remains hidden for many decades absent any credible national security rationale. Add the government track record vis a vis actions such as the blanket collection practices of the NSA.
The point here is that the one phone only request becomes highly suspect given the government predilection for highly questionable intrusion and surveillance.
Much of the information about the phone and the calls and messages related to it are already in the hands of the FBI.
Part of the problem here is the government itself and its thirst for extraordinary access to data with questionable regard for how extraconstitutional or blatantly egregious the level of intrusion may finally prove to be. This at the same time that the government massively uses security classification often as a means of putting information into a locked box as much for the protection of sensitive information relating to the preservation of national security as for burying material that might impinge the competency of actions taken. Such material routinely remains hidden for many decades absent any credible national security rationale. Add the government track record vis a vis actions such as the blanket collection practices of the NSA.
The point here is that the one phone only request becomes highly suspect given the government predilection for highly questionable intrusion and surveillance.
I agree that Apple should not have to aid the FBI in breaking into the phone for privacy reasons. I think the question that is not being asked, is what does the FBI think they will get from hacking into the phone that they already don't have access to? The NSA has all of the conversations, phone numbers and text messages in their mass surveillance sweep. I think the FBI has waiting for the "perfect" test case to gain even more access to our privacy because the industry will not give them a "back door" entry into all of our phones. Here they use a "terrorist" suspect phone in the hopes of stirring emotions from the public to believe they are in the right. But they are not. The Supreme Court has already stated this information is very personal and the government does not have the absolute right to this information. Again, what does the FBI want that they already don't have?
3
What has been lost in some of this discussion is, "Can Apple hack its own phone?" The general and near unanimous assumption is that, "Of course they can open their own phone."
Two thing lead me to think, "No, they perhaps cannot open their own phone."
Encryption can be very powerful. There is discussion of a 'brute force' to open the phone. Mathematically,,, just math,,, if the passcode is near or greater than 15 characters, no, it cannot be opened, even with trying every possible combination,,,, well, yes it can be opened,, given centuries and every computer available. Even an unlikely fully encrypted 4 digit number can be scrambled to a few decillion places.
Second,,, if Apple were to commit to encryption,, they would be plumb foolish to have left a back door,, they would have sealed themselves out for just, exactly, this, reason. That is just cold logic. it would be corporate suicide to even attempt to hack it. A billion Iphones would become vulnerable.
And there is no doubt, that any successful program, would be disseminated, around the world in days. The Chinese would have it in use before the FBI, the Russian Mafia might beat both to it.
Pandora's Box,, the only way to win the game is don't play.
Two thing lead me to think, "No, they perhaps cannot open their own phone."
Encryption can be very powerful. There is discussion of a 'brute force' to open the phone. Mathematically,,, just math,,, if the passcode is near or greater than 15 characters, no, it cannot be opened, even with trying every possible combination,,,, well, yes it can be opened,, given centuries and every computer available. Even an unlikely fully encrypted 4 digit number can be scrambled to a few decillion places.
Second,,, if Apple were to commit to encryption,, they would be plumb foolish to have left a back door,, they would have sealed themselves out for just, exactly, this, reason. That is just cold logic. it would be corporate suicide to even attempt to hack it. A billion Iphones would become vulnerable.
And there is no doubt, that any successful program, would be disseminated, around the world in days. The Chinese would have it in use before the FBI, the Russian Mafia might beat both to it.
Pandora's Box,, the only way to win the game is don't play.
“In 1977... the Supreme Court said the government could not compel a third party not involved in a crime to assist law enforcement if doing so would place “unreasonable burdens” on it.” So placing “an unreasonable burden” on a third party trumps saving the life of, say, hostages?
“the last backup was made about a month before the attacks.” How can we be so sure that nothing else of significance was added?
“But the (CEO), Timothy Cook, has said that requiring it to create software to bypass a feature that causes the phone to erase its data if 10 incorrect passwords are entered would set a dangerous precedent and could undermine the security of its devices.” I say an equally dangerous precedent would be set by denying access to vital information pertinent to the safety of American citizens – what if such information related to Pearl Harbor or 9/11 existed prior to these events? Would the NYT still favor the death of innocents over compromising the security of a company product?
“If Apple is required to help the F.B.I. in this case, courts could require it to use this software in future investigations or order it to create new software to fit new needs.” This is not necessarily a bad thing – what trumps national security?
“It is also theoretically possible that hackers could steal the software from the company’s servers.” I find it hard to believe that Apple has no protection against hackers and could not take it off its servers; is it even necessary to put it on the servers?
“the last backup was made about a month before the attacks.” How can we be so sure that nothing else of significance was added?
“But the (CEO), Timothy Cook, has said that requiring it to create software to bypass a feature that causes the phone to erase its data if 10 incorrect passwords are entered would set a dangerous precedent and could undermine the security of its devices.” I say an equally dangerous precedent would be set by denying access to vital information pertinent to the safety of American citizens – what if such information related to Pearl Harbor or 9/11 existed prior to these events? Would the NYT still favor the death of innocents over compromising the security of a company product?
“If Apple is required to help the F.B.I. in this case, courts could require it to use this software in future investigations or order it to create new software to fit new needs.” This is not necessarily a bad thing – what trumps national security?
“It is also theoretically possible that hackers could steal the software from the company’s servers.” I find it hard to believe that Apple has no protection against hackers and could not take it off its servers; is it even necessary to put it on the servers?
1
Many people who are against Apple in this case seem to focus either on their distaste for large corporations in general (exempted by many by their carping about legal tax issues they disagree with) or in their belief that compelling Apple or the next tech firm to hand over total access to their security systems to the government insures our future security.
The San Bernardino case is over - the criminals are dead, they will never be prosecuted, no evidence is needed to further that investigation. Yes, their phone may or may not contain intelligence information about associates that may or may not help in future matters. But the scope of this order is bigger, for access not just to one device but to all similar devices with no guarantees against abuse. The piece points out, for example, a request for access in a narcotics case. Why not also ask for it or just use (because they can) in a child custody case, a fraud case, a civil case? At what point is a matter serious enough to allow unfettered access and fishing expeditions by the government into private records?
Apple turned over iCloud data, as they should have, but they are wise to balk at this general access demand (and the cost based on some musty old 18th century law). The reality is that history tells us the feds WILL use that access for other purposes despite any policy to the contrary and, with their poor record of computer security, MAY lose control of the means to our enemies. Legitimate fears.
The San Bernardino case is over - the criminals are dead, they will never be prosecuted, no evidence is needed to further that investigation. Yes, their phone may or may not contain intelligence information about associates that may or may not help in future matters. But the scope of this order is bigger, for access not just to one device but to all similar devices with no guarantees against abuse. The piece points out, for example, a request for access in a narcotics case. Why not also ask for it or just use (because they can) in a child custody case, a fraud case, a civil case? At what point is a matter serious enough to allow unfettered access and fishing expeditions by the government into private records?
Apple turned over iCloud data, as they should have, but they are wise to balk at this general access demand (and the cost based on some musty old 18th century law). The reality is that history tells us the feds WILL use that access for other purposes despite any policy to the contrary and, with their poor record of computer security, MAY lose control of the means to our enemies. Legitimate fears.
9
It's obvious that our government is completely out of control. We have the largest prison population in the world. We are bombing and killing people all over the world by Presidential fiat, much of it being done by private corporations. We run a secret court, some might call it a Star Chamber. Federal Prosecutors have almost unlimited power and many of them are highly politically motivated. While the US no longer condones torture we still use rendition to let others carry it out in our name. Senate oversight is a joke.
A backdoor into our phones opens up all of us to all kinds of spying by not just the US government but by foreign governments and private companies along with the DOJ not to mention there are people in the government who sell information.
A backdoor into our phones opens up all of us to all kinds of spying by not just the US government but by foreign governments and private companies along with the DOJ not to mention there are people in the government who sell information.
5
There are two questions that nobody has asked yet, let me be the first.
1. What is the privileged status of an iPhone that becomes the vault of secrets? Other devices are not off limits to this extent. I would not consider saving sensitive information on my phone, and will not make sensitive calls from it either.
2. Instead of a past-looking event such as the one we face, what if this phone had critical information that could prevent an upcoming murder, would we still be OK to hide behind the privacy idea? What if an electronic process was releasing the secrets of Apple and the secret to stop this leak was inside this encrypted phone? Would Apple allow its highly guarded secrets become public because it wanted to prevent the privacy of the owner of the phone?
I believe personal good does not trump public good, the boundary of privacy of one should stop at the border of what's good for the many.
1. What is the privileged status of an iPhone that becomes the vault of secrets? Other devices are not off limits to this extent. I would not consider saving sensitive information on my phone, and will not make sensitive calls from it either.
2. Instead of a past-looking event such as the one we face, what if this phone had critical information that could prevent an upcoming murder, would we still be OK to hide behind the privacy idea? What if an electronic process was releasing the secrets of Apple and the secret to stop this leak was inside this encrypted phone? Would Apple allow its highly guarded secrets become public because it wanted to prevent the privacy of the owner of the phone?
I believe personal good does not trump public good, the boundary of privacy of one should stop at the border of what's good for the many.
1
Well, (1) other devices are not off limit but they are not protected in the same way, thus the question is, in that sense, moot; the iPhone is unique to the extent that its encryption is so sophisticated that it offers a level of privacy not achieved by others. The fact that you would not use it in a matter that retains any "sensitive" information or details about you or your activities is irrelevant. The question in this case is can a party (Apple) be compelled to hand over access to all such devices with no control over its use beyond that, especially when such use carriers other threats to users privacy. (2) A hypothetical not at issue in this case. But if it were, the same issue would arise - should Apple provide the information FOR THAT PHONE (yes) or be compelled to allow access to that phone AND every other iPhone in existence (no).
The "many" is just a mob and has no right to destroy the rights of the individual. Anyone who thinks it does is aligned with Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, and all the others who truly believe that their "public good" should run roughshod over the rights of any one.
3
To justify the taking of rights because business and finance have done so is to further fractionate freedom to a far point on the horizon. Law enforcement has needs, Freedom must supersede those needs.
1
Your phone is essentially a copy of your brain, and we are supposed to trust the gov with that. If the government had one properly functioning brain imagine what could be accomplished.
2
If Apple is forced to comply with the U.S. Government, what happens when a foreign government makes the same demand? These phones are worldwide.
There are already other law enforcement agencies in line behind the FBI waiting for their turn. Tim Cook and Apple - stay strong.
There are already other law enforcement agencies in line behind the FBI waiting for their turn. Tim Cook and Apple - stay strong.
3
It may be even worse than that - if Apple is forced to comply with the US Department of Justice, foreign nations may legally prevent the sale of Apple devices in their countries, inasmuch as Europe takes privacy much more seriously than the US.
1
The Expanding American Tyranny
Whereas protection of privacy is not afforded explicitly in the U. S. Constitution, it is afforded implicitly, particularly in the Fourth Amendment, as has been ruled the law of the land by the U.S. Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).
Under both Democrats and Republicans, the country continues evolving into an economic, political, and social tyranny. Examples? Consider the following:
1) Gaining access to all your financial information without a court-issued warrant.
2) Using our economic might, imposing extra-territoriality onto small, defenseless countries from the Cayman Islands to Switzerland.
3) Converting banks into unpaid agents of surveillance of the government.
4) Imprisoning American citizens indefinitely without right of trial or even habeas corpus as guaranteed in the Constitution . . . and without a declared war.
5) Sending paid-assassins to murder U.S. citizens never convicted of a crime, never charged with a crime, never arre3sted for a crime.
We American citizens never should forget that unwarranted loss of liberty for any one of us — no matter who or why — is loss of liberty for all of us. The loss begins as a narrow path trod by only a few under seemingly compelling conditions but evolves into a wide toll-road trod by us all under arbitrary and capricious whims of politicians and bureaucrats.
See “Some Call It Tyranny” under ...
http://nationonfire.com/category/government/ .
Whereas protection of privacy is not afforded explicitly in the U. S. Constitution, it is afforded implicitly, particularly in the Fourth Amendment, as has been ruled the law of the land by the U.S. Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).
Under both Democrats and Republicans, the country continues evolving into an economic, political, and social tyranny. Examples? Consider the following:
1) Gaining access to all your financial information without a court-issued warrant.
2) Using our economic might, imposing extra-territoriality onto small, defenseless countries from the Cayman Islands to Switzerland.
3) Converting banks into unpaid agents of surveillance of the government.
4) Imprisoning American citizens indefinitely without right of trial or even habeas corpus as guaranteed in the Constitution . . . and without a declared war.
5) Sending paid-assassins to murder U.S. citizens never convicted of a crime, never charged with a crime, never arre3sted for a crime.
We American citizens never should forget that unwarranted loss of liberty for any one of us — no matter who or why — is loss of liberty for all of us. The loss begins as a narrow path trod by only a few under seemingly compelling conditions but evolves into a wide toll-road trod by us all under arbitrary and capricious whims of politicians and bureaucrats.
See “Some Call It Tyranny” under ...
http://nationonfire.com/category/government/ .
3
Kabuki dance. Apple looks like they protect user privacy. Law enforcement pretends they cannot access information and communications in the phones. Betting the opposite is true in both cases but this kind of press is a win win.
1
To those who say the government has the right to force companies to develop backdoors in their products: Only if Congress passes a law to do so. The FBI isn't requesting "a wiretap" or "data" with a search warrant under existing law.
What the FBI is requesting is for a company to break its own products, permanently, so law enforcement can always get in.
This has happened before. Look up CALEA (Communications Aid to Law Enforcement Act).
Passed in 1994, it requires all equipment used by telcos and Internet service providers to include a back door open to law enforcement. That is the ONLY reason law enforcement has this right, and at present it's limited to specific types of equipment in a specific context.
The FBI is more than welcome to ask Congress to pass a similar law covering cell phones.
The FBI doesn't want to do that. It wants to set the precedent by ignoring the legal framework, and make its requests extra-legally. Because Terrorism. Because FBI is "law enforcement".
Here's the deal: If you, as a citizen, feel the nation needs a law forcing companies to provide back doors to cell phones--write your congresscritter and urge him or her to sponsor such a bill. The FBI is more than capable of doing the same.
Once that requirement is a law--not before!---then the FBI can lawfully make its request.
Until then, the FBI isn't enforcing laws. It's breaking them.
What the FBI is requesting is for a company to break its own products, permanently, so law enforcement can always get in.
This has happened before. Look up CALEA (Communications Aid to Law Enforcement Act).
Passed in 1994, it requires all equipment used by telcos and Internet service providers to include a back door open to law enforcement. That is the ONLY reason law enforcement has this right, and at present it's limited to specific types of equipment in a specific context.
The FBI is more than welcome to ask Congress to pass a similar law covering cell phones.
The FBI doesn't want to do that. It wants to set the precedent by ignoring the legal framework, and make its requests extra-legally. Because Terrorism. Because FBI is "law enforcement".
Here's the deal: If you, as a citizen, feel the nation needs a law forcing companies to provide back doors to cell phones--write your congresscritter and urge him or her to sponsor such a bill. The FBI is more than capable of doing the same.
Once that requirement is a law--not before!---then the FBI can lawfully make its request.
Until then, the FBI isn't enforcing laws. It's breaking them.
9
"According to the Daily Beast, Apple has complied with 70 similar requests for assistance accessing iPhones since 2008, figures which the company does not dispute." What makes this different?
5
It says in the article that they have changed their encryption method since the Snowden info leaks.
Different in that Apple has not previously claimed that it could not/would not break into a device that the owner has elected to protect, and they have made the encryption key selectable by the owner and possibly not known to anyone else.
This is the same style of data protection used in FileVault, the disk-encryption mechanism for Macintosh coputers. Apple has clearly and unambiguously stated that if you lose/forget your FileVault password, not even Apple can get the data off your hard drive.
This is the same style of data protection used in FileVault, the disk-encryption mechanism for Macintosh coputers. Apple has clearly and unambiguously stated that if you lose/forget your FileVault password, not even Apple can get the data off your hard drive.
The Government made this public in order to intimidate Apple and other Companies. This wasn't about compliance in this case if it were it would have been sealed.
1
A telephone or personal computer simply isn't a space protected by the Constitution any more than a safe deposit box or letter in the mail.
Smartphones are a convenience - nothing more. If they evaporated tomorrow the world would continue to turn and commerce would still thrive.
Smartphones are a convenience - nothing more. If they evaporated tomorrow the world would continue to turn and commerce would still thrive.
2
Really? The constitution doesn't protect my safe deposit box or mail? So the government can just open and examine the contents of either at their owns discretion or choosing? I think you need to bone up on the law a bit.
2
This shows the immense power of global Big Media, which operates beyond regulation, and attests to the landishments of extreme libertarianism. C ook's defenders use the same language as NRA and anti-tax zealots: Government is the enemy. Cook was of course a supporter of Citizens United--big surprise.
2
It's increasingly apparent that judges making rulings on cases like this have absolutely no understanding of the technologies involved.
I hope Obama appoints someone to the SCOTUS with considerable experience with court cases involving today's modern and evolving technologies.
I hope Obama appoints someone to the SCOTUS with considerable experience with court cases involving today's modern and evolving technologies.
7
It's true that the government can search your house if it has a warrant. And it can open your safe, if it can.
What it cannot so is force makers of safes to put in weak doors and locks, or to help it breach the lock. That's the analogy here.
Moreover, what is the government's case here? Both attackers are dead. And all the evidence indicates that they were not part of a cell, or organized from overseas. "Where's the beef?" as they say.
The "beef" is that this is not really a case about these dead terrorists. It's about establishing a precedent to use later to force Apple and others to build backdoors into our devices. THAT is what this case is all about.
What it cannot so is force makers of safes to put in weak doors and locks, or to help it breach the lock. That's the analogy here.
Moreover, what is the government's case here? Both attackers are dead. And all the evidence indicates that they were not part of a cell, or organized from overseas. "Where's the beef?" as they say.
The "beef" is that this is not really a case about these dead terrorists. It's about establishing a precedent to use later to force Apple and others to build backdoors into our devices. THAT is what this case is all about.
13
No that it not the analogy.
The correct analogy is that the safe makers and, and should be, required to reveal the designs of the safe locks and bolt mechanism so that the safe can be opened.
If you are going to make an argument, make the correct one, Peter. It make make a difference.
The correct analogy is that the safe makers and, and should be, required to reveal the designs of the safe locks and bolt mechanism so that the safe can be opened.
If you are going to make an argument, make the correct one, Peter. It make make a difference.
No question this is about further "snooping" from the government. The perpetrators are thankfully deceased, & yet the government feels they don't have all the facts. What's next?
Every time a crime is committed in this country, we need to investigate someone's cell phone to
determine the cause? Apple is doing the right thing by making a stand. Hopefully, the judges & magistrates will make the correct call.
Every time a crime is committed in this country, we need to investigate someone's cell phone to
determine the cause? Apple is doing the right thing by making a stand. Hopefully, the judges & magistrates will make the correct call.
I do not believe that personal privacy is a legitimate argument for the deceased.
They have no standing to due.
They have no standing to due.
The Ed Board's argument channels the NRA's defense of gun ownership - if we let them take one gun, they will take them all. It is tantamount to saying that the people's representatives are not capable of designing safeguards and exercising judgement and discretion in the use of privileged access. I, on the other hand, want to know everything about the San Bernardino mass murderers.
1
Every American's security comes first. If the F.B.I. and other law enforcements need to open phones for security reasons and to solve crimes so be it. Since when does business trump national security?
You need to recognize that this is an "ego" thing for Apple.
They have, for the life of the company, marketed their products as having the most secure operating systems around.
And that was literally quite true if you looked at the hacking statistics.
But those statistics also showed that, like in many other situations, that the miscreants hacking operating systems went after the ones that had the most impact.
And, since in relative terms, Apple has been pretty much a bit player, not many of the hackers chose to take on the task.
Now, with the iPhone being so popular, hackers are shifting their attention. And, Apple products are being revealed just as poor in security as anything Microsoft or Google has ever produced.
They have, for the life of the company, marketed their products as having the most secure operating systems around.
And that was literally quite true if you looked at the hacking statistics.
But those statistics also showed that, like in many other situations, that the miscreants hacking operating systems went after the ones that had the most impact.
And, since in relative terms, Apple has been pretty much a bit player, not many of the hackers chose to take on the task.
Now, with the iPhone being so popular, hackers are shifting their attention. And, Apple products are being revealed just as poor in security as anything Microsoft or Google has ever produced.
1
Janis, let's presume you're a computer scientist or engineer. Can the FBI dragoon YOU into analyzing Apple's security systems and implementing a back door to get what they want? Would you be allowed to turn down the job, even for pay? Why can't Apple decline to do the job?
Explicit personal liberty is more important that nebulous claims of national security.
Explicit personal liberty is more important that nebulous claims of national security.
1
Where's your evidence that the FBI "needs" to open this phone? The owner is dead. If he communicated with others about his plans, there are phone and text and email records of those communications, which the FBI can get from the carrier and the mail service provider.
The government has no right to force a business to do something the business does not want to do. As an honest, intelligent, rational citizen of this country, I do NOT want the government to force Apple to create a "backdoor" that allows the government access to anything on my phone - because the government has a 0% record of avoiding abuse of its powers. The next future Nixon won't have to send burglars to break into the offices of the DNC - she'll just enter a few commands on her computer to get the contents of their phones.
The government has no right to force a business to do something the business does not want to do. As an honest, intelligent, rational citizen of this country, I do NOT want the government to force Apple to create a "backdoor" that allows the government access to anything on my phone - because the government has a 0% record of avoiding abuse of its powers. The next future Nixon won't have to send burglars to break into the offices of the DNC - she'll just enter a few commands on her computer to get the contents of their phones.
1
The next time ISIS starts to blow up American citizens in mass groups, let's encourage them to choose the Apple offices to do it. Apple obviously does not consider themselves an American company anymore, so we have no obligations to protect them. Let's encourage them to move elsewhere very quickly.
The government is relying for its position on a law passed in 1789, the All Writs Act, which states: "The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." Well, you textualists, do you see any language in there about cell phones and encryption? Let's even assume you do. Wouldn't that rule apply to, say, GUNS? Couldn't the FBI force Remington to implant a chip for tracking the chain of ownership of one of its weapons sold privately at a gun show to someone who murdered kids at aschool in Ct, for example? Doesn't all writs "necessary or appropriate" to aid law enforcement mean, under the government's argument, just that?
3
That is not the question at hand.
There is no request for Apple to put in software to unlock its phones. The order of the Court merely instructs Apple to do the unlocking.
The Court's order is consistent with the All Writs Act, and the All Writs Act is at the basis of the power of the Court to order compliance with the law and the legitimate needs of jurisdictions.
Note, too, that the All Writs Act, in dealing with writs issued by the Court, suggests that the writs themselves have undergone judicial review and have been so approved by a court of competent jurisdiction.
And another, point, DWBH, where in the statute does the words "law enforcement" appear?
No where, of course, because that is not the intent of the All Writs statute. The intent of that statute is to give power to the orders of the court whatever they might be. Indeed, this statute is the very one that gives you the right, upon obtaining a subpoena in any matter before the court, for you to be able to have that subpoena be enforced.
There is no request for Apple to put in software to unlock its phones. The order of the Court merely instructs Apple to do the unlocking.
The Court's order is consistent with the All Writs Act, and the All Writs Act is at the basis of the power of the Court to order compliance with the law and the legitimate needs of jurisdictions.
Note, too, that the All Writs Act, in dealing with writs issued by the Court, suggests that the writs themselves have undergone judicial review and have been so approved by a court of competent jurisdiction.
And another, point, DWBH, where in the statute does the words "law enforcement" appear?
No where, of course, because that is not the intent of the All Writs statute. The intent of that statute is to give power to the orders of the court whatever they might be. Indeed, this statute is the very one that gives you the right, upon obtaining a subpoena in any matter before the court, for you to be able to have that subpoena be enforced.
1
Great story. Well researched and executed.
Being an IT Security Professional, Apple is doing the right thing. The point is that Apple's encryption is excellent. So good, Federal agencies can't hack iPhones - that's a good thing because this most likely means neither can hackers hack iPhones.
As far as the terrorism case, I don't buy the argument. If the government hasn't found connections yet, they aren't gonna find them on a smartphone.
Being an IT Security Professional, Apple is doing the right thing. The point is that Apple's encryption is excellent. So good, Federal agencies can't hack iPhones - that's a good thing because this most likely means neither can hackers hack iPhones.
As far as the terrorism case, I don't buy the argument. If the government hasn't found connections yet, they aren't gonna find them on a smartphone.
8
Perhaps this is all an elaborate ruse and the NSA already has tools to unlock an iPhone: Maybe this is just a smoke screen to lull potential targets of surveillance into a false sens of security.
The citizens of this country should be confident in their Government to protect their rights and freedoms. That the biggest corporation in the country is refusing to assist a terrorist investigation is just contrary to what it is to be an American.
If one can't trust its Government then that is an ominous sign.
If one can't trust its Government then that is an ominous sign.
I'll tell you what, law enforcement, you use the same dire concern you have about those San Bernardino terrorists and use it for the ridiculously easy way it is for hundreds of Americans to be killed by guns *every day*, and I'll begin to understand your rationale.
The gun industry is untouchable, they can do whatever they want with impunity without--by law--being in any way liable for the 100s of daily killings. And you think it's perfectly acceptable to go after one of America's most ethical and responsible corporations? Jeb Bush was right, "guns=America", that pretty much says it all...
The gun industry is untouchable, they can do whatever they want with impunity without--by law--being in any way liable for the 100s of daily killings. And you think it's perfectly acceptable to go after one of America's most ethical and responsible corporations? Jeb Bush was right, "guns=America", that pretty much says it all...
2
There are valid points on both sides of the argument. Our phones these days contain all sorts of documents and provate information that were once stored securely in our homes in file cabinets. To me, my phone is therefore an extension of my home. Would you be willing to give up your right to search and seizure of your homes? Of course not. So why would you be willing to give the government a backdoor key to your phone? Can you trust them not to abuse this key once they have it? Edward Snowden has already proved to us that they are NOT to be trusted.
1
I agree with you in theory, but remember, the government can't enter your home without a warrant either. If the capability existed to get into your iPhone, presumably the government would still have to go through the process of getting permission on a case-by-case basis via a warrant. In Canada, it's a high standard to obtain a warrant and different standards, the most invasive being, for example, the Part VI warrant for wiretapping. Regardless of the type of warrant sought, the investigators have to satisfy a judge on a balance of probabilities that there is no way of getting the information they are seeking in a manner that is less invasive to the accused. In this particular case, there is no standard to achieve. The accused persons are dead. I believe that such software should exist but only be usable by Apple. Same thing goes for a wiretap: you get the warrant and the request goes through the head of system security with likely no one else in the company even being aware of it. So that leaves, to my understanding, one issue and one issue only: Apple is being asked to write software that does not exist and they have no desire to create. And indeed, they can't be forced to do it for free, nor could they ethically be paid by the government to write it and hand it over. So in my view, it's a losing situation no matter what happens. There is no right answer here in my opinion.
This is pure nonsense. If the information were locked in a safe in Farook's home there would be no issue getting a search warrant, cracking the safe and obtaining the information. In this case a search warrant was issued to unlock the phone, and the courts agreed that Apple should unlock it. There is no "privacy" issue in that the owner of the phone has granted permission to review the data. Hopefully, Apple will see the light and unlock the phone. If not, I hope the courts continue to compel them to do so.
1
'Criminals and domestic and foreign intelligence agencies could exploit such features to conduct mass surveillance and steal national and trade secrets.'
If IT engineers who work for Apple, or Microsoft also are members of a criminal gang, or cult, you really think they have not already used their knowledge to launch surveillance and theft crimes for their crime/cult masters?
If IT engineers who work for Apple, or Microsoft also are members of a criminal gang, or cult, you really think they have not already used their knowledge to launch surveillance and theft crimes for their crime/cult masters?
1
If the software the Feds are asking for unlocks that phone only, how does that differ from wiretapping a specific landline telephone? I value the little scrap of privacy I've got left as much as anyone, but in this case in which a single phone was most likely used to initiate and/or carry out a crime with (possible) national security implications, I've got to hold my nose and go with the Feds.
1
If Apple has its way, terrorists will continue to have a very useful weapon to use in their cause, cell phones. If Apple loses then perhaps terrorists will be less likely to use cell phones making their "job" more difficult. For that reason alone, not to arm terrorists with an easy means to communicate and set off explosions, I say that Apple needs to comply with this court order.
1
The question here is a balance of pragmatic needs. Law enforcement wants access and data; Apple wants to protect its customer base.
And the key? If Apple can manufacture strong encryption, so can someone else. That someone is likely not to be a US business, and the FBI is likely not to get access. So Apple will lose its market, and the FBI will continue to not get data.
Companies that lose their market if they are compelled by US law will just move, and eventually just focus sales on the huge international market. The FBI will win a battle and lose the war.
And the key? If Apple can manufacture strong encryption, so can someone else. That someone is likely not to be a US business, and the FBI is likely not to get access. So Apple will lose its market, and the FBI will continue to not get data.
Companies that lose their market if they are compelled by US law will just move, and eventually just focus sales on the huge international market. The FBI will win a battle and lose the war.
1
The government has no right to private data, not even law enforcement.
The government is playing the Fear card - it wants you to believe that if Apple fails to comply, Something Bad Will Happen. Most Americans realized this happened during the GWB years, but we thought those were over.
When the government can access your private data, no one is safe. The First Amendment goes out the window.
The Clipper Chip was rightly and resoundingly defeated in the 1990s. That was when the Clinton administration, Congress, the FBI and the NSA all wanted to access information encrypted by your computer. Apparently 20 years is all it takes for the Usual Gang Of Idiots to try this insanity again. And they haven't changed the fantasy story they're telling.
The government is playing the Fear card - it wants you to believe that if Apple fails to comply, Something Bad Will Happen. Most Americans realized this happened during the GWB years, but we thought those were over.
When the government can access your private data, no one is safe. The First Amendment goes out the window.
The Clipper Chip was rightly and resoundingly defeated in the 1990s. That was when the Clinton administration, Congress, the FBI and the NSA all wanted to access information encrypted by your computer. Apparently 20 years is all it takes for the Usual Gang Of Idiots to try this insanity again. And they haven't changed the fantasy story they're telling.
2
A very convincing opinion of the Editorial Board.
Bur where is all the government's technical expertise? Can they by themselves unlock the terrorists' iPhone?
The problem is not so much an "unreasonable burden" being placed on Apple, but the government's desire to have an unrelated party do the government's work.
Then, all software encryption is ephemeral, and some one will sooner or later break the current Apple code. Spreading its use to government agencies will only accelerate this process.
Bur where is all the government's technical expertise? Can they by themselves unlock the terrorists' iPhone?
The problem is not so much an "unreasonable burden" being placed on Apple, but the government's desire to have an unrelated party do the government's work.
Then, all software encryption is ephemeral, and some one will sooner or later break the current Apple code. Spreading its use to government agencies will only accelerate this process.
Apple and all the other cloud providers offer us no privacy from them, so their arguments are questionable. The claim that creating the ability to un-encrypt the devices they manufacture will open the devices to hackers is simply not honest. They know the encryption algorithms that do the encryption and can reverse engineer them in their lab without releasing that software to others or making some kind of "back door" in the software they deliver with every phone. Simply put they want to know everything about us for marketing while appearing to care about our privacy by keeping criminal information away from the government to make a show of caring.
1
Last year, 1 in 4 Americans were victims of identity theft.... that's millions of people, while a handful were killed by terrorists. I'm not minimizing the loss of life from terrorism, but frankly, cyber security is more of a threat to the United States than traditional terrorism, at least at this point in time. While a handful of a terrorist might be able to crash a plane... a cyber terrorist can potentially crash hundred of planes, destroy nuclear facilities, our electric grid, etc... as well as crash the entire US economy.
Apple, not weakening their security platform may very well save more American lives than granting the authorities access to easily track down a terrorist's contacts in the aftermath of an attack. As far as I'm concerned this isn't a close call. Good for Apple.
Apple, not weakening their security platform may very well save more American lives than granting the authorities access to easily track down a terrorist's contacts in the aftermath of an attack. As far as I'm concerned this isn't a close call. Good for Apple.
5
Apple and the tech companies backing its resistance have it right. Creating the code that would unlock this one device would potentially compromise the security of all devices, including those carried and used by intelligence agencies and security forces worldwide. Of course we want to learn more about the actors in this awful terrorist act. But in the bigger picture It would be like giving up the keys to Fort Knox in response to an isolated local bank robbery. In the long run do this investigation's needs warrant exposing the digital world to such a potentially devastating hack?
1
The All Writs Act states that its requirements must be "agreeable to the usages and principles of law." By requiring Apple to expend resources and suffer damage, the Federal Government should compensate Apple for the losses the required actions will cost the company. Is this particular cell phone, or even all the cell phones the government wants to open, worth the tens of billion dollars it should pay to compensate Apple?
1
I am very concerned about government access to information. However, there is a process and one that involves the courts to gain access. In contrast, Goolge, Apple, Facebook, and people who scrape and build tracking and digital fingerprinting software have far more intrusive and intimate information on every American. They have no bounds on who has access to everything about each of us. The Nytimes editorial board simply doesn't understand the issue. You would more shocked if you were given access to google's tracking information on you than what the government has. That is the real issue
Compelling Apple to create software to aid the government’s interest is not dissimilar to how the Nazis compelled businesses and scientists to work for them “because it was their patriotic duty.”
If we allow the government to argue successfully that it can compel a company to assist it, not to mention trample on the right to privacy in doing so, in order to protect our country against another terrorist attack, we will have committed the terrorist attack ourselves, and we will have accomplished for the terrorists what they themselves are trying to do.
As Abraham Lincoln said “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
If we allow the government to argue successfully that it can compel a company to assist it, not to mention trample on the right to privacy in doing so, in order to protect our country against another terrorist attack, we will have committed the terrorist attack ourselves, and we will have accomplished for the terrorists what they themselves are trying to do.
As Abraham Lincoln said “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
1
Winston Churchill and every leader and team spent considerable resources to decrypt every communication from our enemies...how is this different? We ask our governments help to protect us from terrorists, call police to save us when terrorists attack, but refuse to decrypt a phone?
1) I am not sure what you mean by "every leader and team". Please be more specific. 2) How does spending "considerable resources to decrypt every communication from our enemies" equate to compelling private sector companies (and by extension private individuals since under the Roberts Court corporations are persons) to assist the government when the government says they must do so?
1
Apple is 100% correct here. There is ample data about terrorist cells that is available to the government through other sources that they have at their disposal. To not undermine the principal of privacy trumps any social benefit derived from whatever information is on this phone.
1
This may all be a sham. Consider this. The phone in question was acquired by the FBI on Dec. 3rd, more than two months ago. Let's say the first few days were taken up by technicians at Quantico trying to break the encryption. When the lock and dump feature could not be safely bypassed, FBI requested help from Apple. But Apple said its help to the FBI would be bad for business. Apple asked for and got an FBI subpoena. After 30 days, Apple did not obey the subpoena and FBI went to court, obtained a court order, and the matter exploded in the media. Here's the result. Apple will look good to its customers. It will draw a Times editorial supporting it. The court will finalize the order after reviewing Apple's brief and Apple will comply, stage-weeping the whole way. The result? Everyone's happy. FBI gets its backdoor software; Apple saves face with its global customer base; and the terrorists lose another round. This is pretty standard stuff. Amazing more people haven't figured it out.
1
"Everyone's happy"? Not those of us concerned about a loss of privacy and the government being handed the keys to look any any iPhone they choose when and where they choose. Sure the FBI will be happy but at the cost of our own privacy and further encroachment on it by the government. More than just "pretty standard stuff".
1
How cute, so many folks actually believe the information on their phones is secure. Apple, Google, mobile carriers, application suppliers, etc. all track and follow everything you do on your phone. Maybe Apple just does not want to share what they consider to be THEIR proprietary information - all that data on your iphones.
2
I belive that Apple is assuming a mantle of "holier than thou" which it does not merit. If it were Apple's ox being gored, they would have already obeyed the judges' rulings. The scales should be tipped to the government in terrorism cases. The government is US, and in this case we are not the enemy - terrorism is.
1
Ideally, indeed, the government is "US", but it, especially the federal government, often seems to think we are there to serve them, not the other way around. The government is not the "enemy" but the history of governance is rife with abuse, a situation which led to the American Revolution and the ideals that arose from that in the shape of the Declaration of Independence and, lather the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those documents recognized both the fundamental rights of man as well as the reality that governments can and do abuse said rights. Thus our formative foundational documents are designed to control and restrict government, even from their well meaning abuse of our rights.
Before I knew that there was this problem, and that there is a software that can block it, EVERY site that I, and you, have gone to has allowed tracking software into its site. These range from ChatBeat, DoubleClick, Facebook Connect, Gravatar, Krux Digital and more. These are just the ones currently trying to access this page as I type. Thirteen different tracking software attacks. This is a small number. It has been as high as 23 for the NYT, and 54 for some other popular sites. Oh, I almost forgot, one is named Google Analytics and another is Amazon Associates.
So this high and mighty routine by Mr. Cooke rings a little hollow in its sincerity. THe rings of profits and market share are much clearer. Besides, if you are not a criminal, what you hide is of little interest to law enforcement. User are more afraid of spouses than they are of the government.
P.S. If interested check out Ghostery for blocking help.
So this high and mighty routine by Mr. Cooke rings a little hollow in its sincerity. THe rings of profits and market share are much clearer. Besides, if you are not a criminal, what you hide is of little interest to law enforcement. User are more afraid of spouses than they are of the government.
P.S. If interested check out Ghostery for blocking help.
1
I am disappointed in Apple and NYTimes. Both will behave differently if this attack had occurred in one of their facilities.
1
The government already has or can easily secure access to my bank, tax, health, credit card, driving, library and juvenile court records. The only thing they don't currently have are my love letters, and that is because they are safely stored away under my bed in a Macanudo cigar box which is guarded night and day by the good dog in this picture here. But before long, they will probably have them too. Even she has to sleep sometimes. Privacy is something I learned to live without a long time ago.
2
Apple is being told to create new information (programming) to unlock the iPhone, and not just to turn existing information over to the US government. Under our bizarre system of considering corporations to be "persons", does this not count as involuntary servitude?
4
How is that different from the government requiring an automaker to create a less polluting vehicle or a power plant from designing smokestack scrubbers to reduce emissions?
While I certainly see the point of the editorial, it actually promotes unfounded fears. We see this kind of "what if" thinking from extreme members of the right in politics, which, I imagine, is not where the Editorial Team wanted to go with this article. This is an isolated case that could help lead to more answers on a horrible atrocity. Period.
3
In every war on earth, every effort and resource has been applied to penetrate enemy, spy, and terrorist communications. We celebrate Alan Turing and his Enigma team who decrypted German coded communications. Telephone, telegraph, listening devices, satellites-every new technology has been used in the fight against the Isis, the Mafia, etc. To say, it think that a device is exempt because people love a brand, APPLE, and feel a heightened sense of privilege attached to this ownership is ridiculous. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during the civil war, and there is no reason to give criminals and terrorists a special tool to use against us. If we could another prevent 9/11, we should. I'm millions who gave their lives and treasure in wars to defend our country, would agree.
One can just hear the outcry from BIG business - including BIG technology - and the general public when there is a BIG theft of national or corporate data and/or another BIG attack on American soil. "What was the government doing?" "Why didn't they see this coming and catch them before it happened?" 'The government owes us for this - sue". The big bad government they hate. If that happens it is the tech companies who must be sued for not cooperating with OUR and THEIR government - or in their case the government nanny/money daddy.
2
One step to a resolution of this problem is to separate the demand for a back door in every phone from the practical need to retrieve and decrypt data from one particular phone.
The demand to insert a back door into every phone is a clear overreach by law enforcement. The back door will be exploited by criminals if not malicious government officials.
The phone is a physical hardware device and its internal design is not monolithic. The bulk of the encrypted data is stored in a particular component, the flash memory device. The government has the device and can use a logic analyzer (or other test instrument) to read out and save the encrypted data. (If NSA hasn't already done this, I want my tax money back. No joke.) "Ten strikes and you're out" is a non-issue. The passcode and/or encryption key is stored in either the flash memory or in the processor chip. The hardware test interface to the processor could be used to retrieve the contents of the flash memory in the processor chip, and with or without assistance from Apple, the key can be found. Read-out is limited by the controllability and observability of the individual components within the phone.
Thus, a universal trapdoor in every phone is simply unnecessary. The process for retrieving data from a particular phone needs to be as difficult as possible, requiring both physical access to the phone and narrow legal justification.
-- Computer engineer
The demand to insert a back door into every phone is a clear overreach by law enforcement. The back door will be exploited by criminals if not malicious government officials.
The phone is a physical hardware device and its internal design is not monolithic. The bulk of the encrypted data is stored in a particular component, the flash memory device. The government has the device and can use a logic analyzer (or other test instrument) to read out and save the encrypted data. (If NSA hasn't already done this, I want my tax money back. No joke.) "Ten strikes and you're out" is a non-issue. The passcode and/or encryption key is stored in either the flash memory or in the processor chip. The hardware test interface to the processor could be used to retrieve the contents of the flash memory in the processor chip, and with or without assistance from Apple, the key can be found. Read-out is limited by the controllability and observability of the individual components within the phone.
Thus, a universal trapdoor in every phone is simply unnecessary. The process for retrieving data from a particular phone needs to be as difficult as possible, requiring both physical access to the phone and narrow legal justification.
-- Computer engineer
50
Well said.
It is quite likely that the phone in question has no information of value, but this instance is used by the FBI to establish a precedent.
It is quite likely that the phone in question has no information of value, but this instance is used by the FBI to establish a precedent.
Well put. The skeptic in me however feels this is all...uhh scripted ,pun intended.
Govt asks that Apple help break into this phone . Apple, the protector of user privacy , huffs and puffs and in the end, most likely agrees to do so as a "one off" Plays out in the media for a bit and on to the next hot headline. Precedent set.
Wasn't Apple along with the rest of big Tech shown by the Snowden files to be hand in glove with the govt and their spying programs ?! Amusing to then see them say no to decrypting a phone used by a perpetrator of such a major crime.
Govt asks that Apple help break into this phone . Apple, the protector of user privacy , huffs and puffs and in the end, most likely agrees to do so as a "one off" Plays out in the media for a bit and on to the next hot headline. Precedent set.
Wasn't Apple along with the rest of big Tech shown by the Snowden files to be hand in glove with the govt and their spying programs ?! Amusing to then see them say no to decrypting a phone used by a perpetrator of such a major crime.
Sounds logical. I'd love to hear a response to this suggestion from both sides.
I support Apple on this issue, but Apple is being disingenuous in saying it wants to protect its customers, because the IPhone has done more than anything else to violate the privacy of users. The real customers are the advertisers and data aggregators who suck up all the data about everything about you. Maybe the FBI cannot break into your phone, but there are unknown companies that know more about you than you can possibly imagine. Get used to it; you are not sitting at the table, you are on the menu.
6
I understand your point, but it applies to the Googles and Yahoos of the world, not Apple. Take a look at Apple's privacy policy. They don't read your emails to sell you stuff or help others sell you stuff. They don't monetize your web surfing. This is exactly why I use Apple products/services vs their competitors who nose around in my stuff. Apple does not want your personal info. It's an important point and helps understand why they are fighting the govt on this.
2
It would be interesting to hear how Republicans feel about this issue. They rant about how government can't be trusted,it's incompetent etc.
1
Why doesn't it matter what Democrats or independents think about it as well? Why is this a partisan matter?
1
Do the police know there is data on the phone that would help their investigation? Or are they just guessing that there jmight be? This is a fishing expedition, pure and simple.
If Apple made document shredders, could the courts compell them to prove a de-shredder?
If Apple made document shredders, could the courts compell them to prove a de-shredder?
5
It's ironic that the Times and most of the critics of the government on these pages have no problem with it spending trillions of dollars of other peoples money on social programs with barely a trace of criticism over the incompetence of those who do so. But when it comes to the enforcement of a limited warrant to obtain data from a phone belonging to a consenting owner (it was a company phone) they suddenly are able to trot out every excess of that same institution. If this was IBM protecting corporate business data and not one of the left's cultural icons protecting their public image, writers here and at the Times editorial board would be all over IBM. Let's fine Apple $20M/day for failing to obey a legitimate court order and see how fast their position changes - or Tim Cook loses his job. It would have the added benefit or repatriating all those profits kept overseas that few in these pages ever seem to be able to mention.
2
Isn't this about access to all iPhones, not just "a phone", which is what the concern is all about? It is not limited as you assert but a tool that could and would be used to unlock any iPhone, a far broader and different scenario.
1
Just now, without even thinking about it, I used my iPhone to generate an ID code for on line banking, that banking system and others like it relies on its users trusting in the security of the system. If the government succeeds in forcing apple to create a back door that trust will have gone.
2
Good luck, Paul. Your have more to fear with Apple selling the information, and hackers who will get into any system they build, than the government caring.
1
Disagree completely. If we want privacy then we should not demand constant and immediate connection to web sites and social media. Apple is wrong along with their friends in silicon valley.
It's not the government hacking, spoofing, phishing us. I suggest the FBI give the phone to a Russian hacker. If there is anything on that phone they'll find it in short order.
It's not the government hacking, spoofing, phishing us. I suggest the FBI give the phone to a Russian hacker. If there is anything on that phone they'll find it in short order.
3
Bravo to Tim Cook. As a long time Apple customer, over 20 years, I've always felt Apple is the resistance to being told how and what to do in the computer world, ie, Microsoft's dictation to its clients. Now I see it is also a courageous company led by a courageous man! I suggest we all start petitions and the millions of Apple clients sign! I for one will not vote for any Congressman or Presidential candidate who supports the FBI's bully attempt!
3
The biggest takeaway from these comments is that most people are totally clueless about the technology and the ramifications of acceding to the government's order.
2
The editorial did not mention the salient fact that unbreakable encryption algoritms are based on mathematics and are public knowledge, not secrets owned by a few US tech companies. Any hacker or rogue organization with sufficient talent could implement apps that can be downloaded to a variety of modern smartphones from foreign or clandestine websites. Regardless of what the US legal system does, terrorists and serious criminals will still have the means to encrypt data and communications. This is a genie that cannot be put entirely back in the bottle.
7
In many respects JB is correct when he give the attributes of modern math based encryption methods. But he fails to point out the huge gaps between theoretical understanding and practical implementation. An encryption system that was developed by the phone developer might run 1000's of times faster than an app based encryption methodology. That speed difference will make the app based system impractical. But Apple is not the only company that can write code to run on the HW. If Apple is required to develop phones with a backdoor then some non-western company could develop phones that are equal to Apples but lack the backdoor.
I also think that much greater insecurity exists for me as a citizen when law enforcement is not allowed to use all possible tools (under the watchful eyes of the Courts). The reason I walk into a mall or restaurant today without being frisked is heavily dependent on outstanding gathering of actionable intelligence. In today's fast moving technology world, the gathering and analysis including predictive technology is a moving target and we must give lots of leeway to our intelligence community to do its job and provide it with a decent margin of error in that process. I am far less secure under the position taken by the NYT Editorial Board and by Apple/Google.
5
This is a business decision by Apple, with billions of dollars of profit in the balance. If the FBI forces them to open the phone, they'll do two things:
1. Design a tougher phone that even they can't crack
2. Move their corporate headquarters overseas.
Is that what we've come to, our own government forcing our corporations overseas?
1. Design a tougher phone that even they can't crack
2. Move their corporate headquarters overseas.
Is that what we've come to, our own government forcing our corporations overseas?
3
When a business thinks it is bigger and better than OUR government it is time for that company to be broken up. No more government contracts, corporate protection, tax benefits or use of OUR roads, police, fire or any other services. They seem to think they are a kingdom unto themselves so they can go build their own somewhere. Perhaps no man's land between Syria and Iraq?
2
It's a marketig stunt. Apple doesn't need to develop anything to access the locked phone. Their developers can acces the phone within minutes withan FBI agent sitting next to them in one of apple's development centers. Is that easy when you have the debug builds of the os.
njglea, what you suggest would be illegal and unconstitutional.
There is no doubt in my mind that Apple should comply. Providing backed up data is not enough precisely because the system stores more than the back-up. In today's world, both the 'client' and the 'server' or 'cloud' are legitimate data storage and therefore the line that editorial is trying to draw is meaningless. Apple does need to help the FBI do its job on this phone. Other applications of the code would still be subject to warrants signed off by the Court. In that sense, I am not really sure how it is different from tapping - a technology that can be applied to every phone but is subject to the Courts' prior approval. Does it really then matter whether the data is saved on the phone or on the cloud/server?
2
Many of your fellow citizens have great doubt. Read the comments.
2
Apple is correct. I applaud Tim Cook and Apple for their strength, determination and ethics.
Instead of the FBI and our Justice Department wasting their time and our money fighting for this unprecedented access, which is contrary to our Constitution, by using some arcane writ passed in the late 1700s to charge Apple with in an attempt to get Apple to compromise the privacy of hundreds of millions Americans, the FBI, Justice Department and Homeland Security should instead enforce the laws we currently have, perform the required in depth background checks for all foreigners seeking entry into the U.S., start investigating all foreign nationals who have overstayed their visas, and start cracking down on the known radicals already here in our communities that act with impunity.
The FBI and are government are better than this and could be doing so much more to actually make us safer here at home.
They should get out and stay out of our privacy.
Instead of the FBI and our Justice Department wasting their time and our money fighting for this unprecedented access, which is contrary to our Constitution, by using some arcane writ passed in the late 1700s to charge Apple with in an attempt to get Apple to compromise the privacy of hundreds of millions Americans, the FBI, Justice Department and Homeland Security should instead enforce the laws we currently have, perform the required in depth background checks for all foreigners seeking entry into the U.S., start investigating all foreign nationals who have overstayed their visas, and start cracking down on the known radicals already here in our communities that act with impunity.
The FBI and are government are better than this and could be doing so much more to actually make us safer here at home.
They should get out and stay out of our privacy.
4
NY Times should look into why FBI hasn't taken up McAfee's offer to hack the iphone open for them because this reveals that something much more sinister is in hand.
The FBI would rather force Apple to program a back door rather than to see what's inside the phone as offered by McAfee.
Someone must be lying here
The FBI would rather force Apple to program a back door rather than to see what's inside the phone as offered by McAfee.
Someone must be lying here
1
It should be clear to Apple that this is an exception to the rule. Taking a stand on against unlocking a phone used by terrorists, that could possess information that could help prevent other attacks. If these shooters were part of something bigger, no thanks to Apple, more lives would have been lost.
The police generally cannot enter your home without a warrant, and even with a warrant it must be narrowly tailored. However' there are a number of exceptions to that rule, including where an armed suspect may have entered the house. So let's say an armed and dangerous criminal being pursued by the Police Department enters Tim Cook's mansion, according to him and civil liberties, law enforcement should stop at the gate, call a magistrate and wait for a warrant before continuing to pursue, lest they violate his privacy right. No, the exception allows law enforcement in that limited instance to enter without a warrant and it DOES NOT carry over into the next day.
The warrant for the phone is narrow, and limited solely to that phone. I highly doubt a federal judge would think its constitutional to force a company to create a blanket back door for all phones. However, in this case its justified because it's narrow and clearly an exceptional circumstance.
Tim Cook has no concern for civil liberties, and should not be put up as the champion, this is rooted in something much different. Hopefully the Supreme Court gets to hear this case
The police generally cannot enter your home without a warrant, and even with a warrant it must be narrowly tailored. However' there are a number of exceptions to that rule, including where an armed suspect may have entered the house. So let's say an armed and dangerous criminal being pursued by the Police Department enters Tim Cook's mansion, according to him and civil liberties, law enforcement should stop at the gate, call a magistrate and wait for a warrant before continuing to pursue, lest they violate his privacy right. No, the exception allows law enforcement in that limited instance to enter without a warrant and it DOES NOT carry over into the next day.
The warrant for the phone is narrow, and limited solely to that phone. I highly doubt a federal judge would think its constitutional to force a company to create a blanket back door for all phones. However, in this case its justified because it's narrow and clearly an exceptional circumstance.
Tim Cook has no concern for civil liberties, and should not be put up as the champion, this is rooted in something much different. Hopefully the Supreme Court gets to hear this case
31
Why did the government make this public? This could have all been sealed and Apple could have responded privately. The warrant on the phone may be narrow but by Justice going public over a warrant they are expressing a political point of view meant to intimidate US companies. Law enforcement clearly is trying to intimidate not just Apple but the industry. Apple was forced to respond publicly precisely because Law enforcement went public. This was not about a single warrant if it were the Times wouldn't be writing about it.
1
Regarding your analogy of the criminal going in to Tim Cook's mansion, how about if they ask YOU to kick his door down?
Unfortunately, I believe, that building a back door to one phone actually does affect all phones of same type. So if Apple builds the program and someone steals it, what happens then?
Already, as the article states in the second paragraph, another judge in NY is considering the same request to unlock the phone to solve a drug case. Where will it end?
Already, as the article states in the second paragraph, another judge in NY is considering the same request to unlock the phone to solve a drug case. Where will it end?
McAfee offers to hack the phone for FBI.
This either demonstrates something much more sinister from the FBI.
Also, they have tools and methods to crack the Apple Phone. So, this is FBI lying to the public again. The FBI is throwing a red herring in this issue.
the FBI don't have computers with enough memory to clone the phone and run forensics programs on each iteration for the data dump. Give me a break. If in fact they loose password on the tenth try, all they have to do is to run 1000 iterations of the program. This is just another situation of FBI lying to the public to get what they want again at the expense of our Constitutional Freedoms because I find it very difficult to believe that FBI is that incompetent.
This either demonstrates something much more sinister from the FBI.
Also, they have tools and methods to crack the Apple Phone. So, this is FBI lying to the public again. The FBI is throwing a red herring in this issue.
the FBI don't have computers with enough memory to clone the phone and run forensics programs on each iteration for the data dump. Give me a break. If in fact they loose password on the tenth try, all they have to do is to run 1000 iterations of the program. This is just another situation of FBI lying to the public to get what they want again at the expense of our Constitutional Freedoms because I find it very difficult to believe that FBI is that incompetent.
3
So then using this argument all one would have to do to circumvent a search warrant order is to have some special door/lock placed on ones home which can only be opened with a special code - and the manufacturer of said door/lock then wouldn't be required to open for the FBI/police. So then homes becomes vaults (which is what iPhones have also become).
While there are many that support the government's position that Apple should be compelled to build a back door into their products, remember when similar arguments were made for the Patriot Act in the name of "safety" and "terrorism." This law is widely acknowledged to be an overreach of American rights.
Remember the words of Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Remember the words of Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
2
The governament didn't ask Apple to build a backdoor. That's a lie from Mr Coock. As it's a lie that Apple would have to develop something they don't have. Apple's developer can access a locked phone already without having to build anything. Any developer knows that.
The governament is asking Apple to access that specific phone. The same way they'd ask any other company to access a lock, a safe deposit, a building, etc. Apple is not above the law and this is simply a marketing stunt at the expense of terrorist victims.
The governament is asking Apple to access that specific phone. The same way they'd ask any other company to access a lock, a safe deposit, a building, etc. Apple is not above the law and this is simply a marketing stunt at the expense of terrorist victims.
Ten minutes after an attack involving an associate/contact of Syed Rizwan Farook, many of the people now lauding Apple's refusal to help the FBI investigate the San Bernadino attack people will be online, demanding: "Why didn't the government know about these people? Why wasn't this stopped?"
No digital storage device should be warrant-proof, anymore than any physical space used for criminal purposes.
To rule otherwise is to create a lawless place in cyberspace where murderers can plot their attacks without fear that one conspirator's computer or phone will lead to his or her con-conspirators.
No digital storage device should be warrant-proof, anymore than any physical space used for criminal purposes.
To rule otherwise is to create a lawless place in cyberspace where murderers can plot their attacks without fear that one conspirator's computer or phone will lead to his or her con-conspirators.
3
I don't believe apple is being asked to open cyberspace. They are being asked for a backdoor into their phones.
An attack on beloved, iconic San Francisco would change smug, wealthy, safe, entitled defenders of their beloved IPHONES. Do you think Lincoln, Churchill, and Roosevelt would not have put together another ENIGMA-like team to decrypt enemy communications? There is zero protection for terrorists, spies, rogue nations in every other generations technology and rights in war and crime. There should now exist a foolish special exemption that Apple is exempt from. Apps already invades it's customers privacy and sells data it collects and access in every conceivable manner. To take a stand against legitimate efforts to stop terror is ridiculous.
1
Describing the State of NY also attempting to force Apple to crack open an Iphone, to do exactly what the FBI wants Apple to do in the California case-a case where there is no real evidence-merely a lot of maybes and what-if's, is to watch as government police agents rush to force large, wealthy firms, presumably run by people so clever, that no problem is too difficult for them to use arcane mathematical languges to clarify what ris opaque to us ordinary mortals.
If these police agencies get their way, even once, there will be no end of other big, little and even pipsqueak sized agencies, like the NY Sheriff's department, demanding legal force from judges to enjoin, or "draft" phone manufacturers, their programmers and others barely cognizant of the issues in question, to act as their "agents", unwilling soldiers, in wars not of their choosing and which might even place them in harms way. All regardless of their lives, careers, personal desires or possible objections. If they then refuse, legal and enforceable threats of imprisonment , even cruel and impoverishing probationary rules forbidding them from engaging in their chosen line of work,(computer design and programming), on pain periods of jail time, may be used to enforce a court & prosecutor's demand that they do the bidding of the new masters of all things digital and possibly hidden by alleged criminals: the courts, lawyers and governments of the US and it's states.
If these police agencies get their way, even once, there will be no end of other big, little and even pipsqueak sized agencies, like the NY Sheriff's department, demanding legal force from judges to enjoin, or "draft" phone manufacturers, their programmers and others barely cognizant of the issues in question, to act as their "agents", unwilling soldiers, in wars not of their choosing and which might even place them in harms way. All regardless of their lives, careers, personal desires or possible objections. If they then refuse, legal and enforceable threats of imprisonment , even cruel and impoverishing probationary rules forbidding them from engaging in their chosen line of work,(computer design and programming), on pain periods of jail time, may be used to enforce a court & prosecutor's demand that they do the bidding of the new masters of all things digital and possibly hidden by alleged criminals: the courts, lawyers and governments of the US and it's states.
1
It's quite logical to support government's action in this case. But let's try to put it in another words, what we, read it as law abiding citizens nor Indians neither Americans, would like to choose among; catching the killer of 14 members of our family or protecting the life of other living members of our family by securing their data. It may/will happen that more accessible the people's online activities are to the hackers the more vulnerable they will be to terrorists attacks. Would the government be able to justify it's order if militants gets their hands to the same software by hacking, they are ordering Apple to build, and kill more then 14 people!
1
This is a tempest in a teapot. A court order could request the data on that phone but not require unlocking software be given to authorities. There is a solution to this conflict that meets the needs for both parties.
2
That's what the court order is requesting. Access to that single specific phone. Mr. Coock decided to lie and claim that Apple would have to develop something they don't have. Which is not true.
"the Supreme Court said the government could not compel a third party that is not involved in a crime to assist law enforcement if doing so would place “unreasonable burdens” on it. Judge Pym’s order requiring Apple to create software to subvert the security features of an iPhone places just such a burden on the company."
You have fallen into an obvious & mischievous trap: the "unreasonable burden" is one Apple conceived and constructed for itself. Neither the 1977 case nor any other contemplates this. Devising "privacy" that is impenetrable to all lawful process does present novel questions. Reflexive favoring of privacy over legitimate legal process emits a whiff of anarchy. Have you thought this through?
You have fallen into an obvious & mischievous trap: the "unreasonable burden" is one Apple conceived and constructed for itself. Neither the 1977 case nor any other contemplates this. Devising "privacy" that is impenetrable to all lawful process does present novel questions. Reflexive favoring of privacy over legitimate legal process emits a whiff of anarchy. Have you thought this through?
1
The New York Times hires the best engineers in the world to work for it. Do you really think they didn't consider all of the alternatives? Maybe they haven't articulated it here because the result of such an action is so bad and will go wrong in so many ways. It's hard to even scratch the surface on how bad a decision this would be. We'll be sitting here in 8 years debating over who supported the feds forcing Apple to break encryption.
What I like about this issue arising again is the way it highlights the American government spying on its own citizens. Unless the bright spotlight continues to reveal illegal government spying, nothing will change.
The NSA has built a massive enclave of buildings in Utah to store stolen private information. I have no reason to believe the NSA and CIA have stopped surveiling this American expatriate.
If the time arrives when I need your help in fending off my own government, how many of you will be there for me?
The NSA has built a massive enclave of buildings in Utah to store stolen private information. I have no reason to believe the NSA and CIA have stopped surveiling this American expatriate.
If the time arrives when I need your help in fending off my own government, how many of you will be there for me?
2
Answer.....apparently, not very many!
Apple should cooperate.
First, try to separate Apple commercial interest in this case from their claimed principled interest. It is a constant issue throughout silicon valley where many have convinced themselves they are principled pioneers, but are just innovators, some major and some rather minor, intensely driven by money.
Then try to make believe your are the family of a San Bernardino victim.
Apple can accomplish this feat technically, isolate the fix from their servers physically, and create enough interdependency in the design team, that the peril this could plausibly cause is vastly less then one we face right now from tech companies themselves -- which have very few compunctions about taking, sharing, aggregating and monetizing our private data -- governments, hackers, etc.
Apple's and Tech's defense here is a little principle and a lot sham. Surprised the Times so gullible.
First, try to separate Apple commercial interest in this case from their claimed principled interest. It is a constant issue throughout silicon valley where many have convinced themselves they are principled pioneers, but are just innovators, some major and some rather minor, intensely driven by money.
Then try to make believe your are the family of a San Bernardino victim.
Apple can accomplish this feat technically, isolate the fix from their servers physically, and create enough interdependency in the design team, that the peril this could plausibly cause is vastly less then one we face right now from tech companies themselves -- which have very few compunctions about taking, sharing, aggregating and monetizing our private data -- governments, hackers, etc.
Apple's and Tech's defense here is a little principle and a lot sham. Surprised the Times so gullible.
Think of it this way: Apple holds the right now to manufacture and keep the
secrets to a ticking ....time bomb...and this Editorial Board thinks that it is
perfectly OK for that to be OK...whereas...Iran has been sanctioned for building
a nuclear weapon...and has agreed to have its weapon making procedure
curtailed and inspected...but
Apple Corporation...is making a device which puts everyone at risk for their
lives..
Editors...I think you are not seeing the equation clearly...so better to rethink
your syllogism....because....it is way out of kilter...try again...and you will
see more clearly....and come to a much better conclusion...it's called THINKING...it out.
secrets to a ticking ....time bomb...and this Editorial Board thinks that it is
perfectly OK for that to be OK...whereas...Iran has been sanctioned for building
a nuclear weapon...and has agreed to have its weapon making procedure
curtailed and inspected...but
Apple Corporation...is making a device which puts everyone at risk for their
lives..
Editors...I think you are not seeing the equation clearly...so better to rethink
your syllogism....because....it is way out of kilter...try again...and you will
see more clearly....and come to a much better conclusion...it's called THINKING...it out.
From a technical case the F.B.I. could not solve, this has become a
legal case mired in mine fields of the Federal legal system. If the U.S. can
explore the universe, than the F.B.I. should have other experts in
Silicon Valley or throughout the world to break this code. Apple has a right
to object, but this problem affects the safety of the American people.
2,997 is the number Tim Cook should remember. 9/11 can happen
again.
legal case mired in mine fields of the Federal legal system. If the U.S. can
explore the universe, than the F.B.I. should have other experts in
Silicon Valley or throughout the world to break this code. Apple has a right
to object, but this problem affects the safety of the American people.
2,997 is the number Tim Cook should remember. 9/11 can happen
again.
The FBI here is making a purely political calculation to try to exploit a domestic terrorist attack, to try to force the tech companies to create security-bypassing "back doors" for the FBI. They have been begging and bullying for this for years, completely unsuccessfully. They know that they have no legitimate legal grounds to demand it.
So, they figure, their one slim hope is to tie their whole "give us a back door" project to a domestic terrorist event. Rally the emotions. Rile up the knee-jerk stupid people. In exactly the way the Bush administration exploited 9/11's attack by Afghanistan-based terrorists as a pretext for invading the unrelated country of Iraq. And for passing draconian privacy-invasion laws. It worked then, by golly, so the FBI is trying it now.
What makes it clear that this is a strategic attempt at a power play is that the FBI already has all of the useful information from the phone. Plus the couple is dead and planning nothing new. The phone itself is of no important use to the FBI. This makes it clear that there is only one thing the FBI is after: the power to compel everyone to create "back doors" for them.
But Apple isn't as stupid or gullible as our Congress was after 9/11. Thank goodness.
So, they figure, their one slim hope is to tie their whole "give us a back door" project to a domestic terrorist event. Rally the emotions. Rile up the knee-jerk stupid people. In exactly the way the Bush administration exploited 9/11's attack by Afghanistan-based terrorists as a pretext for invading the unrelated country of Iraq. And for passing draconian privacy-invasion laws. It worked then, by golly, so the FBI is trying it now.
What makes it clear that this is a strategic attempt at a power play is that the FBI already has all of the useful information from the phone. Plus the couple is dead and planning nothing new. The phone itself is of no important use to the FBI. This makes it clear that there is only one thing the FBI is after: the power to compel everyone to create "back doors" for them.
But Apple isn't as stupid or gullible as our Congress was after 9/11. Thank goodness.
1
I think the economic aspect should be emphasized more in the discussion.
One of the reasons iOS phones are preferred to Android devices is that they are a closed system and widerly considered as more secure.
That's a major reason i'm willing to pay more money fo an iPhone.
I wouldn't buy an iPhone anymore if I know that there is a backdoor that can be misused by hackers. Then I'd turn to Android phones again and save some money.
One of the reasons iOS phones are preferred to Android devices is that they are a closed system and widerly considered as more secure.
That's a major reason i'm willing to pay more money fo an iPhone.
I wouldn't buy an iPhone anymore if I know that there is a backdoor that can be misused by hackers. Then I'd turn to Android phones again and save some money.
3
I believe that the FBI should be able to look at any data that belonged to Mr. farrow, because he was a mass murderer. I think that you are hung up on technology, rather than considering the specifics of the situation. Warrantless wire-tapping or the (warrantless) gathering of personal information, high tech or low tech or no tech is morally wrong and should be illegal and legally punishable. Our government should not be allowed to go on 'fishing expeditions', ever. But this is no fishing expedition. Here, someone is known to have committed a horrific crime and all citizens who can help the government complete its picture of this criminal, his motive, his human and organizational connections, everything, should be compelled to do so. and the next case should stand or fall on its own merits.
2
Then how do you justify allowing the investigators to look at every other single iPhone with the software they would receive? That is the bigger issue. I don't think even Apple disagrees with the legitimacy of allowing the FBI to look at the phone data of the one terrorist phone in question, but they are asking for the ability to look at any iPhone thereafter once they get the key. "Trust us" just doesn't cut it.
1
For once, I agree with the times. First, there are the privacy implications. Second, I do not think the government should be able to force assistance in this way. Subpoenaing documents or data is one thing, but they should not be able to compel thought.
4
The paranoia seems to have crossed all limits, otherwise how could it be that such an insignificant matter could take so much of media space; or is it great eyeball catching moment for Apple with the coined image of propriety as regards to privacy concerns? The self-delusion has led siege of a growing rhetoric that Apple and the ilk have great concern for the customers and their well being, because if they were they should have invested on the after sales service simply to make the experience of an iPhone last longer than what it actually is. From swollen batteries, to inflated phones to warming of the interiors, the phone went through so much of turmoil in its original design, which got subsequently corrected in the later versions. Did anyone see any single line ever being written on the trials and tribulations that the customers had to go through?
1
None of that has anything to do with the broad privacy concerns of all American iPhone users. People supporting Apple on this one stand aren't saying they or their products are perfect, but the constitutional issues involved are not "paranoia" but legitimate concerns in a free society.
1
All true, but not an argument Apple has made or even touched-upon, suggesting a strong possibility that rejigging iOS to enable backdoor entry already exists, that too by design.
In other words Apple may be able do exactly what the government seeks, swiftly and at little cost. The government certainly seems to think so in its order, and might even have inside information to the effect. Which explains why Apple has not yet directly addressed how easily executable the order is. And also explains their obfuscation of the order by ranting about privacy, liberty, love for country etc.
It is one of the most curious of press releases to come out of Cupertino. Instead of answering whether the order is technically doable, they're trying to change the topic. Good luck with that (it's working with the NYT).
Game over Apple. In terms of technical execution, is the court order a simply matter or not? Until that question is answered i.e. fessed-up, everything else is just wool.
In other words Apple may be able do exactly what the government seeks, swiftly and at little cost. The government certainly seems to think so in its order, and might even have inside information to the effect. Which explains why Apple has not yet directly addressed how easily executable the order is. And also explains their obfuscation of the order by ranting about privacy, liberty, love for country etc.
It is one of the most curious of press releases to come out of Cupertino. Instead of answering whether the order is technically doable, they're trying to change the topic. Good luck with that (it's working with the NYT).
Game over Apple. In terms of technical execution, is the court order a simply matter or not? Until that question is answered i.e. fessed-up, everything else is just wool.
2
For perspective, I would note that I am one who has an ample set of Fed files resulting from being bugged, followed, burgled, etc. due to my political activities. I have absolutely no illusions about the Feds or how they operate.
Nonetheless, for all its imperfections, the American government is somewhat accountable to the American people. Apple and other large corporations have no such accountability. Their only interest is profit, as they park their money and most of their jobs abroad. We the people get to elect our representatives, and though they are sometimes bought by the likes of Apple, at least their seats go up for renewal. The American people do not get to elect a new C.E.O. of Apple, if they do not like its policies. There is no equivalent accountability for Apple, nor is there even the limited transparency the Freedom Of Information Act provides regarding the workings of government.
The Feds may collect info you rather they not have, but at least, unlike Apple and other corporations, they are not in the business of selling that information to others who may use it in seriously harmful ways. At any given time the Feds idea of national security may or may not align with your own, but at least American security is an essential part of their mandate. Apple and their ilk have no such interest.
Apple's CEO is only responsible to corporate investors. Our President is responsible to the American people. I will take the Feds over a mega-corporation any day of the week.
Nonetheless, for all its imperfections, the American government is somewhat accountable to the American people. Apple and other large corporations have no such accountability. Their only interest is profit, as they park their money and most of their jobs abroad. We the people get to elect our representatives, and though they are sometimes bought by the likes of Apple, at least their seats go up for renewal. The American people do not get to elect a new C.E.O. of Apple, if they do not like its policies. There is no equivalent accountability for Apple, nor is there even the limited transparency the Freedom Of Information Act provides regarding the workings of government.
The Feds may collect info you rather they not have, but at least, unlike Apple and other corporations, they are not in the business of selling that information to others who may use it in seriously harmful ways. At any given time the Feds idea of national security may or may not align with your own, but at least American security is an essential part of their mandate. Apple and their ilk have no such interest.
Apple's CEO is only responsible to corporate investors. Our President is responsible to the American people. I will take the Feds over a mega-corporation any day of the week.
2
Apple's "serious harmful ways" pale in comparison of the harm that can be done by a government. Don't like Apple? Don't buy or use their products and services. At their worst, they can't imprison you, kill you, seize your property, etc. - but the government can. That is why we have a constitution to protect us as citizens.
3
I support Apple in resisting the Federal Government's demand for a backdoor entry into Apple devices. i paraphrase Ben Franklin who expressed the sentiment that those who would trade essential freedom for temporary security deserve neither freedom nor security. Keep up the good fight Apple
The Government can use the metadata from phone company call records to see what numbers were called by the terrorists. That should suffice in allowing them to track down the terrorists’ contacts. The Government is using terrorism as a pretext to fundamentally destroy the right of privacy of association which has been determined to be essential to a free society. The rights granted in the First 10 Amendments to the Constitution have always made police work more difficult. But those rights were seen as more important than making police work easier. Thanks also to Google for expressing solidarity with Apple.
The Government can use the metadata from phone company call records to see what numbers were called by the terrorists. That should suffice in allowing them to track down the terrorists’ contacts. The Government is using terrorism as a pretext to fundamentally destroy the right of privacy of association which has been determined to be essential to a free society. The rights granted in the First 10 Amendments to the Constitution have always made police work more difficult. But those rights were seen as more important than making police work easier. Thanks also to Google for expressing solidarity with Apple.
1
IG: Referring to victims as "humans" and terrorists as "beings" is extremely dangerous. Once you dehumanise some people, it becomes easy to dehumanise us all. We will not make ourselves safer by defining one another as subhuman. When you see people who do bad things as non-people, you quickly devolve into even worse behaviour yourself.
This court fight is probably inevitable but one thing is clear to me, an Apple fan since 1984: Apple is dead wrong. Being ordered to decrypt is functionally no different than being a landlord or building superintendent called upon to unlock an apartment for which cops have obtained a search warrant. There simply are no privacy issues at stake and Tim Cook's warnings are just a bunch of hype. Maybe he fears loss of market share if Apple is the first to admit it can code a back door into its product. So what? Just do it. No one is above the law, not even a tech giant that likes to pretend it's cooler than the rest. This battle is about corporate money and power versus the rule of law, and Apple will lose. It shouldn't wait until then or until another case comes along and someone is hurt or dies because the refused decryption key prevented law enforcement from stopping a crime in progress. When that happens, and it almost certainly will, Tim Cook won't be flapping about privacy, he'll be wondering how he ended up with America's most dangerous and defective product since the Pinto.
1
This is not the same as unlocking an apartment in compliance with a search warrant. In that case, access is granted to one premise, which is then relocked when the police (FBI) leaves. The apt analogy would be a warrant and legitimate need to examine that one apartment, but the police demanding - and then keeping - a master key to all apartments in the entire building, thus allowing them access at any future time to any other apartment. That is what this issue is analogous to.
1
"refused the decryption key" your words.
That is what encryption is all about,,, there is no decryption key. There is no master padlock.
You imply that decryption is something Apple can certainly do. mathematically,, just math, no hype, I do not own an Iphone,,, but I do know math. Just 4 digits on a modern keyboard can have 80 million possibles,,, 15 digits,, which is what is recommended for all of us to have for a pass word on our email, could take more than a century to 'brute force' the passcode. Encryption is stupid simple,,, and the very bugger to break.
A fully encrypted text, with a modern and modest computer, simply cannot be broken,,,, within a few, or few hundred lifetimes. The possibilities of encryption today, right now,,, because the concept is so simple, exceed the number of atoms in the entire universe. And you need not take my word for it.
The formula is simple. I have 47 active keys here in front of me. case sensitive. That makes 94 possibles. The total possibles for an unencrypted 4 digit numeric pin are 10 x 10 x 10 x 10,,, 10,000 possibles
The total possibles for a computer key board are 94 x 94 x 94 x 94 x ,,, a total of 94 times. if you use an exclusion of single use of any digit,, the formula is 94 x 93 x 92 x 91 x 90 x ,, all the way down to 1.
Try either one. And then visualize trying to determine that one single exact atom in the entire universe. It is kind of like hiding in plain sight.
That is what encryption is all about,,, there is no decryption key. There is no master padlock.
You imply that decryption is something Apple can certainly do. mathematically,, just math, no hype, I do not own an Iphone,,, but I do know math. Just 4 digits on a modern keyboard can have 80 million possibles,,, 15 digits,, which is what is recommended for all of us to have for a pass word on our email, could take more than a century to 'brute force' the passcode. Encryption is stupid simple,,, and the very bugger to break.
A fully encrypted text, with a modern and modest computer, simply cannot be broken,,,, within a few, or few hundred lifetimes. The possibilities of encryption today, right now,,, because the concept is so simple, exceed the number of atoms in the entire universe. And you need not take my word for it.
The formula is simple. I have 47 active keys here in front of me. case sensitive. That makes 94 possibles. The total possibles for an unencrypted 4 digit numeric pin are 10 x 10 x 10 x 10,,, 10,000 possibles
The total possibles for a computer key board are 94 x 94 x 94 x 94 x ,,, a total of 94 times. if you use an exclusion of single use of any digit,, the formula is 94 x 93 x 92 x 91 x 90 x ,, all the way down to 1.
Try either one. And then visualize trying to determine that one single exact atom in the entire universe. It is kind of like hiding in plain sight.
The Apple iPhone is a computer. It's just one version of something other companies make, and they all use similar sub components.
Let me be clear: the SAME components. Solid state memory is where the industry is going. No more hard drives, just billions of NAND chips storing all our data. There are 1,000's of engineers that understand enough of the architecture of NAND chips to get the data off it.
If the FBI can't afford to hire some US engineers, they can outsource the job to China, India, just about anywhere.
The NAND chips don't have to be in an iPhone to read them. Go ask for help from Toshiba, Samsung, and SK Hynix which all provided NAND chips for the 5c iPhone. They've sold billions of these for phones, laptops, desktops, servers, etc.
Yes the data is encrypted, but you can crack it once it's outside of the iOS operating system. No 10 try limit.
Let me be clear: the SAME components. Solid state memory is where the industry is going. No more hard drives, just billions of NAND chips storing all our data. There are 1,000's of engineers that understand enough of the architecture of NAND chips to get the data off it.
If the FBI can't afford to hire some US engineers, they can outsource the job to China, India, just about anywhere.
The NAND chips don't have to be in an iPhone to read them. Go ask for help from Toshiba, Samsung, and SK Hynix which all provided NAND chips for the 5c iPhone. They've sold billions of these for phones, laptops, desktops, servers, etc.
Yes the data is encrypted, but you can crack it once it's outside of the iOS operating system. No 10 try limit.
2
It actually isn't understandable at all that federal investigators want to unlock this iPhone. The are unlikely to find anything that they didn't already know. Or should have known. They simply want a backdoor into your phone and mine. They like the idea of a police state. It would give them more power. We must resist that at all costs. The invocation of the All Writs act is, quite simply, a complete and utter legal joke, and Magistrate Pym should be ashamed of herself. There is clear legal precedence that Apple has no obligation in this case. If the FBI wants to extract information from the phone using their (obviously limited) abilities, they are free to do so. They could in fact probably re-write the OS (or hire a competent programmer to do so). But if Apple has done its job well, that won't help them.
This has nothing to do with "terror". Terror is a state of mind. I am totally unafraid of these terrorists, because they are stupid fundamentalists who have no ability to affect my life in any way. They can randomly create headlines. That is all. They are best ignored.
This has nothing to do with "terror". Terror is a state of mind. I am totally unafraid of these terrorists, because they are stupid fundamentalists who have no ability to affect my life in any way. They can randomly create headlines. That is all. They are best ignored.
3
Apple is on the side of the traitor Edward Snowden, and every single organized crime kingpin, every terrorist, and every dictator: indeed, every lawbreaker around the world.
These are the same nice folks who use bitcoin for nefarious reasons.
I like privacy as much as the next person. But as a civilized society, we need law enforcement to have the ability and authority to look at all communications. When push comes to shove, I prefer giving up my privacy to law enforcement in exchange for the safety of my family and fellow citizens.
It is astonishing that the editorial board thinks that it would be an “unreasonable burden” on Apple to comply with Judge Pym’s order. Corporations are not people. In this case, Apple is worth hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars. Asking it to spend a few dollars in order to protect the lives of Americans is not unreasonable.
“Timothy Cook, has said that requiring it to create software to bypass a feature that causes the phone to erase its data if 10 incorrect passwords are entered would set a dangerous precedent and could undermine the security of its devices.” What is more important: the security of a phone or the security of Americans’ lives?
Our federal government represents us. It is trying to protect us. The last thing we need is to start taking the side of terrorists, criminals, and traitors.
These are the same nice folks who use bitcoin for nefarious reasons.
I like privacy as much as the next person. But as a civilized society, we need law enforcement to have the ability and authority to look at all communications. When push comes to shove, I prefer giving up my privacy to law enforcement in exchange for the safety of my family and fellow citizens.
It is astonishing that the editorial board thinks that it would be an “unreasonable burden” on Apple to comply with Judge Pym’s order. Corporations are not people. In this case, Apple is worth hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars. Asking it to spend a few dollars in order to protect the lives of Americans is not unreasonable.
“Timothy Cook, has said that requiring it to create software to bypass a feature that causes the phone to erase its data if 10 incorrect passwords are entered would set a dangerous precedent and could undermine the security of its devices.” What is more important: the security of a phone or the security of Americans’ lives?
Our federal government represents us. It is trying to protect us. The last thing we need is to start taking the side of terrorists, criminals, and traitors.
Hear that sound, Tim?
That's James Madison spinning in his grave.
That's James Madison spinning in his grave.
2
Apple's viewpoint regarding privacy and security is a legacy of founder Steve Jobs. At an All Things D conference, Steve Jobs detailed his viewpoint regarding this & commented that many people thought Apple was old fashioned regarding privacy & security.
Do not put Apple in the same basket with Facebook & Google. Google gives away Android because the user is the product- they data mine Android users to sell advertising. Facebook likewise sells users like a product. Apple has a very different business model.
Here is the video- The conversation starts at about 1:09:30 at the WSJ Website (http://tinyurl.com/2dbdpv5)
Many of us are Apple customers because of the attitude toward privacy & the advantages of UNIX data security. Our Phones & Macs would be compromised by any change in software to give the FBI a back door. Giving them access would also make it easier for nefarious actors to access our data.
FBI Director Comey, DA Vance & others have been less than honest with the American people regarding encryption and have been campaigning for this 24/7/365 using scare tactics and worse case scenarios. The fact is that their track record protecting us with the onerous NSA spying and Stingray spoofing by Police is not proven to be that special. There is little proof that compromising our data security will make us safer.
Numerous school shooters have posted red flags on social media in plain view, yet the NSA missed every one. Same for domestic terrorists.
Color me skeptical.
Do not put Apple in the same basket with Facebook & Google. Google gives away Android because the user is the product- they data mine Android users to sell advertising. Facebook likewise sells users like a product. Apple has a very different business model.
Here is the video- The conversation starts at about 1:09:30 at the WSJ Website (http://tinyurl.com/2dbdpv5)
Many of us are Apple customers because of the attitude toward privacy & the advantages of UNIX data security. Our Phones & Macs would be compromised by any change in software to give the FBI a back door. Giving them access would also make it easier for nefarious actors to access our data.
FBI Director Comey, DA Vance & others have been less than honest with the American people regarding encryption and have been campaigning for this 24/7/365 using scare tactics and worse case scenarios. The fact is that their track record protecting us with the onerous NSA spying and Stingray spoofing by Police is not proven to be that special. There is little proof that compromising our data security will make us safer.
Numerous school shooters have posted red flags on social media in plain view, yet the NSA missed every one. Same for domestic terrorists.
Color me skeptical.
3
“If Apple is required to help the F.B.I. in this case, courts could require it to use this software in future investigations or order it to create new software to fit new needs.”
And so it should be. The Fourth amendment provides for courts to order the divulging of such material upon “probable cause” being exhibited. This instance certainly provides that. Future instances would be subject to court challenges and, if a challenge prevails, access would be denied.
“Some officials have proposed that phone and computer makers be required to maintain access or a “back door” to encrypted data on electronic devices.”
And so they should. With appropriate safeguards; presuming Apple employees have the technical talent to create the access demanded here, the capability exists; the only issue is Apple – and others – complying with a court’s orders. The creation of systems that subvert the law should, definitely, be unlawful.
Apple has never maintained that they can’t do it; just that they won’t. Since they tacitly acknowledge having the capability, their concern must be for the effects on sales if they use that capability. That is not a defense; it’s an excuse, and cannot be allowed to stand. Providing a safe have for criminal and terrorist communications may be good for Apple’s revenues, but it is not in the interests of either our safety or in compliance with our Constitution.
And so it should be. The Fourth amendment provides for courts to order the divulging of such material upon “probable cause” being exhibited. This instance certainly provides that. Future instances would be subject to court challenges and, if a challenge prevails, access would be denied.
“Some officials have proposed that phone and computer makers be required to maintain access or a “back door” to encrypted data on electronic devices.”
And so they should. With appropriate safeguards; presuming Apple employees have the technical talent to create the access demanded here, the capability exists; the only issue is Apple – and others – complying with a court’s orders. The creation of systems that subvert the law should, definitely, be unlawful.
Apple has never maintained that they can’t do it; just that they won’t. Since they tacitly acknowledge having the capability, their concern must be for the effects on sales if they use that capability. That is not a defense; it’s an excuse, and cannot be allowed to stand. Providing a safe have for criminal and terrorist communications may be good for Apple’s revenues, but it is not in the interests of either our safety or in compliance with our Constitution.
1
How do you guarantee that the government does not abuse the access? This time the justification is a terrorism investigation but what if they want it for other less threatening crimes, or just to monitor or "check up on" someone or anyone? There is a sad history of such power being abused and used in wrong ways by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Limiting government abuse and conduct is precisely the point of many provisions of "our Constitution" and the Bill of Rights.
1
Dear Editorial Board:
You either believe in the slipper slap or you don't. If it's fallacious with gun control then it is fallacious with most other arguments.
The publisher document clearly states that the hack can be done in private at Apple.
You either believe in the slipper slap or you don't. If it's fallacious with gun control then it is fallacious with most other arguments.
The publisher document clearly states that the hack can be done in private at Apple.
The NYTimes editorial staff is once again, lost as ever, running around with their "hair-on-fire."
Apple isn't some third party. It's their encryption service that created the situation. Apple didn't sell iOS to the customer, nor the services. The phone is worthless without the OS and services.
Since when is a digital service provider entitled to disobey a court order? Apple wrote the code. They can certainly change the code. All data requests from digital sources require code to be written. The NYTimes simply does not know what, if any, burdon has been placed on Apple by the court order.
To be clear: Law enforcement is going through the "front door." That's the solution prefered in the USA -- it's called a court order.
Could a reasonable person have anticipated the need to access the data on a phone or a service as allowed by a court? Undeniably, yes. Yet, Apple claims a burdon. Maybe, buts it's a burdon of their own creation, which BTW, Apple didn't invent. This type of technology/solution has been available on mainframes for decades. So could a bank CEO make a similar claim (because they too have data to protect).
So in this idealized world the NYTime editorial staff lives in, who gets the next pass? Money launderers? Rapists? Child pornographers? Clearly, the NYTimes is advocating a pass for terrorists.
Exactly what "service" is off-limits to a U.S. court order?
Apple isn't some third party. It's their encryption service that created the situation. Apple didn't sell iOS to the customer, nor the services. The phone is worthless without the OS and services.
Since when is a digital service provider entitled to disobey a court order? Apple wrote the code. They can certainly change the code. All data requests from digital sources require code to be written. The NYTimes simply does not know what, if any, burdon has been placed on Apple by the court order.
To be clear: Law enforcement is going through the "front door." That's the solution prefered in the USA -- it's called a court order.
Could a reasonable person have anticipated the need to access the data on a phone or a service as allowed by a court? Undeniably, yes. Yet, Apple claims a burdon. Maybe, buts it's a burdon of their own creation, which BTW, Apple didn't invent. This type of technology/solution has been available on mainframes for decades. So could a bank CEO make a similar claim (because they too have data to protect).
So in this idealized world the NYTime editorial staff lives in, who gets the next pass? Money launderers? Rapists? Child pornographers? Clearly, the NYTimes is advocating a pass for terrorists.
Exactly what "service" is off-limits to a U.S. court order?
1
Good for Apple and the Times. This incident reveals yet again the arrogance and irresponsibility of the national security agencies. They very well know that there is probably nothing on this one iPhone that they can't find out in other ways. It's shameful that the Obama White House keeps backing them up. In this case corporate America is standing up for the public interest.
3
This legal issue is being brought out in public for a particular reason.
It is clear to me that the government wants to have open-ended legal authority not just for this case but for future cases as well. Otherwise, they could just persuade Apple to quietly cooperate in this particular instance and we would not even hear about it. A simple phone call from the White House to Tim Cook would probably have been sufficient.
What makes this such a dangerous choice is that there will be no way back from the resulting legal precedent, at least not in the foreseeable future. By forcing the issue, and assuming it ultimately succeeds in court, the government will have finally sealed our political self-destruction. Mistakes and abuses are certain to follow at some time in the future by some incompetent fools, either at the FBI (remember J. Edgar Hoover) or a tyrant in the style of Donald Trump that inherits such powers.
It is clear to me that the government wants to have open-ended legal authority not just for this case but for future cases as well. Otherwise, they could just persuade Apple to quietly cooperate in this particular instance and we would not even hear about it. A simple phone call from the White House to Tim Cook would probably have been sufficient.
What makes this such a dangerous choice is that there will be no way back from the resulting legal precedent, at least not in the foreseeable future. By forcing the issue, and assuming it ultimately succeeds in court, the government will have finally sealed our political self-destruction. Mistakes and abuses are certain to follow at some time in the future by some incompetent fools, either at the FBI (remember J. Edgar Hoover) or a tyrant in the style of Donald Trump that inherits such powers.
3
Privacy sounds good in the abstract, but think of Swiss Bank accounts. They were used to a significant degree by criminals, tax dodgers, money launderers and bribe takers.
1
The intelligence agencies have already broken the trust of the public. Apple is right to resist writing new software for a one-off event; in the digital world, everything can be copied.
3
Why there is privacy concern when law enforcement agency's request is legitimate and while the person involved in the incident is not alive ? Is privacy concern above national security? Apple is not doing the right thing in challenging the court ruling; it is creating safer equipment for terrorists that will keep law enforcement agencies at a bay. And it is sending advertisement message to illegal organizations and groups for using Apple products. What's wrong in other nations demanding Apple with such request? Security of their citizens must be their priority.
Governments around the world especially those in the US and Europe are using the fear of terrorism to chip away and ultimately destroy the very freedom of thought and expression, individual liberty and privacy that are the foundation of Western social democracy and political systems.
After 9/11, the security apparatus and government intrusion has profoundly changed our lives. Is the perceived security worth the erosion of individual privacy and freedom of expression? Are the safety measures worth the hassle and possible pat down at airports and entering public buildings? The government demands that Apple creates software to undo secured private and personal data is just a manifestation of the inevitable crumbling of individual privacy and freedom that is at the core of Western social democracy.
After 9/11, the security apparatus and government intrusion has profoundly changed our lives. Is the perceived security worth the erosion of individual privacy and freedom of expression? Are the safety measures worth the hassle and possible pat down at airports and entering public buildings? The government demands that Apple creates software to undo secured private and personal data is just a manifestation of the inevitable crumbling of individual privacy and freedom that is at the core of Western social democracy.
2
Wow, this is sticky one. I can argue both sides of this case. Our smartphones contain nearly every detail of our daily life. It's the 21st century digital version of a written planner, calendar, junk drawer, photo album, glove compartment, address book, phone book, email contacts, map of our entire life of secrets, lies & likes--all combined into one pocket size device. While I mostly understand the purported security implications (as claimed by Apple) for millions of iPhone users, it's interesting how previously, no one would be debating whether law enforcement should be able to access all the paper versions of this information belonging to a known criminal or terrorist. Now, digital, encrypted information of the same nature belonging to similar nefarious individuals is now off limits. I'm not sure a highly inquisitive & powerful world government is scarier than the world's wealthiest (or 2nd wealthiest) corporation profiting from selling to anyone willing to fork over several 100 dollars, for what they claim is impenetrable security hiding practically every aspect of anyone's life. Will iPhone sales to terrorists & criminals go through the roof now that Apple has very publicly drawn a line in the sand, while Twitter proudly deletes suspected terrorist accounts? Increasingly tech savvy terrorists most likely avoid cloud storage altogether. I hope the code to disarm a devastatingly destructive bomb is never stored on a iPhone owned by an ISIS recruit.
2
While you "could" argue both sides you did not since if an evil person encrypted all of their papers you wouldn't presume to make the paper manufacturer or local mathematician to attempt to decrypt them?
Governments need restrictions as they (not private companies) are authorized to use force (police and armies); the government (when reminded by an aware citizenry) can force companies to not store and use illegitimately personal data.
Governments need restrictions as they (not private companies) are authorized to use force (police and armies); the government (when reminded by an aware citizenry) can force companies to not store and use illegitimately personal data.
It's one thing to fall back on 'principle' in the righteous defense of privacy. It's another to ignore the often catastrophic impact that the digital 'cloud' has had on the world community. We can plot our terrorist attack from any makeshift bunker, whether a desert outpost or a California classroom. Apple's wall, like Trump's, is a blanket, showboating answer to a complex problem. There are times in our immediate history when a phone is a weapon, as is Facebook, or any other "social" medium. Let's look for ways to understand the distinction between privacy and human security. For the richest company on Earth to defend the sacrosanct privacy of the contents of the killer's phone, that makes no sense to the heart, soul or intellect. It's a bad Apple in this barrel.
it's common knowledge that some groups like ISIS are seeking a nuclear device.............i assume these various groups are comforted as they negotiate, via their i phones, such an acquisition, and discuss what city and population to destroy, comforted knowing that Apple and Tim Cook are working to protect the privacy of their negotiations and plans.........
1
Apple, which defends the privacy of these ISIS-inspired murderers, tracks its customers for commercial gain. Who do they think they're kidding?
2
As a journalist I will refuse a court order to reveal my sources of information but I am prepared to accept the penalty for doing so as I am not above the law.
No one is above the law, including the New York Times Editorial Board or Apple et al.
No one is above the law, including the New York Times Editorial Board or Apple et al.
1
Apple doesn't have to give anything away. They can take the phone from the FBI, extract the data that is on it and return the phone to the FBI. No one will know how or what they did. If someone in China wants information off a phone, they can give it to Apple and they can extract the information. THey can still sell the phones. Only they will be controlling their proprietary information.
2
In this controversy:
1. Apple did not have to make this a public issue by forcing the FBI to get a court order, which itself is a public record.
2. The owner of the iPhone in question, San Bernardino County, has consented to the search so there is no privacy issue.
3. The request by the FBI is only to provide code, including a unique identifier so that the code will only run on this one iPhone, that will turn off the “ten wrong passcode entries and the iPhone wipes its own memory” feature of the iOS.
If that can be defeated, the phone can be subjected to a “brute force” attack. The FBI would be responsible for handling all of the work to decrypt and read whatever data may be on the iPhone. Apple is not required to participate in that effort.
It should be apparent from the Court Order that such a feature requires a counter in a loop that tallies the number of consecutive incorrect passcode entries, and a constant (here the number 10) against which the counter is compared. When the counter and the constant match, the next wrong entry activates the code that wipes memory.
Programmers understand that if one does any of resetting the counter to zero, or failing to increment the counter at all, or setting the constant to a huge number (say one billion) or failing to compare the counter to the constant so the code that wipes memory never runs, one can defeat that feature of the iOS.
Some clever hacker is probably working on that now. Thank you, Apple and Tim Cook.
1. Apple did not have to make this a public issue by forcing the FBI to get a court order, which itself is a public record.
2. The owner of the iPhone in question, San Bernardino County, has consented to the search so there is no privacy issue.
3. The request by the FBI is only to provide code, including a unique identifier so that the code will only run on this one iPhone, that will turn off the “ten wrong passcode entries and the iPhone wipes its own memory” feature of the iOS.
If that can be defeated, the phone can be subjected to a “brute force” attack. The FBI would be responsible for handling all of the work to decrypt and read whatever data may be on the iPhone. Apple is not required to participate in that effort.
It should be apparent from the Court Order that such a feature requires a counter in a loop that tallies the number of consecutive incorrect passcode entries, and a constant (here the number 10) against which the counter is compared. When the counter and the constant match, the next wrong entry activates the code that wipes memory.
Programmers understand that if one does any of resetting the counter to zero, or failing to increment the counter at all, or setting the constant to a huge number (say one billion) or failing to compare the counter to the constant so the code that wipes memory never runs, one can defeat that feature of the iOS.
Some clever hacker is probably working on that now. Thank you, Apple and Tim Cook.
1
It's always worth considering the slippery slope argument, but, for me, not this time. If the courts should never approved anything that might lead to a bad end, we should just never bother asking in the first place. Of course bad things can happen, but we've got to decide we can trust our intelligence agencies, at least enough to let the FBI look at data in the phone of a terrorist who's committed grievous harm.
If we can't trust the FBI with the ability to try to break into this one phone without Apple's feature destroying the evidence, then our real problem is not that a corporation might leave one popular feature be disabled one time. The problem is that no law enforcement agency can be trusted, not ever, not in the least. Were that to prove true, then we'll have to deal with it. Meanwhile, there's important investigation to do based on information everyone agrees, including Apple, that the authorities have a right to access.
This feels way too much like a case of the very specialness of iPhone owners, who feel they should always have their special world exactly the way they want it, hermetically sealed and unaccountable, no matter what. It also feels like Apple's perfect moment to market itself as the nonpareil innovator of insulated specialness. How wonderful.
Nowhere else but in the sacred bubble of the iPhone are the rest of us shielded from the prying eye of law enforcement. If we commit wrong and leave a trail, we can be caught. And that is as it should be.
If we can't trust the FBI with the ability to try to break into this one phone without Apple's feature destroying the evidence, then our real problem is not that a corporation might leave one popular feature be disabled one time. The problem is that no law enforcement agency can be trusted, not ever, not in the least. Were that to prove true, then we'll have to deal with it. Meanwhile, there's important investigation to do based on information everyone agrees, including Apple, that the authorities have a right to access.
This feels way too much like a case of the very specialness of iPhone owners, who feel they should always have their special world exactly the way they want it, hermetically sealed and unaccountable, no matter what. It also feels like Apple's perfect moment to market itself as the nonpareil innovator of insulated specialness. How wonderful.
Nowhere else but in the sacred bubble of the iPhone are the rest of us shielded from the prying eye of law enforcement. If we commit wrong and leave a trail, we can be caught. And that is as it should be.
The ignorance about cryptographic technology is astounding. It is quite possible Apple cannot break the encryption on the phone without the key. Ordering Apple to create a "backdoor" is both foolish and dangerous. Such backdoors would very likely be used by hackers and others to spy on people without their consent.
I am surprised the government does not just remove the memory chip from the phone and attempt some brute force attacks on the encrypted stored data which may or may not be successful depending on the type of encryption and the complexity of the key. Besides how much information of value to law enforcement is on the phone anyway.
The whole "backdoor" argument reminds me of the Clipper chip debate in the 90s. Look it up. There are some in law enforcement that simply want an easy way to get around privacy laws.
I am surprised the government does not just remove the memory chip from the phone and attempt some brute force attacks on the encrypted stored data which may or may not be successful depending on the type of encryption and the complexity of the key. Besides how much information of value to law enforcement is on the phone anyway.
The whole "backdoor" argument reminds me of the Clipper chip debate in the 90s. Look it up. There are some in law enforcement that simply want an easy way to get around privacy laws.
2
" There are some in law enforcement that simply want an easy way to get around privacy laws "
Exactly, and they use brute force in order to be obeyed.
Unfortunately nowadays privacy does not seem to be valued and cherished by the citizens, nor the oldest the principles of law.
One of these principles is territoriality meaning a law applies only on the sovereign territory of the nation but the USA bypasses all known principles meant to protect citizens rights.
Thinking of the irs seeking money owned by americans outside america and obligating every foreign bank to report even if the poor american lives abroad.
The wises and old law protecting the citizens, privacy is only an aspect, knew very well that some bad people would take hide and protection from the guarantees given to all citizens but prefered, rightly, not to let the society fall in what was achieved or wanted only in dictatorship and totalitarian regimes.
You are not there yet of course but the tools now exist and the moral barrier already jumped over.
Exactly, and they use brute force in order to be obeyed.
Unfortunately nowadays privacy does not seem to be valued and cherished by the citizens, nor the oldest the principles of law.
One of these principles is territoriality meaning a law applies only on the sovereign territory of the nation but the USA bypasses all known principles meant to protect citizens rights.
Thinking of the irs seeking money owned by americans outside america and obligating every foreign bank to report even if the poor american lives abroad.
The wises and old law protecting the citizens, privacy is only an aspect, knew very well that some bad people would take hide and protection from the guarantees given to all citizens but prefered, rightly, not to let the society fall in what was achieved or wanted only in dictatorship and totalitarian regimes.
You are not there yet of course but the tools now exist and the moral barrier already jumped over.
If the FBI gets a court to issue a search warrant they can search my house. I don't see why my iPhone is more sacrosanct than my house. The key is that they must get a court to issue a warrant, they cannot conduct a search anytime they want. We should be more concerned about ensuring the integrity of the judicial review process and not elevating data on a smart phone above all other elements of our privacy.
10
However, your house is not your neighbor's house or mine. Phones tend to be more centralized with their information, and who's to say that while I have a warrant for your phone, I'm not going to take a peek at my neighbor's?
1
A better analogy would be this: The FBI gets a warrant to search your house and after finding it locked goes to the house builder - who doesn't have the key - and insists the house builder dig a tunnel into your bedroom - and put a secret tunnel in all the houses he builds in the future.
2
If someone takes a peek in the neighbor's house (or smart phone) without a court order that is illegal. They should be prosecuted. That is why we should be more concerned about the integrity of the judicial review process. If it is violated, prosecute the violators.
Of course Apple stood firmly not complying with similar demands in China. Uhhh, well, business is business.
2
Well...that was hardly a compelling case NYT editorial board. The issue is hardly black and white here. The process has followed the rule of law and the requirements of the courts....and not those questionable secret courts we've heard so much of before through the Snowden releases.
No, this is a *reasonable* and legal request. Legal, because it has been reviewed and determined by a court of law in the full light of day, rather than under some questionable 'national security' veil. And reasonable, in as much as Apple has the ability and the technology to ACHIEVE what is being asked.
Remember, despite the supposed cover provided by case law, determining if a 3rd party can reasonably provide the requested data is effectively from the perspective of that 3rd party. When you start talking about complex technology, something that couldn't have been foreseen when the original case law was decided, you are talking about a different set of circumstances.
Apple may very well have the ability to answer the FBI's warrant. They may be able to do it with little or no effort. That wipes away this entire defense. If Apple wants to stand on principle, one many Americans do not agree with, that is their choice, but they are not standing on law. This is not a constitutional issue at hand. And they, and you, are wrong.
No, this is a *reasonable* and legal request. Legal, because it has been reviewed and determined by a court of law in the full light of day, rather than under some questionable 'national security' veil. And reasonable, in as much as Apple has the ability and the technology to ACHIEVE what is being asked.
Remember, despite the supposed cover provided by case law, determining if a 3rd party can reasonably provide the requested data is effectively from the perspective of that 3rd party. When you start talking about complex technology, something that couldn't have been foreseen when the original case law was decided, you are talking about a different set of circumstances.
Apple may very well have the ability to answer the FBI's warrant. They may be able to do it with little or no effort. That wipes away this entire defense. If Apple wants to stand on principle, one many Americans do not agree with, that is their choice, but they are not standing on law. This is not a constitutional issue at hand. And they, and you, are wrong.
5
Silicon Valley seems to believe that its innovative genius puts it above the law. Whether it's Uber violating taxi regulations in every large city, AirBnB breaking hotel rules, Google breaking privacy statutes internationally, or many tech. companies misleading Congress about their use of H1B visas to displace American tech. workers, etc.
Apple CEO Tim Cook is reveling in Apple's defiance of the government's legitimate interest to protect us from terrorists and criminals. It is hard to believe that Apple can't innovate a method of breaking encryption in a phone that is actually in its possession, without compromising phones that are not. Yes there are legitimate consumer privacy interests. But our laws recognize properly authorized judicial search warrants. Apple should comply with those laws. Congress can restrict the circumstances under which a warrant to decrypt a phone can be issued. But until it does, Apple is not above the law.
Apple CEO Tim Cook is reveling in Apple's defiance of the government's legitimate interest to protect us from terrorists and criminals. It is hard to believe that Apple can't innovate a method of breaking encryption in a phone that is actually in its possession, without compromising phones that are not. Yes there are legitimate consumer privacy interests. But our laws recognize properly authorized judicial search warrants. Apple should comply with those laws. Congress can restrict the circumstances under which a warrant to decrypt a phone can be issued. But until it does, Apple is not above the law.
5
There appear to be many conflations of fears.
#1 fear of government spying
#2 fear of criminal cyber-hacking
#3 fear of foreign government spying
#4 it's too much of a burden to Apple (stockholders)
#1 -- the government should be limited by the 4th amendment and warrants. That's why the Snowden revelations were particularly troubling. Government searches without warrants is unconstitutional. The FBI request has a proper warrant. What are Apple supporters asking for? No more search warrants and refusal to cooperate with regard to criminal/terrorist investigations? That is absurd, and far more dangerous than any of the extreme scenarios presented.
#2 -- Any non-idiot hacker would choose the easiest path to hack a user's phone. This would most likely involve an "i love you" email, a dangerous trojan download, a virus, or a silly link to a website. Hacking into FBI/Apple servers to download the most critical IP is one of the most unlikely scenarios. If downloading Apple's digital signing keys and proprietary source code were achieved, then such super hackers wouldn't need Apple's "magic backdoor".
#3 -- If this were the case, then you'd want the NSA to be able to help you, rather than hinder it. Again, see #2. State-level resources applied to spying would resort to the most clever means, not the most obviously difficult.
#4 -- It's not a burden. Apple is the richest corporation on Earth. Removing features is not asking it to invent the impossible.
#1 fear of government spying
#2 fear of criminal cyber-hacking
#3 fear of foreign government spying
#4 it's too much of a burden to Apple (stockholders)
#1 -- the government should be limited by the 4th amendment and warrants. That's why the Snowden revelations were particularly troubling. Government searches without warrants is unconstitutional. The FBI request has a proper warrant. What are Apple supporters asking for? No more search warrants and refusal to cooperate with regard to criminal/terrorist investigations? That is absurd, and far more dangerous than any of the extreme scenarios presented.
#2 -- Any non-idiot hacker would choose the easiest path to hack a user's phone. This would most likely involve an "i love you" email, a dangerous trojan download, a virus, or a silly link to a website. Hacking into FBI/Apple servers to download the most critical IP is one of the most unlikely scenarios. If downloading Apple's digital signing keys and proprietary source code were achieved, then such super hackers wouldn't need Apple's "magic backdoor".
#3 -- If this were the case, then you'd want the NSA to be able to help you, rather than hinder it. Again, see #2. State-level resources applied to spying would resort to the most clever means, not the most obviously difficult.
#4 -- It's not a burden. Apple is the richest corporation on Earth. Removing features is not asking it to invent the impossible.
5
Apple executives have no more right to hide digital information requested by a legitimate judge approved court order than they would have for withholding information in any other method of storage, be it bytes or writing or pictograms. The ability to technically make information extremely hard to decipher doesn't change the fact that is verbal information that has been legally requested for the safety of the Nation. The fact that anyone can hide information by any secret means that is hard to discover doesn't give them a special privilege of not observing the law of the land.
3
Apple isn't hiding anything, the criminal is. They are being asked to provide a back door into all apple phones.
1
What's next? - Will the FBI demand that paper shredder manufacturers supply shredded-paper re-assemblers to them? Obviously we can't have terrorists shredding paper documents so law enforcement can't read them either!
9
Apple may very well be helping the FBI, but in order to protect the idea of encryption it chose to not reveal it. Apple is in a difficult position and I have no doubt that whet we are hearing in the media in no way reflects reality. Think about it.
I favor privacy rights. They get far too little consideration in the American legal system.
Still, there are some cases that are losers. This Editorial fails to put proper value on awful facts in this case.
The owner of this phone died gun in hand, shooting at police, as Part Two of a terrorist attack that killed a lot of people. That is a lot more than "understandable" desire.
A Federal court considered all of this, and ruled with a clear order. The path to overturn such an order on such facts is long and hard, and frankly unlikely.
Also, the Feds leaked that Apple already DID comply with unlocking some 70 other phones. Apple picked these awful facts on which to make a stand. These are the wrong time and facts for this fight.
Apple admits it could. That means the Chinese could, and probably have. The NSA top secret programs could, and probably have -- the guys who did Stuxnet would not stop at a phone. Somebody is making "top secret" into a fetish here, which would be Apple's most effective answer here ("go do it yourself"), but one they don't want to admit to customers or competition.
Could this be abused? Yes. Would it be? Yes. Can we trust the American legal system with limits on this? No.
All of which is why Apple ought to keep control of this by doing it on these awful facts, and then picking its fight to limit this on better facts.
Still, there are some cases that are losers. This Editorial fails to put proper value on awful facts in this case.
The owner of this phone died gun in hand, shooting at police, as Part Two of a terrorist attack that killed a lot of people. That is a lot more than "understandable" desire.
A Federal court considered all of this, and ruled with a clear order. The path to overturn such an order on such facts is long and hard, and frankly unlikely.
Also, the Feds leaked that Apple already DID comply with unlocking some 70 other phones. Apple picked these awful facts on which to make a stand. These are the wrong time and facts for this fight.
Apple admits it could. That means the Chinese could, and probably have. The NSA top secret programs could, and probably have -- the guys who did Stuxnet would not stop at a phone. Somebody is making "top secret" into a fetish here, which would be Apple's most effective answer here ("go do it yourself"), but one they don't want to admit to customers or competition.
Could this be abused? Yes. Would it be? Yes. Can we trust the American legal system with limits on this? No.
All of which is why Apple ought to keep control of this by doing it on these awful facts, and then picking its fight to limit this on better facts.
3
Good post with 1 clarification. The owner of the phone is San Bernadino County, not the dead terrorist. And the county has already consented to allow the FBI to examine the phone contents.
1
Who is right and who is wrong is missing the point here. FBI could have handled this case more tactfully and it is doubtful Apple would have wanted to be the high tech martyr if it had been approached differently. So why? Perhaps FBI thought it would use this case to jam the demand down Apple's throat. And Apple really has no choice but to response how it did. if it wins, it wins. If it loses in the Supreme Court - it is likely both sides will want to seek the highest court ruling should either way loses in the Appeal Court - then it can at least show it is doing it in good faith.
So the bureaucrats who botched this case have a lot of explaining to do.
So the bureaucrats who botched this case have a lot of explaining to do.
3
Few of us can remember in detail the McCarthy era. My father described it to me when I was coming of age. That's the type of scenario we need to consider as we debate whether Apple and other technology companies should be compelled to assist the government in its investigations. My view is that we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and while terrorism is serious it is not and never will be an existential threat to our nation and what it stands for. Only we can represent such a threat in our reactions to it.
45
you say:
while terrorism is serious it is not and never will be an existential threat to our nation
you clearly were not in NY on 9-11-01
while terrorism is serious it is not and never will be an existential threat to our nation
you clearly were not in NY on 9-11-01
1
McCarthy was a different kettle of fish. He and his committee were on a fishing expedition. While Soviet Russia was indeed a threat, there were those who believed in greater equality, as now. Many of them in the 1920's may have been members of The Communist Party, a party recognized equally with the Democrats and Republicans.
McCarthy embarked on a "guild by association" quest without any proof that any of his "targets" ever had a disruptive thought.
In this instance, the phone in question belonged to an acknowledged terrorist who committed a murderous act and may have had accomplices yet unknown.
McCarthy embarked on a "guild by association" quest without any proof that any of his "targets" ever had a disruptive thought.
In this instance, the phone in question belonged to an acknowledged terrorist who committed a murderous act and may have had accomplices yet unknown.
Gee, the "slippery slope" arguments presented sound an awful lot like anti-gun control positions presented by the NRA and its followers to have no restrictions on unfit people acquiring firearms.
10
False equivalence, in as much as all slippery slope arguments have common features. That doesn't make their validity equally right or wrong.
So Chris, if we "invade" the privacy of a dead terrorist who killed 14 people, everyone's privacy will be placed at risk.
Sounds to me an awful lot like "if we allow the government to collect data on individuals to compile a list of unfit gun purchasers, we have no control over what inappropriate criteria the government will place on that list".
Sounds to me an awful lot like "if we allow the government to collect data on individuals to compile a list of unfit gun purchasers, we have no control over what inappropriate criteria the government will place on that list".
2
I agree this is a very difficult issue. I have no opinion about this as I can see the perspectives of both sides. It is obvious that privacy protection is needed, but how far should that go? Actually, we don't know. Suppose Mr. Farook's phone contains information about a web of would-be terrorists who are planning other attacks? How else would we be able to find them before they did their deeds? Are dead people and great disruption the price we have to pay for privacy? This is a perfect case for the Supreme Court (I suppose).
What is needed is the establishment of a legal process by which the conflicting demands of privacy and collective security can be settled. That would set limits on how far each side can go in staking its claim. We don't seem to have this yet, and this seems the perfect case to try and start to settle this issue. And there is clear urgency to find an answer.
What is needed is the establishment of a legal process by which the conflicting demands of privacy and collective security can be settled. That would set limits on how far each side can go in staking its claim. We don't seem to have this yet, and this seems the perfect case to try and start to settle this issue. And there is clear urgency to find an answer.
3
88 People a day die is the price we pay for open availability to purchase guns. Do you think that is worth it?
Pandora's box has already been open. There is a very thin line between what is privacy and what is security. The real question is who has the public's best and most important interest at heart, and at this point it's a corporation vs. the government. Sadly we can't trust either, so they may do as they will.
2
It is said that appealing a case or court order that has bad facts results in bad law. It is difficult to imagine a case with worse facts for Apple to assert privacy rights of customers.
First, the owner(s) of the phone is dead. Dead people usually have no, or at least diminished, privacy rights.
Second, whatever diminished privacy rights as may exist are dwarfed by the need of law enforcement to find out the extent of the conspiracy that may exist.
Third, Apple itself could get the information out of the phone, without revealing how it did it or turning over the technology.
Fourth, while some may admire Apple's stand in this matter, many others will find it reprehensible that terrorists can buy encryption empowered phones and they can be assured that Apple will actively resist any court order to make those messages available to law enforcement when a court orders its release.
The Fourth Amendment only bars "unreasonable" searches and seizures. To get a search warrant, the standard is "probable cause". In this case, it seems to me that wanting to see what encrypted messages are on the telephone of a terrorist responsible for 14 deaths is pretty reasonable, and there is probable cause to believe that the information sought will lead to other conspirators.
Tim, you are about to make bad law with your bad facts.
First, the owner(s) of the phone is dead. Dead people usually have no, or at least diminished, privacy rights.
Second, whatever diminished privacy rights as may exist are dwarfed by the need of law enforcement to find out the extent of the conspiracy that may exist.
Third, Apple itself could get the information out of the phone, without revealing how it did it or turning over the technology.
Fourth, while some may admire Apple's stand in this matter, many others will find it reprehensible that terrorists can buy encryption empowered phones and they can be assured that Apple will actively resist any court order to make those messages available to law enforcement when a court orders its release.
The Fourth Amendment only bars "unreasonable" searches and seizures. To get a search warrant, the standard is "probable cause". In this case, it seems to me that wanting to see what encrypted messages are on the telephone of a terrorist responsible for 14 deaths is pretty reasonable, and there is probable cause to believe that the information sought will lead to other conspirators.
Tim, you are about to make bad law with your bad facts.
9
I dispute your point 3. If Apple or anyone else creates a method to break into an encrypted phone, it won't be possible to keep that method secret. Because of the way coding works, if you create a program that works on one phone, it will work on any other phone using the same security and encryption.
Also, other countries already offer "unbreakable" encrypted phones, and terrorists teach each other how to encrypt their communications, so forcing Apple to break it's own encryption would really succeed primarily in encouraging security conscious persons to get their phones elsewhere.
This isn't just about privacy for Apple, but about the future of their business.
Also, other countries already offer "unbreakable" encrypted phones, and terrorists teach each other how to encrypt their communications, so forcing Apple to break it's own encryption would really succeed primarily in encouraging security conscious persons to get their phones elsewhere.
This isn't just about privacy for Apple, but about the future of their business.
1
First: this is about the rights of everyone (privacy and requirements to compel)
Second: the case has not been made that this is the only way to investigate nor is your assertion of dwarfing substantiated by any plots
Third: why can't the government (NSA) just "get the info out of the phone"? Why does it have to be Apple?
Fourth: Apple aren't being searched or seized nor are they accused of anything, this is about the government trying to force someone to build something - to be clear encryption wasn't invented by Apple nor the USA, why doesn't the government compel Samsung to build a backdoor into the iPhone?
You are deliberately conflating the purpose (we all agree the murderer was bad and an investigation is required) and the execution.
Perhaps to find the other hypothetical conspirators we should lock up and torture every family member and friend of the murderer. Oh, that's clear physical harm so instead let's just have every mobile phone microphone constantly on and sending satay to the government. That's reasonable to protect us from "them".
Your interpretation of the law would make bad facts for all of us.
Second: the case has not been made that this is the only way to investigate nor is your assertion of dwarfing substantiated by any plots
Third: why can't the government (NSA) just "get the info out of the phone"? Why does it have to be Apple?
Fourth: Apple aren't being searched or seized nor are they accused of anything, this is about the government trying to force someone to build something - to be clear encryption wasn't invented by Apple nor the USA, why doesn't the government compel Samsung to build a backdoor into the iPhone?
You are deliberately conflating the purpose (we all agree the murderer was bad and an investigation is required) and the execution.
Perhaps to find the other hypothetical conspirators we should lock up and torture every family member and friend of the murderer. Oh, that's clear physical harm so instead let's just have every mobile phone microphone constantly on and sending satay to the government. That's reasonable to protect us from "them".
Your interpretation of the law would make bad facts for all of us.
1
RM. I'm one who admires and applauds Apples stand. I take issue with the court ordering Apple (which is not really a third party) to create something that is directly counter to what it advertises and sells in its products. Never mind destroying it immediately after it is used for that one phone. The mere creation of it would significantly undermine Apples security features for their products. It would be making the statement that "these phones are penetrable". I have no problem with the FBI or any other agency circumventing the security themselves but forcing the manufacturer to do so is wrong.
The FBI is just being a bully here because they think they can get away with it. Bullets and guns are the real threat, not iPhones. But what is the likelihood that the FBI director will make a speech to support a national registration for both guns and bullets so that those associated with any crime can be identified immediately? He won't take up that fight for gun control, because he knows how it'll end up.
3
Apple is likely wrong. Govt is likely right. And likely Apple will have to comply in a way that minimizes collateral concerns. If the burden is great on Apple, perhaps compensation can be made.
First, we are talking about a deceased person. Rights of privacy for the deceased are usually severely limited by states and Feds.
Secondly, the issue here is not what the government may do in subsequent cases. It's about this case. Slippery slope arguments are not relevant.
Third, it's not at all clear to me why the creation of means to enable retrieval of data would be hackable. The code could be isolated .
It seems to me at least in this case that the government's need to know would trump other concerns discussed. But I don't know exactly what the criteria for making that judgement is, or even if well-defined criteria exist.
Now, as to what the government could legally require in the circumstance of companies that provide non-breakable security except for the end user, that is a really good question.
First, we are talking about a deceased person. Rights of privacy for the deceased are usually severely limited by states and Feds.
Secondly, the issue here is not what the government may do in subsequent cases. It's about this case. Slippery slope arguments are not relevant.
Third, it's not at all clear to me why the creation of means to enable retrieval of data would be hackable. The code could be isolated .
It seems to me at least in this case that the government's need to know would trump other concerns discussed. But I don't know exactly what the criteria for making that judgement is, or even if well-defined criteria exist.
Now, as to what the government could legally require in the circumstance of companies that provide non-breakable security except for the end user, that is a really good question.
2
Are you going to ask our government to compensate Apple for billions of dollars in lost sales if they create code to break their "unbreakable" security?
The likelihood that there is information on the phone that justifies the expense is highly unlikely. Remember that Apple already turned over the cloud backup of the phone. And forcing an American company to provide backdoors to their security will just encourage consumers to get their phones elsewhere, where their security is protected.
The likelihood that there is information on the phone that justifies the expense is highly unlikely. Remember that Apple already turned over the cloud backup of the phone. And forcing an American company to provide backdoors to their security will just encourage consumers to get their phones elsewhere, where their security is protected.
1
Perhaps the government should just force engineers to build all the software it needs to spy on its citizen and perhaps compensation can be made at whatever rate the government deems fair.
First: It's about everyone else who owns a phone's privacy...
Second: every big case is about what the government will do subsequently, and the FBI vs Apple is a big case, because after this it will be the FBI vs Google, the FBI vs Dell, etc.
"We only want to force you to do this one thing that you don't want to do just this once..."
Third: "the code will be isolated" as well as Snowden, CIA director and secret agents personal data, the guns used in Operation Fast and Furious?
The government actually wants both: strong crypto to protect our agents and secrets and weak crypto for everyone else. Can't have both.
First: It's about everyone else who owns a phone's privacy...
Second: every big case is about what the government will do subsequently, and the FBI vs Apple is a big case, because after this it will be the FBI vs Google, the FBI vs Dell, etc.
"We only want to force you to do this one thing that you don't want to do just this once..."
Third: "the code will be isolated" as well as Snowden, CIA director and secret agents personal data, the guns used in Operation Fast and Furious?
The government actually wants both: strong crypto to protect our agents and secrets and weak crypto for everyone else. Can't have both.
1
Right. I mean one thing the F.B.I. needs to understand is who works for whom.
We live in a capitalist society. And that means the capitalists rule.
Hopefully this wasn't too humiliating for the F.B.I. I hope Apple throws them a bone to help them save face.
We live in a capitalist society. And that means the capitalists rule.
Hopefully this wasn't too humiliating for the F.B.I. I hope Apple throws them a bone to help them save face.
1
Doesn't the FBI have the ability to get the metadata from phone companies with a warrant? Didn't we just go through all this business recently and now the phone companies store the metadata?
Surely they could use the metadata of the call records of this phone and then get a warrant for any of those person's phones if they have probable cause to do so.
Surely they could use the metadata of the call records of this phone and then get a warrant for any of those person's phones if they have probable cause to do so.
6
Assuming there is probable cause for a warrant on those other phones (having contact with a killer doesn't automatically make your phone subject to a search warrant), at this point, they will either have been destroyed or deleted. And if they are still in the suspect's possession, they will also be encrypted starting this whole thing again.
There is usually a middle path on these issues that gets overlooked as each sides digs in for the fight. I'm confident that the brains at Apple could devise a way on FUTURE phones to serve both interests.
For example, Apple could design the phone with a physical lock on the interior of the phone that requires a special key or series of keys. Once unlocked in this manner, the software lock would be bypassed and the data would be retrievable. But while still locked, the encryption would be in effect. This would alleviate the concern with being remotely hacked or spied upon. But with a court order, the police could require Apple to physically unlock a phone involved in a crime.
For example, Apple could design the phone with a physical lock on the interior of the phone that requires a special key or series of keys. Once unlocked in this manner, the software lock would be bypassed and the data would be retrievable. But while still locked, the encryption would be in effect. This would alleviate the concern with being remotely hacked or spied upon. But with a court order, the police could require Apple to physically unlock a phone involved in a crime.
1
Like the incredibly secure TSA approved locks?
1
Apple has permission from the owner of the iPhone used by the terrorist. The agency that he worked for owned the phone and according to published reports, has given permission to gather the information on the phone. If the information on the phone pertained to threats against Cook the phone would already be unlocked.....
7
IIf we create what one writer called "a universal skeleton key" to unlock all data on an Apple iPhine, then the winderful purpose of an iPhone as a tool of universal possibility will be thwarted and subverted. Terroristic-leaning crooks will then have won. I hope I never see the day!
4
When did people (and corporations) start to be able to pick and choose which court orders they had to obey? Aren't we really just seeing the reality that the biggest corporations do not feel in any way bound by the laws that the rest of us have to live by. If they want to be treated as "people" then they need to act like them.
Throw Tim Cook in jail. The rest of us would be by now.
Throw Tim Cook in jail. The rest of us would be by now.
7
I've been thinking of upgrading my old iPhone 4. Maybe nows the time. I just haven't wanted a cell phone that won't fit in my shirt pocket. What about Android phones? Are iPhones the only smart phones made with this security level?
Apple's CEO Tim Cook is on the right side of justice. Perhaps the company will suffer for it in a tiny way, just as earlier civil rights advocates really had to suffer in major ways for breaking what were then unjust laws.
I have read objections that Apple cooperated with the government in the past. All that was before the release of iOS8 in September, 2014--Apple engineers now have no way to break into current iPhones and iPads without a major effort.
It is certainly within the realm of possibility that the government can already break an iPhone, but does not wish to disclose that--hence the pressure on Apple to publicly do it for them.
Google's CEO has published a statement in support of Apple's position. But do their Android phones offer the same consumer protections offered by iOS?
I have read objections that Apple cooperated with the government in the past. All that was before the release of iOS8 in September, 2014--Apple engineers now have no way to break into current iPhones and iPads without a major effort.
It is certainly within the realm of possibility that the government can already break an iPhone, but does not wish to disclose that--hence the pressure on Apple to publicly do it for them.
Google's CEO has published a statement in support of Apple's position. But do their Android phones offer the same consumer protections offered by iOS?
4
I have years of work on my Apple computers and preventing trespassing is why I have Apple computers. I am glad to see there is at least one real man in our nation protecting what so many before him fought and died to preserve: freedom from cowards who will not address the real threat to our nation's self governing and that is foreign religious governments and there are only two of them on Earth.
3
The government has asked to open exactly one person's phone. The phone in question belongs to a terrorist who has already killed many American citizens and may have links to those who would and could perpetuate attacks on American citizens.
The government has given no indication that they wish to unlock my phone, my children's phones, my family's phones or the of millions of innocent Americans. Perhaps Americans should examine their priorities before creating a non-case about privacy.
The government has given no indication that they wish to unlock my phone, my children's phones, my family's phones or the of millions of innocent Americans. Perhaps Americans should examine their priorities before creating a non-case about privacy.
2
Your statement demonstrates a misunderstanding about how this all works. It is not possible to make this actually only work for one phone. For someone in physical possession of the device, you could always trick that software into believing it's operating on the target "special" iPhone, bypassing the security feature on any phone. Beyond that, it sets a precedent that the government can force uninvolved parties to develop new technology for them to undermine that companies own business. The request is problematic both technologically and legally.
Beyond that, close examination would reveal that the information they claim to be after (who they contacted prior to their assault) could be obtained from other computerized records and investigative methods. The government chose this particular instance to push this issue as a form of propaganda, designed to elicit public pressure against those resisting their efforts to install easy-access backdoors everywhere; the same backdoors that would be accessible to any nefarious individual (there's no such thing as a private backdoor in computer security). They're counting on people seeing "terrorist" and blindly giving them whatever they ask for in the name of stopping terrorism. Your reply is an excellent example of why they chose this case.
In the words of Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Beyond that, close examination would reveal that the information they claim to be after (who they contacted prior to their assault) could be obtained from other computerized records and investigative methods. The government chose this particular instance to push this issue as a form of propaganda, designed to elicit public pressure against those resisting their efforts to install easy-access backdoors everywhere; the same backdoors that would be accessible to any nefarious individual (there's no such thing as a private backdoor in computer security). They're counting on people seeing "terrorist" and blindly giving them whatever they ask for in the name of stopping terrorism. Your reply is an excellent example of why they chose this case.
In the words of Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
1
No indication? Another court is already thinking about the very same request according to the article, in a narcotics case, Do you really think once this has been done, the same kind of warrants would never be asked for again? What about after the next killong? Especially as the undue burden argument would be gone, as the software has been created,
As we learned under McCarthy, there is always a chance that this will be used to unlock the phones of millions of Americans once it is possible, especially if terrorism becomes the default argument (like communism used to be).
Plus, if it is really about saving lives, there are way more phones in this country that would need to be cracked, given that the number of murders that are not linked to terrorism vastly outnumbers terrorist ones.
As we learned under McCarthy, there is always a chance that this will be used to unlock the phones of millions of Americans once it is possible, especially if terrorism becomes the default argument (like communism used to be).
Plus, if it is really about saving lives, there are way more phones in this country that would need to be cracked, given that the number of murders that are not linked to terrorism vastly outnumbers terrorist ones.
1
I bet if Syed Farook's phone is unlocked all we will find is a bunch of cat videos.
Unlocking this phone has nothing to do with our security. Both suspects are dead, so there is no potential evidence critical to a criminal trial, and if there were any other accomplices, they almost certainly would have been found through traditional calling records, other digital trails, or good old fashion police work. I fail to see what information may exist on the phone that is will actually keep us safe. The FBI chose this case to exploit our fear of terrorism to demonstrate an otherwise theoretical risk of "going dark".
On the other side of the privacy debate, the risks are not theoretical.
1) There is a proud tradition of government officials abusing the ability to collect information: J. Edger Hoover, McCarthy, Nixon and Watergate, and the NSA LovInt violations off hand.
2) The US government managed to give the Chinese a list of every person to ever have a security background check. Every potential CIA operative is known to our adversaries because of the inability to secure our computer systems.
3) Fraud and corporate espionage. Target, Home Depot, enough said.
4) Some detail on our cyber-attack plan on Iran were leaked. We can shut-down their power grid remotely. We are just as vulnerable.
Don't let the FBI use the fear of terror to overstate a theoretical security access risk over real computer security risks. Apple: respect.
Unlocking this phone has nothing to do with our security. Both suspects are dead, so there is no potential evidence critical to a criminal trial, and if there were any other accomplices, they almost certainly would have been found through traditional calling records, other digital trails, or good old fashion police work. I fail to see what information may exist on the phone that is will actually keep us safe. The FBI chose this case to exploit our fear of terrorism to demonstrate an otherwise theoretical risk of "going dark".
On the other side of the privacy debate, the risks are not theoretical.
1) There is a proud tradition of government officials abusing the ability to collect information: J. Edger Hoover, McCarthy, Nixon and Watergate, and the NSA LovInt violations off hand.
2) The US government managed to give the Chinese a list of every person to ever have a security background check. Every potential CIA operative is known to our adversaries because of the inability to secure our computer systems.
3) Fraud and corporate espionage. Target, Home Depot, enough said.
4) Some detail on our cyber-attack plan on Iran were leaked. We can shut-down their power grid remotely. We are just as vulnerable.
Don't let the FBI use the fear of terror to overstate a theoretical security access risk over real computer security risks. Apple: respect.
133
Thank you!
People need to understand that because of the way software works, creating a key to unlock one phone necessarily means the key will work on anyone's phone using the same software. If the FBI succeeds in forcing Apple to unlock the unlockable then people can (and should!) get their secure phones elsewhere.
People need to understand that because of the way software works, creating a key to unlock one phone necessarily means the key will work on anyone's phone using the same software. If the FBI succeeds in forcing Apple to unlock the unlockable then people can (and should!) get their secure phones elsewhere.
1
Tom Stoltz Detroit: "if there were any other accomplices, they almost certainly would have been found through traditional calling records, other digital trails, or good old fashion police work."
And you are so sure of that, Tom Stoltz, because... you watch it being done on TV?
And you are so sure of that, Tom Stoltz, because... you watch it being done on TV?
1
Should the government fail to guard the software used to unlock the iPhone, will I be able to sue for damages when (not if) I lose my life savings due to fraud? Anyone that believes the NSA and FBI can guard any secrets is naive beyond comprehension. I truly believe that this is nothing more than a shakedown to spy on citizens. How many secret lists (no fly i.e.) exist? We have no knowledge of whom is on the list and why a person is on the list. I hope the appellate courts strike this idiotic order into oblivion.
6
All rights are limited and the Fourth amendment specifically outlines the limits to the rights it protects. The only Constitutional issue is whether a third party can be compelled to help in exercising a valid warrant.
Apple declines - to help breach a secure location it designed and while I appreciate that it is a selling point for their product, I have to wonder how they consider it appropriate to construct a devise that can avoid a Fourth amendment warrant.
And as for breaching that protection - If it can be done - it has been done or soon will be. Those who prefer the protection of Apple to that of the Constitution deserve their fate.
Apple declines - to help breach a secure location it designed and while I appreciate that it is a selling point for their product, I have to wonder how they consider it appropriate to construct a devise that can avoid a Fourth amendment warrant.
And as for breaching that protection - If it can be done - it has been done or soon will be. Those who prefer the protection of Apple to that of the Constitution deserve their fate.
2
Does this mean that the iPhone is useless to the decedent's heirs?
1
If Mr. Cook wants to make an ethical stand he should consider having his products made using labor practices that comply with U.S. Law, rather than under sweatshop conditions that would land him in jail if he tried imposing them on American workers. The privacy afforded iPhone customers comes at the price of unspeakable human misery.
3
I'm all for privacy but it seems like the question here is a matter of due process.This isn't the mass dragnet the NSA was doing before (and is probably still doing), nor is it some secret proceeding without oversight. It's not even the FISA court. This is a single judge issuing an order for all to see to open up one phone. Sure it means that other phones in the future could also be opened up but that capability was always there.
3
I agree with the editorial that Apple is correct to fight the government on this point. It is a slippery slope. When even the government's supposedly secure servers are hacked, there is the real possibility Apple's servers would be vulnerable, if they are forced to produce software that allows an iPhone to be unlocked.
I still find it odd that the couple in San Bernardino were not on the radar of the intelligence gathering agencies in this country. With all the technology available to them, and the Patriot Act to back them up, the couple should have been at least on a Watch List. Now they want Apple to make their job easier, and we would all lose some of our freedom as a result. Apple would be forced to put its business at risk as well.
Yes I want to be safe, I thought that was why we had the CIA, FBI, TSA, and the NSA. As Ben Franklin stated: "Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
I still find it odd that the couple in San Bernardino were not on the radar of the intelligence gathering agencies in this country. With all the technology available to them, and the Patriot Act to back them up, the couple should have been at least on a Watch List. Now they want Apple to make their job easier, and we would all lose some of our freedom as a result. Apple would be forced to put its business at risk as well.
Yes I want to be safe, I thought that was why we had the CIA, FBI, TSA, and the NSA. As Ben Franklin stated: "Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
5
This is another case where our values play against our survival. Terrorists are welcome as students and immigrants in Western societies, and they conspire to destroy us. Apple assures its clients of absolute privacy, and this feature is used for criminal intent. Some will argue that we should not stop being ourselves and deny our values prompted by terrorism. Fair enough. However, the illusion of absolute privacy is just that, an illusion. If Apple does not create the software that unblocks the phone, someone else will. All the fuss generated and marketed by Snowden after he stole the government data have polarized us as either lovers of freedom or lovers of security. The spectrum is more nuanced. Many around the terrorist couple saw what they were doing and chose not to say anything. The woman touted in social media that she was a terrorist and no one noticed it. In the meantime, my credit card companies know what I am buying all the time. Let's keep all our freedoms but abandon the idea that we can control the chaos that is terrorism until it fizzles out. A few hundred more people will die, for sure, but let's not fall prey to the illusion that we have absolute privacy on one hand or absolute security on the other. In the meantime, I suspect that Apple can offer an alternative that does not mean potentially endangering millions of phones. That they do not offer to negotiate means that marketing their product is their top concern. Kind of nasty.
1
Whether or not Apple is being asked to produce a "backdoor", it is being asked to produce a door, and once that door has been produced you can be sure that law enforcement will be back to use it again and again - apparently all it takes is a judge willing to issue a warrant under an all purpose two sentence general writs law passed in 1789.
From a PR point of view, the FBI was wise to lead with a terrorism case and supposed threats of more possible attacks, most likely to win the support of a frightened public. Once law enforcement has its foot in Apple's door, it will be back again and again, as will governments in other countries including China.
That will be the end of Apple's promise to its millions of world wide customers that their phones are secure because even Apple itself does not have the keys.
It seems that Apple will have to re-design future phones so that not only won't Apple have the keys, but it will be impossible to turn off the security the systems to create a side door, perhaps by building those systems into the hardware.
From a PR point of view, the FBI was wise to lead with a terrorism case and supposed threats of more possible attacks, most likely to win the support of a frightened public. Once law enforcement has its foot in Apple's door, it will be back again and again, as will governments in other countries including China.
That will be the end of Apple's promise to its millions of world wide customers that their phones are secure because even Apple itself does not have the keys.
It seems that Apple will have to re-design future phones so that not only won't Apple have the keys, but it will be impossible to turn off the security the systems to create a side door, perhaps by building those systems into the hardware.
3
To clothe the Apple Company as a champion for social rights versus the power of the state, is a travesty of justice. If Apple was a truly ethical company, with a social conscience, then it would have paid it's full complement of taxes. The fact that is has not, and has systematically avoided doing so as long as could, shows it has a culture of avoiding it's social obligations. Tim Cook is being profoundly hypocritical, and Apple is simply preserving it's commercial advantages.
2
Tim Cook is wrong, and the New York Times is wrong. What we have here is a question of access to a tool that can be used as a weapon. Cook's position is the same as a gun manufacturer's - "we just make them, we're not responsible for how they are used". Hiding behind the shield of privacy is ducking responsibility for how this tool can be misused, and is being misused, to advance anarchy and terror. By denying law enforcement reasonable access to the information that murderers compile to commit their crimes puts the world's innocent civilians in jeopardy, and protects those who would destroy our civilization and its values, including privacy.
2
If only Apple and other corporations were as interested in our personal privacy when it comes to their marketing strategies and their so called "privacy policies" as they are with government search warrants. Why is it OK for these opaque big data companies to track our preferences, location , buying habits and browsing histories but when it comes to tracking down a homicidal death cult everyone gets all huffy. Hey folks, you are kidding yourself if you think that the phone you use affords you any privacy. You have more to fear from Big data and Google than you have from the FBI.
101
The biggest difference between those opaque big data companies and the government is the corporations can't put people in jail.
In this instance, the FBI is asking Apple to put EVERYONE's privacy at risk. That's unreasonable.
In this instance, the FBI is asking Apple to put EVERYONE's privacy at risk. That's unreasonable.
2
Thank you, ps from Brooklyn, for putting this in its proper perspective.
1
You've obviously never been wrongly targeted by the most powerful government in the world and in history. Companies don't target people to destroy their lives.
The French having fun with this. After reporting the facts, one comment to Le Figaro was
1. Court should must now a temporary restriction order on the sales of all
Iphones in the US
2. Must issue an order to all cellular providers too disable network access to
all MAC numbers associated with Iphones
Not to be lifted , until Apple craves in.
On vera !
1. Court should must now a temporary restriction order on the sales of all
Iphones in the US
2. Must issue an order to all cellular providers too disable network access to
all MAC numbers associated with Iphones
Not to be lifted , until Apple craves in.
On vera !
1
If your five-year-old daughter was kidnaped and held hostage with a dozen Americans—all about to be beheaded by Muslim radicals within 24 hours—would you agree to the demand that Apple un-encrypt an iPhone found at the scene of kidnaping?
Would you even agree on torturing a captured radical who knows where they were hidden and that you could save all them?
Soul-searching questions and not many people would give the wrong answers.
2
If evil people stole your phone and used a backdoor to get sensitive information to take over your Tesla and crash it killing your five year old daughter wouldn't you be asking questions about why our devices have backdoors?
Hypotheticals like yours are fear inducing in the general public but rarely the material that Supreme Courts use. Hint: this case isn't about torture at all and yes our government already tortures people. :(
Hypotheticals like yours are fear inducing in the general public but rarely the material that Supreme Courts use. Hint: this case isn't about torture at all and yes our government already tortures people. :(
I'm totally confused about the technology not the law. So here are some questions that relate to smartphones and not the law. I'd love some answers.
Why do people want to keep things they want kept secure on their phones? Really, if you want to keep something secure--keep it away from internet. (And I don't give a hoot about what people in other countries need. I am concerned about being in the US).
Apple gave the FBI data that had been backed up to the cloud. The system does backups? Does that mean that during the time a phone is unlocked it can be accessed remotely?
Why would an employer allow an employee to use a phone that can not be opened by the employer? What if the employee is stealing information from the employer? How could they prosecute the thief without access to the stolen "goods?" What if the employee leaves the company? Why isn't there an option to have a "master" owner of the phone?
If you are making a cell phone call, can that call be intercepted by the phone company?
I guess I'm just too old to understand the need to use a smartphone for everything and thus the need for such security. For some very important people in the government or military yes, but the security system should come from the government, not a corporation.
Why do people want to keep things they want kept secure on their phones? Really, if you want to keep something secure--keep it away from internet. (And I don't give a hoot about what people in other countries need. I am concerned about being in the US).
Apple gave the FBI data that had been backed up to the cloud. The system does backups? Does that mean that during the time a phone is unlocked it can be accessed remotely?
Why would an employer allow an employee to use a phone that can not be opened by the employer? What if the employee is stealing information from the employer? How could they prosecute the thief without access to the stolen "goods?" What if the employee leaves the company? Why isn't there an option to have a "master" owner of the phone?
If you are making a cell phone call, can that call be intercepted by the phone company?
I guess I'm just too old to understand the need to use a smartphone for everything and thus the need for such security. For some very important people in the government or military yes, but the security system should come from the government, not a corporation.
1
I pray that Apple battles this all the way to The Supreme Court. And I pray that there will be nine sitting justices, the last appointed by President Obama, who will provide - at very least - a majority opinion in favor of Apple and the America I prefer to live in, terror or not. There is no greater terror than a government gone wrong.
4
These days, the privacy rights of the public have gained in prominence when weighed against the government's interest in fighting terrorism. Ten years ago, the situation was very different. 9/11 was fresh on our minds and few questioned the Patriot Act. This decision reflects the present mood of the country. But the law should transcend public opinion and stand for immutable principles. The interests of Apple are viewed as transcendent right now. But following an attack comparable to that in Paris the situation might be different. Privacy rights are absolute. They are not subject to balancing tests. I am not sure that the Court here recognizes that fact.
17
No, privacy rights are not absolute. They are very important, but certainly not absolute.
It is you, michjas, not the Court that is in error.
The right to privacy is NOT and cannot be absolute, because all too often some people do things that endanger others and the wrongdoers cannot be permitted to use the right to privacy as an impenetrable shield.
As a matter of fact, the Constitution does NOT have a provision specifically guaranteeing a right to privacy and while the right of privacy is implied by the Fourth Amendment, that implied right is not absolute, since it promises protection only “against unreasonable searches and seizures …” and NOT all “searches and seizures.”
"Reasonableness" is the linchpin of the balancing test.
The right to privacy is NOT and cannot be absolute, because all too often some people do things that endanger others and the wrongdoers cannot be permitted to use the right to privacy as an impenetrable shield.
As a matter of fact, the Constitution does NOT have a provision specifically guaranteeing a right to privacy and while the right of privacy is implied by the Fourth Amendment, that implied right is not absolute, since it promises protection only “against unreasonable searches and seizures …” and NOT all “searches and seizures.”
"Reasonableness" is the linchpin of the balancing test.
It's not the interests of Apple. It is in the interest of every citizen to have privacy in their home. We have laws that require the Federal (or local) gov't to obtain a search warrant to listen to your phone line.
Installing a backdoor, and giving any agency the key to that backdoor, is inviting use of that backdoor for political purposes. I agree with the Editorial board Apple--and other tech companies--need to stand firm.
They also need to stop "following" us by keeping records of our searches, our website use, etc.
Installing a backdoor, and giving any agency the key to that backdoor, is inviting use of that backdoor for political purposes. I agree with the Editorial board Apple--and other tech companies--need to stand firm.
They also need to stop "following" us by keeping records of our searches, our website use, etc.
For the first time in history, we have enabled small groups of criminals to communicate globally in absolute secrecy. Whether it's two terrorists working out of garages or a dozen white collar traders rigging global markets, crimes just became an order of magnitude harder to prove and detect. Our government has the carefully regulated power to secure us against crime and collect evidence for prosecution. Yes, this power can be occasionally abused by an overzealous person or agency. Our constitutional balance of power has done a fantastic job of eventually bringing these issues to justice. It may take awhile and some could be damaged before corrections are made, but they are eventually made. Once a few thousand more inmocents are killed in an undetected plan hidden by encryption, the damage won't be repaired nearly so easily. Live and families won't just be destroyed, yet again. Threats to our privacy and freedom will rise to far greater heights than ever, making our government's current request look trivial. If we can't have faith in our democratic system to act in our defense and do the right thing in the end, then we are lost in anarchy to a duopoly of self-serving technocrats and terrorists. Both of whom apparently answer to no one.
2
Wow, did you just end by comparing technologists and terrorists?
Our Democratic System is checks and balances, taking this case to the Supreme Court is where it is not an assumption that every ordinary conversation is suspect nor every invasive and over reaching whim needs be fulfilled.
People have been able to meet in private since forever so "encryption" is not new. The difference is that abuse of power "occasionally" by those in charge can quickly become "normal" and irreversible. Let's not invoke 9/11 and Terrorism and a never ending "War on Terror" "War on Drugs" "War is Peace" "Freedom is Slavery" until everyone does "the right thing" ( just like Nazi Germany).
Our Democratic System is checks and balances, taking this case to the Supreme Court is where it is not an assumption that every ordinary conversation is suspect nor every invasive and over reaching whim needs be fulfilled.
People have been able to meet in private since forever so "encryption" is not new. The difference is that abuse of power "occasionally" by those in charge can quickly become "normal" and irreversible. Let's not invoke 9/11 and Terrorism and a never ending "War on Terror" "War on Drugs" "War is Peace" "Freedom is Slavery" until everyone does "the right thing" ( just like Nazi Germany).
After the 'Patriot Act' issues that still pervade our society and has all but destroyed our privacy, that still, there are people are willing to give up the privacy of millions of people because of one criminal who already has enough evidence against him for a conviction.
1
What if Apple could and did cough up such a key, and terrorists knew about it, would maybe they then stop using traceless cellphones and thus make it possible and easier to track their plots? Or does Apple's "liberty" trump all? Who's to say the world might not be safer, as opposed to the hell on earth Apple is making this sound like the world will become if they relent and comply.
1
Why would they stop using encrypted phones when they with little effort can implement their own?
They would stop using Apple phones, but there are plenty of other phone companies who make secure phones. And there are encryption methods that anyone can use to secure an otherwise unsecured phone.
The only people who will be harmed by forcing Apple to unlock a secure phone are all of the Apple customers who rely on that security, because you can trust that the key will fall into unscrupulous hands, and Apple itself as it loses significant future business to other companies who offer guaranteed security.
All of that because the FBI is grasping at the ephemeral hope that there might maybe possibly be something on the phone that wasn't in the backup data that Apple already turned over.
The only people who will be harmed by forcing Apple to unlock a secure phone are all of the Apple customers who rely on that security, because you can trust that the key will fall into unscrupulous hands, and Apple itself as it loses significant future business to other companies who offer guaranteed security.
All of that because the FBI is grasping at the ephemeral hope that there might maybe possibly be something on the phone that wasn't in the backup data that Apple already turned over.
One possible solution is for several Apple engineers to take the chip with the data on it, out of the phone, download it onto another unencrypted chip, and immediately incinerate the phone and all its component parts, including the original chip.
The engineers each will have access to only specific parts of the process, therefore preventing any one engineer from knowing the entire process, and later being forced to divulge anything to overzealous government types.
The engineers each will have access to only specific parts of the process, therefore preventing any one engineer from knowing the entire process, and later being forced to divulge anything to overzealous government types.
1
If Apple thought it could devise such a software then there are individuals within Apple that would have the skills to do just that. In that case it may be possible that an employee or group of employees have already done that, with or without Apple official sanctioning. Therefore no matter the protections Apple promises the future of unlocked iPhones may already be in jeopardy.
"Congress would do great harm by requiring such back doors."
On balance, I agree. There is always going to be a point where the issue of privacy and security intersect and become the inverse of each other. The question then becomes: Do we accept situational insecurity (ie random attacks) to occur in order to prevent systemic insecurity (via a criminal state), or do we accept the security state in order to prevent any/all possible random attacks?
The sober answer is: There's always been a price for putting limits on government, because we know that unlimited government leads to darker places for more people, than that resulting from a random act of violence. We just need to understand that technology has not only amped up the way we move information, but its also amped up the ability for that information to motivate action, some of which will range from disagreeable to reprehensible.
Think of this choice as the hidden cost of having all that fun, pocket-sized, ubiquitous, networkable, device in our homes and our pockets. In fact, think of all that personal information stored on your device like your mental 'home', that deserves as much protection from intrusive government as your real, brick-and-mortar home. The government must follow rules of privacy under the law before your house door can be breached. Our cell phones and computers deserve no less protection.
On balance, I agree. There is always going to be a point where the issue of privacy and security intersect and become the inverse of each other. The question then becomes: Do we accept situational insecurity (ie random attacks) to occur in order to prevent systemic insecurity (via a criminal state), or do we accept the security state in order to prevent any/all possible random attacks?
The sober answer is: There's always been a price for putting limits on government, because we know that unlimited government leads to darker places for more people, than that resulting from a random act of violence. We just need to understand that technology has not only amped up the way we move information, but its also amped up the ability for that information to motivate action, some of which will range from disagreeable to reprehensible.
Think of this choice as the hidden cost of having all that fun, pocket-sized, ubiquitous, networkable, device in our homes and our pockets. In fact, think of all that personal information stored on your device like your mental 'home', that deserves as much protection from intrusive government as your real, brick-and-mortar home. The government must follow rules of privacy under the law before your house door can be breached. Our cell phones and computers deserve no less protection.
3
Our homes can be searched with a search warrant. So should phones.
We have to realize that in the modern day and age that Privacy and National Security will conflict. Of course, National Security and Privacy both have their ups and downs. In this case, due and proper cause has been warranted. A terrorist who clearly supported ISIS is proper cause enough. However, the real issue here is government power. Apple is correct in saying what it has said. This is a quote from a NY Times article "The government is asking Apple to create a master key so that it can open a single phone. And once that master key is created, we’re certain that our government will ask for it again and again, for other phones, and turn this power against any software or device that has the audacity to offer strong security." This was the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The problem is this: If Apple creates the master key, what prevents government from ordering a new Master Key? Government overreach has happened multiple times, and I don't think it will vanish anytime soon. I think that National Security is important, however in this certain circumstance, not only do you open up a can of worms with creating a master key, but what will the United States government do WITH that key. National Security provides great benefits, but in this time, if Apple is forced to open up the Phone, it will most likely hurt in the long run, not strengthen National Security. You open up the coding not only to other governments, but terrorists, the very ones we are trying to stop.
45
Joseph USA: Apple says, "The President has to ask us." Case solved.
1
The terrorists will ultimately have a big say in this. If we have more big attacks, a dirty bomb, many dead, the court of public opinion will close in on Apple.
There are pressing issues of national security that balance concerns for individual privacy. The technical capability to unlock one phone is not an issue. Surely, intelligent people can come up with a reasonably acceptable policy solution that respects the fact that 14 American citizens were murdered and more than 20 wounded.
So far nobody known to me has argued that cracking the phone might NOT reveal information that could prevent further mayhem. That's a door we need to open, if not by rational negotiation, then by enforcing the court order.
Meanwhile, let's continue the pressure for gun violence prevention, the REAL terrorist threat in the USA.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
So far nobody known to me has argued that cracking the phone might NOT reveal information that could prevent further mayhem. That's a door we need to open, if not by rational negotiation, then by enforcing the court order.
Meanwhile, let's continue the pressure for gun violence prevention, the REAL terrorist threat in the USA.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
2
NY Times Editorials are usually spot on, but I can't follow here. Apple's stance has nothing to do with ethics. The company's resistance is purely a business decision. Standing up for privacy sells in the US market and Apple doesn't want to lose US customers. At the same time Apple willingly gave up the privacy of their Chinese customers to gain access to that market. The recent high sales numbers in China were bought by allowing the Chinese government access to source code, hosting customer data on local servers and establishing backdoors. Refusing to assist in a mass murder investigation is a despicable decision. What if Apple had been attacked ? I suggest our government to learn from the Chinese playbook and ask the FCC to delay certification of new Apple products.
So your assertion here is "Our government should behave more like a Totalitarian State"?
Should our government order private companies to work at their behest, modify products to be optimized for surveillance?
Apple's job isn't to investigate murders and they have cooperated fully to all current and historical legal and ethical standards, this "simple request" (like asking home builders for a special window to see into every home) is a new over reach.
Should our government order private companies to work at their behest, modify products to be optimized for surveillance?
Apple's job isn't to investigate murders and they have cooperated fully to all current and historical legal and ethical standards, this "simple request" (like asking home builders for a special window to see into every home) is a new over reach.
Judge Pym’s order requiring Apple to create software to subvert the security features of an iPhone places just such a burden on the company.
Maybe they're not as smart as they think and say are and they can't undo what they've done.
It's humiliating to see our government having to go groveling to Apple. Maybe Bernie's right. And it's honestly hard to believe that a company like this is fighting for "our" rights, and not just its own self-pronounced reputation of infallibility. Probably Apple and the NRA could teach each other a thing or two about protecting their brands.
Maybe they're not as smart as they think and say are and they can't undo what they've done.
It's humiliating to see our government having to go groveling to Apple. Maybe Bernie's right. And it's honestly hard to believe that a company like this is fighting for "our" rights, and not just its own self-pronounced reputation of infallibility. Probably Apple and the NRA could teach each other a thing or two about protecting their brands.
The the phone is owned by the facility that was attacked, not by the attackers ( a work issued phone). The editorial does not mention this. That being the case, why can't the owning entity approve the override of the encryption? I have no sympathy for Apple who have shown little principle in their business practices. Now you can kill people and hide your intentions and criminal activity if you have an Apple phone? What principle does this advance?
1
A lot of people seem to have confused this point (on purpose?), the question is not the privacy of a single phone or person, it is should everyone lose their privacy (I imagine every political candidate who is challenging an incumbent finds this a chilling thought) because a very small few have used the tool for nefarious purposes?
1
Missing from the discussion are the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of homicide investigations hampered by this kind of encryption—a source of endless frustration for law enforcement and downright agony for victims' families.
1
Mr. Cook is doing the right thing.
There is no doubt whatsoever that our government will use this case as a precedent for all future cases, should Apple relent, and also use whatever it learns to secretly hoover up information without benefit of warrants or court orders.
It is more than likely that it's not at all about gaining access to this one phone, but is an attempt to provide a way to circumvent Fourth Amendment provisions.
We learned the extent of the worldwide surveillance engaged in by the secret Five Eyes Alliance of the United States, England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, from Edward Snowden, as well as learning that literally all electronic communications were collected, and often privileged proprietary information was stolen by this alliance, and given to American corporations, one such publicized case, in September 2013, being the break-in at the Petrobras Oil company computers, in Brazil, to steal details on proprietary deep well drilling technology.
Petrobras is a world leader in development of advanced technology from deep-water and ultra-deep water oil production.
Trusting our government to do that which is right, is the same as letting a starving wolf pack into your home.
There is no doubt whatsoever that our government will use this case as a precedent for all future cases, should Apple relent, and also use whatever it learns to secretly hoover up information without benefit of warrants or court orders.
It is more than likely that it's not at all about gaining access to this one phone, but is an attempt to provide a way to circumvent Fourth Amendment provisions.
We learned the extent of the worldwide surveillance engaged in by the secret Five Eyes Alliance of the United States, England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, from Edward Snowden, as well as learning that literally all electronic communications were collected, and often privileged proprietary information was stolen by this alliance, and given to American corporations, one such publicized case, in September 2013, being the break-in at the Petrobras Oil company computers, in Brazil, to steal details on proprietary deep well drilling technology.
Petrobras is a world leader in development of advanced technology from deep-water and ultra-deep water oil production.
Trusting our government to do that which is right, is the same as letting a starving wolf pack into your home.
6
You're dead wrong, literally. No less a legal light than Justice Scalia said that the Constitution was not a suicide pact. Denying our security apparatus the right to fully investigate egregious threats to our public safety is asinine, mis-guided, and knee jerk mindless type thinking. When the gunmen burst into your latter-day Bataclan, with AK-47's blazing, what comfort are you going to take in the fact that the terrorists' communications were hidden from the FBI, NSA, and CIA.
3
Firstly if you bring in Scalia you would allow that a Corporation is a Person which leads to a stronger reasoning that they cannot be compelled. (Unless you are accusing them of being an accomplice?)
Second, you are deliberately including "Private Company must build things" as part of your investigation, which most of us would consider extra: if a Police officer asked every home builder to build a special window into every private home would you prosecute them for refusing?
Or is it merely convenient to just use fear and terror to make your point?
Second, you are deliberately including "Private Company must build things" as part of your investigation, which most of us would consider extra: if a Police officer asked every home builder to build a special window into every private home would you prosecute them for refusing?
Or is it merely convenient to just use fear and terror to make your point?
1
I fully understand the concern that this opens up the door for invasion of privacy , I also understand we need to be proactive in our fight against ISIS so I believe our bona fide rights to privacy are best protected by dealing with these exceptions through our judicial system which is the case in this critical instance.
I certainly do not want Apple and Google to be the final decision makers on our security .
One may say Apple is rotten to the core, they have no problem in using our information for their economic gain, they are the beneficiaries of abuse of workers in Asia, they abuse Americans by using all our resources but do not pay their fair share of taxes.
If there is a Big Brother lurking it is Apple not the Federal Government who have the obligation to keep us safe and Apple needs to work with them to ensure their customers around the globe are safe
I certainly do not want Apple and Google to be the final decision makers on our security .
One may say Apple is rotten to the core, they have no problem in using our information for their economic gain, they are the beneficiaries of abuse of workers in Asia, they abuse Americans by using all our resources but do not pay their fair share of taxes.
If there is a Big Brother lurking it is Apple not the Federal Government who have the obligation to keep us safe and Apple needs to work with them to ensure their customers around the globe are safe
1
I get everything that pro-Apple, anti-government people are saying. It's easy to be an absolutist and just say "no"...it is a highly principled (and very simplistic) position. There is the valid argument that even though this is about one phone, it probably won't end there.
But I think Apple and the tech industry as a whole should go further and state what it sees as a preferred path if not an alternative solution.
The first plane that struck the World Trade Center flew directly over my head as I crossed the street on the morning of September 11, 2001, about a mile north of the Center, and for the rest of that day and I saw the towers of my city burn and fall, taking with them thousands of people. The impact of that day, which seems to have faded for many and is in the history books for our youths, will never be forgotten if you were on the streets of Lower Manhattan that day. I'd give up privacy in an instant to save even one life.
In the case of San Bernardino, the deaths have occurred and the victims cannot be saved, which is awful. But a case will come along one day where people who are still alive will be at imminent, horrific risk. The tech industry will be called upon to help prevent an attack.
So I always ask myself: What are we as individuals and a country willing to give up if it would save thousands of people? What would we do to prevent 9/11? Are we prepared to find another way? Will we do so or will we just say no?
But I think Apple and the tech industry as a whole should go further and state what it sees as a preferred path if not an alternative solution.
The first plane that struck the World Trade Center flew directly over my head as I crossed the street on the morning of September 11, 2001, about a mile north of the Center, and for the rest of that day and I saw the towers of my city burn and fall, taking with them thousands of people. The impact of that day, which seems to have faded for many and is in the history books for our youths, will never be forgotten if you were on the streets of Lower Manhattan that day. I'd give up privacy in an instant to save even one life.
In the case of San Bernardino, the deaths have occurred and the victims cannot be saved, which is awful. But a case will come along one day where people who are still alive will be at imminent, horrific risk. The tech industry will be called upon to help prevent an attack.
So I always ask myself: What are we as individuals and a country willing to give up if it would save thousands of people? What would we do to prevent 9/11? Are we prepared to find another way? Will we do so or will we just say no?
64
Were it up to me, Apple's CEO would have his hands put in a waffle iron and given the option to open those phone records or lose his hands.
You have set up a false choice here. We need to find a way to work together to protect ourselves from terrorists while also protecting the vast majority of law-abiding citizens from the loss of their rights in the process.
That is not what's being proposed by the FBI. They are asking the courts to compel Apple to hand over the keys to its customers' private data. How about if we compel our law enforcement officials to solve their cases and protect us without compromising our privacy? Shouldn't that be the way it works?
That is not what's being proposed by the FBI. They are asking the courts to compel Apple to hand over the keys to its customers' private data. How about if we compel our law enforcement officials to solve their cases and protect us without compromising our privacy? Shouldn't that be the way it works?
For perspective, I would note that I am one who has an ample set of Fed files resulting from being bugged, followed, burgled, etc. due to my political activities. I have absolutely no illusions about the Feds or how they operate.
Nonetheless, for all its imperfections, the American government is somewhat accountable to the American people. Apple and other large corporations have no such accountability. Their only interest is profit, as they park their money and most of their jobs abroad. We the people get to elect our representatives, and though they are sometimes bought by the likes of Apple, at least their seats go up for renewal. The American people do not get to elect a new C.E.O. of Apple, if they do not like its policies. There is no equivalent accountability for Apple, nor is there even the limited transparency the Freedom Of Information Act provides regarding the workings of government.
The Feds may collect info you rather they not have, but at least, unlike Apple and other corporations, they are not in the business of selling that information to others who may use it in seriously harmful ways. At any given time the Feds idea of national security may or may not align with your own, but at least American security is an essential part of their mandate. Apple and their ilk have no such interest.
Apple's CEO is only responsible to corporate investors. Our President is responsible to the American people. I will take the Feds over a mega-corporation any day of the week.
Nonetheless, for all its imperfections, the American government is somewhat accountable to the American people. Apple and other large corporations have no such accountability. Their only interest is profit, as they park their money and most of their jobs abroad. We the people get to elect our representatives, and though they are sometimes bought by the likes of Apple, at least their seats go up for renewal. The American people do not get to elect a new C.E.O. of Apple, if they do not like its policies. There is no equivalent accountability for Apple, nor is there even the limited transparency the Freedom Of Information Act provides regarding the workings of government.
The Feds may collect info you rather they not have, but at least, unlike Apple and other corporations, they are not in the business of selling that information to others who may use it in seriously harmful ways. At any given time the Feds idea of national security may or may not align with your own, but at least American security is an essential part of their mandate. Apple and their ilk have no such interest.
Apple's CEO is only responsible to corporate investors. Our President is responsible to the American people. I will take the Feds over a mega-corporation any day of the week.
134
Absolutely. We are fast becoming a corporate capitalist dictatorship. Our colonial governments would have clapped the Apple board of directors behind bars.
If the American government is reasonably accountable to its people—which I too believe it is—then this decision should rest with the people and its representatives. Let Congress enact a backdoor law if that's what people really want. Let the people have a say rather than pretending this issue is decided by an 18th century legislative act. I say this to the argument that goes: "We live in a dangerous world and our government needs access to private information to protect us." This (privacy) is a serious issue, however you come down on it, but that leads me to a different conclusion than yours. An Apple win doesn't mean a "mega-corporation" has the last say, in this case it actually gives us a say. Leave the choice in the hands of the people. Leave time for discussion. We can always pass a law later forcing Apple to hand over our personal information.
I'm grateful that Apple is taking a stand—whatever their reason may be for taking it—because it gives the public the chance to have this important discussion rather than quietly making government access a default.
I'm grateful that Apple is taking a stand—whatever their reason may be for taking it—because it gives the public the chance to have this important discussion rather than quietly making government access a default.
1
Does Apple create jobs for Americans? Do they pay local taxes? Do they pay the employer portion of Social Security?
It was government that created the overseas option for earnings. I don't like it, but until our government disallows this loophole, I recommend Apple to care about its shareholders
It was government that created the overseas option for earnings. I don't like it, but until our government disallows this loophole, I recommend Apple to care about its shareholders
1
Good editorial - I completely agree. The FBI is not pursuing this case to actually learn more about the San Bernardino killers, but to make all their future investigations more simple. There are already known bugs (which the FBI could exploit) in the version of iOS that the gunman used. Apple is willing to cooperate on a case by case basis - and offered help in this case (just not to the extent the government wants).
So why all the fuss? Because the government knew that if they made this about terrorism that they had a greater chance of shaming Apple into ruining it's customers security. I am not an iOS user, but if this ruling goes through it won't be long until my device can be unlocked by any average Joe too.
So why all the fuss? Because the government knew that if they made this about terrorism that they had a greater chance of shaming Apple into ruining it's customers security. I am not an iOS user, but if this ruling goes through it won't be long until my device can be unlocked by any average Joe too.
6
Not sure that Apple has any rights as a Corporation!
The operative metaphor here is that of a double edged sword. Of course criminals can use iron clad encryption. The rest of us need it too. We either allow it to exist or not. Legal precedent will not allow for the outlawing of privacy.
3
Enough with the paranoia, it's a phone for cryin out loud. Our founding fathers didn't intend the constitution to protect phones unless they can shoot bullets, then the NRA would rush in to protect your rights. What are you afraid of ? The fbi getting your porn? Didn't some clown hack apple's cloud the other day and got all the celebrity selfies. Nice try Apple .
Embarrassing that the FBI admits it can't crack a cell phone. Whatever happen "we can neither confirm nor deny etc etc"
Embarrassing that the FBI admits it can't crack a cell phone. Whatever happen "we can neither confirm nor deny etc etc"
3
Timothy Cook, has said that requiring it to create software to bypass a feature that causes the phone to erase its data if 10 incorrect passwords are entered would set a dangerous precedent and could undermine the security of its devices.
This works both ways editors. This means that any terrorist with an iphone can do whatever with impunity and nobody, but nobody will be able to see what is going on. That's really a great step forward.
what the Times really seems to be saying is "me" is more important that US. But what else is new. The ME GENERATION is all ab some day, are you going to say, NO THANKS, we can manage ourselves.
The problem is that it appears that Apple, with so many problems in other areas with the government has just decided to dig in its heels to be contrary.
one understands Mr Crooks privacy issues and as a gay man that would have been paramount in his corporate existence. But I'm not certain that he actually gives a fig about anybody else's privacy.
It is a very un-American stance that he and you have taken. I will keep my fingers crossed that terrorists never find your offices. I imagine the members of ISIS are jumping with joy tonight.
This works both ways editors. This means that any terrorist with an iphone can do whatever with impunity and nobody, but nobody will be able to see what is going on. That's really a great step forward.
what the Times really seems to be saying is "me" is more important that US. But what else is new. The ME GENERATION is all ab some day, are you going to say, NO THANKS, we can manage ourselves.
The problem is that it appears that Apple, with so many problems in other areas with the government has just decided to dig in its heels to be contrary.
one understands Mr Crooks privacy issues and as a gay man that would have been paramount in his corporate existence. But I'm not certain that he actually gives a fig about anybody else's privacy.
It is a very un-American stance that he and you have taken. I will keep my fingers crossed that terrorists never find your offices. I imagine the members of ISIS are jumping with joy tonight.
2
You understand nothing about encryption, IOS, or privacy rights. The government can't connect the dots it has (see 9/11 warnings) and you want more dots.
It’s a tough call but, in the end, it should be understandable to most. Normally, the dead have limited interests to privacy, particularly when pursuit of a serious crime is involved; but nothing is normal about this instance.
Frankly, I think the suggestion that Apple shouldn’t write code that hackers could steal is unreasonable – if there’s sufficient incentive, others could decompile the operating system and write the code themselves; or a knowledgeable Apple coder could be suborned and the code developed that way. In any event, if people want the code badly enough, they don’t need to depend on Apple to write it – and that includes our own intelligence agencies and the FBI.
But if it’s Apple that writes the code, then all the promises of privacy they’ve made to their customers are rendered meaningless – privacy regarding data to which the government has NO right prospectively. And if they’re forced to write and make it available to government for this purpose, who is to say that next time it can’t be made available on a simple suspicion? Who is to say that it can’t be used in some pervasive scheme to search blindly for data government regards as suspicious, as in any fishing program?
In the end, it couldn’t have been easy for Apple to come to this decision, as compliance could have been kept quiet, avoiding the controversy. But it was the right decision: we may as well duke out in courts just how far our government can compel service providers to help them spy on us.
Frankly, I think the suggestion that Apple shouldn’t write code that hackers could steal is unreasonable – if there’s sufficient incentive, others could decompile the operating system and write the code themselves; or a knowledgeable Apple coder could be suborned and the code developed that way. In any event, if people want the code badly enough, they don’t need to depend on Apple to write it – and that includes our own intelligence agencies and the FBI.
But if it’s Apple that writes the code, then all the promises of privacy they’ve made to their customers are rendered meaningless – privacy regarding data to which the government has NO right prospectively. And if they’re forced to write and make it available to government for this purpose, who is to say that next time it can’t be made available on a simple suspicion? Who is to say that it can’t be used in some pervasive scheme to search blindly for data government regards as suspicious, as in any fishing program?
In the end, it couldn’t have been easy for Apple to come to this decision, as compliance could have been kept quiet, avoiding the controversy. But it was the right decision: we may as well duke out in courts just how far our government can compel service providers to help them spy on us.
15
Rest assured you have less than zero technical understanding of the issue.
Decompiling is... more challenging than you seem to think. And third parties DO depend on Apple to write the code -- any code -- for an Apple device. Apple has the digital signing certificates. (And no, you "can't just forge them," as you're about to type.)
This is a LOT more complex than a whole lot of you realize.
Decompiling is... more challenging than you seem to think. And third parties DO depend on Apple to write the code -- any code -- for an Apple device. Apple has the digital signing certificates. (And no, you "can't just forge them," as you're about to type.)
This is a LOT more complex than a whole lot of you realize.
Richard
in this specific instance, the owner of the iPhone has CONSENTED to the search.
In this specific case, I think that the government is likely to prevail, because the court order should satisfy the strict scrutiny test.
1, The government has a COMPELLING INTEREST because 14 people have already been killed in a terrorist attack, and they are trying to identify terrorists who might attack yet more people
2. The remedy is NARROWLY TAILORED, specifically, to include a unique ID that would limit the code Apple is requested to provide to operate on this one iPhone
3. The policy is the LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS to achieve this end result.
Having said that, I believe that this remedy would NOT apply to a situation where the government has no probable cause to search, or has no warrant issued by a court, or consent of the owner to search is not given. Those are different situations. What happens here should not apply to those situations.
Just one man's opinion. We will see how this shakes out in due course.
in this specific instance, the owner of the iPhone has CONSENTED to the search.
In this specific case, I think that the government is likely to prevail, because the court order should satisfy the strict scrutiny test.
1, The government has a COMPELLING INTEREST because 14 people have already been killed in a terrorist attack, and they are trying to identify terrorists who might attack yet more people
2. The remedy is NARROWLY TAILORED, specifically, to include a unique ID that would limit the code Apple is requested to provide to operate on this one iPhone
3. The policy is the LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS to achieve this end result.
Having said that, I believe that this remedy would NOT apply to a situation where the government has no probable cause to search, or has no warrant issued by a court, or consent of the owner to search is not given. Those are different situations. What happens here should not apply to those situations.
Just one man's opinion. We will see how this shakes out in due course.
If a random iOS engineer could do it they would've done it already. You're ignorant of what you are asking for and what you seek will put more people in danger than it will help.
I think Apple's actions would be quite different if the government had proved they could use this power responsibly. But their rapacious greed for all data, regardless of whether people are even under suspicion, and their lies to cover it up, show they cannot be. Whether it is the NSA grabbing all metadata under a grotesquely misinterpreted law in a secret court, or the FBI concealing use of Stingrays, the government has time and time again shown their refusal to have the discussion of balancing enforcement and privacy interests. We know their stance; do everything possible, don't get a warrant unless forced, even lie about your sources in court, lie to Congress, send the Federal Marshals to seize the evidence before it can be delivered to the courts as ordered -- none of these are exaggerations, they are all well documented in the Times and other news.
We have to say No to those who would be the next J. Edgar Hoover (his name is still on the FBI headquarters) and run the next COINTELPRO. No. This cannot happen again.
We have to say No to those who would be the next J. Edgar Hoover (his name is still on the FBI headquarters) and run the next COINTELPRO. No. This cannot happen again.
93
JD
In this instance, the iPhone belongs to the government of San Bernardino County, not to an individual. Farook only used it as an employee. He does not (and did not) have a privacy right (and neither do you when you use your employer's hardware, such as a computer or a phone issued to you).
People are ignoring this significant difference from you using your own phone.
The County has CONSENTED to the search.
Therefore, IN THIS CASE there is no issue of a right to privacy, because the owner consents to the search. In this case, the concern has to do with possible terrorist plots, in which 14 people have alteady been killed.
If YOU do not consent to a search of your phone, there would be a 4th Amendment right to privacy and the government would have no legal right to seatch your phone without a warrant.
The two situations are not the same.
I agree that the government should never have carte blanche to search anything, which is what the 4th Amendment guarantees.
If some government employee breaks the law by doing an illegal search, the appropriate remedy is making the data found ineligible for use by the government, as "fruit of the poisonous tree", and the individuals responsible for the illegal search should be prosecuted, convicted and penalized according to the law.
What is so hard to understand about that?
In this instance, the iPhone belongs to the government of San Bernardino County, not to an individual. Farook only used it as an employee. He does not (and did not) have a privacy right (and neither do you when you use your employer's hardware, such as a computer or a phone issued to you).
People are ignoring this significant difference from you using your own phone.
The County has CONSENTED to the search.
Therefore, IN THIS CASE there is no issue of a right to privacy, because the owner consents to the search. In this case, the concern has to do with possible terrorist plots, in which 14 people have alteady been killed.
If YOU do not consent to a search of your phone, there would be a 4th Amendment right to privacy and the government would have no legal right to seatch your phone without a warrant.
The two situations are not the same.
I agree that the government should never have carte blanche to search anything, which is what the 4th Amendment guarantees.
If some government employee breaks the law by doing an illegal search, the appropriate remedy is making the data found ineligible for use by the government, as "fruit of the poisonous tree", and the individuals responsible for the illegal search should be prosecuted, convicted and penalized according to the law.
What is so hard to understand about that?
And you think that Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and the like aren't constantly invading our privacy? You don't even have to opt in to these services to have them tracking you. Every time my phone is updated, the software tries to install apps that I will never use, but that want access to my files, my phone's camera, my contacts, etc. For them to refuse a legitimate request from law enforcement seems like the height of hypocrisy.
24
What Apple, Google, Amazon. Facebook DON'T do is promise to keep data secure that customers WANT kept secure, then provide it to government on request. What they do with data is limited to what customers provide publically. You can remove apps that come with operating system updates.
What the government is asking them to do is to violate an implicit oath to their customers to keep private what those customers want kept private, and that is hardly the height of hypocrisy.
What the government is asking them to do is to violate an implicit oath to their customers to keep private what those customers want kept private, and that is hardly the height of hypocrisy.
9
I think you're exactly right - it's only about the money - it's not about principles.
The issue is compelled speech. Can the government compel speech? No in the context of expressive speech. The FBI now wants to use the All Writs Act of 1789 to apply it to other forms of speech.
If Apple WANTS to write an app you'll never use, so what? That has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.
If Apple WANTS to write an app you'll never use, so what? That has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.
October 2015, NYC Court [1]
"Even if [Homeland Security] agents did not have the defendant’s pass code, they would nevertheless have been able to obtain the records stored in the subject iPhone using specialized software,” the judge said. “Once the device is unlocked, all records in it can be accessed and copied.”
A government attorney affirmed that he was aware of the tool. However, it applied only to one update of version 8 of the iPhone operating system—specifically, 8.1.2. "
If Homeland Security , as testified in court, can unlock OS 8.1.2 chances are that it can unlock OS 9 as well.
So why the ruckus ?
[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-...
"Even if [Homeland Security] agents did not have the defendant’s pass code, they would nevertheless have been able to obtain the records stored in the subject iPhone using specialized software,” the judge said. “Once the device is unlocked, all records in it can be accessed and copied.”
A government attorney affirmed that he was aware of the tool. However, it applied only to one update of version 8 of the iPhone operating system—specifically, 8.1.2. "
If Homeland Security , as testified in court, can unlock OS 8.1.2 chances are that it can unlock OS 9 as well.
So why the ruckus ?
[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-...
2
Presumably that was only possible on iOS 8.1.2 due to a vulnerability they discovered. It's very much possible that the specific vulnerability has since been fixed by Apple, thus rendering the same technique ineffective on newer versions of iOS. It may very well be the case that there are no particular exploits they can take advantage of (or wish not to, for whatever reason, say for fear of those being patched by Apple as well), and has thus led to the current situation.
1
From the article I gather it is not about "unlocking the phone". It is about circumventing the feature where 10 wrong passwords erase device. Once that feature is gone - they will crack the encryption using brute force. The passwords used are short, so brute force is simple. Therefore, erase after 10 incorrect passwords is a crucial part of the security.
That's like saying a Caesar cypher is easy enough to crack so 4096 bit key elliptic curve cryptography should be, too.
iOs 8 and 9 are... Different. In ways you really ought to research.
iOs 8 and 9 are... Different. In ways you really ought to research.
Tough case when you take look at it from the standpoint of the current dispute, but the broader question of whether a hardware company should be able to make a device that is completely unbreakable needs to be open for discussion. This is clearly a risk/benefit analysis that needs experts and a modern approach. There is no doubt that there is a societal harm in allowing companies to sell devices that are so private that any media on it is forever blocked from outside humanity. In doing this, we may allow criminals to avoid search under dire circumstances. Just seems to dangerous to me and cruel to those who are sure to be injured when evildoers get away with crimes.
On the other side, you have the value of privacy of every one else and a sense of freedom from the tyranny of intruders who would steal information from everyone. It is a bit like the gun control argument where freedom from tyranny is on one side, but danger sits on the other. The irony is that many of the people who are against guns because they are harmful seem to be pro-security in the case of computer privacy. They are willing to risk lives on the one hand but not on the other.
On the other side, you have the value of privacy of every one else and a sense of freedom from the tyranny of intruders who would steal information from everyone. It is a bit like the gun control argument where freedom from tyranny is on one side, but danger sits on the other. The irony is that many of the people who are against guns because they are harmful seem to be pro-security in the case of computer privacy. They are willing to risk lives on the one hand but not on the other.
4
Just think. Terrorists could write a bunch of information about their plans and contacts on paper. And then they could go to the store and buy matches and burn the paper. This would render the messages unreadable to law enforcement.
So maybe we should think about outlawing matches.
So maybe we should think about outlawing matches.
3
All this is talking about the trees while not seeing the wood.
The issue is not if a technology company makes such a device. The question is why companies like Apple and Google are so eager to do that in the first place.
They don't trust the U.S. government. They have been lied to just too many times. And that is the core of the issue. Trust.
U.S. government is just too comfortable with the situation where people don't trust them. Congressional approval ratings have been under 20% for decades - and Congress seems just fine with it, no positive change whatsoever.
For the first time, even approval ratings for the Supreme Court dipped below 50%. Result - nothing. Not even a whisper.
The issue is not if a technology company makes such a device. The question is why companies like Apple and Google are so eager to do that in the first place.
They don't trust the U.S. government. They have been lied to just too many times. And that is the core of the issue. Trust.
U.S. government is just too comfortable with the situation where people don't trust them. Congressional approval ratings have been under 20% for decades - and Congress seems just fine with it, no positive change whatsoever.
For the first time, even approval ratings for the Supreme Court dipped below 50%. Result - nothing. Not even a whisper.
A few differences between guns and phones:
- Guns are only used to kill. Phones actually have many other purposes. Guns are, and should be, subject to much more government control than phones.
- A gun in anyone's hands is a threat. A phone is only a potential threat when in the hands of a person with premeditated intent to kill.
- If the tyranny that gun-advocates fear is from the government, their guns are not going to be any match for military hardware, while secure phones will be of great use.
- Guns are only used to kill. Phones actually have many other purposes. Guns are, and should be, subject to much more government control than phones.
- A gun in anyone's hands is a threat. A phone is only a potential threat when in the hands of a person with premeditated intent to kill.
- If the tyranny that gun-advocates fear is from the government, their guns are not going to be any match for military hardware, while secure phones will be of great use.
Nice advertising for Apple Inc. I find it amazing that we really believe that if we just get into someone's phone conversations we will be that much closer to ending terrorism. It's akin to thinking if you torture someone enough they will tell you the truth.
51
That works too.
Exactly! Potentially jeopardize the security of the iPhone (all of them, eventually), just so we can unlock this phone and see if these people were directly linked to ISIS. What could be on that phone that is so important? Any obvious connections would not be using their previous communications tools by now, so all you can really hope to get is information about what used to be, not what is now. It's a shamefully small gain for such a huge risk, but the government waves the terrorism flag and the sheep get in line. Sad.
Support Apple's position. The ever expanding surreptitious activities of intelligence agencies, CIA, FBI, NSA, must be stopped — Big Brother is an insatiable monster.
P.S. Let Edward Snowden come home.
P.S. Let Edward Snowden come home.
31
So is ISIS and the Taliban...
Edward Snowden is a traitor.
I find the many comments here in support of Apple fascinating. I believe many Americans don't feel terrorism is really a threat to their way of life. But privacy is a real issue that affects them right now. In a way all of us Americans should be grateful we can calmly debate this. I'm sure if this was the phone of the Paris terrorists the French public wouldn't be so concerned about anyones idealogical privacy.
32
And what if this were one of the Paris terrorists phones? Apple may be able to supply to relevant code in a few weeks to a few months. It should work, but that can't be guaranteed, as Apple is not going to be able to test the claimed "code designed for just one phone" on a lot of phones. The FBI can then try to "brute force" the password, which may take up to 10 years, depending. It's possible that police work will have to move faster than this.
No, but they have a different constitution than we are. France is STILL under a state of emergency where houses can be searched without warrant and people detained for lengthy periods or placed on house arrest with no recourse. They have a system of limited liberty; we have freedom. I'll take #2 and I'm fairly zealous in defending it, whereas your post reveals you are not.
And how is it that you presume to speak for the French?
If the government prevails in its attempt to require Apple to provide a back door into iOS it has taken something of value from me, without compensation. I paid a lot of money for an iPhone with the expectation that it had a secure encryption system. A large part of the value of my iPhone, for me, was its security. If my iPhone is no longer securely encrypted because of the government's efforts, then the government has taken that from me. My understanding is that here in America the government cannot take things of value from its citizens without compensation and without due process. In this case, the government seems to completely ignore this principle.
45
Obtaining a court order is due process.
Nonsense. If you buy a device that enables you to evade the law, that is your problem. You should not have bought such a criminal device. The government of the people owes you nothing.
Instead of unlocking the iPhone, our government should instead focus on LOCKING WEAPONS, so they are not accessible to terrorists, the mentally unstable, and children. Gun control, not iPhone control will make America safer.
92
Remember Timothy James McVeigh?
He didn't use a gun.
He was an American who detonated a truck in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 that killed 168 people and injured over 674 people.
"According to the United States Government, it was the deadliest act within the United States prior to the September 11 attacks, and remains the most significant act in United States history.
"He learned from co-conspirator Terry Nichols how to readily available materials; specifically, they combined household chemicals in plastic jugs."
Maybe we should ban plastic jugs.
There are a great number of other headlines and stories to comment on that are totally different topics... let's co-opt them too and make everything single-issue like you have here. Brava!
What happens if the terrorists bring unlocked weapons with them from Mexico or Gaza to attack us?
There are many legal arguments on Apple's side -- from prior court rulings, to the Thirteenth Amendment that prohibits involuntary servitude. The FBI cannot compel Apple to hack a phone anymore it can compel a locksmith to break into a vault. Apple hasn't stopped FBI from hacking the iPhone, and is not a party to the crimes that occurred; it just wants to be left alone and not made to carry FBI's water (and that too for free).
The bigger point is that the FBI and the US Attorney are very shortsighted in demanding a master key. Every state attorney and every country Apple operates in will want one, and Apple would be hard pressed to deny them this. Countries such as China, Iran, and Russia will use this to subvert opposition, steal secrets, and pretty much anyone who wants ultimately will have access to information on any iPhone. The real bad guys will use third party or custom encryption, and FBI will not be any wiser.
Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that this one iPhone FBI is interested in has something the it doesn't already have -- it has the backup from a month ago, the computer where this was backed up, and information on all calls and text messages from the phone company. One suspects the FBI is shamelessly exploiting the terrorist attack to obtain a master key so it can continue with NSA like mass surveillance, which Congress ended.
The bigger point is that the FBI and the US Attorney are very shortsighted in demanding a master key. Every state attorney and every country Apple operates in will want one, and Apple would be hard pressed to deny them this. Countries such as China, Iran, and Russia will use this to subvert opposition, steal secrets, and pretty much anyone who wants ultimately will have access to information on any iPhone. The real bad guys will use third party or custom encryption, and FBI will not be any wiser.
Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that this one iPhone FBI is interested in has something the it doesn't already have -- it has the backup from a month ago, the computer where this was backed up, and information on all calls and text messages from the phone company. One suspects the FBI is shamelessly exploiting the terrorist attack to obtain a master key so it can continue with NSA like mass surveillance, which Congress ended.
116
Congress only ended the phone data collection, nothing else.
Everything else is still being collected, stored, and listened to, whenever the authorities wish.
Everything else is still being collected, stored, and listened to, whenever the authorities wish.
3
The FBI can certainly compel a bank to break into its vault. Your analogy to a locksmith is specious.
OK - go with that.
How about you keep your privacy but the government takes Apples dedicated bandwidth or even classifies the devices Illegal? It certainly has that right claiming to defend the general public from tools that can be used in terrorism.
Like them apples?
This is
A. an employers phone loaned to an employee. The courts ruled that employers Email Systems and devices and their content do not afford privacy to the employee.
B. this isn't a fishing expedition. This guy actually performed an act of terrorism and just as the papers scream about the public's right to know in every government misbehavior so has the public thru the FBI have a right to know what this guy did, thought and whom did he contacted. this stuff is sometimes useful to profilers.
How about you keep your privacy but the government takes Apples dedicated bandwidth or even classifies the devices Illegal? It certainly has that right claiming to defend the general public from tools that can be used in terrorism.
Like them apples?
This is
A. an employers phone loaned to an employee. The courts ruled that employers Email Systems and devices and their content do not afford privacy to the employee.
B. this isn't a fishing expedition. This guy actually performed an act of terrorism and just as the papers scream about the public's right to know in every government misbehavior so has the public thru the FBI have a right to know what this guy did, thought and whom did he contacted. this stuff is sometimes useful to profilers.
What this editorial and so many paranoid commenters here are saying he is that terrorists are entitled to privacy.
Simply amazing how far off the rails liberal thought has become when there is so much hysteria over cracking open one phone and much elitist blatant disregard for public safety for the vast majority of us who cannot afford to live behind pricy, safe gated communities.
Simply amazing how far off the rails liberal thought has become when there is so much hysteria over cracking open one phone and much elitist blatant disregard for public safety for the vast majority of us who cannot afford to live behind pricy, safe gated communities.
38
You could not be more wrong - what they are saying is that you and I are entitled to privacy.
You want to relinquish yours - feel free
Just don't relinquish mine on my behalf because of your irrational fears.
You want to relinquish yours - feel free
Just don't relinquish mine on my behalf because of your irrational fears.
6
In resonse to Mikenh who writes, "What this editorial and so many paranoid commenters here are saying he is that terrorists are entitled to privacy."
No, that is not what people are saying.
They are saying that millions of us are entitled to privacy, especially from a government that has shown itself willing to act outside the law to conduct whatever surveillance it decides it needs to do.
Since we cannot be protected by law, the only real way to protect ourselves is with devices that cannot be broken or hacked into. That is why Apple makes phones for which even it does not have the "keys".
And next Apple will have to make phones that don't allow even Apple itself to to smash its own security systems under government orders - e.g. by building them into the hardware that can't be disabled without also destroying the data on the phone.
No, that is not what people are saying.
They are saying that millions of us are entitled to privacy, especially from a government that has shown itself willing to act outside the law to conduct whatever surveillance it decides it needs to do.
Since we cannot be protected by law, the only real way to protect ourselves is with devices that cannot be broken or hacked into. That is why Apple makes phones for which even it does not have the "keys".
And next Apple will have to make phones that don't allow even Apple itself to to smash its own security systems under government orders - e.g. by building them into the hardware that can't be disabled without also destroying the data on the phone.
3
Most people saying this is an abuse of privacy, myself included, would be OK with the FBI accessing this one phone.
But pretending it's only about one phone is sidestepping the real issue.
But pretending it's only about one phone is sidestepping the real issue.
1
Anyone who thinks that a "back door" can be created that only Apple and the FBI can get through is living in la-la=land. If the FBI has it then the CIA and the NSA as well as countless other government entities are going to want it. Those are just the "good guys". What about the Chinese, Russians, and all the criminal hackers of the world. It is only a matter of time, most likely short, before the "bad guys" have it.
31
There is a difference between a phone that is physically in Apple's possession, as the terrorist phone would be, and all other phones that are not. To say that a methodology cannot be developed to decrypt an "in-possession" phone without creating a general back-door that compromises all other phones seems hard to believe.
Aside from the enormous privacy implications, I have never heard of a company being forced by government to sabotage the key selling points of their product.
It's like a craft brewery being forced to make Budweiser. A business can not be made to sell a piece of garbage, and have no recourse.
It's like a craft brewery being forced to make Budweiser. A business can not be made to sell a piece of garbage, and have no recourse.
29
Is a key selling point for Apple iPhones that Apple will not cooperate with the FBI even if a court reviews the case and issues an order that Apple should assist? It is certainly not why I have an iPhone.
Yesterday I wrote, it's just a publicity stunt to retain some "brand" cred to bolster flagging sales. Since 2008, Apple has handed over data to the NSA over 70 times, so to act like this is an affront to their security principles is bogus. This number isn't disputed by Apple. From TheDailyBeast: “forcing Apple to extract data…could threaten the trust between Apple and its customers and substantially tarnish the Apple brand,” the company said, putting forth an argument that didn’t explain why it was willing to comply with court orders in other cases. Other cases? What cases, we ask! “This reputational harm could have a longer term economic impact beyond the mere cost of performing the single extraction at issue,” Apple said. In other words, we can't tarnish our brand. Again The DailyBeast: "Apple’s argument in New York struck one former NSA lawyer as a telling admission: that its business reputation is now an essential factor in deciding whether to hand over customer information." It wasn't until after Edward Snowden revealed the extent of the NSA spy-apparatus that Apple rebranded itself as "a guardian of privacy protection in the face of our vast government surveillance apparatus." Either Apple was shocked by the scale of NSA spying , or it was more likely embarrassed by its role in it. Since 2012, Apple has provided customers’ information to the FBI and the NSA via the so-called PRISM program. No wonder Apple is an NSA favorite… But god forbid, don't tarnish our brand!
15
It complied with the court in other cases because those used iOS versions 7 or earlier where not all data on the iPhones was encrypted. Apple did have the means to extract that data, but not all data. According to Apple: "On devices running iOS 8 and later versions, your personal data is placed under the protection of your passcode. For all devices running iOS 8 and later versions, Apple will not perform iOS data extractions in response to government search warrants because the files to be extracted are protected by an encryption key that is tied to the user’s passcode, which Apple does not possess."
2
Apple has already turned over all the iCloud data in this instance, and no doubt has done the same earlier. Since iOS8, released in September, 2014, not even Apple engineers have the capability to decrypt on-phone information. Probably the NSA can already have at that, but does not wish to admit it, so the government is pressuring Apple to do it for them publicly.
1
Apple is right and correct to fight this overreach by the government. We are being sold a bill of goods by the 'shadow government' of unelected and 'black budget' agencies ever eager to increase their power and influence without regard for laws and the Constitution. In order to ease our otherwise rightful concerns, we're told that "the terrorists" will win if we don't allow the continual erosion of our personal liberty and privacy. I'm very pleased that Apple has recognized this creeping abrogation of our civil liberties and taken a stand that they are unwilling to aid and abet this government request to build an invasive tool of privacy nullification. Stand firm, Apple!
24
Apple certainly has strong arguments in it's favor, especially of being compelled to do likewise for any government worldwide for any case whatever such as for political dissent. On the other hand, they are claiming, as I understand it, that not only does the necessary software not exist, but that it also cannot be invented, such is the level of built in security into these devises. Something tells me that that is not a good scenario either. I can only offer the analogy of the Germanwings pilot who was hopelessly locked out of the cockpit while realizing that his co-pilot was intent on crashing the plane and its passengers into a mountain.
10
A cell phone is not an airplane.
Apple, comply with the court order. If I had a family member that was in life's jeopardy, I would hope Apple would assist law enforcement in helping to save their life. It is a cell phone for Gods's sake, not an ideology that is flawed beyond comprehension. Assist as required to prevent further killings. Cannot believe this publicity stunt by Apple at the risk their to their Countryman.
38
Banning sale of AR-15 would stop a lot more killings. Advocate that first.
3
You don't have a family member in life's jeopardy.
This case is not about a member of a family in jeopardy.
What are you trying to say... if life ever turns into a 24 episode - we need these laws?
This case is not about a member of a family in jeopardy.
What are you trying to say... if life ever turns into a 24 episode - we need these laws?
1
Would you PLEASE read the other comments? Your facile misunderstanding is horrifying. The FBI HAS THE DATA THEY WANT from the cloud backup.
At this point it's just getting Apple to write them cracking software for the iPhones owned by the people they think are their real enemies -- you and me. The average American. THAT is whom the FBI has in their sites.
At this point it's just getting Apple to write them cracking software for the iPhones owned by the people they think are their real enemies -- you and me. The average American. THAT is whom the FBI has in their sites.
It is time to rein in these tech and communications companies. Nothing about the internet is secure - everything can be hacked - because there was no safety built in to start with. Just as there is no customer service with tech companies. It's all about profits without taxation or regulation. It is time for the public to be protected against them as well as hackers. How can anyone think it is reasonable for a HUGE corporation to have all one's personal information and be afraid of OUR government whose job it is to keep our country safe? Boggles the mind. It is time for serious internet/communications regulation and taxation. Time to knock them down to size - they are simply businesses that overcharge customers exponentially.
25
There is a big difference in information on the Internet and encrypted financial data. AES 256 bit encryption is beyond difficult to break.
2
Who has Apple overcharged? It is a free market. LG, HTC, and others make excellent phones at a fraction of the cost. If people think an iPhone is worth $800, than they aren't being overcharged.
If Apple were to charge you for 64GB of memory, but only give you 16 GB, that would be overcharging.
If Apple were to charge you for 64GB of memory, but only give you 16 GB, that would be overcharging.
1
@njglea
You write "overcharge customers exponentially," but what does this even mean?
You write "overcharge customers exponentially," but what does this even mean?
This is a wedge issue.
If the FBI prevails, it will follow with thousands of similar requests that a manufacturer open up just one single phone. Given this precedent, phone manufacturers will be forced to comply.
Thereafter, manufacturers will avoid the burden of writing signed software solutions for single phones by building in the universal backdoors that the FBI and other agencies have argued they need. That of course will open phones to attack by others.
This is no different from the unwise passage of the Patriot Act in the hysteria following 9/11. It is equally, perhaps more, damaging and must be avoided. Thank you, Mr. Cook, for your efforts on our behalf.
If the FBI prevails, it will follow with thousands of similar requests that a manufacturer open up just one single phone. Given this precedent, phone manufacturers will be forced to comply.
Thereafter, manufacturers will avoid the burden of writing signed software solutions for single phones by building in the universal backdoors that the FBI and other agencies have argued they need. That of course will open phones to attack by others.
This is no different from the unwise passage of the Patriot Act in the hysteria following 9/11. It is equally, perhaps more, damaging and must be avoided. Thank you, Mr. Cook, for your efforts on our behalf.
91
Security, like privacy, is binary - either you have it or you don't. Either everyone enjoys it or no one does.
Strong one-way encryption allows decryption - but only with a password, and are almost impossible to crack without one. If Apple is able to unlock the phone, then someone else can also do it. That means Apple will lose customer confidence in its product security.
Apple is right in this fight, because as a corporation, it has to look after its interests and protect its shareholders' investments.
Strong one-way encryption allows decryption - but only with a password, and are almost impossible to crack without one. If Apple is able to unlock the phone, then someone else can also do it. That means Apple will lose customer confidence in its product security.
Apple is right in this fight, because as a corporation, it has to look after its interests and protect its shareholders' investments.
23
"If Apple is able to unlock the phone, then someone else can also do it."
..............................
and vice versa. If someone else can unlock it so can Apple. What you have said is that is IS possible to do and might very well already have been done.
These phones are made in China and it is hard top imagine that Chinese having something that eludes them security-wise. I suspect that is China can do it, Apple can too.
If hackers can get at the most sensitive of government information, don't you imagine that the phone is probably easy as well?
..............................
and vice versa. If someone else can unlock it so can Apple. What you have said is that is IS possible to do and might very well already have been done.
These phones are made in China and it is hard top imagine that Chinese having something that eludes them security-wise. I suspect that is China can do it, Apple can too.
If hackers can get at the most sensitive of government information, don't you imagine that the phone is probably easy as well?
8
Not true. Security is not binary. There is no un-pickable lock; there is no perfectly secure computer; there is no burglary-proof building. The best you can hope for is to keep the bad guys out long enough for them to get caught if they keep trying. That's how it works.
.
The Federal Government wants to do this on the up and up. They want to get Apple's permission to crack the terrorist's phone. That's why they're in the courts. But they, or anyone else, could go underground and develop a crack themselves - if they had the time, know how, and willingness to break the law.
.
The Federal Government wants to do this on the up and up. They want to get Apple's permission to crack the terrorist's phone. That's why they're in the courts. But they, or anyone else, could go underground and develop a crack themselves - if they had the time, know how, and willingness to break the law.
dve - if someone else can do it - then the FBI has the phone and should get SOMEONE else to do it - why don't you see that your argument is self-defeating?
3
Excellent description of the issues and the consequences of comply with the Magistrate's order. If there is a method to unlock the IPhones, it would be shared in like legal cases and eventually the increasing copies distributed would make unauthorized acquisition and use of it certain -- when would be the only unknown.
There might be some way to unlock the phone and to download the phone's contents without Apple having to provide others with the means to do so but then Apple would have to prevent that method from being stolen or given to others.
There might be some way to unlock the phone and to download the phone's contents without Apple having to provide others with the means to do so but then Apple would have to prevent that method from being stolen or given to others.
3
The situation is more complicated that this editorial describes.
The phone in question was not used by alleged criminals plotting a hypothetical crime. It was used by real terrorists who committed mass murder. It is the government's duty to do its best to learn if they acted alone, or were working with ISIS.
I value my privacy a great deal, but I also wish to avoid getting killed by terrorists. As many recent events around the world tragically confirm, the latter threat is real and growing.
The government greatly overreached in its surveillance in the recent past, which is why it has so little credibility now, but that does not mean it is necessarily over reaching here.
And corporations like Apple, Google, Facebook, and even sometimes the NY Times, intrude on our privacy far more that most of us can imagine. At least I get to vote for the government.
Those who view Apple as the benevolent protector of the common man should Google "Error 53" and learn how Apple is likely using privacy protection as a pretext to require iPhones be repaired only at high cost Apple authorized repair shops. And, after that, check out Apple's successful efforts to avoid their share of US taxes. I like Apple, but in the end they are a profit seeking company (which, I think, is a good thing).
It may be impossible for Apple to unlock the iPhone without opening Pandora's box. lf so, end of story. But if they can unlock this phone alone, and are under court order, perhaps they should.
The phone in question was not used by alleged criminals plotting a hypothetical crime. It was used by real terrorists who committed mass murder. It is the government's duty to do its best to learn if they acted alone, or were working with ISIS.
I value my privacy a great deal, but I also wish to avoid getting killed by terrorists. As many recent events around the world tragically confirm, the latter threat is real and growing.
The government greatly overreached in its surveillance in the recent past, which is why it has so little credibility now, but that does not mean it is necessarily over reaching here.
And corporations like Apple, Google, Facebook, and even sometimes the NY Times, intrude on our privacy far more that most of us can imagine. At least I get to vote for the government.
Those who view Apple as the benevolent protector of the common man should Google "Error 53" and learn how Apple is likely using privacy protection as a pretext to require iPhones be repaired only at high cost Apple authorized repair shops. And, after that, check out Apple's successful efforts to avoid their share of US taxes. I like Apple, but in the end they are a profit seeking company (which, I think, is a good thing).
It may be impossible for Apple to unlock the iPhone without opening Pandora's box. lf so, end of story. But if they can unlock this phone alone, and are under court order, perhaps they should.
216
What I find suspicious is that this is a high-profile case and I have read lately that in about 20 earlier cases Apple complied with the assistance requests. Maybe I was misled about earlier cases - can this be verified by the Times?
At at this point the phones have been confiscated by the police the last owners are dead and there is no value to the data at all unless it is used to help maintain safety and order. There is no reason not to comply with the wishes of the current owners.
At at this point the phones have been confiscated by the police the last owners are dead and there is no value to the data at all unless it is used to help maintain safety and order. There is no reason not to comply with the wishes of the current owners.
6
"I also wish to avoid getting killed by terrorists."
And I also wish to avoid getting killed by a stray bullet fired into the sky by some fool celebrating the Fourth of July or the New Year. But that doesn't meant that I want all firearms confiscated or to pay higher taxes to build bullet-shelters all over the country. Neither of these is a "clear and present danger." Neither is the possibility of getting killed by a terrorist. I'm just as likely to be killed by some random, mentally-ill person gone postal. I'm not willing to give up my money or my privacy to prevent something that's no more likely to happen than being killed by a meteorite and far less likely to happen than being struck by a bolt out of the blue.
And I also wish to avoid getting killed by a stray bullet fired into the sky by some fool celebrating the Fourth of July or the New Year. But that doesn't meant that I want all firearms confiscated or to pay higher taxes to build bullet-shelters all over the country. Neither of these is a "clear and present danger." Neither is the possibility of getting killed by a terrorist. I'm just as likely to be killed by some random, mentally-ill person gone postal. I'm not willing to give up my money or my privacy to prevent something that's no more likely to happen than being killed by a meteorite and far less likely to happen than being struck by a bolt out of the blue.
1
"But if they can unlock this phone alone, and are under court order, perhaps they should."
They cannot. That is the point. Your long bit of Apple bashing (though you claim to 'like Apple") is really off point here and you seem to have completely missed the complexity that the editorial does a rather good job explaining. This is not an issue of unlocking a single phone. The government is asking for a specially created version of the iPhone operating system, that would be given to the FBI and disables the 10 try password lock-out and therefore opens this iPhone, and *any* other iPhone, to the same technique. So much for security.
I am not a privacy freak. My life is far too boring to really worry about it, but Apple is dead-on correct to appeal this ruling.
They cannot. That is the point. Your long bit of Apple bashing (though you claim to 'like Apple") is really off point here and you seem to have completely missed the complexity that the editorial does a rather good job explaining. This is not an issue of unlocking a single phone. The government is asking for a specially created version of the iPhone operating system, that would be given to the FBI and disables the 10 try password lock-out and therefore opens this iPhone, and *any* other iPhone, to the same technique. So much for security.
I am not a privacy freak. My life is far too boring to really worry about it, but Apple is dead-on correct to appeal this ruling.
4
It's time to amend All Writs Act of 1789. The private sector should not be in the business of facilitating government surveillance.
Where is Rand Paul when you need him?
Where is Rand Paul when you need him?
12
We don't need Rand. Libertarians are everywhere. We even print pictures of them on our money!
1
Hello.
The government is trying to track down other Muslim radicals through the phone so more Americans are no killed by these insane fanatics.
Apple should tell the FBI to "pound sand" on their audacious and unreasonable request. Apple designed their encryption to be unbreakable. That was the objective of the project, and they succeeded. To force them to apply valuable resources in order to destroy their own product is well outside the purview of even our lying (Clapper: "No, we do not conduct surveillance of US citizens") intelligence agency. Sorry U.S. government, you don't get to know everything about everyone. Furthermore, I and millions of others chose Apple products PRECISELY because they cannot be read by anyone including Apple. Were you to succeed in your effort to force Apple to create a "Back Door" I would expect the government to reimburse me for the cost of my, now useless, device.
Yes, someday a terrorist nuclear device is likely going to be detonated somewhere in the world. Maybe the execution of this act will be enabled by strong encryption. But let's not forget that we maintain a powerful nuclear arsenal to protect the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. I, and a majority of Americans, do not feel it reasonable to be required to give up our right to privacy in order for you to prevent such an attack.
The government already has numerous ways to obtain information. Everything from drones, to satellites, to paid informants. You're just going to have to manage with these (plus whatever you have hidden as "black projects").
Yes, someday a terrorist nuclear device is likely going to be detonated somewhere in the world. Maybe the execution of this act will be enabled by strong encryption. But let's not forget that we maintain a powerful nuclear arsenal to protect the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. I, and a majority of Americans, do not feel it reasonable to be required to give up our right to privacy in order for you to prevent such an attack.
The government already has numerous ways to obtain information. Everything from drones, to satellites, to paid informants. You're just going to have to manage with these (plus whatever you have hidden as "black projects").
25
" But let's not forget that we maintain a powerful nuclear arsenal to protect the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution."
If someone takes the nuclear option, there won't be a constitution left.
They could easily use they encrypted iphone as a trigger. The terrorists will love Apple.
If someone takes the nuclear option, there won't be a constitution left.
They could easily use they encrypted iphone as a trigger. The terrorists will love Apple.
1
I guess I don't understand how this is different than the wiretap laws when cellular service began. CALEA required the cellular network providers to have technology that enabled the law enforcement community with a valid warrant to wiretap a cellular call. Clearly a crime has been committed and the judge issued the order. Apple should comply if it has the capability to do so.
18
Apple doesn't have that capability.
4
I think that we, rightly, do not trust the government with the power to explore our every secret.
Why then do some trust the government with untrammelled power over our lives? How then is a highly elaborated central authority not fear inducing?
Why then do some trust the government with untrammelled power over our lives? How then is a highly elaborated central authority not fear inducing?
9
This is like requiring companies that sell door locks to provide a copy of each key to the government. How ironic that the late Justice Antonin Scalia was a fierce opponent of just such government (police, NSA) infringements of the Fourth Amendment. Besides, is the FBI really so helpless in the face of encryption -- a feature consumers now feel is necessary for privacy and security on their phones? Apple already handed over the iCloud backups in this case. Step up your technological game, feds!
13
I don't agree at all. Terrorists have no right for privacy. There should be a difference between law abiding citizens who must have their privacy protected and criminals. It's really that simple, why do we even have to discuss this? I would rather see Apple paying their fare share of taxes rather than fighting the government about such no brainer issues.
38
Thank you, couldn't agree more. This is about protecting Apple's business and Libertarian politics. Perhaps we should be encouraged to live our lives with nothing to hide.
2
"Terrorists have no right for privacy."
But anyone who is not a terrorist has a right to privacy.
"There should be a difference between law abiding citizens who must have their privacy protected and criminals. It's really that simple."
If that is the case, James, then why haven't you bothered to characterize this "simple" distinction for us?
But anyone who is not a terrorist has a right to privacy.
"There should be a difference between law abiding citizens who must have their privacy protected and criminals. It's really that simple."
If that is the case, James, then why haven't you bothered to characterize this "simple" distinction for us?
1
Dale - nothing to hide - then reply to this email with your full name and your SSN - or do you want that to remain private?
2
I am almost certain that this phone would/will not yield any information regarding this case that couldn't be uncovered by other means.
14
And these means are what, pray tell?
The logical conclusion of every single one of these arguments is that the government should never do search warrants.
7
well, certainly not in Palo Alto, the bastion of honesty and law abidance. Slippery Con Valley. Isn't that where Mr Crook and Apple reside--you know, the tax avoiders, the foreign, cheap-labor users, the place that emanates over-priced products?
8
The logical conclusion of every single one of these arguments is that the government should have the power to delve into the private information of everyone who uses an Apple product.
Of course, if the government has that power with respect to Apple products, then why shouldn't have the same power over any other product of any other business?
Of course, if the government has that power with respect to Apple products, then why shouldn't have the same power over any other product of any other business?
4
Have you heard about the fifth amendment?
Apple should absolutely assist the government here - and I am confounded why the NY Times and others see the government as the enemy. The notion that there is an "unreasonable burden" on Apple to provide a special OS for this situation is ridiculous - take that argument further, our government could not require seat belts in cars, etc. The history of the world is not the last 30 years - too many people think we are in lala land and do not realize that one day the Al Queda/ISIS beings may get hold of a nuclear bomb or some other horrendous device - and we won't be talking about the lives of 3,000 or 30 people - but the possible bringing down of our nation. Our government - when faced with one of them - should have all means at their disposal to find who these beings are. Tim Cook at best is misguided - if he wants to be principled, have Apple pay its fair share of taxes and bring manufacturing to the US instead of just maximizing its profits. Apple did not make the US. Wake up.
241
But the reality is that Apple made the encryption software so that even Apple couldn't crack it. That was the point. Likewise, some search engines (Duckduckgo, StartPage) and VPN providers don't track users' activity -- so if anyone tries to get at it, there's nothing to get. That's what Apple has said it's doing. I'm sure they aggregate data from phone usage, but they don't allow access to users' private information. It's inaccessible to everyone, including Apple, unless they have the password (or, perhaps, the fingerprint -- but I think this is an older-model iPhone).
15
I will not live in the society you imagine, one in which fear dominates thought so completely that reason flees. As Ben Franklin so eloquently put it, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Giving any organization, governmental or otherwise, carte blanche to invade every human being's right to privacy will never result in humanity feeling safe; it will create a dystopian future in which everyone fears everyone else.
Do terrorists scare me? Of course they do. But I fear more for my children's future than I do for my own, because they will have to survive in a world I will never see. That is why I teach them to face their fears head on, and to never give in to the sort of defeatism you seem to hold dear.
Giving any organization, governmental or otherwise, carte blanche to invade every human being's right to privacy will never result in humanity feeling safe; it will create a dystopian future in which everyone fears everyone else.
Do terrorists scare me? Of course they do. But I fear more for my children's future than I do for my own, because they will have to survive in a world I will never see. That is why I teach them to face their fears head on, and to never give in to the sort of defeatism you seem to hold dear.
200
"I am confounded why the NY Times and others see the government as the enemy."
That's astounding, given that the government clearly *is* the enemy. Exactly why do you think that it's perfectly all right to give the government the ability to break the encryption on the hundreds of millions of Apple products everywhere on the face of the earth for no better reason than that it *might* find something useful on the iPhone of a single dead man? Suppose the government gets the key and finds no useful information, as it most likely won't, do you think that the feds will simply stop? Or will it use the key to break the encryption of another suspect's iPhone and another and another another? Do you eally believe that the key won't be made available to the NSA, the CIA, the DIA, local police forces, the intelligence and security forces of "allies" ranging from the UK and Israel to Russia and China? The secret of the A-bomb was compromised. The secret of the H-bomb was compromised. But, of course, the secret of Apple encryption would never be compromised, because it would be used only once and by a single arm of the government.
Nonsense.
That's astounding, given that the government clearly *is* the enemy. Exactly why do you think that it's perfectly all right to give the government the ability to break the encryption on the hundreds of millions of Apple products everywhere on the face of the earth for no better reason than that it *might* find something useful on the iPhone of a single dead man? Suppose the government gets the key and finds no useful information, as it most likely won't, do you think that the feds will simply stop? Or will it use the key to break the encryption of another suspect's iPhone and another and another another? Do you eally believe that the key won't be made available to the NSA, the CIA, the DIA, local police forces, the intelligence and security forces of "allies" ranging from the UK and Israel to Russia and China? The secret of the A-bomb was compromised. The secret of the H-bomb was compromised. But, of course, the secret of Apple encryption would never be compromised, because it would be used only once and by a single arm of the government.
Nonsense.
13
Had Scalia lived, it would have been interesting to see how he analyzed this issue based on the original intent of the Fourth Amendment and the literal wording of the All Writs Act. What did the founding fathers think about encryption and requiring a third party to assist the government to create code to bypass the encryption? Moreover, how do you weigh in the interests of the government in collecting information regarding a terrorist attack like that in San Bernadino? It seems to me that the Fourth Amendment just doesn't contemplate this situation. But maybe the San Bernadino terrorists were not a well-regulated militia within the meaning of the Second Amendment.
5
Scalia might have said, "...there is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all."
--Antonin Scalia (for the majority), [i]Arizona vs. Hicks[/i]
--Antonin Scalia (for the majority), [i]Arizona vs. Hicks[/i]
3
The government is under pressure to prevent future terrorist attacks. And, as some commenters have pointed out, the right to privacy is not unlimited. A search warrant is supposed to specify what is being searched for. It is not carte blanche. I don't accept the "slippery slope" argument presented by the conspiracy theorists. There is reasonable cause to think that the phone might hold information about other conspirators connected to the San Bernadino terrorists or other threats to the community.
15
"as some commenters have pointed out, the right to privacy is not unlimited."
So what? Other commenters have pointed out that, without the unlimited right of privacy, every other supposed "right" vanishes.
So what? Other commenters have pointed out that, without the unlimited right of privacy, every other supposed "right" vanishes.
1
Thats great when you aren't talking about encryption. However, as soon as one back door is created for the government, the backdoor is for everyone who wishes to enter. There is no turning back. The threat is built in and will continue to exist as it stands right now or it will become a bigger threat if such a software was created to accommodate the FBIs request. There is a saying called penny wise and pound foolish that applies here.
2
Thank you Apple for standing up for us, your customers.
I do not want anyone to be able to unlock my phone, not hackers, not anyone who finds it, and certainly not the government.
Mark my words, in 10 years the documents will be released showing that this is just a facade by the government -- it isn't about the San Bernardino shootings. The government intelligence branches have been whining ever since Apple reported that their new devices would allow for encryption at the swipe of a switch. This is just their excuse to get Apple to open up a backdoor to everyone's phone.
And do not fall for the falsehoods about unlocking phones preventing terrorist attacks. Remember the lies about WMD in Iraq? Well those are the same government officials who want these phones unlocked. If the FBI, CIA, NSA and all the other similar government agencies are unable to stop terrorists, it isn't because of technology, it is because they are simply not doing their job. They are not embedded in these groups and on the ground where they should be gathering intelligence.
And please don't say you are not worried about surveillance because you haven't done anything wrong. Take a quick look back at how the FBI has historically used information, and often completely false information, to harm innocent people. Some of these law enforcement agencies are Kafkaesque.
Do not blink Apple. Protect us from those prying eyes.
I do not want anyone to be able to unlock my phone, not hackers, not anyone who finds it, and certainly not the government.
Mark my words, in 10 years the documents will be released showing that this is just a facade by the government -- it isn't about the San Bernardino shootings. The government intelligence branches have been whining ever since Apple reported that their new devices would allow for encryption at the swipe of a switch. This is just their excuse to get Apple to open up a backdoor to everyone's phone.
And do not fall for the falsehoods about unlocking phones preventing terrorist attacks. Remember the lies about WMD in Iraq? Well those are the same government officials who want these phones unlocked. If the FBI, CIA, NSA and all the other similar government agencies are unable to stop terrorists, it isn't because of technology, it is because they are simply not doing their job. They are not embedded in these groups and on the ground where they should be gathering intelligence.
And please don't say you are not worried about surveillance because you haven't done anything wrong. Take a quick look back at how the FBI has historically used information, and often completely false information, to harm innocent people. Some of these law enforcement agencies are Kafkaesque.
Do not blink Apple. Protect us from those prying eyes.
69
Those "prying eyes" are not for surveillance of everybody with an iPhone.
They are to track down these ruthless Muslim radicals who may have worked with the evil ones who murdered at least a dozen Americans.
I'm an apple customer you don't speak for me at all.
What does the iPhone's owner want the FBI to do? The phone was not the property of the terrorist, but of his employer. His employer also wants to get past the password. Why does the Times neglect the wishes of the iPhone's owner? I doubt the Times would be as righteous and full of high dudgeon if the iPhone was central to what a disloyal and criminal Times' employee left on a Times iPhone.
18
If the iPhone owner does not know the password, then they cannot extra the data. They can erase all the data and still use it as a phone.
Here's an idea - take your own personal Iphone and tell the genius bar folks that you forgot your password and want them to hack it for you - see how that works out.
1
Then the owner / employer should not have bought him the encryptable phone. The selling feature of the Apple is the privacy. If you, as an employer, want to retain control over the phone, which is your asset, then do not buy an iPhone.
3
I would hope that, failing to resist the FBI, Apple and others allow the introduction of third party software to be placed on the phone that allows the owner (and in this case, everyone says it is the terrorist's phone while I have read elsewhere that the phone belongs to the fellow's employer) to drop a $1 program on that finally shows the NSA, FBI and others what modern crypto technology can do, which is to foil even the attempts at using a centuries old law to no good end.
As we've seen from the reports on StingRay usage and other methods now available to our previously trusted law enforcement agencies, countless times these efficient tools are used with no thought of following the Constitutional protection of unreasonable search, by going through proper channels to get a warrant if the evidence is strong enough to have the search authorized. Fishing expeditions have seldom held the burden of proof to be authorized, so with the tools sitting idle, local agencies knowing full well that their methods are unlikely to be discovered, use them.
As we've seen from the reports on StingRay usage and other methods now available to our previously trusted law enforcement agencies, countless times these efficient tools are used with no thought of following the Constitutional protection of unreasonable search, by going through proper channels to get a warrant if the evidence is strong enough to have the search authorized. Fishing expeditions have seldom held the burden of proof to be authorized, so with the tools sitting idle, local agencies knowing full well that their methods are unlikely to be discovered, use them.
3
I support Apple's principled stand against invasion of its customers' privacy. And for the very same reason, I also expect Apple to stop gathering data on its customers for the purpose of marketing and other commercial interests. One doesn't get to choose some principled positions because they make the company look good while ignoring other applications of the very same principle because doing so is bad for business.
207
Touche.
1
Apple does not derive the vast vast majority of their revenue by knowing all about you, that is how Google and now Facebook make their money. Apple makes money by selling devices, and has done more than any other company in the tech industry probably, to protect the privacy of their customers. Apple has many more restrictions in place in terms of how marketers can collect Apple users' data, than you see on other platforms. Heck, that is ALL GOOGLE DOES!
1
Apple has given up all the information that was on the iCloud. They've admitted to this already. They simply cannot get to information stored on phones that are not also stored in the iCloud somewhere. Please at least educate yourself on the issue before posting misinformation here.
1
Apple -- and the rest of us -- know that if they agree to help with this case, there will be absolutely no end to it. They will have surrendered what is perhaps the single most valuable thing they offer their customers: believable high level privacy from hackers, and even (obviously) the federal government. Apple's promise to maintain that privacy is by extension also a promise to help ensure their civil rights generally. I understand the FBI's position, but I applaud Apple, and hope they don't cave.
398
Suppose it wasn't "only" 14 dead people killed and "only" 22 wounded in San Bernardino.
Suppose the Terrorists had killed thousands with a Nuclear Bomb and the FBI was trying to determine who they were working with and the information was on an iPhone. Are you saying that Apple could not help the Government over "Privacy" concerns?
Like many Americans, I like privacy and also like many Americans, I like to be safe from Terrorism. There is no reason for those 2 "likes" of mine and many other Americans to be in conflict.
If Apple prevails, then every Terrorist will buy an IPhone, since they will KNOW that their "Privacy", will not be violated and that will facilitate them in committing acts of Terror!
Many people on this thread (and I assume elsewhere) have speculated on how the recently departed Supreme Court Justice Scalia would have ruled in this case, which appears to be headed to the SCOTUS.
But tragically, Scalia is not available anymore to rule in this matter.
That is all the more reason for the President to Nominate someone to fill Scalia's seat NOW and for the Senate to play its "Advice and Consent" role in either approving or rejecting said Nominee, under Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution, of which the relevant words are as follows:
"He [The President ] shall have power..to nominate...and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate..appoint..Judges of the Supreme Court."
http://www.linkedin.com/in/rdelrosso2001
Suppose the Terrorists had killed thousands with a Nuclear Bomb and the FBI was trying to determine who they were working with and the information was on an iPhone. Are you saying that Apple could not help the Government over "Privacy" concerns?
Like many Americans, I like privacy and also like many Americans, I like to be safe from Terrorism. There is no reason for those 2 "likes" of mine and many other Americans to be in conflict.
If Apple prevails, then every Terrorist will buy an IPhone, since they will KNOW that their "Privacy", will not be violated and that will facilitate them in committing acts of Terror!
Many people on this thread (and I assume elsewhere) have speculated on how the recently departed Supreme Court Justice Scalia would have ruled in this case, which appears to be headed to the SCOTUS.
But tragically, Scalia is not available anymore to rule in this matter.
That is all the more reason for the President to Nominate someone to fill Scalia's seat NOW and for the Senate to play its "Advice and Consent" role in either approving or rejecting said Nominee, under Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution, of which the relevant words are as follows:
"He [The President ] shall have power..to nominate...and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate..appoint..Judges of the Supreme Court."
http://www.linkedin.com/in/rdelrosso2001
so if your secrets on your iPhone could be opened w a court order, are you saying you wouldn't buy an iPhone? the rule would apply to all smart phones/computers. So you wouldn't buy a computer?
you realize that your secrets written on paper and hidden in your house are subject to discovery w a court order. why is this different?
you realize that your secrets written on paper and hidden in your house are subject to discovery w a court order. why is this different?
1
Sorry, Charles. They caved in 2008 already. Any sense of privacy that you thought you had is gone. Now it's just a matter of "public perception." If the public perceives that Apple has "given in" (which they have) then their "brand" will suffer. Translated: loss of revenue, sales, customer loyalty, and all future profits. Good by CEO performance-based bonus's!
I think there are two basic issues that support the position of the FBI. First, it has been clearly established that rights are not absolute. Not freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press - under careful examination none of these freedoms extend to the point where they damage other people. Why then should the right to privacy be sacrosanct. How could anyone argue that a dead terrorist has a right to privacy? What the Government might do is not a crime or violation unless it happens. Lots of things might be crimes - the government could potential reveal your financial data (IRS) or your medical records (Medicare)..... but they don't. Second, cell phones employ public airways; radio frequencies belong collectively to the public. Where does the assumption come from that they are private? Is the public somehow supposed to be obligated to participate in helping terrorist or those in the drug traffic to communicate without the possibility of discovery?
18
Your appreciation of this threat to personal freedom is very low, W.A. It isn't that there will be one key to the encryption of a *single* iPhone. It's that there will be one key to the encryption of *every single Apple product anywhere on the face of the earth*, whether owned by the heads of ISIS and al-Qaida or by the Pope or by the President or by you and your grandmother or by me and my wife.
3
The communications of the phone do use public utilities, although we pay for that access, however our phones contain far more and generally include digital images and data. Smartphones have replaced personal diaries and notebooks. We may keep our innermost thoughts in some form on our phone. I often refer to my phone as my "portable brain".
The issue here is the application of a law written 235 years ago to modern technology, without the explicit acknowledgement that the nature of encryption has changed from codes using ten digits and twenty six letters. The age of computers has made written encryption extinct due to processing power. Therefore, Apple, and other companies have made the decision to offer their customers privacy through a software based encryption that the Apple engineers cannot simply reverse engineer.
I, for one, strongly support Apple in their fight against this unreasonable legal order. Part of life is acknowledging that we are never safe from all perils. Terrorism is a terrible, insidious problem that affects too many global citizens. We tend to focus on radical Islam, but we have homegrown terrorists, as do many countries. There is no way to completely remove the threat of terrorism. After all, no-one knows what another person is thinking, or what evil may be in their heart, but we have generally agreed that torturing a human to learn someone's thoughts is immoral. That expectation of privacy of mind allows us to have a civil society. Beware "1984"
The issue here is the application of a law written 235 years ago to modern technology, without the explicit acknowledgement that the nature of encryption has changed from codes using ten digits and twenty six letters. The age of computers has made written encryption extinct due to processing power. Therefore, Apple, and other companies have made the decision to offer their customers privacy through a software based encryption that the Apple engineers cannot simply reverse engineer.
I, for one, strongly support Apple in their fight against this unreasonable legal order. Part of life is acknowledging that we are never safe from all perils. Terrorism is a terrible, insidious problem that affects too many global citizens. We tend to focus on radical Islam, but we have homegrown terrorists, as do many countries. There is no way to completely remove the threat of terrorism. After all, no-one knows what another person is thinking, or what evil may be in their heart, but we have generally agreed that torturing a human to learn someone's thoughts is immoral. That expectation of privacy of mind allows us to have a civil society. Beware "1984"
4
The damage done to American technology companies will be great if this is enforced. More and more foreign governments will be lining up with case after case while hackers work tireless to find the backdoor. International customers will look elsewhere for their products. These repercussions already happened after the Snowden revelations, this would lead to even less trust placed in
America businesses.
America businesses.
74
What's more important American lives or technology.
You can always come up with a new technology.
You can't come up with the lives that could be lost by not tracking down evil accomplices who may now be planning other acts of violence.
Just reading between the lines here, I gather Apple does not have a turnkey solution that they can readily hand over. The question I have is who pays to comply with this order? Must Apple devote their considerable R & D efforts to comply or will the state foot the bill in paying for all the hours it may take to invent a backdoor? Somehow I get the feeling that the State is going to use my taxpayer dollars to make sure they can invade my privacy at will.
Thanks!
That couple in San Bernardino are dead -- I really don't get the urgency of this order. Most of the information being sought can be gathered by other means. I sense this is really about something else. Once the door has been cracked open, the flood of follow up requests are sure to come.
Thanks!
That couple in San Bernardino are dead -- I really don't get the urgency of this order. Most of the information being sought can be gathered by other means. I sense this is really about something else. Once the door has been cracked open, the flood of follow up requests are sure to come.
123
They may have gotten orders from existing terrorist links in the Us or abroad. Collection of evidence is always a priority.
7
Must Apple devote their considerable R & D efforts to comply or will the state foot the bill in paying for all the hours
Maybe if they pay their fair share of taxes rather than hide in the Caymans, then you might have a valid question. Imagine you car breaks down, you get it towed to the repair shop and they say, sorry, your on-board computer is encrypted and the mfgr won't give us the entry code, so we'll have to replace the whole system at the cost of 10K?
No manufacturer makes something that they can get into. PERIOD. They just don't want the buyers to know that Apple has a way in, and always did.
Maybe if they pay their fair share of taxes rather than hide in the Caymans, then you might have a valid question. Imagine you car breaks down, you get it towed to the repair shop and they say, sorry, your on-board computer is encrypted and the mfgr won't give us the entry code, so we'll have to replace the whole system at the cost of 10K?
No manufacturer makes something that they can get into. PERIOD. They just don't want the buyers to know that Apple has a way in, and always did.
"Collection of evidence is always a priority."
Collection of what evidence from whom for what purpose is such that it "is always a priority" for whom?
Collection of what evidence from whom for what purpose is such that it "is always a priority" for whom?
3
What is so strange about Apple is that I just saw a news story about the police in New York unable to enter into many new cell phones from Samsung and Apple in major crime cases. Crimes are going unsolved, and if it is happening in NYC it will happen throughout the country,
On adifferent topic, since we are at war in the Middle East fighting terrorists I think President Obama should issue an emergence executive order ordering all US corporations to bring back their funds abroad immediately unless they comply with court orders.Apple has $ 225 billion abroad in cash , and would have to pay $ 75 billion in taxes. that message would wake them up. All of sudden they would comply with the FBI. Offer them a carrot and a stick approach. it is time to make sure that Apple, Google, and Microsoft and many hi tech companies that hey must comply with US laws. Simply initiate an order from the Executive branch of government that would raise a few hundred billion in tax revenue. What is President Obama waiting for? Our nation needs these funds, not corporations that do not want to comply with the FBI. Enough is enough! Either Apple hands over the code to the cell phone to listen in the cell phones or issue the executive emergency order to tax their funds abroad. I wonder how fast they will change their position.
On adifferent topic, since we are at war in the Middle East fighting terrorists I think President Obama should issue an emergence executive order ordering all US corporations to bring back their funds abroad immediately unless they comply with court orders.Apple has $ 225 billion abroad in cash , and would have to pay $ 75 billion in taxes. that message would wake them up. All of sudden they would comply with the FBI. Offer them a carrot and a stick approach. it is time to make sure that Apple, Google, and Microsoft and many hi tech companies that hey must comply with US laws. Simply initiate an order from the Executive branch of government that would raise a few hundred billion in tax revenue. What is President Obama waiting for? Our nation needs these funds, not corporations that do not want to comply with the FBI. Enough is enough! Either Apple hands over the code to the cell phone to listen in the cell phones or issue the executive emergency order to tax their funds abroad. I wonder how fast they will change their position.
12
Since when does the president have the power to issue orders like that?
5
Not only the country but the world because you know more then just Americans has iPhones and if is gets made it would most likely get into the wrong hands (not that cops or the fbi are the right hands). Forcing Apple to do this would lead to something that can be used anywhere . How could you want something that goes beyond solving a few crimes or MAYBE helping getting something off of this phone.
Also what about the cops using this to deleted videos on phones they take from people that show them doing something they shouldnt. Thats what this means. Its going to give the government or cops access to phones just because. It going to give other governments access to phones of their people and us to if they get their hands on the phone.
Also what about the cops using this to deleted videos on phones they take from people that show them doing something they shouldnt. Thats what this means. Its going to give the government or cops access to phones just because. It going to give other governments access to phones of their people and us to if they get their hands on the phone.
9
Right! These corporations will move out USA first before they start paying taxes on all foreign earnings and prostrating before the FBI.
I believe the government is lying about its inability to de-encrypt the San Bernadino iPhone. What the government wants to do is win this case and establish the right to compel Apple -- and all private actors -- to submit its demands.
80
Like pay taxes?
8
Absolutely right - they already have the capability to tap, record, download, store, archive and retrieve all data from all phones - and those that they have trouble getting data from - like Apple - they coerce the company to do their bidding. Apple has supplied over 70 requests for data from their phones since 2008. Apple is worried about their "Brand reputation" - not the security of their customers' data. They admitted tha in Court in NYC today…
2
"I believe the government is lying about its inability to de-encrypt the San Bernadino iPhone."
Me too.
Therefore, I think they already know.
That means they already know there is something there they want to use.
They want to use it without revealing their secret access program, or subject it to cross exam about its details like scope and extent.
Me too.
Therefore, I think they already know.
That means they already know there is something there they want to use.
They want to use it without revealing their secret access program, or subject it to cross exam about its details like scope and extent.
4
Apple could easily unlock this phone and transfer the dead terorist's iPhone data to the FBI investigators w/o compromising any of the world's iPhone user base data. They can in a matter of minutes.
Any moron with a modicum of tech savvy knows that.
Tim Cook isn't taking his posture on the court's wish in any other fashion than the bottom line for Apple, money.
If Apple had any integrity whatsoever they would repatriate all the cash that they have offshored for decades and pay their fair share of taxes.
Do the right thing Tim Cook. Suggest to the FBI that although you won't create new software so that the FBI can unlock this specific iPhone but an Apple engineer will unlock the phone and give the FBI data from a dead terrorist's iPhone.
It is a simple solution.
Enough with the conspiracy theroies and paranoia.
Any moron with a modicum of tech savvy knows that.
Tim Cook isn't taking his posture on the court's wish in any other fashion than the bottom line for Apple, money.
If Apple had any integrity whatsoever they would repatriate all the cash that they have offshored for decades and pay their fair share of taxes.
Do the right thing Tim Cook. Suggest to the FBI that although you won't create new software so that the FBI can unlock this specific iPhone but an Apple engineer will unlock the phone and give the FBI data from a dead terrorist's iPhone.
It is a simple solution.
Enough with the conspiracy theroies and paranoia.
28
Thank you futbolistaviva! Apple knows of a backdoor into iPhones. People are so paranoid about the U.S. Government spying on them. What do you think corporations do? The Internet has made it easier for companies to collect personal data.
1
"Any moron with a modicum of tech savvy knows that."
Clearly, you are not that moron, futbolista. If Apple can do it, then *surely* the FBI can do it, too, since it must have at least one "moron with a modicum of tech savvy" among its employees.
So, what is the *real* reason that the feds are hassling Apple, fut? Any ideas?
Clearly, you are not that moron, futbolista. If Apple can do it, then *surely* the FBI can do it, too, since it must have at least one "moron with a modicum of tech savvy" among its employees.
So, what is the *real* reason that the feds are hassling Apple, fut? Any ideas?
4
Why should Apple pay taxes to the US government on money that is earned in other countries? Im a liberal guy but disagree. Secondly, if Apple could even maybe do what the FBI is requesting, then why can't the FBI do it without Apple's help?
1
This sounds to me like the FBI taking advantage of a compelling circumstance to get the "back door" that they have not been able to get through legislation. IT people seem unanimous in their opinion that Apple would be required to develop a Master Key that would be able to unlock millions of iPhones worldwide.
They also seem unanimous that once such a key exists, it will be hacked, regardless of who is in possession of it (FBI, NSA, Apple) and that will be the end of security for those phones. Not to mention the precedent it sets.
Smartphones carry many people's whole lives - not just their communications, but their credit cards, health and financial information - and if this becomes subject to hacking (as in the dozens of health companies, large retailers and the gov't, who have all been hacked in recent years) many people all over the world could be looking at serious damage.
Since the calls, texts and emails on this phone are available through whoever the server was, and since the FBI does not appear to have demonstrated any need for particular crucial information it knows is on this phone, then it seems like a fishing expedition.
Apple is right to fight the order. The fallout from its customers would impose too great a burden on it (and I don't have any soft and fuzzy feelings for Apple).
They also seem unanimous that once such a key exists, it will be hacked, regardless of who is in possession of it (FBI, NSA, Apple) and that will be the end of security for those phones. Not to mention the precedent it sets.
Smartphones carry many people's whole lives - not just their communications, but their credit cards, health and financial information - and if this becomes subject to hacking (as in the dozens of health companies, large retailers and the gov't, who have all been hacked in recent years) many people all over the world could be looking at serious damage.
Since the calls, texts and emails on this phone are available through whoever the server was, and since the FBI does not appear to have demonstrated any need for particular crucial information it knows is on this phone, then it seems like a fishing expedition.
Apple is right to fight the order. The fallout from its customers would impose too great a burden on it (and I don't have any soft and fuzzy feelings for Apple).
247
Not only the end of security on those phones... it will be the end of sales on those phones. Who would willingly buy a compromised phone?
5
I agree with you Robert. But does the FBI know what IOS version is on this phone? Could they get it unlocked just for this version and then give everyone with the same version an update? Not saying they should, just wondering if it's possible.
If your "credit cards, health and financial information" were hacked, who would come to for help to track down the criminals?
The FBI, law enforcement.
But wait, they won't be able to help you, because even with to-be useless judicially approved search warrant, they wouldn't be able to gather evidence from the criminals' iPhones.
The FBI, law enforcement.
But wait, they won't be able to help you, because even with to-be useless judicially approved search warrant, they wouldn't be able to gather evidence from the criminals' iPhones.
1
I am sympathetic to both sides of this argument. Apple needs to assure users they are not randomly exposed to government searches of their personal data, and the government has legitimate needs to pursue terrorist leads in the interest of national security to prevent or reduce loss of life.
It would seem far more straight forward for the government to simply present a suspicious device [cell, laptop, etc] to the Apple "Black Lab" -- by which I mean a highly secure area with Apple's best minds who then -- with a court approved warrant from the government -- unlock the device behind closed doors, under seal ... or whatever restrictions are needed ... and deliver the decrypted content to the government officials. No new software backdoor required. If the government has 100 or more devices it wants to access, as reported, then have them get court warrants. Deal with this on a case by case basis.
It would seem far more straight forward for the government to simply present a suspicious device [cell, laptop, etc] to the Apple "Black Lab" -- by which I mean a highly secure area with Apple's best minds who then -- with a court approved warrant from the government -- unlock the device behind closed doors, under seal ... or whatever restrictions are needed ... and deliver the decrypted content to the government officials. No new software backdoor required. If the government has 100 or more devices it wants to access, as reported, then have them get court warrants. Deal with this on a case by case basis.
15
Your premise that the phone can be unlocked without a software/firmware backdoor is completely flawed. The ONLY way to unlock the device is for Apple to write software/firmware - with Apple's signature - that disables the passkey requirement and PUSH it to the phone as an update not requiring user approval. And the court order already permits that to be done behind closed doors - read the order - but that doesn't solve the problem. Once written it can be stolen, copied, etc., and if/when that happens it will be open season on iPhone 5C and earlier models.
2
It says a lot when the Government commands a innovative company to create software that would bypass a product's security features. Honestly, you'd think the FBI and/or Homeland Security with its billions of taxpayer dollars for all kind of dark side spying on Americans would have figured out how to penetrate an I Phone's security wall already.
21
No Apple used to have to help them but they got sick of it and made this new more secured version so they could tell them we cant help you anymore. But it was not as good as it could be and being that they can still "update the software" or the part that matters, which is what this backdoor would be doing, without needing the password the fbi thinks they have some ground to stand on.
1
The FBI made the mistake of leading with the punchline. "It's just for this one specific phone" they said. Ha! The NSA has had a program approved by congress and the President (Bush) to scoop up vast amounts of unrelated data, for no other reason than they could. So let's review. Set up the joke first, then hit em with the laughline. Got it?
28
Originalism is a key issue in the interpretation of this situation as there were no smart phones in 1776. In 1776, nobody who was a patriot would have harbored a fugitive or British Redcoat, so why would Apple protect terrorists today?
Big business, technology, and finance have stripped away any sense of 'privacy' one should reasonably expect in this world and I am sure that many people who complain about the 'government' invading their privacy in this situation do not hesitate to not only share way more than I could ever care to know through social media about themselves but also to not hesitate to also share information about others who have not consented. I don't want the world to know where I am at any given moment. I don't want pictures of me taken without my consent posted for the world to see. I don't want some drone fitted with a camera to view me in my backyard. I don't want my every online action to be sent to multiple places in order to target me for whatever. But I do want companies to help the government in serious situations such as what happened in San Bernadino. I'm sure Apple can do that without 'compromising' it's customers and its integrity and its bottom line.
218
Randall Roark,
Yes, we do value privacy, and we give it away every time we buy something, and do all the other things you mentioned. How about travel? We have abrogated our privacy rights to 'government' every time we take our shoes off, go through the body scanner, and allow our luggage to be x-rayed and searched by hand. My purse was searched on the NY subway. We subjugate ourselves in the name of not dying on a blown apart plane or subway car.
If private citizens are willing to give up almost all semblance of privacy in these myriad ways, somehow this seems like small potatoes compared to having the encrypted data on the devices of proven terrorists to be accessed by government.
For the average citizen having Apple make a back door at the request of high government security agencies doesn't seem to be any more than we willingly post and share and shout about every day. Unless of course, the majority of people have no faith or trust whatsoever in government. That is another story altogether.
This is a big topic, and I don't know the correct answer, I just know that most people have already given away their personal privacy to corporations and many levels of government. Google asks me how I want to have their ads displayed on this site. By default I get ads from the Canadian bank site I use, and ads for products related to topics I have commented on. Despite the fact that I do not do social media, and do not have a smart phone, I have no privacy.
Yes, we do value privacy, and we give it away every time we buy something, and do all the other things you mentioned. How about travel? We have abrogated our privacy rights to 'government' every time we take our shoes off, go through the body scanner, and allow our luggage to be x-rayed and searched by hand. My purse was searched on the NY subway. We subjugate ourselves in the name of not dying on a blown apart plane or subway car.
If private citizens are willing to give up almost all semblance of privacy in these myriad ways, somehow this seems like small potatoes compared to having the encrypted data on the devices of proven terrorists to be accessed by government.
For the average citizen having Apple make a back door at the request of high government security agencies doesn't seem to be any more than we willingly post and share and shout about every day. Unless of course, the majority of people have no faith or trust whatsoever in government. That is another story altogether.
This is a big topic, and I don't know the correct answer, I just know that most people have already given away their personal privacy to corporations and many levels of government. Google asks me how I want to have their ads displayed on this site. By default I get ads from the Canadian bank site I use, and ads for products related to topics I have commented on. Despite the fact that I do not do social media, and do not have a smart phone, I have no privacy.
2
I respectfully disagree that have businesses' obligations especially living in Oregon having just experienced San Bernodino on the West Coast and more closely the right wing terrorism in Oregon. However, the risk to the business property rights and the risks to citizen civili liberty rights are too great. Investigations no matter how complex are systems run by humans and in that regard are subject to all the foibles that humans bring with them. The business risk are well articulated but the citizen risks could include becoming a target of the investigation for where coincidence or for simple appearances or beliefs--without action or intent. Do you really trust law enforcement? You shouldn't research has shown the propensity for finding the most efficient way to solving problems. And I think we have plenty of examples where law enforcement was wrong. No, the law enforcement job should be hard trudging work because truth takes times and that is the standard we set for law enforcement.
1
They are not just being asked to "help", they are being told to hand over the master key to all of their iPhones, a much broader proposition. Yes, in this instance the issue is a terrorism case (solved since the criminals are dead) but the editorial mentions a narcotics case request also, which precisely illustrates the point.
If many people do not trust the federal government or its agents to (1) only a one time use of the "key" and (2) doubt that group's same ability to keep said key safely tucked away and either never use it again without legal permission or lose it through yet another hack of their computers from enemy states, then they have no one to blame but themselves.
If many people do not trust the federal government or its agents to (1) only a one time use of the "key" and (2) doubt that group's same ability to keep said key safely tucked away and either never use it again without legal permission or lose it through yet another hack of their computers from enemy states, then they have no one to blame but themselves.
1
Any possible gains by law enforcement in this case are minor compared to the long term consequences of forcing apple to "hack" its own device.
130
No reason to fret over this phone. Since the Feds went public with this two days ago or so, everyone and anyone associated with these terrorists have had enough notice to cover their tracks and disappear.
What's really odd is how so many people don't trust the government, yet would support Bernie in giving the government even more power.
What's really odd is how so many people don't trust the government, yet would support Bernie in giving the government even more power.
5
There's a big difference between government administrating healthcare, college for all, and the rebuilding of our nation's infrastructure; versus the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. To equate them all is to be purposely obtuse.
1
Well, yes, but rights, including privacy rights, are not absolute . . .
8
It's not about privacy, it's about proportionality.
The FBI's effort is in the end, a fishing expedition that may turn up nothing at all. And should there are foreign connections, then what?
Why does the professed motive of the shooters differentiate this act from the thousands of other that reproduce this carnage by noon every day in this country?
Bottom line, there is no guarantee that, should the FBI prevail in this case, that there would be any real return in terms of "national security" in exchange for compromising Apple's OS, and setting a precedent for similar action not just by our government, but by others as well.
It's a bad bargain.
The FBI's effort is in the end, a fishing expedition that may turn up nothing at all. And should there are foreign connections, then what?
Why does the professed motive of the shooters differentiate this act from the thousands of other that reproduce this carnage by noon every day in this country?
Bottom line, there is no guarantee that, should the FBI prevail in this case, that there would be any real return in terms of "national security" in exchange for compromising Apple's OS, and setting a precedent for similar action not just by our government, but by others as well.
It's a bad bargain.
54
I can't believe there is no middle ground here. After all, we r talking about terrorists who murdered American citizens. What if there was valuable information on that phone that could prevent a future act of terrorism. My gut tells me that, when dealing with terrorists, most Americans would urge Apple to comply with the court order. On this issue, the NYT is wrong.
8
@Brian Hussey
Americans are so "upset" about terrorist attacks, that are rare, but they are unwilling to do anthing about the 30,000 gun deaths per year? Americans are such hypocrites, and so is the FBI.
Americans are so "upset" about terrorist attacks, that are rare, but they are unwilling to do anthing about the 30,000 gun deaths per year? Americans are such hypocrites, and so is the FBI.
4
And what if complying makes future acts of terror easier to commit?
2
Why does everyone assume that the FBI cannot break into an iPhone? Just because the say they can't? What they want is an official way to force Apple to do it and shortly after that, everyone else.
26
Well said, NYT. No matter which side of the political fence you reside on, try answering this question of yourself: Do you truly believe that governments and/or law enforcement (here or elsewhere) would only ask for such access "in this one instance" and then stop?
The entirety of human history indicates the answer to that question is simple. Of course they wouldn't.
The entirety of human history indicates the answer to that question is simple. Of course they wouldn't.
273
What would the FBI do if the terrorist had used a BlackBerry? Asking the Canadian company to build a backdoor so hackers around the world could steal information from Mr. Obama's phone?
54
Isaac - The U.S. Intelligence community probably has the BlackBerry covered, along with a few other devices. Weren't there claims in the media that Mr. Obama knew and authorised the monitoring and recording of Angela Merkel's mobile phone when she was the Opposition leader back in 2013?
3
The US has its own encryption system app on the Blackberry, Isaac.
1
Thank you Edward Snowden. Your revelations about the misdeeds of the NSA lead directly to a change in tech design that has made it nearly impossible for governmental authorities to spy on its citizens. History will remember you as a hero, not a criminal.
302
Snowden is a traitor.
3
Snowden is not worth talking about. I am more concerned about our ability to go about our lives secure in the knowledge that Law Enforcement is running down every possible lead in this world which is increasingly inhabited by individual terrorists with easy access to violent weapons such as guns. We should have good laws but and strongly dissuade the Apples of the world from throwing up their hands in the name of privacy.
2
Hopefully, Mr. Smith, you and the fine people of L.A. will not bear the brunt of a terrorist attack that could have been prevented with a little help from Apple. Experiencing a major attack has a way of convincing people that the government should not be ham-strung in certain situations. I am afraid that you and Apple are on the wrong side of history on this one - and Snowden is a traitor.
1
Yes, Apple has a right to challenge the order, but it also has an obligation to comply with the judicial order when it is confirmed by the appellate courts and the supreme court.
Apple is not above the law.
Apple is not above the law.
41
They have the right to resist even judicial order when it puts millions at risk. Breaking strong encryption means the end of privacy, ecommerce, and the prosperity that has gone hand in hand with the Internet era. To think otherwise is to misunderstand the technology involved.
24
It is a right and moral responsibility to disobey reprehensible governmental orders, even when such orders are required by law. Apple is not above the law, but it has the right of civil disobedience against certain legal demands. Therefore, even when it is confirmed by the supreme court, it can still refuse to comply.
17
*If* it is confirmed, not *when* it is confirmed. And I hope that it is not confirmed by any higher court. This is an outrageous order by the lower court.
15