Very good, now the FBI can determine if the San Bernadino terrorists had accomplices. I believe terrorists do not have the same "right" to privacy as normal people. However, I believe, too, that if one does not have something to hide, then why does their meaningless texts and whatnot deserve that level of encryption. I can see using for high level encryption for protecting truly sensitive information, but not normal everyday stuff. Thank you.
Not sure they actually did!
5
I would certainly hope so. Did they hire a high school kid? Privacy in a digital age is an illusion, accept it or get off of the grid.
2
The IPhone password hack is well know and freely available from all of the standard social outlets. No company can create an encryption method that can't be hacked in short order. The focus should be on developing technology that verifies identity like facial recognition. Oh yeah, forget about the IPhone thumbprint scanner. That has already been hacked using old fashioned ink jet printer technology. The tech companies on the cutting edge of smartphone security are all Chinese or Korean like Huawei and Samsung.
So many commenters are concerned about a US government agency getting its mitts onto iPhone internals . . .
All iPhone components, including its security devices by whatever name they are given, are manufactured outside the USA. The chips, in particular, are created -- and any security codes burned into them -- in Asian countries, with most assembly done in China.
Apple negotiated for years to obtain permission to sell iPhones in China. One must question what about their process and security was compromised to achieve that.
It is not a coincidence that iPhone sales are on the decline in the US but rising in that market.
All iPhone components, including its security devices by whatever name they are given, are manufactured outside the USA. The chips, in particular, are created -- and any security codes burned into them -- in Asian countries, with most assembly done in China.
Apple negotiated for years to obtain permission to sell iPhones in China. One must question what about their process and security was compromised to achieve that.
It is not a coincidence that iPhone sales are on the decline in the US but rising in that market.
2
So I know a guy who wonders why would the govt want the cell phone data from a supposed dead man, who was used in a hoax shooting using phony crisis actors that was designed to create fear and support the gun law agenda?
my dealings with apple tech support over a lost/forgotten password have left me with the feeling that apple employees are arrogant and self important. I recently heard that apple has had to give the Chinese government a "back door" way to over ride their security in order to sell phones in China. Willing to do it for a big foreign market, but not here at home. Personally, I really don't know why people want to keep all their personal information on their phones...maybe it is just me being old.
2
I wonder what type of phone's the government is using? Just a thought, maybe they seeking for a better solution on their end to secure their phones.
1
The standoff was political- not legal. The FBI had no legal ground to stand on and the Magistrate Judge was out of her depth. Professor Susan Crawford detailed how US law specifically prohibits the government from requiring a manufacturer to do what the FBI was demanding.
This was not about terrorism or protecting Americans from terrorists. It was a highly political act by the FBI to use public fears to increase their ability to spy on law abiding citizens without a warrant by fighting any secure form of encryption.
This was not about terrorism or protecting Americans from terrorists. It was a highly political act by the FBI to use public fears to increase their ability to spy on law abiding citizens without a warrant by fighting any secure form of encryption.
5
Of course no one believed the FBI's claims that this was just about that one phone ... but interesting that the DOJ immediately put out the statement that it would continue trying to compel companies to defeat their own security. Not a surprise but it might have considered waiting a couple days to at least put on the appearance of sincerity.
4
Curious coincidence, amusing if not significant: I'm watching today's NCIS, the show with this ultra-techie Tim who instantly bypasses any security. The second commercial break opened with a pitch for -- iPhone!
Gotta laugh.
Gotta laugh.
4
How about Apple unlocks the phone and we say someone else did it?
2
You know what the DOJ/FBI is counting on? American ignorance. I was going to say American ignorance towards information-technology but then I realized many people don't know how the legal system work in this country either.
Quite a number of comments like the fact FBI figured out a way to get into the phone and celebrate it as US triumph against Apple's technology and showed Apple who is boss. Ok, so those people have no idea how information security works. They don't understand it and didn't realize this entire show changed nothing. It is a return to the status quo.
What's more troubling is how so many have no idea how the legal system works. DOJ got a court to issue Apple an order and Apple disagree and say the order is unconstitutional and filed an appeal. That's is it. There is no Apple violating some law or the court order being deem constitutional. This is not Apple vs he US, this is Apple holding up the Constitution and say DOJ do not have the right to do what it wants. The president, DOJ, FBI are not the law, the Constitution is.
It is really bad that so many people don't know how IT works and the rights protected by the Constitution. They really thought the government is the law and not the Constitution.
Quite a number of comments like the fact FBI figured out a way to get into the phone and celebrate it as US triumph against Apple's technology and showed Apple who is boss. Ok, so those people have no idea how information security works. They don't understand it and didn't realize this entire show changed nothing. It is a return to the status quo.
What's more troubling is how so many have no idea how the legal system works. DOJ got a court to issue Apple an order and Apple disagree and say the order is unconstitutional and filed an appeal. That's is it. There is no Apple violating some law or the court order being deem constitutional. This is not Apple vs he US, this is Apple holding up the Constitution and say DOJ do not have the right to do what it wants. The president, DOJ, FBI are not the law, the Constitution is.
It is really bad that so many people don't know how IT works and the rights protected by the Constitution. They really thought the government is the law and not the Constitution.
2
There is no such thing as a Gordian Knot....any device can be hacked/accessed. Kudos to the FBI for being open-minded and listening to outside expertise.
1
There are Americans do not understand that the US has less attacks simply because foreign terrorists in the US would have a great deal of difficulty with communications. Terrorist can not operate very effectively when they can not communicate without being detected.
The idea that Apple would provide an iPhone that was totally secure method of communication would be a godsend to terrorists. Provide this type of iPhone and the attacks will no longer be in Europe but will be in the US.
The idea that Apple would provide an iPhone that was totally secure method of communication would be a godsend to terrorists. Provide this type of iPhone and the attacks will no longer be in Europe but will be in the US.
Your comment is completely uninformed. Secure communication is trivial, and available to anybody who wants it, with or without Apple. Americans have far more to fear from hackers, the ices, foreign spies and domestic spies having access to their private data than attacks that have a smaller probability of killing you than falling off a ladder.
1
What does everyone think is locked in an iPhone? Emails, texts, and phone call records exist on the servers of ISP's and phone carriers. Pictures, videos, and address books are about all you might find in an iPhone that isn't stored in other places. As for the ideal communication device for a criminal or terrorist, it would not be an iPhone. It would be an anonymous burner phone that could not be tracked to the owner.
2
This was never about cracking an iPhone. The government has had that ability since the iPhone's inception. The government wanted to expand and publicize this ability to allow other agencies open access to this law enforcement tool. Apple had to push back in order to protect it's brand and the appearance of security. This is nothing more than a cover story for the extremely naive...
3
I commend Mr. Cook for taking such a stand, even if it were with our government.
5
The Justice Dept essentially withdrew from a case at it had come to know that it was going to loose. Other than it's unsubstaciated claim, the FBI does not offer any information regarding how the cell phone's self destruct architecture was over-ridden, who did it nor what if any information was extracted from it. My guess would be that this is an excercize in mis-information, face saving and waiting for a better test case to coerce private industry to compromise the encryption of private communications. A cloak of secrecy will no doubt be thrown over the entire matter on the basis of investigative confidentiality. It's too bad that the Federal Magistrate will probably dismiss the case without questioning the U.S. attorney nor admonishing the Justice Dept for wasting his or her time.
3
Attention all of you FBI fans! This iPhone consisted of technology that has been outdated for two years! Current iPhones are much more sophisticated in regards to security. This hack could not work on the millions of new iPhones currently being sold. And if you don't think the next generation of iPhone won't be even harder to crack, then you are truly deluded.
2
At risk of being too skeptical, it NEVER made sense that with physical access to the device AND the resources of the National Security Agency, whose sole mission is to capture and decrypt enemy communications, available to it that the FBI needed Apple to unlock this device. What the FBI really wanted, IMHO, was the ability to listen in on messages captured in wiretaps in real time.
3
Never mind that simply finding out who a terrorist has called can provide a great deal of information.
1
The whole thing either make the DOJ/FBI looks really aggressive in infringing on civil right, down right incompetent or both.
If you can believe DOJ and FBI's story, they looked everywhere and determined there is no other way but Apple and made a huge ruckus only to realize they didn't even look at alternatives before deciding on Apple. This is as stupid as claiming someone stole your phone without checking your own pocket first.
If you can believe DOJ and FBI's story, they looked everywhere and determined there is no other way but Apple and made a huge ruckus only to realize they didn't even look at alternatives before deciding on Apple. This is as stupid as claiming someone stole your phone without checking your own pocket first.
3
so funny, but very real.
Anyone who thinks anything they have stored on any electronic device is secure is delusional. For Apple to argue this is about OUR security is disingenuous. They know everything that is on any of their devices -- so they can monitor, gather data about, and manipulate their customers.
1
That is a lie. Apple do not have an ad platform so any data it gathered from you is lost to them.
AmateurHistorian: Are really that naive?
1
You know, the folks at FBI's online crime site are pretty nice people, talking me through how these emails work to relieve us of our privacy and property, but you'd never know it for their grabby attitude and disgust for privacy in real person.
People constantly comment about how the government is invading their privacy by breaking into an encrypted cell phone. They forget that only 15 or 20 years ago drug dealers and those involved with crime were very careful about what they said on the telephone via land line as you never knew if the police were tapping into it. Ten to fifteen years ago anyone could listen to private cell phone conversations via a police scanner at anytime as the conversations were not scrambled or encrypted. Emails 'were' for the most part not encrypted and people learned that they should never say or type anything that they did not want someone else to read. Now, almost everything on the internet and in communications are encrypted. The cell phone companies, private businesses, companies like Apple and especially social media companies know everything about people that use their devices or services, but few people really care. This bothers me that people are fine with private company data collection, but having the government listening in on a conversation or information involving a terrorist attack is horribly wrong. Are we entering a golden age of mayhem and crime?
2
Wow. I'm surprised by the tone and perspective of the NYTimes readers. This is quite different from what I expected.
Listen, readers! This was never about just one phone although DOJ really made it sound like it. In fact, across the nations, there were multiple requests from the US goverment asking Apple to cooperate to unlock hundreds of phones and even install backdoors for them to use. That's a big No-No!
There's a reason why the former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden was siding with Apple rather than FBI in his interview with Trevor Noah.
I wish NYTimes had a better coverage of this issue elucdiating certain key issues that many people are oblivious or could miss.
Listen, readers! This was never about just one phone although DOJ really made it sound like it. In fact, across the nations, there were multiple requests from the US goverment asking Apple to cooperate to unlock hundreds of phones and even install backdoors for them to use. That's a big No-No!
There's a reason why the former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden was siding with Apple rather than FBI in his interview with Trevor Noah.
I wish NYTimes had a better coverage of this issue elucdiating certain key issues that many people are oblivious or could miss.
6
Hilarious! It simply doesn't matter if the Government is telling the truth or not, the suspicion is that the Apple Smartphones are not completely secure. So, the preferred communication device for secret communications is now just another smartphone.
Had Apple cooperated users would have known that it takes a court order to access the phones. Now, presumably, the Government can hack any apple smartphone at will without a warrant.
Had Apple cooperated users would have known that it takes a court order to access the phones. Now, presumably, the Government can hack any apple smartphone at will without a warrant.
You do understand that in order to get into the phone, they had to have physical possession of the phone and disassemble it, right?
So the government can indeed hack this older model of iPhone now... with the help of an Israeli defense firm, if it physically steals the phone from you and disassembles it.
So the government can indeed hack this older model of iPhone now... with the help of an Israeli defense firm, if it physically steals the phone from you and disassembles it.
This is definitely not good when a private company has to do the work of the FBI.
The world is flat and the American intelligence agencies are not the only ones who want to prey open people's phones and privacy. What would have been the answer from Apple and Americans had the Russian or Chinese asked Apple for help?
With all the secret courts, secret judges and secret everything and zero oversight having a backdoor build into our private lives "Privacy" as we know it will cease to exist.
If the FBI were required to go to a non-secret court / judge to obtain a search warrant for a mobile phone's content with good reasons (eminent terror attack and the likes) I'm sure phone makers would not object.
When I hear "Trust us we will only ransack your house and look for what we find - it is for your own safety and no court will be the judge of what we do with what we find" I get seriously paranoid.
A "Free" country with a no-oversight court and judicial system is no different from a totalitarian police state.
The world is flat and the American intelligence agencies are not the only ones who want to prey open people's phones and privacy. What would have been the answer from Apple and Americans had the Russian or Chinese asked Apple for help?
With all the secret courts, secret judges and secret everything and zero oversight having a backdoor build into our private lives "Privacy" as we know it will cease to exist.
If the FBI were required to go to a non-secret court / judge to obtain a search warrant for a mobile phone's content with good reasons (eminent terror attack and the likes) I'm sure phone makers would not object.
When I hear "Trust us we will only ransack your house and look for what we find - it is for your own safety and no court will be the judge of what we do with what we find" I get seriously paranoid.
A "Free" country with a no-oversight court and judicial system is no different from a totalitarian police state.
1
I wish Americans would stop with the back door nonsense.
A back door of iPhones would be secret code built into the iPhone code that everybody is using. With a back door iPhone code you could send a signal and activate the back door code at any time, and on any iPhone.
The FBI did not ask Apple for a back door to iPhones.
A back door of iPhones would be secret code built into the iPhone code that everybody is using. With a back door iPhone code you could send a signal and activate the back door code at any time, and on any iPhone.
The FBI did not ask Apple for a back door to iPhones.
This data has been valuable as it supports my belief it took GCHQ no time to crack the BlackBerry's compression technology, maybe they even bought the code, but they had to hold back for 30 days for Cameron's email to go meta in the Tempora system.
FBI vs Apple
FBI's fiscal 2017 budget proposal asked for $85.1 million more for cybersecurity (on top of the $541 million in current spending) and an additional $38.3 million for an initiative meant to help investigators beat encryption.
Vs
$145 billion: Total cash held by Apple Inc in offshore accounts (to avoid paying US taxes and shareholder dividends).
To put $145 billion into proper perspective that's more than the total value of the US Navy's entire fleet of 12 nuclear aircraft carriers (including the Navy's newest $18 billion USS Gerald R Ford the most technology-advanced warship ever built) and 30 Virginia Class nuclear submarines combined!
FBI's fiscal 2017 budget proposal asked for $85.1 million more for cybersecurity (on top of the $541 million in current spending) and an additional $38.3 million for an initiative meant to help investigators beat encryption.
Vs
$145 billion: Total cash held by Apple Inc in offshore accounts (to avoid paying US taxes and shareholder dividends).
To put $145 billion into proper perspective that's more than the total value of the US Navy's entire fleet of 12 nuclear aircraft carriers (including the Navy's newest $18 billion USS Gerald R Ford the most technology-advanced warship ever built) and 30 Virginia Class nuclear submarines combined!
3
So now I assume the U.S. government is finally more powerful than Google, Facebook and the rest of it.
The US Government IS the "rest of it." And the rest of us. Google, et all, use every bit (literally) of your browsing and communications to manipulate you. Sheesh!
1
For cryin out loud folks, give it up. There is NEVER a 100% locking system for anything. Mostly hype put out by the device manufacturers.
And then the FBI spilled water on the phone and now they can't get it to work. Wow!
Next time, just give the phone to Apple and ask nicely rather than threatening law suits.
Next time, just give the phone to Apple and ask nicely rather than threatening law suits.
2
Wake up. The FBI privately asked Apple and were denied.
Ahh, FBI's fiscal 2017 budget proposal asked for $85.1 million more for cybersecurity (on top of the $541 million in current spending) and an additional $38.3 million for an initiative meant to help investigators beat encryption.
Vs
$145 billion: Total cash held by Apple Inc in offshore accounts (to avoid paying US taxes and shareholder dividends).
To put $145 billion into proper perspective that's more than the value of the US Navy's entire fleet of 12 nuclear aircraft carriers and 30 Virginia Class nuclear submarines combined!
Vs
$145 billion: Total cash held by Apple Inc in offshore accounts (to avoid paying US taxes and shareholder dividends).
To put $145 billion into proper perspective that's more than the value of the US Navy's entire fleet of 12 nuclear aircraft carriers and 30 Virginia Class nuclear submarines combined!
I can just imagine a guy falling from the new World Trade Center after another 9/11 style terrorist attack, saying to himself as he falls to his death "Well at least my iPhone data is still intact" Do we really care that the government might know who we called or what websites we visited when the national security is at stake?
1
Yes, at least I care, and I think everyone should.
Not for myself; I'm fairly boring. I want the judge who is hearing my case to have a secure phone, so he can't be blackmailed or influenced. I want the police to have secure phones, so they can't be manipulated. I want my kids to have secure phones, so some bad guy can't follow and track them. I want our friends who volunteer with Doctors without Borders to have secure phones so that they are safe when they work in other countries.
Device security IS national security. Weakening device security is a gift to foreign agents and terrorists who seek to harm Americans, both at home and abroad.
Not for myself; I'm fairly boring. I want the judge who is hearing my case to have a secure phone, so he can't be blackmailed or influenced. I want the police to have secure phones, so they can't be manipulated. I want my kids to have secure phones, so some bad guy can't follow and track them. I want our friends who volunteer with Doctors without Borders to have secure phones so that they are safe when they work in other countries.
Device security IS national security. Weakening device security is a gift to foreign agents and terrorists who seek to harm Americans, both at home and abroad.
2
What this proves is what all techies, including Apple, understand. No software/hardware is totally secure. Button it up as tightly as possible and there will always be someone who eventually breaks it. It is not a matter of "if" but "when" and the goal is to try to stay ahead of the "when".
The issue Apple had with breaking the code is not that the iPhone was impenetrable but designing an opening, no matter how secure, makes subverting that opening infinitely easier.
For everyone who is taking Apple to task for their stance- ask yourselves how secure do you now feel knowing YOUR phone can be hacked? Is your reaction wondering when Apple will fix the flaw (it is a flaw, after all) so your personal and financial data is more secure? Or, are you grateful someone can break into YOUR phone whenever they desire?
The issue Apple had with breaking the code is not that the iPhone was impenetrable but designing an opening, no matter how secure, makes subverting that opening infinitely easier.
For everyone who is taking Apple to task for their stance- ask yourselves how secure do you now feel knowing YOUR phone can be hacked? Is your reaction wondering when Apple will fix the flaw (it is a flaw, after all) so your personal and financial data is more secure? Or, are you grateful someone can break into YOUR phone whenever they desire?
3
It is not a flaw and and someone is not breaking the code. Instead someone is using their intelligence to understand the code, and coming up with a work around. It is not a flaw if someone simply outsmarts a machine.
It is a flaw and the code is broken. Someone is using their intelligence to find a flaw in the code that allows them to build a workaround to the security. If the security were proper there would be no workaround. It is not outsmarting a machine, rather outsmarting software. That's called hacking. Say it however you wish but the outcome is the same. Personal information is being obtained from a system that is designed to prevent such access.
1
I believe this is much to do about nothing. Back in the days when there were no cell phones, phone records could be looked into.
The Federal Government is there to protect us. People need to stop being so paranoid...unless you have something to hide, it makes sense to be ok with this.
The Federal Government is there to protect us. People need to stop being so paranoid...unless you have something to hide, it makes sense to be ok with this.
2
@mary, I'd gently suggest it's not whether you have anything to hide, though I expect you wouldn't want to give me access to your phone, which I could then use to track your children.
Do you want the phone of your congressman to be vulnerable, not just to our executive branch, but to foreign powers? Do you think it's a good thing if the workers at a defense contractor have vulnerable phones? How about the police? Your doctor? Your lawyer?
I have had a number of friends serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They communicated with family at home using Apple devices. Is it OK to make their phones less secure, when they are putting their lives on the line for us in a war zone?
Do you want the phone of your congressman to be vulnerable, not just to our executive branch, but to foreign powers? Do you think it's a good thing if the workers at a defense contractor have vulnerable phones? How about the police? Your doctor? Your lawyer?
I have had a number of friends serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They communicated with family at home using Apple devices. Is it OK to make their phones less secure, when they are putting their lives on the line for us in a war zone?
1
I guess the true test of whether or not they were able to do this, will be a string of successful prosecutions based on data recovered from other, heretofore unlock-able i-phones...Or maybe not.
My take is that they were unable to do this, further they didn't want to face a more than likely, loss in court. But I could be wrong.
So, using a little very low cost mis/dis-information campaign, why not take some heat off of themselves - while at the same time, extract their pound of flesh from Apple, by undermining their ability to sell new phones to people who did previously buy them, or in not selling phones to people would have purchased them, solely for privacy reasons.
Also, I am sure that a bunch of bad guys popped up on the radar, while out looking for other secure communication/data storage/transfer vehicles...A good number of which, may seemingly be secure, but have probably and very quietly, been discovered to, or actually been designed to contain security exploits which are known only to LE/Intel. organizations. Who know's, perhaps the NSA/FBI operate a few of the companies producing said encryption technology.
Then again, what do I know? Perhaps they did, or may have been able to all along, get past the i-phones security settings, but held that bit of info. back.
Either way, it's a true master stroke of of planting the seeds of doubt, if you ask me...Which of course, you didn't, and isn't that about the only thing that any of us can be reasonably sure of? lol
My take is that they were unable to do this, further they didn't want to face a more than likely, loss in court. But I could be wrong.
So, using a little very low cost mis/dis-information campaign, why not take some heat off of themselves - while at the same time, extract their pound of flesh from Apple, by undermining their ability to sell new phones to people who did previously buy them, or in not selling phones to people would have purchased them, solely for privacy reasons.
Also, I am sure that a bunch of bad guys popped up on the radar, while out looking for other secure communication/data storage/transfer vehicles...A good number of which, may seemingly be secure, but have probably and very quietly, been discovered to, or actually been designed to contain security exploits which are known only to LE/Intel. organizations. Who know's, perhaps the NSA/FBI operate a few of the companies producing said encryption technology.
Then again, what do I know? Perhaps they did, or may have been able to all along, get past the i-phones security settings, but held that bit of info. back.
Either way, it's a true master stroke of of planting the seeds of doubt, if you ask me...Which of course, you didn't, and isn't that about the only thing that any of us can be reasonably sure of? lol
2
It seems to me that in all the time since the San Bernardo shooting anyone that the shooter had contact with is long gone. If the government is serious, this issue with Apple should have never been made public.
J Wolfson
J Wolfson
4
The FBI probably privately spoke to Apple and were turned down. At that point the only choice for the FBI to go to court.
1
Edward J. Snowden said many weeks ago that the FBI could unlock the phone and its claims to the contrary were an attempt to establish a court precedent that would make all phones fair game.
Were Ed Snowden to be honored for his selfless heroism and welcomed back to the US, he could probably perform many such services in the blink of an eye.
Were Ed Snowden to be honored for his selfless heroism and welcomed back to the US, he could probably perform many such services in the blink of an eye.
6
Capitalism, Man and his Ethics
Tim Cook and Apple Inc, a man and company that makes their fortune protecting our personal information and data from the prying eyes of everyone and anyone but themselves. A wealthy powerful man revered, admired and lionized, a national hero and the fearless leader of his company.
Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, a man and company that makes their fortune selling our personal information and data to everyone and anyone. A wealthy powerful man revered, admired and lionized, a national hero and the fearless leader of his company.
Edward Snowden, a common man who has nothing to gain and everything to lose, reveals the prying eyes of government on everyone and anyone spends his days in lonely Russian exile. A poor and powerless man despised by his countrymen and country, disloyal and a traitor!
Tim Cook and Apple Inc, a man and company that makes their fortune protecting our personal information and data from the prying eyes of everyone and anyone but themselves. A wealthy powerful man revered, admired and lionized, a national hero and the fearless leader of his company.
Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, a man and company that makes their fortune selling our personal information and data to everyone and anyone. A wealthy powerful man revered, admired and lionized, a national hero and the fearless leader of his company.
Edward Snowden, a common man who has nothing to gain and everything to lose, reveals the prying eyes of government on everyone and anyone spends his days in lonely Russian exile. A poor and powerless man despised by his countrymen and country, disloyal and a traitor!
2
I am repeated amazed by those who label Snowden as some kind of hero.
He is a traitor, pure and simple. If he were to face the music in a US Federal court, he would at best serve life. With any justice, it would be in solitary confinement.
He is a traitor, pure and simple. If he were to face the music in a US Federal court, he would at best serve life. With any justice, it would be in solitary confinement.
Keep in mind that the US Government runs the worlds largest hacking organization, namely the NSA (National Security Agency). Don't think for a minute the "third party" referred to here is some patriotic hacker.
2
As if...GCHQ blew the BlackBerry's compression technology, so they say, and we pay them over a hundred million annually to hack our emails and web searches. Only thing working for real are NSA's kidz hacking the tech industry as moles.
John McAffee may be bat doodoo crazy, but he gave a credible statement recently on how you hack an Iphone. The key is that every smart phone is really just a computer. You hack it the same way. I certainly don't believe he was the third party the DOJ consulted, but I also don't doubt that he could have done it.
2
It is VERY possible that Apple unlocked the phone for the FBI and told them
in a closed secret room to say they (FBI) 'Figured Out' themselves.
Cease and desist and either Apple gave them a back door into it without
showing them the code or they must to to one person at Apple for it.
Do NOT believe the stories you read, as they are often not based in reality.
in a closed secret room to say they (FBI) 'Figured Out' themselves.
Cease and desist and either Apple gave them a back door into it without
showing them the code or they must to to one person at Apple for it.
Do NOT believe the stories you read, as they are often not based in reality.
1
All this strikes me as not very good investigation tactics: We've just announced to the world that a particular phone is red hot, and that network of perpetrators, which has probably disassembled, is now further cloaked. Simultaneously, we've dragged one of America's most successful and famous company, which was only requiring a public conversation for a privacy/security ruling, if such a ruling was finally to be made. Forget Apple's ultra protective fanboys or the high-fiving that must be going on after a product now three generations behind has been cracked. Rather, this mudslinging has reached the far and wide sensibilities of the American public which demands a sensible, rational paradigm for privacy, not the complete absence thereof. As for me, I want them to catch the bad guys with better smarts than this, but I also want my personal data to have a legal basis for privacy unless there is a incredibly strong reason against it, not some willy-nilly backroom ops guy spying through my laptop camera, or yours right now as you read this, and snickering about your bad hair day, or worse. We can have balance, but a prerequisite is seriously good tech-informed law enforcement and tech policy instead of nincompoopery and backstabbing of American competitiveness only for political oneupmanship.
1
This may well set a good precedent that will help protect the general public. No one knows the best course to follow until the real world has had its way. JGAIA-
1
What a pompous, self righteous fool Tim Cook is. Apple probably did NOT know to unlock the phone hence Cook's bombastic nonsense. Plus his unwillingness to obey a court law now shows how weak the vaunted Apple iPhone security is.
1
You ask a pharma company to reveal their proprietary formula to save more lives, and then get back to me on what Justice has to say about THAT.
Abby: I was president of a Baltimore-based software house. We created FDA data bases. Pharma formulas are indeed revealed, by law, and stored in the most secure of facilities: Paper in locked cabinets in secure rooms.
1
Seeing that the Government were never going to succeed with an action to make Apple, or anyone else, give up their right to privacy by revealing the encryption basis of their phones and, with it, the access to all other Apple customers, the withdrawal of the Action upon what is undoubtedly the spurious suggestion that some "malicious third party" has provided the means is "convenient.
"A Quaker cannon" is an historical description of a non-existent threat. The US Government have sensibly withdrawn from a fight it couldn't win.
"A Quaker cannon" is an historical description of a non-existent threat. The US Government have sensibly withdrawn from a fight it couldn't win.
1
Any way to verify that Apple didn't just strike a secret agreement with the government to access this iPhone's data? It seems a bit fishy that the gov't won't reveal any details -- at least the name of the other company -- about how it accessed this iPhone.
What did you expect the FBI to say, they couldn't! I bet they could have all along anyway. Maybe not?
1
The kind of hackers-for-hire companies is old news. A search for "0-day exploit ny times" brings up numerous stories on NY Times just for 2015 alone.
Now both FBI and Apple have eggs on their faces. FBI for showing how much behind the curve they are with cyber security that they thought the only way to crack an iPhone is to very publicly demand Apple to do it; and Apple for being so arrogant about their own products, that instead of redirecting FBI to other avenues with a wink and a nod, they take a high profile stand against the FBI, and now everyone knows how vulnerable their phone really is.
Alternatively, this all could've been just a ruse from the beginning to root out (recruit?) the real hacking geniuses.
Now both FBI and Apple have eggs on their faces. FBI for showing how much behind the curve they are with cyber security that they thought the only way to crack an iPhone is to very publicly demand Apple to do it; and Apple for being so arrogant about their own products, that instead of redirecting FBI to other avenues with a wink and a nod, they take a high profile stand against the FBI, and now everyone knows how vulnerable their phone really is.
Alternatively, this all could've been just a ruse from the beginning to root out (recruit?) the real hacking geniuses.
1
Ridiculous...
Gov't asks Apple to help, assist, not provide the "keys" to, unlock a specifically identified device for a specifically identified legal case (national security threat) to which Apple and all the Civil Liberties people claim FOUL!!
Gov't told to go such an egg while waiting court to review and consider comments....
Gov't develops its own means to unlock a device.
Apple and Civil Liberties people want the gov't to disclose how it did it..
Gov't response is... " "...
If that's not irony nothing is..
Gov't asks Apple to help, assist, not provide the "keys" to, unlock a specifically identified device for a specifically identified legal case (national security threat) to which Apple and all the Civil Liberties people claim FOUL!!
Gov't told to go such an egg while waiting court to review and consider comments....
Gov't develops its own means to unlock a device.
Apple and Civil Liberties people want the gov't to disclose how it did it..
Gov't response is... " "...
If that's not irony nothing is..
1
It's beyond irony. It's justice . . . and hilarious.
I'm sure I'm the only one, but that photo that Tim Cook is standing in front of, sure looks like the world's largest marijuana vaporizer to me.
1
I would hope the Feds tell Apple to get lost anybody who puts anything on their phone,computer,or anything over the web should only do so knowing somebody somewhere will be able to read it. This is a fact and people should realize nothing that has been transmitted is private
Perhaps some patriotic employees have a greater loyalty to the safety of the United States than the profits and cult of personality over developing at Apple, and slipped some useful information to the FBI...
1
No, Apple engineers already said their loyalty is to the Constitution. They would quit if Apple is forced to carry out unconstitutional acts.
1
I wish some of the reader's logic on privacy concerns could be applied to their thoughts about the second amendment. I know you're gonna say "But phones don't kill people!"
Oh yeah?
Oh yeah?
2
Most attempts to unlock an iPhone want to reuse it. Not true in this case. The memory on the disk is partially encrypted, but the code run at boot is not. It should be possible to destructively but carefully disassemble an iPhone so the disk/SSD can be read and reverse engineered. The power on sequence has to start at a fixed spot, so this can be a starting place. Running the battery all the way down prevents the destruction sequence from running before attempting disassembly. (At least on my iPhone, this is all too easy without unlocking it.)
Of course, others have already done the basic reverse engineering, so getting to an encrypted copy of the customer data should be doable. The file system on the SSD/disk is also known. Decryption is harder--but the code to do it is there. Key recovery should also be possible.
None of this is easy, but not obviously impossible. The key problem in an unhackable phone design is that the phone can be disassembled and the data and code retrieved. Unlike public key/private key data transmission, where one (or both) of the keys is not accessible by the interceptor, all of the information needed to decode the data on the phone, by definition, is already on the photo.
Of course, others have already done the basic reverse engineering, so getting to an encrypted copy of the customer data should be doable. The file system on the SSD/disk is also known. Decryption is harder--but the code to do it is there. Key recovery should also be possible.
None of this is easy, but not obviously impossible. The key problem in an unhackable phone design is that the phone can be disassembled and the data and code retrieved. Unlike public key/private key data transmission, where one (or both) of the keys is not accessible by the interceptor, all of the information needed to decode the data on the phone, by definition, is already on the photo.
A basic tenet of computer security is that if someone else has access to your computer, it is not your computer anymore.
In this case, I wonder if they found anything of any value. From what I have read, it appears that the suspects destroyed both of their personal phones as well as the hard drive to their PC. It would appear they had a more than basic understanding of operational security. If they left this phone, then I doubt there was much of use on it.
If they do find something, it is likely the suspects would have used an encrypted application for communication, so they will have to resolve that as well.
We get in an uproar about national security, because this is a terrorist case. The reality is that these issues affect us all; this could be anyone's phone that they want access to. I would really prefer it was the Court system and the government that was protecting my rights and privacy...how very naïve of me.
In this case, I wonder if they found anything of any value. From what I have read, it appears that the suspects destroyed both of their personal phones as well as the hard drive to their PC. It would appear they had a more than basic understanding of operational security. If they left this phone, then I doubt there was much of use on it.
If they do find something, it is likely the suspects would have used an encrypted application for communication, so they will have to resolve that as well.
We get in an uproar about national security, because this is a terrorist case. The reality is that these issues affect us all; this could be anyone's phone that they want access to. I would really prefer it was the Court system and the government that was protecting my rights and privacy...how very naïve of me.
1
Well done FBI! Tim Cook's and Apple's arrogance in this case is staggering!
1
Privacy should be a concern for every citizen whether here or in another country. Read this line - The Nazis used these "pink lists" to hunt down individual homosexuals during police actions. Who doesn't think this will happen again?
Reference - https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005261
Countries where they will kill you for being gay.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/02/24/here-are-th...
And lets not forget about internet censorship in China.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/20/this-chart-explains-everything-you-n...
Many of us travel abroad on business and take a "sanitized" PC and Phone with us.
While many are cheering for the government I'm not one of them.
Reference - https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005261
Countries where they will kill you for being gay.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/02/24/here-are-th...
And lets not forget about internet censorship in China.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/20/this-chart-explains-everything-you-n...
Many of us travel abroad on business and take a "sanitized" PC and Phone with us.
While many are cheering for the government I'm not one of them.
2
The US should tell the whole world how to unlock the iPhone. That would really stick it to Tim Cook. Then maybe Apple will cooperate in the future.
I love Apple and its products. But they really started to annoy me on this issue when they decided they were the right party to defend the first amendment rights of their customers. The takeaway? When a court says to you "The government has a terrorist's phone and needs to access its contents", the correct response is "How can I help?", and not "I know better than the Federal judicial system what the right balance is between the needs of law enforcement and individual privacy issues."
5
They sent it to Gitmo and waterboarded it.
2
Are you kidding me? After engaging in aiding and abetting terrorism by refusing to unlock the terrorist's phone, Apple has the gall to claim that they deserve to know how their product was hacked? Go away, Tim Cook, and think about how you're going to fix your supposedly invulnerable product.
3
I would hope that Apple will spend the time, money and effort to make a totally unbreakable code, to any and all parties, including the "solace" government "of the people". And for all of you "Americans" living your scared little lives, that you would infringe on my rights, so you would otherwise feel safe, in an unsafe world, how dare you. So I have stood on endless lines at airports, events and whatever, in the name of this false security, that it brings. Just live your lives, you're going to die, get over it. Be FREE while you're still alive.
The success of the feds in accessing the data on the iPhone does not necessarily surprise me. (I say that assuming that the phone in question was not secured with anything more than a 4-5 digit PIN.) This only reinforces the advice that one should refrain from doing or saying anything online that one would not want to see on the front page of this venerable paper.
This is really bad news for Americans with Apple I-Phones and for Apple too. Big Brother Obama is already violating the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amndments by spying on us without any reasonable suspicion or due process of law or procedure. Now Obama can be any where any time like a ghostly spector. I trust Ed Snowden and Amy Goodman more than President Obama.
2
Then I would question your judgement. There is no violation of the law here except for Tim Cook's refusal to obey a legal court order for Apple to assist with opening a phone that was: 1. used by a terrorist who killed 14 and injured many more; 2. was actually owned by the county where the terrorist worked, and said owner gave full permission to the justice department and Apple to open it by any means necessary. What part of that do you deem illegal or covert?
2
The magistrate's order in this case was issued without giving Apple the opportunity to present arguments.
Whether an order to conscript Apple engineers to help the FBI at Apple's expense was legal or not would be determined by higher courts. In my opinion, the order was a gross overreach by a naive and inexperienced magistrate selected by the FBI. It would have been vacated on appeal.
Whether an order to conscript Apple engineers to help the FBI at Apple's expense was legal or not would be determined by higher courts. In my opinion, the order was a gross overreach by a naive and inexperienced magistrate selected by the FBI. It would have been vacated on appeal.
1
Why should the Government give Apple the key to its own encryption? With $200,000,000,000 floating around offshore, Apple can surely hire someone smart enough to fix its leaky security system. Maybe some third graders in the Bay Area could show Apple's highly paid engineers how to do the job correctly in the first place.
5
Hearing so many talk about privacy as if it is some sanctified, inviolable right reminds me of gun owners who refuse to allow the sane and reasonable regulations for guns.
Do you think Tim Cook really cares about your privacy? Or about your rights? Tim Cook is protecting his brand as a market strategy.
I'll support Apple when I get to vote for their leaders and their products--until then I'll stay with my own representative government, a government that is--or should be--responsible to and for me. And if it's not?
Well, that's probably my own fault, too.
Do you think Tim Cook really cares about your privacy? Or about your rights? Tim Cook is protecting his brand as a market strategy.
I'll support Apple when I get to vote for their leaders and their products--until then I'll stay with my own representative government, a government that is--or should be--responsible to and for me. And if it's not?
Well, that's probably my own fault, too.
10
You do know that you can buy Apple stock and then vote for Apple's leaders, right?
Tim Cook is of course protecting his company... one of the most successful in America and part of one of America's strongest economic sectors. Protecting the American economy is a good thing.
Would you buy a Mexican-made phone if you knew the manufacturer had designed it so that the Mexican government could access your data whenever it wanted? If not, then do you think anyone in the rest of the world will buy American-made technology under the same condition?
I assure you that the economic damage that would do to the country would vastly exceed the damage that a couple of suicidal whackos can do with firearms.
Tim Cook is of course protecting his company... one of the most successful in America and part of one of America's strongest economic sectors. Protecting the American economy is a good thing.
Would you buy a Mexican-made phone if you knew the manufacturer had designed it so that the Mexican government could access your data whenever it wanted? If not, then do you think anyone in the rest of the world will buy American-made technology under the same condition?
I assure you that the economic damage that would do to the country would vastly exceed the damage that a couple of suicidal whackos can do with firearms.
1
From the days of J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI has long trampled civil rights whenever it felt it had a compelling reason for doing so, whether illegally bugging civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King (with RFK's full knowledge and encouragement), to playing footsie and doing the bidding of Senator Joseph McCarthy in terrorizing thousands during the 1950's, to compelling the CIA to stand own it's investigation of Watergate at Richard Nixon's command, to Hoovers ferret like hoarding of the personal habits of millions of Americans "just because", this government agency has been perhaps the least trustworthy in its standards and practices. So please excuse the majority of us when we question what exactly you will do with the technical expertise you have apparently acquired that will open up our lives to even further scrutiny by our government .... on what basis exactly should we trust you to do the right thing now? Sadly, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. I hope corporations like Apple, combined with the people of this country, continue to stand up and say, "No, we will not trade freedom for security."
3
This has always been the case. Most governments can and will do what they want. I lived through the McCarthy era and believe me, the Feds are interested in one thing, getting whatever they want. There never was a question that they needed APPLE to get the information. There are no rights to privacy.
I am the first person to defend the right to privacy in the digital age. But the owner of the phone was a terrorist killed by police. That person gave up his right to privacy. I also wonder who really helped whom in this situation. If they needed to use back channels to avoid setting a precedent, so be it.
4
Apple probably unlocked it at first request. The Justice Department debacle could be no more than a cooperative effort to prevent accomplices from scattering before any useful information was gathered from the phone.
Here's a thought: The FBI is lying... Faced with the prospect of a big loss with the Supreme Court, and setting a disastrous legal precedent, the FBI chose to drop this case. Thus, they lied to save face..
oh, i see
th problem was th fbi didnt have th right size allen wrench and homedepot were all out of them
th problem was th fbi didnt have th right size allen wrench and homedepot were all out of them
So now the government and Apple have learned what many of us already knew: If you want to hack a computer, phone or other device, asking a judge or corporate CEO for help is much less useful than offering some cash to a teenager or two.
2
I wonder if it will ever be possible to create a truly secure os? It's more likely that what one person can make another can eventually subvert. In the short run though, Apple is likely to fix any flaw that was uncovered even if the Government doesn't tell them about it. Knowing about it is half the battle.
@Gene - Is that really the point though? When (if ever) does a corporation's refusal to cooperate in matters of terrorist investigations become acceptable?
1
When giving the government info on the terrorists effectively gives them all of YOUR personal data too, and millions of other people's.
I'm sure the Dept. of Justice will issue a full public apology to Apple for dragging it into court, to force it to do something DOJ claimed the US government with its unlimited hi-tech resources couldn't do. (All the while broadly hinting that "failure to cooperate" with Big Brother made Apple unpatriotic.) Ooops; just kidding! Can we still be friends?
And no doubt, the check covering Apple's legal fees is already in the mail. Because that's only fair, and our government is nothing if not fair.
And no doubt, the check covering Apple's legal fees is already in the mail. Because that's only fair, and our government is nothing if not fair.
2
Seems like many commenters take the point of view that if you are asked to do something with which you disagree and find that your cooperation wasn't necessary, you should have agreed to do the disagreeable thing. I disagree, and think that you should stand by what you think is right.
@Ender - Except I very much doubt this was ever about what Apple thought was right (in the moral sense). More like they were protecting their own bottom line while wearing a phony mantle of concern for customers' privacy.
2
I have no idea what Apple or Tim Cook really thought.
I know what I think. I think Apple's stance was clearly the right one (in the moral sense). It did the most to protect America and the safety and security of all Americans.
If it helped their bottom line in the end, well good for them. That's what happens when customers feel you deserve their loyalty.
I know what I think. I think Apple's stance was clearly the right one (in the moral sense). It did the most to protect America and the safety and security of all Americans.
If it helped their bottom line in the end, well good for them. That's what happens when customers feel you deserve their loyalty.
The government can come into my house at any time of the day, remove all of my paper files, my computer, my books, bank records, and anything else that they feel is necessary. They can tap my phone and listen to my conversations. They can sample my dna and fingerprints. And we accept this as the necessary cost of preventing and solving crimes so long as it is done under court jurisdiction. How is a cell phone any different?
The only difference is the mystique of Apple. In any case, this is America. If we cannot get to a terrorist's cell phone at least we can waterboard him, with less public outrage.
The only difference is the mystique of Apple. In any case, this is America. If we cannot get to a terrorist's cell phone at least we can waterboard him, with less public outrage.
1
RB, they can only do all the things you reference if, IF they have a little something called "probable cause" and do so via a court obtained order, signed off on by a judge. That is the protection granted everyone living in this country as a bulwark against illegal search and seizure. It's a precious right and not one to be taken nonchalantly. A lot of good people have died protecting our freedoms .... don't be so quick to give them up to a government agency so we can make there job a little easier. Let them work a little harder and let us keep our bill of rights in tact.
Well, they can. But the same as your documents written with a cipher and your conversations spoken in code language it is up to them to crack it.
Actually, this may help Apple and other manufacturers make phones even more secure. There are always bugs in any software, but the government is helping find them.
Now we need to find out if all the hullabaloo and expense to taxpayers revealed anything of importance on the phone. I have my doubts, but the FBI's opinion won't be credible.
Now we need to find out if all the hullabaloo and expense to taxpayers revealed anything of importance on the phone. I have my doubts, but the FBI's opinion won't be credible.
1
As a computer person this was just another administration wanting to own us lock stock and barrow. Of course, they had recourse to getting the information they wanted, but, hey, now they wanted to show force. Glad Apple stood firm because as computer people, this administration forgets we know a lot more than they! Apple has special programs that even they cannot re-enter, so lighten up those who know nothing and thank God we have Apple and hopefully other phone companies with the same ideas and ideals!
1
@Rosech - Sorry to break it to you, but Apple doesn't give 2 cents about you or its customers, only customers' money. Their main marketing strategy is their supposed superior security, and that is what they were trying to protect -- a competitive advantage. Supposedly. Personally, I think it's poetic justice that things turned out this way because Apple has now created a bigger problem -- customers who now have cause to wonder if Apple was scamming them the whole time.
3
I'm OK with someone having to hire a foreign defense contractor, steal and disassemble my phone, and spend a week with highly specialized equipment to get access to it. As an Apple customer, I don't feel scammed in the least.
Never underestimate the power of a ten year old with time on her hands.
2
It would be a news item if the Feds were impotent technically to retrieve what they need to retrieve from ANY phone, let alone this IPhone.
If Iran, North Korea China, India, and other countries have the technical capabilities of decoding most of our signals and memory chips, it would be surprising for me if the government was unable to do it.
This charade was more for the Privacy issue for future use than for this specific phone.
Now New York and other States can use the same person to retrieve information from hundreds of phone that they want cracked.
If Iran, North Korea China, India, and other countries have the technical capabilities of decoding most of our signals and memory chips, it would be surprising for me if the government was unable to do it.
This charade was more for the Privacy issue for future use than for this specific phone.
Now New York and other States can use the same person to retrieve information from hundreds of phone that they want cracked.
3
A sepeculation, they have been open up chips for years to determine if Patent infringements have occurred. It's not hard to imagine that the mechanisms were physical compromise allowing for them to get around the fire wall. Finally, Apple undoubtedly has a fix in place or designed for future intrusions.
1
The FBI wouldn't lie to us about unlocking the phone would they?
Strange they haven't shared even a vague report on what they found.
With a 4,4 SCOTUS maybe they didn't want to push their case yet.
Just seems a bit quick, from inept to hero sleuths.
Strange they haven't shared even a vague report on what they found.
With a 4,4 SCOTUS maybe they didn't want to push their case yet.
Just seems a bit quick, from inept to hero sleuths.
2
I'm a big apple fan, but I'm also a prof of comp. sci. as well as of physics; it's simply impossible for any company to create encryption hard enough on a small device like the iPhone to withstand the onslaught by people with federal resources. In fact it amazes me that it took this long for the feds. Especially since FBI manage to convince Congress already back in the late 90-ties about *limiting* what kind of encryption companies may or may not use (there were quite heavy encryption programs out there for public use that became out lawed back then).
I take of my virtual hat of for Apple who stood up for a just cause - and for their encryption holding the fort for so long against an immense force like the Government.
Sure, the feds know how to unlock our iphones now. 'till next upgrade when they have to start all over. Could go on forever. Makes me quite happy about my choice of platform.
I take of my virtual hat of for Apple who stood up for a just cause - and for their encryption holding the fort for so long against an immense force like the Government.
Sure, the feds know how to unlock our iphones now. 'till next upgrade when they have to start all over. Could go on forever. Makes me quite happy about my choice of platform.
4
You guys have seemed to forgotten that we are in USA and have a Constitution that prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Therefor a warrant is need to open phone without owners permission, even with technology to do so, as in wire tap situation.
1
Your logic is strange.
If "it's simply impossible for any company to create encryption hard enough on a small device like the iPhone to withstand the onslaught by people with federal resources" it should be possible to easily hack the next version of an Apple iPhone.
Apple did not stand up for a just cause unless you believe attempting to secure your profit is a just cause.
By the way the Chinese government probably have had the method to hack iPhones from almost day one. They have complete access to the hardware, and also access to the software. Not much difficulty to obtain the source code from binary code when an iPhone has a small amount of binary code.
If "it's simply impossible for any company to create encryption hard enough on a small device like the iPhone to withstand the onslaught by people with federal resources" it should be possible to easily hack the next version of an Apple iPhone.
Apple did not stand up for a just cause unless you believe attempting to secure your profit is a just cause.
By the way the Chinese government probably have had the method to hack iPhones from almost day one. They have complete access to the hardware, and also access to the software. Not much difficulty to obtain the source code from binary code when an iPhone has a small amount of binary code.
If the government can hack in to find evidence, they likely also gain ways tamper with digital evidence that may be difficult to track.
There are many authorities around the worlds who will misuse this power and we shouldn't be so naive to expect the US to be immune.
The market for secure repository of personal consumer data remains.
There are many authorities around the worlds who will misuse this power and we shouldn't be so naive to expect the US to be immune.
The market for secure repository of personal consumer data remains.
3
are people forced to use cell phones ?
if youre worried about privacy, then dont use one
if youre worried about privacy, then dont use one
1
I wonder what Steve Jobs would have done. Mr. Cook appeared so sure and cocky; like the world's controller of communications and security. Oh well....that is the way the cookie crumbles.
2
the naivete in most of the comments is really fascinating.
protecting your privacy with encryption is like protecting your liberty with firepower. if you really live that way, you're a slave to your paranoia.
encryption isn't meant to be secure: it's meant to be costly. the point isn't to make hacking impossible, just to make it expensive and time consuming.
people who feel vulnerable now, who are not actually committing any crime, need to get a life. nobody cares about your nudies, selfies, sexts and scams, unless it's your spouse.
the feds are coming, the feds are coming? do you have any idea how much personal information is available about you personally, sold and bought freely, among corporations? credit, contract, property, financial, license, location, media, medical, law enforcement and legal information?
the hacker resource has been available all along to the feds. the feds clearly suckered apple into taking an indefensible public position, because their brand strategy forced them into it.
there is no 4th amendment protection for using the publicly available and corporate owned communications, transport, office and retail infrastructure. your "privacy" exists in your home.
protecting your privacy with encryption is like protecting your liberty with firepower. if you really live that way, you're a slave to your paranoia.
encryption isn't meant to be secure: it's meant to be costly. the point isn't to make hacking impossible, just to make it expensive and time consuming.
people who feel vulnerable now, who are not actually committing any crime, need to get a life. nobody cares about your nudies, selfies, sexts and scams, unless it's your spouse.
the feds are coming, the feds are coming? do you have any idea how much personal information is available about you personally, sold and bought freely, among corporations? credit, contract, property, financial, license, location, media, medical, law enforcement and legal information?
the hacker resource has been available all along to the feds. the feds clearly suckered apple into taking an indefensible public position, because their brand strategy forced them into it.
there is no 4th amendment protection for using the publicly available and corporate owned communications, transport, office and retail infrastructure. your "privacy" exists in your home.
7
Hi, Bruce. How does a psychologist with a PhD from Cornell turn into such a judgmental sort of guy? I don't think it's fair to insult people who care about their privacy. For example, you obviously are comfortable with your personal information being so easily accessible. But what about someone like Jan? Is she as cool with it? (By the way, are things ok with you two? Just asking because I saw your dating profile. Maybe she's cool with it, in which case, you two have fun!)
I'm not a weirdo, just someone looking at publicly available information. But some people would like to have control over who can easily access that sort of thing. If I were so inclined--and I really am not, don't worry--I could have a field day with some of this.
It's fine if you have one view of privacy, but don't dismiss the views of others who like to keep things to themselves a bit more.
I'm not a weirdo, just someone looking at publicly available information. But some people would like to have control over who can easily access that sort of thing. If I were so inclined--and I really am not, don't worry--I could have a field day with some of this.
It's fine if you have one view of privacy, but don't dismiss the views of others who like to keep things to themselves a bit more.
1
"I am not surprised with the anti-Apple sentiment shown in comments. It's an example of the Trump supporter mentality where nothing is sacred and everything is a fair target. Well, I hope those that vilify Apple don't own the product because obviously they purchased an inferior one. I am absolutely inline with privacy advocates on this one. The government has embarked on a slippery slope and the sheep are congratulating it."
to baboulas
how would have it changed the intent of your post if you would have left the first sentence mentioning Trump. I found your post to be right on target except distracting me by your gratuitous attack on Trump.
by the way your mention of the sheep congratulating the attack on Apple is more likely to come from a liberal in NYC then a gun toting Texan, who is more likely to believe in the constitution. of course that is just my opinion. I have no proof to support my assertion.
to baboulas
how would have it changed the intent of your post if you would have left the first sentence mentioning Trump. I found your post to be right on target except distracting me by your gratuitous attack on Trump.
by the way your mention of the sheep congratulating the attack on Apple is more likely to come from a liberal in NYC then a gun toting Texan, who is more likely to believe in the constitution. of course that is just my opinion. I have no proof to support my assertion.
2
charles new york 1 hour ago
"I am not surprised with the anti-Apple sentiment shown in comments.
........................................
Maybe Americans are anti-Apple since Tom Cook became CEO at Apple by getting rid of the Americans who used to build Apple products and outsourcing the work to cheap foreign labor.
Currently the majority of Americans working for Apple are Americans working as cheap labor in Apple stores.
Reality is that there is not much of value for US companies like Apple that only offer cheap labor jobs for Americans.
"I am not surprised with the anti-Apple sentiment shown in comments.
........................................
Maybe Americans are anti-Apple since Tom Cook became CEO at Apple by getting rid of the Americans who used to build Apple products and outsourcing the work to cheap foreign labor.
Currently the majority of Americans working for Apple are Americans working as cheap labor in Apple stores.
Reality is that there is not much of value for US companies like Apple that only offer cheap labor jobs for Americans.
2
The FBI should refuse to reveal its secrets. It is hypocritical of Apple to want its code and crack it too.
4
Israel's Cellebrite is the company the FBI hired to unlock the phone. This company provides cellular technology services to law enforcement and businesses all over the world. The FBI was just to lazy, or ignorant, to search them out and Apple paid a price for that. Or, homeland security saw an opportunity to further erode individual privacy by going after Apple on the pretext of national security. Apple must have a pretty good legal staff to be able to peal the FBI off their back by pointing to Cellebrite and threatening to expose the FBI for what is was really doing, or not doing in a court of law.
1
The FBI knew from day one that they would be able to hack into this iPhone, but they strove for something much larger - setting a precedent by having people's privacy compromised by Apple. I also believe Apple knew from day one that the phone in question can be hacked into, but they stood their ground and told their customers that they simply will not perform that hack. In the end, both are winners. The FBI got into the phone, although the content of said phone remains to be seen if anything useful yielded. As for Apple, they are seen as standing their ground in the name of privacy protection for their customers.
The discussions about the iPhone continually skip over a core issue related to Apple's business plan. Apple applies a bizarre password lock that not even banks and credit cards use. There is no recourse except, of course, to backup your iPhone on Apple's iCloud.
After 6 incorrect passwords in a row (not 10 times, according to Apple's website), Apple locks the phone irreversibly and insists there is no way for Apple or its owner to unlock it. Therefore, the user must completely erase all content and start over again with a blank phone, or simply buy another phone.
This punishing bludgeon awaits all iPhone, as well as iPad, users. It is wierdly hostile and arrogant. Security-conscious online companies generally help users who forget their passwords rather than obliterate their accounts.
After 6 incorrect passwords in a row (not 10 times, according to Apple's website), Apple locks the phone irreversibly and insists there is no way for Apple or its owner to unlock it. Therefore, the user must completely erase all content and start over again with a blank phone, or simply buy another phone.
This punishing bludgeon awaits all iPhone, as well as iPad, users. It is wierdly hostile and arrogant. Security-conscious online companies generally help users who forget their passwords rather than obliterate their accounts.
7
As stated previously, it is pretty much game over if someone has physical possession of a commercially available device.
The shiny new exploit the FBI has is more interesting if the bauble can be used remotely. Apple would worry about remote exploits which criminals would be interested in. Many exploits requiring physical possession are only of academic interest because they really don't threaten the smart phone user base like remote exploits do.
The shiny new exploit the FBI has is more interesting if the bauble can be used remotely. Apple would worry about remote exploits which criminals would be interested in. Many exploits requiring physical possession are only of academic interest because they really don't threaten the smart phone user base like remote exploits do.
And a second thought. Even clergy and medical professionals can disclose patient information/confidences to authorities if they believe that there is a credible and immediate threat. So, even if Apple wishes to place itself as the representative of the privacy god, it had an obligation to divulge, (in this case provide a method), to neutralize a known, ( remember the user of the phone was a terrorist), threat.
I can not resist -- "No man (or corporation) is an island, entire of itself; every man (or corporation) is a piece of the continent (society), a part of the main..."
I can not resist -- "No man (or corporation) is an island, entire of itself; every man (or corporation) is a piece of the continent (society), a part of the main..."
5
Congratulations Apple! You forced the FBI into unlocking the iPhone security on their own, thus making it possible for everyone in law enforcement -- legitimate and lunatic -- to snoop on everyone's iPhone. As an Apple fan for 35 years, I have to say that ranks high up on the list of the most stupid things Apple has ever done!
4
Our government has shown many times that it cannot be trusted with secure information. If they hadn't mishandled this very phone in the first place, tampering with the password, they would not have needed to push this issue. Now they claim they've found a workaround, but we really don't know if that's true, and I sincerely hope it is not, since there are such profoundly inept bunglers involved. This isn't about Apple not cooperating with the government, or about protecting individual peoples' privacy. It is about secure communications, which in turn means that it is about our country's security, which is compromised over and over by people with security clearances who should be protecting it. I also expect that if the Justice Department had, in fact, found a way to unlock the phone, we the people would not be reading about it in the news. My guess is they realized they had done something very stupid, once again, and in an election year, and they now want it to go away. Oopsie. At least we got to see where Obama's true sentiments lie.
1
This story has really intrigued me. From the beginning, I could not believe that the government was unable, with all its resources, to crack into the phone. The lawsuit simply bewildered me. Now that the government has found a way to breach the security, everyone's acting like Apple's got a problem. Really? Did anyone really think this would end any other way?
1
Privacy advocates don't advance their cause by proclaiming to be champions of the 4th amendment. Most logical people would agree that when somebody commits mass murder, it's completely reasonable for law enforcement to search their phone (especially when that phone was loaned by an agency that consented to their property being searched).
5
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple provided the information through a back channel in order to save face
1
I think that for most people this is much less important than it is being made out to be, particularly from someone who is as addicted to Apple products as I am. I really don't care of the government can access my phone if they put their minds to it. In terms of security from criminals, I pay my fee to a service that tracks anyone who is trying to access my personal data in order to try and defraud me. It has worked for me in the past, allowing me to just cancel and change credit cards with no cost other than the annoyance of doing so.
I agree with Apple philosophically that they should not be forced to unlock their own phone. I agree practically that if US companies are forced to unlock their their own phones for the US government, they will lose a certain market share (likely very small, the group of people who value privacy over convenience) to foreign companies who do not have to do so.
If the government has now unlocked the Apple phone themselves. They are, for the moment, ahead in the "arms race" between access and security. Security will be tightened, and both parties will gain and lose the advantage over the other multiple times as time progresses. I don't think it makes any real difference to the utility of the iPhone to most Apple customers, and the last time I looked Apple stock was up today.
I agree with Apple philosophically that they should not be forced to unlock their own phone. I agree practically that if US companies are forced to unlock their their own phones for the US government, they will lose a certain market share (likely very small, the group of people who value privacy over convenience) to foreign companies who do not have to do so.
If the government has now unlocked the Apple phone themselves. They are, for the moment, ahead in the "arms race" between access and security. Security will be tightened, and both parties will gain and lose the advantage over the other multiple times as time progresses. I don't think it makes any real difference to the utility of the iPhone to most Apple customers, and the last time I looked Apple stock was up today.
How ironic. Now Apple wants information from the FBI. Why would the FBI want to help Apple now?
3
Every time there is a terrorist attack these Big Brother Information profiteers are partly responsible if they do not cooperate with governments around the world. Time to nationalize and regulate ALL these important communications tool capitalists. The technology is MUCH too important in their greedy, socially unconscious hands.
2
After you have killed 14 people in a random act of violence you have effectively lost all rights to your privacy. And this is how it should be.
6
To further your thought, once you have done those things and are dead, you lose the right to privacy regarding information stored on the phone that you used, but was owned not by you, but by your employer. Particularly when the employer has given the government permission to get that data.
3
I don't really care about the privacy rights of the San Bernardino shooters. I vigorously care about mine, however.
If I had to, I would guess that Apple probably assisted the gov't behind the scenes to do this. That way, Apple could be helpful on an important case, but also save face with their customers and preserves deniability if Russia or China or other bad state actors where they do business want them to also unlock phones for them.
This is just too convenient a resolution for all parties involved.
This is just too convenient a resolution for all parties involved.
2
Apple ended up looking like a complete fool in this case. After claiming they would need to build a $50 Million secure facility and dedicate a large staff if they were forced to unlock the iPhone, a third party was ready, willing and able to do it very simply.
This was a lawful, judge authorized request, just like any judge authorized request to search the premises of a suspect in any other criminal investigation. The Civil Liberties Union should study the Constitution, and Apple should learn that it is not above the law.
This was a lawful, judge authorized request, just like any judge authorized request to search the premises of a suspect in any other criminal investigation. The Civil Liberties Union should study the Constitution, and Apple should learn that it is not above the law.
17
I couldn't have said it better myself @ClausGehner. Apple isn't worried about their customers security more than their own reputation in the business. They feel they are above the law. Maybe there's nothing more to find on this particular iPhone or maybe there's vital information that was shared between the san Bernardino terrorists with other terrorists. It's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to innocent lives and the fact that people don't realize that is sad and disturbing. By the way, I'm an iPhone, iPod, and iPad user so i took this case personal.
1
You are either naive, ill-informed or both. This is not about one iPhone. Its about ALL of them. You may be prepared to waive your rights, but I am not willing to waive mine. Personal freedom and liberty are the hallmarks of this country. In the final analysis, the people matter more than the government. Unless we just roll over and accept the police state.
2
I couldn't have said it better myself @ClausGehner. Apple isn't worried about their customers security more than their own reputation in the business. They feel they are above the law. Maybe there's nothing more to find on this particular iPhone or maybe there's vital information that was shared between the san Bernardino terrorists with other terrorists. It's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to innocent lives and the fact that people don't realize that is sad and disturbing. By the way, I'm an iPhone, iPod, and iPad user so i took this case personal. Apple can't put in a security feature to shield its customers and our lives from a bomb can it?
1
"The bigger question is what is more important...a life of privacy with little security from terrorists or a more secure life with terrorists' plans being thwarted because they can't plan attacks using iPhones?"
the premise is incorrect. terrorist can use phones other than iPhones. they can use multiple phones etc,
(this does not mean security forces should not try to thwart security attacks. long used methods like recruiting spies are still very basic and useful in today's world.)
the premise is incorrect. terrorist can use phones other than iPhones. they can use multiple phones etc,
(this does not mean security forces should not try to thwart security attacks. long used methods like recruiting spies are still very basic and useful in today's world.)
2
Good.
5
I mean it was just a matter of time before the NSA cracked it. Oh they won't say it was the NSA, but it was the NSA.
2
Or maybe the fbi took a lucky guess at the pin.
Apple is like many others American corporations, and believes that they do not have any obligations to the US government because they are an American corporation.
Never mind that the US government protects the patents of Apple. Apple would fall apart very quickly if the US government did not protect the patents of Apple.
Time for corporations to understand the advantages that they have as American corporations.
Never mind that the US government protects the patents of Apple. Apple would fall apart very quickly if the US government did not protect the patents of Apple.
Time for corporations to understand the advantages that they have as American corporations.
6
This shows there is no complete security. The hackers
can ultimately get into any system. This is true not only
of Apple's products but all other products. Forget
the privacy.
can ultimately get into any system. This is true not only
of Apple's products but all other products. Forget
the privacy.
1
SAK: Sure, tear up the 4th Amendment, too, while you're at it.
After all, if there are hackers, there are certainly burglars.
After all, if there are hackers, there are certainly burglars.
This was a test case by Justice chosen to create public pressure on Congress to pass laws making encryption illegal. My guess is that they knew all along that they had the means to open this phone. It's the next and subsequent generations of encryption that worry them. This was a preemptive strike to prevent better encryption by Apple and other manufacturers, encryption that might truly be impenetrable.
The irony is that other government agencies want the highest level of encryption possible and were therefore at odds with Justice. All of this discussed in an interview a few weeks ago with Richard Clark, head of anti-terrorism under W Bush and (for a while) Obama. For what difference it makes, he was opposed to compelling Apple to create back doors into their encryption and was hopeful that Apple and other companies would continue to improve their encryption. He said that there was no doubt in his mind that the NSA could have opened this phone if Justice had asked for help.
The irony is that other government agencies want the highest level of encryption possible and were therefore at odds with Justice. All of this discussed in an interview a few weeks ago with Richard Clark, head of anti-terrorism under W Bush and (for a while) Obama. For what difference it makes, he was opposed to compelling Apple to create back doors into their encryption and was hopeful that Apple and other companies would continue to improve their encryption. He said that there was no doubt in his mind that the NSA could have opened this phone if Justice had asked for help.
3
I am not surprised with the anti-Apple sentiment shown in comments. It's an example of the Trump supporter mentality where nothing is sacred and everything is a fair target. Well, I hope those that vilify Apple don't own the product because obviously they purchased an inferior one. I am absolutely inline with privacy advocates on this one. The government has embarked on a slippery slope and the sheep are congratulating it.
2
There is a lot of talk that Apple security has been breached. Until there is more information, this isn't necessarily the case. The FBI bemoaned that they can't get into the device, but then as it turns out, it's a company (Cellebrite) that they have had a partnership with since 2014 granted them access.
Either it's a very complicated hack, or this was an attempt at setting precedent, much like Apple initially said.
As far as the hack, without more details, it could have been a hardware hack where they burned off the tops of the chips and modified circuits directly. That's not a security flaw, that's electronics. Until quantum computing comes around, that particular hack is always going to be a risk.
Either it's a very complicated hack, or this was an attempt at setting precedent, much like Apple initially said.
As far as the hack, without more details, it could have been a hardware hack where they burned off the tops of the chips and modified circuits directly. That's not a security flaw, that's electronics. Until quantum computing comes around, that particular hack is always going to be a risk.
4
If the iPhone can be unlocked, perhaps there is hope that someone can fix the "Disk not ejected properly" error that I always get with my Firewire drive when I wake up my iMac from sleep.
7
Edward Snowden did it for them.
3
I've never been conspiracy theories before, but . . . Apple realized that they ultimately would be forced to comply, and the government offered them a smart deal. Apple agrees to deliver a back door in exchange for complete anonymity in the guise of a fictional "third party.'
Everybody wins: Apple continues to polish its product "security" veneer, the government gains access to more phones, and the debate is not dragged through the courts, where it ultimately would have been considered by the supreme court.
We did walk on the moon, though.
Everybody wins: Apple continues to polish its product "security" veneer, the government gains access to more phones, and the debate is not dragged through the courts, where it ultimately would have been considered by the supreme court.
We did walk on the moon, though.
Lol now i feel slow because i can't totally see your theory as being how it all actually unfolded!
I never quite understood why a mobile phone deserved a higher level of protection than a person's private home. I fully understand why there needs to be a formal process for law enforcement to evade anyone's privacy, wherever and whatever that involves. As always, it should be increasingly clear to everyone that wireless devices will never be absolutely secure so if you don't want your digital life to be visible to others, then don't put it up there. If it's not the government looking, you can be sure that others are as well - the others that don't require warrants or any semblance of accountability.
10
It doesn't, Jimj, or it shouldn't. it's a computer, and should be treated like a computer. The only difference, is you carry it around in your pocket, if you've got some sense, or you walk around with it, in the palm of your hand, not watching where you're going, and walking into others, while texting.
They unlocked the phone and then spent the next 4 hours on Facebook.
I think I would have felt more secure if I were certain only Apple could get into the phone, even if they were willing to do it subject to a search warrant or subpoena. Knowing it can be hacked? Not comforting...
3
So many Americans are strange.
Before 9/11, Americans accepted that it was legal for government to obtain warrants to listen in to the phone calls of suspects, and that telephone companies assisted the government to be able to listen in to telephone calls.
Now according to so many Americans it is an act against freedom if the government obtains a warrant to obtain information from the phone of a dead terrorists.
Before 9/11, Americans accepted that it was legal for government to obtain warrants to listen in to the phone calls of suspects, and that telephone companies assisted the government to be able to listen in to telephone calls.
Now according to so many Americans it is an act against freedom if the government obtains a warrant to obtain information from the phone of a dead terrorists.
6
Bob S: What the Feds were suing to get was a master key to every iPhone.
That's why it was a court case and not just another search warrant.
And PS. There was no Patriot Act before 9/11.
That's why it was a court case and not just another search warrant.
And PS. There was no Patriot Act before 9/11.
1
The FBI tried to get Apple to assist them. This is not that much different from getting a telephone company to assist the FBI in regard to a court order before 9/11.
Time to recognize that iPhones are communication devices just like land line phones.
Terrorists and criminals need methods of communication so it should not be surprising that the FBI would want legal access to the communication methods of terrorists and criminals.
Time for Americans to stop pretending that we are losing freedom because the FBI is now legally doing what the FBI was doing before 9/11.
Time to recognize that iPhones are communication devices just like land line phones.
Terrorists and criminals need methods of communication so it should not be surprising that the FBI would want legal access to the communication methods of terrorists and criminals.
Time for Americans to stop pretending that we are losing freedom because the FBI is now legally doing what the FBI was doing before 9/11.
No one blinked. No one saved face. Someone just found a way in. EVERYTHING is hackable. Apple knows this, the Feds know this, anyone paying attention for the last several years knows this. It's only a matter of how hard to hack something that makes it "more secure". Someone WILL find a way in. Apple didn't "suddenly" become a target of every hacker. It has always been a target. Someone just finally cracked the code. Now Apple will change the code and someone will find another way in. Just like all other "secure" systems.
44
spot on.
1
No general encryption key to U.S. Citizens' devices should ever be asked or offered. If decryption is needed in a criminal case, then the individual phone must be search-warranted first, then either hacked by a government-contracted agent or decrypted by the manufacturer without the relinquishment of the general encryption codes. Just because Apple is encountering unpopularity over its profit strategies does not mean Americans should give up secure communication to punish them. Although this particular San Bernadino example is resolved, and although I would like to see Apple locate more jobs and money here, and desist with the adapter size-changing games, Apple or any device manufacturer should never be compelled to relinquish their encryption software for all their devices. Terrorism is designed to instill fear and get people to imprison their minds through reactionary insanity. Look at the Patriot Act or the TSA or Guantanamo. There are better ways of doing things, even for those of us who believe in a strong and smart Federal Government.
2
Suddenly the Justice Department could break into the iPhone. I don't believe for a moment that this just suddenly happened. I sincerely believe that they had the means from the beginning. The Obama Justice Department just wanted to make a point and intimidate Apple and other technology giants with legal action and the public repercussions of claiming that the nation's security was at risk. Hardly the case. Fortunately Apple didn't back down.
The Justice Department should have just quietly opened the phone without creating the public controversy. No one needed to know, as they do now, that iPhones can broken into. What else can government agencies do that we have no knowledge of? Do they have moral, ethical and legal right to do so? Are search warrants put aside? Is anyone reviewing what government agencies are invading when it comes to cyber privacy? I doubt it.
In my view, because this case involved murder and public safety Apple should have been approached privately and they should have willingly and privately provided, under a court approved warrant, whatever information was contained within that particular iPhone. The request and the search results would have been narrow and not jeopardized other phones or Apple's intellectual property.
Unfortunately Mr. Obama holds a different view and the Justice Department began with public requests and attempts to embarrass Apple into action.
I'll bet that Apple has already made iPhones more secure.
The Justice Department should have just quietly opened the phone without creating the public controversy. No one needed to know, as they do now, that iPhones can broken into. What else can government agencies do that we have no knowledge of? Do they have moral, ethical and legal right to do so? Are search warrants put aside? Is anyone reviewing what government agencies are invading when it comes to cyber privacy? I doubt it.
In my view, because this case involved murder and public safety Apple should have been approached privately and they should have willingly and privately provided, under a court approved warrant, whatever information was contained within that particular iPhone. The request and the search results would have been narrow and not jeopardized other phones or Apple's intellectual property.
Unfortunately Mr. Obama holds a different view and the Justice Department began with public requests and attempts to embarrass Apple into action.
I'll bet that Apple has already made iPhones more secure.
2
As someone who pioneered the first software sandbox technology in the 90's (as CTO of TestDrive), I would like to add a little perspective.
First, this isn't about gaining access to a terrorist's phone. Apple requested that the FBI make its request under seal. FBI refused. Why? Because it wasn't about about that particular phone. The terrorist used a throwaway phone, whereas the contested phone was issued by the terrorist's company. So, unlikely to contain any useful information.
No, this is about creating a backdoor to all phones. Something that the government has been asking for since the Clipper chip of the 90s. It is always possible to crack a phone. Just rent some time on electron microscope and its ilk. But, that is hard. A backdoor makes it easy. What would take weeks could take seconds.
The stakes are very high. Imagine being pulled over for a broken taillight, and the cop can gain access to everything on your phone. Imagine being in a country that would stone you to death for a particular belief or behavior. Imagine them gaining access to your phone. That is why some of us are very resistant to granting a backdoor to our most private thoughts.
First, this isn't about gaining access to a terrorist's phone. Apple requested that the FBI make its request under seal. FBI refused. Why? Because it wasn't about about that particular phone. The terrorist used a throwaway phone, whereas the contested phone was issued by the terrorist's company. So, unlikely to contain any useful information.
No, this is about creating a backdoor to all phones. Something that the government has been asking for since the Clipper chip of the 90s. It is always possible to crack a phone. Just rent some time on electron microscope and its ilk. But, that is hard. A backdoor makes it easy. What would take weeks could take seconds.
The stakes are very high. Imagine being pulled over for a broken taillight, and the cop can gain access to everything on your phone. Imagine being in a country that would stone you to death for a particular belief or behavior. Imagine them gaining access to your phone. That is why some of us are very resistant to granting a backdoor to our most private thoughts.
5
But gaining access to your phone is basically the same as gaining access to letters you might have been carrying 50 years ago. The principles are the same. What is different is that the online communications industry oversold its products, leading people to ignore the dangers inherent in using those products to communicate.
1
@zootsuit, yes, I think that some actressess would agree, thinking that their naked selfies would private. And that is what's at stake. Apple is wants to make intrusion harder. The FBI wants to make it easier.
I agree completely. I don't think anyone would have a serious problem if we could BELIEVE that the government only wanted access to that one phone. I think that while they were swearing on a stack of bibles that it was only that phone, there were already 6 other requests.
The government has proven over and over again that it lies when it suits them. They disregard law when it suits them. And therefore many will not be fooled again and buy into this "only this phone" blarney.
And yes, I do have private material on my phone/computer/home and business filing cabinets. If my information is not safe from government (like the NSA) random intrusion in one venue, it's not safe in any.
The government has proven over and over again that it lies when it suits them. They disregard law when it suits them. And therefore many will not be fooled again and buy into this "only this phone" blarney.
And yes, I do have private material on my phone/computer/home and business filing cabinets. If my information is not safe from government (like the NSA) random intrusion in one venue, it's not safe in any.
1
Perhaps Apple's phone product was NOT hacked. Perhaps, it was the towers system that all cell phones use provided the access and NSA provided the de-encryption capability.
How convenient for the F.B.I. Now they will keep it a deep dark secret. My guess, they knew they would loose this case in court and to save face they fabricated this story.
1
Here's to the NAND hack. Long live the NAND hack. Let's celebrate!
Oh, I must have conveniently forgotten that Apple has absolute hardware and software design control that will probably be ferociously implemented in next years (2017 / version 8) iPhone.
Oh, I must have conveniently forgotten that Apple has absolute hardware and software design control that will probably be ferociously implemented in next years (2017 / version 8) iPhone.
You commit the crime you pay with a loss of privacy. Let' stop this "rights" nonsense when it involves violent criminals and potential future violent acts, often targeted at U.S. citizens. While a liberal, I'm getting real tired of Libertarians' purist beliefs re: The Constitution, which often turns Americans into pure targets and suckers.
6
But did the FBI really hack it?
2
Most likely the DoJ is trying to save face - hard to believe they found someone who actually unlocked it. First DoJ gets tough against Apple, then admits one of their own screwed up and locked it, then threatened legal action to force a company to create a new tool just for them - then when Apple stood firm, magically produced a secret hacker? Ha. Good for Apple, avoiding a dangerous overreaching precedent. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
2
All this means is that Apple will develop a new hack-proof program in order to maintain its customers' privacy.
I've been thinking that Apple's irreversible password lock was devised to force users onto iCloud backups. Most folks don't back up their phones and computers and don't need to. But maybe the lock is Apple's admission that it can't devise hack-proof products at all.
2
I am puzzled as to why the government chose to make this a very public issue. Is it to make an example of Apple and a warning to all of us that our lives are not private, nor beyond its reach? There was more at stake here than we have begun to realize.
With all the security agencies we have, this act of terrorism by the San Bernardino couple was a security breach and an embarrassment for the FBI. Apple was not at fault in this. Yes we want to be safe, but what price are we willing to pay?
With all the security agencies we have, this act of terrorism by the San Bernardino couple was a security breach and an embarrassment for the FBI. Apple was not at fault in this. Yes we want to be safe, but what price are we willing to pay?
16
The government didn't go public; Apple did. The government only got a court order. From a judge. In a court. Tim Cook made it a public issue.
2
Why would the source, who provided no insightful information in this article need to remain anonymous? I'm guessing that the US government most likely did NOT crack the phone. Facing a protracted battle in the courts during which the general public would have more time to understand the idiocy of the government's position, the government used the "we did it" excuse to drop the case. The government then decided to smear Apple in retaliation for Apple's ostensible intransigence by having a conference call with reporters to laud their supposed victory. The pettiness of US government is astounding. Maybe the intelligence community should address its own continual failings in the war on terror rather than projecting its them onto successful companies.
12
When people do not want to believe, or are upset that what they held so true is not, then the conspiracy theories begin regarding what is claimed to have happened did not happen.
I don't believe the FBI. They have lied before. I doubt they really got it unlocked. Or they might have already got it unlocked. Now they want to stick it to Apple and hurt them. If they did unlock it, there should be no cause for rejoincing among iPhone users.
“I would hope they would give that information to Apple so that it can patch any weaknesses...but if the government classifies the tool, that suggests it may not.”
And why would the government want to do that to help Apple who has been "playing nice" with the government all these times? To be sure, if Apple had not been so stingy with the hackers community, they would have been more on Apple's side, rather than jumping in bed with the government instead (which doesn't happen too often).
To be sure, those Apple engineers (who threaten to quit if forced to help the government on this particular case) should have known of the hack. And if they really don't, then they aren't that good, to begin with. Either way, the result is the same, which is that the government (and the public, by proxy) doesn't need them anyways.
And why would the government want to do that to help Apple who has been "playing nice" with the government all these times? To be sure, if Apple had not been so stingy with the hackers community, they would have been more on Apple's side, rather than jumping in bed with the government instead (which doesn't happen too often).
To be sure, those Apple engineers (who threaten to quit if forced to help the government on this particular case) should have known of the hack. And if they really don't, then they aren't that good, to begin with. Either way, the result is the same, which is that the government (and the public, by proxy) doesn't need them anyways.
1
How could the management at Apple not realized that this outcome was inevitable? Apple is neither a deity nor a force of nature; what one human can create, another human can "un-create". This proves that it all really was about marketing; their PR strategy is now worthless. They should have negotiated quietly with the government as originally requested. Apple (and Facebook, etc.) have been hoist on their own petard and it is well deserved.
2
No one seems to realize the implications for Chinese or North Korean citizens. In fact, US citizens should think twice before taking their iPhones or Androids on trips to China. They can simply confiscate your phone at Customs and hack into it at their leisure, exposing US business contacts and other information.
1
Do you seriously think China didn't already have that ability? You think China would have allowed Apple to manufacture iPhones in that country without the ability to hack into them if they wanted?
2
They don't need to. With so many US companies already in China, they can simply pick up all this information at their place of work. In fact, they are already doing so.
That is why it is so stupid of all these American companies moving overseas for the cheap labor. Not only are jobs lost here, but the information exposed.
That is why it is so stupid of all these American companies moving overseas for the cheap labor. Not only are jobs lost here, but the information exposed.
1
Oh, geesh, doesn't SONY want to make a movie about this one?
2
of course they did, just as they always could have. They were trying to illegally force a company to make a back door. All they did was delay the investigation. So much for their concern with "terror" and "justice".
2
I wonder what happens if terrorist target Apple headquarters--and Apple employees themselves are killed--and an attacker's phone is recovered? Does Cook still cling to privacy?
Or if it happens to many of these readers who defend 'privacy' in this case?
Or if it happens to many of these readers who defend 'privacy' in this case?
3
I applaud Apple's stubbornness in its refusal to cooperate with the Justice department's request to unlock the late Mr. Farook's i-phone. On the other hand, I feel that the nation's need to investigate terroristic activities requires that the Justice Department have full access to information to complete its investigations. The risk of people getting killed or maimed by terrorists' exceeds an individual's privacy needs. Congress should act and pass new laws that guarantee both security and privacy with detailed mechanisms on how to deal with exceptions.
1
This was not Mr. Farouk's private phone. It was a work issued phone, and his employer, the actual owner of the phone in question, had given permission to have the phone examined.
1
I'm sorry, but my safety and well being is more important to me than privacy infringement. If there is a way that the authorities can monitor conversations and texts BEFORE terrorists can execute a bombing or shooting at a public facility that may jeopardize hundreds of lives, I say it's in everyone's best interests.
The bigger question is what is more important...a life of privacy with little security from terrorists or a more secure life with terrorists' plans being thwarted because they can't plan attacks using iPhones?
The bigger question is what is more important...a life of privacy with little security from terrorists or a more secure life with terrorists' plans being thwarted because they can't plan attacks using iPhones?
4
So, you DON'T want you phone to be a tracking device? Neither do I. We are far more likely to die at the hands of those who really wish us ill, those known to us personally, not some phantasm made to mock Justice and Liberty.
I'm more worried about getting shot by a police officer than a terrorist. The number of deaths are much higher. We should be wiretapping all the police officers so I can be more secure and weed out the ones that are a possible risk to public safety. Librarians are a shifty lot as well. Sure, take all my privacy for a policy that has yet to prevent anything, even though it has been going on for years.
Mazel Tov. Apple has it's decoders but does it really think that the US gov doesn't have equally talented mathematicians to break theirs? Really? That's arrogant. The gov and corporate America vie for the same talent...
5
Since the FBI had all of the phone messages stored off phone already, they could only have gotten a few days worth of information. I think they should divulge what they learned as I think it will be found to be trivial and that all the fuss was about them flexing their national security muscle and not about acquiring information to crack a case or identify other culprits.
Apple won somehow, according to reports I've read, by not backing down and instead standing by while the FBI successfully hacked an iPhone. But I'd say it takes belief beyond understanding to imagine that Apple won. But then Steve Jobs created something more akin to a cult than a customer base and believers are never dissuaded by facts.
What I wonder now is whether the government intentionally played Apple for fools, or if they really needed and wanted Apple's help in unlocking the device. Because it's hard to imagine, even as vastly powerful and wealthy is Apple and its cult of followers, that it could have created a fortress so impregnable that not even the vaster still power of the US government couldn't breach it.
But for all those Apple cultists concerned over their privacy, keep in mind that the government can't simply hack your phone or search your house or record your conversations without which it has probable cause and a warrant. Unless of course we throw away the Constitution completely once the next terrorist attack rolls around.
What I wonder now is whether the government intentionally played Apple for fools, or if they really needed and wanted Apple's help in unlocking the device. Because it's hard to imagine, even as vastly powerful and wealthy is Apple and its cult of followers, that it could have created a fortress so impregnable that not even the vaster still power of the US government couldn't breach it.
But for all those Apple cultists concerned over their privacy, keep in mind that the government can't simply hack your phone or search your house or record your conversations without which it has probable cause and a warrant. Unless of course we throw away the Constitution completely once the next terrorist attack rolls around.
1
By the tone of these comments it is clear the fear mongering right wing has won. Remember this famous quote:
"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed."
Let's now remove "home of the brave" from our national anthem.
"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed."
Let's now remove "home of the brave" from our national anthem.
Seems to me Apple has become what the 1984 Super Bowl commercial was all about.How about that?
3
So we are left in the black hole of not-knowing. Either the government is lying to save face, or Apple helped them behind the scenes, or there is a hacking element so good it helped the Feds crack the code.
Who are the big losers here - the public, US as in USA.
Who are the big losers here - the public, US as in USA.
1
The odds are that all the popular operating systems can be hacked. People are only deluding themselves if they feel that one or the other software is "hack-proof".
What can be a sort of compliment for Apple is that the might of the US Govt. could not unlock it. That's a big vote of confidence that competitor systems do not have.
What can be a sort of compliment for Apple is that the might of the US Govt. could not unlock it. That's a big vote of confidence that competitor systems do not have.
3
Whether an FBI bluff or the real story, who is most concerned about their privacy after such an announcement?
A law abiding person or someone plotting a crime in what they think are unhackable shadows using their phone?
Given the entire debate and scrutiny about individual rights and the court protections built into prying by state agencies, I'm not one who is worried today.
A law abiding person or someone plotting a crime in what they think are unhackable shadows using their phone?
Given the entire debate and scrutiny about individual rights and the court protections built into prying by state agencies, I'm not one who is worried today.
2
We've had one mass hacking event after another. Bank accounts, nude celebrity photos (hacked from iPhone's cloud, no less), Ashley Madison, and on and on. If anyone thinks anything electronic is really secure, I don't know what to tell them.
I'm with you. I'm not the one worried by this.
I'm with you. I'm not the one worried by this.
2
Apple was born on a platform of arrogance. Arrogance uncloaked is a victory for all of us.
4
Apple was born on a platform of excellence. Their future success depends on their excellence. You should be celebrating them. They are one of the success stories in American business
2
The chances of an American's Fourth Amendment protections being violated by the FBI, the NSA and the CIA are ten million times greater than ever being injured by a terrorist.
6
1. The Justice Department never needed Apple to provide them with a general key to all iPhones in order to break into the one iPhone they wanted to crack.
2. The individual iPhone in question could have been independently hacked all along, for a price.
3. Dropping the case is the clearest illustration that the Government never had a clear and legitimate argument against the 4th Amendment right of the People against unreasonable searches and seizures. Not to mention the requirement for separate, specific legal warrants for most Government intrusion.
4. Apple haters had a field day when Apple stood on Constitutional principle, and they're having a field day now, condemning Apple product security. For them it's always heads, the completion wins; tails, Apple loses.
2. The individual iPhone in question could have been independently hacked all along, for a price.
3. Dropping the case is the clearest illustration that the Government never had a clear and legitimate argument against the 4th Amendment right of the People against unreasonable searches and seizures. Not to mention the requirement for separate, specific legal warrants for most Government intrusion.
4. Apple haters had a field day when Apple stood on Constitutional principle, and they're having a field day now, condemning Apple product security. For them it's always heads, the completion wins; tails, Apple loses.
8
Smart, but I think they wanted or needed this precedent for something else. As I understand it, the company that broke their phone was a partner since 2014 with the FBI. Maybe they feigned ignorance, but either way, I don't view such a big government agency taking months to crack a phone a lose for Apple. It may paint a bad picture for the FBI, but yes, worse for Apple. They have been told several ways to get access, but I think they weighed the court case before they went another option.
1
There was no 4th Amendment issue here. This was not an unreasonable search. The owner of the phone, being the terrorist's employer, had the right to search it. The owner gave the government that right. The government tried but failed, so it asked Apple for help. Apple refused on specious grounds.
1
zootsuit: Well, yes if you dismiss the right of all honest iPhone owners to be secure against search warrant free, and other unreasonable searches and seizures, which would have been doable if the FBI had gotten the software master key to every iPhone they were suing to get, then the 4th Amendment doesn't matter.
The very fact that the government has admitted that Apple encryption has been compromised seems to have released information that should have had the highest security classification. Is this breach of security going to have the same notoriety and breed the same round of investigations as what now surrounds Hillary Clinton?
No, because it can be circumvented with a pin number. They either did the equivalent of failing 3 times and requesting a forgotten password email, got into and modified the chips themselves, or found a security exploit that we, the public, won't have disclosed to us. They didn't find Apple's cloud on a podunk server that is being run out of someone's apartment.
Unfortunately, a sad and poorly researched article.....
The BIG SECRET of the WIZARDRY has been out for weeks.....
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/02/how-the-fbi-could-use-acid-and-l...
The BIG SECRET of the WIZARDRY has been out for weeks.....
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/02/how-the-fbi-could-use-acid-and-l...
1
This whole situation draws attention away from other far more concerning risks to privacy, or at least what I regard as more concerning. Government hacking into cell phones is an issue for people who disclose compromising information over the phone and happen to be a target for government surveillance, and I suppose there is a risk that perfectly innocent people will get caught up by government misinterpreting something perfectly innocent that has been acquired through targeted hacking or routine monitoring. However, there are other types of risks that 'hide in plain sight', namely, authorized users making unauthorized use of potentially compromising information, e.g., information contained in electronic health records. If people harboring concerns over privacy put in a legally-mandated request to host organizations for documentation on what information is available to which authorized users of their health records - I am sure they will find the results of their inquiry to be enlightening. And do not be put off by bald assertions such as "access is granted on a strict need-to-know basis" - get documentation on HOW that is accomplished. And get the details - that is where you will find the devil.
1
I'm not convinced this story should have ever been public. We are confronted with a horrible new reality of terror worldwide. Our ideals, as outlined by our Declaration of Independence, our constitution, and our bill of rights seem quaint in the light of suicide bombers and dirty bombs. Sure, government overreaches often, and needs checks and balances - but if we accept the questionable legality of Gitmo, and CIA/homeland security authority - which we seem to do - then cracking a terrorist phone is hardly a fundamental breach of our sacred privacy. It is a brave - no actually cowardly - new world of terrorism, and extraordinary steps are required to put it down.
1
Perhaps the FBI is bluffing!
If not, will they reveal "how valuable" the data they discovered on the device ACTUALLY IS? Perhaps just a high Candy Crush score and nothing else they did not already know from external sources - metadata, cell tower pings, etc.
If not, will they reveal "how valuable" the data they discovered on the device ACTUALLY IS? Perhaps just a high Candy Crush score and nothing else they did not already know from external sources - metadata, cell tower pings, etc.
1
Frankly, I am very skeptical of anything the U.S. government or the New York Times says is true. There's more to this story than meets the eye.
2
If I were a US citizen, I would be worried if the FBI couldn't unlock an iPhone. The probability is that there is no smart phone currently manufactured that cannot be unlocked if national governments with the right resources put their minds to it. Encryption and the ability to crack these codes is a basic part of gathering intelligence, both domestic and international. In this case I would say you can still trust your iPhone to be secure against the vast majority of criminals who might want to crack into your stored information. Otherwise it is owner beware of what personal or commercial information you expose to prying eyes, private or government.
3
"... the company would want to know the procedure used to crack open the smartphone…"
I wonder who the lucky one will be at Justice. Who gets to tell Tim Cook to: go pound sand.
I wonder who the lucky one will be at Justice. Who gets to tell Tim Cook to: go pound sand.
8
One bad Apple...
3
So Edward Snowden was right again.
1
How embarrassing for Apple. I'll bet they wish now they'd done what a responsible corporate citizen would have done in the first place, and gone into a back room with the FBI and quietly worked this out together.
3
I'm guessing this was the FBI's game plan from the start, seeking Apple's assistance but knowing they'd rightly balk. This was played out in public for a reason: it gave the FBI plausible deniability to claim they sought out Apple's assistance, when they knew full well they had hackers tools.
Apple should hire the FBI guys who planned this hacking software rollout: talk about a masterful work of marketing!
Apple should hire the FBI guys who planned this hacking software rollout: talk about a masterful work of marketing!
Oh, well, as I've said numerous times, just about anything can be hacked. Still want 'smart' houses and utility meters or a 'driverless' car?
2
Costco told me the chip took twenty minutes to load so swiping is still their standard security. What is it telling who and to whom did we give it permission to lock up these line? People were so miffed!!
I find if I don't wipe my search histories in Roku, it drags like a bail of cotton. Why not a timed license to stall our systems, this take all is dragging me down!
I find if I don't wipe my search histories in Roku, it drags like a bail of cotton. Why not a timed license to stall our systems, this take all is dragging me down!
I hope that the entity offering help to FBI to crack open the phone is not a Chinese entity. If it is, then it will be a cruel irony.
I also hope that the government is trying to save face as it was mired in a conflict with a CEO of a major corporation who also happened to be a prominent LGBT group member.
I also hope that the government is trying to save face as it was mired in a conflict with a CEO of a major corporation who also happened to be a prominent LGBT group member.
1
Whatever devices man designs another man (or woman for that matter) can understand its It just takes time.
2
I don't understand why, if Apple was refusing to help the government crack a terrorist's or other criminal's phone, the government has any obligation whatsoever to share its hacking methods with Apple. Yes, there need to be safeguards in place so that these methods cannot be used to invade the phones of law-abiding citizens. Each case ought to be brought before a judge for a warrant. If the government cracks a phone without a warrant and uses that evidence in a trial, then that evidence should be thrown out.
But having the government assist a private corporation to strengthen its products so that the government ends up in this situation again--why? Why should the government have to spend my tax dollars just to save a private corporation some work? Let Apple create its own security patches. Corporations already have too much power over the lives of our citizens.
But having the government assist a private corporation to strengthen its products so that the government ends up in this situation again--why? Why should the government have to spend my tax dollars just to save a private corporation some work? Let Apple create its own security patches. Corporations already have too much power over the lives of our citizens.
8
I must have lived too long, but it is mind-boggling to me that people actually believe the FBI hacked into the iPhone. They were terrified of losing the legal battle after Apple called their bluff and were desperate for a face-saving way out. Say you hacked it (just to irritate Tim Cook) then classify all details so you never have to admit you got nothing. That's my bet...but with Edward Snowden still in Moscow, we'll probably never know.
5
While assertions that the Fed's might not always be unerring in their aims may not be entirely unmerited, that which can be asserted without evidence, can and should be dismissed without evidence nor assign in haste either party with a hidden agenda. A pyrrhic victory looms nonetheless for Apple as this episode serves only to fuel anger and suspicion on both sides of the ideological divide.
I have and still stand behind Apple's decision to not unlock the iPhone. The fact that some other company was able to do it though should not be a surprise to anyone. We are a country of brilliant minds and hackers and not only us but other countries as well. The fact that some hacker was able to break into the security system shows just what they can do. We shouldn't blame Apple that people can hack their system. People can hack any system, it is just because Apple is such a big brand that this has blown up into news. Apple firmly stands behind protecting their clients and so with the knowledge of the hack I fully expect Apple to come out with tighter security on their next iPhones.
2
Yes unlocked without the help of Apple, but with the help of an Israeli IT company. So beware where your tax dollars go.
That was fast. Funny how quickly it came about after it all went public.
Somehow, I have the feeling it was "hacked" a long time ago.
Somehow, I have the feeling it was "hacked" a long time ago.
2
Tim Cook and Apple now have egg on their face.
Rather than cooperating with the FBI, they took an arrogant position acting like it was impossible for them to hack their phone. They further intimated that their top engineers would not cooperate with authorities.
Apple's disdain goes even further in the development of their products. Unlike other high tech companies, Apple refuses to pay third parties who hack their systems and find vulnerabilities.
Apple's contemptuousness is finally coming back to haunt them. Their vaunted security that they claim is impossible to break has been shown to be fallible. Now the whole world knows their phone is hackable. They are now crawling to the FBI requesting to find out how their phone was hacked.
The FBI should refuse to help Apple. Cooperation is a two way street. Why should the FBI throw away a valuable tool? In light of Apple's history of refusing to cooperate, the FBI may need the same techniques in the future.
Rather than cooperating with the FBI, they took an arrogant position acting like it was impossible for them to hack their phone. They further intimated that their top engineers would not cooperate with authorities.
Apple's disdain goes even further in the development of their products. Unlike other high tech companies, Apple refuses to pay third parties who hack their systems and find vulnerabilities.
Apple's contemptuousness is finally coming back to haunt them. Their vaunted security that they claim is impossible to break has been shown to be fallible. Now the whole world knows their phone is hackable. They are now crawling to the FBI requesting to find out how their phone was hacked.
The FBI should refuse to help Apple. Cooperation is a two way street. Why should the FBI throw away a valuable tool? In light of Apple's history of refusing to cooperate, the FBI may need the same techniques in the future.
9
Or.... Apple was protecting people's privacy? What "help" from the FBI would Apple ever need?
Apple Care has been struggling to find my Purchased songs on iTunes, telling me that sorry they dont where could have disappeared - songs I already paid for - I think privacy nonsense aside - Apple doesnt know how to open its own phones, just claiming privacy.
5
I will not buy an I Phone because it is the same as Sony was? The only people who supported Sony products was Sony. I have several friends who got rid of their I Phones because of some many problems. Here is a phone with information from people who killed people and they would not open the phone? Really! The only reason I have a cell phone is to talk to people. My friends get mad at me because I do not text at all. Only talk!
2
How is the FBI unlocking a phone any different from them obtaining a warrant to search a suspect's home?
The justice process allows for private property to be searched and inspected should the courts deem it necessary. A phone is just another piece of private property that falls under that category.
The justice process allows for private property to be searched and inspected should the courts deem it necessary. A phone is just another piece of private property that falls under that category.
9
The difference is, a warrant into ONE location does not threaten the entire block of homes.
1
Wow, that's not the issue here. The issue is forcing a non-party to the device and forcing them to help the FBI.
Many commentators presume that if the physical phone is in hand, it can be hacked, and that no security design can prevent that. That's not true, and that is the whole point of security - to protect your data in the event your phone is lost or stolen. That safeguard protects not only the general public but also government and law enforcement personnel who have smartphones. The downside is that these safeguards also protect the phones of criminals and deeply disturbed individuals. You can't have it both ways. Either smartphones are secure if lost or stolen, or they are not.
8
So, what kind of phones do government employees use? If it's the iPhone, what will they use now?
Apple had no choice but to resist. We are not the only country that its phones are sold in after all. What hubris it is to demand that an international company open its products for us to spy on it's customers. If China had made the same demand, we would have rather gone to war, yes?
Apple had no choice but to resist. We are not the only country that its phones are sold in after all. What hubris it is to demand that an international company open its products for us to spy on it's customers. If China had made the same demand, we would have rather gone to war, yes?
8
The US Justice Department has the overriding right to protect our airwaves...
and...the private sector does not OWN the right to the public airwaves.
so.
Perhaps the US Government needs to have ALL the keys to protect our
privacy...NOT private corporations....anywhere...anyhow.
So Apple need to feel chastised...and so should any private company or
person who would illegally assume to control public access...
Apple must apologize...actually to everyone who owns one of their products.
I would never buy an Apple product, since they would usurp the public right
to protection under our US Constitution.....nolo contendere
SHAME on the Apple CEO...
and...the private sector does not OWN the right to the public airwaves.
so.
Perhaps the US Government needs to have ALL the keys to protect our
privacy...NOT private corporations....anywhere...anyhow.
So Apple need to feel chastised...and so should any private company or
person who would illegally assume to control public access...
Apple must apologize...actually to everyone who owns one of their products.
I would never buy an Apple product, since they would usurp the public right
to protection under our US Constitution.....nolo contendere
SHAME on the Apple CEO...
2
What does the airwaves have to do with what is stored on your phone? You do realize that we're not talking about who they called or called them. This isn't about "free and public use" which is, what I think you're trying to refer to.
I'm glad you want the government to have "all the keys to protect our privacy". Let me know how you feel about it the next time you get stopped for speeding and the cop wants to borrow your phone and download everything off of it. I'm glad you trust the government so much. I'll remain skeptical of their intentions and competence.
I'm glad you want the government to have "all the keys to protect our privacy". Let me know how you feel about it the next time you get stopped for speeding and the cop wants to borrow your phone and download everything off of it. I'm glad you trust the government so much. I'll remain skeptical of their intentions and competence.
The public has the right to protection from private invasion of privacy
so...the logic is that...if Apple...only has the keys to privacy...that is
a usurpation of the right anyone's privacy.
We the public not private corporations have the right to use the airwaves
without invasion of privacy....by private corporations.
yes...we need these guarantees....by our government...and
no one ...has the right to invade this privacy...without a court order to
do so.
Hope this answers...the reply to my comment...
so...the logic is that...if Apple...only has the keys to privacy...that is
a usurpation of the right anyone's privacy.
We the public not private corporations have the right to use the airwaves
without invasion of privacy....by private corporations.
yes...we need these guarantees....by our government...and
no one ...has the right to invade this privacy...without a court order to
do so.
Hope this answers...the reply to my comment...
One needs only see the killing of innocents in Paris, Brussels, Lahore, etc. to know the virulent sub-human capacity for violence, and to guess at the communication needed and used to carry out these barbaric acts.
Enter Apple, pompous savior of its brand, refusing common decency, even court orders, to assist the authorities in protecting the innocent.
(Also, apparently showing zero confidence any Apple-developed unlocking key can be internally safeguarded from external distribution. )
First-day iPhone and first-day iPad (multiple now) purchaser and user.
Will never buy another Apple product.
Enter Apple, pompous savior of its brand, refusing common decency, even court orders, to assist the authorities in protecting the innocent.
(Also, apparently showing zero confidence any Apple-developed unlocking key can be internally safeguarded from external distribution. )
First-day iPhone and first-day iPad (multiple now) purchaser and user.
Will never buy another Apple product.
7
Why should the Government help Apple? The shoe is now on the other foot.
5
Why would Apple need the government's help?
Apple's business strategy has always relied on marvelously effective marketing. My guess is that they were surprised that the government would seek their help knowing full well how easy they could get in without too much trouble. So Tim's grand standing was really nothing more than milking the free publicity cow as much as he could. You really gotta hand it over to them, they are gooood at it...
1
I'm afraid that if the FBI really has come upon a way to unlock the iPhone, they will manage to keep that "secret" for about 5 minutes.
2
We all have to be aware that the cyber world is not really that secure. Any hacker can get into your phone, find your credit card information, and publish any email you may have. We have to proceed with that in mind like when you walk down some street late at night where crime may happen.
2
No, any hacker cannot simply "get into your phone." You have to do something stupid like open the attachment on an email. It is true that security is relative. You can improve your personal security by protecting your phone with a password, being careful what emails you open, and other common sense measures.
1
Paranoia strikes deep. Maybe Snowden learned the error of his ways or was offered a plea bargain for his assistance.
So these hackers FBI hired, who else have they done? Did GCHQ really retrieve Cameron's email content from an arrested US executive's BlackBerry, or did they crack the BlackBerry's compression just to watch their stock drop?
Mother was the necessitator of invention?
Mother was the necessitator of invention?
1
Yup, after that memo got to Washington the stock slid for six months, and now is half of its previous reign. I'd use Prism to find out who pulled any naked shorts, but Justice would call that yanking.
1
I don't make this stuff up, it makes itself out of data! Watch that ticker slow after that memo hit Washigton around Christmas of 2011. Pop another bottle of naked shorts, GCHQ!
I don't understand how an unelected employee of a consumer electronics firm can dictate national security. Is this corporate overreach?
Also, did they commit perjury by saying that the phone could not be hacked?
Also, did they commit perjury by saying that the phone could not be hacked?
1
You're right, you don't understand. One of the things you fail to grasp is that they didn't say they couldn't do it. They said they wouldn't because they feared the hack would leak and their phones would be just as horrible as Android phones. They offered to take the phone and work on it, but the FBI didn't want that. The Feds wanted a public fight and they got one. If you think it's about this one phone, you aren't paying attention. It's about the hundreds of phones that the NYPD alone has that are waiting for this. And, on Apple's side, it's about protecting its customers. I for one am glad they've stood up for me.
1
Corporate over reach of their own product? They didn't say phone couldn't be hacked, Apple said it would not develop a way to entire through a back door.
Please read my comment again. I said I didn't understand how an unelected employee of a consumer electronics firm gets to dictate national security. I still don't. I also don't think its about this one phone, that's why I wrote "I don't understand how an unelected employee of a consumer electronics firm can dictate national security". Also, turn it around, if you think seriously that Apple is altruistically standing up for your rights, then why "is an unelected employee of a consumer electronics firm dictating national security?"
Corporations and others may appreciate government disingenuousness over this particular issue; however, with several other examples it rests more centrally on a false premise and ultimate logical fallacy: that events interpreted solely by government itself are ipso facto a sufficient basis for broad top-down state and special-interest interventions into industry.
This pretextual event and several others in recent history, all stem from narratives that remain uninvestigated by independent third parties. They are deemed factual by assertion and self-evident by assent. Even if determined unequivocally substantiated, it is not clear what rights in "protective" law (versus opportunities in politics) they may represent.
Aside from the potential constitutional fatality of public (and corporate) forbearance of such state intentions, an equally effective erosion of private sovereignty may be the assumption of inherent state legal compliance that is never tested or verified with the same means and veracity that it seeks to impose on citizens. Circumscribing bottom-up public rights and authority over government may represent a fundamental structural inversion of modern liberal democracy.
This pretextual event and several others in recent history, all stem from narratives that remain uninvestigated by independent third parties. They are deemed factual by assertion and self-evident by assent. Even if determined unequivocally substantiated, it is not clear what rights in "protective" law (versus opportunities in politics) they may represent.
Aside from the potential constitutional fatality of public (and corporate) forbearance of such state intentions, an equally effective erosion of private sovereignty may be the assumption of inherent state legal compliance that is never tested or verified with the same means and veracity that it seeks to impose on citizens. Circumscribing bottom-up public rights and authority over government may represent a fundamental structural inversion of modern liberal democracy.
2
1. Maybe the FBI got a third party to open the phone.
2. Maybe Apple gave the FBI the information on the QT.
3. Or the FBI just wants to end the bad p.r. and is lying about opening the phone.
2. Maybe Apple gave the FBI the information on the QT.
3. Or the FBI just wants to end the bad p.r. and is lying about opening the phone.
2
Edward Snowden said they were full of it all along, and that it was just a ruse to set up tension and set precedent of a company capitulating to government pressure.
This is great. The "too cool for patriotism" guys in Silicon Valley are outsmarted by the government. I hope the team who cracked the code gets a nice year-end bonus (if there is such in thing in Government work).
4
What a wonderful phrase Jennifer Stewart wrote: "If I demand my privacy at the expense of another person's life, what kind of person am I?"
All "privacy over security" supporters should submit themselves to this scrutiny.
If you are that concerned about privacy, keep your privacy-sensitive things off your phone. That's the best and surprisingly easiest solution! Safest for all of us!
All "privacy over security" supporters should submit themselves to this scrutiny.
If you are that concerned about privacy, keep your privacy-sensitive things off your phone. That's the best and surprisingly easiest solution! Safest for all of us!
5
Suppose we learned terrorists threatened to detonate a nuclear bomb. Would Apple still refuse to unlock an iPhone?
Of course our privacy must be protected. But our lives must be protected as well.
Apple and supporters of privacy make excellent arguments. But it's not a simple either/or. God forbid terrorists ever get their hands on nuclear materials (since there's no such thing as God, that's not going to help).
Apple's number one priority is to protect their product, not the country. Now they want to know how the government unlocked their phone - after they refused to cooperate! The hubris of Apple is extraordinary.
Of course our privacy must be protected. But our lives must be protected as well.
Apple and supporters of privacy make excellent arguments. But it's not a simple either/or. God forbid terrorists ever get their hands on nuclear materials (since there's no such thing as God, that's not going to help).
Apple's number one priority is to protect their product, not the country. Now they want to know how the government unlocked their phone - after they refused to cooperate! The hubris of Apple is extraordinary.
3
Maybe Apple secretly helped the FBI snoop better. Maybe they now love Big Brother.
It's hard for me to process the stupidity of our justice department. Someone please tell me how we are safer now that every terrorist in the world knows we have figured out how to unlock their iPhones.
Would we not have been much better off keeping that little secret to ourselves? Further, would we not have been much better off if the justice department went on record as saying they were "unable" to unlock the phone. That's right mislead the terrorists. What a concept. But no! We let them know everything we're doing because everyone wants to be in the news--including the justice department! Not smart!
Would we not have been much better off keeping that little secret to ourselves? Further, would we not have been much better off if the justice department went on record as saying they were "unable" to unlock the phone. That's right mislead the terrorists. What a concept. But no! We let them know everything we're doing because everyone wants to be in the news--including the justice department! Not smart!
4
Nice thought but what explanation for dropping the court action then?
1
How little Cook's defenders understand about warrants, the judicial review from which they originate, and the Constitution that grants permission for both.
Details matter, Cook apologists. Try looking up from your ideologically-pure soap boxes to learn and understand them.
Sanders/Warren 2016
Details matter, Cook apologists. Try looking up from your ideologically-pure soap boxes to learn and understand them.
Sanders/Warren 2016
3
This is so stupid. It's been unlocked since the day they got the phone. Let's all just wait for a story to be released soon on how the owner of the phone had ties to the belgian or paris attackers and one of the attacks could have been prevented if they had access earlier.
1
If the FBI has gained access to the data using physical means, such as accessing the phone's hard drive, then there is a middle ground in this debate. What I considered (and still do) dangerous was granting law enforcement the ability to remotely tap into anybody's private data. Perhaps we can still have a modicum of privacy while the agencies that are trying to protect the public can do their job.
1
WHY didn't the FBI just QUIETLY unlock the iphone and not tell anyone ? The FBI could then just continue on surveilling everyone in the entire world. Apple could have still told the world their iphones were unhackable while the FBI continued to secretly hack any iphone they chose to hack. It is the FBI who are the bumbling fools in this whole story.
1
The government should not give Apple the method used to unlock the phone until Apple pays taxes on income they keep abroad.
2
You know how I know this is a telephony puppet show? Ask a pharmalawsuitical company to hack the competition to save a life and see where Justice falls out on that one, Colonel Klink.
2
So the FBI just now found a way to hack the phone when Apple refused to let them use this incident as a patently obvious ploy to be able to spy on the rest of us? Along with every other alphabet outfit and cowboy crazy police force in the country (especially the worthless thugs of the DEA).
I guess that's their story and they're stickin' to it.
I guess that's their story and they're stickin' to it.
1
I now assume that big brother knows where I am in my house, where I went yesterday and who I met; What we talked about, where I ate lunch and what I spent. Should I do the old soviet thing and unplug my phone, pull the chip out? Would it matter? I'm an American. I love my country, and I'm not plotting anything, but dammit, I am an American and I want to be free in my actions and my being.
1
Dear Apple -
If it was an iPhone that can be opened with the user's thumb print, they probably used a retrieved thumb print or the guy's thumb.
Just sayin'
If it was an iPhone that can be opened with the user's thumb print, they probably used a retrieved thumb print or the guy's thumb.
Just sayin'
Good outcome. The FBI should have been hiring or contracting with qualified people all along in order to fulfill its mission to obtain information covered by a subpoena. Apple should now be increasing its encryption in order to fulfill its mission to improve the product.
The FBI's bizarre resort to a 1780's law to compel Apple to smash its own product was a constitutional insult equivalent to the Senate's refusal to advise and consent on a Supreme Court nominee. During an election year in which several candidates have advocated direct violations of the Constitution, the Apple case confirmed that government employees are not reliable guardians of protected civil liberties.
The FBI's bizarre resort to a 1780's law to compel Apple to smash its own product was a constitutional insult equivalent to the Senate's refusal to advise and consent on a Supreme Court nominee. During an election year in which several candidates have advocated direct violations of the Constitution, the Apple case confirmed that government employees are not reliable guardians of protected civil liberties.
3
Sort of sad, but Apple's brand just got slammed.
Clearly, Americans elected their government, not Tim Cook, to make decisions about the balance between privacy and security. i am astonished that this was even an issue.
5
I would not discount the possibility of disinformation. Either:
(a) The government has long been able to unlock iPhones but didn't want it known, or
(b) The government wasn't able to unlock this iPhone (at least not yet), but wants us to believe it did.
(a) The government has long been able to unlock iPhones but didn't want it known, or
(b) The government wasn't able to unlock this iPhone (at least not yet), but wants us to believe it did.
1
The government gets offers like Harry Cohn did for extra work. It's reelly ugly, too.
Surely Watson knows by now Harry died on the way to my birthday. His heart attack drove him to St. Joe's where the infirm come to cash in their software while the new born watch as they hatch. Harry hung around the nursery all day asking who wanted to be a big shot? Discovered at birth because heaven wouldn't wait on Harry!
Surely Watson knows by now Harry died on the way to my birthday. His heart attack drove him to St. Joe's where the infirm come to cash in their software while the new born watch as they hatch. Harry hung around the nursery all day asking who wanted to be a big shot? Discovered at birth because heaven wouldn't wait on Harry!
This is not a privately owned phone, it is owned by San Bernardino County and was assigned to an employee. The county supported the Federal suit to open the phone. Apple made up the issue of privacy for publicity's sake, ignoring the root cause of the action - 14 dead human beings.
6
The shooter had his own, private phone. What makes you think there was anything of value on this one? When the FBI tells the truth and says they found nothing of value on the phone, will you feel better or worse about the amount of privacy you have?
If Apple can declare the unlock process classified, so can the FBI. "No code for you!" to quote a TV sitcom chef! If the courts can issue a warrant to search one's house, why is the phone off limits? Can the same be applied to, say the dishwasher, making it off limits?
1
It should always be hard for law enforcement to obtain
information on its suspects but it should not be impossible.
information on its suspects but it should not be impossible.
2
I believe Apple cooperated on the QT one time. As they should.
As they all do, except for Qwest, and turned out he was also a timed seller. Like they all don't cash out as they learn the ropes and dope yanks?
Anything that can be built, can be disassembled. It's that simple. Hackers have had the knowledge and technology to crack iphones for a long time now. I am disgraced by Apple and anybody who believes that they were correct to not cooperate with accessing the phone as a matter of national security to likely save more lives. I do also believe that the government should not make it a habit to ask them to unlock devices for every little thing, but Apple should definitely examine each request on a case by case basis and be more patriotic to helping our country and protecting people.
2
Apple has had an attitude for years. Thier profits on the backs of cheap labor are well documented. It is about time they looked a little foolish since they ARE NOT THE END ALL IN INVENTIONS NOR INOVATION
3
It's encouraging that the FBI figured how to do its job in this case. If you look back at its history, the number of times it has got it wrong overwhelms its successes, and this endemic incompetence, because of political rather than constitutional motivation, also endemically requires a rash of propaganda.
Why does that photo look like a remake of GCHQ's headquarters, The Norelco Rider, buzzing a big crop of elitist dope? Does Cook really think we don't know he's Broken Bad?
1
It was probably a disaffected Apple Store Genius Bar minion. Anyone who has ever had more than a basic problem with an Apple product knows how smart those folks are...
1
Now Apple has half of the country believing that it obstructed a terrorist investigation and the other half thinking its security stinks. It was a predictable outcome; that someone would gladly step up and hack the phone. The smart move would have been to handle the matter quietly and give up the info the Government wanted without compromising the security. Long days and nights for Tim Cook, who blew this by grandstanding.
2
As I predicted (and was roundly derided here) last time this was discussed;
Tim Cook was naive and very poorly served by his legal/technical staffs.
Anyone who has dealt with the US Government significantly knows they always get their way. A good lesson for idealistic youngsters.
This whole issue could have been very easily and quietly resolved, but no, Tim took a stand in Apples economic interest that was against Americas National security.
So Apple gets: negative iPhone publicity, sells fewer iPhone and encouraged a market for additional hackers.
Although will never know, perhaps Tim will try a different approach next time?
Tim Cook was naive and very poorly served by his legal/technical staffs.
Anyone who has dealt with the US Government significantly knows they always get their way. A good lesson for idealistic youngsters.
This whole issue could have been very easily and quietly resolved, but no, Tim took a stand in Apples economic interest that was against Americas National security.
So Apple gets: negative iPhone publicity, sells fewer iPhone and encouraged a market for additional hackers.
Although will never know, perhaps Tim will try a different approach next time?
2
No doubt, after all this haggling and wrangling, the FBI gave the phone to a 14 year old. Problem solved!
2
A few questions.
1. Does anybody at the FBI know technology?
2. Do they have any problem working with the same hackers who regularly break the law as long as it's for the FBI
3. Will they tell us they were also wrong about what was on the phone or will they just say we can't tell you because it's "national security".
Life was simpler when I grew up trusting law enforcement, the real world is not so nice.
1. Does anybody at the FBI know technology?
2. Do they have any problem working with the same hackers who regularly break the law as long as it's for the FBI
3. Will they tell us they were also wrong about what was on the phone or will they just say we can't tell you because it's "national security".
Life was simpler when I grew up trusting law enforcement, the real world is not so nice.
1
Many people now believe that their iphones are insecure. That's not necessarily the case. It's my understanding that Apple refused to supply the FBI with a software hack (a backdoor) because such software would be a target for hackers worldwide. However, a hardware hack was not inconceivable assuming that the FBI had physical access to the phone, which it did. If all the above are true, then your phone is still secure if it is in your possession. Of course if your phone is lost or stolen, you can still wipe its data remotely.
2
A big I told you so. It was clear that Apple's refusal to open the phone in the face of legitimate demands and a court order would trigger a hack. How dumb can the company be?
1
On what basis are we to believe that the FBI is telling the truth about having unlocked the phone?
2
Thank you so much, FBI, for helping me decide what device I will use to replace Toby when he dies. Nothing. Now I want to sell my tech stock. It's all an illusion brought to you by collusion. And you just know GCHQ's got their two up our wazoos, too, Watson.
I take comfort in the knowledge the Peasant's Revolt predated the printing press. Clean up your filthy mess, Justice. We know you're blind, but you deserved it. Stop peeking at Liberty or we'll plant another tree over your peep hole.
I take comfort in the knowledge the Peasant's Revolt predated the printing press. Clean up your filthy mess, Justice. We know you're blind, but you deserved it. Stop peeking at Liberty or we'll plant another tree over your peep hole.
Many tech savvy commenters had been telling us all along that the FBI is capable of accessing the data on an individual phone if they have the phone in their possession. It is a more hands on method and involves physical disassembly of the device.
This case was about legal precedent. What Apple did not want to do is provide a 'back door' through their encryption, enabling law enforcement access to any users' data, which Apple succeeded in not doing.
This case was about legal precedent. What Apple did not want to do is provide a 'back door' through their encryption, enabling law enforcement access to any users' data, which Apple succeeded in not doing.
1
Perry Mason said if there is to be no privacy, then there shall be none between lawyer and client, in the jury room or our own homes.
What's good for the Apple is good for Justice, too! And how about the county, York? Dropping IRS forms like a prince hopping to get a kick back? I don't do dishes or any other basket work for them! Give IRS those get away codes! And keep your filthy silver for yourselves!
What's good for the Apple is good for Justice, too! And how about the county, York? Dropping IRS forms like a prince hopping to get a kick back? I don't do dishes or any other basket work for them! Give IRS those get away codes! And keep your filthy silver for yourselves!
How long before pro-Apple hackers retaliate by breaking into DOJ iPhones? My guess? Not long.
Anyone who thinks that any digital device connected to the WWW is secure is truly naive.
Any code or security created by man can be broken by man. It is just a question of how long and how expensive this will be.
Obviously this took the government a long time and a lot of effort to break in, or maybe they did not manage and now has to save face. Personally I think they did crack the phone, possible with help from Apple. I never believe the official story of anything like this.
I do think the FBI was very clumsy in its legal efforts. I think they were trying to set a legal precedent and failed, so now they are saving face...
Any code or security created by man can be broken by man. It is just a question of how long and how expensive this will be.
Obviously this took the government a long time and a lot of effort to break in, or maybe they did not manage and now has to save face. Personally I think they did crack the phone, possible with help from Apple. I never believe the official story of anything like this.
I do think the FBI was very clumsy in its legal efforts. I think they were trying to set a legal precedent and failed, so now they are saving face...
1
The only thing about these comments more depressing than the authoritarian inclinations on display is the complete ignorance of the facts, the law, and logic.
First, Apple did not break any laws. Apple could and did contest the legality of the order, and even the court order itself had a provision for Apple to show why complying with the order would be unduly burdensome. But apparently some Americans instinctively think it's wrong for somebody to exercise their legal rights instead of asking how high when the government tells you to jump.
Second, the court order was not a search warrant. A search warrant can compel a person (or business) to make their person and property available to search. Search warrants do not compel a person to figure out a way to break into somebody else's property.
Third, there were always other ways for the government to get what it wanted. People are gloating like this is some remarkable victory. But the entire situation was contrived to begin with. The government claimed the backdoor was its only option, thanks to the government changing the phone's password for some reason. But now, after failing to win the legal battle to get Apple to write a backdoor, it tells us the previously insurmountable issue has been magically solved. Uh-huh. Yup.
First, Apple did not break any laws. Apple could and did contest the legality of the order, and even the court order itself had a provision for Apple to show why complying with the order would be unduly burdensome. But apparently some Americans instinctively think it's wrong for somebody to exercise their legal rights instead of asking how high when the government tells you to jump.
Second, the court order was not a search warrant. A search warrant can compel a person (or business) to make their person and property available to search. Search warrants do not compel a person to figure out a way to break into somebody else's property.
Third, there were always other ways for the government to get what it wanted. People are gloating like this is some remarkable victory. But the entire situation was contrived to begin with. The government claimed the backdoor was its only option, thanks to the government changing the phone's password for some reason. But now, after failing to win the legal battle to get Apple to write a backdoor, it tells us the previously insurmountable issue has been magically solved. Uh-huh. Yup.
4
The Constitution does not provide an absolute right of privacy. It forbids unreasonable search and seizure, but allows the same when a judge finds probable cause and issues a warrant allowing a search. What Apple did seems to me a public relations exercise portraying itself as the last best hope against government intrusion. If, as is thought, the government invited third parties to help break into the terrorist's iPhone, the ways to hack Apple's supposedly secure products will likely become far more well known than if Apple had quietly agreed to comply with a search that was deemed reasonable by a judge.
2
The desired outcome really. Now we can assess Justice's certainties that the information on the phone is so vital to this case. I'm more interested in the information that is recovered than the method used to break into the phone. I hope the NYT (and others in the media) will continue to cover this case, pursuing this particular question. The spectre of terrorism and threats to national security has been raised time and again in all of these intrusions; this case creates an opportunity to test the legitimacy of the government's position.
Tim Cook has weakened Apple and the Government’s use of the black hat community to hack into the iPhone will surely inspire hackers worldwide to devote more attention to hacking into Apple’s operating system. As an iPhone user, this is very disheartening. If he would have just cooperated, Apple would have been able to access the phone, kept the solution secret and proceeded to upgrade the security without giving hope to the hackers. Now Apple has been made a huge target and will have a hard time convincing the public that it is secure. I would expect to hear that hackers have breached the iPhones of high ranking government officials and corporate executives in the not too distant future. Can we say “arrogance takes another victim”.
37
high government officials cannot use I phones because of security issues well documented even before this. one reason why blackberry is still alive: I can receive secure e Mail on it, but not on an Apple or Andoid base.
Thanks for that information. I would imagine that Hillary is using an iPhone!! I hope this is just a joke and not reality.
I expect that Apple devices are still quite secure unless the device is physically in the possession of an adversary with substantial sophisticated equipment. This particular case of getting past a password lock probably requires modifying the Apple device hardware in conjunction with special software. Most of these comments in the NYT Picks seem invalid because people don't really understand the technology involved. However your comment that there will be future cases of breaking the security of iPhones is probably true since there are other security issues than the protection given by a locking password. Things such as malicious apps or other ways of attacking a phone that is operating while unlocked and not in the physical possession of an adversary.
I don't know why people are surprised or embarrassed for Apple that the Feds finally hacked into the iPhone. Hackers find ways through our security all the time. I think the important thing is that the Fed wasn't lazy this time and actually did what it was supposed to do and not ask for companies to intentionally create backdoors for them.
2
FBI is faking the phone hack. It was losing a battle with Apple.
2
The Government has shown that un-hackable security is a rare bird indeed. The problem is that the recent contretemps has failed to produce any precedent on the legal issues involved where guidance was needed.
That Apple thought it could protect its encryption protocol indefinitely proved not only wrong but also poor business judgment. A little less arrogance might have served Apple better.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
That Apple thought it could protect its encryption protocol indefinitely proved not only wrong but also poor business judgment. A little less arrogance might have served Apple better.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
2
Justice to Apple: never mind. Shows the weakness of the FBI' s technical abilities. That's the real story.
1
Oh, for Pete's sake. What is the big deal here? It's some guy's telephone, not national security secrets. Who cares what's on it? Who cares what's on anybody's phone? Hundreds of selfies? Cat videos? Drunk texts from your ex? Big deal. Everybody needs to get over themselves.
3
I believe the NYPD has said they have hundreds of locked phones that they can't access taken from alleged criminals. Will the PD now go to the FBI to demand access to whatever method was used to open the phone in question?
Has Pandora's box been opened?
Now that the government has opened the phone, they need to tell the citizens whether or not they found anything on it.
Has Pandora's box been opened?
Now that the government has opened the phone, they need to tell the citizens whether or not they found anything on it.
1
What makes anyone think that there is a device that is unhackable? The Apple- DOJ issue is no different than the Bit Coin. Anything that can be programmed can be overridden in time. We live in a world where what was secure can always be broken.
1
So it took the FBI outside help and a lot of time to get into one older iPhone. No one should be surprised when the FBI and "Justice" Department continue to push to require companies to provide access on demand. By itself, this skirmish was only meaningful because it raised public awareness of encryption, security, and privacy, and how tenuous they are.
Hopefully Apple and other companies will develop an encryption system that they cannot "unlock" no matter how strained a reading of the All Writs Act the Justice Department contorts itself to file. Simply put, there is no justification for unlimited government access even in the face of a criminal investigation.
And, of course, the FBI will refuse to admit that there was nothing of value on the iPhone in question.
Hopefully Apple and other companies will develop an encryption system that they cannot "unlock" no matter how strained a reading of the All Writs Act the Justice Department contorts itself to file. Simply put, there is no justification for unlimited government access even in the face of a criminal investigation.
And, of course, the FBI will refuse to admit that there was nothing of value on the iPhone in question.
2
Ah, it's great news that there was a "third party" who came forward to offer his/her services to the FBI in the war against terrorism. I see no reason why this individual should tell Apple how the phone was forced open.
As for me, after Apple's disgraceful unpatriotic stance I have now begun an official lifelong boycott of its products. But truth be told, I never did own an Apple product and now I wouldn't use one if you paid me.
As for me, after Apple's disgraceful unpatriotic stance I have now begun an official lifelong boycott of its products. But truth be told, I never did own an Apple product and now I wouldn't use one if you paid me.
2
Patriotism is standing up for your rights, not obeying the government without question.
1
I'm still on Apple's side. I don't trust the Feds....not for one second.
2
How do we know what the Justice Dept is saying is true? They could be trying to save face -
2
Consider this: Only criminals and would be terrorists should be scared of the violation of their `private' plans when the devices they use can be cracked by enforcement agencies. Law-fearing citizens should not fear anything. After all, their profiles are there with the companies that they have made the devices (in this case, Apple). How can one be sure that some guy within Apple will not misuse the data of Apple customers?
2
I hope you are joking. The whole point of privacy is that you don't decide whether you are a criminal or terrorist - the Feds decide. Privacy was a direct result of the massive abuse of power throughout history.
1
“This case should never have been brought,” Apple said in a statement, adding that it would continue to help with law enforcement investigations."
Just how are Apple going to "continue to help with law enforcement investigations"? They have refused to help till now. Don't they mean they are going to continue to frustrate the efforts of government investigators to find out every detail of what happened and to frustrate efforts to possibly prevent another massacre in the future. Shame on you Apple.
Just how are Apple going to "continue to help with law enforcement investigations"? They have refused to help till now. Don't they mean they are going to continue to frustrate the efforts of government investigators to find out every detail of what happened and to frustrate efforts to possibly prevent another massacre in the future. Shame on you Apple.
2
This was never about cracking an iPhone. The government has had that ability since the iPhone's inception. The government wanted to expand and publicize this ability to allow other agencies open access to this law enforcement tool. Apple had to push back in order to protect it's brand and the appearance of security. This is nothing more than a cover story for the extremely naive...
1
This is all much ado about nothing. I have a Samsung smart phone and it's great. Not once have I considered whether or not said phone has bullet proof security. Why would it matter? What in the world would I be keeping on my cell phone that requires such attention to security? Yes, I use my smart phone to access my bank account and other important sites, but my passwords are in my head. And yes, I have personal messages and emails on my smart phone that are no one else's business, but I don't need mega-encryption to stop that. The notion that iPhone users buy iPhone's because of better security is absurd. They buy iPhone's because they're in love with Apple. They would make love to their iPhone if they could. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
I am about 65 pages into "IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE" by Sinclair Lewis. It is happening here.
Could it be that the FBI just found the password and got in?
U.S. government has spent billions to spy on Americans under the Obama administration. However, there never seems to be a public cost benefit analysis of these activities, but only self-benefiting spin.
There is always that lingering question of what is the difference between these people, and Americans gunning down people nearly ever week, or the police shooting without much thought African-Americans. Leads us to know that we are none safe.
Were these people inspired by jihadist's propaganda found on social media and the internet, or is there irrefutable evidence that they were linked to ISSI or other similar groups?
While the DOJ is working so diligently to spy on everyone, why does it allow social media executives (e.g., WhatsApp, Google, Twitter, Facebook) to decide that terrorists can post the terrorism spiel on their products.
Americans need to know exactly what was found on this phone, and they need to know the company that allowed them to crack it open. Apple needs to continue making privacy over unrestrained government spying a priority.
There is always that lingering question of what is the difference between these people, and Americans gunning down people nearly ever week, or the police shooting without much thought African-Americans. Leads us to know that we are none safe.
Were these people inspired by jihadist's propaganda found on social media and the internet, or is there irrefutable evidence that they were linked to ISSI or other similar groups?
While the DOJ is working so diligently to spy on everyone, why does it allow social media executives (e.g., WhatsApp, Google, Twitter, Facebook) to decide that terrorists can post the terrorism spiel on their products.
Americans need to know exactly what was found on this phone, and they need to know the company that allowed them to crack it open. Apple needs to continue making privacy over unrestrained government spying a priority.
Why do so many people think that that privacy revolves around Apple's ability to secure it's commonly available product that communicates over the airwaves/Internet?
Privacy is something that is respected by your government, nor not. True Security is not about a device. Just think about it.
Privacy is something that is respected by your government, nor not. True Security is not about a device. Just think about it.
1
Your comment makes me think that we need to consider if we are living in a democracy as envisioned by our founders. My feeling is that we are abused by our government.
1
So, what secrets did they find?
2
How exquisite. A rogue company creates a universally-available communication device with encryption only it controls, and refuses to help the government decrypt a terrorist phone. So a third party now makes their refusal moot, also making Apple's encryption worthless. Karma's nasty.
2
The whole story reminds me of an old (renovated) joke: Three prisoners of ISIS, a Frenchman, an Englishman and an American, stand in line to be beheaded. In the Frenchman's turn, the saber blade flies off the hilt and he is set free. (The executioner has some Western culture remnants in him...) It happens again with the Englishman and he is also let off. Then the American is brought forward. "Wait a minute," he says, "I think I know what's wrong with the saber!"
That was the old part. Now here's a new twist: After gathering his senses, the American comes to the (surprising) conclusion that he would be better off if he doesn't tell the executioner what's wrong. But a spectator, a stuff lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, chastises him: “From a legal standpoint, ... the fight is [not] over. ... I would hope [you] would give that information to [the wielder] so that he can patch any weaknesses ...”
That was the old part. Now here's a new twist: After gathering his senses, the American comes to the (surprising) conclusion that he would be better off if he doesn't tell the executioner what's wrong. But a spectator, a stuff lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, chastises him: “From a legal standpoint, ... the fight is [not] over. ... I would hope [you] would give that information to [the wielder] so that he can patch any weaknesses ...”
2
Wow, how great to know Big Brother has so many friends and cheerleaders in America these days!
I suggest all the individuals who are so delighted that the National Security State has prevailed in the struggle with Apple rent the 2006 film, "The Lives of Others," winner of the Academy Award for foreign language films.
It powerfully portrays what life was like in East Germany, a country in which the secret police monitored every citizen all the time. And the Stasi police had nothing like the thorough and sophisticated equipment the surveillance portion of the U.S. government now possesses.
Sometimes freedom is lost by force. However, it also can be lost by the cooperation and surrender of people themselves.
Privacy may not seem valuable to many of the commentators, but perhaps it has to be gone for Americans to recognize just how precious it is.
It can't happen here in the land of the free and the home of the brave?
Stealthily, quietly, it already has.
I suggest all the individuals who are so delighted that the National Security State has prevailed in the struggle with Apple rent the 2006 film, "The Lives of Others," winner of the Academy Award for foreign language films.
It powerfully portrays what life was like in East Germany, a country in which the secret police monitored every citizen all the time. And the Stasi police had nothing like the thorough and sophisticated equipment the surveillance portion of the U.S. government now possesses.
Sometimes freedom is lost by force. However, it also can be lost by the cooperation and surrender of people themselves.
Privacy may not seem valuable to many of the commentators, but perhaps it has to be gone for Americans to recognize just how precious it is.
It can't happen here in the land of the free and the home of the brave?
Stealthily, quietly, it already has.
59
Have you ever heard of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution? It protects your privacy absent a warrant issued by a court official upon a showing of probable cause. If you think Apple could somehow have protected your privacy in the face of a duly-issued warrant, you're dreaming. But it need not protect it without one.
East Germany was a fascist police state without anything like the Constitutional protections we enjoy. The government can't just search and sieze anything they like. But when they have the authority to do so by dint of a warrant, they have the right to search and sieze anything in any manner they wish that is within the ambit of the warrant.
I wonder, what sort of secrets do all the civil libertarian Apple fanboys have to protect anyway?
East Germany was a fascist police state without anything like the Constitutional protections we enjoy. The government can't just search and sieze anything they like. But when they have the authority to do so by dint of a warrant, they have the right to search and sieze anything in any manner they wish that is within the ambit of the warrant.
I wonder, what sort of secrets do all the civil libertarian Apple fanboys have to protect anyway?
1
Monitor what? My purchase of technology and home improvement items on Amazon? My enjoyment of craft brew IPAs? My foot surgery for bone spurs?
If you are obeying the law and not doing anything wrong, with over 300 million people to "monitor" you won't even be noticed. As an American citizen just like in any country there are trade-offs of being a member of a society. I am perfectly willing to sacrifice some privacy to ensure I don't get blown to pieces while heading to my vacation or taking the train home from work.
Those who aren't are either conspiracy theorists, paranoid, or as my grandfather used to say "up to no good".
Do the right things in your life and have respect for your fellow man, woman, child and animal and we should all be able to live peacefully together.
However, since that is not a commonly shared philosophy, we as a republic need to protect ourselves, including from each other at times.
If you are obeying the law and not doing anything wrong, with over 300 million people to "monitor" you won't even be noticed. As an American citizen just like in any country there are trade-offs of being a member of a society. I am perfectly willing to sacrifice some privacy to ensure I don't get blown to pieces while heading to my vacation or taking the train home from work.
Those who aren't are either conspiracy theorists, paranoid, or as my grandfather used to say "up to no good".
Do the right things in your life and have respect for your fellow man, woman, child and animal and we should all be able to live peacefully together.
However, since that is not a commonly shared philosophy, we as a republic need to protect ourselves, including from each other at times.
Where have you been, Keith, since September 11, 2001?
The Patriot Act.
Suspension of habeas corpus for American citizens
Government-sponsored torture
Extra-judicial drone assassinations
Kidnapping and tranfers to "black sites" in some of the most horrendous human-rights-abusing nations in the world
The extent of NSA surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden
Yes, indeed, our Constitution is invincible!
The Patriot Act.
Suspension of habeas corpus for American citizens
Government-sponsored torture
Extra-judicial drone assassinations
Kidnapping and tranfers to "black sites" in some of the most horrendous human-rights-abusing nations in the world
The extent of NSA surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden
Yes, indeed, our Constitution is invincible!
1
Not really a third party is helping, the problem was we will be more vulnerable for highjackers good luck to the FBI ..
The government has proven that the iPhone data of every congressman, every senator, every presidential candidate, every justice department employee, every state department employee ,every cop, every fireman, every soldier, every sailor and every pilot on the payroll of the government...is available to everyone everywhere with a whim and some wherewithal. Now that's what I call thinking ahead.
1
OK, from observation, if you are a US Media CEO who has ordered your private company server and those of your underlings wiped against foreign court order, our government will let you keep you private server silent if you hand them your grunts' confessional over the last ten years.
But if yours is a public service, like statecraft, you will have to bend over for a closer examination. Just saying, NewsCorp skipped a 2$ billion dollar fine for perverting UK defense officials. Justice must know all Majors do it so they just wink and rummaged through our servers.
But if yours is a public service, like statecraft, you will have to bend over for a closer examination. Just saying, NewsCorp skipped a 2$ billion dollar fine for perverting UK defense officials. Justice must know all Majors do it so they just wink and rummaged through our servers.
The Justice Dept. didn't do the key things it needed to do under our constitution - give a clear picture of what information it was looking for and a clear picture of why the manufacturer should figure out how to break their product to get it. Was this a fishing expedition? If the accused had super glued info a paper into a chair would the super glue maker have to come up with a product for dissolving the glue without harming the paper? Neither are allowed and the need to break into the phone suggests that the Justice Dept. is incompetent.
1
Tom Cook has weakened Apple and inspired hackers. He could have just helped and upgraded security while he kept the solution proprietary. Now Apple will likely be a much bigger target no matter what. I expect that foreign countries will be hacking cellphones of high ranking government officials and Corp. Execs soon. Can we say arrogance claims another victim?
1
I don't believe the incompetency of the government in this matter.
actually I do.
my guess is that the Israeli firm that hacked into the phone, if true, just gave the FBI the information but didn't show them how it was done. why should they?
actually I do.
my guess is that the Israeli firm that hacked into the phone, if true, just gave the FBI the information but didn't show them how it was done. why should they?
I was always troubled by the fact that the DOJ went public with this. Even their removal of the case on the grounds that they have broken into the phone has a smarmy feeling to it.
The reason the DOJ isn't trustworthy is there lawyers are often politically motivated and wins are more important to a prosecutor and his future then quietly protected the American public by doing what's right. This is another example of why Americans feel threatened by our government.
The DOJ lost the PR battle and now are claiming victory. They should be ashamed of themselves for not quietly doing the work that needed to be done. This public display of power and now public display of their wanton disregard for security shows the true nature of the people running our Justice department. It's pretty easy to see why the US has the largest prison population in the world. We have a highly politicized DOJ that has set an incredibly low bar when it comes to ethical behavior.
The reason the DOJ isn't trustworthy is there lawyers are often politically motivated and wins are more important to a prosecutor and his future then quietly protected the American public by doing what's right. This is another example of why Americans feel threatened by our government.
The DOJ lost the PR battle and now are claiming victory. They should be ashamed of themselves for not quietly doing the work that needed to be done. This public display of power and now public display of their wanton disregard for security shows the true nature of the people running our Justice department. It's pretty easy to see why the US has the largest prison population in the world. We have a highly politicized DOJ that has set an incredibly low bar when it comes to ethical behavior.
2
Since the FBI is know for it's lies more than anything else I submit that this claim is yet another big lie. They already had access to the data they needed w/out breaking into the iphone according to the CIA this was all about the director trying to show off and make his agency even bigger. The FBI are not good guys people.
I laughed when I read the headline but when I got to the part about Apple wanting the government to share how it unlocked the iPhone I stared. Seriously? What planet do Apple execs live on?
As for the debate, in a world where security is becoming increasingly tenuous how anybody could care about their privacy more is beyond me. Especially since everybody shares everything obsessively anyway.
I guess they would change their minds if the terrorist bombs that shatter the lives and peace of so many landed at their door. Privacy doesn't mean much when you're lying in a hospital bed with a major portion of your body destroyed beyond redemption.
And if I demand my privacy when it comes at the cost of somebody else's life what kind of person am I?
As for the debate, in a world where security is becoming increasingly tenuous how anybody could care about their privacy more is beyond me. Especially since everybody shares everything obsessively anyway.
I guess they would change their minds if the terrorist bombs that shatter the lives and peace of so many landed at their door. Privacy doesn't mean much when you're lying in a hospital bed with a major portion of your body destroyed beyond redemption.
And if I demand my privacy when it comes at the cost of somebody else's life what kind of person am I?
2
How hilarious! THAT'S proprietary? The government paid intrusion into their security system? Seems Apple's idea we might live free is the unreachable star, and the government dictates this is how far our hand gets. SMACKLE!
1
Hear, hear! Bravo and thank you Jennifer!
1
Much ado about nothing. Where this a will their is a way. Privacy is practically non-existent. All the disclaimer and privacy forms people sign mean nothing except for lawyers who feed ($$$) off the system.
1
I find it utterly foolish to think Apple technology is secure. The entire business model is based on open software but closed hardware. How long do you think it takes a skilled programmer to figure out where the metal meets the road? The constant updates aren't just good for sales.
1
The government is the agent of the people and we have ultimate control over it despite whatever corporate right wingers claim. Apple is a private corporation which does not show any deference to civitas or democracy. Ultimate control of corporations lies in the hands of one or few. Profits over security and justice. Damn them!
1
Every single security person I've heard on this issue--from Richard Broad to Edward Snowden--has said that there was no question at all, from the beginning, that the government had the means to hack into this phone. Whether they could or could not was never the point: they always could. This was a political attempt by the government to have the legal right to look into any phone any time (which they can and I assume do, in any case.) Bravo to Apple for standing up to this attempt to legitimize illegal surveillance. But we all must know that there is no privacy whatsoever on any electronic device.
2
This seems like a win-win situation. Apple gets to stand on its principles. The U.S. gets to access data. Neither had to knuckle under.
1
And security is just a fantasy game played by a hack of fools, Packers.
1
Then why are my knees so bloody raw? Try this new security trick, stupid pwns!
I never employ security other than a virus blocker, this is my system on whack. If you use encryption, you are being swept into Prism. I am sending a clear and Bagdad, AZ massage to Watson, can you hear me?
I am calling you. Stop picking up if I haven't rung your neck or the woods enough yet.
I never employ security other than a virus blocker, this is my system on whack. If you use encryption, you are being swept into Prism. I am sending a clear and Bagdad, AZ massage to Watson, can you hear me?
I am calling you. Stop picking up if I haven't rung your neck or the woods enough yet.
1
It's sounds to me like the regime didn't want the PR backlash it was getting. They are liars, I believe Apple.
1
Kills me that people worry about the government when it comes to privacy, yet willingly post all their info on Facebook and actually trust all these invasive, information seeking g apps on their phones.
4
It was a big mistake by DoJ to publish unlocking! I am not sure FBI is on board with this, for obvious reasons. I am convinced that quite case withdrawal and pretending defeat would benefit further surveillance.
But again, Americans cannot resist a bit of grandstanding.
But again, Americans cannot resist a bit of grandstanding.
Privacy is an illusion, as is secrecy. A promise of privacy, or secrecy, sits on a weak foundation. Promises of all kinds are broken regularly, and for many different reasons. This is the human condition. To expect privacy or secrecy is naive. This is related to trust, which is always conditional. Trust requires a decision, and the decision is a form of risk/benefit analysis. As such, trust always entails a risk.
"You promised to keep my secret. I trusted you!" Surely this is not an unfamiliar scenario.
Privacy and secrecy are best viewed as ideals. But we are humans, and ideals are out of reach.
"You promised to keep my secret. I trusted you!" Surely this is not an unfamiliar scenario.
Privacy and secrecy are best viewed as ideals. But we are humans, and ideals are out of reach.
According to my sources at the FBI speaking on condition of anonymity, the technology has only been recently developed, and is called 3P Force Nudge (patent pending). Apple should license this tech from the FBI and sell as part of a parental controls package. Demand will be huge. Trouble is, Tim Cook is a big defender of children's privacy rights, especially when it comes to parental monitoring. Oh brother.
1
A fed locked it.
1
OMG, is your cloud coming apart at the seams? Seems all the storage facilities are leaking their security codes these dayz. So sad are they to see this was just a fabulous fakery of security.
Good! Apple, in my opinion, made a mistake in refusing to help the government with this problem and compromised all of our security in doing so.
2
Kudos to Apple for sticking to their principles, be they for protection of privacy or brand. The fact that it took the FBI months to crack the code is a testament to Apple technology. Apple will surely make the software more secure in coming releases.
What's really interesting in this case is the progressive view which seems to be skewed against Apple and for government intrusion. You believe the government will always and only use your privacy against criminals and terrorists?
What's really interesting in this case is the progressive view which seems to be skewed against Apple and for government intrusion. You believe the government will always and only use your privacy against criminals and terrorists?
Apple's arrogance - led by Tim Cook - backfired. This is the same obnoxious "I am better than you" attitude that almost bankrupted them years ago. The public has to realize they are an evil, profit motivated company.
2
Maybe (an employee of) Apple did comply and cooperate afterall. We don't know the trutn behind any of this.
Apple was always wrong on this one... since when is any single individual's privacy more important that saving masses of people from ISIS. Who even knows what threats they will cook up next and my texts to Aunt Suzy or whatever just don't have any priority for privacy over the general public safety.
2
This just proves that nothing is secure. Is also proves that the FBI's whining about Apple's privacy policy was always bogus. In tech offense is way ahead of defense.
Maybe Apple helped the Feds by hiring Apple employees (with Apple;'s tacit permission) freelance. Apple has deniability. Kidding. (Maybe!) Good that the Feds could get that phone open without "Apple's" help. It means their phones are not 1,000% hackproof, as thought, which may also motivate Apple to make its phones even more secure. Let the important debate continue!
Well, this is better than the government forcing Apple to break the security of their software themselves, but it leaves some issues unresolved.
If the FBI tells Apple how they broke into the phone, Apple will close this exploit. And even if the FBI don't tell Apple how they broke in, Apple is always increasing software security and might close off the exploit themselves.
In the long term, courts might be more reluctant to consider forcing a device maker to break their software security. Just get a hacker, like the FBI did.
If the FBI tells Apple how they broke into the phone, Apple will close this exploit. And even if the FBI don't tell Apple how they broke in, Apple is always increasing software security and might close off the exploit themselves.
In the long term, courts might be more reluctant to consider forcing a device maker to break their software security. Just get a hacker, like the FBI did.
Apple should have known...
Bragging on their encryption coding was tantamount to double-dog daring someone to hack into it...and gee golly willikers, someone did.
Bragging on their encryption coding was tantamount to double-dog daring someone to hack into it...and gee golly willikers, someone did.
3
Drug dealers, murderers, right wing hate groups and others who have something significant to hide better watch out now! The rest of us really have nothing to fear.
1
I guess you missed the last Commission meeting. They use their own servers or aren't you paying for the attention? No paper trails, they use the Lew Method Universally. Don't all Telephoneys?
The FBI knows as well as I do that the Mob is now online. so not so bloody these dayz, but the take is more than the skin in Vegas! Stock scams, real estate flips for floaters, anything they used to do with paper they now do online. Did I mention fake Universities?
The FBI knows as well as I do that the Mob is now online. so not so bloody these dayz, but the take is more than the skin in Vegas! Stock scams, real estate flips for floaters, anything they used to do with paper they now do online. Did I mention fake Universities?
Apple had every chance to do the right thing here. They chose instead to protect their brand image. Now they are embarrassed. It will be interesting to see the marketing scheme they will use to try to salvage this major P.R. gaffe.
3
FBI has confirmed Farook had a high score of 56 on Flappy Bird
2
Can anyone get that BlackBerry to stop crying about her busted compression system, GCHQ? That part you failed to clean up after her backdoor came off.
So Apple refuses to help the government in a terrorist investigation but then expects the government to share with it the technique by which it broke its security, thereby allowing Apple to fix the flaw so it can refuse to help with the next terrorist investigation? Seriously? Were I the government, I would greet such a request from Apple similarly to how they did them, such response being best expressed with a single upraised middle finger.
That being said, the company that delivered the means to hack the phone to the FBI has not been identified. Who's to say it wasn't Apple itself, doing so sub rosa so that should others ask them to do so in the future they can claim they cannot?
That being said, the company that delivered the means to hack the phone to the FBI has not been identified. Who's to say it wasn't Apple itself, doing so sub rosa so that should others ask them to do so in the future they can claim they cannot?
5
I'm so surprised by reader reaction saying the FBI "won" and Apple "lost". Wake up people-we all lost.
The FBI acting as a petulant child that wanted something it could not have has validated a culture of hacking. The FBI has managed to 1) highlight their own organizational stupidity that caused the phone to be locked in the first place and 2) draw attention to the ease by which a government can access the dark forces of illegal hackers to compromise security of an American designed technology.
This is the ultimate example of cutting off one's nose to spite their face. Just. Plain. Dumb.
The FBI acting as a petulant child that wanted something it could not have has validated a culture of hacking. The FBI has managed to 1) highlight their own organizational stupidity that caused the phone to be locked in the first place and 2) draw attention to the ease by which a government can access the dark forces of illegal hackers to compromise security of an American designed technology.
This is the ultimate example of cutting off one's nose to spite their face. Just. Plain. Dumb.
3
Apple should be ashamed of itself for refusing to help the U.S. Govt. with its fight against terrorism. Who wants to hear that Apple is sorry - later on - that it didn't help the U.S. when there are events here similar to what has recently transpired in Paris and Brussels. In sum, there is a tradeoff between privacy and national security, and there are times when national security and the lives of innocent Americans comes before privacy- whether one wants to admit it or not. In sum, I would not purchase "anything" made by Apple even if it was the only company that manufactured a smartphone.
4
Most likely Apple asked one of its experts to take a leave of absence (with full pay) and do his job. No way that the FBI suddenly solved this on its own.
2
Good. Now we can put this issue to rest. What would really be interesting is to know if anything pertinent remains on the terrorists' iPhone. I applaud the FBI and the agency's newly discovered "hacker", obviously more tech savvy than Apple's. Give this hacker a government job...you never know when his/her services will be needed on matters involving national security, much more critical than the public's obsession with individual privacy.
2
In order to understand this intense struggle between Apple and the FBI, it is important to appreciate fully Apple's corporate character shown in this and other crucial situations which can be summed up as, "Give me profit and I'll give me death.
Less heralded has been Apple's attempts to conceal the health hazards of its phones ranked as one of the highest of all popular cell phones in radiation emitted:http://www.saferemr.com/2014/11/berkeley-cell-phone-right-to-know.html
http://www.iemfa.org/emf-scientist-appeal-to-the-united-nations/
This additional demonstrated blatant disregard for the lives of its consumers is also now becoming revealed to the public. Apple is placing the lives of the most vulnerable, children and the unborn, at risk without willing disclosure to an adoring public: http://www.saferemr.com/2016_03_01_archive.html
Apple seems to have taken a page out of Big Tobacco's playbook for success in the early 1960's before that playbook was exposed to the public.
If corporations are people, what kind of a person is Apple shown to be?
Less heralded has been Apple's attempts to conceal the health hazards of its phones ranked as one of the highest of all popular cell phones in radiation emitted:http://www.saferemr.com/2014/11/berkeley-cell-phone-right-to-know.html
http://www.iemfa.org/emf-scientist-appeal-to-the-united-nations/
This additional demonstrated blatant disregard for the lives of its consumers is also now becoming revealed to the public. Apple is placing the lives of the most vulnerable, children and the unborn, at risk without willing disclosure to an adoring public: http://www.saferemr.com/2016_03_01_archive.html
Apple seems to have taken a page out of Big Tobacco's playbook for success in the early 1960's before that playbook was exposed to the public.
If corporations are people, what kind of a person is Apple shown to be?
2
The FBI could ALWAYS hack the phone. The lawsuit was just a publicity stunt so that the FBI could say Apple made it possible, rather than their own determined efforts, because people are suspicious of government intrusion.
Apple got to pretend that privacy and security of their customers is their paramount concern (while pimping out their customer's uses) and the FBI took a stab at getting someone else to do their hacking for them.
But the FBI could ALWAYS get into the phone.
Apple got to pretend that privacy and security of their customers is their paramount concern (while pimping out their customer's uses) and the FBI took a stab at getting someone else to do their hacking for them.
But the FBI could ALWAYS get into the phone.
1
If the Government can unlock an iPhone without the help of Apple, then anybody can. Apple owes us many explanations.
Apple has been claiming that its technology is so secure. It is not. How is Apple going to make it right ?
I did my part. I paid for my iPhone. Please advise.
Apple has been claiming that its technology is so secure. It is not. How is Apple going to make it right ?
I did my part. I paid for my iPhone. Please advise.
1
Most criminals use portable phones like toilet paper, throw away after single use. Only the amateurs cause these 'crack phone' problems . After all this publicity there will be far less amateurs.
1
We will probably never know the truth, but here is my best guess as to what happened:
The NSA could crack the phone all along, but did not want the FBI to know. As time went by and controversy generated, one of two things happened. Either the NSA did actually tell the FBI, or, more likely, they used some front company to pass the information to the FBI and keep themselves hidden.
The NSA could crack the phone all along, but did not want the FBI to know. As time went by and controversy generated, one of two things happened. Either the NSA did actually tell the FBI, or, more likely, they used some front company to pass the information to the FBI and keep themselves hidden.
1
This may never happen again. If a case like this ever gets to SCOTUS I bet the finding will be that the device is now part of the person and first and fifth amendment rights flow to it.
While in no way condoning unauthorized hacking or other invasive and unlawful intrusions on bona fide intellectual property, one can observe that Apple's success and visibility will always make its products vulnerable to hacks--because prestige and profit accrues to those who hack the most prolific and visible software, especially given Apple's assertions that its encryption scheme was likely unbreakable, even by Apple (we will likely never see software that eliminates hubris!). Ironically, however sensible, well-intentioned, even noble, Apple's motives were, its refusal to assist the Government in breaking its encryption in the Farook case may have accelerated and expanded unauthorized decryption efforts, thus compromising Apple's apparent objective of maintaining the integrity of its encryption and associated business practices by resisting cooperation with the Government.
Apple is still a great, great company--but it's run by humans, in a world of humans--all with human failings. As some Supreme Court justice once said, though perhaps not in this context, "corporations are people, too".
;-)
Apple is still a great, great company--but it's run by humans, in a world of humans--all with human failings. As some Supreme Court justice once said, though perhaps not in this context, "corporations are people, too".
;-)
There must be no political correctness issues involved with hacking in to private phones and that is why “It remains a priority for the government to ensure that law enforcement can obtain crucial digital information to protect national security and public safety, either with cooperation from relevant parties, or through the court system when cooperation fails,” quoting the article.
Is political correctness the reason why we allowed the San Bernardino terrorist wife to enter the US in the first place even though excluding her would have greatly aided the protection national security and public safety? Is it political correctness that our government does not seem at all concerned that other terrorist may also be able to gain entry and that many politicians are severely criticizing those who are concerned? What happened to protecting national security and public safety? Does it make sense to care more about political correctness than about national security and public safety?
Being able to hack phones does not do the job. It may only help after the fact. The only effective way of protecting national security and public safety is keeping terrorists out in the first place.
Then there is the question of dealing with those terrorists that are here already, but that is another politically correct story where national security and public safety also take second place to political correctness. We have everything in the wrong order!
Is political correctness the reason why we allowed the San Bernardino terrorist wife to enter the US in the first place even though excluding her would have greatly aided the protection national security and public safety? Is it political correctness that our government does not seem at all concerned that other terrorist may also be able to gain entry and that many politicians are severely criticizing those who are concerned? What happened to protecting national security and public safety? Does it make sense to care more about political correctness than about national security and public safety?
Being able to hack phones does not do the job. It may only help after the fact. The only effective way of protecting national security and public safety is keeping terrorists out in the first place.
Then there is the question of dealing with those terrorists that are here already, but that is another politically correct story where national security and public safety also take second place to political correctness. We have everything in the wrong order!
1
Apple wins the battle and loses the war. Now sitting with their mouth agape and looking to fix a hole in their software with no starting point. Will they ask the government for help and when it's denied sue for help in the name of public safety? What irony
Again refer to Benjamin Franklin, we may have freedom or safety but giving up one for the other we will lose both.
Again refer to Benjamin Franklin, we may have freedom or safety but giving up one for the other we will lose both.
1
Well, now everyone knows iPhones are not secure. That's good knowledge for the public to have. If the government can break in, they can plant data. If the government can break in, criminals can break in. Apple needs to go back to the drawing board. If the company can't make the data totally secure, at least they could provide enough anti-tamper to make data unrecoverable. That's not too much to ask. Making the phone impossible to track would be nice too.
2
All digital security is just a hack waiting to happen at some point. There is no finish line.
If you think innocence is a defense, wait until some horrid terrorist group uses the initials of your company or a similar odd email address or something you legitimately search. Remember it is what your online profile looks like to governments.
And yes, prevention is best. They did not vet the wife adequately did they.
If you think innocence is a defense, wait until some horrid terrorist group uses the initials of your company or a similar odd email address or something you legitimately search. Remember it is what your online profile looks like to governments.
And yes, prevention is best. They did not vet the wife adequately did they.
1
The safety and security of citizenry, literally the protection of life itself, in egregious situations exceeds any person's or company's claim to privacy. Apple used the claim to a right to privacy to promote its product brand, not out of any sense of ideal. To quote the famous line from "Murder in the Cathedral," the last temptation is the greatest treason, to do the right thing for the wrong reason.
2
As flippant as it sounds, I suspect the phone was susceptible to a computer literate grand child of one of the investigators.
3
Oh, come now, GCHQ is at least as smart as a fifth grader. They cracked the BlackBerry in 2011. Snowden told me. Long before we had a clue as to what these security services were getting up to. But their stock gave that cracking deal away. BB should sue, but who do they reverse the charges to?
1
I was on Apple's side before this turn of events, but why should the government now turn over to Apple how they accessed the phone? It's Apple's product. If they want their phones to be totally secure, they need to make them that way, not rely on the government (or whatever company the government hired) to fix their own security issues.
8
Cooperation works both ways.
Knowing where a vulnerability exists is not the same as putting I. The work to actually fixing it. Security holes are commonly patched firstly by means of a "good hacker" alerting the company and disclosing where the hole is. American government's primary role was originally to serve the people who delegated to it certain limited powers. The government should release the information because it's original premise was that it was only trying to access one phone, not to cause or reveal a universal security issue with all phones. If that premise is still valid, they should act in the best interest of the public and provide Apple with the methods used so that they can close the holes.
Or it's extortion.
Some kind of Asian megalomania has infected the Apple executives. However, in many Asian nations, there is remedy in the hands of the draconian government sides. They will literally catch the executives and give them a splendid bashing that will stay on their faces similar to the 'Bad Sign' of Phantom, the Ghost who walks.
Another thing that is not mentioned is that whenever any terrorist attack takes places in any English nation, it remains an isolated incident. However, in many Asian/African nations, even a simple violence will spread like wildfire.
For instance, if 3000 people had died in an incident similar to the 9/11 in a nation like India, it would have let loose a communal frenzy that would be very difficult to control, other than by military shooting done by Gen Dyre way back in 1919.
Apple is playing with fire. It is just a commercial company, and has no more rights to than a lock maker has.
Another thing that is not mentioned is that whenever any terrorist attack takes places in any English nation, it remains an isolated incident. However, in many Asian/African nations, even a simple violence will spread like wildfire.
For instance, if 3000 people had died in an incident similar to the 9/11 in a nation like India, it would have let loose a communal frenzy that would be very difficult to control, other than by military shooting done by Gen Dyre way back in 1919.
Apple is playing with fire. It is just a commercial company, and has no more rights to than a lock maker has.
6
Asian megalomania? I can't tell what point you are making, besides some kind of racist generalization about Asian people and countries.
1
Privacy is security
8
"Privacy is security."
And so closed meetings are ok, and calls for "transparancy" are detrimental? Like individual rights vs the common good, there's a huge gray area between these two absolutes.
And so closed meetings are ok, and calls for "transparancy" are detrimental? Like individual rights vs the common good, there's a huge gray area between these two absolutes.
No matter how sophisticated the security, along comes a hack to defeat it.
Is there a leak proof system?
So complex it possibly messes up the producer in ways unknown?
As for Apple's security architecture, we just backed up sensitive personal files to icloud. How secure are the walls of that or any popular cloud services?
Is there a leak proof system?
So complex it possibly messes up the producer in ways unknown?
As for Apple's security architecture, we just backed up sensitive personal files to icloud. How secure are the walls of that or any popular cloud services?
3
Now, we didn't want you worrying yourself about your email after that phone call capture thingy. PLEASE don't ask what's up while paying your magic bean bill.
Depends on who your clowd operator is...Most of them folded to Justice from the gitmo.
The responsibility for protecting the safety of our citizens rests with our elected officials; Timothy Cook is not one of them and exceeded his brief on this issue.
5
Now, who ever that firm was who cracked the Apple, they got your granny's address inside, Red. I've heard it was the same crew who blew the Stuxnet, but that didn't get around, no?
That was a long detour in this terrorism investigation. Move along people, nothing to see here.
2
Don't you wish while folks were wasting time on these outlandish puzzle palaces one might have bothered to take a phone tip from a foreign counter part? Boston, Belgium? Hello? Does this thing work?
One of the most humiliating things about this Five Eyed Spork System is it only speaks English! Get a Clue, Watson!
One of the most humiliating things about this Five Eyed Spork System is it only speaks English! Get a Clue, Watson!
Of course the government is a bully and should get access to everyone's phone, anytime, anywhere in the world. I wish they would have asked a Russian owned private company as big as Apple to overide their security parameters on their phone and see what the Russians will say. We see from this incident that, government is a bully in society period.
First of all, we can draw conclusions thinking that the information made public is 100% nothing but the truth. I don't buy it though. What if Apple did cooperate with with the FBI. What if a current apple engineer or even an ex-employee assisted the FBI? We can only speculate at this point, so many possibilities. Or maybe a family member came forward and provided the password, that stupid simple.
Tech websites were brimming with ways to hack into that phone, which was an older version of iOS (the operating system that runs iPhone's and iPad's). Remember that with every update iOS, like operating systems, becomes stronger so just because they were able to hack that one doesn't mean they can hack the phone you now have. Somebody will probably figure out a way to eventually but, by then, they'll have made the operating system stronger.
This is the primary reason it is really important to update your computing devices: phones, tablets, computers, and anything else that wants to update. Each update patches security vulnerabilities making the devices more hack-proof. That's not just Apple: it's all computing devices.
This is the primary reason it is really important to update your computing devices: phones, tablets, computers, and anything else that wants to update. Each update patches security vulnerabilities making the devices more hack-proof. That's not just Apple: it's all computing devices.
To all those who castigate Apple for standing firm against FBI intrusion, take a look at this.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/21/ex-nsa-chief-backs-apple-i...
I personally think there has to be some way to make one time pass keys, if feasible, that can then be rendered useless so as to return to a condition of security we all want from our phones. Perhaps it's not possible in which case I'd side with personal security against government prying as the best concept.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/21/ex-nsa-chief-backs-apple-i...
I personally think there has to be some way to make one time pass keys, if feasible, that can then be rendered useless so as to return to a condition of security we all want from our phones. Perhaps it's not possible in which case I'd side with personal security against government prying as the best concept.
1
Perhaps this is a bluff by the FBI?
Believing they would not succeed in forcing Apple's hand.
To make Apple look bad and garner public support for their desire to have access our phones.
Judging from the reader picks in these comments they are succeeding.
Gives them more support and ammunition for such privacy battles which are bound to arise in the future.
Believing they would not succeed in forcing Apple's hand.
To make Apple look bad and garner public support for their desire to have access our phones.
Judging from the reader picks in these comments they are succeeding.
Gives them more support and ammunition for such privacy battles which are bound to arise in the future.
2
This was done privately toa suspect's BB, but the stock showed the damage left behind after extracting Cameron's corrupt emails before they made the courtroom.
U.S. Constitution - 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
When issued with a warrant, Apple is compelled to provide access. IMO, the US Government could've/should've arrested the CEO and halted sales of all Apple devices in the USA until it complied.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
When issued with a warrant, Apple is compelled to provide access. IMO, the US Government could've/should've arrested the CEO and halted sales of all Apple devices in the USA until it complied.
7
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You have a deep misunderstanding of the Fourth Amendment and the legal proceedings involving Apple. Thr judge's order allowed Apple opportunity to contest the order in court, which Apple did. That's not to mention what was issued was NOT a search warrant. The FBI did nog want to search any of Apple's property. They wanted to force Apple to write a security backdoor to the encryption software.
Opening your door to a search warrant is one thing. Search warrants can't force someone to help break into a stranger's door.
Opening your door to a search warrant is one thing. Search warrants can't force someone to help break into a stranger's door.
1
Fortunately, police state tactics are not the norm in the United States and we have due process and a judicial system.
2
If the FBI does not divulge their methodology for getting into the phone and it does not divulge what it found behind a veil of "national security", how do we even know that they really succeeded?
This is the problem that started with the Patriot Act: everyone's privacy is at stake and there are no independent and public arbiters of how the process works. National security is a false god. We have surrendered our personal security for the chimera that there is such a thing as "national security".
Given how our last two misadventures in the Middle East ended, why people think we will have anymore success now is beyond me.
This is the problem that started with the Patriot Act: everyone's privacy is at stake and there are no independent and public arbiters of how the process works. National security is a false god. We have surrendered our personal security for the chimera that there is such a thing as "national security".
Given how our last two misadventures in the Middle East ended, why people think we will have anymore success now is beyond me.
6
If a third party was used to hack the phone, I wonder if they were ex-Apple employees or had any confidential information about the security on the phone. I'm sure Apple is wondering that too. If so, there are even more questions about the law and morality - not always the same thing for all parties.
Doesn't say much for the onboard service NSA and GCHQ insert into these security systemizers. Didn't Snowden tell us the NSA and other government division work for all of them? Most often with permission and a secret office, but it also busts down companies that won't help, too. See BlackBerry.
I don't think the gov't should tell Apple or anyone else how it unlocked the iPhone. I always thought that disassembly might be a means just like hard drives can be examined by pulling them out of a computer. That may have been what happened, somehow. I heard that someone found a component to remove and re-insert. Whatever I heard, Apple will have heard, too. One can guess that, if that is the case, Apple will deal with it. No need exists to give Apple the insight. Let them try to figure it out.
But, the larger question remains: it seems that the only thing that is private is that one cannot force us to testify from our own memories if we think that may incriminate us. Whatever we have on paper or on a computer seems to be what the gov't is able to access. I have mixed feelings about that. That means that, on some level, the gov't can invade your private matters whenever it wishes and can get a court order.
But, the larger question remains: it seems that the only thing that is private is that one cannot force us to testify from our own memories if we think that may incriminate us. Whatever we have on paper or on a computer seems to be what the gov't is able to access. I have mixed feelings about that. That means that, on some level, the gov't can invade your private matters whenever it wishes and can get a court order.
3
The phone belonged to the San Bernadino local goverment, as I understand it, and they wanted the phone unlocked. So i don't see how its privacy was invaded.
4
GCHQ broke into the BlackBerry to extract a corrupting email Cameron left in the offender's BlackBerry. Took a month, but that may have only been to await the transformation of same file into Tempora metadata so as to leave behind an empty mystery Snowden later solved for me. The only email in a criminanl hacking suspect's BB that came out empty was Cameron's? Search me!
While you two dance around the maypole, I plant a tree of Liberty before thee and ask why the government must have the key to my keep? This is my personal paradise and I don't like he thought of anyone peeking while I dance inversely to the pervs who dance to data streams. Talking about Thompson and that House of Cards geek, Watson.
Maybe now Apple can get back to making sure IOS 9.3 actually works before releasing it. A iPad and iPhone that don't allow you to open links? Great upgrade. Thanks Apple.
2
I'm thankful I didn't buy into any more tech stock when these iceholes got caught the last time they blew covers. This is now status quo, security agencies paying outsiders to break in.
Most of these upgrades are designed to push more revenue generating garbage on you. Often they end up messing up functionality and very quickly making processors obsolete. Apple showed it's true profit at all costs colors with this one.
I refuse to believe that the FBI has unlocked the IPhone without Apples help because I have yet to witness a competent information technology system run by our Federal government.
1
“Now that the F.B.I. has accessed this iPhone, it should disclose the method for doing so to Apple,” she [Riana Pfefferkorn] added.
Riiiiight. That way, the FBI might not be able to break into the next iPhone even though it is legally allowed to do so upon a showing of probable cause under the Fourth Amendment.
Riiiiight. That way, the FBI might not be able to break into the next iPhone even though it is legally allowed to do so upon a showing of probable cause under the Fourth Amendment.
3
It would have been better for both privacy and security if the government had done this quietly instead of in the highest possible profile. It has now told the world, including china, russia and other represeive regimes, that a hack is oossible. Perhaps even more important, it has given such regimes cover to demand apple and other manufacturers to open devices when they wish to surveil their own citizens, including human rights activists, dissidents, and political opponents. The US, even though it did not succeed (this time) with its own demand of apple, it will not be able to complain when, say, china demands, or extorts, apple for access to private devices for its own purposes in the future.
There is absolutely no such thing is "unhackable". People who do this... It is what they DO. And they rarely fail, if ever. (Luckily or unluckily, its not a common specialty)
There really is no answer. Except to never use the web, never use your phone, and live in a small cabin in the woods. Oh and don't walk in any najor urban areas, because there are cameras everywhere now too!! (and I'm not a paranoid person; these are the realities of today's culture.)
There really is no answer. Except to never use the web, never use your phone, and live in a small cabin in the woods. Oh and don't walk in any najor urban areas, because there are cameras everywhere now too!! (and I'm not a paranoid person; these are the realities of today's culture.)
Judging by many of the comments, at last many of you stuck with PC technology have a little something to crow about. Enjoy it while it lasts, PCers. (About 5 seconds would be my guess.)
It would have been better for both privacy and security if the government had done this quietly instead of in the highest possible profile. It has now told the world, including China, Russia and other repressive regimes, that a hack is possible. Perhaps even more important, it has given such regimes cover to demand that apple and other manufacturers open devices when they wish to surveil their own citizens, including human rights activists, dissidents, and political opponents. The US, even though it did not succeed (this time) with its own demand of apple, will not be able to credibly complain when, say, China demands, or extorts, apple for access to private devices for its own purposes in the future.
2
It brings another battle. Assume a context where in an applicant files a petition under Right to Have Information (may be some other name in the USA) requesting the methods, manners and process of unlock of an apple system. The officers of USA shall answer to this query by facts. Another round of battle. We are in mechanized loop.
For anyone who trusts Apple with their info, hear there's a nice bridge for sale. Marketer's can have whatever they want, and not the FBI? Just what to expect from a company founded by a deadbeat dad who needed to be sued by the state for child support. This hotshot took conspicuous consumption to a new high by using handicapped parking routinely and just paying the fines. It would in no way serve national security for the FBI to disclose techniques. Apple has a staff of paid hackers for that.
7
The cynic in me says Apple just used another company to provide the way to break into the phone so they can back to focussing on their image
Perhaps this question has been raised and answered: Was it necessary to kill the two terrorists? Could they have been tear-gassed or immobilized in some other way so that they could have been questioned - if they did not take their own lives?
Terrorist Salah Abdeslam was shot in the leg by Belgian police and taken into custody so he can be and is being questioned. Maybe that is better than opening an I phone.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen USA SE
Terrorist Salah Abdeslam was shot in the leg by Belgian police and taken into custody so he can be and is being questioned. Maybe that is better than opening an I phone.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen USA SE
3
So instead of having this done with full view of the Public and Apple, the FBI now has access to a new type of exploit that Apple hasn't come across and under no obligation to share.
This was not about setting precedent. This was about advertising a job to hacking firms who are now going to start targeting Apple's products without restraint because the new customer is going to be the Department of Justice.
Watching people cheer this on as privacy matter has been rather disappointing. The government was always going to win, we just don't get see how.
This was not about setting precedent. This was about advertising a job to hacking firms who are now going to start targeting Apple's products without restraint because the new customer is going to be the Department of Justice.
Watching people cheer this on as privacy matter has been rather disappointing. The government was always going to win, we just don't get see how.
2
Hey Fbi - thanks for killing the golden goose (next time shut up about this sort of thing)
4
The initial move by Apple was a business move. They could have said we were forced by the government to open the contents on the phone. In that scenario, Apple wins.
In the situation, Apple is a loser and I am glad for that.
In the situation, Apple is a loser and I am glad for that.
6
so apple can sell any info about me to 3rd party marketing companies for a profit but scream about protecting my data and integrity against the big bad government. Apple you are a loser and now you will want the government to tell you how they did it. What fools you are!
10
So Apple uses everyone's private information for its own profit, while objecting to disclosing the doings of a known terrorist?
16
Apple needs to come home to America, help America, stop handing our technology secrets to China on an hourly basis, and protect all people from harm related to its products just like the NRA needs to be held accountable.
7
It is simply unconscionable to know that Apple protects drug dealers and terrorists, thereby preventing the Justice Department to go after these people.
There should be legislation that compels companies like Apple to cooperate with the Justice Department if it is in the interest of Security or Justice. It is surprising how quickly an event like 9/11 fades from the memory of people
There should be legislation that compels companies like Apple to cooperate with the Justice Department if it is in the interest of Security or Justice. It is surprising how quickly an event like 9/11 fades from the memory of people
8
Apple is a company in decline ever since Steve Jobs passed away. A one trick pony called the iPhone. Now it appears that the pony is injured. Will the company even be around in 10 years from now?
3
One, I don't believe the government actually cracked the iPhone. Two, I don't believe the government cared about cracking this particular iPhone because they knew it contained no evidence. Three, I believe the government fabricated this entire controversy, then backed down and lied about cracking the phone to avoid being humiliated when they realized they were on the wrong side of the law and public opinion.
I voted for Obama, but his Justice Department is corrupt, and his FBI director is incompetent.
I voted for Obama, but his Justice Department is corrupt, and his FBI director is incompetent.
5
Agree with you on all points except the fabrication part. I think this just started as the FBI requesting Apple's help and they refused. It just escalted from there. As you know "contempt of cop" is the worst offence you can commit!
Now FBI should play hardball and never reveal the Iphone hack to Apple or in future no hackers would cooperate if they knew their hacks would be revealed.
This is also a message to Microsoft and other silicon valley fat cats who sided with Apple that FBI knows how to play this game if companies don't cooperate in cases of terrorism. Atta FBI way to go!
This is also a message to Microsoft and other silicon valley fat cats who sided with Apple that FBI knows how to play this game if companies don't cooperate in cases of terrorism. Atta FBI way to go!
2
The FBI always plays hardball. There typical informant is on their payroll.
The government should keep this method classified, or if they have this need again they will have the same problem with Apple, who will have 'fixed' this particular method and will again refuse to help.
Speaking of chutzpah, somebody is really nuts if they think the FBI should now tell Apple how they accessed their phone. The government should give the same cooperation to profit making Apple as Apple gave to the government seeking to obtain information about terrorist murderers. Let those smart ***es figure it out themselves. Apple and Google to name a few, know a lot more about individuals than the government.
1
Sure enough the FBI and US DOJ with the help of hackers unlocked the cell phone of the murder, But as the County authorities informed the the FBI and the DOJ there is zilch of any info. of the crimes committed by the terrorist. The bottom line in this case is much too much heavy handed intrusion by the Government. In particular when it is the US Government and one too many private contractors, who are the enemy within that have wired one too many innocent peoples, homes, telephones, computers for the sheer purpose of harassment. The bottom line is no body is safe from unnecessary govt. intrusion.
1
So now we know the government's true intentions behind trying to force Apple: the FBI simply wanted a legal remedy (which it never really received due to contrary court rulings) to force any American company, vis-à-vis Apple's, to give up trade secrets for any cause--no matter how legitimate or dubious. This was, in some many words, a "win" for American taxpayers who pay billions for the FBI and CIA to hire thousands of computer specialists--specialists that, in the end, relied in part on Israeli technology. Advice for the government: Find less irrational ways of doing your own dirty work.
When the intelligence community dicovers a zero-day explot that allows this type of access, they do not inform the manufacturer -- and the method used remains classified. Perhaps law enforcement should follow the intelligence community's lead.
I'm very much for secure devices for consumers, but we need to face the fact that this is an arms race.
It is amusing to see the Justice Department make a statement about the "creativity and innovation" in the public sector.
What innovation, I ask? While the intelligence community already practices this, the rest of the public sector needs to up its game in recruitment of technical experts, and be prepared to competitively compensate hires. In my industry, working for the Feds is not as cool as working in a startup. Maybe it's time the Feds try to change that.
I'm very much for secure devices for consumers, but we need to face the fact that this is an arms race.
It is amusing to see the Justice Department make a statement about the "creativity and innovation" in the public sector.
What innovation, I ask? While the intelligence community already practices this, the rest of the public sector needs to up its game in recruitment of technical experts, and be prepared to competitively compensate hires. In my industry, working for the Feds is not as cool as working in a startup. Maybe it's time the Feds try to change that.
Surprised to see so many commentators lauding this. This is bad news for the people. We are all (or soon will be) less secure than we would have been had the phones proved to be impregnable.
1
"U.S. Says It Has Unlocked iPhone Without Apple"
"Says" is the key word in the headline of this unverifiable story. If it is true, what exactly are the commenters cheering and piling on so happy about?
A modern world where any sophisticated organization could crack any encryption in a matter of weeks would not be the sort of world any of us would knowingly choose. It would be great if everyone could at least acknowledge that there's no such thing as a vulnerability that only the good guys can exploit. To punish Apple and to get a little bit more control, the government just made all of us less secure.
I don't like large corporations or the tech industry, and it's obvious that Apple has its own ulterior motives here. But anyone who thinks this is just about cutting Apple down to size, or fighting terrorism, is really missing the point.
"Says" is the key word in the headline of this unverifiable story. If it is true, what exactly are the commenters cheering and piling on so happy about?
A modern world where any sophisticated organization could crack any encryption in a matter of weeks would not be the sort of world any of us would knowingly choose. It would be great if everyone could at least acknowledge that there's no such thing as a vulnerability that only the good guys can exploit. To punish Apple and to get a little bit more control, the government just made all of us less secure.
I don't like large corporations or the tech industry, and it's obvious that Apple has its own ulterior motives here. But anyone who thinks this is just about cutting Apple down to size, or fighting terrorism, is really missing the point.
2
I wonder if the position of Timothy Cooke and those who support his company's stance on the preeminence of privacy would be so fervently held if he or a loved one was personally threatened and the perpetrator had an iPhone in the possession of the government.
Ah! David and Goliath! Now, if we just knew who was who....
Almost all of the NYTimes picks are of the nature "screw you Apple". Wonder how the editors really feel.
But what I would really like publicized is the result of opening the phone. It is just not credible to me that these terrorists would leave any evidence on this phone when they had private phones that the destroyed completely. This whole thing has been a gambit by the Justice Department to set a precedent that companies have to comply with their request to create product to access private data.
But what I would really like publicized is the result of opening the phone. It is just not credible to me that these terrorists would leave any evidence on this phone when they had private phones that the destroyed completely. This whole thing has been a gambit by the Justice Department to set a precedent that companies have to comply with their request to create product to access private data.
2
This creates good precedent for people that don't want to be tied down to Apple iCloud, "Find My iPhone" or Apple Disk Drive services, which are the only services of its kind, and fully-built into the OS. It creates a reliance on Apple even after the sale completed; something which functions similar to building a pay-per-month web-browser built into an operating system.
Can't wait until there are legitimate replacements for these services which take the apple "hack" further and reduce dependence on additional after-the-sale services from Apple.
Can't wait until there are legitimate replacements for these services which take the apple "hack" further and reduce dependence on additional after-the-sale services from Apple.
“This case should never have been brought,” Apple said in a statement, adding that it would continue to help with law enforcement investigations. Hmmm
1
He he he… let the games begin!
I bet that tomorrow there’s going to be a whole bunch of programmers at Apple looking at IOS code.
It’s binary… somewhere there is a branch that simply asks: “Is the login valid or is it not”. Find that and a flip of a bit is all that it takes.
I bet that tomorrow there’s going to be a whole bunch of programmers at Apple looking at IOS code.
It’s binary… somewhere there is a branch that simply asks: “Is the login valid or is it not”. Find that and a flip of a bit is all that it takes.
Wow! So many Apple haters here!
Worse, so many folks that simply don't understand the federal government's insatiable appetite.
Anyone who has spent any time around the FBI or a US Attorney's office knows the only interest they have in the 4th Amendment is how to go over, under, around or through it.
Worse, so many folks that simply don't understand the federal government's insatiable appetite.
Anyone who has spent any time around the FBI or a US Attorney's office knows the only interest they have in the 4th Amendment is how to go over, under, around or through it.
2
As we outlined earlier, this entire confrontation has been Kabuki for the general public. Both Apple and the FBI knew or should have known that any phone could be cracked if there was physical possession of the phone by isolating the physical memory, downloading it to a virtual machine and then brute force decrypting.
Both sides did not want to make this fact which is obvious to anyone with an understanding of the hardware and encryption issues, the FBI because they wanted to leverage the issue to get a backdoor, Apple for commercial reasons.
The decryption was straightforward and accomplished in at most several days.
The comments about Apple's cooperation or lack thereof with the government are misguided, the cooperation was never needed. The public is being manipulated to grant the intelligence agency direct surveillance of every individual in real time because of wireless transmission interception, without a warrant, and because of current storage capabilities, in retrospect, at any time, with or without a warrant. This access is the real issue, and has real privacy implications which society has not grasped.
Both sides did not want to make this fact which is obvious to anyone with an understanding of the hardware and encryption issues, the FBI because they wanted to leverage the issue to get a backdoor, Apple for commercial reasons.
The decryption was straightforward and accomplished in at most several days.
The comments about Apple's cooperation or lack thereof with the government are misguided, the cooperation was never needed. The public is being manipulated to grant the intelligence agency direct surveillance of every individual in real time because of wireless transmission interception, without a warrant, and because of current storage capabilities, in retrospect, at any time, with or without a warrant. This access is the real issue, and has real privacy implications which society has not grasped.
2
I am pretty sure tim cook reads our emails and riffles through our iPhones for fun in his spare time. For anyone to think they have privacy in the digital age is pure folly. If something can be programmed, it can be hacked. Its just a matter of time and money and the US Government has plenty of both. At first I thought that apple's stonewalling was just a ruse while they were secretly helping the government. It turns out not to be the case. Now everyone knows an Israeli company can hack iPhones and will sell their services to the highest bidder. Talk about cutting off the nose to spite the face.
1
I find it funny, that one week after John Oliver said the government didn't even need the key from Apple and the phones could be hacked easily, our government drops the case.
Snowden also called the government's bluff and said they could have always broken into the phone.
Snowden also called the government's bluff and said they could have always broken into the phone.
Was there anything of value on the phone? Did it prove/disprove the guilt of the couple who was summarily slaughtered after a car chase? Did it indicate if the bullets of the guns matched those of the victims? Not one single comment about the results. Strange.
2
The F.B.I. owes Apple nothing. Now Apple users may realize they own the least secure phones because Apple is not working with hackers; that is, paying them, to disclose to Apple what they know about bugs or security lapses in their phone designs. If hackers' consciences and loyalty is to the government in uncovering terrorist leads, every miniscule flaw in an Apple device is exploitable and the terrorists who have thought Apple was their best bet for security will move on to other smartphone manufacturers.
1
Apple should have help the justice department break the phone, or simply done it themselves. In the case of a terrorist it seems unconscionable to me that they would not help bring this mans accomplices to trial.
So now tell us that there was nothing important on the phone after all
O.K. at the risk of sounding like a Luddite, maybe it would have been better if we never invented these phones at all. For every step forward we take with technology, we take at least two steps backward in other areas of society.
1
Spring,
You're so right. After harnessing fire and inventing the wheel, every technological advancement has had its pros and cons. That's why we have to have sensible regulation includes the consideration of societal costs. It can't be all the government's way or all Apple's way. The complexity of modern civilization requires compromise. Private corporations can be just as fascist as governments.
You're so right. After harnessing fire and inventing the wheel, every technological advancement has had its pros and cons. That's why we have to have sensible regulation includes the consideration of societal costs. It can't be all the government's way or all Apple's way. The complexity of modern civilization requires compromise. Private corporations can be just as fascist as governments.
Another possibility: The Justice Department was unable to hack the phone, but said they did. This bluff would retaliate against Apple's lack of cooperation, damaging their brand. It would make terrorists feel less secure and pressure other tech companies to cooperate in the future. Let's see if Justice reveals any useful data they got from the phone.
2
It's strange to see all these comments about how Apple must feel like they've lost; I don't see it that way at all. The Feds got what they wanted in the way they should have done to begin with. Apple stuck to its guns and did not hack their own OS for the Feds. Perhaps it is not common knowledge that nothing is not hackable no matter how hard we try to make it so. Apple will close this security gap yet there will be others, some of which exist today and some of which are yet to be. But at least Apple is not handing over the keys to the kingdom on a platter, nor should they be compelled to do so. I applaud Apple for their patriotic stance of upholding the rights that so many are willing to give up for so little.
Today my eleven year old son forgot his iPod passcode and I was able to reset it and restore all his data from iCloud following six east steps on Apple's website. And the US government can't do this and instead files suits to force Apple to create a back door? Makes no sense, unless the government saw the San Bernardino case as a heinous enough crime that public outrage over terrorism would create an opening to pressure Apple.
I notice from the names, that many of those who lauded the cheap criminal Edward Snowden, claiming for him an act of heroism vs the U.S. Government regarding its secret (but certainly never surprising) spy programs against U.S. citizens, are now on the side of that very same spying Government. My, but politics sure does make for strange bedfellows!
Apple should have worked on this problem with the government. With them their bottom line and offering an "unbreakable" encryption to their customers trumped national security. The average person did not need that level of encryption. Those that did could store their stuff on a non-communicatioing device specially purchased for that purpose.
Hope APPLE thinks all the negative publicity was worth their phony show of concern for their customers privacy. All the while selling what they can of peoples habits to commercial interests.
Anyway hope the FBI shares their solution with anyone and everyone. APPLE is a for profit corporation. If anyone thinks they were concerned about privacy they should have another think. It was all about the money and a competitive advantage over their competition.
Hope APPLE thinks all the negative publicity was worth their phony show of concern for their customers privacy. All the while selling what they can of peoples habits to commercial interests.
Anyway hope the FBI shares their solution with anyone and everyone. APPLE is a for profit corporation. If anyone thinks they were concerned about privacy they should have another think. It was all about the money and a competitive advantage over their competition.
2
Will Iphone have the moral ascendancy to ask for the flaw on their Iphone
when they have not worked with the gov't?
i don't think so.
when they have not worked with the gov't?
i don't think so.
1
I'm not certain why the unlocking us such a "big deal." A young neighbor of ours, George Hotz, 24, (Google his name) was the first to unlock one a few years ago. How is this "news?"
One question - is there really any such thing as security anymore? If so, from whom or what, and how do we really know? And, if not, can one really expect privacy in anything other than our own thoughts? And even those may soon be compromised. Which is the greater loss - security or privacy? That's the crucial question. This is Brave New World, listening to Pink Floyd.
Isn't it amazing how breaking into an Apple device is overshadowing the failure to properly vet the wife?
14
Not really. too late to vet the wife. till recently, not too late for apple to stop aiding terrorists
Apple iOS 8 rolling out next week?
1
since we're already on iOS 9.3 your comment makes no sense
When the intelligence community dicovers a zero-day explot that allows this type of access, they do not inform the manufacturer -- and the method used remains classified. Perhaps law enforcement should follow the intelligence community's lead.
I'm very much for secure devices for consumers, but we need to face the fact that this is an arms race.
It is amusing to see the Justice Department make a statement about the "creativity and innovation" in the public sector.
What innovation, I ask? While the intelligence community already practices this, the rest of the public sector needs to up its game in recruitment of technical experts, and be prepared to competitively compensate hires. In my industry, working for the Feds is not as cool as working in a startup. Maybe it's time the Feds try to change that.
I'm very much for secure devices for consumers, but we need to face the fact that this is an arms race.
It is amusing to see the Justice Department make a statement about the "creativity and innovation" in the public sector.
What innovation, I ask? While the intelligence community already practices this, the rest of the public sector needs to up its game in recruitment of technical experts, and be prepared to competitively compensate hires. In my industry, working for the Feds is not as cool as working in a startup. Maybe it's time the Feds try to change that.
5
The whole 'which is more important, privacy or security' is ridiculous. Obviously privacy is more important that the government's ability to go on a fishing expedition into the phone calls and emails of millions or billions of emails on raw potability that they many uncover the communications of a couple of terrorists. Jus as obviously, the government has a right to delve into the communications of known murderers, terrorists & other major criminals. Such individually have lost the right to privacy.
15
Who gets to decide which is privacy and who is a major criminal? Does one need to be convicted of a crime or merely a suspect?
So, convicted law breakers have no more rights?
Umm, that's not how it works in America.
How about if the conviction itself depends on abridging the rights of the accused?
That little 'ol guide to rules about our lives and human rights called The Constitution might be something you overlooked.
Umm, that's not how it works in America.
How about if the conviction itself depends on abridging the rights of the accused?
That little 'ol guide to rules about our lives and human rights called The Constitution might be something you overlooked.
Jenifer, I disagree with you completely. If someone is using their phones to do business illegally, to cheat on their wives, to order drugs, to incite violence or for terrorists to plan attacks, they should either straighten out their lives or get rid of their phones.
I don't care if anyone monitors my calls because I have nothing to hide. People that have issues to hide need to start using land lines.
I don't care if anyone monitors my calls because I have nothing to hide. People that have issues to hide need to start using land lines.
The whole thing is so twisted. The government nagging and badgering Apple to crack their own security, in the name of safety and freedoms. Taking them to court to force a private company to acquiesce. And then in the end ?approached by some hackers to achieve their goal.
Yes, obvilously I am not on the side of terror. But as its been argued, if you allow the government to determine when personal security can be breached, we are going down the old slippery slope.
When does it end, then? Frankly, its unlikely it ever does—because the government will always say they are above the will of the people. Me, I just don't believe that government authority trumps personal freedoms. (I may change my mind some day, but even now in these shaky times, I'd rather live free with some dangers, than allow the government to storm our internal borders).
Yes, obvilously I am not on the side of terror. But as its been argued, if you allow the government to determine when personal security can be breached, we are going down the old slippery slope.
When does it end, then? Frankly, its unlikely it ever does—because the government will always say they are above the will of the people. Me, I just don't believe that government authority trumps personal freedoms. (I may change my mind some day, but even now in these shaky times, I'd rather live free with some dangers, than allow the government to storm our internal borders).
10
Don't you wish Congress worked this fast?
8
Or worked at all?
I just wish they'd work...at any speed
Good Lord no. Think of what that juggernaut would do to the Constitution if it really got rolling.
"The lightning there is peculiar; it is so convincing, that when it strikes a thing it doesn't leave enough of that thing behind for you to tell whether--Well, you'd think it was something valuable, and a Congressman had been there."
- Mark Twain
"The lightning there is peculiar; it is so convincing, that when it strikes a thing it doesn't leave enough of that thing behind for you to tell whether--Well, you'd think it was something valuable, and a Congressman had been there."
- Mark Twain
1
There's a troubling lack of proof behind this bold, face-saving assertion from the FBI. How did they do it, and have they learned anything valuable? All of the 'we-told-you-so' responses are strangely blind to skepticism, in addition to betraying technical ignorance.
10
What proof would you expect to see?
Too bad for Apple. Now it is known that they can be hacked. In fact, the situation they found themselves in probably drove hackers to find a solution to the problem. They might otherwise have never even tried. Apple is a very arrogant company. They try to keep a deadlock on their technology, forcing people into a proprietary deadlock. If you have an Apple product you are forced into a closed technology system and become entirely dependent on Apple to do anything at all with your equipment and data.
22
Not necessarily; the Gov't has TOLD US they have gotten into the iPhone, but that could be true, or not. Perhaps they only wanted to create the uncertainty.
Don't assume the DOJ isn't lying. They prosecute people with poor information, dis-information, bribery and routinely put liars on the stand. SOP.
It's interesting that just as the Justice Department announced that it had found a way to unlock the phone some college students were announcing that they could unlock it. So as encryption becomes ever more sophisticated and difficult to break the debate over privacy vs national security lingers on.
I believe the problem will always be that software is written by people. As long as people are responsible for writing code, there will always be someone trying to "best" someone else's work.
I had a friend recieve a phone call from Apple about a job once. They called up, offered the job on the phone, and they had to make a decision while actually on the phone with them. "If you hang up, and call your wife, the offer is off the table".
That's how Apple hires. And the best and most brilliant in their accomplished field don't make rash (or snap) decisions that way.
I had a friend recieve a phone call from Apple about a job once. They called up, offered the job on the phone, and they had to make a decision while actually on the phone with them. "If you hang up, and call your wife, the offer is off the table".
That's how Apple hires. And the best and most brilliant in their accomplished field don't make rash (or snap) decisions that way.
Well,
I suggest that Apple simply up the security even more.
This incident was just another battle in the privacy cat and mouse game that will go on for quite a while.
I suggest that Apple simply up the security even more.
This incident was just another battle in the privacy cat and mouse game that will go on for quite a while.
12
Delighted by this impressive achievement, reportedly from outside the USG. US should share the technique with all the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of our democratic allies.
Apple seemed to think the rule of law and the safety of Americans from terrorist attacks did not matter. Hopefully the company has learned to be more cooperative in the future.
The terrorist atrocities in Paris, Brussels, and California have made the pendulum of public opinion swing well away from the disloyal Edward Snowden's extreme positions.
Apple seemed to think the rule of law and the safety of Americans from terrorist attacks did not matter. Hopefully the company has learned to be more cooperative in the future.
The terrorist atrocities in Paris, Brussels, and California have made the pendulum of public opinion swing well away from the disloyal Edward Snowden's extreme positions.
16
I think anything can be hack & I bet u they found someone who does it all the time so a deal was made & there u go phone hack. Bad for Apple they should just have it kept among themselves and the government.
Hard to trust Apple now, their motto Apples can't be hack well if someone did there goes their 5 minutes of fame.
Hard to trust Apple now, their motto Apples can't be hack well if someone did there goes their 5 minutes of fame.
3
When the intelligence community dicovers a zero-day explot that allows this type of access, they do not inform the manufacturer -- and the method used remains classified. Perhaps law enforcement should follow the intelligence community's lead.
I'm very much for secure devices for consumers, but we need to face the fact that this is an arms race.
It is amusing to see the Justice Department make a statement about the "creativity and innovation" in the public sector.
What innovation, I ask? While the intelligence community already practices this, the rest of the public sector needs to up its game in recruitment of technical experts, and be prepared to competitively compensate hires. In my industry, working for the Feds is not as cool as working in a startup. Maybe it's time the Feds try to change that.
I'm very much for secure devices for consumers, but we need to face the fact that this is an arms race.
It is amusing to see the Justice Department make a statement about the "creativity and innovation" in the public sector.
What innovation, I ask? While the intelligence community already practices this, the rest of the public sector needs to up its game in recruitment of technical experts, and be prepared to competitively compensate hires. In my industry, working for the Feds is not as cool as working in a startup. Maybe it's time the Feds try to change that.
It seems to me that there are only two things we can say with any certainty: the government claims it broke the code without Apple's help, and Apple claims they didn't help the government break the code.
Anyone here getting on their high horse over one position or the other ought to consider climbing down.
Anyone here getting on their high horse over one position or the other ought to consider climbing down.
3
As an Apple user with security needs, I side with Apple, who were likely to win this case. Indeed, this national conversation should now continue until proper laws are passed that strengthen our right to privacy. "Terrorism" is a boogeyman that trumps rational discourse.
6
Yeah, right. You're so omportant, you need to be protected from the NSA.
NSA declines to openly acknowledge its expert assistance in this matter. Or any other.
4
If the NSA couldn't hack an iPhone I would think that we are due a refund of all the taxes we pay for them to be able to monitor secure systems of our enemies. At least we won't have to list to any more the "holier than thou" nonsense from the tech billionaires who collect and sell all sorts of information. They are mostly miffed that the government doesn't buy it from them.
19
I think in the case of terrorism or mass murder, Apple should have unlocked the phone for the government. But they shouldn't have told the government how to unlock the phone, they should have done it themselves and then passed the phone back over to the government. But the government probably wouldn't want to relinquish the phone to any other party so that they could open it privately.
14
How do you tell a single murder victim's family that the murder of their loved one is less important than the murder of two, or three, or twenty, or two hundred? What number qualifies as mass murder? I am not justifying the protection of anyone who allegedly commits heinous crimes...this is not about the phone.
And by the way why is the terrorist act in the Pakistan park where twice as many people were killed not getting the same global outrage as the Brussles attack?
And by the way why is the terrorist act in the Pakistan park where twice as many people were killed not getting the same global outrage as the Brussles attack?
You're misunderstanding -- Apple couldn't unlock this iPhone. Which is why the government was trying to compel Apple to create a new version of Apple iOS to meet their needs.
It's akin to the government trying to compel a safe manufacturer to develop a method that opens all of the safes that they have manufactured, as opposed to providing a key to just one safe.
It's akin to the government trying to compel a safe manufacturer to develop a method that opens all of the safes that they have manufactured, as opposed to providing a key to just one safe.
Totally agree. Apple should have opened the phone of mass-murder terrorists for the government. But kept secret how they do/did it.
Whose side is Apple on ??
What if OUR government operatives found//captured the phone of the leader of Isis?
Would Apple still say privacy trumps security - knowing thousands may be saved and lead to the destruction of the worst terrorist organzationnin the world has seen.
Apple is an arrogant corporation eorse then the government in these instances.
Whose side is Apple on ??
What if OUR government operatives found//captured the phone of the leader of Isis?
Would Apple still say privacy trumps security - knowing thousands may be saved and lead to the destruction of the worst terrorist organzationnin the world has seen.
Apple is an arrogant corporation eorse then the government in these instances.
I find it so amusing that anyone really thinks that the FBI really unlocked that phone. Just a way to save face.
14
Apple sided with ISIS and against the people of the United States. I hope it hurts their business. I am disappointed that it didn't play out; I would have enjoyed seeing Cook and others sit in jail for contempt until they cooperated.
10
Thats a rather Authoritarian point of view you have. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with both the All Writs Act of 1789 and the Constitution.
1
You're probably for less or no government too, eh?
I always thought that if the government couldn't crack it on their own, then they truly are lacking in resources and in competence. The fact that it (allegedly) took an outside Israeli firm and took the government months to crack - well, I don't understand those who think Apple lost here. I'm happy with the position they took and understood that the onus lies on the government to have the wherewithal to do this, as any mildly skeptical citizen would think. I'll go on assuming nothing online is truly secure, but I definitely support Apple's dedication to privacy - it is an important issue in these times. Yes, even if your phone is just full of sunset and kitten pictures, the principal remains the truly valuable thing worth standing up for.
12
Folks this has been going on for years!!! My iphone has been hacked several times at the Canadian/US border crossing. I used to cross the border a lot for work. Every once and a while they'd get suspicious and pull me over. 2 minutes later a low level agent was questioning me about texts and emails on my phone (which had been locked). This is an old hack.
1
Its a fools erand to equate your experiences at the border to this situation. I know for a fact that these are two distinctly different issues, and for the sake of the discussion, let's not conflate them.
Data security is one of my areas of market research (business data, not consumer). I believe that too many businesses do not want to spend on adequate data security protection. So I say bravo to the unnamed “third party” for helping the Justice Department hack the Farook iPhone. Perhaps this will cause more businesses, consumers and government agencies (hint, hint Hillary Clinton) to consider the importance of adequate data security protection. As far as privacy, I am all for it. I hope this controversy will motivate all those considering use of digital technology for illegal purposes to return to the old analog days. Or better yet, try an ethical career.
3
Reality check its was federal government who spends billions buying imported apple products with our tax money. Time the government is responsible for its over spending stop reinforcing companys like apple to out source its manufacturing to countrys don't believe in freedom for there people
2
Let's not kid ourselves: Apple wasn't acting on principle; it refused to cooperate in order to protect its bottom line.
Now Apple has the worst of both worlds: customers are upset that their iPhones aren't as secure as they were hyped to be, the government (and someone else) knows how to hack them, and they've eared a reputation for putting corporate profit before peoples' lives.
The heroic image of a brave corporation standing up to big bad government now looks pretty tarnished. Someone made some bad choices. and I bet there will be consequences among the corporate leadership as a result.
Now Apple has the worst of both worlds: customers are upset that their iPhones aren't as secure as they were hyped to be, the government (and someone else) knows how to hack them, and they've eared a reputation for putting corporate profit before peoples' lives.
The heroic image of a brave corporation standing up to big bad government now looks pretty tarnished. Someone made some bad choices. and I bet there will be consequences among the corporate leadership as a result.
3
I'm pretty much happy that terrorist attacks in the US are as minimized as they are thanks to the FBI. This is good work and hopefully helps deter activity we'd just as soon not see happening here.
As for Apple, I've used Macs since 1999 and watched the fundamental aspects of the OS go downhill for years. It's not surprising Apple made promises it couldn't keep. I'm glad someone has the power to get around this giant corporation.
As for Apple, I've used Macs since 1999 and watched the fundamental aspects of the OS go downhill for years. It's not surprising Apple made promises it couldn't keep. I'm glad someone has the power to get around this giant corporation.
9
Let's not kid ourselves: Apple wasn't acting on principle; it refused to cooperate in order to protect its bottom line.
Now Apple has the worst of both worlds: customers are upset that their iPhones aren't as secure as they were hyped to be, the government (and someone else) knows how to hack them, and they've earned a reputation for putting corporate profit before peoples' lives.
The heroic image of a brave corporation standing up to big bad government now looks pretty tarnished. Someone made some poor choices. and I bet there will be consequences among the corporate leadership as a result.
Now Apple has the worst of both worlds: customers are upset that their iPhones aren't as secure as they were hyped to be, the government (and someone else) knows how to hack them, and they've earned a reputation for putting corporate profit before peoples' lives.
The heroic image of a brave corporation standing up to big bad government now looks pretty tarnished. Someone made some poor choices. and I bet there will be consequences among the corporate leadership as a result.
13
“I would hope they would give that information to Apple so that it can patch any weaknesses,”
Why should they? Apple obstructed every step of the way and threw dirt on the FBI. Apple should get its own hacker. The government has ZERO obligation to help Apple.
Why should they? Apple obstructed every step of the way and threw dirt on the FBI. Apple should get its own hacker. The government has ZERO obligation to help Apple.
20
Most likely the "third party" was actually an employee of Apple who had the inside info needed.
2
Good thought.
Glad here that this information has been accessed by law enforcement in advancing the U.S. Cause against terrorism. The current bandwagon re 'right to privacy' in such matters is self-centered, short-sighted & finally un-American. My take on the newly over-vaunted - including by the NYT writers here - 'right to privacy' is fine, except in instances of public (your & my) & national security. Having worked with a TS+ clearance for over 26 years, my view is that s/he who has nothing to hide has nothing to fear..beyond perhaps a tad of personal embarrassment. So what if Tim Cook is gay, x is a drug addict, y is a sex fiend. Who cares? My/Our safety is more important.!
5
Why the scare quotes around right to privacy?
Can we all come over to your house any time we want to?
" my view is that s/he who has nothing to hide has nothing to fear."
That was the argument the Stasi used to use.
Can we all come over to your house any time we want to?
" my view is that s/he who has nothing to hide has nothing to fear."
That was the argument the Stasi used to use.
4
The ultimate case of schadenfreude. Nothing beats Apple's hypocrisy: a company which for years has hacked into and plumbed its customer's activities in unprecedented ways to further its own narrow economic interests, yet had the unmitigated gall to cry invasion of privacy when it came to executing what amounted to a judicially authorized search warrant on the phone of a terrorist. This conceit was not, of course, motivated by any genuine or altruistic belief in privacy--for the affairs of its customers have been accorded not a shred of privacy by Apple itself--but its own narrow commercial interests, unfettered by any consideration of the public interest or respect for the law. So arrogant was Apple that Cook was content to throw the dice, daring the Government to try to crack its code. Well, crack its code they did, and now Apple's vaunted reputation for technological superiority is in tatters.
19
You're thinking of Google, not Apple.
I'm curious what they found in the phone. Was there anything more important than the phone number of the terrorists' favorite pizza parlor? Apparently Syed Rizwan Farook was pretty careful to destroy the phone he owned himself, and the hard drive on his computer. Did he forget to take the same precautions with this phone, or did he know he didn't need to?
11
Given the fact that the government doesn't do a very good job on online security I expect to hear that someone has hacked their systems and stolen the answer.
3
Oh yes, someone DEFINITELY BLINKED !
4
Anyone with common sense would know that hackers can get into any device. Apple should have cooperated to save itself from this PR disaster.
9
Apple consistently argued that their help wasn't needed in this case.
Seems to me that FBI was full of it, and the fact that they were full of it became untenable. With more and more encryption experts stepping forward, willing to explain to the court that Apple's cooperation wasn't needed, the FBI had to take the steps necessary to avoid losing the court battle.
They may have cracked the phone. Or they may have decided "national security" requires them to pretend they cracked the phone. It's not like they feel a need to be honest when "national security" is involved.
Seems to me that FBI was full of it, and the fact that they were full of it became untenable. With more and more encryption experts stepping forward, willing to explain to the court that Apple's cooperation wasn't needed, the FBI had to take the steps necessary to avoid losing the court battle.
They may have cracked the phone. Or they may have decided "national security" requires them to pretend they cracked the phone. It's not like they feel a need to be honest when "national security" is involved.
Don't believe everything you read...
6
It seems I have read somewhere that the FBI exploit does not involve
cryptographic cracking per se but rather a vulnerability in Apple's
key management protocols which an Israeli company has productized
already several years ago.
cryptographic cracking per se but rather a vulnerability in Apple's
key management protocols which an Israeli company has productized
already several years ago.
11
I always wondered if you couldn't get really smart high school kids to it unlock the iPhone. Anyways, seeing Tim Cook with a stern look on his face talking about compromising security, and I thought what is so important on most people's phones anyways. The cost of the phone and its monthly plan probably depletes the bank account of many of the owners of these phones, and the Kardashian family doesn't have anything on theirs that they haven't tweeted to everyone in the world anyway. Those of us over a certain age that can live without those type of phones, think that the public and their phones are way less important than what these people think they are.
7
That's all well and good, but shows a real lack of understanding at how comprehensive the abilities of these phones are, and how indispensable they are to the lives of most younger folks in the workforce, where being adept at using them is basically a prerequisite that is a forgone conclusion. Most people simply can't afford not to have them. Exceptions abound, of course, but it is the norm now, and not everyone feels that it's worth it to hold out against these types of change. There is much good to them.
3
It was done already. A few years ago by a young man in our hometown. Google his name. George Hotz.
I was waiting for a reply such as yours. I have those in the family of the ages between 42 and 45, so I know how you are thinking.
Who, in this day and age, knowing what we know about encryption, digital security, and the lack thereof, would store and maintain information, including critical personal, business, and proprietary details, on any electronic device, presuming it to be safe from the prying eyes of individuals, businesses, and governments.
To presume the NSA, with it brand new extraordinary self sufficient facility in Utah, is pure folly.
See details in excerpt and publicly accessible link, below.
"The Utah Data Center, code-named Bumblehive, is the first Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cyber-security Initiative (IC CNCI) data center designed to support the Intelligence Community's efforts to monitor, strengthen and protect the nation. Our Utah "massive data repository" is designed to cope with the vast increases in digital data that have accompanied the rise of the global network."
https://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/
Contrary to what some believe, and more critically, contrary to what government would have people generally believe, there is no security system today, used for the protection of data, that is secure.
Understand that, and rest easy.
The Ministry of Truth, not the fictional one in Orwell's 1984, exists, and it is tireless in its efforts to manage perception.
To presume the NSA, with it brand new extraordinary self sufficient facility in Utah, is pure folly.
See details in excerpt and publicly accessible link, below.
"The Utah Data Center, code-named Bumblehive, is the first Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cyber-security Initiative (IC CNCI) data center designed to support the Intelligence Community's efforts to monitor, strengthen and protect the nation. Our Utah "massive data repository" is designed to cope with the vast increases in digital data that have accompanied the rise of the global network."
https://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/
Contrary to what some believe, and more critically, contrary to what government would have people generally believe, there is no security system today, used for the protection of data, that is secure.
Understand that, and rest easy.
The Ministry of Truth, not the fictional one in Orwell's 1984, exists, and it is tireless in its efforts to manage perception.
5
reply to Mel Farrell: " Who in this day and age".... would store on an electronic devise"-you ask? Practically everyone does; where else are people going to store it, practically speaking; a Rolodex, file cabinet- shoe box?
1
Surprising how the to comments think Apple lost because the FBI managed to hack to phone after 3 months. I would say triple win for Apple.
1) If it takes the FBI (with most likely help from the NSA) that much time to hack the phone, image how long it will criminals to hack my phone.
2) Apple will quickly find out what the weakness is and fix it.
3) By dropping the case the government gave up on the principle that companies should allow their devices to be hacked.
1) If it takes the FBI (with most likely help from the NSA) that much time to hack the phone, image how long it will criminals to hack my phone.
2) Apple will quickly find out what the weakness is and fix it.
3) By dropping the case the government gave up on the principle that companies should allow their devices to be hacked.
7
For now... DOJ thought they had an iron clad test case to get what they wanted - they didn't get it this time - so they'll lay low and continue to rattle cages until it happens again - and when it does, they'll blame Apple. Do you really think that they didn't have the contents of that device from day 1? If there was any useful information on the device, they certainly wouldn't announce it to the world ... giving the people on the device sufficient time to return to sleeper mode? Hey, now we at least know where they got their pizza from.
DOJ's case was revealed in pieces as it developed...and fell apart. DOJ must have thought they had an airtight case to even risk letting the other LEO's in....
Let's talk about the gorilla remaining in the room, the government employer that actually bought the software and failed to deploy it. They had a responsibility to deploy the software. I don't know if we'll ever get an answer on that - where is their responsibility? Keep in mind - this could be HIPAA data that they have a legal responsibility to protect.
If anything, Apple should have pushed to set the precedent that governments have no implied right to infringe on the intellectual property rights of its citizens. Now we can finally go back to letting the grown ups do the work behind the scenes as it should be.
DOJ's case was revealed in pieces as it developed...and fell apart. DOJ must have thought they had an airtight case to even risk letting the other LEO's in....
Let's talk about the gorilla remaining in the room, the government employer that actually bought the software and failed to deploy it. They had a responsibility to deploy the software. I don't know if we'll ever get an answer on that - where is their responsibility? Keep in mind - this could be HIPAA data that they have a legal responsibility to protect.
If anything, Apple should have pushed to set the precedent that governments have no implied right to infringe on the intellectual property rights of its citizens. Now we can finally go back to letting the grown ups do the work behind the scenes as it should be.
apple. i'm disappointed. now the fbi can read my stupid emails on my phone, see the stupid directions I needed to the doughnut store, look at pictures of my button hole.
this is a sad day for democracy.
fbi, i'm disappointed in you, too. you weren't able to bully americans like you like to do.
terrorists. i hate you.
this is a sad day for democracy.
fbi, i'm disappointed in you, too. you weren't able to bully americans like you like to do.
terrorists. i hate you.
9
FYI Israeli Mobile Forensic Firm Cellebrite Helped FBI to Unlock the Iphone without Apples help.
2
My neighbor's sin George Hotz,Jr. Hacked the iPhone almost 10 years ago (2007). Google his name.
So Apple doesn't have to help law enforcement, but law enforcement is supposed to share with Apple so that Apple can fix its own vulnerability to keep law enforcement out? hahahahahahahahaha What is wrong with this picture? Egg on its face is the best that smug Apple can hope for.
13
I seriously doubt Farook used this phone for terrorist activities\communications. Probably on some prepaid disposable phones. They'll probably get some pictures of guns and ISIS logos.
NAND flashing is what they did to access the phone but now Apple can stop that by redesigning the chip in iPhone 7.
NAND flashing is what they did to access the phone but now Apple can stop that by redesigning the chip in iPhone 7.
1
Seems if someone doesn't want strangers going through their secrets, they don't put their trash out on the curb.
Same holds here, don't put it in their phone, or in the cloud.
Still, their's an infinitely minuscule percentage of the population the gov't has a warranted interest in - not that gov't operatives don't regularly exceed the legal threshold. Why not, most judges are either political appointees, or hope to be, and regularly approve constitutional violations.
See, "Rise of the Warrior Cop"
Same holds here, don't put it in their phone, or in the cloud.
Still, their's an infinitely minuscule percentage of the population the gov't has a warranted interest in - not that gov't operatives don't regularly exceed the legal threshold. Why not, most judges are either political appointees, or hope to be, and regularly approve constitutional violations.
See, "Rise of the Warrior Cop"
2
As an Apple shareholder, I was quite disappointed with the company's position on this. My life is worth more to me than the security of a dead murderer's iPhone.
19
This was completely predictable. Many of us in the coding business (myself included*) have been saying all along that Apple's decision not to cooperate would simply open the doors to an outside party to do it instead, thereby taking control out of Apple's hands. This was a bad chess move on Apple's part, and they deserve all the negative repercussions. Not only does this show that the iPhone is not as invincible as Apple says, it also reveals the fact that this has been a marketing ploy by Apple, a game in which they hold their corporate image above solving a legitimate law-enforcement problem.
38
How is this a "bad chess move"?
There were only two options:
a) Apple cooperate in taking a step that devalues their own product
b) somebody else hacks the phone
Apple's refusal to cooperate didn't cause the vulnerability to appear. If they had written the code themselves, that wouldn't have made the phone less vulnerable to outside hackers.
What you dismiss as "corporate image" is better described as "security". If you are in the coding business, you have to know that computer security is not something a computer software company can toss away lightly. A computer that isn't secure simple isn't worth using. And the commenters here who cannot think beyond web browsing and emails don't quite seem to grasp just how much is done with phones on this planet. There are good reasons that people have for wanting their information to be secure, and they concern matters far more important than who is watching which porno site.
There were only two options:
a) Apple cooperate in taking a step that devalues their own product
b) somebody else hacks the phone
Apple's refusal to cooperate didn't cause the vulnerability to appear. If they had written the code themselves, that wouldn't have made the phone less vulnerable to outside hackers.
What you dismiss as "corporate image" is better described as "security". If you are in the coding business, you have to know that computer security is not something a computer software company can toss away lightly. A computer that isn't secure simple isn't worth using. And the commenters here who cannot think beyond web browsing and emails don't quite seem to grasp just how much is done with phones on this planet. There are good reasons that people have for wanting their information to be secure, and they concern matters far more important than who is watching which porno site.
To be more exact: they solved nothing if the phone contained no data, which is more plausible than anything the Justice Department has ever said.
We would do well remember that for many outside the US, they could be killed, disappeared or imprisoned because of the personal content on their smartphone; their contacts, travel history, GPS data etc.
Apple, being global, needs to help customers protect their data.
Tim Cook took a principled stand and I salute him for it.
Apple, being global, needs to help customers protect their data.
Tim Cook took a principled stand and I salute him for it.
I am not sure the Gov found a way in. It's possible they thought they would lose their case against Apple and made up a story that they found a way into the Iphone. The Gov lies to us so often I find it difficult to believe them.
9
20 days ago, Dean Baquet used the Public Editor to announce a new, stringent policy on the use of anonymous sourcing. That was blown to smithereens by the multiple anonymous sourcing here, including by the government functionary CONDUCTING A PRESS BRIEFING VIA CONFERENCE CALL.
If it's a press briefing, identify the government flack conducting it, or delete the reference.mit is embarrassingly unprofessional.
If it's a press briefing, identify the government flack conducting it, or delete the reference.mit is embarrassingly unprofessional.
9
Part of what concerns me with this whole thing is how imprecise most of the discussion is. The government request to vacate the order actually says that it "successfully accessed the data stored on Farook's iPhone", it doesn't say how, and it doesn't say they unlocked it. If that means they did in fact unlock it, they're silent on the method used.
The point is that we can't actually draw any conclusions from the government's motion regarding the security of Apple's devices, certainly not after the release of iOS 9.3 and the security features of future devices. We also can't draw any conclusions about how the government gains access to data stored on our personal electronic devices. The only thing we know for sure is that this discussion about balancing privacy and security (in its many forms) is far from over.
The point is that we can't actually draw any conclusions from the government's motion regarding the security of Apple's devices, certainly not after the release of iOS 9.3 and the security features of future devices. We also can't draw any conclusions about how the government gains access to data stored on our personal electronic devices. The only thing we know for sure is that this discussion about balancing privacy and security (in its many forms) is far from over.
8
I am surprised by the comments here. I didn't realize there were so many fascist totalitarians who read the NYT.
8
That statement would be hilarious, if it wasn't true.
6
It's just another catch-22 created by government. Nothing new. Why should tech company make encryption more secure when gov is going to ask backdoors again when it cannot unlock it. So do American wants stronger security and privacy, or want privacy that is open to gov?
Is it safe to suggest that the FBI and especially this White House is disappointed tonight?
The president who cares less about individuals having privacy that any other wanted the ability to order political opponents' phones opened anytime and anywhere. I am sure he wanted to set up unpublicized phone kiosks where all info on them could be routed to his data collection system he's been working on.
This reminds me of the fake cell towers scattered up and down the eastern seaboard that are never mentioned by the liberal-aligned media. Hmm.
The president who cares less about individuals having privacy that any other wanted the ability to order political opponents' phones opened anytime and anywhere. I am sure he wanted to set up unpublicized phone kiosks where all info on them could be routed to his data collection system he's been working on.
This reminds me of the fake cell towers scattered up and down the eastern seaboard that are never mentioned by the liberal-aligned media. Hmm.
2
There are a group of professionals certified as "Ethical Hackers".
If THE FBI AND/OR THE DOJ ARE Not aware of this they need to to be.
conspiracy theorists need to educate themselves.
If THE FBI AND/OR THE DOJ ARE Not aware of this they need to to be.
conspiracy theorists need to educate themselves.
With all due respect to the commenters here, court-ordered wiretaps and search warrants have long passed constitutional muster: What the 4th Amendment forbids is UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. Legally, the right to privacy has never been considered absolute, but must be weighed against the public good.
37
What does that have to do with the FBI demanding that Apple write code for them? That demand goes far beyond anything demanded by a search warrant. Apple isn't in custody of the phone. A search warrant doesn't give the government the power to order other people to perform a search for them.
I'm really glad this happen. In general, I'm hyper-active about privacy, but in this particular case, I was against Apple's refusal to help fight terrorist.
10
I am amazed by the number of commenters who believe that the Feds actually cracked Apple's encryption. I suspect the Feds realized they overplayed their hand with Apple. When Apple indicated it was willing to go to the Supreme Court, the Feds say, "No, man. We're cool. We figured it out." This creates fear, uncertainty and doubt among Apple users who don't understand encryption and sidesteps the possibility of losing a Supreme Court precedent on a bad case.
3
I disagree with you totally. In the almost 20 years background in IT and the last 5 years as a security consultant, I would not be the first person, nor the last, to tell you that nothing is 100% secured. The only way to make sure device(s) can never be accessed by someone else is destroying it completely.
Saying that Apple came out with a product that is completely secure is completely false. ,Large enterprises invest hundreds of millions into their security infrastructure only to get breached. The only thing that can be done is to minimize the possibilities and the damage if it occures. It's the equivalent of stating that the Titanic was unsinkable. This is why I believe the Feds cracking it is not so far fetched.
Also, I highly doubt the conspiracy of Apple secretly giving in to the government's demands for x, y, or z reasons does not carry any weight.
Saying that Apple came out with a product that is completely secure is completely false. ,Large enterprises invest hundreds of millions into their security infrastructure only to get breached. The only thing that can be done is to minimize the possibilities and the damage if it occures. It's the equivalent of stating that the Titanic was unsinkable. This is why I believe the Feds cracking it is not so far fetched.
Also, I highly doubt the conspiracy of Apple secretly giving in to the government's demands for x, y, or z reasons does not carry any weight.
1
As Edward Snowden has stated...the FBI didn't need Apple's help they just wanted to set a legal precedence. Our government lying to us.....once again.
34
Insert massive sarcasm here.
I wouldn't hold Snowden in such high regard. The terrorist attacks that have rocked Europe occurred after he revealed the NSA's surveillance methods. I don't think the time line of these events is a coincidence.
3
It's all too funny.
Its been around three years since the Edward Snowden outing of the worldwide intelligence community's ability to access all data, wherever, and whenever, not very long at all, yet people have nearly forgotten privacy is dead; a few die-hard souls are still angry about it, presuming something can be done to secure their data.
There is no privacy; maybe if one goes off grid, live in a camper in the desert, with no electronics of any kind, its possible to avoid detection until the next NSA satellite transits over that spot. Even if one digs a hole and crawls into it, thermal imaging will locate the heat signature.
Wake up, its checkmate.
Its been around three years since the Edward Snowden outing of the worldwide intelligence community's ability to access all data, wherever, and whenever, not very long at all, yet people have nearly forgotten privacy is dead; a few die-hard souls are still angry about it, presuming something can be done to secure their data.
There is no privacy; maybe if one goes off grid, live in a camper in the desert, with no electronics of any kind, its possible to avoid detection until the next NSA satellite transits over that spot. Even if one digs a hole and crawls into it, thermal imaging will locate the heat signature.
Wake up, its checkmate.
5
I do not think Apple was correct in not cooperating with the authorities to unlock iPhone. National security would prevail over individual liberty. Government cannot risk lives of so many people in the name of defending an individual's right. Maybe Apple thought they would gain publicity as a credible manufacturer. In reality, it has only backfired. They boasted that their product is invincible. Now they have been bled white. Kudos to the Justice Department for their efforts to unlock iPhone. I believe, Apple will, at least henceforth, learn humility.
14
Not so fast. While President Obama was at a baseball game making friends with a communist dictator, his administration was treating Apple like they were the enemies. This shouldn't be swept under the rug.
reply to Mark: You're on the wrong comment thread; Apple=Subject; Cuba=Not.
7
This was so predictable. Simply put, the FBI is lying to the public and the court now, just as it has lied to Congress and the public in the past. The FBI has cracked nothing.
Comey and his cronies did not want a showdown they knew they would likely lose, so they manufactured a tale of intrigue that would give them a face-saving way out. Now they can call the whole affair "classified" and never tell the true story.
Now Apple can go to work full speed on its plan for full, inaccessible encryption, the sooner the better. Thank you, Tim Cook, for standing up to the police state that would compromise us all.
Comey and his cronies did not want a showdown they knew they would likely lose, so they manufactured a tale of intrigue that would give them a face-saving way out. Now they can call the whole affair "classified" and never tell the true story.
Now Apple can go to work full speed on its plan for full, inaccessible encryption, the sooner the better. Thank you, Tim Cook, for standing up to the police state that would compromise us all.
3
"A company outside the Government"... It can be presumed, said company was "outside" America too: Any bets; North Korea-nope; Russia-nope; China-nope; Israel-bingo.
4
The FBI could have done this from the get go! Those G-men just wanted to establish precedent for future requests and they unwittingly opened a Pandora's cyber box - This isn't over by a long shot. If anything it just opened up a new avenue for software developers to start private hacking companies and now nobody's information is safe- if it ever was anyway.
3
I hope you, like me, are praying they find nothing of interest in this phone. Imagine, just imagine if the FBI find information that connected to Belgium and would have helped prevent the attacks there if they only knew sooner.
2
Or, perhaps the government is simply lying.
2
The FBI should not, under any circumstances, disclose to Apple how it managed to break the encryption and access the iPhone data.
Syed Rizwan Farook was a terrorist who murdered 14 people and wounded 22 others in San Bernardino on December 2, 2015, less than four months ago. Trying to protect American lives, the FBI has been investigating whether Farook was acting under orders from or had received support from ISIS. The ISIS terrorist bombings in Paris and Brussels make it indisputably clear that such a possibility cannot be ruled out and must be investigated as thoroughly as possible.
In an effort to build its brand identity and bolster its sales, Apple defied not only the FBI but a federal Magistrate Judge, refusing to comply with a court order, holding itself above the law, and asserting a right to substitute its judgment for that of Congress and the federal judiciary about what records of private individuals the FBI should or should not be able to access when investigating terrorism.
For all intents and purposes, Apple allied itself with ISIS in trying to prevent the FBI from gaining access to information about a terrorist in a criminal investigation of a deadly terrorist attack. There is no clause in the Constitution, or in federal law, which gives Apple or any other private corporation the right to dictate to the U.S. Government what it is and is not allowed to do in protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.
Apple can go pound salt.
Syed Rizwan Farook was a terrorist who murdered 14 people and wounded 22 others in San Bernardino on December 2, 2015, less than four months ago. Trying to protect American lives, the FBI has been investigating whether Farook was acting under orders from or had received support from ISIS. The ISIS terrorist bombings in Paris and Brussels make it indisputably clear that such a possibility cannot be ruled out and must be investigated as thoroughly as possible.
In an effort to build its brand identity and bolster its sales, Apple defied not only the FBI but a federal Magistrate Judge, refusing to comply with a court order, holding itself above the law, and asserting a right to substitute its judgment for that of Congress and the federal judiciary about what records of private individuals the FBI should or should not be able to access when investigating terrorism.
For all intents and purposes, Apple allied itself with ISIS in trying to prevent the FBI from gaining access to information about a terrorist in a criminal investigation of a deadly terrorist attack. There is no clause in the Constitution, or in federal law, which gives Apple or any other private corporation the right to dictate to the U.S. Government what it is and is not allowed to do in protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.
Apple can go pound salt.
24
Sir, calm down and PLEASE re-read the 4th Amendment. Read it again. APPLE IS IN THE RIGHT HERE. PERIOD. Apple was (is/will) win this case when it comes up again. If the Court is relying on sound constitutional law and precedent, Apple wins 24/7/365.
3
Please, do not believe our government had any difficulty whatsoever, in accessing all the data on that phone. Falling off a log would be more difficult.
There is no secure system anywhere on the planet, secure against our NSA and their four partners in the Five Eyes Alliance; this charade was created to give the impression to all, that secure systems exist, and can be trusted.
The NSA data center in Utah, is almost unimaginable, in its capabilities, and it gets more so as its systems educate themselves with every hack.
Excerpt and link -
"The Utah Data Center, code-named Bumblehive, is the first Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cyber-security Initiative (IC CNCI) data center designed to support the Intelligence Community's efforts to monitor, strengthen and protect the nation. Our Utah "massive data repository" is designed to cope with the vast increases in digital data that have accompanied the rise of the global network."
https://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/
There is no secure system anywhere on the planet, secure against our NSA and their four partners in the Five Eyes Alliance; this charade was created to give the impression to all, that secure systems exist, and can be trusted.
The NSA data center in Utah, is almost unimaginable, in its capabilities, and it gets more so as its systems educate themselves with every hack.
Excerpt and link -
"The Utah Data Center, code-named Bumblehive, is the first Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cyber-security Initiative (IC CNCI) data center designed to support the Intelligence Community's efforts to monitor, strengthen and protect the nation. Our Utah "massive data repository" is designed to cope with the vast increases in digital data that have accompanied the rise of the global network."
https://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/
3
Sean:
The iPhome belongs to San Bernardino County, not to (deceased) Farook (who only used it as an employee).
San Bernardino County has CONSENTED to the search by the FBI.
Therefore, there is NO 4th Amendment issue because: 1 the owner has consented to the search and 2. Farook had no expectation of privacy as an employee using the employer's hardware (not to mention that he is dead so any Consitutional rights he might have had are moot).
So you are mistaken 24/7/366 (this is a leap year).
Other than that, what ELSE have you got?
The iPhome belongs to San Bernardino County, not to (deceased) Farook (who only used it as an employee).
San Bernardino County has CONSENTED to the search by the FBI.
Therefore, there is NO 4th Amendment issue because: 1 the owner has consented to the search and 2. Farook had no expectation of privacy as an employee using the employer's hardware (not to mention that he is dead so any Consitutional rights he might have had are moot).
So you are mistaken 24/7/366 (this is a leap year).
Other than that, what ELSE have you got?
4
If the FBI did indeed accessed the information on that particular iphone, the original claim in the lawsuit that they have exhausted all the possibilities will raise a question mark to such a statement in the future.
You can very well assume they did not unlock the iphone after all and they are bluffing their way out of a lawsuit that might very well ended in front of the Supreme Court.
You can assume the FBI bluffed initially the need to unlock the iphone just to create a legal precedent.
And finally you can believe the FBI first statement about the need to unlock and the latest about successful unlock. If they chose not to disclose to Apple the unlocking method and they keep under seal all the information allegedly recovered the first two assumptions are more credible.
You can very well assume they did not unlock the iphone after all and they are bluffing their way out of a lawsuit that might very well ended in front of the Supreme Court.
You can assume the FBI bluffed initially the need to unlock the iphone just to create a legal precedent.
And finally you can believe the FBI first statement about the need to unlock and the latest about successful unlock. If they chose not to disclose to Apple the unlocking method and they keep under seal all the information allegedly recovered the first two assumptions are more credible.
3
One commenter suggests, "Apple becomes the slave of every country's political agenda and all of their citizens are subject to Big Brother's on-going scrutiny."
But, I mean, the flip side of that is we become slaves of Apple, and by extension, any huge corporation with nearly unlimited financial resources. As lame as our government sometimes behaves, there is still some modest oversight and a few checks and balances left. Corporations are certainly not democracies. What makes you think Big Bro Apple or Big Bro Space-X will treat the minions any better?
At the very least, we should be treating these technological entities on which we have become so dependent as we would any other public utility. There has to be some type of structural regulation, as we would expect with electricity providers, internet providers, etc.
Arguably, this outsourced unlocking event is unfortunate for Apple's public image; however, in the particular situation involving the San Bernardino 5C, in light of a court-ordered warrant, one wonders why Apple did not quietly resolve this issue in a less public manner as a one-off. I'm not sure why a cell phone should be considered more special than a landline. Whether steaming open an envelope or tapping a phone, any kind of personal communication can, and probably should be, accessed in the circumstance of suspected criminal activity or as part of a forensic investigation. The non-negotiable issue should be the obtaining of a warrant.
But, I mean, the flip side of that is we become slaves of Apple, and by extension, any huge corporation with nearly unlimited financial resources. As lame as our government sometimes behaves, there is still some modest oversight and a few checks and balances left. Corporations are certainly not democracies. What makes you think Big Bro Apple or Big Bro Space-X will treat the minions any better?
At the very least, we should be treating these technological entities on which we have become so dependent as we would any other public utility. There has to be some type of structural regulation, as we would expect with electricity providers, internet providers, etc.
Arguably, this outsourced unlocking event is unfortunate for Apple's public image; however, in the particular situation involving the San Bernardino 5C, in light of a court-ordered warrant, one wonders why Apple did not quietly resolve this issue in a less public manner as a one-off. I'm not sure why a cell phone should be considered more special than a landline. Whether steaming open an envelope or tapping a phone, any kind of personal communication can, and probably should be, accessed in the circumstance of suspected criminal activity or as part of a forensic investigation. The non-negotiable issue should be the obtaining of a warrant.
13
Apple looks like a hero for having told the creeps in government to go stuff it.
Cell phones are ten or fifteen things that landlines are not. Grow up.
Cell phones are ten or fifteen things that landlines are not. Grow up.
2
I'm kind of not getting your personal hostility. I have a 5C. I like it so much, I decided not to upgrade.
My point regarding protected communication is, even if your're writing in miniature on a grain of rice, if you're communicating about criminal activity, I believe law enforcement has not just the right, but the duty to intercept (or after the fact, view) that communication PROVIDED THEY OBTAIN A WARRANT. The method of a perpetrator's communication is irrelevant. It could be a carrier pigeon, a paper airplane.
I get Apple's point, too. I don't want anybody reading my email. And, I get that it could be considered a hardship to require them to 'invent' a key, particularly a key which could negatively affect a big selling feature of their product. It's a tough call. One would think if indeed the 5C was unlocked, that guy/girl would be working for Apple no later than tomorrow morning.
Obviously, you and I disagree. I kind of doubt Apple feels like they look like heroes to the general public in this situation, even if they think they are. Anyway, I decided not to be mean to you, because how would that advance the conversation?
My point regarding protected communication is, even if your're writing in miniature on a grain of rice, if you're communicating about criminal activity, I believe law enforcement has not just the right, but the duty to intercept (or after the fact, view) that communication PROVIDED THEY OBTAIN A WARRANT. The method of a perpetrator's communication is irrelevant. It could be a carrier pigeon, a paper airplane.
I get Apple's point, too. I don't want anybody reading my email. And, I get that it could be considered a hardship to require them to 'invent' a key, particularly a key which could negatively affect a big selling feature of their product. It's a tough call. One would think if indeed the 5C was unlocked, that guy/girl would be working for Apple no later than tomorrow morning.
Obviously, you and I disagree. I kind of doubt Apple feels like they look like heroes to the general public in this situation, even if they think they are. Anyway, I decided not to be mean to you, because how would that advance the conversation?
5
Apple is rotten for not assisting the government. What right to privacy do murderous terrorist have? And the copout that Apple was somehow protecting Americans from government intrusion is nonsense. Apple could have unlocked the phone and handed it over without revealing their encryption code. Nonsense that they couldn't unlock it without wiping the phone clean. Apple, ships our jobs abroad and fails to help a government which is trying to fight those who wish to harm us. Shame on Apple. The government should tell them to shove it if asked how they unlocked the phone. Boycott Apple.
11
They couldn't have done it without help from an Israeli company. A reminder to one and all what an important ally is Israel.
2
My guess is that they didn't really crack it.
The FBI determined that they probably weren't going to win the case with a 4 to 4 Supreme Court, so instead, they did the next best thing - declared victory and went home.
But, not without first saying they had broken the encryption. The message to terrorists then becomes, "We can, and are going to be, watching you!". Forcing them to doubt the security of Apple's technology. Which is definitely a good thing.
It's also a big loss for Apple, the "foe" in this case. So, it's a win-win out of losing proposition for the Feds.
Time will tell if they really did crack it. Either way, it was a smart play by the FBI.
The FBI determined that they probably weren't going to win the case with a 4 to 4 Supreme Court, so instead, they did the next best thing - declared victory and went home.
But, not without first saying they had broken the encryption. The message to terrorists then becomes, "We can, and are going to be, watching you!". Forcing them to doubt the security of Apple's technology. Which is definitely a good thing.
It's also a big loss for Apple, the "foe" in this case. So, it's a win-win out of losing proposition for the Feds.
Time will tell if they really did crack it. Either way, it was a smart play by the FBI.
3
Sounds a little X-File, but you might be right.
Where did you read that the iphone encryption had been broken? It hasn't. And we also have no reason to believe that the FBI did anything except give up.
The FBI, and the DOJ, are interested in fear-mongering to protect their budgets. The "terrorists" are dead, and they were smart enough to destroy the phones that might have contained any additional information.
The FBI already has access to every phone record, text message, email, and photo on that device. Apple has in the past and will continue to turn over all iCloud backups upon request. The FBI already has all the information.
What the FBI and DOJ want is PRECEDENT. So that they can demand in the future access to any and all electronic devices, from Apple, Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Samsung, Toyota, etc. They want the manufacturers to put that backdoor in. All by crying "terrorism"
And China is quietly watching.
The FBI, and the DOJ, are interested in fear-mongering to protect their budgets. The "terrorists" are dead, and they were smart enough to destroy the phones that might have contained any additional information.
The FBI already has access to every phone record, text message, email, and photo on that device. Apple has in the past and will continue to turn over all iCloud backups upon request. The FBI already has all the information.
What the FBI and DOJ want is PRECEDENT. So that they can demand in the future access to any and all electronic devices, from Apple, Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Samsung, Toyota, etc. They want the manufacturers to put that backdoor in. All by crying "terrorism"
And China is quietly watching.
From the very beginning I thought this was ridiculous. The idea that a government agency could not access the technology to crack an iPhone was unbelievable. Apple's refusal to comply, also ridiculous. Both parties look stupid, the government for expecting Apple to do its job and Apple for pretending a breach was impossible. Everyone now should just stop posturing and get down to work. The government spies on people, that's part of their job, every government does it. You think the Israelis would let an iPhone get in the way of apprehending a terrorist? Don't think so, and no doubt it was some Israeli security company that cracked the code. We better face it, we are all living in Israel now.
8
There's absolutely nothing to indicate that the FBI broke the encryption on Farook's iPhone. More likely, an informer (a friend or family member of Farook) knew the passcode, or knew the passcode that he had used on other devices and suggested that the FBI try it.
9
This is probably not a surprising outcome to those involved in the security industry.
One must be aware that the computer security community has close ties to the military-industrial complex (DoD/CIA/NSA are a major source of funding for many security software vendors and service providers). Allocating resources toward breaking Apple's security is a rational move for security businesses - even if it doesn't net them an immediate payout, the reputation gained is what their bottom line relies on. Between the bragging rights and the untold windfall from business gained by exploiting Apple's supposedly fail-safe locking mechanism, how could they resist?
Almost all real-world systems are insecure. I suspect iPhone is no different. While there are theoretical systems that are cryptographically secure under most imaginable circumstances, most real-world, implementations have an exploitable "side door" attack. Given enough time, ingenuity, and money, an adversary can almost always gain access.
Apple's implicit assertion that only they could help the government unlock the phone in question sealed their fate. In the discipline of security research - where barely-checked ego and questionable moral compasses are not just tolerated but actively encouraged - this was probably seen as a challenge rather than a fact. They might have well have unfurled a giant banner across their campus reading "Hack me, please."
One must be aware that the computer security community has close ties to the military-industrial complex (DoD/CIA/NSA are a major source of funding for many security software vendors and service providers). Allocating resources toward breaking Apple's security is a rational move for security businesses - even if it doesn't net them an immediate payout, the reputation gained is what their bottom line relies on. Between the bragging rights and the untold windfall from business gained by exploiting Apple's supposedly fail-safe locking mechanism, how could they resist?
Almost all real-world systems are insecure. I suspect iPhone is no different. While there are theoretical systems that are cryptographically secure under most imaginable circumstances, most real-world, implementations have an exploitable "side door" attack. Given enough time, ingenuity, and money, an adversary can almost always gain access.
Apple's implicit assertion that only they could help the government unlock the phone in question sealed their fate. In the discipline of security research - where barely-checked ego and questionable moral compasses are not just tolerated but actively encouraged - this was probably seen as a challenge rather than a fact. They might have well have unfurled a giant banner across their campus reading "Hack me, please."
4
Of course the government has unlocked the phone, they also sent a man to the moon, and to Cuba.
1
Wait, is the FBI, wait, wait, wait... did the FBI really break into the phone?
Might this be payback to Apple for not cooperating... is the FBI punishing Apple
by debunking what the Bureau called Apple's marketing strategy, thus destroying their reputation?
Might this be payback to Apple for not cooperating... is the FBI punishing Apple
by debunking what the Bureau called Apple's marketing strategy, thus destroying their reputation?
1
It's interesting to see that one simple-minded person who knows about phones can unlock the encrypting of a iPhone (for a small fee, of course) but the U.S. Government took weeks to realize they can do it without the Apple corporation. Unfortunately, now the U.S. know the secrets Apple has been hiding, and can use it to their own ability, and as they please. I understand that Apple did not want to help because it is a violation of one's Privacy, but now the U.S. can invade anyone's privacy.
1
Wonder what Tim Cook has to say to the families that lost loved ones, that the US Government is after their secrets and that he is protecting them while the US Government cannot be trusted?
3
You must understand that any software engineer can hack the Apple OS. This whole media story is a great example of how easily the media can be played. The government always had the ability to hack the iPhone. I suppose the Feds couldn't publicly use the data for legal reasons so they dreamed up this whole ridiculous scam. And of course the media just too happy to perpetuate it. What happened to actual journalism????????
3
Why is unlocking an iPhone any different than kicking a door in when the authorities have a warrant and good cause?
11
Because they didn't have to go to the developer who built the house and have them make a special key to unlock the door, which by the way could unlock every other house in the neighborhood, no warrant needed.
2
I've never lived in a neighborhood where every house was keyed the same.
And by the way, there are lots of guys who are really good at picking locks. Looks like there's someone who's really good at hacking an iPhone. Apple should have just cooperated. Now we know that iPhones are hackable.
And by the way, there are lots of guys who are really good at picking locks. Looks like there's someone who's really good at hacking an iPhone. Apple should have just cooperated. Now we know that iPhones are hackable.
The FBI was properly authorized by warrant to access the phone. What I don't agree with, is a court order to force the phone's manufacturer to be the point man that kicks in the door.
Full disclosure: I am not an Apple fan and have only owned Android and Microsoft computing products. However, I don't like the idea of the court system forcing what is essentially a third party (Apple) to act as an agent of law enforcement.
Full disclosure: I am not an Apple fan and have only owned Android and Microsoft computing products. However, I don't like the idea of the court system forcing what is essentially a third party (Apple) to act as an agent of law enforcement.
I predict that the Justice Dept/FBI investigation of Mr Farook's iPhone will quietly fade away into oblivion, because all of the hoopla over the need to crack into this phone will have been for nothing. I doubt there is a shred of meaningful evidence in the phone. It seems improbable that the S. Bernadino murderers had any connection to a terrorist gang; they were "just" a couple of sociopaths with a grudge and a house full of guns, inspired by all of the mayhem in the world.
3
I don't understand why the FBI/government announced that they had broken the code, or even that they had the phone in the first place. Now the contacts know the FBI will be hunting them. Why didn't they just keep quiet about the phone? Putting intelligence information in the press doesn't seem too smart.
1
Because it was all about feeling and swaying the public opinion, not about the technicality of breaking into the phone itself. Now that the government knows there won't be a massive opposition from the public (au contraire), they can take another step forward to gain more power under the pretext of protecting citizen from big bad wolves.
1
The next encryption will be something like out of "Mission Impossible". If you don't have the password and try to open the case, it will self-destruct. Probably in a nice, little cloud of smoke.
3
That's pretty much how the old version worked.
This was a damned if you do damned if you don't move for Apple. If they helped they would compromise their own products. If they didn't help--I have a feeling that Justice Dept knew all along they didn't need Apple. Another power trip creating a contrived dilemma--Congrats again....
3
This is the best outcome for everyone as all parties got what they wanted, perhaps even Apple customers. Apple can now spend some of it's money on better security and leave the legal battle for another day, and the FBI has learned that there are options other than a courtroom.
This was the biggest farce I have ever seen in public. The government was simply going after Apple publicly to set a legal precedent for future privacy violations. They already had this access long before the lawsuit. But wanted to put out feelers to the public to see how we would feel about the feds hacking someones phone. Now, that they know that most undereducated Americans jumped on board under the misleading story about national security, they decided that they would release this story. Watch out people.
21
Yup, most people who actually understand what's going on know that what the government was trying to force apple to do was a bad idea. The others well...
1
All the comments from folks cheering Apple's comeuppance need to ask themselves if they will cease purchasing Apple Phones or Smart phones for that matter? The technology used by Government can certainly be used to hack into the phones of all the other major manufacturers- so stop cheering.
Bingo! Sooo easy to fool and control the under-educateds' opinion.
1
My goodness, what a lot of ill-informed blather in the Comments.
Apple's iPhones are still highly secure. The people hired by the FBI almost certainly did not hack the iPhone in the usual sense of finding a software weakness and unlocking it from afar. Rather, they almost certainly used "NAND mirroring" which means disassembling the iPhone, de-soldering the relevant chip without damaging its contents (not easy) and, by using highly specialized and highly sophisticated hardware, copying it or part of it to a backup. Then they tried a zillion different passcodes, using fresh copies of the NAND chip each time. There are some variations, such as refreshing only the tiny chip area where the 'countdown clock' resides, but overall that's the basic idea.
Even then, it needs to be an older iPhone. It won't work on the newer iPhones.
So yeah, the iPhone is still highly secure.
Apple's iPhones are still highly secure. The people hired by the FBI almost certainly did not hack the iPhone in the usual sense of finding a software weakness and unlocking it from afar. Rather, they almost certainly used "NAND mirroring" which means disassembling the iPhone, de-soldering the relevant chip without damaging its contents (not easy) and, by using highly specialized and highly sophisticated hardware, copying it or part of it to a backup. Then they tried a zillion different passcodes, using fresh copies of the NAND chip each time. There are some variations, such as refreshing only the tiny chip area where the 'countdown clock' resides, but overall that's the basic idea.
Even then, it needs to be an older iPhone. It won't work on the newer iPhones.
So yeah, the iPhone is still highly secure.
39
Finally someone that understands technology. indeed mirroring seems the way around.. Once again 5c uses what a A6 chipset? This is 2012 technology folks!
4
Yep. The important distinction for people to understand is that the FBI had physical access to the phone. Conventional security wisdom has always been that if a determined hacker has physical access to a computer (phone), they can get in eventually. "Cloning the drive," as may have happened here, would be one way to do that.
The moral of the story for the security-conscious end user: If someone gets their hands on your phone/computer, always assume they *can* access the data, no matter what security or encryption is installed. Whether the time and effort involved would be worth it is a different matter.
The moral of the story for the security-conscious end user: If someone gets their hands on your phone/computer, always assume they *can* access the data, no matter what security or encryption is installed. Whether the time and effort involved would be worth it is a different matter.
4
Exactly! The number of comments exposing complete ignorance and naivety towards this case is astonishing.
People should read this to understand how breaking into the iPhone can be done, without exploiting software bug or weakness:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/one-fbis-major-claims-iphone-case-...
People should read this to understand how breaking into the iPhone can be done, without exploiting software bug or weakness:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/one-fbis-major-claims-iphone-case-...
3
Wow
Apple should hire these guys.
Apple should hire these guys.
2
Certainly a pie in the face of Tim Cook and like-minded people. Privacy, as with free speech, has its limits. Even in a free society. If I were the government, I would post the code-breaking method on U-Tube.
6
Cracking an I phone you have in your possession is very different than cracking into it remotely. You can take it apart and copy the flash memory and then do anything you want to with it. This whole case was bogus from the start, what the FBI wanted was a legal precedent to have a way into anyone's Iphone. They gave up when it became apparent there were ways in that they didn't want to admit having.
3
If the Brussels police - or the French anti-terrorism squad - were to approach the FBI, would they (FBI) hand over the techniques needed to break the Apple encryption?
Or will they explain that, despite help for them reputed to have come from Israel, the US government will not help the international "war on terror"?
Or will they explain that, despite help for them reputed to have come from Israel, the US government will not help the international "war on terror"?
What could be better for the FBI than proclaiming their ability to hack the unhackable? And without even having to ask their big brother (the NSA) for help…
How better to make “the bad guys” now fret they are no longer hack-proof… and some of the good guys, too.
Seeing as how the court case has now been nixed, no worries about having to disclose their methodology under oath.
Let’s file this one near Iraq’s abundant weapons of mass destruction. And maybe, just for grins, revisit the story again later.
How better to make “the bad guys” now fret they are no longer hack-proof… and some of the good guys, too.
Seeing as how the court case has now been nixed, no worries about having to disclose their methodology under oath.
Let’s file this one near Iraq’s abundant weapons of mass destruction. And maybe, just for grins, revisit the story again later.
2
This is the parallel construction that the justice department sought from the beginning. This way the get to publicise their success without giving up NSA's capabilities.
2
Fascists everywhere besides themselves with glee that the state's ability to peer is alive and well. Oh, and some Apple haters too.
2
How terrible this must be for people like you, the supporters of criminals and terrorists, that the rule of law has won the day.
I fully supported Apple's position but it seems naive to think the government will or is under any obligation to share how they unlocked the phone. I also think it's possible the phone wasn't unlocked and that we may never know the truth or if any useful information was in fact retrieved from it. And that's probably how it should be.
2
Tim Cook's claim that Apple opposed the government's request for aid in opening the I-phone of a terrorist because “compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk” would have had more persuasive effect had Tim Cook and Apple not had a financial interest in withholding its cooperation. It was good the FBI found a way around Tim Cook and Apple this time. However, Apple's position remains that it should be free to make money by providing secured communication for all, the law abiding and the criminal alike. In the past, government got a wire tap or a search warrant to open mail or listen in on the electronic communications of a criminal enterprise. In the 21st Century, computer encryption moves those avenues of intelligence gathering out of reach without cooperation from the technology provider. Will Tim Cook's and Apple's position remain sustainable when the number of dead rises from the dozens to the tens of thousands as the terrorists move to a nuclear means of destruction?
4
Well, of course, first of all, you have to believe they did it. Lying by the US Government is a constant thing. US Corporations aren't any better. If you take sides here, then you must believe it. Good luck with that.
3
It has been reported in the technical press that Apple has an inadequate bug and security hole detection system unlike other major software companies. They do not provide rewards to hackers who can show them the errors of their ways. Other companies provide substantial cash to those who come to them with demonstrations of their own software vulnerabilities.
Without this level of testing Apple is open to unknown unknowns and lags behind the industry standards of security. They were just shown this in a very public demonstration.
Without this level of testing Apple is open to unknown unknowns and lags behind the industry standards of security. They were just shown this in a very public demonstration.
8
Internet rumors report an Israeli company cracked the Apple encryption. The big question is when and how many telephones were cracked.? Looks like even Apple with their genius staff can be defeated. Now what will Apple do?
8
This is a total lie. The tell was the anonymous senior federal law enforcement official floating the fact that there might not be anything useful on the phone. That was an astonishing admission that they did not want to crack the phone. Someday, hopefully, we will get to the bottom of why that is.
2
Has the phrase "is this the hill you want to die on?" ever crossed Tim Cook's mind? The FBI almost certainly brought this issue up with Apple in private. Why take the stand the Apple did when you ought to know that, if not the government, then the legions of hackers it could call upon would be capable of unlocking the phone. This is why we shouldn't allow corporations to get too big - they become bureaucratized, lazy, and far too arrogant.
11
I don't think it has. This is particularly tin-eared:
"Given that the F.B.I. may never tell Apple how it forced open the iPhone, the company also said that it would 'continue to increase the security of our products as the threats and attacks on our data become more frequent and more sophisticated.'"
And the FBI will continue to increase the security of the nation as the threats and attacks on our lives become more frequent and more sophisticated, even if that means cracking iphones, with or without Apple's help.
Seriously, can they not beat this?
"Given that the F.B.I. may never tell Apple how it forced open the iPhone, the company also said that it would 'continue to increase the security of our products as the threats and attacks on our data become more frequent and more sophisticated.'"
And the FBI will continue to increase the security of the nation as the threats and attacks on our lives become more frequent and more sophisticated, even if that means cracking iphones, with or without Apple's help.
Seriously, can they not beat this?
2
This is a victory for truth, freedom, and the rule of constitutional law.
see that's the problem with these lazy job-for-life bureaucrats. You gotta light a fire under them to get them to do something to solve their own problems instead of trying to force others to do it for them
see that's the problem with these lazy job-for-life bureaucrats. You gotta light a fire under them to get them to do something to solve their own problems instead of trying to force others to do it for them
2
Seems Snowden was right again. He is a national resource who should be given a Presidential pardon (along with Chelsea Manning) and allowed home.
5
This case was not about mass surveillance, warrantless snooping, or government wrongdoing. It was about _legal_ and _individualized_ access to information.
6
The only way Snowden ought to be allowed back into this country is in a body bag.
I think that's cool. It was only a matter of time, and not much time, at that. Most folks don't realize what tremendous resources are being deployed in the cyber defense industry contractors to the feds.
7
It later came out that the FBI had enlisted the help of Israeli mobile software developer Cellebrite, a company that offers "mobile forensic solutions" to help law enforcement agencies crack the encryption on smartphones to access data. The government has not disclosed the method used to obtain the information on the iPhone, stating only that it has been retrieved.
http://www.macrumors.com/2016/03/28/doj-drops-lawsuit-against-apple/
http://www.macrumors.com/2016/03/28/doj-drops-lawsuit-against-apple/
2
This is only about the photo chosen for the article: why do they always try to find the most "Muslim" looking photo of the assailant? There are several other photos of Syed, one of which has proven perhaps too attractive to fit the narrative being pushed by the mainstream media...
SHAWN: this pair killed Americans in cold blood and you're worried about their photo? You're sick.
1
Anything can be hacked. It always amazed me that Apple, pretty much a hardware manufacturer, carried such weight in the tech and computer industry. Their ability to control and manufacture the myths and mysteries surrounding their products and how they can generate this surprising loyalty from their users is kind of amazing. I'm kind of a gadget freak so I have a lot of tech at home and i still prefer MSWindows for power computing. Myself, I use a Sam Sung smartphone with the rounded corners that infringed on the Apple Iphone design (What a joke) using Android 4.2.2. as the operating system. I have no doubt that my phone can be hacked so I am careful what I use it for. $500 - $600 is a lot to pay for a telephone. I may just go back to the old clamshell phone. It worked fine as a phone and who is going to hack a clamshell phone? Or, maybe go back to Blackberry? Nah.
Oh, I bet the Israelis hacked it.
Oh, I bet the Israelis hacked it.
1
There was really no good choice for Apple in this scenario. Had they given in to the US government, they would have faced tremendous pressure from other governments to do the same or risk losing the ability to do business there (read: China) on the other hand, now that the US government bypassed Apple and gotten their information on their own, everyone is going to look twice at his/her own iPhone. The only way forward is for Apple to work on even stronger encryption. But, honestly, did anyone truly buy into the idea of any software code that was ultimately unbreakable?
If only the government was so diligent in getting Apple and so many other corporations TO PAY THEIR TAXES to the US
7
We don't know how this went down. Apple may well be cooperating like they should, with the FBI agreeing to give them cover. The idea that we the public get to know the facts here is patently ridiculous.
2
"Corporate ownership of privacy creates a false sense of security... Herein lay the danger: Once individuals have engaged the technology and waived their privacy rights through Internet and app use, their data is out there for the taking, sooner or later." (from "Going, Going, Gone Transparent")
3
In this whole episode, I did not find any difference between NRA & Apple. NRA keeps crying hoarse about 2nd Amendment whereas Apple and its liberal supporters were citing 4th Amendment, privacy rights. Both of them were just trying to promote their self interests citing rights, amendments and scaring public. Good job Justice department.
7
For those who wonder why the FBI publicly went after Apple to literally “beg” for them to unlock the phone in question, it’s pretty clear it had nothing to do with their inability to unlock the phone, but purely to change the law in their favor: they only wanted to set a legal way for them to access any phone, anytime, anywhere, as there is currently no precedent to “allow the government to force a private company to change its security systems so that the FBI can get inside and take a peek.” When they realized Apple wouldn’t bulge and that a legal procedure would not only cost them an arm and leg, and, look very unseemly, they simply turn to the same people Apple probably hires to lock their phones in the first place. Hackers are like double agents, loyal one day, changing allegiance the next, or bowing to the highest bidder the very next. I don’t believe for a second the FBI, with or without the help of other federal agencies couldn’t unlock an Apple phone. It’s not the atomic bomb we are talking about. FYI, Israeli firm Cellebrite apparently lend a hand. Now it all adds up.
3
Don't put much faith in your cell privacy, and disappointment will elude you.
4
As it turned out, people in government, without basic skill, followed a procedure that locked the phone. The government then precipitated a Constitutional crisis when it unnecessarily spilled the beans about not being able to get into the phone when, in fact, it had not done its homework and there was a way. Now that it got in, it has made the major mistake of tipping off the bad guys that it knows how to get in at least that model of iphone. There are actually some things that ought be kept secret -- the government clearly does not have rational priorities in that regard.
The article states that - the issue in this matter is "about whether privacy or security was more important". The point is poorly phrased. Privacy is a fundamental aspect of security, whether we are talking about security of the person or security of the Nation. In fact, without security of the person, security of the Nation is more like tyranny.
The article states that - the issue in this matter is "about whether privacy or security was more important". The point is poorly phrased. Privacy is a fundamental aspect of security, whether we are talking about security of the person or security of the Nation. In fact, without security of the person, security of the Nation is more like tyranny.
4
My iTunes account was hacked into four or five years ago, along with many, many other accounts. Apple kept it a big secret. The resulting need to re-establish my iCloud account has been a nuisance ever since. I wish Apple had quietly assisted the government in helping this one phone owner gain access to the information the owner's employee had password-protected. I fear the result will be a race to impenetrability that will negatively affect the end user's experience.
5
Instead of glee folks should be concerned because if one hacker can find a way into a secure smart phone, others are likely doing the same thing. Unless you use your cell phone only to make telephone calls it is likely you have information stored you wouldn't want a hacker to access. Personally, I stand by Apple's position. No, I don't believe their products are perfect but I'd rather have them trying to make their products secure than trust the hackers of the world to leave me alone. And I also don't trust the federal government to protect my privacy. It has been proven over the last 15 years that they're prepared to ignore my civil liberties simply because they can.
1
I don't see the point of this article. I don't think Apple ever thought they had an unbreakable phone, just that only people with access to supercomputers would be able to do it, namely NSA. Finally, tax dollars to some use!
1
The FBI has previously said the phone was protected by only a 4 digit numeric pin, not an alphanumeric passcode. That means there were only 9,999 possible values. Given that it was his work phone, it is truly shocking that there was nothing of value on the phone.
Try "1234"... *unlocked*
Try "1234"... *unlocked*
Apple released a new version of iOS a full 4 days before this announcement. IE, they've already patched the flaw used by the third-party who came to the FBI on every phone that downloaded the updated iOS a full FOUR DAYS before the information was made public that the exploit worked.
Older iOS phones, like the one in the FBI's custody, just won't get the update. Apple gets to protect their brand and not compromise their principles/shareholder value re: Privacy and the DOJ gets their terror suspect's phone data. Each party got to save face.
The only thing this changes is that the encryption arms race is now part of wider public discourse.
Older iOS phones, like the one in the FBI's custody, just won't get the update. Apple gets to protect their brand and not compromise their principles/shareholder value re: Privacy and the DOJ gets their terror suspect's phone data. Each party got to save face.
The only thing this changes is that the encryption arms race is now part of wider public discourse.
Is The Times, by the kicker here, advocating? The rights of the unborn mean little, we get that. Are we now moving to strip the rights of those living to live?
Uncle Sam cracked Apple. That step belongs to the people of our nation, not to Apple stake holders.
Riana Pfefferkorn is a cryptography fellow at Stanford Law. I doubt that she is a philosopher with Stanford's best training in citizen rights in such matters. Uncle Sam now knows how to protect us from ISIS motivated psychopaths.
Should the congress, the courts to the executive branch so direct, the FBI and Homeland Security can be asked to cough up the needed cracking skills so that Apple can foster yet again the needed impenetrable software to assure our risk at the hands of psychopathic nihilists dependent on Apple and the others.
This cryptography fellow might want to apply to a top liberal arts college and study up on the rights of the citizen to the work of its government.
This is not a one way street to arm terrorists in the name of Apple iPhone holders, of which I am one.
Uncle Sam cracked Apple. That step belongs to the people of our nation, not to Apple stake holders.
Riana Pfefferkorn is a cryptography fellow at Stanford Law. I doubt that she is a philosopher with Stanford's best training in citizen rights in such matters. Uncle Sam now knows how to protect us from ISIS motivated psychopaths.
Should the congress, the courts to the executive branch so direct, the FBI and Homeland Security can be asked to cough up the needed cracking skills so that Apple can foster yet again the needed impenetrable software to assure our risk at the hands of psychopathic nihilists dependent on Apple and the others.
This cryptography fellow might want to apply to a top liberal arts college and study up on the rights of the citizen to the work of its government.
This is not a one way street to arm terrorists in the name of Apple iPhone holders, of which I am one.
Let's remember where talking about a iPhone 5c here.. The best technology 2012 had to offer. No secure enclave, Touch ID way quicker hardware and hardly any delay in passcode generating and verification. 5c hardware is ancient. Trying to hack a 6S that would've been a entirely different story. Im I the only one a little disappointed the US government had to ask for help from a group of private sector Silicon Valley engineers? Didn't have anyone on staff brilliant enough to get in? No super genius is in a back room? On top of that the word is they had to outsource to a Israeli firm for Pete's sake I would have thought we had some type of super quantum computer that could read minds by now. A win for Apple in my eyes. Seems the Valleys attracting all the top talent nowadays.
1
They (Justice Department) had it unlocked before the whole shebang. Smoke and mirrors to manipulate.
2
This was a court ordered investigation resisted for 'personal security' issues but really the economics/money of Apple seeking to resist legal access to their 'secure' products. They lost, the government found access within several months. The loss to their rep will be monetized. Perhaps it was related to the production in China?
The Feds hired a janitorial company to find Farook's thumb that was subsequently used to unlock his phone. That's why they won't tell Apple how they did it.
2
Touch ID is not available on 5C
2
It astounds me how many people fail to look at history of governmental overreach and abuse of power, from Japanese American internment camps, Watergate, voting right restrictions, McCarthy hearings, infiltration of civil rights groups, and assignations (Fred Hampton of the Black Panthers, to name one). Truly amazed by the blind faith people have in governmental justice.
3
There may be far more to this story than we know now or may ever know. If Cellebrite did manage to get into the iPhone, was nothing found or were some intriguing leads discovered? Did Celebrate fail and destroy possible evidence, so government was forced to cover up its decision to trust a third party? Or did the government simply use this story to cover up the real truth, that it was losing public support and needed to put an end to court case? And will we ever know for sure about any of this?
2
I hope to God they find nothing. Imagine if the FBI found a number that led them to the terrorists in Belgium. Which of course is too late.
Anyone else think that Apple just let U.S. Gov. Know how to unlock it furtively?
No one hacked anything. The FBI has saved face. Trust me, when the dust settles most folks will scarcely remember the episode.
3
Why should anyone believe what the government says? It has already been caught lying in this particular case. Where is the PROOF that the FBI has cracked the iPhone?
5