Why can't the President's cyber security expert Giuliani open the phone? But seriously, we don't have a hacker in the employ of our intelligence services who can open the iphone? You republicans might want to invest in strengthening our cyber security network instead of building Trump's multi-billion dollar wall.
43
The Trump administration has absolutely no right to anyone's private information, that they have on their phone. It does not matter who the person is or what the person did. They just simply do not have the right. I really do hope that Timothy Cook is able to stay strong throughout this legal battle. It is so important the Apple, and all tech companies for that matter, try their hardest to maintain their users privacy. If Apple were to give in this once, it would not only be this once. Following it there would be a massive snowball effect. Next time there that law enforcement has a dead gunman's phone, apple would have to give in again. From there it would only escalate more and more and that is not ok. Me being an iPhone user, I trust that Apple would keep my information safe, in any type of situation. It is this trust, that so many people have in Apple, and is one of the main reasons so many people trust Apple. Another bad thing I see coming from this, is if Apple does do this now there will be a backdoor. This means that it will be a lot easier for law enforcement to force Apple in the future to give up information on whoever. I also believe that this may also raise another problem. With this new backdoor created , hackers may be able to find it, and use it for other things. This could be very bad.
2
The old saying is that hard facts make for bad law. It’s hard to imagine a harder set of facts for Apple than a foreign terrorist killing American servicemen, and Apple arguing for their privacy rights. Our privacy is so compromised by tech companies that there basically isn’t anything left to protect. Barr isn’t going to roll over for Apple and he will make Tim Cook seem like the Benedict Arnold of the 21st Century before this is all over. You can’t stop. The FBI from ransacking your home with a warrant. Why should you be able to stop them from looking at your phone? Don’t kid yourself. The bad guys have a ton of tools to get inside it.
10
@John Smith Bigger question is why "no one" in the entire government on their own cannot handle getting information from an iPhone? I cannot think of any other instance where there would be total reliance on a private company/ entity for this information. This has come up time and time again and it is a false premise.
2
Ok, so the “bad guys” have a “ton of tools” to get inside, but the U.S. Government does not?
Also, they are free to look at the phone just as they are when they search your home (with a legal warrant that is), but that does not mean that the firm which provided the home, or the phone, is required to build a back door for them to get in... you are conflating two different issues...
3
I personally believe that Apple is doing the right thing by not sharing access to the phones in this investigation. Because they do not have a backdoor way to get into any of the phones, it makes it easier for Apple as a company to protect their privacy policy and their buyers. If Apple was to make a master key to unlock any iPhone, innocent people's privacy and therefore freedom would be taken away. Apple is a private company so they do not legally have to give up any information or data that they have on any of their products no matter who owns them. Although it does make the company look as though they are not willing to help the police or the FBI in their investigations on shootings or any other form of attacks, in the long run it will help their company. Because people know that there is no way anyone can access their information on an apple device, buyers will buy their products instead of other companies similar products because they know that their information is much more private if they buy Apple’s products instead. If they were to share information with the FBI for this case they would constantly be asked to help in other cases in the future. If they were to reject helping any cases after they were to help out in this shooting, people would constantly ask why they are willing to protect some people but not everyone.
8
The issue is not easy or black and white. I feel like this hyper security is helping malefactors more than helping me -- an ordinary citizen -- protect myself. My data is out there and no politicians or Silicon Valley moguls have given a darn about protecting it -- to the contrary. Yet I have no doubt that lots of dirty business is being conducted under cover of hyper-security.
Can I trust the government with a back door? No.
But I feel like we're between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
Bottom line, seems to me that a lack of back door is more helpful to malefactors than to me, an ordinary person who basically has nothing to hide or of interest to the government. And there is huge hypocrisy concerning the protections afforded by hyper-security versus the open season on my personal data.
As usual, the bigwigs get the protection for their deeds, and the rest of us are theirs for the plucking.
7
@Thomas
One of the risks with creating a back door is that it might be used by anyone, not just law enforcement agencies investigating a serious crime.
You personally might not have anything to fear from a legitimate police or FBI inquiry, but the same back door that they use can also be used by cyber criminals to steal your data. As we have seen in the past with major hacks (eg Equifax, Capital One) cyber security weaknesses can hurt a lot of people.
I think it is important for this to be a factor in the discussion. Creating a back door that can only be used by police might not be possible. Once a weakness exists, it can be used and misused by anyone with the skills to do it, which is why most cyber security experts are against this idea.
11
I.T. pro here: People who don't understand encryption often believe it's possible to securely implement a "master key", back door process, or whatever, to allow investigators into a device. That's just not true!
Perfect security even *without* back doors is already pretty much impossible. Every time Apple/Google updates iOS/Android, the jailbreak/rooting community eventually finds a way in. Malware works because it exploits zero-day vulnerabilities. And Barr wants to deliberately code in more bypasses?
And even if it was possible, who would trust the government to not bungle it? -- NSA's best hacking tools have been stolen and used against us, gov't and corporate databases are hacked all the time. And even if they weren't, just remember the mass and illegal surveillance and data hoovering that Snowden uncovered.
While absolutely not diminishing the real life tragedies underlying these encryption fights, consider that weakening encryption imperils *absolutely everyone* with many unforeseeable consequences while benefiting only these comparatively few investigations.
But it may all be for naught: If ever it's proved that P = NP (a major open problem in number theory, google it) then encryption as we know it will be dead anyway. And never mind the encryption-busting threat quantum computing brings.
33
@Robert absolutely correct (I also have an IT/crypto background). It's like some posters (and law enforcement) want a warp drive when they write about this. I sometimes worry that Schneier's "Applied Cryptography" will soon be illegal.
4
@Robert
I don't understand why they need a "master key". To borrow from the physical metaphor, a bolt-cutter can get into any lock but isn't a master key. So why can't Apple help hack a single device if there's a warrant? (It would help if the Times addressed the issue of warrants at all…)
I am a smart person and I have never *really* understood what the P=NP problem is. All specialists have a hard time talking to non-experts, but mathematicians and computer scientists are especially bad at it. They either use way too much jargon (math) or oversimplify to the point of confusion (computer science). I definitely don't understand why it would end encryption.
But with quantum computing, encryption is supposed to get way better, right? What we've been told from day one is that with quantum computing, you can create cyphers that can't be decrypted and connections that can't be hacked. Is the truth actually the opposite and quantum computing is going to get rid of encryption?
@Andrew Roberts 128 bit encryption, which is fairly commonly used, works because with our current computing capacity it would take too long to use brute force (trying every possible combination, 2^128 possibilities in this case) to compute the key needed for decryption. Quantum computing will be able to do this in a relatively short time which will compromise this form of encryption.
They'll hopefully have switched over to other forms by the time quantum computing becomes widely available though.
1
Lets be clear what law enforcement wants: they want the ability to quickly gain access to any device with little more than pro forma judicial review. That's the goal. If they achieve it, hackers everywhere will rejoice.
The real issue isn't the phone but an answer to this question: "how did this guy get into the U.S. in the first place?" The answer will show why imaginary back doors won't solve the problem. You want to fix the problem? A competent Justice Department would be a good start.
17
@Utterly Clueless I think that Apple should help open the phones but not give the government a way to do it on their own- there could be important information in there (and there's other scenarios where someone might want to get in a locked phone of a dead person, such as a loved one of someone who unexpectedly died and has important info on there).
@Leah Apple is helping, but the design of a secure device means that even Apple is limited in what they can do (the bullet hole in the phone probably doesn't help).
1
@Utterly Clueless You mean it might have been unwise to train Saudis -- the very 9/11 attackers and those committing atrocities in Yemen with American weapon -- might be a bad idea? ;-)
3
Slippery slope is a classic debate FALLACY, not an actual fact. Apple opening a murderer's phone when there's a court order and lawful request doesn't mean they will open yours and mine next - it means that they will make a decision next time too. Apple could obey 50 court orders, then reject and fight one for a political opponent.
I remember growing up hearing my dad say the 55 MPH speed limit, and all speed limits, were a part of a plot to take away our right to drive - first 55 because it's safer and more fuel efficient, then 45, same reasons, then 35.... yeah - never happened. Because there is no such thing as a slippery slope. We take a step and we decide if we want to take the next step or if we want to step back.
1
LEPs and spooks always want to access more data. But are those data really helpful? Keep in mind that much data can already be accessed via iCloud and telecomm companies. Let's see some statistics on how often those last few bits of data on a phone were germane to investigation and prosecution in the past 20 years. Then we can weight that properly against the damage to privacy and security.
I don’t want a government that encourages foreign actors to investigate their campaign rivals, to have access to my smartphone.
4
Apple is a private company and should not be forced to spend the time and money for what is basically another government fishing expedition. If it is a matter of national security to have at-will access to WhatsApp and other mobile communication apps, work with the app developers to gain access... or make a deal with one of the many cyber criminals who have already developed monitoring malware.
1
despite the peanut gallery comments, Apple is bound by US law, they should be shut down if they refuse to cooperate. they are nothing but a lifestyle company and offer nothing not a available elsewhere.
3
@Larry
Apple is legally able to implement encryption to secure data on phones. And it is a member of security—not just privacy. The encryption architecture means that Apple does it have a way to decode the data—they do not have an encryption key. That’s the whole point of private key encryption. It protects the data from in appropriate access: to those that say I have nothing to hide” I suggest that if your credit card information or any financial usernames and passwords are on your phone that you do have data to protect.
You suggest that Apple should be forced to reduce the security of every iOS device by weakening the encryption—there is no other way to provide a method to unlock. So every person’s data would be less secure. At least right now, the government does not have the right to force the creation of a back door.
3
William Barr and other political cronies throughout history who have used the office of the Attorney General to prosecute and persecute political "Enemies of the State" are justification enough for Apple and others to refuse. Today its open a phone for a murderer and tomorrow it will be something else.
I applaud and support Apple's refusal to cooperate with the government.
9
Why can't the NSA provide the data? They collect everything, and this is just tracking data down to known devices. Or is the reality the NSA stole our privacy but can't do anything valuable with it, despite billions spent and Snowden's revelations meaningless?
4
One should thank Apple. Keep up the good fight. We are all behind you.
15
Why are we revisiting this? We resolved this during the Obama administration. Smartphones can be infiltrated on a case by case basis by law enforcement with a warrant, instead of creating a monolithic one size fits all that could put all of us at risk.
3
@The Buddy -- It's being revisited precisely because infiltrating an individual phone today is orders of magnitude more difficult than it was a few years ago.
Apple, Google, and others have been focusing madly on making their phones as impenetrable as possible. That's why Barr and other LEOs want backdoors -- which as you correctly point out, puts us all at risk.
2
@The Buddy No, they can’t. Apple does not have a way to decrypt the data on the phone (the encryption design explicitly does not give them that capability).
But, I suppose they can provide the data exactly as it is stored: fully encrypted. Forcing Apple to modify the security of the phone by providing a “backdoor” means the data is less secure—there is no way to create a backdoor that can’t be abused.
1
Apple need to open the phone and get off their high horse. They have gotten way to big and need to put in check.
@Neo
Please educate yourself Neo. Apple does not have the ability to get into the locked devices of their customers. The OS and encryption protocols were designed that way, to safeguard their customers private information and privacy.
Apple can't open it. Period.
And exactly how has Apple gotten "way too big?" Are they not a pinnacle of free market capitalism and competition that people on the right hold up as sacrosanct?
It is truly amazing how quick you people are to through your principles out the window when they become inconvenient or used against you.
7
@Neo The phone has a great big hole in it. Heaven knows what was destroyed in the process.
Also, the phone was manufactured to government specifications. Apple followed those specs. Not surprisingly, if a third party wants to get the secret information off the phone it's going to be tough.
@Neo That's right, the government has power over the people in a tyranny.
2
This story goes WAY back, to at least 1993 when the NSA proposed a technology solution for encryption called Clipper. Its big feature was a backdoor for governments to recover information under court order. Nobody bought it then and the proposal died about five years later.
It's clear that the Attorney General has been looking for a way to revive the attack on strong encryption, but the arguments against it will never go away and never be acceptable to Americans.
Bill Barr should talk to companies testing early quantum computers, which promise to break strong encryption more quickly.
2
@John Indeed, though quantum encryption may also be even tougher to break. Today's quantum computers are simply too weak.
Apple is a company not a nation they do not make laws they must follow them. Apple does not guarantee personal freedom or privacy for citizens. It is the governments responsibility. If Apple does not want to "teach" government employees how to decode the encrypted messages, Apple must do it for the government employees. Apple must decode the encrypted messages for the government; now and in the future when a court orders them to. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, NOT the Apple Logo.
@sues You have it wrong, the Constitution guarantees our rights and protects us from the over-reach of the government. Decrypting one phone enables decrypting all phones and with it our right to not be subject to unreasonable search and seizures. The concept of "if you are not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to fear" holds no water and is the lazy mans defense of the indefensible. In a more perfect world I would not have to lock my home or take my keys from my car, but I do. BTW the pledge of allegiance was a marketing gimmick to sell flags so bravo for being a mindless follower...
7
@AusTex
Not remotely true - decrypting one phone is only decrypting one phone. Handing over a tool that can decrypt any phone is a whole different matter, but in this case, the ask is for Apple to unlock the phone.
I think Apple is wrong here. We're talking about a known killer, not a hypothetical case against an individual who enjoys the presumption of innocence. I am not a conservative in most areas but I think this "right of privacy" has been taken too far and beyond the realm of common sense; consideration of public safety has not been given enough weight for a proper balance between the two.
3
@styleman
"Those who sacrifice a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security, deserve neither"
-Benjamin Franklin.
How long before you start saying, "I think this "right of free speech" has been taken too far..." or "I think this "right of religious freedom" has been taken too far..."?
There is a reason certain things are guaranteed and inalienable.
10
@styleman If you'll trade safety (government intrusions in contracts, forced labor, the attacker is already dead) for liberty, you are not a conservative. You are an authoritarian, believing government doesn't ensure our rights, but we must follow orders.
5
@RC
There is such a thing as the right of free speech being taken too far - yelling Fire in a crowded theater - or threatening to kill someone. There are reasonable rational limits on rights, including our right to privacy.
The history of the FBI should be looked at before giving them access to the personal information of every American. In the 1920s and 1930s, the FBI focused most of their energy investigating political leftists and labor unions. In the 1950s and 60s, during the civil rights movement and anti- Vietnam war movement, the FBI focused on investigating Martin Luther King, the Black Panthers and anti-war demonstrators rather than investigating the murders of civil rights workers. Many of these crimes (murder of Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner; 1963 Birmingham, AL church bombing, murder of Medgar Evers, etc.). Fact that the FBI easily brought these perpetrators to justice 30 years later (when they were all dead or in nursing homes) proves that the FBI was totally motivated by politics. How can we trust them now to not use phone information to go after people who, legally, disagree with the government?
7
There is something missing from the discussion; is the encryption the phone uses sufficiently impossible to hack? I suspect it is fairly easy to get the data in its encrypted form, it's decrypting it that's the problem.
There are encryption methods that are impossible to decrypt, "one time pad" for example, but I assume that is not what Apple is using. If Apple has a way to bypass the encryption then there is already is a "backdoor."
"The company said it could open the phone in a month, using a team of six to 10 engineers." How are they going to do that? Brute force? Go directly to the memory chips?
Are both sides being purposefully confrontational? Probably.
I don't get why Apple doesn't say something like "Sure we will help you and tell you how to do it. First open the phone and remove the memory chips, they might be embedded in other chips, hook the memory up to a computer (not easy) and run a decryption program against the data trying every possible key."
Or does Apple have a shortcut?
In the "old days" there were no technical issues to tapping a phone; you got a court order and the phone company installed the tap. Any smart high-school kid could tap a phone. However, society did not come crashing down.
We should be able to trust the legal system and we should be able to trust a vendor. Remember, evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible.
Negotiation with Apple is the wrong approach.
1
@David C. Clarke Every technique you mentioned, the FBI already knows and can do it. They just want Apple to spend the time (cost) to do it rather than the FBI doing it. The main reason that the government wants Apple to decrypt the phones is that they want to pressure Apple to put a backdoor into the phone software, so that law enforcement can easily decrypt every phone.
9
@David C. Clarke I beltieve the basic technique is brute force "PIN guessing" -- but they have to backup the data or disable the phone's wipe feature after N incorrect guesses. So I presume they have a way to copy the encrypted phone data off, and then attack it on a computer that won't obey the wipe limit.
I don't believe they need 10 engineers and a month to do this.
1
Law enforcement wants backdoors engineered into your devices so they can turn your personal device into Orwell's telescreen and have been using high profile cases to sway public opinion. They also want the makers to compromise your privacy which raises issues of self-incrimination.
Chief Justice Roberts has written in a case involving police seizure and inspection of cell phones without a warrant and commented that these devices contain massive amounts of personal information and that fact should be taken into consideration. Some of that applies here.
These backdoors also compromise the security of your devices and provide new means that could be exploited by hackers. Backdoors could also possibly allow people to plant stuff on your phone that you never knew was even there.
Tell DoJ and Barr to go pound sand.
11
@David Gregory I am with you in spirit, but even your diary can be opened under a search warrant. The issue here is they can't open the diary, and then demand others do it for them. I think the government has the burden to open it, not force others against their will to do labor on their behalf.
4
Please keep in mind that our so called justice system is our enemy and don't ever forget it.
2
Wake up people;
Laws are wriiten by rich white men who rule this country.
Laws are just words and these laws are used to control citizens and provide detailed information on all people in the country.
Why can't the FBI and police solve crimes the same way they have for a hundred years, oh yea I remember , they just tapped phone lines and opened mail.
Thanks for trying Apple but it's hopeless, this is not a Democracy.
2
@Chelsea Democracy doesn't protect your rights. Only limited government powers can do that, and we've long gone away from that notion, depending ever more on government for daily life while mostly making laws to benefit the rich due to corrupt politicians.
I agree with Apple’s approach in this situation, although hacking the phone could provide important information, it is an invasion of privacy. The problem with this situation is that if they break into these phones they must do it for all investigations going forward, one invasion leads to another which leads to another. As a result of breaking into these phones for different reasons it is a major invasion of someone's privacy. Another legal problem that the government could run into is once they hack these phones they could find information relating to other crimes, either minor or major. I also see the other side of this argument, finding essential information related to the crime could save a life. One can imagine if this related to their family member and the feelings associated, you would be devastated and angry. I also think a search warrant could be used in extreme cases like this one, cases involving a murder or rape. There could be information on that individuals phone that could expose a whole network of other people committing similar crimes. That is why this case is very controversial, it is easy to see both sides of the argument. Putting yourself in other people's shoes is essential while looking into cases like this but it is hard to make a decision when it comes to privacy. This could lead to a never ending cycle of hacking phones which many can argue that it is an invasion of privacy.
3
@CC They only care about his network. After all, the perp is dead.
If the justice department, through the courts asks Apple or any technology provider to access private information via a subpoena, to pursue a charged individual in a criminal case, is this not the same as a search warrant? I am all for retaining the privacy rights of law abiding citizens, but not for criminals.
@G G You mean for *accused* criminals. Not acceptable.
4
@G G
Except the DOJ is asking Apple to do something it can't do. They can't open up a locked device of a customer. It isn't a functionality that the OS has.
1
@David Illig That's how all search warrants work. You don't search people after conviction. Plus the perp is dead, so this has nothing to do with him, but finding out if he was part of a conspiracy.
Makes one consider whether it’s intelligent to even have a mobile device. It’s like “1984”: all of your thoughts can be gleaned by the State, by breaking into your iPhone.
To me, the issue is not so much whether Apple helps the FBI break into the phone or whether some third party does that. The issue is whether we should be putting our thoughts, desires, actions, etc. in tangible form, in a place so conveniently accessed by the State — or by anyone else who may wish to do us harm.
Do we really think that AG Bill Barr would be professional or trustworthy if he could access the secrets of anyone deemed an “enemy” of the Trump Administration? Would you trust him if Trump had access to Hillary Clinton’s iphone data? Joe Biden’s? Jeff Bezos’s? This is not a matter of Apple just “giving in” to help the government. There’s much more at stake here.
4
@Scottapottomus "The issue is whether we should be putting our thoughts, desires, actions, etc. in tangible form..."
That's a personal decision, isn't it? Apple doesn't require it, the government doesn't require it. True, even if you keep your phone "clean," your movements can still be tracked. But with surveillance cameras, license-plate readers, and whatnot, you will be tracked anyway.
@David Illig So let law enforcement work on all that privacy invading ways; there's no need to give them extra powers. One day they may be able to read thoughts via brain scans, so will we accept that if a "warrant for scan" is issued by political appointess (judges) that we'll have to undergo such a procedure against our will.
The gov can do it's best. Forcing others to help is tyranny.
1
I applaud Apple for standing up for their customers' rights in this instance.
I just wish they were as courageous in resisting China's digital fascism as they are in resisting the US's investigative overreach.
6
Good for Apple. The bottom line is that especially under this administration you simply cannot trust people like Barr. Cloaked in legality and patriotism he would be the first to sell both down the river in the name of expediency.
4
Apple like facebook are above the law . Close them down.
@D.j.j.k. Apple is keeping the law, Barr is attempting to break it. There is nothing that says an individual or company has to provide the scotch tape to fix the note the AG found in scraps. Barr is crooked AND stupid, and given his penchant for legal “distortion” no one should be jumping to his aid.
4
@John P.
When a company can solve a crime and refuses to let the authorities see the suspects cell phones that is a crime and they are an accessory. I am not for Trump but i am for the victims of serious crimes who need closure for their families.
@D.j.j.k.
How is Apple breaking the law? They provided gigabytes worth of cloud data within hours of being asked.
They are now being asked to do something that CAN'T BE DONE. Apple can NOT open a locked device of one of their customers. It is not a function built into the OS. They don't have some kind of master password or master encryption key. The absolute only way is a brute force hack, and the FBI has the means to do that. Apple has done what it can, and provided what is possible.
2
this seems more like using the situation to get a general backdoor than trump and barr worried about this case.
2
For those who believe in "absolute freedom & privacy" and that Apple should never enable access, one question, "Suppose a terrorist's i-phone had the code to disarm a nuke threatening a major city where your family resides?"
@Mark
That doesn't change the fact that Apple doesn't have the ability to open a locked device.
3
@Mark Boring movie plot, as if this would be the case. I mean, to know the code only a device that can be broken/lost rather than memorized. I guess you are also for torture since that's how the movies solve it.
@David Was 911 a boring movie plot? The average citizen knows little about what goes on in the real world until hundred or thousands are killed. Finally, people overestimate their ability to recognize risk and underestimate what it takes to avoid it.
So if nsa can't break an iPhone encryption how it would break the quantum one on the Chinese satellites.?
1
Apple and Edward Snowden - patriots or traitors?
If gun makers aren’t held accountable for the deaths their products cause, it seems disingenuous to attempt to force Apple to open a phone.
8
I am not a fan of 'slippery slope' defenses regardless of the subject matter. I regard such defenses as an assertion that the human species is incapable of objectivity and restraint; that it is impossible to define boundaries of conduct that effectively limit the scope of inquiry and are likely to be respected. We cannot achieve perfection, but severe penalties for straying outside the scope of inquiry will help.
1
I don't understand this. I am happy that Apple want to protect our privacy but if a crime was committed or someone is in danger, the police should be able to get a search warrant to see what is in the phone. How can people be against this? What if your daughter is taken by someone ? human traffiking? you don't think a search warrant is valid?
Don't people see a clear distinction here? We have protections from the government from overstepping. We have requirements for a search warrant from a Judge. We sadly don't have protections from corporate side and this is the part that I am extremely concerned about because they sell OUR information and use it to manipulate us to buy something. As some time in the scary future, government might be bad, but we aren't there yet: there still is the requirement for a potential crime, a Judge and a search warrant.
2
@Thoughtful1 please consider this: in the wake of 9/11, the US populace was frightened and gladly gave up significant privacy rights (Patriot Act etc) to the government. Immediately, the government went off the rails surveiling the data/phone activities of typical citizens like you and me.if you don't believe me do some research on what Snowden revealed in the documents he made public. This is not some bad future government, this is real and it is today. It bears far more considered thought.
7
@Thoughtful
The "clear distinction" is only applicable in the old analog days of locks and keys. All bets are off when it coms to digital encryption. If Apple builds a backdoor OS that the FBI and NSA can use then its as good as guaranteed that Russia and hackers around the world will either steal it (remember the NSA's own code was stolen and used against them?) or they will reverse engineer it.
With regards to encryption, you are totally in control of your data or you are not. There is no in between.
4
@Thoughtful1: Here's a physical analogy. The police have a search warrant to look inside a locked safe, but the only way for them to get into it is to ask the manufacturer to provide the appropriate procedure. Such a procedure, however, would allow the police to get into ANY of the manufacturer's safes, and there's no guarantee that the procedure would remain private and be used only by the police. That's the risk.
1
I personally think that Apple should open up both phones in the current situation that they are in. The reason that I think Apple should open up both phones, would be that the gunman may have had more plans on his cell phone and maybe other motives were in place. If the gunman had other plans in his cell phone or if he had any accomplices they would know about it. If he had any type of accomplices that maybe helped him plan out this attack they might be able to question him and if he had any future plans the government could possibly prevent if another tragic event were to take place again in the near future. Now apple is not wanting to open up the phone I think because they may feel like if they were to open up one of the phones the DA would ask them to open up one after the other and they would just be continuing to end up keep opening up IPHONES in the future and that would be breaking the policy that they have set in place currently. Now President Trump is putting a lot of pressure on apple saying that they should open up the phones because they may hold further information. Apple is saying that they are unable to get into the Iphones encryption that apple has in place and that it is quite a difficult system to crack. Now going back to what I had said in the beginning I think that apple should cooperate because these phones may hold a lot of information and that information could really help out with something. Perhaps if something were to take place they could find it.
2
@Matt L The encryption is explicitly designed so that Apple does not have the ability to decrypt the data. They have no encryption key.
Apple has cooperated extensively: all iCloud data related to the phones was provided to the FBI (that data is not encrypted). But Apple cannot decrypt the data on the phone—had they created a method for them to decrypt it, the security of every iPhone would be at risk as that method could be discovered and misused.
1
I personally think Apple has no obligation to crack open this phone for these law officials. Apple in the past has held a respective privacy law throughout the years during severe events as well. The only difference in this case is that Trump has begun to bash Apple solely for upholding their own privacy laws, and now his supporters are beginning to lash out on the company as well. I respect Apple for standing their ground thus far despite all of the backlash, as it just reassures its consumers that they do not sneakily have a way to grasp your information, no matter what your background may be.
11
Apple should not have to comply and listen to any law officials. I respect how apple supports privacy and does not want to give out information. Apple has the right to decline due to its policy which required it to never undermine the security features of its products. Iphones can only be unlocked only with a given device’s password, meaning even Apple cannot bypass the security.
Law enforcement officials want everything to go their way and get mad when things do not go their way. Regardless of what evidence is on a phone, the case should not be based around this one piece of evidence. Privacy is very important to me. I agree with Apple for the simple fact that they care a lot about protecting their customers regardless of their background.
7
@A.H Apple can’t comply on existing phones. There is no back door. If the FBI were to force their hand and create one on on future iPhones it would need to be created in hardware at the factory (probably in China) where the codes could be stolen by factory workers or foreign governments. If the data is compromised In or outside Apple, millions of phones would need to be replaced. Foreign governments would certainly request the same level of access as the FBI. It still wouldn’t help in this situation since the phones are heavily damaged and probably have no method to gain backdoor access anyway.
7
Funny how Trump wants access to our private data, while being unwilling to show his tax returns. The President should lead by example.
55
When it comes to acts of terrorism, terrorists forfeit their right to privacy. Apple should cooperate by assisting in gathering the information contained on this terrorist's phone, but not create a "back door" on their phones that could compromise the privacy of law abiding individuals.
8
@An Independent American The only way Apple could break in IS a back door - they don't not have the keys to break the encryption. If Apple has the keys - so would some hacker.
11
And what exactly do you think the government is trying to have Apple do here if even your own opinion states you don’t think Apple should have a “back door”?
@Rick, It is my understanding as the manufacturer of the device, Apple knows what codes can be compromised for penetration as needed. Apple products are known for being the least secure when compared to 'Droids. In terroristic situations like this one of which there is ZERO doubt whom committed the act, that person, dead or alive, should not expect the right of privacy. In this scenario, the safety of the country and it's people must be ensured.
- A Justice Department spokeswoman said in an email: “Apple designed these phones and implemented their encryption. It’s a simple, ‘front-door’ request: Will Apple help us get into the shooter’s phones or not?”
Apparently the justice department still doesn’t understand what a front door is.
13
@Eric S. They understand the difference between a front door and a back door perfectly well. Shades of 1984: they want the public to think that what they are requesting is not a back door.
Freedom means nothing without privacy.
17
I cannot understand why the G.O.A.T FBI, CIA, NSA cannot get their heads around that this is not Apple's problem it is yours. In this age of only advancing technology and innovation, you must have your own technology forces. This is akin to the U.S. and its allies in WWII asking the Germans to send them a copy of their codes because its too tiring to break them themselves.
This is a "pain point" that will only grow. What happens when the next new innovation is not from a U.S. based company?
6
@marielle "What happens when the next new innovation is not from a U.S. based company?" Many foreign governments possess unbreakable cryptographic systems. The solution for the would-be reader is to steal, or bribe someone to steal, the details of those crypto systems. And even that might not help.
@marielle It's not akin to that because Apple is not a party to any crime.
@David They are not a party to any crime but the Government insists that a private company help them to do their job. If this was/is a national emergency I still say that it is the government's job to do their due diligence and not depend on a private entity to do their job. What's next nationalize Apple? And another point however fine we do not know if those connected with that phone are a party to any crime. But we move on.
You see the young woman putting up the presentation slides? She looks trustworthy, so she can look at the phone for an hour and then tell everybody else. AG Barr though can't be trusted, at all, with anything that doesn't involve being corrupt as a loon. So no way buddy.
5
The gunman was not a citizen of this country and engaged in an act of terrorism in the US. If Tim Cook can’t see that distinction as a reason for Apple—a private company, not government, to unlock the phone in our fight against terror, he is a foolish or very confused man.
4
You apparently do not understand encryption... do you think Apple has a magic key and they are simply refusing?
3
@ehillesum ...yeah, it's just that simple.
Imagine if the FBI said that they needed the passkey to every lock on every home in America, so when they serve warrants no one can destroy evidence.
Most Americans would be horrified.
It is the same with a phone.
Hugh
4
You understand that you can get a warrant to go into a home, right? You understand that when you're convicted of terrorism your phone can be looked through, your private papers can be read etcetera unless Apple allows you a way to lock up those things such that law enforcement cannot access them. Then you never have to worry that your plans to kill people will be frustrated.
@JerseyGirl True, but you also understand that someone who is determined could booby trap their home, cause it to burn down or blow up anything sensitive. You can't then demand the home builder try to fix it. The gov can try all it wants. A search warrant doesn't obligate other parties to participate.
1
So the government wants Apple to basically put a tap on every phone it manufactures. Isn't that what it's accusing Huawei of doing?
11
Barr wants access ONLY to this murderers' phones in THIS case, not to every cellphone that Apple ever made. Apple wants to guard its proprietary encryption. A reasonable compromise would see Apple experts, not government investigators, look into the phones' memories and report what they find to the Department of Justice.
If Apple cannot be persuaded to agree to this type of compromise then Barr ought to do it the right way and take Apple to court for a Court Order directing Apple to give up the necessary information in THIS case, while not divulging any of Apple's proprietary information.
If Apple fails to comply with the Cort Order they should be held in contempt and the next step would be up to the judge.
7
Do you understand how encryption works?
3
@R
Do you understand how the legal system works?
If the information is able to be handed over by Apple it should be handed over. If the encryption is such that no one can break it, even Apple, then so be it, the government doesn't get what it wants due to impossibility.
3
@MIKEinNYC
That is NOT how the legal system works, Nor I nor you are under any obligation to supply sledgehammers to a corrupt AG when he is either too stupid or to corrupt to bring the appropriate tool. Never mind the encryption problem itself isn’t necessarily solvable, don’t let’s wrap ourselves in a flag and claim a high ground, that’s not the issue.
1
Justice must take precedence over privacy.
2
That is too simplistic of a stance. Without privacy one cannot have freedom, without freedom one cannot have justice.
5
Barr was picking a fight by going public even though Apple has always been cooperative short of making a backdoor. After all, once you open the Pandora's box, everyone, including China and Russia, where Apple has business, will demand it.
But forcing Apple's hand will not work. Why, this will only strengthen Apple's position in privacy to its fanbase
8
I don't get it ...
In the old days of Ma Bell ... Feds got a court order, and if a judge ruled that there was compelling evidence, your phone got tapped.
The bar was high, no fishing expeditions ...
Right to privacy, yes.
But the phone company also didn't have the right to shield potential criminal activity.
Do we not trust judges any more?
Also if Feds don't know how to get in, don't show them, just provide the data, based on a court order.
How is this just not a modern version of a wire tap?
What gives anyone the right to shield a criminal, is that not a crime?
8
This is not a phone tap... why are you equating it as such?
And speaking of warrants (or subpoenas for that matter), why isn’t AG Barr pursuing all of those who have received one from Congress and have failed to comply?
6
@Spatchcock That’s a lovely straw man argument. There is no “shielding a criminal”. Apple does not have a way to decrypt the data: end to end encryption is explicitly designed so that not even Apple can break the security of your data: logins and passwords for financial accounts, credit card information, all your contacts, etc.
Encryption secures your data so that “criminals” cannot access and steal it. You’d reduce the security of every single person’s data?
It’s nothing like a wiretap.
Easy solution Apple - just don't build back door encryption workarounds into your hardware. Then the answer isn't we won't help you - the answer is we can't help you.
Oh wait - that would be consumer friendly - guess Apple will never do it.
4
@Benjamin Mitchell That's exactly what Apple does now. And yes, it's a selling point with customers, as the article points out.
11
@Benjamin Mitchell I don’t think it would be possible to have more completely missed the point.
"In the current case, Mr. Barr and other Justice Department officials have said they have exhausted all options, though they declined to detail exactly why third-party tools have failed on these phones as the authorities seek to learn if the gunman acted alone or coordinated with others."
If this were any other AG and DOJ, I'd be more sympathetic to their desire to induce Apple to help with encryption.
But after reading the article and seeing that there are 3rd party ways to get at the information, my sense is that this fight is something Barr and Trump want on principle.
Allowing this bunch unlimited access to private data would be a terrifying prospect, given the political vindictiveness and abuses of power shown to date.
Who knows where it could go given the president's personality issues, paranoia, and growing list of political enemies--aided and abetted by a happily compliant AG who believes in unlimited executive power?
31
@ChristineMcM Barr could be also targeting Apple specifically because Trump has issues with Apple.
5
@Javaforce
Trump has a very good relationship with Apple.
1
Law enforcement officials want everything and they don’t care about pesky civil rights. Whatever evidence is on a phone, it’s just one piece of evidence. A case can be built without it, it’s just more work for investigators. My privacy and digital security means more to me than making their jobs easier. Hands off cops!
22
@Kurt Gardner This is not about building a case. The shooter is dead and we know he was the shooter. This is trying to determine if there are any more potential shooters, i.e., is there a continuing risk to NAS Pensacola and the surrounding area and does that risk extend to other bases with Saudis or other foreign students. This is not an academic question as I routinely visit NAS Pensacola, oftentimes with a grandchild. I have friends who had to shelter in place last month. I agree it might be a slippery slope given the unprincipled men currently at the top of government, but this is an immediate need to determine the presence or absence of a network as quickly as possible. I jealously defend the rights of law abiding citizens, but when an individual starts randomly killing those law abiding citizens, he has forfeited any right to privacy, especially when he is dead and there is no pending prosecution.
4
It is very “easy” to speak in terms of “well they are the criminal and they have no rights” and forget that what you are asking affects is all
@Kevin
Sounds like a good argument. Why won’t Trump et al accept it?
Apple needs to get on board and give it up.
Criminals have no rights to privacy, they gave up their rights under the Constitution when they chose to commit murder.
Refusal to comply with the Justice dept. is akin to protecting the killer. Who's side is Apple on anyway?
9
Ostensibly yours, in a more fundamental way. At least that’s the line.
I agree that privacy, while essential, is not and cannot be completely guaranteed under all circumstances. We are all used to limits imposed on our privacy for the greater good, for example at airports. If you’ve shot someone, and tried to destroy your phone as your final act on Earth, perhaps we should agree that you’ve forfeited your right to privacy. Clearly, more applicable laws must be written.
On a side note, I don’t believe the absolute right to privacy extends to pertinent information regarding elected officials. So, perhaps Apple could do a deal. They’ll unlock the phone if Trump releases his tax returns. Tit for tat, one of the president’s favorite games.
4
The definition of “criminal” can be changed by law. So when the mundane things like “commenting on a post that you disagree” becomes a crime (like it has in other countries) you’ll be asking for that privacy.
15
This. Open this door a crack, and one day we may easily be faced with the Stasi equivalent of “Show me your papers”: “Show me your phone.”
To quote Primo Livi: “It happened, therefore it can happen again.”
Therefore, we must fight to ensure it Never happens again.
2
I wonder what Apple will do if China makes the same demand.
27
@SamCheng
Somehow I don't see Timothy Cook's resigning to object to China's demands. Here he objects because he can.
4
Once the floodgate is open, you can’t close it. Imperiling tens of millions of people’s privacy is unacceptable.
50
@November-Rose-59
Sorry, my phone is my information and no one needs to know what's on there. The government needs to figure out another alternative.
14
@Randy L.
If one believes "Privacy" exists please seek a health professional for a complete mental health evaluation.
1
@November-Rose-59
Relinquishing ever more privacy "because I have nothing to hide" is not how people should think in a free society where the burden is always supposed to be on the government to prove wrongdoing, not the other way around.
3
This is a silly debate. If a judge issues a warrant for the suspect’s home, office or data device, all should be equally accessible under the law. What’s the difference if the lock is physical or software?
33
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue at play. It’s not about providing the key to open a single lock. It’s about making every single lock open to the same key. This is a MASSIVE security vulnerability, and when the copy of the master key gets out(as it’s sure to do), suddenly criminals have the keys to access the private data of every iPhone user in America.
This is not about Apple defending the privacy of any particular killer, it’s about maintaining a secure standard for the rest of us
17
The timing of this fight cannot be dismissed. Barr has become Public Enemy #2. He wants to try to turn the public sentiment that is against him and, at the same time, wants to give Public Enemy #1, trump, a "win for the people" at a time when distractions from the Impeachment Trial are needed.
This issue should have been resolved long ago in the courts, and Barr could have raised this in a number of cases in the last 3 years, but it is only now that he wants to grab the attention of the press, and of the Public, to do so.
21
@Allen82
But won’t resolution come from Congress?
Didn't some hacker figure out how to open the iPhones belonging to the San Bernardino shooters after Apple refused? Why doesn't Bill Barr ask him or her to do it again? Could it have something to do with making Apple look bad?
As I see it, if DOJ can force Apple to acquiesce once, they have precedent and can then ask to open anybody's phone if it is politically expedient.
15
@Lori Wilson Apple has patched the vulnerability that enabled the hack of the San Bernardino phones. While it might be possible to hack newer models of iphones, apple is right to refuse to do so. A device or technique that can break encryption on the phones risks the security of all users, especially as the US government has demonstrated many times that it cannot be trusted to tell the truth or to keep its word about anything.
3
Any "backdoor" given to the government will leak and be used by criminals. Assuming the FBI understands this -- they are trading a short-term advantage, which may yield nothing useful -- for a situation that will harm the public.
15
@arvay
..and foreign intelligence, making "this great Country" less secure.
Doesn't Trump still use an iphone?
1
Because it's the Trump Administration, the responses here will be all about him and not about privacy.
1
And? He’s the head of the government who wants to breach personal privacy. Isn’t it relevant who is in charge, especially given things this man has stated publicly regarding his political rivals?
1