I get it. I understand why the FBI wants this, why they NEED it. I also understand why Apple can't (by design) give them what they want.
This is going to be a mess for a while... appeals, many other cases, etc. This is an issue that will be raked through the media and has strong potential to make it to the supreme court.
So how is this going to end? Two things are going to happen:
1. Apple is going to be seen as the vanguard of privacy, of human rights. The white knight who did what was right and, despite all the mud-slinging from the Orwellian "security hawks," they will do what is necessary and advanced unscathed toward the goals that they have had meticulously planned for the last decade.
2. The US Government is going to be further marginalized, less the One World Superpower and more the whining little bitches that throw a tantrum if they don't get what they want. So much for the mysterious, omnipotent FBI/NSA/what-have-you. They are becoming just a bunch of undisciplined hacks running around aimlessly, desperately needing some potty-training.
Thanks, Obama! Thanks for doing such a good job of representing our country as the magnificent land of opportunity and champion of the free world.
Encryption sounds nice until ISIS sympathizers shoot up 150 kindergarteners. I'm sure that day is coming. Maybe if it happens in Silicon Valley they'll have a change of heart.
Destroy the constitutional rights of 330 million people because some deranged criminals shoot some kids.
Tragic, but not the right response.
We need to punish the CRIMINALS, not the entire population of the USA. Like in gym class, "If nobody owns up to it, we will paddle you all!" (and they did)
But, oh, we need to take any right to privacy away from the entire nation so that we might avoid another similar shooting from a tiny, disturbed group of morons? Congratulations! Pick up your "I Voted Orwellian" T-shirt on the way out.
History will soon change. You can see the harbingers today.
I think the judge ordered Apple to help the FBI. Presumably the encryption is as stated: Apple actually has no back donor access and the brute forcing will take 5.5 years. Thus, Apple is in compliance by attesting to the former, and setting up the latter to run.
The intersting part would be if there was a claim that the former was not true. Could there be a requirement for Apple to turn over the source code? Or wait for it: the government take the OS via eminent domain? Yikes.
edit: brute forcing might not work. I'm not sure the judges order means "use any and all means at whatever cost." It may only mean provide tech information.
Encryption sounds nice until ISIS sympathizers shoot up 150 kindergarteners. I'm sure that day is coming. Maybe if it happens in Silicon Valley they'll have a change of heart.
1. I guess 150 is your magic number? When it was 22, it didn't seem enough to move the needle. 2. There are, by the US government's own estimates, a few 10 thousands of ISIS participants. Far fewer even of Al Queda. Not millions, unless you're math challenged. 3. Water boarding is settled law as torture. Torture is illegal. A discussion about efficacy doesn't even matter. 4. If Apple has a technical method to defeat encryption on a device and a court orders it to, the Apple must decrypt the device. There's at least some evidence they can do so, at least on some device models. No one seems to know for sure, but it doesn't change Apple's obligation if it has the means.
2. There are, by the US government's own estimates, a few 10 thousands of ISIS participants. Far fewer even of Al Queda. Not millions, unless you're math challenged.
Add in the sympathizers, and I believe that you easily get into the millions, if not tens of millions, or hundreds of millions.
I also believe that the US govt is understating the total number, just like they understate the unemployment figure. The current administration is not interested or capable of defeating ISIS, and it's in their interest to downplay the threat. Remember, the JV team and other ignorant nonsense and lies?
Waterboarding is not settled law and I certainly wouldn't define it as torture in the traditional sense. It will be brought back soon again, and at least one Presidential candidate has promised to bring it back.
Encryption sounds nice until ISIS sympathizers shoot up 150 kindergarteners. I'm sure that day is coming. Maybe if it happens in Silicon Valley they'll have a change of heart.
1. I guess 150 is your magic number? When it was 22, it didn't seem enough to move the needle. 2. There are, by the US government's own estimates, a few 10 thousands of ISIS participants. Far fewer even of Al Queda. Not millions, unless you're math challenged. 3. Water boarding is settled law as torture. Torture is illegal. A discussion about efficacy doesn't even matter. 4. If Apple has a technical method to defeat encryption on a device and a court orders it to, the Apple must decrypt the device. There's at least some evidence they can do so, at least on some device models. No one seems to know for sure, but it doesn't change Apple's obligation if it has the means.
You can get as many court orders as you like, but Apple cannot decrypt what they don't have and don't know.
As usual, politicians and spy agencies work to control and subvert our rights under the old "public safety" BS.
2. There are, by the US government's own estimates, a few 10 thousands of ISIS participants. Far fewer even of Al Queda. Not millions, unless you're math challenged.
Add in the sympathizers, and I believe that you easily get into the millions, if not tens of millions, or hundreds of millions.
I also believe that the US govt is understating the total number, just like they understate the unemployment figure. The current administration is not interested or capable of defeating ISIS, and it's in their interest to downplay the threat. Remember, the JV team and other ignorant nonsense and lies?
Waterboarding is not settled law and I certainly wouldn't define it as torture in the traditional sense. It will be brought back soon again, and at least one Presidential candidate has promised to bring it back.
I.m.o. the privacy solution that Apple implemented in its latest iOS is a clause embedded in the contractual agreement Apple signs with all its worldwide customers: "We Apple are selling you a special privacy "lock" that only you can unlock. But be careful because the privacy solution we implemented is such that we will not be technically able to help you unlock it, if you loose your chosen password."
So Apple is explicitly in the business of producing and selling a privacy solution that technically cannot be undone by Apple itself.
How can anyone, Government or not, order a company to act in a way that denies its own chosen business model, loose its distinctive added value, and downgrade itself to any other company producing privacy solutions that, on demand, might be undone?
Can a company producing medicines be legally ordered by anyone, Government or not, to perform R&D and produce a substance that kills?
Unless... a judge can order a company producing weapons and ammunitions to stop its production because such company cannot prevent its products to be used to kill also innocent people.
I sense a twisted logic separating two industries: a war industry allowed to produce weapons without limits, a peace industry forced to produce privacy solutions with "inevitable" limits and caps.
1. If the perpetrators have been caught and killed, you don't need the keys to their phones (since you obviously didn't need them to catch them). You're just looking to violate innocent people's privacy using it as an excuse to get what you want. (They didn't need the Boston bombers' phones to catch them either.) 2. Apple isn't in the business of removing encryption and shouldn't be expected to, unless the FBI wants to pay Apple a few million to establish an encryption removal business (and they shouldn't be able to break their secure software, if it's really secure). Perhaps the FBI doesn't understand what "secure" or "private" means. It means we feel secure in our privacy, because we are (thanks Apple). 3. This has nothing to do with terrorism and all to do with spying on innocent citizens. Perhaps someone should spy on those who want a backdoor and break their personal encryption, exposing them to the reality of unsafe phones. I'd like to see what that FBI director says after his phone is hacked and his data exposed. 4. Our phones carry much more personal data than reasonably required for any investigation. To look into some of our phones would be to peer into our heads. It could be said that our phones are our second brain or memory. Should we give them access to our thoughts simply because we record them on a phone? I don't think so. A lot of the information could be highly misinterpreted, and it has been in the past with innocent people. 5. If you think that because you've never committed a crime and never will, you shouldn't worry about the government spying on you because "you have nothing to hide", think again. It's all great until you get convicted of a crime you didn't commit. Ask any of the innocents released this year, one of them after 12 years in jail.
Two of our founding fathers said it best: Benjamin Franklin: “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” Thomas Jefferson: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." (Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.)
It's somehow comforting to know that nether the federal government nor Apple can hack into my phone. That's the way it should be. We just need to find other ways to fight terrorism that do not jeopardize the privacy of millions of Americans. Apple is taking the correct stance on this issue in my opinion.
I guess you don't understand the reason terrorism exists then.
In the link to the Washington Post (and this should have been mentioned in the main Appleinsider article, as it's significant, in my opinion) it also says:
"FBI Supervisory Special Agent Christopher Pluhar stated in a declaration that he was able to obtain from Apple all the data backed up to its iCloud servers from the phone"
Does this mean:
1) Apple cooperated with this without fighting this, or 2) there is no way they can fight this according to current law..
Morality is of course irrelevant to the discusion, as what is immoral to one person, might be moral to another. Some people might find porn to be immoral, while others are perfectly ok with it. Homosexuality is immoral in the eyes of some people for example.
I have long been a supporter of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques, and I find that position to be morally acceptable and I sleep just fine at night.
The legality of it is also not a closed issue, and there are those who are working to bring it back, as it is unwise to not use it in cases where it might be necessary. There is no good reason to throw away a perfectly good tool that you might happen to have in your toolbox, especially since it just might be the most effective tool for the job that you have.
The title states that the iPhone belongs to the terrorist lowlife, but is that really accurate, because later on in the article, it states that it is the county that owns the iPhone.
I suppose that it was a work phone, given to the terrorist by their employer, which they were using but didn't technically personally own?
yeah, if that is the case, the county really needs a better device management system, and it is their implementation at fault for this lack of access.
Government screwing up data management, surprise? no, just business as usual.
Now would be a great time for all those asshat security “researchers” who claim OS X and iOS are riddled with security holes and are “child’s play” to hack into to put up or shut up. You say it’s easy to get into an iPhone? Then call the FBI and tell them how to do it. Otherwise you people are blathering hypocritical nincompoops.
If iOS / OS X was so secure that it had NOTHNG to worry about, don't you think the government and the rest of the world would switch instantly?
the same government that allows the secretary of state to operate a home email server for official state business?
no, i do not think the government would ever switch. i would almost expect a rider that would specifically disallow the switch stuck in some congressional bill about corn subsidies...
Judge orders Apple to hand over live unicorn or face penalties. The world waits with baited breath.
Exactly. It is quite amazing that this judge clearly has zero comprehension of the subject. It's one thing ( IMHO stupidly) for demands Apple add a back door in the future but this judge, as you say, may as well be asking for a unicorn! What is scary is he sits as a judge and is so uneducated on modern technology. Then again I just read (and please no one derail this thread) that even though almost 100% of climate scientists agree on anthropogenic climate change over half the science teachers in the USA don't seem to and either teach it isn't true or use false equivalence by giving equal weight to ignorant denial theories. So the USA is turning out high school kids who may as well be being taught the earth is flat!
Comments
I mentioned something about that earlier in the thread. Apparently, that's not possible and somebody posted a link.
This is going to be a mess for a while... appeals, many other cases, etc. This is an issue that will be raked through the media and has strong potential to make it to the supreme court.
So how is this going to end? Two things are going to happen:
1. Apple is going to be seen as the vanguard of privacy, of human rights. The white knight who did what was right and, despite all the mud-slinging from the Orwellian "security hawks," they will do what is necessary and advanced unscathed toward the goals that they have had meticulously planned for the last decade.
2. The US Government is going to be further marginalized, less the One World Superpower and more the whining little bitches that throw a tantrum if they don't get what they want. So much for the mysterious, omnipotent FBI/NSA/what-have-you. They are becoming just a bunch of undisciplined hacks running around aimlessly, desperately needing some potty-training.
Thanks, Obama! Thanks for doing such a good job of representing our country as the magnificent land of opportunity and champion of the free world.
Tragic, but not the right response.
We need to punish the CRIMINALS, not the entire population of the USA. Like in gym class, "If nobody owns up to it, we will paddle you all!" (and they did)
But, oh, we need to take any right to privacy away from the entire nation so that we might avoid another similar shooting from a tiny, disturbed group of morons? Congratulations! Pick up your "I Voted Orwellian" T-shirt on the way out.
History will soon change. You can see the harbingers today.
The intersting part would be if there was a claim that the former was not true. Could there be a requirement for Apple to turn over the source code? Or wait for it: the government take the OS via eminent domain? Yikes.
edit: brute forcing might not work. I'm not sure the judges order means "use any and all means at whatever cost." It may only mean provide tech information.
2. There are, by the US government's own estimates, a few 10 thousands of ISIS participants. Far fewer even of Al Queda. Not millions, unless you're math challenged.
3. Water boarding is settled law as torture. Torture is illegal. A discussion about efficacy doesn't even matter.
4. If Apple has a technical method to defeat encryption on a device and a court orders it to, the Apple must decrypt the device. There's at least some evidence they can do so, at least on some device models. No one seems to know for sure, but it doesn't change Apple's obligation if it has the means.
I also believe that the US govt is understating the total number, just like they understate the unemployment figure. The current administration is not interested or capable of defeating ISIS, and it's in their interest to downplay the threat. Remember, the JV team and other ignorant nonsense and lies?
Waterboarding is not settled law and I certainly wouldn't define it as torture in the traditional sense. It will be brought back soon again, and at least one Presidential candidate has promised to bring it back.
As usual, politicians and spy agencies work to control and subvert our rights under the old "public safety" BS.
So Apple is explicitly in the business of producing and selling a privacy solution that technically cannot be undone by Apple itself. How can anyone, Government or not, order a company to act in a way that denies its own chosen business model, loose its distinctive added value, and downgrade itself to any other company producing privacy solutions that, on demand, might be undone? Can a company producing medicines be legally ordered by anyone, Government or not, to perform R&D and produce a substance that kills?
Unless... a judge can order a company producing weapons and ammunitions to stop its production because such company cannot prevent its products to be used to kill also innocent people.
I sense a twisted logic separating two industries: a war industry allowed to produce weapons without limits, a peace industry forced to produce privacy solutions with "inevitable" limits and caps.
2. Apple isn't in the business of removing encryption and shouldn't be expected to, unless the FBI wants to pay Apple a few million to establish an encryption removal business (and they shouldn't be able to break their secure software, if it's really secure). Perhaps the FBI doesn't understand what "secure" or "private" means. It means we feel secure in our privacy, because we are (thanks Apple).
3. This has nothing to do with terrorism and all to do with spying on innocent citizens. Perhaps someone should spy on those who want a backdoor and break their personal encryption, exposing them to the reality of unsafe phones. I'd like to see what that FBI director says after his phone is hacked and his data exposed.
4. Our phones carry much more personal data than reasonably required for any investigation. To look into some of our phones would be to peer into our heads. It could be said that our phones are our second brain or memory. Should we give them access to our thoughts simply because we record them on a phone? I don't think so. A lot of the information could be highly misinterpreted, and it has been in the past with innocent people.
5. If you think that because you've never committed a crime and never will, you shouldn't worry about the government spying on you because "you have nothing to hide", think again. It's all great until you get convicted of a crime you didn't commit. Ask any of the innocents released this year, one of them after 12 years in jail.
Two of our founding fathers said it best:
Benjamin Franklin: “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Thomas Jefferson: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." (Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.)
Just pondering...
"FBI Supervisory Special Agent Christopher Pluhar stated in a declaration that he was able to obtain from Apple all the data backed up to its iCloud servers from the phone"
Does this mean:
1) Apple cooperated with this without fighting this, or
2) there is no way they can fight this according to current law..
Also, does it mean that iCloud security (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303) is not as stated and there is a backdoor?
I have long been a supporter of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques, and I find that position to be morally acceptable and I sleep just fine at night.
The legality of it is also not a closed issue, and there are those who are working to bring it back, as it is unwise to not use it in cases where it might be necessary. There is no good reason to throw away a perfectly good tool that you might happen to have in your toolbox, especially since it just might be the most effective tool for the job that you have.
Government screwing up data management, surprise? no, just business as usual.
the same government that allows the secretary of state to operate a home email server for official state business?
no, i do not think the government would ever switch.
i would almost expect a rider that would specifically disallow the switch stuck in some congressional bill about corn subsidies...