One iPhone is all iPhones. Whether it’s the data’s encryption itself or forcibly bypassing the 10-tries-then-wipe system, if it applies to one, it applies to all.
The guy revoked his constitutional coverage when he did what he did, of course, but since it affects US citizens, there’s a hard line drawn here.
If I'm not mistaken, the White House is Obama, so I'm waiting to read all of the Obama bashing soon that will be in this thread.
You asked for it, you got it.
Attention, Democrats! YOUR president has a worse record than even George W. Bush with regard to the protection of our constitutional guarantees. He is openly hostile to the foundational principles of this country and has openly violated his sworn oath.
Give a break bud, everyone in washington sucked and still suck on this matter; trying to take a higher ground doesn't work with me at all. The patriot act was signed while your POS Bushie boy was in office and implemented on his watch, Obama and everyone intelligence in Washington knew what was happening and condoned it after he left office (GOP and democrats), nobody's innocent; so spare me the pap about degrees of shityness. They all smell like garbage; there is nowhere to run...
When Apple develop a new iOS version, I would hope they devote a lot of effort to testing and debugging. If ultimately ordered to do this by a court, I would imagine there would be no financial incentive to devote the same level of resources to doing such testing.
It would be quite tragic if the there was an unforseen glitch in the hack-OS that wiped the phone. Whoops - sorry.
Didn't Apple say it was impossible to break into the latest iPhones and iOS ?
But if it has the touch entry, hasn't the FBI tried the touch of that dead terrorist's fingers.
I recall when a well know top end car had a touch function to start it, thieves who took over a few of those cars from the owners, cut off a few fingers so they could leave the owner at the roadside.
They could if they could somehow retrofit a 5C with Touch ID.....
But it's OK to ask Apple to put a whole lot of resource into solving this one single phone problem. I'm sure it would only be this one iPhone. No other ones. Honest. Would we lie to you ? After the US DoJ went after Apple so evenhandedly over the old iBooks thing and all I'm sure Apple are only too keen to help.
Glad you brought this up. I have a suggestion for Apple and a way to help the FBI. The FBI gives the iPhone to Apple and lets Apple figure out a way to unlock it, then gives the data back to the FBI. In return for this one-time favor (haha), the court system backs off of Apple, reverses the eBook fiasco, then goes after Amazon, which they should have done in the first place. They can also institute an inquiry into all the corrupt judges in this country who are obviously not doing their jobs correctly.
Of course, this would never happen.
"I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine."
I think Apple needs to go a bit further. We will do it and give you the data if: reverse the eBook thing, pay the cost of the process in salary to the thousands of Apple employees that will be needed, over the period of a year that it will take, and allow all foreign funds for Apple to come into the US tax free for the next ten years.
Didn't Apple say it was impossible to break into the latest iPhones and iOS ?
But if it has the touch entry, hasn't the FBI tried the touch of that dead terrorist's fingers.
I recall when a well know top end car had a touch function to start it, thieves who took over a few of those cars from the owners, cut off a few fingers so they could leave the owner at the roadside.
That sounds like an urban myth. If a thief threatens to cut your finger off if you don't cooperate, what idiot would not cooperate? Especially if all they want is your car.
White House says FBI wants access to one iPhone, not blanket backdoor from Apple
That's true. The FBI and the Federal Government only want access to one iPhone AT A TIME!
Not to worry. What could go wrong?
Remember: Vote Democrat; Early and Often For more lunacy like this.
What could go wrong? I usually don't respond to users with a few posts... But this is one time exception. Once the hackable piece of software is created, FBI can demand Apple to surrender it based on Patriot Act. For now, Apple can't do that because that software doesn't exist. Once, it's created, every government in the world can demand the same thing. Beside, gaining access to this phone is nothing important to FBI. They just try to leverage this sensitive case to put their agenda forward. They have been talking about this issue for years now. The question is: if you are a terrorist, would you put your plans in a phone or computer which can easily be accessed by government in case you're arrested or you secretly save it somewhere else? The phone is subscribed thru Verizon and the computer is networked thru 1 of major internet providers. Are you stupid enough to put your plans in those devices? Use your brain sonetimes, would you?
If I'm not mistaken, the White House is Obama, so I'm waiting to read all of the Obama bashing soon that will be in this thread.
Oh the poor Obama bashing. Which is a tiny fraction of the BUSH and Family bashing that was going on. I wasn't a big fan of BUSH as he is a huge RINO, but the bashing to family was taking it to a whole new level. Sarah Palin and Her family. Talking about getting attacked!!! In fact still does.
So this is how Liberty dies. Perhaps not with thunderous applause, but with providing the government with the keys to every home in the nation!
Unfortunately yes. Especially when special interests, politics, money, and hysteria is involved. Two hundred plus years of freedom built on the sacrificial lives of millions of patriots is thrown out the window for contemporary paranoia and government laziness. Interesting to see the same presidential candidates refusing to consider even the most trivial of purchase controls on gunpowder fueled devices that have been used on many occasions to slaughter innocent children and civilians while at the same time trivializing the loss of personal freedom from spying by government agencies on its own citizens. Pure laziness, greed, and elitism by the political powers to enforce their personal will on those whom they view as their "subjects." Sad.
Also blame the citizenry! Political "leaders" respond to public backlash. If there is no negative feedback, there is nothing the average power hungry politician can exploit, so they simply respond to whichever forces will advance their personal power quest the quickest.
... Once the US government says that a U.S. court has the power to demand this, then the European courts will say that it applies to them, too. And then the Russian courts. And the Chinese courts. And Saudi Arabian courts. And Iranian courts. And, of course, the government security agencies won't leave it alone.
That is the reason the CEO points to All Wrlts Act... Bypassing the Congress by means of writs... substituting lawmakers with writ makers...
This is simply the way the Judicial branch operates -- and has since the birth of the nation. It doesn't bypass Congress. The Act itself (passed by Congress) stipulates that said writs must be "agreeable to the usages and principles of law".
Well...That's always how it starts. One phone. One case. Then another. And another. Apple said yes to those, now it can't draw the line anywhere and say no if the requests become more spurious, which will happen as law enforcement becomes used to their new iPhone unlocking powers. Other governments will want their access requests filled under the laws of their countries, and this can be used against dissidents or critics of authoritarian regimes (like China). Where do you draw the line, once this train gets moving?
The answer is: here and now. You take a stand here and now, on this case and this phone.
That's inane. They still need court orders. They can bust doors open, but they don't go around busting down doors on a whim.
That's naive of you. How many times has law inforcement got a court order for a wrong address or used "extraordinary circumstances" as an excuse to enter/search.
Where does it end. Today is "terrorism", tomorrow it's "traffic stop".
Such a software does NOT exist today and can you, the gov't, force us Apple to write it? That is the point...
As a matter of law, I don't think there's much doubt that they can force Apple to do it. The debate is over policy -- should they force them to do it?
I don't think it is a given that they can. What they are asking for requires something that does not exist. Is it a matter of proven law that a judge can direct a company to make something at their whim?
Then there are matters of cost. What if Apple says that the cost of doing all this development work would be $70M and the opportunity cost, given diversion of resources from the iP7 launch, was $5B, can a judge require a company to go to any lengths and costs to satisfy the FBI's wants, especially given there is no one facing trial and this is just a fishing expedition unrelated to any known suspects or on-going criminal cases?
That's inane. They still need court orders. They can bust doors open, but they don't go around busting down doors on a whim.
That's naive of you. How many times has law inforcement got a court order for a wrong address or used "extraordinary circumstances" as an excuse to enter/search.
Where does it end. Today is "terrorism", tomorrow it's "traffic stop".
But your argument is also naive. This isn't an all or nothing proposition. No organization is immune to failure or abuse. That doesn't mean that anarchy is the only acceptable solution. A system of checks and balances can reign in the most egregious abuses and still allow a level of protection. Perfect? Not by a long shot. Needed? That's a political discussion that we're having right now.
The truth is that this is more of a commercial threat to Apple than a threat to freedom in the US. If Apple complies they can expect to either give in to requests from China or to be banned from the China market. Either way they lose trust and brand credibility. Their motivation for this fight is not all about protecting citizens. It's also about preserving shareholder value. So take both the FBI's comments and Tim Cook's with a grain of salt. They both have an angle they want to spin.
As a matter of law, I don't think there's much doubt that they can force Apple to do it. The debate is over policy -- should they force them to do it?
I don't think it is a given that they can. What they are asking for requires something that does not exist. Is it a matter of proven law that a judge can direct a company to make something at their whim?
Then there are matters of cost. What if Apple says that the cost of doing all this development work would be $70M and the opportunity cost, given diversion of resources from the iP7 launch, was $5B, can a judge require a company to go to any lengths and costs to satisfy the FBI's wants, especially given there is no one facing trial and this is just a fishing expedition unrelated to any known suspects or on-going criminal cases?
I'm sorry but this happens ALL THE TIME. For example companies were compelled to spend billions to build systems to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley. There is no question that the government has the power to do this.
I don't think it is a given that they can. What they are asking for requires something that does not exist. Is it a matter of proven law that a judge can direct a company to make something at their whim?
Then there are matters of cost. What if Apple says that the cost of doing all this development work would be $70M and the opportunity cost, given diversion of resources from the iP7 launch, was $5B, can a judge require a company to go to any lengths and costs to satisfy the FBI's wants, especially given there is no one facing trial and this is just a fishing expedition unrelated to any known suspects or on-going criminal cases?
I'm sorry but this happens ALL THE TIME. For example companies were compelled to spend billions to build systems to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley. There is no question that the government has the power to do this.
Isn't that a different case, though, as that is complying with explicit legislation whereas I am wondering about the limits on what a judge can order a company to do, particularly in a case where there is no case. There is no one facing prosecution, the FBI have no cause, and there might be nothing more to discover than a shopping list.
I'm sorry but this happens ALL THE TIME. For example companies were compelled to spend billions to build systems to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley. There is no question that the government has the power to do this.
Isn't that a different case, though, as that is complying with explicit legislation whereas I am wondering about the limits on what a judge can order a company to do, particularly in a case where there is no case. There is no one facing prosecution, the FBI have no cause, and there might be nothing more to discover than a shopping list.
It might be different -- I'm no lawyer. But judges seem to have a lot of latitude when it comes to moving an investigation along.
Oh and I would highly dispute that the FBI has no cause. The fact that the phone belonged to a murderer who carried out a terrorist attack seems like enough. You wouldn't argue that the FBI has no cause to read a written diary would you?
So does this prove that a 4-digit passcode is strong enough, so long as you set it to wipe after 10 attempts? No need for 6 digits or more complex passcode?
Comments
The guy revoked his constitutional coverage when he did what he did, of course, but since it affects US citizens, there’s a hard line drawn here.
The patriot act was signed while your POS Bushie boy was in office and implemented on his watch, Obama and everyone intelligence in Washington knew what was happening and condoned it after he left office (GOP and democrats), nobody's innocent; so spare me the pap about degrees of shityness. They all smell like garbage; there is nowhere to run...
It would be quite tragic if the there was an unforseen glitch in the hack-OS that wiped the phone. Whoops - sorry.
An attentive reading 3 last paragraphes of the next article on Ars Technica sheds a different light on the attemps of the FBI and secret services
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/nsas-director-says-paris-attacks-would-not-have-happened-without-crypto/
If you want to beat a dog, a baton is easily found.
i haven't been able to find any confirmation that it actually *worked*
And the Constitution has probably had many a finer scholar who don't suck at thier jobs
Once the hackable piece of software is created, FBI can demand Apple to surrender it based on Patriot Act. For now, Apple can't do that because that software doesn't exist. Once, it's created, every government in the world can demand the same thing. Beside, gaining access to this phone is nothing important to FBI. They just try to leverage this sensitive case to put their agenda forward. They have been talking about this issue for years now.
The question is: if you are a terrorist, would you put your plans in a phone or computer which can easily be accessed by government in case you're arrested or you secretly save it somewhere else? The phone is subscribed thru Verizon and the computer is networked thru 1 of major internet providers. Are you stupid enough to put your plans in those devices? Use your brain sonetimes, would you?
This is simply the way the Judicial branch operates -- and has since the birth of the nation. It doesn't bypass Congress. The Act itself (passed by Congress) stipulates that said writs must be "agreeable to the usages and principles of law".
Where does it end. Today is "terrorism", tomorrow it's "traffic stop".
Then there are matters of cost. What if Apple says that the cost of doing all this development work would be $70M and the opportunity cost, given diversion of resources from the iP7 launch, was $5B, can a judge require a company to go to any lengths and costs to satisfy the FBI's wants, especially given there is no one facing trial and this is just a fishing expedition unrelated to any known suspects or on-going criminal cases?
The truth is that this is more of a commercial threat to Apple than a threat to freedom in the US. If Apple complies they can expect to either give in to requests from China or to be banned from the China market. Either way they lose trust and brand credibility. Their motivation for this fight is not all about protecting citizens. It's also about preserving shareholder value. So take both the FBI's comments and Tim Cook's with a grain of salt. They both have an angle they want to spin.
Oh and I would highly dispute that the FBI has no cause. The fact that the phone belonged to a murderer who carried out a terrorist attack seems like enough. You wouldn't argue that the FBI has no cause to read a written diary would you?