Apple's opposition to backdoors in FBI case gains global, animated attention

Posted:
in iPhone edited February 2016
Digital animators in Taiwan have turned the legal case between Apple and the FBI into an animated movie short that clearly depicts key details and potential ramifications of the issue that even many industry pundits have had trouble grasping.


Source: TomoNews


Next Media Animation, a satirical group of CGI animators located in Taipei, comically portrayed the FBI as a group monkeys unable crack into an iPhone that belonged to one of the San Bernardino shooters for TomoNews
"The cheese stands alone," the video subtitles of the Taiwanese language clip state, portraying the corporate logos of Google and Microsoft rotating around a block of cheese followed by a monkey representing the FBI.

"Well more like the Apple," it continues, noting that in an open letter published on Wednesday, Apple's chief executive Tim Cook "vowed to fight a court order" requiring Apple to "develop a new version of iOS that lets the Feds bypass security settings in order to rapidly 'brute force' a series of password guesses to unlock its encryption."

It portrays iOS as being locked in a safe behind laser beams and several retractable walls, then depicts a master key to allow the FBI to access any data within it. "Basically, law enforcement wants Apple to give them a backdoor."

The video then references Cook's remarks that "in the wrong hands, this software -- which does not exist today -- would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone's physical possession."


Source: TomoNews


In the video, the FBI monkeys leave the master key behind, where it's picked up by a thief dressed up like the McDonalds' Hamburglar (above).

"Apple's stance in defense of privacy and civil liberties," the video continues, "is not only important in the U.S. If Apple caves to the FBI's demands, think of what crappy governments like Saudi Arabia, or even worse, China would do with that power!"


Source: TomoNews


Two skits then portray a man in Saudi Arabia using a master key to pull data from another man on his knees, who is subsequently beheaded (above), followed a bear symbolizing the People's Republic of China, which wields the key to extract files from four iPhone users who are then machined gunned to death (below).


Source: TomoNews


Many just don't get it



"I think Apple should help the FBI get into terrorists' phones!" wrote Nellie Bowles in an editorial for the Guardian.

"I've already given up on all pretense of privacy by putting an always listening Amazon Echo in my bedroom (good morning, Jeff Bezos)," she wrote, "which I'm sure the NSA could tap into whenever it wanted. So in the same way I'd argue we legalize drugs, why not have a careful, legal pathway to break into a phone?""You can leave your door unlocked if you want, but do locksmiths have to make lousy doors for everybody?" -Bruce Schneier

After paragraphs of uninformed opinions often bizarrely phrased as questions, ("this is a phone built before Apple sealed off its 'back door,' so how much of a precedent can it set?" among them), Bowles then presented the opinions of knowledgeable experts.

That included cryptographer Bruce Schneier, who asked, "You can leave your door unlocked if you want, but do locksmiths have to make lousy doors for everybody?"

That same day, Spencer Ackerman reported for the same publication that "Authoritarian governments including Russia and China will demand greater access to mobile data should Apple lose a watershed encryption case brought by the FBI, leading technology analysts, privacy experts and legislators have warned."

Writing for the New York Times today, Nick Wingfield And Mike Isaac noted a "muted tech industry response" from Apple's peers, citing a mealymouthed series of tweets by Google's chief executive Sundar Pichai and noting that, "asked about Apple's opposition to the court order, representatives of Microsoft, Twitter and Facebook declined to comment. A spokesman for Amazon, which is not in the coalition, also declined to comment."
brakkenRayz2016
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 33
    ceek74ceek74 Posts: 324member
    My fav part "...by a thief dressed up like the McDonalds' Cheeseburger (above)"  HA HA HA
  • Reply 2 of 33
    ceek74 said:
    My fav part "...by a thief dressed up like the McDonalds' Cheeseburger (above)"  HA HA HA


    I think they mean Hamburglar, don't they? The guy who steals the cheeseburgers?

    Edit: Thanks for fixing the article!

    edited February 2016 suddenly newton
  • Reply 3 of 33
    Woz, who I generally don't care for, was interviewed via telephone on CNBC today. He was masterful in his defense of not creating any backdoor and all the things that could go wrong if it was done. He was also masterful in not allowing the anchors to manipulate his responses or back him into corners to force answers they wanted to hear. Truly brilliant. I have a new found respect for him.
    numenorean
  • Reply 4 of 33
    Ridiculous short sighted paranoia .. Unlocking a phone by a court order is not the same as a back door…. Or conpromising an activly encrypted phone when in use. Plus Government can search my home with the proper court order. The most privet place to me . Government can tap my land line with court order. And has for decades with proper court order. Government can confiscate my computets with proper court order and search the HD… ( iphone is a pocket computer ) This is not an either or case …… Its way more complex and consequential to just leave it in hands of dogmatic idealism . Creat the proper provisions and everyone wins. Times changes… so should we… … Thats fundimental to survival. In the meanwhile apple is loving the Publicity .. ;)……. It may even all be by design …..(. After all its months we have been screaming for apple PR to wake up)..lol
  • Reply 5 of 33
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,613member
    tommikele said:
    He was also masterful in not allowing the anchors to manipulate his responses or back him into corners to force answers they wanted to hear.
    Generally, when Woz has gotten backed into rhetorical corners, he usually got there on his own. :-)
    macky the mackyJanNL
  • Reply 6 of 33
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,329member
    It sure is a nice spectacle; others keep silent because nothing can be gained.

    Every one knows that Microsoft doesn't even know what a customer is, let alone that the universe has the concept of consumer (human) rights. Facebook and Google are preying on their users, and thus completely oblivious of any concept of privacy.

    Of course Apple had it coming, by positioning its systems as a truly safe alternative.
    It was just a matter of time before the first incident (especially in the U.S.A).
    lostkiwisuddenly newtonargonautbrakkentdknox
  • Reply 7 of 33
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,653member
    What did I write the other day?

    This whole thing has been a great advertisement for Apple. I briefly visited a few other forums that are usually not in favor of Apple and that are heavily populated by Fandroids, and most of them were in support of Apple's stance, with some of them going so far as to mentioning that they would now be getting iPhones.
    edited February 2016 lostkiwisuddenly newtonlatifbp
  • Reply 8 of 33
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,587member
    Ridiculous short sighted paranoia .. Unlocking a phone by a court order is not the same as a back door…. Or conpromising an activly encrypted phone when in use. Plus Government can search my home with the proper court order. The most privet place to me . Government can tap my land line with court order. And has for decades with proper court order. Government can confiscate my computets with proper court order and search the HD… ( iphone is a pocket computer ) This is not an either or case …… Its way more complex and consequential to just leave it in hands of dogmatic idealism . Creat the proper provisions and everyone wins. Times changes… so should we… … Thats fundimental to survival. In the meanwhile apple is loving the Publicity .. ;)……. It may even all be by design …..(. After all its months we have been screaming for apple PR to wake up)..lol
    How clueless can you possibly be. You obviously have no understanding of what is going on. Apple is most definitely being asked, nay, required to build a back door, which does not exist, by a federal judge. Such a back door would create a situation where any legal entity or government, wether good or bad, could demand the same. Further, this would most certainly eventually be abused for illegal hacks. The government can't even protect their own data - why in the world would we give them access to ours, and open up a vulnerability to hacks. We are spending 10's of BILLIONS of dollars a year on national security. Let them do their job with the tools they have.
    lostkiwijfc1138kamiltontdknoxRayz2016JanNL
  • Reply 9 of 33
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,653member
    NVM. delete.
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 10 of 33
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,692member
    Ridiculous short sighted paranoia .. Unlocking a phone by a court order is not the same as a back door…. Or conpromising an activly encrypted phone when in use. Plus Government can search my home with the proper court order. The most privet place to me . Government can tap my land line with court order. And has for decades with proper court order. Government can confiscate my computets with proper court order and search the HD… ( iphone is a pocket computer ) This is not an either or case …… Its way more complex and consequential to just leave it in hands of dogmatic idealism . Creat the proper provisions and everyone wins. Times changes… so should we… … Thats fundimental to survival. In the meanwhile apple is loving the Publicity .. ;)……. It may even all be by design …..(. After all its months we have been screaming for apple PR to wake up)..lol
    Wrong. Apple doesn't have an existing tool to open access for the FBI. They want Apple to create such a tool and install it on the phone. 

    It's like the FBI wants you to create a special door in your house for only them. Would you do that?
  • Reply 11 of 33
    Ridiculous short sighted paranoia .. Unlocking a phone by a court order is not the same as a back door…. Or conpromising an activly encrypted phone when in use. Plus Government can search my home with the proper court order. The most privet place to me . Government can tap my land line with court order. And has for decades with proper court order. Government can confiscate my computets with proper court order and search the HD… ( iphone is a pocket computer ) This is not an either or case …… Its way more complex and consequential to just leave it in hands of dogmatic idealism . Creat the proper provisions and everyone wins. Times changes… so should we… … Thats fundimental to survival. In the meanwhile apple is loving the Publicity .. ……. It may even all be by design …..(. After all its months we have been screaming for apple PR to wake up)..lol
    Hi Yojimbo, I believe what the other posters are trying to say in their responses is: did you actually watch the video linked above? It should preclude most of what you are saying in your post. 

    In the big picture, there is a lot at stake here. 

    Cheers
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 12 of 33
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    jungmark said:
    Ridiculous short sighted paranoia .. Unlocking a phone by a court order is not the same as a back door…. Or conpromising an activly encrypted phone when in use. Plus Government can search my home with the proper court order. The most privet place to me . Government can tap my land line with court order. And has for decades with proper court order. Government can confiscate my computets with proper court order and search the HD… ( iphone is a pocket computer ) This is not an either or case …… Its way more complex and consequential to just leave it in hands of dogmatic idealism . Creat the proper provisions and everyone wins. Times changes… so should we… … Thats fundimental to survival. In the meanwhile apple is loving the Publicity .. ……. It may even all be by design …..(. After all its months we have been screaming for apple PR to wake up)..lol
    Wrong. Apple doesn't have an existing tool to open access for the FBI. They want Apple to create such a tool and install it on the phone. 

    It's like the FBI wants you to create a special door in your house for only them. Would you do that?
    And almost unfortunately that may allow higher courts an out, they can simply decide the 1789 All Writs Act doesn't allow a magistrate to order Apple to do that. And leave privacy and security for another day and not jerk the leash of the FBI at all.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1651

    Higher courts do love their narrow rulings....
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 13 of 33
    Ridiculous short sighted paranoia .. Unlocking a phone by a court order is not the same as a back door…. Or conpromising an activly encrypted phone when in use. Plus Government can search my home with the proper court order. The most privet place to me . Government can tap my land line with court order. And has for decades with proper court order. Government can confiscate my computets with proper court order and search the HD… ( iphone is a pocket computer ) This is not an either or case …… Its way more complex and consequential to just leave it in hands of dogmatic idealism . Creat the proper provisions and everyone wins. Times changes… so should we… … Thats fundimental to survival. In the meanwhile apple is loving the Publicity .. ……. It may even all be by design …..(. After all its months we have been screaming for apple PR to wake up)..lol
    A person could have their iPhone seized by authorities, but if it is protected by a password and not their fingerprint, law enforcement is powerless to force the person to provide that password. Law enforcement and the government cannot force a person to self-incriminate. 
    edited February 2016 latifbp
  • Reply 14 of 33
    bbhbbh Posts: 70member
    It looks like everybody is missing something pretty incredible here. The government wants to essentially trash privacy forever on a one time fishing trip. This is just so unbalanced to even rate a discussion of "National Security" (what hogwash...) against personal privacy.
    brakkenlatifbpbadmonk
  • Reply 15 of 33
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,054moderator
    DED, I wish you, or someone with as large a voice on all things Apple, would paint for the world the really big picture represented by this situation.  Here's my take on that...

    There's already a brain scanning technique that can determine if you've previously seen an image that you are shown a picture of.  Future law enforcement might wish to use this to show a suspect a picture of a murder scene, to determine whether the suspect's brain registers recognition and therefore provides evidence the suspect was at the murder scene.  Interesting, from a scientific standpoint, but scary from the point of view of privacy. 

    The notion that data inside our brains might be available for inspection is going to one day be a public policy debate. Better to start that debate now, with our mobile phones and the very personal data they encrypt, acting as a proxy for our minds. I know which side of that debate I fall on; a person should have the right to private thoughts, those he/she chooses not to share with the world. 

    The fact that some of our thoughts are held in silicon rather than our neurons should make little difference.  I say our personal devices should be seen as an extension of our minds, sacrosanct from forced inspection.

    When that future comes, the precedents we set today will be used as a proxy for how government will decide their rights to access the information within our very minds.
    ai46tdknox
  • Reply 16 of 33
    Hey, Apple create 2 versions of your next operating system. 

    The first version would be the one with the eventual government-mandated backdoor, let us call this the less secure version. This would be the version that ships on every iPhone. 

    The second version of the OS would be a downloadable security version with the same mostly unbreakable features found in the current OS 9. 

    Solution Solved.
  • Reply 17 of 33
    Alright, stay with me here. Why can't the FBI give Apple the phone, tell them...."Hey Apple, this is what we want." Apple does their thing behind closed doors without the FBI being involved at all, providing the required data, returning the phone back to the FBI in its exact state before they had it? In no way will the FBI be using a hacked back door. Can't they (Apple) just provide the data? I guess the thing everyone is hung up on is the precedent this would set for the gov to pull this many times. All they would have to do is site this case.
    edited February 2016 radarthekat
  • Reply 18 of 33
    If you have not signed the petition to the White House they need 100,000 signatures by 3/18/16. Here's the link: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/apple-privacy-petition
    badmonk
  • Reply 19 of 33
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,975member
    DED, I wish you, or someone with as large a voice on all things Apple, would paint for the world the really big picture represented by this situation.  Here's my take on that...

    There's already a brain scanning technique that can determine if you've previously seen an image that you are shown a picture of.  Future law enforcement might wish to use this to show a suspect a picture of a murder scene, to determine whether the suspect's brain registers recognition and therefore provides evidence the suspect was at the murder scene.  Interesting, from a scientific standpoint, but scary from the point of view of privacy. 

    The notion that data inside our brains might be available for inspection is going to one day be a public policy debate. Better to start that debate now, with our mobile phones and the very personal data they encrypt, acting as a proxy for our minds. I know which side of that debate I fall on; a person should have the right to private thoughts, those he/she chooses not to share with the world. 

    The fact that some of our thoughts are held in silicon rather than our neurons should make little difference.  I say our personal devices should be seen as an extension of our minds, sacrosanct from forced inspection.

    When that future comes, the precedents we set today will be used as a proxy for how government will decide their rights to access the information within our very minds.
    The lie detectors can do this long time ago. 
  • Reply 20 of 33
    kkerst said:
    Alright, stay with me here. Why can't the FBI give Apple the phone, tell them...."Hey Apple, this is what we want." Apple does their thing behind closed doors without the FBI being involved at all, providing the required data, returning the phone back to the FBI in its exact state before they had it? In no way will the FBI be using a hacked back door. Can't they (Apple) just provide the data? I guess the thing everyone is hung up on is the precedent this would set for the gov to pull this many times. All they would have to do is site this case.
    Good idea, however what wrong with getting the info from the CIA and NSA?  I thought they had adequately invaded everyone's communications, especially a couple of Muslims just back from the mid-east.
Sign In or Register to comment.