rob53: I would rather Apple handle all of the data extraction too, and I would rather they pull data from phones confiscated from dead terrorists instead of fighting for the rights of dead terrorists. The bit about hackers is off key though. Not all hackers are out to do harm, and the ones the FBI went to are probably of the Gray variety.
Apparently Apple believes the privacy of dead terrorists is more important than the privacy of dead children.
Apple are not hacking the phone they are recovering data from a damaged phone. It is likely that the parents know the passwords to the phone or iCloud account if used, it's a pretty sick and callous person who would take glee in the death of children to further their agenda against Apple.
Apparently Apple believes the privacy of dead terrorists is more important than the privacy of dead children.
Apple are not hacking the phone they are recovering data from a damaged phone. It is likely that the parents know the passwords to the phone or iCloud account if used, it's a pretty sick and callous person who would take glee in the death of children to further their agenda against Apple.
I take no glee in this whatsoever and I hope that Apple will do whatever they can to help the situation.
Apparently Apple believes the privacy of dead terrorists is more important than the privacy of dead children.
If you had a clue, you would know that "privacy" was never an issue. If it were, Apple would not have turned over all the data they had on the terrorist that was in their servers. Plus the iPhone belong to the government and the terrorist never had any privacy when using this work issued phone. Apple was more than willing to help access the data in this iPhone by seeing if they could force a backup of the data in the iPhone into their server. But the FBI saw to it that that was not possible, by changing the password.
The issue was whether the FBI had the right to use the courts to force Apple to create special software for the FBI, that will enable the FBI to break the encryption on this iPhone. Software that the FBI might be able to use to invade the privacy of all iPhone users. If the FBI and courts had succeeded, what's to prevent them from forcing the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. to create special software that will allow the FBI to spy on their users.
It was inside a container, and had been adrift on a boat, and exposed to weather, or it had been submerged in the sea? The story says both.
I'm assuming it was in a container, like a tackle box, on the boat that wasn't waterproof. Thus sea water got in and the iPhone became submerged in sea water. Which is what the person meant when he said it was submerged "in the sea".
The question is ……. why didn't the Coast Guard remove all their personal belongings when they first located the boat? And maybe they did, but didn't think there was anything of value in the tackle box or whatever container the iPhone was in.
once water, moisture or molecules of salt get near the battery terminals or power vias, expect severe loss of much of the internal structures. electrolysis aided from dissimialr metals and powered by leaking currents from the battery will effectively destroy, erode any connections in this thing. un-encapsuling the epoxy or metallic chips may reveal similar erosion as water tend to wick into any opening small enough to pass though. this is just another Apple Experience for promoting and advertising itself. look away, nothing to see here....
Apple is doing the correct thing
I don't want my data to be available if I commit a crime and neither do you if it continues you won't be able Ben able to fight parking tickets anymore
I think Apple did the right thing in not giving data of terrorists iPhone
Next thing you know Feds are looking into murder cases with wrong suspects and their privacy will get violated if apple gives out data
Let the Feds and government figure out ways on how to protect us and thanks for Apple to keep protection out data
We pay too much taxes for the Feds or goverment to take shortcuts to Apple or any of our data
It's the wrong thing todo.
The US government has proven far too many times it cannot be trusted to protect the privacy of it's citizens. It blatantly circumvents laws to violate privacy rights. I believe in America, but if individuals don't stand their ground on inalienable rights, they will be lost. Power corrupts even the most well intentioned individuals. I don't see any hypocrisy here by Apple. If our government is not restored to a balanced, three divisional system soon, we are doomed. The Presidency has grown to an almost dictator like position, Congress has demonstrated that it is the rule to put it's members ahead of the American people, rather than the exception. Our Judicial system is no longer an independent entity but merely an extension of the ruling political parties agenda.
Two words. MOVIE RIGHTS !!!! Sad but true, Hollywood will try to make this tragic accident into a $$$$$ for them. Of course the families will get a share but no amount in the universe can replace two human lives ! PLEASE HOLLYWOOD ! LET THIS ONE GO !! Not just Hollywood. TV stations like Life Time, Oxygen, the Hallmark channel, just pass on this one. We all know the story. Don't cash in on other people pain ! Yet right ! As if they will listen ! They're probably typing up a script as I type this !
rob53: I would rather Apple handle all of the data extraction too, and I would rather they pull data from phones confiscated from dead terrorists instead of fighting for the rights of dead terrorists.
Apple was in no way "fighting for the rights of dead terrorists", that's just stupid on stilts.
If Apple had done what the FBI was demanding, it would have had serious consequences, potentially weakening the security of user's financial, medical and personal information in general, not just in a given jurisdiction, but for users (not just Apple's customers, either) outside the U.S. as well.
Apple could have just as easily offered to do a similar one off with the dead terrorist's iPhone but they chose not to. Why?
You and others like you, still don't get it and probably never will.
Because no way is this going to set a court precedent that can be used against them, every time some law enforcement agency needs Apple to hack into an iPhone. A court precedent that could be used against nearly all tech companies. And with the terrorist iPhone, the FBI, wanted Apple to write special software to allow them to break the encryption and then hand over the software to them. Software that might be able to hack into all iPhones if in the wrong hands.
Where in this case have you read that Apple will go as far as to write special software to hack into their own iPhone or encryption? Right now, Apple is only helping to see if they can recover the data. If it is passcode protected, then that may be as far as Apple will go. But it may not be passcode protected or maybe a family member may know the passcode. Plus there a good chance that some dumb idiot did not (or will not) change a password and Apple may be able to force a backup of the data into their server. Where it will no longer encrypted. Something they were willing to do with the terrorist iPhone, if it weren't for a dumb idiot.
And have you read anywhere, that if Apple were able to recover the data from this iPhone, that the family is demanding Apple to hand over or reveal the method they used?
Except the FBI didn't ask for the software - they specifically stated that this was a one-off and did NOT request access to the software Apple would develop.
Regardless - the law already gives authorities access to phones and their data. It's only smart phones that have recently become the issue since Apple and others have encrypted their contents and prevented law enforcement from accessing them the exact same way they'd have accessed a feature phone. For some reason, Apple considers smart phones different from other cell phones. This is where the problem lies.
I'm sure I'll get berated and belittled for this, but it does seem ironic that Apple has agreed to help in this regard but now routinely refuses requests to aid law enforcement.
Hacking the phone is totally different from data recovery specially win you own the phone and you no the password.
All they need is the memory chip which is embedded in epox (is inert). It is not just gold that is impervious to salt water. While a lot of people seem to think that there is little chance of recovering the data, they actually need very little of the phone to access the memory. They have a fair chance. As far as the Samsung commercial just showing the "champagne for a few seconds" -- that's just a commercial. The phone can withstand more than just a few seconds of immersion. The S7 has an IP68 rating that means in regards to liquids: The Samsung Galaxy S7 and S7 edge are built to do
more, in more places. With an IP68 rating, they’re water resistant to a maximum depth of 1.5m
for up to 30 minutes, and are protected from dust, dirt and sand - all without the need for extra
caps or covers.
Keep in mind the 30 minutes is for a depth and pressure of being almost 5 feet deep in water. At lessor depths the time that it can withstand water invasion is increased due to the decreased water pressure.
6s is not rated for 30 minutes but seemingly does it anyway; many doufus tried it already, Just like the Apple watch is IPX7 but I know many people who swim with it for more than 6 months and seemingly the majority use it in the shower.
Recovering the data is a bit useless if they can't decrypt it. To decrypt they need the hardware key (on device but they could recover it with much money) and well the Pass code. Damage to the data could make decrypting it even more of a bitch. If the pass code is an alphanumeric 8 character long, it is hopeless. With Touch ID, people can but much longer passcodes (because they don't have to type them in 40 times a day), which means the odds of them having a long one increases a lot. Hopefully they unlocked the phone and weren't just swept overboard.
Imagine, when the 6S could stand for so long without any rating..how much can the S7 stand?
You and others like you, still don't get it and probably never will.
Because no way is this going to set a court precedent that can be used against them, every time some law enforcement agency needs Apple to hack into an iPhone. A court precedent that could be used against nearly all tech companies. And with the terrorist iPhone, the FBI, wanted Apple to write special software to allow them to break the encryption and then hand over the software to them. Software that might be able to hack into all iPhones if in the wrong hands.
Where in this case have you read that Apple will go as far as to write special software to hack into their own iPhone or encryption? Right now, Apple is only helping to see if they can recover the data. If it is passcode protected, then that may be as far as Apple will go. But it may not be passcode protected or maybe a family member may know the passcode. Plus there a good chance that some dumb idiot did not (or will not) change a password and Apple may be able to force a backup of the data into their server. Where it will no longer encrypted. Something they were willing to do with the terrorist iPhone, if it weren't for a dumb idiot.
And have you read anywhere, that if Apple were able to recover the data from this iPhone, that the family is demanding Apple to hand over or reveal the method they used?
Except the FBI didn't ask for the software - they specifically stated that this was a one-off and did NOT request access to the software Apple would develop.
Regardless - the law already gives authorities access to phones and their data. It's only smart phones that have recently become the issue since Apple and others have encrypted their contents and prevented law enforcement from accessing them the exact same way they'd have accessed a feature phone. For some reason, Apple considers smart phones different from other cell phones. This is where the problem lies.
Apple is to provide the FBI with a SIF (software image file) with the requested security features disabled and other modifications to iOS. Even though the order specify that the SIF is to only work on this one iPhone, the FBI will have the software and may be able to hack it to work on other iPhones. It's the FBI that will load the file into the iPhone in question, after Apple and the FBI have tested the SIF on other similar iPhones to make sure it works. So how is the FBI going to do this if they don't have procession of the SIF? No way does it say that Apple is to keep the SIF, load it into the iPhone and then hand back the iPhone to the FBI. The FBI is monitoring every step of the software development.
The difference between this smartphone case and the cell phone cases mentioned by the FBI is that in those cell phone cases, the FBI was just requesting the data in the cell phone. Using means that were readily available. In this case, the FBI is requesting Apple to create special software so that the FBI can use it to access that data. No where in this court order is the FBI requesting that Apple access the data in this iPhone and turn it over. They only want Apple to create the tool to help access the data. And once Apple created that tool, the FBI knows that it exist and can force Apple to use it in other cases. The FBI knows that there is no useful data in this iPhone. The FBI main goal was to set a court precedent that would allow them to force Apple to unlock other iPhones by creating the software needed to do so. So it really doesn't matter if the FBI don't have the software, they can get a court order to force Apple to use this software again or force them to turn it over or force them to create new software to access later iPhones in other cases, once the FBI and courts set the precedent with this case.
Apple strongest defense is that the software that the FBI is requesting from Apple do not exist and the courts can not force Apple into creating such software for the FBI.
Now if the FBI had created the software needed (or hired a third party to do so) and requested Apple to load it into the iPhone, then Apple would most likely have to comply as there are court precedent that telecoms must install special spying devices or software into their system at the request of the FBI. But in those cases, the FBI provided the device or software and the telecom were not force to design the device or write the software that will end up spying on their own customers.
I doubt the data on the storage will be accessible. If it is, I see it as a plus for Apple's iPhones. The Samsung commercials just show idiots drowning their phones in champagne for a few seconds. Having something in constant contact with salt water for months would eat away at any metal although gold should survive.
All they need is the memory chip which is embedded in epox (is inert). It is not just gold that is impervious to salt water. While a lot of people seem to think that there is little chance of recovering the data, they actually need very little of the phone to access the memory. They have a fair chance. As far as the Samsung commercial just showing the "champagne for a few seconds" -- that's just a commercial. The phone can withstand more than just a few seconds of immersion. The S7 has an IP68 rating that means in regards to liquids: The Samsung Galaxy S7 and S7 edge are built to do
more, in more places. With an IP68 rating, they’re water resistant to a maximum depth of 1.5m
for up to 30 minutes, and are protected from dust, dirt and sand - all without the need for extra
caps or covers.
Keep in mind the 30 minutes is for a depth and pressure of being almost 5 feet deep in water. At lessor depths the time that it can withstand water invasion is increased due to the decreased water pressure.
A friend and his boys went to a local swimming hole last summer and one of his boys found a Samsung smartphone phone at the bottom in about 3 feet of water. They took it home, dried it out, charged it up and it worked. They got the users number from the phone and called him. Dropped phone off with a friend of the owner for pickup later. He had already gotten another phone by that time. In all, it was in the water for about 10 days, if I recall correctly..
Comments
It was inside a container, and had been adrift on a boat, and exposed to weather, or it had been submerged in the sea? The story says both.
The issue was whether the FBI had the right to use the courts to force Apple to create special software for the FBI, that will enable the FBI to break the encryption on this iPhone. Software that the FBI might be able to use to invade the privacy of all iPhone users. If the FBI and courts had succeeded, what's to prevent them from forcing the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. to create special software that will allow the FBI to spy on their users.
I'm assuming it was in a container, like a tackle box, on the boat that wasn't waterproof. Thus sea water got in and the iPhone became submerged in sea water. Which is what the person meant when he said it was submerged "in the sea".
The question is ……. why didn't the Coast Guard remove all their personal belongings when they first located the boat? And maybe they did, but didn't think there was anything of value in the tackle box or whatever container the iPhone was in.
If Apple had done what the FBI was demanding, it would have had serious consequences, potentially weakening the security of user's financial, medical and personal information in general, not just in a given jurisdiction, but for users (not just Apple's customers, either) outside the U.S. as well.
Regardless - the law already gives authorities access to phones and their data. It's only smart phones that have recently become the issue since Apple and others have encrypted their contents and prevented law enforcement from accessing them the exact same way they'd have accessed a feature phone. For some reason, Apple considers smart phones different from other cell phones. This is where the problem lies.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.html
Pay attention to point 3.
Apple is to provide the FBI with a SIF (software image file) with the requested security features disabled and other modifications to iOS. Even though the order specify that the SIF is to only work on this one iPhone, the FBI will have the software and may be able to hack it to work on other iPhones. It's the FBI that will load the file into the iPhone in question, after Apple and the FBI have tested the SIF on other similar iPhones to make sure it works. So how is the FBI going to do this if they don't have procession of the SIF? No way does it say that Apple is to keep the SIF, load it into the iPhone and then hand back the iPhone to the FBI. The FBI is monitoring every step of the software development.
The difference between this smartphone case and the cell phone cases mentioned by the FBI is that in those cell phone cases, the FBI was just requesting the data in the cell phone. Using means that were readily available. In this case, the FBI is requesting Apple to create special software so that the FBI can use it to access that data. No where in this court order is the FBI requesting that Apple access the data in this iPhone and turn it over. They only want Apple to create the tool to help access the data. And once Apple created that tool, the FBI knows that it exist and can force Apple to use it in other cases. The FBI knows that there is no useful data in this iPhone. The FBI main goal was to set a court precedent that would allow them to force Apple to unlock other iPhones by creating the software needed to do so. So it really doesn't matter if the FBI don't have the software, they can get a court order to force Apple to use this software again or force them to turn it over or force them to create new software to access later iPhones in other cases, once the FBI and courts set the precedent with this case.
Apple strongest defense is that the software that the FBI is requesting from Apple do not exist and the courts can not force Apple into creating such software for the FBI.
Now if the FBI had created the software needed (or hired a third party to do so) and requested Apple to load it into the iPhone, then Apple would most likely have to comply as there are court precedent that telecoms must install special spying devices or software into their system at the request of the FBI. But in those cases, the FBI provided the device or software and the telecom were not force to design the device or write the software that will end up spying on their own customers.
No, Apple believes that desires of the parents of dead children are more important than the desires of the FBI.