Apple was very quick to comply with the demands of the Mueller investigation, and yet they refused to assist the FBI in obtaining access to the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter, even under court order.
Interesting...
You are comparing apples to oranges. Aside from the existence of an iPhone and law enforcement wanting to see what's on it, these case are as different as night and day. The legal circumstances of each case are completely different.
Your inference towards unrelated political motivations has no place here. Kudos to Admin for making that clear.
As a reminder, we didn't make this post political, and neither will you. Keep your manifestos, conspiracy theories, or celebrations to yourself. Apple compiles with warrants and court orders to the best of their ability, regardless of who the subject is.
Do not interpret this remark as an invitation for debate on the subject.
I agree. But „...and neither will you“ is rather an aggressive way to write. I as a reader cannot feel other then slightly offended.
Good guy Siri, shows a list of nearby schools to that question. This reminiscent of this, remember Siri used list nearby dumps and swamps. Sounds like the boy may not have meant at all what the authorities figured he could have. Guess he won’t be doing it again now.
"The boy had told Siri "I am going to shoot up a school," at which point the digital assistant produced a list of nearby schools"
Proof that Siri's artificial intelligence has a ways to go...
I see it from the opposite perspective. While calling the police, Siri pretended to cooperate with the potential shooter so he wouldn’t become suspicious and flee the scene. If Siri had instead said “There are no nearby schools,” the criminal may have suspected Siri’s intentions. /s
"Find My iPhone" is awesome but's it's personal account. "Find Friends" works better because no need to sign in with someone else account. It's great to keep tracks of family members for any emergency.
Reguarding the kid who told Siri they wanted to shoot up a school. What do you want Siri to do?
Do you want an AI, that is legendary for jumping to the wrong conclusion, to be notifying the police whenever it thinks something might be going on? What if Siri hears someone saying they "would do anything to get that trump" as part of a conversation about the game Bridge. How about if it hears someone say they have "everything I need for shots at the school" when they are a nurse? There is a subtlety to language that AIs, not just Siri but all of them, are not up to understanding. Do you really want a spy in your house that might alert authorities based on a three year olds understanding of english nuance, sarcasm, and euphemism?
I'll be the first to admit if I'm mistaken on some of the details, but from where I'm sitting, no, I'm not. Perhaps you are the one who needs to be educated on the facts of the case.
From CNET:
"On February 16, 2016, US Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple to create that software for the FBI. Apple refused, with Cook arguing that the order went too far and would threaten the security of all iPhone users. Bypassing the iPhone's password meant creating a "back door" in its iOS mobile software that could then be used to access every other iPhone, he said.
The two sides battled over the following weeks in legal filings and public comments. The fight ended with a whimper on March 21 -- the day before a slated court hearing -- when the FBI found a third party to unlock the phone. It turned out the government didn't need Apple's help after all."
https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-vs-fbi-one-year-later-still-stuck-in-limbo/
Whether you feel their refusal to comply with a court order in this case is justified is your own affair, but the facts speak for themselves.
I'll be the first to admit if I'm mistaken on some of the details, but from where I'm sitting, no, I'm not. Perhaps you are the one who needs to be educated on the facts of the case.
From CNET:
"On February 16, 2016, US Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple to create that software for the FBI. Apple refused, with Cook arguing that the order went too far and would threaten the security of all iPhone users. Bypassing the iPhone's password meant creating a "back door" in its iOS mobile software that could then be used to access every other iPhone, he said.
The two sides battled over the following weeks in legal filings and public comments. The fight ended with a whimper on March 21 -- the day before a slated court hearing -- when the FBI found a third party to unlock the phone. It turned out the government didn't need Apple's help after all."
https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-vs-fbi-one-year-later-still-stuck-in-limbo/
Whether you feel their refusal to comply with a court order in this case is justified is your own affair, but the facts speak for themselves.
Let's try this again.
1) The court order for information from the San Bernardino phone -- which is the same that was sent for Stone -- was complied with in both cases in precisely the same way, contrary to your assertion that they were handled differently. These are the facts that you complained about, when in reality, Stone and the San Bernardino shooters were handled in precisely the same fashion.
2) The court order for an unlock in the SB case, which wasn't asked for for Stone, was appealed.
You're right, the facts do speak for themselves -- and it is important to process all of the facts, which you haven't done. They just aren't saying what you think that they are.
"The court order for information from the San Bernardino phone -- which is the same that was sent for Stone -- was complied with in both cases in precisely the same way"
iCloud ≠ iPhone. But yes, they did permit access to iCloud in the San Bernardino case—you're correct on that.
Still, from the perspective of public perception, it does appear as if Apple is beholden to a double standard, whether that's true or not (neither you or I know, even if one of us pretends to). It just doesn't look good from a PR point-of-view to be saying 'Apple views privacy as a fundamental human right,' and then to be apparently selective about enforcing such a policy. That's what I was getting at. But I suppose that's difficult to see when you've got rose-colored glasses on (seems what they say about Apple fanboys is true, after all. As a new Mac owner, it makes me wonder if I really want to be associated with this crowd.)
"The court order for information from the San Bernardino phone -- which is the same that was sent for Stone -- was complied with in both cases in precisely the same way"
iCloud ≠ iPhone. But yes, they did permit access to iCloud in the San Bernardino case—you're correct on that.
Still, from the perspective of public perception, it does appear as if Apple is beholden to a double standard, whether that's true or not (neither you or I know, even if one of us pretends to). It just doesn't look good from a PR point-of-view to be saying 'Apple views privacy as a fundamental human right,' and then to be apparently selective about enforcing such a policy. That's what I was getting at. But I suppose that's difficult to see when you've got rose-colored glasses on (seems what they say about Apple fanboys is true, after all. As a new Mac owner, it makes me wonder if I really want to be associated with this crowd.)
You're welcome to believe what you want about "fanboy," but based on your goalpost moving between your first post regarding how Apple responded to Stone versus how it did in San Bernardino to now, I don't believe that you are in any position to be talking about rose-colored glasses in this regard.
"The boy had told Siri "I am going to shoot up a school," at which point the digital assistant produced a list of nearby schools"
Proof that Siri's artificial intelligence has a ways to go...
I see it from the opposite perspective. While calling the police, Siri pretended to cooperate with the potential shooter so he wouldn’t become suspicious and flee the scene. If Siri had instead said “There are no nearby schools,” the criminal may have suspected Siri’s intentions. /s
??? Where did you see that Siri called the police? Siri answered the question and he posted it on instagram.
I'll be the first to admit if I'm mistaken on some of the details, but from where I'm sitting, no, I'm not. Perhaps you are the one who needs to be educated on the facts of the case.
From CNET:
"On February 16, 2016, US Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple to create that software for the FBI. Apple refused, with Cook arguing that the order went too far and would threaten the security of all iPhone users. Bypassing the iPhone's password meant creating a "back door" in its iOS mobile software that could then be used to access every other iPhone, he said.
The two sides battled over the following weeks in legal filings and public comments. The fight ended with a whimper on March 21 -- the day before a slated court hearing -- when the FBI found a third party to unlock the phone. It turned out the government didn't need Apple's help after all."
https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-vs-fbi-one-year-later-still-stuck-in-limbo/
Whether you feel their refusal to comply with a court order in this case is justified is your own affair, but the facts speak for themselves.
The order discussed in the article you quoted was to unlock the phone. It was not related to iCloud.
There were two requests in the San Bernardino case:
Provide data stored in iCloud. Apple complied.
Write software that bypasses the encryption on the phone itself. Apple objected.
In the Stone case, there was only one request:
Provide data stored in iCloud. Apple complied.
Since there was no #2 in the Stone case, there was nothing for Apple to resist.
The difference between the two requests is really significant, because the second one would have forced a company to write software (an over-reach in itself) that would compromise the security of every single iPhone on the planet. The first request in the San Bernardino case was reasonable and Apple did not object. The second request, the one you're talking about, went way too far.
So as to your assertion that Apple gave preferential treatment to Mueller in the Stone investigation, it did not. Apple provided exactly the same information in the San Bernardino case it did in the Stone case.
I'll be the first to admit if I'm mistaken on some of the details, but from where I'm sitting, no, I'm not. Perhaps you are the one who needs to be educated on the facts of the case.
From CNET:
"On February 16, 2016, US Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple to create that software for the FBI. Apple refused, with Cook arguing that the order went too far and would threaten the security of all iPhone users. Bypassing the iPhone's password meant creating a "back door" in its iOS mobile software that could then be used to access every other iPhone, he said.
The two sides battled over the following weeks in legal filings and public comments. The fight ended with a whimper on March 21 -- the day before a slated court hearing -- when the FBI found a third party to unlock the phone. It turned out the government didn't need Apple's help after all."
https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-vs-fbi-one-year-later-still-stuck-in-limbo/
Whether you feel their refusal to comply with a court order in this case is justified is your own affair, but the facts speak for themselves.
The order discussed in the article you quoted was to unlock the phone. It was not related to iCloud.
There were two requests in the San Bernardino case:
Provide data stored in iCloud. Apple complied.
Write software that bypasses the encryption on the phone itself. Apple objected.
In the Stone case, there was only one request:
Provide data stored in iCloud. Apple complied.
Since there was no #2 in the Stone case, there was nothing for Apple to resist.
The difference between the two requests is really significant, because the second one would have forced a company to write software (an over-reach in itself) that would compromise the security of every single iPhone on the planet. The first request in the San Bernardino case was reasonable and Apple did not object. The second request, the one you're talking about, went way too far.
So as to your assertion that Apple gave preferential treatment to Mueller in the Stone investigation, it did not. Apple provided exactly the same information in the San Bernardino case it did in the Stone case.
I suspect s/he is actually speaking of their own perception which was skewed by an incomplete memory or understanding of the facts. Perhaps tinged by a bit of not wanting to admit they were wrong as well?
Apple was very quick to comply with the demands of the Mueller investigation, and yet they refused to assist the FBI in obtaining access to the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter, even under court order.
Interesting...
Completely incorrect. Apple was quick to the assist the FBI from the cloud side, but would not produce a tool to hack into a locally locked, encrypted iPhone. There was no court order that mandated they do so. You made that up.
Yes there was a court order. The FBI asked Apple to create a backdoor. Apple refused. The FBI went to court and Judge Sheri Pym issued a court order compelling Apple to create software to access Farook's phone. Apple resisted and a hearing was scheduled, but it was cancelled when the FBI found its own way into the phone.
EDIT: That doesn't change the fact that the OP is confused about the difference between an order to unlock a device vs. granting access to material stored on iCloud. Apple readily responds to subpoenas and warrants for the latter.
My bad on that -- indeed there was a court order asking Apple to build a backdoor tool, but they responded to it within the response window, filing a formal response to the judge asking to vacate, rather than implement it immediately. As was their legal right. But as mentioned by everyone, they assisted in the cloud data right away in both cases... the difference Christ_chan suggested is not an applicable since Apple was not asked to unlock a local, locked, encrypted device in Stone's case.
"I suspect s/he is actually speaking of their own perception which was skewed by an incomplete memory or understanding of the facts. Perhaps tinged by a bit of not wanting to admit they were wrong as well?"
OK, I'll admit, that's a fair assessment, and I'll admit that my memory of the matter may have been a bit fuzzy. Could still do without Mike's vitriolic response/implication that I had some sort of agenda.
Personally, I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who just bought a Mac and is considering switching to iOS. The salespeople at the Apple store were like, 'you definitely should switch! Apple is ALL about privacy/security, unlike Google!' Naïve me is like, 'that sounds great!' Being somewhat right-of-center, I don't really care too much for Apple's stance on social issues or their ambiguous 'values test' that keeps certain apps out of their App Store, even if they technically meet their requirements. But I figured, 'hey, at least MY data, and my family's data, will be secure!' After all, I recalled the incident from a few years back.
Then I saw this headline, and reached the conclusion that most reasonable people would make in my position.
I feel foolish for ever thinking I could trust a Silicon Valley company with my data. They'll sell you down the river the moment they can if your values don't match theirs. Now looking into third-party solutions for data encryption/storage (1Password, MEGA, etc.).
Personally, I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who just bought a Mac and is considering switching to iOS. The salespeople at the Apple store were like, 'you definitely should switch! Apple is ALL about privacy/security, unlike Google!' Naïve me is like, 'that sounds great!'
I don't think you were being naive. Apple is very focussed on privacy, and it's true that iPhones are much more secure than Android devices.
"Focus on privacy" doesn't mean "above the law" though. When presented with a warrant, subpoena, or court order to release available data, Apple must and does comply. What made the case of Farook's phone unique was that the legality of the order was in question. It went well beyond established precedents for evidence gathering.
Every system is subject to legitimate evidence gathering by law enforcement, but they're not all the same when it comes to invasive access by data miners and scammers. There the difference between iOS and Android is huge. First, the operating system and hardware make the device itself almost impenetrable. Second, the design of Apple's environment makes it much more difficult -- virtually impossible -- for bad guys to access your cloud data. That's why the only cases of iCloud hacks we've seen were not hacks of the servers at all but scams that fooled users into revealing passwords.
I feel foolish for ever thinking I could trust a Silicon Valley company with my data. They'll sell you down the river the moment they can if your values don't match theirs. Now looking into third-party solutions for data encryption/storage (1Password, MEGA, etc.).
I don't know what you mean by that. Google and Facebook have both been caught cheating to gather user data, but I'm not aware of Apple having done that.
I also don't understand what you mean by "if your values don't match theirs." In what way might Apple compromise your experience or security based on your beliefs?
Comments
Can anybody inform me how to delete my account?
Thanks
Do you want an AI, that is legendary for jumping to the wrong conclusion, to be notifying the police whenever it thinks something might be going on? What if Siri hears someone saying they "would do anything to get that trump" as part of a conversation about the game Bridge. How about if it hears someone say they have "everything I need for shots at the school" when they are a nurse? There is a subtlety to language that AIs, not just Siri but all of them, are not up to understanding. Do you really want a spy in your house that might alert authorities based on a three year olds understanding of english nuance, sarcasm, and euphemism?
1) The court order for information from the San Bernardino phone -- which is the same that was sent for Stone -- was complied with in both cases in precisely the same way, contrary to your assertion that they were handled differently. These are the facts that you complained about, when in reality, Stone and the San Bernardino shooters were handled in precisely the same fashion.
2) The court order for an unlock in the SB case, which wasn't asked for for Stone, was appealed.
You're right, the facts do speak for themselves -- and it is important to process all of the facts, which you haven't done. They just aren't saying what you think that they are.
There were two requests in the San Bernardino case:
In the Stone case, there was only one request:
- Provide data stored in iCloud. Apple complied.
Since there was no #2 in the Stone case, there was nothing for Apple to resist.The difference between the two requests is really significant, because the second one would have forced a company to write software (an over-reach in itself) that would compromise the security of every single iPhone on the planet. The first request in the San Bernardino case was reasonable and Apple did not object. The second request, the one you're talking about, went way too far.
So as to your assertion that Apple gave preferential treatment to Mueller in the Stone investigation, it did not. Apple provided exactly the same information in the San Bernardino case it did in the Stone case.
"Focus on privacy" doesn't mean "above the law" though. When presented with a warrant, subpoena, or court order to release available data, Apple must and does comply. What made the case of Farook's phone unique was that the legality of the order was in question. It went well beyond established precedents for evidence gathering.
Every system is subject to legitimate evidence gathering by law enforcement, but they're not all the same when it comes to invasive access by data miners and scammers. There the difference between iOS and Android is huge. First, the operating system and hardware make the device itself almost impenetrable. Second, the design of Apple's environment makes it much more difficult -- virtually impossible -- for bad guys to access your cloud data. That's why the only cases of iCloud hacks we've seen were not hacks of the servers at all but scams that fooled users into revealing passwords.
I don't know what you mean by that. Google and Facebook have both been caught cheating to gather user data, but I'm not aware of Apple having done that.
I also don't understand what you mean by "if your values don't match theirs." In what way might Apple compromise your experience or security based on your beliefs?