Apple will have to comply. If need be the government can shut down Apple and put Cook in jail for as long as it takes. corparations just have to comply to the law, no matter what, or how unfair.
I'm sure they can appeal first though. I suspect this goes to the Supreme Court before it comes to that.
Of course, but they might need to comply in advance (that depends on the local U.S. - in this case - law).
If Apple were to lose this case, then say goodbye to your personal data forever, because once a so-called "back-door" is created – any hacker will have access to all your personal information. Fact: No gov't agency has ever been able to protect digital data from being hacked – including the Pentagon and White House. If they get an "encryption key", so will any serious hacker out there. They always do. And by setting a precedent, expect other governments in other countries to demand the exact same thing for any reason they feel like.
To give government law enforcement agencies whatever they want with no legal protection for individual personal privacy is by definition a police state.
Once there's a Backdoor. That key is being passed around to who knows who in the Government. Which means anyone who really wants it including criminals can easily get it. Once U.S. has backdoor access. Other countries like China, UK, whoever will request the backdoor access also. They'll be spying on all of us also. There goes any and all personal Data you have to anyone who wants it. The U.S. Government can't even protect it's self from being hacked!!!
I might even be okay with "spying", it's risking losing all my money in credit accounts, bank accounts, brokerage accounts etc. all of which I now access and manage from my iPhone. The FBI get's it's wish and my mobile financial management drops to zero: back to the desktop with it's far lower risk of physical loss to a criminal.
I don't have any issue with Apple helping to hack into this one particular iPhone as a one time thing. If that is at all possible, then Apple should help in my opinion.
But giving the Govt some sort of Master key which can be used to unlock any iPhone, belonging to anybody, is not a good idea, and I am against that.
I don't think they're asking for the key of a 'back door'. Just that there exists one that can be opened by Apple for cases like this.
I don't like the word "back door" in this case. Here's hopefully a better analogy:
Apple wants to protect users even when they use weak passwords, but to do that, Apple needs to hold a strong master key (code signature), which in itself can't be used to crack a password, only makes it possible to brute force attack (pretty ineffective against strong passwords). The law is fairly clear that Apple must reveal (or use) this master key in a legitimate court order.
Also take into account that Tim Cook no doubtedly had a long conversation with Apple's world-class legal team before he published that open letter. If they thought Apple didn't have a legal standing in the case, do you think they would have advised him to publish it?
I support Time Cook 100% on maintaining the security of iOS.
Were Apple to provide a backdoor to customer data, the backdoor would be vulnerable to attacks by anyone. Apple customers would then have an inferior product.
On December 13, 1989, Robert S McNamara, Defense Secretary in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, told Congress that the $300 billion annual Pentagon budget could be “safely cut in half over the next decade.”
Neocons, to support the military-industrial-terrorism complex responded with a report (Rebuilding America's Defenses, 2000) which stated: “A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, . . . would trouble American allies. . . . the process of transformation, . . . is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
People are lashing out and bashing Trump, but I have a newsflash for these people! Trump is not the POTUS, not yet at least.
Obama is currently in charge, and this attack happened under Obama, no doubt helped by Obama's lax immigration rules .....
The male killer was BORN in the United States, so was the neighbor that helped him get the guns.
What about the terrorist wife, who was imported and not vetted?
Also the neighbor, the hispanic, was a convert, and should have immediately been placed on the terrorist watch list. And the male killer had travelled to Saudi Arabia numerous times.
Also, another neighbor noticed suspicious activity, but was afraid to speak out, most likely because of Political Correctness and fear of being labelled by intolerant liberals. Thank you to all PC people, whose ideology leads to and causes death.
I don't have any issue with Apple helping to hack into this one particular iPhone as a one time thing. If that is at all possible, then Apple should help in my opinion.
But giving the Govt some sort of Master key which can be used to unlock any iPhone, belonging to anybody, is not a good idea, and I am against that.
The safest thing for Apple to do here, while complying with the court order, is to actually crack this particular phone in-house for FBI instead of giving FBI the signed iOS mod to crack the weak password. But imagine the negative PR for doing the former. If Apple is telling the truth, then even Apple can't crack a strong password on its own phone. What I'm curious is whether Apple (technically) can give law enforcement an image of the phone that allows for brute force password cracking w/o release the signed iOS mod.
Of course they can't crack it. They don't have the user's password.
I don't have any issue with Apple helping to hack into this one particular iPhone as a one time thing. If that is at all possible, then Apple should help in my opinion.
But giving the Govt some sort of Master key which can be used to unlock any iPhone, belonging to anybody, is not a good idea, and I am against that.
Absolutely. Give the phone over to Apple, with accompanying FBI types for "chain of custody" of the evidence and then let Apple try, emphasis, TRY, to open it to access. IF that's accomplished the phone get's handed back to the FBI overseers to scurry back to Hooverville. NO masterkey to every iPhone on the planet. handed to the good folks at FBI etc. (and you know it would get shared).
I believe Apple should be able to refuse on the grounds that their encryption is a vital part of our national security (both for citizens and businesses which rely on an unbreakable grade of crypto) and it would be catastrophic to compromise any part of that security.
The danger is that the government simply declare Apple's security as munitions and demand that they surrender everything to the military, or the government forces Apple to hand over everything to the Feds and they nationalize it in the name of whatever reason they invent.
Do not underestimate the power of the government. Apple has assets and property because the government allows it.
It's true the government has a great deal of power and there's little doubt they hold that very position: that Apple (or any of us for that matter) has assets and property because the government "allows" it. Furthermore, Apple pushing back is likely to reveal the exact nature of how they like to use their power.
Private property ownership is a constitutionally protected right and it cannot simply be ripped away.
The male killer was BORN in the United States, so was the neighbor that helped him get the guns.
What about the terrorist wife, who was imported and not vetted?
Also the neighbor, the hispanic, was a convert, and should have immediately been placed on the terrorist watch list. And the male killer had travelled to Saudi Arabia numerous times.
Also, another neighbor noticed suspicious activity, but was afraid to speak out, most likely because of Political Correctness and fear of being labelled by intolerant liberals. Thank you to all PC people, whose ideology leads to and causes death.
hmm yeah except your conclusion isn't based on fact at all and is just persona nonsense you've injected into the narrative. this man was a native born American.
and even if it is terrorism and not work place violence, I don't give a shit -- as an American I'm not frightened by random acts of crazy. I certainly won't give up my born rights just because there are bad actors in the world. shit happens. I shouldn't have to take off my shoes at the airport for the rest of my life for it.
I don't think they're asking for the key of a 'back door'. Just that there exists one that can be opened by Apple for cases like this.
I don't like the word "back door" in this case. Here's hopefully a better analogy:
Apple wants to protect users even when they use weak passwords, but to do that, Apple needs to hold a strong master key (code signature), which in itself can't be used to crack a password, only makes it possible to brute force attack (pretty ineffective against strong passwords). The law is fairly clear that Apple must reveal (or use) this master key in a legitimate court order.
Apple does not hold a master key on the phone. It's confined to a Secure Element on the phone. They can't unlock with a key they don't hold.
It is worth a read, it is not very long and is easy to understand without complicated legal language. The main argument according to Apple lawyers is that with iOS 8 or higher it is no longer possible for Apple to decrypt the data. iOS 7 and earlier it was and Apple complied with government requests in some cases, but even then they were only able to gain access to a limited amount of data. Now the process of decrypting iOS is being stated as unduly burdensome. Anything is theoretically possible but in this case, so difficult that the government cannot force Apple to create a tool to do it. I don't think Apple has any logical reason to not help law enforcement when appropriate, it just doesn't have the tools do it technically anymore.
It's true the government has a great deal of power and there's little doubt they hold that very position: that Apple (or any of us for that matter) has assets and property because the government "allows" it. Furthermore, Apple pushing back is likely to reveal the exact nature of how they like to use their power.
Private property ownership is a constitutionally protected right and it cannot simply be ripped away.
Not ripped away, but held hostage. Governments have all the power, only held in check by the court(s) that might not be so independent after all. Take Phil Zimmermann for example. He was harassed in a totally unlawful way for a long time only because he developed PGP. Think what they can do if they have the backing of the law.
The people arguing about terrorism in this case are missing the point of the debate, which is this:
Strong encryption = everyone has privacy. Weak encryption = no one has privacy.
There is no magic scheme where only the good guys have privacy and the bad guys don't. Any back door or flaw in a security scheme weakens the whole thing. If the FBI can hack something, so can your enemies. Privacy and encryption are blind to value judgments.
Put differently, if this story had been about how flawed iOS security was because the FBI was able to easily crack it, the forums would not be filled with praise for Apple for "fighting terrorism" with weak encryption. People would be accusing Apple of helping build a police state.
Its not just privacy, encryption is at the core of insuring our security, making it weaker makes us less secure using "security" as an excuse.
Apple will have to comply. If need be the government can shut down Apple and put Cook in jail for as long as it takes. Corparations just have to comply to the law, no matter what, or how unfair.
Edit: It will be a watershed for aftermarket iOS encryption tools. Maybe time to start writing the code.
Concur. How it plays out as a practical matter could be really interesting. Indeed guns can be drawn, but it needn't come to that. Contrary to others assertion in this forum, the government has plenary power to seize property of any type. The judiciary is very cautious about issuing orders because we all essentially follow the law by consent. When people en masse refuse to follow courts...well...they have no standing armies to command.
Apple has other cards to play. The next version of iOS might not have the same back door as the one the government created to crack the last one...and so on. Or that it moves software production beyond the reach of the US Government to servers outside the US. Or even as you suggest, redesign the secure elements to be only under the control of a third party via an app.
Deeply fascinating. If you really wanna choke, ask yourself: "why is privacy so important?" The short answer is that the government isn't protecting its citizens from unlawful attack from thieves (e.g. identity theft.) So why did people want guns? Hum. Seems like I've heard this before. Now wait for it: what if the thieves are...the government?
I shouldn't have to take off my shoes at the airport for the rest of my life for it.
You don't have to. When I last flew some months ago ( to an international destination), my ticket gave me some sort of enhanced or speedy screening process, which meant that I didn't even have to take off my shoes when going through security.
You don't have to. When I last flew some months ago ( to an international destination), my ticket gave me some sort of enhanced or speedy screening process, which meant that I didn't even have to take off my shoes when going through security.
Known Traveler Number. Shortly after they started the screening, TSA allowed frequent travelers to apply for that privilege, shoes on and laptops can stay in the case. The number was automatically printed on the tickets for some airlines, not all. Then a year or so ago it quit working and was replaced by a new system called Pre Check. Everyone who had the previous number had to reapply and pay $85 dollars. You can register online but then you need to go to a TSA office for an interview, bring your passport and a second form of ID. Now instead of automatically just working you have to enter the new number when you book a flight and you have to use your complete name as you entered it in the application, even the middle name. Unfortunately, I have never been able to use the system when flying internationally on a foreign airline.
The people arguing about terrorism in this case are missing the point of the debate, which is this:
Strong encryption = everyone has privacy. Weak encryption = no one has privacy.
There is no magic scheme where only the good guys have privacy and the bad guys don't. Any back door or flaw in a security scheme weakens the whole thing. If the FBI can hack something, so can your enemies. Privacy and encryption are blind to value judgments.
Put differently, if this story had been about how flawed iOS security was because the FBI was able to easily crack it, the forums would not be filled with praise for Apple for "fighting terrorism" with weak encryption. People would be accusing Apple of helping build a police state.
Its not just privacy, encryption is at the core of insuring our security, making it weaker makes us less secure using "security" as an excuse.
I shouldn't have to take off my shoes at the airport for the rest of my life for it.
You don't have to. When I last flew some months ago ( to an international destination), my ticket gave me some sort of enhanced or speedy screening process, which meant that I didn't even have to take off my shoes when going through security.
that is not the norm. standard security procedure still requires the idiotic removal of shoes, for fear of bomb-making materials. ie, living in fear.
Comments
Apple wants to protect users even when they use weak passwords, but to do that, Apple needs to hold a strong master key (code signature), which in itself can't be used to crack a password, only makes it possible to brute force attack (pretty ineffective against strong passwords). The law is fairly clear that Apple must reveal (or use) this master key in a legitimate court order.
Were Apple to provide a backdoor to customer data, the backdoor would be vulnerable to attacks by anyone. Apple customers would then have an inferior product.
Besides, the government's demands are based on an inflated threat of terrorism to justify "defense" spending.
On September 11, 2001, we got our new Pearl Harbor.
Also the neighbor, the hispanic, was a convert, and should have immediately been placed on the terrorist watch list. And the male killer had travelled to Saudi Arabia numerous times.
Also, another neighbor noticed suspicious activity, but was afraid to speak out, most likely because of Political Correctness and fear of being labelled by intolerant liberals. Thank you to all PC people, whose ideology leads to and causes death.
The danger is that the government simply declare Apple's security as munitions and demand that they surrender everything to the military, or the government forces Apple to hand over everything to the Feds and they nationalize it in the name of whatever reason they invent.
and even if it is terrorism and not work place violence, I don't give a shit -- as an American I'm not frightened by random acts of crazy. I certainly won't give up my born rights just because there are bad actors in the world. shit happens. I shouldn't have to take off my shoes at the airport for the rest of my life for it.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Apple_Brief_10192015.pdf
It is worth a read, it is not very long and is easy to understand without complicated legal language. The main argument according to Apple lawyers is that with iOS 8 or higher it is no longer possible for Apple to decrypt the data. iOS 7 and earlier it was and Apple complied with government requests in some cases, but even then they were only able to gain access to a limited amount of data. Now the process of decrypting iOS is being stated as unduly burdensome. Anything is theoretically possible but in this case, so difficult that the government cannot force Apple to create a tool to do it. I don't think Apple has any logical reason to not help law enforcement when appropriate, it just doesn't have the tools do it technically anymore.
Take Phil Zimmermann for example. He was harassed in a totally unlawful way for a long time only because he developed PGP. Think what they can do if they have the backing of the law.
Apple has other cards to play. The next version of iOS might not have the same back door as the one the government created to crack the last one...and so on. Or that it moves software production beyond the reach of the US Government to servers outside the US. Or even as you suggest, redesign the secure elements to be only under the control of a third party via an app.
Deeply fascinating. If you really wanna choke, ask yourself: "why is privacy so important?" The short answer is that the government isn't protecting its citizens from unlawful attack from thieves (e.g. identity theft.) So why did people want guns? Hum. Seems like I've heard this before. Now wait for it: what if the thieves are...the government?