Anyone who believes this case is about terrorism just isn't paying attention. The FBI doesn't need the contents of this phone - they already have a few-weeks-old version and it's most unlikely that there's anything of substance to be had. remember - this is a work-supplied phone, not his personal one. That was thoroughly destroyed. Is it likely he put incriminating details on his work phone rather than the personal one? No.
The two shooters are dead, so no more charges there. The police and FBI have already established that they were not part of a bigger terrorist cell, or a network of cells, although some people have been charged with non-terrorist offenses. Nor were they under the control of or affiliated with any foreign group.
So what's the big upside for the FBI to get this data? None, for this specific case. What it is is the test case to force Apple ro build the tool for them to use in the other nine pending case (yes - despite FBI Director's comments that this is for one case only, there are at least nine others that have been filed). None of these are terrorism-related, by the way. And the New York DA says that he has 175 iPhones that he wants Apple to unlock. So, we all see where this is going and it is not to a good place.
Of course, the biggest supporters of the FBI here are China, India, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states with repressive regimes. They will most certainly push on Apple for this tool if it is ever built. That is why it is important that it never is.
Anyone who believes this case is about terrorism just isn't paying attention. The FBI doesn't need the contents of this phone - they already have a few-weeks-old version and it's most unlikely that there's anything of substance to be had. remember - this is a work-supplied phone, not his personal one. That was thoroughly destroyed. Is it likely he put incriminating details on his work phone rather than the personal one? No.
The two shooters are dead, so no more charges there. The police and FBI have already established that they were not part of a bigger terrorist cell, or a network of cells, although some people have been charged with non-terrorist offenses. Nor were they under the control of or affiliated with any foreign group.
So what's the big upside for the FBI to get this data? None, for this specific case. What it is is the test case to force Apple ro build the tool for them to use in the other nine pending case (yes - despite FBI Director's comments that this is for one case only, there are at least nine others that have been filed). None of these are terrorism-related, by the way. And the New York DA says that he has 175 iPhones that he wants Apple to unlock. So, we all see where this is going and it is not to a good place.
Of course, the biggest supporters of the FBI here are China, India, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states with repressive regimes. They will most certainly push on Apple for this tool if it is ever built. That is why it is important that it never is.
What happens next time?
And the time after that?
Even Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and the CIA, has said that the FBI's position is wrong.
The point here is that all the warrantless-collection did not stop 9/11, nor did it stop this case. Nor the Boston bomber. The police and FBI had information but didn't connect the dots. They're looking for one or two needles in a very big haystack. Is more hay going to help?? No.
But getting more hay will put the rest of us at risk. Backdoor crypto is a threat far greater.
I bought a Apple II computer in 1978 or 79 - I'm so old, I'm not longer sure what year it was! And, for a few years, I was an Apple developer. So I've taken pleasure with Apple's success; there were a lot of really tough years in Apple's early history, including after the introduction of the Lisa in 1983 and the MAC in 1984. But, I don't understand this idea that we need to allow people to hide info from the US agencies charged with preventing terrorism. I suppose it's this general distrust, to put it euphemistically, of GOVMENT so successfully propagated by the Republicans! But, I'm assuming, no one's so idiotic as to suggest that this isn't an appropriate governmental function?!
I'd like those of you who think Apple shouldn't provide help to the FBI for privacy reasons, to site specific examples of what you're afraid of the FBI doing with your secret personal info. It seems the arguments for the need for info to be totally inaccessible to the FBI always consists of some vague generalities; I'm at a loss, as to the need for this for law abiding citizens.
The challenges of our Homeland Security folks are monumental enough with out these constraints being placed on them. Even with complete access to all personal info, it's an impossible task. But, that doesn't justify not allowing them access to information that is highly likely to be pertinent to the task.
... I suppose it's this general distrust, to put it euphemistically, of GOVMENT so successfully propagated by the Republicans! ...
It wasn't the Republicans. It was Edward Snowden's revelations of the abuses of the GOVMENT, spying on ordinary citizens and collecting information that was outside the mission of the NSA. I have no idea whether Snowden is/was a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or whatever, and I suspect most people who heard his message don't care either.
I'd like those of you who think Apple shouldn't provide help to the FBI for privacy reasons, to site specific examples of what you're afraid of the FBI doing with your secret personal info. It seems the arguments for the need for info to be totally inaccessible to the FBI always consists of some vague generalities; I'm at a loss, as to the need for this for law abiding citizens.
A Review of the FBI’s Use of
National Security Letters:
Assessment of Corrective Actions and
Examination of NSL Usage in 2006
The National Security Letter spy tool has been uncloaked, and it’s bad
No warrants needed to get browsing history, online purchase records, and other data.
(NSL) is a potent surveillance tool that allows the US government to acquire a wide swath of private information—all without a warrant. Federal investigators issue tens of thousands of them each year to banks, ISPs, car dealers, insurance companies, doctors, and you name it. The letters don't need a judge's signature and come with a gag to the recipient, forbidding the disclosure of the NSL to the public or the target.
Continued NSL abuses show FBI biased, cannot police itself
In his first report on NSLs, released in March 2007, Inspector General Glenn Fine inspected a few hundred NSLs issued by the FBI between 2003 and 2005 and found dozens that had been issued "improperly." Given that a total of 143,000 NSLs were issued during that period, the results suggested that hundreds, and probably thousands, of improper NSLs were issued from 2003 to 2005.
"Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said that between 2004 and 2009, the FBI tripled its use of bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows government agents to compel businesses to turn over records and documents, and increasingly scooped up records of Americans who had no ties to official terrorism investigations."
FBI Confirms No Major Terrorism Cases Cracked Via Unconstitutional Patriot Act Phone Spying
While all internet comment sections are plagued with complete morons, what is it about AI that attracts the most ignorant, offensive idiots of all the tech sites? The number of truly outstanding examples of cognitive disability here is staggering.
The challenges of our Homeland Security folks are monumental enough with out these constraints being placed on them. Even with complete access to all personal info, it's an impossible task. But, that doesn't justify not allowing them access to information that is highly likely to be pertinent to the task.
The constraints placed on the government's investigatory powers are enshrined in the constitution and its amendments to protect the innocent from abuses of power. They are supposed to be immutable, even by the judiciary, and it's up to the citizenry to protect them from being usurped under any circumstances. Tim Cook and Apple are being good citizens by questioning the governments rights in this case and make them consider the unintended consequences of their actions. These are the same liberties and freedoms that tens of thousands of Americans have fought and died or been maimed to maintain over the centuries.
I'm not about to surrender those just to make some civil servant's job a little easier. History, both recent and over centuries, has shown that we stand to lose much more than a few lives from the potential abuses by omnipotent security services.
Everyone is out to take down Apple. I see there are an awful a lot of Apple-haters in America. Apple needs to bribe more Congressman and the news media to get them over on Apple's side. Apple should buy a couple of newspapers and news channels to help turn the tide against all anti-Apple sentiment in the U.S. Apple must have created a huge number of enemies if the public is siding with intelligence agencies instead of Apple keeping consumer's electronic data private.
NSA Chief John O. Brennan was on NPR today. When asked if Apple should help the FBI access the SB shooter's iPhone, rather than cite a law that somehow compels compliance to the FBI's request, Brennan merely posed an analogy between a bank safe deposit box and digital smartphones. Obviously, the law doesn't support the FBI's legal efforts and Brennan knows it. Too bad the NPR reporter wasn't prepared or ballsy enough to push Brennan on the issue. That's the sad nature of almost all reporting anymore, though.
I'm amazed (and appalled) at people's willingness to let emotions for a specific company cloud their judgement when it comes to their own privacy and security. Their desire to side with the FBI just because it's Apple, has to be the most idiotic and moronic kind of decision making ever made.
"Of course Apple is bad because they like terrorists."
Honestly!? That's some people's take on this whole issue!? This just demonstrates that the public should have absolutely no say over this matter - they don't even understand the technology or implications involved. They're spoon fed sound bites and eat it up without realizing there's absolutely no substance. It's too bad people are so willing to bend over and take it; they could actually educate themselves. Unfortunately, it's all too obvious these people just don't care enough.
I don't care for Google or Microsoft, but I would applaud them if it was either of them at the heart of this issue. Why? Because whether I use their devices or not, in the end their loss on this issue eventually affects us all... and not just Americans, but everyone who uses a computer, tablet, or smartphone or any other kind of "smart" device.
Not sure how much more secure Apple can make things. Only one I can think of is iCloud backups of devices. If you have the Apple ID and password you can get access to this data (for example, by restoring it to a new iPhone). And Apple can hand over iCloud data if ordered to do do.
Perhaps Apple will add a PIN or secondary password to iCloud backups such that if you want to restore it you need the Apple ID, ID password AND the PIN/secondary password. The drawback would be that if you forget this additional PIN/password then your iCloud backup is useless and you can't restore from it.
Apple relents and assigns special engineering staff to comply with court/FBI request. The concerned parties gather in the special secret hardened room for the proceedings. 3, 2, 1, and here we go. . .the iPhone is now crac. . . .wait a damn minute.WTF just happened?It's bricked! Oops!
The special Apple engineering staff is disciplined and subsequently reassigned to other departments/poached (yeah, I know) by high-profile tech security firms and startups/FBI/NSA/think tanks. Cook issues public apology and manages to steer Apple around contempt of court citations.
Apple subsequently releases dramatically hardened iPhone 7/iOS to insanely great rate of sales/adoption worldwide in the last half of 2016.
Special Congressional Committee on encryption forms, meets and is not able to comprehend the engineering complexities of the matter, much less reach consensus balancing legitimate competing interests. Issue continues to be played out in the courts, both judicial and of public opinion.
Some US 2016 Presidential candidates propose a Constitutional Amendment. Case finally wends its way to SCOTUS in 2019, shortly after extreme Congressional focus regarding views on cybersecurity of the newly-appointed and approved Justice (the new litmus test).
NSA continues to pretend it can't crack an iPhone.
I bought a Apple II computer in 1978 or 79 - I'm so old, I'm not longer sure what year it was! And, for a few years, I was an Apple developer. So I've taken pleasure with Apple's success; there were a lot of really tough years in Apple's early history, including after the introduction of the Lisa in 1983 and the MAC in 1984. But, I don't understand this idea that we need to allow people to hide info from the US agencies charged with preventing terrorism. I suppose it's this general distrust, to put it euphemistically, of GOVMENT so successfully propagated by the Republicans! But, I'm assuming, no one's so idiotic as to suggest that this isn't an appropriate governmental function?!
I'd like those of you who think Apple shouldn't provide help to the FBI for privacy reasons, to site specific examples of what you're afraid of the FBI doing with your secret personal info. It seems the arguments for the need for info to be totally inaccessible to the FBI always consists of some vague generalities; I'm at a loss, as to the need for this for law abiding citizens.
The challenges of our Homeland Security folks are monumental enough with out these constraints being placed on them. Even with complete access to all personal info, it's an impossible task. But, that doesn't justify not allowing them access to information that is highly likely to be pertinent to the task.
It's not privacy vs. security. It's security vs. security. I'm not as concerned about the FBI or the US government as I am about hackers, criminals, hostile governments, or other terrorists gaining access to my data. Once backdoor access is made possible, it is just a matter of time before the access falls into the wrong hands. This is Pandora's box. It goes way beyond whether someone can steal and post private pictures. We're talking about the ability to access financial and health records, which can lead to stealing money, identity theft, ransom, blackmail, and who knows what else?
I bought a Apple II computer in 1978 or 79 - I'm so old, I'm not longer sure what year it was! And, for a few years, I was an Apple developer. So I've taken pleasure with Apple's success; there were a lot of really tough years in Apple's early history, including after the introduction of the Lisa in 1983 and the MAC in 1984. But, I don't understand this idea that we need to allow people to hide info from the US agencies charged with preventing terrorism. I suppose it's this general distrust, to put it euphemistically, of GOVMENT so successfully propagated by the Republicans! But, I'm assuming, no one's so idiotic as to suggest that this isn't an appropriate governmental function?!
I'd like those of you who think Apple shouldn't provide help to the FBI for privacy reasons, to site specific examples of what you're afraid of the FBI doing with your secret personal info. It seems the arguments for the need for info to be totally inaccessible to the FBI always consists of some vague generalities; I'm at a loss, as to the need for this for law abiding citizens.
The challenges of our Homeland Security folks are monumental enough with out these constraints being placed on them. Even with complete access to all personal info, it's an impossible task. But, that doesn't justify not allowing them access to information that is highly likely to be pertinent to the task.
It's not privacy vs. security. It's security vs. security. I'm not as concerned about the FBI or the US government as I am about hackers, criminals, hostile governments, or other terrorists gaining access to my data. Once backdoor access is made possible, it is just a matter of time before the access falls into the wrong hands. This is Pandora's box. It goes way beyond whether someone can steal and post private pictures. We're talking about the ability to access financial and health records, which can lead to stealing money, identity theft, ransom, blackmail, and who knows what else?
Not only that, it restricts what you can do with you phone, health records and data especially have very tight regulation on collection, access and sharing. In this case, even with a warrant, not even sure they'd get access to that unless it is relevant the the case.
Not sure how much more secure Apple can make things. Only one I can think of is iCloud backups of devices. If you have the Apple ID and password you can get access to this data (for example, by restoring it to a new iPhone). And Apple can hand over iCloud data if ordered to do do.
Perhaps Apple will add a PIN or secondary password to iCloud backups such that if you want to restore it you need the Apple ID, ID password AND the PIN/secondary password. The drawback would be that if you forget this additional PIN/password then your iCloud backup is useless and you can't restore from it.
Well, they did buy the firmware security firm, if even Apple can't load up some bypassing tech once the intial upload has been done, it's secure even from Apple under FBI duress.
Comments
And the time after that?
please stop spouting crap, without PROVING the statements (and not by linking to rumour sites, but actual real data)
All your posts have been the same drivel, either contribute to the discussions of leave
The point here is that all the warrantless-collection did not stop 9/11, nor did it stop this case. Nor the Boston bomber. The police and FBI had information but didn't connect the dots. They're looking for one or two needles in a very big haystack. Is more hay going to help?? No.
But getting more hay will put the rest of us at risk. Backdoor crypto is a threat far greater.
I bought a Apple II computer in 1978 or 79 - I'm so old, I'm not longer sure what year it was! And, for a few years, I was an Apple developer. So I've taken pleasure with Apple's success; there were a lot of really tough years in Apple's early history, including after the introduction of the Lisa in 1983 and the MAC in 1984. But, I don't understand this idea that we need to allow people to hide info from the US agencies charged with preventing terrorism. I suppose it's this general distrust, to put it euphemistically, of GOVMENT so successfully propagated by the Republicans! But, I'm assuming, no one's so idiotic as to suggest that this isn't an appropriate governmental function?!
I'd like those of you who think Apple shouldn't provide help to the FBI for privacy reasons, to site specific examples of what you're afraid of the FBI doing with your secret personal info. It seems the arguments for the need for info to be totally inaccessible to the FBI always consists of some vague generalities; I'm at a loss, as to the need for this for law abiding citizens.
The challenges of our Homeland Security folks are monumental enough with out these constraints being placed on them. Even with complete access to all personal info, it's an impossible task. But, that doesn't justify not allowing them access to information that is highly likely to be pertinent to the task.
A Review of the FBI’s Use of National Security Letters: Assessment of Corrective Actions and Examination of NSL Usage in 2006
The National Security Letter spy tool has been uncloaked, and it’s bad
No warrants needed to get browsing history, online purchase records, and other data.
(NSL) is a potent surveillance tool that allows the US government to acquire a wide swath of private information—all without a warrant. Federal investigators issue tens of thousands of them each year to banks, ISPs, car dealers, insurance companies, doctors, and you name it. The letters don't need a judge's signature and come with a gag to the recipient, forbidding the disclosure of the NSL to the public or the target.
Continued NSL abuses show FBI biased, cannot police itself
http://arstechnica.com/security/2008/03/progress-on-national-security-letters-has-been-slow/
FBI admits no major cases cracked with Patriot Act snooping powers
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/21/fbi-admits-patriot-act-snooping-powers-didnt-crack/?page=1"Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said that between 2004 and 2009, the FBI tripled its use of bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows government agents to compel businesses to turn over records and documents, and increasingly scooped up records of Americans who had no ties to official terrorism investigations."
FBI Confirms No Major Terrorism Cases Cracked Via Unconstitutional Patriot Act Phone Spying
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/fbi-confirms-no-major-terrorism-cases-cracked-unconstitutional-patriot-act-phone-spyRogue FBI agent sentenced to 40 years in mob hit
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/15/connolly.sentence/index.html?iref=mpstoryviewCorrupt Silk Road agent Carl Force sentenced to 78 months
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/corrupt-silk-road-agent-carl-force-sentenced-to-78-months/I'm not about to surrender those just to make some civil servant's job a little easier. History, both recent and over centuries, has shown that we stand to lose much more than a few lives from the potential abuses by omnipotent security services.
"Of course Apple is bad because they like terrorists."
Honestly!? That's some people's take on this whole issue!? This just demonstrates that the public should have absolutely no say over this matter - they don't even understand the technology or implications involved. They're spoon fed sound bites and eat it up without realizing there's absolutely no substance. It's too bad people are so willing to bend over and take it; they could actually educate themselves. Unfortunately, it's all too obvious these people just don't care enough.
I don't care for Google or Microsoft, but I would applaud them if it was either of them at the heart of this issue. Why? Because whether I use their devices or not, in the end their loss on this issue eventually affects us all... and not just Americans, but everyone who uses a computer, tablet, or smartphone or any other kind of "smart" device.
Perhaps Apple will add a PIN or secondary password to iCloud backups such that if you want to restore it you need the Apple ID, ID password AND the PIN/secondary password. The drawback would be that if you forget this additional PIN/password then your iCloud backup is useless and you can't restore from it.
A FAIRY TALE
Apple relents and assigns special engineering staff to comply with court/FBI request. The concerned parties gather in the special secret hardened room for the proceedings. 3, 2, 1, and here we go. . .the iPhone is now crac. . . .wait a damn minute. WTF just happened? It's bricked! Oops!
The special Apple engineering staff is disciplined and subsequently reassigned to other departments/poached (yeah, I know) by high-profile tech security firms and startups/FBI/NSA/think tanks. Cook issues public apology and manages to steer Apple around contempt of court citations.
Apple subsequently releases dramatically hardened iPhone 7/iOS to insanely great rate of sales/adoption worldwide in the last half of 2016.
Special Congressional Committee on encryption forms, meets and is not able to comprehend the engineering complexities of the matter, much less reach consensus balancing legitimate competing interests. Issue continues to be played out in the courts, both judicial and of public opinion.
Some US 2016 Presidential candidates propose a Constitutional Amendment. Case finally wends its way to SCOTUS in 2019, shortly after extreme Congressional focus regarding views on cybersecurity of the newly-appointed and approved Justice (the new litmus test).
NSA continues to pretend it can't crack an iPhone.
Can kicked down the road indefinitely.
THE END.