Tim Cook: FBI is asking Apple to create 'software equivalent of cancer'

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 62
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    In a situation where lives are at risk, such as now in a war footing with radical Islam, adult Americans know that some liberties are often sublimated in the short term in order to overcome a very significant and continuing threat.  All of you millennials who are afraid that the FBI will snoop on your weekend date plans, or your speed dealer's phone number need to loosen up, believe me no one cares about you, and -a lot- of people you don't know can see what you are doing every day.  

    "The steps Lincoln took are well known. Under his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief of the military, he declared martial law and suspended the writ of habeas corpus in certain locations. He blockaded Southern ports. He shut down some opposition newspapers. He created tribunals similar to the ones that George W. Bush established when he was president. At one point early in the war, convinced that the Maryland legislature was poised to vote an ordinance of secession, he ordered Federal troops to arrest and detain pro-secessionist lawmakers. Lincoln justified this last step on the grounds that there was “tangible and unmistakable evidence” of their “substantial and unmistakable complicity with those in armed rebellion.”"

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389928/civil-liberties-wartime-mackubin-thomas-owens

    But today, ignorant liberals would rather lose the Civil war than to make a temporary sacrifice.
    It's been 3 months since the attack and yet no new alarms has been raised. Lives aren't at stake. The FBI screwed itself by ordering the Apple ID password changed. 
  • Reply 42 of 62
    pmz said:

    mcdark said:
    There's a lot more could have been said here, but I guess he has to be diplomatic. Like I notice he had to almost completely ignore the biggest elephant in the room; if they create the tools for the American government, then the same tools has to be made available to every other government around the world. Many of which may not be part of what we might think of as the 'free world'. It's alright saying it would only be used against this one bad guy, or even bad guys in general, but not every government will have the same definition of who a bad guy is. Guess there are some governments Apple wants to keep sweet, for obvious reasons.

    Where do you people get the idea that it would be OK for even the US government to have access to such tools? I keep hearing this good-government bullshit story where, it would be OK for our government, but too dangerous in the hands of other governments. Holy hell, stop watching television, that's all I can tell you.

    You should be more wary of the US government and the power it wields both domestically and internationally.
    I don't really see how you're concluding I'm advocating the American government getting the tools. Can only assume you haven't read what I said.

    The point I'm making, if I need to spell it out to you, is him choosing not to play the trump card; he didn't mention China! Probably because he can't risk upsetting them. Which is a shame considering it really needs to be pushed home to these circa 51% of Americans, in their typically insular thinking way, who think the consequences of complying are worth it.
  • Reply 43 of 62
    "The steps Lincoln took are well known. Under his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief of the military, he declared martial law and suspended the writ of habeas corpus in certain locations. He blockaded Southern ports. He shut down some opposition newspapers. He created tribunals similar to the ones that George W. Bush established when he was president. At one point early in the war, convinced that the Maryland legislature was poised to vote an ordinance of secession, he ordered Federal troops to arrest and detain pro-secessionist lawmakers. Lincoln justified this last step on the grounds that there was “tangible and unmistakable evidence” of their “substantial and unmistakable complicity with those in armed rebellion.”"
    Uh, yeah. 

    First off, unlike Lincoln, we are not facing the serious possibility of overthrow of our government. So, there's that.

    Secondly, what out government did in the past really has no bearing on this new unique scenario. 

    Lastly, our government has a truly terrible track record of violating human rights in the name of supposed security. Ever hear of the "Trail of Tears" or Japanese internment camps? It can't be trusted to make the right choice.
  • Reply 44 of 62
    ajmasajmas Posts: 597member
    The key point here is that congress needs to decide what happens next. Tim Cook, seems to indicate that he would follow the result of a clear law put about by congress, but until then is unwilling to do anything.

     Anyone who works with tech and security knows the weakest point is social engineering, followed by a backdoor. In the end security is as much about trust as it is anything else. You chip away at the trust and you end up hurting the underlying security. 
  • Reply 45 of 62
    Cwehner said:
    A little off  the subject here,  but  did anyone  notice the laptop on his back desk. It was  all black, there is no all black notebook made by Apple, at first I  thought it was an iPad but then I  noticed  it had a OS X dock?
    Perhaps it is the Space Grey MacBook?
  • Reply 46 of 62
    Cook is engaging in a marketing effort to distinguish iPhones from Samsung phones, and putting lives at risk in the process.  60% of Americans think that situations such as terrorist attacks should be investigated fully even if that means decrypting a few iPhones.

    Bill Gates weighted in with some common sense, which is rare around here:

    "This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information. They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case," Gates said.

    Let the Windows bashing, to reinforce your 'pro terrorist privacy rights' bias, begin.
  • Reply 47 of 62
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    Cook is engaging in a marketing effort to distinguish iPhones from Samsung phones, and putting lives at risk in the process.  60% of Americans think that situations such as terrorist attacks should be investigated fully even if that means decrypting a few iPhones.

    Bill Gates weighted in with some common sense, which is rare around here:

    "This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information. They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case," Gates said.

    Let the Windows bashing, to reinforce your 'pro terrorist privacy rights' bias, begin.
    1) “There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.”

    2) Tel me again how Apple can create a key that only will be able to decrypt devices that are used by terrorists but not used by non-terrorists?
  • Reply 48 of 62
    In a lengthy interview with ABC News anchor David Muir, Apple CEO Tim Cook reiterated that the repercussions of complying with FBI requests to build an iOS backdoor don't end with one smartphone, but instead have implications that ripple far beyond to hundreds of millions of iOS device owners.




    In questioning Cook, Muir first addressed public opinion, which relates the ongoing encryption debate directly -- and solely -- with 14 people who lost their lives in last year's San Bernardino terrorist attack. Cook, however, remained resolute in his stance that creating a software workaround endangers hundreds of millions of Apple customers.

    "It's not like we have information on this phone in the next office over. We have no other information on this phone. None," Cook said. "The only way we know to get additional information is to write a piece of software that is the software equivalent of cancer. That is what is at stake here."

    Put more succinctly, Cook said "the future is at stake" in Apple's legal battle for user privacy.



    When asked about FBI Director James Comey's public statements regarding a one-device workaround, Cook elaborated on the slippery slope argument. If Apple were compelled to build the software requested, it might later be forced to create other intrusive tools like an operating system for surveillance, or code that turns on an iPhone's camera without a user's knowledge, Cook said. These dangers, while intangible at this point, pose a very real threat to the public at large.

    "I don't know where this stops, but this should not be happening in this country. This is not what should be happening in America," Cook said, adding that if an encryption law is to be instated, it should first be debated in Congress.

    Muir asked why Apple and the FBI were unable to cooperate on the matter earlier, perhaps in a secret lab akin to those used to develop next-generation devices. In response, Cook said that while he can't comment of FBI tactics, the agency chose to take its fight into the public realm. Last week Apple was ordered by a federal magistrate judge to comply with FBI requests for assistance in unlocking an iPhone 5c used by San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook.

    Pressed further on the issue, the Apple chief boiled down the debate into one of principle.

    "In a perfect world where none of the implications that I'm talking about exist, yes, we would do it -- we would obviously do it," Cook said. "But we don't live in a perfect world."

  • Reply 49 of 62
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    In a situation where lives are at risk, such as now in a war footing with radical Islam, adult Americans know that some liberties are often sublimated in the short term in order to overcome a very significant and continuing threat.  

    [...]

    But today, ignorant liberals would rather lose the Civil war than to make a temporary sacrifice.


    "Sublimated"? That is not the word you're looking for, even if you're going for the vaguest euphemism you can find.

    To "sublimate" is to distill the essence of, as in alchemy. You are talking about crippling, or if you want to get dramatic, emasculating.

    Given this telling blunder on your part, I have to question your right to speak of ignorant liberals. Have you ever spent time in Maricopa County, Arizona?
    paxman
  • Reply 50 of 62
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,312member
    Cook is engaging in a marketing effort to distinguish iPhones from Samsung phones, and putting lives at risk in the process.  60% of Americans think that situations such as terrorist attacks should be investigated fully even if that means decrypting a few iPhones.

    Bill Gates weighted in with some common sense, which is rare around here:

    "This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information. They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case," Gates said.

    Let the Windows bashing, to reinforce your 'pro terrorist privacy rights' bias, begin.
    ...and the tech community resoundingly rejected Billsplain1 and the sequel, Billsplain2, just as we here in the forums are sounding rejecting your comments. Bill was unprepared, waffled, and frankly shouldn't have commented at all; he actually helped Apple's position.

    What's your excuse?
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 51 of 62
    I'd like to believe that once people understand what would need to happen in order to get access to that iPhone in question, they will realize that it's a bad idea to go through with it. It's about enabling people to make an informed choice. The public debate that Time Cook initiated will hopefully allow for that to happen. 

    A wise man once stated that "everyone has a price tag". In other words, if enough money is offered to someone (however much that needs to be) he will abandon his moral principles. If you think about the "pressure" that Tim Cook is referring to, imagine how much such a back door would be worth to a rival government or criminal organization. A key that can unlock any iPhone in the world. I'm convinced that that price tag would be high enough to corrupt someone who has access to that key, whether working for Apple, the government, or the FBI. It only takes one person to cave. This is why the FBI's demand is so incredibly dangerous. This short sighted request could indeed change all of our lives in a fundamental way.
  • Reply 52 of 62
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,310moderator
    That's the first time Tim has looked a bit shaken up during an interview. This is really disgusting how the intelligence agencies have handled this, going to the press and trying to slander Apple as being on the side of terrorists because they choose to protect civil liberties. There are libel laws, it's about time they started using them against government employees who think they can bully citizens into doing whatever they want.

    At the end of the day, no one can walk into Apple's business, hold up a court order and make them develop a hacking tool. They can't physically force someone to develop code, nor can they steal intellectual property. The FBI knows they can't win this so they are using dirty tactics to turn the public, press and politicians against Apple to try and guilt them into compliance.

    If an intelligence agency asked a company to build a denial of service tool to take down a terrorist server, a company wouldn't have to build something like that. The agency can moan and lie to the public all they want and spin their tales about how this company is helping terrorists by not building a tool to take down a server but it doesn't matter one bit.

    This is essentially conscription in the digital era. The agencies are forcing technology companies to take their side in a war, develop weapons and be a part of it. Just like the scientists whose efforts were used in physical weapons technology:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/11/ive-created-a-monster-on-the-regrets-of-inventors/249044/

    Since it's a private contract, maybe Apple should just send them a quote for $1 trillion to do the work. They can say it would materially harm their entire business, which they consider to be worth at least $1 trillion. That should get the fiscal conservatives to oppose it at least.

    This case reminded me of the film Enemy of the State where the intelligence agencies start harassing non-compliant citizens:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_State_(film)

    "In the 1990s, U.S. National Security Agency official Thomas Bryan Reynolds (Jon Voight) meets with congressman Phil Hammersley (R-NY) (Jason Robards) in a public park to discuss support for new counter-terrorism legislation the U.S. Congress is pushing that dramatically expands the surveillance powers of intelligence agencies on individuals and groups. Hammersley remains committed to blocking its passage, since he believes it would almost totally destroy the privacy of American citizens. The U.S. Congress is forced to abandon the passage plan to avoid a national scandal, though they cover up the NSA's involvement to prevent a large riot against the agency."

    "An episode of PBS' Nova titled "Spy Factory" reports that the film's portrayal of the NSA's capabilities are fiction: although the agency can intercept transmissions, connecting the dots is difficult. However, in 2001, then-NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden, who was appointed to the position during the release of the film, told CNN's Kyra Phillips that "I made the judgment that we couldn't survive with the popular impression of this agency being formed by the last Will Smith movie." James Risen wrote in his 2006 book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration that Hayden "was appalled" by the film's depiction of the NSA, and sought to counter it with a PR campaign on behalf of the agency.

    In June 2013 the NSA's PRISM and Boundless Informant programs for domestic and international surveillance were uncovered by The Guardian and Washington Post as the result of information provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden. This information revealed capabilities such as collection of Internet browsing, email and telephone data of not only every American, but citizens of other nations as well. The Guardian's John Patterson opined that Hollywood depictions of NSA surveillance, including Enemy of the State and Echelon Conspiracy, had "softened" up the American public to "the notion that our spending habits, our location, our every movement and conversation, are visible to others whose motives we cannot know."

    The agencies wouldn't have to be concerned about their public image if they didn't go around behaving like this.

    Maybe it's time for Apple to step up their PR offensive. They have all the history of the agencies spying on civilians. Tim was talking about protecting people in the interview. It's not a good idea to keep referring to them as customers though, they should only ever be referred to as innocent civilians or similar. They need to frame this in a way that people understand this is an assault on civil liberties by the intelligence agencies just like what they've been doing before that outraged the public and most of all counter the narrative that they just need to unlock a phone because that suggests they have a key they can hand over and they don't. The intelligence agencies want unlimited surveillance capabilities on civilians and no accountability for their own actions and it's about time they were held accountable. They're not abandoning encryption themselves, they just want everyone else to. They've done this before:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/03/lavabit-ladar-levison-fbi-encryption-keys-snowden

    They forced the encrypted email provider to hand over the encryption keys and claimed the same thing that they wouldn't be looking at everyone's email. He handed over the key printed out at 4pt text on a sheet of paper so they decided they'd fine him every day until he handed over the electronic versions and he shut the business down. I don't even know how that was legal to do that to a private business.

    It wouldn't go to that extent with Apple and like I say, they can't force them to create something that doesn't exist but the agencies will keep piling the pressure on. It looks like it's already affecting Tim. Hopefully they can get through this without too much damage being caused but something needs to be done to stop intelligence agencies acting like this.
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 53 of 62
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member
    Marvin said:
    That's the first time Tim has looked a bit shaken up during an interview. 
    I have to say that the primary reason for this must have been the persistent repetition of a very few questions. It was driving me nuts, making me fidget as I watched. Over and over, the same bleeding questions. It was like David Muir had spent all of 10 minutes preparing. I was hoping for a deeper discussion on civil liberties with some history and examples thrown in. The discussion is about the principles which can be quickly summed up, but the backstory is longer and more complex. The repetition of the phrase: "What would you... [pause]... say to those people... etc" must have driven Tim crazy. Polite to a fault in his head he must have screamed "are you not fucking listening?" 
    Geez!
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 54 of 62
    Even if Apple agreed to do this. How would you actually implement this? We know from past cases involving authority that evidence gets planted when law enforcement is "CONVINCED" that they have the right guy. Once the government can get into a device how will we know that evidence found wasn't planted by those that got into the device. Once their in they can do anything.
  • Reply 55 of 62
    josujosu Posts: 217member
    I'm really surprised sog35 didn't smell the blood in this. I'm not trying to troll the guy, seriously, but after being asking for Cook to go to the media to help the stock price, the guy end up going to the media, ABC is a friend given its ties with Jobs widow, for this, a very serious thing, don't get me wrong. But the guy showed that when he wants he can get the big media attention to give his point of view to the big audience. Giving sog35 a good argument to complain.
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 56 of 62
    I just zero'd out the HD on my old 2007 iMac, so I can dispose of it. Booting from a Leopard DVD, there was the option to reset the master password, something along those lines. Back in the older days, computers had a reset feature inside the box on the motherboard. I am no rocket scientist, but if Apple cannot do something like that with the iPhone, they should not be in business. People need to be responsible for their own data, not expect a company like Apple to do it. Tim Cook and Apple are correct. A software backdoor would be insane. I am talking about a physical switch inside any i-device, to reset the password.
  • Reply 57 of 62
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    jcm722 said:
    I just zero'd out the HD on my old 2007 iMac, so I can dispose of it. Booting from a Leopard DVD, there was the option to reset the master password, something along those lines. Back in the older days, computers had a reset feature inside the box on the motherboard. I am no rocket scientist, but if Apple cannot do something like that with the iPhone, they should not be in business. People need to be responsible for their own data, not expect a company like Apple to do it. Tim Cook and Apple are correct. A software backdoor would be insane. I am talking about a physical switch inside any i-device, to reset the password.
    So any stolen iPhone could be opened up and hound get full access to all the data on the device? Do you not see any issue with that plan?
  • Reply 58 of 62
    Soli said:
    jcm722 said:
    I just zero'd out the HD on my old 2007 iMac, so I can dispose of it. Booting from a Leopard DVD, there was the option to reset the master password, something along those lines. Back in the older days, computers had a reset feature inside the box on the motherboard. I am no rocket scientist, but if Apple cannot do something like that with the iPhone, they should not be in business. People need to be responsible for their own data, not expect a company like Apple to do it. Tim Cook and Apple are correct. A software backdoor would be insane. I am talking about a physical switch inside any i-device, to reset the password.
    So any stolen iPhone could be opened up and hound get full access to all the data on the device? Do you not see any issue with that
    plan?
    If your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch is lost or stolen


  • Reply 59 of 62
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    jcm722 said:
    How the fuck is that a response to anything regarding your "solution" of allowing anyone with physical access to a device to reset a passcode, after you've condemned to being nothing more than basic BIOS lock on a 90s logic board?
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 60 of 62
    Soli said:
    jcm722 said:
    How the fuck is that a response to anything regarding your "solution" of allowing anyone with physical access to a device to reset a passcode, after you've condemned to being nothing more than basic BIOS lock on a 90s logic board?
    Then YOU figure it out. You figure out how to keep Apple and the Feds happy.
Sign In or Register to comment.