Government says Apple arguments in encryption case a 'diversion,' presents point-by-point rebuttal

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 122
    While I support the principal Apple is putting forward, I would also challenge you all to think about the families of the dead, killed by the owner of that phone. This isn't just some nebulous government intervention on rights and freedoms. People died and the authorities are trying any means to find out how it happened. Look at what you have stored on your own device. You've gotta believe there might be something on that phone that may help the investigation or perhaps alert us to other threats. So yes, its a damn slippery slope, but lets remember the tragic reason behind the governments ask and the victims who want answers.  Tell me you could look at the mothers and fathers and children of those who were massacred by terrorists and say "sorry, but its the principal of the thing, ya know?  wish I could help but..".  Thats basically what Apple is saying to these families. Its a true moral dilemna, not just a privacy issue.
    edited March 2016
  • Reply 62 of 122
    Dave S said:

    Whether you ask a locksmith to pick a lock or Apple to unlock a phone, the court has the right to issue this order and the gov't the right to the info.

    Apple has no legs in its argument that the gov't or a third party might abuse the knowledge if it is known and that's it's best argument.  If Apple can show that compliance would threaten its business or the personal privacy rights of its customers that are not under court order, I suppose it may have a point.  


    It is one thing to demand that a locksmith pick a lock. It is something else altogether to ask a lock manufacturer to make all their legally unpickable locks pickable.

    Compliance will threaten Apple's business and both the privacy and security of every one of their customers. Although Ms. Decker asserts that the order issued by the court is narrow in scope, she purposely avoids describing the broader implications of creating a legal precedence that will be applied in countless court cases in the future.

    The due process of law allows every defence attorney in a case where evidence is gathered by the computer forensics tool the DOJ is asking Apple to create be documented, explained and made available to independent computer forensics experts for validation that it does not add to or modify such evidence.

    A security company recently paid a million dollars for a simple iOS zero-day exploit. Under these circumstances it will be virtually impossible to guarantee this tool will not eventually be sold into the underground.

    radarthekatchia
  • Reply 63 of 122
    Certain that a wave of the top legal minds in this forum will provide expert, cool and dispassionate judicial analysis.
    Whoaaaaaaaaaa..........is Don Trump here? (Sorry....I couldn't resist the "top legal minds" bait). The issue, (and in my reading of this article, it has been enunciated again), is that the government does not want to deal with a personal communications device that it is unable to examine at will. The presence of a warrant makes no difference here, (indicating to me that the solution to this problem will apply to all devices and situations from this point forward). The status of the individual is on trial, not the rights of Apple or the FBI.
    baconstang
  • Reply 64 of 122
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,595member
    These lying POS should be arrested and prosecuted for lying to the court and for submission of false information. They should next be fired.
  • Reply 65 of 122
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Natewac said:
    It's un-American for Apple to not help America in this world war. And if you don't think that we are at war you need to get your head out of your a$$.
    Maybe if you didn't crap out such nonsence, you wouldn't be on my ignore list on the first post.


    cornchipbaconstangtallest skilpscooter63hlee1169
  • Reply 66 of 122
    steevyweb said:
    While I support the principal Apple is putting forward, I would also challenge you all to think about the families of the dead, killed by the owner of that phone. This isn't just some nebulous government intervention on rights and freedoms. People died and the authorities are trying any means to find out how it happened. Look at what you have stored on your own device. You've gotta believe there might be something on that phone that may help the investigation or perhaps alert us to other threats. So yes, its a damn slippery slope, but lets remember the tragic reason behind the governments ask and the victims who want answers.
    The principles of inalienable rights and freedoms such as those enshrined in the constitution and the bill of rights are not something nebulous that you just throw out the window when you are emotionally upset by the next violent tragedy to come down the road. They have been earned by the blood of thousands of soldiers dying to protect them over centuries so the rest of us can be free of even the possibility of tyranny imposed by those in currently in power. They are there specifically to put limits on what law enforcement and those in government can do in circumstances like these. They have never had, and should never have, unbridled power to do as they please.

    What you have stored on your device is immaterial. Think of those who are working to bring human rights to repressive regimes abroad. Should they and the countless people they work to liberate be put at further risk for the sake of a few victims at home? Where do we draw the line? These kind of difficult questions are what arises if you don't make decisions based on principles.
    radarthekatbaconstangchia
  • Reply 67 of 122
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,595member
    clemynx said:
    "the very institutions that are best able to safeguard our liberty and our rights." 

    The same ones who illegally collected data on millions of American and foreign citizens? 

    Now they are just insulting our intelligence. 
    And the same government that can't even protect its own supposedly secure top secret data like millions of people applying for high security clearances. The government position is laughable, and these lying SOB's should themselves be prosecuted and fired.
    cornchipbaconstangfrankiechia
  • Reply 68 of 122
    Dave S said:

    After all, if this was a locked diary and the gov't asked the locksmith to pick the lock, does anyone really think the locksmith could defend by stating that the lock is proprietary and he does not want to pick it for fear that the info could be used to pick locks on other diaries he sold.  Sounds ridiculous eh?  Well, that is how ridiculous Apple's argument seems to this lawyer!  If it can be done, it should be.

    Unfortunately it is not as simple as you make it out to be: The diary in your example is a box with shredded paper in it. The lock has a counter that will destroy the contents of the box after 10 invalid attempts. What the courts asked Apple to do is: a) develop a software update that will disable the destroy mechanism; b) disable a timer that blocks the lock from accepting new entries after a failed attempt for a certain amount of time; and c) enable the lock to accept input not from the keys of the lock, but from another remote input source. Then the FBI will try all combinations to put the shredded papers back together. As opposed to the lock smith, there are no tools to open the lock, Apple needs to develop those. Even with those, the contents of the box are still shredded, and depending on the size of the key, it could take decades to put the pieces together. After Apple develops those tools, whenever anybody loses their phone, somebody else could use those tools to open their box.
    baconstangchia
  • Reply 69 of 122
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,903member
    The legal argument should never be "you should help us because you can afford to help us." If that was the criteria then courts should be able to compel the rich to feed the hungry or build houses for the homeless. I have a friend that I helped move 4 times over the last few years. This weekend I decided I didn't want to help for a 5th time. Am I somehow legally obligated obligated because I own a truck and helped in the past?

    ---

    Taking your argument further, you helped your friend move four times and now he's asking you to use your carpentry skills to help him build his new home.  That's more akin to this case.  Apple has never helped in the way the government is asking; it has only handed over data that existed and was in Apple's hands, unencrypted.  But this case is about breaking encryption in a manner the encryption was designed not be be able to be broken.  By helping your friend move in the past, not only should you not be compelled to assist him in the future, but you also haven't set any precedent for assisting him in the manner he is now requesting.  This is the lie of the FBI's stance; they know the details of how Apple has assisted in the past, they know it doesn't pertain to the current situation and they know exactly why.  Yet they act deliberately obtuse in order to confuse the public.
    Such a great analysis. 

    By the way, I just invented a new communication device; here's how it works:

    It looks a bit like a pair of binoculars, but it contains also a microphone, an soc of some sort, and instead of out-looking   lenses, it has a display which is viewed through the in-looking lenses. But not just anyone can look into the device. The device has retina scanning, and can only be viewed by the person who's retinas have been approved to view it. So what are we viewing? That's where the microphone and soc come in. We are viewing text. The text is input by dictation. The text is viewable for only for an amount of time decided by the person creating the message. 

    Hey this just in! A terrorist was using my new device to possibly communicate with other terrorists before he committed a dastardly crime! Oh no! What is the DOJ going to do about this? There's no way I can help them recover any information off this thing! Are they going to put me in jail? I'm just a bro trying to make a living!!!
  • Reply 70 of 122
    The problem here is simply this: Once you open the faucet, how, when, and where do you shut it off? Is it opened only when you KNOW, after the fact, that a person is a terrorist? If you KNOW, then you DON"T NEED THE INFORMATION..! If you don't know, then do more homework that doesn't require people or businesses to reveal what they don't want to, and really maybe should not. Then, do we apply it to just terrorism, or any other kind of criminal act? Maybe when you SUSPECT someone may be abusing their children? Or selling business secrets to a competitor? Or maybe just when you suspect they stole a candy bar, or exceeded the speed limit on the way home? What sort of 'crime' fits the bill to qualify for this kind of action? Where does it start and stop? On the surface, it sounds so simple. But sadly, we've seen it all before. This is the kind of faucet that, once opened, freezes, and can never be closed again...though it always seems to be able to be opened farther. I suggest the FBI spend our tax resources on other avenues of finding out what they need to know here, and leave the privacy laws intact. Once those are broken down, the downward spiral has no bottom.
    baconstangchia
  • Reply 71 of 122
    Assume for a moment that you are one of the handful who could create a compromised version of the OS. How safe are the capable handful going to be once they create the OS? The world is full of bad players willing to do whatever it takes to get their hands on something like that.
    The FBI  is calling on the court to issue an order to allow the kidnaping of Apple employees.  Apple can't force these employees to do it if they refuse. No way Apple is going to terminate them. Instead of trying to force corporations to help clean up your mess, stop granting visas to people with applications containing nonexistent home address. This woman's application for a visa should have been rejected. 
    baconstangcornchip
  • Reply 72 of 122
    Dave SDave S Posts: 6member
    Urei1620 said:
    @ Dave S, how much did your employer pay you to post that brilliant analysis?


    I employ myself.  I don't post often and I initially suspected the FBI was likely overreaching.  I deal with them routinely in my work and I was employed with the government for a time.  It is not uncommon, in my experience, that they can be cripplingly powerful.  It can be scary if they are on your tail and many folks subject to this type of "investigation" are not clear criminals.  Rather, they operate in the financial gray area because to do so can be very lucrative.  Or, they aren't aware they are breaking a law and just can't understand why the gov't can literally shut off their life overnight (freeze accounts, arrest you and request denial of bail, seize you and your family's assets, etc...)  Again, judges need to be careful and most realize the tremendous burden they carry.

    That said, I believe it is the result of judges being too friendly about finding cause to issue warrants.  Regardless, in this instance, there is no doubt the man is a killer and that the phone may contain relevant info that could prevent harm of other innocent people.  I have no clue how this can be reasonably opposed.  Leads me to wonder just how much I don't know.  Ignorance is bliss, no doubt, and I know the guys at Apple are probably doing this in good faith.  All I can say is that, from a legal perspective, they lose.  So, if Apple is right, it must be because I am ignorant with respect to some material fact that, the existence which, would swing the pendulum.

    cornchip
  • Reply 73 of 122
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,509moderator
    The legal argument should never be "you should help us because you can afford to help us." If that was the criteria then courts should be able to compel the rich to feed the hungry or build houses for the homeless. I have a friend that I helped move 4 times over the last few years. This weekend I decided I didn't want to help for a 5th time. Am I somehow legally obligated to help because I own a truck and helped in the past?
     What a red herring. This was in direct response to Apple claiming "undue burden" which is a farce. Should Apple provide you with tech support because they offered it in a warranty? Yes, claiming undue burden would be a farce. Should they re-engineer the entire device's software and internal components to meet your personal wants under warranty? No, that would be a significant burden. Got it now?

    ---

    This would effectively require a company like Apple to create a new division that builds and maintains forensic tools for law enforcement.  The version of iOS will need to be entered into evidence and will be demanded to be inspected (likely at the source code level) by defense attorneys who will claim that they need access to ensure that the tool functions without altering the evidence it uncovered against their client.  Yes, this will get out into the wild, via a number of channels.  Apple, and everyone supporting Apple's position, understands this situation far better than those who are emotionally reacting to a terrorist act.

    If I were Apple I'd very quickly release a new version of iOS that requires user sign in before a new version of the operating system can be installed.  That would prevent even Apple from being able to automatically install onto an iDevice in law enforcement's hands a weakened version of iOS.  It wouldn't help Apple for existing iPhones law enforcement has in their hands, and Apple should continue to fight the legal battles on those, but it would prevent Apple from even being in a position to help in this manner in the future.

    Congress would in turn have to pass laws that explicitly prohibit an OS that cannot be broken. And in that case Apple would create that OS for U.S. customers ONLY, strongly underlining for everyone to see that the whole direction law enforcement is going will weaken the security and privacy ONLY of Americans.  It would do nothing to prevent terrorists from having virtually unbreakable encryption.  The terrorists are salivating at this result.  They'll consider it a major victory.

    Got it now?
    baconstangchia
  • Reply 74 of 122
    Dave SDave S Posts: 6member
    I think a healthy balance on gov't manipulation seems to be in a battle with basic mistrust and paranoia.  I hope logic and objective analysis wins out.  This motion pertains to one phone as I understand it.  Also, I am not aware of the gov't asking or requiring Apple to tell them how they unlock the phone.  They are asking for data.  That should be all.  If anything more is requested, Apple can seek an appropriate limiting order from the court and it should not be required to disclose any of it's proprietary methods or code.  Again, I don't understand the resistance so I must be mistaken factually.  Nonetheless, even if it isn't as simple as I make it seem, in the end, the court should fashion an order for Apple to give the data yet retain the right not to tell anyone how they removed it from the phone.  I am confident that a competent court will accomplish this.
  • Reply 75 of 122
    When the DoJ compelled Ladar Levison to turn over encryption keys for his Lavabit email service, which Snowden used. He refused and rather than obeying the court order, he chose to close down his email service. If Apple were to close down the business, then they would have not ability to obey the court order; otherwise, these oppressors will continue this nonsense. Government bullying sucks.
    edited March 2016 ration albaconstangchiacornchip
  • Reply 76 of 122
    The legal argument should never be "you should help us because you can afford to help us." If that was the criteria then courts should be able to compel the rich to feed the hungry or build houses for the homeless. I have a friend that I helped move 4 times over the last few years. This weekend I decided I didn't want to help for a 5th time. Am I somehow legally obligated to help because I own a truck and helped in the past?
     What a red herring. This was in direct response to Apple claiming "undue burden" which is a farce. Should Apple provide you with tech support because they offered it in a warranty? Yes, claiming undue burden would be a farce. Should they re-engineer the entire device's software and internal components to meet your personal wants under warranty? No, that would be a significant burden. Got it now?
    The correct response by the DOJ to Apple claiming a burden would be "it's only a tiny change to the source code to remove a few restrictions" not attempting to publicly shame a company with hundreds of billions of dollar in revenues and 100K employees into doing what they want. The undue burden defense was an answer to the scope of the all writs act. The argument by Apple, against the DOJ compelling speech or servitude to assist is a constitutional argument.  Skills or resources play not part in that.
    ration albaconstangchia
  • Reply 77 of 122
    @ Dave S. Hey man, 0 likes and 10 dislikes. You are the Govt lapdog of the year!
    bestkeptsecret
  • Reply 78 of 122
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Dave S said:
    I think a healthy balance on gov't manipulation seems to be in a battle with basic mistrust and paranoia.  I hope logic and objective analysis wins out.  This motion pertains to one phone as I understand it.  Also, I am not aware of the gov't asking or requiring Apple to tell them how they unlock the phone.  They are asking for data.  That should be all.  If anything more is requested, Apple can seek an appropriate limiting order from the court and it should not be required to disclose any of it's proprietary methods or code.  Again, I don't understand the resistance so I must be mistaken factually.  Nonetheless, even if it isn't as simple as I make it seem, in the end, the court should fashion an order for Apple to give the data yet retain the right not to tell anyone how they removed it from the phone.  I am confident that a competent court will accomplish this.

    Basically, inform yourself because you don't know what your talking about.
    baconstangchia
  • Reply 79 of 122
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,509moderator
    Dave S said:
    "... the letter says, adding that the company is to blame for being in the position it currently finds itself." No you got it wrong- if anybody then that is FBI to blame to put Apple into this position. Do not apply incorrect and political logic. Apple has point and FBI has point, but that's FBI who put Apple into this position so do not make stupid statements like that.

    What is Apple's point here?  The court, properly, found cause to believe the guy committed a crime and that the FBI can look at his phone to get info about it.  Apple said they don't want to produce it because it is locked and they shouldn't have to unlock it.  So, if the court orders my bank to unlock my safe deposit box, are you saying the bank can, and should, say no?  If you are, you're wrong (at least by current law).  Why in the world would anyone not want our police to have this power?  It is not as if they can just look when they want.  They need a judge's order (which the FBI has).  To state that, if they know how, they may abuse the power and look at other info without a warrant is just foolish.  We have laws that state that they cannot.  If the police choose to break those laws, then this issue is the least of our worries.  Regardless, give them the proper tools and they are better able to do their jobs without resorting to illegal or desperate measures such as illegal searches.  So, I would argue that more danger would result from a denial of this request by the feds than would come from enforcement of their previous order!

    ---

    You know not of what you speak.  In the case of a safety deposit box at a bank, the bank is expected to turn over the key, which law enforcement, or anyone (a bank employee might volunteer) can use to unlock the box.  But if the key has been lost, then law enforcement does not require the bank manager to pick the lock.  That's not his job.  Law enforcement calls a damn locksmith to do that job.  And doesn't jump down the bank's throat or drag it into court for not being able to produce the key.  

    In Apple's case, the key is in the mind of the person who had possession and use of the phone, and nowhere else.  And that would be the terrorist.  Now that he is dead, the key is effectively lost.  So the FBI needs to hire a locksmith, of sorts.  Someone who advertises his services in this regard, who has the technical expertise to unlock the phone.  If they go find someone like that and he says he doesn't want the job, they don't compel him to do it anyway; they go find another who is willing to do the job.   What's new in this case is that the FBI is demanding that an entity that doesn't want the work, but could do it, take the job.  And, and this is equally crucial, the FBI is demanding that the particular method that should be used to gain access to this phone be one that would create a backdoors for future use on any phone they want.  And it would establish a new government power that could be used to compel any party unrelated to an investigation to assist an investigation in any manner the government stipulated.  That the overreach aspect of this case and it's very dangerous.
    ration albaconstangjbishop1039chiacornchip
  • Reply 80 of 122
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,509moderator
    steevyweb said:
    While I support the principal Apple is putting forward, I would also challenge you all to think about the families of the dead, killed by the owner of that phone. This isn't just some nebulous government intervention on rights and freedoms. People died and the authorities are trying any means to find out how it happened. Look at what you have stored on your own device. You've gotta believe there might be something on that phone that may help the investigation or perhaps alert us to other threats. So yes, its a damn slippery slope, but lets remember the tragic reason behind the governments ask and the victims who want answers.  Tell me you could look at the mothers and fathers and children of those who were massacred by terrorists and say "sorry, but its the principal of the thing, ya know?  wish I could help but..".  Thats basically what Apple is saying to these families. Its a true moral dilemna, not just a privacy issue.

    ---

    Except that there are at least two methods, both involving carefully dissecting the phone and using an electron microscope to read information for the circuitry, that can be used to break into this phone, without all the dangerous precedents and risk of unleashing a back door into the wild.  Before you ask me to explain that last part, J first read the rest on my comment on this article where I've already explained all that to others.
    ration alcornchip
Sign In or Register to comment.