ration al

Apple OS Fan said:

Everything Apple is doing here is what they do to anyone that sues them. They make up stories, fabricate facts and try to put the blame on to others. . When it is time to produce documents, they don't comply by giving documents that are not relevant to the documents requested. Then they tell the court they have produce everything. The FBI should request Apple to provide there internal documents regarding the Apple Store and other division on their SOP when needing to contact the authorities. With these docs, the courts would see how Apple continuously tries to obfuscate what is being requested of them.

Emericus said:

Based on these latest documents, I'm starting to see this a bit differently than before. Each side is attempting to prevent a certain kind of precedent from being set. For Apple, we all know what the precedent is because the media has covered it to death: Apple wants to avoid even implicitly supporting the idea that a governing body can compel it to hack and undermine the security of its own devices. But for the FBI it's a different precedent they want to avoid, a precedent set in motion by the release of iOS8 in 2014: the FBI wants to avoid supporting the idea that it's okay and legal for any tech company to design devices that thwart all attempts at entry by law enforcement or anyone else. While such devices and the networks they operate on will naturally keep my own legal emails and bank account numbers secure, they will certainly also become the haven for all manner of illegal behavior. And if allowed to be used freely in private and public, as iPhones are now, such devices over time could render many forms of law enforcement perpetually ineffective (perhaps they already are). Now, I don't work for law enforcement, and I'm not necessarily siding with the FBI here, but I'm starting to the see the bigger picture how they see it, and it does make some sense without being too paranoid. The issue is that so many people use smartphones and cellphones (just like so many people use roads, airspace, and building enclosures), it may not be in the public's best interest that these things be designed to thwart all law enforcement activities always. On that account, it might be worth the government's best legal efforts to basically force Apple to dismantle iOS8 and thus, in the bigger picture, teach all tech companies a basic lesson: so many people use these devices and networks, it is in the public's best interest that they all have some form of backdoor, even if the downside is increased likelihood of opportunistic hacking.

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.

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.