February 19, 2016 at 6:41 pm #18150mwdxer1Participant
Apple is so huge, I wonder if Apple just refused. How can they force Apple to do anything? Is Apple one of these companies that is too big to fail or to deal with? How to owners of the Iphone feel? If the masses who own Iphones protested what would be the outcome? Hopefully it would not come to that, but sometimes I feel the people have to raise up and say enough is enough.February 19, 2016 at 6:56 pm #18154VitalogyParticipant
Apple thinks they are too big to fail, but in the world of high tech companies, they all think they are invincible, until… Ask shareholders of Yahoo on that.
Like I said, this is a bad PR situation for Apple. The average person out there thinks Apple is unwilling to help in the investigation. And as proof to my earlier post, Trump is now advocating for a boycott of Apple.
Apple would have been better off to try to work with the investigation rather than stonewall it.
Perception is reality.February 19, 2016 at 8:15 pm #18155jr_techParticipant
“Trump is now advocating for a boycott of Apple”
Seems like a decent reason to suport Apple against big brother!February 20, 2016 at 11:31 am #18165
Nobody using Apple will give two shits about Trump.
New developments on this include the iCloud password being reset at the FBI request. Had they not done that, they could have requested a backup of the device, which Apple would gladly share with them.
Seems like part of the solution here is for law enforcement to get a lot more tech savvy. But that costs money and does require paying people above thuggery wage… I’m in support of that.
Another part of this is to ramp up on good old school police work. The devices are easy, like cop crack. I’m not so sure that is a good thing. I am sure great police work is. There is that thuggery problem again.
I’m not slamming law enforcement peeps here, just those calling the shots on it.
I just read about a pretty great crypto attack today. They mill down the chip and sense data from the back side. From there they can probe and get keys, and other things.
Law enforcement could attack their own devices, get in, and do things like transplant compromised components to get around and into things. They could also reverse engineer software, and get keys on tandem with chip level protection circumvention as I just mentioned.
Let’s fund that research.
I have no problem with the State upping it’s game. Let’s just be honest about it and why. That also will improve and advance tech anyway, which is also good for us.
You think the smart peeps in China aren’t already doing this stuff? Of course they are, just like we are too.
Now, given actions were taken that have consequences, my perception of this is changed. I’m not sure Apple needs to be involved in a CYA opp.
The basic fact of this being a stepping stone to a more broad encryption ban or mandatory back door rule is unchanged. I oppose that.
Whatever we think, we now know they had options and could have exercised then and did not. Nice discussion to have, particularly given the initial framing g put the blame on the county guys, who just tweeted the opposite. FBI asked them to do that, nor that they did it and messed up the possible data extraction.
This is just like the local cop tainting a come scene, but doing it under advisement of the FBI, who tries to CYA by calling the local guys out…February 20, 2016 at 1:26 pm #18166
“I just read about a pretty great crypto attack today. They mill down the chip and sense data from the back side. From there they can probe and get keys, and other things.”
Not a new trick. My little bro’ told me about shaving the tops off of chips and using powerful microscopes to obtain chip designs maybe 15 years ago. Very popular with the criminals that were busy back then trying to create pirate cable set top boxes with all channel access.
Back at the Apple thing, later this week when Apple files their official response, we’ll have a much better idea of what their position is and isn’t. Until then, we’ve got loads of hype, politics and fear mongering dominating the press. Too many articles quoting people that just aren’t close to the bone and all that does is stoke ignorance and knee jerk reactions often based on innuendo and not fact, so I’ll wait until Tim Cook and the Apple gang submit their official position to the court.February 23, 2016 at 1:41 pm #18245
Further clarification of why Apple is resisting complying with the most recent court order comes from The Wall Street Journal which reported that the Justice Department is trying to compel Apple to help crack iPhones in a dozen cases that are all based on the centuries-old All Writs Act, the same law being used in the San Bernardino case. The details of the cases aren’t clear because they haven’t been made public, but the WSJ’s sources say they have nothing to do with terrorism.
Many of the phones in those cases are also different from the iPhone 5c in the San Bernardino case because they’re running older versions of iOS that aren’t encrypted by a passcode.
Why this matters: But the fact that Apple is facing court orders in similar cases, though they’re not exactly the same, gives credence to its argument that establishing legal precedent in the San Bernardino case would mean it would have to act as a gatekeeper between law enforcement and its customers. The Justice Department and FBI have said that the San Bernardino court order applies to just this specific case, and that Apple would be able to oversee the process and destroy any modified software created to crack open the iPhone 5c. But Apple’s not buying it.
When Apple’s response is filed this week, there may even be further details of why this is about far more then cracking open one iPhone.February 24, 2016 at 7:57 pm #18274VitalogyParticipant
More Support for Justice Department Than for Apple in Dispute Over Unlocking iPhone.
Like I said, bad PR for Apple.
And let’s remove the high tech shit and talk basics. Imagine if I had a house with a front door that was locked thanks to a smart lock, and the only option was to have the FOR PROFIT COMPANY work with the FBI to unlock the door and allow the inside of my house to be investigated, which is the subject of a crime (14 murders).
I don’t buy for a second the excuse Apple is putting forth. It’s actually a page of the slippery slope argument right out of the right wing’s back pocket.February 25, 2016 at 2:12 pm #18302
Apple on Thursday filed its formal opposition to the federal court order requiring it to help law enforcement officials break into an iPhone, setting the stage for more legal wrangling in a case that has pitted the world’s most valuable company against the United States government.
In its brief, filed in federal court in California, Apple said that the court should drop an order issued last week that essentially asked the company to create a tool that law enforcement agents can use to break into an iPhone.
“Apple strongly supports, and will continue to support, the efforts of law enforcement in pursuing justice against terrorists and other criminals — just as it has in this case and many others,” the company said in its motion. “But the unprecedented order requested by the government finds no support in the law and would violate the Constitution.”
Apple added that the order had broad implications that would “inflict significant harm — to civil liberties, society and national security — and would pre-empt decisions that should be left to the will of the people through laws passed by Congress and signed by the president.”
In its filing, called a motion to vacate, Apple said that the court order not only was at odds with existing law, but also violated the company’s First and Fifth Amendment rights.
Specifically, the company argued that a 1789 statute known as the All Writs Act, which the government has used in the past to request user data from Apple, does not give the court the power that it seeks in this case. While the F.B.I. has used All Writs in the past to obtain information from Apple, the company said in its filing that “Congress has never authorized judges to compel innocent third parties to provide decryption services to the F.B.I.”
The company also argued that if the government forced it to create code, that would amount to “compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination,” both of which are violations of the First Amendment right to free speech. “Under well-settled law, computer code is treated as speech within the meaning of the First Amendment,” the company said in its motion.
Apple also argued that last week’s court order violated the company’s Fifth Amendment right to due process because it deprives Apple’s right to be free from “arbitrary deprivation of [its] liberty by government.”
Apple’s brief was filed a day ahead of a Friday deadline for the company to respond to the court order issued on Feb. 16 by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym of the Federal District Court for the Central District of California.
The judge said Apple was required to weaken its security functions so the United States government could unlock the iPhone of one of the gunmen in a mass shooting in December in San Bernardino, Calif., to help the investigation.February 25, 2016 at 9:09 pm #18317
The FBI wants another 12 phones unlocked.
This isn’t one difficult to decide exception.
Development on next Gen devices will include systems that Apple cannot write code to undo, like they can current ones.
I’m still very much in doubt about the right way to deal with this. I’m also very inclined to not require a lock maker to undermine their locks.
And, if we use locks as an analogy, third parties typically play the role Uncle Sam is asking Apple to play.February 25, 2016 at 9:30 pm #18319mwdxer1Participant
This is not North Korea. Depending on your point of view, right or wrong; Apple has the right to protect their customers as well as their product. Let’s say, Apple gives in and customer see this as a break of trust, customers may not be so happy to buy the latest I-Phone in the future. Add to that, if Apple goes through the back door to get the info the FBI wants, and that info is leaked, then everyone out there can lose. As much as I am a patriotic American with a lot of military in my family, I side with Apple on this. There is too much to possibly lose. If there is a way to obtain the info the FBI wants, without “Any” possibility of a leak, then I may feel different. Sure, some may feel this is bad PR for Apple, but others that have the I-Phone feel protected too. Also what will keep the FBI from going back to Apple on any issue?February 26, 2016 at 8:38 am #18333
Nothing. They will go back, over and over.
And they are supposed to do that. Apple, is supposed to make locks. If I were the FBI, you bet I would ask every time. Why not? If I were Apple, I would say no, because it’s not hard to see where this leads.
I am rapidly centering in on supporting Apple on this, and that means Uncle Sam is going to need to fund picking locks, or improved efforts in other areas, like say good old fashion police work, like we did before these devices happened.
It also means ramping up on law enforcement tech savvy too. In this case, they had options, and Apple will provide info and advice too. They just don’t break their own locks for obvious reasons. They will educate people who need options. I’m fine with that.
Or, we have to say making locks of this kind is not legal.
Another wrinkle here. We have ruled that code is speech. The movie and music guys forced that.
Is it appropriate for the government to compel speech like this? North Korea may not be a crazy analogy here.February 26, 2016 at 11:59 am #18334LangstonParticipant
If Apple is compelled to do this it should be compensated. Just like any other government contract there should be cost overruns, extensive delays, and intended results not achieved.February 26, 2016 at 4:13 pm #18337
If they can compensate somebody, they can just fund picking locks.February 29, 2016 at 11:50 pm #18392
Apple Wins Ruling in New York iPhone Hacking Order
A federal magistrate judge on Monday denied the United States government’s request that Apple extract data from an iPhone in a drug case in New York, giving the company’s pro-privacy stance a boost as it battles law enforcement officials over opening up the device in other cases.
The ruling, from Judge James Orenstein in New York’s Eastern District, is the first time that the government’s legal argument for opening up devices like the iPhone has been put to the test. The denial could influence other cases where law enforcement officials are trying to compel Apple to help unlock iPhones, including the standoff between Apple and the F.B.I. over the iPhone used by one of the attackers in a mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., last year.March 1, 2016 at 9:15 am #18397
Round one! Aaaaaaaplllle!
Round two! Begin!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.