Should the government be able to make Apple crack the iPhone?

[mojo]

Even though want to know whom was behind the San Bernardino shootings I feel it is too important to keep our privacy as best we can.

AFGrYu8NHF8

[risveglio]

Whenever a question starts with Should the Government, the answer is almost always no.

[Michael Moewes]

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

Here is the newsletter from Apple. Now this really makes me think again to switch to an New Iphone.

[robinr1]

the government wants to know who was behind the san bernadino shootings? hahaha . that's a good one





Even though want to know whom was behind the San Bernardino shootings I feel it is too important to keep our privacy as best we can.

AFGrYu8NHF8

[NewFounderHome]

Should the government be able to make Apple crack the Iphone? The answer is NO. Apple did decide to protect their clients! Maybe they are the only ones in the cell phone industry to protect their clients or maybe they will be offered $$$

[rgray222]

The problem as I see it, is that the government is not requesting that Apple provide a method of breaking into one cell phone, they are asking for the master key to break into or open every apple phone ever made. This is a slippery slope that I don't think anyone wants to go down except Obama and his group of intelligence cronies. It seems the only transparency this government wants to be party to is "transparency about our lives."

[jerry]

Its all smoke and mirrors apple unlocked iphones for feds 70 times
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-18/it-all-just-publicity-stunt-apple-unlocked-iphones-feds-70-times

“We’ll know our disinformation programs are complete when everything the public believes is false” William Casey CIA Director 1981

[TigaHawk]

Do you really believe all of that?

You think they have not already got it cracked? Of coarse they do!

[mojo]

Wow the poll so far is showing the results so skewed in one direction. Maybe showing we are a group much more informed on subject matter...;)

[KiwiElf]

It's just as rgray222 said: there is a huge difference in hacking a single phone and forcing Apple to make a back door for all iPhones.

[cursichella1]

Do you really believe all of that?

You think they have not already got it cracked? Of coarse they do!

You're right. This is blatant disinfo. The technology available to the public now has to be 20 or more years behind what our Govt has and their ability to crack the latest iPhone was probably easily accomplishable in the 80s-90s.

For those needing a refresher, here's some abridged Disinfo 101: Disinformation is false information deliberately promoted via the media or spread as rumor in order to influence public opinion, distract from or obscure the truth or in this case, several truths.

Which they hope will lead to this kind of thinking:

Gee, Wally! If they can't break the iPhone code then San Bernardino just couldn't have been a false flag! Law enforcement must have the master code to stop terrorists and keep us safe! This proves that Snowden was lying, that traitor! We need to increase defense spending to stay one step ahead of the terrorists!! You're either with us or with the terrorists and if they can hide in San Bernardino they could be in this town, too! There must be an imminent threat for the head honcho to publicly beg for help! And while we're at it, let's give more billions to defense contractors and tech firms! Ban encryption altogether! Take away our rights! (A h€ll of a lot easier now with Scalia on permanent hiatus!). Whatever it takes to keep us safe!!!

[Innocent Warrior]

I find it difficult not to believe this is a publicity stunt, big corporations own governments and intel agencies, we may as well just call the government custodians of the system, who are hired by corporate elitists.

[Midnight Rambler]

Child pornography and terrorism are the two arguments used by the governments to continuingly deminishing peoples privacy.

With a backdoor in the security not only the government agencies can have access to the phone, but other criminals as well. :-)

[Lifebringer]

If the owner is dead, or no longer a party of the 1st part, and the evidence is in custody, then the evidence must be opened to pursue the criminals who terrorized. Since when are the terrorist more protected than those they want to harm?

I say if the perp is dead, there is "no privacy issue." NO person, no privacy. Simple as that. Who'll object, someone else who doesn't own the crime or phone with the evidence or connections to ISIS?
And they need a court order for this decision?
Ha, some judges and law system. Who's the privacy for? A dead person who no longer has rights as their last rites were given at the time of them dying.

[Lifebringer]

apple can crack the encryption, download the file and not have to breech it's encryption mechanism. Why isn't the 'almighty snoop squad that can spy on neighbors overseas unable to hack this one? Seems they just want to get the encryption keys, and I don't thing there are that many terrorist to risk privacy, but then again, this world is so screwy at the time, where wrong is right and right is wrong, I'm stumped on this. I have a hackaphobia because all my books are on this pc, and I don't want them in someone else's hands, so i've got lots of pin drives all over the place with various chapters scattered so I keep them all here now. Gotta do something about that.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

They want "p2p" Permission to Peep. Ha. NO they can't have that, or do they already and want it on the law books to cover their tails.

[sunpaw]

I (am about to) work in health care (office) and came across an article regarding privacy/protecting sensitive information of patients.
Even though many people are handling the data - everyone involved has to work towards protecting data/privacy.

Since health care involves contacts (phone calls/phone numbers) as also a lot of documentation (switched from 'analog'/paper to digital): this data needs to be 'protected' too.

The article recommended to NOT use Apple/Iphone - because of frequent automatic 'backup's' of all ....(stuff) on Apples servers - which can't be turned off, 'chosen',...
In health care everyone working with the data is liable for all risks how data is handled, stored- however Apple isn't part of that system.
The backups are a known (maybe not widely but still) procedure.
A business using Ipones to call patients - is already a breach of protecting the data BECAUSE Apple logs that.
So data gets outside the system - as a patient I could sue the business for not protecting my data.
Even a small care business has on average 120 patients. For each patient are contacts listed: the patients, relatives (often more than 1) or appointed guardians, the patients doctors - this is already a huge amount of data and we are not even in detailed data like birthdays, address, insurance data (even just which provider).
The documentation required by law and keeping the records for many years (3-30years or longer) requires easier systems to handle the amount (not only to keep track FOR the patient) but also to proof at any time there were no errors. In care or billing.
So a small care business operating for under 10 years easily generates data for roughly 1000 patients or more - including additional data of a lot more people involved at one point - because everything also needs to be documented - and kept safe for many years.
So businesses now use tech - business phones, devices for daily plans (at a small business 10/15 devices depending on how many employees take care of patients during the day) and computer/laptops and servers, which need to be able to run different special software - databases for patient information which is also part of the billing system. Billing system isn't just 1 bill per patient but many bills depending on the 'service' - which is outlined and part of laws. So in order to even run the small business taking care of patients, pay employees and 'survive' as a business everything needs to be within law.
So having only even just contacts of patients or their relatives at a Iphone is breaching that law BECAUSE of the backup Apple does automatically. Since handling sensitive data and PROTECTION is HUGE deal - a business already can start closing when purchasing and using Apple. Penalties: ranging from breaking law (paying or jail time), contracts (paying or jail time since it involves law (no room for interpretation but strict), to not get payed (and not be able to pay employees, rent, ... - resulting in not only firing people but still have to pay them for a period of time even the company might not even exist anymore - due to sudden bankruptcy. Bankruptcy because the amount involved which is not only held back but can be date back even (paying back previous 'income'). And why? Just for using an Iphone and due to Apples 'costumer friendly 'we back up automatically on our servers so you can restore whatever''.

Which was mentioned and recommended not to use in a small article of a monthly 'newsletter' written for a branch of the huge health care system to help smaller businesses in that branch to survive the jungle of laws attached - to just even provide care for people (elderly, disabled, injured, recovering).
So while it seems to be known and and critical enough to point out and clearly recommending NOT to use in that article - even though I am interested in tech: that was new to me (guess mainly I am not interested in Apple besides the Ipod shuffle I own (and already found to 'operate' that was a pain (however there are ways to NOT use the software and just use mp3 btw) and maybe the retina display tech).
A private person might not even realize what the costumer friendly back up ALSO means (for me as a private person I'd think 'yeah I can restore my stuff) - that everything gets logged (which I might not be able to restore, but its logged).

I use Android (have a knack for Samsung :) ) - so when I first arrived at the company I was pleased to see 1) tech 2) Samsung. And even while starting to understand the difficulties of running the company in the first place (laws, laws, laws,...) - the article made me realize.
I am still pleased with 1) and 2) - and additionally 3) the boss keeps taps on whats 'better'.
Not saying Android is 'safe' - but with Android a closed system within strict law is possible. The devices (Samsung) allow for closed systems, the business phones (Samsung) too. The provider is within how to handle and protect data.
And Apple and Iphone just isn't.

So Apple actually doesn't even need to 'open' a backdoor. And since its like a high level (priceless) ad-campaign being 'pressured' to 'allow or implement a backdoor' AND REFUSING LOUDLY - I guess its safe to assume 'buy Apple products' (not for me though). And 'a apple a day' might even add to it.

*Sigh

[Michael Moewes]

But it's the Government that leads both points by far. You maybe refer that the government likes to get the rivals out of the way.


Child pornography and terrorism are the two arguments used by the governments to continuingly deminishing peoples privacy.

With a backdoor in the security not only the government agencies can have access to the phone, but other criminals as well. :-)

[NewFounderHome]

Well let's be far. Reverse engineering is not a big and popular discussed subject but is very real. Not much can’t be copied or (hacked, cracked). This is not new.

Another point is then this publicity is very good for Apple, it makes them look very good. Not real! But … but you know!

[mojo]

The more thinking about this the more I believe there is another agenda. We all know they already have the phone records and it appears to be more of an excuse to create a back door that the corrupt gov will use against citizens.

[Midnight Rambler]

The less privacy the people have the easier it is to control them. Consolidation of power is the main objective here.

[Snoweagle]

Of course Apple and the major Corporations will contest the requests from the FBI and alphabet agencies BECAUSE they want to monitor us and they want to profit from our lives.

I agree with Apple and the others that encryption protects our privacy.

Once that is accepted as a norm, then we can create our own encryption to hide our thoughts and aspirations from the Corporations as well.

[Anchor]

This whole thing makes me realise how easy it is for TPTB working in concert with a "somewhat" controlled opposition (Big Business in this case) to control the narrative.

I really hope Tim Cook is a real rebel though!

There are some good write-ups out there that explain the technical detail more thoroughly - there is no "masterkey" as has been suggested in this thread - just an assist with brute force key guessing - still as Tim Cook stated, this is a slippery slope he doesn't want to get on.

I think the whole debate has been orchestrated control public opinion on encryption, nothing new there though.

Just like it didnt when PGP came out, I doubt it will succeed this time, even if Apple ends up cracking that phone, they will adapt and design out any remaining flaws that permit the intervention.

Unless Apple can convince the courts that the request is unreasonably burdensome (which I think it is), eventually Apple will have to do the work and provide the means for the means that the government has requested in order to attempt to crack "this particular phone" - even then based on the information available so far, it might not be possible in anything like a useful timeframe.

Encryption (and anonymity) are too fundamental to the privacy and security of what goes in our minds and for free expression - especially on forums like this one.

Given that it was the only one out of three that didn't get destroyed, probably has nothing on it of any use - probably a good thing for any innocent party that might have talked to the perp beforehand.

[mgray]

The FBI is pursuing the same strategy in a Brooklyn, NY federal case against a meth ring. Briefs by Apple and the DOJ have already been filed in the case. The court could rule here before California even gets started.

But you won't hear about this case because it's not as sexy as terrorism.

The government wants the key to all iPhones not just the San Bernadino case.

It's a slippery slope and Apple is right to protect itself and us on privacy issues. It a shame Apple has to invoke the Constitutional right and not the Government. lol

Apple promised users when it rolled out Apple Pay that the encryption was so tough that not even Apple would know what you are doing. So they are standing by their word.

[mojo]

On the news today the reporter mentioned that the justice debt is hoping for public pressure on Apple. It's a bummer I haven't heard one candidate support privacy and sad that Trump mentioned to boycott Apple. The Feds aren't telling the truth to the public. They have all the phone records from the San Bernardino case yet they are acting like they dont. What gives?

[risveglio]

On the news today the reporter mentioned that the justice debt is hoping for public pressure on Apple. It's a bummer I haven't heard one candidate support privacy and sad that Trump mentioned to boycott Apple. The Feds aren't telling the truth to the public. They have all the phone records from the San Bernardino case yet they are acting like they dont. What gives?

Yes, Trump tweeted from his iPhone that we should boycott Apple. Who are the idiots supporting this idiot?

[TargeT]

funny thing is, apples encryption is pretty weak; the government could break it if they wanted to... but they don't they want official sanction to erode our rights more.

[mojo]

Every phone, text email is currently being collected by the US. They have the phone records already. There is no need to break into phone which leads to another reason why that many have alluded too That is to take more privacy away from citizens under the guise of national security.

[Anchor]

Apples motion to vacate is totally kickass.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/300522068


The government says: “Just this once” and “Just this phone.” But the government knows those statements are not true; indeed the government has filed multiple other applications for similar orders, some of which are pending in other courts.

And as news of this Court’s order broke last week, state and local officials publicly declared their intent to use the proposed operating system to open hundreds of other seized devices—in cases having nothing to do with terrorism.

If this order is permitted to stand, it will only be a matter of days before some other prosecutor, in some other important case, before some other judge, seeks a similar order using this case as precedent. Once the floodgates open, they cannot be closed, and the device security that Apple has worked so tirelessly to achieve will be unwound without so much as a congressional vote.



The government obtained the Order without notice to Apple and without allowing Apple an opportunity to be heard. See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) (recognizing that one of the “‘fundamental requisite[s] of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard’”) (quoting Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914)). But this was not a case where the government needed to proceed in secret to safeguard its investigation; indeed, Apple understands that the government alerted reporters before filing its ex parte application, and then, immediately after it was signed and confirmed to be on the docket, distributed the application and Order to the public at about the same time it notified Apple. Moreover, this is the only case in counsel’s memory in which an FBI Director has blogged in real-time about pending litigation, suggesting that the government does not believe the data on the phone will yield critical evidence about other suspects.

Very worth reading the whole body of the motion... pages 12-36.