Posted on 02/17/2016 9:04:36 PM PST by TigerClaws
A 2015 court case shows that the tech giant has been willing to play ball with the government before—and is only stopping now because it might ‘tarnish the Apple brand.’
Apple CEO Tim Cook declared on Wednesday that his company wouldn’t comply with a government search warrant to unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino killers, a significant escalation in a long-running debate between technology companies and the government over access to people’s electronically-stored private information.
But in a similar case in New York last year, Apple acknowledged that it could extract such data if it wanted to. And according to prosecutors in that case, Apple has unlocked phones for authorities at least 70 times since 2008. (Apple doesn’t dispute this figure.)
In other words, Apple’s stance in the San Bernardino case may not be quite the principled defense that Cook claims it is. In fact, it may have as much to do with public relations as it does with warding off what Cook called “an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers.â€
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Did you actually read the article you linked? It says that the court order was to require Apple to make a new version of iOS (which the writer elegantly called “FBiOS”) and install it so that the government can brute-force the password. So Apple cannot provide the encryption key and is being ordered to invent new software to make it easy for the government to hack, just like the article you linked says.
Reading comprehension is your friend...
“What most people are missing is what the government is obfuscating by choosing the phone of a dead perp. Ordering the unlocking of a phone can be done by tossing the owner in jail provided there is sufficient evidence of wrong doing to do so. If there is not sufficient evidence then the phone stays locked.”
I have no clue what you mean. The “dead perp” murdered about thirteen people. There is sufficient evidence, obviously, to warrant a search of his phone. It WILL contain evidence to help save lives.
“Specifically the one or two suspects that might be pulled from that phone are swamped by the next 1000 “lone wolf” terrorists”
And the few hundred people SAVED by the info from that particular phone would probably be grateful.
nd the few hundred people SAVED by the info from that particular phone
Speculative at best. These people were known by relatives and neighbors to be potentially threatening. The next lone wolf and wife will have to be turned in by the same, it won't come out of this phone.
The point is, the court ordered Apple to develop something that does not currently exist, in order for the govt to get the data it is after. That's not the case with court-ordered openings of mailboxes, safe deposit boxes and the like.
Can the government legitimately order the Acme Safe Company to develop a method - currently not in existence - to get evidence contained in an Acme safe, in your opinion?
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for protecting privacy, and do not think Apple should just allow the government to randomly access people’s phone data (they already gather everything you text, browse, email, say, etc. anyway though). But when someone is charged with a crime, and are the subject of an investigation, I think there are some legal grounds for getting a warrant to search the phone. Not sure how it’s any different than getting a warrant to search someone’s house or car...
With all their previous snooping, they still couldn’t stop the San Bernadino attack. Even more snooping in France, that didn’t help them.
Feds make it sound like terrorism started w/the iPhone AND that they have no other way to figure out who the associates were of the killers.
Where did the order say “develop something new”? Exactly where? I read it ordered “reasonable technical assistance..”
If my facts are wrong I’ll admit it, apologize and move on which is apparently something you’re not willing to consider with these legalizations about which I only hypothesized as a layman yet you still cling to like an appellate court judge.
ping.
Thanks for the links.
“...it won’t come out of this phone.”
How on earth can you claim to know what is on that phone?
That being said, it still goes back to Bubba refusing Obama on a platter.
Apple knows they can disable the scrub feature on this phone alone.
And are you really worried that the government will get a warrant and a court order to open your phone? Really?? Of course not.
I'm not going to waste my or your time with details -- this article isn't worth it.
I hope Cook manages to win this one. He's doing the right thing for privacy and freedom.
It's so obvious that he's right on this that even the Washington Post says so:
Why you should side with Apple, not the FBI, in the San Bernardino iPhone case - Washington PostGranted, that's a Bruce Schneier guest opinion :-) But they printed it...
NPR said this morning that there are dozens of similar phones in police lockers unable to be cracked. If there is evidence on the dead perp’s phone then there must also be evidence on those other phones. And it’s not just terrorism, some minor drug dealer will have evidence on their phone to take down a major dealer. The only logical conclusion to your argument is to force Apple to unlock every phone ever owned by any suspect. The next thing that happens is 1000’s of criminals walk due to Apple mishandling evidence against them. Then the government gets the unlock SW.
You are completely missing the point (and the big picture). I know what is not on that phone: 1000 lone wolf terrorist ID's. I know there are dozens of phones with terrorist ID's on them that the government will want to unlock. I know the governemnt would much rather use blanket surveillance than foot work to prevent terrorism. I know the government will screw up the surveillance and trade our surveillance of foreigners for foreign govt surveillance of Americans. I know the government will eventually demand the SW since Apple cannot be trusted to secure criminal evidence.
“The only logical conclusion to your argument is to force Apple to unlock every phone ever owned by any suspect.”
1.) We are at war with terrorists who want to kill us, and when you are at war, measures are taken that would not otherwise be taken in normal times.
2.) Are you not aware that the courts routinely order people/suspects/corporations/arrestees to hand over records, that judges give the police warrants to enter a person’s residence and search for evidence, that judges issue subpoenas for people to cough up evidence that might incriminate them? What is sacrosanct about a cell phone?
Tim Cook is protecting his idol.
'Again in plain English, the FBI wants Apple to create a special version of iOS that only works on the one iPhone they have recovered.'
http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-comply-with-the-fbi-court-order/ (This was the blog cited by Diogenes Lamp in post #39)
“Like a maker of uncrackable safes, Apple has done nothing wrong.”
That’s the implication I don’t like here. This is basically saying no one has the right to advertise the fact that they indeed make ‘uncrackable safes.’ Or any other product that is so secure the manufacturer can’t even compromise the security, in fact saying they never will even try to compromise the security of the product as part of the selling point. Unless of course the state orders them to do so later on or something?
That this whole thing actually is being fought in public is pretty weird too.
Freegards
They claim to be out of luck.
There is no doubt in my mind that if Apple wanted to they could unlock that phone.
All that aside, I have not heard yet what would be the problem with Apple unlocking the phone and providing the data to the FBI. Too bad Timmy Kooke has never had any friends thrown off roofs or the heads cut off with a rusty knife.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.