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 ...
I don’t see a problem here. If the password is a series of numbers in sequence to unlock the screen, then why aren’t they looking at finger-prints or wear patterns ( even at a micron level ) to ascertain what the combo might be. Then compare what the numbers are to numbers in these two despots lives like birthdays, or something that might have significance. No I don’t work for the Rand Corp., but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...
Well, they did let the press in to the terrorist’s apartment.
Could be written on a piece of paper somewhere.
Just hilarious. Next, maybe Cook will start acting like he can’t hear...
Exactly. And how much of this info is already in their iCloud account anyway? It's not Silicon Valley but surely San Bernardino had some sort of backup protocol.
Send the phone to the Apple people and let them unlock it. Then they can turn the information over to the Feds. What is so difficult to understand about that?
The homosexual CEO has his pantys in a wad over what?
I mean, Apple is Disneyland for cryptogeeks. Someone out there already has the answer in their head, no doubt someone on the team that cracked the 70 prior...
My understanding is that the government is asking for a firmware (internal software update) to remove the self-destruct component of the code (10 failed password attempts kill the phone/data). Can Apple deploy code to a phone that is turned ‘off’?
The government isn’t asking for help cracking the password/code itself to get into the phone or to extract the data and crack the encryption.
The self-destruct mechanism ‘destroys evidence’.
Did the developers ever have a method to reset the count or did they ‘brick’ a ton of phones while in development?
Technically it will erase the decryption key which the same as erasing the data since the decryption cannot be brute forced.
Destroying the decryption key does not brick the phone.
If a court orders a safe to be opened the order is made to the owner based on external evidence that there is evidence of a crime stored in the safe. If the owner doesn't comply the cops can go to a judge and get a court order based on the external evidence. In no case is the maker of the safe under any legal obligation to crack open the safe. If the safe's owner is under criminal suspicion but dies in a shoot out with police that changes nothing. The maker of the safe has exactly the same legal status, they cannot be forced to do anything.
They built it to prevent that. The Feds are asking for Apple to write a new version of the OS that can bypass the protection. Apple is under no legal obligation to do that and should never be forced to do that.
The order HAS been issued and we will see how the respective attorneys argue it out and who wins.
“Apple is under no legal obligation to do that and should never be forced to do that.”
No legal obligation??
What about a moral obligation to protect innocent American lives? Not everyone is like you, who would rather be killed by a terrorist than have Apple try to save lives.
Hardware and software changed.
Like a maker of uncrackable safes, Apple has done nothing wrong. All they have to do is ignore the order.
We’ll see.
It would be more like ordering the Acme Safe Company to develop a method (currently non-existent) to crack open an Acme safe that the federal government believed contained evidence needed in an investigation.
No lives will be saved by cracking the terrorist's phone although the government would probably argue otherwise. Specifically the one or two suspects that might be pulled from that phone are swamped by the next 1000 "lone wolf" terrorists in this country waiting for their turn. The police need to do some more policing but that will have to start with "moderate" Muslims turning in the other Muslims. If that doesn't happen, then all the decryption in the world isn't going to help.
To force a safe maker to purposely break an uncrackable safe, even once, even for the best reasons (which they are not), is bad precedent. It means that any phone will be updatable to stop the key wiping. It means any company can be forced to do the same. Around the world there are plenty of countries that will demand the same and use the precedent here to demand it.
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.
Excellent post. I am no Apple fan but I support them on this front.
The circumstances I read yesterday for this phone is that it was a 5C and that the three-try barrier was what is being discussed here. Not unlocking the entire phone.
What I read says that Apple can do this, depending on what version of iOS is involved. It would still be up to the FBI to finish the job of getting past the unlock code.
I am saying that I don’t have a problem with Apple removing the 3-try step (because the phone belongs to his employer and they have assented), but I am NOT in favor of making Apple give the FBI the ability to do this whenever they want. If you think differently, then fine. We’ll just have to disagree.
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.