Posted on 02/17/2016 4:20:38 AM PST by John W
LOS ANGELES Feb. 17 (UPI) -- Apple CEO Tim Cook on Wednesday said a court order demanding the company create a "backdoor" into the cellphone data of the San Bernardino, Calif., attackers was "chilling" and "dangerous."
In a letter to customers, Cook expressed his opposition to the court order.
"The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand," Cook wrote. "Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us. For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers' personal data because we believe it's the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business."
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
Right, the government always a court order. Where were you in the 60’s?
Several years ago we were outraged with the idea of a National Drivers License or the “Know Your Customer” programs in financial institutions. Now we hardly raise an eyebrow. As a nation we have have accepted this as the norm. I am a private law abiding citizen. I want to live my life (as boring as it is) as our Founding Fathers intended-away from the intrusive eyes of the government.
So because Apple makes billions and Tim Cook is a millionaire, I am expected to give up my Freedom?
I don’t think so.
Exactly. The judge is basically ordered Apple to divert R&D staff and money into hacking its own product. And she did it without having a hearing.
If Apple does that, it will be just a matter of time before every government in the world starts to order it to use that tool to unlock its products, and it will also be just a matter of time before the intelligence agencies of half a dozen nations reverse engineer that tool and use it themselves.
Are you a mass murdering terrorist?
I didn’t think so.
That's the problem.
Is that what the Judge said to do in his order? Or is that a secondary issue that people have thrown out there and are now confusing with what the Judge actually ordered?
My understanding is that the Judge Ordered Apple to assist the FBI in unlocking this specific phone. I know of no Federal Judge's order which instructs Apple to make a "tool" for the FBI to unlock any phone.
I have heard that the FBI wants such a tool, that is not in the order, and I think that issue is way beyond the scope of this one order, which is to unlock this one phone.
Again, two different issues that people are insisting be conflated together.
Works for me :)
The judge ordered Apple to provide the FBI with a tool to break into the one phone. That same software tool can then be used again and again.
Unless of course you trust the government to destroy the tool after they’re done with it.
So I have to be a mass murdering terrorist to value my privacy and freedom? A new take on “if you have nothing to hide..,”
Apple does not currently have the capability the government is asking for. The judge has ordered them to divert manpower and resources into developing that capability. You surely do not think the government will never ask them to use that capability again.
Please do not create a false equivalency between what I said and what you seem to think I said.
We are all Constitutionalists here. We have the right to be secure in our papers and property, but the Constitution also grants the government, with just cause, the authority to search private residences and effects for evidence so long as they obtain a search warrant from a Judge.
They have obtained the search warrant. The evidence is compelling that they will find further evidence of criminal activity in the item which they wish to search.
Your saying that I favor government pressing people into the service at the point of a gun is no more fair to me than it would be for me to claim that you support terrorists.
You do not support terrorists, and I don't support out of control government. It just so happens that the government is legally and morally correct in this particular instance.
Show me the law that says the court can issue an order to anyone for any reason and jail them if they don't comply!
There may very well be a statute which states this, but I know that it was common law long before it ever became a US statute. Refusing to comply with a Judge's order has been a jailable offense since before we had a legal system.
In other words, it is "Common Law", and does not require a statute.
The back door doesn't exist.
We do not know this to be true.
Apple is being pressed into service to create one.
We also do not know this to be true. You cannot create a back door. It either exists or it does not.
Do you know who has the answer to that question? The Coders who wrote the code and work for Apple inc.
Statements from Apple management may or may not be true. They may very well have a means of accessing an encrypted IPhone, but they may not want anyone to know that such a capability exists.
My gut feeling is that they do. I often write code, and it would never occur to me to create a piece of code that I couldn't access if I wanted to.
Apple can probably do this, but they don't want people to know they can do this because they perceive their encryption system as good for their sales.
No. Apple is not being ordered to turn the software over to the FBI for it’s use:
“...This will be done with a program Apple is ordered to write and will allow FBI agents to install it on the suspect’s phone at a federal or Apple facility, according to the order. ... It also allowed Apple the option of coming up with another way to achieve the same result.”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/17/apple-ordered-to-hack-iphone-of-san-bernardino-shooter-for-fbi
It is my understanding that this is a secondary issue. That it has nothing to do with what the Judge has ordered Apple to do. That it is a hyperventilating effort to try to get around the Judge's order, but does not actually have anything to do with the current case before the Judge.
Yes, I understand the FBI wants this ability. I do not think that the Judge has ordered Apple to give the FBI carte blanche for all IPhones, merely to unlock the contents of this particular IPhone.
I think Apple's claims in this regard are deliberate attempts to obfuscate the real issue here; That Apple probably has a back door into the IPhone the FBI wants unlocked.
That the FBI wants Apple to build in future back doors to all their products is a separate issue, and one in which I don't think the FBI will win.
I think if Apple wants to build unlockable IPhones in the future, they will probably win that fight in court.
But I don't think they will win this current case.
I am a private law abiding citizen. I want to live my life (as boring as it is) as our Founding Fathers intended-away from the intrusive eyes of the government.
I agree. This is definitely a problem. I don't want people collecting data off of me. It's none of their business.
But if I'm a murderous felon, I lose the right to privacy. That is the difference.
Do you have a copy of the order? Does it indeed say for Apple to produce a "tool" to break into the phone? Or does it say to "open" or "unlock" this particular phone?
Unless of course you trust the government to destroy the tool after they’re done with it.
No I don't, and Apple would be a fool to give them such a tool. But I don't think that is the actual issue here. I think that is a separate issue, and one in which the government will not prevail.
Go for it. I’d do ANYTHING to remove islam from this country.
Apparently not.
It just so happens that the government is legally and morally correct in this particular instance.
Saying so doesn't make it so.
Refusing to comply with a Judge's order has been a jailable offense since before we had a legal system.
The question is... does it have to be a lawful order? If a judge orders you to mow your neighbor's lawn... are you obligated to obey? Don't you first have to be under some sort of judicial action to be sanctioned by the court or can they order anyone they please for any reason?
Statements from Apple management may or may not be true.
You're hanging your hat on whether or not Apple is lying?
They may very well have a means of accessing an encrypted IPhone, but they may not want anyone to know that such a capability exists.
The encryption method has been posted here several times today. As an IT guy, I invite you to review the method and tell me if you know a work around for a local 256-bit encryption. That's the key. It isn't that a back door exists or doesn't exist. Apple handed over the phone to the customer and said make your own key... we don't want a copy. How do you beat that? Apparently, the answer is to force Apple to try to make a matching key. Again... do you want a government with the authority to press you into service against your will?
Word games. If the tool doesn't exist (as Apple says it doesn't), then the court is ordering them to make one... and Trump is cheerleading the order.
That's the rub. If Apple can find a way to break into this phone... no phone is actually secure.
If the government gains a master key, we all lose the right to privacy. That is the real difference.
If it costs considerable time and effort to get the key for any particular phone, then the phones are effectively secure. If it takes a $million, then the government can crack it for a terror investigation. BUT, the expense would preclude trivial access on a fishing expedition.
THAT is why the feds want a back door.
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.