Posted on 02/22/2016 8:37:03 AM PST by Swordmaker
Apple has posted an open letter to customers: “Answers to your questions about Apple and security.”
Here it is, verbatim:
Why is Apple objecting to the government's order?
The government asked a court to order Apple to create a unique version of iOS that would bypass security protections on the iPhone Lock screen. It would also add a completely new capability so that passcode tries could be entered electronically.
This has two important and dangerous implications:
First, the government would have us write an entirely new operating system for their use. They are asking Apple to remove security features and add a new ability to the operating system to attack iPhone encryption, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,†trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.
We built strong security into the iPhone because people carry so much personal information on our phones today, and there are new data breaches every week affecting individuals, companies and governments. The passcode lock and requirement for manual entry of the passcode are at the heart of the safeguards we have built in to iOS. It would be wrong to intentionally weaken our products with a government-ordered backdoor. If we lose control of our data, we put both our privacy and our safety at risk.
Second, the order would set a legal precedent that would expand the powers of the government and we simply don’t know where that would lead us. Should the government be allowed to order us to create other capabilities for surveillance purposes, such as recording conversations or location tracking? This would set a very dangerous precedent.
Is it technically possible to do what the government has ordered?
Yes, it is certainly possible to create an entirely new operating system to undermine our security features as the government wants. But it’s something we believe is too dangerous to do. The only way to guarantee that such a powerful tool isn’t abused and doesn’t fall into the wrong hands is to never create it.
Could Apple build this operating system just once, for this iPhone, and never use it again?
The digital world is very different from the physical world. In the physical world you can destroy something and it’s gone. But in the digital world, the technique, once created, could be used over and over again, on any number of devices.
Law enforcement agents around the country have already said they have hundreds of iPhones they want Apple to unlock if the FBI wins this case. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks. Of course, Apple would do our best to protect that key, but in a world where all of our data is under constant threat, it would be relentlessly attacked by hackers and cybercriminals. As recent attacks on the IRS systems and countless other data breaches have shown, no one is immune to cyberattacks.
Again, we strongly believe the only way to guarantee that such a powerful tool isn’t abused and doesn’t fall into the wrong hands is to never create it.
Has Apple unlocked iPhones for law enforcement in the past?
No.
We regularly receive law enforcement requests for information about our customers and their Apple devices. In fact, we have a dedicated team that responds to these requests 24/7. We also provide guidelines on our website for law enforcement agencies so they know exactly what we are able to access and what legal authority we need to see before we can help them.
For devices running the iPhone operating systems prior to iOS 8 and under a lawful court order, we have extracted data from an iPhone.
We’ve built progressively stronger protections into our products with each new software release, including passcode-based data encryption, because cyberattacks have only become more frequent and more sophisticated. As a result of these stronger protections that require data encryption, we are no longer able to use the data extraction process on an iPhone running iOS 8 or later.
Hackers and cybercriminals are always looking for new ways to defeat our security, which is why we keep making it stronger.
The government says your objection appears to be based on concern for your business model and marketing strategy. Is that true?
Absolutely not. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is and always has been about our customers. We feel strongly that if we were to do what the government has asked of us — to create a backdoor to our products — not only is it unlawful, but it puts the vast majority of good and law abiding citizens, who rely on iPhone to protect their most personal and important data, at risk.
Is there any other way you can help the FBI?
We have done everything that’s both within our power and within the law to help in this case. As we’ve said, we have no sympathy for terrorists.
We provided all the information about the phone that we possessed. We also proactively offered advice on obtaining additional information. Even since the government’s order was issued, we are providing further suggestions after learning new information from the Justice Department’s filings.
One of the strongest suggestions we offered was that they pair the phone to a previously joined network, which would allow them to back up the phone and get the data they are now asking for. Unfortunately, we learned that while the attacker’s iPhone was in FBI custody the Apple ID password associated with the phone was changed. Changing this password meant the phone could no longer access iCloud services.
As the government has confirmed, we’ve handed over all the data we have, including a backup of the iPhone in question. But now they have asked us for information we simply do not have.
What should happen from here?
Our country has always been strongest when we come together. We feel the best way forward would be for the government to withdraw its demands under the All Writs Act and, as some in Congress have proposed, form a commission or other panel of experts on intelligence, technology, and civil liberties to discuss the implications for law enforcement, national security, privacy, and personal freedoms. Apple would gladly participate in such an effort.
Source: Apple Inc.
Pinging dayglored, ThunderSleeps, and Shadow Ace for their lists as well.
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
Last week there was an excellent old time FR discussion on this issue with many different views from pro Apple to pro FBI and in between.
A lot of new info was brought up. Go to this link for a free wheeling discussion on this issue.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3399395/posts
From a personal privacy/security standpoint I understand Apple’s points. From a national security standpoint, I can understand the Governments points.
If the Government is so worried about terrorists, they should have thought about that before they let them into the country.
Yes, of course. However, that doesn’t prevent local radicalization of youth.
Apple is very misleading in their statements on this subject. I agree that government intrusion in electronic communications is problematic, but why would anyone consider Apple more trustworthy than the FBI when it comes to protecting our privacy?
I started reading, this but stopped as soon as I saw the claim that they have to “create an entirely new operating system”. This is disengenuous at best, and designed to play on the technical ignorance of these matters in the general populous. The change is likely a single line of code, the recompile/rebuild to get the new OS image.
The shooter’s phone should have been kept in evidence by the FBI from the beginning. How did it get released back to the County Health Dept. anyway?
If the govt was so concerned about national security, our borders and ports would be secured as tightly as a drum, there would be NO discussion about bringing in a couple hundred thousand Muslims, No discussion about amnesty or voting rights for illegal aliens, there would be no fear of law-abiding citizens being armed, and there would be stringent and unbreakable immigration laws that were in America’s best interest. So I’m not buying any of it.....
Brilliant. The FBI hacked around with the iPhone, changed the password, and shut themselves out.
Are you kidding me? You trust this corrupt, pro-Muslim regime more than a respected, legendary company?
I’m not an Apple fan or user by any means, but the FBI can pound cement here.
It also must do all the above with near zero os overhead - if the pass code entry adds 5 ms to the 80 ms hardware delay, they are in violation of the court order.
By the by, can you also tell me what the logical difference there is in this order vs say prosecuting a baker who refuses to make a cake?
Which is why I believe a compromise could be palatable to both sides. Apple should access the phone and deliver any user-created files, e-mails, texts, photos, cookies and browser histories under a search warrant. The government does not get access to the device however, nor any decryption technologies used.
Please pardon my ignorance, but how does one update the OS on an iPhone without first being logged in with that elusive passcode?
“... but why would anyone consider Apple more trustworthy than the FBI when it comes to protecting our privacy?”
You need another cup of coffee! If you think that Apple is less trustworthy than our government, you’re not yet awake!
That’s not what is in the court order, and if Apple removed the limit on failed attempts and the delay (ok, 2 lines of code) the FBI could get it done.
I don’t trust either of them. Do you even know how many servers and portals your electronic communications pass through? How can you possibly be sure that every point in the chain is secure?
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.