Replies

The original claim made was "the power to break everyone's phones will remain in the hands of Apple"

To the contrary, the Order allows Apple to retain custody of its sofware at all times, and it gives Apple flexibility in the manner in which it provides assistance. In fact, the software never has to come into the government's custody.

And:

When the government first realized that Apple retained the means to obtain that data from the SUBJECT DEVICE and that due to the way that Apple created the software Apple was the only means of obtaining that data, the government sought Apple's voluntary assistance. Apple rejected the government's request, although it conceded that it had the technical capability to help.

From the Court order itself:

The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility;

So in other words, Apple can retain custody of both the device *and* the software. Easy Peasy.

The original claim made was â€œthe power to break everyoneâ€™s phones will remain in the hands of Appleâ€

Sigh. Ray, nowhere in the Court Order does it say even that. Again, directly FROM THE COURT ORDER, verbatim:

". . . providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle or other Software image File ("SIF") that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory ("RAM") and will not modify the i/os on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the devices's flash memory. . . The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade ("DFU") mode, recovery mode or other applicable mode available to the FBI."

To NOT follow the above protocols outlined in the Court Order, Apple must get the concurrence of the government.

"lf Apple determines that it can achieve the three functions stated above in paragraph 2, as well as the functionality set forth in paragraph 3, using an alternate technological means from that recommended by the government, and the government concurs, Apple may comply with this Order in that way.

How many times do we have to repeat that words mean things. In legal terminology they MEAN exactly what they say. They do not waffle, they do not mean something else. "Providing" means that Apple will give this software to the FBI. Later this poorly written documents states that Apple will permit the "government", not just the FBI, but the "government", to have access to the "SUBJECT DEVICE" and it does not say only to the data on that device. Ergo, it means to ALL of that "SUBJECT DEVICE" including what Apple had to add to make it available to the "government". Let me repeat, in legal language, words MEAN THINGS.

lawyers take courses in getting camels through the eyes of needles and straining at gnats. That's why they are paid the big bucks (not male deer). . . because they know how to parse the distance between the rock and the hard place to squeeze everything out of a tight clause so that you squeak when you come out the other side.

Go back, look at the top of the Court Order and note what it says. . . wait, never mind, I'll post it:

Do you see the strike-through of the word "~~PROPOSED~~"? It means this was written by the FBI in its totality. It wasn't written by the judge at all. It wasn't a balanced, thought out proposal, it was exactly what the government ignorantly wanted written by people who don't have a clue what they are doing. Apple was not even notified this "All Writs Act" order was being contemplated. It was a blindsided hit when they were already assisting the FBI!

During discussion this morphed to â€œkeep the deviceâ€

Are you not aware of the capabilities of the NSA and the government to REVERSE engineer the device if it HAD the new capability on it when it was returned to them? For that reason, people on here and elsewhere were claiming that Apple was going to be allowed to KEEP THE DEVICE, so that could not happen! They were even conflating the fact that Apple would allow the government remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE as evidence that Apple would not have to give the iPhone back. . . even one who is still participating on this thread, who repeatedly quoted that as his proof that Apple would be keeping the iPhone.