Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Reiterates Inability to Unlock iOS Devices Running iOS 8 or Higher in New Court Filing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If the authorities suspect you to be involved in some criminal activity, make you go to court and want to see your phone for potential evidence, they should be able to jail you...until you prove them wrong?
And if we don't like it, we can ignore it and stay jailed up, lobby to change the law, leave the country, suck it up or destroy the device?
Good job Apple, keep it up! But let's not forget one thing. The courts have ruled that you can be forced to give your fingerprint to unlock a phone, but you cannot be forced to divulge your password. This is why I would only ever use a password to unlock my phone. I still have an iPhone 5, so I'm all set for now
Bravo to Apple for once again for protecting consumers.
Unfortunately the 'Patriot Act' has created substantial momentum in the direction of decreasing freedom and civil liberty.
Unfortunately the 'Patriot Act' has created substantial momentum in the direction of decreasing freedom and civil liberty.
Hopefully they're not playing both sides, like Google has in the past. Google told everyone their software was secure, yet were still providing backdoors to the Fed.
I think a very heavy majority of the mass shootings are by individuals who have had known mental health issues.
They can get a lot of the information off of the phone without Apple's help. For example, a warrant can get the phone numbers called (incoming/outgoing), email (if they use imap or pop), SMS messages, access logs, etc. They can get the subscriber address, locations, call routing, etc. They can get that from various service providers.
All those requests are typically rubber-stamped.
So what really are they asking Apple for when they are asking for an encryption back-door? It sounds like they're asking for one-stop shopping.
Well, it's not Apple's job to make LEO's job easier.
Luckily for Apple, it has no real Federal contracts to speak of, so the Feds have no leverage over them...at least for now. You can't say that about Microsoft, the Telcos, or Google.
All those requests are typically rubber-stamped.
So what really are they asking Apple for when they are asking for an encryption back-door? It sounds like they're asking for one-stop shopping.
Well, it's not Apple's job to make LEO's job easier.
Luckily for Apple, it has no real Federal contracts to speak of, so the Feds have no leverage over them...at least for now. You can't say that about Microsoft, the Telcos, or Google.
If the primary concern is that Apple is too expansive with privacy, that's all good with me.
If you want those backups, do it via iTunes and hold it locally. You don't NEED the cloud for it.
Props to Apple on their firm stance. Apples privacy policy guarantees me not switching ecosystems. Whether genuine or not, its a smart business policy.
You seem to forgotten, "Innocent until PROVEN Guilty". I don't need to prove them wrong.
I am under no obligation to do anything but sit in a chair or cell until they bring be to a "speedy" trial.
The 5th Amendment of our glorious constitution says I can remain silent.
You are Macfoxpro are part of the problem and why the government thinks they should be able to get away with this stuff.
The other option of course is to use the "wrong finger" 5 times but much harder to do in a pinch. And of course 99% of people probably use their thumb or forefinger. Hmm, i guess we should all set up our off hand ring finger for touch ID, they'd never suspect that one
Perhaps they should install a 'kill finger' into the iOS, one reading from that finger puts the phone into passcode mode, no retry.
If I've done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, why should I care whether the FBI/Police can access my phone?
Being able to retrieve what may be potentially incriminating evidence from a suspect's device *upon presentation of a court order* seems entirely appropriate *in my opinion*.
This is not at all the same as permitting bulk surveillance of private communications - which I strongly disagree with.
In the old days, incriminating evidence would be written down, or stored in a potentially non-encryted manner - it has been like that for decades. Why - now - do we think it is a good idea to limit the ability of a legitimate investigation to collect evidence?
I think Tim is being disingenuous and doing this for the wrong reasons: There is a customer backlash against the idea of insecurity and hacking - which then hits the bottom line of tech/service companies.
How would Tim answer if he *knew* there was incriminating evidence on an iOS device that provided damning evidence against suspects in a case of terrorism/murder/rape/mutilation/paeodophilia/etc?
Where is the ethical and moral case to say it is inappropriate for society not to be able to access that information and use it in a court of law?
We aren't talking about the FBI wanting to look at your vacation/selfie photos for the hell of it. Why would they give a crap?
It is about the things that really matter to be able to maintain a complex, democratic, civil society.
Being able to retrieve what may be potentially incriminating evidence from a suspect's device *upon presentation of a court order* seems entirely appropriate *in my opinion*.
This is not at all the same as permitting bulk surveillance of private communications - which I strongly disagree with.
In the old days, incriminating evidence would be written down, or stored in a potentially non-encryted manner - it has been like that for decades. Why - now - do we think it is a good idea to limit the ability of a legitimate investigation to collect evidence?
I think Tim is being disingenuous and doing this for the wrong reasons: There is a customer backlash against the idea of insecurity and hacking - which then hits the bottom line of tech/service companies.
How would Tim answer if he *knew* there was incriminating evidence on an iOS device that provided damning evidence against suspects in a case of terrorism/murder/rape/mutilation/paeodophilia/etc?
Where is the ethical and moral case to say it is inappropriate for society not to be able to access that information and use it in a court of law?
We aren't talking about the FBI wanting to look at your vacation/selfie photos for the hell of it. Why would they give a crap?
It is about the things that really matter to be able to maintain a complex, democratic, civil society.
Last edited:
And I'm in total opposite. I prefer to catch criminals, even if it means a slightly higher risk of a judge looking in my iPhone...
I know that in these days of prostituted privacy sense, social networks, and so on, a lot of people thinks like you. There is nothing wrong about that, but if the law says you don't have to give your data and you decide you want, I'm sure they'll have no problem using it. But when you're worried about your privacy because it's yours and because you can, it's very difficult to do the opposite, I mean, having to give your data but not wanting.
And precisely because there's no clear evidence I've done something illegal, I don't want them to see my data, I don't care if my data are moon wallpapers, it's conceptual.
I can see their perspective too though. If you take a less cynical view of things, having access to devices solely for law enforcement purposes would be very helpful in many instances. It's a slippery slope, I know, but there is some communal benefit that must be weighed here
That's sort of the way I lean too. These matters shouldn't be black and white. So long as the proper procedures are followed and we can ensure that there's no abuse of power, there really is a lot of benefit for giving law enforcement investigators access to information on a criminal's phone.
Because every day we hear about politicians, law enforcement and intelligence agencies voluntarily admitting to having abused their position.
No, wait. We don't. They would never admit that.
If NSA said "we'll only take a tiny peek, promise!", who would be stupid enough to believe them?
Does anyone else agree that a phone is a personal device the government has no business reaching their dirty paws into to take information from? I guess there needs to be something written in the constitution that prohibits government interference in people's personal electronic devices. It's none of the government's business if I'm storing dirty photos or having dirty text-talk with some girl I plan to date in the future. Are we going to start allowing the police to search our houses too, without a warrant?
What happened to America being free, wasn't that what made us a great country to begin with?
I'm afraid you're wrong, often in the media they'll attribute it to mental health issues so they can draw focus away from gun control laws and blame it on health treatment, when most of the time that isn't the case. Most people with psychological issues are a greater harm to themselves than anyone else.