Apple Reiterates Inability to Unlock iOS Devices Running iOS 8 or Higher in New Court Filing

[carlsson]

I'm curious;
Let's say it was two weeks before 9/11.
You have stolen a Smartphone from a fellow terrosist.
On the phone there are plans about the upcoming attacks.

Do you still think it's a good idea that no law enforcement can look in the phone?

 

[nando87]

I'm curious;
Let's say it was two weeks before 9/11.
You have stolen a Smartphone from a fellow terrosist.
On the phone there are plans about the upcoming attacks.

Do you still think it's a good idea that no law enforcement can look in the phone?

Let's say it was 20 years before 9/11.

You've forced a citizen to give his data to the government. He feels betrayed and plans a revenge. He helps islamists enter the US.

Do you still think it's a good idea that they can look at your data without evidences?

We can play this game all day long.

 

[JAT]

That argument is nonsense. The laws protecting your privacy are not there to protect criminals, they are there to protect innocent citizens who are suspected of being criminals. So how does your advice help innocent citizens who are suspected of a crime?

Suspected why? This question is always left out of these rants.

We have to be able to protect the innocent while still finding the guilty. Privacy rants never leave space for finding the guilty, and I don't want to live in a society with zero ability to do that.

Also, you think my advice to stop committing crimes is poor? Interesting.

 

[NT1440]

I'm curious;
Let's say it was two weeks before 9/11.
You have stolen a Smartphone from a fellow terrosist.
On the phone there are plans about the upcoming attacks.

Do you still think it's a good idea that no law enforcement can look in the phone?

Ah, the "ticking time bomb" scenario.

Answer me this....how the hell does one know what's on the device?

 

[Bryan Bowler]

Actually, I'm quite okey with that – If that would be the case for all living humans on the planet, and the recorded videos would only be used in case of crimes, etc.

Ok, fair enough. The idea of your private life being recorded 24/7 is ok with you. I can assure you though, that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the free world does not share that same view. It doesn't make your view wrong -- it's just different.

 

[MacBH928]

I am starting to support all companies that stand for privacy and not sell my private information to 3rd parties. I don't use adblock on such sites (duckduckgo) and pay for services that don't make money by selling your info.

we must change the internet's business model and people should no longer feel that all things on the internet must be free. Losing a little cash is better than having your recorded history in multimedia in the hands of strangers.

 

[MacBH928]

Ok, fair enough. The idea of your private life being recorded 24/7 is ok with you. I can assure you though, that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the free world does not share that same view. It doesn't make your view wrong -- it's just different.

I don't understand how people are comfortable with strangers reading emails and text messages between you and your wife, mom, friends or your secret diary.

 

[Bryan Bowler]

I don't understand how people are comfortable with strangers reading emails and text messages between you and your wife, mom, friends or your secret diary.

Man, I agree with you. I can't understand it for the life of me. If society ever accepts the loss of personal privacy, it will become a slippery slope and bad things will result.

 

[MacAddict1978]

This is something that keeps me some love for Cupertino.

I don't know how the FBI or any judge can say these practices allow people to place themselves above the law. If the criminal is refusing to cooperate and unlock the device, that's your problem with them. If a criminal puts evidence in a safe and tosses it off a bridge and refuses to tell you which bridge, how is that any different?

Not that I love the idea of devices making criminals lives easier.... these people don't know where to draw the line with privacy and wire tapping as it is. Innocent people get roped in all the time.

 

[dk001]

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*.
...
It is about the things that really matter to be able to maintain a complex, democratic, civil society.

If you have access to a good lawyer ask him/her/it about interpretation of facts.
Personal data in an investigation can be interpreted multiple ways and a construct built to support the interpretation. Seemingly normal events can be tied together in a way to make a person look guilty. LEO uses this all the time.

Then there is the back door policy. If it exists, it will be found and the good, the bad, and the ugly will utilize it.

 

[dk001]

Here's the problem: There are laws that are there to protect innocent citizens. Since you don't know ahead who is innocent and who is not, these laws unavoidably protect criminals as well. Since I, as an innocent citizen, want that protection of the law I must accept the cost. I must accept that someone who stole from me, or a child molester, is protected by the law. And while it is regretable that a child molester may be protected by the law, it is absolutely correct that possibly innocent suspects are protected.

...

That piece (in bold) is what most seem to forget.
In the USA, until you are proven guilty, until you are convicted, the premise has to be that ALL are guaranteed the same rights and protections under the law. No matter what we think or how they have been portrayed in the media.

 

[Renzatic]

Let's say it was 20 years before 9/11.

You've forced a citizen to give his data to the government. He feels betrayed and plans a revenge. He helps islamists enter the US.

Do you still think it's a good idea that they can look at your data without evidences?

We can play this game all day long.

Let's say it was 200 years before 9/11

Islamic pirates are harassing our ships off the Barbary Coast...

 

[MacBH928]

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 the problem, they are snooping on everyone without court orders. They just monitor all the data and probably scare entrepreneurs and investors to hand in user data for "terrorist investigation" . No company will refuse that, with or without court order.

 

[Spectrum]

this is the problem, they are snooping on everyone without court orders. They just monitor all the data and probably scare entrepreneurs and investors to hand in user data for "terrorist investigation" . No company will refuse that, with or without court order.

I disagree with snooping. I also disagree - I actually think it is socially irresponsible - to purposely throw away a key that gives access to a device that could provide evidence for/against a suspect in a case.

As I said before - most of us didn't previously secure our personal correspondences (pen-letters, etc). Why do we now think it is such a big deal to be able to do so? Why are they suddenly so valuable and private? Everyone is paranoid if they think they are going to suddenly be incriminated (in a democracy) just for the hell of it.

 

[dk001]

I disagree with snooping. I also disagree - I actually think it is socially irresponsible - to purposely throw away a key that gives access to a device that could provide evidence for/against a suspect in a case.

....

That's always the issue. If a key exists it is neither good nor bad; it just is. Anyone can use it. Good, bad, or indifferent. If this is the case, why do people lock their doors and windows? In the consumer technical sector, users are now starting to learn this aspect. Let's not get it incorrect as we decide.

 

[MacBH928]

As I said before - most of us didn't previously secure our personal correspondences (pen-letters, etc). Why do we now think it is such a big deal to be able to do so? Why are they suddenly so valuable and private? Everyone is paranoid if they think they are going to suddenly be incriminated (in a democracy) just for the hell of it.

Its different, when people wrote pen-letters it was closer to writing on your blog, you know people are or might going to read it. E-mails are private, its closer to having a conversation in your kitchen with the family.

Also do not forget, for others to read your pen-letter, they have to have the physical letter in their hands not google it on their smartphone. The ease of access plays a role.

 

[melendezest]

You forgot:
6. Stop committing felonies

Commonly overlooked.

That's outside the scope of my logic.

Whether or not I commit a felony is irrelevant in this.

We're talking about the legal right to search, not whether or not I'm guilty.

 

[melendezest]

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?

Um, isn't that what I said?

Isn't that the law as it stands for other items liable to search and seizure?

We all must comply with the law or be in contempt of it, at which point you can feel free to exercise my suggestions to varying degrees of consequence.

 

[melendezest]

The courts have recently determined that a password is an extension of our thoughts and an individual cannot be compelled to unlock their phone via password. A fingerprint does not have that exclusion.
http://www.americancriminallawreview.com/aclr-online/phones-fingerprints-and-fifth-amendment/

If it's password protected. "I forgot the password."
Now prove that I did not.

The court should be then able to compel you to reset it, in order to gain access to your "house" for legal search based on evidence and probable cause.

If there is no probable cause, then it's an illegal search, and thus should be inadmissible.

I'm not an attorney, but this is my (admittedly rudimentary) understanding of the system.

 

[melendezest]

You could keep photos on a standard camera and lock it away in your house which law enforcement would need a warrant to search. Allowing access to a device without a warrant is lazy. And this isn't about protecting a child from this type of behaviour. It's about ego because knowledge is power. If it was put to a vote, would you think people would vote for the federal government to be able to monitor everything we do and access everything we have without permission for the sake of protecting us from bad people? If the answer is yes, it's because of how people have been slow fed enough fear speeches for them to feel like they are walking around the street with a sniper scoping them out at all times whilst also having to walk around mines they can't see.

I don't think you understood the reason for my post.

I am not, and never will, consent to search without it being within the confines of the law.

The issue here is that a mechanism for legal search of electronic devices has to be put in place where it doesn't exist, for the reasons I put in my post regarding the (fictional but factual) molester scenario.

So, to be clear, you either need my permission to search, or a court order.

 

[melendezest]

The scenario I'm more worried of goes more like:

"Hello, it's the NYPD. We have a report from an individual who claims that her boyfriend repeatedly raped her while videotaping the events on his phone. He doesn't dispute the existence of the video, but claims the sex was consensual and the allegation is revenge for some suspicion of cheating. He refuses to unlock his phone, as per his constitutional rights.

The phone contains definitive proof - either this man is an abusive sexual assaulter, or he isn't. We don't have enough evidence to secure a conviction without this evidence, and will have to let him go unless you can provide the key to decrypt his data."

In olden times, society understood perfectly well that in such circumstances, a person's otherwise-inaccessible personal affects might need to be investigated. That's why they created warrants. Now we've shut the most important places of the 21st century - the digital worlds inside our smartphones - out of the warrant system.

Government surveillance in general is bad, but I feel we will regret how we're reacting to secure our liberty. We're being held hostage by the NSA - either we submit to their privacy-invading schemes, or we make it incredibly hard for local police to perform the targeted, specific police work that is necessary for a functioning society.

Your scenario has all that is needed for a judge to issue a search warrant for the device.

The issue here is that the police should not have to go to the lock or house manufacturer to let them into my house to search it when a search warrant is issued.

In the same token, Apple should not have "keys" to my phone because they built it. And they don't, which is good.

The judge should be able to compel the individual to unlock their "house" for search.

This is not about the usual "trading freedom for security".

 

[melendezest]

Actually, I'm quite okey with that – If that would be the case for all living humans on the planet, and the recorded videos would only be used in case of crimes, etc.

Except that, since we're dealing with human beings, the recorded videos would NOT only be used in the case of crimes, etc.

You sir/ma'am, are the reason why the phrase "those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security" exists.

Time to brush up on some human history, there.

We are monsters, all of us. Only the law keeps us in check.