Apple Says Opposing FBI is 'Absolutely Not' a 'Marketing Strategy'

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacRumors, Feb 22, 2016.

  1. MacRumors
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
    Apple has shared a new Q&A page that explains why the company is opposing a court order to create a unique version of iOS that would bypass security protections and allow the FBI to unlock an iPhone via brute-force attack.

    Apple says the objection is "absolutely not" based on the company's concern for its "marketing strategy," as the U.S. Department of Justice opined last week, but rather about ensuring "the vast majority of good and law abiding citizens, who rely on iPhone to protect their most personal and important data" are not at risk.

    Apple admits that creating a "government-ordered backdoor" is technically possible, but says "the technique, once created, could be used over and over again, on any number of devices." The company insists that complying with the court order would have "dangerous implications" for customer privacy and safety, and set a "very dangerous precedent" that would expand the powers of the U.S. government.
    The White House has denied that the FBI is asking Apple to "create a new backdoor to its products," insisting that the agency is seeking access to a single iPhone belonging to suspected San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook. FBI Director James Comey also said "the San Bernardino litigation isn't about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message," but rather "about the victims and justice."

    Apple says it has "done everything that's both within our power and within the law to help in this case," adding that it has "no sympathy for terrorists." The company believes the best way forward would be for the government to withdraw its demands under the All Writs Act and form a commission to "discuss the implications" of the matter. Apple says it "would gladly participate in such an effort."

    Apple has been given an extension until February 26 to legally respond, and a hearing will be held at 1:00 p.m. Pacific on March 22 in a California federal court. Google, Facebook, and Twitter have publicly backed Apple's stance on the issue, and some campaigners rallied to support the company, while U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and some San Bernardino victims have sided with the FBI.

    In an internal memo obtained by TechCrunch, Apple CEO Tim Cook told employees that he has "received messages from thousands of people in all 50 states," and that the "overwhelming majority" have "voiced their strong support" for the company.
    Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

    Article Link: Apple Says Opposing FBI is 'Absolutely Not' a 'Marketing Strategy'
     
  2. MH01
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors G3

    MH01

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    #2
    FBI and Apple have agendas here. Getting my pop corn......

    Best thing to come out of this, Apple making error 53 bricking going away, while it fights the state for our privacy :p
     
  3. rdlink
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 68040

    rdlink

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2007
    Location:
    Out of the Reach of the FBI
    #3
    Stand Strong Apple. True patriots are with you.
     
  4. JackieInCo
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Location:
    Colorado
    #4
    Thank you Apple, Google, Twitter and Facebook for standing together on this.
     
  5. BarmyGnome
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 6502

    BarmyGnome

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
  6. maxsix
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 68020

    maxsix

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    #6
    Apple is between a rock and a hard spot on this issue.

    They have used security as a marketing tool for years... to give that up is a scary thought for Tim and Company.

    Conversely to not try and help the USA with their intelligence needs is a horrible choice.
     
  7. Rogifan
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #7
    Why does FBI even need Apple? Are they basically saying there's no one smart enough in the world to break into this phone without the help of Apple?

    This is falsehood the government is peddling, that Apple is not trying to help. That's complete BS.
     
  8. thewitt
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #8
    What they are saying is Apple has effectively blocked anyone without the access code from getting into the phone. They did their job really well.
     
  9. Cuban Missles
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 68030

    Cuban Missles

    #9
    Wait... If creating a back door by creating a shadow iOS with less security is possible, why can't anyone build it? Why does it require Apple to build it? I would think the biggest issue is installing it on a locked phone, not actually writing it. And the fact that the FBI can't do it says more about the FBI than they want to admit.
     
  10. BornAgainMac
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 603

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #10
    I am really surprised that it isn't hackable without Apple's help. Are other types of phones based on Microsoft and Android just as difficult to hack?
     
  11. SgtPepper12
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 6502a

    SgtPepper12

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #11
    I really don't care whether it's marketing or not. If it's marketing, it's good marketing. What I really hope is that those are not just empty words. Of course ultimately everything a company does is for money, I have no illusions about that.
     
  12. decafjava
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 65816

    decafjava

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    Geneva
    #12
    Creating precedent as others have said, and possibly to cow companies to tow the line, and conversely pass a message to the public.
     
  13. LordBeelzebub
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2013
    #13
    I never thought it was a marketing strategy, Apples had this stance for a long time. Clearly the FBI saying that makes it a strategy for them to make Apple look bad in the public eye to try and force them to comply.

    I stand behind Apple 100% to protect our privacy.
     
  14. mchoffa
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    Location:
    Asheville, NC
    #14
    Where are Microsoft and Samsung? If they stand up as well, it would make a bigger statement, saying that ALL the big players agree on this.
     
  15. MacCubed
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 65816

    MacCubed

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2014
    Location:
    Florida
    #15
    I don't understand how it would have been a marketing thing in the first place? Sure it draws attention to Apple, but everyone already pays attention to the company in the first place... By creating the master key the tool could be leaked, the FBI could abuse it, etc. the risks clearly outweigh the benefits. Another thing is that I don't understand how it "would serve justice to the families of the desceased"? The shooters are already both dead, what else is there to find?
     
  16. MH01
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors G3

    MH01

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    #16
    You may have watched too many movies involving FBI and Hackers. Its cause the iPhone is a very well made and secure device. And this is a great excuse to make apple do the work.....
     
  17. blackcrayon
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    #17
    If Apple were on the other side and actively helped the FBI make this happen, you can bet some people would call that a "marketing move" too. "Apple fights terrorism!".
     
  18. Jsameds
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2008
    #18
    Of course it isn't - Apple doesn't really need the publicity anyway and if they did they wouldn't risk their reputation on something as major as this if there wasn't a damn good reason behind it - which there is.

    In my opinion the FBI have made themselves look like incompetent idiots surrounding this case, and I'm glad public opinion has shifted toward Apple over the last week or so. The contrast of comments on various sites online from when this first broke compared to now is actually quite astonishing.
     
  19. MacCubed
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 65816

    MacCubed

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2014
    Location:
    Florida
    #19
    Samsung isn't a US based company, they wouldn't have to unlock a phone if the FBI asked them to.
     
  20. thasan
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Location:
    uk
    #20
    Looks like that actually have a back "gate" ... lol
     
  21. Kaibelf
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 65816

    Kaibelf

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #21
    Dear James Comey,
    I'm sorry that your agency blundered this investigation so badly. I really am. I'm sorry that the county employed a man who turned out to be a terrorist and your agency was unable to figure this out in time. I'm sorry that the people employing this man didn't even use the most basic mobile device management protocols that would be able to help you here.

    However, I didn't do anything to anyone. Therefore, you don't compromise my security and privacy simply because your various agencies fumbled this so badly in so many ways and now to be safe you want to peep into my windows. Using this case and playing the "Apple is a bully to these poor victims" card is shameful. Yes they "sell stuff." They sell a secure device which I purchased because it's secure. They don't work for law enforcement. You know as well as I do that there is a long list of other devices you also want unlocked. Stop lying about this being a one-time thing. Stop trying to force them to play forensics team for you, and for god's sake lock down your devices with proper management tools.

    The American people would trust you more if you hadn't burned them before. Perhaps instead of imploring us all to remember the victims, you should look in the mirror and remember that you, in multiple ways, caused this situation.
     
  22. bommai
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 6502a

    bommai

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    #22
    Samsung is Korean. Do you really think America should force a Korean company. The biggest problem I see with this is global issues. What will happen if China asks for the same feature from Apple?
     
  23. Rogifan
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #23
    Well then I say too bad so sad. The fact is this guys personal phones, hard drive were destroyed. Why wasn't this phone destroyed? Why did this phone have find my iPhone turned on? If this work phone was full of data that could lead law enforcement to some ISIS cell or other attack in the works wouldn't this phone have been destroyed too? Or did he just forget to destroy this phone but not the others?
     
  24. Kaibelf
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 65816

    Kaibelf

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #24
    Think of it this way also. China specifically needed access to Apple to verify that there was no back doors in the system because they didn't want American authorities to be able to spy on Chinese citizens. If the FBI does this, they are effectively forcing an American company to exit a key foreign market. That means that one of the world's most broadly owned stocks would be pummeled, affecting millions of 401k plans as well.
     
  25. rdlink
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 68040

    rdlink

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2007
    Location:
    Out of the Reach of the FBI
    #25
    Behold the low information voter.
     

Share This Page