Tim Cook: Apple Won't Create 'Backdoor' to Help FBI Access San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone

[robertcoogan]

Where is the limit?
If creating a backdoor meant avoiding another 9/11, what would be the right thing to do?

I think the mania for "privacy" has gone way beyond common sense: until 10 years ago we were all happily storing our personal info in our houses, in paper, and no one was seriously worrying about someone sneaking in our houses to look at our family pictures, love letters or -oh my God!- our weight.
We too often forget that in 99.99% of the cases NO ONE COULD CARE LESS about our oh-so-precious pictures, messages, etc. There is quite simply nothing to protect, our personal info are valuable only to ourselves.
"Just" give me a common password for all my info/website, and if someones steals my device, big deal, let me make a call and block all access. End of story.

That analogy makes no sense. If the photos, emails, documents, etc. on that device can potentially prevent another 9/11, wouldn't you want law enforcement to be able to access it? You contradict your own argument even before you make it!

 

[leroypants]

The people condemning this, or accusing Tim Cook of supporting terrorism, are frightening. I would rather die in a terrorist attack than have my personal, private info at the mercy of any government.

Cook's stance and adherence to principle ought to be admired not admonished. If more politicians were so consistent and less hypocritical the world would be a much better place.

I agree, my privacy is worth far more than you or your families lives. I would much rather see you and your family violently killed and the killers get away with it than have pictures of my cats exposed.

 

[ggibson913]

This is a battle they will lose, proving someone committed a crime is more important.

But they don't need that to prove they committed the crime, that is already established. They want to look at texts and e-mails on the phone to go fishing for others who may be terrorists. I am not minimizing this at all, but by the same token, I would rather know that my information is secure, than to trade a little more freedom for security.

 

[8692574]

If the photos, emails, documents, etc. on that device can potentially prevent another 9/11, wouldn't you want law enforcement to be able to access it? You contradict your own argument even before you make it!

If the photos, emails, documents, etc. on that device can potentially create another 9/11 (because terrorist can use the backdoor to get info from key personnel's stolen phone), wouldn't you want law enforcement to prevent it?

 

[cdmoore74]

In this case they help the terrorist and not the government so who do they support? Also no need for a generic backdoor. The FBI can deliver just this phone to Apple secret lab. They do their data magic there and hand over the phone in its original state and the data on a USB stick.

What guarantee do you have that the people in this "secret lab" will not leak this information or if Apple is hacked and the method leaks online? If you ran a company that had the tools to do this can you trust everybody involved 100%?
There is a reason why disinfectant wipes say that it kills only 99.999% of germs out there. There is always that 0.001% chance that a unknown germ is lurking out there. In this case the odds are greater that a "secret lab" won't remain secret any longer hence the threat to do more harm than good.
If hackers can still find ways to jail break iPhone's then Apple's secret lab won't be invincible. There are always weaknesses in the armor.

 

[vannibombonato]

Did you miss all the Snowden leaks? The govt will abuse the **** out of having a backdoor into iOS.

This is like saying that police forces should not be authorized to use guns because there are tons of cases of innocents being killed by rogue police men.

 

[tcgjeukens]

Sorry Tim , I think you draw the wrong line. Supporting terrorism is just plain wrong. Any righteous person has nothing to hide from the government.

Sorry LaForge, if selling an iPhone is linked to supporting terrorism, how would you qualify the arms seller?

Many technology is multi use. In my opinion it is far fetched to label the primary function of a smart phone as tool-of-terrorist. On the other hand, the primary function of a gun is to slam a bullet into somebody/ something.

And FBI, if you really want to dig into the culprits mind, aks Mr Smith of the Matrix how to plug in.

 

[garylapointe]

Isn't this two stories:
1) We can't get into the San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone.
2) We are not going to create a backdoor.

If even MacRumors can't get that story straight what's the rest of the press going to report.
I say that because of the title of this post "Tim Cook: Apple Won't Create 'Backdoor' to Help FBI Access San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone" (creating a backdoor will not help with the San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone).

Although I blame Apple some for not giving this as two different announcements (to avoid confusion).

Gary

 

[SavMBP15]

cue the "but what about the children... ?"

 

[Tiger8]

Sorry Tim , I think you draw the wrong line. Supporting terrorism is just plain wrong.

I missed the part where he said that, can you point me to that section?

If they (Apple) are able to access the data on that phone they should just help the FBI in a way that this is a one time only event.

I think this is where you are confused. Apple themselves cannot access your phone, there was a whitepaper about the security features of iPhone, they themselves cannot

I think you are drawing the wrong line. You claim only criminals have 'something to hide'. That is completely not true, many good people have their own secrets, their own lives, heck, even their own vices (example: an affair, which is morally wrong, but is NOT illegal), why should the government access that? Most importantly, ho is watching over the FBI, making sure they are not abusing their power?. When NSA scandal broke, we discovered NSA agents were using our tax money and their power to spy on their ex.

There are countless examples where the police, FBI, CIA, NSA, you name it, abused their power

 

[macfacts]

So you are saying that for following a tax law he is a hypocrite? ****ing amazing.

For tax purposes, he says he follows the law. In this FBI story, Apple doesn't want to follow the law and ignore what the judge has ordered them to do.

Understand?

 

[0x000000]

Hypothetical reasoning doesn't do anybody any good and is not only counterproductive, but completely misses the point. There are thousands of these scenarios posed all the time, such as the ethics of human experiments if it meant that medicine created as a result of these experiments could assist the greater good.

Often what these sort of circular arguments miss is that you begin with a hypothetical to justify the end reasoning. What if, hypothetically, this backdoor exploit meant that terrorists would be able to get information from officials and politicians' phones, which in itself enables another 9/11 -- when ironically that's what the backdoor was meant to prevent?

It's exactly the same hypothesis that doesn't really have an answer, and frankly doesn't matter.

If this sort of thing is pushed through, it would be at the expense of privacy and freedom. That much is a fact. So it's best to ignore what could happen, and instead look at what would happen, then make a reasoned decision from there. Manipulating people's emotions, fears and uncertainty to justify unprecedented acts has historically never, ever ended well.

Without any sarcasm: That's such a good, well worded answer, I'll save it as a text file on my desktop for future reference.

 

[SavMBP15]

This was an iPhone supplied by the dude's employer. I think it is quite ironic that the government has their asses in a fit about an encrypted device that the government gave him.

 

[normanfox]

Sorry Tim , I think you draw the wrong line. Supporting terrorism is just plain wrong. Any righteous person has nothing to hide from the government.

As far as I understood the FBI needs access to just this phone. I think Apple blew this for marketing reasons entirely out of proportion. If they (Apple) are able to access the data on that phone they should just help the FBI in a way that this is a one time only event. The FBI can deliver this phone to apple and they could have pulled the data off the phone in one of their secret labs and then hand back the phone and separately the data. No need to give the FBI a general key.

To quote the article:

it is not that simple to just "pulled the data off the phone in one of their secret labs". Security was designed and embedded from the beginning when they designed the iOS. you can't just pull data out for one phone since it has no door.

In order to pull data out of one phone, they have to redesign the iOS to create a door, which basically a door to every iphone out there.

and this is not "one time only event". once succeeded, FBI and other agencies will come for more. and this will not only affect iphone in the US. everyone in the world is affected. China/Russia governments would love to break this door, once created by Apple.

Like Cook said, this one event will have a huge impact on security of millions of people. Imagine that China can use this door to monitor everyone and jail and torture people. a righteous person would want to hide from this government. and the terrorist succeeds in destroying our security/freedom.

 

[cdmoore74]

Backdoor means jailbreak on day 2 for every released new iOS. Sweet.

Then Apple shots Error code 53 to each jail broken phone because it's been compromised; not so sweet.
Just wait until Apple deploys e-fuses in iPhone 7 that permanently bricks the phone or deactivated certain features like Apple Pay. Samsung does this right now in the Note 5 when the e-fuse is tripped after it's been rooted.
Jail breaking as we know it will be completely dead.

 

[MonkeySee....]

This is pretty amazing.

Well done Apple.

I have nothing to hide and would let someone in authority look should they wish too but not without me knowing. Thats not right.

 

[vannibombonato]

Hypothetical reasoning doesn't do anybody any good and is not only counterproductive, but completely misses the point. There are thousands of these scenarios posed all the time, such as the ethics of human experiments if it meant that medicine created as a result of these experiments could assist the greater good.

Often what these sort of circular arguments miss is that you begin with a hypothetical to justify the end reasoning. What if, hypothetically, this backdoor exploit meant that terrorists would be able to get information from officials and politicians' phones, which in itself enables another 9/11 -- when ironically that's what the backdoor was meant to prevent?

It's exactly the same hypothesis that doesn't really have an answer, and frankly doesn't matter.

If this sort of thing is pushed through, it would be at the expense of privacy and freedom. That much is a fact. So it's best to ignore what could happen, and instead look at what would happen, then make a reasoned decision from there. Manipulating people's emotions, fears and uncertainty to justify unprecedented acts has historically never, ever ended well.

That's right, let's not talk about hypothesis: let's talk about facts.

The fact here is that Apple is not helping FBI accessing the "private" data of an actual existing terrorist.
and they don't do this because this could POTENTIALLY mean that someone else, one day, skilled enough to be on par with Apple engineers, MIGHT access private data of someone else.

If you don't trust fbi or your government or police or whatever, if you are really worried that some super-duper hacker might one day read your very interesting love letter or credit card number, the problem is a bit bigger.
I'm fairly sure that no-one here leaves in a fortified, inaccessible house because he's so worried of some random thief breaking in and looking at his pictures.
I'm also sure that no one has some kind of auto destruction mechanism in place in order to avoid anyone from entering his house and looking at his financial records.

 

[DMVillain]

*replying to my own post after reflection*

Seriously? Using Tim Cook's example, if a judge believes there is probable cause that a restaurant or bank is holding information vital to a criminal case, there is a simple "master key" used thousands of times a day - a warrant. Warrants are served with brute force all the time. This situation should be no different.

But the manufacturer of the door isn't required to provide the key in the physical search example. Forcing Apple to provide entry is the same as forcing the maker of a door to provide a master.

 

[b0nd18t]

I would be interested to know what the preferred phone of terrorists actually is. Even with all the news about iPhone being encrypted, would they really use an AMERICAN phone and trust it? I'd think they'd go the old fashioned way with burners.

Also Tim Cook is right on this and it would be nice if someone from the government would step in and back him up. Like one of these presidential candidates.

 

[tentales]

Sorry LaForge, if selling an iPhone is linked to supporting terrorism, how would you qualify the arms seller?

Many technology is multi use. In my opinion it is far fetched to label the primary function of a smart phone as tool-of-terrorist. On the other hand, the primary function of a gun is to slam a bullet into somebody/ something.

And FBI, if you really want to dig into the culprits mind, aks Mr Smith of the Matrix how to plug in.

So right. Every coin has two sides. Atomic Energy vs Nuclear war. Some here would obviously defend the 2nd amendment right at the same time demanding full Government access to everyone's data, since righteous people have nothing to hide ?
Except, through history "Governments", Kings and the ruling class have decided over others who is righteous and who is not. You can't have it both ways.

George Orwell's must be churning in his grave. 1984 was sooo yesteryear.

 

[keysofanxiety]

That's right, let's not talk about hypothesis: let's talk about facts.

The fact here is that Apple is not helping FBI accessing the "private" data of an actual existing terrorist.
and they don't do this because this could POTENTIALLY mean that someone else, one day, skilled enough to be on par with Apple engineers, MIGHT access private data of someone else.

If you don't trust fbi or your government or police or whatever, if you are really worried that some super-duper hacker might one day read your very interesting love letter or credit card number, the problem is a bit bigger.
I'm fairly sure that no-one here leaves in a fortified, inaccessible house because he's so worried of some random thief breaking in and looking at his pictures.
I'm also sure that no one has some kind of auto destruction mechanism in place in order to avoid anyone from entering his house and looking at his financial records.

If a hardware or software manufacturer creates a backdoor to take information from a system - a backdoor that is readily available to the government, and anybody else who can get their hands on that information - then frankly I can't see any way how that would be construed as a good thing.

And no, my main concern isn't that the government might one day read my very interesting love letter. It's the fact that the capability to retrieve information from an iPhone using a backdoor has much more serious connotations on an unimaginable scale, one which I'd definitely suggest you give ample thought to before trivialising the argument with silly suppositions.

The fact we don't all live in fortified houses to protect our personal possessions, notwithstanding the point that most people have locks on their doors to at least guarantee some peace-of-mind, doesn't invalidate the need for security in other areas.

 

[geta]

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

Written by ?

At least we know the FBI can't hack our iPhones.

all we know is Apple dont want to help them legally...

FBI, NSA and all this US crap was sitting n’ waiting for something to happen, so they can ask\demand for legal ‘backdoor’, not only access to the shooter’s iPhone, also that they can have access, monitor and control ALL iPhones user!!

 

[PlainviewX]

When there's a case, as clear cut and dry as this, Apple should comply. This isn't some willy, nilly attempt to get into a regular Joe's phone. This was an act of terror and the phones belong to the people who carried it out. I can't agree with Apple defying it in this case. As an overall rule, I agree, there shouldn't be a back door. When it comes to specific instances of national security, like this, Apple need to help out.

 

[cdmoore74]

*replying to my own post after reflection*

But the manufacturer of the door isn't required to provide the key in the physical search example. Forcing Apple to provide entry is the same as forcing the maker of a door to provide a master.

But a phone is not the same as a physical door that has a master key. Same way a phone is not similar to a car when that E-53 issue popped up. So let's stop making these silly comparisons.

 

[Spectrum]

*replying to my own post after reflection*

But the manufacturer of the door isn't required to provide the key in the physical search example. Forcing Apple to provide entry is the same as forcing the maker of a door to provide a master.

It is an interesting difference. Obviously in the past, there was more than one way to unlock a locked door (how about a big hammer?). So the request to make manufacturers provide a means of access to a locked device they produce may certainly be new...necessitated by our collective obsession with privacy.

I personally think it is socially responsible of Apple to enable access under controlled conditions (see my 50-tonne concrete box idea).