Apple CEO Tim Cook: FBI's Backdoor Would Be 'Software Equivalent of Cancer'

[Larry-K]

No, jurors do not have the right to nullify a law. Jurors take a solemn oath to follow the law as the judge charges them. Any juror who violates that oath is a traitor to the ideals of his country and is subject to punishment. A juror who advocates nullification in the jury room will be removed from the jury by the judge. We live in a nation of laws, not of men, and the law is determined and interpreted by those learned in the law. The duty of a juror is to determine the relative credibility of witnesses, to weigh the facts, and to apply to those facts the law the judge gives them.

We really need to teach civics in our schools again. The depth of ignorance, readily exploited by demagogues, is a danger to the American way of life.
[doublepost=1456444201][/doublepost]

I don't know all the values held by a majority of Americans, nor was it necessary to know them to refute the statement that President Obama does not share the values of those who voted for him.

Yes, you are correct.

My question would really apply to the embedded quote, and as such, I should have replied to that.

I wonder whatever happened to "Civics"?

 

[NewdestinyX]

Encryption also saves lives. Privacy saves lives.

Sounds like a baseless platitude. Prove it! 1 example please. Even 1.

 

[\-V-/]

Sounds like a baseless platitude. Prove it! 1 example please. Even 1.

Identity theft.

 

[BaldiMac]

Sounds like a baseless platitude. Prove it! 1 example please. Even 1.

Sure. How about the time it helped end apartheid in South Africa.
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/702869270464700416

For something closer to home, there's the obvious case of domestic violence.

 

[NewdestinyX]

Sure. How about the time it helped end apartheid in South Africa.
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/702869270464700416

For something closer to home, there's the obvious case of domestic violence.

How does privacy with regard to either of those examples save lives? A domestic violent criminal who stays private is a detriment to the person he's abusing. I'm not following you at all. Clarify please.

 

[thasan]

Well said.

These Muslim terrorists should never have been allowed into the States in the first place.

Both America and Europe need governments who are prepared to enforce border controls and remove millions of illegal immigrants. In addition, immigration needs to be much more restricted.

I'm a Muslim from Asia and living and working in UK. You guys have absolutely no idea how difficult and sometimes embarrassing it is to re enter uk (or other countries). I respect every countries right to its security but the way many Muslims are handled in the border or during visa is upsetting. I was once forced to stay in lax for four/five hours after a 13 hour flight, open bag twice, had my credit cards scanned, answer all sorts of personal questions while my European colleagues passed through in minutes. And I'm not some dodgy worker or immigrant but I ended up arriving at the hotel 5 hours after them, just before sunrise. I need to apply for visa for every single work visit to every single country. Trust me, it's not pleasant and in fact, very humiliating at times. What the governments need are more effective visa system, not stricter ones. There is a subtle but very important difference between the two. Just like there is a subtle but importance difference between individual and national security. FBI is simply playing on the fear of people.

 

[ipedro]

The US government has free lance arms dealers doing their dirty work overseas, you mean to tell me they don't have free lance hackers that can just break into the damn phone already?

The fact that the FBI with unlimited resources and the full force of the United States Government behind it can't break into an iPhone 5C, tells you that Apple has been doing something very right about security and privacy.
[doublepost=1456464024][/doublepost]

He's talking like it's something that can never be undone. It's more alike to the nuclear bombe creation than to cancer: it can cause trouble to lots of people, if not used proprely.

It's not like there was backdoors in most softwares and if not backdoors, security vulberability.

You and many others fail to understand this issue completely. You've demonstrated that in your comment. Doing it once sets a legal precedent. The FBI will then demand that it be done again for other cases. They've since come out and said that there are over 100 iPhones that they want unlocked. Once it's done for the United States Government, countries with far more diminished civil liberties will demand access to iPhones of people outspoken against the state. Think China or Russia.

Building this hackable OS will open the floodgates and a tool so powerful that it can access important private information of hundreds of millions of people and the secrets of Fortune 500 companies, something so valuable will inevitably make its way to actors with malicious intentions.

 

[ggibson913]

Mostly agreed, Egalitarianism is prolific in today's culture, but it has been prolific for many decades now. Actually a bit over a century or so... Most directly relevant is when Iranians raided our embassy and took our diplomats and civilians hostage for over a year, and we did nothing. That was so emboldening to these people, and gave them immense hope that their ideology could take hold. I mean, they just took on the United States of America, the most formidable force in the history of this Earth.... and won. Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Regan were absolutely pathetic in their response to these events, and our foreign policy has taken a massive nose dive ever since. Bush's occupation of Iraq was also completely pathetic, and failed to even come close to addressing the real core of what caused 9/11, the Islamic Revolution, and failed to attack the countries which were really at the root of what happened, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Instead he sucked up to them. And so did Obama. Our leaders are pathetic, but they're a function of our voting. It's going to take a real educational shift in morality, and what we as citizens consider to be moral, to save this country from destroying itself.



1. I fail to see how one can't think logically without first getting shot at, or how the two are logically associated.

2. I don't see any logic in those statements, just a bunch of floating hyperbole.



This statement assumes that an idea cannot make sense, work, or be practical, unless it has already occurred in history, which obviously doesn't make any sense. All things have to happen for the first time at some point in history, but for the purposes of this discussion, there are in fact historical examples of this happening.

1. We 'crushed' Imperial Japan in WWII, firebombing their major cities to the ground, and nuking two of them. And the thugs we're up against now are nothing compared to what the Japanese were back then. Not only were their soldiers more committed to their cause, but they have formidable productive capacity. The enemy were fighting now doesn't produce a single thing. They're almost completely primitive savages. Anything they have, they stole, or bought with money which they got by selling things that they stole. They're completely pathetic, and yet, here they still linger. 45 years later.

2. Germany, same war, same tactics, minus the nukes.

3. Guerilla warfare requires the compliance of local communities, in hiding the fighters, and their supplies. If you flatten a city, and point to the individuals who remain, and say "Look. You see that? You want that to happen to you? You either give us your insurgents, or you'll end up exactly like that, you have 12 hours." then they will have 2 options; Hand them over, or die. Either way, they stop.

Ok yes I didn't include the United States to committing genocide and resorting to Nazi Germany tactics. Is that really your position? Slaughter everyone including women and children. What effect do you think that would have on our relationship with the world? Do you think that those actions may motivate more locals to join insurgents? Since more people die from Gun violence than terrorism should we slaughter the city of Chicago or NY or LA as well? You know, to set an example.

 

[BaldiMac]

How does privacy with regard to either of those examples save lives?

How about you look up apartheid to understand how its end in South Africa saved lives?

A domestic violent criminal who stays private is a detriment to the person he's abusing. I'm not following you at all. Clarify please.

Obviously, I'm talking about the privacy of the victim.

 

[NewdestinyX]

How about you look up apartheid to understand how its end in South Africa saved lives?


Obviously, I'm talking about the privacy of the victim.

You're just using Red herring arguments here. I'm well aware of the Apartheid history. And the tie you're trying to make with privacy rights is totally not analogous. Neither is the victim of abuse analogous as the FBI would not be seeking data from the abused but the abuser. So your argument that "phone privacy saves lives" is just completely baseless.

 

[thermodynamic]

Lobbyists are a cancer to America, Tim. Well, that might be harsh - lobbyists seem more appropriate in an oligarchy or plutocracy and not a republic or democracy...

Hiding revenue to prevent equal taxation is a cancer to the country you live in, Tim. Or at least asphyxiation. And how is more revenue generated? That's an easy one:

Moving jobs offshore and bashing Americans (teachers, unions, etc) as the reason, and doing nothing to prove how you are better than those you bash isn't winning people over either, Tim. Especially when you move jobs to countries that employ forced morale parades and put up nets to prevent suicides because of maltreatment of workers. Child labor abuse, too. And all while cashing in the huge difference as profit because their wage structure is different from ours, and even with their wages they still have more buying power. (That's the summary of x number of news articles over the last ten years...)

So the other question is begged: Is human rights a hollow issue too? Seems to be, or at least when convenient to the company, forgive people if they stop believing Apple is even remotely serious about any political issue it will claim to support in the future.


Addendum: Apple isn't alone in this. So when other companies start playing games with Americans with what's supposedly good or bad for America it's obvious people will come out of the woodwork to squawk some more, and all as wedge issues.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I understand your points, but would offer:

1. Yes, I know who Ted Olson is. He and Ted Boutrous are both excellent lawyers, but I think they will have their work cut out for them on this case. As I see it, the facts and the law are not in Apple's favor.

2. Perhaps, but investors also understand complying with lawful legal requests and court orders. But instead, Cook & Co. insist on going through legal Armageddon in order to prove a point. Not a good approach IMHO.

1. I offered Ted Olsen, not because he is an excellent lawyer but to refute your premise this is an ideologically driven case. He is a rock ribbed Republican. This isn't a partisan issue. It's a Constitution/Individual Rights vs Gov't Powers issue.

2. You could not be more wrong that Apple is doing this to prove a point. Apple made security a selling point of iPhones with iOS 8. It would be financially devastating if Apple was forced to build a back door b/c it's strong encryption is a key differentiator between iPhone and Android phones at a time when everything else is near parity.

3. Also investors understand law suits are part of business and the cost of this one at any rate is a blip on Apple's bottom line. If this suit costs it $10m that is about what it makes in 2.5 hours. But triple that and it's still less than one day's profit and pales in comparison to what AAPL pays out in quarterly dividends -- in other word's it doesn't even affect investors.

 

[BaldiMac]

You're just using Red herring arguments here. I'm well aware of the Apartheid history. And the tie you're trying to make with privacy rights is totally not analogous.

I linked to an story about how developing a a secret communication system helped the ANC avoid government spies and communicate with Mandela and bring an end to apartheid. That obviously saved lives. I'm not sure how much more on point I could be.

Neither is the victim of abuse analogous as the FBI would not be seeking data from the abused but the abuser. So your argument that "phone privacy saves lives" is just completely baseless.

Who said anything about the FBI? All I said is that privacy and encryption save lives. A victim of domestic violence can certainly be saved by their ability to have conversations that are kept private from their abuser.

 

[dk001]

Safety from terrorism. I'm only too happy to "maybe" give up some of my privacy for that to be accomplished.

That statement always interests me.
Can you define what that safety would look like and entail to make you "safe"?

 

[maroontiger2k9]

tim is taking an extremely convicted stance...

its a tough conversation. Choosing to forgo a backdoor to prevent the bad guys to hack into it...

Its about protecting civil liberties/security for everyone, and i would suggest that apple and FBI agree on analytics so that FBI's critical Persons of Interest, cant use/buy an apple phone

i think its going to get really ugly and its difficult b/c there is no scenario where the good guys win and have flexibility to adapt to any circumstance...

i respect cook on the fact that he prioritizes security to the upmost level and refuses to compromise that belief... is there an opportunity, to find a compromise? probably, but probably not on this case.

 

[mijail]

I don't like how he's using a terrible disease as a metaphor for this scenario, but that's just me.

Would you prefer him to use a non-terrible disease? "this is the software equivalent of a cold"?
Or what?

 

[tgara]

1. I offered Ted Olsen, not because he is an excellent lawyer but to refute your premise this is an ideologically driven case. He is a rock ribbed Republican. This isn't a partisan issue. It's a Constitution/Individual Rights vs Gov't Powers issue.

2. You could not be more wrong that Apple is doing this to prove a point. Apple made security a selling point of iPhones with iOS 8. It would be financially devastating if Apple was forced to build a back door b/c it's strong encryption is a key differentiator between iPhone and Android phones at a time when everything else is near parity.

3. Also investors understand law suits are part of business and the cost of this one at any rate is a blip on Apple's bottom line. If this suit costs it $10m that is about what it makes in 2.5 hours. But triple that and it's still less than one day's profit and pales in comparison to what AAPL pays out in quarterly dividends -- in other word's it doesn't even affect investors.

1. I wasn't looking at this case or the lawyers involved in a political way, and I agree with you that this is not a partisan issue. The politics of this do not concern me in the slightest. The legal principles and process, however, do.

2. I don't disagree that the encryption feature is a selling point with the Apple devices. However, I believe Apple's position regarding their refusal to assist the government in an ongoing terrorist attack is weak from a legal perspective, so Mr. Cooks letter and grandstanding, as I see it, is more based on principle than firm legal foundations.

3. The monetary cost is not what concerns me, its the reputation that Tim Cook is getting as a rabble rouser on social issues. First it was the Indiana legislation on marriage, then Apple's antitrust suit, and now this. Investors don't like PR controversies, and they certainly do not like blatant and very public refusals to comply or assist with government requests. I think these acts are going to have shareholder repercussions for Mr. Cook.

 

[mijail]

2. I don't disagree that the encryption feature is a selling point with the Apple devices. However, I believe Apple's position regarding their refusal to assist the government in an ongoing terrorist attack is weak from a legal perspective, so Mr. Cooks letter and grandstanding, as I see it, is more based on principle than firm legal foundations.

If he is more based on principle than on firm legal foundations, then the USA is more FU'd that I realized.

3. The monetary cost is not what concerns me, its the reputation that Tim Cook is getting as a rabble rouser on social issues. First it was the Indiana legislation on marriage, then Apple's antitrust suit, and now this. Investors don't like PR controversies, and they certainly do not like blatant and very public refusals to comply or assist with government requests. I think these acts are going to have shareholder repercussions for Mr. Cook.

If shareholders abandon Apple, I won't give a rat's ass. (I was with Apple in 1995 when it was always the "beleaguered Apple", I didn't mind then, why would I now)
But if Apple abandons these positions (meaning, if Apple abandons us), I won't care anymore for Apple.

Funny how we're arriving to a point where it might be arguably safer to buy a chinese-produced computer than an USA-produced one.
[doublepost=1456518230][/doublepost]

Mostly agreed, Egalitarianism is prolific in today's culture, but it has been prolific for many decades now. Actually a bit over a century or so... Most directly relevant is when Iranians raided our embassy and took our diplomats and civilians hostage for over a year, and we did nothing. That was so emboldening to these people, and gave them immense hope that their ideology could take hold. I mean, they just took on the United States of America, the most formidable force in the history of this Earth.... and won. Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Regan were absolutely pathetic in their response to these events, and our foreign policy has taken a massive nose dive ever since. Bush's occupation of Iraq was also completely pathetic, and failed to even come close to addressing the real core of what caused 9/11, the Islamic Revolution, and failed to attack the countries which were really at the root of what happened, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Instead he sucked up to them. And so did Obama. Our leaders are pathetic, but they're a function of our voting. It's going to take a real educational shift in morality, and what we as citizens consider to be moral, to save this country from destroying itself.



1. I fail to see how one can't think logically without first getting shot at, or how the two are logically associated.

2. I don't see any logic in those statements, just a bunch of floating hyperbole.



This statement assumes that an idea cannot make sense, work, or be practical, unless it has already occurred in history, which obviously doesn't make any sense. All things have to happen for the first time at some point in history, but for the purposes of this discussion, there are in fact historical examples of this happening.

1. We 'crushed' Imperial Japan in WWII, firebombing their major cities to the ground, and nuking two of them. And the thugs we're up against now are nothing compared to what the Japanese were back then. Not only were their soldiers more committed to their cause, but they have formidable productive capacity. The enemy were fighting now doesn't produce a single thing. They're almost completely primitive savages. Anything they have, they stole, or bought with money which they got by selling things that they stole. They're completely pathetic, and yet, here they still linger. 45 years later.

2. Germany, same war, same tactics, minus the nukes.

3. Guerilla warfare requires the compliance of local communities, in hiding the fighters, and their supplies. If you flatten a city, and point to the individuals who remain, and say "Look. You see that? You want that to happen to you? You either give us your insurgents, or you'll end up exactly like that, you have 12 hours." then they will have 2 options; Hand them over, or die. Either way, they stop.

That sounds like a pretty simple and one-sided story, with pretty simple and one-sided "solutions".
Must be nice to live in such an easy world.

 

[DoNoHarm]

Is it just me, or is Tim Cook's iMac lacking a power cord? Maybe he uses an iPad and he just put that up for show?

 

[Z400Racer37]

Ok yes I didn't include the United States to committing genocide and resorting to Nazi Germany tactics. Is that really your position? Slaughter everyone including women and children.

It is not the responsibility of the American government to make sure that our enemies, and their citizens are safe, that's the responsibility of their government. But let's not pretend that they're innocent here. You don't have an insurgency without getting support from the local population. They need a place to hide their fighters, weapons, etc. Most of them are complicit. Even if they weren't, the alternative is 9/11. Which do you prefer? Our innocent civilians, or their "innocent" civilians? War is not fun, but this one is simple.

What effect do you think that would have on our relationship with the world?

Who cares If the rest of the world has a problem with us defending ourselves, then they can shove it up their orifices. We have a right to our lives and our security, and if another country is initiating aggression against us, then they will stop. The only variable is whether they choose to stop, or wether we make them.

Do you think that those actions may motivate more locals to join insurgents?

How could it possibly? If they realize that there's no hope that their ideology will ever take hold, then what is there to fight for? Besides, even if they didn't, we've got plenty of resource to force them to stop anyways. This enemy isn't even a small fraction of what Japan or Germany were to us. Not even close. To pretend that we don't have the ability to win this war is just crazy. We just don't have the moral backbone to stand up for ourselves.

Since more people die from Gun violence than terrorism should we slaughter the city of Chicago or NY or LA as well? You know, to set an example.

What? How is that even related? And what example would that set for whom? There's no organized effort attempting to establish a theocratic dictatorship against us. Besides, they're integrated with out citizens, that's completely ludicrous. The citizens of countries whose governments are aggressing against us are not equal to us.

Fact: These radical insurgents have aggressed against us, and they are supported directly, or morally, by their more moderate citizens.

Question: Will you sanction punishment for their actions, or will you endorse an endless war where our enemy steadily gains ground, and we steadily continue to lost our security and liberty, and pretend that there's no way to end this?

It's them or us. I choose us.
[doublepost=1456630733][/doublepost]

That sounds like a pretty simple and one-sided story, with pretty simple and one-sided "solutions".
Must be nice to live in such an easy world.

I pick the right side 100%.

 

[dk001]

Fbi is the real terrorist

More like the resident Obama catspaw.
[doublepost=1456684299][/doublepost]

Why is the FBI the real terrorist?
What were the San Bernadino shooters that they are investigating?
Happy Apple customers who knew their terror plan information would be safe on an iGizmo?
Wooooooooooo!
That's magical.

btw - the event in San Bernardino was not an actual terrorist attack. It was a case of workplace violence carried out by radicalized individuals who had terrorist leanings. Because of the loss of life and other aspects, it was classified as terrorism under one of the many current definitions. Calling this a true terrorist attack is misleading.

 

[pat500000]

More like the resident Obama catspaw.
[doublepost=1456684299][/doublepost]

btw - the event in San Bernardino was not an actual terrorist attack. It was a case of workplace violence carried out by radicalized individuals who had terrorist leanings. Because of the loss of life and other aspects, it was classified as terrorism under one of the many current definitions. Calling this a true terrorist attack is misleading.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[farewelwilliams]

The main difference being is people like thinner devices, despite the vocal minority here on MR.

And to equate thin electronics goods to cancer? Shame on you and shame on everyone who liked your post.

shame on you for liking less battery life.

 

[NewdestinyX]

More like the resident Obama catspaw.
[doublepost=1456684299][/doublepost]

btw - the event in San Bernardino was not an actual terrorist attack. It was a case of workplace violence carried out by radicalized individuals who had terrorist leanings. Because of the loss of life and other aspects, it was classified as terrorism under one of the many current definitions. Calling this a true terrorist attack is misleading.

Utter nonsense. Spoken and spun like a true Lib politician! Bernie Sanders has a place for you on his team!

 

[Jsameds]

shame on you for liking less battery life.

I find the battery life adequate for my needs, of course improvements are welcome but not at the expense of weight and size of the device.

Efficiency is the way forward, it's just not the Apple way to slap a bigger battery on it and call it a day.