Apple lying about FBI unlock?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Risco, Mar 31, 2016.

  1. Risco macrumors 68000


    Jul 22, 2010
    United Kingdom
    I can't help but feel that Apple refused to unlock in public because of the massive backlash. However they made it look like they was refusing, thus saving their reputation and of course future sales!

    Sure it's a bit of a wild conspiracy theory but plausible?
  2. VenusianSky macrumors 65816


    Aug 28, 2008
    It's possible, but couldn't Apple and the FBI made an agreement in the first place to unlock the iPhone in complete confidentiality? How many people even knew about this iPhone until there was this public charade over unlocking it? Even then, the FBI could have lied and said that the device was never encrypted. iPhone isn't encrypted until you put a passcode on it right?
  3. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000


    Jun 4, 2008
    I had one poster call me an idiot when after listening to Cook's interview on prime time I suggested that it sounded as if Apple may have been open to it had the FBI not gone public. Here is the Q&A:

  4. iJon macrumors 604


    Feb 7, 2002
    I think it's very likely they opened that phone since it was a 5C. I also think the FBI could be carefully selecting cases to help with moving forward, like the Arkansas case, to create a smear campaign against Apple.

    However, this whole ordeal involved kicking sand in Apple's eyes, and I think they will double down on security now on devices moving forward.
  5. Raid macrumors 68020


    Feb 18, 2003
    If only you'd got the rest of the quote.
    So maybe what he was saying is that he'd keep his refusal quiet, but since the FBI went public with their position Apple went public with theirs.
  6. aaronvan Suspended


    Dec 21, 2011
    República Cascadia
    I doubt it. Apple really stuck their neck out on this and it's unthinkable that they would make a sub rosa 180.
  7. chown33 macrumors 604

    Aug 9, 2009
    The FBI initiated the lawsuit. Their goal was to compel Apple to take an action: unlock the phone, or provide the means for the FBI to unlock the phone.

    Exactly what the action was before the lawsuit, I'm not sure. It might be listed in the initial lawsuit filed by the FBI. Note that the most recent court case was actually an appeal of a ruling in that lawsuit, so you'd have to go back to the original, which should be identified in the appeal.

    Given that the original suit was to compel Apple to act, it seems ridiculous that if Apple had acted, or had even agreed to act, there would have ever been a suit. In other words, Apple must have refused to act, probably after some analysis and deliberation, thus leading to the filing of the lawsuit compelling action. In short, before the suit things weren't public, but as soon as the first suit was filed (FBI/DOJ v. Apple), then it became public.

    Exactly what the original FBI request to Apple was is unclear to me. It may be in the original suit, or it may not. Regardless, it's pretty likely that whatever the request was, it was beyond Apple's desire to perform. In other words, from Apple's viewpoint, the FBI was asking for something that was impossible to do without undermining Apple's own interests.

    So if the FBI quietly asked Apple to unlock the phone, and Apple quietly told the FBI they can't unlock the phone without making a custom version of iOS, and the FBI then quietly said, "OK, do that.", then that action would be against Apple's own interests. Apple could quietly refuse, and the FBI would then file a suit. This is all quiet (non-public) until the suit is filed. That is, this scenario would be a plausible and sufficient reason for the FBI filing the original suit: to compel Apple to unlock the phone, using any means necessary, regardless of Apple's interests in making such a means.
  8. maxsix Suspended


    Jun 28, 2015
    Western Hemisphere
    Apple didn't get to be the highly successful company it is... without learning to be a master of the game.

    Now decades and billions of dollars later, they have never been more clever and experienced.

    Those who hold Apple close to their heart as this warm and fuzzy corporation that's going to protect them, are in for a mind numbing slap of reality sometime soon.
  9. Tech198, Apr 3, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2016

    Tech198 macrumors G5

    Mar 21, 2011
    Australia, Perth
    They *were* refusing that was the point... u don't listen to your customers about not doing something, then go behind everyone's back and do it anyway...... unless a company was self centered.

    If Apple had the know-how to unlock they either not bring it to light ever to to safe guard all users. Either that or after they programmed in the key(s) for iOS devices, they permanently deleted them....

    Either way, it was a refusal, weather they had them or not. Public or secret..... Apple wouldn't put on a 'show' for the public. They'd tell it how it is.. If u are in a business and your goal it to protect everyone's interest, you don't overshadow it just because its public.. There is no benefit to gain.. Apart you look like a fool in a court room. and the truth always comes out later... and it would make Apple look bad.

    The FBI has already using Cellibrite.... If they can't unlock it, then that's a major overstep on Apple's part.
  10. thermodynamic Suspended


    May 3, 2009
    Anything's possible.

    Doesn't make for a great society if our corporate leaders have nothing else to do but to lie or mislead people.

    Apple's gambit all along was publicity. Remember, "There is no such thing as bad publicity".

    Never mind Apple's own hypocrisy over app privacy, giving source code to China, and everything else people have posted links to in the recent past.

    Apple really thinks its customers are stupid. Of course, if this doesn't spell it out as the icing on the cake:
    --- Post Merged, Apr 3, 2016 ---
    (iphone 4 (and even the 5, as said in that link) has that antenna issue that the CEO knew of long before it went to market.)

    So, about self-centered? Noting the former and current CEO, what they play games with, what they overlook, what they put out crocodile tears for... especially as they still overlook child labor and human rights abuses...

    Apple only makes Apple look bad. It doesn't need a court room.

    And Apple makes mistakes - it's called "being human", or "being corporate personhood", or both.
  11. Ghost31 macrumors 68020


    Jun 9, 2015
    The theory isn't totally crazy to me. I mean it's a little bit...but I wouldn't have a hard time believing it if it came to be true. Or be shocked. Or it could've been a big test case to see how the public reacts. Think about it

    Apple and the FBI being together the whole time but basically saying "why don't we try this PR stunt and see how the public reacts? Maybe since people are sharing more and more information, they won't care about us helping each other out like this". Then they try it...get tons of backlash and are like "yeahhhh ok never mind lets go back to being secret. People don't like what we are doing apparently"
  12. kdarling macrumors P6


    Jun 9, 2007
    First university coding class = 47 years ago
    Apple had for years provided law enforcement with custom iOS versions with no passcode lock, access to all the unencrypted iCloud backup info, and other technical aid to get info from an iPhone. And they've said they will comply with the FBI's request if legally ordered to. So "privacy", especially when presented with a warrant, was not an issue blocking Apple's help prior to this.

    The problem in this case, was that the FBI tried to use public courts. Big goof. In the Time magazine interview, Cook said that he was ticked off that the FBI went public. It's clear that he had no choice but to try to avoid bad PR by taking a "privacy" stand.

    No conspiracy there. Just Apple with its back against the PR wall, doing what would be expected.

    Now, if you want a conspiracy theory, then we could postulate that this is a secret joint Cook-FBI ruse to trick criminals and terrorists into continuing to use later model iPhones, even though NSA has already figured out a way into them ;)
  13. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Jan 31, 2010
    Midlife, Midwest
    I you really were a terrorist or criminal mastermind, wouldn't you think that a fundamental part of Operational Security was simply not using any sort of smartphone?

    "Secure" or otherwise, its seems a pretty bad idea to carry around an electronic device that records your physical movement; that has a unique identifier ID; and that makes a digital record of pretty much every call, e-mail, text, photograph, and website you visit?

    The reality is, of course, that the whole idea of a criminal or terrorist "mastermind" is pretty much of a myth. Most terrorist and criminal plots are pitifully simple, and often riddled with mistakes in planning and execution. Thats not a bad thing, of course. But it does give a certain random character to the sort of incidents that do, ultimately, end up in killing innocent people.
  14. kdarling macrumors P6


    Jun 9, 2007
    First university coding class = 47 years ago
    You and I might be such masterminds, but most people are not :D

    Heck, even a mastermind's assistants can screw up. Look at the way bin Laden's courier's cell phone helped lead us to his compound, even though bin Laden himself used no cell phone.
  15. NT1440 macrumors G5


    May 18, 2008
    And those that can't read a security white paper don't understand that this has nothing to do with corporate persona.

    There is a reason the FBI went to Cellebrite, a private corporation who gets technology and funding from the NSA and the Israeli version of the NSA (whom we fund heavily). They broke in, either by decapping or using an undisclosed zero day. Simple as that.
  16. satcomer macrumors 603


    Feb 19, 2008
    The Finger Lakes Region
    Wow they could have used YouTube to find a hack!

  17. maxsix Suspended


    Jun 28, 2015
    Western Hemisphere
    Would that be you, or are you assuming something.

Share This Page

16 March 31, 2016