Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Reiterates Inability to Unlock iOS Devices Running iOS 8 or Higher in New Court Filing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good Job Apple.
Probably the best feature Apple implemented in iOS ever.
Now put it in OSX.
Probably the best feature Apple implemented in iOS ever.
Now put it in OSX.
Pretty stark difference between apple and microsoft when it comes to handing over users data.
To be clear this article is about unlocking a locked device. It's not about handing over user data that the company holds.
I'm not really sure why law enforcement would need access to a device. Online activity as well as voice and sms communication can be accessed without accessing a phone. What they may want though is access to iCloud and iMessage networks. I expect that, regardless of how big Apple is, they will eventually be made to store encryption keys in future IOS releases. Will we be more safe from terrorism? No.
On the one hand I applaud Apple for taking a firm stand to not betray our trust. Ecstatic about that!
I'm just deeply worried that those who want to destroy us and our way of life are rubbing their hands with glee, having just been handed a perfect tool to further their goal with unbridled impudence.
Is increased terrorism the price we have to pay for unconditional privacy? And haven't we given up a lot of that privacy already anyway, waaay back when we started embracing the 'information superhighway'? Not to mention, acquiesced when all those cameras started appearing in public places from street corners in high crime areas to public buildings, our places of employment, gas stations, banks, convenience stores, ATMs, etc, etc.
I suspect this will not make many people happy, but being realistic and cognizant about the threats out there, there has to be some way to strike a balance between retaining the privacy we cherish, and not totally removing valuable tools available to law enforcement to protect us from those out there, whose ultimate goal is to destroy us.
To eliminate any possibility of abuse of power, at a very minimum, I would not accept anything less than zero invasion of privacy with no exceptions, unless court ordered, and with an ironclad outside and independent oversight process in place. Don't shoot me, just one man's opinion.
I'm just deeply worried that those who want to destroy us and our way of life are rubbing their hands with glee, having just been handed a perfect tool to further their goal with unbridled impudence.
Is increased terrorism the price we have to pay for unconditional privacy? And haven't we given up a lot of that privacy already anyway, waaay back when we started embracing the 'information superhighway'? Not to mention, acquiesced when all those cameras started appearing in public places from street corners in high crime areas to public buildings, our places of employment, gas stations, banks, convenience stores, ATMs, etc, etc.
I suspect this will not make many people happy, but being realistic and cognizant about the threats out there, there has to be some way to strike a balance between retaining the privacy we cherish, and not totally removing valuable tools available to law enforcement to protect us from those out there, whose ultimate goal is to destroy us.
To eliminate any possibility of abuse of power, at a very minimum, I would not accept anything less than zero invasion of privacy with no exceptions, unless court ordered, and with an ironclad outside and independent oversight process in place. Don't shoot me, just one man's opinion.
Last edited:
This is a simple issue:
No, Apple should not have to provide a mechanism to "crack" my phone.
Yes, the courts can and should be able to issue a warrant and compel the owner to unlock it, within the confines of the law, just as they can search your home, your car, etc. with a court order.
If this is unacceptable to the individiual, then he/she has several choices:
1. Ignore the law and be in contempt of court (and jailed for it)
2. Lobby and have the law changed
3. Leave the country
4. Suck it up
5. Destroy your phone before it is admitted into evidence
No, Apple should not have to provide a mechanism to "crack" my phone.
Yes, the courts can and should be able to issue a warrant and compel the owner to unlock it, within the confines of the law, just as they can search your home, your car, etc. with a court order.
If this is unacceptable to the individiual, then he/she has several choices:
1. Ignore the law and be in contempt of court (and jailed for it)
2. Lobby and have the law changed
3. Leave the country
4. Suck it up
5. Destroy your phone before it is admitted into evidence
If there's a legitimate reason for U.S. Justice Department to access the phone, the U.S. Justice Department should ask the court to order the owner to unlock it. If the owner refuses then they can be held in contempt of court until such time as the comply with the order. It's nothing to do with Apple, they only built the device.
I think those people probably don't care about the political situation in other countries -- they're busy keeping up with the Kardashains.
It's amusing to me that they think storing your information privately puts you "above the law"
Destroying property is usually considered contempt of court.
Local storage.
Like, say, a man who works at your young daughter's hospital that took pictures of her privates while she slept.
I doubt he'd be stupid enough to use iCloud syncing.
Welcome to the real world, where man is an evil, evil creature.
This. But this is not limited to terrorism. Not even close.
We got PLENTY of crap going on right here, from so-called "upstanding" citizens, that needs to be stopped.
Laws are there to keep man's f'ed up desires in check.
Yes, when it comes to humanity, I am a pessimist.
It's not that the encryption places anyone above the law. It places the FBI under the law, along with everyone else, exactly where everyone should be.
A government operating above the law is a tyrannical one.
This is all fine and dandy, until it's a child molester, or someone who stole something from you, or a mental patient with a bunch of guns.
And of course the obligatory post that draws the concluding that he must be able to own semi-automatic weapons.
And of course the obligatory post that draws the concluding that he must be able to own semi-automatic weapons.
Agreed. Still, good luck proving that when "I dropped it and accidentally ran it over with my car" comes up.
This issue is being allowed to play out to try to convince us that the iOS 8 and above does not have a back door! Believe me, there is one. If anyone believes we have the technology to destroy the planet multiple times over, but can't unlock an iPhone, I would like to sell you a bridge.
This is certainly bad but I think you can still fight this in a pinch unless the cops feel that because of this ruling they can just grab your hand physically and apply your finger to unlock the phone. If that is not an acceptable scenario according to the law (and I sure hope it isn't) then you can still refuse to unlock the phone using touch id. you just have to wait out 48 hours without unlocking it or, if they let you, shut it off. This does mean that you might end up in jail for a couple of days for contempt of court but after that touch id won't work without a passcode.
It's a false sense of security, much like the TSA. Realistically, the phone spying program only helped stop one terrorism plot in the decade or so they were collecting records. TSA is worthless. They conducted tests and sent people through check points with contraband. None were stopped. Not a single one. TSA hasn't even stopped any real terrorist plots. The police/government only way to be able to access your phone to find more incriminating evidence.
I'm glad to see the stand Apple has taken on encryption, and I believe every tech company should do the same. I'm not going to sit here and start a conspiracy theory thay the gov is spying on everyone, because frankly I think they could care less that I got directions to some restaurant, but they shouldn't have the ability to know that either without my consent.