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 Says Opposing FBI is 'Absolutely Not' a 'Marketing Strategy'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What I want from all this is the next iPhone to be impossible for even Apple to break into. I want this so even a court order would be useless.
It not ignoring a court order, it's disputing it. You don't follow unlawful orders. Many times the law has been way behind in not understanding technology. Apple says lets talk about the implications of this with a committee so you all understand what it is you are asking so we can explain why this is wrong and that no company should be forced to do what you are asking. They are basically saying they don't have the power or should not have the power to do this and this could be a landmark thing so more lawmakers should be involved in a discussion to understand the implications of the court order and if it is valid or not.
The legitimacy of court order is in question. It has impact. A "hold on a moment" response from the Apple CEO in this case is warranted.
There is a difference between "hackable" and getting all the information off the device including encrypted information.
Hacking is getting access to areas of the phone that may or may not allow complete access.
The FBI wants a tool to access, a complete copy of all data unencrypted, and.... if this is won by the FBI count on additional writ's for other stuff.
The FBI wants Apple to create an "Easy Button" for its' use.
Last edited:
The level of complacency and disregard for topics that seriously impact our nation is why the USA is but a shadow of its former self. Narcissism has done great damage to our country.
Apple knows the appeal will fail, that's why Apple is trying to move the discussion into social media, where every uninformed person has very strong opinion. Apple also knows they can convince many iPhone users to support them in public.
I think it is interesting that I've not seen any celebrity come out publicly in support of Apple.
Pretty sure the FBI should be focusing its efforts in fighting terrorism, instead of fighting Apple.
Well, if you would check, you would see most of my posts are in the PSRI forum and that I am very concerned with many topics and very politically active. However, 3 separate articles on the same topic in a row gets tiring. Perhaps a "sticky" article at the top of the home page with updates would be better.
Why? Rather look at the US Attorney who submitted this for the FBI
.For the Judge, wait till after Mar 22. She was responding to what the Government provided and she does not have a technical background.
They did not say it was technically impossible to create. They said such tool currently does not exist, if am not mistaking.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
The current form of justice we have is "starry decisis", or precedent. The other form looks at each case with prior practice in mind but is not "bound by it". It may be we have to change the form of justice for some sorts of cases such as prosecuting government officials. There are precedents that the government and its officials have "sovereign immunity". That term is misused. The government has sovereignty over the borders and land. The people have sovereignty over themselves and the government. The precedent is overtly wrong and has not been reversed because any case that might risk it is dropped like a hot potato, preserving bad precedent.
This tactic is used on a wide range of rules, including plea bargains which are overtly obtained with coercion.
http://floridainnocence.org/content/?p=8304
They are not asking Apple to crack it and give them the data. They are asking for tools to crack every iPhone everywhere. Because of one case.
http://it.slashdot.org/story/16/02/...ernardino-iphone-for-the-fbi-and-save-america
http://hothardware.com/news/john-mcafee-offers-to-decrypt-san-bernardino-iphone-for-fbi
I find it interesting and amusing Apple has to resort to disclosing methods and sources and telling the truth to combat not only overreach, but misdirection by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice (Executive branch agencies). The sheer incompetence of the government from the response to the original incident with literally thousands of officers to the perps getting away entirely, to the way these phones were handled only shows the sheer incompetence of every police agency involved. BTW I was at the site of the incident the very day before it happened. There is a golf course right across the street as well.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/04/45842...isit-militarized-mindset-after-mass-shootings
http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/2...police-during-san-bernardino-terrorist-attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack
Rocketman
This does not allow for forcing Apple to write code to bypass their own security. It allows the government to seize the property for a particular purpose and RETURN IT afterward. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to protect us FROM the government. People who are swearing to uphold it are not, and should be impeached, prosecuted and fired. Apple should file the necessary papers, to give ordinary citizens or a bureau formed for that purpose, the right or ability to bypass conflicted prosecutors and go directly to a grand jury to prosecute crimes against the constitution and citizens by government officials.The Bill of Rights of the United States of America said:
The current form of justice we have is "starry decisis", or precedent. The other form looks at each case with prior practice in mind but is not "bound by it". It may be we have to change the form of justice for some sorts of cases such as prosecuting government officials. There are precedents that the government and its officials have "sovereign immunity". That term is misused. The government has sovereignty over the borders and land. The people have sovereignty over themselves and the government. The precedent is overtly wrong and has not been reversed because any case that might risk it is dropped like a hot potato, preserving bad precedent.
This tactic is used on a wide range of rules, including plea bargains which are overtly obtained with coercion.
http://floridainnocence.org/content/?p=8304
They are not asking Apple to crack it and give them the data. They are asking for tools to crack every iPhone everywhere. Because of one case.
http://it.slashdot.org/story/16/02/...ernardino-iphone-for-the-fbi-and-save-america
http://hothardware.com/news/john-mcafee-offers-to-decrypt-san-bernardino-iphone-for-fbi
I find it interesting and amusing Apple has to resort to disclosing methods and sources and telling the truth to combat not only overreach, but misdirection by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice (Executive branch agencies). The sheer incompetence of the government from the response to the original incident with literally thousands of officers to the perps getting away entirely, to the way these phones were handled only shows the sheer incompetence of every police agency involved. BTW I was at the site of the incident the very day before it happened. There is a golf course right across the street as well.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/04/45842...isit-militarized-mindset-after-mass-shootings
http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/2...police-during-san-bernardino-terrorist-attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack
Wikipedia said:
Rocketman
Neither are all the product leaks announced in the media or other known forms of clever marketing by Apple.
It claims to fight the state. It doesn't give a damn about anything except its P&L statement and is, effectively, helping terrorists - which do and still exist, by the way.
Okay, enough hyperbole - I pose for you and other supporters a question: If Apple could have rendered private all the issues involving child labor abuse, human rights abuse, H1B abuse, etc, then would people still be crowing?
Can I use this smiley now?
Nice try.
Too bad your statements are strictly inflammatory and basically irrelevant. Now if you had a decent argument... The FBI has already tried playing the pedophile, child kidnapping, child slavery, and now the terror card in an effort to expand it's legal authority (actually the governments').
My apologies for the oversight. My comment was more about the thought I had when reading the post. It wasn't specifically directed at you, even though I understand that it could be interpreted that way.
Let the judge decide (at whatever level) if the appeal will fail or not. It's not up to apple to legislate or decide a legal case. They make their case, one or more judges decide. That's why we have a legal system.
Shot in the dark? Who cares, it's their right to take it.
so?
Can a court order be issued that is unlawful?
Has our current judicial system and lawmakers shown a lack of understanding of technology?
They have not refused to comply, they have until the 26th I believe to give a legal answer and that answer could be that they appeal that order. They would then go through the appeals process which seems to be the direction they are headed. They stated they want to participate in a discussion about the implications of the court request. (Disclaimer, I'm no legal expert, just speaking on my general understanding of the court and legal process).
Who gives a **** about celebrities or would Kim Kardashian coming out in favor of Apple sway your opinion?
Although we are not required to give evidence against ourselves, judges can jail you for contempt for not following a court order. It is common for journalists to be jailed for not revealing their sources.
So we are not as free as we ourselves claim.
Who gives a **** about celebrities or would Kim Kardashian coming out in favor of Apple sway your opinion?
It does. If a Kardashian agrees with what I think I begin to believe that I am in the wrong...
Error 53 was never supposed to be more than a factory diagnostic.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
If anything, it demonstrates how easy it is for an internal tool to escape its original restricted intent and slip into the wild.
First anyone can't doit because anyone doesn't have Apple's source code.
The problem the government has is it's not simply providing information, but forcing a company to develop software for them.
It says nothing about the FBI.
It can't be done by anyone but Apple.
Apple knows the sequence that would be required to get the OS onto a locked phone.
Doing it wrong, wipes the locked device.
I'll get my popcorn but, I think the FBI can compel to release information, but they cannot force a company to do development that they wouldn't normally engage in.
I think the FBI will be kicking rocks on this one.
Not all of those related to the victims are supporting the FBI's side of the argument:
http://iphone.appleinsider.com/arti...ple-says-right-to-privacy-makes-america-great
Well, the court order specifically defines what type of "reasonable technical assistance" Apple must provide. I'm no programmer, but as I read it, it sure seems like they are being ordered to make or modify an OS.
See paragraphs 2 and 3:
https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6053155/in-the-matter-of-the-search.0.pdf
NB: Apple has until February 26 to show cause why it cannot do what is asked in the order.
Of course this is part of an overall marketing strategy. Apple is a privately-owned, for-profit company. Security is one of its selling point. Apple is looking to protect its bottom line. This fact does not make them any less correct in their objections to a forced government intrusion and forced product development.
Last edited:
I have to agree, I don't think Apple is using this as a marketing strategy. At some point the tech companies have to draw the line and define what consumer privacy is and this might be one of those landmark cases where this line is finally drawn, and Apple happened to be the tech company at the focal point. Had the suspect's been using Android phones then it would have been Google at the forefront.
Let's put it this way. All this FBI requests will do is violate the 99.9% of the people out there not committing crime. Most don't have a reason to encrypt or protect their phone aside from their own privacy concerns from people around them at work or at home. Any "real" criminal mastermind is going to ensure their data is simply not accessible on a phone, computer, or whatever, using encryption that even the FBI can't crack within a reasonable amount of time. Even if the feds could unlock the phone, another layer of encryption would be enabled to prevent the nefarious plans from being accessed, at least for smart criminals.
This is just like the gun control argument. Gun control will make it harder for legit users like hunters and people concerned about their own safety to get a gun, but gun control will not keep guns out of the hands of people wanting them to do harm. Offering a backdoor to the feds will simply reduce privacy of the average innocent consumer and not actually work to eliminate criminal masterminds from society.
Lastly, ANY backdoor will be accessible by hackers and the idea of some exclusive federal investigator backdoor that only officials can access is laughable. The average person may not actually ever be bothered by a federal investigation, but in reality this backdoor will leave millions of consumers open to a greater possibility of being hacked and their personal information used against them.
Apple already has enough holes in their device security without publishing one under the fallacy of exclusivity to federal investigators. But refusing to comply is definitely NOT a marketing strategy and this is one thing that I will stand behind and champion for Apple.
Let's put it this way. All this FBI requests will do is violate the 99.9% of the people out there not committing crime. Most don't have a reason to encrypt or protect their phone aside from their own privacy concerns from people around them at work or at home. Any "real" criminal mastermind is going to ensure their data is simply not accessible on a phone, computer, or whatever, using encryption that even the FBI can't crack within a reasonable amount of time. Even if the feds could unlock the phone, another layer of encryption would be enabled to prevent the nefarious plans from being accessed, at least for smart criminals.
This is just like the gun control argument. Gun control will make it harder for legit users like hunters and people concerned about their own safety to get a gun, but gun control will not keep guns out of the hands of people wanting them to do harm. Offering a backdoor to the feds will simply reduce privacy of the average innocent consumer and not actually work to eliminate criminal masterminds from society.
Lastly, ANY backdoor will be accessible by hackers and the idea of some exclusive federal investigator backdoor that only officials can access is laughable. The average person may not actually ever be bothered by a federal investigation, but in reality this backdoor will leave millions of consumers open to a greater possibility of being hacked and their personal information used against them.
Apple already has enough holes in their device security without publishing one under the fallacy of exclusivity to federal investigators. But refusing to comply is definitely NOT a marketing strategy and this is one thing that I will stand behind and champion for Apple.