Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Personally I find it hard to believe Apple cannot do this already.

If the receiving device knows how to decrypt an encrypted message (so the other human can read) suggests Apple knows the decryption algorithm. I think Apple and others are using this case as a PR campaign to solidify their customer base. All our IT giants provide complete access to Chinese, Russian and few other governments already.

Keep in mind any device running older version iOS doesn't have encryption.
 
I believe Apple will do everything to protect the encryption of the iPhone because most--if not all--of its information for Apple Pay is tied up in that encryption.
 
So the NY Times says Apple wanted to keep this under seal (i.e. private) but the government chose to make it public. Clearly they think this is a case where the public will be sympathetic and Apple will lose the PR battle and cave.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gasu E.
If the receiving device knows how to decrypt an encrypted message (so the other human can read) suggests Apple knows the decryption algorithm. I think Apple and others are using this case as a PR campaign to solidify their customer base. All our IT giants provide complete access to Chinese, Russian and few other governments already.

Wow, you're so wrong. Why do people comment when they have no clue?

The receiving device knows how to decrypt an encrypted message WITH THE PASSCODE.

The passcode is the KEY to unlocking the encryption. You're not just typing in a passcode, and then decrypting the phone the same way every time.

As a very, very simple example, suppose there were 10 possible passwords 0-9, and my encrypted string was 'butterfly'...

A '0' encrypts the string frog to 'butterfly'
A '1' encrypts the string frog to 'utterflyb'
A '2' encrypts the string frog to 'tterflybu'
A '3' encrypts the string frog to 'terflybut'
A '4' encrypts the string frog to 'erflybutt'
A '5' encrypts the string frog to 'rflybutte'
A '6' encrypts the string frog to 'flybutter'
A '7' encrypts the string frog to 'lybutterf'
A '8' encrypts the string frog to 'ybutterfl'
A '9' encrypts the string frog to 'butterfly'

To know what the message is, you need to know the passcode, not just the encryption method.

Imagine a MUCH more complex algorithm than simply moving letters a certain number of places over - something that makes it indecipherable except in one case, where you get the right number. Then have many more possibilities. Then make sure you only have 10 tries.
 
Just another excuse for them to offshore jobs to countries with appalling human rights issues, no doubt. It's hilarious when people defend their behavior in saying they're being ethical, when this isn't about ethics but a huge dog and pony show, a song and dance, bread and circuses.

Since these companies support terrorists, directly or in solidarity, they should be glad that George W "You are either with us or with the terrorists" Bush isn't in office.
[doublepost=1455891885][/doublepost]
The iPhone 5c shure is getting a lot of publicity right now. :)

If you truly understood the implications, and irony, you wouldn't put out the proud boasty smiley icon and isn't the word spelled "sure"?

[doublepost=1455892015][/doublepost]
LOL any proof? or you just know?

Here's a little help:

http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/23/100134488/index.htm

It's no stretch of the imagination to suggest all the major tech companies do it. The same goes for how their "abusing the H1B law has been killing America" (bing or yahoo it sometime)...
[doublepost=1455892247][/doublepost]
I believe Apple will do everything to protect the encryption of the iPhone because most--if not all--of its information for Apple Pay is tied up in that encryption.

Apple will protect its profits, and continue to berate and scapegoat the US government while holding a huge double standard regarding collection of information. Simple.
 
Last edited:
Since these companies support terrorists, directly or in solidarity, they should be glad that George W "You are either with us or with the terrorists" Bush isn't in office.
George W was one of the biggest terrorists of all. The fact you hold him up as a guiding light... good grief.

The fact that Apple wanted this to be handled privately and the FBI chose otherwise is interesting. I think the arrogance of those at the higher levels within the FBI will come back to bite, hard.

It's a massive PR win for Apple right now, and even more do if they see it through. [But the outcome is A LOT more important to all of us than what a few extra sales are to .]

Google are in an awkward position. *squirm baby, squirm!*
 
  • Like
Reactions: Four oF NINE
The fact that Apple wanted this to be handled privately and the FBI chose otherwise is interesting. I think the arrogance of those at the higher levels within the FBI will come back to bite, hard.

It's a massive PR win for Apple right now, and even more do if they see it through. [But the outcome is A LOT more important to all of us than what a few extra sales are to .]

Google are in an awkward position. *squirm baby, squirm!*

Massive PR win? Keep smoking the crack. It's definitely not a massive win at all. That was a big mistake.

Consider the fact that Apple wanted it under seal as in "sshh! sssh! Let's keep this private" and then the company gets the order which wasn't publicized, yet. And then all of a sudden, Tim goes public opening his mouth about it.

So, THINK! Why would Timmy open his mouth when it was originally supposed to be under seal? So, who blinked first?

Apple.
[doublepost=1455893905][/doublepost]
So the NY Times says Apple wanted to keep this under seal (i.e. private) but the government chose to make it public. Clearly they think this is a case where the public will be sympathetic and Apple will lose the PR battle and cave.

Well, it seems hypocritical for Apple to want this under seal and then open their mouth?
 
It should be noted that if the San Bernardino Department of Public Health had been using some sort of Mobile Device Management for the phones that they owned, this could have all been avoided.

I keep forgetting that the phone belonged to the city, not the terrorist. So does that mean that the gov't unknowingly hired a terrorist? If so, that should be the real story here.
 
Anyone who thinks that Apple is taking the high road is fooling themselves. Apple is not caving in, and Apple has a phone with a secure disk, because Apple knows that it's something they need to successfully sell devices.

To whit, Apple doesn't give a crap about the rest of our protections under the Bill of Rights and they certainly don't bat an eyelash when they ship jobs over-seas or invent complex schemes to dodge paying their taxes.

Anyone who thinks that Apple is patriotic and protecting our rights.... well, I have some Florida swamp-land that needs selling.

If public sentiment changed to the public wanting the Feds to have a back-door into these devices, Apple would cave in a heartbeat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeans01Ddk
Which is a complete joke. Like they care in the least about customer privacy. Same with Facebook and Twitter. Further, only now did they decide not to let terrorists and murderers have, recruit, and brag about their actions through accounts.

Maybe not. But they care in not being forced in doing something they can't or would not do.
 
I keep seeing reports that suggest the FBI is demanding Apple to unlock the iPhone in question and Apple and other tech experts keep saying that it's a "dangerous precedent" or a "slippery slope", but I haven't heard anyone say that it is actually not possible to decrypt this particular phone. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it currently impossible to crack the iPhone in question? The FBI wants Apple to create a new version of iOS. How are they going to install this new version on this phone if it is already locked and encrypted? From what I know about iOS, you can't install software updates without the passcode. I don't even think you can erase iPhones anymore without the passcode, right? I know that it's possible to create a backdoor in future versions of iOS, but current iPhones that are already encrypted? That just doesn't seem possible. Yet I haven't actually heard anyone come out and say that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roric
To whit, Apple doesn't give a crap about the rest of our protections under the Bill of Rights and they certainly don't bat an eyelash when they ship jobs over-seas or invent complex schemes to dodge paying their taxes.

1) The rest of what protections under the Bill of Rights? BTW there is no express "right of privacy" in the Bill of Rights or any Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (The Bill of Rights are only the first 10 Amendments). It is an interpreted right.

2) The U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and all other Amendments is a restriction on the government. Whatever citizens who run businesses think of it, well, that is their perogative under the 1st Amendment. But they are not bound to protect it as the government must.
 
Not going to comment my opinion on who is right or wrong, just want to say that they have all picked a fight with the US law and the US government. And I can currently only see this ending up in your supreme court with a final decision affecting all corners of digital life being reached. Will be interesting to see what happens. 9to5mac have a story that a senator is planning to introduce a bill to make it illegal for companies to define the courts on this matter:

http://9to5mac.com/2016/02/18/penalize-tech-companies-for-not-decrypting-devices/

As I said will be interesting to watch this.


That was a good link. I think those of us who are wary of government intrusion into private data need to both call out politicians (such as Richard Burr) who want to jump on knee-jerk government-empowering legislation, and also support legislators (such as Adam Schiff, in the link) who call for a more thoughtful, open, reasoned approach. Clearly there are points to be made on both sides of the issue, but we are going to get nowhere if the public debate is dominated by people trying to score quick political points.
[doublepost=1455896269][/doublepost]
Sad that private companies are more conscious of our rights than our own government.

The government has a direct responsibility for law enforcement, and Apple does not. Which naturally means the government would have a different position from Apple.

But I'm kind at surprised at your naiveté. It has always been understood that government, whatever its base ideology, is naturally in opposition to individual human rights. That's why the US Constitution has a Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to expressly protect the rights of individuals from incursion by the government.

Now regarding private companies: Apple and related companies see "privacy" as a product benefit they can market; hence Apple taking a position here. You don't see energy (whether solar, wind or fossil) taking a stand here, do you? It's nice that Apple is aligning with certain individual rights, but that says nothing about the "morality" of private business vs. government. Most profit-oriented companies would gladly take your money and everything else, and provide nothing in return, if they thought it was good business practice.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: logicstudiouser
Why can't Apple write the code needed, extract all data held on the device or within this one account, and then, under apple's own internal security destroy all copies of the software.
Do it all internally under Apple's highest security.

Isn't that the simple answer? Unless Apple does not trust itself?

Unless of course Apple feels if they do this once, they will be asked to do it again.

Which will be the case. "You did it before, you can do it again"

And then they'll be mission creep, so it'll start with terrorists and paedophiles, but quickly end up with them being asked to crack the phone of a high school student whose been caught selling a bit of weed to his friend, to see if he has a list of clients on his phone. They'll be lining up for the cracking service like buyers on an iPhone launch day.

We had the same with RIPA in the UK. A law that was only supposed to affect those involved in 'serious criminal activity' ended up being used to target dog fouling, and checking if people lived in the correct school catchment area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
George W was one of the biggest terrorists of all.

W was not a "terrorist". Terrorists are politically-motivated killers without armies. They strike at random civilian targets because they do not have the means to strike at their enemy in force and en masse. W had an army; therefore no terrorism was required. QED.

Now, if you had said "mass killer", I would not have had to respond.
 
Maybe not. But they care in not being forced in doing something they can't or would not do.

Which is fine. But you have people all over championing them, like they're fighting for consumer rights. They care about their own interests. Nothing more.
 
Consider the fact that Apple wanted it under seal as in "sshh! sssh! Let's keep this private" and then the company gets the order which wasn't publicized, yet. And then all of a sudden, Tim goes public opening his mouth about it.

So, THINK! Why would Timmy open his mouth when it was originally supposed to be under seal? So, who blinked first?

Apple.
[doublepost=1455893905][/doublepost]

Well, it seems hypocritical for Apple to want this under seal and then open their mouth?


You seem confused. The government went public first. I had been following this case for days prior to Cook's letter.

Once it's public, it's public. There's no putting it back in the can. If you are initlally against a tactic, and the other side uses it on you, it's not hypocritical to fight back. That's like saying "please no violence", and when the other guy starts pummeling you, just standing there and taking it. It's not hypocritical to punch the other guy back at that point.
 
Wow, you're so wrong. Why do people comment when they have no clue?

The receiving device knows how to decrypt an encrypted message WITH THE PASSCODE.

PASSCODE is also stored on the device. You can backup the device to a computer and scan the backup to retrieve the pass code, say million times, your 10 tries restriction means nothing.

Again it is not that FBI don't have the data, they cannot use that as evidence in the court of law unless it is legally obtained.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.