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.
FBI Looking Into 'Legal and Technical Options' for Entering Another Terrorist's iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I totally agree. There is a long term problem and a solution needs to be found.
My personal view would be a 'fast track' court case with 12 on the jury and judge to decide on YES or NO to unlock.
Each case being taken individually. I personally would say criteria:
• must be proven to be a terrorist or commit multiple murders ie serial killer.
• other people lives may be in danger if data off the iPhone is not obtained
But 100% a jury to decide and 100% each case on its merit but 'fast tracked' esp. if danger is imminent.
Last edited:
I disagree. Encryption is either on or off. Its a black & white issue. There is NO grey area, there is no compromise there are no backdoors there are no master keys. If there are then its not secure. Simple as that. Apple doesn't need to develop a tool to comply. The fight should stay public and this should be taken to court.
[doublepost=1475875220][/doublepost]
I disagree with this view. Its not a problem that needs to be solved. Not being able to search a phone due to encryption is a new norm we must accept. Its a brick. Try to hack it. But compelling the creator to make a backdoor / master key is flawed logic.
This sort of misses the technical aspect. If Apple includes encryption on the phone designed with the intention to keep even the most resourceful "bad guys" out (even if those bad guys have already penetrated Apple's corporate security, and know how the encryption works), then how are they supposed to break into the phone's encryption to let the "good guys" poke around?
Even if we put each case up to a national referendum, so every registered voter vets whether the access should be given, Apple may not be able to comply. And if Apple does design a back door into the system, then how are we safe from super-villain Baddy McAwful creating a tool to exploit that back door and putting that tool into the hands of every small-time crook in his vast network of dastardly crime?
Really surprised you dont think this is a 'problem' that will keep reoccurring ad infinitum, until a solution is finally found.
A "fast track" jury and a judge need to find a solution to the problem. On a case by case basis ASAP
Otherwise iPhone will be unlocked by say Israeli company BUT too late, lives lost due to delay - apple accused of "having blood on their hands" due to delay.
Not a nice reputation for apple to have, apple are 'dammed if they do dammed if they dont'.
A jury needs to decide on this and future cases.
Most Terrorists call logs are at the cell company the phone is connect to might help! This is how the cops used to have to do it!
This is another attempt to make the top phone look bad by the US Goverment!
This is another attempt to make the top phone look bad by the US Goverment!
I think it is you that is watching to many movies.
Go and look at the statistics regarding police killings over here in Europe. I'm British,where the police aren't even generally armed, living in France, where they are armed, but any EU country will do - take your pick.
Realise that it is a tiny tiny fraction of the amount US police kill, in a timeframe that is generally months verses years. Not to mention we have 1.5 times your population spread over roughly half the landmass of the US.
We have just as many nutcases with knives over here as you do, and we have substantially more frequent 'terror' attacks also.
Not many other countries allow such free access to guns as the US does, definitely not in the EU, and that's clearly an issue, but the police here still don't shoot every single person in the head who has or might have one.
Yeap, check the FBI files on line. An average of 45 people per day just by guns. You have to add every other caused of death in the U.S. like texting while driving or death by "swallowing a straw", things like that. Or by dog bites or bees or peanut allergy. All that is more dangerous than a muslim.
I totally agree I'm against the unlocking.
However I can see us discussing this again in a few months time as I said in previous post apple are 'dammed if they do, dammed if they dont'. Apple can't win on this. It will lead to major problems if a very serious crime like say God forbid a Airbus 380 being taken down where info was on iPhone.
A jury needs to decide case by case and apple need a special extra secure unit for especially heinous crime cases.
You are contradicting yourself. Like I've said before encryptions is either on or off. If you build in a backdoor then its not secure. The case FBI vs Apple needs to get in the court system and make its way up to the Supreme Court where I think Apple makes a very good argument they cannot be compelled to build a tool to defeat their own encryption and decrypt a device.
The arguments ... but the children .... and terrorist are getting old and there will always be collateral damage. Strong encryption is for the greater good.
I'm not contradicting myself at all. There was mention of its black or white no grey area.
There is a grey area - of course apple can unlock an iPhone if they REALLY want to.
There must be a 'grey area' and I'm not contradicting myself by saying that.
It like saying someone is either guity or innocent of say murder.
There is almost always a 'grey area' in this example 'manslaughter'.
Last edited:
No. No, no, no, no, no, no.
What Apple needs to do is to cut off every soft spot in their security (there are a number of them now that make it a comparatively simple matter to circumvent their defences, as we learnt from the San Bernadino case). Make it so that absolutely no one but the person with the decrypt key, whether the owner or God Himself, can access the phone once it's locked. And then you make it a clear Constitutional argument regarding the Thirteenth Amendment and try the government in the court of public opinion: if Apple can be compelled, by force, to work against its own desire and interest, regardless of whether it receives remuneration, then the company and its workers are being denied their civil rights under colour of law:
And then they march the engineers, every last one, through despositions where they make it clear that if Apple is compelled to render involuntary aid that they will depart from the company. If Apple lacks the engineers to comply with the request, that's that. Let the government try the same gestapo tactics piecemeal, waste time and resources, and see how far they get trying to slap people in irons and putting them to the oars.
The Koreans would tell the FBI to go 'pound sand'.what if they had a samsung phone
ps: I grew up when there was a 'Draft'. Uncle Sam sent me to our Defense Language Institute for one year to learn read/write/speak Korean. Then I was sent to Korea for a double length tour (two years). I think I know Samsung somewhat better than the current crop of fanboys who swoon over a foreign company they would never even heard of ten years ago. As for concern for the 'best intrests' of American customers I will always prefer our own homegrown crop of overpaid California techno-nerds at Apple or Google.
Someone needs to hold the unlock key.
• extemely responsible job ideally person not employed by apple
• rules and regulations to unlock key to be of nuclear weapon type proportions.
• decision for GO is up to a judge and 12 person jury.
Why is the FISA court necessary? FISA is meant for surveillance of foreign intelligence agents inside the US (hence, the name - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court). Of course, who is a "foreign intelligence agent" is open for debate.
I'm not a legal expert, but it would seem clear that there are no fourth amendment issues in searching a perp's phone. His house can be searched under a standard warrant, and his desk and safe and anything else specified on the warrant can be, too. Why not his phone?
The problem isn't with the law. It's with Apple confusing privacy rights and needs of national security. In the San Bernardino case, Apple was clearly wrong. There might have been a clear and present danger of further attacks which could have been discovered by searching his phone. It turns out there weren't, which was lucky. But imagine the outcry if another attack was linked to that one, and the attacks were coordinated by phones, and the FBI couldn't find out about it because they couldn't break into the attacker's phones, and Apple wouldn't help them, and many more people were killed as a result. In the Paris attacks, police found a number of phones, and they provided a lot of actionable information concerning the ISIS networks in France and Belgium and elsewhere, and that saved a lot of lives. If that attack happened in the US, would anyone here worry about searching attacker's phones?
Apple's rationale had some merit, in that if they could unlock his phone as the FBI wanted, others could, too. There are people in this world who know iPhone technology as well as Apple does, and they can certainly replicate whatever Apple would do to break into the phone. So, thinking that iPhones are impenetrable, even with encryption, is a fallacy.
But Apple had already done this sort of thing at the FBI's request, so they were being hypocritical in not doing it for this one phone. Or for other phones from criminals or terrorists, too. I'm all for privacy of phones and other property of individuals, but I'm also all for security of the populous in general. And that needs to take priority in many situations, and it's incumbent on vendors like Apple to assist in that.
Its real simple, if you get hacked because the FBI has reduced the security of the phone to essentially nothing, no one at the FBI gets demoted, misses a pay raise, etc. If they don't get into the phone of some mass murderer then someone does get passed over, demoted, lower pay, or whatever.
You do the math. No one individual at the FBI cares about what happens to you unless you die at the hands of a mass murderer or some equally similar fate. Then they still don't care about you, but they do care about the perception that they are doing their job, accurate or not.
How does that solve this issue? How does that prevent covert and illegal access by anyone in the government which feels a need and justified to do so? Are we going to assume that person is immune to pressure, to political bias or religious bias, to emotional arguments? Are we going to assume that we will always, or ever, be told that the use of it has occurred, especially in those instances where the search results in no evidence being found, so that the public has the right to curtail abuses of authority.
No, I've said it before and I'll say it as many times as it takes to sink in for you and all of the middle-ground lunatics here to get it: data security is binary. If there is an exploit that permits circumvention of security, it will be abused. It will be reproduced. It will be sold. All it takes is one disgruntled worker, someone having financial difficulty, someone just curious, and the entire digital security of the platform will be lost. Period. End of story.
You can unlock a iPhone without hack concerns.
Someone could hold the unlock key.
Your example of 'getting hacked by the FBI' like anything is hackable is simply UNTRUE why doesn't the cascade event to trigger a nuclear weapon get hacked?
The problem with your jury solution and thought of Apple creating an "extra secure unit" is deciding who gets to pick said jury and unit, and what both the people who choose and those who are chosen's qualifications would have to be. And who decides that criteria, too? It's a black hole of questions that nobody will ever agree on, so neither will ever happen.
Aside from passwords and account numbers, I literally have nothing on my phone that anybody who didn't have malicious intentions would want. But I still don't trust a jury of my "peers" to decide whether or not the government can access my data.
Why then in a murder
So in a trial there is either conviction or acquittal.
Wrong there is a third option.
ie in a murder trial - manslaughter.
With respect, you appear to have a very black or white view. I wish.
Life is not that simple there are anomalies and these anomalies need a solution there is no easy answer to this but something must be done ASAP or it will keep happening.
[doublepost=1475881474][/doublepost]
Jury choice is controversial thinking OJ and MJ, but despite the OJ trial I have faith in the system overall.
The key holder would need to be voted by I would say a team
of legal experts with an impeccable back ground.
I'm not sure why you're so hung up on manslaughter vs. murder, but both are guilty convictions.
Manslaughter is a lesser charge, but it isn't a third option to conviction or acquittal.
That's a false syllogism and a bad one at that. There is no alternative when it comes to security, no solution, no magic bullet that only lets the 'good guys' in. It doesn't exist. How do I know? Six thousand years of recorded history, replete with examples of the cat-and-mouse efforts to protect information and break that protection. There is a reason for the old saying: 'three men may keep a secret if two of them are dead'.
You're just engaged in eternal regression. Who picks the panel of legal experts? Who picks the pickers? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? What you're demanding, in essence, is that your 'faith' in the system should trump the reasonable desire of people to be secure in the papers and persons. Well, and I mean this with all the respect I can muster, you can go perform an anatomically impossible act.
There is no such thing as legal experts with an impeccable background, who also don't have their own agenda or opinions on how things should be. Period.
And it is that agenda or personal bias, that makes your utopian system impossible to achieve.
Actually, I was almost quoting an attorney who handles self-defense cases.
In the US, if you shoot someone, you are assumed to be using deadly force. And there has to be justification for the use of deadly force, or you will be charged with a felony offense ranging from criminal negligence up to murder.
If the circumstances justify the use of deadly force in self-defense, there's no "shoot to wound". There's no "shoot to kill", either. It's "shoot to stop", period.
Even if your actions are completely justified, if you injure an innocent third party due to a miss or a shoot-through, you still face criminal charges for negligence or civil liability.
Your mileage may vary in Europe, and frankly I don't give a damn.
Did you bother to read my original posting, or did you just map your anti-US prejudice onto it and respond without doing so?
"Center of mass" means center of the torso. Headshots are for movies and video games.
But, let's talk about the case in question: 10 people were stabbed before an off-duty police officer intervened and attempted to take the perpetrator into custody. The perpetrator pretended to lie down on the floor and cooperate, but jumped up and tried to attack the officer. The perpetrator fell after being shot, but got up and attempted to attack the officer a second time. After being shot again, the perpetrator fell but again tries (and failed) to get up a third time.
Total shots fired: 10. Total number of bullets striking the perpetrator: 6. And that was attempted center-mass shots. That's why you only aim for a smaller target when it's printed on paper.