The order came from a Federal Judge. Obama had nothing to do with it.
Obama may agree it's a good idea (I'm not really sure if I've seen he has a position on it) but this is nothing like you represent it to be.
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.
Google CEO Calls FBI's Request for Apple Backdoor 'A Troubling Precedent'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The order came from a Federal Judge. Obama had nothing to do with it.
Obama may agree it's a good idea (I'm not really sure if I've seen he has a position on it) but this is nothing like you represent it to be.
Let me get this straight... The FBI is using a false flag, staged mass-shooting in which two islamic individuals were set up as patsies as an excuse to gain entry into user's phones? Nice
It would not be a "material loss of equity in brand" if all manufacturers were required to do likewise. As they undoubtedly would be.
No other brand has so vocally emphasised digital security, or committed to resistance against government-induced compromise of said security, a major selling point. Even Blackberry, foolishly, has stated that they will toe the line for 'reasonable requests', despite having produced no metric of what will or what qualify as reasonable.
I don't know what you are all hiding in your phones but with a warrant from a judge it's perfectly fine to me to let them have access to my phone.
Unless of course I was guilty and then I'd object.
IMHO the # of cases where the government takes too much information is much much much less frequent that the # of cases where the information is legitimately used to prosecute a criminal.
Also, you most likely have NO idea just how much information the government can get on you with warrants for your phone records, wire taps, bank records etc. If you think that your precious little phone is your bastion of liberty you are incredibly naive.
[doublepost=1455770583][/doublepost]
Yeah, I'm sure those Android and Blackberry users will be lining up to get an iPhone now that the white knights of Apple have come to the defense of their liberty.
Stock ought to shoot up tomorrow. Thank goodness.
Unless of course I was guilty and then I'd object.
IMHO the # of cases where the government takes too much information is much much much less frequent that the # of cases where the information is legitimately used to prosecute a criminal.
Also, you most likely have NO idea just how much information the government can get on you with warrants for your phone records, wire taps, bank records etc. If you think that your precious little phone is your bastion of liberty you are incredibly naive.
[doublepost=1455770583][/doublepost]
Yeah, I'm sure those Android and Blackberry users will be lining up to get an iPhone now that the white knights of Apple have come to the defense of their liberty.
Stock ought to shoot up tomorrow. Thank goodness.
This is exactly correct.
Not correct. Apple and other smartphone manufacturers are telling users they should spend a lot of money on new phones with new privacy capabilities that will be secure for commerce. And, are telling merchants that they should get ready for smartphone-based commerce. If the phones can be compromised, those new uses evaporate. Apple has staked an enormous investment in this.
LOL.
But, you really are missing something. If the FBI can unilaterally get the contents of your phone, then, in all likelihood, so can organized crime. In that case you probably won't even want to put your contacts on there, let alone banking info. Your smartphone just turned back into an iPod.
Goodness, I hear the equivocation so often from my extended family, all of whom are neoconservatives, and it makes me chuckle every time at the naivety. When you have a government that has divested itself of any pretence to objective rule of law, then your criminality, your status as an enemy of the state, becomes merely a function of time. You will, at some point, to some agenda-driven administration or another, become the same criminal you decry.
The reality is that the criminals amongst us, the very dangerous ones, commit their crimes openly. The disgusting circumstances of San Bernadino, and Paris before it, bear witness to that.
A person, or a state, which conflates a desire to privacy with a desire to engage in criminal behaviour or to hide past behaviour, should look to the example of Robespierre for their fate: the very state they seek to foster, which finds itself all too willing to determine who is more equal, or should be more free, than others, is just as likely to one day have their head in a basket. Food for thought.
[doublepost=1455772648][/doublepost]
More importantly, the order as written constitutes a violation of the 13th amendment, as it amounts to involuntary indentured servitude. Whilst the judge is offering payment, she is not presenting Apple with the opportunity to refuse. A court of law can demand that you turn over what you already have, but it cannot compel you to produce something against your will. To do so is functionally slavery, and wildly unconstitutional.
I'm glad another tech giant is publicly standing by Apple, but Google would have caved if put in the same situation.
Yeah, what's with the FBI anyway. Tracking and data mining iPhones is Google's job.
FBI falls under the executive branch of government, which the President is the head of.
As for not mentioning Trump, I figure the OP probably did not want to give him anymore attention than he already has.
It's been the policy of the administration to gain back the backdoor access lost after implementation of iOS 8/9 with the secure enclave on a chip. There have been a number of meetings with Apple where Obama administration official, FBI, Justice Department, Homeland Sc. Have attempted to convince Apple to create a back for. This latest attempt is using FBI and the San Bernadino iPhone as a front for these effort in a court ordered format.
If anyone really believes that after crushing two other phones and getting rid of their hard drive that anything valuable is on the iPhone, they are smoking strong stuff. And if there was, those leads are long gone cold. It's a PR attempt by government to make a case to American people that don't know all the facts. Rubio made sense when asked the question tonight. Apple should not create a back door.
Because people are lazy and never got that far reading!
I'm glad another tech giant is publicly standing by Apple, but Google would have caved if put in the same situation.
I don't think Google is standing by Apple. Google is taking the I got your back, way back, bit with Apple.
Google's response has been pathetic. One company wants to be a leader in this area and it's not Google. Maybe Snowden is right about Google.
Of course they don't want to be a leader. A device which is geared toward privacy is a device in which the owner of said device has the greatest degree of control of dissemination of information contained therein, and the amount and type of data consumed. This is at odds with a company built on targeted advertisement, based on mining of user information.
Or by the third amendment they been playing with their guns and shot themselves in foot.
I agree with Apple in their stand against government intrusion. They really are protecting the privacy of users, and it is abundantly clear that governments are not to be trusted with that sort of access. (Snowden and Assange)
On the other hand Apple could - upon receipt of a suitable court order - undertake the 'cracking' of a specific handset 'in house' without giving that expertise to the FBI or anyone else. Always assuming, of course, that it is even possible to gain access without the appropriate password.
On the other hand Apple could - upon receipt of a suitable court order - undertake the 'cracking' of a specific handset 'in house' without giving that expertise to the FBI or anyone else. Always assuming, of course, that it is even possible to gain access without the appropriate password.
It could easily be much more secure by requiring checking of cryptographic checksums at boot-up to ensure that only main sequence firmware (i.e. non-custom) is present, and make firware updates destructible. If they did that, it would effectively neuter the FBI's desire since flashing a custom ROM would wipe the device, even presuming that it would boot in the first place.
"Can't do it" = government forces through law banning sale of such devices and mandates that such hardware no longer contains blocks like this? Whereas "don't want to do it" is more of a "we want to take the moral high ground and wouldn't do it if we could" stance
1.) The chain of evidence would preclude access to the device in isolation, as it would render its use in subsequent arrest and litigation inadmissible, since it could be argued that the device was not the same one as that captured by the FBI.
2.) Once the tool exists, the government can compel them to turn it over for use. It's precisely why Cook framed it as a tool that doesn't exist. Constitutionally, you cannot be compelled to produce something against your will, as that represents involuntary servitude.
The problem with that is the court orders will never stop. Apple already has more court orders regarding this. If Apple creates a workaround software to defeat the privacy, then it is created period. Telecom companies got in bed with NSA and CIA years back and look at the data mining, texts, calls that were intercepted and stored. No only way to have privacy is to have it period. No back door !!!!
No law says as yet they have to turn over something that doesn't exist. And if such a law were legislated and passed, well there are plenty of other countries that would love Apple to incorporate there. US sales are no longer the majority.
Last edited:
Let me guess, courts are good when Samsung copies but courts are bad when Apple says so? The law is good when Apple pays low taxes but the law is bad when Apple says so?
The court order is for a "FBiOS" that is coded/signed by Apple to work only on the ID of one specific iphone5c. How does that affect the normal person's privacy?