Of course they do. They don't give jack **** about anybody's privacy so they'll try their best to work their target (in this case Apple) into the ground. Not that they're succeeding at it, mind you. They only make a big fool of themselves.
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.
Justice Department Calls Apple's Privacy Case Stance a 'Marketing Strategy'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't like Tim Cook's privacy stance in this particular case. On one hand, he says terrorism should be destroyed. On the other hand, he is supporting it by not helping the gov.
The real test would be if they did delete it, that's a mighty nice tool, and it'd be easy to make a copy and distribute it. That's the issue with software and why protecting intellectual property is such a big deal in today's world.
this would require the FBI trusting Apple with the quote-unquote "sensitive information" on the phone (probably not an option in a strictly legal sense). Conversely, Apple is obviously unwilling to hand over the modified OS so that the FBI can do their brute force shenanigans for however many months/years/decades it may take them to crack it.
so i will summarize: this requires trust. good luck with that when one entity is the American Government.
Last edited:
What the Justice Department and Trump don't realize is that Apple isn't the first ones to do this. In 2004, Yahoo denied a family access to their son's email (marine who died in Iraq) citing privacy practices. Therefore, the FBI should've done their homework and seen this coming...
this is getting serious huh? ... risk security just for one "terrorist" ? Sounds foolish. I'll give up using technology if this ever happens.
The new focus on privacy protections by Apple and other tech companies has a lot to do with the Snowden revelations, which damaged the public image of many US companies that were implicated in projects like PRISM. Being seen as too close to the US intelligence apparatus became poisonous for their businesses, particularly outside the US. To some extent, the DoJ's claim about this being a marketing strategy is not wrong. However, regardless of their motives, it also happens to be the right thing to do IMO, and in Apple's case it seems that Cook is genuinely concerned about this issue.
I think it's pretty obvious.The government is using this one isolated case to create the "backdoor" to smart phones they do not have. And they can use the press to make Apple look like they are caving to terrorism and clearly they are not.
I really do hope Apple sticks to its principals on this topic of security. Like you said the feds really do not need the phone.
Omg it still going on all about Apple heh
Well if the FBI really needs the data they could contact Gmail Hotmail whatever provider this user was using change the Apple ID password log in in to iCloud change the passcode "I think it is possible" and boom but no they need access to everything
Well if the FBI really needs the data they could contact Gmail Hotmail whatever provider this user was using change the Apple ID password log in in to iCloud change the passcode "I think it is possible" and boom but no they need access to everything
American's and their terrorism.
Terrorism is a non-issue and just used to undermine your rights.
Well, I don't think it will get that far. Even if Apple appeals the district court judge's order, no judge likes to see another judges order disobeyed, especially as publicly as Apple did with their open letter. I could be wrong of course, but legally, I don't see how Apple wins this one. And even if they do, it will provide more impetus for legislators to craft laws that compel such compliance. In a way, that might be worse. Seems to me whether Apple wins or loses this little fight, they lose the war.
Hopefully not. The problem is that people can be bough, including Apple Engineers. Just like some Apple prototypes escaped into the wild, this "tool" or procedure could still fall into the wrong hands.
But in fact, they could.
The encryption key isn't linked to the password : if it was, everything should have to be reencrypted everytime you change your password.
What they have to do is remove the password verification part (|| 1), while signing the OS with their own keys, adding a verification in the source to check the device ID. Result : no password / authentification, so full access to the phone.
Besides, they can even keep the phone for themselves while it's beign searched, so the FBI couldn't get the modified iOS version. It's not a security issue as long as you don't release it to the public : it's a fork of iOS.
Now, why nobody ever thought about it? Simple : they can't sign the modified iOS version to work on the device.
We The People Call The Stance of The Criminals in the DOJ, an Invasion of Privacy and a Big Brother Grab for control.
Of course it is? It was a long long time ago in an Apple marketing meeting... Lets develop a phone that will revolutionize cell phones... years later in another meeting... lets increase security and encryption on our devices... some time later in another meeting... lets implement more features to protect our users privacy.... some years later in yet anther meeting... hey guys (a marketing ****** stands up and says) lets hope sometime in the future some people go crazy kill a bunch of people in California then the FBI will want their phone to find out more info so then they are going to ask us to change the code and hack that phone, reverse everything we have done to protects peoples privacy and open up a dangerous tool that should never be made. Then we will say no screw you we have always had the same values as a company and why change now due to government pressure... everyone will love us even more.... best marketing scheme ever!!! (everyone stand up and cheers in agreement while Tim Cook sits up at the end of the table and says "pure genius" lets wait and hope this happens...) ... yeah totally a marketing strategy.
If Apple does assist, it's creating a key, and not just a one time use key. Would you trust me with your social security number, I promise I'll shread it in an hour.
In all reality Verizon and other companies should be fighting this as well, but they choose not to.
Remember what Benjamin Franklin said:
And make not mistake, this is indeed giving up essential liberty in the name of temporary safety, as someone else will come along and do something even worse.
And yes, this is a marketing move on Apple's part, but it is one that aligns with the best interests of everyone around the world and yes, if the FBI manages to force Apple to do this it will negatively impact the entire world, not just America.
Today, with a court order, one really can't expect the right to privacy from government surveillance, whether it is the tapping of communications, or even recording or photographing someone, including when they believe they are in private situations. There really isn't anything here to change that precedent. You are violating the law to refuse compliance.
I think the argument comes from the inferred, and unfortunately therefore hypothetical and fallacious argument that:
(Apple cooperating with government when complying with a court order on a known terrorist) = (total and constant government invasion of personal privacy of everyone)
There isn't a company in the world (gun manufacturers/sellers I'm looking at you) that can stand between criminals and their prosecution by the government by presenting the argument that it invades privacy of someone that a court has ordered to be monitored, etc.
If you disagree with this, then change the laws, but don't believe that public opinion is the forum.
I think the argument comes from the inferred, and unfortunately therefore hypothetical and fallacious argument that:
(Apple cooperating with government when complying with a court order on a known terrorist) = (total and constant government invasion of personal privacy of everyone)
There isn't a company in the world (gun manufacturers/sellers I'm looking at you) that can stand between criminals and their prosecution by the government by presenting the argument that it invades privacy of someone that a court has ordered to be monitored, etc.
If you disagree with this, then change the laws, but don't believe that public opinion is the forum.
Last edited:
Oh please. This was not the guys personal phone (he destroyed that one). What is on this phone that they either don't have through other means or would be valuable? Apple says it didn't even want this to become public. The government made it public because they think the circumstances will play to their favor in the court of public opinion.
Yeah, Apple is one that actually has a big enough pocket book to hire good enough lawyers to fight this and win. So, I am glad that the FBI decided to pick on them over say HTC or the like. Of course at that point, they would have to decide if they would need to fight google on the handset manufacturer, but still you get the idea.
The DOJ is mincing words and is trying to deflect from the fact that this is a privacy issue. You can sure as hell bet that if they have it their way there will be a citizens iOS version and a government iOS version. The government's will of course be the private version that is available today!
Last edited: