What are you talking about? Tim Cook himself said the FBI wants Apple to build a backdoor into the iPhone ... not that particular iPhone. That is what this entire issue is about, lol.
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've been pretty amazed that conservatives who's usual mantra is that the big government is evil and can't be trusted with anything all support eliminating encryption. As they like to say about guns, when encryption is illegal, only criminals will have encryption.
You won't find the majority of conservatives supporting Trump's position here - however that won't change who they elect in November. Trump's answer - asking for the public to boycott Apple if they want to see the government position enforced - is what I would expect from a conservative who supports the FBI here.
If Obama was supporting the FBI, he would issue another Executive Order instead.
If Obama was supporting the FBI, he would issue another Executive Order instead.
This is the actual motion :
https://cbssanfran.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/apple-iphone-access-motion-to-compel.pdf
Not just the FBI. A couple of states have legislation in progress that could require Apple (and other handset makers) to provide a backdoor so law enforcement could hack into suspects phones (perhaps without a specific court order). Apple wouldn't even have to be involved in each case. They'd just give the law enforcement agencies instructions, and perhaps a special digital key that unlocked the back door.
A permanent back door would undo much of the work Apple has done over the past few years to make the iPhone secure. If one of these digital keys got out, and there was a big data breach, it would definitely be an embarrassing situation for Apple.
It's quite possible that the courts would consider such a law unconstitutional, and Apple would never actually have to implement it (and they wouldn't implement it until after they had exhausted every legal challenge available to them).
With THIS case, Apple is trying to head the permanent back door off at the pass. They're not going to appeal the court order until they get a final decision from the Supreme Court. (With the current vacancy caused by Justice Scalia's death, they might not get that final answer. If there's a 4-4 tie at the Supreme Court, then the Appeals court decision will stand, but it will only apply within the circuit court's jurisdiction.)
Nice try by DOJ to try to divert attention from the issue and objection Apple, it's users and other tech companies have with the FBI/DOJ requests. Seeing many news accounts headlined that DOJ says 'Apple can keep their software' trying to somehow lead the public to thinking Apple's objections aren't relevant. Just like comments implying it's all an Apple publicity stunt or something.
As some one else had said in another post, in their court documents they didn't just ask for information on the phone to be handed over to them, which should have been their endgame to answer any questions. They were very specific in wanting the software to be installed on the phone -- so they could then access the info with their devices...but it would also mean they'd have the means of examining that security breaking software, a method that would work across all new iPhones with TouchID and Secure Enclave apparently. Apple's position most likely will be they overreached by asking for this. Let's remember Apple has provided what it could off of the phone already which both FBI and DOJ have acknowledged in their pleadings so it's not at all like they weren't cooperating with turning over what they could.
It is curious that a County gov't office on it's own or by instructions of the FBI essentially made it so the phone couldn't do an iCloud back up and satisfy the information request.
As some one else had said in another post, in their court documents they didn't just ask for information on the phone to be handed over to them, which should have been their endgame to answer any questions. They were very specific in wanting the software to be installed on the phone -- so they could then access the info with their devices...but it would also mean they'd have the means of examining that security breaking software, a method that would work across all new iPhones with TouchID and Secure Enclave apparently. Apple's position most likely will be they overreached by asking for this. Let's remember Apple has provided what it could off of the phone already which both FBI and DOJ have acknowledged in their pleadings so it's not at all like they weren't cooperating with turning over what they could.
It is curious that a County gov't office on it's own or by instructions of the FBI essentially made it so the phone couldn't do an iCloud back up and satisfy the information request.
Last edited:
It's amazing to see comments that lack significant knowledge. It just points out the lack in teaching these days.
Suggestion: go read up several (pro, con, neutral, etc..) and then come back and read your entry.
Hint: When served with this writ, Apple has a set number of days(can be extended by the court) to respond and several legal options on how to respond.
Knowledge is power.
But he's standing by his convictions and principles, court order be damned!
Tim Cook is the new Kim Davis!!
But he's standing by his convictions and principles, court order be damned!
Tim Cook is the new Kim Davis!!
Why not stick to the facts. Apple's appealing the order. That's a legitimate response to a court order.
You need to look at the entire aspect, not this piece of it.
A quick question for you: Is this writ as written an expansion of writ powers? Most legal experts think yes.
That piece (and there are a few others) shows that this is about far more than the court order headline.
Are you not aware that a person/corporation gets to answer the Court in such proceedings? Besides the fact that the Judge hasn't even ruled on anything yet and in fact the Court gave Apple time to reply. And our laws give people/corporations the right of Appeal? Doesn't sound from the points in your post you do.
Kind of hard to do even if I agree with you. It all comes down to the fact Apple moved the encryption control to the device owner and out of their (Apple's) hands. Due to the fact the government doesn't have the legal power to compel a device owner to hand over encryption keys (in this case the owner is deceased) they are going after the manufacturing / developing companies to force said companies cooperation into creating / building work-arounds.
Ethical? No. Legal? Doubtful.
And yet all the FBI asked (read the files.) is for them to provide a version of iOS LIMITED to this precise phone with even a verification in the code itself for the device ID.
I may be incorrect but Apple has never unlocked an iDevice for a law enforcement agency before. Prior to iOS 8, Apple had a way to get the data direct bypassing the the "lock". With iOS 8 and beyond, this method no longer works.
The software on that phone will then be reversed engineered by them to gain access to all phone versions since it's an OS issue across iPhones and that will show how to break access (back door). Of course with a broken phone they don't need Apple's code any longer so they can offer to let Apple keep the code. Apple knows it, the tech community all seem to know this, and you can bet those filing the court papers do too. Who knows what this Judge understands technology-wise. Who doesn't really get what's possible if this is done is Joe Public many of whom are not tech savvy and many who probably don't even use mobile phones or computers (both of our moms are in that category) but who witnessed the SB tragedy and are being played up to to get Apple made out as the bad guy here. That's why the govt went public. Best to keep in mind that all those tech people saw what unfolded on TV too, know what's at stake national security wise and still don't agree this is a good thing for our nation and the rest of the world.
Read this and then tell us that the plan all along wasn't for them to create their own backdoor into Apple's software (and eventually other phones):
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...etails-u-s-s-broader-strategy-to-crack-phones
I had heard about this earlier in the week but this is the most comprehenive account I've seen.
Last edited:
Yup, and I call the Justice Department's stance just 'politics' (which is a downgraded version of marketing).
If you could reverse engineer something that easily, they wouldn't even bother and reverse engineer iOS to bypass resets altogether. Why could they be able to bypass the device ID check if they cannot bypass the try limitations? And if they can do the latter, why ask for a custom version?
Your argument is flawed anyway : the Court specified the device could stay in Apple's headquarter with the custom OS for the duration of the search. The FBI couldn't do whatever they want with it. Like dumping the custom OS.
And I still don't believe it was made to create a backdoor, even after reading your link. A few experts say the FBI can do things and they want to do that. Awesome, other experts say the opposite.
Even more, the link itself is wrong :
- They say the FBI requires Apple to remove the 80 milliseconds delay, when they're asking only to remove the block between attemps after failing,
- I don't see how the FBI has a "deep understanding of how iOS security works", since it's pretty well documented and their demand only shows knowledge an average developer who knows a few things about security would, or anyone with a functionnal brain and a good read at Apple's security document.
- Interestingly, there's no account of this secret note or anything else to prove what they say.
I wonder who's definition of "terrorism / terrorist" the FBI is using. If they are using their version, you could classify the Governor of Michigan as a terrorist operating a terrorist cell for the issue and handling in Flint.
Last edited:
Correct from what I understand (most application data is encrypted with the pass code in iOS 8+), but the point still stands. Apple has extracted (by bypassing the lock screen to get to the unencrypted data, not actually unlocking the phone as you point out) information from phones before. My point is that what they're being asked to do now requires no more "trust" as far as handling sensitive information than it previously did.
and let us not forget... "Oh Piss Boy!"
[doublepost=1456015342][/doublepost]
Except the FBI is asking to remotely access the device and subsequently the data in the device remotely. This remote access would in all likelihood allow a complete extraction of all data including the "new" OS from which the "bypass" could be reverse engineered.
In the past the FBI asked, Apple extracted, and then submitted the data and returned said device.
[doublepost=1456017315][/doublepost]Marketing. Hmm... Since the NY District Attorney confirmed he has >175 locked iPhones he would love to have Apple "unlock" if Apple does this for the FBI I can see the LEO (Law Enforcement Organization) marketing campaign roll into full swing. To unlock all those others since a precedent would have been set.
Oof!
- Eliminate the auto-erase function that wipes an iPhone if the wrong passcode is entered 10 times.
- Eliminate the delay that locks the FBI out of the iPhone if the wrong passcode is entered too many times in a row.
- Implement a method that would allow the FBI to electronically enter a passcode using software.
Why do the FBI give this list of 3 things when what this amounts to is simply:
-Give us a piece of code that lets us bypass user-enabled security features
- Eliminate the delay that locks the FBI out of the iPhone if the wrong passcode is entered too many times in a row.
- Implement a method that would allow the FBI to electronically enter a passcode using software.
Why do the FBI give this list of 3 things when what this amounts to is simply:
-Give us a piece of code that lets us bypass user-enabled security features
and let us not forget... "Oh Piss Boy!"
[doublepost=1456015342][/doublepost]
Except the FBI is asking to remotely access the device and subsequently the data in the device remotely. This remote access would in all likelihood allow a complete extraction of all data including the "new" OS from which the "bypass" could be reverse engineered.
In the past the FBI asked, Apple extracted, and then submitted the data and returned said device.
[doublepost=1456017315][/doublepost]Marketing. Hmm... Since the NY District Attorney confirmed he has >175 locked iPhones he would love to have Apple "unlock" if Apple does this for the FBI I can see the LEO (Law Enforcement Organization) marketing campaign roll into full swing. To unlock all those others since a precedent would have been set.
Oof!
You could certainly be correct -- how it actually works is speculation on our part. However, I'd imagine if they were remotely accessing it, Apple could monitor whether or not the firmware was copied and sent across their network, no?
Even if this would allow the FBI to make their own copy of the firmware binary, I doubt it's that easy to reverse engineer and/or reuse a binary that is specifically signed to work only with a unique device. It's not as though they're giving them the source code.
Asking for a custom version--if you mean coded to that particulr S/N as is spelled out in both pleadings-- is probably a red herring for public consumption to make it seem like it would only work on that particular phone and couldn't be adapted. Once the custom OS is installed and the code cracker software is deployed and access is granted, what happens to the phone? Nothing is said about that. Apple can destroy the code source they wrote that got installed on it but doubt they could wipe the phone and put it in a shredder since the phone isn't their property. And as someone said above, there could be info passed on in the backup. Apple would know this. If the phone goes back to the FBI after being unlocked to retrieve backups or whatever, I'm sure they would try to find places in the OS on the phone with the S/N and simply replace it with numbers from other targeted phones, i.e. a back door by any other name, despite how the pleadings want to depict it. Seriously, tech people aren't all upset and concerned about what was asked for no reason. It's not like Apple refused to provide the cloud backups as requested. There's more to it.
And maybe the FBI isn't capable of doing this but what about the NSA?
Last edited:
A marketing strategy to defend our privacy? That's a damn good marketing strategy!