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.
New York Judge Rules U.S. Government Can't Force Apple to Unlock an iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I love this, I want privacy and welcome this news and what Tim is doing, though I'm sure he knows it's also good Apple PR.
The only thing I also am sure of is that, 99% of people here would change their mind on this issue depending on the circumstances of an individual case.
Tim/Apple has backing as this case/murder etc affects no-one here.
When it started affecting enough, or America on a large scale, I am sure the vast majority here would totally reverse their current stance.
I'm just being realistic.
Yes stand up for your rights, but not at the expense of everything.
The only thing I also am sure of is that, 99% of people here would change their mind on this issue depending on the circumstances of an individual case.
Tim/Apple has backing as this case/murder etc affects no-one here.
When it started affecting enough, or America on a large scale, I am sure the vast majority here would totally reverse their current stance.
I'm just being realistic.
Yes stand up for your rights, but not at the expense of everything.
Cross posted from #275 Some related stuff from the Intercept:
Apple Wins Major Court Victory Against FBI in a Case Similar to San Bernardino
Summoned to Capitol Hill, Apple Comes Armed With Questions for Congress
Eight Memorable Passages From Apple’s Fiery Response to the FBI
Apple Wins Major Court Victory Against FBI in a Case Similar to San Bernardino
Summoned to Capitol Hill, Apple Comes Armed With Questions for Congress
Eight Memorable Passages From Apple’s Fiery Response to the FBI
Does the 5C have Touch ID?.
The bigger point is opening the door to every Country in the world demanding the same access.
The simple point: Whatever Apple does to allow the FBI unlocking this phone will inevitably allow criminals to unlock the stolen phones of innocent people. And it will inevitably allow terrorists or foreign governments to unlock the phones of people fighting terrorism, and that's when things could get really, really ugly.
In addition, _IF_ Apple has the ability to unlock this phone (which we don't know), it's stupid to do this and announce that ability to the world, for a case where a killer is already dead in a box, will therefore never go to trial, and even the San Bernardino police chief says they don't expect anything useful on that phone.
They wouldn't have to quit. They can just refuse to do the job.
Your employer can't force you to do anything. If you refuse to do something, your employer has the choice of firing you or giving you other work to do, but they can't force you to do anything. In this case, the employer doesn't have the slightest wish to fire the employee. If the court tried to tell them the obvious argument is that firing the employee won't help a bit getting the job done.
Last edited:
Agreed. The essence of this case is whether or not the government may conscript the private sector to do work.
That's what the FBI said, but they have already 12 more phones lined up, and then there are 175 phones somewhere else.
After two days you need the passcode to unlock the phone. But then the FBI was also stupid enough to change the iCloud password in question. Without that mistakenthey wouldn't have been able to unlock the phone, but to get a complete up-to-date backup.
1. Comey is still at his position, paid by your tax dollar. So this is just a setback. The FBI can just do a false flag event and try again.
2. The politicians supporting the FBI, also are still in their respective positions, paid by Americans' tax dollars.
So people, yes, it's a small win for Apple, but if you are still supporting politicians that are doing this to begin with, you will only get what you wished for.
2. The politicians supporting the FBI, also are still in their respective positions, paid by Americans' tax dollars.
So people, yes, it's a small win for Apple, but if you are still supporting politicians that are doing this to begin with, you will only get what you wished for.
Yes, but it sets a legal precedent.
[doublepost=1456831602][/doublepost]The beautiful thing about this whole story is that much like Apple's battle with Samsung, this is going to drag on for quite a while. In the meantime, Apple will move the security from software to hardware—making the outcome of the case largely irrelevant unless the phone is an old model because Apple will simply not be able to write any code that will go around the security.
Everyone has good points, and I'm partly playing Devils advocate here, so...
The sheer fact that Apple says such an OS can be made, already has opened the door to others doing it. So that's not a good counter argument.
The real case, as some have noted, is whether or not a company can be forced to do the work even if paid. (*)
Apple has claimed to the court that it would take 6-10 employees two to four weeks to create and fully document it. Which, translated from manager speak, means one programmer can do the actual coding in a few days.
So, if courts side with Apple, then perhaps the government will simply fall back on hiring away a current or ex Apple OS developer to do the deed. Or they might already have the talent in house.
(*) One would hope that in a possible future case of obvious national peril, that Apple would be patriotic enough to volunteer to do so, since their main resistance right now seems to be more about branding and expenses.
The sheer fact that Apple says such an OS can be made, already has opened the door to others doing it. So that's not a good counter argument.
The real case, as some have noted, is whether or not a company can be forced to do the work even if paid. (*)
Apple has claimed to the court that it would take 6-10 employees two to four weeks to create and fully document it. Which, translated from manager speak, means one programmer can do the actual coding in a few days.
So, if courts side with Apple, then perhaps the government will simply fall back on hiring away a current or ex Apple OS developer to do the deed. Or they might already have the talent in house.
(*) One would hope that in a possible future case of obvious national peril, that Apple would be patriotic enough to volunteer to do so, since their main resistance right now seems to be more about branding and expenses.
Last edited:
In a nutshell, Article III of the U.S. Constitution says otherwise. In fact it's the Judiciary's duty to review the actions of the Executive Branch against a private citizen or non-gov't organization.
I've thought about this also... it seems to me if they quit, they would lose any protection Apple would be willing to assist them with. Surely, an individual would have been bull dozed in the legal system whereas Apple can afford to and is able to resist.
Without source code ? That would need lots talents and few more days.
A written set of laws that protected certain important rights was a stumbling block in getting states to accept the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights was intended to protect the people from the government. When you have to protect yourself from someone or something, it's usually not from someone or something you trust.
The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. The government has been invested with certain powers only to help it fulfill its duty to serve the people. Those powers were given to the government of helping the government do its job. If those powers were not critical to the government's mission, then those powers would not have been granted.
Using lawfully issued court orders, the government has received information from corporations before. According to Tim Cook, Apple has already handed over whatever it can hand over to the government. But the government is asking Apple to go a step further and write a special piece of software designed to break encryption/security features. I can't think of any other case where a corporation has been asked to do that.
There is a growing body of evidence to indicate that Apple's concern that this case will set a dangerous precedent is justified. The fact that the DoJ is trying to go to court to get Apple to do pretty much exactly what the FBI wants Apple to do only adds to that body of evidence.
Patriotism doesn't translate into doing what ever your government demands you to do like some kind of mule, it's the duty of doing the right thing for your country and country men...
The government plays the "think of the children" card to turn the masses into frenzy and have them give up every little freedom they have instead of holding a rational debate on the subject.
From what I've read this was a City of Bernadino phone and not the terrorist's personal phone? Is this correct? And did the City of Bernadino give permission to the FBI to do what they can to get it unlocked?
Yes, because trafficking (of any kind) has only been thriving since the iPhone was released
It should be fine. Also if this is the Supreme Court, it should be a shoo-in. They don't mess around, and they don't sign deals like some other judges have been caught making decisions based on.
A written set of laws that protected certain important rights was a stumbling block in getting states to accept the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights was intended to protect the people from the government. When you have to protect yourself from someone or something, it's usually not from someone or something you trust.
The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. The government has been invested with certain powers only to help it fulfill its duty to serve the people. Those powers were given to the government of helping the government do its job. If those powers were not critical to the government's mission, then those powers would not have been granted.
Using lawfully issued court orders, the government has received information from corporations before. According to Tim Cook, Apple has already handed over whatever it can hand over to the government. But the government is asking Apple to go a step further and write a special piece of software designed to break encryption/security features. I can't think of any other case where a corporation has been asked to do that.
There is a growing body of evidence to indicate that Apple's concern that this case will set a dangerous precedent is justified. The fact that the DoJ is trying to go to court to get Apple to do pretty much exactly what the FBI wants Apple to do only adds to that body of evidence.
And the area where the cruise missle, I mean the passenger plane hit the pentagon .... Folding itself very small into the wall and loosing heavy engines[/conspiracy]Don't forget the fake moon landings and the UFO crash in Roswell, NM.
Reduced trust in governance is quite common. Wherever I life I get impacted by blowing nuclear plants: first years back in Europe when Tschernobyl go blown up; second time when a tsunami washed away four blocks in Fukushima. I don't feel/believe the involved governances at those events where honest with their people, not at all.
So yes, I strongly belief the executive just try to get permanent access. And I bet eventual the legislative will get the weapon control law on the plate controllig the allowed strength of keys to be able to break it.
That and NDA says hi. that can be as binding as lawyer-client privilege. And they can persist after termination. As well NDA violation quickly moves up to theft charges.
Also a slippery slope of trust issues. You pick up the person who leaks the code for some more money. It is not unreasonable to then wonder will this employee do the same to us when poached later on down the road. These are not the people you want on sensitive projects. Which means off the bat....why the hell would you be hiring them in the first place. Also brings into question theft issues. For the ex-employee and his new employer if/when it goes to trial and the former employer wins.
that and its dual edged sword....coders don't know all the patents. Yay they helped their new company by "borrowing" some code. Now comes the IP lawyers looking for blood. And look here...its a former dev in the company. The pushing oh we found it on accident we swear line becomes a real tough sell really.
Yes, because trafficking (of any kind) has only been thriving since the iPhone was released
they use burn phones.....why don't these people realize this. When I go back home I buy burn phones (international roaming can kill me and god knows what the hell is pulling data when I take my phone off airplane mode when the japan to US flight is done). My brother will go look at my brother, kicking it with the dealer phone. Got some candy for me....lol. Its not by accident temp/disposable phones got their seedy reputation. Why can't people realize this.
These people don't go to Sally the CS rep at verizon. these people tend to not like paperwork. All these phone show is call made from A to B.....Many like this feature in the underworld. Who bought the phone? No clue. See you can lie to sally and put a wrong address or name. But LE if they come to her she can remember you being about 5'11'', white, xyz LBs....etc.
One significant distinction about this case in NY compared with the San Bernardino situation is that the iPhone in question in the NY case was an iPhone 5s running iOS7, whereas in San Bernardino it was an iPhone running iOS9. In the judge's ruling, he mentions in the last pages of the opinion that the government is on record as stating that they do not need Apple's assistance to unlock that particular phone running iOS7:
If that's true, then why is the government now seeking Apple's assistance to unlock this particular iPhone 5s running iOS7? The judge asked this very question, and while a lot of his argument centers on his view that the All Writs act does not cover this situation, this particular piece was also very important in his decision to deny the government's motion. Why bother Apple if the government can get the info they need through other sources or agencies?
The San Bernardino case is different because that phone is an iPhone 5S running iOS9. iOS9, as we all know, has much higher levels of encryption and security that iOS7, so it may be that in that case, Apple's assistance will really be required.
We'll just have to see how this plays out.
If that's true, then why is the government now seeking Apple's assistance to unlock this particular iPhone 5s running iOS7? The judge asked this very question, and while a lot of his argument centers on his view that the All Writs act does not cover this situation, this particular piece was also very important in his decision to deny the government's motion. Why bother Apple if the government can get the info they need through other sources or agencies?
The San Bernardino case is different because that phone is an iPhone 5S running iOS9. iOS9, as we all know, has much higher levels of encryption and security that iOS7, so it may be that in that case, Apple's assistance will really be required.
We'll just have to see how this plays out.
Nope, read Apple's public statement. The FBI only asked Apple to install a special version on that particular phone. They didn't ask for any source or universal code.
Apple itself has extended the scenario as a "what if", to say that if the version somehow leaked, it could allow others to break into an iPhone. I say, that depends on how they write it.
First it has to be installed.
And I think it can be made per device, since each device has multiple hardcoded serial numbers in its chips, some of which only Apple knows, which Apple could use to create a keyed version of the software, same as they provision the secure enclave and secure element.
More days, but there's plenty of talent. How do you think jailbreaks are done so quickly? I myself was a bit well known in certain circles in my earlier years for ripping apart a certain OS binary without any source and modifying it.
That's what I said. If, for example, it was the day after 9/11, or if someone was holding us ransom with a dirty nuke, I'd hope that Apple would be quite eager to help unlock any left behind phones.
Btw, skepticism of a government is healthy, but not so much when applied to everyone in the government. Many have served our nation in positions where we were entrusted to try to predict and prevent such occurrences. There was no desire to look at anything but that which is necessary to accomplish those goals. I almost wish that govt/military service was mandatory, so that every citizen would understand better that the government is not normally out to get them, and that a major trampling of citizen rights would not be condoned by the rank and file.
-- All that said, I'm halfway wondering if perhaps this is all a publicity ruse to make people think that iOS is still secure, even though it's actually been cracked by the government. That would be an ideal Intel community scenario, just as how the Germans never knew we cracked Enigma and thus continued to trust in it.