Solution A sets a precedent - meaning the govt can start sending any number of iPhones to apple to be broken into. You can't keep a secret long
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
Personally I feel it would be better for the FBI to develop it than Apple. As access or penetration points are discovered, technology companies can respond quickly to these allowing the government agencies to continue on with their task. Something along the lines of what the NSA does today.
On her argument (had to reread a couple of times) I suspect she is looking at it from a point of repetition. If I have just a couple of devices that need handling, it is likely controllable. If I have hundreds or greater devices to handle, the method and/or code/signing process details used will leak out. Apply the resources of nation states to this and ... the skies the limit. Then again, I could be way off base. Looking forward to her testimony. Likely we will see some clarity.
[doublepost=1456865242][/doublepost]
If it was just one company with a small number of devices I could agree with A. It's not. Think MS, Google, Facebook, etc... That doesn't include foreign companies.
Another issue A could cause is to slow down the evolution and implementation of security as a part of the development cycle and maintenance would be this ability to "de-secure" the OS and other aspects.
Personally, I would leverage B as it deals with what is while forcing Apple and others to account for what was, what is, and what will be.
Good conversation
Last edited:
I wouldn't trust the government doing it. Far too easy to abuse, in my view. If Apple maintained control of it, any request for their assistance would have to be accompanied by the legal safeguards of a warrant, probable cause, and approved by a neutral judge.
In that vein how would you see this being handled with the inclusion of all the tech companies along the lines of Apple?
(Google, MS, Facebook as examples).
Sure, but they'd get paid for it.
And then Apple (and other manufacturers) who claim to be so concerned about privacy, could at least post the (general) count and nature of the requests, just as they do now for Patriot Act requests. That's valuable info to help the public keep some track of what's going on.
Frankly, I think Google and Apple and the other firms run by Valley boys, just want to keep getting it all for free. Avoid most taxes, but use the public court systems and infrastructure. Weep crocodile tears over tragedies, but avoid having to do anything to help. Claim to not think of customers as products, but sell access to them to banks or advertisers in return for a piece of the action.
-- Sorry, grumpy today.
Truth is, I'm okay with NSA having such tools. Their charter is to target foreign nationals. The FBI, with their history of targeting American "subversive groups" under Director Hoover, not so much.
Problem is A will not be under Apple's total control in time imo.
As bulk of phone requests come in either they or the DoJ will be seeing a a judge and complaining.
Apple's case it be a financial burden. This would need lots of staff. As I will predict if this happened if they had say 10 people do this...half of them would be on business trips to courts across the US weekly. As its common for prosecution or defense to grill tech specialists.
This won't be a job for John from UI dev team filling in because Sarah was sick one day. No security background, no crypto background...called to trial and says man they say plug it in and stuff just happens. Defense will eat this up.
hail mary pass of sometimes its not the facts, its their presentation. Uber genius in the lab but gets torn apart in cross...may be what that defense attorney needs for the reasonable doubt route. This will be some bucks to have phone crackers not getting back logged...and covering court cases. And not losing said cases because it just works won't fly in court.
DoJ side I see them hating many things. Apple says its a 3 day weekend...go home. DoJ will say it must be nice they get time off but crime doesn't rest your honor and my people held up days because apple just lounging by the pool and BBQ'ing on the 4th of July. Or they will be concerned about chain of custody. It will take that one case thrown out because fed ex lost a package if only for a day to/from apple that gets a defense team the win if key evidence for DoJ to say we need to not be passing this outside the office your honor.
From either path it becomes clear....someone will suggest if not mandate hey apple....distribute this software now. Now its out of the inner sanctum of apple. Its in LE/FBI across the nation. Do we know the integrity of these people? Nope. Bodies like internal affairs were created to handle internal integrity problems. they tend to be reactive not proactive. Put another way....the cop went bad and did their bad things and THEN were investigated to prove it.
The fat dude with a name retarded long needs punched in face, "you arent going to like what congress decides" **** you you phat *****. proapple-ftw
"Thank you for making me aware of the 10 try erase function. I have now turned it on."
Both WOW and Seriously cool.
This has been so far, a very interesting hearing.
I do like how Janet ensures she claims the tech answer and not the legal side.
Both WOW and Seriously cool.
This has been so far, a very interesting hearing.
I do like how Janet ensures she claims the tech answer and not the legal side.
Hope they don't have kids. its why I turned mine off log ago lol. 10 tries by a kid and poof its all gone.
Although I could turn it back on. Kid social engineered my pin. One day say him on the ipad. thought I don't recall opening it up...went on to other things. later I saw him type it in just like that. Where'd you learn that son? Watched you do it daddy. pride and shock at the same time...more pride. he was 4 years and some change at the time.
Could change it but well....kind of nifty he learned social engineering at an early age. He will be my junior sys admin one day as I tire of wifey support detail after a long day at work of it sometimes. Should know all the angles my reckoning.
Funny watching today - Rep. Lofgren told the Apple lawyer that during the break she went in and set her 10-try on and thanked them for telling her. Guess she flipped the bird at the FBI.
Mr gowdy pissed me off, hes a toolbag. Ive been watching it 2-3 hours lol. (im really interested in this)
Finished.... for now.
Was a seriously good watch. The varying viewpoints, the level of understanding, and the position each member had going in.
Trey Gowdy was the single person I would say should have been barred. Not for his attitude, rather for trying to be the "I speak for all the House." person. Jeffries has a good response to that
Was a seriously good watch. The varying viewpoints, the level of understanding, and the position each member had going in.
Trey Gowdy was the single person I would say should have been barred. Not for his attitude, rather for trying to be the "I speak for all the House." person. Jeffries has a good response to that
Finished.... for now.
Was a seriously good watch. The varying viewpoints, the level of understanding, and the position each member had going in.
Trey Gowdy was the single person I would say should have been barred. Not for his attitude, rather for trying to be the "I speak for all the House." person. Jeffries has a good response to that
im 15 minutes behind, catching up. had to pause it for laundry lol. but yeah, ive been watching it since it started.
interested to see how it ends.
Yeah felt the same way. But the next Rep. kinda debunked his analogies about physical evidence. What he doesn't understand is this is different. The google analysis told the panel that the gov't has to go and get 21st century people and methods and not ask industry to invalidate our privacy.
Yes, because trafficking (of any kind) has only been thriving since the iPhone was released
Apple is just making it harder to catch trafficker.
[doublepost=1456892104][/doublepost]stop being a sanctimonious dick, Tim - just assist the FBI in this one case.
Alongside its battle with the U.S. government over an order to break into the iPhone used by San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook, Apple has also been embroiled in a dispute over a similar case in New York. In late 2015, the Department of Justice asked a NY federal magistrate judge to order Apple to help authorities gain access to an iPhone seized as evidence in a drug trafficking case.
At the time, Apple explained that while it could technically unlock the iPhone in question because it was running an older version of iOS, being forced to comply with the order could "substantially tarnish the Apple brand." This afternoon, Judge James Orenstein, who is presiding over the New York case, decided in favor of Apple (via TechCrunch), handing down a ruling that could potentially impact the much more prominent San Bernardino dispute.
According to the New York ruling, Apple cannot be forced to help law enforcement access data on an iPhone using the justification that the court has the power to make such an order under the All Writs Act, an argument the FBI also uses in the San Bernardino case. Apple has also argued the All Writs Act does not give the government a pass to "conscript and commandeer" the company.
"The established rules for interpreting a statute's text constrain me to reject the government's interpretation that the AWA empowers a court to grant any relief not outright prohibited by law," writes Orenstein. "The extraordinary relief [the government] seeks cannot be considered 'agreeable to the usages and principles of law,'" reads another section. He goes on to outline his reasoning and concludes with the opinion that the larger issue of encryption should be decided by legislation, not by the court.According to TechCrunch, a senior Apple executive has suggested that while New York case does not set a binding legal precedent in regard to the San Bernardino case, it sets "an important precedent of opinion."
Apple has officially opposed an order that would require it to help the FBI break into the iPhone used by San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook and will now face off against the government in court on March 22.
Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Article Link: New York Judge Rules U.S. Government Can't Force Apple to Unlock an iPhone
this phone's content is important to national security, for goodness' sake!
It is?
Isolated incident. The perpetrators are deceased. A work device mishandled by the SBC and FBI.
So... other than the FBI wanting to set a last century investigative precedent, what is the national security aspect?
Look! Another person that doesn't get it!
Thet and if this was national security related...it be the NSA lead on the case. A grand scheme conspiracy to run mass shootings across the US on county employees by a terrrorist entity....that be their thing.
His emojis used and calendar events derived from the phone are a matter of life and death
Very true. Like the lame questions Gowdy was asking, if the threat was that critical the NSA would be all over it long before we or any of the tech companies heard of it.