Prosecutors Ask Judge to Review Pro-Apple Ruling in New York Case

[FieldingMellish]

As Apple a day keeps the FBI at bay.

 

[You are the One]

Eddie Cue is chipping in. I like that Apple execs keep an united front. They have thought through this way before it became a major current event.

One thing Apple does exceedingly well is strategy, that combined with a sound principal approach, make them a tuff adversary for the neocon Federal scumbags.

What's next? FBI telling us to turn iPhones into pocket spy bugs? It'll happen, says Apple exec

 

[gorskiegangsta]

Yeah, we already decided that question several centuries ago. Turned out your side lost, mostly because you can't write a law for every possible situation; somebody needs to interpret a broad law and apply it to a particular case. This system has been working pretty well in most of the world since biblical times, and if you want to better appreciate its merits you may want to take some evening courses in legal theory.
[doublepost=1457595371][/doublepost]
I don't think the Fifth Amendment applies here. If someone used a public/private key encryption to encode data, he could refuse to yield the private key to avoid supplying evidence against himself. Apple isn't refusing to produce or help others obtain evidence against Apple, but against a third party. Your doctor can be required to produce his records for a prosecutor, and the agency investigating the San Bernadino affair is engaged in a similar activity. The real question is just how much can be asked of an expert who can, uniquely, obtain information that has been encoded. A closer analogy would be forcing a DNA sequencing expert to analyze evidence that may contain identifiable DNA when his testimony may require him to divulge secret know-how that is essential to his livelihood.

The government has every right to ask a court for aid in obtaining evidence or information for the purpose of prosecution or prevention of a crime. Where there are others involved whose rights may be infringed it's the job of the judicial branch to find the right balance. No right--not even a Constitutional right--is absolute.

Problem is, that's not how iOS device encryption works. Unlike iCloud backups, which Apple is in the possession of, and did share the keys to, device encryption is a combination of a a unique hID and a user set password, neither of which is in Apple's possession. The DoJ is asking Apple to give something they don't have. Moreover, they're asking Apple to create and sign the backdoor code (which is a form of speech) against their will and interest. Speaking of 'absolutism' with regard to encryption, it is either completely private/secure or compromised/broken. The security community is in consensus on this. Making backdoors into encryption is analogous to writing your pin/password on the back of the phone in marker - i.e. it essentially makes it useless.

 

[Cartaphilus]

Problem is, that's not how iOS device encryption works. Unlike iCloud backups, which Apple is in the possession of, and did share the keys to, device encryption is a combination of a a unique hID and a user set password, neither of which is in Apple's possession. The DoJ is asking Apple to give something they don't have. Moreover, they're asking Apple to create and sign the backdoor code (which is a form of speech) against their will and interest. Speaking of 'absolutism' with regard to encryption, it is either completely private/secure or compromised/broken. The security community is in consensus on this. Making backdoors into encryption is analogous to writing your pin/password on the back of the phone in marker - i.e. it essentially makes it useless.