Tim Cook: Apple Won't Create 'Backdoor' to Help FBI Access San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone

[BaldiMac]

Privacy is a human right. Ir isn't someting to be discarded out of fear of the unknown. Privacy is essential to liberty. It is a fundamental vehicle to social change. Advancing as a society often requires people to break unjust laws. Without privacy, these social revolutions could be stopped before they're even started.

Mass surveillance and government access to domestic communication isn't about stopping terrorists. It's about control. "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu. The government with access to everything can control anyone. Both controlling people's decisions and forcing their compliance. It's the basis of Bentham's perfect prison, the panopticon. Compliance through invisible surveillance.

 

[leroypants]

I think you are wrong:


wikipedia:

• Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitious care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils.The unhappy man who has been treated as a brute animal, too frequently sinks beneath the common standard of the human species. The galling chains, that bind his body, do also fetter his intellectual faculties, and impair the social affections of his heart… To instruct, to advise, to qualify those, who have been restored to freedom, for the exercise and enjoyment of civil liberty… and to procure for their children an education calculated for their future situation in life; these are the great outlines of the annexed plan, which we have adopted.
  • For the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery (1789). As quoted in Writings (1987), p. 1154-1155

http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_citizen_abolitionist.html


"Franklin owned two slaves, George and King, who worked as personal servants, and his newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette, commonly ran notices involving the sale or purchase of slaves and contracts for indentured laborers."

 

[easy4lif]

Cook, like the rest of the politicians, is just pandering to popular opinion. This guy is a murderer and doesn't deserve privacy. I think if someone is proven to be a murderer, with ties to organizations that may commit further murder, his privacy is a non issue. Amazing how Tim refers to this waste of life as "one of our customers".

To anyone championing cook, what if through this or other investigations like it, they could stop an attack in your city? Maybe on your family. This privacy issue isn't black and white. The government should have not have open access unless it's proven to be necessary, like this. Then, it shouldn't even be a discussion.

You do what any other american can do,

Sue apple for billions of dollars!

 

[LizKat]

OR, maybe people should stop keeping "private" data on their smartphone if it's THAT important. Most (but unfortunately not all) people know the internet is not private and anywhere but inside your own house is not private. When I chose an iPhone (or any of my smartphones), knowing that my worthless texts and pictures were secure was not a deciding factor. I don't run out and buy an iPhone knowing that it's so safe, the government can't even access it. Now, there are those who do, but then, do they have something to hide in the first place? This type of thing only helps the criminals and terrorists.

I'm on the fence about this topic because there are good arguments on both sides. CmdrLaForge, on the first page, made a good point. Why not hand Apple the phone, and let their engineers either unlock it or take the data off, and hand the FBI back either an unlocked phone, or a locked phone and the data requested by the FBI. No harm, no foul to humanity. If the information could keep America safe, and there are options other than a brick wall Tim Cook, then why not?

It sets a terrible precedent, possibly for no particular reason. Apple has said there's no way into the data on this particular phone anyhow. So really the FBI request is “Please make a iOS version with backdoor so the next time we want to bust into something, all we have to do is make a phone call and produce a warrant."

I sometimes mourn loss of the days when I could buy a copy of the newspaper for cash and walk home without six dozen trackers writing down where else I stopped before arriving at my home with that newspaper and whatever else I bought.

Does it matter that back then no one knew (or cared) if I bought bagels or Chinese takeout?

Yeah, it matters to me. It's no one's business what I bought for tonight's supper or tomorrow's breakfast, and there was a time when most people would have agreed with me. That time would still be here except for marketers and the fear mongers amongst us.

More people die in the USA every year via “ordinary homicides” than died in 9/11 or died in San Bernardino, by which fact I do not mean to discount those terrible deaths either. We do not deter terrorism some of the time no matter if we have flagged potential actors. Consider the Boston Marathon bombers. They are not the only brothers capable of pulling off a plan -- and in fact there were flags up on one of them. Consider the so-called lone wolf terrorists in the USA, the mass shooters in venues like schools or theatres. They don't have to communicate with anyone, although they sometimes leave manifestos for all to read! That goes for self-radicalized terrorists of any stripe.

Every life matters. The quality of all our lives matters as well. The "mania for privacy" that one member commented on in this thread is not a new thing and not a mania. It's a reasonable expectation in plenty of circumstances that the FBI now challenges, even if inadvertently. The expectation of and demand for privacy may have ramped up since the revelations that we've all been spied on, yes. And why wouldn't that be the case? Because "threat of terrorism?" No sale here.

 

[eww7633]

Sorry Tim , I think you draw the wrong line. Supporting terrorism is just plain wrong. Any righteous person has nothing to hide from the government.

As far as I understood the FBI needs access to just this phone. I think Apple blew this for marketing reasons entirely out of proportion. If they (Apple) are able to access the data on that phone they should just help the FBI in a way that this is a one time only event. The FBI can deliver this phone to apple and they could have pulled the data off the phone in one of their secret labs and then hand back the phone and separately the data. No need to give the FBI a general key.

To quote the article:

And the point he is making that if they cross the line just this once, it opens up everyone to potential misuse of this method. There is no guarantee that once this back door is created that it won't be used over and over again.

 

[btbeme]

Simply put:

- Laws are written to protect the innocent from those who would do them harm. The Constitution, which stands as the preeminent law in this country, is specifically written as such - and it specifically names the Federal Government as one of those entities that the innocent shall (note the word "Shall") be protected from.

- You may choose to surrender your rights (such as the Second Amendment) if you choose to do so; however, you do not have the right to surrender other peoples' rights for them (i.e. the right to life - you cannot murder).

- The governing authority has the right to remove some of your rights via something called "due process" under the guidance of something called "equal protection." No time for a Constitutional class here - you can look those up.

- The right to privacy cannot be violated (though it is daily) by the governing body without due process. However, there is plenty of case law which provides that the intent to keep something private is ultimately held by the person. Destroying something that may be "evidence" is the ultimate act of privacy - though that destruction itself may be held as criminal.

- Electronic destruction of "evidence" - via encryption - now... how and who do you hold criminally responsible for that? A person has the perfect right to assume their private information is safe from anything except due process. If that safety includes a legal use of encryption, can that person be held criminally responsible for the destruction of that info because they refuse - or are unable - to de-encrypt? How about the company that writes the perfectly legal encryption? Are they legally obligated to provide that de-encryption?

If this phone had been essentially destroyed by physical means, nobody would expect Apple to be responsible for magically reassembling the important bits so it could be read. But, one could certainly argue that the electronic destruction of data can be just as thorough and irretrievable as physical destruction. And if that "destruction" wasn't, in fact, done with the intent to "destroy" - but rather to keep it private, by a perfectly legal sense and means (encryption), can due process be applied? My guess is that the 5th Amendment will step in at this point, as well as the 14th, because those put the onus of proof on the government, and protects the individual as any individual - innocent until proven guilty - SHALL be provided.

 

[MrAverigeUser]

Cook, like the rest of the politicians, is just pandering to popular opinion. This guy is a murderer and doesn't deserve privacy. I think if someone is proven to be a murderer, with ties to organizations that may commit further murder, his privacy is a non issue. Amazing how Tim refers to this waste of life as "one of our customers".

To anyone championing cook, what if through this or other investigations like it, they could stop an attack in your city? Maybe on your family. This privacy issue isn't black and white. The government should have not have open access unless it's proven to be necessary, like this. Then, it shouldn't even be a discussion.

Changing childish US-governments foreign policy at time would have saved hundred of thousands of lives - also those killed by islamists on 9/11. It was the US government who trained Taliban and Al Qaida and delivered them hi-Tech weapons in the 80ths. It was the US government who made these lost afghan Farmers somewhere at the end of the world get dangerous terrorists in the 80´s and encouraged them to send out terrorists all over the world...…. And It is still now the US-foreign policy that supplies Saudi Arabia and Qatar and UAE and Kuweit who supported since decades islamic terrorism.

And it was NOT Encryption who did this….

Note also that the now backdoors demanding FBI got informed long before 9/11 that there were two arabs learning how to fly, but waxen´t at all interested how to land a plane. THEY WERE INFORMED - both were terrorists in 9/11.

Note also that the russian secret service IDENTIFIED AND NAMED PRECISELY the two Boston bombers long ago and informed the US authorities that these are highly suspect to plan terrorist acts.

and again: FBI did NOTHING.

It´s not encryption - it´s ignorance and arrogance and absence of professionalism of the US authorities in high coincidence with childish and nearly unbelievable idiotic geostrategic and foreign policy which puts the US citizens systematically in danger...

 

[BaldiMac]

http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_citizen_abolitionist.html


"Franklin owned two slaves, George and King, who worked as personal servants, and his newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette, commonly ran notices involving the sale or purchase of slaves and contracts for indentured laborers."

Because changing your mind on a subject after being enlightened to the truth is hypocrisy?

 

[sully54]

I challenge anyone who is against Tim Cook on this to disable their passcode and Touch ID on their iPhones. Because being against Apple on this issue while keeping your data nice and cozy behind a passcode is just dripping with irony.

 

[NT1440]

Cook, like the rest of the politicians, is just pandering to popular opinion. This guy is a murderer and doesn't deserve privacy. I think if someone is proven to be a murderer, with ties to organizations that may commit further murder, his privacy is a non issue. Amazing how Tim refers to this waste of life as "one of our customers".

Except this isn't a case of ONE GUY. If you give the FBI the tools to crack the encryption on one iPhone, you've handed them the keys to all. As we know, NONE of the intelligence/law enforcement agencies in this country can be counted on not to abuse these tools.

Over 1,000 warrantless Stingray operations in NYC alone. These agencies simply cannot be trusted not to abuse their access and power, so why hand it to them?

 

[2010mini]

Good on you Apple.

When you give the government new powers they will never give it up.

 

[dmi]

So the terrorists win

Yes, they are succeeding in destroying the freedom they hate.

 

[0007776]

Cook, like the rest of the politicians, is just pandering to popular opinion. This guy is a murderer and doesn't deserve privacy. I think if someone is proven to be a murderer, with ties to organizations that may commit further murder, his privacy is a non issue. Amazing how Tim refers to this waste of life as "one of our customers".

To anyone championing cook, what if through this or other investigations like it, they could stop an attack in your city? Maybe on your family. This privacy issue isn't black and white. The government should have not have open access unless it's proven to be necessary, like this. Then, it shouldn't even be a discussion.

You can't give them access when it is proven to be necessary without opening it up to whatever hackers want to get. Which are you more worried about, identity theft as a result of a hacker getting personal information off of your phone or the slight possibility that if the FBI doesn't get into this phone there will be another terrorist attack? I can guarantee that only one of those is likely to be a real worry, and it's not another terrorist attack.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Nice red herring! See....you believe not letting the government have a skeleton key to peek into any iPhone they want is a weakness in the system. Most rational, intelligent, people see it as a strength. You want them to be able to look into your phone by all means let them in...... I'm not naive enough to believe the government won't abuse such a tool and I also respect my privacy.

How did a search warrant to enter your house and go through your belongings ever become legal then? I don't see people marching in DC over the ability of the police to just break into your house whenever they want to go through your things!

Oh, wait...they don't because they need just cause and approval from a judge.

Somehow, I can't see the difference here...
[doublepost=1455724478][/doublepost]

Give up your freedom.... I enjoy mine.... Too many people died ensuring it for me.... I'd rather not take a dump on their grave because you can't respect their sacrifice.

Unfortunately, in today's world many more innocent people will die because the terrorists get to enjoy our "freedom" including access to our technology to ensure their communications are secure.

 

[0007776]

How did a search warrant to enter your house and go through your belongings ever become legal then? I don't see people marching in DC over the ability of the police to just break into your house whenever they want to go through your things!

Oh, wait...they don't because they need just cause and approval from a judge.

Somehow, I can't see the difference here...

Thieves can also break into your home the same way that the police can with a warrant, and it would be the same way with a backdoor into the phone. The difference is it is practical to make a phone with unbreakable encryption, while it is not practical to make a house that can't be broken into.

 

[npmacuser5]

Agree with Apple. The FBI is shopping in the wrong store for a solution. Find some teenager, pay for their college and all the data will magically appear.

 

[carrrrrlos]

Tim Cook for president!

 

[Spectrum]

You're astounded that someone believes that the government shouldn't be able to force a company to give them a skeleton key to look into any iPhone hey want in the world? Could you please do a little research on the Constitution and what it took to obtain and keep it.

It's not any phone. It's a specific phone suspected to contain incriminating evidence on it. I couldn't give a crap about the American constitution. I just have a view about what I consider to be morally right and morally wrong.

 

[MacBH928]

I support Apple. People who say Apple should create a backdoor you might as well live your life with a webcam stuck on your forehead.

The government should just find a different way to catch criminals. We should not expose the life of the millions to find evidence to convict few people.

 

[AppliedVisual]

Tim Cook should have cited former US-President Benjamin Franklin at the end:


“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

― Benjamin Franklin

Er...

Benjamin Franklin never served as President of the United States. He was President of Pennsylvania and the title of that office was renamed to "Governor" during the term succeeding Franklin's. As the US Constitution was ratified while Franklin was in office in Pennsylvania, uniting the thirteen independent states under the new Federal government. He also served as US Minister/Ambassador to both Sweden and France and also served as the first US Postmaster General.

Also hat quote has been butchered. We can probably thank the Interweb for that... But the gist of it is still there. Never mind that it was part of a larger commentary within a written letter, not a quote of its own or point to be taken at face value in regards to freedom or security as it is often presented.

That said, I am fully 100% behind Tim Cook on this one.

 

[Ledsteplin]

Written by ?

all we know is Apple dont want to help them legally...

FBI, NSA and all this US crap was sitting n’ waiting for something to happen, so they can ask\demand for legal ‘backdoor’, not only access to the shooter’s iPhone, also that they can have access, monitor and control ALL iPhones user!!

Written by? Ben Franklin

 

[NT1440]

How did a search warrant to enter your house and go through your belongings ever become legal then? I don't see people marching in DC over the ability of the police to just break into your house whenever they want to go through your things!

Oh, wait...they don't because they need just cause and approval from a judge.

Legally needing a warrant to use a surveillance technology, and actually abiding by that are two different things:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-over-1000-times-without-warrants-since-2008/

 

[Khedron]

Americans are watched everyday already. In public. On the roads. In buildings, restaurants, banks, shops, etc. Police cars have license plate scanners that records every cars license plate it sees and where it sees it. Pretty scary database, there, huh?

Personally, I don't have anything on my iPhone I don't want the government to see (or that they can't already see). I'm one of billions of people and I'm sure they have better things to do than look at my pictures and texts. If people have something to hide, there is usually a reason.

Why not just leave all your doors open in case the government wants to wander in at some point and have a look around your house?

 

[leroypants]

I challenge anyone who is against Tim Cook on this to disable their passcode and Touch ID on their iPhones. Because being against Apple on this issue while keeping your data nice and cozy behind a passcode is just dripping with irony.

No way I am disabling the passcode, I wouldn't want to police to know about my drug dealing and human trafficking and I thank Apple for protecting criminals like me.

 

[Thunderhawks]

That's exactly how it all starts. 1 phone, then 4, then 100, then why not all phones? Yeah, no. So if someone encrypts their hard drive (i.e. file vault) is it Apple's problem to decrypt it? No. Is it Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba, etc's problem to decrypt? No.

I side and agree with Apple 100%.

Amazing Benjamin Franklin had even that right:

Three may keep a Secret (encryption), if two of them are dead.