Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The problem here is that this is not just about phones. It's about tablets, laptops, etc.. Some of us work hard at developing new businesses, trade secrets, methodologies, etc.. It could be new algorithms to accomplish a certain task or notes about a new manufacturing technique to revolutionize an industry. Just because we may have nothing to hide in a legal or moral sense, it does not mean that there are not things to keep private by nearly any means possible. Laws as they are currently established in the USA grant us the privacy to our own thoughts, journals and privileged conversations between family members, business associates and legal council. Our personal devices are a very extension of those private things.

Creating a back door into these private things would be no different than developing a machine that could scan a person's brain and read through their own thoughts or memories. What if you were suspected of a crime and called into a police station for questioning. They put you in a special room with a multitude of sensors and proceed to strike casual conversation with you, all the while, unbeknownst to you, a team in another room is pouring through nearly every thought, memory, dream or idea stored in your brain.... Would you be OK with this or are you complacently submissive to the idea of such a police state -- all in the name of hopefully catching a criminal as they are committing a crime, or hopefully even before they do.

What if the above could be done remotely?
If there were a legally approved warrant for the above task - with the assumption therefore that I am a suspect in some important case - then why not? I'd either be guilty in which case I should be prosecuted, or innocent, in which case there will be nothing to find. What is the problem?
 
C'mon. If the FBI has a search warrant from a court because they have a suspects phone I would be more worried that they are guilty if they do not help..

So, let's walk through a hypothetical scenario.

You and a coworker are on a big -- super big -- project. Maybe you even work off shifts. You work first shift, and she works second shift. Because of the nature of the project you text each other a lot. This happens. I text most of my coworkers about work-related issues after hours. So, other than your spouse, she's the one you might text the most --, or depending on things, you may text her MORE than your spouse. If she's a close friend, maybe you share some of your personal life with her: the good and the bad. Maybe you complained about something your spouse insisted you do with them. Just random personal things.

Your coworker falls on some terrorist watch list, or, sadly, is actually one. Since you text her a lot, and during what people perceive to be "non-work"hours, you must be a terrorist also. The obtain a search warrant for your phone.

By your statements, you'd be perfectly fine handing them your cell phone. The FBI seeing every picture on your phone. Every text to your spouse. Every email. Every place you've been. Because even if you haven't done anything wrong, maybe the FBI can spin what you told your co-worker as criminal intent. Your phone places you in the same place as the coworker, so they are able to convince a grand jury you abetted her. Maybe you were *more* than friends. As a result of this you are fired from your job. You can't get a job because the media portrayed you as an accomplice who was also cheating on your relationship with her. Maybe you aren't really dating someone, but they still play up the sex angle. Because that's what the media does.

This happens more than you think. A lot of court cases are tried on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. If you think that someone you know or trust isn't a criminal or a bad person, you're going to be like that neighbor on the news saying, "He was a quiet person. Seemed nice. Liked animals." We don't know what our friends are really like.

We all have secrets. We all have things we don't want other people to see. I'm ok with handing my GF my phone because there's nothing on there I want to hide from her. But some conversations with her I may not want my friends to see. There are photos I may not want my boss to see. Nothing dirty, but my personal life is my personal life.

What I absolutely don't want to happen is someone to rifle through my digital life because of a chance occurrence with a criminal.

I stand a better chance of being hit by a drunk driver than a terrorist bomb, but I don't see everyone crying for breathalyzers in every car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Binarymix
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?


Maybe I shouldn't put my private data on MY smartphone?! What?! Did you even think while you typed that?

It's my bloody right to put whatever I want on my smartphone, home computer, etc. and have it remain private. You miss the point of all this: almost all of us have nothing to hide; that doesn't change the fact that the government has absolutely zero right to invade our privacy just to catch a few bad apples.

Also, if history has told us anything, governments cannot be trusted. The fact that the US government had a huge and, arguably highly illegal, surveillance program already in place unbeknownst to most Americans just shows the tip of the iceberg. But hey, if you don't want privacy and fundamental protections to your rights and freedoms, fine then...you're on the right path to losing them anyways. I hope you sleep well at night knowing how "secure" you are because the government has the potential to watch everyone's every move.

There might be some good arguments on either side of the fence for this discussion, but yours certainly isn't one of them. Your argument of handing someone's phone to Apple to have them unlock it is exactly the problem Apple is warning about - if Apple builds a backdoor, others, including the government itself, will be able to exploit it. Once the door is open, it will be nigh impossible to really police who can get access. Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, Google, etc., already face system security threats and exploits all the time. Can you imagine if they purposely built in a door for this kind of thing? My God...
 
If there were a legally approved warrant for the above task - with the assumption therefore that I am a suspect in some important case - then why not? I'd either be guilty in which case I should be prosecuted, or innocent, in which case there will be nothing to find. What is the problem?
The problem is that we can't trust law enforcement and intelligence agencies to not abuse the use of tools. Again, just because LEGALLY you need a warrant, doesn't mean they won't just do it anyway.


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

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...-md-ci-stingray-challenge-20150904-story.html

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...public-refuses-court-order-to-release-details

Get a clue about the surveillance state you are arguing we should legitimize.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Redneck1089
The problem is that we can't trust law enforcement and intelligence agencies to not abuse the use of tools. Again, just because LEGALLY you need a warrant, doesn't mean they won't just do it anyway.


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

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...-md-ci-stingray-challenge-20150904-story.html

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...public-refuses-court-order-to-release-details

Get a clue about the surveillance state you are arguing we should legitimize.


Precisely this. Anyone who thinks having a surveillance state will protect them has their heads shoved so far up their you-know-where they don't know what fresh air smells like anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NovemberWhiskey
I have a feeling the FBI has been waiting for something like the San Bernardino situation to bring up a lawsuit against Apple. We have known for years (thanks Snowden) that that FBI has been frustrated with the security on the iPhone. Now they finally got their chance to force Apple to create a backdoor.

This will most likely end up being a Supreme Court court. From a business POV, I don't think Apple could ever comply with this demand. The bad publicity around "Apple creates backdoor for the FBI" could easily destroy their sales. I don't know if the FBI is going to fine Tim Cook or sentence him to prison, idk, but he really really cannot comply with this demand. It's just too damaging to Apple.

And that's the issue. I'm sure they could send the iPhone in question up to Ft. Meade and let the NSA crack it, but that does not scale. What the police state wants is a way to access any device, any time so the only thing they are waiting on (at worst) is the nod of a judge (secret, ex post facto or otherwise).
 
  • Like
Reactions: RogerWilco
Supporting terrorism is just plain wrong. Any righteous person has nothing to hide from the government.

You are making assumptions about "the government". The government is an entity whose powers and purposes may change abruptly, by virtue of passing laws and having a compliant judiciary.

We know or think we know who and what "the government" is right now, today. We know nothing concrete of tomorrow's government. You may have noticed that it's not quite the same government we had on September 10, 2001...

Giving unlimited powers to any agency of government is just insane. Granted Apple would not be giving the FBI unlimited power over our lives by making a back door, but it would be one more step down a slippery slope we've been enticed onto, step by step after the events of September 11.

Tim Cook is right to resist the idea of making an iOS with a back door. It's dangerous, and it's even more dangerous to cave to a government proposal grounded in "this is to deter terrorism."

Pretty soon it will be "to deter terrorism" that we get microchips implanted in us at birth.

We should be much more focused than we are on making sure the balance of powers in US government is preserved, no matter what our individual political persuasion is. Checks and balances on use of power is what keeps us free.
 
I'm glad Cook and Apple are taking this stance on the matter - even more so that this has been their view on their customers' privacy and security for a number of years now. It's a shame that there are bad people in this world, but giving them directly or indirectly the keys to whatever the rest of us hold dear would be a sad outcome.

I know it won't happen because reality doesn't bend like that, but it's interesting to imagine a hypothetical situation where the US bans effective encryption (which might actually happen, though I hope not) and as a result Apple moves their business entirely to other, more reasonable countries. A big middle finger to the more ignorant members of the US government (which isn't everyone, I'm sure). They wanted Apple to bring device assembly jobs to the States and instead drove the company away in their lack of understanding of the bigger picture and denial of facts (such as backdoored and weak encryption ultimately hurting good people).

I'd read that book.
 
I disagree with Cook. Given a valid search warrant - and only with a search warrant - there should be a way to open a phone so that it can be used within a criminal investigation. It is no different than obtaining a search warrant for entering someone's house because there is reason to believe there is incriminating evidence inside.
Apple should simply design there software (both the lockout and the unlocking) in special ways that prevent missuse/abuse. How about it requiring a bespoke piece of hardware encased in concrete that weighs 50 tonnes and is only present in a few secure locations in the world?

Tim is simply being lazy in my opinion.

A traditional search warrant compels the owner to allow authorities to enter and search property. It contains a list of items believed to be on the property and how they are related to a criminal activity that the owner is suspected of being involved in. This current action is more akin to police requesting, by force, the company that made the locks on the door of your home to send a team of master lock smiths to open your door for them so they can look around against your wishes.

If the owner of a property refuses to comply with a warrant they can be jailed until they change their minds. These people are dead. The Feds are SOL and they don't like it.

The MasterKey - MiOS - is currently in a safe place because it doesn't exist. Once it is written it is no longer safe because the knowledge to build it is in the wild. Even if the MiOS is only used once by Apple at Apple, what becomes of it after that?

From the tone of the letter, Tim is prepared to go to jail over your privacy. I wouldn't call that lazy.

Dale
 
  • Like
Reactions: pianophile
And it's disgusting Apple is talking rubbish when vital evidence is being requested to prove someone innocent or guilty, what if the guy is innocent but gets the death sentence, who cares right when you don't know them, but that nasty government won't spy on you...
Or what if he's guilty and walks free and kills Tim Cook, what would you say then when accessing his iPhone would have produced evidence to send them to.

Not the case here: Monsters are already DEAD! No trial to be had. No reason to jeopardize the privacy of MILLIONS. The government is using this case as an excuse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ninaco
Give me liberty, I will provide my own security.
The flaw with that statement and mindset is, nobody trusts you with any security except you. That inherently makes everything around you insecure because you have the power to make it insecure. I don't trust anyone with a firearm with my security or anyone else's security, except for the law enforcement. My assumption here is that the 'security' in discussion is provided by a firearm.
Have we strayed far from the original discussion?
 
Where is the limit?
If creating a backdoor meant avoiding another 9/11, what would be the right thing to do?

I think the mania for "privacy" has gone way beyond common sense: until 10 years ago we were all happily storing our personal info in our houses, in paper, and no one was seriously worrying about someone sneaking in our houses to look at our family pictures, love letters or -oh my God!- our weight.
We too often forget that in 99.99% of the cases NO ONE COULD CARE LESS about our oh-so-precious pictures, messages, etc. There is quite simply nothing to protect, our personal info are valuable only to ourselves.
"Just" give me a common password for all my info/website, and if someones steals my device, big deal, let me make a call and block all access. End of story.

Some of us did/do care...or else we would not have owned safes...still do for the stuff that is paper. You may not have cared, but quite a few do.

And for those that keep their financials on their devices, a backdoor is a critical thing not to have.

If the FBI is not able to get the texts and such from the ISPs then who is to say it is on the phone anyway. They are using this case to strong arm Apple....not to protect it's citizens.
 
Terrorists hiding their plans from the those who would try to protect us is reprehensible, but protecting our privacy is even more important. The government itself is being hacked, so how would they protect any backdoor code meant for their use only? Clearly they can't/won't, so I support Apple and Tim Cook on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: caligurl
3 cheers for Cook
3 cheers for Apple


Now it's hopefully clear as can be to potentially inept uneducated judges and the stubborn or blissfully ignorant law enforcement but alas I'm not overly optimistic that this matter will drop and they'll give up.


I foresee jail time and fines for some Apple/Cupertino higher ups Cook included if they're dedicated enough to be a martyr for the cause of privacy and civil liberties

( Side note hope some of the spellings are Correct Auto-Correct was having its fun while typing )
 
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.
Yeah, sorry, I just don't believe the government has the right to access my bank account information, my health information, my location, or any other data that can be very useful (yet private) to me individually, without due process.

Don't insinuate what is not true, especially about me as a person.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: caligurl
Right! Because we live in the same world as when smart phones weren't around. Grow up.
If people are actually working on committing a crime they still have to go out and do something other than on their phone, for example in this case we already know that he committed a crime, and even if we had caught him before the shooting he had gathered all the materials he needed which would have given the FBI a good starting point for their investigation. If the whole case hangs on a phone it's a pretty weak case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: caligurl



Apple CEO Tim Cook has posted an open letter to Apple customers announcing that the company would oppose an order from a U.S. Federal judge to help the FBI access data on an iPhone 5c used by San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook. Cook says that this moment is one for public discussion, and that the company wants its customers to understand what's at stake.

appleresponse.png

Cook starts the letter noting that smartphones have become an essential part of people's lives and that many people store private conversations, photos, music, notes, calendars and both financial and health information on their devices. Ultimately, Cook says, encryption helps keep people's data safe, which in turn keeps people's personal safety from being at risk.

He then goes on to say that Apple and its employees were "shocked and outraged" by the San Bernardino attack and that Apple has complied with valid subpoenas and search warrants from federal investigators. Apple has also made engineers available to advise the FBI in addition to providing general advice on how they could go about investigating the case. However, Cook says that's where Apple will draw the line.
Cook says that while the government is suggesting that bypassing a feature that disables an iPhone after a certain number of failed password attempts could only be used once and on one device, that suggestion is "simply not true." He says that once created, such a key could be used over and over again. "In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks -- from restaurants and banks to stores and homes," Cook says.

The move, Cook says, would undermine Apple's decades of work on security advancements that keep its customers safe. He notes the irony in asking Apple's security engineers to purposefully weaken the protections they created. Apple says they found no precedent of an American company being forced to expose its customers, therefore putting them at a greater risk of attack. He notes that security experts have warned against weakening encryption as both bad guys and good guys would be able to take advantage of any potential weaknesses.

Finally, Cook says that the FBI is proposing what Apple calls an "unprecedented use" of the All Writs Act of 1789, which authorizes federal courts to issue all orders necessary or appropriate "in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." The chilling effect of this use, Cook argues, would allow the government power to capture data from any device or to require Apple to create a data collection program to intercept a customer's data, potentially including infringements like using a phone's camera or microphone without user knowledge.

Cook concludes Apple's open letter by saying the company's opposition to the order is not an action they took lightly and that they challenge the request "with the deepest respect for democracy and a love for our country." Ultimately, Apple fears these demands would "undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect."

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

Boycott iphones. See how bitter the Apple tastes then.
 
The problem is that we can't trust law enforcement and intelligence agencies to not abuse the use of tools. Again, just because LEGALLY you need a warrant, doesn't mean they won't just do it anyway.


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

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...-md-ci-stingray-challenge-20150904-story.html

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...public-refuses-court-order-to-release-details

Get a clue about the surveillance state you are arguing we should legitimize.

Precisely this. Anyone who thinks having a surveillance state will protect them has their heads shoved so far up their you-know-where they don't know what fresh air smells like anymore.

You guys are ridiculously paranoid! And where did I mention a surveillance state? Enabling access to incriminating evidence seems entirely reasonable to me in order to maintain a stable society.

Without evidence there will be no way to pursue prosecution. Without prosecution, there may become no deterrent for criminals. The result may be a loss of liberty and freedom for all law-abiding citizens...all in the name of "privacy".
 
You guys are ridiculously paranoid! And where did I mention a surveillance state? Enabling access to incriminating evidence seems entirely reasonable to me in order to maintain a stable society.

Without evidence there will be no way to pursue prosecution. Without prosecution, there may become no deterrent for criminals. The result may be a loss of liberty and freedom for all law-abiding citizens...all in the name of "privacy".

If there is a backdoor to decrypt iPhones, it only will be a matter of time before you see the key printed on a t-shirt. DeCSS anybody?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RogerWilco
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.
Apple and oranges, but good try. A thief breaking into your home to steal goods and the police needing a warrant to enter your home and take evidence to use in a legal trial are two different things. If it was found the police entered a home illegally to obtain evidence, that is thrown out in court.

As such Apple could maintain the "tools" to assist the FBI, and when handed a warrant and an iPhone, Apple could search the iPhone and deliver the evidence to the FBI.

I don't really see the difference between legally obtaining a warrant to search a home and legally obtaining a warrant to search a phone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spectrum
If there is a backdoor to decrypt iPhones, it only will be a matter of time before you see the key printed on a t-shirt. DeCSS anybody?
So then the mechanism of encrypting and decrypting the phone needs to evolve so that it is of benefit to all of us (including aiding criminal investigations when necessary) and cannot be abused. *In my opinion* that is Apple's problem and it is up to them to engineer a solution otherwise they are as good as aiding and abetting a crime by making systems that lock out permanently in the first place.
[doublepost=1455729862][/doublepost]
Apple and oranges, but good try. A thief breaking into your home to steal goods and the police needing a warrant to enter your home and take evidence to use in a legal trial are two different things. If it was found the police entered a home illegally to obtain evidence, that is thrown out in court.

As such Apple could maintain the "tools" to assist the FBI, and when handed a warrant and an iPhone, Apple could search the iPhone and deliver the evidence to the FBI.

I don't really see the difference between legally obtaining a warrant to search a home and legally obtaining a warrant to search a phone.
Absolutely!

What are the rules/laws on safe deposit boxes? Can the FBI open them with a court order? This is the closest analogy to a phone IMO.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.