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

[DEMinSoCAL]

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?

I would have no problem with that because I know that I have nothing to hide, and the government has no reason to come in! BUT, because we have people that want to do bad things (like thieves and criminals and terrorists), I do have to keep my doors locked or someone will steal my iPhone.

 

[digitalcuriosity]

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.

I see a lot of differences, here the FBI is asking to invade all iPhones not just the one iPhone.

 

[webbuzz]

Glad Apple is on the right side of this.

 

[ls1dreams]

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:

CmdrLaForge, that's not how it works. Apple doesn't HAVE a "backdoor" to be able to do this. Additionally, if they ever added one, it significantly impacts encryption overall. There are no perfect backdoors - they ultimately weaken the entire encryption, and generally mean that in the long run anyone can get in.

It would be pretty hilarious if Apple agreed to try to decrypt it - "Sure, we'll get back to you in a few thousands years when it finishes"

This thread is filled with people who have absolutely no idea how encryption works.

 

[0007776]

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.

There isn't a difference other than that you can make a phone that is actually secure while you can't make a house fully secure. If you don't want to let the police into your house they are still able to kick down the door if they have a warrant, but the fact that the door is weak enough to be kicked down also means that a criminal can come along and kick it down to break into your house. If we weaken the encryption on a phone so that the police can force their way in when they have a warrant we also have created a weakness that criminals can use to break in to your phone and steal your personal information.

 

[Spectrum]

I see a lot of differences, here the FBI is asking to invade all iPhones not just the one iPhone.

Are you sure that is what they are are asking? I read it to mean they would require the ability to open any phone *should they so need*, not that they want to open any phone at will without a warrant.

I oppose the latter, but not the former.

 

[0007776]

Are you sure that is what they are are asking? I read it to mean they would require the ability to open any phone *should they so need*, not that they want to open any phone at will without a warrant.

I oppose the latter, but not the former.

Even if there are no corrupt FBI agents who will abuse it if they have the ability to get in if they need to then any criminal that has any computer skills is also able to get in if they want to.

 

[Spectrum]

...we also have created a weakness that criminals can use to break in to your phone and steal your personal information.

...and which can also be used to prosecute said individuals. It works both ways, and is largely a deterrent.
[doublepost=1455730360][/doublepost]

Even if there are no corrupt FBI agents who will abuse it if they have the ability to get in if they need to then any criminal that has any computer skills is also able to get in if they want to.

So says you. But I dont' see why it has to be designed in such a manner. As I stated before, it is up to Apple et. al. to step up to the plate and make a system that is both beneficial to the consumer and to society. The current full lockout system is not.

 

[leroypants]

Apple: so secure, even the FBI can't hack our products.

Naughty pics? Buy an iphone.

iMessage is the only way I will deal drugs or traffic women, it's good to know Tim Cook wants to protect me and hamper law enforcement.

 

[digitalcuriosity]

I would have no problem with that because I know that I have nothing to hide, and the government has no reason to come in! BUT, because we have people that want to do bad things (like thieves and criminals and terrorists), I do have to keep my doors locked or someone will steal my iPhone.

This item is not just about thieves and criminals and terrorists, it's about the FBI wanting a way to invase all iPhones&iPads no matter what or when. Just like old make America safe George W Bush did after 911, there will be nothing we can't or won't do to dig into everyones privacy they said and they sure did.
Did it make America safer? I rest my case.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

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...

It's not a right, it's an expectation of privacy and if your data is so private that you need 100% assurance that no one but you can't see it, then maybe you shouldn't put it on a device that is connected to the internet 100% of the time. Maybe people convicted of child porn, for example, shouldn't keep pictures on their computer. Do they have a right to privacy? Yet armed with a warrant, police can confiscate a computer and access the contents, legally. How'd we let THAT happen?

It's the same thing here. The same process that works for search warrants for home or office can work on a technology device.

 

[OceanView]

One question, does android have a back door for the FBI?
If it does, that would clearly a good reason to stick with an iPhone.

 

[997440]

If AAPL is defending Liberty here, will it apply that logic to all its interactions with governments or is this a one off? In the past, AAPL's been supportive for using the 'threat of force', by governments against companies and individuals, for issues which AAPL found desirable, and, they've turned a blind eye and/or emitted not a whisper about many more property rights usurpations.

Stay tuned.

 

[NT1440]

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.

Paranoid?

These are ****ing documented abuses of the exact technology you are advocating for.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

This item is not just about thieves and criminals and terrorists, it's about the FBI wanting a way to invase all iPhones&iPads no matter what or when. Just like old make America safe George W Bush did after 911, there will be nothing we can't or won't do to dig into everyones privacy they said and they sure did.
Did it make America safer? I rest my case.

Sure, I can certainly see how it's viable for the FBI to spend their time spying on 323 million people for no good reason. They obviously have lots of time on their hands to do just that. If people don't care that they're being watched, recorded, tracked every day, everywhere they go (outside their home and even inside their home when they're on their computers), I don't really see the issue here. The FBI doesn't care where I drive, what I buy at the grocery store, or what movie I go see. Yet, it's all recorded every day. Is there really a difference here?

 

[NT1440]

Are you sure that is what they are are asking? I read it to mean they would require the ability to open any phone *should they so need*, not that they want to open any phone at will without a warrant.

I oppose the latter, but not the former.

You brushed off documented examples of the latter. They get the tech, they use it illegally when they feel the need to. End of story.

 

[Spectrum]

Paranoid?

These are ****ing documented abuses of the exact technology you are advocating for.

You're mixing two things here: 1) illegal access to private data without search warrant and 2) a perfectly reasonable request to open a phone to retrieve incriminating evidence.

The two are NOT linked and yet half the posters on here assume them to be.

 

[pat500000]

Durin SB shooting, didn't anyone notice turkey and Isis were trading oils at that particular time? You can check it out on YouTube.

 

[cupcakes2000]

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.

But it's not your morals I am concerned about. It's the morals of the current and future US governments that have my concern.

 

[chiefsilverback]

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.

In the hundreds of posts that this thread comprises I'm sure you've been schooled on this already, but I'm feeling feisty so here's my addition.

What is the US's long running policy about terrorists? "Do not negotiate". The reason? Because once you start there's no stopping it. Even if Apple had the capability, as soon as they do it once precedent has been set and they would have to setup an entire department just to handle the court orders.

Then you have the issue that Apple is a global company and as soon as they start doing favours for the US then China/Russia/'pick your country' will want the same treatment otherwise they'll block Apple from selling their products in the country.

Given your stance on privacy I'd imagine that confronted with the dilemma above you might say "fine, just stop selling phones in China then, Apple's an American company", but that would pretty much consign Apple to annals of history as the company that revolutionized the smart phone and then faded away when they lost access to the biggest market on the planet. Then it wouldn't matter if the phones had a back door, because no one would use them!

As a final point, even if Apple did provide a back door, any criminal/terrorist worth their salt would simply overlay their encryption tool of choice and the FBI/NSA would be back at square one. Oh, but they would have access to all our information!

 

[Spectrum]

You brushed off documented examples of the latter. They get the tech, they use it illegally when they feel the need to. End of story.

So if this is the concern, then leave the tech in the hands of Apple, design it so that the process is purposely lengthy and time-consuming, and ensure the FBI provide a warrant for each request to retrieve data. Just the process of requiring a warrant (the time paperwork in involved) will ensure that this is a rarely used strategy.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

You brushed off documented examples of the latter. They get the tech, they use it illegally when they feel the need to. End of story.

"They" who? If evidence is obtained illegally (without a warrant, for example) it's inadmissible in court. If such use is to keep another Boston bombing from happening then i'm all for it! Either way, it's a win-win...

 

[Col4bin]

Let's all give up our rights because there are terrorists!

"Apple, champions of terrorists and peaceful, law-abiding citizens everywhere.

Stay strong Tim!"

Fixed that for you. Happy now?

 

[chiefsilverback]

There isn't a difference other than that you can make a phone that is actually secure while you can't make a house fully secure. If you don't want to let the police into your house they are still able to kick down the door if they have a warrant, but the fact that the door is weak enough to be kicked down also means that a criminal can come along and kick it down to break into your house. If we weaken the encryption on a phone so that the police can force their way in when they have a warrant we also have created a weakness that criminals can use to break in to your phone and steal your personal information.

Extrapolating this, if you wanted to make your house more secure than Fort Knox, then all the warrants in the world aren't going to help the police/FBI etc... actually get inside.

 

[digitalcuriosity]

"They" who? If evidence is obtained illegally (without a warrant, for example) it's inadmissible in court. If such use is to keep another Boston bombing from happening then i'm all for it! Either way, it's a win-win...

Problem is once they get an open door, any good smart hacker can enter.