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

[burgman]

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.

You make a valid point, however many do banking and other financial transactions on their smartphones. You understand the core of the FBI's request is to bypass your block all access request? Government access with a warrant doesn't really bother me, but giving bad guys the capability to crack my phone does. If Apple says there isn't a secure way to allow access I tend to believe them.

 

[keysofanxiety]

Where is the limit?
If creating a backdoor meant avoiding another 9/11, what would be the right thing to do?

Hypothetical reasoning doesn't do anybody any good and is not only counterproductive, but completely misses the point. There are thousands of these scenarios posed all the time, such as the ethics of human experiments if it meant that medicine created as a result of these experiments could assist the greater good.

Often what these sort of circular arguments miss is that you begin with a hypothetical to justify the end reasoning. What if, hypothetically, this backdoor exploit meant that terrorists would be able to get information from officials and politicians' phones, which in itself enables another 9/11 -- when ironically that's what the backdoor was meant to prevent?

It's exactly the same hypothesis that doesn't really have an answer, and frankly doesn't matter.

If this sort of thing is pushed through, it would be at the expense of privacy and freedom. That much is a fact. So it's best to ignore what could happen, and instead look at what would happen, then make a reasoned decision from there. Manipulating people's emotions, fears and uncertainty to justify unprecedented acts has historically never, ever ended well.

 

[burgman]

Fantastic Apple..now you become the preferred supplier for terrorists

Oh the drama...

 

[Redneck1089]

Fantastic Apple..now you become the preferred supplier for terrorists

You keep making ridiculous comments.

So you would have Apple sacrifice everyone's freedom of privacy because you're scared of terrorists? Your fear is the desired response of terrorism.

Just because there are some bad people out there in the world doesn't mean that we should all stop having our privacy.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

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.

The only way that analogy is valid is if the police/FBI/NSA/GCHQ/etc had a master key (gained without your permission) to your house to snoop around whenever they felt like it without giving you any notice or reason.

It doesn't matter what value YOU place on that information, be it physical or digital, to someone else it may be priceless.

Exactly. This is equivalent of the government having a master copy of your house key and being able to access all your data without needing a warrant. In addition to that key being stolen (leaked) by hackers.

With the big data mining, information you think doesn't matter at all (.e.g. pictures, messages, etc) could end up being very very important in ways you don't understand. That's a basis around the 5th amendment.

As for this case in specific. Apple has already handed over iCloud Backup data. The FBI knows this couples acted alone and this incident is over. Yet they are pressing for access to the iPhone which in all likelihood will yield no relevant new information. That that seems like reasonable limit IMO.

 

[Gudi]

Any righteous person has nothing to hide from the government.

Not if it's the US government. UK, CA, AU. Any of the Five Eyes governments. Russia, China. Most governments in South America, Africa, Eastern Europe and Middle East are also fishy.

In general, do not trust the government.

No really, don't!​

 

[AliMacs]

Do you guys know what Dr. Dre will be like in the morning when apple has their emergency town meeting?

He'll stand up and say, **** THE POLICE!

that about sums it up right thur

And I hate to break it to y'all that own the following branded devices:

ZTE smartphones
Huawei smartphones

I like android but will NEVER buy the above two brands no matter how cheap or technologically advanced they are. You NEVER TRUST CHINA GOVT INVOLVED COMPANIES, PERIOD.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

You keep making ridiculous comments.

So you would have Apple sacrifice everyone's freedom of privacy because you're scared of terrorists? Your fear is the desired response of terrorism.

Just because there are some bad people out there in the world doesn't mean that we should all stop having our privacy.

The law is exactly right
the All Writs Act of 1789, which authorizes federal courts to issue all orders necessary or appropriate "in aid oftheir respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."

And what's with the freedom of the people shoot or killed? But I assume you also are pro guns for everyone because - hey that's your right to carry one

 

[theBostonian]

The people condemning this, or accusing Tim Cook of supporting terrorism, are frightening. I would rather die in a terrorist attack than have my personal, private info at the mercy of any government.

Cook's stance and adherence to principle ought to be admired not admonished. If more politicians were so consistent and less hypocritical the world would be a much better place.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

W

Exactly. This is equivalent of the government having a master copy of your house key and being able to access all your data without needing a warrant. In addition to that key being stolen (leaked) by hackers.

With the big data mining, information you think doesn't matter at all (.e.g. pictures, messages, etc) could end up being very very important in ways you don't understand. That's a basis around the 5th amendment.

As for this case in specific. Apple has already handed over iCloud Backup data. The FBI knows this couples acted alone and this incident is over. Yet they are pressing for access to the iPhone which in all likelihood will yield no relevant new information. That that seems like reasonable limit IMO.

Who is saying without a warrant?

 

[hachre]

Very good action by Apple and Cook!

 

[poppy10]

So the terrorists win

 

[AliMacs]

So the terrorists win

Only in America:

If you think someone may be a terrorist because they have that "look", you are racist
If you don't sell an iPhone to a terrorist, you are racist
If you don't unlock a terrorist's iPhone, you are probably a traitor
If you unlock a terrorist's iPhone using a backdoor, you are a hypocrite and no one will trust you
If you secretly unlock that terrorist's smartphone and don't say a word about it no one will ever know, you are known as Google/Android smartphone compliant.

Yeah, that I think terrorists will choose apple every time. There needs to be an anti-terrorist background check before buying an iPhone. Maybe have them answer a questionnaire form before they can purchase an iPhone. Something like apple is not liable for any terrorist act(s) you commit while using the iPhone. Perhaps this way they can't be held accountable and deemed "supporting terrorism"

 

[Marshall73]

So the terrorists win

If Apple gives in and sets a precedent for security back doors which leads to security backdoors in everything and the erosion of privacy for the masses along with weakened protection from criminals THEN the Terrorists win. Everytime you are delayed at the airport because you have to take off your shoes and belt, bin liquids etc the Terrorists win. Any freedom lost is a win for the Terrorists.

 

[iapplelove]

Fantastic Apple..now you become the preferred supplier for terrorists

Stop being so closed minded. Think about what you are saying for a moment and what you are willing to give up. Your privacy and freedom so the government can use the so called " terrorist problem" our country does not have to spy on you!

I bet you think 911 was done by terrorists too

 

[Skika]

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.

Apple, champions of terrorists everywhere.

Stay strong Tim!

Fantastic Apple..now you become the preferred supplier for terrorists

So the terrorists win

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

 

[ToroidalZeus]

W


Who is saying without a warrant?

Did you miss all the Snowden leaks? The govt will abuse the **** out of having a backdoor into iOS.

 

[iapplelove]

So the terrorists win

Another brainless comment.

 

[TonyC28]

This is a really complex issue. There are so many branches of it. I can understand why the FBI wants access to that iPhone. And I can understand why Apple won't create a way for them do it. It seems like it would be different if there were already a way to do it and the FBI was asking for the key. But they are trying to force Apple to create a way and I find that interesting. You have to wonder if this could be smoke and mirrors. "Hey Apple, we're gonna whine publicly about how we can't access the iPhone and you write a letter saying you won't help us...but wink wink we both know we can get in. This way the bad guys keep using their iPhones and think we can't listen."
There are have been secure ways of communicating for hundreds of years so it's not like the iPhone is the first. I could write someone a note and tell them to burn it after reading. That is 100% secure. Should the government force paper producers to make a paper that can't burn? Another thing I find interesting is that the FBI has already declared the San Bernadino shooting to be a lone wolf attack inspired but not directed by any specific foreign terrorist group. So, if they know that then what is there to find on the iPhone? And if they aren't sure what they might find how could they make such a pronouncement about motive without having seen what's on the iPhone?

 

[cogitodexter]

There are particular issues with this case, I think.

Firstly, the criminal is already dead, so the concept of self-incrimination is irrelevant. The dead can't plead rights under the 5th Amendment.

What concerns me though is that with search warrants, any suitably authorised authority may break into and search any physical property. What is so conceptually different between a house wherein a criminal might have stored physical evidence that can, upon court order, be sought out and a computing device wherein digital evidence may be stored?

I know the 'terrorism' argument is a bit of a red button totem argument in such cases, but there are all sorts of other contexts in which this sort of thing might be necessary - abducted children, child pornography, etc.

If the FBI need access to a criminal's iPhone, why can't the contents of that iPhone be duplicated in their entirety and handed to a trusted third party (or possibly Apple themselves) for decryption under court order? (Naturally reasonable expenses should be covered).

Apple need never have to weaken security for the phones in circulation publicly. I should never have to worry that my personal details would be accessible to the average ID thief who pickpockets my phone on the bus, but were I to do something grossly illegal then if a court orders a search, then my phone should be as equally accessible as the filing cabinet in my house.

I respect Apple for the stand it's taking, but in this case I think it's taking too much of a stand.

 

[farewelwilliams]

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.

sounds like you keep making ridiculous comments just to start an argument with someone.

 

[Redneck1089]

The law is exactly right
the All Writs Act of 1789, which authorizes federal courts to issue all orders necessary or appropriate "in aid oftheir respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."

And what's with the freedom of the people shoot or killed? But I assume you also are pro guns for everyone because - hey that's your right to carry one

And as you should have read, Apple has cooperated with the investigation. This FBI request is going above and beyond, and is not "agreeable to the usages and principles of law." The implications for creating a back door are extremely dangerous. If you aren't able to comprehend this, then there is no helping you. If you honestly feel like your life is an open book and the government should be able to look into it whenever it wants because you have nothing to hide, well then that's because you don't even know or understand the things they could find on you. You might want to live in an Orwellian world, but the rest of us do not.

This also has nothing to do with owning guns. This is about the personal information of everyone in the whole country, and potentially the whole world, being at stake.

 

[tito2020]

Did you miss all the Snowden leaks? The govt will abuse the **** out of having a backdoor into iOS.

Hope this doesnt get nasty as the media reported the fbi has warrants for apple

 

[Mystic386]

This is a battle they will lose, proving someone committed a crime is more important.

They already established the people committed a crime and don't need the phone for that.

They don't want Apple to open the phone and give them the data. They want Apple to create a program to break into the phone and make it so it only works on this phone. We all know once the FBI has this software it's likely they will modify it to work on any iPhone.

Is the Judge naive to think this is a good idea?

Does the US Government already have too much access to information and is this already being misused?

 

[Sandstorm]

This is really complicated. But I lean to think that, if authorities have physical access to a device of a serious terrorist/murderer etc., I'd ultimately would want them to have full access to it.
Though no doubt there should be totally transparent, effective and verifiable safeguards against abuse. I have no idea if that is possible.