Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
At this point, I don't particularly care why Apple is doing it (profit margin, whatever), it's just interesting to me to see a US company stand up to the government like this.

What company's profit margin has been hit by not taking this stance?

Yeap, but if this is an official criminal investigation by the FBI then I do wonder if they will just go to higher and higher courts until they charge Apple with blocking their investigation which in some countries I believe means a possible jail sentence. Does Apple really want to go that far? Currently they are in contempt of court by ignoring the law.
If you want to be some stuck up arrogant corporation, it's best not to do so by annoying the FBI of your home country and the court's and simply refuse to abide by the law of a court. People don't tend to like that sort of thing.

Not very shocking that when you assume that someone is being hypocritical, you perceive them to be hypocritical.

I don't perceive it, it's a fact.

Uhh....error 53 is bricking the device to PREVENT a malicious TouchID sensor from being used to decrypt the secure enclave....

Yes, apparently Apple thinks some third party repair shop has greater skills, more advanced equipment, and more knowledge then the entire US government and all it's agencies and law enforcement departments put together! Wake up and realise the BS spin they are doing here eh?
 
Have to wonder what the story would be if the phone was a Samsung, not being a US company's. How would this be playing out? Sure other manufacturers out there, i.e. Google, etc. are feeling some relief that the request is not being made of them. Really unenviable position to be in from a company standpoint of having worked so hard to provide all of us with security on these devices.

Believe it or not there was a time when we didn't have smartphones and plots were still being hatched either in person between individuals or through other means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001 and caligurl
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:

But didn't Tim say that they didn't want a create a back door for the FBI to have access to? Meaning that the back door would affect all future iPhones to be accessible? If the government just wanted that one phone, wouldn't that mean that they could have already settled it but instead they are insisting on doing this to all current phones and future phones?

I'm not sure if I got the idea of this right, but it seems that the FBI wants to have control of all future software access to any phone Apple will release.
 
One of the odd things about this case is the fact that the owner of the phone has given the FBI permission to take all data off of it. The phone in question is actually owned by the people that the shooter work for, and they have given the phone to the FBI with permission to do with it as they wish. The password on the phone, however, was put on there by the user who is the shooter, therefore neither the actual owner of the phone nor the FBI have been able to get into the phone.

This puts the twist in the puzzle that the FBI has the owners permission to get into the phone, they just can't do it.
 
I don't perceive it, it's a fact.
Then you have a very flexible definition of a fact.

Yes, apparently Apple thinks some third party repair shop has greater skills, more advanced equipment, and more knowledge then the entire US government and all it's agencies and law enforcement departments out together! Wake up and realise the BS spin they doing here eh?
Or, possibly, you don't have the technical knowledge to determine possible exploits of an unsecured TouchID sensor.
 



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
 
Then you have a very flexible definition of a fact.


Or, possibly, you don't have the technical knowledge to determine possible exploits of an unsecured TouchID sensor.

And you have utterly failed at your attempt to defend Apple.
Are you going to claim that the FBI and all it's resources is incapable of performing the very hack that Apple apparently accuses third party repair shops off? Even though it's utter rubbish as it would then mean they would have hacked Apples encryption, the very thing the FBI cannot do.
 
I can understand Tim's reluctance. 1.) Any "back door" created for the benefit of law enforcement would probably be available for exploitation by the bad guys. 2.) Apple has a fiduciary responsibility to its user base to do its utmost to protect the data of corporations and individuals, and complying with the court order would hinder its ability to discharge this responsibility. 3.) If the level of security Apple was able to provide were to be reduced, it might be necessary to terminate Apple Pay. 4.) The San Bernardino villain and his wife are dead, there is no evidence they belonged to any organization or had any confederates still at large, and so there is no reason to think there is any urgent and compelling reason for the feds to be able to access the data on his iPhone. They are only attempting to satisfy their curiousity, not to head off any immediate threat to national security.
 
And you have failed at your attempt to defend Apple. Are you going to claim that the FBI and all it's resources is incapable of performing the very hack that Apple apparently accuses third party repair shops off? Even though it's utter rubbish as it would then mean they would have hacked Apples encryption, the very thing the FBI cannot do.
Name calling isn't much fun to me. Again, you have so many assumption built into that statement. You don't know the possible exploits of the unsecured sensor. Apple never claimed that it would allow someone to break the encryption on a locked device. That's just an assumption on your part.
 
I really question the FBI's motive on this case, and truly question how or why anyone could support their cause.

If people want security, there are better ways to get it than invading privacy, particularly after the fact.

Is the FBI, or any government agency for that matter, going after the actual cause of death in this situation? GUNS?

The conversation should be about gun sales, access to guns, and gun deaths. It should not be about breaking into citizen's privacy.
 
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.

Saying you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying that you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.

Leaders, regimes and laws change. Everyone is a criminal somewhere based on their beliefs and practices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: saba01
That would be like holding a farmer in contempt because he couldn't breed a pig that could fly.

You can't hold someone in contempt for refusing to do something if that something is not possible.

true, but read what I quoted and then replied to.
 
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:
In no way is this supporting terrorism. in fact what the FBI wants to do is playing right into the hands of terrorists. The terrorists win when we give up our constitutional rights. Too many people have died winning and preserving those rights of privacy to give them up because some nut jobs killed some people.

It has nothing to do with righteous people having nothing to conceal from the government. The writers of the constitution realized the people must be ever vigilant of their government overstepping. Some things are more important than the 14 lives snuffed out. It would be sad and disrespectful to those people to give up what this country stands for.

Do you honestly believe that any information or contacts on the phone are not long gone by now. I applaud Tim Cook for standing up to the paranoia that is ever present to whittle away our rights. This needs to go to the Supreme Court. To bad justice Alito died as he definitely would side with the constitution and deny this attempt to breach or freedoms further.
 
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.

If you have nothing to hide then why not go ahead and post all your bank account numbers all over the Internet...

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:

Except they aren't able to access it. That's the whole point.

It would require building in a back door. A back door that would then make every iOS device on the planet vulnerable.
 
Name calling isn't much fun to me. Again, you have so many assumption built into that statement. You don't know the possible exploits of the unsecured sensor. Apple never claimed that it would allow someone to break the encryption on a locked device. That's just an assumption on your part.

Name calling? Really? Wow, with that spin you should go and work for Apple's marketing department.

And no, the finger print and security code are stored on a chip on the logic board protected by encryption, it is no assumption it is a fact, it was heavily discussed in the error 53 thread.
The repair shop would have to crack Apples security encryption to access the device, it's pure marketing spin to force you to use Apple to repair your device more. Perhaps you would like to share a story of someone who had their phone hacked and data stolen when a third party repair shop fixed their touch ID sensor or their broken screen?
 
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.

What are you talking about? First you say they should investigate crimes similar to before smartphones. Even if we define that as pre-2007, do you have any idea how drastically different the world is? The NSA has been around since 1952, by the way. And they don't want his phone to prevent a crime that already happened. They want insight into who his contacts were, etc. In these types of cases, his privacy should not be an issue.
 
Name calling? Really? Wow, with that spin you should go and work for Apple's marketing department.
:rolleyes:

And no, the finger print and security code are stored on a chip on the logic board protected by encryption, it is no assumption it is a fact, it was heavily discussed in the error 53 thread.
Oh. If it was heavily discussed on MacRumors then it must be true. My bad. (None of that is true though.)

The repair shop would have to crack Apples security encryption to access the device, it's pure marketing spin to force you to use Apple to repair your device more. Perhaps you would like to share a story of someone who had their phone hacked and data stolen when a third party repair shop fixed their touch ID sensor or their broken screen?
I am sure that's the only possible explanation. Unless the exploit is detailed to you personally, it does not exist.
 
In this FBI story, Apple doesn't want to follow the law and ignore what the judge has ordered them to do.

I believe he said "But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have..."
As long as they are telling the truth, they are following the law; Apple even had the option to say that it was "unreasonably burdensome", but they said we don't have a way to do it.

In addition, Apple said they were also asked for "something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." Even if they created it, this would not help with the "San Bernardino Shooter" case, that iPhone/iOS is too late to add a backdoor (unless they can unlock it and if they can they wouldn't need it).

These are actually two different things!

I feel Apple should have not said both things in the same letter. It makes headlines reporting on both sound like Apple refuses to help in the San Bernardino Shooter case. This MacRumors article title (Apple Won't Create 'Backdoor' to Help FBI Access San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone) sounds that way too.

Gary
 
Eh, I see a lot of people sympathizing with the government's position on this. The problem is, "just this once" and "only for the bad guys" never, ever works that way. This is the same organization that was spying on Martin Luther King Jr. when he was fighting for civil rights.

When it comes to rights, if you're willing to ignore them for the worst people then they can be taken from the best. It starts with a terrorist and ends with mass surveillance (or worse).
 
  • Like
Reactions: sully54
What are you talking about? First you say they should investigate crimes similar to before smartphones. Even if we define that as pre-2007, do you have any idea how drastically different the world is? The NSA has been around since 1952, by the way. And they don't want his phone to prevent a crime that already happened. They want insight into who his contacts were, etc. In these types of cases, his privacy should not be an issue.
His privacy isn't what is at issue, the issue is the privacy of everyone who owns an iPhone, or smartphone in general as any ruling against apple will also be able to be used against Google, and that includes most if not all of us here on this thread.
 
Curve ball. For those in favor of not allowing government access to cell phones, do you also support the Second Amendment?
 
Seem this is a popular topic

There is always a trade-off between security and the law, or privacy and security as well

Apple just wants it all and refuses to weaken anything as to impact users...

The NSA could only do this because their not Apple. so just like Apple doesn't need to weaken anything really, there are other ways to get at this stuff...

if a company doesn't wanna do this to impact users security, why keep at it when there are other "in-direct" methods of accomplishing the same thing. Not to mention, allot easier, since u well know Apple will not go down without a fight. The NSA has the know how at their disposal anyway...

I would have thought going in the entrance would have been better than kicking down the back door.
 
Last edited:
If apple did comply with this it would be broadcast across the world,
all terrorist would immediately be made aware.
Who wants to bet they will stop using this form of communication
and all of us will be exposed for the picking by hackers across all the lands.
I feel bad for the families affected, I have sympathy for them.

What did the terrorist that did the 9/11 attacks use to communicate?
 
Curve ball. For those in favor of not allowing government access to cell phones, do you also support the Second Amendment?

As an aside to everything else why have they asked for a quick way of inputting a mere 10,000 codes?

You could do that manually in a day or two surely ?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.