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

[gaximus]

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?

Because Apple Engineers can't get the data. The OS was designed with no backdoor, meaning, no one can get it, not even Apple.

 

[CSpackler]

Well, it's already the case that the police can get a warrant to search your home. A warrant isn't even necessary if there is an obvious reason to enter. And yes, digital security is different, but not when physical access is required. I would definitely oppose remote backdoors, but if the government is holding an iPhone from a sentenced criminal, I think they should be able to have it unlocked.

Some hard disk manufacturers with built-in AES encryption create a master key for this reason, only available by subpoena. (For obvious reasons many do not agree with the dangerous precedent this creates.) So in many cases, the FBI can already retrieve encrypted data from seized hard drives they physically possess, even if they are encrypted. I think the jury is still out whether Microsoft has one available for Bitlocker. Now that the issue is being forced into the spotlight it would be interesting to know.

The scarier issue here is that the FBI asked Apple to create a version of iOS that allows the passcode lock to be brute forced electronically. And since it's only 4-6 numerical characters, this would be a trivial task for a hacker. The problem arises when these types of backdoors and security vulnerabilities are revealed and exploited (or sold by a corrupt agent out the back door). What if someone figured out how to brute force passcodes remotely? All hell would break loose.

 

[dk001]

If Tim or any of his Valley Boy executives had served our country in the military, especially in intelligence, and knew something about the daily attacks we face, I'd be more likely to listen to him.

If Apple paid full US taxes on the huge profits it's made, profits made partly because they're based in this great country they claim to "love", then I'd be more likely to listen to him.

If Tim didn't speak out of both sides of his mouth all the time, with an eye towards Apple's profit margins, I'd be more likely to listen to him.

--

This is a valid request under a warrant granted by a judge. While I agree that Apple should not give such tools to the FBI, I see no reason for Apple not to help out and obtain the data if given the device to break and then reset to normal.

BTDT BTFTS.
If this wasn't a disingenuous warrant where the judge really understood the legal and constitutional ramifications of what being asked and the behind the scene backhanded reason the FBI wants this I might agree with you. That judge, she does not have a background that says "Yes I understand" and the FBI isn't going to be totally forthcoming. This area is not Judge Sheri Pym's forte.

 

[bradl]

The purpose isn't to find evidence against the criminal but to discover his motives, connections, and whatever else he might've been hiding. Same reason the FBI wants this iPhone unlocked.

So self incriminate for the purposes of a witch hunt? Not a valid reason to violate the US Constitution.

You know.. There was a perfect example of what you are wanting, and how fanatic it gets, from an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, 25 years ago. The episode was called The Drumhead.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/The_Drumhead

After having a judge perform the same hunt as you are wanting, Capt. Picard said:

You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: 'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured... the first thought forbidden... the first freedom denied – chains us all irrevocably.' Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom... and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.​

Trampling on the right to privacy and against self-incrimination is the first link in that chain. Tread wearily.

BL.

 

[Pilgrim1099]

If Tim or any of his Valley Boy executives had served our country in the military, especially in intelligence, and knew something about the daily attacks we face, I'd be more likely to listen to him.

If Apple paid full US taxes on the huge profits it's made, profits made partly because they're based in this great country they claim to "love", then I'd be more likely to listen to him.

If Tim didn't speak out of both sides of his mouth all the time, with an eye towards Apple's profit margins, I'd be more likely to listen to him.

--

This is a valid request under a warrant granted by a judge. While I agree that Apple should not give such tools to the FBI, I see no reason for Apple not to help out and obtain the data if given the device to break and then reset to normal.

My concern is that some posters here are thanking Tim for standing up for our rights and I can certainly see how important it is. But, this should in no way exonerate nor take him off the hook from the decisions he's made for Apple lately. I agree with the stance but don't like the direction he's taking with Apple. Someone thought it was ' brilliant marketing ' which makes me sick because you cannot plan for this kind of thing. It'd be like Tim playing " patty cake " with the government and say " Okay, you make me a martyr out of this by forcing my company to hand over this and that, and this thing will make me look good! ".

And for one thing, he's politicizing this situation as CEO. There's a fine line to it. I don't think putting up a public message on Apple's website was appropriate legal action as it doesn't have any legs to it. He could've kept his mouth shut, had attorneys contact the Fed and tell them off privately. And then have the PR office make a statement. But no, he had to go out and play " hero ". If he wanted to play politics, he should leave the company and prepare himself to be destroyed in debates. He wouldn't make a good politician especially in the way he conducted himself in interviews.

If he got a search warrant by the FBI, he should be professional about it. Do I agree that the FBI should be assisted on such cases as this? Yes. Do I agree that the Fed should have complete access to the code? Of course not. But to say they don't have a back door when they probably do could cost him his job. And it might if he pushes too hard.

I personally think Apple has the technical means to access the information. After all, they CREATED the damn thing. I think this was designed in the beginning so they don't get their hands " dirty " in the process, almost if it's pre-absolving them of anything that might happen.

And if Tim won't crack down, what happens if Williams becomes CEO? Would have have the backbone to do it? Something to think about.

 

[gaximus]

And your an expert on "how it works"? There are many ways it could work. It doesn't have to be a tool. It could be a process, or software that only works one time on one phone. Of course the intelligence exists to create a backdoor (at least to bypass the brute force password lock). There can certainly be a way to make it less "universal" and more "one time". Just like a search warrant, if one is issued to Apple to unlock a criminals phone, what's the difference?

To make it work "one time" on this particular phone, it would have to already had the software on it. To make it work on any phone, even one time, then the software to make it work would have to be on all phones, before the warrant is issued. Making all phones less secure and people would figure out how to use this back door and exploit it. Not just "bad people", but other governments would use this.

 

[kdarling]

Maybe the NSA should open up and show the public that they are indeed doing everything you claim and that it is indeed effective. After all, if they aren't doing anything wrong, then they should have no issue with full public transparency. Until then, it's just a bunch of empty words.

The number one thing that you do not give away, is your capabilities. Once you do, you lose them.

Secrets and spying are the root of all the evil. The attempt by the founding fathers to have an open government with a free press and guaranteeing basic rights is an experiment in progress. Short term gains of stoping this or that attack, are no reason to sacrifice long term and hard fought rights.

Yet even our Founding Fathers depended on spying to help win the Revolutionary War.

No one's talking about mass targeted spying on the population, or giving up basic freedoms. Those are strawmen arguments.

In Apple's case, the topic is a valid warrant and how to fulfill it.

History has shown time and time again, regardless of the reasons, secrecy, spying is never contained to others. The Snowden documents have shown the rampant disregard the NSA has, along with other agencies it limiting their spying.

The Snowden documents showed no such thing. What they did show was that Congress (i.e. the People) was okay with overriding the NSA charter... which is about targeting foreign nationals... and allowing it to collect in-country messaging that went outside the country.

I'm not ok for any agency to have these powers unsupervised by The People and a Free Press.

I'm with you, except for the Free Press part as far as international spying goes.

 

[bradl]

My concern is that some posters here are thanking Tim for standing up for our rights and I can certainly see how important it is. But, this should in no way exonerate nor take him off the hook from the decisions he's made for Apple lately. I agree with the stance but don't like the direction he's taking with Apple. Someone thought it was ' brilliant marketing ' which makes me sick because you cannot plan for this kind of thing. It'd be like Tim playing " patty cake " with the government and say " Okay, you make me a martyr out of this by forcing my company to hand over this and that, and this thing will make me look good! ".

And for one thing, he's politicizing this situation as CEO. There's a fine line to it. I don't think putting up a public message on Apple's website was appropriate legal action as it doesn't have any legs to it. He could've kept his mouth shut, had attorneys contact the Fed and tell them off privately. And then have the PR office make a statement. But no, he had to go out and play " hero ". If he wanted to play politics, he should leave the company and prepare himself to be destroyed in debates. He wouldn't make a good politician especially in the way he conducted himself in interviews.

If he got a search warrant by the FBI, he should be professional about it. Do I agree that the FBI should be assisted on such cases as this? Yes. Do I agree that the Fed should have complete access to the code? Of course not. But to say they don't have a back door when they probably do could cost him his job. And it might if he pushes too hard.

I personally think Apple has the technical means to access the information. After all, they CREATED the damn thing. I think this was designed in the beginning so they don't get their hands " dirty " in the process, almost if it's pre-absolving them of anything that might happen.

And if Tim won't crack down, what happens if Williams becomes CEO? Would have have the backbone to do it? Something to think about.

This isn't a search warrant, which is the good thing. This is a court order directing Apple to do this. And with it being a court order, he (Apple) has 5 days to comply with it, or appeal it, or be held in contempt. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple appeals this, as they would have a ground to stand on.

This is less about politics than is about complying or appealing against a court order or existing law.

BL.

 

[AppleScruff1]

What the heck do the US gun laws have to do with Apple's protecting the privacy of its customers? I don't own a gun & never would. But, that has no relationship whatsoever to the issue at hand.

If the gov't is given a backdoor into iOS devices they will abuse it. And, criminals, terrorists, and other governments would eventually gain access to it. There are areas of the world where freedom of speech doesn't exist, and people would be persecuted simply because of the data on their phones. Apple may be an American company, but this is a worldwide issue that goes far beyond the privacy of US citizens. (Although, that privacy alone is reason enough for Apple's courageous response to the gov't.)

Apple's taken the correct stance, and I applaud them for it!

The right to keep and bear arms is quite relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[bradl]

The right to keep and bear arms is quite relevant to the topic at hand.

Not really. It's off topic to the thread, plus you aren't taking into account that the "arms" can fall under regulation, which it already does. The right to privacy and against self-incrimination is a different beast altogether, because you can't regulate privacy nor can you regulate incriminating yourself.

So please do not turn this into yet another 2A thread.

BL.

 

[HEK]

This is like saying that police forces should not be authorized to use guns because there are tons of cases of innocents being killed by rogue police men.

No it's saying police forces must be controlled by open disclosure, following the law, a free press to inform th populace. No amount of "here comes the bogey man" should negate the right for people to know, and excuse the police from doing criminal acts.

 

[kdarling]

FUD. Or are you one of those people that think people that claim tax deductions are unpatriotic?

Give me a break. There's no comparison.

Most of us, even while looking to maximize our deductions, do NOT go far out of our way to create shell companies around the world in extremely complex schemes to sidestep laws and avoid taxes.

Most of us also believe that we should all pay our fair share towards our country's support and infrastructure.

Which makes it even more ironic how many times Apple has depended on US government and court help.

Funny how when you assume someone is being purposely deceitful, you perceive them as purposely deceitful.

Baldimac, you know I like you, but good grief Tim Cook is infamous for telling the truth, but not the whole truth. He's a pro at it.

In fact, if we ever were in a protracted war, I'd want Apple to be in charge of propaganda!

 

[AppleScruff1]

Not really. It's off topic to the thread, plus you aren't taking into account that the "arms" can fall under regulation, which it already does. The right to privacy and against self-incrimination is a different beast altogether, because you can't regulate privacy nor can you regulate incriminating yourself.

So please do not turn this into yet another 2A thread.

BL.

If you are against the government being able to access your private information, then you should be for gun ownership.

 

[HEK]

If it's a four digit passcode like I suspect it is, they can just brute force it.

If this is the case they they are simply using this one case as leverage to get a backdoor into iOS, in which case they can shove it up their ****.

That's exactly what they are doing. Perfect case to sway public opinion on side of breaking encryption across the board. Once Apple creates the software to hack their own phone, just imagine the number of warrants to do so they will receive.

 

[bradl]

If you are against the government being able to access your private information, then you should be for gun ownership.

Gun ownership has absolutely NOTHING to do with the right to privacy. that does not mean that you need to have a gun to protect your privacy. Arms =/= only guns. False equivalence.

And, guns can still be regulated. privacy and freedom against self-incrimination can not.

BL.

 

[whsbuss]

Maybe someone could better enlighten me. The FBI does has a full iCloud backup of this iPhone albeit from Oct of last year and not the latest backup. But could they not load this backup on a 5C over and over again trying the passcode? Not sure this is possible.

 

[oneMadRssn]

The number one thing that you do not give away, is your capabilities. Once you do, you lose them.

I understand what you're saying, but it's very circular logic. They cannot provide evidence that spying is effective at preventing terrorism because doing so would interfere with their ability to prevent terrorism. Not only is skepticism in such a scenario reasonable, it's foolish not to be critical.

I can't provide evidence that my investment fund is making money because doing so would interfere with my ability to make money. And it's totally effective and definitely not a ponzi scheme. Ready to invest?

 

[HEK]

It's time for the POTUS to use his bully pulpit to reign in his out of control justice department. For the last seven years he has rarely shied away from putting himself right in the fray, and making public statements of advocacy on numerous subjects that weren't really in his instant domain. The former professor of constitutional law needs to step up and publicly denounce the overreach of the DOJ.

What say you, Mr. Obama? Your country's constitution is under attack. Will you defend it?

When he first ran for office I thought these excessive encroachments to the constitution would end. Not so. The justice department prosecutions have increased under Obama, not because they sneak it by him. On these matters he is out Bushing Bush.

 

[dk001]

Lots. You'd be shocked. Most people have no idea how many enemies we face, how hard others work to protect us from those enemies, and how much goes on behind the scenes so that ordinary folks can live their daily lives without fear.

I was in the military branch of NSA. Every single day there was information that was critical towards figuring out what was going to happen in the future. Every week there was a potential crisis that was only averted by having enough information. And that goes both ways, interestingly. For example, Warsaw Pact generals have said that if they had not known via spying, that NATO had zero offensive plans against them, then the Fall of the Berlin Wall would not have happened.

Listen up. Seventy years later, most people now know that a primary factor in winning WW-II was the higher than top secret work of electronic intercepters and code breakers. Without them, the war would've lasted years longer, and likely ended up with Germany having time to develop the Bomb along with intercontinental delivery methods, and that would've been A Really Bad Thing.

Strong encryption does not make us safer. It makes the job of those trying to protect us and keep us free to do what we want, much more difficult. Perhaps even impossible.



Normally I agree with Franklin that those who give up some essential freedom in return for security, deserve neither. But this is not such a case. It's a valid warrant and need, and there some way should be found to work it out.

Frankly, I'm okay with NSA getting that kind of power, but not the FBI. The FBI has a long history of actively misusing information on various internal groups. NSA has a long history of using information only to protect the country from outsiders. Yes, sometimes they want to collect lots of extra info to sift though, but NSA personnel are overwhelmingly freedom loving people and don't care what people are doing in their personal lives. It's not what their purpose is. They're not directed internally.

Perhaps we need a new organization, one that is overseen by both intelligence and civilian personnel, with strict rules known to all employees, Congressional oversight and court approvals per device intrusion request. Oh wait, that's what NSA already is.

While I agree in part, you are missing something I deal with on a daily basis, this is not longer, from a corporate standpoint, just the USA. It is global. All actions, changes and perceptions no longer stop at the border. Based on past practice by the NSA and other alphabet groups, my trust level is at an all time low. This warrant isn't about what's on the phone, it's more about setting a precedent that can be leveraged for future events. Give the bloody device to the NSA and other groups (even collegiate level) and let them find a way to garner the information. Getting Apple to play CSI/Police Officer is not the way.

One other aspect, no matter the outcome IF Apple built what the FBI wanted, if the information on "how" ended up in the wrong hands the US Government doesn't care. They are not financially or legally liable. I would best describe them (FBI) as "selfishly focused".
[doublepost=1455750861][/doublepost]

I've heard in another forum that someone mentioned that the Russians already know how to hack into the iOS platform, so clearly #2 would be right. It's certainly not the most secure OS. It's good but not perfectly solid.

For Apple to make a claim that they don't have a backdoor, they would have to prove it to the Feds that they don't, otherwise if they really did in contrary to what Tim said, that's perjury.

edit: If the Russians already figured it out, they would've gone to them, but of course in a compromise that has to be made.

Hacking into and breaking the encryption of the data on the hacked device are two different things.

 

[ninaco]

The right to keep and bear arms is quite relevant to the topic at hand.

The right to bear arms and the right to privacy are completely separate issues. Bringing in gun control is an absurd tangent.

 

[HEK]

The problem with a lot of folks comments here is that they are apparently under the impression that Apple is being asked (and has the capability) to provide the data from one specific device. What is actually happening (based on my reading) is that Apple presently has no way for themselves or the FBI to do that. What the court order is demanding is that Apple engineer a new version of iOS (presumably to be reimbursed by the government) that would bypass the limit on password guessing so the FBI can employ a brute force attack on this phone.

The issue isn't whether Apple supports accessing the data on this particular phone, but they are being told by the government that they must develop a backdoor solution that could be deployed against any iPhone. Their concerns, I believe, are that once that is done there is no way to "put the genie back in the bottle" and the US government would have a way to access any iPhone in the future. Furthermore, given all of the recent data breaches on government IT, the concern is that tool would be potentially compromised to criminal elements which would then render iOS security completely void.

This is a very thorny philosophical issue - while I personally support virtually any means necessary to extract information from a known criminal/terrorist to save innocent lives, it is a delicate balance when that becomes a flagrant abuse of the very civil liberties that our country is based upon.

I object to the FBI receiving a universal master key to all iPhones, not because I'm opposed to spying on these particular terrorists, but because there is absolutely no doubt (after the Snowden leaks) that the government would use this to spy on US citizens for a wide range of self serving reasons under the cover of the FISA "secret court".

I personally doubt that the FBI really thinks there is much if any actionable intelligence on that phone - I think they are using this as a vehicle to gain universal access to iOS devices. The fact that Apple was not permitted to attend or testify at the court hearing tends to validate my suspicion. This is not about preventing related attacks by known associates of the San Bernadino shooters, but about gaining access to a platform and establishing a precedent that the government can force a private corporation to produce a product/technology that does not benefit the corporation.

This is not any different than the federal government coming to an individual and forcing them to develop something the government wants. This is fundamentally different than serving a warrant or subpoena to acquire an item or information that already exists. That, and the potential wholesale breach of personal privacy, is the real issue here - not whether Apple wants to aid the investigation of a known terrorist.

If code is written by Apple to backdoor their phone it WILL FALL INTO BEING ABUSED. Only a matter of when and by who. By not having such code Apple is ensuring all of our constitutional rights. The new bogey man is terrorism, used to be the USSR. Same old story, just give up some of your rights, trust us, we will keep you safe. Only government I trust is one that is open to the press and the people. More secrets mean more chances of abuse.
[doublepost=1455751275][/doublepost]

CNBC has a poll up on this. 50-50 split. This is no longer just a theoretical debate on privacy and security. And if the media (and politicians) is able to spin this as Apple siding with terrorists then I don't see how Apple wins in the court of public opinion. Is this a hill Tim Cook is willing to die on?

Many patriots have done so before. Give up your freedom, we will keep you safe.......Stalin, Hitler, Musilini, Kim Jun Il. Keeping our freedoms and bill of rights is the most active thing you can do to fight terrorism.

 

[whsbuss]

If code is written by Apple to backdoor their phone it WILL FALL INTO BEING ABUSED. Only a matter of when and by who. By not having such code Apple is ensuring all of our constitutional rights. The new bogey man is terrorism, used to be the USSR. Same old story, just give up some of your rights, trust us, we will keep you safe. Only government I trust is one that is open to the press and the people. More secrets mean more chances of abuse.
[doublepost=1455751275][/doublepost]
Many patriots have done so before. Give up your freedom, we will keep you safe.......Stalin, Hitler, Musilini, Kim Jun Il. Keeping our freedoms and bill of rights is the most active thing you can do to fight terrorism.

I believe someone famously said, 'giving up liberty for security guarantees both will be lost'.... or something like that.

 

[HEK]

The number one thing that you do not give away, is your capabilities. Once you do, you lose them.



Yet even our Founding Fathers depended on spying to help win the Revolutionary War.

No one's talking about mass targeted spying on the population, or giving up basic freedoms. Those are strawmen arguments.

In Apple's case, the topic is a valid warrant and how to fulfill it.



The Snowden documents showed no such thing. What they did show was that Congress (i.e. the People) was okay with overriding the NSA charter... which is about targeting foreign nationals... and allowing it to collect in-country messaging that went outside the country.



I'm with you, except for the Free Press part as far as international spying goes.

The court order (correction) is asking for Apple to create software to destroy the encryption they build into the phone. Apple has already assisted the FBI with what they have available. Writing code to backdoor security is a whole other issue and should be shut down by the Supreme Court. The government selected this case expressly because negotiations with Apple to create a backdoor have been fruitless. You honestly think after all this time that any Intel on the phone isn't a dead end by now.

And Snowden documents revealed a whole lot more spying on US nationals. Let me guess who gets to decide if US emails and calls are intercepted. NSA, rubber stamp FISA judge, yeah right I feel real safe and secure now. The whole terrorism threat is way overblown to gain control, restrict rights, and spend my tax dollars making contractors rich. Every time test are tried getting devices past TSA 95% of time they fail to stop it. You want to stop threats start multi level profiling at airports. Works great for Isreal. Lot cheaper and more effective too.

So a few people are killed by terrorists. If I could show you a way to save 40,000 US lives a year, would you help enact it? I mean if that's the criteria, saving lives, you would jump at it right.

Set all vehicles to go no faster than 20 mph. Instant saving of lives. But lives are the talking point, not the reality. Reality is power/money.

 

[Mac2me]

Lots. You'd be shocked. Most people have no idea how many enemies we face, how hard others work to protect us from those enemies, and how much goes on behind the scenes so that ordinary folks can live their daily lives without fear.

I was in the military branch of NSA. Every single day there was information that was critical towards figuring out what was going to happen in the future. Every week there was a potential crisis that was only averted by having enough information. And that goes both ways, interestingly. For example, Warsaw Pact generals have said that if they had not known via spying, that NATO had zero offensive plans against them, then the Fall of the Berlin Wall would not have happened.

Listen up. Seventy years later, most people now know that a primary factor in winning WW-II was the higher than top secret work of electronic intercepters and code breakers. Without them, the war would've lasted years longer, and likely ended up with Germany having time to develop the Bomb along with intercontinental delivery methods, and that would've been A Really Bad Thing.

Strong encryption does not make us safer. It makes the job of those trying to protect us and keep us free to do what we want, much more difficult. Perhaps even impossible.



Normally I agree with Franklin that those who give up some essential freedom in return for security, deserve neither. But this is not such a case. It's a valid warrant and need, and there some way should be found to work it out.

Frankly, I'm okay with NSA getting that kind of power, but not the FBI. The FBI has a long history of actively misusing information on various internal groups. NSA has a long history of using information only to protect the country from outsiders. Yes, sometimes they want to collect lots of extra info to sift though, but NSA personnel are overwhelmingly freedom loving people and don't care what people are doing in their personal lives. It's not what their purpose is. They're not directed internally.

Perhaps we need a new organization, one that is overseen by both intelligence and civilian personnel, with strict rules known to all employees, Congressional oversight and court approvals per device intrusion request. Oh wait, that's what NSA already is.

Well Snowden managed to seemingly easy slip into NSA and stole a ton of stuff so that alone seems to raise a huge red flag about feeling confident the NSA or anyone else can maintain info. Thought I read that personnel info on many high level employees at various institutions had been stolen recently. Have to wonder what purpose was behind it, blackmail or what? It's not just this group like SB that we need to be concerned about.

On the comment in the first portion of your response about "strong encryption doesn't make us safer" all I can say is both my husband and I (because we live in California and they are required to do so) have been notified of probably half a dozen times already that our credit card info (both in store and online transactions) have been stolen. My husband has a pin and chip card and the retailers still don't use it. My credit card company still hasn't adopted Apple Pay. With all the info that's been stolen from people I'm just waiting for some massive attack on our financial/corporate structures and see the result of that. There are many ways to attack the people of the world these days. Besides compromising our phone and device encryption doesn't mean they won't just use some other means of communicating plans but creating a backdoor could put the rest of us for risk from others with intent to destroy our financial fabric.

 

[caligurl]

Interesting. Snowden tweeted: This is the most important tech case in a decade. Silence means @google picked a side, but it's not the public's.