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

[bradl]

The warrant 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 sestroy security is a whole mother issue and should be shut down by the Supreme Court.

I know what you are meaning, but for clarity's sake, this isn't a warrant. This is an order by the court, which Apple does not have to comply with. Apple can appeal the court order, or be held in contempt of court. That does not force Apple to do what the FBI is asking.

BL.

 

[caligurl]

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. It's not just this group we need to be concerned about.

I don't trust the government to keep my information secure AT ALL. They've already allowed it (along with many, many other's) to be retrieved by the Chinese in the OPM hacks (plural).

 

[dk001]

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.

When you look at this from both sides you get what a potential minefield this is.

• If Apple says it doesn't have a way to get the data, how would you prove them wrong?
• If Apple built the "back door" the FBI requested via warrant, this set a precedent for everybody for all future requests.
• If Apple fights this and wins it set a precedent for all other US based corporations everywhere.
• If Apple builds this, what is the global impact?
• If Apple doesn't build this what is the global impact?
• If Apple builds this what is the financial impact at the consumer level local and global?
• If Apple doesn't build this what is the financial impact at the consumer level local and global?
• If....

This is a very ugly can of worms from all sides and this (FBI and Magistrate Judge) is absolutely the wrong playing venue. If for nothing else but getting into a much higher court, I have to agree with TC on this one.

 

[bradl]

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.

Google hasn't picked a side at all. Google saying nothing doesn't mean that they are conforming to or agreeing with the government. How about instead of assuming something, let Google make the call on where they stand, then assess that when they do.

BL.
[doublepost=1455752138][/doublepost]

When you look at this from both sides you get what a potential minefield this is.

• If Apple says it doesn't have a way to get the data, how would you prove them wrong?
• If Apple built the "back door" the FBI requested via warrant, this set a precedent for everybody for all future requests.
• If Apple fights this and wins it set a precedent for all other US based corporations everywhere.
• If Apple builds this, what is the global impact?
• If Apple doesn't build this what is the global impact?
• If Apple builds this what is the financial impact at the consumer level local and global?
• If Apple doesn't build this what is the financial impact at the consumer level local and global?
• If....

This is a very ugly can of worms from all sides and this (FBI and Magistrate Judge) is absolutely the wrong playing venue. If for nothing else but getting into a much higher court, I have to agree with TC on this one.

Don't get me wrong, as I completely agree with Cook on this as well. I just find it funny that some people are instantly go into panic mode any time the word 'terrorist' is uttered, and wants to feel safe by sacrificing other freedoms we have. Like said before, I don't feel like I need to pull out that certain US Postmaster General's quote yet, as we should all know it by now.

BL.

 

[jasonklee]

Phone metadata has never been sacred. Cook is wrong on one point. What is unprecedented is the smartphone, not the legalism. Access to telephonic data by court order is standard. Has been since 1979. Certainly, some have come out in support of Tim Cook and believe that the FBI's court order is an act of Orwellian overreach in power that could pave the way for some imagined draconian future in which nothing we capture on our personal devices is personally ours and our privacy is freely and openly shared with law enforcement and in ways we never imagined, in which case one must ask Is privacy then still...private? So maybe Cook is right. Maybe not. But maybe. But maybe not.

If there's one simple fact it's that, as we all know, George Washington used his Culper Ring to spy on the early settlers and pilfered meaningful intelligence from their smartphones. Just something to think about.

 

[whsbuss]

Google hasn't picked a side at all. Google saying nothing doesn't mean that they are conforming to or agreeing with the government. How about instead of assuming something, let Google make the call on where they stand, then assess that when they do.

BL.
[doublepost=1455752138][/doublepost]

Don't get me wrong, as I completely agree with Cook on this as well. I just find it funny that some people are instantly go into panic mode any time the word 'terrorist' is uttered, and wants to feel safe by sacrificing other freedoms we have. Like said before, I don't feel like I need to pull out that certain US Postmaster General's quote yet, as we should all know it by now.

BL.

Google keeps its data private? Really? How come after I do a search I get tons of related ads!

 

[nt5672]

That's a right? Where in the constitution would that be? Which amendment? We don't have a right to keep our phone safe from hackers. The phone manufacturers have included a feature to help ensure the data on our phone is secure, but it's not a right.

I'm pretty sure the right to privacy is there someplace, if you look hard enough. Just because the iPhone did not exist in 1776 does not mean that the concept was not a part of the founding of our country.

 

[bradl]

Google keeps its data private? Really? How come after I do a search I get tons of related ads!

I didn't say that.

What I'm saying is that because Google hasn't said anything doesn't mean that Google has sided with the government on this issue. The Snowden tweet is urging Google to stand with Apple on this, and nothing more. Let's wait to see what Google does say on this, and take it from there.

Or should we take it that from the same silence, that Facebook agrees with the government as well?

BL.

 

[whsbuss]

I didn't say that.

What I'm saying is that because Google hasn't said anything doesn't mean that Google has sided with the government on this issue. The Snowden tweet is urging Google to stand with Apple on this, and nothing more. Let's wait to see what Google does say on this, and take it from there.

Or should we take it that from the same silence, that Facebook agrees with the government as well?

BL.

I say bring it to the supreme court, 8 or 9 judges. Its really Congress' fault for not dealing with these issues and not Apple.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

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.

You are right but Founding Fathers fought against the people that are doing this.

 

[Mac2me]

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.

Had CNBC on this afternoon and it was pointed out by one of their guests that the FBI could have also done all this in Judge's chambers but didn't. So who is grandstanding here and trying to garner public opinion.

 

[Rigby]

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.

How do you know he hasn't done that? From the sound of the open letter, it seems they are preparing to challenge the court order.

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.

The feds are trying to use public opinion against Apple in the wake of the San Bernadino tragedy. Apple had little choice than to reply publicly and tell their side of the story. And I think they have done that in a nuanced and respectful way.

If he got a search warrant by the FBI, he should be professional about it.

Apple cannot get a search warrant because they are not in possession of the phone. What the court is asking of them is to develop a modified version of their product that weakens the protections against brute force attacks.

I personally think Apple has the technical means to access the information. After all, they CREATED the damn thing.

They do not, since the phone is encrypted using a key that is derived from the user's passcode which Apple doesn't know.

 

[bradl]

I say bring it to the supreme court, 8 or 9 judges. Its really Congress' fault for not dealing with these issues and not Apple.

And there is where we have the conundrum. It is more than likely that this will head to SCOTUS, assuming that Apple appeals the court order. And if they do, SCOTUS just lost the biggest proponent of the 4th Amendment, in Scalia.

BL.

 

[HEK]

Google keeps its data private? Really? How come after I do a search I get tons of related ads!

Because they sell your private data they gather. That's how they make their money. Don't use google apps, and search and turn off iAds, you will be pleasingly surprised how that cuts down on ads. Oh along with turning on iPhone content blocking. My motto , the less they know, the better I like it.

 

[CSpackler]

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.

Yes, like heart disease, cancer and drunk driving, which kill millions of Americans per year. Terrorism deaths on US soil in the past ten years number in the hundreds. If the goal of the NSA is to keep Americans safe, they are barking up the wrong tree. Statistically, we are much more likely to meet our maker by driving on a Saturday night than we are by a terrorist attack.

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.

I always thought it was that we scared the ever-living daylights out of the world by becoming the only country ever to use atomic weapons on civilians and dropping not one, but two atomic bombs on Japan, with plans for more had they not immediately cried uncle.

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.

Digital information transfer is what has made possible the technological advancements of the past 25 years. Strong encryption allows for its safe transfer. If that information is of a personal nature, yes, absolutely it makes us safer. Having this information become available to the highest bidder through encryption backdoors is a real threat. (What, in my opinion, is not, is the overhyped and ballyhooed terrorism theme that's used by the media to sell advertising and perpetual war to the huddled masses, and which certain bloated, leviathan governmental agencies leverage to stay relevant.)

We become better humans through knowledge and wisdom, and advancement of technology to those noble ends helps to achieve long-term success. We become worse through coercion and violence, and fear used to advance those degenerate goals devolves us. You tell me, which side is the FBI and NSA on, and which side is Apple?

 

[HEK]

I know what you are meaning, but for clarity's sake, this isn't a warrant. This is an order by the court, which Apple does not have to comply with. Apple can appeal the court order, or be held in contempt of court. That does not force Apple to do what the FBI is asking.

BL.

Thanks stand corrected yes court order. They have a few days to reply then the process starts in Ernest. Contempt of court, lawyers filing, going for appeals to higher court. Supreme Court here we come. FBI and justice department were looking for perfect case to push the backdoor agenda. The meetings, hearings that have happened over last year or so have not born fruit. So this next step. Use the terrorism card to push public opinion. Shame Apple building the new campus. Could have more easily shuddered doors and moved overseas. Majority of their sales are now outside US. All the manufacturing is overseas.

 

[ColdShadow]

Bravo Apple.
I support them on this 100%

 

[Rigby]

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

They have a duty to report to congressional oversight committees. And even there they lied and exaggerated. For example, the NSA reported hugely inflated numbers for terror plots that supposedly had been disrupted by the vast phone metadata collection program that they were running for years; in the end, it turned out that "at most" a single plot might have been disrupted.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/us-senate-intelligence-officials-nsa

 

[AppleScruff1]

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

Of course it is, you're only for rights that you care about.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

I'm pretty sure the right to privacy is there someplace, if you look hard enough. Just because the iPhone did not exist in 1776 does not mean that the concept was not a part of the founding of our country.

Well, when you're sure, come back with more concrete information. What you have is an expectation of privacy. A right is a legal privilege you get for being a citizen of the United States. People think they have all sorts of rights...the right to drive a car, etc. They aren't rights at all.

Here's some interesting reading about privacy and the constitution if you're at all interested.

 

[HEK]

Had CNBC on this afternoon and it was pointed out by one of their guests that the FBI could have also done all this in Judge's chambers but didn't. So who is grandstanding here and trying to garner public opinion.

Exactly, the government did the behind the door negotiations with Tim several times in last year. But he wouldn't budge. Seems that some people understand constitution better than those sworn to uphold it. Fourth amendment definitely applies here.

 

[Mac2me]

Anytime you have people trying to get you to do things not in your complete best interest due to fear mongering, you should step back and rethink. We were sold WMD with it, ended up being lied to about it, and a war resulted that who knows is said to have fostered many of the things we are seeing today.

 

[TheSlush]

Very proud of Tim and proud to be an Apple customer and fan today.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

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.

So if, as you say, "fixes" cannot be made retroactive to existing phones, then all iPhones sold up to today are safe and we have nothing to worry about. Going forward, say the iPhone 7 has a "redesigned" iOS in it, it could be redesigned so (for instance) Apple could develop a secure fob that plugs into the iPhone lightning port. When the phone detects the fob (which only Apple has), it unlocks, or at least disables the 10 try passcode lock, allowing access to the iPhone.

The technology is there to do what we need without it being exploited. iOS code itself is more secured that Fort Knox!

 

[Sanlitun]

I don't see how this is just either a marketing stance or misinformation.

We know from Snowden that Apple is complicit in PRISM and provides information (I assume primarily real time iMessage data) to governments.

The phones themselves can be imaged and hacked by the higher tier intelligence services. Don't believe they can't. Although for the most part this is not necessary as everything is cached on Apple's servers. A real terrorist is not using a smart phone anyways.

The headline I'm waiting for is where Apple is sued by some guy who's kids were killed in a drone strike that was called in based on information illegally taken in a warrantless search and provided to a lifestyle assessment algorithm. It's only a matter of time.