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

[HEK]

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.

Interesting how majority of 911 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, non from Iraq. Amazing how Saddam was the biggest despot against terrorists, and kept Iran in check. Amazing how much money was expended and how many US firms made out like bandits, Haliberton. Amazing how the largest increase in government has been "the fight against terrorism". Follow the money, it's along that path the truth often lies. Best way to get general populace to go along, is fear mongering.

Look at the fear mongering about USSR in the fifties, missed gap, bomber gap, bomb gap. People so easily forget that all the fear was totally unjustified. There was no gaps, we were ahead all of the time. But boy did we spend on weapons systems. Follow the money.

 

[bradl]

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

No. He's absolutely correct. Gun rights has absolutely NOTHING to do with this issue.

You do realize that at a point 20 - 25 years ago, that cryptography was severely restricted as it was considered ARMS?

BL.

 

[HEK]

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!

Yeah right and we have the bomb and it will be years before other side develops it. Once genie is out of the bottle, it show it can be done, and their are enough smart people to enhance and alter both individuals and countries. As some one pointed out, for all their smarts NSA couldn't prevent Snowden from taking all those documents. So sure, write some code to break privacy, it would never be altered, abused, stolen, trust me.......

 

[inhalexhale1]

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.

OK, but this goes back to my problem with your point on "investigate it the old fashioned way". It's not possible anymore. So the idea that either everyone's privacy is dead, or we have total inability to track mass murderers on these devices is unacceptable. And IMO it's on Apple, and these other tech giants that make billions in America, to figure out how to protect Joe America while letting the FBI do its job.

 

[apolloa]

I'm sure if there was something on the phone that proved him innocent I bet he would volunteer to unlock his phone.

The guy who's phone it was is dead, the Police shot him as I understand. The FBI want access as they believe it is a goldmine of ISIL information, the kind of information that saves American lives.

 

[Binarymix]

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!

You do not understand technology at all it seems. A Fob, a key hash, it's all the same.

To allow any of these is to allow a circumvention of the encryption, which means no iPhone is secure after that point.

Once there is a weak point in the encryption, the doors are open to anyone to hack, or reverse engineer the encryption through the weak point (weak point being a backdoor, or as you call it a secure fob).


*I have worked in the hotel lock industry, I know about encryption and it's inherent weaknesses, which are nowhere near the level Apple or the Gov't is using.

 

[Rogifan]

So is the FBI asking Apple to develop special software that it (the FBI) would have possession of? If not, can't they hand over the phone to Apple, have Apple do whatever needed to get data off the phone and then destroy the phone? In that situation how would the FBI have access to this special software? Is Apple just using this case to have congress/supreme court rule once and for all? I'm assuming if the court orders Apple to do this and appeals are not successful they'll have no choice but to do it? Or is it something Tim Cook would go to jail over?

You do not understand technology at all it seems. A Fob, a key hash, it's all the same.

To allow any of these is to allow a circumvention of the encryption, which means no iPhone is secure after that point.

Once there is a weak point in the encryption, the doors are open to anyone to hack, or reverse engineer the encryption through the weak point (weak point being a backdoor, or as you call it a secure fob).

But this is something specific to one phone that could be destroyed once this process is complete. Is Cook saying he's concerned someone is going to hack into Apple's systems to get access to this special FW? Or is he saying no matter the circumstance Apple should never be forced to unlock someone's iPhone (provided there's a way for them to do it)? If it's a court order, if someone has a warrant can Apple really refuse?

 

[Jess13]

This was good. The San Bernardino attack was the fault of G.W. Bush and Barack H. Obama, and any future terrorist attacks in the U.S. also are the fault of G.W. Bush and Barack H. Obama:

​

Coincidentally: this comment is on page 28, and it relates to the 28 Pages.

 

[HEK]

The guy who's phone it was is dead, the Police shot him as I understand. The FBI want access as they believe it is a goldmine of ISIL information, the kind of information that saves American lives.

They are guessing as to what is or is not on the phone. There is not a shred of evidence other than it was a phone he used. The real evidence was on the other two cell phones they smashed and the hard drive they removed from computer and disappeared before they killed those people. If there was anything on this phone, any investigator worth his salt, would know those leads are dead cold by now.

They are using this phone and case to further the government efforts to force Apple into creating a backdoor into their iPhones. Apple has resisted all persuasion to this point sighting privacy as a top concern for them. Before ios8 there was a way into iPhones. Apple purposely removed that from ios8 onward. Before that PRISM was a collaboration to access iPhone information. When Snowden revealed this in documents he released Apple decided to clean up their act. So the former backdoor was closed. Government has been trying to find way back in ever since.

It's not all that hard to piece together, the info is out there. Put the bits and pieces together, use a dash of imagination to deduce motives and it's not hard to comprehend. The government is even willing to fund the effort to backdoor the iOS software. It's not about the San Bernadino terrorists, it's all about getting Apple to write a backdoor into the phone for future use. At present Apple can truthfully say there is no way for them to get into the iPhone. It appears that no government agency so far has been able to crack getting into iPhones with ios8 and ios9.

 

[neutralguy]

While I understand hat we shouldn't be sacrificing our freedom for this, but I feel like it's an marketing stunt. We know that Apple can never win this against the law. Here is a situation: your kid is kidnapped. The cops find the kidnapper and the guy dies in the encounter. Cops think that if they can unlock the phone, there is a possibility that they can find the visited locations from the phone. Apple won't do it. As a parent whom would you support? I am not trying to be against Apple. I am just giving another practical situation. I think FBI is just asking for one phone. Apple can write a code specific to that phone only.

 

[HEK]

So is the FBI asking Apple to develop special software that it (the FBI) would have possession of? If not, can't they hand over the phone to Apple, have Apple do whatever needed to get data off the phone and then destroy the phone? In that situation how would the FBI have access to this special software? Is Apple just using this case to have congress/supreme court rule once and for all? I'm assuming if the court orders Apple to do this and appeals are not successful they'll have no choice but to do it? Or is it something Tim Cook would go to jail over?

Once Apple creates a backdoor software, it exists. The government will know it exists, and the court orders won't stop coming. Apple can't even legally acknowledge they have received a court order from FISA court. It's all hidden "for our safety".

It's not about this case, it's about creating a backdoor that can be used in future on anyone's iPhone. He won't go to jail over it, who is to say if forced to that they would be successful? Maybe the back door would accidentally brick the phone and erase everything. Whoops, so sorry we tried, but we were so good at writing the original code even we couldn't defeat it.

 

[Binarymix]

So is the FBI asking Apple to develop special software that it (the FBI) would have possession of? If not, can't they hand over the phone to Apple, have Apple do whatever needed to get data off the phone and then destroy the phone? In that situation how would the FBI have access to this special software? Is Apple just using this case to have congress/supreme court rule once and for all? I'm assuming if the court orders Apple to do this and appeals are not successful they'll have no choice but to do it? Or is it something Tim Cook would go to jail over?



But this is something specific to one phone that could be destroyed once this process is complete. Is Cook saying he's concerned someone is going to hack into Apple's systems to get access to this special FW? Or is he saying no matter the circumstance Apple should never be forced to unlock someone's iPhone (provided there's a way for them to do it)? If it's a court order, if someone has a warrant can Apple really refuse?

From what I understand, the FBI is asking Apple to create something that they realistically cannot, but also will not create - not for current phones anyways, that use the secure enclave.

The 5C might be able to be opened up (it doesn't have a secure enclave) with effort, but this just leads to precedence to force apple to create a backdoor for all current and future iPhones, which seem to be impenetrable.

On top of all this - Apple has complied with their requests and given them everything they had in the cloud, what more can they get from the phone?

 

[Rogifan]

Once Apple creates a backdoor software, it exists. The government will know it exists, and the court orders won't stop coming. Apple can't even legally acknowledge they have received a court order from FISA court. It's all hidden "for our safety".

It's not about this case, it's about creating a backdoor that can be used in future on anyone's iPhone. He won't go to jail over it, who is to say if forced to that they would be successful? Maybe the back door would accidentally brick the phone and erase everything. Whoops, so sorry we tried, but we were so good at writing the original code even we couldn't defeat it.

From what I understand, the FBI is asking Apple to create something that they realistically cannot, but also will not create - not for current phones anyways, that use the secure enclave.

The 5C might be able to be opened up (it doesn't have a secure enclave) with effort, but this just leads to precedence to force apple to create a backdoor for all current and future iPhones, which seem to be impenetrable.

On top of all this - Apple has complied with their requests and given them everything they had in the cloud, what more can they get from the phone?

I personally don't think this is Apple's decision to make. Need to follow the Constitution. But if there's a proper court order/warrant and Apple can comply why should they be able to refuse to comply?

 

[thewap]

So now it's come down to Apple defending our rights..

I guess the feds are only there to warn us of the boggie men..- that they create.

 

[oldhifi]

and do you really believe the gov does not have hackers that could open this phone ?

 

[Binarymix]

and do you really believe the gov does not have hackers that could open this phone ?

They most likely do, in this specific iPhones case.

They are trying to put the onus on apple, and set precedent for backdoors with new iOS versions.

THAT is what is scary about this whole situation, and THAT is why I agree with Apples stance.

 

[HEK]

While I understand hat we shouldn't be sacrificing our freedom for this, but I feel like it's an marketing stunt. We know that Apple can never win this against the law. Here is a situation: your kid is kidnapped. The cops find the kidnapper and the guy dies in the encounter. Cops think that if they can unlock the phone, there is a possibility that they can find the visited locations from the phone. Apple won't do it. As a parent whom would you support? I am not trying to be against Apple. I am just giving another practical situation. I think FBI is just asking for one phone. Apple can write a code specific to that phone only.

No they can't. My ios9 is same as yours. Crack one you crack em all. It is a marketing stunt perpetrated by FBI for government purposes to have Apple create the back door they wanted since Ios8. San Bernadino iphone is perfect as it will garner sympathy from public. With time that has passed don't believe any actionable Intel is on the phone. All dead ends by now. Real intell was on the two phone they crushed and the hard drive they disposed of. They went to all that trouble and left the iPhone intact? Go ahead, convince me of that.
[doublepost=1455758795][/doublepost]

and do you really believe the gov does not have hackers that could open this phone ?

Apparently not, or why would they need apple's help. They would have already done it.

 

[Binarymix]

What is the point in having any security/encryption, if eventually through nefarious means, anyone can have access to your personal data?

 

[HEK]

So now it's come down to Apple defending our rights..

I guess the feds are only there to warn us of the boggie men..- that they create.

The boogie man they greatly inflate to further their agendas. The amount of infrastructure and money spent to date is enormous in relation to lives saved. If you think those that want to encrypt their messages need Apple to do it, you are dead wrong. There are a number of apps that are secure for communication, have nothing to do with Apple. If you want to leave your iPhone open, no fingerprint or lock code, you are free to do so. I don't trust hackers, foreign governments, our government. I trust that Apple has tried to provide me a phone that is as secure as they can make it. I wish I could trust big brother, but I have been lied too to many times in past. WMD my ass, government knew they were working on single source information and even leaked things to press to bolster their case. For which they arrest others for doing the same. Even lied to Colin Powell so he would convince UN.

 

[Rogifan]

What is the point in having any security/encryption, if eventually through nefarious means, anyone can have access to your personal data?

So a court order is nefarious?

 

[HEK]

I personally don't think this is Apple's decision to make. Need to follow the Constitution. But if there's a proper court order/warrant and Apple can comply why should they be able to refuse to comply?

Because there are times when apparently lawful laws and orders they produce are in fact against people's inalienable rights, and should be resisted. The whole point this country was founded on by revolutionary terrorists defying lawful orders of the crown.

 

[Binarymix]

So a court order is nefarious?

It may not be, if you believe the government is actually out for your best interests.

Actually what I meant is if there is a circumvention in place and nefarious agencies take advantage of that.

At home, or abroad.

 

[HEK]

So a court order is nefarious?

It is when the agenda is so clearly apparent. Government wants a backdoor created in iPhone software. This time, a company and an individual had the guts to stand up against it. Unlike AT&T, Verizon, Google, yahoo, and even Apple some years back.

 

[dk001]

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.

So agree. The new US Government definition of terrorist can legally be applied in far more venues than what used to be labeled a terrorist. Legalistic nightmare.

Verge has a good timeline and topic update on this whole piece.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/17/11036306/apple-fbi-iphone-encryption-backdoor-tim-cook
[doublepost=1455760091][/doublepost]

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.

Question: is a smartphone a telephone with computer functionality or a hand held computer than can access telecommunications?

For me it's the latter.
[doublepost=1455760176][/doublepost]

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.

That leads to the question: what is the FBI really after and who is driving it?

 

[Mac2me]

I personally don't think this is Apple's decision to make. Need to follow the Constitution. But if there's a proper court order/warrant and Apple can comply why should they be able to refuse to comply?

Where in the Constitution does it say you need to go beyond providing what you have?

From legal commentary I heard on CNBC about this, they are not asking for Apple to turn over info they have. As others have said that supposedly was already done so Apple has complied. What differentiates this is that instead they are asking Apple, an American company, to "create" something for them that will break their product for them. Something that goes against all Apple's years of encryption protection research. The guy was saying this is just unprecedented. And I think scary. Turning over what you can under Warrant by Court Order as a service provider is one thing, trying to tell you to manufacture something else is quite another. I initially was thinking well why not but the more I read about it and what they were actually asking for has made me think this is not the right approach.