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

[Rogifan]

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.

So what do you think should happen? Should Tim Cook go to jail? Or should the government just say OK Apple you win? I find it amusing how many normally liberal people are siding with a public corporation over the government.

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.

All I'm saying is this isn't Apple's decision to make. The Supreme Court or Congress needs to decide, not private corporations.

 

[RadioGaGa1984]

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Ben Franklin

 

[AFDoc]

How did a search warrant to enter your house and go through your belongings ever become legal then? I don't see people marching in DC over the ability of the police to just break into your house whenever they want to go through your things!

Oh, wait...they don't because they need just cause and approval from a judge.

Somehow, I can't see the difference here...
[doublepost=1455724478][/doublepost]

Unfortunately, in today's world many more innocent people will die because the terrorists get to enjoy our "freedom" including access to our technology to ensure their communications are secure.

So be it... there is a price to being free... sometimes that is bad people do bad things and good people die. What they are asking Apple to do isn't a simple "search warrant for a house" as you put it.... they want apple to circumvent their own security to gain access to a phone. That's basically saying a warrant to search your house is good for all houses if apple does that.

 

[dk001]

Wanted to get this and reacquaint myself on the current definition of "terrorist".
I was appalled at the number of definitions. I appended two that seem to get the predominate usage.

FBI Version:
Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code
18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:
"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

• Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
• Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).

US Code (pulled from Cornell University Law School)
18 U.S. Code 2331 - Definitions
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

As used in this chapter—
(1)the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A)involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2)the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(3)the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4)the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A)declared war;
(B)armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C)armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(5)the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
[doublepost=1455760990][/doublepost]

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.

Heck, just look what Homeland Security turned into. Monolithic would be an understatement.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

The FBI and the US government led by President Obama are the real terrorists. David Cameron is not far behind.

 

[AFDoc]

It's not any phone. It's a specific phone suspected to contain incriminating evidence on it. I couldn't give a crap about the American constitution. I just have a view about what I consider to be morally right and morally wrong.

No... I guess you didn't read what Tim said.... That's not my fault.

As far as you not caring about our Constitution that's all well and good.....Of course your monarchy/country/commonwealth what ever you choose to call yoursleves certainly benefited from that Constitution (assuming you are from the UK).... it is what allowed us to declare war on Nazi Germany and come save your (ancestors depending on your age) sorry butts from becoming Northern Germany......

 

[dk001]

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.......

"Two can keep a secret if one is dead" - unknown

 

[jasonklee]

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

For me it's the latter.

Personally, I and I'm sure Apple would agree an iPhone is really a computer with telephonic features. (I believe there's a story how the iPhone could've been called the Telepod, Mobi, Tripod, or...iPad.)

Either way, while iPhones contain infinitely more personal data than your dad's fliphone, if it contains telephonic metadata, law enforcement can have access by simple subpeona. The law is nothing new. What's unprecedented here is the smartphone itself. Although, it seems that the FBI asking Apple to create a backdoor is a lot more complex than mere access to metadata and could encroach civil liberties and security.

"Two can keep a secret if one is dead" - unknown

Could've sworn that quote is attributed to Ben Franklin. Unless it's another false attribution like the one about forfeiting freedom for security.

 

[Mac2me]

....All I'm saying is this isn't Apple's decision to make. The Supreme Court or Congress needs to decide, not private corporations.

OK got you. If it plays out that way, do you think people/corporations will stand for essentially being coerced to do something that goes against their personal or corporate beliefs? Doesn't this kind of come down to that since Apple doesn't have the info they seek?

Boy I woke up this morning hearing about all of this and had no idea I was going to be plunged into all this discourse.

 

[AFDoc]

I remain astonished that people care about the privacy of their cat photos more than the ability to maintain a fair and balanced society.

You see I believe them NOT being able to force a company to spy on its consumers maintains a fair and balanced society... I guess by some of the responses here you can see who actually had the guts to man up and put their life on the line to defend something as important as the Constitution and the freedom it provides (or what ever your own personal country has that makes you free and ensures that freedom)

 

[dk001]

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?

Apple said what the FBI wants does not exist and have serious concerns over trying to develop something like what is being asked. We have to wait and see what the legal response from Apple is. I would imagine that either is will be appealed to the next court or will be dropped by the FBI.
Judge Prym is not a technology informed magistrate. At least not at this level. She granted the warrant. I would be interested what her justification was... If she was at all informed of the mess in NY she knew this would be the initial outcome.

 

[Joesmith13245]

Why does the FBI need Apple for this request? I'm sure there are some iOS developers that have left Apple they could hire to get this done.

 

[HEK]

[doublepost=1455760176][/doublepost]

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

NSA, CIA, Defense Department, justice Department, Homeland security. Lest you forget there have been hearings, and visits trying to persuade Tim Cook to create a back door into the ios8/9 operating system. Apple with the encorporation of the secure enclave on a chip has been able to prevent third parties including NSA from hacking the current iPhones. FBI is pushing this at behest of the Obama administration. This is the perfect test case to pressure Apple into destroying the privacy the have incorporated. You believe it's above the FBI to pull at people's heartstrings. Even Apple can no longer access your iPhone because of how the physical and software has been redesigned to prevent backdoor attacks.

Apple would be able to rewrite the iOS software to allow a backdoor entrance but Tim Cook has steadfastly resisted the governments pushes so far. The San Bernadino iPhone case was considered ideal next step to push Apple legally to do so. Obviously because of the physical and secure enclave setup no government agency can get at the phone now. Otherwise all this court order would not be necessary. We would never have heard any more about thrip hone in question as it dropped behind veil of national security. Because it is not only software secure, but requires fingerprint or passcode which is not accessible by outside software a rewrite is needed.

If Apple changes the software incorporating a backdoor then from that point on any iPhone could be compromised by loading that software. Further if a back door is created other hackers, governments, individuals could reverse engineer this software doing further destruction to the security.

Our government has a policy of not negotiating with hostage takers. Even if lives are lost. I do feel remorse, as does our government for lives lost. But I am of the opinion that the security of over 700 million iPhone users takes presidence over the small number of victims this security might cause. Remember, these phones are in hands of people in counties that have governments that have no qualms about arresting and detaining people without council, without a hearing before a judge, for an unspecified time. Simply because they are declared enemy combatants, enemies of the state. And that's just in US, imagine China.

So I will always vote on side of security, no back doors for anyone.

 

[Rogifan]

OK got you. If it plays out that way, do you think people/corporations will stand for essentially being coerced to do something that goes against their personal or corporate beliefs? Doesn't this kind of come down to that since Apple doesn't have the info they seek?

Boy I woke up this morning hearing about all of this and had no idea I was going to be plunged into all this discourse.

I don't know how it will end up. At the presidential town hall tonight Marco Rubio pretty much sided with Apple on not providing a backdoor but also said there could be valuable information on this terrorists phone. He said government needs to work with tech companies on the best way forward. That to me seems the best solution.

http://www.snappytv.com/snaps/about-anderson-cooper-360-on-cnngo_cw--10

 

[HEK]

Apple said what the FBI wants does not exist and have serious concerns over trying to develop something like what is being asked. We have to wait and see what the legal response from Apple is. I would imagine that either is will be appealed to the next court or will be dropped by the FBI.
Judge Prym is not a technology informed magistrate. At least not at this level. She granted the warrant. I would be interested what her justification was... If she was at all informed of the mess in NY she knew this would be the initial outcome.

Another judge more savvy probably was tried and refused.

 

[kdarling]

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.

He didn't slip in. He worked there. Like tens of thousands of others through the years who... unlike him... kept their oath to protect United States secrets. Many of those people would've said something if NSA was actually doing something to harm the American public.

Remember: It was the Patriot Act, passed by our reps, that authorized these programs.

Factoid 1: Evil plots do not normally come with Powerpoint Presentations

Factoid 2: Hollywood dramas are almost always wrong about NSA. It's not targeted at Americans, and there's no guns. It's more like a NASA for cryptoanalysts. Very, very smart and patriotic freedom-loving people.

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.

Well, that's a good point. We want strong encryption on our national utilities, banks, and other infrastructure.

My wife asked me a few minutes ago about this whole thing, since it's been on the news. After I explained a bit, she said, "I don't understand why it's not possible to make a strong back door, but with a key if necessary." I replied that the sheer existence of a key meant it could be duplicated by someone else, but she didn't buy it . She was like, "Surely there must be some way to make a key that changes and can only be known by the correct authorities."

In any case, I like how some countries handle their public cameras for evidence, where a combination of civilians and police must agree to unlock the recorded info and review it together. Something like that would be ideal in this case, i.e. make a lock that requires multiple key holders to be involved.

 

[digitalcuriosity]

I don't know how it will end up. At the presidential town hall tonight Marco Rubio pretty much sided with Apple on not providing a backdoor but also said there could be valuable information on this terrorists phone. He said government needs to work with tech companies on the best way forward. That to me seems the best solution.

http://www.snappytv.com/snaps/about-anderson-cooper-360-on-cnngo_cw--10

I think both them murdering birds, had no real contact with anyone connected with ISIS or and of the many America hating groups.
Look who he got to provide them with the weapons they used, another really stupid goon they knew.
They might find the phone number of a local pizza joint on his iPhone, but not anything the FBI could use unless they wanted to order a pizza.

 

[HEK]

Wanted to get this and reacquaint myself on the current definition of "terrorist".
I was appalled at the number of definitions. I appended two that seem to get the predominate usage.

FBI Version:
Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code
18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:
"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

• Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
• Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).

US Code (pulled from Cornell University Law School)
18 U.S. Code 2331 - Definitions
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

As used in this chapter—
(1)the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A)involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2)the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(3)the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4)the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A)declared war;
(B)armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C)armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(5)the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
[doublepost=1455760990][/doublepost]

Heck, just look what Homeland Security turned into. Monolithic would be an understatement.

Imagine the money and effort the government would put in place to save 40,000 victims each year, of car accidents. Oh wait that's acceptable. But 3,000 in 911 results in monolithic organization, a 12 plus year war and trillions of dollars spent. Am I only one that thinks this is insane. Meanwhile kids are poisoned in Flint by the government, and our near 70 plus year old infrastructure falls apart around us. But we are being saved from terror. Is't a governor poisining kids with lead a form of terror?

 

[dk001]

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

They (FBI) started with kidnapping of a child as a reason, then moved on to slavery of a child or loved as a reason, now they are using the "terrorist" issue in San B as the next reason... Trendy yes?
[doublepost=1455763115][/doublepost]

So a court order is nefarious?

It is if the reason / reasoning behind it is.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Apple is reportedly giving the Chinese government access to its devices for “security checks”
http://qz.com/618146/theres-a-start...ent-and-its-mission-is-to-disrupt-government/

 

[digitalcuriosity]

He didn't slip in. He worked there. Like tens of thousands of others through the years who... unlike him... kept their oath to protect United States secrets. Many of those people would've said something if NSA was actually doing something to harm the American public.

Remember: It was the Patriot Act, passed by our reps, that authorized these programs.

Factoid 1: Evil plots do not normally come with Powerpoint Presentations

Factoid 2: Hollywood dramas are almost always wrong about NSA. It's not targeted at Americans, and there's no guns. It's more like a NASA for cryptoanalysts. Very, very smart and patriotic freedom-loving people.

Well, that's a good point. We want strong encryption on our national utilities, banks, and other infrastructure.

My wife asked me a few minutes ago about this whole thing, since it's been on the news. After I explained a bit, she said, "I don't understand why it's not possible to make a strong back door, but with a key if necessary." I replied that the sheer existence of a key meant it could be duplicated by someone else, but she didn't buy it . She was like, "Surely there must be some way to make a key that changes and can only be known by the correct authorities."

In any case, I like how some countries handle their public cameras for evidence, where a combination of civilians and police must agree to unlock the recorded info and review it together. Something like that would be ideal in this case, i.e. make a lock that requires multiple key holders to be involved.

I think the real thing is not geting into the iPhone that four number code they can and have already gotten. what the FBI wants is the persons real long Apple password used in the Apple Store and to access the Cloud. That is what they want and as Tim Cook keeps telling them dimwits that cannot be given.
Ever notice how many post they forgot their password? And what did Apple tell them...You need a new phone meaning they must start again from ground zero. If someone stole you'r phone would you want Apple to just hand over you'r password if they said they needed it and it was stolen from you?

 

[Rigby]

Why does the FBI need Apple for this request? I'm sure there are some iOS developers that have left Apple they could hire to get this done.

It's not that simple. The phone firmware does not allow execution of custom boot code that isn't properly signed. Only Apple has the signing keys and they are closely guarding them. The only way to get around this is if someone found a big new boot exploit.

 

[HEK]

I think the real thing is not geting into the iPhone that four number code they can and have already gotten. what the FBI wants is the persons real long Apple password used in the Apple Store and to access the Cloud. That is what they want and as Tim Cook keeps telling them dimwits that cannot be given.
Ever notice how many post they lforgot there password? And what did Apple tell them...You need a new phone meaning they must start again from ground zero. If someone stole you'r phone would you want Apple to just hand over you'r password if they said they needed it and it was stolen from you?

Last time I checked it is 6 digits with new phone.

 

[dk001]

...
Could've sworn that quote is attributed to Ben Franklin. Unless it's another false attribution like the one about forfeiting freedom for security.

I thought so also so I did some digging and most references cite "anonymous" as the origin.

 

[Rigby]

I think the real thing is not geting into the iPhone that four number code they can and have already gotten. what the FBI wants is the persons real long Apple password used in the Apple Store and to access the Cloud. That is what they want and as Tim Cook keeps telling them dimwits that cannot be given.

No, they are after the passcode. The FBI doesn't need the iCloud password since Apple can simply make a copy of the user's iCloud data from their servers for the FBI (and they already have done that according to the open letter).

Of course, if the terrorists are smart, they use an alphanumeric passcode with 8+ characters instead of a simple numeric code. Bruteforcing would take far too long in this case.