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

[swingerofbirch]

And yet when you perform a sysdiagnose (shift, control, option, command, period) to assist in debugging OS X, the sysdiagnose for some reason unbeknownst to me creates a file (diagnostic.log) which needlessly includes every single contact and e-mail address stored in your Contacts. I have reported this problem to Apple Developer support with no response for over a year. I won't file Radar reports when I am releasing every single contact in my computer because it's not just my privacy at that point.

Anyhow, I wish Tim Cook was as passionate about OS X software quality as he was about privacy.

 

[farewelwilliams]

The law is exactly right
the All Writs Act of 1789, which authorizes federal courts to issue all orders necessary or appropriate "in aid oftheir respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."

And what's with the freedom of the people shoot or killed? But I assume you also are pro guns for everyone because - hey that's your right to carry one

think about this timeline
-> FBI/USA forces Apple to make iOS insecure
-> FBI targets iPhone users
-> Terrorists get scared, start to erase their tracks and be more careful with their data
-> All iPhone users now have less secure phones while terrorists are deleting/covering their tracks and are moving onto something more obscure (Priv? Blackphone?)

lose-lose situation

 

[BillyBobBongo]

Man, the sensationalism here.

The PRSI forum doesn't need a post limit before people are allowed to comment here, it desperately needs some sort of IQ restriction!

 

[ToroidalZeus]

There are particular issues with this case, I think.

Firstly, the criminal is already dead, so the concept of self-incrimination is irrelevant. The dead can't plead rights under the 5th Amendment.

What concerns me though is that with search warrants, any suitably authorised authority may break into and search any physical property. What is so conceptually different between a house wherein a criminal might have stored physical evidence that can, upon court order, be sought out and a computing device wherein digital evidence may be stored?

I know the 'terrorism' argument is a bit of a red button totem argument in such cases, but there are all sorts of other contexts in which this sort of thing might be necessary - abducted children, child pornography, etc.

If the FBI need access to a criminal's iPhone, why can't the contents of that iPhone be duplicated in their entirety and handed to a trusted third party (or possibly Apple themselves) for decryption under court order? (Naturally reasonable expenses should be covered).

Apple need never have to weaken security for the phones in circulation publicly. I should never have to worry that my personal details would be accessible to the average ID thief who pickpockets my phone on the bus, but were I to do something grossly illegal then if a court orders a search, then my phone should be as equally accessible as the filing cabinet in my house.

I respect Apple for the stand it's taking, but in this case I think it's taking too much of a stand.

Having the contents of the iPhone duplicated than unencrypted is a roundabout method to the same backdoor. Apple would need to create the tools to unencrypt the iPhone and once they do that, the US Courts can having the courts force Apple to turn that over to the FBI.

 

[kemal]

This is, in essence, requiring a private entity to hand over encryption keys to the government.

If Apple performs the brute force break-in after patching their OS, and a proper search warrnant is issued, then I could see this being OK. Handing over a tool to the government so they can break into any device without proper legal processes is a very bad idea.

 

[bier-meister]

Sorry Tim , I think you draw the wrong line. Supporting terrorism is just plain wrong. Any righteous person has nothing to hide from the government.

This has nothing to do with supporting terrorism, come to the real world. By giving an organisation like the FBI backdoor access to the OS, you are leaving it open to much smarter people than the FBI who will take advantage of it. Do you want these people being able to access your phone and access everything you do. They will have access to your financial apps, your location data, etc. They can then easily create profiles of people, where they live, where they work, what their routines are, when they are not at home, etc. Can you imagine how valuable these profiles will be on the underground markets, making people vulnerable and easy targets for criminals.

 

[Gudi]

Who is saying without a warrant?

Do you know your sixth amendment rights? Apparently there is no need for a speedy trial once the government feels like putting you to Guantanamo. A missing warrant won't protect you, when even the constitution can't.

 

[gnasher729]

Where is the limit?
If creating a backdoor meant avoiding another 9/11, what would be the right thing to do?

I think the mania for "privacy" has gone way beyond common sense: until 10 years ago we were all happily storing our personal info in our houses, in paper, and no one was seriously worrying about someone sneaking in our houses to look at our family pictures, love letters or -oh my God!- our weight.
We too often forget that in 99.99% of the cases NO ONE COULD CARE LESS about our oh-so-precious pictures, messages, etc. There is quite simply nothing to protect, our personal info are valuable only to ourselves.
"Just" give me a common password for all my info/website, and if someones steals my device, big deal, let me make a call and block all access. End of story.

You are free to not use any passcode on your iOS device.

 

[Crosscreek]

I stand with Apple on this. Backdoors open the path for any hacker including government to get in.

 

[gnasher729]

On the other hand, those here saying how much they support this.
If they had just had photo's sent to them of their 8 year old daughter raped, and being told she is being held until killed, I wonder how much these same people would say, YES these people should be protected by Apple.

So how exactly would the ability to unlock an iPhone help here? Are you suggesting that monster left their phone behind when they abducted the child? Are there _any_ reported cases where a child abductor left their phone behind to be found? And why would unlocking the phone be needed, when Apple can just look up the serial number and find the owner? And wouldn't it be much better to spend money on education or health care and so on so that people don't turn into monsters, instead of giving up our freedoms?

Seriously, if you come up with stupid "think of the children" scenarios, come up with something that actually supports your case.

So the terrorists win

That's the point: They don't win. These terrorists killed some people, but what they really want is to destroy the country where you live. Giving up your privacy is a step to the destruction of the country by surrendering its essential values due to terrorists. Thank Cook for helping to stop the terrorists win.

 

[Spectrum]

I disagree with Cook. Given a valid search warrant - and only with a search warrant - there should be a way to open a phone so that it can be used within a criminal investigation. It is no different than obtaining a search warrant for entering someone's house because there is reason to believe there is incriminating evidence inside.
Apple should simply design there software (both the lockout and the unlocking) in special ways that prevent missuse/abuse. How about it requiring a bespoke piece of hardware encased in concrete that weighs 50 tonnes and is only present in a few secure locations in the world?

Tim is simply being lazy in my opinion.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Where is the limit?
If creating a backdoor meant avoiding another 9/11, what would be the right thing to do?

I think the mania for "privacy" has gone way beyond common sense: until 10 years ago we were all happily storing our personal info in our houses, in paper, and no one was seriously worrying about someone sneaking in our houses to look at our family pictures, love letters or -oh my God!- our weight.
We too often forget that in 99.99% of the cases NO ONE COULD CARE LESS about our oh-so-precious pictures, messages, etc. There is quite simply nothing to protect, our personal info are valuable only to ourselves.
"Just" give me a common password for all my info/website, and if someones steals my device, big deal, let me make a call and block all access. End of story.

if terrorists knew iOS was very insecure, they wouldn't be storing 9/11-type of information on a phone. would probaly clean up their tracks well.

i couldn't care less if government spied on my data, but if it means that people stealing my phone suddenly has access to my 1Password vault, dropbox, icloud keychain, etc...that's terrible.

also keep in mind, i remember reading iphone thefts have gone down due to icloud activation locks. the moment there is a way for someone to bypass, thefts are going to go up and the value of them on ebay is going to sky rocket.

 

[attila]

All the terrible business choices, and my disappointment on the design direction, I'm still very happy with the hardware Apple makes, and not very very happy that Apple still stands on the right side of rationale!

 

[thatanonymoususer]

Where is the limit?
If creating a backdoor meant avoiding another 9/11, what would be the right thing to do?

I think the mania for "privacy" has gone way beyond common sense: until 10 years ago we were all happily storing our personal info in our houses, in paper, and no one was seriously worrying about someone sneaking in our houses to look at our family pictures, love letters or -oh my God!- our weight.
We too often forget that in 99.99% of the cases NO ONE COULD CARE LESS about our oh-so-precious pictures, messages, etc. There is quite simply nothing to protect, our personal info are valuable only to ourselves.
"Just" give me a common password for all my info/website, and if someones steals my device, big deal, let me make a call and block all access. End of story.

There is a huge difference between privacy of your house and privacy of your digital life. If someone broke into your house, you would know, and there would be enough physical evidence of some sort to know that it happened. At most, the burglar could rummage through and take photos of things, and you could have purchased a hidden safe to put your private belongings in - those things aren't new.

In the digital age, backdoors mean being able to - without a trace - download all of the information from your device. It's not a 1-off grainy photo of it or an old-timey note jotted down. It's the actual thing that they can rummage through for all time. Privacy may not have been as big of a deal before, but that's because we never had to trust so many people with a possible key to our front door before. With so many possible keys and doors, it would be impossible to tell when someone enters or exits. Many trust companies like Apple to do the right thing and hold on to the keys responsibly.

Before the digital age, you could only walk out with so many rolls of film or so many notes jotted down on your notepad before that, and you could really only process all of that manually. With the price of data storage being virtually close to free, the amount of information that you can store is unlimited. Scripting a way to analyze the information is a lot easier now as well. Where before it would be hard for a rogue government employee to track down someone - hire an agent that they don't have the right to order around to follow their ex and leave a paper trail - now they could easily do it with access to software and their target's GPS data that they pulled from their phone from the comfort of their office.

Just as you can't separate the terrorists from the law-abiding citizens, you also wouldn't be able to separate the police force and domestic and foreign leaders from terrorists online. Decreasing our security threatens to undermine our national and international security.

The amount of information that exists now that simply didn't exist before is a major part of the privacy concern as well, and a big part of why "privacy mania" wasn't as big of a deal before. It was harder to access, not all of it could be taken at once, it couldn't be taken without leaving evidence, and there has never before been such an overwhelming amount of data.

Also - "privacy mania" is nothing new. You can look at cases like Lotus Notes to know that it's been going on for a while, and there are many things that preceded it.

EDIT: edited to correct fat-thumbed iPhone typing and to add this:
In a post Patriot Act world where people can be arrested on suspicion - guilty until proven innocent - I believe that backdoors and open access to personal information are incompatible with the idea of a free people.

 

[Khedron]

Where is the limit?
If creating a backdoor meant avoiding another 9/11, what would be the right thing to do?

I think the mania for "privacy" has gone way beyond common sense: until 10 years ago we were all happily storing our personal info in our houses, in paper, and no one was seriously worrying about someone sneaking in our houses to look at our family pictures, love letters or -oh my God!- our weight.
We too often forget that in 99.99% of the cases NO ONE COULD CARE LESS about our oh-so-precious pictures, messages, etc. There is quite simply nothing to protect, our personal info are valuable only to ourselves.
"Just" give me a common password for all my info/website, and if someones steals my device, big deal, let me make a call and block all access. End of story.

If it will stop another 9/11 why be so half hearted about it?

Just scrap the constitution and give the FBI the legal authority to do anything they want, including torturing people.

Perhaps get Cook's family and friends in front of a firing squad and see how strong his principles are then?

If it will stop another 9/11...

 

[celaurie]

I have to say that the heartening thing about all of this is the fact that it's now clear that no one has worked out a backdoor into the Operating System, hence the feds requesting one.

Whatever your standpoint on privacy, this is not, by an means Apple supporting or facilitating terrorism.

What they are saying is that where appropriate and when the correct legal precedent is followed, Apple will of course assist with access to devices but will just not do so on a mass scale.

The simpler individuals amongst us can shout from beneath tinfoil hats about having nothing to hide and so on but, the second information is used against them, having been mined from private data stored on personal device they'll be the first to holler about privacy invasion and their right to freedom of speech.

 

[maxsix]

Apple knows a stellar marketing opportunity when they see it.

 

[FieldingMellish]

Tim Cook just wants to ensure Apple stores don’t get bombed by enraged and berserk Muslims.

 

[bingeciren]

Stop being so closed minded. Think about what you are saying for a moment and what you are willing to give up. Your privacy and freedom so the government can use the so called " terrorist problem" our country does not have to spy on you!

I bet you think 911 was done by terrorists too

I believe he does..... like many Americans do.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

If it will stop another 9/11 why be so half hearted about it?

Just scrap the constitution and give the FBI the legal authority to do anything they want, including torturing people.

Perhaps get Cook's family and friends in front of a firing squad and see how strong his principles are then?

If it will stop another 9/11...

lol

 

[2bcool2]

Does anyone think the same as me, that Apple is already giving access to the governments and that this is just a PR stunt to give you the impression that Apple is not doing this ? like smoke and mirrors ?
I think this is maybe a trick.

why would you believe what he's saying without questioning what apple have connections to in the past ?

i always question everything . many people have ulterior motives.
and wheres the fecking NEW MAC PO ??????

 

[gnasher729]

The people condemning this, or accusing Tim Cook of supporting terrorism, are frightening. I would rather die in a terrorist attack than have my personal, private info at the mercy of any government.

I'd rather have my personal, private info at the mercy of any government than die in a terrorist attack . However, my risk of dying in such an attack is minuscule, it's a risk that I'm willing to take, and the dangers of the government having access to my info are very real. If you are in the UK, maybe you trust Cameron. In that case, you surely don't trust Corbyn, or vice versa, so wherever you stand, you don't know if the next government can be trusted.

 

[cardfan]

I think taking such matters public isn't in anyone's best interest. Running security measures by an ignorant public for approval is kind of stupid. So it's probably just PR to reassure the sheep. I'd be shocked if the highest security agencies we have didn't already have the ability to do this.

Thanks for your cooperation Tim, now go write your letter...

 

[satcomer]

To me the government laweres went overboard in the investigation that they want Apple to open everyone else's cell phones. To me this is what Apple is doing and if you think about it is is a PR goldmine for Apple!

 

[gnasher729]

If the FBI need access to a criminal's iPhone, why can't the contents of that iPhone be duplicated in their entirety and handed to a trusted third party (or possibly Apple themselves) for decryption under court order? (Naturally reasonable expenses should be covered).

The processor in your iPhone is part of the encryption; it holds one of several keys needed for encryption and decryption and cannot be read by any means. The data on your phone can only be decrypted as long as it is inside your phone.