Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

HEK said:
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?
Click to expand...

By definition :D
 
AppleScruff1 said:
Of course it is, you're only for rights that you care about.
Click to expand...
You are completely wrong. Other than privacy you have NO IDEA what rights I care about, let alone my positions on those rights. Supporting the right to privacy has no relationship whatsoever with anyone's position on gun control. Certainly not mine.
 

How about this video? From this video alone, I see the FBI pushing Apple just to get that backdoor that they have wanted for a while now. Apple just needs to hold their ground
 
John Mcgregor said:
Today it's this phone and tomorrow they will be making backups of phone if they think you are suspicious. In airports for example and when stopped by police.
Click to expand...
Just like the collection of metadata of ALL phone calls, they'll use the backdoor to download as much information as possible from as many phones as possible and store it for retroactive analysis. They're already monitoring the suspicious ones today, this is about everyone else.

To find the needle in the haystack, you need to collect the entire haystack.
 
Anyone who supports the FBI is arguing that I don't have the right to privacy. Don't speak for me. I have the right to privacy. Some people on here say "it's just for this one phone". No, it's not. Once the tool is made, it's out. It's done. The FBI would steal it and give it to their pals in the NSA. Anyone who thinks otherwise missed the last couple of decades of DROPOUTJEEP, Echelon, and countless other illegal programs to spy on us without warrants. They lost our trust. They'll have to pry my passcode from my cold, dead, hands. I'll buy 3 iPhones just to support Apple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zioxide
kdarling said:
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.....
Click to expand...

Just point of clarification. I was aware that Snowden worked there, as a contractor I understand. Didn't use the term "slipped in" to mean he snuck in literally. Actually being vetted to work there and stealing the info as he did was probably more disturbing than if he had managed to hack in and get the info. We know he did what he did only because he actually released it. Could have just as easily sold it to some group or some country who's kept the info confidential for their own purposes. BTW I feel what he did was treasonable whether or not he agreed with what or how things were collected.
 
JimmyHook said:
Anyone who supports the FBI is arguing that I don't have the right to privacy. Don't speak for me. I have the right to privacy. Some people on here say "it's just for this one phone". No, it's not. Once the tool is made, it's out. It's done. The FBI would steal it and give it to their pals in the NSA. Anyone who thinks otherwise missed the last couple of decades of DROPOUTJEEP, Echelon, and countless other illegal programs to spy on us without warrants. They lost our trust. They'll have to pry my passcode from my cold, dead, hands. I'll buy 3 iPhones just to support Apple.
Click to expand...
The constitution doesn't explicitly guarantee a right to privacy. It's alluded to in various amendments. The question is, is what the FBI asking for an unreasonable searche and seizure? I don't think that's Apple's determination to make. That's up to elected representatives and/or the Supreme Court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lordofthereef
Rogifan said:
The constitution doesn't explicitly guarantee a right to privacy. It's alluded to in various amendments. The question is, is what the FBI asking for an unreasonable searche and seizure? I don't think that's Apple's determination to make. That's up to elected representatives and/or the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

It may end up with the Supreme Court with the precedent it would set.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lordofthereef
Hubby came home and we were discussing the news today. He said he actually read the FBI's request in the Court proceedings and said they (FBI) specifically asked for the code so they could use it themselves. If that's the case they clearly were asking for a back door and for more than just this one iPhone. No wonder Tim responded as he did, which I thought was very thoughtfully written. Maybe we really should be reading to see what they specifically asked the Judge to grant them. Anyone have a link to the pleadings or post a quote from what they asked for?
 
AppleScruff1 said:
You can change it to 4.
Click to expand...

HEK said:
Or change it to 8
Click to expand...

Or change it to infinite with alphanumeric.

However, I will say that unless the culprits of the San Bernardino shooting disabled the function to infinitely lock or erase data after 10 attempts, the FBI has all the time in the world to brute force the passcode, if they kept it at the default of 4.

BL.
 
Mac2me said:
Just point of clarification. I was aware that Snowden worked there, as a contractor I understand. Didn't use the term "slipped in" to mean he snuck in literally. Actually being vetted to work there and stealing the info as he did was probably more disturbing than if he had managed to hack in and get the info. We know he did what he did only because he actually released it. Could have just as easily sold it to some group or some country who's kept the info confidential for their own purposes. BTW I feel what he did was treasonable whether or not he agreed with what or how things were collected.
Click to expand...
Patriots are always branded treasonable by the powers that abuse their authority. The patriots that founded this country committed treason to the English Crown. Snowden saw a gross abuse of power and invasion of our privacy. Basically gave up his life to inform the people. No amount of justification by the abusive state will change how I feel. I actually believed what I was taught about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and rights to privacy.
 
bradl said:
Or change it to infinite with alphanumeric.

However, I will say that unless the culprits of the San Bernardino shooting disabled the function to infinitely lock or erase data after 10 attempts, the FBI has all the time in the world to brute force the passcode, if they kept it at the default of 4.

BL.
Click to expand...

If they kept it at 4 how long would it take? That's 10,000 possible combinations.
 
Rogifan said:
The constitution doesn't explicitly guarantee a right to privacy. It's alluded to in various amendments. The question is, is what the FBI asking for an unreasonable searche and seizure? I don't think that's Apple's determination to make. That's up to elected representatives and/or the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
It most definitely is unreasonable. Search the phone all they want. No one stopping them,they are just afraid the 10 trial lock erase is active. They don't actually know if it is or not.

They are asking Apple to write software up date to iOS that defeats the security they built into the iOS. And I see now that some one looked at the wording of the court order and FBI wants Apple to give them that software rewrite. No way, no how. Let's take a vote, I will even give you a simple majority to win if more than 50% of the 700 million worldwide users agree to giving up their security.
 
AppleScruff1 said:
If they kept it at 4 how long would it take? That's 10,000 possible combinations.
Click to expand...

10,000 combinations compared to 10 million, or infinitely more? and should the time matter if at 4, because it isn't as if the deceased is going to rush to commit any activity. If I remember right, the longer that an iPhone will stay locked from failed passcode attempts is over an hour. They have all the time they need. Besides, if you compare how Daesh has reacted to San Bernardino to how they did Paris (they've ignored San Bernardino and put out a Terminator type video for Paris), they could care less about San Bernardino.

BL.
 
Rogifan said:
The constitution doesn't explicitly guarantee a right to privacy. It's alluded to in various amendments. The question is, is what the FBI asking for an unreasonable searche and seizure? I don't think that's Apple's determination to make. That's up to elected representatives and/or the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Apple does not have to stay a US corporation you know. If legislation passes that says a backdoor is mandatory perhaps another country would like to host Apple headquarters. After all US sales are no longer largest percentage. Bet there are any number of European countries that are just as pissed off about NSA spying as Apple is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: determined09
kdarling said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about a concept/process like this?
 
Rogifan said:
The constitution doesn't explicitly guarantee a right to privacy. It's alluded to in various amendments. The question is, is what the FBI asking for an unreasonable searche and seizure? I don't think that's Apple's determination to make. That's up to elected representatives and/or the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

What the FBI is doing is asking Apple to provide this data as a third party to their case, as they know fairly well that a warrant isn't needed for them to get Apple to comply.

I posted about this very issue in this forum three years ago, which had fallen on deaf ears. Now all of a sudden, this is a problem that everyone is in arms about it.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/your-personal-data-versus-the-4th-amendment.1649516/

the tl;dr: As a third party, no warrant is needed; only a subpoena to a clerk of the court. And since any lawyer is a clerk of the court, they can sign the subpoena themselves and try to get 3rd parties to comply. Having the judge order this gets the FBI more legal backing in their hunt, but Apple can still refuse to apply and appeal to a higher court.

BL.
 
*Apple has been ordered by Judge Pym to offer its technical assistance, including, if required, to provide signed software, to bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been turned on, to enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the device for testing electronically via the physical device port available on the phone, and to ensure that when the FBI tests passcodes on the phone, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware.*

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3034...g-iphone-used-by-san-bernardino-attacker.html
 
thewap said:
*Apple has been ordered by Judge Pym to offer its technical assistance, including, if required, to provide signed software, to bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been turned on, to enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the device for testing electronically via the physical device port available on the phone, and to ensure that when the FBI tests passcodes on the phone, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware.*

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3034...g-iphone-used-by-san-bernardino-attacker.html
Click to expand...


From what I understand there was way more to what they wanted from Apple than that and how it was to be delivered.

OK found the actual pleading:
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000152-ecf7-d79c-a57b-fef7defc0001
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back