If Apple fails to comply with the court order after exhausting appeals, they will be found in contempt of court.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So what they going lock Apples doors, put thousands of people out of work or take over Apple?
Don't know if you can watch a video of John McAffe's interview who was on CNBC's Power Lunch this past hour (started at 11:23a) but he is presenting the BEST reasons (worldwide cyberwar) I've seen for why people from all walks of life should care and support Apple's side on this. I think even the doubting CNBC commentators who have been either on the fence or on the FBI's side are being effected by comments. Great interview. CNBC should make this available for everyone to see (he's a great interviewee BTW) but even a text copy would be nice. Here's their website I think they will post it, maybe not until tomorrow: http://www.cnbc.com/power-lunch-cnbc/
This cyberwar aspect is why I am most concerned about my devices and others and expressed already. I just see a take down of our financial/corporations being the more serious concern going forward.
This cyberwar aspect is why I am most concerned about my devices and others and expressed already. I just see a take down of our financial/corporations being the more serious concern going forward.
Last edited:
This was posted on the Web by a criminal defense lawyer:
"First, in order to get a search warrant for a safe deposit box the police usually must already know of its' existence and where it is located. With the warrant in hand the police will show up at the bank, (almost certainly unannounced), serve the warrant and be brought to the safe deposit box, where at that point in time the bank manager, etc. will use their master key to open the box for the police. Once the box is opened the police can search for, and seize any and all items listed in the "items to be searched for" section of the warrant, as well as anything that they see which would be clearly contraband to them."
I have also read that they can "brute force" the box with a drill.
Dale
Definitely we're not monolith, but it's a bit difficult to then state "the government isn't out for the best interests . . ." because that implies monolithic. Certainly our elected officials and bureaucrats should be serving the best interests of the public. But then again the public isn't monolithic either and what you consider may be good for you I might consider to be bad for me.
Still, what I was really trying to get at was perhaps the examples from the Civil Rights era when legislators passed a bunch of racially discriminatory laws and it was the courts that struck them down thereby preserving (or instituting for some groups) individual rights. Likewise it was the Supreme Court that provided marriage equality most recently. That's what I had in mind in my statement. I certainly realize that there are contravening examples of judicial decisions . . .
From what I read on the Android site, they have a No Back Door encryption system also. Blackberry has a secure smartphone called the Priv. As for computers and any digital device in general, there are more encryption programs and algorithms than you can shake a stick at. Half of them written either by the Government or to Government standards.
Dale
Bold for emphasis.
As has been stated by others here as well as Cook himself, Apple has no master key to open the 'box' for the police (read: open the iPhone). But that also in itself isn't the issue.
The issue is that the FBI wants Apple to CREATE THE MEANS that can be used, so that a master key would not be necessary; something which Apple can not inherently do. Not just because it would take a hell of a long time to crack the encryption, let alone opens the door for those with criminal intent to have access to exposed secure data, but opens Apple up to a flurry of liability lawsuits should this program fall into the wrong hands. That puts Apple as a company in jeopardy, let alone the personal data of every person using an Apple product.
And to be honest, the time it would take to create said means would be much longer than brute forcing a 4-digit passcode (10000 chances), 6-digit passcode (1,000,000 chances), or if Farook modified it, or alphanumeric (infinite).
In short, the FBI is being lazy.
BL.
This was a company provided phone they found,if he really was contacting anyone involved with his and her plans, he would have used another phone. And destroyed it the day they did the attack. This is why he had this phone on him at all. I still feel they contacted no one. Even his family had no idea what he and she were up to.
These people were off the wall fruit cakes, just want to be Jihads. Just people who got their hands on some rifles and shot people at his place of employment. Just cowards and nuts problem the country is full of the same people and no FBI or DOJ can always know who they are. Myself even at a Walmart i am always on watch always watching everyone, looking at their hands, can't see hands do they have a knife hidden? Not a happy shopping trip.
Then why is this such a big deal now?
Surely the FBI have wanted access to a criminals device before this happened.
Huh? They have been granted more time to respond.
and...
Who do you think files the motions to the courts? The FBI doesn't do it themselves. They use (in this case) the United States Attorney (an Obama appointee and former deputy mayor of Homeland Security) as the legal lead.
Sneaky folks them FBI people...
[doublepost=1455919598][/doublepost]
Popcorn ... check
Wings ... check
Suds ... check
Comfortable easy chair ... check
Using an encrypted device ... check
aaahhhhhhh ...
May need a steak next!
[doublepost=1455920144][/doublepost]
Prior to the latest round of encryption where the device owner has the key, prior versions were tied the hardware id. This means that Apple or Google could get into the device and pull the data without unlocking it. With this newest version (iOS 8 & 9, Android 5 (optional) and 6 (default on)) you have to have the passcode/password to get any encrypted data.
The FBI ( and other government agencies) are looking to expand the Writ powers to force compliance with their wishes. Then there is the global community looking at the outcome. This is a very serious issue and the US Government is using the emotional aspect of the San Bernardino event in an attempt to get what they want irrespective of any moral or ethical impact.
Last edited:
So if Apple caves to the FBI, are we gonna boycott their devices?
Didn't think so. It's all for show, I just hope that it doesn't end up prompting something worse to come down the legislative pike. Might be a reason the gummint is pushing for this is the particular context of a terrorist attack.
Didn't think so. It's all for show, I just hope that it doesn't end up prompting something worse to come down the legislative pike. Might be a reason the gummint is pushing for this is the particular context of a terrorist attack.
But they cannot use the company's tools and property to create this backdoor. That will be illegal.
This why I seriously considering Voteing for him this time! He was the only candidate that understands the while implications for the "back door" is giving the keys to everything on ANY smart phone!
In reading in paper this morning,it looks like the DOJ is softening their requirements, with giving Apple full control with keeping any Apple developed hack software after it's each time DOJ/FBI asked for use.
And on another item "Trump" I don't need his Anti-Apple comments, saying everyone should boycott Apple until they apple gives up and do as the DOJ/FBI is trying force them to do. Butt out TRUMP.
And on another item "Trump" I don't need his Anti-Apple comments, saying everyone should boycott Apple until they apple gives up and do as the DOJ/FBI is trying force them to do. Butt out TRUMP.
Speaking of papers... the government is starting to lose the PR war.
That was spelled out in the DOJ Motion to Compel papers filed and even mentioned in the original FBI request. However I'm sure they will use that hacked phone they will be in ultimate possession of and try to figure out how Apple did it. So while it could look upfront on the surface to the public I still wonder if they couldn't get their backdoor that way. If Apple's concerned writing the code to open this phone could comprise all phones, it has to be something inherent to all current and updated phones.
It's not even a PR war. It's not over until Apple cracks or they settle. Or the court system makes the ultimate decision.
Apple is NOT the government. I wouldn't side with a company that has its hands dirty with the Chinese, sues others like a maniac asking for federal help and then give the Feds the finger.
Can't have it both ways.
Privacy is important, yes but Apple is NOT God.
To take sides is as childish as the Marvel comics "Civil War" inanity. I say let the courts decide. They're the final arbiter of the law.
Not Apple. Not the FBI.
Here's a link to Mark Cuban's blog on why he is standing up for Apple's stance:
http://blogmaverick.com/2016/02/18/apple-vs-the-fbi-vs-a-suggestion/
As far as standing up and "taking sides" from a public perspective, I think when something is important and worth trying to keep, people do need to voice their opinion. Call that taking sides or not but that's supposedly what this country and it's principles is all about and why we have a forum here where people can speak. I wouldn't call it childish. Strong public opinion has shaped our laws and how things are done.
I also think it's important that that mother spoke out. She was directly impacted by that very same terrorist attack. And one of the attorneys representing Apple in this has his own history with terrorism. His wife was on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon during 911. If he felt strongly about Apple being wrong here I honestly don't think he would have taken on this. I think both of these two people's history says a lot about Apple's point of view at this point.
http://blogmaverick.com/2016/02/18/apple-vs-the-fbi-vs-a-suggestion/
As far as standing up and "taking sides" from a public perspective, I think when something is important and worth trying to keep, people do need to voice their opinion. Call that taking sides or not but that's supposedly what this country and it's principles is all about and why we have a forum here where people can speak. I wouldn't call it childish. Strong public opinion has shaped our laws and how things are done.
I also think it's important that that mother spoke out. She was directly impacted by that very same terrorist attack. And one of the attorneys representing Apple in this has his own history with terrorism. His wife was on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon during 911. If he felt strongly about Apple being wrong here I honestly don't think he would have taken on this. I think both of these two people's history says a lot about Apple's point of view at this point.
Last edited:
Do you mean a company that has supply chains and manufacturing processes in China?
I would have said "It's not ONLY a PR war." But there is in fact a PR war going on. Even in its motion to compel compliance, the DOJ accused Apple of merely employing a marketing strategy via declining to write a backdoor into Farook's iPhone. The filing was made available to the public. If that's not launching a PR war, I don't know what would be. There's a whole separate thread on it here
Don't ask me, ask @Pilgrim1099, he or she is who said this in post #871 above:
"Apple is NOT the government. I wouldn't side with a company that has its hands dirty with the Chinese, sues others like a maniac asking for federal help and then give the Feds the finger."
I was just inquiring whether he meant to single out China since there are plenty other companies who have supply chains and manufacturing in China. So I would wonder if he thought them all to have dirty hands as a result of doing business in China. And even if they did, how does that justify trying to compel a company to create a one-off version of an operating system? And I would wonder how he saw that (doing biz in China) as remotely related to the case at hand.
(but as to who's lending the USA money to keep it running? When the music of passing T-bills around the planet finally stops? The US taxpayer. Meanwhile anyone who thinks of the $ as a fairly safe haven)