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

[Pilgrim1099]

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)

It's quite related because someone on here provided a link to an article showing how Apple had to help China out in unlocking the iPhones ( supposedly ). If this is true and Apple is giving the US government the finger, then something is not right.

Also, not to forget about the IRS situation with overseas taxes in Ireland. I don't think that has been resolved yet from what I've heard. If the DOJ brings this up, Tim will be sweating like a pig which could amount to " Comply or ELSE ".

And if Apple is asking the federal courts by getting appeals and decisions to favor their products due to infringement from others and then flout the government, then this company is not behaving properly. If Tim doesn't get this situation cleared up fast, he could lose his job. The reason being is that this political situation can get distracting for the company to focus on and very expensive if this goes to court. What Tim wrote on the main website with a public announcement was probably suggested by the company's lawyers, in their words, not his.

Apple and the FBI are both right and both wrong. There is no winner here.

I noticed how Tim doesn't mention other companies' products as an example that have no back doors. It's as if he's drowning out other companies' spotlight. And if people think iPhone is the only one that has no back door, they're sorely mistaken. For example, Silent Circle's Black Phone specializes in this privacy aspect run by competent professionals.

This situation is not something one can plan for a PR event. People who side with Tim don't realize that this is the same man who proclaimed the idiotic " iPad replaces the laptop/desktop " line of thinking.

Watch. Timmy's gonna talk about this at the next keynote. By then, he might receive a gag order to keep quiet.

Oh, and more one thing. . .China owns a lot of the debt from the USA. What if, just what if, Forstall decides to talk to the Feds about Apple, considering the way he got the shaft? Something to think about.

 

[LizKat]

@Pilgrim1099 OK then. I think you made a lot of things pretty clear in that post, not least that you seem not a big fan of Apple.

Look, the people who "support Apple" on this -- and I am among them-- are not doing it because we're married to Apple. We're doing it because we see the DOJ filing as a threat to privacy in general, and as an effort by government to re-enable mass surveillance of everyone under the banner of deterring terrorism.

 

[aaronvan]

 

[\-V-/]

@Pilgrim1099Look, the people who "support Apple" on this -- and I am among them-- are not doing it because we're married to Apple. We're doing it because we see the DOJ filing as a threat to privacy in general, and as an effort by government to re-enable mass surveillance of everyone under the banner of deterring terrorism.

Anyone that doesn't see this is being ridiculous.

Pretty much.

 

[digitalcuriosity]

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)

Things are not going so well today in China and also in many states in the USA, we may start seeing China calling in the debit we have built with them. We have a habit of just printing money,with nothing real like gold to back it up. We have become a country without tangible assets.

 

[LizKat]

Things are not going so well today in China and also in many states in the USA, we may start seeing China calling in the debit we have built with them. We have a habit of just printing money,with nothing real like gold to back it up. We have become a country without tangible assets.

China's buying up our pork production and the land it happens on, via acquisitions like Smithfield. If you don't like that then tell the Republicans in Congress who let this pass and mention that you'd also like a stronger anti-trust division... but again, what does that have to do with the DOJ's overreaching request that an American company write a backdoor around an operating system it has spent years making secure?

 

[bingeciren]

Written by ?

Benjamin Franklin !

 

[satcomer]

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

That is because a Blackberry require a special server that the goverment hold keys to any file on it!

 

[Designer Dale]

That is because a Blackberry require a special server that the goverment hold keys to any file on it!

Blackberry servers are located in Canada, outside of US jurisdiction. Countries like the UAE and India can ban Blackberry services in their lands but they can't get your info from Blackberry. It's, um, encrypted...

Dale

 

[satcomer]

Blackberry servers are located in Canada, outside of US jurisdiction. Countries like the UAE and India can ban Blackberry services in their lands but they can't get your info from Blackberry. It's, um, encrypted...

Dale

It's only encrypted TO the server! Blackberry has said nothing about encrypted data that reset on server!

 

[Designer Dale]

It's only encrypted TO the server! Blackberry has said nothing about encrypted data that reset on server!

My point is that the server is in another country. The FBI or any US court can't issue a binding order outside of the US. They can only request the RCMP to assist them. Otherwise, they are out of luck.

Dale

 

[satcomer]

My point is that the server is in another country. The FBI or any US court can't issue a binding order outside of the US. They can only request the RCMP to assist them. Otherwise, they are out of luck.

Dale

Doesn't make difference what country it is it in if the data on a server connected to the internet is not encrypted it is a hacker paradise! Besides it's already been hacked!

 

[electronicsguy]

My point is that the server is in another country. The FBI or any US court can't issue a binding order outside of the US. They can only request the RCMP to assist them. Otherwise, they are out of luck.

Dale

Haha. that's such a naive view. Yes legally they can/may not. But ever heard of under the table? or extra ordinary renditions?

 

[Joesmith13245]

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.

You want to bet?

FBI gave Apple a chance to help. They declined and now it's been proven they are not needed. Looks like FBI won this battle.

 

[Rigby]

You want to bet?

FBI gave Apple a chance to help. They declined and now it's been proven they are not needed. Looks like FBI won this battle.

Not sure what you are trying to say. We don't know how Cellbrite did it. Perhaps they did find an exploit (which doesn't necessarily mean it would work on newer phones too), or perhaps they used a hardware-based method (like extracting the flash chips from the device using special tools).

In any case Cellbrite would not have succeeded in decrypting the data if the owner had used a complex passcode rather than a simple 4-digit one.

 

[Joesmith13245]

Doesn't matter how they did it. It's done and without the expertise of Apple.

 

[Rigby]

Doesn't matter how they did it. It's done and without the expertise of Apple.

Still not sure why you quoted my posting, but yes. Personally I think this is a bad outcome, because it means the legal situation will not be settled. This question should not be decided by technical factors but by the legal system and/or congress.

 

[electronicsguy]

Still not sure why you quoted my posting, but yes. Personally I think this is a bad outcome, because it means the legal situation will not be settled. This question should not be decided by technical factors but by the legal system and/or congress.

really. Does "congress" have the faintest idea of technology? do the people who we call lofty names like "senators" and "congressmen" even understand simple technology (forget about things like encryption)? .. I don't think so. And you wan't them to make laws about it... it's similar to me saying I'm appointed to make laws about say, when and how a surgeon needs to operate and using what tools, medicines, etc.

 

[Rigby]

really. Does "congress" have the faintest idea of technology? do the people who we call lofty names like "senators" and "congressmen" even understand simple technology (forget about things like encryption)? .. I don't think so.

That's what technical experts are for. Laws are still made by elected officials last I checked. In case you missed it, the case at hand was at its core about the question how far the government can stretch the All Writs Act to compel companies like Apple to do its bidding.

And you wan't them to make laws about it... it's similar to me saying I'm appointed to make laws about say, when and how a surgeon needs to operate and using what tools, medicines, etc.

You probably think health law is made by surgeons?

 

[electronicsguy]

That's what technical experts are for. Laws are still made by elected officials last I checked. In case you missed it, the case at hand was at its core about the question how far the government can stretch the All Writs Act to compel companies like Apple to do its bidding.
You probably think health law is made by surgeons?

And last I checked, they don't care to listen to the experts. Lets take a simple recent example wrt. ebola: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/16/congress-ebola_n_5997214.html

 

[Rigby]

And last I checked, they don't care to listen to the experts.

If you don't like what they do, don't vote for them. It's that simple.