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
We don't. If you're a bit of a nut/conspiracy type, you could say this is a public false flag operation to make people think FBI can't get into your iPhone when they actually can. For all we know, Apple and the government could be working together on this.
But I'll give apple the benefit of the doubt on this. I have no reason to believe the imagined scenario is happening
Where have you been for the past several years when we all learned that we were being spied on without warrants?
The problem with a lot of folks comments here is that they are apparently under the impression that Apple is being asked (and has the capability) to provide the data from one specific device. What is actually happening (based on my reading) is that Apple presently has no way for themselves or the FBI to do that. What the court order is demanding is that Apple engineer a new version of iOS (presumably to be reimbursed by the government) that would bypass the limit on password guessing so the FBI can employ a brute force attack on this phone.
The issue isn't whether Apple supports accessing the data on this particular phone, but they are being told by the government that they must develop a backdoor solution that could be deployed against any iPhone. Their concerns, I believe, are that once that is done there is no way to "put the genie back in the bottle" and the US government would have a way to access any iPhone in the future. Furthermore, given all of the recent data breaches on government IT, the concern is that tool would be potentially compromised to criminal elements which would then render iOS security completely void.
This is a very thorny philosophical issue - while I personally support virtually any means necessary to extract information from a known criminal/terrorist to save innocent lives, it is a delicate balance when that becomes a flagrant abuse of the very civil liberties that our country is based upon.
I object to the FBI receiving a universal master key to all iPhones, not because I'm opposed to spying on these particular terrorists, but because there is absolutely no doubt (after the Snowden leaks) that the government would use this to spy on US citizens for a wide range of self serving reasons under the cover of the FISA "secret court".
I personally doubt that the FBI really thinks there is much if any actionable intelligence on that phone - I think they are using this as a vehicle to gain universal access to iOS devices. The fact that Apple was not permitted to attend or testify at the court hearing tends to validate my suspicion. This is not about preventing related attacks by known associates of the San Bernadino shooters, but about gaining access to a platform and establishing a precedent that the government can force a private corporation to produce a product/technology that does not benefit the corporation.
This is not any different than the federal government coming to an individual and forcing them to develop something the government wants. This is fundamentally different than serving a warrant or subpoena to acquire an item or information that already exists. That, and the potential wholesale breach of personal privacy, is the real issue here - not whether Apple wants to aid the investigation of a known terrorist.
The issue isn't whether Apple supports accessing the data on this particular phone, but they are being told by the government that they must develop a backdoor solution that could be deployed against any iPhone. Their concerns, I believe, are that once that is done there is no way to "put the genie back in the bottle" and the US government would have a way to access any iPhone in the future. Furthermore, given all of the recent data breaches on government IT, the concern is that tool would be potentially compromised to criminal elements which would then render iOS security completely void.
This is a very thorny philosophical issue - while I personally support virtually any means necessary to extract information from a known criminal/terrorist to save innocent lives, it is a delicate balance when that becomes a flagrant abuse of the very civil liberties that our country is based upon.
I object to the FBI receiving a universal master key to all iPhones, not because I'm opposed to spying on these particular terrorists, but because there is absolutely no doubt (after the Snowden leaks) that the government would use this to spy on US citizens for a wide range of self serving reasons under the cover of the FISA "secret court".
I personally doubt that the FBI really thinks there is much if any actionable intelligence on that phone - I think they are using this as a vehicle to gain universal access to iOS devices. The fact that Apple was not permitted to attend or testify at the court hearing tends to validate my suspicion. This is not about preventing related attacks by known associates of the San Bernadino shooters, but about gaining access to a platform and establishing a precedent that the government can force a private corporation to produce a product/technology that does not benefit the corporation.
This is not any different than the federal government coming to an individual and forcing them to develop something the government wants. This is fundamentally different than serving a warrant or subpoena to acquire an item or information that already exists. That, and the potential wholesale breach of personal privacy, is the real issue here - not whether Apple wants to aid the investigation of a known terrorist.
There will always be terrorism. I don't know if you knew that before typing out this post, but yeah. It'll always be a thing. And compromising the security on this one terrorist's phone will be such a big precedent it will literally affect the entire world and how we live our lives. You are thinking very short sighted. This is bigger than this one incident
Yeah such a hypocrite.... for disagreeing with government overreach two out of two times.
Haven't we seen this premise play out in films a hundred times? Some megalomaniac thinks they are smart enough to solve what is wrong with the world and tries to usher in a new world order, but they typically end up no better than the evil they displaced.
You are basically talking about building a back door into the near billion number of iOS devices (assuming such a feature could be reverse-engineered with an iOS software update) and affecting every user around the world, not just in the US, just to unlock a phone. As well as any other iPhone the government deems apt.
The potential for abuse seems way worse than any benefit it may bring.
I live in Singapore. Let me then pose you this hypothetical scenario - why then should I accept a compromise to the security of my phone over something that isn't happening in my own backyard? I don't mean to sound insensitive to your misfortunes, but at what price that safety? What is the cost of that safety?
Or are you suggesting a backdoor only for iPhones used in the US while the rest of the world is exempt?
If there is a backdoor to an information on the phone it will be used for more bad things than you can imagine.
If, for some reason, I was trying to hide information, I would: 1) Not use fingerprint protection, 2) Use the custom alphanumeric option rather than the 4 digit short code, 3) Use double encryption and further encrypt everything I want to hide as well and use different passwords for each item so that cracking one password will not mean having an access to the rest of the documents.
So, even if Apple allows a back door to my phone, once they get in, they will have to un-encrypt everything that I'm hiding. Oh, with sufficiently long and complex passwords and strong encryption, it will take them forever to crack the passwords. So, as we can see, having a backdoor for the phone can not prevent another 911.
This is a cat and mouse game and the mouse has many places to hide where the cat can't reach.
So, even if Apple allows a back door to my phone, once they get in, they will have to un-encrypt everything that I'm hiding. Oh, with sufficiently long and complex passwords and strong encryption, it will take them forever to crack the passwords. So, as we can see, having a backdoor for the phone can not prevent another 911.
This is a cat and mouse game and the mouse has many places to hide where the cat can't reach.
A bit alarming that we are relying on a corporation to protect our rights to privacy rather than the courts.
What else are they to do? Just because the law says to do something, doesn't make it just. Remember the laws back in the days of slavery? Should nobody have stood up and said something?
This is one of those things not everybody will understand, but even those that aren't quite savvy enough to understand this topic will talk about as if they get it like everyone else does. This is a larger issue than this one case and I couldn't be happier Apple is defying this court order to protect the future
If, for some reason, I was trying to hide information, I would deinetly NOT use any piece of technology, a piece of paper can be burned / eaten much faster, better yet spoken words , anyone could have said that, and you can't proove anything
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to protect us FROM the government. People who are swearing to uphold it are not, and should be impeached, prosecuted and fired.
Apple should file the necessary papers, to give ordinary citizens or a bureau formed for that purpose, the right or ability to bypass conflicted prosecutors and go directly to a grand jury to prosecute crimes against the constitution and citizens by government officials.
The current form of justice we have is "starry decisis", or precedent. The other form looks at each case with prior practice in mind but is not "bound by it". It may be we have to change the form of justice for some sorts of cases such as prosecuting government officials. There are precedents that the government and its officials have "sovereign immunity". That term is misused. The government has sovereignty over the borders and land. The people have sovereignty over themselves and the government. The precedent is overtly wrong and has not been reversed because any case that might risk it is dropped like a hot potato, preserving bad precedent.
This tactic is used on a wide range of rules, including plea bargains which are overtly obtained with coercion.
http://floridainnocence.org/content/?p=8304
Rocketman
This does not allow for forcing Apple to write code to bypass their own security. It allows the government to seize the property for a particular purpose and RETURN IT afterward.The Bill of Rights of the United States of America said:
The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to protect us FROM the government. People who are swearing to uphold it are not, and should be impeached, prosecuted and fired.
Apple should file the necessary papers, to give ordinary citizens or a bureau formed for that purpose, the right or ability to bypass conflicted prosecutors and go directly to a grand jury to prosecute crimes against the constitution and citizens by government officials.
The current form of justice we have is "starry decisis", or precedent. The other form looks at each case with prior practice in mind but is not "bound by it". It may be we have to change the form of justice for some sorts of cases such as prosecuting government officials. There are precedents that the government and its officials have "sovereign immunity". That term is misused. The government has sovereignty over the borders and land. The people have sovereignty over themselves and the government. The precedent is overtly wrong and has not been reversed because any case that might risk it is dropped like a hot potato, preserving bad precedent.
This tactic is used on a wide range of rules, including plea bargains which are overtly obtained with coercion.
http://floridainnocence.org/content/?p=8304
Rocketman
Last edited:
Hasn't that been the case or a while? People said the same thing when PIPA and sopa were coming up. "Why do we have to protect our rights from our own government attacking it?" Because...we aren't monolithic. And the government isn't out for the best interests of the public. It's nice some people realize this and it's not such a conspiracy theory type of topic anymore
Isnt't comparing the development of Nuclear weapons and extracting data from a terrorist phone a bit too far fetched?
Not if you understand the implications of eliminating security from more than a billion phones on the planet. You can't be that myopic can you? To see JUST this issue and not what happens AFTER this issue? This will not be limited to this one case.
It is their right to carry one. It's called the 2nd amendment. You may also want to look up "due process".
CNBC has a poll up on this. 50-50 split. This is no longer just a theoretical debate on privacy and security. And if the media (and politicians) is able to spin this as Apple siding with terrorists then I don't see how Apple wins in the court of public opinion. Is this a hill Tim Cook is willing to die on?