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

Tim Cook to Discuss Ongoing FBI Battle on Tonight's Episode of 'World News Tonight'

oneMadRssn said:
Even if Apple wins this case, I think this ordeal will put a damper on their security and encryption emphasis.

Imagine being a project manager in charge of a new feature, where the feature could be made very secure and encrypted or not. Imagine trying to justify the decision to make it secure and encrypted to yourself and to your higher up knowing there is a reasonable chance it will bring another legal storm your way.

One of Apple's arguments in this case is that what the FBI wants will have a chilling effect on speech, and the innovation and technology surrounding speech. I say it already has.
Click to expand...

Actually, I could see this going the other way. Build it so the user singly owns the data and no one else can get it. This places ownership with the owner. I can see the development of this type of tech accelerating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duffman9000
The court order itself is an interesting and very quick read. Forget all the marketing, the emotional appeals, the patriotism, the profit margins, whether its an iPhone or an Android (both have similar full-device encryption now)... I have a feeling we're about to open the pandora's box that is encryption.

If Apple loses this battle, will they win the longer-term fight? At what point can the iPhone be made so secure that the world's largest corporation can legitimately claim that it's too much of a burden to assist governments with cracking it? If that level of security is not possible, then the smart business move will be going back to no encryption, faulty encryption, or keys-in-escrow, along with the inherent security risks for the rest of us. Those who need security, for whatever reason, will find a way anyway, via open source or third party software. Will it be a net-win, or a net-loss?
 
Rogifan said:
So I wonder how many meetings Cook had with Apple's legal team to prep for this interview...

Hmm...looks like one county in Arizona says they'll no longer purchase iPhones.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/24/11108138/apple-fbi-encryption-maricopa-county-iphone
Click to expand...

Bill Montgomery’s close friends with Sherrif Arpaio


Sherrif Arpaio recently endorsed Donald Trump


Trump more recently attacked Apple in its fight

Bill Montgomery, just like Arpaio, hates America.
 
RickInHouston said:
If it's not a strategic case of marketing apple as being so secure with data, why go on TV? Why not lay low and let it go through the courts.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's PR in any way, but if you wanted it to be a marketing stunt, would it not make sense to parade it on TV?
 
soupcan said:
So their only option is, what, Android?

Good luck keeping that safe and sound.


OT: I want to point out that people seem to forget that this isn't just an American issue. This is a world wide issue. Build a backdoor once in the States, and it goes all over the globe, affecting hundreds of millions of iOS users in every single corner of the god damn world.

So, Federal Bureau of Incompetence, consider that too for a change.
Click to expand...

Actually, depending on how you do it, Android is very safe.
 
acslater017 said:
I disagree - I think it will add even more weight to Apple's efforts to tying their own hands. The past 2 years have brought great encryption improvements to iPhone/iOS, and Apple is effectively cutting off their own technical routes to hacking their customers' devices. In other words, in the very near future Apple wants to be able swear to the governments of the world, "Sorry, we'd love to help but we literally are unable to."
Click to expand...

Rhonindk said:
Actually, I could see this going the other way. Build it so the user singly owns the data and no one else can get it. This places ownership with the owner. I can see the development of this type of tech accelerating.
Click to expand...

I guess in the long term it could even save Apple legal expenses. In a way, total encryption is a way of passing the buck to the particular owner of the phone. I can buy the argument that this is Apple's strategy.
 
DotCom2 said:
The thing is that if the FBI wins and now the "Bad Guys" know phones can be decrypted, then they won't use them any more and guess who loses in all this?...US!
It's the "One Bad Apple" thing all over again!
Click to expand...

The end game for this is well beyond just smartphones. It can be applied to a wide array of devices.
[doublepost=1456348994][/doublepost]
gnasher729 said:
No, once things are safe enough that Apple can say "no way we can access this data", everything is fine. Of course a court could order them to build a time machine, and remove security retroactively.
Click to expand...

I can see it now...
FBI, "Your Honor, we want a do over. We want Apple to develop and build a... Time Machine."
Judge, "Granted. Apple build it."
[doublepost=1456349183][/doublepost]
Popeye206 said:
This is an interesting situation Apple has itself in... stand up for what they believe and people think they're supporting terrorists.

Honestly, I'm not 100% sure what side I'm on... but I tend to believe cyber terrorism is our biggest threat and even though high security on phones slows down investigations, it does help keep our bank accounts, credit cards and all the other sensitive info on our devices much safer from hackers and people that would love to do harm to the western world.
Click to expand...

I like Ben Wizner's take on this issue: "I have been urging colleagues to respond any time anybody asks about FBI and San Bernardino to say: the real conversation is about China wanting to unlock the phone of a US Embassy employee who they suspect is a CIA agent and don’t we want Apple to be able to say they can’t do that." It's from his interview with ARS.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PJWilkin
As far as Muir vs. Jennings -- either is/would be friendly to Cook's overall philosophic bent. Jennings (R.I.P.) would (for many) give the appearance of old-school journalistic integrity, an attribute which had been bestowed on him, by those who agreed with him. The operative word is appearance.

The 24 hour news cycle did not invent journalistic malpractice.
 
tgara said:
How do you figure? The FBI's request was in the form of a court order signed by a judge, so at least the judge thought current law applies. AFAIK, nobody is challenging the legality of that. On the contrary, Apple's arguments against complying with the order, so far, are based on "free speech" of the code and "reputational damage".

Jeez-Louise, if that's the best Ted Olson can come up with, they're in big trouble. I guess we'll know more when they file their Just Cause motion on Friday.
Click to expand...

Nobody has had a chance to so far. Never mind the Amicus lawyers the FBI provided on behalf of some of the survivors of the SB mess as part of the prep work to get the magistrate to sign off on this. The more that comes out, the more of a convoluted mess this is becoming.
 
Billede%2024-02-2016%2022.37.18.jpg


But we're with you Tim. And I'm not even American (this FBI scan will affect the entire globe)
 
  • Like
Reactions: duffman9000
Pilgrim1099 said:
No way. You don't just vote a candidate just because he works for Apple or because he's gay. That's a bad way to base his credentials on that merit. It should be on his track record and if he can handle international relations. I can tell you that if he did become President, the Russians wouldn't want to talk to him. Know why? They're against his 'kind'.

Even the Middle East. He wouldn't be able to broker a peace treaty, even.

He would make a bad candidate.
Click to expand...


You are wrong.

The former german secretary for foreign affairs Westerwelle had his outing years ago - and all the saudi arabian dictators who like heading gay people had to give him their hand. nice! He had no problems with the russians neither.
And he was against the war in Lybia. Which was the RIGHT decision.

Saudi Arabs are also obliged to shake hands with the German chancellor Angela Merkel since more than 10 years now... You know, it is just the oppsite of what you claim: gay people and women asmrepresentatives of foeign countries will teach saudi Arabians and other supporters of islamic terrorists to RESPECT human rights at least on international political level. And this will motivate women and gay people all around the world to fight for their rights.

Everytime the Saudi Arabs are forced to do so I get a big smile in my face - although I don't like neither the political agenda of Angela Merkel nor Westerwelle...
 
Rhonindk said:
This should be, and I hope it is, an informative and enlightening discussion.
Click to expand...
I am hoping for specific of why this is bad so that the common folk can understand - if he is unable to do this, the cries for boycott will continue and could get worst.

This is a nice opposite to antenna gate - Apple needs to fight this and stay in front of the news.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
unplugme71 said:
I will laugh, then cry, if the FBI somehow gets full access to the phone and finds no additional evidence.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

The San Bernardino shooters were smart enough to destroy their personal phones and their hard drives. So I seriously doubt they left any evidence on this work phone.

The FBI already has mountains of technological data at their disposal... iCloud data, carrier call data, etc. Plus additional information collected through non-technological methods.

In my opinion... the FBI isn't really concerned with this iPhone anyway.

They simply want to set a precedent so that they can get Apple to assist in unlocking future iPhones.

Here's the deal... Apple makes smartphones that are very protected. The reason is for enhanced privacy and security of users' data. Even the FBI can't get into Apple's smartphones!

And the FBI hates that :)
 
Last edited:
"It's disappointing that the President, who was such a champion of privacy and human rights, is advocating for this action. People around the world depend on Apple's security to keep them safe from oppressive regimes. If we allow Apple to break out security, how can we not do the same for other governments? Does Obama really want to sentence hundreds of thousands of dissidents overseas to death?"
 
tgara said:
How do you figure? The FBI's request was in the form of a court order signed by a judge, so at least the judge thought current law applies. AFAIK, nobody is challenging the legality of that. On the contrary, Apple's arguments against complying with the order, so far, are based on "free speech" of the code and "reputational damage".

Jeez-Louise, if that's the best Ted Olson can come up with, they're in big trouble. I guess we'll know more when they file their Just Cause motion on Friday.
Click to expand...

Ugh you know judges do make mistakes right? Did you just forget about racism in this country and how "judges" routinely shafted people of the wrong color all under guise of the law?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrAverigeUser
tgara said:
How do you figure? The FBI's request was in the form of a court order signed by a judge, so at least the judge thought current law applies.
Click to expand...
See here. Law enforcement is specifically prohibited from doing exactly what the FBI is asking them to do.

Magistrates don't know all the laws of the land. That's why you normally have two sides to argue a case. A warrant doesn't allow for rebuttal before it's issued.

AFAIK, nobody is challenging the legality of that. On the contrary, Apple's arguments against complying with the order, so far, are based on "free speech" of the code and "reputational damage".

Jeez-Louise, if that's the best Ted Olson can come up with, they're in big trouble. I guess we'll know more when they file their Just Cause motion on Friday.
Click to expand...
Why would you laugh off a free speech defense? Code is a creative work. There's even been a case involving the EFF that held that code is speech. I think the verdict became moot on other grounds, so it is not necessarily precedent.
 
unplugme71 said:
I will laugh, then cry, if the FBI somehow gets full access to the phone and finds no additional evidence.
Click to expand...

I think that outcome is very likely, that the FBI knows it, but it doesn't matter. It's about long-term access to locked devices, despite what they say.

Rogifan said:
There's a second clip where Cook said Apple found out about this court filing via the press. You can tell he's pissed.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-ceo-tim-cook-found-212826020.html
Click to expand...

His responses were brilliant.
 
RickInHouston said:
If it's not a strategic case of marketing apple as being so secure with data, why go on TV? Why not lay low and let it go through the courts.
Click to expand...
In addition to freedom-loving people of all stripes getting involved in having their voices heard, Tim's eloquent explanation of the implications of wholesale decrypting powers for the Fed (and likely for ill-intentioned individuals the world over not long after that), is crucially important in the battle for public opinion.

In the absence of a huge public outcry backed-up by solid arguments, and a vigorous public debate, the courts are likely to just rubberstamp the Fed's request.
 
Last edited:
Here is the question I haven't heard people asking so far:

Is the iPhone (with iOS 8) so secure that the FBI is unable to obtain this information without entering a legitimate passcode, or is this a smokescreen by the FBI to provide this illusion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrAverigeUser
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