Twitter, eBay, Airbnb, Reddit and More Officially Supporting Apple in FBI Fight [Updated]

[\-V-/]

Update: Additional amicus briefs have been filed by the Center for Democracy & Technology, The Media Institute, and a group of 32 law professors. Five families of San Bernardino victims, meanwhile, have filed in support of the FBI.

So basically ... a bunch of people that still think this case is about the one phone are in support of the FBI. Yay ignorance!

 

[CFreymarc]

Yes they did:

Dozens of technology companies, industry trade groups, and encryption experts have been submitting documents to support Apple, all catalogued on Apple's website. AT&T, Intel, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed separate amicus briefs this morning, as did the Consumer Technology Association in partnership with the Business Software Alliance [PDF], a group that includes Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle, IBM, and Autodesk.

More amicus briefs are expected to be filed throughout the day, including one from a consortium that includes Google, Nest Labs, Facebook, WhatsApp, Evernote, Snapchat, and Mozilla.

I stand corrected.
[doublepost=1457046534][/doublepost]

Question for any of the resident lawyers here.

Can a member of Congress file an amicus brief for a given case?

Any US Citizen or legal resident can file an amicus brief if they hold a public office position or not. If they are an elected Federal official, it has more influence.

 

[ProjectManager101]

Wow... basically everyone who is anyone in digital data or document handling are lining up on this one. Very good to see! In fact, I may be missing some, but Adobe is the only "800 lb gorilla" I don't see here.

I do not see how the FBI will need to hack the Photoshop of some drug dealer
[doublepost=1457046944][/doublepost]

 

[supremedesigner]

Waiting for Samsung...

 

[aneftp]

The us govt and FBI has completely lost the public trust on this matter. Yes national security is important. But please don't think the American people especially techies like us on macrumors don't see right through their lies.

First FBI tells the public they "need Apple" help to unlock this "one iPhone" to help not only the us govt fight terrorism but also help the families of the San Bernanindo victims.

We all know that it was BS public stunt. The so called terrorist work phone iPhone 5C and its contents likely have zero value.

Yet the FBI chief than goes and has an op Ed article saying it's just "one phone".

Than last we the same FBI chief gets called out and says "we'll we be setting a precedent" so future iPhones would be required by the courts to be unlocked on demand.

Liar liar liar. How can we trust the govt when they can't keep their reasoning straight. We all called them out even Apple knew the game. Saying it's not just one iPhone.

Why didn't the FBI say that from the start?

 

[Mac Fly (film)]

Oh, and Oculus said they will support Apple in the ongoing dispute when they improve their graphics hardware.

In other related comments the price of shrimp has remained steady.

 

[fitshaced]

I have very mixed feelings on this issue. I don't think Apple should be forced to write software for the government. I'm more bothered by that than I am by the idea of decrypting the phone. No doubt this is one of the main reasons so many companies are supporting Apple. Once the government can demand that Apple write code for them, they can demand it of anyone.

That said, the idea that we, as a society, should accept that phones, computers, and other digital devices protected by strong encryption are 100% private zones is like saying we should allow rooms the government may never, under any circumstance, access in a home. We're essentially saying that the individual's right to privacy trumps EVERYTHING. I was listening to Sam Harris the other day and he calls the obsession with privacy a new religion, one he deems just as dangerous as existing God-based ones. I can see his point.

If the FBI knows that X is a pedophile and has shoeboxes full of kiddie porn pictures in a room at his house, should they not be allowed to serve a warrant and search the home? Should X have the right to an unsearchable room in his home? What if X is found dead and the only way to bust the child porn ring is by searching that room? I think most sensible people would find it absurd not to search the room. But, instead, X has all of his child porn on his encrypted phone and there's no way to access it, even though the need is completely legitimate. I find this very troubling.

The only sensible way forward that I see is for companies like Apple to become key masters, something they, understandably, don't want to do. If they don't move in that direction, however, government will start to legislate and it will be a disaster. If Apple provides unbreakable encryption on their phone, they should store the key and be able to provide it when served with a legal search warrant. If they do this, they short-circuit the need for legislation. Otherwise we are guaranteed to see a day when every tech company, every online service, must log everything and somehow provide the government with access. And when that day comes, the burden will be far more onerous and loss of privacy far greater than if these companies got proactive now and came up with a reasonable solution.

Why do you believe that there should be no opportunity for privacy for an individual? Encryption can be done by the individual on their own pc making it inaccessible by anyone other than you. You are entitled to do that. The FBI want Apple to give them a means to ignore your wish for privacy.

There will always be unanswered questions when investigating something like a terrosist attack as there will always be something out of reach or some other Unknown. The problem is that the FBI believe they are entitled to whatever information they ask for, making your rights secondary to their ego and their career ambitions. I'm obviously not against preventing acts of terrorism but this is a big price to pay for very very little gain.

 

[TechZeke]

I have very mixed feelings on this issue. I don't think Apple should be forced to write software for the government. I'm more bothered by that than I am by the idea of decrypting the phone. No doubt this is one of the main reasons so many companies are supporting Apple. Once the government can demand that Apple write code for them, they can demand it of anyone.

That said, the idea that we, as a society, should accept that phones, computers, and other digital devices protected by strong encryption are 100% private zones is like saying we should allow rooms the government may never, under any circumstance, access in a home. We're essentially saying that the individual's right to privacy trumps EVERYTHING. I was listening to Sam Harris the other day and he calls the obsession with privacy a new religion, one he deems just as dangerous as existing God-based ones. I can see his point.

If the FBI knows that X is a pedophile and has shoeboxes full of kiddie porn pictures in a room at his house, should they not be allowed to serve a warrant and search the home? Should X have the right to an unsearchable room in his home? What if X is found dead and the only way to bust the child porn ring is by searching that room? I think most sensible people would find it absurd not to search the room. But, instead, X has all of his child porn on his encrypted phone and there's no way to access it, even though the need is completely legitimate. I find this very troubling.

The only sensible way forward that I see is for companies like Apple to become key masters, something they, understandably, don't want to do. If they don't move in that direction, however, government will start to legislate and it will be a disaster. If Apple provides unbreakable encryption on their phone, they should store the key and be able to provide it when served with a legal search warrant. If they do this, they short-circuit the need for legislation. Otherwise we are guaranteed to see a day when every tech company, every online service, must log everything and somehow provide the government with access. And when that day comes, the burden will be far more onerous and loss of privacy far greater than if these companies got proactive now and came up with a reasonable solution.

The problem isn't that Apple thinks privacy trumps everything, it's just that there's no way to provide only the government with a means to search a perp's phone without compromising the privacy and security of everyone else. If there was a way for the government to search a suspect's phone with a 100% guarantee that it wouldn't be exploited or fall into the wrong hands, then Apple would've done it no-problem already.

 

[apolloa]

This had to have been one hell of a meeting up at the Olympic Club in San Francisco!

Notice that Microsoft nor Google are on the list.

Google is not Google, it is Alphabet and they have been one of the corporations getting a court order stating they officially fully support Apple.

The more I see these companies sign up the funnier it gets, considering they data mine the hell out of you and sell that data on for millions and millions. Yeah real moral corps for privacy rights

 

[drumcat]

Wow... basically everyone who is anyone in digital data or document handling are lining up on this one. Very good to see! In fact, I may be missing some, but Adobe is the only "800 lb gorilla" I don't see here.

Adobe is more of a 200lb Gorilla anymore.
[doublepost=1457047415][/doublepost]

I do not see how the FBI will need to hack the Photoshop of some drug dealer
[doublepost=1457046944][/doublepost]View attachment 619643

Adobe already won't let you scan or work with real currency. Go ahead and scan a $100, and try and open it in PS. I dare you.

 

[decksnap]

I have very mixed feelings on this issue. I don't think Apple should be forced to write software for the government. I'm more bothered by that than I am by the idea of decrypting the phone. No doubt this is one of the main reasons so many companies are supporting Apple. Once the government can demand that Apple write code for them, they can demand it of anyone.

That said, the idea that we, as a society, should accept that phones, computers, and other digital devices protected by strong encryption are 100% private zones is like saying we should allow rooms the government may never, under any circumstance, access in a home. We're essentially saying that the individual's right to privacy trumps EVERYTHING. I was listening to Sam Harris the other day and he calls the obsession with privacy a new religion, one he deems just as dangerous as existing God-based ones. I can see his point.

If the FBI knows that X is a pedophile and has shoeboxes full of kiddie porn pictures in a room at his house, should they not be allowed to serve a warrant and search the home? Should X have the right to an unsearchable room in his home? What if X is found dead and the only way to bust the child porn ring is by searching that room? I think most sensible people would find it absurd not to search the room. But, instead, X has all of his child porn on his encrypted phone and there's no way to access it, even though the need is completely legitimate. I find this very troubling.

The only sensible way forward that I see is for companies like Apple to become key masters, something they, understandably, don't want to do. If they don't move in that direction, however, government will start to legislate and it will be a disaster. If Apple provides unbreakable encryption on their phone, they should store the key and be able to provide it when served with a legal search warrant. If they do this, they short-circuit the need for legislation. Otherwise we are guaranteed to see a day when every tech company, every online service, must log everything and somehow provide the government with access. And when that day comes, the burden will be far more onerous and loss of privacy far greater than if these companies got proactive now and came up with a reasonable solution.

If I build you a room, and you fill it with kiddie porn, that kiddie porn has nothing to do with me. Your room. Your porn. If the government gets a warrant to search that room, they have to find their own way in.

 

[drumcat]

Waiting for Samsung...

That would be ironic, Level: Trump.

 

[logicstudiouser]

Thanks to all the corps adding their voice. However, don't be fooled, they (including Apple) are not taking this position because they see it as morally right. It is about keeping consumer trust.
Regardless of the motivation, in the end, it is good they are publicly sticking up for our rights!

 

[bradl]

I have very mixed feelings on this issue. I don't think Apple should be forced to write software for the government. I'm more bothered by that than I am by the idea of decrypting the phone. No doubt this is one of the main reasons so many companies are supporting Apple. Once the government can demand that Apple write code for them, they can demand it of anyone.

That said, the idea that we, as a society, should accept that phones, computers, and other digital devices protected by strong encryption are 100% private zones is like saying we should allow rooms the government may never, under any circumstance, access in a home. We're essentially saying that the individual's right to privacy trumps EVERYTHING. I was listening to Sam Harris the other day and he calls the obsession with privacy a new religion, one he deems just as dangerous as existing God-based ones. I can see his point.

If the FBI knows that X is a pedophile and has shoeboxes full of kiddie porn pictures in a room at his house, should they not be allowed to serve a warrant and search the home? Should X have the right to an unsearchable room in his home? What if X is found dead and the only way to bust the child porn ring is by searching that room? I think most sensible people would find it absurd not to search the room. But, instead, X has all of his child porn on his encrypted phone and there's no way to access it, even though the need is completely legitimate. I find this very troubling.

The 4th Amendment is absolutely clear on what would happen in the anecdote you are presenting. A warrant would be needed to search the rooms, otherwise any unwarranted entrance would be akin to an unreasonable search/seizure, which would jeopardize the authorities' case.

However, that is actually irrelevant with this, as they have already served a warrant and Apple has cooperated in every way possible, including allowing the FBI access to the phone's backups.

But again, that is not the issue.

The only sensible way forward that I see is for companies like Apple to become key masters, something they, understandably, don't want to do. If they don't move in that direction, however, government will start to legislate and it will be a disaster. If Apple provides unbreakable encryption on their phone, they should store the key and be able to provide it when served with a legal search warrant. If they do this, they short-circuit the need for legislation. Otherwise we are guaranteed to see a day when every tech company, every online service, must log everything and somehow provide the government with access. And when that day comes, the burden will be far more onerous and loss of privacy far greater than if these companies got proactive now and came up with a reasonable solution.

This is the problem, and Issa presented it to them clearly, which Comey was caught with his pants down for an answer. The FBI didn't exercise all available options to get into the phone, nor extend their possible chances for getting into the phone. They gave up, and had a writ drawn up to force Apple to do it for them. That shows a lack of available expertise at the FBI, let alone the willing to do the work needed to get what they are looking for. From Issa's NPR interview I linked to earlier:

DARRELL ISSA: You're expecting somebody to obey an order to do something they don't want to do. And you haven't even figured out whether you could do it yourself. You've just told us well, we can't do it. But you didn't ask for the source code. And you didn't ask the questions I asked here today, and I'm just - I'm just a guy that did...

GREENE: Issa is a guy who knows about technology. The Republican Congressman made his fortune in electronic security creating car alarms. His congressional office is actually decorated with patents he has won for his electronic inventions. I asked him why he was so tough on the FBI director.

ISSA: I wouldn't say I was tough. What I would say is that the FBI director came unprepared.

GREENE: Unprepared because in Issa's mind, the FBI couldn't answer a simple question - why they didn't consider other ways to break into this iPhone short of forcing Apple to write new software that could, in Issa's mind, be used by hackers, maybe even other countries, to break into other phones. Now, Issa thinks there were other options like working with Apple to copy the data on the phone belonging to the attacker. This, Issa says, would've allowed government investigators to try hundreds and hundreds of passwords, likely eventually being able to break in.

ISSA: If you make 2000 copies you essentially get 2000 tries to find the combination.

GREENE: And this is really important, Issa says, because it would have still involved unlocking a single phone and not forcing Apple to create software that could unlock all phones. Issa thinks the FBI could have asked Apple for help with this.

ISSA: Certainly, Apple could've been asked to help them make copies. And I'm not sure that Apple would have objected to it. Apple was objecting not to the things that it in the ordinary courts could do. They were objecting to developing a clandestine backdoor for their product.

GREENE: And why is that such a red flag for you because Director Comey described the request as akin to asking Apple to take away the vicious guard dog and let us pick the lock.

ISSA: But that's just not true. That's not true. Your listeners need to understand one of your rights is your right to privacy. Now, if Apple creates a backdoor, it's not removing a guard dog from a criminal's front door. It's giving an automated process of unlocking every door in America and unlocking it potentially without your knowing it. That's really what they're asking for.

That's the crux of the matter, and although the method he suggested to use is probably about 10 years old, logically, Issa was spot on.

Additionally, if anyone doubts the weaknesses and backdoors the government wants to have in encryption "in order to keep us safe from terrorists", it should be noted that the last few SSL vulnerabilities: FREAK, Logjam, and the just -announced DROWN vulnerability, are all examples of the weaknesses in encryption demanded by the US Government.

BL.

 

[drumcat]

Thanks to all the corps adding their voice. However, don't be fooled, they (including Apple) are not taking this position because they see it as morally right. It is about keeping consumer trust.
Regardless of the motivation, in the end, it is good they are publicly sticking up for our rights!

Consumer Trust > Government Intrusion.

 

[TechZeke]

The us govt and FBI has completely lost the public trust on this matter. Yes national security is important. But please don't think the American people especially techies like us on macrumors don't see right through their lies.

First FBI tells the public they "need Apple" help to unlock this "one iPhone" to help not only the us govt fight terrorism but also help the families of the San Bernanindo victims.

We all know that it was BS public stunt. The so called terrorist work phone iPhone 5C and its contents likely have zero value.

Yet the FBI chief than goes and has an op Ed article saying it's just "one phone".

Than last we the same FBI chief gets called out and says "we'll we be setting a precedent" so future iPhones would be required by the courts to be unlocked on demand.

Liar liar liar. How can we trust the govt when they can't keep their reasoning straight. We all called them out even Apple knew the game. Saying it's not just one iPhone.

Why didn't the FBI say that from the start?

This has already been a real $h*t show for the FBI - Regardless of the outcome of this case, the FBI has already made themselves look like incompetent liars. The fact that they already have a line of phones ready to be unlocked already proved Apple's point. Needless to say, as a tax-paying US citizen my confidence, respect, and opinion of the FBI has been severely shaken.

 

[logicstudiouser]

Waiting for Samsung...

You mean the company that records users of their 'smart TVs'. Don't hold your breath.

 

[MikePLP]

Waiting for Samsung...

They won't do it because they want to pander to folks like trump.

 

[gnasher729]

That said, the idea that we, as a society, should accept that phones, computers, and other digital devices protected by strong encryption are 100% private zones is like saying we should allow rooms the government may never, under any circumstance, access in a home. We're essentially saying that the individual's right to privacy trumps EVERYTHING. I was listening to Sam Harris the other day and he calls the obsession with privacy a new religion, one he deems just as dangerous as existing God-based ones. I can see his point.

Do you have any idea how many FBI agents have iPhones? Apparently they have been replacing Blackberrys with iPhones. Mr. Comey doesn't realise that there are thousands and thousands of FBI agents who are in danger of getting their phones hacked by criminals. Imagine an undercover agent whose phone gets examined by the people that he is investigating.

 

[nt5672]

. . .

If the FBI knows that X is a pedophile and has shoeboxes full of kiddie porn pictures in a room at his house, should they not be allowed to serve a warrant and search the home? Should X have the right to an unsearchable room in his home? What if X is found dead and the only way to bust the child porn ring is by searching that room? I think most sensible people would find it absurd not to search the room. But, instead, X has all of his child porn on his encrypted phone and there's no way to access it, even though the need is completely legitimate. I find this very troubling.

. . . .

I don't find this troubling at all. Who cares if someone has something on their phone. That something is just a picture or words. Pictures and words should not be against the law. When people really break the law is when they do something physical, like take the pictures, make the bomb, hit the kid, etc. Needing pictures and words from a phone are just excuses for government overreach and for the government to take the easy way out. There were not any smart phones 50 years ago, yet we still caught terrorists, thieves, child pornographers, etc.

Bad people cannot hide from the authorities even if they have encrypted phones. They will still make mistakes. They will still get caught. We don't need to make all phones easy to read in order to catch criminals. If that is the goal, then you have to be OK with the government monitoring every phone call and every email. Because that makes catching the criminal really really easy.

The other issue is that once the government can read the phone, then the bad guys and gals will find another way to store information and the only result of this goody-too-shoes approach is the LACK of security us good-guys and good-gals have against hackers.

 

[robbyx]

The problem isn't that Apple thinks privacy trumps everything, it's just that there's no way to provide only the government with a means to search a perp's phone without compromising the privacy and security of everyone else. If there was a way for the government to search a suspect's phone with a 100% guarantee that it wouldn't be exploited or fall into the wrong hands, then Apple would've done it no-problem already.

Actually Apple does think privacy trumps everything. They built, practically speaking, an unbreakable encryption system for their phone. They could have approached the issue in a more measured way if they had wanted to, but they decided privacy was of the utmost importance.

In this particular case, the damage is done and I support Apple's position. If they engineered a version of iOS to bypass the existing security system, it would be a disaster, essentially a master key for anyone who had the software. But that doesn't mean Apple holds any sort of moral or ethical high ground here.

They are providing a means to secure information with 99.99999999% certainty that no one will ever be able to access it, yet washing their hands of all responsibility when it comes to people using the fruits of their labor for terrible things. Some are sensational, like organizing a terrorist attack or running a child porn ring. Some are more mundane, like defrauding Medicare or making shady real estate deals that trample on low income people. The data, the evidence, that once existed in filing cabinets, notes on the fridge, floppy disks, etc. and could be collected using a legal search warrant is now locked away behind an impenetrable wall. And that's ok?

 

[Edd.Dantes]

Ok, so let's assume that Apple loses this. What are my Android ROM options?

I see the whole thing as a turning point in how I forward my activity. "Nothing to hide" is not a valid argument here. I want to show our overzealous government that my stuff is my stuff.

I don't want a blackphone, or similar device, I just want a secure OS that most governments can't access.

It may take a while for this to be settled but I dabble in Android and would like a backup plan.

I hate the idea of sacrificing convenience/pleasure for privacy but I'll do anything to give Washington the finger

 

[robbyx]

Do you have any idea how many FBI agents have iPhones? Apparently they have been replacing Blackberrys with iPhones. Mr. Comey doesn't realise that there are thousands and thousands of FBI agents who are in danger of getting their phones hacked by criminals. Imagine an undercover agent whose phone gets examined by the people that he is investigating.

I'm not particularly interested in the current situation. I side with Apple and don't think the government should be able to force Apple to develop a software master key for them. There's no way to guarantee that code wouldn't escape. It almost certainly would.

That said, when we consider this issue moving forward, the position that strong encryption is somehow a right and no one (i.e.: law enforcement) should ever, under any circumstances, be able to access an encrypted digital device is absurd. More and more of who we are is being stored digitally. I don't want the government spying on my business. But if they collect enough evidence that someone is committing a crime, it's very dangerous to say that law enforcement shouldn't be able to access electronic devices that store data. Not only is it dangerous, but it is an untenable position.

The way I see it, tech companies can either devise a way to secure our devices but provide - via them, not in the form of a master key to the government - access when a legitimate warrant is served...or government will enact legislation that is far more damaging to the individual's privacy. Apple and other tech companies have put themselves in this position. They should devise a more balanced solution moving forward. Or government will step in and force one upon them. If tech companies are going to provide these kind of services and capabilities, they shouldn't be able to wash their hands of all responsibility when it comes to assisting law enforcement.

 

[gnasher729]

They are providing a means to secure information with 99.99999999% certainty that no one will ever be able to access it, yet washing their hands of all responsibility when it comes to people using the fruits of their labor for terrible things. Some are sensational, like organizing a terrorist attack or running a child porn ring. Some are more mundane, like defrauding Medicare or making shady real estate deals that trample on low income people. The data, the evidence, that once existed in filing cabinets, notes on the fridge, floppy disks, etc. and could be collected using a legal search warrant is now locked away behind an impenetrable wall. And that's ok?

Come back when you can tell us how Apple should distinguish between phones owned by criminals and phones owned by law-abiding citizens who want to stay safe from criminals.

You seem to be obsessed with criminals.

And may I remind you that the case starting this discussion is unusual, because the criminal owning the phone is DEAD and cannot be asked to unlock the phone. In all the other cases that you mention, for example the person defrauding Medicare, the police gets a search warrant, and with that search warrant they can politely ask them to unlock the phone. If they don't, a judge will order them. If they refuse, at the very least the judge will assume that there is evidence against them hidden on that phone.

 

[TechZeke]

Actually Apple does think privacy trumps everything. They built, practically speaking, an unbreakable encryption system for their phone. They could have approached the issue in a more measured way if they had wanted to, but they decided privacy was of the utmost importance.

In this particular case, the damage is done and I support Apple's position. If they engineered a version of iOS to bypass the existing security system, it would be a disaster, essentially a master key for anyone who had the software. But that doesn't mean Apple holds any sort of moral or ethical high ground here.

They are providing a means to secure information with 99.99999999% certainty that no one will ever be able to access it, yet washing their hands of all responsibility when it comes to people using the fruits of their labor for terrible things. Some are sensational, like organizing a terrorist attack or running a child porn ring. Some are more mundane, like defrauding Medicare or making shady real estate deals that trample on low income people. The data, the evidence, that once existed in filing cabinets, notes on the fridge, floppy disks, etc. and could be collected using a legal search warrant is now locked away behind an impenetrable wall. And that's ok?

It's not about some moral/ethical high ground. The world isn't perfect. There are necessary evils. As if Apple wants to purposely make the FBI's job difficult.

If the FBI's only means of catching a suspect is the suspect's iPhone, then that makes me even less confident of the competency of the FBI.

This is not even mentioning the fact that the FBI may have already shot themselves in the foot by making it public, since I'm willing to bet that the majority of people(including criminals) didn't even know the iPhone was so secure before this widely publicized case.