Should Apple Comply With FBI Court Order

1. 88

   GA Andersonposted 8 years ago

   The way I understand the story is that the FBI wants to compel Apple to write a piece of OS, (Operating System), code that would delete the security function that wipes an iPhone's memory after 10 failed password entry attempts.
   
   And... they want this code only for this one specific iPhone, (used by the San Bernadina terrorist),  and only for this one-time use. And... the owner of the phone authorizes the FBI efforts.
   
   But... Apple is refusing based on the argument that it can't be done on a one-off basis. They argue that to develop the code for one use is the same as developing the code for general use on all iPhones. They say the government is asking them to develop a `back door' to bypass an iPhone's, (and other encrypted Apple products), encryption and security features. Hence, making this a privacy issue.
   
   Here is a Google search for the story
   
   What do you think?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 60

      CCgirlposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I am deeply saddened by the events in San Bernadino and Paris attacks, etc.  However, we need to think about the ramifications of what we are agreeing to if we support this request. I support Apple 100%

      replyreport
   2. 80

      Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      After reading an article or two, it sounds like a Pandora's box is being opened. A box that I just as soon see stay closed. There is a privacy issue, providing info to decrypt one telephone in this exigency circumstance is one thing. The Government seeking the power to make sweeping demands of Apple and the marketability of its products is unprecedented.
      
      This opens us up to the possibility of unreasonable searches and seizures by the government on private citizens, with the Government not necessarily being required to justify an intrusion, it is simply because they can.
      
      The Government needs to be restricted to making such draconian demands to a case by case basis with the need to support the why and wherefore each time
      
      So, in a nutshell Apple's position is correct.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Credence2 -  Hello my friend from sunny Florida.  You pretty well summed up everything that needs to be said about this matter.  I totally agree with the case by case basis.  We all know what happens every time we open the door even a crack to government intrusion.
         
         I hope life is good for you and yours in Florida.  Any chance you will ever make that trip to Arizona?

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Hi, OP, this is the Apple of my eye. I do not necessarily feel this way about the Government all of the time, but in this instance of national security vs privacy and unwarranted interference in how private corporation conducts it business, the Government has not really made it case.
            
            Thanks we are doing well, the missus has been subject to hip and knee replacements now I have a bionic woman, but the rolling pin is still made of wood, as I am reminded of from time to time. Her recovery has been somewhat difficult. We haven't settled the dust enough to travel much. I will not rule out the possiblility as I have family in Nevada, pretty close by. I would like to do the Charles Kuralt thing and take a few road trips around the country, we just have to get our ducks in a row, first. Thanks for the invitation, I extend one to you likewise, if you are anywhere near Florida!

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Credence2 - Sorry to hear that your missus has had to become bionic.  Being part bionic myself due to a broken hip so am aware of the pain and recovery time.  I have heard that it takes longer to recover from a knee replacement than a hip but don't know for sure.  I wish her a speedy recovery.
               
               I hope it works out that we can get together one day so we can actually solve at least a few of the problems that plague this world.  Have a great week my friend.

               replyreport
      2. 88

         GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         I agree. And the more I hear about it, the more I agree with Apple's answer.
         
         GA

         replyreport
2. 77

   colorfuloneposted 8 years ago

   I read about this yesterday and had to question why the government needs to wipe information off that iPhone.  To me, it confirms that all the conspiracy theories are not just blowing smoke. 
   Gasp, is it that there is something to hide?

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      It's not like that.  They want to read the phone, not wipe it.  And if they try 10 times to unlock it, and fail, the phone will wipe itself.  They want unlimited tries, without the phone deleting it's data.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you for the clarification, wilderness. 

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Welcome!

            replyreport
3. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 8 years ago

   I am heartened to see Apple contend this issue.  While I believe that the FBI ought to be able to hack an individual phone with a court order, I think the brains that work for the NSA, CIA, and FBI ought to figure it out on their own and not compel a private business to create software that would universally apply to all phones.  This is assuming that the brains at Apple are correct in their contention that it would create security woes for their customers.

   replyreport
4. 0

   Old Poolmanposted 8 years ago

   This is a very sticky issue to say the least.
   
   I too am glad to see Apple resist and consider the privacy of their millions of customers.  Most of us know the old saying "Give them an inch and they take a mile" fits our government to a tee.
   
   However, this situation involving known terrorist activity is different than just asking for a repeat of what the NSA was doing prior to Snowden spilling the beans on them.
   
   I would think with this in mind that Apple engineers would be capable of extracting the needed information from this one phone without opening a back door for the government to use on every Apple product.
   
   Bottom line I guess is I trust Apple far more than I trust our government.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I tend to trust them, too, although the uproar over bricking any iphone that has work done on it by anyone but Apple is over the line.
      
      I'd like to see Apple be paid to retrieve the data, and then destroy the phone with any changes they made.  Never allow government to handle it at all after Apple gets around the security.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Well... if I were to come down on your side of the fence - I would like your precautions and stipulations.
         
         But why do you feel that Apple being paid for their actions makes any difference in the legitimacy of doing what the government wants? And why do you feel destroying the phone would help - the code needed will still exist outside of the phone?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            True, but it will be in Apple's hands (who developed the software for the phone as well) and not Uncle Sam's.  I have no qualms at all about getting the data - just in government having the software defeating the security protocols.  Were I Apple, I would destroy the software along with the modified phone.  A one use project.
            
            I can't see government demanding that a company performing labor for free.  If government wants something, let it pay for it.  Next thing might be that they decide they want a new road and require some company to build it for free.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               "Were I Apple, I would destroy the software along with the modified phone.  A one use project."
               
               If I understand correctly, the code needed does not exist. It essentially requires Apple to alter the OS software with either a work-around patch of code, or a rewrite of the OS that does not contain the security wipe feature, or a patch that eliminates the limit to password entry tries.
               
               Either way, it is something that must be created. Once created it can't be un-created. The physical copy used for this application might be destroyed, but the fact that a hack was created can't be erased.
               
               Then, what does Apple do when the Feds demand they unlock an assassin's phone? Or should it be phrased "purported assassin?" Can Apple refuse a second request based on the government's degree of need?
               
               Can someone be a little bit pregnant?
               
               GA

               replyreport
   2. 88

      GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Greetings ol' buddy, glad to see you pop in.
      
      I am also a little conflicted on my opinion about this, and need to give it some more research and thought.
      
      But initially ...
      
      My gut instinct is to go with Apple. It is the precedent that worries me.
      
      Sure it sounds OK to do it this one time because it's a terrorist we are talking about. But what if next time it is serial killer? Or an Anarchist? Or seditious blasphemer? Or a successfully vocal opponent of the party-in-power?
      
      It is my opinion that when it comes to government actions, the frequently argued slippery slope concern is almost always justified.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Does the fact that the phone's owner has given permission make a difference?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            That is a darn good question.  I would think it would as that should relieve Apple of any liability.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               IF they can keep the key out of government's hands, it would also seem to relieve them of any morality issue as well.  IF.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  That is a big IF my friend.

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     Sure is!  I think that even if Apple was hired to retrieve the data (rather than build a key) that key would eventually end up in the hands of government.  Which is why I said destroy both modified phone and the key.  It would at least make it more difficult to use on a different phone.

                     replyreport
            2. 88

               GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               I think the owner's permission aspect bears on the invasion of privacy concerns of the request. There is no privacy concern if the subject of the concern gives permission. As I see it.
               
               GA

               replyreport
5. 74

   jacharlessposted 8 years ago

   In a word: NO!
   Why?
   Several reasons:
   
   a. Once a person buys a mobile phone, they also buy a portion of the intellectual property associated with the hard and soft wares provided by the manufacturer and internet service provider [ISP].
   
   b. These wares are connected to a massive data information system that overlaps singular and multiple networks. Said data system includes all users on the network, in registry and wherever the data is stored, be it cloud based or hard database. Enabling access to one phone actually provides access to all phones and data on said network(s).
   
   c. Encryption is designed to keep a users personal identifiable information away from prying eyes, be it hackers, other users, unauthorized applications, etc. Currently, and thank goodness, the 128 bit encryption method cannot be read/decoded by machines. The string is way to long for it to be readable. This makes both the device and user information on the device -or network- secure/private. Relinquishing said encryption makes the device, user and the entire network vulnerable to viruses, hacks and content theft.
   
   What the Fed is proposing is Apple built a new iOS granting them unlimited access to all the information and activity of the device -which would include everything from network action, browsing history, device application activity, log files, SMS, MMS, phone records, contact lists -(aka access to other user's info/data) - EVERYTHING. Said information could be used against the individual for any reason whatsoever. One of the main arguments by technology companies, like Apple, is the autonomy of data and anonymity of the user and the device.
   
   I say stellar stance on the part of Tim Cook and the folks at Apple.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      That is great information.  Thanks for sharing that with us.

      replyreport
   2. 88

      GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      If your points are valid and correct, (I don't know, but I also have no reason to doubt them), then you have presented a new dimension to the question.
      
      As first considered, it seemed a question of getting to a call log and contact list on the phone itself. But cast in the light of your perspective, then it seems like that one iPhone could be the wormhole that leads into possibilities well beyond just seeing who this one guy talked to.
      
      I was with Apple for a different reason initially, but if your description is accurate - then I feel even more strongly that Apple made the right choice.
      
      ps. Excellent perspective. I intend to dive a little deeper into your points. And I will come back and offer kudos if it checks out, or bite you if it was just rubbish and obfuscation.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 74

         jacharlessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         I would expect nothing less. Good hunting!
         
         To add another point, or rather explanation of technology, regarding Keys.
         Generally, every Application Program Interface [API] has two keys: one public, one private. In addition there are several safeguards in place to protect those keys, like consumer key, consumer secret, access tokens, access identities, etc. plus application and/or device permissions and limitation of a call(s) to action. The concept is based on layering security measures to insure unauthorized communication/action is prevented, as it is the API that does the "talking".
         
         As example, when you download anything, or open any web page, to your computer, tablet or mobile device, the system registry installs a specific key, which allows the application to communicate with the operating system, run software(s) and potentially communicate with other wares on and off the machine. Likewise the system will temporarily (or permanently) cache the data for future ease of access. Unlike Windows, Apple iOS is specifically designed with special keys that are virtually "unhackable", thus protecting all the information on the machine/device. Add to that a protective layer, limited to ten tries, before the system wipes itself clean. Just brilliant technology.
         
         When device A attempts to communicate with device B (or B-C-D-E-F-G), the Private and Public Keys are the means used to allow/disallow communication. And, even if the "door" is unlocked, the remaining measures kick-in just in case. This method applies to each type of software on the device, as each ware has its own set of keys and permissions. Not surprisingly, 99% of people do not actually read the install manifest to see what and which permissions are being enabled. Case in point: Facebook App. Just take a gander at how many elements on your device it requires access to for installation and usage!
         
         Just imagine someone, like the Fed, with universal access to all those keys and permissions. Now, further imagine a security breach aka hack on the Fed database -which has happened more times than you can imagine- and a third party having unlimited access to not only your devices info but 250,000,000 other people. This is really Apple, Twitter, WikiLeaks, etc argument.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Most interesting - I had no idea.  Thanks!

            replyreport
6. 0

   ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

   IMHO , We live in an age of information and information trading ,  our privacy and certain private information  ,    like many things  , is for sale or for trading between all corporate interests , like it or not . They do it every day . And like it or not Apple  should be compelled to provide SPECIFIC information about this case from that one phone  and  they could easily do it ,even for  this case alone ,which WAS a internationally influenced terrorist act .
   
   This case will probably go to the highest courts and probably should ,  No phone , no individual privacy and no corporate  interests can or should be held to a higher standard of security than that of ALL our collective national interests and security . Especially if  and  that this information on this phone is critical to national interests.  It is all about a crime that HAS ALREADY been committed , no single corporate or individual privacy concerns trump  a terrorist act !

   replyreport
   1. 88

      GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      That sure sounds like trading a little more liberty for a little more security to me. An occurrence that has brought us to where we are now - we need 128-bit encryption to protect our privacy. Doesn't sound like the trading has been in our favor.
      
      Wrapping it in the mantle of National Security is not a valid answer for me, in this instance.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Except there is the matter of national security which you may find not so important while living inside  the safe walls of the kingdom . A  general blindness to required vigilance is twice as  dangerous  .

         replyreport
         1. 88

            GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            That sounds like your perception of "required vigilance" pertains to the government's actions, whereas mine is from the perspective of citizens. I don't think I am blind to the need of "required vigilance" at all.
            
            Do you remember how "sensible" New York's Stop and Frisk program sounded when first implemented?  Do you remember the stats proving the over-reach that followed that governmental empowerment?
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Excellent example of abuse of power.

               replyreport
7. 67

   ptosisposted 8 years ago

   http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fbi … story.html
   
   Apple recommended trying to back up to Farook's iCloud account over the Internet, but investigators could not. Shortly after the attack, a San Bernardino County employee apparently had reset the password remotely. That made it impossible to initiate the auto-backup feature later, according to a footnote in Friday's filing.
   
   http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-david … apple-case
   
   What happens when the government goes to court to demand that you give it something that you do not have? No one has it, in fact, because it doesn’t exist. What if the government then proceeds to order you to construct, design, invent, or somehow conjure up the thing it wants?....the government seems to have moved from asking for compliance with a subpoena to demanding full-scale customer service.
   
   
   
   China can demand same service as in USA . implications are world-wide

   replyreport
8. 59

   paradigmsearchposted 8 years ago

   Why can't the FBI simply give the phone to Apple, who then unlocks and returns it?

   replyreport
   1. 88

      GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Because Apple does not have the key to unlock the phone.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 77

         colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Actually, I think a shovelful of crap by the mainstream media was served.  Apple does have the basic information to get into the iPhone that belonged to a radicalized Islamic terrorist.  That's not the problem. 
         
         There is a cover up by Obama's pet justice dept. and gov. mercenaries, "Oh, we need to get into that phone!"   Its a red herring!   
         
         Apple accessed the phone less then a day after the mass shooting .
         
         Now, here's the kicker, Apple said there was an iPhone ID change less then one day after the shooting that prevented data access. Obama's DOJ had already changed it. And, they're acting like Apple won't give their pass-code to them.
         
         When has the FBI had a problem accessing a phone?  My cousin who works for the FBI can hack anything...not all FBI are bad.   But, there's more to this story.

         replyreport
         1. 88

            GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Oh boy, and I bet you have some credible sources for these facts. Care to share?
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 77

               colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Its been about a five year battle between Apple and Obama's DOJ,  and further to Steve Jobs not giving them their incription and algorithms. Apple's current CEO actually said they'd give them the incription of the codes, but the Feds are a multi-million person agency and their computers get hacked all the time. That's where all the big leaks are coming from. Then, the black-hat hackers, the foreign governments, China and everybody else will have the backdoors into our iPhones.
               
               Apple was in the terrorist's iPhone and could not access data, because the Feds were in it and changed the pass-code.
               
               
               Obama Administration Shuts Down an Investigation That Would Have Stopped San Bernardino [VIDEO]
               http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2015/12 … ion-video/
               
               DOJ Escalates Battle With Apple Over San Bernardino Shooter's Phone
               http://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-escalates- … d=37056775
               
               "Cops Don't Need A Crypto Backdoor To Get Into Your iPhone"
               "Tim Cook Says Apple Won't Create Universal iPhone Backdoor For FBI"
               "Apple opposes judge's order to hack San Bernardino shooter's iPhone"
               
               The reason Apple works better than PC on average is its propitiatory, it isn't open source and is harder to get into. As it gets more successful and has market dominance, its getting pierced as more hackers attack it. They have to upgrade all the time. So anyway, what the department of justice did is create this red herring.
               
               All Feds are not the bad guys but its a diverse group of people with fractions and divisions. But, the people running the main federal objectives are globalists who want to dominate and control everything. These are the same ones who ran Fast N Furious, the same ones who persecuted the Christian with the IRS...  And, they're acting like Apple won't give their pass-code to them when they actually have it. They want to take over all that Apple is doing..and have the keys to everyone's data.
               
               President Obama signed into law the "H.R.1123 Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act"  https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-con … -bill/1123
               
               Oh boy!  Why do you think former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hasn't been indicted under the present administration for compromising top secret information on her unsecured personal server?  The Feds are pulling up classified and secret information that she compromised and deleted.

               replyreport
   2. 60

      CCgirlposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      the whole point ss that Apple cannot backdoor the phone

      replyreport
      1. 59

         paradigmsearchposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         The FBI wants Apple to create a solution and then tell or provide it to the FBI. I'm saying why doesn't Apple just create the solution and use it themselves, thus no need to reveal anything to anyone.
         
         And while we are at it, here's exactly what Apple would probably do...
         
         1. Apple certainly knows how to take apart their own phones without risk of destroying any data.
         
         2. With the phone properly apart, the appropriate chip(s) are exposed.
         
         3. Apple certainly knows how to safely copy the data from their own chip(s).
         
         4. Apple gives copies to the FBI.
         
         5. Data still encrypted all to blazes? Not a problem.
         
         6. The phone safeguards are now gone. The FBI can now sic Big Blue on it for a quick couple trillion passes until decrypted.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            There are ways to break into these Apple phones through a backdoor. Normally, a hacker can get into an iPhone through the backend and access an app or hard-drive to access the pass-code.
            
            What Obama's DOJ did (not the whole FBI, just Obama's justice) was try to force Apple to give up the keys to the kingdom, all of their inscription, their operation system, everything!  Apple ignored a judge's orders as they shouldn't give up such information to that regime without a warrant. 
            
            The feds already accessed the iPhone.

            replyreport
         2. 88

            GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            That sure sounds logical and easy enough. But... I could not find any tech-oriented articles that agree with you. Maybe you could point me in the right direction.
            
            I did look at several sources to get a handle on the controversy - before I started the thread. And then jacharless posted a couple really technical responses;  here: and here:
            
            ...which sent me on another trip down the link-chasing rabbit hole for a couple hours.
            
            I did find a couple techie articles that spoke of taking the phone apart and reading the chips, but they involved stuff like specific frequency laser or radio waves pointed at an exposed chip to try to read the on/off gates of each transistor circuit in the chip. And even that was talked of as a probably-won't-work solution.
            
            Looking at probably six to ten articles and none spoke of the simple operation you say is the simple solution. Hmm...
            
            I will be glad to look again once you put me on the track you found.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 59

               paradigmsearchposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Oh, please. Do you really think Apple doesn't know how to retrieve raw data from their own damn phone chips?

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't know either way. You may be right, and I am a naive dummy, or I may be right and you are following what seems to be a logical assumption, but is in fact as wrong as can be.
                  
                  I have known past instances where what seemed to be logical common sense assumptions bit me in the butt. So I try not to assume anything.
                  
                  Have you checked other sources to verify your assumption, or found any kindred spirits that believe as you do?
                  
                  So, hang on to your "Oh please" until you can back up what you claim.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     paradigmsearchposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     It's called cloning.
                     
                     Here's an even better one. Apple knows exactly where the password is stored. They wouldn't even have to bother to read it, just overwrite it with their own.

                     replyreport
                     1. 88

                        GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        Are you insisting that I do the legwork to verify your claims? Claims that run counter to most everything written about the issue. If you are sure about all this, why not back it up with sourced information?
                        
                        It sounds like you are saying all the hoopla about unbreakable encryption since Apple introduced its new iOS a while back is just a bunch of hooey. All the police depts. and Fed agencies crying that they could no longer break the encrypted phones and email services is just malarky by your logic.
                        
                        Or do I have that wrong too?
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           paradigmsearchposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                           Yep.
                           
                           And I give up.

                           replyreport
9. 67

   ptosisposted 8 years ago

   FBI told SB county to change PW remotely so, it is FBI's fault can not read info

   replyreport
   1. 77

      colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Aw, I missed that big little nugget.  Thanks to you for sharing that. 
      
      I listened to a video this morning where the info investigator said that the FBI said it screwed up the reset on the San Bernartino terrorist's iCloud password. A tech insider admitted it.

      replyreport
10. 87

    RJ Schwartzposted 8 years ago

    I don't think Apple should comply.  With a high visibility case like this, it will be national news whichever direction they go.  Many people will base their future purchasing decisions on the outcome.  The conspiracy theorist in me says that the Fed wants to be able to spy on anyone at any time and giving them a backdoor makes people uncomfortable.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Apple is right not to give the codes to the US government, because information gets leaked out to everywhere and sold by third parties.  When we hear about tens of thousands or millions of pass-codes getting hacked, its always the government or the mega banks where the leaks come from.
       
       The FBI was told to stand down two years before the SB shooting, to stop the investigation by the justice department. They did a "criminal rights investigation" of the federal agencies that were investigating the mosque and these people. So, the shooting would have been stopped if they did their job with the Bill of Rights, with due process, and with profiling.
       
       Someone comes from Saudi Arabia and on their Facebook pages say they want to wage a jihad...that's probable cause to tap their phone and follow a suspect.

       replyreport
11. 67

    ptosisposted 8 years ago

    Remember it was revealed back in 2001 that the FBI didn't even use computers that everything was hand written for security. It came up during a congress review that they weren't even allowed to gather info using Facebook or MySpace ?  One of the congressman made the comment "My 6 year old grandson can look it up but you can't??"  Remember how shocked we all were to find this out?  So somehow they went from no computer -> to trust us with THEE most damaging software code in history - all in just 15 years??  Apple has been doing this for 30+ years but the FBI is suddenly a computer/mobile specialist?  They're the ones who told the idiot ar SBC that changing the Apple ID and password was a good way to retrieve info from the phone? Imagine the studio decisions they could make with govtOS?The only device allowed in the pentagon is the iPhone. So where does that leave our defense when they hack into there??  - razormaid

    replyreport