FBI vs. Apple

I find this very disturbing. China and Russia have already been pressuring smart phone makers along these lines. Once an American company can be forced  --  by our own government  --  into creating a back door that compromises security for all, the digital world, in which we now all live, will totally implode. Once the genie is out of the bottle . . .

Tim Cook is the man telling them to piss off.

What is with these "freedom loving" conservatives that want to hand over all of our rights all the time?

I had to google this. Here is the first result:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/explaining-apples-fight-with-the-fbi.html

I don't understand why they need the SOFTWARE that allows them to unlock any iPhone. Can't Apple just provide the info on this one phone (after the FBI gets a warrant) and go from there?

From Apple's POV this is good marketing. Anyone who values this kind of privacy should buy an iPhone. I wonder if droid does not have this protection and if Google will build it in now.

Classic freedom vs "security" thing.

dude, as far as i know "software" does not exist. they want apple to make a custom solution to copy all of this ladies data.

From what I understand, they are asking Apple to disable the feature that wipes the phone if a certain number of incorrect password attempts are made, so that the FBI could try to unlock the phone using a system that inundates the phone with any possible code combination, without risking losing the data.  Another interesting wrinkle in the case is that the phone is owned by the County of San Bernadino, and they have consented to the search (he used his work phone!). So this may not be the best test case for Apple to fight in the courts, especially since they have complied with other law enforcement requests in the past.  

I wonder though, if the FBI loses, could the County of San Bernadino win in court?  The phone is theirs, the data on the phone is theirs, and they certainly have an interest in finding out what happened, and to recover the data that may be on the phone.  

In any event, this may cause employers to re-think the providing of of iPhone devices for employee connectivity, if they cannot force Apple to turn over employer-owned data that may exist on the devices.  

CapnJazzHands wrote

In any event, this may cause employers to re-think the providing of of iPhone devices for employee connectivity, if they cannot force Apple to turn over employer-owned data that may exist on the devices.

Or if Apple loses no company anywhere will have the right not to give police information they want. It's a big deal if you care about privacy.

ml242 wrote

CapnJazzHands wrote

In any event, this may cause employers to re-think the providing of of iPhone devices for employee connectivity, if they cannot force Apple to turn over employer-owned data that may exist on the devices.

Or if Apple loses no company anywhere will have the right not to give police information they want. It's a big deal if you care about privacy.

I think the owners of the phone have the right to see the data. However, the court should uphold Apples right to refuse the request - IMHO. Even though people died at the hands of terrorists, if the end result was that my private data was less secure I would feel that the terrorists took much more than a few innocent lives - they took our societies right to privacy, not because they obtained the data from the phone, but rather that they created a backdoor to everyone's phone. I hope the court is smart enough to realize this. So the court gives San Bern the phone and says "Have at it, get the data however you choose to but you can't force Apple to jeopardize the privacy of every other iPhone owner to do it.  

so we're saying the same thing, just like coach and bernie :)

I get the concern about the potential for abuse.  It's entirely valid, particularly after the experience with the Patriot Act and prosecutors abusing their discretion in filing terrorism charges in cases where such charges were totally inappropriate.

But, I just don't see the courts ruling in Apple's favor in this particular case.  The fact pattern is too disfavorable to Apple's position: A heinous crime already occurred and the defendants are dead; the request is being made in connection with the investigation of the crime; the owner of the phone (the party with the privacy interest to protect) has consented to the search; and Apple had been complying with warrants and subpoenas prior to their OS change.

Is it clear that DOJ is using this particular case to force Apple's hand - it's their best shot to do so right now.  Should the courts order Apple to make this solution, I certainly believe that DOJ will seek further warrants and court orders in other cases.  Cases that will be far less worthy on their merits.  But, Apple is essentially also asking the courts to give up their right to judicial review of warrant requests for a whole range of potential cases, and I don't really see that the courts will allow themselves to be taken out of the process.  I think the courts will stress that this isn't a carte blanche allowance of the DOJ to have new powers to access your data.  They will still have to go through the courts on a case by case basis to obtain warrants and orders as they have in years past. I think the courts may also see the potential for this type of unbreakable encryption technology to be used to hamper discovery in all types of criminal and civil cases, which would have the potential to really upend our judicial system.        

I think Apple knows it will eventually lose before the courts, but they will exhaust the appeals process as a delay tactic in their efforts to get Congress to act.  http://fortune.com/2016/02/22/apple-ceo-tim-cook-fbi-iphone/ But, I don't think we can rely on the current Congress to do anything closely resembling "their job."

So, wherever your opinions reside on this matter, be sure to research your House and Senate candidates' positions before heading to the voting booth this November.