Discussion: Apple Says It Will Fight Order To Break Into San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone

[system1]

Discussion for article #246084

[castor_troy]

Doesn’t the DMCA make it highly illegal to reverse engineer any software security features?

So the FBI is literally trying to make Apple commit a Federal Crime, one subject to severe penalties…

[jcblues]

the argument police agencies are using seem, to me anyway, to just them being too lazy to do real actual police work…

they are discounting the ‘unintended’ consequences of having any sort of key that allows anyone to access your data… even tho they claim it would be kept under close tight control once it’s there it’s there…

anyone still remember Edward Snowden?

[alliebean]

@Castor_Troy

Doesn’t the DMCA make it highly illegal to reverse engineer any software security features?

It’s Apple’s software. I’m not sure how it would be a federal crime to create a program to access their own software. That said, it’s an interesting fight and Apple could win. I hope they do actually. Law enforcement will abuse this.

[perge]

In this case Cook is blowing smoke. Banks routinely allow forensic investigation if a court order to do so is in place. What make Apple so special? I understand what he tis saying, but here is what I understand…Apple feels they are more important than the lives lost in San Bernardino.

Here’s a principle Cook should lead. Whenever there is a stock buyback by Apple, they executives cannot benefit from using the company treasury to enrich their shares and options granted to them. It’s unethical and should be illegal. Where are you on that Cook?

[alliebean]

@perge

In this case Cook is blowing smoke. Banks routinely allow forensic investigation if a court order to do so is in place. What make Apple so special? I understand what he tis saying, but here is what I understand…Apple feels they are more important than the lives lost in San Bernardino.

No, what he is saying is that he doesn’t have the software capability and that the federal government is requiring that he create it for them to hack iPhones. It’s a far cry from forensically investigating bank records that can be pulled and consolidated at the drop of a hat. He’s saying that Apple should not be in the business of providing the government with the power to hack millions of iPhones at their whim because they can’t be trusted to not abuse the power next time.

The government wants the entire program, not just the information.

I think he’s right. It’s a real privacy issue.

[fiftygigs]

…we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake…

I’m afraid we lost the debate on privacy a long time ago.

Apple is pleading a higher moral ethic that happens to absolve manufacturers from social responsibility, like gun manufacturers. The fact that their argument empowers criminals may be of no concern to Apple’s corporate office, but it sure is of concern to the families of the fourteen victims, and I’d want police to do everything they could to catch every single accomplice.

Turning off the self-destruct feature is not a big deal, and is probably already done in China. We have the right to know who was helping these murderers.

[perge]

The government came to him first, and he throws a public hissy fit. So now the government will go to outside contractors to do it. Do you have a problem with that?
Does he believe his technology cannot be penetrated? Stay tuned.

[misterneutron]

@FiftyGigs

Turning off the self-destruct feature is not a big deal, and is probably already done in China.

The FBI certainly hasn’t figured out how to do it, and it’s not clear that it can be done at all. We’re not talking about ordering Apple to reveal some secret key that it already possesses. On what basis have you concluded that the Chinese have gotten around this?

Your argument about gun manufacturers doesn’t really fly, I’m afraid. It’s like comparing apples and fish. An automobile might be used in the commission of a crime. Should every car maker be required to install an undefeatable tracking device in every vehicle, so that the government can keep tabs on where that car is, every minute of every day? Would you be comfortable with that?

I have to wonder what the court’s response would be if Apple said, “OK, we’ll try it, but we designed this to be unbreakable, so there may be no way to get around it.”

[castor_troy]

@MisterNeutron

Should every car maker be required to install an undefeatable tracking device in every vehicle, so that the government can keep tabs on where that car is, every minute of every day?

You’re talking like that hasn’t already happened.

Good luck getting a car without On-Star or some similar hardware installed, whether or not you subscribe to a service.

[alliebean]

@FiftyGigs

The fact that their argument empowers criminals may be of no concern to Apple’s corporate office, but it sure is of concern to the families of the fourteen victims, and I’d want police to do everything they could to catch every single accomplice.

No, it empowers everyday people who far outweigh the criminals to keep some privacy in their lives. If the government wants this power, they should create it. Don’t think for a second they can’t figure out how to break the encryption. They just want Apple to do it for them. It’s improper to force companies to create mechanisms that compromise their own products. It’s not the same as gun manufacturers at all. Apple isn’t trying to get released from liability if their phone malfunctions. If Apple already had this mechanism in place, I might be okay with the government asking APPLE to unencrypt the phone. I do not want the government to be allowed to take over the application.

[alliebean]

@perge

The government came to him first, and he throws a public hissy fit. So now the government will go to outside contractors to do it. Do you have a problem with that?Does he believe his technology cannot be penetrated? Stay tuned.

No, I have no problem with that. If the government wants to create an application that will unencrypt the phone, more power to them. It’s on them to figure it out. I don’t think Apple should be required to do it via court order. It’s a far cry from providing information Apple ALREADY HAS ACCESS TO.

EDIT: That said, the government is subject to higher privacy laws by the fact that they are the government, so I expect there to be laws put in place to control access. Those laws are not in place now in regards to a privately created application accessing my iPhone.

[imkmu3]

@MisterNeutron

You argument about gun manufacturers doesn’t really fly, I’m afraid. It’s like comparing apples and fish. An automobile might be used in the commission of a crime. Should every car maker be required to install an undefeatable tracking device in every vehicle, so that the government can keep tabs on where that car is, every minute of every day? Would you be comfortable with that?

I find it odd that people willingly allow themselves to be tracked via their phones, give up masses of data to carriers, app makers, Apple and Google, and yet scream about privacy when the FBI wants to do it.

This app wants to have access to everything on my phone? Well, since I want the app soooo bad, I’ll except them having nearly full access to everything store on my phone–I mean, I just gotta have that AP! If you got a text and answered it in the time it took you to read this, you are already doomed.

[alliebean]

@imkmu3

This app wants to have accesses to everything on my phone? Well, since I want the app soooo bad, I’ll except them having nearly full access to everything store on my phone–Ii mean, I just gotta have that AP! If you got a text and answered it in the time it took you to read this, you are already doomed.

But that’s your choice. You get to choose who has access to your data. You can say no. Do you really think the FBI will take this application (which is what they want) and get a court order every single time they want to use it? Not until that makes its way through the courts and we get an answer that its an invasion of privacy. That will take years.

[misterneutron]

@imkmu3

I find it odd that people willingly allow themselves to be tracked via their phones, give up masses of data to carriers, app makers, Apple and Google, and yet scream about privacy when the FBI wants to do it.

Granted, but Apple and Google can’t decide, based upon the info they’ve extracted from you, that you should be arrested, tried, and sent to prison.

[wagonmound]

This is why large corporations need much more oversight and regulation.

This is a domestic terrorism case, moron. These radical Islamic extremists do not have a right to privacy.

[perge]

So what number of deaths will change your mind? If 14 isn’t enough, say 500, or 10,000? Give me a number that makes you comfortable to stop nit-picking and avoiding the real issue.

[misterneutron]

@Wagonmound

These radical Islamic extremists do not have a right to privacy.

And apparently you’ve decided that you don’t, either. But that’s exactly what we’re talking about, here. Or have you missed the point again?

[misterneutron]

@perge

So what number of deaths will change your mind? If 14 isn’t enough, say 500, or 10,000? Give me a number that makes you comfortable to stop nit-picking and avoiding the real issue.

This is the old, “Would you condone torture if the criminal had planted a bomb in a school somewhere and you had only 30 minutes to find out where it was” type of argument. Specious.

Gee, would you be in favor of giving up your privacy if it helped fend off an invasion by flesh-eating zombies from Saturn?

[perge]

Stupid comparison. We are talking about a phone for goodness sakes!