FBI Can’t Compel Apple To Unlock iPhone, Rules NY Judge

[RedJaron]

I was adding that for the benefit of others asking, "Hey, Apple's done this before, why won't they do it now?"

 

[ammaross]

I understand the privacy concerns and i`m not supporting NSA or other gov institution anyway. Ofc there will not be only 1 time request for an unlock, but like in this case Apple should unlock that phone, what FBI is actually asking is a tool to unlock any iPhone when they want, and on this matter i`m all with Apple. But having a company put to unlock a certain device if that device was used in a scenario like this without any reason of a doubt then i believe that be it Apple or any other phone company should comply and unlock that device.

Just imagine yourself having your family butchered by some idiots and their phone could have important information ... would you care about Apple`s image as a company that doesn`t unlock anything under any circumstance or you would want that info being taken out of that device ?

I`m not in favour of governments to be able to spy anyone but i don`t give a crap about any corporation`s image either.

I repeat, the unlocking should be done only in house of the company, and only in cases that are very serious, probably needing a warrant to be done.

Ohim, you're making an appeal to emotion to justify an infringement of personal (or corporate) rights. This is how you push bad policy (or agendas): incite people to react emotionally rather than rationally. In this phone case, you want the government to force Apple to do work (for free) to produce a product/end-result. What do we call forced unpaid labor? And that's not even talking about the security issues involved in this. Every "security" bill that infringes on the privacy of people (not just Americans btw) appeals to emotion rather than reason. "Terrorists will blow stuff up!" at which point, we end up, eventually, in a 1984 or V for Vendetta world and the terrorists win at what they set out to do: instill such fear as to paralyze their foes.

 

[George_61]

Am i the only one that doesn`t understand why Apple doesn`t want to unlock this one phone inside their company ? I mean, i understand their position not to give the backdoor to all iphones on the market but i do believe that they have internal testing rings that can be used to unlock devices used in terrorist attacks.

Don`t give the tools to FBI.. but do unlock it yourself inside the company and then hand over the information to FBI ...problem solved both ways ... but for now Apple is playing their cards just to get free publicity from this "look not even the FBI can crack down an Apple device".

 

[f-14]

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2381
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid
and comfort
within the United States
or elsewhere,
is guilty of treason
and shall suffer death,
or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000;
and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §?330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

the iTards are aiding and abetting alqueda and trying to generate more sales to al queda terrorists.

that's fine, round up every apple employee who refuses to comply with the federal court order to unlock that california government issued work phone aka property of the government, to a dead employee who as soon as their death no longer has any rights, with no will, which means all their property now belongs to the government including their information no matter what.
to a california employee who joined al queda, committed a terrorist ( or dare we push the issue: committed jihad against the united states as a regular muslim ) act using work equipment his government issued work phone.

you are either with us, or against us, tim cook formally and publicly declared he is not with we the people and chose to side with known al queda terrorist hiding information on that american government issued work phone paid for by the state of california right down to the billing address and ownership records.

—I join in your reprobation of our merchants, priests and lawyers for their adherence to England & monarchy in preference to their own country and it’s constitution. but merchants have no country. the mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. he is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. it is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them: and to effect this they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man, into mystery & jargon unintelligible to all mankind & therefore the safer engine for their purposes. with the lawyers it is a new thing. they have in the mother country been generally the firmest supporters of the free principles of their constitution. but there too they have changed. I ascribe much of this to the substitution of Blackstone for my Lord Coke, as an elementary work. in truth Blackstone and Hume have made tories of all England, and are making tories of those young Americans whose native feelings of independance do not place them above the wily sophistries of a Hume or a Blackstone. these two books, but especially the former have done more towards the suppression of the liberties of man, than all the million of men in arms of Bonaparte and the millions of human lives with the sacrifice of which he will stand loaded before the judgment seat of his maker. I fear nothing for our liberty from the assaults of force; but I have seen and felt much, and fear more from English books, English prejudices, English manners, and the apes, the dupes, and designs among our professional crafts. when I look around me for security against these seductions, I find it in the wide spread of our Agricultural citizens, in their unsophisticated minds, their independance and their power if called on to crush the Humists of our cities, and to maintain the principles which severed us from England. I see our safety in the extent of our confederacy, and in the probability3 that in the proportion of that the sound parts will always be sufficient to crush local poisons. in this hope I rest, and tender you the assurance of my esteem and respect.
Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 17 March 1814
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-07-02-0167

call your local congressmen and demand apple be sanctioned and kicked out of america and ban all their products in america, confiscate or destroy by cloud update virus bricking everything iTard.
buying apple is helping al queda terrorists strike america.

the new york drug dealer is not linked to al queda as far as i know unless he got his drugs from al queda operatives.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This amendment was created by the Founding Fathers as a response to the British practice of random searches of homes, businesses, and persons, again as an attempt to terrorize the colonists into silence and inaction as the Currency Act looted the profit of their labors for the Bank of England. The intention of the Fourth Amendment was to prevent the government from entering your home, place of business, or searching your person simply because they wanted to, or as part of a general campaign of intimidation. Evidence of actual wrong-doing, and not just disagreement with the government, had to be presented by the police to the courts, for a warrant for such invasion to be granted. Although neither the telegraph or telephone existed at the time the Fourth Amendment was ratified, under the 9th Amendment, 4th Amendment protections extend to new technologies. In the present day that includes computers and cell phones, although the government, attempting to justify the NSA spying on all Americans takes the position they do not.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/commbillrights.php#axzz3fQKnoS9z

 

[RedJaron]

Don`t give the tools to FBI.. but do unlock it yourself inside the company and then hand over the information to FBI ...problem solved both ways ... but for now Apple is playing their cards just to get free publicity from this "look not even the FBI can crack down an Apple device".

No, Apple has already said they won't offer "unlocking services" because the resulting demand of LEOs sending in hundreds or thousands of phones every year would be a huge drain on their company and they can't be expected to do that. Even if Apple did go that route, who is to decide which phones could be submitted and which phones couldn't?

This is the dangerous thing about case law and precedent. Once it happens the first time, people will go to extreme lengths to prove that their case is just like the first one, therefore theirs should be treated in the same way. Even if you explicitly explain in excruciating detail every possible permutation in some legal document what constitutes a lawful unlock, you will still have thousands of lawyers hammering away at it finding any and every loophole.

So you instead appoint a person or committee to decide on each instance? Ok, who appoints or elects them? Who or what determines the qualifications to sit on such a council? Who monitors them to make sure they're doing their job properly? How could they possibly get through the backlog of cases that are already pending when more are showing up every day? These are the headaches that have to be dealt with once a precedent is set.

The two simplest rules are to always allow it, or never allow it. Anything else gets muddy very, VERY quickly.

 

[RedJaron]

f-14, I think it would be best if you took some time to clarify your post and explain plainly what you mean. Your formatting makes it difficult to separate what you are quoting from others, and what are your own words. If you're trying to accuse Apple of treason against the United States, I will tell you to get off your high horse and tread carefully. And this goes to everyone else as well.

This is an official reminder that politics is a touchy subject and one that we are very wary of discussing on these forums due to its volatile nature and almost universal tendency to devolve into flame wars and mudslinging. We the staff understand that discussing law will be closely tied to politics and so some tangents are inevitable. That does not give anyone carte blanche in this thread, even with the subject at hand. If any of you broach that cask, do not be surprised to see moderation and adjudication in play here to "nip it in the bud" even if a certain train of thought hasn't derailed yet.

In short, you've been given a little extra rope on this one. Don't hang yourself with it.

 

[Solandri]

my sister who has been an apple hater since the iphone came out has changed her mind the last month or so once she started to understand what exactly was going on with this whole sordid affair. once i explained to her how secure the iphone is vs the android she had in her purse.... well ... the family now has some shiny new iphones and she sold the android phones on craigslist.

So are you also dumping your Macbooks to buy Thinkpads?

One can always argue that a feature provides a benefit. Of course it does - it won't exist if it didn't provide some benefit. The real question is whether that benefit is worth the cost (whether in loss of usability or higher price). Not everyone needs that level of protection via encryption, which is why not everyone is buying laptops with TPM support and encrypted drives.

If you feel you must have unbreakable encryption for everything on your phone (and also presumably your laptop and desktop), then it is your right to choose a product which provides that. That doesn't automatically mean people who choose less protection are somehow "wrong." I am careful to protect the important data on my Nexus phone (passwords, 2-factor authentication, cloud backup of sensitive data) with supplemental encryption. The rest like my texts (anyone at the phone company can eavesdrop on those), pics I take (I don't take nude selfies), etc. I don't really care about.

I actually care more about blocking tracking of my online activity than about encrypting everything stored on my phone. I use a combination of a firewall to prevent apps from sending telemetry home, and the Ghostery browser to block or frequently wipe cookies and other means marketers use to track people. What good is protecting all the data on your phone, if someone somewhere else is able to build up a very precise profile of you based on what you do with your phone?

 

[anathema_forever]

All I have to say is there were not that many people trying to get privacy before your terrible government was trying to take it from you. You have been all getting data mined the whole time for many years this country was basically a joke about privacy up until all this public outcry. As far as I am concerned they are doing there job by making it a public issue. Before everybody would have been like why do you need privacy whats the problem with every corporation data mining everything you do and selling it for pennies.

MOD EDIT: Profanity, vulgarity, and threats, even halfway jokingly, will not be tolerated.

 

[nix27]

If you look at it from the gov's point of view you cannot hand over a device containing sensitive information to a private company every time you need to unlock a device for getting intel or evidence. So it makes sense for them to ask for a way to do it themselves. But like someone said it is also important to consider the fact that they can misuse this code too.

 

[firefoxx04]

Open source software is what we really need. Apple is the good guy right now but I cannot help but think of a world where companies end up giving in.

You cant hack open source (well you can but someone can find it).

 

[Math Geek]

So are you also dumping your Macbooks to buy Thinkpads?

should that not be the other way around? you're assuming i am a mac fanboy so should i not be pushing others to go to mac and not away?? security is a major concern for my sister as her family owns their own business. the majority of their stuff is linked to their phones such as inventory, purchasing, sales data, customer database and a ton of other stuff important to her business. security and her business's privacy is top of the list for them and showing them the options was a no brainer for them to go away from android.

in the early days of android the features that were not native to ios but could be implemented were the rally cry for android users as to why they were better. "we have it out of the box ". now that apple has the out of the box feature, being able to add it on your own in some watered down implementation on an android phone is now "good enough" and android is still the greatest thing ever.....

i understand pretending yesterday did not happen is the only way to move forward for those who really know not what they speak of yet repeat it anyway. but it does not make it any less annoying. this protection is native and clearly worthwhile since no one can get into these phones. the users did not have to know anything about them other than they are secure. got to know a bit more about it to implement it on an android phone since it is not native and has to cover the various vulnerabilities in the hardware design that has already been discussed.

but either way enjoy the wonderful make believe world you live in and i'll enjoy the crappy reality i live in. sometimes i wish i never took the red pill and chose the blue one instead. that world is so much prettier than the real one.

 

[Math Geek]

Open source software is what we really need. Apple is the good guy right now but I cannot help but think of a world where companies end up giving in.

You cant hack open source (well you can but someone can find it).

that is so clueless it is almost like you're kidding. the reason the fbi can't make the os they want on their own is because they do not have the source code to do it with. that is why they need apple to do it for them. open source means that the source code is public and easy to get to. as i already stated which you clearly did not read is that android is open source already. this is why you don't see these cases against google to unlock a phone. they have the source code already and can create whatever os they want/need at will. they can already get into any android phone ever made and do not need google's help to do it.

in this case, the open nature of the os is exactly why it is not as secure as the super secret apple os.

 

[Solandri]

should that not be the other way around? you're assuming i am a mac fanboy so should i not be pushing others to go to mac and not away?? security is a major concern for my sister as her family owns their own business. the majority of their stuff is linked to their phones such as inventory, purchasing, sales data, customer database and a ton of other stuff important to her business. security and her business's privacy is top of the list for them and showing them the options was a no brainer for them to go away from android.

I run my own business too. You shouldn't be storing *any* of that stuff on a phone. You could be accessing it, but only via a VPN. The phone should only be acting as a dumb display device for that information stored on a secure server elsewhere. So the phone's security is kinda moot.

That's the strategy I use when traveling abroad. I just pack my laptop with no work data. If I need to access something from work, I do it over a VPN. It is never permanently stored on a device I could lose.

but either way enjoy the wonderful make believe world you live in and i'll enjoy the crappy reality i live in. sometimes i wish i never took the red pill and chose the blue one instead. that world is so much prettier than the real one.

I've never said you or your family made the wrong decision. You're the one saying other people are making the wrong decision. I've always maintained (even before the iPhone came out) that people should get a tool which best suits their needs. If you need hyper-security, then the iPhone is probably the best choice at the moment. I could've told you that before this whole FBI unlock thing. Blackberry held that title when it came to corporate data, probably still does, just their client-end handsets are horribly out of date.

But just because one device is the best solution in one corner case, does not make it the best device overall like you're trying to argue. That's the MO I've noticed with a lot of fans of Apple devices. They try to argue that the Apple product is the best solution for all people. I don't know why they think like that. My best guess is a high overlap between people who buy Apple products and people who need external validation of their purchase decisions. People buying non-Apple products threatens that validation, so the only way they can rationalize everything is if they are "right" and everyone else is "wrong", so they must convince those people why they are "wrong".

The Android fans I've met have been much more sedate about it. Yeah there are the rabid Apple-haters. But most of the Android users I've met are like me - able to see the benefits and warts of both platforms, and make our purchase decision based on which combination of features best suits our needs. I recommend a lot of tech gear to friends and clients. If you view my answers on this site, you'll see I answer PC, Mac, Android, and iPhone questions. I try to evaluate each situation as neutrally as I can, and recommend the product which best suits each individual's needs. I don't try to turn every incident which highlights a difference between certain products into an argument for why everyone should buy product A over product B.

If you had simply posted that your sister needed security and switched to an iPhone because of that, I wouldn't have said anything. But your insinuation that people buying Android devices must therefore be making a mistake is what got me to post. One size fits all is never the right choice.

 

[glasssplinter]

This just in, pedophiles everywhere flock to buy iphones since the gov't can't access it.

All of you so concerned with privacy and the likes are just being ridiculous. Do you really think the gov't cares about your stupid pictures of your cat and you mom? You really think you have such an important life that everything you do is going to end up on the FBI's next presentation? Sit there and think about, none of us have anything important enough that the gov't cares about. Some preach that we should reach a rational decision and not one based on emotion yet they both arrive at the same answer; crack it. Playing to the emotional side you're saying that you're okay with knowing that someone took video of where someone is, what they did and how they did it but we should somehow protect that because then the FBI might do what with it? Times are changing and a search warrant should still be acceptable. This is like wiring your house with explosives and if someone tries to pick the lock or smash the door everything goes boom and disappears. So are meth labs and prostitution rings going to be legal now if we can encrypt our houses?

 

[RedJaron]

The expectation that a person should just submit to a search because the gov't knows best and only does it when it's important, and since we shouldn't have anything to hide or that the gov't won't misuse any info obtained through it, is one of the main reasons the colonists revolted in the first place.

 

[skyviper80]

Y'all are a bunch of picky, flip, floppy people. It's pretty simple, do we let everyone have the ability to access everything of ours regardless of the reason or do we secure it so that there is the remotest possibility that we have some kind of protections.

No grey area in between, you get option 1 or option 2, there is no option 3, no exceptions. It doesn't work like that. You make it secure and keep it that way or it falls into option 1.

So ultimately people need to decide, do I want my privacy from EVERYONE? Or do I want to let EVERYONE have access to me?

 

[Miyagui_XD]

It's not that hard to understand. The FBI does want that specific iPhone to be unlocked... But to do so they ask Apple to create a way to ByPass ANY iPhone's security.

Simply they are not asking Apple to help them with one physical device, they want a piece of software to unlock all iPhones using the words "JUST THIS ONCE", but you can trust your government, can't you?