iPhone Unlocking Case About Setting A Precedent, Despite What The FBI Says

Status
Not open for further replies.

koss64

Distinguished
Dec 27, 2007
221
0
18,680
0
The Government's stance is to have devices protects, the smaller ther attack surface the less damage will occur in the event of an attack. Using quotes from persons outside the FBI does not necessarily help your case for the phones in this case not to be unlocked.
Apple is trying to save face in light of the iCloud hacking scandal and trying to put on this notion that they have the public's privacy in mind, when that's far from the truth. I cannot fathom how leaving those phones locked does anyone any good to anyone but Apple and their shareholders, when rest assured in the regular cut and thrust of these matters,non-high profile cases are going to get the phones unlocked with no great fuss or public outcry.
 

tical2399

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2009
1,081
0
19,460
69
Oh well. The feds did it the right way. They went the legal route and got a warrant for the phone to be unlocked. If apple doesn't comply then Cook needs to be led out doing the perp walk and held in contempt until he has it unlocked. Its not like the feds just asked for no warrant. Due process was done, they had a legit reason for opening it, they asked a court for the warrant, the court agreed and provided an order. For all those who would try to scream rights this and constitution that; what the feds did was the definition of doing it by the book.
 

Math Geek

Polypheme
Ambassador
remember this is only a one time single super ultra important thing that will never need to be repeated!!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-seeks-to-force-apple-to-extract-data-from-about-12-other-iphones-1456202213

or is it? also keep in mind there are literally hundreds of phones being held by local law enforcement all over the country waiting for apple to give in so they can jump onboard and get these phones hacked as well....

hopefully no one actually believes that this is only a one time thing, believing that would be just stupid. add in the fact that once the ios is created and the phone is handed over. all the fbi has to do is extract the ios for themselves and they will have their own copy. course they would never do that now would they.......
 

none12345

Distinguished
Apr 27, 2013
431
2
18,785
0
"If apple doesn't comply then Cook needs to be led out doing the perp walk and held in contempt until he has it unlocked"

How can you be held in contempt for not handing over something that doesn't exist. The technology to unlock it doesnt exist. And as far as being in contempt for refusing to create such a technology... you know perform work you dont want to do....err i thought we already outlawed similar practices? you remember slavery? indentured servitude? etc...

I personally would like it to stay that way, privacy/financial security/etc is more important their their bullshit terrorist argument. You are 10s of thousands of more times likely to be killed in a car accident then by terrorists. You are more likely to be struck by lighting. As soon as its cracked, as soon as a back door is added, try as they might it WILL get out to everyone who wants to get into the phones. And that will cause far more harm/terror then the terrorists people seem to be so worried about. Remember this is the same government who has blank administrator passwords on thousands of government computers, they cant protect shit.
 

Andrew Pacely

Reputable
Jul 30, 2015
4
0
4,510
0
Its easy to say "The FBI went the legal route and Apple must comply," when you don't understand how harmful it is, nor do you understand the full context of the subpoena. There's nothing in the law that data a company Must device a new product for the government it hasn't even made previous too, and forcing it would be unconstitutional. Plus, the DoJ just confirmed that the FBI is bullshitting everyone and it one be just One phone. And the cyber sharks already know about all this, so if the tools Are made and used more than once, its only a matter of time before someone snatches it from the feds.... they already got into the CIA, and they are just as protected as the FBI....
 

skit75

Splendid


As if to say they had any other option available? This was their only course of action. After 9 incorrect guesses, the phone has a chambered bullet held to its head for the next incorrect guess. They do not have an alternative option. Apple designs their own chips and writes their own code.
 

heliomphalodon

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2007
42
0
18,540
1
The FBI chose this as its test case because it couldn't find a case involving an infant kidnapped by drug kingpins and strapped to a dirty bomb going tick-tick-tick...
It's obvious that they hope that emotion and ignorance will carry the day and, sadly, recent polls appear to be proving them right.
What very few people seem to realize is that Apple is being ordered not to give up a disk image of the iPhone in question, but rather to create a new forensic tool - an instrument. Such instruments must be vetted and they must be exposed in detail - not kept secret. Look here for the best discussion of the issue that I've been able to find: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645
 

rwinches

Distinguished
Jun 29, 2006
888
0
19,060
30
Apple has given iCloud information to the FBI on many occasions before this (so cooperation is not really the issue).

On those occasions the FBI followed instructions from Apple to bring the phone to a familiar WiFi location and the phone will connect and auto log into the iCloud and auto backup.

This time the FBI instructed the local authorities to reset the iCloud PW rendering the above procedure impossible. The phone is locked so the temp PW in an email can not be used and the phone will use the old PW.

Was this 'mistake' on purpose? Who knows?

I do wonder if previous backup info has any value or has it already been provided and found not useful?
 

rastapop

Commendable
Feb 23, 2016
1
0
1,510
0
Should banks refuse to open a safebox even when a warrant is produced? Why would the iphones be the only boxes that the police can't open even when a judge is ordering it?
 

Andrew Pacely

Reputable
Jul 30, 2015
4
0
4,510
0
Its easy to say "The FBI went the legal route and Apple must comply," when you don't understand how harmful it is, nor do you understand the full context of the subpoena. There's nothing in the law that data a company Must device a new product for the government it hasn't even made previous too, and forcing it would be unconstitutional. Plus, the DoJ just confirmed that the FBI is bullshitting everyone and it one be just One phone. And the cyber sharks already know about all this, so if the tools Are made and used more than once, its only a matter of time before someone snatches it from the feds.... they already got into the CIA, and they are just as protected as the FBI....
 

Andrew Pacely

Reputable
Jul 30, 2015
4
0
4,510
0
Its easy to say "The FBI went the legal route and Apple must comply," when you don't understand how harmful it is, nor do you understand the full context of the subpoena. There's nothing in the law that data a company Must device a new product for the government it hasn't even made previous too, and forcing it would be unconstitutional. Plus, the DoJ just confirmed that the FBI is bullshitting everyone and it one be just One phone. And the cyber sharks already know about all this, so if the tools Are made and used more than once, its only a matter of time before someone snatches it from the feds.... they already got into the CIA, and they are just as protected as the FBI....
 

8R_Scotch

Reputable
Feb 26, 2015
25
0
4,530
0
If I make a purse that has a 3 number lock on it and sell it, I can't be ordered to create the means to disable said lock. I sell devices with their features, I'm not responsible for what people put in it nor am I required to spend research and time for my company to make my own products unsafe.

This isn't a bank refusing to open a safebox, it's a safemaker being required to create an anti-lock technique for breaking into safes it sold to private individuals.
 

mrmez

Splendid
Should banks refuse to open a safebox even when a warrant is produced? Why would the iphones be the only boxes that the police can't open even when a judge is ordering it?
Nnnnnnot quite the same thing.
In this analogy, the FBI is asking essentially ALL banks, to provide them with a master key to their front door, vault, and safe boxes, so that IF and WHEN they require anything, they already have access.
Actually, they're asking for their own private entrance.

Certainly wouldn't give me a lot of confidence knowing there are master keys to my cash floating around.

Now take it a step further. They're not asking for an actual physical key, but a software key. All it takes in ONE slip, and that master key is on the Pirate Bay for the world to access.

Now, because one autistic kid hacked they FBI's computers, virtually every phone in the world is open to being hacked.
 

thuckabay

Distinguished
Jun 20, 2009
24
6
18,515
0
This is really not very different from arguments for and against our second amendment rights to bear arms. How? We as citizens bear arms not only or even primarily to defend ourselves against criminals, but particularly to have the means to defend ourselves against ungodly government authorities and governmental tyranny that inevitably takes hold and takes root when citizens are defenseless; tyrannies are much harder to implement when those who are governed can not only say "no," but do so by force if push comes to shove. The same is true in the cyber world where privacy is concerned. About the only thing governments do well, since they are run by fallen human beings, is lie to their constituents and abuse power. The only way to ensure the government does not completely trample privacy rights, and to ensure that we remain "secure in our persons," is to a) keep our right to bear arms and to exercise self-defense with them, and b) ensure governments CANNOT access our personal data without a) properly granted legal authority on a case-by-case basis or b) our uncoerced explicit written permission. Our own United States federal government has demonstrated time and again that it lies pathologically, and if it says it will only go so far, as soon as we the public turn our backs, it will try to go much further. Material leaked by Edward Snowden has made this perfectly clear and perfectly obvious. Even if the FBI means what it says today, tomorrow it would act in pure self-interest and sing a different tune were we to permit government back-doors or the like, and likewise other authorities would follow-suit. Hardware and software engineers, and those for whom we work, must NOT permit any governmental authority this side of Christ Millennial Kingdom to have such access. If the government really needs such data or information, it will have to get it the old-fashioned way--through legitimate court orders, legitimate investigative work, etc., without putting whole societies at unnecessary risk of tyrannies, etc., which is what this is really all about.
 

bwohl

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2008
48
0
18,530
0
I think I have to add another piece to this argument. I was all for Apple blocking this attempt - until I read that the County Health Dept in San Bernadino actually owns the phone - not Farook. The county department has consented to unlock it. In my opinion, this changes my thoughts. I am all for Apple being forced to unlock it - the owner of the phone has consented.
 

mrmez

Splendid
Am i wrong, but I thought Apple was refusing to build a backdoor for iOS.
I don't think it's a case of they're refusing to unlock it, they CAN'T unlock it anymore than the FBI can.
 

overclockingrocks

Distinguished
Oct 9, 2006
378
0
18,810
20
Problem with all of this is that Apple is being asked to create something that doesn't presently exist. It's not like the technology is already there to just bypass the passcode. It's not. The firmware was designed with a rate limiter for security reasons. Apple would have to completely rewrite a large portion of code to get rid of the rate limiter thus being told by the government to create something which at present does not exist. Apple is right it does violate the constitution and I'm sure being forced to do something while not being compensated is the textbook definition of slavery/indentured servitude. Further this has wide reaching implications not just for Apple but for all privacy in general. This precedent if set could force even Google to write backdoors in to Android for the same reason.

Last but not least someone already screwed up by changing the password to the icloud account the phone is linked to. Had they not done that there may have been a way to do this without even needing to write the backdoor. If anyone should be held in contempt here it's the person who changed the icloud password. They are the sole reason the data on the phone is now inaccessible in any manner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY