back to article Feds tell court: Apple 'deliberately raised technological barriers' to thwart iPhone warrant

The US Department of Justice has filed fresh claims against Apple in the ongoing battle over whether the FBI can force the iGiant to help agents unlock a killer's iPhone. In a brief [PDF] filed Thursday to the US District Court of Central California, the DoJ said Apple had made a "deliberate marketing decision" to develop …

  1. David Kelly 2

    There Is No Freedom In China

    Its so sad the US Government has to revert to the childish observation that "Apple accommodated China." The Chinese government owns everything including its citizens. Once Upon A Time the USA the Land Of The Free And Home Of The Brave. Perhaps one day it will once again.

    1. bazza Silver badge

      Re: There Is No Freedom In China

      Hmmmm, and what do you suppose it is that makes America the land of the free and home of the brave? What is it that guarantees that?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: There Is No Freedom In China

        If Apple are forced to comply with this warrant this case creates precedent which means Murrika is no longer the land of the free (for speech, privacy etc.) Constitution or no...

        But you'd have to be an idiot to have believed that you were free anyway.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: There Is No Freedom In China

          If Apple are forced to comply with this warrant this case creates precedent which means Murrika is no longer the land of the free (for speech, privacy etc.) Constitution or no...

          It will also become a land with an industry predicted to be worth $170B by next year that won't be able to sell as much as a patch cord. Do they honestly think anyone with either half a brain or with a need to comply with Data Protection laws would buy US kit or services after that?

          Not that the FBI cares, it will get its funding anyway as it's the (remaining) tax payers who get to cough up, but I hope that someone realises that this is equivalent to stop asking car manufacturers to sell powerful cars because they keep getting away from the police when chased.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: There Is No Freedom In China

        Hmmmm, and what do you suppose it is that makes America the land of the free and home of the brave? What is it that guarantees that?

        Ooooh, a guessing game. Let me guess! Is it:

        - that thing they now happily ignore called the constitution?

        - the fact that race makes you more likely to get shot by law enforcement?

        - because everyone has guns as they are all afraid of, err, people with guns?

        - because they can claim following their own laws by simply planting a prison somewhere abroad?

        The US has got a lot of potential, but it's presently acting like a teenage bully on crack complaining that nobody likes it. Well, duh.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        TheDonald (tm)

        Makes America Grate again

      4. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

        Bloody obvious; dummy!

        > What do you suppose it is that makes America the land of the free and home of the brave?

        Since they are all armed to the teeth, no deputy sheriff would dream of picking a fight with a USanal.

        I can't wait for them to invade Canada and force the Canute to ipwn source Blackberries and turn them into Redneckberries or Whitehatberries or something so we can just pop along to an iFBi doughnut parlour, knock over a M iBlacksuit and read all the unsavoury goings on in pink tutuland.

    2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: There Is No Freedom In China

      Freedom aside.

      It is very simple - no certification, no sale. Apple complied with the requirements to certify its hardware and software for sale in China. It could have chosen not sell there, but it decided to sell a country specific version.

      There are no such certification requirements in USA. No western country has them at present.

      If FBI wants them, it should go and make them a law same as they have with Calea and various telecoms regs. Until that is the case, any technological measures on the phones and their services are not directly against them. They are simply the last in line of the attackers behind all kinds of crooks, fraudsters and thieves. They are not being specifically singled out as an object of countermeasures.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: There Is No Freedom In China

        Apple is exactly leading to that. If law enforcement agencies will face the risk they can't access a *single* phone with a valid warrant, politicians will ask, and will obtain, legislation to access *every* phone. There are clear risks Apple will obtain just a Pyrrhic victory, which may sustain its business for a while, but will lead to every phone being accessible.

        It would be far better to ensure *only* criminal devices are accessible a valid warrant, after being legally seized, and under controlled conditions.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: There Is No Freedom In China

      Yes, it was the land of the free and home of the brave. But then they started exterminating the braves, took the resources from the remaining ones and put them in piss poor reservations so they could be equally free.

      And let's not forget 'they' were largely European immigrants, and Europe had been doing just the same for a few hundred years in South America, the Far East and later Africa.

      Completely off topic, of course, but I just thought I'd mention it anyway.

    4. JaitcH
      Happy

      Re: There Is No Freedom In China

      Ever been to China or any 'authoritarian' country?

      The average Joe in such countries doesn't usually have dealings with police, etc. in their ordinary daily life. Even Foreigners can go almost anywhere unhindered and poke around without drawing official attention.

      If the Chinese government 'owned' the people, things would be very different to what they are.

      The key to a peaceful existence is to ignore the political classes and just do your thing. Even the citizen 'spies' located on almost every block are harmless these days, besides we know who they are.

      When I go on a buying trip I spend my first week or two orienting myself and locating products I want to buy. I leave my money in the hotel. Finally, when I have refined my shopping list I hire a 'heavy' and go out and spend my money.

      In ViietNam the government structures are interesting. Every province is a replica of the national Ha Noi government. except for the military and ministry of foreign affairs. The police, part of the military, have two bosses - the local People Committee (council) and Ha Noi.

      Ha Noi doesn't trust the provinces, for good reason, so it has a duplicated police/security function whose sole remit is to monitor the provincial activities. They look at the big picture - and keep an eye out for crime in the regular police and the Peoples Committees.

      They don't have time to bug the whole population or to monitor every Foreigner. They know who their targets are.

      And the average Joe citizen in VietNam simply ignores the politicians and gets on with Job 1 - making money.

      Sure, we have city level inspectors for health and buildings bit many of the jobs are consigned to the bureaucratic handy people called Peoples Police (Cong An). They do many civil type functions from registering people in their homes, pollution control, crane inspection, etc.

      And it works.

      I am amazed as I drive my 3,000-4,000 kilometres a month around Ho Chi Minh City/SaiGon just how functional things are when compared to the West. No licenced outlets for alcohol, no petty minded wanna-be Plods being bossy.

      In the West everything is monitored. Smartmeters are obviously the latest way to control the population (read the UN documentation on it). You are scanned, added to databases, tracked. Hardly a life of freedom.

      I have been to over a hundred countries in my lifetime and some of the most oppressive regimes are in the West - the USA and the UK being near the top.

      So before you go knocking other countries, take a hard look at where you live.

      And when was your last interaction with Plod or the Cops? Mine was over a tear ago. That's freedom.

      VietNam has been my home for 23 years and I hardly have any dealings with officialdom

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: There Is No Freedom In China

        Ever been to China or any 'authoritarian' country?

        The average Joe in such countries doesn't usually have dealings with police, etc. in their ordinary daily life. Even Foreigners can go almost anywhere unhindered and poke around without drawing official attention.

        Yup, Thailand, HK, Singapore, but not yet mainland China or Vietnam, and by that I mean working, not wandering around as a tourist (well, OK, initially you do both :) ) so you get some feel for the culture and working life (that is, if you're interested - some people I worked with mainly remained in the foreigner's ghetto :) ). Vietnam sounds interesting, must find something to do there.

        Thailand was different though, because I was driving around in the car of the deputy major :).

      2. DropBear

        Re: There Is No Freedom In China

        So if you make damn sure you have nothing to hide, you probably have nothing to fear...? Is that it? Is that supposed to convince me how "non-oppressive" authoritarian countries are and make me feel safe? Look, are you f#####g serious...?!?

      3. Jaybus

        Re: There Is No Freedom In China

        The problem is, while the current regime in the authoritarian country may have things running smoothly now with little influence on the ordinary daily life of its citizenry, what is to stop that from changing, either by a change of mind of the current regime or by a future regime? The same was said of Nazi controlled Germany in the early 1930's, so the fear of authoritarian government is not without legitimacy.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: There Is No Freedom In China

      If you believe that you live in a free country, then start eating your double-patty cheeseburgers, held vertically -> (||) , in public. Ignore all complaints. See how long until you're electroshocked and tossed in prison.

      1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

        Re: There Is No Freedom In China

        > f you believe that you live in a free country, then start eating your double-patty cheeseburgers, held vertically -> (||) , in public. Ignore all complaints. See how long until you're electroshocked and tossed in prison.

        I read that... Pardon?

  2. Oengus
    Black Helicopters

    Single case Today --- ?? tomorrow...

    The DoJ, meanwhile, says that the order would do the opposite, and would only be applicable in a single case. "The court's order is modest. It applies to a single iPhone, and it allows Apple to decide the least burdensome means of complying," Uncle Sam's lawyers wrote.

    "As Apple well knows, the order does not compel it to unlock other iPhones or to give the government a universal 'master key' or 'back door'."

    How many other "single" cases will there be?  Demonstrating that they can do it for a single case can open the floodgates.

    I would almost bet that the FBI don't give a "rats arse" about the information on the Syed Farook's phone as they already know that there is nothing of use to them.  It was, after all, his work phone. The phones that would have had useful information were destroyed.  The FBI just want to use the "terrorism" trump card to get public opinion and pressure on their side and to get Apple to prove that they can make the phone accessable.

    Once Apple prove they can do it all bets are off as to how many "single" cases there will be.

    1. Old Used Programmer

      Re: Single case Today --- ?? tomorrow...

      Officials in New York City said that they have 175 iPhones they'd like to get into.

    2. Pascal Monett Silver badge
      Flame

      Re: Single case Today --- ?? tomorrow...

      Absolutely. And saying things like "the order does not compel it to unlock other iPhones" as if it is a valid point for Apple to comply is just insulting our intelligence.

      I find it hilarious that the FBI is accusing Apple of "raising barriers deliberately" to "thwart the law".

      It's called progress, you asshole. And it's the law that will have to adapt, because encryption ain't going away any more.

      Maybe if you hadn't been so greedy about data collection, maybe if you'd thought about it a bit and only took what you could use, maybe then this world would still be surfing in blissful ignorance.

      But you didn't do that. You acted like a hog at a buffet and now you're pissed that there's a guard at the door that won't let you in any more.

      Well tough if up, Suit Man. Go back to tailing actual suspects, like you're supposed to. Maybe some criminals will escape you, for a while, but there will be a lot less innocents that will be harassed, and that is a Good Thing (tm).

      1. Charles 9

        Re: Single case Today --- ?? tomorrow...

        "Well tough if up, Suit Man. Go back to tailing actual suspects, like you're supposed to."

        Well, Mr. Oh So Smart, how do you do that when they're in a country hostile to any and all westerners? IOW, how do you arrest someone who's protected by sovereignty?

        1. Moonunit

          Re: Single case Today --- ?? tomorrow...

          Guide me here, please. I'm trying to work out quite what your point is ... it could well just be that I have insufficient caffeine in my veins and arteries. Probably.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Single case Today --- ?? tomorrow...

          Well, Mr. Oh So Smart, how do you do that when they're in a country hostile to any and all westerners? IOW, how do you arrest someone who's protected by sovereignty?

          The FBI only have jurisdiction to operate within the borders of the USA. If a suspect is "in a country hostile to any and all westerners", that isn't the USA, then that's not the FBI's bag.

          And the CIA, whose job that would then be, generally doesn't give a monkeys about anyone's laws.

        3. Pascal Monett Silver badge

          @Charles 9

          "how do you arrest someone who's protected by sovereignty?"

          Thank you for revealing that you work for the NSA.

          Because only the NSA thinks about arresting people in other countries.

          The rest of the world writes an extradition request - because the "suspect" is PROTECTED BY SOVEREIGNTY. Way to demonstrate that you forgot to engage your brain when posting. Which explains how you could think of having his phone when he's in another country.

          You must live in Colorado. Go on smoking, it's apparently good stuff.

    3. Richard 12 Silver badge

      Re: Single case Today --- ?? tomorrow...

      No, there have already been two cases in court.

      The other was refused by the judge.

      Perjury is a crime. Time to prosecute the DoJ.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Single case Today --- ?? tomorrow...

      You mean that after the iPhone is invulnerable there won't be any more crimes in the US?

      Just wait for one of your dears to be killed, and to know the name of the killer is only in a phone nobody can access...

      1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

        Wait....

        > Just wait for one of your dears to be killed, and to know the name of the killer is only in a phone nobody can access...

        Isn't that just the point?

        According to the only American security expert I trust the FBI are "respectfully" telling fibs again. There are decades of examples of them telling lies. What makes you think they are telling the truth now?

        And what did they tell you so convincingly about the names that are actually known to be on the bloody phone you have obviously only just heard about?

        I am tempted to call you a shmuck you shmuck but that would be name calling. So I will resist the urge.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Wait....

          "I am tempted to call you a shmuck you shmuck but that would be name calling. So I will resist the urge."

          And an insult to real shmucks.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Single case Today --- ?? tomorrow...

        "Just wait for one of your dears to be killed, and to know the name of the killer is only in a phone nobody can access..."

        And if nobody can access it how would one know?

        Even if you're going to create straw men as the basis for emotional arguments you still need to retain some traces of logic in there.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    14 people. So what? Mass shootings are part of American culture. There's no point in getting all indignant about something that's a weekly spectacle. Part of being a true American is accepting that you're probably going to be gunned down at Walmart one day.

    Sit back and enjoy your 2nd amendment and mass shootings.

    1. LaeMing

      Yes, though even in the US, the chances of being gunned down by a terrorist or a local nutter are still pretty miniscule.

      1. Michael Thibault

        >miniscule

        but not 0, and that's where the fun begins.

        1. RIBrsiq

          And when the NRA gets their way and every school kid is issued a gun at 6th grade or something, there will be even more fun!

          Can you imagine the excitement when a nutcase opens fire in, say, a dark movie theatre full of armed, ill-trained, civilians?

          1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

            We've seen that already

            Remember the Chechens who took over a Theatre in Moscow? How many 'citizens' got mown down then the Special Forces stomed it. There won't be much difference in the body count with your scenario.

            1. Charles 9

              Re: We've seen that already

              Then again, just yesterday, a couple held hostage in Mississippi managed to use their home gun to take out an escaped killer (capital murder at that) who was holding them hostage. So we have a certified self-defense case that made the mainstream headlines.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: We've seen that already

              "Remember the Chechens who took over a Theatre in Moscow? How many 'citizens' got mown down then the Special Forces stomed it. There won't be much difference in the body count with your scenario."

              Since you mentioned that it's worth pointing out that if Apple win this one then such an act could be planned in America and there'd be very little to stop it being carried out.

              What Apple and everyone else seems to be forgotten is that the most useful laws, the ones that keep us safe, are the ones that talk about "conspiracy to commit....". The remaining statutes are all about what happens after everyone has been killed in the theatre, after it is too late to prevent it.

              Stopping such a thing mean arresting and jailing someone. But the FBI and the courts cannot put someone in jail for conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack if there isn't any evidence to support that. People driving somewhere with guns is not unusual in America. It only becomes a criminal conspiracy if there's something else (beyond guns in cars) to suggest that a criminal act is planned (emails, texts, etc). In the future those might be locked up nice and safe in an iPhone.

              In the San Bernadino case the attackers destroyed their personal phones. Seems they'd needn't have bothered.

              In countries where possession of a gun is itself a criminal offence it's easier to prevent such an attack. No evidence beyond the existence of the gun in one's possession is needed.

              1. Charles 9

                Re: We've seen that already

                "What Apple and everyone else seems to be forgotten is that the most useful laws..."

                ...are completely useless against a lone wolf who conceals everything until the act itself, after which it's too damn late. Some things you just can't predict or prevent, like the passenger jet pilot who chooses this day to lock the cabin door after the copilot goes to the can and suddenly plunge his get into the sea (and I think this actually happened about 10 years ago).

                ...are also the easiest to abuse by someone(s) trying to subvert civilization. Which is why it's a tradeoff. Do you restrain your government and allow your world to be destroyed from without or give them free reign and let your world be destroyed from within instead?

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: We've seen that already

                  "...are completely useless against a lone wolf who conceals everything until the act itself, after which it's too damn late. Some things you just can't predict or prevent"

                  Oh it's very easy to predict in a land where anyone can go get a lethal weapon that there will be idiots who go out and use them on other people. What's crazy is that, knowing this, people still campaign for that idiots' right to go and do that. They're practically saying "shoot me, shoot me, I defend your right to shoot me!". Getting shot really, really sucks. Perhaps they should introduce that into school curricula?

                  Some things you just can't predict or prevent, like the passenger jet pilot who chooses this day to lock the cabin door after the copilot goes to the can and suddenly plunge his get into the sea (and I think this actually happened about 10 years ago).

                  The GermanWings flight 9525 crash in the Alps 24 Mar 2015 has been attributed, ultimately, to too great a respect for medical privacy in Germany. Turns out lots of people (his doctor) knew the guy was crazy and unfit to fly, but due to medical privacy rules didn't do anything about telling his bosses. Their unwillingness to break the rules cost hundreds of people their lives. Doctor heal thyself. It was utterly predictable.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    FAIL

                    Re: We've seen that already

                    "due to medical privacy rules didn't do anything about telling his bosses. Their unwillingness to break the rules cost hundreds of people their lives. Doctor heal thyself. It was utterly predictable."

                    A) It wasn't "utterly predictable" that the GermanWings pilot would suicide into the Alps. If it was, I am sure that German law allows for the doctor to have the patient/co-pilot committed as a danger to himself or society. You have to remember that Germany has a really horrible and somewhat recent history of sending the mentally ill to the gas chambers by the thousands. So I can see why Germany might have a high level of subsequent societal regret and resulting protection for mentally ill people that might even be more strict than you would find in Britain or the U.S.

                    B) "Unwillingness to break the rules". You say that as if the "rules" were just half-assed together yesterday as part of a drunken dare. The rules are in place to A) afford some privacy to the patient suffering from a treatable medical condition in a social environment where others may ostracize or criticize him if they knew about his health B) to allow this patient to earn a living without his employer being able to look at his health records and decide that they would rather hire someone from a healthier background C) to prevent the government from making judgments about the patient's legal, political and property rights without due process.

                    And regarding your first paragraph:

                    C) "What's crazy is that, knowing this, people still campaign for that idiots' right to go and do that." Hmmm, I have lived in the U.S. all my life, and I haven't seen anybody campaigning to let the mentally ill go out and buy guns. What I have seen is people saying that we can't always tell who is mentally ill, and whether they are so mentally ill that they will snap and go on a shooting spree, and whether they are that mentally ill NOW, but they might recover their health and be able to exercise their gun rights responsibly given time and proper therapy, or whether they seem pretty healthy right now, but could snap if put in a sufficiently stressful personal/economic/political situation at some point down the road.

                  2. Charles 9

                    Re: We've seen that already

                    "Oh it's very easy to predict in a land where anyone can go get a lethal weapon that there will be idiots who go out and use them on other people. What's crazy is that, knowing this, people still campaign for that idiots' right to go and do that. They're practically saying "shoot me, shoot me, I defend your right to shoot me!". Getting shot really, really sucks. Perhaps they should introduce that into school curricula?"

                    Except the worst massacres in American history didn't use guns!. 9/11 was box cutters and hijacked passenger jets. Oklahoma City was homemade ANFO (which can still be obtained today if you're a farmer and then renatured like these guys did), and Bath Township was legal excavation charges (again because the killer was a farmer).

                    "The GermanWings flight 9525 crash in the Alps 24 Mar 2015 has been attributed, ultimately, to too great a respect for medical privacy in Germany."

                    The one I was thinking about was Air Egypt Flight 990. It was the copilot who did it. Based on flight data, best theory was that he did it deliberately and TTBOMK he had no prior record prior to the incident. Some even speculate this was the inspiration for 9/11.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: We've seen that already

                      Native Americans may object that the worst massacre in American history didn't use guns...

                      1. Dave Hilling

                        Re: We've seen that already

                        Except most native Americans were killed by small pox and other disease not guns.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: We've seen that already

                  "...sea... ...(and I think this actually happened about 10 years ago)."

                  You spelled 'mountain' and '1' incorrectly.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: We've seen that already

                Since you mentioned that it's worth pointing out that if Apple win this one then such an act could be planned in America and there'd be very little to stop it being carried out.

                What Apple and everyone else seems to be forgotten is that the most useful laws, the ones that keep us safe, are the ones that talk about "conspiracy to commit....". The remaining statutes are all about what happens after everyone has been killed in the theatre, after it is too late to prevent it.

                BS, and I'm talking from a perspective of someone who lived though the IRA's use of fertiliser in London for less flowery purposes which the Met Police was still able to thwart repeatedly without such deeply invasive powers.

                The key aspect of a CONSPIRACY is that it takes multiple people, and the relationship between those is established by meta data, which happens to be the sort of information the FBI already has access to without too much effort (there are some controls on it, but they're pretty weak because they managed to convince law makers that it's not "real" data).

                If FBI and agencies are critically dependent on what is held on private devices, I think the US taxpayer is due a refund to the tune of quite a few billion dollars because all the other resources and privileges are obviously not sufficient. Time to stop the mass surveillance then, and the spying.

            3. Mark Burgum

              Re: We've seen that already

              Except as far as I can recall at the Moscow Theatre most of the deaths where due to a 'chemical' weapon based on a narcotic which the special forces released into the theatre which dulled the senses. except the concentration got to high and people died of it, partially because it was secret so the SF didn't tell the medics what was going on.

          2. Michael Habel

            What does the National Recovery Administration have to do with anything?

          3. Dave Hilling

            Thats how it used to be

            Except when I was a kid thats pretty much how it was. We all had bb guns, real guns, nerf guns and we knew which ones we could point at each other and which ones got your ass beat. If you removed the gang violence in like 4 cities, and suicides the USA would have one of the lowest gun violence rates in the world...pretty amazing for a land with over 300 million guns.

          4. Michael Thibault
            Trollface

            Let me FTFY...

            "Can you imagine the excitement when a nutcase opens fire in, say, a dark movie theatre full of armed, ill-trained, nutcases?"

            I think I get the picture, no?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Let me FTFY...

              "Can you imagine the excitement when a nutcase opens fire in, say, a dark movie theatre full of armed, ill-trained, nutcases?"

              I think I get the picture, no?

              Yup. Aforementioned nutcase would only have to fire one bullet into the ceiling to cause a massacre involving many innocents. As far as I can see, that's a terrorist's wet dream.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Sweet Irony

        Probably about the same as being gunned down by your own kid.

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jamie-gilt-profile-who-is-the-gun-rights-activist-shot-by-her-four-year-old-son-a6922661.html

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Still higher than in more advanced countries...

    2. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

      > Sit back and enjoy your 2nd amendment and mass shootings....

      ...and speech (according one interpretention of it, anyway.)

      Hey wait a minute.... If the iBF had to pay compensation to Apple according to the damage they would enforce on them, wouldn't they be better off spending that money on law enforcement?

      (Just asking.)

  4. Mark 85

    It would appear that this particular case was picked to be pushed just for the court of public opinion and nothing else. There probably isn't anything of value on that phone. But it's a great media event for the FBI.

    It is interesting what Apple has done for the Chinese, though and that will probably be used heavily against them. And it probably should be at this point since it makes them out a hypocrites.

    Interesting conundrum for both sides in that if there is something of value, Apple gets clobbered for not "helping". If there isn't then the FBI gets it for heavy-handed tactics over nothing.

    1. Oengus

      Interesting conundrum for both sides in that if there is something of value, Apple gets clobbered for not "helping". If there isn't then the FBI gets it for heavy-handed tactics over nothing nobody hears anything.

      FTFY

  5. a_yank_lurker

    Apple Modified the Code

    So the ferals finally figured out the Apple is clairvoyant and modified iOS just for this case a couple of years ago. Apple and others have been pushing device encryption out to protect their customers for the last few years, well before this case. So the feral claim Apple did this to muck up this case is an absolute lie. If the judge had a proverbial pair the feral shysters should be permanently disbarred and tossed in the pokey for a lengthy vacation.

  6. veti Silver badge

    "Yes your honor, the respondents deliberately made a lock we can't pick. And they they had the gall to market it as 'secure'! They're positively gloating at our incompetence! We move for a writ of upyoursus smartypantsus."

    1. wsm

      Ignorance is an excuse

      I have to agree. It seems to be the first resort of the clueless bureaucrats to claim "they did that on purpose" when they can't understand what they are hearing.

      It's not that Apple invented security to thwart the feds, it's that the feds don't understand the issues raised by personal liberties.

      1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

        Re: Ignorance is an excuse

        The FBI's reaction pretty much comes across like a spoiled kid that's used to getting everything it wants. And this time it doesn't get it.* "Mom, dad, the other kids are mean to me!"

        Problem is, they selected this as a test case to force a precedent**, so they "can't" back down now. (They could of couurse. But... well, you know...) So they just keep piling it on. This is getting bigger than the Super Bowl!

        * And apparently in more than just one possible meaning.

        ** For the other 25,000,000 sigle, device-specific cases in the offing

  7. redpawn

    The second amendment to rescue..

    NOT. But we can pit the gun patriots against fourth amendment and first amendment advocates. Scare the people. Let them buy guns. Just subvert technology. I don't think it will be long before all microphone and camera equipped devices will be on all the time like an X-Box or a Barbie. They will stream into storage somewhere for quality and feature improvement purposes.

    Law enforcement will gain access. People will freak out. Laws requiring disposal of the data will be passed. The data will be kept in order solve serious crimes such as pedophilia, terrorism and murder. Americans will feel safe with their guns and FREE, unlike China and the guns are the evidence of that freedom.

    1. Mark 85
      Black Helicopters

      Re: The second amendment to rescue..

      Laws requiring disposal of the data will be passed.

      Right. "Just put the tapes holding all that data into the specially marked bins. Someone will be by soon to collect it and see if any of the data should be recycled. Gotta' save the electrons you know."

      Icon for black chopper/black van/some guy in a black trench coat who will pick that data for proper disposal.

  8. Phil Kingston

    This is all going to keep some lawyers in cash for months!

  9. FuzzyWuzzys

    Round and around...

    Obvious where this is going, the Feds will win a short term victory and will get their wish...

    Apple will release the "iPhone X1" which of course will come with the advertising blurb, "New improved O/S that is uncrackable by anyone. Upgrade today via these special discount offers!", it will have some sort of emulator to ensure older versions of iOS software can run but sandboxed...and the whole silly saga will start again and the only ones who win are the lawyers and the Ferrari dealerships those lawyers have visited.

    1. gnasher729 Silver badge

      Re: Round and around...

      About the China connection: Apple has published in great detail how many requests they got from each police force, and how many requests they responded to. They also explain where these requests come from, and a lot of them are about stolen iPhones. For example, it seems that in one country a lorry load of iPhones were stolen, and as a result Apple was asked for information about 5,000 phones, more than all the requests from China. If the UK police found 10 iPhones in the possession of a burglar, that could easily turn into requests to Apple who the owners of these 10 phones are, so the police can return them.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Round and around...

      Obvious where this is going, the Feds will win a short term victory and will get their wish...

      Apple will release the "iPhone X1" which of course will come with the advertising blurb, "New improved O/S that is uncrackable by anyone. Upgrade today via these special discount offers!"

      That is actually an interesting idea, but in reverse. Let the people vote. Make iPhones that have a known backdoor, a 5seep (see what I did there?), and offer them to "law abiding Americans who have nothing to hide". Ensure they only have a 1 digit PIN and 11 tries before it wipes (so only redneck proof), and use online crypto that is so old a ZX81 could run through the entire keyspace in a minute, or only go online via wespyoncitizens.proxy.fbi.com, and only using Stingray compliant GSM crypto.

      Apple has enough cash to just run 1000 of these, and Google ought to do the same. They won't need more because it is unlikely that anyone will buy them. The FBI will then have to declare a national emergency as the country is evidently filled with people who are up to no good and we can sit back abroad and watch the show.

      Hmm. What's Tim Cook's email address? :)

  10. gnasher729 Silver badge

    FBI doesn't need the code

    The FBI claims that they wouldn't get the code, that Apple would keep it. Obviously they mean the source code, since the hacked firmware would be installed on the phone and handed to the FBI.

    But once that phone is in the FBI's hand, it has the hacked and signed firmware on it, and it's no problem making a copy of that hacked and signed firmware, and once that is done, it's no problem to install it on every single iPhone that falls into the FBI's hands. They don't need the source code for that. The source code wouldn't help them anyway, because they can't sign code.

    1. bazza Silver badge

      Re: FBI doesn't need the code

      Your concern is misplaced.

      Every iPhone has a unique serial number. It is trivial for Apple to produce a version of the firmware that does what the FBI wants on one specific phone, and have no effect on all others. And because the firmware is signed the FBI cannot successfully edit it.

      Apple are scaremongering about the wider impact of this, but that's a risky strategy. If Apple do what has been asked for them they remain in complete control and no phone gets accessed without their say so. Individual warrants would be accommodated and everyone else is happy with privacy intact, guaranteed by Apple. However their chosen strategy of refusing this is risking a far wider ultimate consequence; being ordered by the Supreme Court to hand over the whole dev environment, source code and signing keys. Then Apple would not be in control at all.

      If the supremes do make such an order then presumably everyone would welcome the decision? Isn't that what the Supreme Court for, handing down decisions that everyone accepts?

      1. Charles 9

        Re: FBI doesn't need the code

        "Every iPhone has a unique serial number. It is trivial for Apple to produce a version of the firmware that does what the FBI wants on one specific phone, and have no effect on all others. And because the firmware is signed the FBI cannot successfully edit it."

        No one trusts the government to not send spies in to obtain the private key, though. They're just doing this to stay above board.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: FBI doesn't need the code

          And do you trust nobody at Apple would sell them for greed?

          Anyway, there's a little difference. Evidences obtained illegally can't be used.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: FBI doesn't need the code

            The US government no longer cares about illegal evidence where terrorism is concerned, or they wouldn't have instituted mass spying on US citizens, rendition or death by drone on suspects, etc.

            Today terrorism is the crime so bad they can ignore the constitution, tomorrow it is pedophilia, maybe someday it is all sorts of crimes.

      2. John H Woods Silver badge

        @bazza

        "If the supremes do make such an order then presumably everyone would welcome the decision? Isn't that what the Supreme Court for, handing down decisions that everyone accepts?" --- bazza

        The last SCOTUS decision that was relevant here, in 1977, was that the All Writs Act had limits and could not be used to place unreasonable burdens on third parties.

        Apple's argument is effectively that the FBI is trying to create law, rather than use existing law; and that this is a job for law-makers not law-enforcers. Sure many of us would be horrified if SCOTUS made the order to which you refer. But at least we'd know that this was now the official USA position.

        In the end your argument is self contradicting: it is almost that no one should ever risk anything going to the Supremes in case the decision goes against them. I'm sure you can see there's a problem with such a stance.

      3. Mark 85

        Re: FBI doesn't need the code

        Isn't that what the Supreme Court for, handing down decisions that everyone accepts?

        Errr... no. The Supreme Court isn't a popularity contest, it is there to ensure that laws do not violate the Constitution. Everyone is supposed to follow said judgments to keep the Constitution intact.

        Reality is a different matter... Those that agree will follow the judgments while those that disagree will hold demonstrations, protests, etc. and try to force a change... either Constitutional amendment or political change.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: FBI doesn't need the code

        If the supremes do make such an order then presumably everyone would welcome the decision? Isn't that what the Supreme Court for, handing down decisions that everyone accepts?

        They may accept the decision, but it is unlikely they will like the consequences. But hey, Europe will love it.

  11. Howard Hanek
    Mushroom

    When Will Apple Drop the Other Shoe?

    ......and make public the contents of HRC 'Private' email server?

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nice.

    Ah, I spot a simple solution to this and the reason for Apple's reticence.

    You don't force Apple to modify iOS specifically for this one phone, you pay them like the Chinese did.

    Everything is available for the right price.

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Nice.

      But since this breach of the public trust is likely to kill Apple's business and thus investor confidence (remember, Apple is publicly traded), that price is bound to be mighty steep.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Nice.

      In a way, this is the exact reason why the FBI got a "no" from Apple. If they had not pulled this into the public there would have been some agreement to assist, and it all could have been couched in sufficient NSLs and discretion to keep it off the books - the 5C does have some weakness, which does not guarantee access but it's about the last iPhone version that did.

      By making it public, the FBI has forced Apple to choose between rolling over and die in the process, or following the privacy strategy they have been following for some years now. As a business, Apple cannot even agree to that if it wanted to because it would damage the company beyond recognition.

      Come to think of it, it makes me wonder if this case should carry a "SCO II" label, but I think that's a bit too far fetched. Is there anyone called "Darl" mentioned?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Apple cooperation with China

      What Apple is providing the Chinese is the same thing they provide the US today - and have already provided for this phone. iCloud data. The reason China wanted iCloud data stored inside China wasn't because that is necessary for them to be able to get Apple to hand it over, but because they were concerned the US would force Amazon (Apple currently houses iCloud data on Amazon's cloud) to turn over iCloud data on Chinese citizens.

      Apple hasn't created a custom iOS to hack the iPhone for China like the FBI is requesting. That's how those 74% of requests were handled - if they had a "backdoor" built in for China like some fools allege, that 74% would be 100%.

      The reason for China's special Wifi protocol is more because China wants their own standards so they don't have to pay licensing fees on the technology. That's why they have TD-LTE instead of being compatible with the world standard for LTE. There may be some weakness built in to their wifi standard that makes it easier for them to spy, but I doubt it - that would make it easier for other governments to spy on Chinese citizens as well.

  13. willi0000000

    i don't know if the FBI will get the data on this phone or not . . . but i strongly suspect that for the first time in American history a "corporate person" will find it's actual meat persons in jail for corporate decisions.

    [ "I won't believe corporations are people until Texas executes one." - Leo Gerard ]

    1. Michael Thibault

      >the first time in American history a "corporate person" will find it's actual meat persons in jail for corporate decisions

      I believe it's already occurred (a quick trawl of decades-old memories, as I can't be arsed to Google it, suggests it was along the lines of criminal negligence causing death, it involved radio-active material, and it may well have been in Texas).

  14. This post has been deleted by its author

  15. JaitcH
    WTF?

    The LIES the FBI spins

    Having just returned from a month-long buying trip to ShenZhen and ShangHai, I was amazed, as usual, at the ever expanding skill sets of youthful Chinese technicians going where few Westerners would dare!

    Little wonder China is outwitting the West!

    For those who have never been there, imagine a large shopping centre, somewhat run down, with numerous stores 3-5 metres wide and likely no more than 10 metres deep.

    These technology whiz kids eschew clean rooms, etc., preferring a bench with a number of fairly basic tools - no CNC here. In fact many shop owners sleep in their premises overnight.

    This is where the FBI should be looking for their iThingy crackers, not Cupertino!

    Have a look at these links to get an idea of their skills.

    https://youtu.be/rI34DOZL_5Y

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAOpDNLW76w

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfIhSCbJFbQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQFpay9HgEk

    If some Chinese guys can perform miracles with their limited tools, imagine what the NSA can do?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The LIES the FBI spins

      Wow - that *is* impressive, and no, I'm not talking about the Chinese elevator music in one of those clips :).

      The tools they use are interesting - those are professional rigs.

      Nice to see a hot air gun again - I haven't messed with electronics for quite some time so I rather enjoyed to see someone doing some solid work. Thanks for that.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The LIES the FBI spins

      Great links, thanks. That IS impressive. This tech level is available at the supermarkets? o_0

  16. Lysenko

    evidence related to the terrorist mass murder of 14 Americans...

    Interesting that they feel the need to specify "Americans" rather than just "people". Presumably that means it wouldn't have been so much of problem if it were mere tourists or (particularly) Mexicans in the body bags. Nice.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      It does seem rather obvious that, had it been Mexicans (or any other non-white group), it most likely wouldn't have stayed in the news so long.

      On the other hand, the Masters must keep the plebs scared, so that's a reason to keep it on the air.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Next up: FBI suing car manufacturers

    I mentioned this earlier, but maybe it's time to expand it.

    "After a successful campaign to force Apple to break its own product, the FBI have now taken US car manufacturers to Court.

    The FBI complaint states that the manufacturers have been wilfully manufacturing vehicles that were faster than their own so they could not easily catch criminals. The FBI also complained that the manufacturers offered better looking vehicles to killers, child molesters and terrorists than FBI staff were given out of the car pool.

    The FBI further demands that the Court ends the practice of offering air bags and ABS brakes in cars so that criminals would slow down and be either easier to catch or easier to kill - they graciously allow car manufacturers a choice in this matter.

    Supporters of the FBI complaint state that they have always been very suspicious of nice looking vehicles, and welcome the Court's decision to force everyone to drive a basic Redneck truck with bad brakes and a gun rack in the back."

    Did I miss anything?

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Next up: FBI suing car manufacturers

      "The FBI complaint states that the manufacturers have been wilfully manufacturing vehicles that were faster than their own so they could not easily catch criminals."

      The only problem with this complaint is that this situation is of their own devising. Reason being police could easily request a better engine and a higher top speed, but they seem to voluntarily limit themselves for safety reasons (due to all the equipment it has to carry, modern police cars can actually be quite heavy). Remember, criminals on the run have little regard for their life: some would rather die than be caught so can throw caution (and their engine) to the wind, pushing their getaway vehicles past their limits. Attacker's Advantage. Crooks can go beyond the law and common sense; the law cannot.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Next up: FBI suing car manufacturers

      Yes, you miss you can be fined and your driving license revoked if you drive as a criminal. Would you like a world where your phone supports encryption, but you would be fined and your telephone contract revoked if you're caught doing so?

      1. Charles 9

        Re: Next up: FBI suing car manufacturers

        "Yes, you miss you can be fined and your driving license revoked if you drive as a criminal."

        And YOU miss that, for a criminal who refuses to be taken alive, probably because he broke out from Death Row, a traffic ticket is the LEAST of his worries.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Next up: FBI suing car manufacturers

          But those laws protect you from *everybody* driving like a criminal just because a cars allows for it, putting other people lives at risk. Thereby selling those cars is a limited risk. If everybody drove like a criminal, laws to limit cars speed would have been put in practice. And some car manufactures *do limit* maximum speed because very few drivers would be able to handle the cars at the true speed they could reach without the limiter.

          Still, you have other ways to trace and stop a criminal on the run, helicopters, roadblocks, and so on, so you can accept the risk of a criminal being able to get a car so fast you can't reach. Actually, an high speed chase among other cars can put too many innocent lives at risk. But there are instances of police forces with truly high speed cars for special uses, where it makes sense.

          Also cars must have plates, to be identifiable, again not something a criminal could not bypass, but again not everybody has special devices to hide the plate...

  18. msknight

    The mat and potatoes

    Now we're getting to the crux of it.

    Basically, Apple has complied with warrants in the past and now that things are getting public, wants to stop doing so.

    Even though I get downvoted to hell and back, I maintain... if a court orders them to do it (after the argument has gone to the highest possible) ... they should damn well do it, or Cook should be thrown in jail. With Jobs' ashes as an aid to meditation.

    I don't trust the secret services. I don't trust corporates. The only thing left for me to trust in, is the courts and legal process.

    1. localzuk Silver badge

      Re: The mat and potatoes

      A court is limited by the laws of the land. It doesn't have carte blanche to order people or organisations to do whatever it damn well pleases.

      A court should NOT have the power to compel anyone do work that they themselves wouldn't do. That is slavery, plain and simple.

      If they order them to hand over evidence in a case, then sure, that is fine. But ordering them to build something for the government? No. Just no.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The mat and potatoes

        So you mean a court can't compel me to do the work, for example, to pay taxes because that's "slavery"? Why should I work for the government?

        Why, for example, a company should be compelled to spend more not to pollute the environment, or to keep workers safer? Of course, Apple doesn't like it and prefers to pollute and put at risks Chinese workers...

        In democratic states there are many rights, and also some obligations.

        Ah, but Appe also looks for many ways not to pay taxes. The government is good then, as long as it let the many holes Apple uses open...

        1. localzuk Silver badge

          Re: The mat and potatoes

          You are directly related to the requirement to pay taxes. You are a party to the process.

          Apple are a third party to the case. All they did was manufacture something. Are you saying that companies should always be responsible for the actions of those who use their products, and therefore are required to bend over backwards to create things for the government when demanded?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The mat and potatoes

            No, I'm not directly related. Why should I work and earn *for someone else* but me? Die the lusers who can't earn enough. Why tobacco companies should be responsible if someone smoked and got lung cancer? Why a company should be responsible if it polluted the environment, or a worker injured himself or herself? Why a company should help is one of its products is used to put other lives at risk? If someone poisons someone else with some of my products, why should I help to find an antidote?

            Why a company should be compelled to accept maternity leave? Why a company should be bend over backwards to hire women or afro-americans or whatever and pay them the same as white male workers? Isn't freedom and privacy being able to hire whoever I like, and pay them whatever I like?

            Or the laws and governments are good only when we see a personal advantage, and never the other way?

    2. John H Woods Silver badge

      Re: The mat and potatoes

      "Even though I get downvoted to hell and back, I maintain... if a court orders them to do it (after the argument has gone to the highest possible) ... they should damn well do it, or Cook should be thrown in jail." -- msknight

      Err ... you do know that Apple are behaving in an entirely legal manner by appealing the judgment?

      If your argument is that, once SCOTUS says they should do it, they should, you are wasting your time here -- Apple have already said they would comply with the law. Apple's whole point is that the law needs clarification and that should happen at a legislative level (SCOTUS / Congress) rather than be established by precedent in an individual case: as we all know, hard cases make bad law.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The mat and potatoes

      Even though I get downvoted to hell and back, I maintain... if a court orders them to do it (after the argument has gone to the highest possible) ... they should damn well do it, or Cook should be thrown in jail. With Jobs' ashes as an aid to meditation.

      That's not really the crux. The crux is that the court would be ordering Apple to create something that as yet does not exist: a tool to break a specific model of phone. There are all sorts of ugly consequences to that, but I'll get to that in a minute. This is equivalent to ordering a safe manufacturer to break their own product after the new owner has already set their combination, and success is not guaranteed. In the unfortunate case the court decided to indeed order this, what is the court going to do if Apple fails? Allege they did that deliberately?

      I don't trust the secret services. I don't trust corporates. The only thing left for me to trust in, is the courts and legal process.

      In that case you should also trust the democratic process to arrive at law. This is so significant, it should not be decided by precedent as it conflicts with several aspects of the Constitution. The FBI should not be allowed to attempt establishing a precedent - if this requires a law, that is a decision and process that starts in the political sphere, not with law enforcement, as it also require debate about what impact this has on the voter's rights that are supposed to be upheld by that same process.

      What the FBI is trying to do has sufficiently large consequences that it must be taken back to Congress, and questions must be asked why the FBI is attempting to set policy.

      If democratic representatives (well, OK, the bribed-by-campaign-contributions elected) decide there is indeed cause for such a law to be established it will be proposed, developed and implemented, and the consequences will then have been accepted in a proper process. At that point, companies like Apple may leave the US because they would no longer be able to sell equipment to anyone, but at least the loss of industry is then deemed acceptable.

      1. msknight

        Re: The mat and potatoes

        "The crux is that the court would be ordering Apple to create something that as yet does not exist: a tool to break a specific model of phone. "

        And prior to that, they had been getting information phones without such a tool, because such a tool wasn't needed.... but then, the general public wasn't so clued up as to how often they did this for the spooks.

    4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: The mat and potatoes

      " if a court orders them to do it (after the argument has gone to the highest possible)"

      Indeed. But this is a long way from the highest court possible, in fact AFAIU it's still at the lowest court possible. And before the highest court possible rules it will hear argument and evidence from both sides. From what I've read not only was this writ issued by the lowest court possible but it was issued without hearing any argument from Apple. So the there's quite a way to go before it's worth even trying to double-guess what the eventual decision will be let again arguing what Apple might then do and what a court should then do about what Apple should do.

  19. localzuk Silver badge

    Really?

    "As Apple well knows, the order does not compel it to unlock other iPhones or to give the government a universal 'master key' or 'back door'."

    Do the DOJ/FBI think we're idiots? Once the software exists to do what they want, it is in fact a "master key" or "back door". All it would take is for another warrant to say "you did it for XYZ case, so the tools exist, so you can do it for this case".

    Do they not have a grasp of the security concept "any exploit is a total exploit"?

  20. Candy

    Free Speech argument.

    As a corporate entity rather than a person, does Apple have any protections under constitutional protection from compelled speech? IANAL but I would have thought not.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. John H Woods Silver badge

      Re: Free Speech argument.

      "As a corporate entity rather than a person" -- Candy

      You might be surprised to learn that US law doesn't always make that distinction. But surely you'd have been more surprised that Apple's lawyers would make that argument if it were obviously invalid.

  21. nijam Silver badge

    Another FBI lie - they *know* (and knew before the original writ) that it is theoretically impossible to make the requested software apply to only a single phone.

    Claiming other iPhones will remain secure is like claiming someone is still a virgin because they only been fu??ed once.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This horseshit still?

    The media are so stupid. This is an apple PR stunt to make their products look secure.

    Back in the land of reality, all FBI needs to do, is ask siri nicely to unlock the phone via (yet another) dumb lockscreen bug.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: This horseshit still?

      That lockscreen bug is a hoax. The person appearing to demonstrate it has thumbprint authentication enabled and is using that thumb to unlock the phone.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Everybody I’ve talked to in forensics wants to help .gov get into this phone"

    Of course, without Apple, lots of money to be done in such sector! If Apple does it itself, no food for forensic dogs. Thereby, once again, no talk about freedom here, just business - just keep away the most dangerous competitors to protect your market...

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If code is free speech then Apple can't tell developer what to write, nor censor software on iOS?

    It is compelling speech too. Developers should be able to code whatever they like however they like? Are bugs free speech too, and having to remove them is "compelling speech"?

    How could Apple deny applications to be run on iOS if code is free speech? Is Apple censoring free speech on iOS?

    What about malware, is that free speech too, and thereby protected by 1st Amendment?

    Apple is blinded by the money it can make, and its lawyers are not understanding the true long term effects of the silliness their saying.

    1. localzuk Silver badge

      Re: If code is free speech then Apple can't tell developer what to write...

      The person writing code for Apple doesn't own it. They are contracted to create something for Apple, and as such Apple is the one exercising their free speech. If the person doesn't wish to write it, they can quit. Apple isn't forcing anyone to write code for them.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If code is free speech then Apple can't tell developer what to write...

        Basically you're saying free speech can be contracted and compelled by money and layoffs menaces - actually even Apple can shutdown and leave the US if if doesn't like to comply - the US isn't forcing anyone to sell phones in the US <G>.

        Also there is the basic fact that Apple doesn't allow your code to run on iOS but after it censors it - something that doesn't play well with the "code is free speech" appeal. What right Apple has to

        censor my (or everybody else) code?

        Is a maintenance manual with a big mistake that leads to several casualties "free speech" and thereby those who wrote it not liable for damages? Is a bad device design and implementation (choose any, house, bridge, car, airplane) "free speech" and so on?

        These are the absurdities situations where the will to invoke the first amendment for code will lead.

        This is a privacy matter, and a matter about what the All Writs Act allows the government to ask and what not. Trying to include "free speech" as a defense line is IMHO utterly stupid and counterproductive. More or less like the Belgian lawyer complaining about the use of the "cookie" word.

        Lawyers are becoming too creative, up to the point they look utterly stupid.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: If code is free speech then Apple can't tell developer what to write...

          "Basically you're saying free speech can be contracted and compelled by money and layoffs menaces"

          Free speech can be contracted. How do you think films & plays get produced?

        2. localzuk Silver badge

          Re: If code is free speech then Apple can't tell developer what to write...

          It isn't "free speech" that's the issue here. Its "compelled speech". Something that is illegal for the US government to do.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Facepalm

    Open saysme

    If the FBI wanted access and Apple denied them then why didn't they just hire someone else to do the dirty (but FBI legal) deed - like the Chinese hackers mentioned above? Or just ask the NSA? The whole thing is fishy

  26. Someone_Somewhere

    When government determines what the market may/not sell

    isn't that <gasp> 'Socialism'?

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Tim Cook belongs in jail until Apple unlocks the phone

    Apple and Tim Cook are doing nothing but supporting crime by refusing to unlock the phone of a mass murder. The rights of the people who were injured and killed far outweighs the rights of an animal who attacked these innocent people. Apple's refusal to unlock the phone is not only a disgrace it's insulting to all involved in this massacre. Tim Cook belongs in jail until Apple unlocks this criminals phone and Apple should be fined $10 million per day for each and every day they refuse to unlock the phone. Authorities have every right as do the injured and killed people to have the phone unlocked to prevent further deaths or injuries.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Tim Cook belongs in jail until Apple unlocks the phone

      "Apple and Tim Cook are doing nothing but supporting crime by refusing to unlock the phone of a mass murder."

      No, what they're doing is protecting the right of any innocent person against unjustified invasion by the authorities. This is such a good idea that it's been part of the law of England and her colonies for 8 centuries. And everyone is entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty. That, too, has been enshrined in our shared Common Law for a long time. This means that prosecution has to work harder to establish a case. I spent 14 years doing such work in the midst on an ongoing terrorist campaign a good deal more vigorous than the US is currently experiencing so I think I've seen a good deal more of it than the average A/C in these parts. And would I wish to see those protections weakened? No. Because those are the protections which benefit me, A/Cs and anyone else who values living in a free society.

  28. All names Taken
    Paris Hilton

    As the bard spake

    Methinks the lady doth protest too muchly

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like