Cook moves iPhone debate to FBI's weak ground: The media

Re: It's not often I agree with Apple but...

Ok, try this.

A murderer is gunned down while on a killing spree in a school.

The FBI is on the case and soon the car is located in the school's parking lot. In the car information could well be found concerning the perpetrator's motives and/or accomplices. Or not. There may also be stuff inside it that has absolutely no relevance to the case. Holiday snapshots. Used condoms. Take your pick. Or not.

Unfortunately the car is locked. The FBI fears the user (read: alleged murderer) may have installed a booby-trap. The car may burst into flames when it is opened by irregular means. Equally unfortunately, the key seems to be missing. It may have gotten lost in the fracas, or the user may have purposely destroyed it.

So a Judge orders the car manufacturer to open it with a key that they do not possess at this time. They have, however, the information to fabricate it in short order, since they have the car's build sheet.

The car manufacturer invokes the first amendment. Because the key does not open the lock directly, but instead sends digital information to a programmed ECU inside the car that sends an open command to the locks. (It may be a bit of a stretch...go with the flow.)

How would you respond to them ?

Re: FBI vs Apple

Apple and Google might snoop your data for profit, but they can't lock you up without trial.

Add that to the fact that the FBI and other TLAs haven't been above corruption - including the fabrication of evidence in cases involving the fucking death penalty - in the past when it suits their agenda, and can lock you up without trial, and I think you'll find that your argument doesn't really defend your point of view as well as you think it does.

Steven R

Re: FBI vs Apple

Apple doesn't spy on your every move 24x7 and doesn't have access to the data on your phone whenever they want.

But yeah, equate them with a data collection and advertising behemoth like Google if it makes you feel better, even though its totally wrong. Look at Apple's guarantee of anonymity - both from them and from the merchant - when you use Apple Pay. Notice the conspicuous lack of a similar guarantee from Google for Android Pay - because this is very valuable data for them to sell.

Re: Anyone heard of a "subpoena"?

Compelling a reluctant witness to testify in court is not at all comparable with compelling a locksmith to make a special tool that will open the locks of all his customers or even to break in to the home/office of one of his customers.

If the lawmakers want to save lives, they could compel car manufacturers to prevent cars from travelling faster than the local speed limit or ban the use of tobacco products or severely limit the sale of alcoholic drinks. Why don't they do any of that?

Re: Anyone heard of a "subpoena"?

A subpoena merely forces someone to appear in cour. If they don't, they go to jail, does not pass go and most certainly they don't collect $200.

It does not and can not force them to speak.

In the USA, the 5th Ammendment allows them to take the stand, swear the oath and say nothing but 'I'm taking the 5th' to each and every question put to them.

{two years sharing an apartment with a Harvard Law Grad taught me a few things}

Re: The actual matter

This.

Re: Apple is trying to convince us

"This is simply a marketing exercise to limit the damage to Apple caused by the Snowden revelations" --AC

So what? Person X says Y because of reason Z. I disagree with Z. I don't like person X; actually it's worse than that, person X did bad thing W.

What the hell does any of that have to do with the truth or otherwise of Y?

How can actual adults, moreover people who can spell, have passable grammar, can use a computer etc. make such absolutely trivial logical errors? I dream of a "logic auto-correct" that would just put wiggly red lines under all such braindead content, and when you hover your computer s̶q̶u̶i̶r̶t̶s̶ ̶w̶a̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ takes you to some web pages on elementary logic and makes you read them until you have wised up.

Re: Apple is trying to convince us

that they are not stooges of the NSA and they actually care about us.

This is simply a marketing exercise to limit the damage to Apple caused by the Snowden revelations.

I must admit that I find it sometimes hard to have a logical discussion through the purple haze of iPhone envy.

WTF are you talking about? If any company has BENEFITTED from Snowden's disclosures it's Apple. This whole case is exactly about Apple not assisting in such endeavours.

Re: Apple is trying to convince us

"Apple is trying to convince us that they are not stooges of the NSA and they actually care about us."

Watch Michael Hayden, ex-NSA chief here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/ex-cia-nsa-chief-michael-hayden-on-apples-fight-with-fbi-2016-campaigns/

His conclusion is that end-to-end security protects the interests of national security much more than it harms them.

Re: alternatively

Your shift key has gone missing. Have a word with Bombastic Bob, he seems to have a spare.

Re: There is already a backdoor

Put Apple's ability to update a locked 'phone without user authentication together with Apple's own code signing keys and there you have an already existing back door.

Really? An update normally wipes the phone, which is what the key problem is. There's little point in installing backdoor code if it triggers a wipe, otherwise they would have already done that. That is exactly why the FBI wants Apple to create something new.

Re: But who owns the device?

This is a good point and one on which maybe a compromise could have been reached which could have gained the sympathy of iThing owners. However AFAIK it's not the owners asking for this, it's the FBI and that creates a very different situation.

Re: But who owns the device?

"I’m (obviously) not a lawyer, but I wonder whether the real owner has the legal and moral right ask for help picking the lock. Apple would then have the face-saving option of agreeing on the grounds that they are assisting the owner and not some evil third party, and that this could not possibly set a precedent for government to gain access to everybody else’s phone." -- Mark Simon

I'm afraid the ownership doesn't make any difference. When either the owner or the state has the phone they can legitimately examine the contents. However, the contents are gibberish without the key. The key is ALSO in the phone. But it cannot be extracted by Apple unless that company creates a tool that jeopardises the safety of other customers. Apple, if they are telling the truth, and it looks as if they are, have provided every assistance right up to creating that tool, and now they're asking the courts to dismiss an earlier judgment ordering them to do so.

"this could not possibly set a precedent..."

There is literally no way that this would be possible. For instance, owner asks Apple for help, Apple provides it. FBI asks Apple for help ... Apple say no on the grounds they only help owners? There is nothing any of the parties can do within a court case that will determine (or perhaps even influence) whether or not it later forms a precedent. Remember, precedent does not have to be binding, it can be merely influential.

Re: But who owns the device?

Of course the county has the right to access the contents of their own phone.

Forget about this case for a moment, take real life: You bought an iPhone. Obviously you have the right to access the contents of your own phone. You set up a passcode. And being a bit negligent, you forget the passcode. So you take your phone to the Apple Store. Of course you still have the right to access the contents of your own phone.

So what do they tell you at the store? The "Genius" at the Apple Store obviously can't crack the code. They are quite clever, I bet they have a list of codes to try, like birthdays, postcodes, phone numbers, 1234, and so on, but beyond that they cannot help you.

If you have a four digit passcode, no extra security, and no backup, they will tell you that you have the choice of resetting your phone and losing everything, or trying 10,000 possible passcodes. Only takes two days. If you have extra security and no backup, they will tell you that you are stuffed.

If they followed this case, and you have a backup but not a recent one, they will tell you to take your iPhone back home to the WiFi network it knows, plug it into power, and it will start backing up to iCloud. That works even when it is locked. So when that is done, you can then erase your phone and restore from the iCloud backup. Saved.

That's what happens if it happens to you out of forgetfulness. And the exact same thing happens to San Bernardino County when they borrowed their iPhone to a terrorist who got himself killed and can't unlock the phone anymore.

Re: My question is: why Apple gave away the phone backups, but refuses to access the phone?

I refer the hon. gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago. A summons requires a witness to produce some evidence they might have. Apple have the backup which might be evidence. This is a demand for Apple to produce something that they don't have and which isn't evidence.

Re: My question is: why Apple gave away the phone backups, but refuses to access the phone?

The law can compel them to hand over data to which they have access. The law hasn't yet successfully compelled them to create the ability to hand over data which they currently can't access.

Re: My question is: why Apple gave away the phone backups, but refuses to access the phone?

If Apple believes my data shouldn't be accessible but by me, it should protect my backups on its "cloud" exactly the same way it is asserting it has to protect them on a phone.

Instead Apple gave away the backups, but refuses to help to unlock the phone. It looks to me privacy rights are not at the core of this fighting, but something else, that has much more to do with money. As you should expect from any company. But people will look at the finger...

Not quite. As far as I understand it, this phone was apparently MDM managed, but someone screwed up. I suspect that the MDM management was able to reset the iCloud password as that is only software, but due to the cockup by San Bernadino, the phone PIN didn't follow which is where the FBI saw an opportunity to restart its ploy to force precedent.

Re: My question is: why Apple gave away the phone backups, but refuses to access the phone?

Instead Apple gave away the backups, but refuses to help to unlock the phone. It looks to me privacy rights are not at the core of this fighting

The privacy rights of the user of this ohine are not relevant - aside from the fact he's dead, he's not even the owner of the phone. But no-one has ever claimed that the case was about his rights - it isn't and never has been.

This case is about the rights of everyone else. Everyone who has a phone - whether an Apple product or not. Whether a US citizen or not. That includes me. It probably includes you.

To suggest that this is just Apple being churlish would seem to indicate a fairly dramatic misunderstanding of the situation...

Vic.

Re: Wipe the device

So what happens if Apple writes some software that when uploaded mangles all the data from the phone?

Shhh, no spoilers. You're not supposed to give away the contents of the sequel to this.

Two issues:

1 - the fact that the FBI was able to force Apple to even TRY is not good news, so let's hope it never gets this far;

2 - as this has never been done it's possible that Apple indeed makes a mess of it. However, they can test the principle beforehand on another 5C, so they don't have that much of a defence other than stating that San Bernadino screwing up the configuration would have left the device in an unstable state. As the FBI is unable to access the phone itself, it is by extension stating that it lacks the expertise to assess the veracity of Apple's statement, and they thus get off on the principle that they are innocent until proven guilty or until the FBI changes that fundamental principle too because too many terrorists are getting away as a consequence (logical extrapolation of what they're doing right now, why stop when you have already violated one basic principle?).

Re: First Amendment.

Really wish I could be around to see the expression on the judges face, when one of Apple's lawyers tries to argue that in court. The term grasping at straws doesn't even begin to cover it. If that's seriously the best they can come up with, Tim Cook better start packing his bag now, cos he's heading to the clink real soon if he doesn't cave in.

Re: FBI screwed up, wants fix

Sorry, but it's the iCloud password that was changed (in order to let the FBI look at things stored on iCloud, which was totally unneccessary because Apple gave them that data anyway). So the locked phone doesn't know the right password anymore to connect to iCloud backup. And to enter the password on the phone you have to unlock it first.

Re: Tim Cook < Steve Jobs.

Wrong.

If he wins, he and his company are the guys that fought on behalf of their users all the way to the Supreme Court

If he loses, Apples standing is no worse than any others, because if their hand can be forced, so can everyone else's.

Apple can only stand to win or draw in this argument, not lose, save for, as you said, maybe a few ultra patriotic customers. The same ones that renamed French fries to freedom fries, probably.