FBI vs. Apple

[CAA Flagship]

Who will win the battle of unlocking the phones of the San Bernardino terrorists?

Apple is fighting it citing privacy. FBI thinks it could reveal important security information.

[ASUG8]

If Apple caves or is forced to unlock encryption for the FBI/NSA/DHS it's all over since Google will have to follow suit by precedent. It's a fourth amendment violation, but why stop now since we're ignoring most of the constitution these days anyway.

[Grizalltheway]

If Apple caves or is forced to unlock encryption for the FBI/NSA/DHS it's all over since Google will have to follow suit by precedent. It's a fourth amendment violation, but why stop now since we're ignoring most of the constitution these days anyway.

Law enforcement can get access to pretty much everything else related to your phone as long as they have a search warrant.

[CAA Flagship]

Not that simple.

Here is a good article, with links to other articles, explaining the issue.

http://gizmodo.com/why-you-should-care- ... 1759639200" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

If Apple caves or is forced to unlock encryption for the FBI/NSA/DHS it's all over since Google will have to follow suit by precedent. It's a fourth amendment violation, but why stop now since we're ignoring most of the constitution these days anyway.

This.

I've been trying to Ivytalk for years that cell phones are a part of your papers and personal effects.

Down with big government!

[ASUG8]

If Apple caves or is forced to unlock encryption for the FBI/NSA/DHS it's all over since Google will have to follow suit by precedent. It's a fourth amendment violation, but why stop now since we're ignoring most of the constitution these days anyway.

Law enforcement can get access to pretty much everything else related to your phone as long as they have a search warrant.

Agreed, except this negates the need for a warrant. Hence the 4th amendment violation IMO.

[Pwns]

Tim Cook's logic just doesn't make any sense. You're saying the government can't get access to information on a phone that belonged to someone who has already committed a crime? You don't have to give the government the master key, just unlock this one door.

I don't buy for one second that Apple is making this stand on principle, either.

[Grizalltheway]

Law enforcement can get access to pretty much everything else related to your phone as long as they have a search warrant.

Agreed, except this negates the need for a warrant. Hence the 4th amendment violation IMO.

I imagine you would still need a warrant to crack into a phone, but that capability isn't there right now with the auto-erase after ten attempts thing.

[Ibanez]

Tim Cook's logic just doesn't make any sense. You're saying the government can't get access to information on a phone that belonged to someone who has already committed a crime? You don't have to give the government the master key, just unlock this one door.

I don't buy for one second that Apple is making this stand on principle, either.

That's the problem. You set a precedent when you unlock this one door.

[CAA Flagship]

Tim Cook's logic just doesn't make any sense. You're saying the government can't get access to information on a phone that belonged to someone who has already committed a crime? You don't have to give the government the master key, just unlock this one door.

I don't buy for one second that Apple is making this stand on principle, either.

I think what Apple is saying is that the "master key" does not exist right now, and that they cannot guarantee the future security of the master key once it is created. That includes people within Apple and within law enforcement. And that security is the lifeblood of their business.

It seems that the system Apple set up (passcode) was created with the convenience of Apple involved. Almost every other passcode that is used is known to the company that controls the data the consumer is trying to access (websites, atm cards, safes, answering machines, etc.). Apple clearly did not want to be in the business of issuing/managing the passcodes and left it in the hands of the consumer.

[93henfan]

I think the real issue is Apple doesn't want some FBI techie learning their encryption method, then resigning and going to work for Samsung or whoever. I'm thinking Apple would have no problem if the FBI said, "here's the phone - do your thing at your lab and send us hard copies of all information you find on the phone." I'm guessing FBI is insisting on doing it together so they can certify the data for evidence.

I understand where both sides are coming from and don't really see a reason to rush to judgement or take sides.

What is more important? Finding out who these people talked to before they went on their spree, or our privacy? It's a slippery slope. Give the government the key and there's one more window the NSA has into our daily lives.

[kalm]

I think the real issue is Apple doesn't want some FBI techie learning their encryption method, then resigning and going to work for Samsung or whoever. I'm thinking Apple would have no problem if the FBI said, "here's the phone - do your thing at your lab and send us hard copies of all information you find on the phone." I'm guessing FBI is insisting on doing it together so they can certify the data for evidence.

I understand where both sides are coming from and don't really see a reason to rush to judgement or take sides.

What is more important? Finding out who these people talked to before they went on their spree, or our privacy? It's a slippery slope. Give the government the key and there's one more window the NSA has into our daily lives.

Ding, ding, ding.

[GannonFan]

I have no issue with Apple taking up this fight. What the judge is asking for goes beyond just getting into this one phone, it's trying to coerce Apple (and eventually anyone) into making sure the devices they make are more easily hackable. It's not Apple's job to make it easier for the government. If the government wants to break into phones like this, IMO, it should go ahead and build up it's own skill base to get into these things. Once you make a backdoor into the phone, it's just a matter of time until someone finds a way to use the backdoors on every phone that has one. I'd be far less likely to buy an Apple phone, or another brand, if I knew they had lost to the government and had designed in a backdoor so that government (and anyone else) could easily open it up.

[kalm]

[ASUG8]

Here we go again - play to American's fears about terrorism as justification for the snooping by NSA. If NSA gets full access to encryption, we'll just see the terrorists change to "burner" phones and adapt their tactics. Meanwhile, everyone else's Iphone/Droid becomes an open book to government agencies. But I'm confident that another Snowden type leak could never happen again.


https://www.yahoo.com/politics/nsa-chie ... 40933.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

National Security Agency Director Adm. Michael Rogers warns that encryption is making it “much more difficult” for the agency to intercept the communications of terrorist groups like the Islamic State, citing November’s Paris attacks as a case where his agency was left in the dark because the perpetrators used new technologies to disguise their communications.

In an exclusive interview with Yahoo News, Rogers confirmed speculation that began right after the attack: that “some of the communications” of the Paris terrorists “were encrypted,” and, as a result, “we did not generate the insights ahead of time. Clearly, had we known, Paris would not have happened.”

[DSUrocks07]

Do you really trust the government or anyone for that matter to keep it a secret? A way to break into any iPhone/iOS product in the world without erasing the phone? You know how valuable that would be? Everyone screams for right to privacy yet are so willing to violate others.

Side note: Which is funny coming from the right that exposes the idea of a level of gun control laws that allows the government know both where they life and what guns they own. AND the left that claims to be all for privacy but vilifies any form of communication that speaks ill of a group of people.

[Ivytalk]

There are First Amendment issues here as well as Fourth Amendment issues. I think Apple has the better case.

[JohnStOnge]

Apple should not be forced to assist the FBI.

[HI54UNI]

While I have my doubts that Apple's true reason for fighting this is entirely noble the end result is that they are correct on this one.

[Ivytalk]

Apple should not be forced to assist the FBI.

Trump disagrees.

[JohnStOnge]

Trump disagrees.

Depends on what he thinks is to his advantage at the time.

[Grizalltheway]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2536178

[Pwns]

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03/22/ ... tcmp=hpbt2

So let me see if I've got this right…

Apple tells us a lot of people's privacy will be jeopardized if they build a device to help the FBI get into the phone, but some third party who didn't even create the iPhone software coming up with a device to crack the phone is apparently no big deal. And they're patting themselves on the back for standing up to the FBI.

And people think Apple was making a stand on principle here.

[Ivytalk]

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03/22/ ... tcmp=hpbt2

So let me see if I've got this right…

Apple tells us a lot of people's privacy will be jeopardized if they build a device to help the FBI get into the phone, but some third party who didn't even create the iPhone software coming up with a device to crack the phone is apparently no big deal. And they're patting themselves on the back for standing up to the FBI.

And people think Apple was making a stand on principle here.

The unknown third party is probably some Iranian Ph.D.

[Skjellyfetti]

Tim Cook's logic just doesn't make any sense. You're saying the government can't get access to information on a phone that belonged to someone who has already committed a crime? You don't have to give the government the master key, just unlock this one door.

I don't buy for one second that Apple is making this stand on principle, either.

That's the problem. You set a precedent when you unlock this one door.

It's not even that it unlocks a door.

There's no door to unlock. Apple stopped saving the encryption keys so that if the government came for them they wouldn't have anything to give. The encryption keys are the door... but, there is no door anymore.

The FBI wants Apple to install software via an update that can allow a bypass of the encryption. The FBI, of course, says this will only be used in limited circumstances. But, if software exists on the phone that can bypass the encryption, then it can be hacked.

And, as for the article PWNS posted - I'll believe it when I see it. If a third party has a way around the encryption, the story is over. I doubt it, though. Nothing leads to believe it's credible.