Apple / FBI Legal Battle

[Revmitchell]

Right now Apple is in charge of securing the code for their OS and their method of digitially signing their OS. If they were to do as the FBI is requesting they would be in charge of securing the code for their modified OS and their method of digitially signing their modified OS.

So, you want to talk about a distinction without a difference? In both cases Apple is responsible for securing their proprietary information. We are trusting Apple to keep this secret. Now, what's the problem?

If they get in the habit of doing this what reason will they be asked to do it again later? Their concern is first precedence and then having an existing code that can be used by hackers. It is kind of like if you do not want a secret to get out the best way to ensure that is to not tell anyone.

In Apple's case the best security is for the code not to exist anywhere. The government got in a hurry, did not check with apple before trying to reset the password to the cloud and then moves to force Apple to change its policy. This whole mess could have been avoided by the government with some patience and wisdom. Now they are playing on the tragedy, because of their mistake, and placing blame on Apple.

The government has a compelling reason to see that info, Apple has a compelling reason to keep its security as it is. When those two conflict then who's position should come out ahead? Since I do not trust government, I will side with private business.

 

[InTheLight]

If they get in the habit of doing this what reason will they be asked to do it again later?

They have cooperated in these sorts of issues in the past. They even helped on this case, for a while...

I don't understand why you think there is something wrong with a private company cooperating with law enforcement to prevent potential terrorist attacks? What's the problem?

Their concern is first precedence and then having an existing code that can be used by hackers. It is kind of like if you do not want a secret to get out the best way to ensure that is to not tell anyone.

They wouldn't be telling anyone. The FBI is essentially asking Apple to load an OS onto a phone and digitally sign it. This happens every single day in the real world. If any hacker were to get a hold of the code for Apple's OS they could easily change the 10 attempt limit at the pass code to unlimited. I bet you or I could do it. The trick is getting that altered OS to be validated by Apple. This is the process that Apple must keep secret. They are currently keeping that process a secret. They would need to keep it secret after dealing with the FBI. There's no difference--Apple must maintain their own security over their own products.

In Apple's case the best security is for the code not to exist anywhere.

Again, the code is worthless without the ability to activate it.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't understand why you think there is something wrong with a private company cooperating with law enforcement to prevent potential terrorist attacks? What's the problem?

I am sorry for your confusion but I have not indicated any such position. In fact this twisting of my position is very crabbyesque. Kind of disappointed in you.

They wouldn't be telling anyone.

It matters not. The fact that it does not currently exist raises the level of security higher. Creating it lowers their security.

 

[InTheLight]

I am sorry for your confusion but I have not indicated any such position. In fact this twisting of my position is very crabbyesque. Kind of disappointed in you.

You've just written many, many posts arguing that Apple should not cooperate with the FBI to gain access to a terrorist's phone. I can see no other way to interpret your actions except to conclude you don't want Apple to cooperate with the FBI.

 

[Revmitchell]

I can see no other way to interpret your actions except to conclude you don't want Apple to cooperate with the FBI.

Ok, in this particular case, under these particular circumstances. I did not say all private companies all the time.

Your conclusion lacks appropriate specificity.

 

[Don]

They have cooperated in these sorts of issues in the past. They even helped on this case, for a while...

The cooperation in the past was with previous operating systems. This situation, because the operating system has changed, is different. They did help with this case, until the FBI screwed up and changed the iCloud password--which has produced the conflict.

I don't understand why you think there is something wrong with a private company cooperating with law enforcement to prevent potential terrorist attacks? What's the problem?

I disagree with the logic of your argument. The problem here is NOT cooperation with law enforcement to prevent potential terrorist attacks; the problem here is, how much is the government allowed to order a private company to cooperate?

They wouldn't be telling anyone. The FBI is essentially asking Apple to load an OS onto a phone and digitally sign it. This happens every single day in the real world. If any hacker were to get a hold of the code for Apple's OS they could easily change the 10 attempt limit at the pass code to unlimited. I bet you or I could do it. The trick is getting that altered OS to be validated by Apple. This is the process that Apple must keep secret. They are currently keeping that process a secret. They would need to keep it secret after dealing with the FBI. There's no difference--Apple must maintain their own security over their own products.

Again, the code is worthless without the ability to activate it.

And again, if the "secret code" validating the OS code is used for this purpose, then it will be used for the next purpose. And the next. And the next.

This isn't "Apple Privacy vs. National Security"; this is YOUR privacy vs. National Security. As has been mentioned on several tech sites, the FBI could turn over the phone to the NSA, and the NSA could assist with this. Instead, the FBI is making this a legal case against Apple. As Julian Sanchez says: this is not whether the federal government can read one dead terrorism suspect's phone, but whether technology companies can be conscripted to undermine global trust in our computing devices.

In fact the consequences of this decision are enormous enough, that we're not even sure how far-reaching it could become--because once the government wins this battle for one little iPhone, the precedent is set for ALL computing devices.

Which boils it down to: If the FBI wins this case--and there's a very good chance they will--are you willing to have computing devices with no privacy at all?

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/02/decrypting_an_i.html
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/technical-perspective-apple-iphone-case

 

[InTheLight]

I disagree with the logic of your argument. The problem here is NOT cooperation with law enforcement to prevent potential terrorist attacks; the problem here is, how much is the government allowed to order a private company to cooperate?

The FBI has a search warrant to search the phone. The only way to search the phone is to get the phone manufacturer's cooperation. I guess we'll have to see how it all shakes out.

And again, if the "secret code" validating the OS code is used for this purpose, then it will be used for the next purpose. And the next. And the next.

OK, so what? If Apple gets to keep their technology secret from the FBI, what's the harm?

In fact the consequences of this decision are enormous enough, that we're not even sure how far-reaching it could become--because once the government wins this battle for one little iPhone, the precedent is set for ALL computing devices.

The precedent was set 200 years ago when the fourth amendment to the Constitution was adopted to require search warrants. If a device is used in the commission of a crime and a court orders a search warrant for that device, yes, I expect a computing device will be examined.

Which boils it down to: If the FBI wins this case--and there's a very good chance they will--are you willing to have computing devices with no privacy at all?

That's the boogieman that is being trotted out here. The Bill of Rights enumerates our rights to privacy. I expect that my computer is safe from unwarranted searches even if the FBI gets to crack this one phone.

 

[Don]

The funny thing is, I usually agree with ITL on most things. It just seems to be technology that we part ways.

 

[InTheLight]

The funny thing is, I usually agree with ITL on most things. It just seems to be technology that we part ways.

This is one of the only things I can think of that we don't agree on, technological or otherwise. I just don't see people's privacy rights crumbling if the FBI gets into this one phone. Mind you, only under the conditions outlined--Apple does all the work, keeps all the code, doesn't give the FBI anything except the data on the phone. I would never advocate that the FBI acquire the ability to break a phone's encryption on their own.

 

[Don]

This is one of the only things I can think of that we don't agree on, technological or otherwise. I just don't see people's privacy rights crumbling if the FBI gets into this one phone. Mind you, only under the conditions outlined--Apple does all the work, keeps all the code, doesn't give the FBI anything except the data on the phone. I would never advocate that the FBI acquire the ability to break a phone's encryption on their own.

See--that's the thing I keep running across on the sites I visit. The FBI *could* have asked the NSA to do this. Instead, they chose to enact the All Writs law, and basically force Apple to comply. That's the sticky point for me.

 

[Revmitchell]

This is one of the only things I can think of that we don't agree on, technological or otherwise. I just don't see people's privacy rights crumbling if the FBI gets into this one phone. Mind you, only under the conditions outlined--Apple does all the work, keeps all the code, doesn't give the FBI anything except the data on the phone. I would never advocate that the FBI acquire the ability to break a phone's encryption on their own.

The problem is the nature of government. It is not now nor will it ever be just about this one phone. It may be the guise right now but government always intrudes farther than folks intend for it to go when we let it.

 

[preachinjesus]

Honestly, in a battle over information I'd trust the people of Apple over the FBI.

Apple knows that if they create backdoor(s) and open their products to hackers like the FBI is requesting, they will lose massive marketshare as well as violate their corporate ethics.

The FBI won't lose anything, they'll only gain things expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

 

[Revmitchell]

So now I heard on the radio today the FBI is now saying "oh by the way we have 12 other phones we want you to help us get into.

 

[Don]

So now I heard on the radio today the FBI is now saying "oh by the way we have 12 other phones we want you to help us get into.

(if you look hard enough, the state of New York has 72 phones they'd like to be able to do the same thing with)

 

[Rob_BW]

I white'd out the naughty word for y'all.

 

[Don]

As of today, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Twitter are officially siding with Apple.

 

[Revmitchell]

As of today, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Twitter are officially siding with Apple.

Of course they are

 

[Don]

RevMitchell started a new thread that has a bearing on this case: http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/ny-judge-us-cannot-make-apple-provide-iphone-data.98630/

 

[Revmitchell]

RevMitchell started a new thread that has a bearing on this case: http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/ny-judge-us-cannot-make-apple-provide-iphone-data.98630/

They can merge these if the powers that be like. One is just as good as the other.

 

[Don]

They can merge these if the powers that be like. One is just as good as the other.

Nah; I just wanted to make sure people saw both threads, and had all the information possible to come to an educated opinion.