Apple Says 'No'

[dgreenx]

Once someone is convicted of a crime, have they not given up their right to privacy? Like a felon has given up the right to vote? I'm not for spying on innocent citizens, but what about citizens that have been proven to NOT be innocent? Liberty comes with a price, and so does wickedness.

[MikeTheFid]

I think it extremely interesting that the government is forced to go to the manufacturer to get the data. The entire situation itself indicates that the government (which obviously includes the NSA) isn't all powerful when it comes to invasion of personal privacy. I have to admit, my first reaction was, "why can't they just give the damn phone to Apple and have a government (FBI) representative (for chain of evidence reasons) present when the data is produced." That way the code-breaking capability doesn't leave Apple's "clean room" and reduces by many factors the vulnerability of such a program escaping into the wild. However, if Apple did such a thing, the government would be knocking on their door to do it again in less time than it takes to say iPhone. Ah those pesky precedents. I'll be stepping out shortly to get more popcorn for the rest of the show. Talk amongst yourselves.

Cheers, Mike Fidler "I intend to live forever - so far, so good." Steven Wright "I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met." Also Steven Wright "I'm addicted to placebos. I could quit, but it wouldn't matter." Steven Wright yet again.

[Plamen Dragiyski]

So what, if someone steal your device, he/she cannot unlock it unless connects directly to processor bus (yes, there are devices that could do that). Normally such hardware price is high in the skies for normal users (which stealing person usually is). I don't think government cannot afford such a hardware, so besides legal problems why do they need Apple. Yes, modifying source code is easier, cheaper and faster, but modifying machine code is not that difficult.

[Jim McCool]

While I absolutely oppose inserting a backdoor into any security, this case is a bit different in that the owner of the phone also wants the security hacked. I have no problem with that, as a one-off hack. Most of us use company resources for personal (email for instance), but I don't pretend that anything that touches a company server is private. It's spelled out in company policy. the same applies to a company phone. All those records and content belong to the company. If an employee is stupid enough to give private information to the company, it's on them.

[Jim McCool]

While I absolutely oppose inserting a backdoor into any security, this case is a bit different in that the owner of the phone also wants the security hacked. I have no problem with that, as a one-off hack for the owner

[Bill tK Lewis]

The courts. Just like getting a warrant for anything else. The authorities would have to prove "just cause" to obtain a warrant. If your spouse, child or parent were being held hostage and the authorities got the phone of one of the abductors, and it was hoped that information in the phone might help lead to their recovery, wouldn't it be worth it?

[scmtim]

Actually they aren't asking Apple to unlock one person's phone. They are asking Apple to create software that can unlock that iPhone, which could then obviously be used to open any other iPhone or maybe any iDevice. If the government said they wanted to create a strain of Super Ebola transmittable through the air so they can study it. You know, just in case it naturally mutates that way we can be prepared. Don't worry we will keep it safe in just one lab in San Bernadino where only authorized scientists will have access. Would you be OK with that? There may be nothing useful in the phone at all. Everything that can fall into the wrong hands will fall into the wrong hands. Once that software is created, it will leak. Then every lost iPhone means that person loses every dime in their bank accounts. If a thief gets your phone they can log into your bank app and transfer funds. Even if you don't have the password saved, they can reset your password because your e-mail password is auto-saved. Heck it could even mean a huge spike in iPhone theft once the thieves have the tools to make so much more money from each stolen phone.

[Mike Hankey]

Just cause is a very broad term. I was pulled over in Texas and they searched me and the vehicle that I was driving because the officer said that my Garmin was obstructing my view. It was on the windshield under the rear view mirror just like thousands of other people. He stopped me because I had long hair and he just knew I was transporting drugs. In other words just cause is a fabrication, it can be anything.

New version: WinHeist Version 2.2.2 Beta
tomorrow (noun): a mystical land where 99% of all human productivity, motivation and achievement is stored.

[Bill tK Lewis]

NOT so -- in the case of getting a warrant or court order. The authorities have to PROVE that just cause exists to a judge. In your case (which I'm sure happens a lot more than we realize), the officer "bluffed" just cause which may or may not have held up in court after the fact if the stop had been challenged. To get a warrant or court order - they start off in court proving their case

[patbob]

Everyone who really thinks Apple should provide the FBI with tools to access or unlock phones, should immediately turn off all locking and privacy features on their phones right now and leave them off forever. If you're not willing to do that, then you really don't want Apple to provide unlock tools to anybody, you're just not thinking things all the way through. Tools means an exploit must be present. They also set a precedent, with the expectation that those tools will continue to work, which means that the exploit must become a maintained feature of the product. What happens what that exploit is discovered by the bad guys? Will the FBI take responsibility and give up their tools so Apple can close the hole? Never.

We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.

[Mark Starr]

Yup. I read a book about 1984... things were really screwed up back then. Hope it doesn't happen again.

Mark Just another cog in the wheel

[Ancient Zygote]

A quick look through the many replies below seems to indicate most people have an immediate feeling that we want to be protected from terrorists so it is petty of Apple to "refuse to unlock this one phone" simply because they believe in privacy rights. I would suggest you know what is actually being required of Apple: The government has invoked a centuries old writ requiring the general cooperation of third parties in excecuting writs or orders of the court/government. It has invoked that general writ in this case to insist that Apple engineers write a new operating system for the iPhone that will remove the multiple password submit protection (i.e., remove the increasing delay of response and ultimate locking of the device on repeated password errors) so the government can try brute force cracking the password for the terrorist's phone (by running millions of attempts at the password in automatically until one works). To paraphrase a federal judge who refused to allow the use of th All Writs Act in that way in 2005, the government need only run this Hail Mary play if its arguments under the relevant laws fail to allow it to do what it wants to do (US Magistrate Judge Orenstein). This controversy will surely take years to resolve, since it will likely proceed to the US Supreme Court (which may not be fully staffed since the Congress apparently views the President's power to appoint justices as optional and politically inconvenient). Aside from the implications of demanding a business abandon a marketing feature or do slave labor for the government (and these do involve constitutional questions re 2nd and 5th amendments among other issues), you really need to slow down on this reaction that we want to be protected and what does it matter if the government can look at any and all of my communications (which they do anyway for the most part). There is a difference from being protected by law and being protected by the good will of a particular official of the government. We've come a long way from Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death," the attitude of those who risked their lives that we might have a country like America. Now it seems to be, "to hell with liberty---I want to live at any cost." If you look at history you will see populations that made that decision always suffered severe consequences.

[Kevin Marois]

Excellent commentary. Well written.

If it's not broken, fix it until it is

[CodeZombie62]

I'm not a hardware expert by any means but here's something I've been thinking of and wondering if this could be done: 1) dismantle the phone and connect the iPhone's storage chip(s) to an interface that can read the raw data of the chip(s) but would not be able to decrypt the data. 2) copy the encrypted contents of the iPhone's storage to another system and back it up as well. 3) hook up an iPhone emulator to the first backup and try entering unlock codes sequentially until the right code is hit. 4) if the emulator zaps the data then just restore from the backup and keep trying until the unlock code is found, then proceed to read the data. I'm sure there has to be a reason why no one else has suggested doing this before like you can't dismantle the iPhone without zapping everything in the phone. What do you all think?

[pmauriks]

Would it change your mind if they had the password from the backups of the device, but someone muffed it up and changed the password in the cloud? The reason why they don't have data on this phone - is that they didn't follow their own process. My understanding is that there is more to this than just Apple being difficult. Personally, I'm glad Apple has taken the stance they have. Remember Blackberry, around about the time they gave into Pakistan about data interception, their customers began to leave them in droves. Co-incidence? Maybe. Maybe not. Many government departments rely on the iphone security. How many would remain customers if it wasn't there.