Ahh, so the county screwed up by letting him supply his own password. If the phone belonged the county, then the county should be the one with the password. Not sure that is doable, but it should be.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Files Official Motion to Vacate Court Order, Says FBI Seeks 'Dangerous Power'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ahh, so the county screwed up by letting him supply his own password. If the phone belonged the county, then the county should be the one with the password. Not sure that is doable, but it should be.
It's been reported various places that the county should have been using MDM software to manage their phones. It would have given them complete access to the phone in question.
Apple has no problem unlocking the phone if they could. They don't need this kind of justification. The already provided the encrypted and unencrypted data that was stored in iCloud.
They simply draw the line at being forced to create new software that they consider dangerous and unconstitutional. Congress has already enacted a law (CALEA) that specifically prohibits law enforcement from requiring telecom equipment manufacturers to modify their products. Congress also considered a proposal to require backdoor access. They rejected it.
He's saying that the phone isn't property of the state, but the county; he's pointing out that, despite how large the county is (that it's bigger than nine states, more populous than 14) it's still just a county.
Given the Obama administration's infamous, and growing, track record of scandals I do not think it would be a good idea to allow unfettered communications access rather than court ordered access to individuals' phones nor is acceptable from a libertarian point of view. We need only look to the IRS to understand how horribly a federal department can conduct themselves when there is a breakdown in management, insufficient oversight and lack of criminal prosecution. It is no surprise that Hillary is not being indicted but rather is campaigning for candidacy. I wish good luck to coming generations; their future is so very bleak.
It is exceedingly true that, in the US and Canada, at least, immigrants seeking citizenship know a lot more about governments, political systems, and general civics than the natural-born citizens.I have a neighbor who teaches at the local high school and I asked what they teach in they way of civics. I was shocked at his answer: Little to nothing of civics is required on mandaited testing for a student to graduate and get a HS diploma. Not required, it pretty much isn't taught.
This is a case where technology has leapfrogged the Government, no surprise there but I personally see this from both sides. I don't want the Government to freely and easily have access into my iPhone but at the same time if a warrant is served on credible evidence of a threat, especially if it could lead to the prevention of a bombing, they should have the ability to act on it.
That being said, forcing Apple to write the backdoor is unprecedented and I don't know how that will fly, especially when Apple feels so strongly about it that they're building one that cannot be hacked in the future. All I can say is that if it were my family or town on the line, I would say do everything you can to get that information.
That being said, forcing Apple to write the backdoor is unprecedented and I don't know how that will fly, especially when Apple feels so strongly about it that they're building one that cannot be hacked in the future. All I can say is that if it were my family or town on the line, I would say do everything you can to get that information.
That's the challenge. How to legally, safely, and effectively get this type of information without placing or creating additional risk and affecting civil liberties. It's going to be a challenge. I for one would hope one item to come out of this would be an effective meeting between all parties to devise a path forward. One can hope.
No, I don't think so. Strong encryption being available to everyone is hardly new. What is new is a pending court order for a software developer to cripple the security of their own product.
well this gives the terrorist the upper hand and ties the hands of people who are actually trying to prevent future attacks in this country and others. I guess its ok to have all the privacy and not worry about future attacks. Its ok eventually Apple is going to have to give up because government has ways of getting what they want. sad but true.
No the county screwed up by not installing the MDM software they paid for but didn't use.
As I've said before LEOs shouldn't look at the constitution as impediments to their jobs. It's what they are supposed to be protecting.
Strong encryption exists. Backdooring the iPhone won't change that. Terrorist will just move on to another secure platform.
On the other hand, what the FBI really wants is not access to this phone, but access to incriminating information. MDM would have meant that the FBI could access the phone, but it also would have made it almost certain that there would be nothing incriminating on that phone.
That's a big problem with what the FBI wants. At the moment I'm sure that not only law abiding citizens but also criminals rely on the security of the iPhone. There will be lots of incriminating information on iPhones everywhere that the FBI cannot access. But if they could access, that information would disappear. Criminals would be clever enough to move their information from an unsafe phone to a more secure place.
Same again. If the county had the passcode then they could read anything on the iPhone - which would be guaranteed to include no incriminating information whatsoever.
[doublepost=1456518209][/doublepost]
It keeps the phones of army personnel, police officers including undercover policemen, and many others, safe from criminals. Of course that's not something that the FBI can think of. Their job is catching criminals, not protecting innocent citizens. The NSA on the other hand has both jobs, and you can watch an interview with Michael Hayden, former chief of NSA, who will explain to you why he had rather that the good guys be safe than the bad guys being unsafe.
Bubba, you know exactly that this article isn't more than flatulence.
Actually, what Apple is doing isn't civil disobedience. If there's a law that black people sit in the front of the bus and white sit in the back, and you disobey that law, that's civil disobedience. If today a police officer told you where to sit because of your skin color, and you refuse, that's not civil disobedience, that's knowing your rights. That's what Apple is doing.
Last edited:
It's not certain that CALEA will be the deciding factor in this case. A judge or judges could easily side with Justice that CALEA doesn't apply because the data is "at rest". (See actual page 21, sec. b of motion to compel here. "Congress has not limited....") Furthermore, a judge or judges might conclude that by legal definition, Apple is neither a 'telecommunications carrier' nor a 'telecommunications support service' entity, therefor CALEA doesn't apply.
In the chance it's ruled that CALEA is applicable, in the compel motion, Justice also cites this section of CALEA :
http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2013/title-47/chapter-9/subchapter-i/section-1002
I don't know if any of this has been interpreted or adjudicated, in regards to a case of this sort. If it hasn't, it's possible it could be read in a way that compels Apple to decrypt. The bottom line; I don't think CALEA is a haven of certainty for Apple.
I remember doing some research for a documentary about the history of wiretapping. The truth is, the police discovered they could do it from the criminals themselves, and they did it all the time, just as a routine matter of investigations. It wasn't actually knocking on the door and searching your papers, you were just "overhearing a conversation." It took a while before the law caught up to it. And Hoover did them all the time with no authorization at all. "National security." It was not until the '70s, during the hearings on Intelligence crimes that there were stricter controls put on. I'd love to be able to compromise here, and to give police agencies the data they want if they have a legal document saying I have to. But there is no way I know-- I'm no cryptologist, of course, but I listen to them -- to have privacy and safety enforced on a small network device that doesn't rely on strong crypto, and no way of granting access without leaving you open to less scrupulous regimes and hackers and thieves.
What if this isn't possible and you were forced to choose one or the other?
Because as technology stands now, that's the situation.
OK So the Sheriff of San Bernandino admits that there likely isn't anything of value on the iPhone in question. Just like many here have already theorized due to cell phone records from it surely having already been obtained. I'm sure this isn't something that they just realized before FBI filed suit over it. Have to say all this just makes their words look so bad and I do look at it as they lied to the public. And we all know it's not a one off either. That's been flushed out too. Did they really think that Apple would just accept and roll over when their long-worked on encryption would be flushed out in court documents. Everyone should understand that the forensic testing and reports would be available from the GovtOS and a big clue blueprint to hackers including the FBI and NSA. Wouldn't matter if Apple destroyed the GovtOS code or not at that point from what I understand.
Here's the story on Apple Insider. http://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/192047 Thought that Adrayven's comment was the best there so far.
Here's the story on Apple Insider. http://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/192047 Thought that Adrayven's comment was the best there so far.
Last edited:
OR we as a society accept that we will not give up certain liberties and designs just to make law enforcement easier. We can choose a path that says encryption will be permitted even given the consequences.
Just like guns means some people will get shot, freedom of speech means people will say mean things, etc etc. It would be great for politicians if you didn't have a right to speak negatively about them wouldn't it? Well it would be nice for law enforcement if you didn't have unbreakable encryption.
It is OK to say "NO, law enforcement, you will not have this power and we understand you will not have thiis option when intel is encrypted. Now go find another way."
Why does everyone need to find a compromise? Try this. . ."NO!" Go ahead, say it.
You mean if my family or town is at risk from actionable intelligence? I would say crack into it, as would anyone on this board would as well.
But the catch is it's not something you can decide after there's actionable intel.
It has to be decided beforehand.
Do we have a backdoor that can be used by law enforcement but also exploited by hackers, identity thieves, rogue states, etc? Or do we have a secure device?
Me? I'll take the secure device. I'd wager that at least 25% of Americans have had some part of their identity compromised within the last couple years. Meanwhile only a handful have died in terrorist attacks.
Be careful, you are using some of that gray matter between your ears. Not many people want you doing that!
A court order can be made to access the data, it is the mechanism put in place to protect that data, it is Apple's fault if it wants to claim it lacks the key to access the data the court order is requesting. Whilst advertising the fact they are making more secure devices.... yes it is certainly a marketing opportunity the have exploited. Along with wanting to protect user privacy.
I read on a thread on one of the UK news articles covering this that it is covered under this in the UK:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/part/III
And the UK government is forceful on digital information being released:
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2434...-facebook-user-accounts-in-first-half-of-2015
And just to add to this whole protection of your digital privacy argument...
It is interesting, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin etc believes they have a right to 'own' your data and photographs ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...itions-why-you-dont-own-your-online-life.html ) and make money from that data, yet they do not feel they should allow security services and government access to that information. It's hypocrisy at its best, protect your business at the cost of privacy, then attempt to look good in public by protecting that data and privacy.
It's all about marketing and targeted advertising, in fact the mobile games industry when they started with freemium games quickly clicked on to just how much data they were collecting on their users and then started selling it, it's the main drive behind the 'freemium' games business model and they make millions of it, heres a top game developer telling you how it is, they basically OWN YOU:
http://toucharcade.com/2015/09/16/we-own-you-confessions-of-a-free-to-play-producer/
From what I've read Apple would use your data for targeted iAds but I believe they have got rid of that now? It seems to handle your data better though.
So it is a bit rich and incredibly hypocritical for these electronics giants to 'pretend' to be jumping on the privacy of it's users bandwagon on one hand, whilst they are making every penny they can get of all your personal data with the other hand. It's almost like they are protecting their business assets with this.
I guess that's capitalism for you?
Last edited:
I am with Apple.
The federal government could have prevented THIS INCIDENT of terrorism by doing the most basic of work and preventing these people from entering the country. It's doubtful that this one company phone would have anything actionable on it anyway. I say this will be the true measure of Apple and its executive team. Are they willing to go to jail to protect our rights?
I hope so, because that would be the right and moral thing for them to do. I hope it never comes to that, but this will be the measure of the men (and women) of Apple.
The federal government could have prevented THIS INCIDENT of terrorism by doing the most basic of work and preventing these people from entering the country. It's doubtful that this one company phone would have anything actionable on it anyway. I say this will be the true measure of Apple and its executive team. Are they willing to go to jail to protect our rights?
I hope so, because that would be the right and moral thing for them to do. I hope it never comes to that, but this will be the measure of the men (and women) of Apple.