Apple Govt. mandate

[Mike Null]

I hope this doesn't become political though some are already making it so. But for my money I think Apple should resist all gov't. efforts to make them comply in developing a "backdoor" to the iPhone encryption system. My feeling is that this would lead to the most massive invasion of privacy ever and for everybody around the world. Governments around the world are more intrusive than ever and this just magnifies their capability by monumental amounts.

Politicians are already clamoring to make Apple the bad guy when what they should be asking is what in the world are we spending 100's of billions in national security for if those agencies can't handle something like this.

Other mods--feel free to kill this if you think it is out of line.

[Chris Hachet]

I think that we need to have an existential moment to ask ourselves why we are doing what we are doing as a country. Until we can hit the reset button, all efforts at reform are wasted efforts. About like a piece of furniture that would start out of square and get progressivly worse as the project went along.

What our country was founded on was fantastic....what we have now....not so much.

[Gordon Eyre]

Doesn't seem so onerous to me:
1. Create backdoor
2. Obtain info from phone
3. Share info with the FBI
4. Destroy backdoor
5. Charge government accordingly.

[John McClanahan]

If they do it once, they will be asked (or demanded) to do it again and again and again.....

Not taking sides, just sayin.


John

[Mike Henderson]

The only secure encryption technique is one that cannot - by any means - be decrypted by anyone except the person with the key. The only known encryption technique that fills that bill is a one time pad (if used properly).

If Apple can provide certain assistance, such as turning off the 10 try limit, then someone else can do the same. The NSA, for example, could figure out how to turn off the 10 try limit on their own. The NSA is not going to help the FBI because it would disclose that they have the means to access encrypted data on iPhones. (Once you turn off the 10 try limit, and the delay between tries, accessing the phone is trivial.)

I do not see this as a "backdoor". It's a one iPhone hack, not a way to access all iPhones. And no matter whether Apple cooperates or not, if there's a way to get into an encrypted iPhone, someone - either a private hacker or a foreign government - will discover it. Better for Apple to help the FBI and then if they want to really close the door, change things such that they CANNOT access the data, no matter what (if that's possible).

Mike

[roger wiegand]

How will we feel when Putin or Assad or the leaders of any other country makes a similarly legal and "legitimate" demand that Apple unlock a phone--perhaps the phone of a CIA officer they've captured and accused of something bad?

[Howard Garner]

Agreed, this will not be a one time thing.

Howard

[Jim Koepke]

Doesn't seem so onerous to me:
1. Create backdoor

This in effect demands Apple to surrender something it doesn't have at this point in time.

How much manpower can a judge demand an entity to expend on a process that may or may not be possible?

It is doubtful this 'software' could be confined to the use of a single iPhone. If it comes into existence for one, it is in existence for all.

jtk

[Mike Cutler]

John Macafee said he would hack the phone for free.
Apple should not have to develop software to bypass their encryption, and then turn it over to the Feds.
Open up one phone? Yes. Give them the software to do it at will? No.

[Jerome Stanek]

What makes you think there is no backdoor now for the I phone. Just because Apple says there is non. What about all those companies that wrote software where the programers installed one without the company knowing

[Jim Koepke]

I have seen many an editorial cartoon on this. Here is one from someone with whom I seldom agree:

http://www.gocomics.com/lisabenson/2016/02/19

There have been many others on this issue, some have changed it from iPhone to EYE-Phone.

jtk

[Myk Rian]

If they do it once, they will be asked (or demanded) to do it again and again and again.....
With a court order, only.
I can understand the FBIs side of this.

[Jerome Stanek]

why can't Apple update the firmware with a patch to remove the number of tries to unlock and not unlock it. Then let the FBI try to unlock it.

[Myk Rian]

why can't Apple update the firmware with a patch to remove the number of tries to unlock and not unlock it. Then let the FBI try to unlock it.
That's what the FBI wants. For ONE phone.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Correct me Jerome if I'm wrong. Typically don't you have to turn the phone on and get past the password to authorize downloads or updates?

[julian abram]

Guess I'm thinking to simple here but why can't Apple open the phone, extract the all the data and had it over to the FBI. No need for the software to leave Apple. There is an article out today that Apple has already done this in 70 other cases working with different law enforcement entities.

[Yonak Hawkins]

In order to create the software to de-encrypt the phone there must be some proprietary knowledge or else any hacker would be able to write the software. If Apple trusts whomever is safeguarding this proprietary knowledge they should trust them to safeguard the de-encryption software. I don't understand this debate.

[James Baker SD]

Good hackers (those with enough resources, i.e. money, behind them) have methods of trying to break into security devices that the average person would never imagine. Before I retired, I used to work on security chips, my job was to anticipate these attacks, and defend against them at the hardware level that software could not override. Without knowing anything about the iPhone, I suspect that it has pretty sophisticated "side channel attack" defenses. Nothing is really secure, you just try to make the cost of hacking the system too high to be profitable (admittedly that applies more to stealing banking info than to national security)

[Dan Hintz]

Correct me Jerome if I'm wrong. Typically don't you have to turn the phone on and get past the password to authorize downloads or updates?

Apple can force updates, if it so chooses...

[Pat Barry]

Apple should not, ever, cooperate with this request. It is a huge Pandora's box with no upside. The FBI should be able to solve this on their own and, I fully expect they can and will. In the meantime, the politician's will make a mess of things, as usual, because they have election agenda's, not national security, as their primary focus. Please close this thread

[Jerome Stanek]

Apple should not, ever, cooperate with this request. It is a huge Pandora's box with no upside. The FBI should be able to solve this on their own and, I fully expect they can and will. In the meantime, the politician's will make a mess of things, as usual, because they have election agenda's, not national security, as their primary focus. Please close this thread

If there is information on it that could stop another attack it is worth it. What would you say if one of your loved ones ended up dead and then you found out that it could have been stopped if they had cracked the phone.

[Mike Henderson]

Apple should not, ever, cooperate with this request. It is a huge Pandora's box with no upside. The FBI should be able to solve this on their own and, I fully expect they can and will. In the meantime, the politician's will make a mess of things, as usual, because they have election agenda's, not national security, as their primary focus. Please close this thread
If Apple can access the data on that phone, other people can also (meaning a determined hacker or a foreign government). If Apple refuses to hack the phone, but announces that they COULD hack it (which I think they did), other entities will search for ways to access data on iPhones. I would not be surprised if the NSA can already hack an iPhone.

Mike

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Apple can force updates, if it so chooses...

If that is the case, and I don't doubt it, shouldn't we be scared of Apple misusing this capability?

It's a complex issue. Few things are as simple, as black and white, as most people would like to believe. There are REASONABLE solutions but people have to want a solution rather than standing their ground on what they see as morale high ground or beliefs brought on by paranoia.

[Leo Graywacz]

Guess I'm thinking to simple here but why can't Apple open the phone, extract the all the data and had it over to the FBI. No need for the software to leave Apple. There is an article out today that Apple has already done this in 70 other cases working with different law enforcement entities.

Because this isn't what the govt wants. I'm sure they'd refuse to just hand the phone over to Apple because of national security issues. If Apple does this they'll need to destroy the phone. The govt will reverse engineer the procedure and have their way into all new Apple phones.

[Jim Huelskoetter]

Seems like there are two questions. First, should cell phone records have special privacy protections than other forms of documents. I don't think so. Second question is whether it might affect Apple's business, and that seems like a much lower priority than investigating potential ties to terrorism.

[John Goodin]

And what leverage would the US have if it were a Samsung phone, a South Korean company? The funny thing they don't even know if any valuable info is on the phone. My guess is no. If there was I would have thought they would have destroyed before the attack.

[Paul F Franklin]

You do to update firmware in the normal way....presumably with physical access to the phone there are alternative ways to install firmware, such as would be done during manufacturing.

[Leo Graywacz]

Secret Memo Details U.S.’s Broader Strategy to Crack Phones

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/secret-memo-details-u-s-s-broader-strategy-to-crack-phones

[Ken Fitzgerald]

....and it turns out it wasn't the shooter's personal phone but one issued to him by his San Bernardino County employer. So, is anything on that phone the shooter's "private or personal" data or does it belong to the owner of the phone...the county government agency?


It's complex.

[Leo Graywacz]

Who has the password? They are essentially the guardian of the information.

[Jim Becker]

You do to update firmware in the normal way....presumably with physical access to the phone there are alternative ways to install firmware, such as would be done during manufacturing.

Once the iOS device is setup by an end-user post manufacture, the current passcode must be entered in order to update the firmware. They started enforcing that on recent versions of iOS. The passcode is the primary issue here. Without the passcode, the prosecutor cannot access the data on the device and they are concerned that x number of incorrect attempts will wipe the device...which is a feature of the current versions of iOS. (It's also a feature liked by corporations and government entities that allow organizational date on mobile devices...they can wipe it "for real") Unlike on Android, iOS actually can wipe user data securely. Interestingly, iOS also doesn't allow someone who HAS access to the device to wipe it/rest to factory unless they also have additional credentials, such as the iTunes ID and password.

I'm slightly divided personally on this matter, but lean more toward Apple's point of view. Balancing the needs of individual privacy and security vs societal needs isn't easy. What I find most interesting, however, is the reaction by some folks who normally are all for privacy and free will taking the opposite stance on this specific matter.

[Jim Finn]

I suspect Apple will eventually go along with the court order and put one of their least competent persons in charge of complying.

[Art Mann]

Unfortunately the "back door" is not something you can just create and then destroy. It is permanently incorporated into the device. The assumption is that only the good guys will ever learn the secret to opening the door. Based on my observation of our Federal Government, the probability of keeping the back door access secret is approximately zero. All it takes is one Edward Snowden.


Doesn't seem so onerous to me:
1. Create backdoor
2. Obtain info from phone
3. Share info with the FBI
4. Destroy backdoor
5. Charge government accordingly.

[Brian Elfert]

Once the iOS device is setup by an end-user post manufacture, the current passcode must be entered in order to update the firmware. They started enforcing that on recent versions of iOS. The passcode is the primary issue here. Without the passcode, the prosecutor cannot access the data on the device and they are concerned that x number of incorrect attempts will wipe the device...which is a feature of the current versions of iOS. (It's also a feature liked by corporations and government entities that allow organizational date on mobile devices...they can wipe it "for real") Unlike on Android, iOS actually can wipe user data securely. Interestingly, iOS also doesn't allow someone who HAS access to the device to wipe it/rest to factory unless they also have additional credentials, such as the iTunes ID and password.


My employer has at least one Apple device that is completely worthless because Apple is very strict about not allowing access to a device if you don't know the passcode, or the Apple ID and password. The device can generally be wiped, but not set up with another Apple ID for reuse.

[Yonak Hawkins]

..Well, then, why doesn't the FBI just hack into this phone ? The US government has more money than anyone.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Everyone's security is not worth the information that may be on this phone, no matter how crucial it is.

Really? If there is information on that cell phone that could lead to finding a ISIL sleeper cell in this country plotting future attacks, you don't think it is worth have a method to crack these cell phones?

What could you or anybody else have on your cell phone that is so important that it rivals saving numerous lives? I can tell you I have nothing on my smartphone that is worth unnecessarily endangering other's live including yours!

Keep in mind, it wasn't that person's private iPhone but rather one issued to him by his San Bernardino County government employer. It is not his personal cell phone and thus I question whether the data on it belongs to him alone or rather to the owner of the cell phone, his governmental employer.

[Mike Henderson]

Unfortunately the "back door" is not something you can just create and then destroy. It is permanently incorporated into the device. The assumption is that only the good guys will ever learn the secret to opening the door. Based on my observation of our Federal Government, the probability of keeping the back door access secret is approximately zero. All it takes is one Edward Snowden.
There is no desire to incorporate some "back door" software into every device. All Apple has to do is turn off the 10 attempt limit, and also turn off the time delay between attempts ON THIS PHONE ONLY.

Since the pass code is 4 digits, that means you only have to try 10,000 codes to guarantee access. And based on statistics, it's likely you'll hit the correct code long before you get to 10,000. Once you have those two parameters turned off, you can hook up a computer to the phone and feed the codes pretty quickly.

Even if someone used more than 4 digits for the passcode (Apple started recommending 6 digits), you could still break it pretty quickly. Normally, you don't just try codes in sequence. Since a human has to remember the code, it usually has some meaning to them (someone's birthday is common), or it's a code they have used somewhere else (maybe their ATM code). You'd get all the information you can on the user and you'd try those first. You might hit the right one pretty quickly.

But the FBI does not want to risk having the data erased and that's why they want Apple to turn off those parameters.

This is something that affects ONE PHONE only. Unless someone publishes the technique for turning off those parameters, we'll all have the same level of security as we had before.

If a device can be hacked, it will be hacked. Someone will figure out how to do it. And from Apple's comments, it appears that the iPhone can be hacked, they just don't want to do it.

Mike

[Brian Elfert]

We don't know that Apple even has the ability to install custom code on an iPhone that they don't have the passcode for. As already mentioned you need to have the passcode to install an updated version of iOS.

If Apple does this once what will stop every prosecutor in the country from asking for warrants to look at iPhones? Oh, you got stopped for drug possession, we need to see if you sent any texts to your dealer from your iPhone.

[Mike Henderson]

We don't know that Apple even has the ability to install custom code on an iPhone that they don't have the passcode for. As already mentioned you need to have the passcode to install an updated version of iOS.

If Apple does this once what will stop every prosecutor in the country from asking for warrants to look at iPhones? Oh, you got stopped for drug possession, we need to see if you sent any texts to your dealer from your iPhone.
For an owner who is alive, the court will simply order the person to give the access code to the court. If the person does not give the code, they will be held in contempt of court and will go to jail until they do give up the code. The fifth amendment does not protect you from giving up the code.

You only need Apple to break into phones where the person is dead or unavailable (and the information is important), or the information is so time critical that you can't wait for the person to give up the code.

Mike

[People have tried saying that they don't remember the code, but that rarely flies with the court.]

[Jim Koepke]

You only need Apple to break into phones where the person is dead or unavailable

Okay, I want to ask a devil's advocate question to this. Does this suggest this is no longer about a single iPhone?


or the information is so time critical that you can't wait for the person to give up the code.

I have always wondered how one would know there is time critical information stored on a device if they do not know what is on the device.

Back to speaking as myself... Isn't this a Pandora's box about to be opened? Does anyone expect the FBI or other federal agency is going to turn this phone over to Apple to retrieve information with the expectation they will trust Apple and Apple will not have to give the cracking code to the FBI?

Each and every person shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects or none of us are.

The principle point to this would be if Apple does not have the capability to do what is asked of them, can they actually be held in contempt?

Next can the court compel them to do something that they themselves designed to be undoable?

I have heard some people suggest it is an easy thing to do. If it is so easy, why haven't the hackers employed by the FBI already done it.

If you read some of the information on this Apple gets requests all the time from law enforcement on these issues. Law enforcement has even brought in phones that were not password protected.


Over the past few years, Apple has become tired of government officials around the world asking it for help unlocking smartphones, according to an article about CEO Tim Cook published in The New York Times on Friday.

Here's one request that must have infuriated Apple: A government official once asked Apple to unlock a phone that wasn't even protected by a password.

http://www.businessinsider.com/government-asked-apple-to-unlock-a-phone-without-password-2016-2

It is easy to imagine people in law enforcement not up on smart phones and not even knowing how to turn it on. Hand me one and I might accidentally call someone in Nepal.

jtk

[Mike Henderson]

Okay, I want to ask a devil's advocate question to this. Does this suggest this is no longer about a single iPhone?

The specific situation we're looking at is about a single iPhone. If it is possible to break into an iPhone, it is likely that courts in the future will order phones to be broken into. The courts have the right to order the disclosure of evidence. The only leg that I see that Apple has to stand on is that the method of breaking into a phone is not something existing. Normally, a court order requires the disclosure of something existing, not that the subject of the order has to develop something.

But see my comment in a previous post about the court being able to order a person to give up their code.

The administration of justice trumps privacy except in a few limited areas: Attorney/client privilege, certain religious communications, such as Catholic confession, limited doctor/patient communications, spousal communications and maybe a few others.

I have always wondered how one would know there is time critical information stored on a device if they do not know what is on the device.

In almost any search warrant, you don't "know" but you suspect and your suspicion is supported sufficiently to get the court to issue the order. In this case, the suspicion is that the person may have been involved with others, and the importance of finding that out is sufficient to get the court to issue the order. So if the agency making the request to the court can make a case that the iPhone likely contains time sensitive data, they could get their order.

Back to speaking as myself... Isn't this a Pandora's box about to be opened? Does anyone expect the FBI or other federal agency is going to turn this phone over to Apple to retrieve information with the expectation they will trust Apple and Apple will not have to give the cracking code to the FBI?

Each and every person shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects or none of us are.

Well, that's only until a court issues a search warrant for your person, house, papers and effects. The important thing is that the search for evidence is controlled by a court.

The principle point to this would be if Apple does not have the capability to do what is asked of them, can they actually be held in contempt?

No, if it can't be done you can't be held in contempt.

Next can the court compel them to do something that they themselves designed to be undoable?

The question is whether it is undoable. If it is undoable, they're off the hook.

I have heard some people suggest it is an easy thing to do. If it is so easy, why haven't the hackers employed by the FBI already done it.

I don't know how easy it is to do but I know that it will be easier for the designers to do it than for someone on the outside. But someone on the outside, who is knowledgeable and has the tools and equipment will be able to figure it out. We broke the Japanese codes, for example. If you really want to break into an iPhone, and you have the "best and brightest" working on it, you will break into it (if it is possible).

If you read some of the information on this Apple gets requests all the time from law enforcement on these issues. Law enforcement has even brought in phones that were not password protected.

There's a difference between receiving a request from a law enforcement organization and receiving a court order. The request carries no weight and can be legally ignored. Not so a court order.

http://www.businessinsider.com/government-asked-apple-to-unlock-a-phone-without-password-2016-2

It is easy to imagine people in law enforcement not up on smart phones and not even knowing how to turn it on. Hand me one and I might accidentally call someone in Nepal.

jtk

I tried to reply inside your text. Apple may have no choice but to submit to the court order, even if they don't want to. Just saying you don't want to is not sufficient to defy a court order. And even if they don't, someone else may figure it out.

If you want to really protect your data, get an app that uses an up to date encryption standard (such as AES), and use a very long, random key. The problem is remembering a key like that. Protecting the encryption key is the problem with all such encryption techniques.

Mike

[Jim Koepke]

If you want to really protect your data, get an app that uses an up to date encryption standard (such as AES), and use a very long, random key. The problem is remembering a key like that. Protecting the encryption key is the problem with all such encryption techniques.

There are many ways of having a simple key that is long, random or not yet easy for a user to retrieve.

One scenario would be to use a sequence of the numbers in an irrational number like pi or the square root of two. Just start at a point that is easy to remember like the second, third, forth or even the hundredth digit.

The first letter of each word in a bible verse or a section of the Constitution. In effect the letters would be somewhat random but whoever was trying to crack the code wouldn't know where they came from it would be more difficult to hack.

jtk

[William Adams]

Yeah, the phone belonging to the govt. office, and them not having in place a strict and enforced / regulated policy of having the password recorded is incredible to me. Typical policy I’ve seen on this, is the pass code and other credentials for one’s work-phone are written down and placed in a sealed envelope and locked in a safe and changed each month. Once a month, one of them is selected to be audited and the owner is called into the security office, and in the presence of the person it is issued to the phone is unlocked and the password verified, then the user has to go back to their desk and create a new passcode and password. Everyone gets back their sealed envelope each month at the beginning of the day, and has to provide the new replacement before leaving the office.

The reason it’s simple for Apple but hard for others is modern computers can have a requirement that a binary be signed w/ an encryption key — Apple has to use that to sign the binary before installing it, anyone else has to puzzle it out before even beginning to write the software.

[Mike Null]

This has turned into a pretty good and civilized discussion. Now I will pose another question. If we so staunchly protect our second amendment rights, i.e., we allow terrorists to buy guns through our refusal to allow background checks how do we align that position with this one? Granted, they are dissimilar but what the government is asking is unlimited power over security of mobile devices that not only would affect U.S. citizens but everybody around the world. In this case I believe background checks would have prevented the terrorists from acquiring guns--at least it would have been more difficult than buying a Big mac and fries.

[Curt Harms]

Found this on a somewhat irreverent tech site.

Setting - Federal agent and Apple tech person in Apple's offices

Federal Agent: Hands iPhone to Apple person and says "Here, crack this phone"


Apple tech person accepts phone. Places it carefully on a bench and opens a drawer under the bench. From the drawer withdraws an Estwing 20 oz. framer and proceeds to give the phone a whack - or 2.


Apple Tech: Picks up pieces and hands them to Agent "There. It's cracked".

:D

[Robert Engel]

They are trying to break into a known terrorist's phone, guys. Not yours, not mine. Who says they are coming after our phones?
Any other Iphone without the 10 time self destruct would be no issue.

The question is at what point is the national security of this country more important than an individual's privacy?

Seems the question has been answered by many of you and even Rush Limbaugh, etal.

In the course of a criminal investigation an individuals computer is routinely seized and examined. Do you all have a problem with that?

What Apple is doing is arrogant and is putting the national security of this country at risk.

If there is information on that phone that could save lives, it will be on Tim Cook's head.

[Mark Blatter]

They are trying to break into a known terrorist's phone, guys. Not yours, not mine. Who says they are coming after our phones?
Any other Iphone without the 10 time self destruct would be no issue.

The question is at what point is the national security of this country more important than an individual's privacy?

Seems the question has been answered by many of you and even Rush Limbaugh, etal.

In the course of a criminal investigation an individuals computer is routinely seized and examined. Do you all have a problem with that?

What Apple is doing is arrogant and is putting the national security of this country at risk.

If there is information on that phone that could save lives, it will be on Tim Cook's head.

I am going to step onto my soapbox for a minute. Much of what I say below is tempered by the fact that the phone in question was not the property of the gunman who used it. That single fact muddies the waters a great deal. The owner of the phone should have set a password that could not be changed, though I don't know if that is possible.

Who decides when national security trumps privacy? According to the Constitution, nobody can decide that unless 3/4th of all the states agree to change the Constitution. However, the real answer is the FISA court. Is there any oversight of the court? If so, who oversees them? If we all agree with parameters for throwing out, or setting aside what may be the most important of our rights, what about the rest? Who will decide when it is time to set aside the rest of them? Who will decide that you cannot buy a fire arm? Who will decide that you must accept soldiers into you home to be quartered? Who will decide when your right to a speedy and fair trial can be abridged? Who gets to decide that the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution are set aside?

My point is that the 'who' is always the most important aspect of this equation. If the decision was always made by honest, thoughtful and highly intelligent people, it would be one thing. If it is made by the opposite, in the dark of night, well that has been tried a few times around the world. The most notable instances that come to mind are the USSR (Stalin and friends) and the little German guy with the funny mustache. I am not suggesting in any way that the current situation is equal to Hitler or Stalin. I am asking where does it stop and who makes those decisions?

There is a reason why we have the Bill of Rights, though there were many who were afraid if you enumerated them, some would say that none other exist. As we give up our freedoms for security, we become less secure and less free. As power is given by the citizens to those in charge of the daily running of the government, we, as citizens lose that power forever.

The question was asked 'how would you feel if someone you loved died because you would not let the FBI (read any three letter agency here) get the information contained in the phone?' I would hope I would feel the same way I feel now. In some ways, this is the same question, moral dilemma of the early 1940's. Do we round up all Japanese decedents and put them in camps or not? The US forced these people, many of which were citizens, into camps for 'national security' reasons. Their rights were violated as promised by the Constitution. Same as privacy rights being violated for national security. Fear cannot trump freedom or no one is safe or free.

Will step down off my soap box now and hope that I have not offended anyone. That is and was not my intention.

[Chuck Wintle]

Here is my 2 cents for what it is worth...Apple should go ahead and hack the phone for the information contained within it. The shooter may or may not have been talking to others who mean to do harm. Should we wait for another shooter to strike and take more lives? Would we be secure in the knowledge senseless killing could have been prevented? Personal privacy is one thing but is there not a right to live and work in a country that provides safety for its citizens?

[roger wiegand]

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.-- Ben Franklin

(and yes, I know this application is not what he meant when he said it, however I think the principle applies) The FBI should just ask the NSA to get them the information.

It seems this is yet another realm where we're being asked to give up privacy and freedom in such a way that only the honest people will have lost something-- the bad guys will increasingly develop and use strong encryption whether or not the government gets its back door into all of our consumer electronics.

[Bert Kemp]

Where can you legally buy a gun without a background check?? Not at any gun store or any gun show that I've been to.
Question: Where the guns these terrorist used obtained legally??





This has turned into a pretty good and civilized discussion. Now I will pose another question. If we so staunchly protect our second amendment rights, i.e., we allow terrorists to buy guns through our refusal to allow background checks how do we align that position with this one? Granted, they are dissimilar but what the government is asking is unlimited power over security of mobile devices that not only would affect U.S. citizens but everybody around the world. In this case I believe background checks would have prevented the terrorists from acquiring guns--at least it would have been more difficult than buying a Big mac and fries.

[Jerome Stanek]

This has turned into a pretty good and civilized discussion. Now I will pose another question. If we so staunchly protect our second amendment rights, i.e., we allow terrorists to buy guns through our refusal to allow background checks how do we align that position with this one? Granted, they are dissimilar but what the government is asking is unlimited power over security of mobile devices that not only would affect U.S. citizens but everybody around the world. In this case I believe background checks would have prevented the terrorists from acquiring guns--at least it would have been more difficult than buying a Big mac and fries.

The government is asking to unlock a phone that has always been owned by them not a private citizens phone.

[Scott Shepherd]

I'll ask a stupid question here....why do they need to get into the phone? They "said" they are trying to find out who he was in contact with. Last time I checked, you didn't need the phone to do that, you went to the carrier and got the transaction logs, with a court order (they don't even need a warrant). That solves the "who was he calling" part of it. Now what? Emails? Again, go to the service provider with a court order, then you know who he was emailing. Same thing for texts.

If calls, emails, and texts are all available from the providers with a court order, then what's left that's so vital? I'm just not seeing it.

[Jerome Stanek]

What would happen if the next Apple phone to come out the government says it is not fcc compliant as the security software on it. Apple could look to lose billions

[Jerome Stanek]

I'll ask a stupid question here....why do they need to get into the phone? They "said" they are trying to find out who he was in contact with. Last time I checked, you didn't need the phone to do that, you went to the carrier and got the transaction logs, with a court order (they don't even need a warrant). That solves the "who was he calling" part of it. Now what? Emails? Again, go to the service provider with a court order, then you know who he was emailing. Same thing for texts.

If calls, emails, and texts are all available from the providers with a court order, then what's left that's so vital? I'm just not seeing it.

If he was using a public wifi then it would not be that easy

[Bert Kemp]

On the question about Apple cracking the phone. WOW thats a tough one.
I'm anal about protecting my rights but I'm also anal about protecting our Country.
So is there a compromise in here someplace? I think once a person has committed acts of terrorism against the US of A and its know with out any doubt (such as this case ) any only if there is no doubt then these people have then givin up their Constitutional rights and are no longer protected.
Never shall it be as easy as a govt agency saying we suspect and need info from this phone, or a court order saying we think these people are terrorist.

[Scott Shepherd]

If he was using a public wifi then it would not be that easy

I'm not sure why that would be the case, but it's actually not the issue. The issue is that they can get to that data, the problem is that data is encrypted. That's the whole issue. They aren't asking apple to provide the 4 digit access code. They are asking them to break their encryption technology so they can see what was written before it was encrypted.

It's easy to say "Oh, they should do it", but you need to think about encryption, it's purpose, and it's global use before you give the green light to any of that. Right now, people, more or less, can't break encryption (with few exceptions). If they could, then the FBI geeks would have done it. Encryption keeps us ALL safe. Think about law enforcement, political leaders, military, etc. They all use encryption to keep their data secure. If encryption were broken, it would give the bad guys access to the good guys play book as well. So it's not as simple as one phone. It's essentially creating a hackable back door that breaks all the encryption. Once that hackable back door is created, do you honestly believe that the terrorists won't spend night and day figuring out the hack for the backdoor, or some punk kid figuring it out and posting it on file sharing sites? Once that's done, then it's over. Now there is no more secure data for our good guys.

Would you want to send the keys to your encrypted battle plans to the bad guys 2 months before you take action against them? Were we able to win battles and wars because we cracked codes? Yes. Would you willingly hand the decipher code to your enemy before going to battle? I wouldn't. You might say "this isn't the military system, so that's not accurate". True, it's not, however, there are many politicians and military leaders accessing their emails over iPhones. Once they can crack into that, they can read all they want.

I don't think it's even remotely as simple as it's being reported, as "It's just a passcode". No, no it's not. It's about encryption.

[Mike Henderson]

I'm not sure why that would be the case, but it's actually not the issue. The issue is that they can get to that data, the problem is that data is encrypted. That's the whole issue. They aren't asking apple to provide the 4 digit access code. They are asking them to break their encryption technology so they can see what was written before it was encrypted.
Assuming that Apple used a modern encryption technique like AES or even triple DES, it cannot be be "broken". Those encryption techniques are well known and have been vetted very well. You cannot easily "break" those if the key is long.

So if you can't "break" the encryption code, how do you get entry? You recover the key. And, the way I understand it, the key is stored in the phone and the software will access the key and then decrypt the data. So all you need to decrypt the data is to get access into the phone. And that's what the court is asking Apple to do - provide a means to get into the phone.

Encryption key management is the basic problem of encryption. The encryption is very good and cannot be easily broken. But how do you protect the key but still make it easy for the legitimate owner to access their data?

Mike

[Scott Shepherd]

So if you can't "break" the encryption code, how do you get entry? You recover the key. And, the way I understand it, the key is stored in the phone and the software will access the key and then decrypt the data. So all you need to decrypt the data is to get access into the phone. And that's what the court is asking Apple to do - provide a means to get into the phone.

Encryption key management is the basic problem of encryption. The encryption is very good and cannot be easily broken. But how do you protect the key but still make it easy for the legitimate owner to access their data?

Mike

And those exact same techniques WOULD be used against us. All you'd need to do is swipe some high ranking officials cell phone, run the hack, bypass their access code and you've now given the keys to the kingdom away. To get the data from one phone, that may not even have anything on it that they don't already know, you'd be throwing the entire system of protection away.

I think it's all nonsense. With all the data and phone monitoring going on, there's no way they don't have other actionable intelligence that leads then to the exact same places.

Maybe he kept nothing on the phone. So this is all for a phishing expedition if that's the case. I'm not willing to give that all up so they can phish on a device.

[Mike Null]

But Apple says the software doesn't exist. I lean toward believing them as opposed to our federal security agencies which have an indefensible history about telling the truth or at least, telling the whole truth.

[Mel Fulks]

How about the guy who is ,or was ,libertarian presidential candidate, he says he can do it in a couple of weeks at no charge. If Enigma could be figured out the phone can be. I like apple stuff just because it is simple to use ,but I really don't understand the fierce loyalty to a product that is made to become loaded up with "upgrades" get slower and be replaced. Glad they don't make washing machines.

[Scott Shepherd]

Agreed, it doesn't exist because it's Pandora's Box. For me, personally, if you are asking me to open Pandora's Box, it better be thought out and applied back to us. So they develop the ability to hack into the locked and encrypted phone. Now, tell me what the consequences are when the good guys phones and in the hands of the enemy with the same technology? If you can't accept that as being okay, then you have to walk away from the premise. You can't have it both ways. It's tragic that that data can't be easily gotten to. However, it would be far more tragic to have the good guys data gotten to. Imagine some network with the ability to have data from 1000's of our good guys fighting them. Talk about putting lives at risk? You'd be doing that at a scale that is unimaginable, all to get into 1 single phone. This dirtbag wasn't the leader of a terrorist network, he was a follower, a nobody. With phone records available, they already know every single person he ever called, so they already know his "network" of friends. I just don't believe there could ever be enough data on that phone to warranty the potential damage it would do on the opposite side.

If people believe that it's so easy for Apple to do, then why don't some of the FBI tech gurus develop it and get in without Apple's help? Either it's really that hard, or all the tech geeks we have working at the FBI aren't that good at their jobs of cracking things. My guess is that it's really that hard.

[Mike Henderson]

And those exact same techniques WOULD be used against us. All you'd need to do is swipe some high ranking officials cell phone, run the hack, bypass their access code and you've now given the keys to the kingdom away. To get the data from one phone, that may not even have anything on it that they don't already know, you'd be throwing the entire system of protection away.

I think it's all nonsense. With all the data and phone monitoring going on, there's no way they don't have other actionable intelligence that leads then to the exact same places.

Maybe he kept nothing on the phone. So this is all for a phishing expedition if that's the case. I'm not willing to give that all up so they can phish on a device.
What you say is true. But our legal system prioritizes the administration of justice before privacy. And even if Apple does not provide the method of hacking an iPhone, someone else will. If it can be hacked, it will be hacked. Trying to provide "protection" by preventing one company from developing a method of bypassing the protection is a losing game.

The only real protection is something that cannot be hacked. Modern encryption cannot be broken (essentially) and you can absolutely protect your data if you can protect the key. But it very difficult to protect the key and also make it easy to use.

The precedent of requiring disclosure of evidence is extremely well entrenched in our legal system and I don't see it being overturned for something like this. We'd have to carve out another exception, similar to the attorney/client privilege, and I don't see any rational for doing that. Why should your phone be exempt from court ordered disclosure when essentially everything else in your life is subject to disclosure on court order?

Mike

[Let's discuss a similar situation. Suppose the court is persuaded that you have hidden evidence in a safety deposit box. The court will order you to turn over the key. If you fail to comply, the court will order the bank to hire a locksmith to drill out the lock.

Now, let's expand on that. Suppose there's only one locksmith who has the tools to drill out the lock and he refuses to drill out the lock. The court will hold that locksmith in contempt of court and send him to jail until he agrees to drill out the lock. Apple is that locksmith.

All this is well settled law.]

[Chuck Wintle]

So if someone hacks this phone other than Apple should they be charged with infringing on peoples privacy?

[Scott Shepherd]

Mike

[Let's discuss a similar situation. Suppose the court is persuaded that you have hidden evidence in a safety deposit box. The court will order you to turn over the key. If you fail to comply, the court will order the bank to hire a locksmith to drill out the lock.

Now, let's expand on that. Suppose there's only one locksmith who has the tools to drill out the lock and he refuses to drill out the lock. The court will hold that locksmith in contempt of court and send him to jail until he agrees to drill out the lock. Apple is that locksmith.

All this is well settled law.]

That's not what they are saying at all. To follow your analogy, you'd say that they went to the locksmith and said "you need to pick the lock" and he said "There is no known method, technique, or tool to pick that model lock", to which the reply to him would be "you better develop a method or we are going to throw you in jail". Two completely different things. It's not like they have the key to it, the key doesn't exist. You are giving them a court order to create the tool. I'm not sure where it's settled law that you can be ordered by a court to create anything that doesn't currently exist. What happens if you don't have the skill set to create it?

[Leo Graywacz]

So the FED is giving up.

I don't think so. This will be a ruse to get Apple to make the software and as soon as it's done the court order will come out to turn it over. Or they have a snitch in the company that will get the program to them.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/20/doj-would-allow-apple-to-keep-or-destroy-software-to-help-fbi-hack-iphone.html?intcmp=hpbt2

[Chuck Wintle]

That's not what they are saying at all. To follow your analogy, you'd say that they went to the locksmith and said "you need to pick the lock" and he said "There is no known method, technique, or tool to pick that model lock", to which the reply to him would be "you better develop a method or we are going to throw you in jail". Two completely different things. It's not like they have the key to it, the key doesn't exist. You are giving them a court order to create the tool. I'm not sure where it's settled law that you can be ordered by a court to create anything that doesn't currently exist. What happens if you don't have the skill set to create it?
Get in touch with some russian hackers..they seem to know how to hack anything!

[Mike Henderson]

That's not what they are saying at all. To follow your analogy, you'd say that they went to the locksmith and said "you need to pick the lock" and he said "There is no known method, technique, or tool to pick that model lock", to which the reply to him would be "you better develop a method or we are going to throw you in jail". Two completely different things. It's not like they have the key to it, the key doesn't exist. You are giving them a court order to create the tool. I'm not sure where it's settled law that you can be ordered by a court to create anything that doesn't currently exist. What happens if you don't have the skill set to create it?
No, that's not correct at all. If there's no way to drill out the lock - just as there's no way to break a modern encryption code - the locksmith is off the hook. Same if he doesn't have the tools or knowledge to do it. If Apple can convince the court that it's impossible to break into the phone, they're off the hook and all this discussion is moot.

The problem is that it looks like Apple CAN modify the phone to allow the FBI to access it. That's why we're talking about it.

Mike

[Jerome Stanek]

The point is still the phone belongs to a government not an individual. The government is asking Apple to crack a phone owned by them.

[Scott Shepherd]

The problem is that it looks like Apple CAN modify the phone to allow the FBI to access it. That's why we're talking about it.

Mike

Says who? Tim Cook said they do not have the tools available today to do it. Is it something they would have to create, meaning it currently does not exist. If it doesn't exist, then how can they be ordered to "create" a tool that doesn't currently exist?

There's no documented proof that I've seen that says they have the tools they are just refusing the let the FBI have access to them.

[Scott Shepherd]

The point is still the phone belongs to a government not an individual. The government is asking Apple to crack a phone owned by them.

Then maybe the government should have a policy on the phones they give out that either backs up or gives them access to them. Their ignorance in the ability to implement IT programs on their own phones isn't Apple's responsibility.

[Brian Elfert]

I'm not sure why that would be the case, but it's actually not the issue. The issue is that they can get to that data, the problem is that data is encrypted. That's the whole issue. They aren't asking apple to provide the 4 digit access code. They are asking them to break their encryption technology so they can see what was written before it was encrypted.


Everything I have heard is the FBI wants Apple to load software on the phone that disables the automatic wipe of the phone after 10 bad passcode attempts. The FBI will then keep trying passcodes until they get in. They are not asking Apple to break the encryption of the data that is standard in the iPhone 6.

[Mike Henderson]

Says who? Tim Cook said they do not have the tools available today to do it. Is it something they would have to create, meaning it currently does not exist. If it doesn't exist, then how can they be ordered to "create" a tool that doesn't currently exist?

There's no documented proof that I've seen that says they have the tools they are just refusing the let the FBI have access to them.
That's the essence of this case - whether Apple can be ordered to create a tool that will allow them to unlock the iPhone.

My bet is that if Apple can create a tool to access the iPhone, they will be ordered to do so. As I mentioned earlier, our legal system does not allow you to hide things from the court. If the evidence can be accessed, my bet is that the court will order it accessed, even if that means developing a new tool to do so.

Mike

[There's a difference between "The data cannot be accessed" as would be true if they had to break the encryption scheme, and "I don't have a tool available that will allow me to access the data, but I can develop a tool." If Apple can convince the court that it can not develop a tool, they're off the hook.]

[Dave Anderson NH]

I am truly amazed at how polite, on topic, and patently philosophical this thread has remained. I would have given odds we would have had to lock it, edit it, and pull it within hours.

Kudos to all concerned for keeping this an adult conversation.

[Steve Kinnaird]

I read through most of the posts.
So if I repeat something, I apologize.
Should Apple help the government? If is a phone used by a proven threat to national security, YES!
That would make sense, rather than refusing and causing a worldwide "Hack Apple Contest"

Someone asked, "How would you feel if your loved ones were killed and found out later that information about the attack was on a terrorists phone that the manufacturer would not open of the authorities.

I have a Samsung phone that a close friend was using. It has the thumb print security setup.
She refuses to help because I caught her doing thing that were illegal.
The police wanted to see her contacts and text.
Samsung said that if the request came from law enforcement that they would provide the information to them, but not tell them how to get it.
They solved the case without the phone information.
I have to have the phone reset to factory specs before I can use it or sell it.

[Brian Elfert]

If anyone here watches CSI: Cyber they do things with smart phones that I don't believe are even remotely possible in the real world. One episode they supposedly hacked a smart phone so the software would allow unlimited tries at the passcode. They even had a machine with a probe that supposedly could enter passcodes one after another on a phone. If they are smart enough to bypass the code that limits the number of bad passcodes why couldn't they just bypass the passcode altogether? Of course, the machine to enter passcodes looks better on TV than them just bypassing the passcode.

[Pat Barry]

If there is information on it that could stop another attack it is worth it. What would you say if one of your loved ones ended up dead and then you found out that it could have been stopped if they had cracked the phone.
I'd say that our trusted government agencies blew it and they should be held accountable for their failure. Honestly, what you citem is the type of fear mongering that sacrifices our liberty and I think it is unamerican. We need to hold our constitutional rights sacred and not give in to this sort of hysterical overreaction.

[Yonak Hawkins]

If Apple does this once what will stop every prosecutor in the country from asking for warrants to look at iPhones? Oh, you got stopped for drug possession, we need to see if you sent any texts to your dealer from your iPhone.

Additionally, what about when China wants Apple to unlock iPhones of 1000 political dissidents as their activity is against Chinese law ?

"What do you mean you won't do it, Apple ? You did it for the US."

[Mike Henderson]

Additionally, what about when China wants Apple to unlock iPhones of 1000 political dissidents as their activity is against Chinese law ?

"What do you mean you won't do it, Apple ? You did it for the US."
China, as well as other countries, has the ability to sanction an iPhone owner until the owner gives up the pass code - same as in the US.

Unless Apple can honestly claim that they cannot develop an unlock tool, China could order Apple to develop the unlock tool and then turn it over to them. Apple would then have to decide if they would or not. If they decided not to, China might block them from the China market. All this is independent of what happens in the US.

In other words, China could say that you can't sell a product in our country that we cannot unlock.

Once the genie is out of the bottle, it's very hard to put it back in.

About the best that Apple can do is release a new version of IOS that absolutely, positively cannot under any circumstances be unlocked without the passcode. I don't know if such a thing is possible.

Mike

[It is possible that Apple had to give China a way to unlock phones before they were allowed to sell in the China market.]

[Doug Ladendorf]

I'd say that our trusted government agencies blew it and they should be held accountable for their failure. Honestly, what you citem is the type of fear mongering that sacrifices our liberty and I think it is unamerican. We need to hold our constitutional rights sacred and not give in to this sort of hysterical overreaction.

I'm with Pat on this. We should not give up our liberties out of fear and panic. It's a digital truth that if it can be hacked it will be. If a back-door is opened for one government it can be opened by others, likely those with nefarious goals. The focus put on one terrorists phone is a red herring to open a much bigger crack in freedom.

[Brian Elfert]

Even before this latest issue, governments in the USA have been complaining about how hard it is to get data from modern smartphones with all the encryption, passcodes, remote wiping, and so on. A smart criminal would either wipe the phone remotely, or get someone else to wipe the phone remotely. Apple has made it very easy to wipe phones and lock them electronically to help with theft issues. Nobody is going to steal phones if they have zero resale value.

[Joe Leigh]

Everything I have heard is the FBI wants Apple to load software on the phone that disables the automatic wipe of the phone after 10 bad passcode attempts. The FBI will then keep trying passcodes until they get in. They are not asking Apple to break the encryption of the data that is standard in the iPhone 6.

This is the crux of the matter and something many here seem to be missing. The FBI has the super computers and the means to figure out the password, they just can't do it in ten tries.
In my opinion, in the case of a capital crime or terrorist act, all criminals surrender their rights to any expectation of privacy.

[Mike Henderson]

I'm with Pat on this. We should not give up our liberties out of fear and panic. It's a digital truth that if it can be hacked it will be. If a back-door is opened for one government it can be opened by others, likely those with nefarious goals. The focus put on one terrorists phone is a red herring to open a much bigger crack in freedom.
I don't know what "liberty and freedom" we're giving up here. Almost anything you own can be subpoenaed by a court - financial records, essentially all your communications (letters, texts, email, etc.), your computer, and just about anything else. And if they seize your computer, they can require you to give them the password to get into the computer.

What's the difference with the court requiring an iPhone to be unlocked?

Mike

[Just a side note, Apple apparently admits it can write code to unlock iPhones - see here (https://www.staradvertiser.com/business/business-breaking/apple-admits-it-can-unlock-terrorists-iphone-prosecutors-say/).]
[Another story here (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html). Looks like they've done it before.]

[Brian Elfert]

Once hackers know Apple has a backdoor into the iPhone they will be spending lots of time trying to find and exploit the backdoor. How would Apple kept this code secret? A rogue Apple employee might decide the code is worth a lot to a criminal and sells it to them. Maybe hackers will use this backdoor to install ransom ware where you have to pay to get your phone under your control again.

[William Adams]

That’s it in a nutshell.

Once Apple has created a version of the iOS which:

- can be downloaded onto a phone w/o requiring authentication
- removes the wipe after 10 failed attempts feature

Then it becomes a question of how do you control access to and copying of that version?

Once the genie is out of the bottle, then it can’t be put back.

Also, all it would then take to access any phone would be:

- physical access to the phone
- the iOS version
- time and hardware to run the brute force pass-codes

[Steve H Graham]

Like every intelligent, well-informed person, I hate the government and realize it is a vile idiot. That being said, I am somewhat inclined to side with the court.

When the founders drafted the Fourth Amendment, it was not their intention to make search and seizure impossible. They only wanted to make it reasonable. They didn't want the local sheriff rolling people out of their beds at night and going through their belongings on a whim. They decided the authorities should have to spell out their reasons for searching, submit them to judges, and get court orders. They didn't provide a legal right to hide things from the government even when it had good reason to search.

I don't think we've ever had the legal right to keep anything that isn't privileged or self-incriminating from the government, when the government had a strong, legitimate reason to force us to produce it. Remember when the government forced Michael Jackson to pose for photos of his genitals? That's a lot worse than hacking your phone.

The government can override our rights in a number of ways. For example, a government agency can have a racist policy, IF they can show that it serves a compelling interest. The Bill of Rights limits what the government can do, but the limits are not all carved in stone.

Would we really want a terrorist to be able to encrypt a phone or laptop containing the location of a bomb on a timer?

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Since when does everyone have to see the government as a vile idiot and hate it to be considered intelligent and we'll informed?

Could someone have a differing opinion while remaining well informed and intelligent?

Nothing is as easy as oversimplified points of view would like to believe. You can't on one hand hold the federal government responsible for national security and on the other hand deny them access to information on an iPhone that was used by someone who commited a terrorist act especially when the iPhone in question wasn't a personal iPhone but rather was provided by their county government employer.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

When you bring gun control into the mix, then definitely becomes political and the the thread should be closed IMO.

Stay away from it!

[Mike Null]

Ken

It seems to me that the participants have behaved quite well on what is clearly a hot issue.

[Leo Graywacz]

Like every intelligent, well-informed person, I hate the government and realize it is a vile idiot. That being said, I am somewhat inclined to side with the court.

When the founders drafted the Fourth Amendment, it was not their intention to make search and seizure impossible. They only wanted to make it reasonable. They didn't want the local sheriff rolling people out of their beds at night and going through their belongings on a whim. They decided the authorities should have to spell out their reasons for searching, submit them to judges, and get court orders. They didn't provide a legal right to hide things from the government even when it had good reason to search.

I don't think we've ever had the legal right to keep anything that isn't privileged or self-incriminating from the government, when the government had a strong, legitimate reason to force us to produce it. Remember when the government forced Michael Jackson to pose for photos of his genitals? That's a lot worse than hacking your phone.

The government can override our rights in a number of ways. For example, a government agency can have a racist policy, IF they can show that it serves a compelling interest. The Bill of Rights limits what the government can do, but the limits are not all carved in stone.

Would we really want a terrorist to be able to encrypt a phone or laptop containing the location of a bomb on a timer?

The court gave the cops permission to search the phone and they did. They couldn't find anything because it was encrypted. That's not Apples problem, that's the FBI's problem.

The court was demanding Apple to make new software that doesn't exist to get into the phone. That's not the same as a legal search. Would I want Apple to give them the information, sure. But it's not Apples responsibility to invent something to search a phone the FBI can't decrypt.

[Jim Becker]

I find it ironic reading that the current "unknown" passcode may have been set by the FBI, not the terrorist...if true, that makes the situation "more interesting" in many respects.

[Leo Graywacz]

It sounds like the FBI reset the passcode to get into the cloud storage of the perp. In doing so they invalidated the phone/cloud connection of phone. If that was still there it was possible that when the phone interacted with a know WiFi it would have uploaded more contents of the phone.

But since the last upload was months before, it was likely the connection was severed by the perp earlier and the phone would have never done another cloud update anyway.

But it was the FBI in their rush to get information that screwed this up. And now they are demanding that Apple fix it at their own cost with a threat from the courts.

[Yonak Hawkins]

Thank you for your cool-headed comment, Ken. This is a very interesting and thought-provoking conversation. I hope it doesn't cross the line and get stifled.

[Mike Henderson]

It sounds like the FBI reset the passcode to get into the cloud storage of the perp. In doing so they invalidated the phone/cloud connection of phone. If that was still there it was possible that when the phone interacted with a know WiFi it would have uploaded more contents of the phone.

But since the last upload was months before, it was likely the connection was severed by the perp earlier and the phone would have never done another cloud update anyway.

But it was the FBI in their rush to get information that screwed this up. And now they are demanding that Apple fix it at their own cost with a threat from the courts.
I'm pretty sure they reset it to prevent a confederate from wiping the cloud data. It's a judgment call. They didn't know if the attackers were part of a group and had other people who were tasked with cleaning up the trail. So to protect the data they had in the cloud, they changed the password. Turned out to be a wrong decision but you make your decision on what you have at the time.

Mike

[Scott Shepherd]

The report I read this morning said it was a San Bernadino IT guy that locked them out, not the FBI. It also said Apple had been working with them for weeks to try and resolve it, and if that IT guy wouldn't have done what he did, then they'd be able to help them. However, his actions actually reset the phone just like it was a new phone. That's way different than the reporting that's been out there.

If someone physically took the phone and basically reset it to a new phone status, I'm not sure there's much anyone can do at this point.

[Mike Henderson]

The report I read this morning said it was a San Bernadino IT guy that locked them out, not the FBI. It also said Apple had been working with them for weeks to try and resolve it, and if that IT guy wouldn't have done what he did, then they'd be able to help them. However, his actions actually reset the phone just like it was a new phone. That's way different than the reporting that's been out there.

If someone physically took the phone and basically reset it to a new phone status, I'm not sure there's much anyone can do at this point.

Yeah, if it was reset to new phone status, everything was wiped clean off the phone. But I don't think you can wipe a phone without using your iTunes ID and password on the phone itself. When I wiped my old iPhone to give it to someone else, I had to go through quite a bit to get it to reset to factory status. Apple added that to keep someone from stealing an iPhone and then resetting to factory status so they could sell it. It's unlikely someone would be allowed to do that to this particular phone.

If you don't have the iTunes ID and Password, you can't reset the phone. You can wipe a phone remotely, but that still requires the ID and password, and it just wipes, it doesn't reset to factory status.

Mike

[Scott Shepherd]

Yeah, if it was reset to new phone status, everything was wiped clean off the phone. But I don't think you can wipe a phone without using your iTunes ID and password on the phone itself. When I wiped my old iPhone to give it to someone else, I had to go through quite a bit to get it to reset to factory status. Apple added that to keep someone from stealing an iPhone and then resetting to factory status so they could sell it. It's unlikely someone would be allowed to do that to this particular phone.

If you don't have the iTunes ID and Password, you can't reset the phone. You can wipe a phone remotely, but that still requires the ID and password, and it just wipes, it doesn't reset to factory status.

Mike

The report I read said the IT guy deleted the icloud account for that phone and I think it said he assigned it a new one, I suspect trying to get into the phone using a new account. I might not be remembering that right, but I do know it said that he deleted the icloud account.

[Scott Donley]

Ya, sorta looks like the FBI blew it.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-asked-san-bernardino-to-reset-the-password-for-shooter%E2%80%99s-phone-backup/ar-BBpKLye?li=BBnb7KB

[Myk Rian]

Once hackers know Apple has a backdoor into the iPhone they will be spending lots of time trying to find and exploit the backdoor. How would Apple kept this code secret? A rogue Apple employee might decide the code is worth a lot to a criminal and sells it to them. Maybe hackers will use this backdoor to install ransom ware where you have to pay to get your phone under your control again.
That is NOT what would happen. It's isn't a back door. They have to REPLACE the entire OS with one that does not have the security feature in it.

[Brian Elfert]

That is NOT what would happen. It's isn't a back door. They have to REPLACE the entire OS with one that does not have the security feature in it.
How we know that Apple doesn't just have a back door they aren't telling us about?

How much would ring of thieves pay to get that code from a corrupt Apple employee? They would love to be able to break into iPhones so they can resell them. They probably have people in third world countries willing to sit all day and try passcodes until they find the right one. A lot of people only use four digit codes so there aren't that many combinations.

[Charlie Velasquez]

Aside from the security/privacy issue.... A government spokesperson suggested one reason Apple does not want to comply has to do with marketing; Apple has a reputation of being more security/privacy conscious.

If Apple complies and public opinion on its security/privacy shifts, should the government recompense Apple for lost market?

[Scott Shepherd]

Aside from the security/privacy issue.... A government spokesperson suggested one reason Apple does not want to comply has to do with marketing; Apple has a reputation of being more security/privacy conscious.

If Apple complies and public opinion on its security/privacy shifts, should the government recompense Apple for lost market?

Well, it's not just Apple, the head of several tech companies have come out against it and said it was a really, really, really bad idea and would have serious consequences for a long time.

[Mike Null]

As does Gen. Hayden former chief of the CIA and NSA. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/21/ex-nsa-chief-backs-apple-iphone-back-doors/80660024/

[paul cottingham]

If there is information on it that could stop another attack it is worth it. What would you say if one of your loved ones ended up dead and then you found out that it could have been stopped if they had cracked the phone.

That is a red herring argument. The chances of that are so low as to be almost incalculable. And before you can say it, i have a cousin who was in one of the buildings during 9/11. He lived, and i still think Apple should tell the FBI to pound sand.

honestly, the FBI cracked many a case without such egregious invasion of privacy. They can continue to do so.