Apple Govt. mandate

[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...l?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.