Apple Unlock iPhone?

[herbu]

What do y'all think about this?

I think I'm siding w/ Tim Cook. To me, this represents a bigger question than this one phone. That question is, Do people have the right to have private information?

The evolution of technology seems to sway back and forth to allow or prevent it. The government and the bad guys constantly look for new ways to outsmart each other. And the normal people are caught in the middle.

If technology has reached the point to guarantee privacy, should the manufacturer be held accountable when some information is used for nefarious purposes? I don't think so. Just like I don't think Bushmaster is accountable if some nut shoots people with a gun they made.

I know the FBI says this is only about this one phone. But even if they're sincere, once the cat is out of the bag, it can't be put back in.

 

[Steve81]

Tim Cook's open letter certainly spells out how such access could be abused:

The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.

Sounds like 1984 on steroids...

 

[j_garcia]

When a person commits a crime, and in this case it was a horrific one, they willingly give up their right to privacy. Information on that phone could help prevent other killings by leading to the capture of others who are involved.

They're trying to act like the good guy by saying no, but it feels like they are trying to stay out of it. That's probably the right thing for them and the real reason, but I still can't back them on this one. I agree with their position on privacy.

 

[Chu Gai]

Would Apple's or Google's position on this have been the same if their complex had been attacked? Where is Samsung on this?

 

[j_garcia]

Other big names are backing Apple for the same reason. They don't want the government to be able to force them to do things like this. IMO, the way they should be discussing it is "this is not our responsibility". If they make it so the government has to do it on their own, once they figure out how to do that, privacy is in bigger trouble if they do.

 

[Steve81]

When a person commits a crime, and in this case it was a horrific one, they willingly give up their right to privacy.

I don't think anyone is questioning that part of the situation. The questions are this:

1. Can everyone else be reasonably assured of having a right to privacy if the government essentially has a master key to our smartphones?

2. If the existence of a master key is public knowledge, how long will it take for criminals to figure it out?

 

[j_garcia]

When my phone's screen died I took it in and they actually had a Samsung rep there that day. They gave me a new phone because it was under warranty and I asked if they would be able to get to my data since I can't reset or retrieve anything off it. He said even if they replaced the screen they wouldn't be able to unlock my phone even with their own phone access software (at least at his level.)

Is there a master key? Probably. If it already exists and the public simply didn't know about it, why only today is it an issue? I am not saying the government should have access to this or the ability to force a company to do this either.

Can't they get permission of the family to access the data? Then it is not "invasion" of privacy, since consent of someone directly related to the individual is given.

WHY does this have to be discussed in the media? Had Apple not gone public with it, it would NOT be an issue right now because hackers wouldn't be curious about it.

 

[Steve81]

Can't they get permission of the family to access the data?

AFAIK, it wasn't his personal phone, but one that belonged to the county government anyway. In fact, they apparently paid for, but never installed software that would render this conversation moot...

 

[jinjuku]

The Government has every right to take a whack at cracking the safe. What is troubling is requiring the safe manufacturer to make a unique set of keys and the folly that the Government will keep them safe or not abuse them.

Past NSA shenanigans show you how far you throw and trust Uncle Sam.

Those who fail to heed history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Chu Gai]

AFAIK, it wasn't his personal phone, but one that belonged to the county government anyway. In fact, they apparently paid for, but never installed software that would render this conversation moot...

It does make it somewhat unlikely, although not impossible, that he would have used a gov't issued phone.

 

[Steve81]

It does make it somewhat unlikely, although not impossible, that he would have used a gov't issued phone.

That, and this detail:
http://abc7.com/news/apple-ordered-to-help-fbi-hack-san-bernardino-killers-phone/1203482/

The couple took pains to physically destroy two personally owned cell phones, crushing them beyond the FBI's ability to recover information from them. They also removed a hard drive from their computer; it has not been found despite investigators diving for days for potential electronic evidence in a nearby lake.

Farook was not carrying his work iPhone during the attack. It was discovered after a subsequent search. It was not known whether Farook forgot about the iPhone or did not care whether investigators found it.

It's still possible of course that not destroying the phone represents a major oversight on his part, hence why the FBI wants access.

 

[jinjuku]

If they went through all that I would be a betting person and state there isn't anything on the iPhones worth bothering with. But they have to turn over all stones.

 

[Chu Gai]

Should make for interesting fodder in the candidates debates. She was quite the looker, don't you think?

 

[Swerd]

Past NSA shenanigans show you how far you throw and trust Uncle Sam.

Those who fail to heed history are doomed to repeat it.

I guess that point of view changes radically if you go a bit further back in history. The very reason we adopted an aggressive intelligence gathering effort, like the NSA, was so a sneak attacks like Pearl Harbor could be avoided in the future. It seems fashionable now to scoff at that effort, and suggest that we shouldn't trust the government. But to do the opposite was & remains unthinkable. 50 years of intense cold war with the Soviet Union clearly demonstrated that our good intelligence gathering along with the mutually assured destruction from so many nuclear weapons prevented another world war. It doesn't seem wise to abandon that now.

Apple, a for profit company, already has unprecedented access to large amount of our personal info. They certainly do use it for their own profit. Does it make sense to argue that only they can handle it wisely?

 

[jinjuku]

I guess that point of view changes radically if you go a bit further back in history. The very reason we adopted an aggressive intelligence gathering effort, like the NSA, was so a sneak attacks like Pearl Harbor could be avoided in the future. It seems fashionable now to scoff at that effort, and suggest that we shouldn't trust the government. But to do the opposite was & remains unthinkable. 50 years of intense cold war with the Soviet Union clearly demonstrated that our good intelligence gathering along with the mutually assured destruction from so many nuclear weapons prevented another world war. It doesn't seem wise to abandon that now.

Apple, a for profit company, already has unprecedented access to large amount of our personal info. They certainly do use it for their own profit. Does it make sense to argue that only they can handle it wisely?

None of that is prevented. That's where warrants of various types exist. Also in the Cold War days, Soviets weren't U.S. citizens and therefore not protected by the U.S. constitution.

Congress is going to have to handle this. Like most things they'll f it up. The issue is there is no such thing as a secure back door.

Apple doesn't have my data since I don't give it to them.

 

[Swerd]

None of that is prevented. That's where warrants of various types exist. Also in the Cold War days, Soviets weren't U.S. citizens and therefore not protected by the U.S. constitution.

Congress is going to have to handle this. Like most things they'll f it up. The issue is there is no such thing as a secure back door.

Fortunately, Congress already did handle this many years ago when they set up the national intelligence system with the CIA and NSA, among others, authorizing their efforts. The laws remain, only the technology has changed. If Apple's challenge goes to an appeals court, they will certainly loose.

 

[Swerd]

That question is, Do people have the right to have private information?

Of course they can have private information. But if they sent it over the modern phone system they cannot expect complete privacy. They never had it in the past, and they shouldn't expect it now.

If you want to cast this as a political issue of privacy vs. big government, take it back to 2001. Bush et al. made the opposite argument in 2001 that you are making now. They proposed abandoning a regulated effort in intercepting email and phone calls. Now Apple is proposing the opposite – complete privacy at the expense of legally regulated intelligence gathering. There is a point where national security outweighs privacy concerns.

 

[jonnythan]

Is there a master key? Probably. If it already exists and the public simply didn't know about it, why only today is it an issue? I am not saying the government should have access to this or the ability to force a company to do this either.

Can't they get permission of the family to access the data? Then it is not "invasion" of privacy, since consent of someone directly related to the individual is given.

WHY does this have to be discussed in the media? Had Apple not gone public with it, it would NOT be an issue right now because hackers wouldn't be curious about it.

There is no "master key." The government is literally asking Apple to produce a master key and hand it over.

Apple is 100% in the right here. The government cannot require a company to create a universal back door to their products and hand it over.

This is a public issue because the public has a significant vested interest in the situation.

Apple used to hand over encryption keys under court order. They, just as the rest of us, are required to provide information when legally ordered to do so by a court. That is not what's happening here.

 

[Swerd]

Apple used to hand over encryption keys under court order. They, just as the rest of us, are required to provide information when legally ordered to do so by a court. That is not what's happening here.

That is exactly what has happened. The FBI obtained a court order. Apple is fighting it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html?_r=0

 

[jonnythan]

That is exactly what has happened. The FBI obtained a court order. Apple is fighting it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html?_r=0

Apple doesn't have the encryption keys for this phone to turn over.

The FBI is not asking for information they can use to break this one device.

They are asking for Apple to create software that will bypass encryption for this device. This software would work for any device.

There's a very fundamental difference between asking a company to hand over the special password for a single device, and create a way to bypass the password for any arbitrary device - even beyond the fact that you're asking Apple to create something new, which is itself far beyond the scope of simply telling the government something that they know.