Apple Unlock iPhone?

[haraldo]

did Apple pick the wrong battle in privacy war?
http://wadhwa.com/2016/02/18/apple-picked-the-wrong-battle-in-privacy-war

 

[jonnythan]

I'm pretty sure that this isn't over a "search warrant" as that article states. I stopped reading there.

I went back and it says "Apple has, after all, done such things before," which is also factually incorrect.

 

[haraldo]

I went back and it says "Apple has, after all, done such things before," which is also factually incorrect.

I wondered about this myself too, as it's really contardicting what Tim Cook writes in his internal emails, that's made public.

Is it fully factual incorrect? unlocking phones pre IOS 8 is a totally different matter from post IOS 8 as far as I understand, could it be the case that it's been unlocked for pre IOS 8, where security measures as far as I know are totally different?

That claim refers to an article by http://www.thedailybeast.com/

As fas as I read Tim Cook claims that Apple never unlocked iPhone with IOS 8 or later and that this is impossible to do...

Tim Cook wrote as follows:
Some advocates of the government's order want us to roll back data protections to iOS 7, which we released in September 2013. Starting with iOS 8, we began encrypting data in a way that not even the iPhone itself can read without the user's passcode, so if it is lost or stolen, our personal data, conversations, financial and health information are far more secure. We all know that turning back the clock on that progress would be a terrible idea.

 

[herbu]

Thanks to Rickster, I gave this some more thought. Started from zero, with the single inviolate rule of business. "It's about the money. It's always about the money."

How much do you reckon it's worth for Apple to have a strong, world wide reputation of being so committed to protecting the privacy of its customers that they are willing to square off with the FBI and US Govt?

And what if that reputation didn't really cost them anything to establish?

Whether they win or lose this particular fight w/ the FBI, they still win. They're the subject of every news outlet. Everybody's talking about them. Some agree, some disagree. But everyone in the world will leave convinced of their commitment to privacy.

Smart business? I say yep.

 

[Steve81]

How much do you reckon it's worth for Apple to have a strong, world wide reputation of being so committed to protecting the privacy of its customers that they are willing to square off with the FBI and US Govt?

Quite a lot, which is why an order under the All Writs Act may not be valid.

 

[herbu]

Quite a lot, which is why an order under the All Writs Act may not be valid.

To Apple, it doesn't matter. They will have to play under the same rules as every other manufacturer. Big Brother may be the bad guys. We the people may lose. But Apple still wins. I say brilliant!

 

[jonnythan]

I wondered about this myself too, as it's really contardicting what Tim Cook writes in his internal emails, that's made public.

Is it fully factual incorrect? unlocking phones pre IOS 8 is a totally different matter from post IOS 8 as far as I understand, could it be the case that it's been unlocked for pre IOS 8, where security measures as far as I know are totally different?

That claim refers to an article by http://www.thedailybeast.com/

As fas as I read Tim Cook claims that Apple never unlocked iPhone with IOS 8 or later and that this is impossible to do...

Tim Cook wrote as follows:
Some advocates of the government's order want us to roll back data protections to iOS 7, which we released in September 2013. Starting with iOS 8, we began encrypting data in a way that not even the iPhone itself can read without the user's passcode, so if it is lost or stolen, our personal data, conversations, financial and health information are far more secure. We all know that turning back the clock on that progress would be a terrible idea.

Yes, it is factually incorrect. Apple has, to my knowledge, written and signed a version of iOS that bypasses their encryption and security measures.

 

[Steve81]

To Apple, it doesn't matter. They will have to play under the same rules as every other manufacturer. Big Brother may be the bad guys. We the people may lose. But Apple still wins. I say brilliant!

I'm not sure that's the case at this juncture. Given how hard they've fought to this point and the arguments they've made, cowing to the government now isn't going to do them any favors.

Imagine a slightly different scenario. Instead of a terrorist attack on US soil, terrorists struck in China and left behind a locked iPhone. After making a big stink, Apple gives in under various threats (shut down their factories, ban sales of Apple goods in China, etc.). Knowing that the Chinese government now has what amounts to a key to every iPhone, regardless of how hard Apple initially fought, would you buy one?

 

[herbu]

Knowing that the Chinese government now has what amounts to a key to every iPhone, regardless of how hard Apple initially fought, would you buy one?

What would be my alternative? If the govt, any govt, can force Apple to give them a key, they can force any phone company to give them a key. That's what I meant by Apple will have to play by the same rules as everybody else.

So if Apple loses the current situation w/ the FBI, or your hypothetical China situation, yes I would buy another iPhone. Every other phone would be subject to the same intrusions.

The one thing Apple would retain is their reputation for fighting Big Brother on my behalf. Again I say genius.

 

[Steve81]

What would be my alternative? If the govt, any govt, can force Apple to give them a key, they can force any phone company to give them a key. That's what I meant by Apple will have to play by the same rules as everybody else.

So if Apple loses the current situation w/ the FBI, or your hypothetical China situation, yes I would buy another iPhone. Every other phone would be subject to the same intrusions.

I don't think you understand the gravity of what you're saying. If smartphones as a whole become inherently insecure devices, open to armies of Chinese, Russian, etc. hackers, they're worthless. Think for a minute about what people do with these things; it's not just surfing the web and playing Angry Birds. People, companies, and even governments conduct all manner of business via smartphones. That can't happen if the platforms lack meaningful security.

 

[haraldo]

Yes, it is factually incorrect. Apple has, to my knowledge, written and signed a version of iOS that bypasses their encryption and security measures.

And, of course we are talking about IOS 8 or IOS 9?
Otherwise we are missing the whole point ...

And tell me plz how you can bypass the encryption that is 'unbreakable' meaning you need the 6 digit pin for the private certificate

 

[jonnythan]

And, of course we are talking about IOS 8 or IOS 9?
Otherwise we are missing the whole point ...

And tell me plz how you can bypass the encryption that is 'unbreakable' meaning you need the 6 digit pin for the private certificate

By creating, signing as authentic, and pushing an iOS software update that allows unlimited attempts at guessing the PIN. The current software prevents this.

 

[haraldo]

By creating, signing as authentic, and pushing an iOS software update that allows unlimited attempts at guessing the PIN. The current software prevents this.

If you can try one million times yes...
If FBI can do 10/second it's 70 days

 

[herbu]

I don't think you understand the gravity of what you're saying.

I'm with you 100%! My opening post said I agree with Apple.
I think the issue has 2 parts. One is the security issue whose outcome will affect every person and every phone manufacturer.
Second is the business impact to Apple.

People question why Apple brought this up now. What's different or special about this case? I suggest we will never get the whole story from either the FBI or Apple. But somebody had to force the issue sometime. It will have a huge impact on our right to privacy, and a precedent must be set.

I don't know if Apple could have given the FBI what they want with no possibility of future use or replication. I guess Tim Cook says no, and the FBI says yes. So I suppose as far as any of us will know, we'll never know.

But regarding the business impact to Apple of this whole mess, it's a no-lose proposition. They can't be forced to do anything every other phone company won't be forced to do. They do, however, walk away with the publicity and reputation of standing up to Goliath for the rights of their customers.

 

[haraldo]

Apple's job is to make the best producs they can....

Who is to order Apple to take away critical resources from product development in order to make a backdoor that will open their products wide open to anyone that may get acces to the special version of ios?

 

[Steve81]

People question why Apple brought this up now. What's different or special about this case?

I would suggest nothing is different/special about this case. I would sincerely doubt Apple has any interest in helping a terrorist. What is different are the times. Wikileaks and Edward Snowden have brought to light a number of government misdeeds, from the scale of data collection against ordinary citizens to wiretapping the heads of state of our allies ala Angela Merkel. Apple itself has been exposed as having had a role in some of this. To make their situation worse, Apple's basic dedication to security has been in question due to incidents like The Fappening. Now add in Tim Cook. I don't really claim to know much about the man, and that's rather the point. He's big on personal privacy, and it's not much of a leap to assume that feeling extends to others.

But regarding the business impact to Apple of this whole mess, it's a no-lose proposition. They can't be forced to do anything every other phone company won't be forced to do.

True enough, if Apple loses, every other smartphone manufacturer is in the same boat. However, I'd disagree with the PR ramifications; the hole is too deep. Tim Cook has already made a dramatic public appeal stating that compliance will have a profound impact on everyone's personal liberties. These are the things that men have fought and died to protect. Doing an abrupt about face once the going gets tough just isn't an option if you want to be seen as the company that stood up to Goliath over this issue. In the end, you'd just be seen as another Israelite crushed under Goliath's might.

 

[j_garcia]

They do, however, walk away with the publicity and reputation of standing up to Goliath for the MONEY of their customers.

FTFY.

While I do agree they shouldn't be forced to do something like this, I don't feel they are doing it with their customer's interest in mind. It is their bottom line only. They care about market share and profit margin, not being a champion of the people. They're protecting their customer base, not their customers. It has not changed my opinion of them as a company.

 

[herbu]

Doing an abrupt about face once the going gets tough just isn't an option if you want to be seen as the company that stood up to Goliath over this issue.

Agreed. I'd be really surprised if Tim does an about face. However, if presented with a court order and facing business penalties and personal jail time, I would consider acquiescence more of a defeat than a defection.

 

[herbu]

They're protecting their customer base, not their customers. It has not changed my opinion of them as a company.

It is perception. And just like it wouldn't change your perception, it won't change the perception of those who love Apple more than fried chicken. Like I said, in business it's all about the money.

However... is it possible in some cases the interests of the customers and customer base are the same? When a company finds an issue like that, it's pure gold. Perhaps this is one.

 

[j_garcia]

I don't disagree that it is a PR benefit for them regardless of their motivator, but that's because the public is the public after all. I mean, one word: Trump lol.