Skip to main content

Opinion: How likely is Apple to succeed in resisting the FBI court order?

fbi

I laid out the three reasons I believe Apple is right to stand firm on encryption back in November. The tl;dr version was in the summary.

So weakening encryption would mean sacrificing core principles of civilized societies in the name of security. It would provide not just our own government but foreign governments and criminals with access to our data. And it would do absolutely nothing to prevent terrorists from communicating in secret.

Gratifyingly, 93% of you agreed with me. But much as you and I both think Apple is right, the company now appears to be in an extremely tricky position. Not only does it have a court order instructing it to assist the FBI in breaking into one specific phone, but it appears very likely that it has the technical ability to comply with this order.

Tim Cook currently remains defiant, but how likely is it that Apple could succeed in fighting the order … ?

I spoke about the case with a retired lawyer friend, Gene Rankin, former Director of the Wisconsin Supreme Court Board of Bar Examiners. He could see two possible arguments Apple could make in an application to reverse the court order.

First, the general principle, much as I outlined it in my opinion piece. That the harm to the many by compromising iPhone security outweighs the good of gathering evidence in one specific case.

Second, that Apple was only ordered to provide all “reasonable” technical assistance, and that having to create a custom version of iPhone firmware to permit access to a single device is not reasonable.

The FBI may also have weakened its case by insisting that it is not asking Apple to create a generic backdoor to iPhones, merely assist in accessing just one phone. That would strengthen Apple’s argument that the work involved would be unduly burdensome.

The irony here, of course, is that if the FBI did prevail, we can be certain in would be back next time arguing that since Apple already created the compromised firmware – and there is now legal precedent – it should help break into other iPhones. Which is the problem with this type of case. Despite my general views, I do, in the specific case of the San Bernardino shootings, find myself in sympathy with the FBI. But I consider the broader principle more important.

Depressingly, Rankin’s view is that Apple’s attempt to fight the court order is unlikely to be successful. This is a high-profile terrorism case where the FBI could argue that it is reasonable to expect Apple to devote significant resources to providing assistance.

But the other factor I could see weighing in is the response – or lack of one – from the rest of the tech industry. While the judiciary is theoretically independent, judges are not blind to the direction in which political winds are blowing. If other large tech companies like Google and Microsoft came out in strong support of Apple’s position, that may well help persuade the court that the position is a reasonable one.

So far, the signs of that happening aren’t good. Blackberry’s CEO made his position clear back in December, and there has been a distinct lack of response to Cook’s letter from the rest of the tech industry. Android phones are encrypted in a similar way to iPhones, so Google clearly supports encryption in principle, but we don’t know the company’s attitude to a specific situation like this one.

Or perhaps we do. It seems notable to me that the FBI is seeking to force Apple to break into the phone of only one of the two perpetrators. Why not both? A likely explanation is that the other shooter used an Android phone and that Google voluntarily cooperated with the FBI in helping it gain access.

All of which leaves me feeling pessimistic about Apple’s chances here.

But I’m not a lawyer. There are plenty of those available, and Apple can certainly afford the best. Cook’s bold response also makes it clear that he is likely to fight this one all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. And that, just at the moment, makes for a rather unpredictable forum! So we’ll see …

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. Doug Aalseth - 8 years ago

    Agreed. If not this case then the next one. Apple will be forced to open any and all devices to government spying. this could be the president that does it, or it could be a death by a thousand cuts, but eventually they will get in

    • Doug Aalseth - 8 years ago

      precedent. !%$#@@ autocorrect.

    • John Smith - 8 years ago

      Apple needs to start being more reasonable.

      No to ‘open any and all devices to government spying’

      Yes to individual device on receipt of a court order.

      Apple has got themselves trapped in a predictable corner by their current policy of obstructing everything – even on court order and no matter how serious a case. There is no chance that is going to stand long term. To protect public safety and protect our privacy as customers they need to start taking a more reasonable position otherwise they are going to lose.

      • mika6sic6 (@mika6sic6) - 8 years ago

        No apple is being reasonable. look at it this way if apple was a gate company and the government asked for gaps in apples gates how would you see a gate company reacting to that request? they are standing by their customers privacy and not compromising the safety for millions for a case of one person.

      • Well, isn’t that Apples point: right now, they don’t have the tools to break in into someones phone. But the government asks them to help develop such a tool. And Cook says as soon these tool exists, it could get in the wrong hands and the whole system is compromised. The only way of being sure that no-one breaks in is not providing the tools to do so. Seems reasonable to me.

      • yojimbo007 - 8 years ago

        Agreed..
        The rest of these naive rants are mind boggelingly dogmatic…

        Would you be ok if apple unlocked a phone if your child’s life absolutely depended on it ?

      • PMZanetti - 8 years ago

        Oh when its “serious”, then its OK. Thanks. Didn’t know Freedom and Privacy worked that way.

      • Scott Rose - 8 years ago

        Gotta love these fake accounts like “John Smith” which are paid propaganda accounts from the U.S. Government.

  2. gjconstructs - 8 years ago

    Apple could take the phone and ….oh darn that didn’t work, sorry it’s now a brick.

  3. Jake Becker - 8 years ago

    “there has been a distinct lack of response to Cook’s letter from the rest of the tech industry.” Mostly because they’re full of frothing statists just like any other community….. and unsurprisingly, their products tend to follow suit in lacking good ideas.

  4. Chris Baker - 8 years ago

    Apparently, this iPhone is the only functional phone found. Their personal cell phones were destroyed in such a way that no information could be recovered. The iPhone in question is one of their work phones that the county provided.

  5. travis2l - 8 years ago

    If Apple gives in, I’ll take my business elsewhere.. Starting by throwing my iPhone in the lake

    • macxpress - 8 years ago

      Where you gonna go? Its not like other companies aren’t going to be forced to follow suit. I guess you could go back to a flip phone.

      • Tom Leiper - 8 years ago

        I still use a flip phone, and swear by them. Charge the battery twice a week, fits in my front pocket, indestructible and works great. I always need a phone, do not always need web or email, and wifi is so ubiquitous my iTouch is fine, which I carry in my back pocket when needed. Besides… I’m a geezer.

  6. John Smith - 8 years ago

    I have no sympathy for Apple.

    They have created this situation for themselves by deliberately setting up their devices to obstruct law enforcement, even when they have a lawful warrant in very serious cases.

    To be obstructing law enforcement in homicide cases, child molestations, missing kids and other serious cases is totally irresponsible.

    I never wanted the FBI given to be the sort of capability in this warrant. I’d like to see Apple develop a secure system where devices – with the warrant – go to Apple to be accessed via a cryptographically secure recovery key. No warrant no access. No built in capability for FBI, or anyone else, to randomly access any phone they want. But Apple are only interested in being obstructive, not finding a secure solution.

    The FBI have picked this case well to illustrate the sort of investigation Apples products have been set up to obstruct. I’d like to see a few more similar warrants, for example in child abuse cases, to ensure Apple can’t play victim. The victims here are the 14 people who were shot dead, not Apple.

    I don’t agree with ‘free for all’ access for law enforcement, but Apple is so irresponsible on this I hope the FBI win.

    • Abraham Song - 8 years ago

      What you describe is impossible. Have a nice day. You create a backdoor for one group. You create it for everyone. Additionally, what you are proposing, would honestly create a bidding war for cracking this “Secure System” which in essence would destroy any point in encryption in the first place.

      • John Smith - 8 years ago

        Obviously it’s not impossible.

        Apple already provides a recovery key system for filevault on OSX – it’s more cryptographically secure than our passwords given it’s entropy compared with the passwords chosen by most humans.

        Please have a bidding war amongst the crackers – if they can manage to break a recovery key on 256bit AES then we all need to know about it – that’s what’s encrypting all our banking.

        But this is not about Apples ability to provide secure access on lawful warrant – it’s about Apple taking a position post Snowdon to protect their sales. Greed not security.

      • kpom1 - 8 years ago

        @JohnSmith, the difference with the recovery key is that you hold it. Apple doesn’t have it.

    • Ben Lovejoy - 8 years ago

      Even with the scenario, it would begin with Apple holding the key; then law enforcement agencies would argue time is of the essence in some cases so they need to hold the key; then the US govt undoubtedly has agreements with other ‘friendly’ governments to share certain technical resources, so other governments have copies of the key (friendly govts like Saudi Arabia) …

      • John Smith - 8 years ago

        Ben, I only offer one suggestion.

        IMHO – It needs to be cryptographically secure and it needs to be on warrant ONLY.

        Personally I say leave the keys with Apple and they only access on receipt of the device and a warrant. This needs to be backed up by law – both the access on court order and the ownership of the keys with Apple.

        The problem we have here is that Apple has backed themselves into a predictable corner. In the long run they will end up with an imposed solution that does not protect our privacy.

      • Ben Lovejoy - 8 years ago

        Yep, in a world in which the rules are set once and guaranteed sacred, that could work – but sadly that’s not the world in which we live. Rights are eroded one slice at a time.

      • Grayson Mixon - 8 years ago

        The only way to guarantee that the US plays by the rules is to have it explicitly stated, approved by two thirds of both houses of Congress and three fourths of the state legislatures.

        But the bigger problem is that logically, why should only the US have access? Apple’s international operations are based in Ireland. The UK has parliamentary sovereignty, so there’s no system of triple checks to prevent anyone from changing the law. What about China? They have a standing warrant to search all their citizens possessions, devices, diaries, and thoughts.

      • Craig Hubley - 8 years ago

        Exactly right. First all US govt agencies get it immediately. Then it goes to all “Five Eyes” govts (UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand). Then to all of NATO (France, Germany, Italy and yes Turkey and East European countries). Then yes Saudi and Israel and South Korea and Japan and Mexico, the allies of necessity. Then there will be demands to get it from Brazil, India, Russia, all with legitimate reasons similar to those difficult cases that justify releasing it to the allies – eventually it will leak, and every iPhone will be cracked at will by any government or government-allied corporation anywhere.

        Basically private corporations cannot guarantee encryption. it’s a failed approach by definition: Corporations can neither resist legislative or court pressure in the countries they operate in, and certainly not the ones they are based in, nor can they motivate persons to take great personal risks to protect data. I’d be more comfortable with a Law Society/Bar Association, or the Catholic Church or Greenpeace or MSF or Occupy holding private keys than any hardware or application vendor. As for operating systems, they should all be open source with many distributions like Linux, so that we can choose our hardware and OS separately and adopt the level of encryption required for the application need. Yes, that means criminals will use it. In fact, they will use it to talk to their lawyers. Which we shouldn’t be able to see either.

        I honestly don’t see how the “warrant only” approach can be applied once the tool exists. The warrant will be the tool. And that will not be kept secret long.

    • 2is1toomany - 8 years ago

      Your solution involves compromising the security of the device so therefore there IS NOT secure solution if the device is compromised. I’m pretty confident they won’t be able to unlock the phone even if they wanted to do it.

    • 89p13 - 8 years ago

      WAIT – Aren’t you the guy who has already posted that you’ve given up on Apple and have headed to Microsoft?

      Am I confused?

      • John Smith - 8 years ago

        No I’m not.

        Yes, you are.

    • focher - 8 years ago

      Your recommendation is completely myopic and is premised on US law around warrants. Many – perhaps most – don’t have such due process restricts around law enforcement. Anywhere Apple operates, the company and its employees will be subject to local governments demands to decrypt iPhones. This isn’t a slippery slope situation. The fact of the matter is that If Apple has the ability to do it, then Apple cannot refuse to do it. The only issue beyond that is whether they have the method already versus would they be forced to develop something to do it.

      • Jim Huls (@Techslacker) - 8 years ago

        It’s not about whether they can do it but whether it can reasonably do it. How much time and how many resources will Apple have to devote to design, create, and test for this one version of an OS? Cost of labor isn’t really the issue here but the resources taken away from real projects that could impact the company’s very business model and products they sell. Then there’s putting it into the hands of the fbi and the concerns of what happens to it once they have it.

        The request simply isn’t reasonable.

    • Jason Corbine - 8 years ago

      I would point out here, in addition to everything everyone else has very rightly and logically pointed out, that NO ONE at any point has called Apple the victim. Not even Apple has played the victim. You’re obvious anti-Apple bias or true lack of real fundamental understanding of how software and cryptography works is astounding when you want to take such a harsh stance against the company.

      Would you expect the company that made the control to your garage door opener having a button they could press and instantly open any garage door made by their company? No of course not. If the government gets the warrant then the onus is on them to find the way to open the door.

      In the US anyway we are protected from self incrimination. We are protected from being forced to surrender incriminating evidence into the hands of the police. This cannot be required even with a warrant. If you have a safe in your own home, an the police come with a search warrant they cannot require you to give them the combination or access to it. The onus is again on them.

      Weakening the security on my phone and your phone and 99.9999% of all phone users to be able to get information about the .0001% is completely insane and inherently dangerous. Imagine the damage to people property security and the economy if suddenly hackers have easy access to all of that personal information.

      Yes this case is tragic. Yes I sympathize with the FBI. But the greater cause here is not about 1 shooter or even 14 victims. it’s about the other 1 Billion iOS users security and safety.

    • @JohnSmith. Tim Cook is right – and backed by sound reasoning by security experts: once you create a back door, anyone with the key can get in. In the case of computer systems, the key is a piece of “secret” information: anyone who knows that secret has the key.

      The FBI is making the remarkable claim, without any supporting evidence, that Apple can create signed, hacked firmware that will only ever work on a single iPhone. Something like “if this is (iphone serial number whatever) then don’t invoke the delay after a wrong passcode.” But how is the serial number determined? What if the FBI or hackers can defeat the check somehow? Once you create the back door, you’ve dramatically weakened the security of every iPhone.

    • flaviosuave - 8 years ago

      My name is “John Smith,” and I am *definitely* not a cop! Hey, kids, anyone know where I can score a couple pounds of hardcore drugs? I wouldn’t want them if I were a cop, which I obviously am not!

    • Scott Rose - 8 years ago

      Thanks, fake propaganda account created by the U.S. Government!

  7. RP - 8 years ago

    Well it is political and politics are not known to be logical. How this plays out depends on the politicians that take it up and how the media decides to play it.

  8. MaxBay - 8 years ago

    Apple is doing the right thing, which means the feds will never stop until they can see anything we do anytime they want.

    Apple will lose and probably lose big, and they will be portrayed by idiots as un-American for fighting for privacy.

    And when the next “terrorism” event takes place, and the feds says they could have prevented this if only they had know earlier what the iPhone users were saying, there will be requests for “pre-crime” tools.

    Meanwhile, Samsung has issued a notice or warning to its customers to be careful about what they say in front of their televisions, because the speech could be sold to a third party.

  9. usmansaghir - 8 years ago

    I hope Apple stick to what it believes in.
    We don’t see the local authorities places cameras and mics in our homes to see what we are all doing.
    If the authorities do get access to a back door it effects so many of our private data! I certainly wouldn’t want anyone to be looking at any of my data!

  10. Scott (@ScooterComputer) - 8 years ago

    I think it likely that the “legal” shade thrown at Apple will soon be overcome by the “public good” shame that the govt-types will soon start heaping on Apple. This will quickly turn into a “You’re helping terrorists and baby rapists” cry from Congress, worse than what has already been done. The Law & Order types will rally their side against Apple. Unfortunately, as we see in the current state of US politics, the “angry mob” is very much a potent thing. Of course, being kind of a conspiracy-theory aficionado sort of guy, I expect this was absolutely the intention of this from the start. The authoritarians need to squelch free speech; and crypto is and has been the “freedom of speech’s” 2nd Amendment “arms” against that, and the government types have been fighting its prevalence since before PGP (just very publicly SINCE then). And lest anyone start throwing out terms like “Republican” or “Democrat”…realize…on this issue, they’re both the in same group of “authoritarians”.

  11. uniszuurmond - 8 years ago

    It amazes me. As the people who voted the government into order, who pays for government, why should WE have a back door open, but government NOT?

  12. Jonathan Brusco - 8 years ago

    They have already succeeded by resisting in the first place. Eventually they will have to give in or at least come to a compromise. My advice would be for them to demand that they themselves do the phone de-cryption and not give the FBI any access to the phone or software. If the FBI wants the data, they can get it on site and 1 infinite loop and under the supervision of Apple Engineers. That phone doesn’t leave Apple HQ with any software on it that can compromise the security of other phones.

    • John Smith - 8 years ago

      Totally agree Jonathan.

      I say add one further step to what you suggest: the device + court order go to Apple – no warrant, no decryption.

    • kpom1 - 8 years ago

      However, the FBI would not want to give up custody of the device or let Apple know what it is they are looking for, so it’s unlikely they would go for that solution.

      • Jim Huls (@Techslacker) - 8 years ago

        Exactly…the fbi has to be assured that all data on it doesn’t get tampered with thus it doesn’t leave their sight.

    • Samuel A. Maffei - 8 years ago

      The FBI won’t allow that because they will say letting Apple do it will break “the chain of evidence.” It’s obvious that the FBI wants the tool.

  13. John Evos - 8 years ago

    The Gubbermint has misused, abused, and engaged in some of the most OUTRAGEOUS illegal conduct to wit— NSA, DEA, FBI, IRS, Lerner, Attkinson, DOJ, etc etc etc……….
    Their unrepentant, unabated conduct has now earned them the universal “Hell NO” response……..
    Encryption and “burner phones” have been around for YEARS!!

    And for the TSA–“it’s for our safety” crowd I say BS.
    Feds get off your azzzzzzzzzzzz and go recruit sources/informants and get out of the office and away from your desktop….

    • louiethelug72 - 8 years ago

      Hallelujah brother you’re right get off those asses and get out in the field and do some work…

  14. louiethelug72 - 8 years ago

    Fight it all the way to the Supreme Court Mr. Tim Cook. I agree, with you I agree with you, I agree with you..!!!

  15. I’m looking for even better encryption in the next version of iOS and the new hardware platform. Making it impossible to restore any part of the firmware without completely destroying every bit of data on the phone is a good first step.

    Apple should make sure not to paint themselves into a corner.

  16. John Smith - 8 years ago

    The original question was ‘how likely is apple to succeed in resisting the FBI court order’

    Apple is protecting the privacy of a dead man. They are refusing access to a phone that was not even the dead man’s property – it’s his employer’s property: San Bernadino County. This is a case of homicide – 14 homicides.

    So the court will be weighing the privacy of dead man in relation to a phone which is the property of his employer vs the need to investigate a case of multiple homicide. Any guesses how that one balances up?

    If Apple takes this to higher courts it sets a legal precedent when they inevitably lose.

    Apple has backed themselves into a corner on this. They need to start being less irresponsible – allow access on warrant only – before something worse gets imposed on them.

    • Jim Huls (@Techslacker) - 8 years ago

      You must be delusional in not comprehending the arguments that have been presented. It’s not about protecting one dead man’s privacy.

      Just because the government wants to do something doesn’t mean it should be done. Privacy is a valuable thing to many and should be protected. While I do agree that Apple will likely lose this battle, it’s a ridiculous battle by the government because in trying to uncover one dead man’s data, they are turning a blind eye to the repercussions of how this impact’s a company’s business and especially the privacy of American citizens.

  17. Ethan Tabor - 8 years ago

    What is the point offering a secure feature of a device, and have that very company circumvent that feature? I imagine there will be class action lawsuit against that unless the supreme court determines it’s legal to have the government command companies to do work for free.

  18. ozpaulb - 8 years ago

    Apple is rejecting the order on principle – they are not saying that it’s technically impossible for them to provide a firmware image that will disable some of the PIN-guessing security (wiping after 10 attempt, increasing delay between allowing further PIN attempt).

    It sounds like it’s possible to do a DFU firmware install onto a device – even if it is “PIN locked” (the government is asking for new firmware which disables these PIN security features).

    I predict that the next major iOS version released by Apple will make it impossible to install new (or old) firmware (even in DFU mode) without first entering the PIN (or, in the case where you’ve forgotten your PIN, accepting that forcing such an install without the PIN will *wipe* the data on the device).

    Once this new firmware is running on a device, it would be impossible for Apple to make a new firmware image (for the FBI/etc) that could be installed without first providing the PIN (or wiping data). If it’s impossible, then Apple avoids being forced to do something in the future.

    I suspect they’ll have to “cave” on this particular device, though (and on any future requests to unlock devices that don’t have this new “prevent firmware install without PIN” firmware on them)

  19. Grayson Mixon - 8 years ago

    Look, all I need is an app that allows encrypted communication and doesn’t store anything locally on the phone. It also doesn’t store the password for my login.

    So, when I want to communicate secretly, I put in my password every time, my conversation is downloaded, and then wiped from the phone when I close the app.

    Then, it doesn’t matter if my phone has a password or not, or whether it’s encrypted or not.

    Once it becomes public knowledge that the government can access phones, bad guys will just change their methods.

    Remember, Osama Bin Laden transported messages by USB drives on camels.

  20. viciosodiego - 8 years ago

    For all of you defending the US government, let me tell you how it is.
    US, we want to fight terrorists.
    Lye
    The US government is giving guns to isis so they can overthrow the the government of you know what country.
    Also, they claim that russia is striking all rebel groups minus isis.

  21. focher - 8 years ago

    Regardless of whether Apple has the moral high ground on this issue, I don’t believe they’ve pursued the right strategy in their response. Courts are not going to measure the policy implications of forcing Apple to bypass the security on an iPhone. They’re going to balance the burden on Apple versus the public interest of unlocking the device for a criminal investigation. Apple should have let that process play out through a formal legal process and not tried to launch a public relations / policy discussion. Ultimately, they don’t get to make the final decision and they’ve put themselves in a position to be 1) the hero to those who agree with them and 2) a law breaker to those who disagree. Principled stands can be great, but not usually a particularly effective strategy in the short term.

    What will be bad is that if Apple already has a technical way to unlock the device and are refusing to do it on privacy grounds. They don’t get to decide that, and neither do we in the USA. Privacy doesn’t trump due process. In fact, due process through warrants is what is used to overcome privacy interests.

  22. Sean Moon (@moonshot69) - 8 years ago

    Privacy has to trump all here. On principal. It will be an interesting fight, or at least I hope it’s a fight. A good test of freedoms and privacy in the US today. Apple has the money to get the best lawyers and the political weight of a mega-corporation, so let’s see what they can do. But what strikes me – what nobody has said – is that the FBI’s request seems like them trying to take shortcuts. What’s wrong with rolling up the sleeves and doing some good old fashioned legwork first? Have they really exhausted all their resources, and themselves, already? How do they even know that the phone contains the evidence they haven’t found, the evidence that will crack the case? Has anyone asked: Are we really ready to take this next step towards having no guarantees of personal freedom, just in order to give the FBI the chance to see if the phone might have something that could be of even a little use in trying to solve the crime?

  23. Ramon Solorio - 8 years ago

    we need to apply public pressure on getting this judge removed. far over stepping her power is an understatement.

    • focher - 8 years ago

      I see people making this allegation, but exactly how is a judge issuing an order to a third party requiring them to assist with complying with a warrant overstepping the power of a judge? A federal judge absolutely has that power, and the only open questions are 1) is the order overly burdensome to the third party and/or 2) is the underlying warrant invalid. I suspect there’s very little dispute as to the validity of the warrant in this case, so we’re only down to the unduly burdensome question.

  24. outdo13 - 8 years ago

    “Or perhaps we do. It seems notable to me that the FBI is seeking to force Apple to break into the phone of only one of the two perpetrators. Why not both? A likely explanation is that the other shooter used an Android phone and that Google voluntarily cooperated with the FBI in helping it gain access.”

    Or an even most likely explanation—given FBI’s known access to papers, friends, their iCloud accounts and two months of working on it—the FBI successfully guessed the 6-digit security code or the password for the other murderer’s iPhone.

  25. Chris McCready - 8 years ago

    My opinion on this is somewhat torn. I value privacy a great deal. Now, looking at this closely and the action that took place, I think Apple shouldn’t give them a custom OS, but get the phone, decrypt it for them and give it back. The only reason I support that is that this is a 5C and everything after that is encrypted to a level that even Apple can’t open. 5S’ are starting to die out. Considering the circumstances, I actually wouldn’t have a problem with that process of doing it.

  26. iosser - 8 years ago

    Settle down people.

    This is not a backdoor. It simply enables brute-forcing an iPhone. So it will unlock a pin or simple password, but not a more complex password.

    • 4nntt - 8 years ago

      It is still a back door. It just only works for simple passwords. It also might not be possible to update the operating system without unlocking or wiping the device. If it is possible, Apple should take steps to fix this in an update.

  27. webtomass (@webtomass) - 8 years ago

    Yes they will all the way to the supreme court.

  28. freerange5 - 8 years ago

    The US government can’t even secure their own systems and yet they want us to compromise ours on their order? A big FK U is completely appropriate here. They already have the phone records for the phone in question, so all they need to do is follow that trail. We are spending 10’s of billions of dollars in national security every year and we should expect them to do their job with the resources they already have. Period! As tragic as this incident was, the reality is 10’s of thousands of people are killed every year via guns in this country. This is our own brand of terrorism. Let’s try dealing with that as well and keep things in proper perspective.

    • 4nntt - 8 years ago

      Right. Not to mention the phone in question is unlikely to have valuable intelligence since the terrorists destroyed the other phones and hard drives. I’d rather see this debated in another context, but I can’t imagine any way to give up our privacy in a limited way to help national security that wouldn’t open up a pandora’s box. Apple is right to stand up for this.

  29. I suppose the judge could also order Apple to hand over the private key for all iPhone firmware, and the source code, and the FBI could hire hackers to create the malicious back-doored firmware. That would effectively disable the security on every iPhone in the world until Apple revokes the old key.

  30. jerjuan (@jerjuan) - 8 years ago

    Ready set FIGHT!!!! I think the chances of any real useful information being gained is slim to none. I also don’t think infringing on our rights is worth it! Not even if it prevents a major terror incident. I think phone records showing cell location and call history is plenty invasive enough in our lives already… This may not expose text messages, but that’s GOOD!!!! Plus, I’d have to imagine that those with something to hide will go steps further to hide their history and if not, then they probably were’t hiding their intentions and movements anyway!

    No good will come from this.

  31. Roger Lo - 8 years ago

    If Apple sticks to its guns, I can see our OS upgrades being very painful in the future. They will place somewhere in the phone’s firmware code that will automatically wipe all information from the iOS device BEFORE it allows an upgrade. If it’s on the phone initially, and they keep it there in all subsequent iOS releases, Apple can say the phone’s firmware prevents anything special from being loaded that won’t wipe the phone. That way, Apple would not be forced to create custom software that could simply be installed on top of the normal OS, allowing anyone to get into the phone.

    But this would make upgrades really inconvenient for those of us with a lot of data on their phones. And it would make in-phone upgrades worthless as you’d still have to attach to iTunes to restore your data. Keep in mind iCloud only stores the essentials and not all of your data. Anytime we upgrade, the phone would be wiped clean.

  32. Justin Tyler Moore - 8 years ago

    Background checks on iPhone purchases? Anyone??? lol This is very similar in position to gun control actually. If someone is killed by a gun, do you go after the guns manufacturer? Why not start at the root of the issue? Maybe the intelligence community needs to be better monitoring its channels? Even if Apple caves and opens up iPhones for government agencies, there are still hundreds of other alternate messaging apps that encrypt data and many many other ways for the bad guys to keep being bad guys. The only thing that allowing the government access will do is exactly what this article speculates and will allow the tools to leak into the hands of others who shouldn’t have the tools. Nothing ever leaks out of Apple or the Government, does it??? Done.

  33. floriorules - 8 years ago

    For those dismissing Apple’s vociferous defense of freedom with arguments such as “what if your child could be saved by violating liberty” I hold the line. Freedom comes with great danger and great risks but the reward is liberty. Give me liberty over a PDA with a State accessible back door.

  34. transamken - 8 years ago

    Terrorist use no traceable burner phones that they discard every three days, they aren’t going out to get contract phones that can be traced. Wake up people is has nothing to do with the shootings it’s about digitally owning all our collective asses.

  35. Craig Hubley - 8 years ago

    Chen really really blew it here http://9to5mac.com/2015/12/17/blackberry-criticizes-apple-on-privacy/comment-page-1/#comment-320262 – BlackBerry already didn’t get its own user base or their requirements, I expect an accelerated decline now. The only secure phone OS is going to be an open source custom ROM, not anything provided by any North American corporation.

  36. Kathy Dopp - 8 years ago

    This court decision, if upheld will end U.S. leadership in technology. All people who want security in their devices will have to purchase from companies doing business in countries that allow secure technology to exist and do not demand open government access to all devices, which makes all our devices insecure. Our FBI and courts are anti-American in their efforts to make all our devices insecure and destroy U.S. leadership in technology.

Author

Avatar for Ben Lovejoy Ben Lovejoy

Ben Lovejoy is a British technology writer and EU Editor for 9to5Mac. He’s known for his op-eds and diary pieces, exploring his experience of Apple products over time, for a more rounded review. He also writes fiction, with two technothriller novels, a couple of SF shorts and a rom-com!


Ben Lovejoy's favorite gear