Skip to main content

Should Apple comply with FBI request to bypass San Bernardino gunman’s iPhone? [Poll]

News broke yesterday that a United States magistrate judge in California ordered Apple to comply with the FBI’s request for assistance in bypassing the passcode lock of the San Bernardino gunman’s iPhone. Hours later Apple published an open letter by Tim Cook explaining that creating a tool to bypass this specific iPhone would jeopardize the security of all iPhones.

The battle between personal privacy and information gathering as it relates to Apple and security has been building up for years now, and the government narrowing it down to one specific iPhone used by a terrorist in the U.S. has caused the debate to reach new levels. This may be Apple’s battle to lose, but it will be a very public one nonetheless.

Since Apple’s response to the FBI and court order, the White House has stood by the Department of Justice and argued that it’s not about a backdoor for all devices but just a single device, which Tim Cook’s argument already addressed.

Tim Cook’s open letter is on Apple’s homepage and headlines about the government’s demands are all over the news. From my view, Apple customers seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of Tim Cook’s position, while presidential candidates are unsurprisingly siding with the FBI. Where do you weigh in? Here’s what we know so far.

In Cook’s words, this is how he describes the government’s request:

The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.

Cook’s letter seems to acknowledge that it’s technically possible for Apple to comply, but that it has zero interest in doing something that it considers dangerous for all customers. One security firm has also shown that it appears possible.

In practice, what this would look like is Apple creating a new version of iOS without limitations on how many times you can guess a passcode before it locks up for a period of time. That limitation alone is currently preventing the FBI from just trying every possible passcode as quickly as possible.

iPhones with passcode locks are currently disabled after multiple failed attempts to guess passwords. Try too many incorrect passcodes on an iPhone and you’re temporarily only allowed to place emergency calls for 1 minute. Try again after that and it extends to 5 minutes, then 15 minutes, and so on.

Optionally, iPhones can be set to erase all data after just 10 failed attempts.

Because the FBI wants access to text messages, notes, photos, emails, and anything else saved on the iPhone in question, preserving the data is critical for the investigation. The FBI argues that data protected behind the iPhone passcode could offer critical evidence as to how the attack in San Bernardino was planned, who else was involved, and if any future attacks can be prevented.

The court order in this case only applies to this specific iPhone, too, but Tim Cook is right to argue it would set a precedent that would be used in future cases. The FBI has been deploring iPhone encryption publicly long before the shooting in December.

One key takeaway for me is that wow, who knew our passcodes on our iPhones were actually so secure?

Apple under Tim Cook’s leadership has been pitching privacy as a product for years now, starting largely in 2013 with the iPhone 5s and Touch ID. If iPhones were going to be storing fingerprints, Apple needed to promise customers it was safe. Same thing with Health and HealthKit, Apple Pay, and many other new features and services. And the NSA/PRISM surveillance episode only strengthened Apple’s need to take its current position.

Now we find ourselves in the midst of an ongoing national debate over what’s more important: personal privacy or national security? The San Bernardino iPhone is being used to make the argument very specific, but make no mistake that it’s about a much larger divide that’s been developing for years now. Should Apple maintain it’s rock solid position on encryption, or should it comply with the court order and FBI’s request?

In our previous poll last November, 93% of responders favorably viewed Apple’s firm stance on encryption two weeks before the San Bernardino attack and three months before the court order to unlock the terrorist’s iPhone.

My suspicion is that most readers haven’t changed their position, but I am curious how many believe Apple should comply with the FBI in this specific instance.

And from a broader standpoint, how important to you is privacy through encryption as a factor when buying Apple technology? Consider it this way: If Apple technology suddenly wasn’t encrypted and only Google technology was, would that be a big enough factor to switch platforms? 

As Ben Lovejoy wrote this morning, Apple may very well try to hold its position as long as it can, but it’s possible it will be forced to comply at some point.

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. travis2l - 8 years ago

    HECK NO!!!!

    • yojimbo007 - 8 years ago

      Would you be ok if apple unlocked a phone if your child’s life absolutely depended on it ? Or still “HECK NO!!!”

      • iSRS - 8 years ago

        you know what? In your example, getting all the needed legal approvals would take longer than your child had, so enough with this.

        Make no mistake, the government has been pushing for Apple to create this backdoor for longer than this San Bernadino attack. They are now counting on people who don’t follow tech to scream outrage (or as I call it, faux-rage) by making it about this terror attack. All the while, not giving the entire truth, and the mainstream media is selling the government’s narrative.

        This is not about this incident. This is about the government being a baby and a bully, and using fear to try Apple in the court of public opinion.

      • iSRS - 8 years ago

        Also, remember a few years back, prior to iOS 7 that governments were BEGGING Apple to do something to help combat phone thefts and the rise in crime? Remember that? Well, this is part of that solution.

      • yojimbo007 - 8 years ago

        To..iSRS..
        No it would not if the provisions where set … And dogma did not rule over reason. If paranoia did nor rule over pragmatism .

        Its not about permenant backdoors… Its about unlocking a specific phone…

      • iSRS - 8 years ago

        Yes, a specific phone with a valid warrant.

        You leave a key under your doormat in case you lock yourself out. Guess what. Great intentions. But if I show up and you aren’t home, and I decide I want your computer or a beer from your fridge. I check for the key. Does the key work? Or no because I am not “authorized” to use it?

      • Larz Ulrich - 8 years ago

        If the Gov’t has a legal warrant for a phone why is it any different than your home or a computer? They should have access. That’s why we have laws. Everyone should he held to the law. If there is a court order to unlock the phone, Apple should unlock it. I guess they are not subject to the US Legal System like everyone else.

      • Larz Ulrich - 8 years ago

        To iSRS: Are you sure your name isn’t “ISIS”?

      • Daniel Kim - 8 years ago

        Let’s put it this way: would I be okay if Apple puts millions of users’ data at risk for the sake of saving your child life? Heck no, I don’t give a crap about your child. Will I want Apple to put millions of users’ data at risk for the sake of my child? Hell yes, but a million others will say hell no. So what’s your point?

      • iSRS - 8 years ago

        @Larz Ulrich – yes. Seems like my views of government not telling a private company to put its millions (near billions) of customers at risk for less than 1/10th of a percent of the population that MIGHT do something objectionable with their phones are totally in line with an Islamic state that supports beheading people for their beliefs. Valid argument.

      • Sebastian - 8 years ago

        If the answer to that question is no for everyone except when it’s about your own kids then probably shouldn’t be possible.

      • Howie Isaacks - 8 years ago

        That’s just more fear mongering bullshit. The same fear mongering that a totalitarian government would use.

      • pdixon1986 - 8 years ago

        @iSRS
        You are very funny — if i had a smart lock and i wasnt home and you had the app you would only be able to access the house if i have you approval via the app OR I gave you a key…

        and even if i hid the key — if you find the key and gain access without prior permission, it is still breaking an entry!!!

        When it applies to specific phones for specific criminal activity, intent etc — then i think all should comply…

        If we go back to the key — the key was a security feature added to the house to prevent access, but there has always been a way to copy that key, even security keys — and if you lock yourself out and lose access, there are still ways to get back in…
        After all, if you were trapped inside a burning building, or worse, your child was trapped inside a burning building – by your logic the fireman should wait for permission from the house maker or owner for access into the house but must only enter with a valid key and by no other means!!! – by which point your child is dead.

        Even if it wasnt a terrorist attack — but a murder a few houses down from you and a phone could hold key evidence that will make sure to send the right person to prison…
        Or what if your child dies, and you know they have photos and videos that you want to keep and cherish as a memory — how then do we gain access…

        I think if the police, FBI or whoever, issue a valid warrant – just like they do to search your property, then you should comply.

        We’re not talking about giving them the means to spy – but giving them the mean to do their jobs…

        i know that if i was missing and my phone was key to finding me, i wouldnt have any issues in the police accessing it to find me and save my life —

        I have nothing to hide — i am not doing anything illegal… the FBI can already find out most information without my phone — the phone would be for photos, contacts, messages — all of which can save valuable time in saving lives, preventing crime, putting murderers behind bars…

        Privacy is a privilege, not a right!!!

        and if criminals werent abusing the system, we wouldnt have all this!!!

        I can only assume that you are sticking up for the criminals because either you are a criminal OR you havent been affected – YET!!!

      • jooakden (@jooakden) - 8 years ago

        It’s hypothetical and a very stupid question!

      • Larz Ulrich - 8 years ago

        To iSRS / ISIS: So following a legit court order to unlock one phone is like beheading people? Are you a drama queen or just Hillary’s sister?

      • iSRS - 8 years ago

        @Larz – you can’t even keep your own comments straight. You called me isis.

      • srgmac - 8 years ago

        No. If my kid’s life was in danger they should not waste time and try to get the information some other way.

      • André Hedegaard - 8 years ago

        I would vote for and agree to do what is necessary to unlock all iPhones and save lives. Its a no brainer.

      • John Warren - 8 years ago

        To pdixon1986 You say that “Privacy is a privilege, not a right!!!” but your are totally and completely wrong and have it backwards. Privacy is a right, not a privilege!!! If you believe otherwise you shouldn’t live in a country that has a constitution as ours does that protects our rights.

        Better that 10,000 die that our constitutional rights be violated.

        Who do I say this? Because I can no longer trust our government to not stomp on them. I see too many times where law enforcement breaks into houses without search warrants, too many times where they delete photos and videos from smart phones and cameras and too many times where they make up laws because they don’t like being watched.

        Even if law enforcement was perfect if there is a back door to the phone like the government wants it WILL GET OUT TO THE BAD GUYS. It always does and it always will.

      • Kool Nightes - 8 years ago

        Key word “a” phone.. singular…. one phone which Apple said they would do

      • Brian Miller - 8 years ago

        —-Would you be ok if apple unlocked a phone if your child’s life absolutely depended on it ? Or still “HECK NO!!!”

        Let’s try a thought experiment … what if the government wanted a “kill” button, which, when pressed would literally kill any specified person in the country. Would you be okay with this? What if your child’s life absolutely depended on it?

  2. applenthusiast - 8 years ago

    Is it not that Apple doesn’t want to help but that they developed their hardware and software so they can’t help? iMessage for example is E2E encryption is it not? That’s the whole purpose behind encryption is that only the person who has encrypted or is meant to receive the encrypted information have the key.

    In my opinion the FBI doesn’t necessarily care to get in to their phone but use this as a reason to have unchecked access to every Americans phone just like the NSA had access to all of our “metadata” for phone calls.

    • Larz Ulrich - 8 years ago

      You don’t think the FBI wants to get into the phone of a terrorist? What drugs are you on?

      • srgmac - 8 years ago

        DHS already made a brute force cracker for iOS 8.1.2. It works, they have used it before. Why should Apple do the government’s dirty work for them?
        This isn’t about this one phone — this is about the future and sending a message to the industry.

    • srgmac - 8 years ago

      9to5Mac hasn’t done a good job explaining what the FBI wants and why Apple won’t comply. Here is the deal — the FBI wants Apple to build a custom iOS firmware bundle that disables the “Wipe device on 10 incorrect password tries” and also disables the timers that activate on each failed password attempt.
      This would allow the FBI to brute force the password on the device using a cracking tool, and eventually unlock it, and get access to the encrypted data contained within.
      Apple’s concerns are — if they do this this *one* time, the FBI could reverse engineer the firmware and use it again and again, without their authorization, and also give it to other departments (DEA, DHS, NSA, etc.), and who knows who would end up with this down the line and what purpose they could be using it for.
      It also sets a horrible precedent, as they are basically being ordered to purposely weaken the security on the device and do the FBI’s work for them.
      It has also come out that DHS *already* created a cracker for iOS 8.1.2 and have used it before, successfully. So why should Apple tarnish their brand and reputation when they could just do it on their own, as they have before?
      This is not about this one phone — this is about the future and public policy — Apple thinks that society as a whole should determine whether or not the government can do this — they don’t want this decided in the court system. I agree with them. This is what Ed Snowden wanted — he wanted everyone to think more carefully about how the government works behind the scenes to weaken security and take our privacy away from us.
      I #StandWithApple because it is clear they care more about my rights and my privacy than the US government does.

  3. 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….
    Use your G-car for something other than stopping for groceries on the way home or dropping kids at school…..

    • Jake Becker - 8 years ago

      Yes.

    • BMWTwisty - 8 years ago

      You actually believe the government can be trusted “to do the right thing?”

      • Larz Ulrich - 8 years ago

        They have a court order for this specific phone. Are we going to say the entire court system should be ignored so your porn surfing will be kept private?

      • Daniel Kim - 8 years ago

        Larz, how about answering the question before coming up with another stupid rhetorical question of your own?

      • Larz Ulrich - 8 years ago

        Do you know there is a Judicial part of the goverment that is separate from the Executive branch so we can have checks and balances? You don’t have to trust the government. I don’t, but when a judge issues an order, is it legal and has followed our system of laws, it should be followed. Do you know how things work this country at all? And how many people were killed when the NSA listened to all the phone lines? How many? Zero. Yup. that’s right. You have to use common sense and weight the cost. You can’t yell fire in a movie theater even though you have freedom of speech. DO you have a brain?!?!?!

      • BMWTwisty - 8 years ago

        Not only will Apple need to create this “backdoor tool” they will have set a dangerous precedent by doing . Do it once and the government will force you at another time to do it again. Hack one phone and you can prove you can hack other phones. This is a dangerous Pandora’s Box. Apple is correct to refuse the government coercion but they should continue to do so until the issue has gone through the courts and set an actual legal precedent. For Apple to do this would mean they are on record as being willing and able to sell out user security. Even Blackberry wouldn’t do this. Not only would I continue to not trust the government, I would now be suspicious of Apple and the safety of my data security. And not only are there 4th Amendment issues at stake, there are also financial issues at stake as AAPL would quite possibly be affected adversely as a result of their “hack.”

    • realgurahamu - 8 years ago

      I said the same thing – the US government these days are so lazy they have to hack a phone to gather evidence? BS!! They are trying to set a precedence whereby they can hack any phone they want at any given time – just like the FBI actively infect PCs with malware to get illegal convictions

  4. Joseph Frye - 8 years ago

    I’m all for privacy, but its funny how we give it up so willingly. Every time we fill out a contact or registration form online that requests our name, phone number, email, location, birth date, or other personal info, we give that entity all they would need to ruin our lives if they so choose.

  5. paulfj - 8 years ago

    As one of the commenters basically stated, we so often give up our privacy voluntarily. However, in those cases it needs to be stressed that it’s “voluntary.” Look, I was one of the idiots who was in favor of the Patriot Act. My bad. I’m all for the government being able to catch and prosecute criminals, but not at the expense of liberty.

    • Larz Ulrich - 8 years ago

      Please explain how this is “at the expense of liberty” when they have a legal court order issue inline with the laws of the United States?

    • Larz Ulrich - 8 years ago

      No one is asking for a tool. They are asking Apple to do something so they can try to hack the phone. I don’t think most of you have even read the story.

      • Jonathan Smyth - 8 years ago

        Apparently you did not read the article. They are asking for a tool to allow them to bypass the limit on incorrect password attempts. That tool does not currently exist. Apple would have to create it.

  6. Jake Becker - 8 years ago

    No, nope, hell no, etc

  7. webtomass (@webtomass) - 8 years ago

    When George Orwell wrote 1984 he meant it as a warning not as an instruction manual… Hell no.

  8. Millard Farquar - 8 years ago

    Guess what I heard about the government’s ability to crack any encryption is fiction. Good to know.

  9. applegetridofsimandjack - 8 years ago

    Only people who say privacy doesn’t matter to them or is less important than other things are either liars or not aware of what that even means ‘no privacy’.

  10. Georges van Hoegaerden - 8 years ago

    Yeah, but Tim is wrong. Real freedom comes from paradoxical rules of collective freedom paired with the need for individual freedom, each defined as a unique relativity every sovereign nation aspires to. Tim’s stance is naive because it assumes he thinks he can act as the keeper of such totalitarian interpretation and absolutism of freedom. An absolutism that by definition fails to encircle the needs of the world. And given that no security is unbreakable, the enforcement in the U.S. through a court order would be just fine.

  11. 89p13 - 8 years ago

    If Apple does knuckle under – The US of A might as well be China / North Korea / Pakistan / Iran or any of the other countries controlled by despots.

    Personal Privacy will just be 2 words that are oxymoronic.

  12. Could someone explain the technical details? As I understand it:

    1. If you enter too many incorrect passcodes, the iPhone locks itself and demands and iCloud password.
    2. However, in the past, the FBI has been able to detect success or failure and then rapidly power down the phone before it can record the failure somehow and/or lock itself, enabling it to iterate through the entire passcode space, but Apple updated the OS (and possibly hardware) with anti-circumvention mechanisms to prevent this attack.
    3. Apple has the ability to push “critical security patches” to iOS and OS X. (They’ve only used this once in the past I think.)
    4. The FBI is asking Apple to create a “special” patch which opens a backdoor – specifically enabling electronic passcode entry and/or disabling the mechanisms described in (2).

    Is that correct? It seems to me that the FBI could also demand that Apple allow the FBI to try millions of iCloud passwords against Apple’s own servers – much as malicious hackers did in previous iCloud breaches before Apple fixed the hole. Once the FBI guesses the correct iCloud password, it should be able to unlock the phone.

    The ability to proactively push security patches to a device seems to be a two-edged sword.

  13. 311sie - 8 years ago

    It’s the government, what could possibly go wrong?

    • Larz Ulrich - 8 years ago

      I just can’t believe that people support the terrorists over our government!?!?!?!? WTF? ISIS must be laughing at how stupid we are. We have the tools to stop them or slow them down, and a bunch of idiots in our country are saying we shouldn’t use them. Seriously, what kind of brainless people are living here? Sorry to rant, but how stupid is our society now that we help people destroys us? In WWII everyone came together and fought for our country, and sacrificed for the common good. Now we can’t even get people to give up cell phone privacy?!?!?! WAKE UP STUPID PEOPLE!!!!

      • Daniel Kim - 8 years ago

        Lol Larz, you are stupid. Very, very stupid. Have a snickers!

      • Jake Becker - 8 years ago

        Dude…. you’re a living meme.

      • hahahahaha Larz, I’m here just to read your dumbass comments. Keep going please.

  14. I think Apple should crack the phone and then hand the FBI an unlocked phone. Apple keeps their backend locked up and the FBI gets to see what the creep terrorists were up to. I don’t want Apple or anyone else to give open backdoor access to law enforcement, ever. However there should be case by case review for individual devices owned by murderers, rapists and terrorists. I think that is reasonable.

    • John Warren - 8 years ago

      I though about just this.

      Warrants can only be issued after charges have been filed and court hearings held with the defendant present along with their attorneys so they could try to squash the warrant.

      National security letters could not be use.

      FISA courts could not be used.

      Only the federal court system could be use. States would have to request a warrant through the federal court system not state or local courts. Only federal judges specially trained in constitutional law could issue warrants.

      If granted then:

      No backdoor is created.

      The government gives the phone to Apple and a government handler follows the phone and data to maintain the chain of evidence.

      Apple then takes the phone into a secure area and disassembles the phone, unlocks it then transfer the contents to two new phones phone but unlocked and not assigned to any carrier. Only Apple knows how this is done and all of the information is under Apples control with the agreement that if the government trys to gain access Apple can destroy the lad and all knowledge of how they do it.

      One of the phones goes back to the defendant or their attorney and the other goes to the government.

      The government pays all costs including the two replacement phones.

      The original phone is destroyed so the government has no way to see how Apple unlocked the phone.

      • 4nntt - 8 years ago

        They are not talking about a back door. That would be a very bad thing. They just want special firmware that allows unlimited passcode attempts. With a four digit passcode they can crack it fairly easily. The iPhone storage is actually divided up in to various buckets. Your data is encrypted separately from the operating system. They would be unable to get to your data without the passcode, but they should be able to get to the operating system. Basically they want a special build of the operating system that doesn’t wipe the device after 10 attempts. Of course the bad guys could learn from this and set their phone to use a complex password. Even just taking off the attempt limit before the device is wiped could be a dangerous precedent. Remember that other countries are looking to the US to decide their laws too. These other countries will demand the same thing we grant our government or they will ban the sale of the iPhone. A lot is at stake.

      • 4nntt - 8 years ago

        Also, Apple constantly adds new security features. This trick likely will not be possible in the future yet they may set a legal precedent for it.

      • 4nntt - 8 years ago

        Just so you know, you say this “No backdoor is created.” then describe a back door. If Apple creates a backdoor for themselves hackers will figure it out.

      • John Warren - 8 years ago

        Just to make my self clear. I DON’T EVEN WANT WHAT I POSTED IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. I’D MUCH RATHER THE PHONE REMAIN TOTALLY SECURE.

  15. yojimbo007 - 8 years ago

    Lets have another poll with a line item as follows:

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

    • iSRS - 8 years ago

      As the father of 3? No I would not. Again, all the issues you suggest would take longer than my child had.

    • Daniel Kim - 8 years ago

      Let’s put it this way: would I be okay if Apple puts millions of users’ data at risk for the sake of saving your child life? Heck no, I don’t give a crap about your child. Will I want Apple to put millions of users’ data at risk for the sake of my child? Hell yes, but a million others will say hell no. So what’s your point?

      • yojimbo007 - 8 years ago

        My point is… I guess u dont give a shit about other people’s childrens life.. But you care about other peoples data privacy on the their phone .
        I did not say that .. U did!
        And these issues would not take longer than a child’s life if provisions were in place .
        And this is the process for creating those privisions .

        And u clearly stated where u stand.

      • Daniel Kim - 8 years ago

        Lol, what’s with the strawman argument? That somehow the fact that I don’t care about other people’s children make me a monster? I care about me. I care about my data. There are millions of others who individually care about their privacy. Why should EVERYONE give up their privacy for one child? Clearly, you’d put millions in danger if it means you could save your own child, you monster.

      • @yojimbo007 “The death of one is a tragedy. The death of millions is just a statistic.”

    • iSRS - 8 years ago

      Whenever anyone wants to force their view in the name of security, they always revert to “think of the children!!l or “but the terrorist…” Or “I have nothing to hide”

      Weak arguments every time.

      • Daniel Kim - 8 years ago

        Lol, WILL ANY ONE THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN? No, it’s your own stupid spawn, stop trying to make it other people’s concerns and business. This has always struck me as a stupid strawman argument.

      • yojimbo007 - 8 years ago

        and on the counerside… People in your position resort to..’ Oh my privacy.. Oh my privacy….Screw other peoples lives.. Screw safty of other people and children.. ‘
        Is not even a rationsl discusstion.. and then you call others forcing their view?
        Its not forcing ..its discussing/arguing .. Those who cant tolerate discussing other views resort to blanket statments like u just made above.

        Again
        Its not one person safty to start with. You should know better than that,
        And the privacy issues you are talking about is a sensationalized rant. And Paranoia…its way over blown for idiology sake. Its dogma.
        We are talking about unlocking a specific phone for a good reason.. It was used by not an aleged but known terrorist. Unlocking.. Thats it. With proper court order.

        Goverment .. With proper court order can tap in any land line and has all the time when landlines were the mainstream … We are still here and alive.
        Government with proper court order can search your house… Of course with reasonsble suspicion. (The most privet place to an individual)…We are still around and alive.
        (Most sane individuals dont live in forts surrounded with moats and alligators and drawbridges.. Or nuclear bomb shelters in their property ..The paranoid do … )…

        Set the correct provisions.. Forget this dogmatic idealism… Use reason … And everyone will be better off.
        You and me and everyones children.

  16. David C'De Baca - 8 years ago

    HELL NO!!!!

  17. jessedavisblog - 8 years ago

    Curious, what allows the government to force a corporation to do work? For example, it is one thing to say, “unlock and open that door for me.” It is quite another level of burden to say, “I need you to fabricate a door, cut a hole in that wall, and install the door.” Apple employees will actually need to write code, on paid company time, in order for Apple to comply with this request. Are they then reimbursed for this activity (with taxpayer dollars)?

    Anyone have legal experience here that answer this? I know the focus is on security and privacy, but if they lose that argument based on the fact that it is for this phone and not all phones, I’m wondering about the argument concerning excessive burden on Apple to comply.

  18. Dave Huntley - 8 years ago

    It’s a tough question but in this case there is zero doubt the loser with the phone was a terrorist, so to that end…

    If he was just suspected of something no, but in this case there was zero doubt.

  19. jmarstrell - 8 years ago

    The argument that suggests your opinion would be swayed if your child’s life is involved is a good one. That is why we have a majority say, because that parent’s vote would be made under duress. Of course they would want the phone unlocked. It just can’t be used as a precedence that would be imposed on the masses.

    It would be a horrible situation to be in. Not allowing access to the phone would be a more the better choice if it protect our right to privacy.

    I say this because if it can be used for good it can be used for evil. Actually, someone that has unrestricted access could track your child so they could be kidnap them in the first place.

    Just my opinion.

  20. Larz Ulrich - 8 years ago

    So many Libtards here all about privacy and nothing about people right to life or safety. What are you doing that is so important that the Government would even care about? Get a life. No one cares about your transgender issues or what “you see yourself as”. See what’s happening in Europe and Germany. I guess that’s what you want for the USA.

    • 4nntt - 8 years ago

      Privacy is important for the same reason as the 2nd amendment.

      • Larz Ulrich - 8 years ago

        I own a glock. what does the 2nd amendment have to do with it?

    • Daniel Kim - 8 years ago

      I don’t give a crap about one person’s right to life or safety if it endangers the safety and privacy of millions. And what if the same backdoor Apple creates is used by terrorists? And terrorists use that to hack into politicians phones to reveal all our state secrets? How can you be such a tard?

      • yojimbo007 - 8 years ago

        Its not one person.. To start with. You should know better than that,
        And the risk you are talking about is a sensationalized rant. And Paranoia…

        Goverment .. With proper court order can tap in any land line and has all the time when kandlines were the mainstream … We are still here and alive.
        Government with proper court order can search you house… Of course with reasonsble suspicion. (The most privet place to an individual)…We are still around and alive.
        (Most sane individuals dont live in forts surrounded with moats and alligators and drawbridges.. Or nuclear bomb shelters in their property ..The paranoid do … )…

        Set the correct providions.. Forget this dogmatic idealism… Use reason … And everyone will be better off.
        You and me and everyones children.

      • iSRS - 8 years ago

        Yojimbo – the difference is that our phones these days contain much more that our land lines ever have.

      • Daniel Kim - 8 years ago

        Yojimbo, you are very naive if you think the US government can be trusted with such a tool You should know better than that. Aside from tinfoil conspiracy theories, the government has proven time and time again it can’t be trusted with our data or the tools it uses to access our data. The government failed to protect its millions of workers from a data breach where SSNs, fingerprints, and other sensitive data had been leaked. It’s already been exposed that the NSA, even though it may be a few employees, uses its data to stalk ex-lovers and other non-terrorist/criminal entities. Heck, we even tried giving the TSA a backdoor key to our baggage lock and look how one foolish TSA agent accidentally showed the master key on TV. Now millions of baggage can be surreptitiously opened thanks to the leak.

        This isn’t about one phone. This is software that can deployed on literally every iOS device out there. There is no good guy bad guy encryption – there is only math and math does not care if you’re a good or bad actor. If the government can hack your device, so can other bad actors (including the government). Then who will claim responsibility then? If the government is so adamant about getting into getting into this phone, why aren’t they going after the actual person or people close to this person?

      • Dave Huntley - 8 years ago

        You seem to call people “tard” a lot, just because they disagree with you. That is such a fascist point of view, I would have to say most us don’t give a crap what you say because of that.

        Many here disagree with you, does that make you a “tard” too?

      • Larz Ulrich - 8 years ago

        No one is asking for a back door.

    • mika6sic6 (@mika6sic6) - 8 years ago

      its called illegal search and seizure aka the 4th amendment of the US constitution. something us Libtards know about instead of getting spoofed what to be at arms about blindly.

    • Jake Becker - 8 years ago

      So “Government” (capitalized by you, interesting…) is good, has the tools, can be trusted, etc…..Without further huge breaches of privacy, we’re all d00med to be slaughtered by Dash. Let me quote James T. Kirk here: “What does God need with a starship?”

  21. Daniel Kim - 8 years ago

    This just in: government find out terrorists use doors and tells nation to remove their own doors for their own safety.

  22. viciosodiego - 8 years ago

    Lol.
    Thing is, they already know who he was communicating with.
    Also, someone told me that apple provided the iCloud backup.
    This is just to get the public upset.
    Americans, think carefully, and don’t let that isis bs they are putting out.

  23. David Garon - 8 years ago

    When it comes to Islamic terrorists, Apple, in cases like these should cooperate, given the consequences of this hideous “event” (Murder)!

    • Jonathan Smyth - 8 years ago

      The consequences are totally speculative at this point. No one has any idea if the phone contains anything more important than his favorite pizza order. I’m not willing to give up my rights for something so speculative.

  24. pdixon1986 - 8 years ago

    I do think it should be a case by case thing and not hand over the means to the government etc.

    In this particular case the phone belongs to a murderer — who gave up all his rights when he committed an act of crime.

    Of course I wouldnt want Apple creating a back door, nor do i want them handing over the means to the FBI etc BUT in such a serious case as this I do think they should comply… after all, if i was the victims family i would want to know that EVERYONE is doing all they can to catch those involved…

    Privacy is very important BUT when people start hiding behind privacy doors and abusing these features, then it becomes an issue.

    If terrorists changed over to iphones and bombed the crap out of America, but the FBI were able to get hold of some iphones related to the attacks — i think people would change their tune.

    I think the police, the FBI, etc should have to apply for a special warrant that comes from the courts whereby they have to submit legitimate claims to gain access to the phone.

    I’d be curious about what happens in Canada… they are permitted by law to check through your phone and computer at the airport…

    at the end of the day, privacy is reserved for those following the law and being a good person — as soon as you break the law and doing illegal acts, then you have no rights to privacy!!!

  25. gtrogue - 8 years ago

    What is really going to be great if Apple is forced to comply is when in a couple of months our politicians are screaming about human rights violations and government oppression when the Chinese ask/force Apple to do the same thing for them. Anybody remember the brouhaha from a few years back when Yahoo turned over email accounts to the Chinese. Everyone condemned it and then we did exactly the same thing. I guess since we are “the good guys” it’s okay for us.

  26. iSRS - 8 years ago

    @pdixon – “and even if i hid the key — if you find the key and gain access without prior permission, it is still breaking an entry!!!”

    That is my point. Once there is a key there, anyone can gain access to it. Thise breaking the law won’t care they don’t have your permission.

    Also, if we react to and set laws to the lowest common denominator, that is all we can ever hope to be. We should aspire to be more than that.

    Clearly you prefer to remain at the lowest point of humanity, never rising above.

    Also, I am not saying Apple shouldn’t help, they should and have stated as much.

    What I am opposed to, and what Apple is opposed to, is creating a back door or a special version of iOS for these types of scenarios. One that can be installed regardless if the phone is locked out. Thus eliminating any security. Once this version is out, it’s out. Just like the key under you doormat.

  27. Ken Porter - 8 years ago

    If the government forces tech companies to provide backdoors or similar access to electronic devices then I plan on dumping my iPhone and going back to a “dumb” phone.

  28. emperorwasajerk - 8 years ago

    Billions of dollars and 15 years of TSA, Homeland Securty, FBI and CIA tasks forces and multiple wars, thousands dead and all it comes down to someone else having to do the work for them. Good thing we all rolled over every other time the government used “the terrorists” as an excuse.

    • Larz Ulrich - 8 years ago

      So you just forget about all the things that were prevented and systems that were set up? Of course, you are tapped into the CIA and FBI, and know about everything so you can say for certain that nothing was done. If everyone hates the USA so much, why don’t you live with your muslim terrorist friends that you support so much? See what its like in Iraq, Iran, Syria if our government is so bad and evil. I’d be happy if you go there, but just don’t help them make it here like it is there. I and my family have the right to be safe and expect the government to play a role in that. If you want to protect terrorists, please go live with them.

  29. Larz Ulrich - 8 years ago

    So you just forget about all the things that were prevented and systems that were set up? Of course, you are tapped into the CIA and FBI, and know about everything so you can say for certain that nothing was done. If everyone hates the USA so much, why don’t you live with your muslim terrorist friends that you support so much? See what its like in Iraq, Iran, Syria if our government is so bad and evil. I’d be happy if you go there, but just don’t help them make it here like it is there. I and my family have the right to be safe and expect the government to play a role in that. If you want to protect terrorists, please go live with them.

  30. taoprophet420 - 8 years ago

    Apple has and will give information over to the authorities as long as the warrant is very specific to what information the authorities want excess too. Apple refuses to give full access to the entire phone and it’s encryption which Appe should do.

    The FBI wants a backdoor to any iPhone and this is what Apple is fighting. Apple will and has given very specific information, but is unwilling to give full access to the phones.

  31. srgmac - 8 years ago

    It is very refreshing to see the poll results — I have to think that Ed Snowden did not risk his life for nothing, and what he did HAS changed the national conscience when it comes to electronic security and privacy.

  32. Justin Tyler Moore - 8 years ago

    Cut off his finger to use TouchID.

  33. Veðrfölnir - 8 years ago

    After Edward Snowden, I wouldn’t trust the government farther than I could throw regarding this topic. They cannot even protect the private email account for the head of the CIA, nor protect thousands of FBI and DHS employees from hackers. For all the surveillance, 9/11 still happened. Even though they had credible evidence of an attack coming. And to hell with those who say: “I’ve got nothing to hide.” I personally might not have anything to hide, but putting a backdoor on the phones would be a Christmas present come early for all those with less than benign intentions: criminals, corporations, governments, etc. Of the more benign things that might happen is ID theft. By knowing a backdoor exists, hackers will not stop till they succeed in breaking in. Next you know, you’re browsing something-other on a website and some time later your door is knocked down by creditors wanting their money for the brand new car you didn’t buy.

    Criminals or terrorists, will just move onto different tech or go dark. Maybe they’ll start using couriers (or better yet courier pigeons) for all I know. Maybe one needs systemic change to tackle these problems instead of weakening security in an online world. Consider this, all your banking, utilities, school registration, work information, the list goes on, is online. Being granted a backdoor would give carte blanche to all the things you’d like to protect others from accessing.

    (And to yojimbo007, you are putting up straw men. I’d beg Apple to unlock your phone if I had an inkling it might save my child. I would move heaven and earth unlocking every phone if it could save my child’s life. I would die for my child. So, I am grateful it is not up to me, and hope that Apple will put a dent in its war fund fighting this. As travis2l said, HECK NO!!!!)

  34. kevinhancox - 8 years ago

    The simple answer is, NO, but if apple want to lay games then they could easily turn around and ask at who’s expense…? it would of course be at the governments, and as they are asking for a NEW OS, apple could simply give figures for developing the last OS and use that as case in point, if it cost them $2 billion as an example, that would be the cost, as they are developing a NEW OS… The government would run a mile…!

  35. Henk Koster (@hkoster1) - 8 years ago

    I’m with Apple on this, but government authorities will likely prevail in the end. That’s why I am gpg-encrypting everything I keep on iCloud. Sure, I could be forced to hand over the key, but at least I would know that they were snooping in my affairs.

  36. celitan - 8 years ago

    So here is a thought:
    The judge ruling is that apple will get paid for their efforts.
    Now, if apple starts billing say… 1000 developers on a daily basis per hour to investigate the possibility… they can drag this for years and then come back and say: we tried any way we can think of, but we could not find a solution, btw. you now owe us 50billion dollars in working hours, thank you so much!
    Think the FBI is still interested?

  37. alfredprunesquallor - 8 years ago

    The ACLU’s Amicus Brief is actually pretty enlightening. People ought to read it before working up hypothetical arguments about how their child’s life or fighting terrorism justifies tearing up the Constitution. The ACLU’s points are:

    1) Congress has previously specifically denied the kind of compelled assistance that the FBI is asking for. The All Writs Act does not authorize overturning or enacting new laws. The Constitution says only Congress can do that.

    2) What the FBI is asking Apple to do violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution by, in effect, conscripting Apple involuntarily into US Government service. There are arguments why this is different that asking the phone company to allow a tap.

    I’m not a Constitutional lawyer, but these points should give pause for thought.

    • André Hedegaard - 8 years ago

      Well, the constitution is already pretty much outdated. Written at a time before there were cars on the road. It needs to be ratified to reflect the current world we’re living in. I also don’t approve what people that were living in the 19th century to write laws that should apply to me today.

      • alfredprunesquallor - 8 years ago

        So you think it’s OK for the FBI to write it’s own laws and for you to be forced to work for the government against your will? That doesn’t sound outdated to me.

      • iSRS - 8 years ago

        There is a process in place to change the Constitution. They are called Amendments. There are 27 of them, in fact. Of the 27 Amendments? All but one still are valid.

        What, specifically, are you considering “outdated”

        That we have 3 branches of government?

        That any law not contained in the Constitution be the jurisdiction of the States?

        That the Constitution be allowed to be amended?

        That we are afforded the right of Free Speech? Freedom of Religion?

        The right to bear arms?

        Forcing citizens house soldiers?

        Preventing unreasonable search and seizure? Requiring search warrants and reasonable cause?

        The right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel?

        Preventing Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

        Abolishing Slavery?

        Defining Citizenship?

        Providing the Right to Vote?

        I found one that may be objectionable. The right to collect an income tax. You might not like that.

        Term limits for Presidents?

        Preventing a Poll Tax?

        Defining Presidential succession?

        Preventing Congress from voting for a pay raise effective in their current session.

        Really, I want to know. Please tell me which of these you find objectionable and outdated?

        Or, if you’d rather educate yourself, I found a good place to start.

        http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-7-articles-of-the-us-constitution.html

      • iSRS - 8 years ago

        Also, André, you are stating that the Constitution is outdated, about not approving laws written by people in the 19th Century, but defend the FBI using a law from the 18th century to force Apple to comply.

        Which is it?

        Do you also believe that George W Bush was simultaneously mastermind of the 9/11 attacks AND a complete ignoramus?

      • André Hedegaard - 8 years ago

        Thanks iSRS, for the link and your million questions and generally using an hour to type your post. Excuse my delay in replying as I have a day job and so not so much time to reply in depth as you do.
        No, I don’t postulate that Bush masterminded 9/11 – I think you have me confused with a conspiracy theorist.
        I’m speaking about the constitution only.
        Don’t you think laws should be changed to reflect the current basis of the world we live in?
        Apparently we’re not of the same opinion and thats ok.
        I cannot answer you rmillions questions about WHAT to change – as I’ve not studied it, reflected upon it, or researched it enough to come up with a valid answer.
        You may now proceed to gloat if you want – no offence will be taken.

  38. Vonda Lewis - 8 years ago

    How can the gov’t ask a company to join them and completely throw out integrity. That’s so 100% wrong. They have to do like before cell phones, real foot work to get details from associates of this and all other crimes, and use other accessible data. Go the traditional route detectives or hire new and smarter detectives.

  39. strawbis - 8 years ago

    So what’s to stop the feds adding\removing data/contacts and presenting the contents as “proof” of illegal/terrorist activity in association with (innocent) other/s and thereby adding said “innocent/s” to the charge sheet – two birds with one stone as it were.

    All hypothetical, but possible! and given the nature of the government organisation being dealt with in this case, the next question is; Can you trust the Feds to be honourable with the contents?

  40. Julia Medeveda - 8 years ago

    a backdoor for government is a backdoor for any clever hacker

  41. Julia Medeveda - 8 years ago

    …and for the record, i don’t have ANYTHING to hide, except my credit card numbers, may password, my postcode and house number, the days I won’t be home, the days I WILL be home :), my address book, what I say to my friends, what I say ABOUT my friends, my doctors’s appointments, my gym membership, and a few other things. But that’s all I have to hide, so why should I be bothered if anyone can break into my phone through a backdoor created by government? It’s all overhyped. GO APPLE!

  42. Mike Rapier - 8 years ago

    If your family was impacted (was killed), would you not want to see the details that could lead to answers that are not able to be found through the current hidden detail in the phone? I can’t believe this is something that is really even questionable if you put yourself in the position that you were in San Bernadino.vs. thinking allowing government top somehow impact our privacy – this in not something you will ever be impacted in your life – force Apple to allow access to your phone and need to chill on thinking this is an invasion of privacy.

    • iSRS - 8 years ago

      No one is saying it’s an invasion of privacy nor is anyone here siding with terrorism/terrorist.

      The people here that support Apple’s stance understand the full ramifications of being forced to do this. Also, most people, because of what the media is reporting and how they are reporting it, don’t realize that Apple has done, in this case, everything they have done for other cases they were provided warrants, etc.for. What they are (IMHO, rightly) fighting is being forced to weaken the security of iOS. You can believe all you want that it is “just this one phone, just this one time” but what stops the government from going to court the next time? Or when someone does something far less tragic/severe? What is to stop any other government from forcing Apple to do the same for any reason? Not all governments play as “nicely” as ours. They would all point to this “one time, one phone” as justification or PRECEDENT. That is what is at stake. Not the “protection” of this “one phone, one terrorist, one time.”

      Also, if it revealed that the FBI already had access to this phone, yet changed the password, and now is locked out, does that change your view? If the FBI is that incompetent, should Apple be forced to correct the FBI’s mistakes? I’m not sure if this is what happened, but it is being reported as a possibility. How does that hangs your view? Should we still make Apple do it “this one time for this one phone”??

  43. podboq - 8 years ago

    I don’t know if anyone’s mentioned it, but this iPhone is the legal property of the Health Department, a Government agency. That department failed to use Mobile Device Management software on the phone in question, or if they did ‘use it’, they didn’t put it to use properly. If they had, there’d be no question here at all, the device would be openable. This government agency failed to protect its hardware, and the hardware in question was used to help facilitate a massacre.

    Requiring the hardware/software manufacturer to weaken the protections around their product puts everyone who owns those products at risk. That’s why MDM software is used when distributing devices to company employees, first to protect the device itself from misuse, and secondly to prevent its usage in illegal activities, among other uses.

    Apple should in no manner comply with this court order, but rather appeal it until it lands in the lap of the Supreme Court. The legislation regarding this situation needs to be clarified, and the responsibilities of each party needs expounded upon.

    As far as I’m concerned, the blame for this mass murder lies at the feet of the people who committed it; but the failure to potentially prevent it, or others like it in the future, rests solely with the owner of the device, not with the manufacturer. Question: What legal recourse do the loved ones of a murder victim have if the murder was committed with an unsecured firearm owned by someone other than the killer? Does the government not charge the owner of the unsecured weapon?

  44. Kool Nightes - 8 years ago

    “Yes, Apple should comply with the FBI and break into the San Bernardino iPhone.”
    As it is written, I agree with, one phone, but not creating a pathway to all phones!

  45. Peggy Drake - 8 years ago

    I’m so sorry you guys have been put in this position. I purchased a apple phone due security and virus issues. If our security is based on the fact of the California shooting, its sad to say the state he worked for doesn’t have his password, It’s no wonder our state and federal government is in this state of mind. Please don’t give out any security data. Thank you in advance for protecting your data base.

Author

Avatar for Zac Hall Zac Hall

Zac covers Apple news, hosts the 9to5Mac Happy Hour podcast, and created SpaceExplored.com.