There were a few face-palm moments in yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, from committee members who appeared not to know what encryption is to Apple’s lead lawyer Bruce Sewell having to make a hasty switch from his iPad Pro to paper when the device apparently failed. (Some suggested it may simply have timed-out and auto-locked, but it’s unclear why he wouldn’t use Touch ID to let himself back in.)
Overall, though, it was a serious discussion of the issue, with each side making its points in a calm, rational manner and being subjected to many probing and intelligent questions.
It wasn’t a one-sided battle by any means. FBI Director James Comey made some solid arguments that clearly hit home. But my view is that Apple not only won on points, but also scored the knock-out blow …
You could argue that I’m biased, of course. I’m already on record – actually, since before the case – as supporting Apple’s position here. But I think even a disinterested observer would reach the same conclusion.
Let’s begin with the FBI’s case, which adopted a softer tone than we’ve heard in the past. The government has so far made much use of the phrase “going dark” to describe the ability iPhone users have to make it impossible for their data and communication to be monitored. That’s a scary-sounding phrase to the average non-tech member of the public, but one that can be pointed to as an example of hyperbole rather than rational argument.
FBI #1: ‘Warrant-proof spaces’
Yesterday, Comey introduced a new and, I would argue, much more effective phrase: ‘warrant-proof spaces.’ He is asking whether it is reasonable that Apple be allowed to create environments that cannot be penetrated by the government even when it comes armed with a search warrant.
That’s a good argument. A search warrant is granted only when a judge has weighed up the balance of good and harm that would be done, and concluded that in the specific case in question, that it is right for law enforcement to conduct a search. We allow police officers to enter private houses when armed with a warrant. We let them search cars. Even open safe deposit boxes. Why not an iPhone?
FBI #2: Costs to society
Comey also adopted a very reasonable tone. He didn’t say it was impossible to argue against this, or that Apple was necessarily wrong, he simply argued that it raised important questions.
In particular, he said, there was a cost to society in a decision being made by a corporation.
If there are warrant-proof spaces in American life, what does that mean? What are the costs? The tools we use to keep you safe are becoming less and less effective.
FBI #3: Ancient law still valid today
Addressing criticism that the FBI was using the centuries-old All Writs Act in ways that could never have been intended, Comey had a good come-back.
The Constitution is as old or older than the All Writs Act, and it’s still a pretty good document.
FBI #4(ish): No other way to get the data
He also denied that the government possessed the means to access the iPhone without Apple’s help.
If we could have done this quietly and privately, we would have done this.
Though I’ll return to that point shortly.
The FBI had earlier accused Apple of wanting to defend iPhone security for marketing purposes. Comey again toned down this language yesterday – though in a way which may put some backs up.
They sell phones, they don’t sell civil liberties. That’s our business to worry about.
FBI #5: Apple hasn’t suggested a way forward
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner also got in a good point, noting that while Apple has agreed there is a balance to be struck here between privacy and law enforcement, the company hasn’t put forward any suggestion as to how this balance might best be achieved.
You’ve told us what you don’t like. You haven’t told us one thing about what you do like. When are we going to hear about what you do like so Apple has a positive solution to what you are complaining about.
He told Sewell that while Congress could reach a conclusion without Apple putting forward its own proposal, “I can guarantee you aren’t going to like the result”.
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance weighed into the debate with what could have been a good point but turned into something of an own-goal. He repeated a statement he made last summer, that a jailed inmate had described iOS 8 as “a gift from God” as data on it was now fully encrypted.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries rather weakened the impact of this when he observed that Vance knew about this statement because it had been recorded by the prison phone system, and the inmate had been dumb enough to make the comment while staring at a notice informing him that all calls were recorded. “I have faith in your ability to outsmart the bad actors,” he said, dryly.
I think that one was successfully parried, and I’ve already given the FBI one dubious point, so I’d say that was five points to the FBI.
Apple’s general counsel Bruce Sewell (top photo) found part of his argument already conceded by Comey.
Apple #1: This could never be undone
Despite initially claiming in a blog post that the Bureau was not attempting to set a precedent with this case, the FBI director later admitted that it likely would – an admission repeated at the hearing. Sewell hammered home the point that this is a one-way street – once the tool has been invented, it cannot be uninvented.
Once you take that step, once you create the mechanisms to unlock the phone, then you’ve created a back door.
Cybersecurity professor Susan Landau, testifying on Apple’s side, agreed.
The fact is that the software cannot be developed, used, and deleted. Given that the phone’s data may be used in investigations and court cases, the “break-in” software must remain available for examination. The longevity of the update code constitutes the first risk for Apple’s iPhone users.
Apple #2: It wouldn’t just affect older iPhones
Sewell rubbished claims that the tool would only work on older iPhones like the 5c in question, and wouldn’t work on later models with a Secure Enclave.
The tool we’re being asked to create will work on any iPhone in use today: it’s extensible.
Apple #3: The tool could fall into the wrong hands
But legal precedent wasn’t, he said, the main risk. Once the tool exists, there is always the risk that it would get into the wrong hands – a point which Comey conceded but dismissed as a “hypothetical scenario.” Laundau said that view was nonsense.
If the information on the phone is accessible to Apple, it will be accessible to others—and this promising and important solution to protecting login credentials […] will be ineffective. That’s why locking down the data is so crucial for security. Rather than providing us with better security, the FBI’s efforts will torpedo it.
She very effectively drove this point home.
All it takes for things to go badly wrong is a bit of neglect in the process or the collaboration of a rogue employee. And if the FBI, CIA, and NSA can suffer from rogue employees, then certainly Apple can as well. A phone that an unfriendly government, a criminal organization, or a business competitor wants to examine receives a signed security update from Apple. This enables the government, criminal group, or competitor to probe the smartphone and read its data when the smartphone is taken during a customs inspection, a theft, or a meeting in which all electronic devices are kept outside the room.
Sewell contradicted previous reports that the problem couldn’t arise because the FBI was asking for the bypass to be done in Apple’s own labs. Sewell said that the agency wants Apple to put the compromised version of iOS onto a hard drive and send it to the FBI. I was almost tempted to give Apple an extra point for that.
Apple #4: We all have legitimate things to hide
Landau successfully demolished the suggestion that only criminals and terrorists with things to hide have anything to fear.
Smartphones are increasingly becoming wallets, providing access to accounts (not only financial, but also various online accounts, such as Dropbox), and storing emails and notes, including ones from meetings or design drawings and the like. For many people their personal smartphone acts as a convenient temporary repository for proprietary work information, information they know they ought to protect but rarely do as carefully as they ought. There are other ways of using phones for authentication; these rely on the device’s security.
Apple #5: Repressive regimes will want it too
She also pointed out that once the U.S. government has been given access to a master key, other governments around the world will demand the same.
There is no question that authoritarian governments in such countries as Russia and China will demand Apple deliver the same software that is it has been ordered to develop to handle Farook’s work phone. Apple’s ability to resist such demands is made much more difficult if it has already created the code for US government use.
Comey was again forced to admit that this was a possibility.
There will be international implications, but we’re not sure of the scope just yet.
Apple #6: The FBI doesn’t need Apple’s help in such cases
Landau pointed out that it wasn’t true that the government had no way to access the iPhone without Apple’s help. She described the chip de-capping technique pointed to by Edward Snowden, said that wiretaps were available in future cases and hinted that the NSA may have capabilities the FBI doesn’t.
Although the FBI has been expressing great concern since the early 1990s that encryption would prevent law enforcement from wiretapping, the sky has apparently not fallen—at least for the NSA.
Comey bolstered this case by coming clean about the iCloud password change, admitting now that it was a mistake after an earlier FBI statement brushed aside the suggestion.
Apple #7: This would breach both First and Fifth Amendments
And if the logical arguments weren’t enough, Sewell also made the legal argument Bloomberg revealed a week ago: that compelling Apple to write code against its will was a violation of both First and Fifth Amendments. The Supreme Court has already recognized computer code as protected speech under the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment protects Apple against coercion.
So Apple won on points, with a score of 7:5 – but it also won in a more meaningful way. Apple had argued all along that this issue was far too important to be settled in court on the basis of a single case. That it has such huge implications that it should be a matter for legislators not judges. The case should, it said, be decided by Congress.
It looks to me like Apple is set to get its way. We’ve already had one hearing in Congress, and committee members on both sides appeared to agree that the issue is indeed so important that Congress is the appropriate forum. Even Comey seemed to accept as much, saying that “we must continue the current public debate.”
The court case will continue in the meantime, but it looks to me that the issue will indeed eventually be settled – one way or the other – by legislation passed in 2016, rather than by a court’s interpretation of an Act dating back to 1789. Apple scored the knock-out punch.
Photos: AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana; popsci.com; Wikipedia
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Bloody great article….and I haven’t even finished it!
As to #1 “We let them search cars. Even open safe deposit boxes. Why not an iPhone?” the Dutch are a bit(!) different: a cop isn’t even allowed to search a person on the street. People are protected by many laws. For instance, The Netherlands is the only country in the world that doesn’t allow for a person to take a picture of you and publish it somewhere, be that in a book, online, whatever. (portretrecht / portrait rights)
I’m afraid you’re wrong. I don’t know about other countries, but at least Belgium and France have the same portrait rights…
Really? That’s great to hear! I read this only applied in The Netherlands; BIG thanks for posting this!
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements
Now that’s what eye call an iOpener! Thanks for making me see the bigger picture!
Ok, so, only The Netherlands and Singapore are a big NO, with the US being a bit of an iffy. Thanks for the link.
Yes, only the netherlands being a big NO, only here “NO” means that no consent is needed :p So the netherlands, singapore and hong kong are the most open to just publishing random people’s pictures :p
Well this is embarrassing, I’m a complete fool. Thanks for setting me straight!
Time reported that the President was not allowed to use an iPhone because it was not secure enough. So, what phone does the President use and will his phone also be compromised?
What about this?
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35611763
Well the President was using a Blackberry phone as far as I know. But by now who doesn’t know that there’s BackDoor’s in their phone, well at least in BBM as they’ve given out that key to a number of countries!!!
Odd though isn’t it – if the phone which is at the centre of all this WASN’T an iPhone you would all be clamouring to make sure Blackberry, Samsung or anyone else cracked it for the good of the American people and if they didn’t then they should be brought to task for it. See, this has NOTHING to do with the security of the American people and EVERYTHING to do with techno-jingoism and it’s evident by the many statements of Apple 1 – FBI 0 and it’s ilk.
John McAfee is truly a shell of his former self. So sad to see someone I once respected and believed in drop to the low he’s at now.
Good Luck John – Get Help!
The method John McAfee proposed is called “social engineering” which has nothing to do with the operating system encryption. To put it simple it is just a more intelligent way to guess or indirectly obtain someone’s password. (If the target is still alive it could sometime involve more phone call than the attackers’ ability to crack computer code. Here is a famous example of a social engineering attack: http://www.wired.com/2012/08/apple-amazon-mat-honan-hacking/ )
That was the original plan of his – but then someone clued him into the current reality (“the guy is dead, John. How do we Social Engineer his password from a dead man?”) so John had to come up with a better solution. Ready – especially all you HW / SW Engineers – I quote:
“Now I’ll probably lose my admission to the world hackers’ community, however, I’m gonna tell you. You need a hardware engineer and a software engineer. The hardware engineer takes the phone apart and it [sic] copies the instruction set, which is the iOS and applications [sic] and your memory, and then you run a piece, a program called a disassembler which takes all the ones and zeroes and gives you readable instructions. Then, the coder sits down and he reads through, and what he’s looking for is the first access to the keypad, because that’s the first thing you’re doing when you input your pad. It’ll take half an hour. When you see that, then you reads the instruction for where in memory this secret code is stored. It is that trivial. A half an hour.”
Here’s the link for the full article:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/03/john-mcafee-better-prepare-to-eat-a-shoe-because-he-doesnt-know-how-iphones-work/
John – Please – Get Help!
Many people are probably a bit lost on this Apple/FBI issue. You probably have a lot of questions. I’d like to answer some of those questions for you.
“Why doesn’t Apple just unlock that one phone?”
Apple cannot make software designed to ONLY break into this phone. The software would be able to break into ANY iPhone. This software does not exist today. Apple would have to create this software and sign it with their unique signature (that allows it to install over your current version of iOS), something only Apple can do.
“What’s wrong with creating the software?”
Once this software falls into the wrong hands, hackers can do this to ANYONE’s phones. Apple is smart enough to know that after they create this software, hackers will be gunning to obtain it from their servers and anyone to whom it is distributed (i.e. the FBI). It only takes about 5 minutes of Googling to see that the FBI has been hacked plenty of times and Apple isn’t invulnerable either. Once that software lands in the wild, we are ALL vulnerable.
“So iPhones are secure, but Apple’s and the FBI’s servers aren’t?
Correct! iPhones are ONLY secure because of the really strict guidelines in place on them (particularly once they are locked). Apple’s and the FBI’s servers cannot employ such techniques or they would lose the flexibility required for them to do their job. iPhones are, by nature, inflexible. This is why Android fans talk about iPhones being “dumb”, “inflexible”, and “not customizable”. They are correct (except for the “dumb” part, that is subjective). These are the qualities that we give up for the type of security that even the FBI can’t get into.
“Why doesn’t Apple just create it to unlock this one phone and then destroy it?”
It would take a team of six to ten Apple engineers somewhere in the neighborhood of two to four weeks to complete this software. That sounds like no problem if it saves a few lives, right? But, there is a bigger problem here.
Our legal system works on a system of precedents. Once something has been decided once in court, it is then used as a benchmark of law in the future. Forcing Apple to build this software once means that the legal precedent has now been set and Apple (and other software companies) can be forced to make this type of software OVER and OVER again for law enforcement. The FBI Director James Comey told congressional intelligence UNDER OATH that this outcome is likely to “guide how other courts handle similar requests”.
“Well, why not just do that? It’s not a big deal if it saves lives!”
District Attorney Cyrus Vance was quoted as saying that he has 175 cases of locked iPhones awaiting the outcome of this FBI case! That means Apple would have to create and destroy this software 175 times!
If we take the mean of Apple’s resource allocation estimates, that means that they would have to devote 8 employees for over 10 years just to handle the issues currently in the queue. But, since that would be unacceptable, let’s say they cut it down to 6 months. They would need to increase the employees on the case by a factor of 20 to achieve that. That means that Apple would have to allocate 160 employees for the next 6 months to work on the current cases! But, Apple is a private company. They do not work for the government. They have no legal obligation to “work” for the FBI in such a way.
It then follows that the only way to make this a viable option is to NOT destroy the software every time. And guess where we find ourselves? Right back at “What’s wrong with creating the software?”!
This is a very important issue and many people have been falsely misled by the emotional connection to the story with the media throwing around phrases like “terrorist” and “lives could be saved”. But, the fact is that the FBI simply wants this software so they have access to your data whenever they want it. Our government has proven that they will do whatever it takes to gain access to your data and they won’t stay within the letter of their own laws when they do it (Google “PRISM Surveillance Program” for more info).
This issue will affect all of us. Even if you don’t have an iPhone, this precedent will enable the vulnerability of every smart device in your life for the foreseeable future.
Agree with Landau.
Our smartphones hold most of our important info.
Apple pay, kids and family locations, banking info, legal documents, passwords, private text messages, among other things.
Imagine what would happen if the government got its way.
Massive data leeks and identity theft.
And for anyone thats trying to use “but the terrorists”, They have hackers that can perfectly create encryption software if they want to.
I think another 9to5mac reeder pointed this out indirectly.
Exactly!
This is not ‘security vs privacy’ it is ‘small security risk vs large security risk’.
Excellent summary/recap, Ben.
Perhaps I am naive, but I do believe that Congress will make the final ruling, and have a little faith that they will want to side on the right side of History. If not, I am sure Apple will comply.
Note to all in the US. Write your senators, your representatives. This is important, especially in an election year. Make your voice heard. It’s the only way they will know what We the People want.
Find/Contact your Representative –> http://www.house.gov
Find/Contact your Senator –> http://www.senate.gov
Top right of both pages.
Ben – My first reply to this is “awaiting moderation” – Is there a way to find out what may have triggered that?
I believe anything with a link is flagged for review – it’s been approved now.
I watched most of the proceedings, and it generated 2 questions in my mind.
1, They kept saying that this created a ‘warrant proof-space’ – as if that doesn’t already exist. You might be able to search me, my house and my car, but what if I buried ‘the body’, or the information you are trying to find in a hole in the ground in the middle of a forest? What if I tied it to a rock and threw it into the ocean? If I don’t tell you where these places are, they are pretty warrant proof. In fact ‘where did you hide the money’ is a question asked in many crime movies. And having a warrant doesn’t help in these cases.
I like the shredder analogy they talked about. What if the bad guys here wrote all the details onto a sheet of paper, along with their next targets, then shredded it with a top of the range shredder. Could a court order force the shredder manufacturer to reassemble the paper?
2, Issuing a court order to write this software sounds pretty similar to issuing a court order to force a company to develop faster than light travel. People may or may not be working towards that goal, but a court order isn’t going to make it happen, or make it possible.
FB #1
Apple are not designing ‘warrant proof spaces’.
They are designing ‘secure spaces’.
No one is arguing that these spaces are not subject to a warrant.
The problem is that the FBI cannot carry out the warrant. The question is whether Apple can be forced to work for the government to do what the FBI say they can’t.
‘Secure spaces’ are essential to the way the modern world operates. To weaken them is to put the security of all in danger and would ultimately be a far bigger problem for law enforcement.
The question of “do we want a world with no warrant proof spaces” is mute because we do not have a choice, the technology is unstoppable so long as people anywhere in the world are able to write code.
The simple fact of the matter is the COURT can issue a warrant to the owner of the phone to unlock the device. If refused, thrown into jail until they do. That’s one thing, but trying to force APple to write some modified code to unlock phones is a whole different matter.
IIRC – The court has ruled that if you have a device with a thumb / finger scanner, they can force you to unlock the device with said thumb / finger BUT – they cannot force you to input your access code – that’s protected under the fifth amendment ruling.
Which is why, when Apple released the first finger scanner phones, people were told to completely power-off the phone before the LEO got to you or your phone.
Great article. Thanks. The Warrant-proof Spaces is the scary one for me. The FBI is basically saying that they have the right to eves drop on you wherever and whenever. Period. You’re not entitled to privacy. I was talking with my wife this morning, what happens when the tech gets small enough to be implanted (yeah I know, SciFi stuff but you know its being worked on)? Does the government actually think they’ll have the right to hack our brains???
Well – there are some documents on-line that says that several of the 3 letter US agencies have the technology to turn on your computer and smartphones communications interfaces (cameras and microphones) without your knowledge or permission, so if you are talking to someone within range of one of these devices – they won’t need to hack your brain to retrieve that data.
It’s becoming a very Orwellian world with the technology we willingly surround ourselves with.
YMMV
The past and CURRENT misconduct of the “trust us, we know what’s best” Government has become so outrageous that they have lost the right to simply trample our rights at will.
And for those who say you have nothing to worry about if you are not doing anything wrong—- look at the character and business assasinations that have taken place under democrat and republican administrations…..!!!
But, John Evos – The Donald has said that IF he is elected – he will open up the “Libel Laws” — Which, in the event that he is elected, would give all his political opponents free reign to sue him for all the falsehoods and lies he has spread about them during this angry campaign.
New principle here – count the number of arguments made and the one with the most wins? Not sure it works like a tennis match.
Apple continues to cement their new status as the terrorist/drug dealer/child molesters defender. But I do agree with the argument that this ought to be decided by new law – a law made centuries before mobile phones even existed is not a satisfactory route to deciding this.
Meanwhile, it still leaves Apple deliberately obstructing law enforcement to increase their profits.
The points are of course a whimsical literary device. What I set out to do was summarise the case made by each side, and to express my view that Apple was the winner here because it looks likely to get what it set out to achieve: have the matter settled by Congress rather than in the courts.
The points are of course a whimsical literary device. What I set out to do was summarise the case made by each side, and to express my view that Apple was the winner here because it looks likely to get what it set out to achieve: have the matter settled by Congress rather than in the courts.
“Deliberately obstructing law enforcement” is a bit strong. it’s not like this technology exists and has been sitting on some server somewhere and they choosing to play keep-away with the FBI. It’s a costly time consuming piece of software that will compromise their own products.
It’s also been said by Apple, the FBI, and the local police, that Apple has done everything possible to assist the FBI (aside from deliberately wasting company resources to compromise their own product)
So while I don’t think you’re not the only person on the planet who things that believes “Apple continues to cement their new status as the terrorist/drug dealer/child molesters defender.” you are part of a VERY small minority of people who aren’t willing to look at all sides of a very complex issue. (and your group isn’t exactly going to grow making wild exaggerated statements like that… just saying)
Funny the likes of you assailing Apple for – factually, according to you, where’s your proof? – defending child molesters. Because it seems like every other day I run across an article of a cop getting busted for little kiddie porn and a couple of slaps on the wrist. Hey, now that I think about it, they also exist to enforce unethical laws which govern what I can put into my body, and set up elaborate temptation traps to lull addicts in for arrest and a fatter bottom line. So far, cops factually check 2 of the 3 boxes you accuse Apple of………funny that….
I don’t know if a back door can be created for specifically just the creator of the OS and no one else, unless it was a hardware base device like one of those Secure ID devices that some companies use to get into their VPN network. But I doubt that would be easy to implement.
They sell phones, they don’t sell civil liberties. That’s our business to worry about.
Nonsense. The FBI is not in the business of civil liberties. They are in the business of just how far they can push YOUR civil liberties in the prosecution of their job
FBI #1: ‘Warrant-proof spaces’ is NOT a good Argument. I make up a code, and use it with one other person to do “crime”, pick one from terrorism to buying a joint. The FBI can, just as they did the with iPhone, get the information. Now if they can’t interpret it, think Windwalkers during WWII, that is there bad. They have the information, they have served and received it. That is the extent ANYONE, including Apple is forced to do. To interpret it, sure they can ask Apple. And anyone else, but no one need comply.
FBI #2: Costs to society is NOT a good argument. Believe it or not, police can and do arrest, prosecute, and convict people without ANY electronic information. The cost of this subpoena free zone is the FBI must do more work, and that is not a bad thing. Look at the Dread Pirate Roberts/Silk Road debacle. No matter were you fall on his guilt, the FBI hacked into a system with no warrant, no court supervision. Some people argue since the server was outside the US, they had no need. But if you think they always follow the rules, you are ignorant or a fool…or an ignorant fool. This protect society from government intrusion and overreach. you don’t like Silk Road, look at StingRay, and U.S. Marshalls, yes U.S. Marshalls, advising local agencies to “file the warrant listing confidential source”, rather than say it was a technological tool. Apple should be working on a way to make Stingray worthless, not because they support criminals, but because they support privacy. We have no clue how the government uses this. So cost to Society, lets get a full accounting of how the FBI has abridged our freedoms thus far before we go further.
FBI #3: Ancient law still valid today. The FBI and electronics were not even around. The founding fathers and Washington who signed it, never expected something like a smartphone. It’s become an electronic priest/spouse to a lot of people. It has more information than any one document/location is every likely to have, and as such should require a review from this century.
FBI #4(ish): No other way to get the data. Does anyone really believe the NSA can’t crack the encryption in weeks if not hours? My guess is the NSA didn’t want to waste its time. And the FBI thought, TERRORISM and a way to force apple on this case to set a precedent for …. wait for it, Drug Cases and everything else. Pedofiles wasn’t fearful enough, mass shootings, yeah thats the ticket. Forget worrying about China, in fact Mr. Director….don’t even think China. Good Job Mr. Director.
FBI #5: Apple hasn’t suggested a way forward. Because they can’t say what I will, THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND. It is the worst of society that proves the best of our principles. In this case the principles of privacy and freedom (Apple’s) are at stake. And no one wants to say “protect the terrorist, so we protect everyone”. They chose that argument to make Apple look bad, and they know it. They bought up terrorism and pedofiloes, you notice they didn’t mention any of the drug cases that they also want the phones unlocked for…..Why, because it won’t be as sensational. Its dishonest cherry picking, and willful ignorance at best.
While I agree that this should not be up to individual trial judges, excuse me if I don’t have much faith in Congress to do the right thing. The reason is simple.
Imagine a member of Congress, lets call him Senator Smith, is deciding whether to support a bill to protect people’s privacy on their phones and devices. To allow secure communication and encryption. In the back of his head will be the knowledge that the next time he runs, his opponent will run ads saying “Senator Smith voted to protect pedophiles with pictures of your children on their phones.” and “Senator Smith voted to allow ISIS Cells to operate in your neighborhood by not allowing law enforcement to check on their communication.”
Sorry but I just don’t expect most Senator Smiths to have enough courage to stand for a principle when they know it will be twisted by their opponents in the next election. This is not a party issue either. It’s a broken political system issue.
That is a real concern. It is up to us to keep that message from being perverted. The simple fact is that the majority of people need to understand. I know that is a lot to ask these days.
#1 is the crux of the issue. Yes, we do “allow police officers to enter private houses when armed with a warrant.”
But this is a question vs. legal vs. logistical access.
Is a building contractor breaking the law by building a bunker that is beyond the technical ability of the police or himself to penetrate it?
Can he be forced by the government to build police access into all of his jobs?
I don’t understand the “Warrant-proof space” argument.
How is this any different than if someone had a safe in their house?
Even if the police have a warrant they do not have access to the contents of the safe. They would have to “crack” the safe to get at the contents. Their ability to do so is what would get them inside, not the warrant.
There are tons of “warrant-proof spaces” in existence today. The problem isn’t the spaces it is, as Landau pointed out, the FBI’s lack of skill at operating in the 21st century.
At the end of the day – if Apple can create a tool to access it — someone else out that could… it’s just a matter of time.
Regardless… if the FBI were able to obtain a warrant to the phone, by law Apple should comply – if they shouldnt, why have a warrant system, why have the courts, why have a legal system etc.
As for using ‘out of date documents” etc — if the FBI cannot use the All Writs – then all americans should stop hiding behind and outdated document that allows them easy access to guns — which many people would still be alive today after recent events, and this privacy issue probably wouldnt be happening right night.
whenever ive seen cop shows, airport shows, security shows — the thing i hear the most “if you have nothing to hide then you will have nothing to fear”
I still stand by the fact by agreeing with Apples stance you are creating a very secure platform for criminals, terrorists, etc to use and to continue what they are doing in private…and that anyone broadcasting their views on sites like this, or any social sites about protecting their privacy is already giving away their privacy — if you care so much — stop using the internet…
Facebook support apple — but they have often given away privacy stuff etc…they even look at sites you search to provide ads for you… they even check through your friends lists to suggest other friends…
It’s a complete joke.
“if Apple can create a tool to access it — someone else out that could”
I don’t believe so. The tool would have to be signed by Apple for the iPhone to accept it.
“if the FBI cannot use the All Writs”
The founding fathers had no idea how their Constitution would be applied in centuries to come. That is why they included an amendment system. The All Writs Act was intended to be used in time of National Emergency (which this isn’t) and for limited scope, (which this isn’t). It was intended if they needed to use your cart, borrow your horse, demand you make us some gunpowder. It was not intended to allow the government to force an individual or a company to redesign their product to make their job easier. They never intended it to be a free pass to force us to help them to do whatever they want.
“whenever I’ve seen cop shows, airport shows, security shows — the thing i hear the most “if you have nothing to hide then you will have nothing to fear””
A very poor source of information. More to the point, EVERYONE has something to hide. If the FBI can hack into your phone or computer, the tools will escape. Then anyone can hack into your phone and computer and look through your financial records, bank records, personal correspondence, etc. etc. This would be a far worse tool in the hands of stalkers, psychopaths, and jilted lovers. This is why the tool must not be made.To a great extent this is not a battle about letting the FBI in. It is a battle about letting everyone in, and yes it is an all or nothing proposition.
“I still stand by the fact by agreeing with Apples stance you are creating a very secure platform for criminals, terrorists, etc to use and to continue what they are doing in private”
Criminals and “terrorists” also use the roads. Should we let the police stop anyone without cause. They use houses, should we let them come in anywhere they want and search in case something might be going on? Sorry but I don’t want to live in North Korea thank you.
“Facebook support apple ”
Irrelevant. And for what it’s worth I don’t use Facebook for anything but logging into forums like this.
Facebook was just one of many examples — most people have some kind of connection with a social site, people also have phone numbers and email accounts… all of which can easily be accessed without an iphone… Android is a lot more vulnerable too, microsoft is worse…
As regards to letting criminals etc use houses, roads etc — haha… of course… the warrant procedure allows police access to your house, your car, your laptop…with just cause a police can pull you over too — so by your logic, the police should have rights to your phone with just cause (in this case they do have just cause).
Again — if this is really a battle about keeping everyone out – then why arent facebook, twitter, banks, google, microsoft etc all jumping on board with the same encryption process??? — some are backing Apple, yet still leave their software open to attacks, with backdoor access —
Banks are the worse — a few questions is all you need for most accounts to change hands… a name and address is all you need to set up accounts…
So this isnt about all or nothing…
It’s about one company who wants control.
Everyone does have something to hide — but not everyone has something illegal to hide… the FBI etc are only going to be interested in you if you are acting strangely, make certain threats, go to certain countries…
All your travel plans are linked to your passport…
The privacy thing is stupid — we have very little privacy in almost everything we do…cameras are everywhere, internet is monitored, records are kept of us — every time we use an atm, or pay a bill, or buy something — it is all logged.
So yes… in an ideal world we would all go about our business, no one would care, we would all obey the law, and we would have perfect privacy — but because we live in a world where ‘everyone’ has something to hide, where most people do commit at least one crime in a lifetime, that criminals exist, people snap and murder people – then we dont deserve privacy… i would much rather continue to be watched knowing that whatever evidence is collected can be used to put bad people behind bars…
In short — the apple privacy thing is about giving the people the power of privacy – which is a very dangerous weapon because it is far easier for the wrong person to get hold of it…
already this case is protecting at least one criminal.
drug dealers will all go and buy iphones now, pedophiles will get the 128gb to store their photos and videos, terrorist will use iphones and ipads to plan their attacks…
Privacy is awesome!!!… Thanks America.
I wasn’t able to watch/listen to the entire conference (stupid job I’m getting paid to do) but I managed to catch Mr. Issa’s comments and I was blown away. The idea that the FBI could simply copy the HDD of the phone to a couple thousand images and brute-force each one until it destroys itself was rather brilliant and seems to me the best and simplest option.
As much as the FBI touts the idea that they’ve done everything possible before taking the matter to the courts speaks to the ineptitude of the FBI’s technical staff.
Then again maybe Issa’s idea is crap and the FBI tried that but I’ve yet to see anything stating otherwise.
Dammit! :( Apple is winning so far. Hate that corporations can get away with murder! Claiming to “ensure our privacy” yet letting thousands of possible terrorists come and kill us. Thanks Apple, you make great tech, but LOUSY morals and ethics!
Sir, we know you disagree with Apple, and that certainly is your prerogative. I would like to advise you to instead of repeating your stance, you can educate yourself and get the facts straight. While the Internet is a cesspool with a lot of noise, I’d suggest you start reading the journalistic artciles on this site.
Since this FBI/Apple dispute has hit the media, I’ve read thousands of words pro and con both sides. I have yet to see any mention of the few succinct and most apropos words that still summarize my thoughts on the dispute. They are the wise words of Benjamin Franklin:
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
That quote is completely overused in every situation possible. I don’t think Benjamin if he were alive today would agree to his own quote. You cannot use something from a previous century and superimpose it into our modern times.
And to be honest with you, who the hell he thinks he was, to say that a person deserves neither liberty nor safety for sacrificing a little liberty?
He should have been ashamed of himself.
I sacrifice some liberty by waiting at a red stop light, instead of just going ahead, I sacrifice this, because its safer for me and others in traffic.