Not getting an iPhone, even secured - Check!
I bet hardware vendors are just salivating at the concept of having to produce thousands of iPhone cracking docking stations.
A Message to Our Customers
11–20 of 1001 posts
Re: A Message to Our Customers
#12With the due legal process the police can search property, safety deposit boxes, bank accounts, vehicles, etc. etc. Why should a smartphone be any different just because Apple says it is ? As much as I value privacy I really don't agree with Apple's stance here - if due legal process has been followed, why shouldn't they be able to read the contents of an iPhone ? And yes I get that third party encryption can be used…
The major difference is that a warrant to access a safety deposit box allows the keys for that specific safety deposit box and no other. What the FBI is asking for is the equivalent of asking for a master key to all the safety deposit boxes to access just the one box. Given what was revealed in the summer of 2013 by Snowden, I think we'd all agree that the FBI and other state agencies (not just American agencies) will use the software as a backdoor to access whichever iPhone they choose. Let's not be naive.
Re: A Message to Our Customers
#13With the due legal process the police can search property, safety deposit boxes, bank accounts, vehicles, etc. etc. Why should a smartphone be any different just because Apple says it is ? As much as I value privacy I really don't agree with Apple's stance here - if due legal process has been followed, why shouldn't they be able to read the contents of an iPhone ? And yes I get that third party encryption can be used…
This is not the government asking to search a single vehicle or safebox, to take your examples. This is the government asking that every safebox or vehicle in the world be made instantly unlockable by design.
Exactly. I think OP is a bit fast and loose on the definition of area of interest.
It's not that it's bad if it's this case. It's that is bad if it applies as a built-in backdoor for whenever they feel like using it.
Re: A Message to Our Customers
#14Im generally not an apple supporter(i dont like the closed eco system), i am very plesantly surprised they posted this.
I am quite disappointed that the us courts are trying to force apple todo this, and in my opinion, its just to use this case to set a precedent.
I hope Apple cant get it to work, but id hate to see what the courts would do if that happened.
Re: A Message to Our Customers
#15With the due legal process the police can search property, safety deposit boxes, bank accounts, vehicles, etc. etc. Why should a smartphone be any different just because Apple says it is ? As much as I value privacy I really don't agree with Apple's stance here - if due legal process has been followed, why shouldn't they be able to read the contents of an iPhone ? And yes I get that third party encryption can be used…
The major difference is that a warrant to access a safety deposit box allows the keys for that specific safety deposit box and no other. What the FBI is asking for is the equivalent of asking for a master key to all the safety deposit boxes to access just the one box. Given what was revealed in the summer of 2013 by Snowden, I think we'd all agree that the FBI and other state agencies (not just American agencies) wil…
Well the FBI would have to have the iPhone in their possession to unlock it I presume. SO that's one level of security - I don't think the USA has become a place where property can just be confiscated without reason (I hope I am right here). If Apple were custodians of the unlock process then only once due legal process had been followed would an iPhone be unlocked i.e. Apple would own the unlocking mechanism. Maybe in the CEOs safe...
Re: A Message to Our Customers
#16With the due legal process the police can search property, safety deposit boxes, bank accounts, vehicles, etc. etc. Why should a smartphone be any different just because Apple says it is ? As much as I value privacy I really don't agree with Apple's stance here - if due legal process has been followed, why shouldn't they be able to read the contents of an iPhone ? And yes I get that third party encryption can be used…
I don't think that the police can compel you to not make a very good safety deposit box, just to compel you to open it if you have the capabilities.
I agree that due process should compel Apple to unlock if they have the capabilities to. But no subpoena can beat math, right?
EDIT: I just realised that what the FBI is talking about is a backdoored version of iOS. To me the compromise seems to be writing the backdoored version but leaving it in Apple's hands (so Apple could send the FBI the data but not send them the OS). The only problem with that, of course, is that such a backdoored version could then be taken by a judge.
Honestly, it seems like the judge could force Apple to hand over the OS update signing keys to the FBI...
Re: A Message to Our Customers
#17The fact that they can create this backdoor, doesn't that mean it already exists? What Apple needs to do then instead of writing this letter, is release an update that closes this backdoor.
[deleted]
Re: A Message to Our Customers
#18I really hope they actually physically can't access the data on this phone. It's entirely possible this could be the case -- I've been trying to consider the vectors they could use:
- lightning cable delivered iOS patch (probably won't work because iOS won't negotiate over USB until you tap a dialog box)
- OTA update (not connected to internet)
- Cracking open the device and accessing the storage directly (encrypted until boot time)
The most likely vector I can think of:
- - Lightning cable delivered iOS patch from a trusted computer (i.e one that the terrorists actually owned)
It's quite impressive that Apple is taking a stand like this, though perhaps unfortunate timing WRT the larger encryption debate.
Re: A Message to Our Customers
#19With the due legal process the police can search property, safety deposit boxes, bank accounts, vehicles, etc. etc. Why should a smartphone be any different just because Apple says it is ? As much as I value privacy I really don't agree with Apple's stance here - if due legal process has been followed, why shouldn't they be able to read the contents of an iPhone ? And yes I get that third party encryption can be used…
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Re: A Message to Our Customers
#20Even though the matters are slightly different, I couldn't help but think that Cook is giving off a Boards of Canada vibe in this post (in a good way).
"Now that the show is over, and we have jointly exercised our constitutional rights, we would like to leave you with one very important thought: Some time in the future, you may have the opportunity to serve as a juror in a censorship case or a so-called obscenity case. It would be wise to remember that the same people who would stop you from listening to Boards of Canada may be back next year to complain about a book, or even a TV program. If you can be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you can be told what to say or think. Defend your constitutionally protected rights - no one else will do it for you. Thank you."