If they actually manage to break into the phone, will that damage Apple's reputation in the realm of security?
Anybody have any ideas what this 3rd party method could be?
U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
201–210 of 246 posts
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
This one time, this specific case, Apple pushed back. They need to be commended for that, but let's not forget all the other times (and there are very many) when they (and all tech companies) just handed over the data when given a valid warrant.
I definitely expect Apple to comply with valid warrants to the extent possible. Is there a serious belief that Apple should flout the law? Is there a company in the world that obstructs justice in their home country?
I need to explain myself a bit more clearly.
For many years all tech companies have, as expected, complied with warrants. We don't expect otherwise.
Now, in this one case, Apple is fighting the warrant.
And some people are saying "Look how great Apple is; they really care about your privacy".
Well, no, not really. Apple isn't as bad as some, but they still gather too much data and they still (as they should) obey any warrant they're given.
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#203Wouldn't it be great if Apple sued the FBI for details of the exploit, for public interest reasons
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#204There is always a coward willing to sell out their freedom and yours for their own profit & "security".
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
I definitely expect Apple to comply with valid warrants to the extent possible. Is there a serious belief that Apple should flout the law? Is there a company in the world that obstructs justice in their home country?
I need to explain myself a bit more clearly. For many years all tech companies have, as expected, complied with warrants. We don't expect otherwise. Now, in this one case, Apple is fighting the warrant. And some people are saying "Look how great Apple is; they really care about your privacy". Well, no, not really. Apple isn't as bad as some, but they still gather too much data and they still (as they should) obey any…
It seems silly to bicker over whether a company is all good or all bad. Do you know any people who are all good or bad? Are you?
Hate or support the game, not the player. Stand up for ideas, not people.
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#206I suspect that the intelligence and law enforcement communities are afraid that if this case goes to the Supreme Court the All Writs Act may be scaled back or ruled unconstitutional. The All Writs Act goes back to 1789 and is used for all sorts of things, like wire tapping, obtaining call and ISP records, etc., and now trying to force Apple to make malware for their own phone. It's definitely a risk for the FBI to fi…
> I suspect that the intelligence and law enforcement communities are afraid that if this case goes to the Supreme Court the All Writs Act may be scaled back or ruled unconstitutional. It's not that the act is unconstitutional, it's that the interpretation of it that the DoJ has been selling to magistrate judges in ex parte hearings is extremely broad and would never survive appeal. The Supreme Court has made it very…
> One of the amicus briefs in this case was submitted by 32 law professors, who pointed out that this violates due process.
The mentioned brief is a very important read, and it's on the Apple's site here:
https://www.apple.com/pr/pdf/32_Law_Professors.pdf
From the INTRODUCTION:
"First, there is a jurisdictional problem. There is no basis in the record for this Court to assert Article III jurisdiction to issue or enforce the February 16, 2016 Order (“the Apple Order”). The search warrant’s authority is already exhausted and the government’s motion to compel recognizes that CALEA (“Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act”) does not provide sufficient authority to support the Apple Order. Rather, the government’s request rests solely on the All Writs Act. However, the All Writs Act is not an original source of federal jurisdiction and cannot support the government’s motion or this Court’s order. The All Writs Act merely provides a source of residual authority where such jurisdiction independently exists.
Second, the underlying Order is invalid because it deprives Apple of liberty and property without due process of law. The government initially took the time to seek Apple’s help outside the judicial process. Only after Apple declined did the government file its ex parte application, which did not allow Apple an opportunity to respond. Even though Apple has now had an opportunity to respond to the government’s motion to compel, the underlying Apple Order itself was issued in violation of due process and must be vacated.
Third, CALEA and ECPA (“Electronic Communications Privacy Act”) govern the substantive validity of the Order and set out telecommunications carriers’ obligations to assist law enforcement. Significantly, when Congress enacted CALEA, it exempted “information services,” which includes certain services that Apple provides, from that requirement. The Supreme Court has instructed that where a statutory scheme governs a particular subject matter, the All Writs Act’s residual power does not.
Finally, no court has ever issued a valid order that imposes an equivalent burden on a non-party. Our research has not found any case that uses the All Writs Act to require a third-party private entity to design and create new software. Some courts have compelled disclosure of already-existing information in cases where the All Writs Act is found applicable. In contrast, the order the government demands in this case would require substantial expenditures of time and talent above and beyond what is appropriate under the All Writs Act. This point is particularly alarming where Apple has made a deliberate decision to exclude the features that the government now demands."
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Heads I win, tails we flip again" -- how can we counter this? How does it become a game they can lose?
One partial answer Snowden tweeted about tonight: keep reminding people what this story implies about the FBI's credibility. https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/712067602835759104 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/712063056835166208
Remarkable how quickly they "discovered" this "new exploit" when it didn't look like the case was going their way! Such good fortune!
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
The non-controversial part (that even Apple concedes in its briefs) is that the AWA grants courts the power to issue one of several particular forms of writs (court orders) that existed in British Common Law prior to the American Revolution, when it's necessary to do so in service of some other order that the same court has already issued. The controversial part is what the AWA authorizes (if anything) beyond those p…
But the FBI reports to Obama and Obama being an ex-law professor surely would've told them that their plan would be doomed to failure. Unless Obama wanted them to fail…?
It appears as reading in too much, because nobody knew if Apple would react so strongly and bravely, risking to be presented by the majority of the press as "helping the terrorists." Read, as an example of the view opposite of Apple's, how Bill Gates reacted:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-23/bill-gates-on...
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it more likely that this is simply a tactical decision: they already knew about this "new method", and were holding it in reserve so that they could cancel the proceedings if necessary (i.e., if Apple put up too much of a fight). They will keep trying until they get the precedent.
> They will keep trying until they get the precedent. Don't they already have a precedent when they shut down Truecrypt some years ago?
There's no known precedent for the use of the All Writs Act in the manner the FBI attempted to use it this time:
https://www.apple.com/pr/pdf/32_Law_Professors.pdf
"No court has ever issued a valid order that imposes an equivalent burden on a non-party. Our research has not found any case that uses the All Writs Act to require a third-party private entity to design and create new software. Some courts have compelled disclosure of already-existing information in cases where the All Writs Act is found applicable. In contrast, the order the government demands in this case would require substantial expenditures of time and talent above and beyond what is appropriate under the All Writs Act. This point is particularly alarming where Apple has made a deliberate decision to exclude the features that the government now demands."
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
I definitely expect Apple to comply with valid warrants to the extent possible. Is there a serious belief that Apple should flout the law? Is there a company in the world that obstructs justice in their home country?
I need to explain myself a bit more clearly. For many years all tech companies have, as expected, complied with warrants. We don't expect otherwise. Now, in this one case, Apple is fighting the warrant. And some people are saying "Look how great Apple is; they really care about your privacy". Well, no, not really. Apple isn't as bad as some, but they still gather too much data and they still (as they should) obey any…
This isn't a warrant, it's a request for far more than that. Apple is being asked to develop new code to actively defeat its own encryption measures.