Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

>>> Apple also argues that since its reputation is based on security and privacy, complying with the court’s demands based on an expanded application of a 200-year-old law could put it at risk of tarnishing that reputation.

One one hand, a corporate reputation. On the other, people from the FBI saying they need access to prevent terrorist attacks. There are many arguments to be made. This is not the winner.

View on HN

One of those sides is being fatuously disingenuous.

The San Bernardino shooters demonstrated rather competent op-sec, and the 5c the FBI wants Apple to backdoor was a work phone, not even a personal one. I'm spectacularly skeptical they used that phone in any way whatsoever relevant to the attack. More to the point, the attackers are already dead. There is nothing to prosecute here.

They picked this case as the one to push because they thought it had the best PR value for their purposes, not because of any exigence or concern over further impending attacks.

That is to say, the FBI is cynically leveraging the outrage at a mass-shooting, inflicted by "brown people", to further their anti-crypto, "We must have access to ALL OF THE THINGS!" agenda. It's pretty disgusting, frankly.

EDIT: snark.

Both sides are positioning themselves for maximum advantage vis a vis their publics. Neither one is acting without self interest. The USG says it wants to prosecute crime and associates, Apple say they want to protect the privacy of their customers and not doing so tarnishes their image which damages their business proposition.

The courts, the congress and the people will ultimately determine who prevails.

You'll note that I didn't dispute Apple's self-interest in their position. But they're being up-front about it: "Our customers will lose trust in us if we do this thing, and that hurts us as a business, as well as them." That's not merely PR. That's a fact.

The FBI's stated position, "These people did a terrible thing and we have to investigate it" is pure PR; the phone the case is proximally about is not at all what it's ultimately about.

> The FBI's stated position, "These people did a terrible thing and we have to investigate it" is pure PR

How is this not a fact?

There's nothing to investigate. Everyone except the conspiracy theorists have stipulated that these two committed the attack, and they're dead so prosecution is moot.

Referring again to my point up-thread about the shooters' op-sec, there wouldn't be any useful intel on their (once again!) work phone, anyway. "Investigation" is a red-herring to disguise their actual motive.

There are companies and agencies and other entities which allow employees to use their work-issued phones for personal use [some require re-imbursement]. And even if they explicitly forbade it, it's not like a perp will necessarily obey those stipulations, so it's not a forgone conclusion there would be no useful daate there.

As meticulous and careful as these two were about keeping what they were up to secret, encrypting the evidence they didn't destroy, and so-on, do you really think they're going to be stupid and sloppy enough to call Terrorist HQ on their fucking work phone?

Red. Herring.

EDIT: Aside, I just went down a diverting and entertaining little web-hole on the etymology of the expression "red herring". It is, indeed, a deliberate diversion: in the 19th century, fugitives would cover their tracks with smoked (red) herring, because it would put the bloodhounds off their scent.

More like dual purpose. It has legs, but they may be weak, but the possibility that they did trip up is not infinitesimal --it could be a small lead, or it could turn up nothing. Given its potential dual purpose, if I were the FBI, I'd go for it. They'd be remiss if they did not pursue this.

...and that obligates Apple to help them — at the peril of their customers' trust — how, again?

By way of a lawful court order? Customers would lose trust if Apple were negligent about their users' security but here there is no negligence. It's a court order, which Apple can contest and have and we'll see who prevails in the courts. This isn't a rogue agent knocking at the door and ransacking things.

Irony being that the real shooters were 3 tall white dudes from Craft Intl.

Is this just sarcasm, or is there really any evidence for this? Craft were also at the Boston Marathon.

Most people who use a work phone do not use a personal phone. This phone could have evidence to implicate their neighbor (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/san-bernardino-shooters-neighb...) in a crime.

I see nothing "disgusting" about the FBI's behavior here.

You're perfectly within your rights to trust law enforcement as much as you'd like, believe that any investigative power they're given won't be abused, and that this isn't a cynically calculated grab for exactly that purpose.

I don't.

This isn't a grab for power — this is a power that they already have. They went through the courts to get the proper order, following the letter of the law. We give the government the power to open bank safes, seize property, and wiretap; but we make laws that allow them to do so only when it's in society's best interests. If you don't think the law serves society's best interests, it's up to you as a citizen that your government represents to help change it. In this case, I think you'll find that a majority of people will say it is in society's best interests to open the San Bernardino shooters' bank safes, obtain their phone records, and decrypt their phone in order to look for accomplices.

FISA warrants and NSLs are "following the letter of the law", too. You don't think they're subject to egregious abuse?

As for what the "majority of people" find reasonable, all I have to do is look at the polling numbers in the current presidential race to find myself in abject disgust at what the "majority of people" appear to think. They seem not to give half a shit what happens to anyone else, as long as they can watch the next episode of American Idol without fear of "getting blowed up by terr'ists" — despite the fact that more people have won the lottery than have died from terrorism in the US since September 11th.

EDIT: Anyway, there's nothing new or informative to be found in this discussion. We disagree. Let's leave it at that.

This is a court case. What is under this discussion is not what is reasonable, but what is the law and how it applies to this case. That seems to come down to whether or not is is considered an "undue burden" on Apple to break security on this device, and that's it.

If you want the law to change, I would hope that the court sides with the FBI, as that will provide far more ammunition to anyone wanting to change the law than ruling in favor of Apple.

The only law I've seen proposed would force Apple to comply with the FBI request. Given that, perhaps the law doesn't currently mandate what you think it does?

This is a discussion. Most of the people here are not lawyers. In discussions we generally discuss right and wrong and what is reasonable, which have nothing to do with the law. The law is an ancillary technical concern about what the FBI or Apple will be forced/allowed to do, and has nothing to do with what they should do.

IIRC, this particular guy had a separate personal phone, and he thoroughly destroyed it before the attack. That does seem to imply that he had used it for all nefarious discussions, not the undestroyed work phone.

I think the two parties need to hold a meeting and make some agreements in the future because more and more personal information or activities will be saved on the phone. The number of conflicts between Apple and the government will keep increasing. People need to find out the point of balance.

With respect: I completely disagree. I don't think the govt has any right to force apple to allow them to bypass anything encrypted. IMO, this isn't a balance situation, but rather a binary situation.

Thanks for your opinion. Do you think this is a problem can be solved? Or the two parties will just keep fighting without an end?

Fortunately that argument is being made in the NY case which is not the terrorism related case in CA.

The interesting thing in the CA case that's not getting a ton of play is the FBI has the support of the phones legal owner (a government agency) but the owner doesn't know the passcode in this situation.

If the suspected terrorists owned the phone themselves, we'd also have the 5th amendment wrapped up in that case too.

If the suspected terrorists owned the phone themselves, we'd also have the 5th amendment wrapped up in that case too.

No we wouldn't. The "suspected terrorists" are dead.

Not all of them. Their neighbor is a suspected accomplice and is currently being investigated.

Irrelevant. He has no 5th Amendment standing vis à vis the deceased shooter's work phone.

The what-if scenario was if the suspected terrorists owned the phone (as opposed to the deceased's employer). The living neighbor is a suspected terrorist. If he owned the phone and let his now-deceased neighbors borrow the phone, the complications mentioned above could arise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com