"Instead of the FBI making this request, how would you feel if the Government of China were asking? or Russia, or Syria? Do you want them to have the ability to read your encrypted data off your iPhone?"
The argument boils down to "if your family members were killed in San Bernardino, you would not support Apple".
The rebuttal is that first we should firearms because that is what the SB shooters used to actually commit the crime. Encryption never directly killed anyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
Countries in the ME and India[1] demanded such from RIM/BBM.
[1]http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/11/blackberry-in...
After what Snowden has told us, we know with certainty the FBI/NSA/CIA will use this ability on the phones of citizens of other countries, so I think it's safe to assume other countries would do the same.
Under which religious or political umbrage do you reside?
What if you had something on your phone that isn't illegal now, but is tomorrow? (3D printed gun plans, source code that is found to have been published without consent, an ebook on sexual positions that are still illegal depending on which state and county you are standing on??)
15ish years ago, certain states might have pressed charges if you had a dildo in your sock drawer.
What is in your sock drawer?
Another implication is why would a court order grant access to a sock drawer but not a phone. What makes one unlike the other, regarding lawful court approved search warrants.
Very vanilla and mainstream, religiously and politically.
> What if you had something on your phone that isn't illegal now, but is tomorrow?
I'd delete it? But I probably wouldn't have it in the first place, for the reason above.
> 15ish years ago, certain states might have pressed charges if you had a dildo in your sock drawer.
And that would be wrong. But it'd be the law against the dildo in the sock drawer that would be wrong, not the general principle that the government has the right to search your sock drawer so long as it obtains a warrant based on probable cause. That principle has worked pretty damn well for 200+ years and I see no reason to change it now.
So you'd have yourself and people you care about hang out in prison, cheerfully thinking to yourself, "We're only here because the law is wrong."
> worked pretty damn well for 200+ years and I see no reason to change it now.
That hasn't been running on its own automatically. It's been a massive bulwark of principled people maintaining it against attacks. And there are too many examples to count of misleading evidence used to mischaracterize, defame or prejudice opinions against individuals.
Consider our own government's treatment of blacks up to and including now. The government doesn't always know what is right and needs principled citizens to amend it.
Think back to that recent demo of predicting race by zip code. Thank back to predatory loaning practices, the KKK, job interview biases, unequal prison sentencing, racial bias by police, etc. and consider what happens in less-principled countries like Turkey and Germany. If I were of a non-mainstream race, I would want as few people to know as possible and I would want protection from society's baser instincts.
Otherwise, it's too easy for people with an axe to grind to abuse their power by sweeping through, say, all phones and singling out by language those that appear to be used by an ethnic or cultural group who may be prejudged to be a threat.
However, as a German, I find it interesting why you mention Germany as "less-principled". Less-principled than the US? Do you talk about current Germany or about former east Germany or even Nazi Germany?
Of course, there are enough problems here as anywhere else regarding privacy, etc. But I have difficulties seeing current Germany as "less-principled" than the US wrt. privacy, human rights etc.
Just curious what your impression is based on.
http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Census-Identification-Control-Pol...
In fact, I would strongly push for anyone working with "big data" to read up on this. Just because we can, does not mean we should.
Data does not have a "use this only this way and only for good" button.
However, as multiple sites have opined, this is about setting precedent and the actual data on the phone is secondary.
From a legal perspective, this is no different from asking Apple to circumvent the passcode protection to extract unencrypted data off a device, which Apple has already done many times.
Over three years ago, a newspaper as everyday as USA Today reported "CVS, Walgreens, Kroger, Safeway, Target and Walmart are among major national chains that now include vibrators on store shelves" [1].
IOW Saying the world dildo no longer qualifies as creepy.
[1] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/story/20...
And potentially incriminating secrets wrapped in metaphorical socks, apparently.
Probably one of those socks should contain a big machine bolt with a bunch of heavy hex-nuts screwed onto it, so that anyone who comes around to sniff at my socks can get a proper beating (along with the regular intrinsic olfactory penalty for sniffing my socks).
But I feel like you're missing something. The government cops aren't always going to be looking for incriminating evidence or actionable intelligence. They might just be using that as a pretext to look for cash or valuables that they can slip into their own pockets. You kept it a secret, after all, so how would you prove that they stole it? That's just one of the ways in which power corrupts.
People do care about privacy, but the use case varies. However just because you claim not to care, it does not mean that that becomes the minimum standard everyone else has to adhere to.
That's what the court order says.
The other option is to make security that even Apple can't circumvent. They might have achieved this with their newer phones, but it has now become clear that they did not with the iPhone 5C.
From reading the article this is how Apple has helped law enforcement previously.
Now in more up to date versions of iOS the passcode limits access to using the phone, in addition to limiting access to the data contained inside. This limits what Apple can do to help law enforcement in the previous scenario, since any data they could copy off the phone would still be encrypted.
It's a similar, albeit stronger, idea as "probable cause": giving law enforcement a temporary waiver of rights that regular citizens are usually afforded.
Deliberate backdoors can't exist, Apple needs to put the foot down and make that clear.
The FBI wouldn't get a backdoor to all phones. It would literally only work on this one phone.
Or put another way, the backdoor is already there and Apple is being compelled to open it for this phone.
All backdoors are poison. End of story. If the FBI wanted access to the data on the phone they would have it already. But they don't. Probably because the already concluded they were acting alone and not part of a terrorist cell or network and no longer have need of the rest of the information or they really just don't care enough about it.
However they do want to use this case to get precedent for industry to produce new backdoors for them into previously secure-ish systems in the name of "terrorists". This very idea is cancer, a cancer that will spread to other technological systems they feel aren't easy enough for them to tap into whenever they want. A cancer that will spread across the world as it sets a precedent for nation states to force private companies into deliberately weakening the security in their products to please whatever government finds their citizens having access to encyption to be reprehensible.
So no, it's not mis-information.
You and anyone else that thinks this is ok just don't grasp the gravity of the situation.
The FBI isn't asking for Apple to create a backdoor. End of story. They're compelling Apple to open a backdoor that Apple already created. Apple made an insecure system. They can, and I think should fix it, but in this phone at least the back door is there.
So, wait to use a slippery slope argument when it actually becomes applicable. You're so trigger happy to jump on the privacy, precedent setting bandwagon you didn't stop to think what this case actually is.
Basically, as long as you make insecure systems, the government can (by the fourth amendment no less) demand you let them in if they have probable cause and a warrant. If you make something impossible to get into, and the government starts demanding you stop making devices like that, then we have a problem. But this particular case doesn't get us any closer to that outcome. Not even symbolically.
I think you and everyone else overreacting to this case grasps gravity that isn't there. You're tilting at windmills.
Say the year is 2000 and the US government has a subpoena to access the phone because they want to collect evidence to prosecute a homosexual couple for having consensual sex (which back in 2000 was illegal in some states). The reasoning behind the subpoena matters, and 'OMG TERRORIST' has been so abused that I take issue with it by default.
There was nothing illegal in my example. Maybe now it would be after Lawrence v. Texas, but not before. Saying one should support the law because it is the law is supporting the tyranny of the law.
I'll be honest, if somehow Apple could sign a software update that merely disabled encryption for phones belonging to actual mass murders and terrorists, and didn't work on the rest of our phones, I'd be supportive. It's just that there's no possible way for such a thing to exist. The best you can do is a software update that works on everyone's phone, in the hands of people who promise to only use it on mass murderers and terrorists. That's far riskier.
Then the EULA police would have the ability to really nail them, like Al Capone for tax evasion.
The only restriction on this law that Apple could claim (aside from legally out-there options like equating writing software to forced speech) is "unreasonable burden," but this is something that almost any of us could hack up in a day given access to Apple's release build system.
In the future, Apple could make a phone that is actually secure. For example, requiring the phone to be unlocked before updating firmware.
In this case we're talking about someone who walked into an office party and killed 14 people. So ya, I think it's in all of our best interests if we see what's on his phone. Just like I think it's in our best interests if we see what was in his house or in his car. Or do you think we should have just locked the front door to his apartment and waited for the movers to come take everything away?
So if your question is "is there ever a case in which compelling Apple to unlock a phone is OK" my answer is "you bet your ass". There is a right way to do this. It involves warrants and transparency (not secret FISA nonsense). It should involve oversight and be an extraordinary step (just as searching someones home is). But if we catch one terrorist on his way to blow up downtown San Francisco, well it'd sure be handy to have a way to know that his buddies are on their way to blow up Seattle too.
Now I know exactly what's coming, because it always comes so I'm just going to head it off now. No I don't support the unlimited power to search peoples phones. No I don't support the idea of implanting remotely exploitable backdoors into phone operating systems to make this process easy for the government. No I'm not a government shill. No I'm not suggesting that we trade liberty for security. And no I'm not arguing that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't care about privacy.
NOWHERE in my argument did I take any of those positions. I'm arguing that when the technology exists and the circumstances call for it, backed by transparent functions outlined in the constitution, we should be able to get at data that might save actual lives.
I think China, Russia, or Syria should have that same right. I think that if Apple is going to distribute their phones in those countries they should play by whatever rules those countries have. If Apple really doesn't like it, don't cash the checks.
if (deviceUid = 12345) { openBackDoor() }
Cryptographically sign code. Done. We know it's secure and will only work on devicd 12345 because we trust cryptography.
That being said, you are wrong because if the ability to backdoor these devices is required by us law, that backdoor will be exploited by anyone with the cash for the exploit, which means Syria, China, Russia, or republicans.
It'd be better to remove the encryption entirely from these devices, so at least you're guaranteed of the safety of your data. (I.e., no security)
There is nothing about this device that hasn't already been swept up by mass surveilence programs, which I guess is fine because it's done by our elected government and its for catching terrorists, and not say, abortion providers or clinic bombers.
Right now we assume no one has developed the capability to exploit this weakness. By forcing Apple to develop this capability, the security of everyone's device is compromised. This assumes that Apple is uniquely positioned to develop the exploit, or at least they are the only ones who can do it quickly/cheaply enough to make it worth it.
At the very least, forcing apple to do it publicly demonstrates the feasibility of the exploit to third parties.
Where is there sense of civic responsibility?
There is no way in hell they'd lose $100 in sales for aiding in this investigation. Being melodramatic doesn't help anybody.
I'm sorry, but this strikes me as wrong, if they were not rich, would they not be compelled todo this, or would they not be able to argue against it as visibly? (I personally think the second would be more likely).
Civic responsibility? What is next? Agreeing to some idiots religious views and blocking anyone from seeing nudity?
I am sorry, but they are a company, not an elected group. If they are not breaking a law, well you can take those arguments of civic responsibilities and shout them at a tree for all that it matters.
I am trying to resist the urge to bring up some hyperbolic argument against this, purely as i am so shocked someone on hn would try an argument this rediculous.
Its akin so 'someone think of the children', in my mind, and as baseless as that sort of argument.
Do you really think Apple would tell the Chinese government to fuck off if the Chinese threatened to ban apple unless Apple opened a single phone. I have ten billion reasons to believe they would do it.
If those countries were using it to crack down on political prisoners then I'd suggest Apple pull out of the market rather than comply.
But generally corporations should not be allowed to pick and choose what laws to follow. If a company doesn't want to subject itself to the authority of a government, don't do business there.