Apple v FBI

[Midpack]

I don't get why some people (here and law enforcement spokespersons) keep acting like Apple enhanced their encryption out of the blue for no reason. It was because the NSA overstepped their authority from the perspective of many, gathering metadata on everyone. As a result - Apple, Google/Samsung and others didn't want that capability/responsibility - and made it much harder for anyone to break in, on themselves as well.

They're caught in the middle here to some extent. They are resisting the ruling of a lower court, and they want some public discussion and a higher court ruling before they consider obliging. Some buyers, not terrorists, bought newer smartphones because they wanted more privacy/encryption - I did. Once they do this, it seems unlikely there won't be endless requests to follow. DA's are already lining up to break into hundreds of phones.

Governments need information to fulfill their role. But it's not out of line for Apple and the tech industry to fight for setting well thought out legal boundaries on behalf of the public either. The FBI will get what they're asking for in the end, and the public will be better served this time - unlike the pre Snowden days. 'Court orders' were often being rubber stamped.

And the SB terrorists did destroy their personal phones. The phone in question is a work phone, how likely is it there's anything useful? Seems unlikely to me.

[Big_Hitter]

this may be difficult to watch due to poor interviewing skills by the news anchor but Ron Paul is pretty spot on here

MUST-SEE: Ron Paul Says Apple 'on Side of Liberty' in Phone Feud With FBI | Fox News Insider

[M Paquette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem Assuming Apple won't be selling this new software/procedure, why would we call it a "product?" The government, using the established legal procedures, is asking Apple to perform a service. Just like it asks a bank or phone company to perform a service ("use your expertise to discover and provide all information available on your system pertaining to the activities of Mr John Smith between 1 Jan 2014 and 31 Dec 2015.") Responding to these requests is just part of the cost of doing business, as Apple has acknowledged through their past acquiescence to these requests.

Because it is a product. It is software produced by Apple, intended for use on Apple hardware, which will have to pass through the entire software production process, including test and verification, and the deliberately complex product signing procedure, just like any other software release.

Limiting the production run to a single copy, or a few hundred for the various agencies who have announced intent to use what they hope will be new case law to compel businesses to build products to government specifications, following in the FBI's boot prints, is not relevant.




Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

[ChiliPepr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redduck I also wonder if the long-term view would mean much to a parent who had children that were in immediate danger and the information on the phone would save them. I bet those parents wouldn't be all that concerned about China's eventually taking advantage of the Iphone's backdoor situation with the FBI.

True, but this is the exact same reason to justify torture... If someone knows of a plot to set off a bomb, is it right to torture them?

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack I don't get why some people (here and law enforcement spokespersons) keep acting like Apple enhanced their encryption out of the blue for no reason. It was because the NSA overstepped their authority from the perspective of many, gathering metadata on everyone.

Nothing in this case or on this phone has anything to do with the live collection of metadata (who called who and for how long, etc). If people believe the features of this phone prevent the collection of metadata, then they are misinformed.

Rather than ascribe lofty altruistic motives to Apple's product development decisions, I'd believe they were just trying to meet market demand (as they did in your case) and make more money. Which is just fine, but they still need to meet their obligations under the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack DA's are already lining up to break into hundreds of phones.

Great. Nothing has changed in this regard: If a judge issues a subpoena or a warrant, then presumably getting the information advances the cause of justice and protection of individual rights (a terrorist or criminal violates my rights when they harm/kill me. Law enforcement helps prevent that with their investigations). If we believe there's something wrong with the process the government uses to get access to information then we should fix that process (because it affects physical searches of premises, in-stream capture of communications in motion, etc as well as this "data at rest" in an iPhone or elsewhere).

[M Paquette]

Device encryption was enhanced and the user interface changed to encourage users to lock down their phones to combat a spike in phone thefts, and the abuse of technology such as the CelleBrite 'forensic data extraction device' by criminals and others.

Some background on the device:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...h-a-warrant/1/





Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

[ChiliPepr]

Justice Department Seeks to Force Apple to Extract Data From About 12 Other iPhones

Quote:

The Justice Department is pursuing court orders to make Apple Inc. help investigators extract data from iPhones in about a dozen undisclosed cases around the country, in disputes similar to the current battle over a terrorist’s locked phone, according to a newly-unsealed court document. The other phones are evidence in cases where prosecutors have sought, as in the San Bernardino, Calif., terror case, to use an 18th-century law called the All Writs Act to compel the company to help them bypass the passcode security feature of phones that may hold evidence, according to a letter from Apple which was unsealed in Brooklyn federal court Tuesday. The letter, written last week from an Apple lawyer to a federal judge, lists the locations of those phone cases: Four in Illinois, three in New York, two in California, two in Ohio, and one in Massachusetts.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover If the Supreme court is deadlocked the lower ruling stands.

I saw a discussion by constitutional lawyers on the court and what would happen to 4-4 decisions.... they said that one is that they issue the tied decision and the lower ruling stands... but that there is no precedence in the ruling...

However, they did say that they can choose to table the case and wait for a full court... hence, no decision issued and the lower court ruling is in limbo... at least that is what they seemed to be saying...

[eytonxav]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack I don't get why some people (here and law enforcement spokespersons) keep acting like Apple enhanced their encryption out of the blue for no reason. It was because the NSA overstepped their authority from the perspective of many, gathering metadata on everyone. As a result - Apple, Google/Samsung and others didn't want that capability/responsibility - and made it much harder for anyone to break in, on themselves as well.

I am not totally clear on the scope of this issue. Does Apple's encryption protect against the NSA from tapping iPhone conversations/texts or only to prevent a stolen phone from being accessed? I was under the impression, it is the later case.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem Nothing in this case or on this phone has anything to do with the live collection of metadata (who called who and for how long, etc). If people believe the features of this phone prevent the collection of metadata, then they are misinformed.

No one said this case involved metadata. But the NSA metadata gathering swung the privacy pendulum, and was a significant factor in how private companies subsequently treated customer privacy. I have seen people here and in the news act as if Apple just changed their encryption methodology for no reason. That's ignorant, short memory or more likely lying by omission.

And most post Snowden Google Android smartphones use full encryption now too.

Quote:

In November, Android’s security chief, Adrian Ludwig, wrote that Google is not able to tap open encrypted Androids even if it wanted to. And he said that inability extends to unencrypted phones where the users have entered a passcode — a statement that reads like it’s pushing back on claims from Apple that Google could readily share phone data with authorities.

This is a broader issue than Apple, and that's why the tech industry is right to push for an open discussion to establish legal boundaries between privacy and security. Not a case by case lower court case.

http://recode.net/2016/02/21/what-if...-of-an-iphone/

[explanade]

It's also about securing personal data. Millions of devices are lost it stolen every year.

One thing to lose the device but the personal data on the device is much more valuable.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFW_M5 I am not totally clear on the scope of this issue. Does Apple's encryption protect against the NSA from tapping iPhone conversations/texts or only to prevent a stolen phone from being accessed? I was under the impression, it is the later case.

Clearly it was later and not the former. Apple's encryption changes don't protect metadata.

[CRLLS]

Quote:

I saw a discussion by constitutional lawyers on the court and what would happen to 4-4 decisions.... they said that one is that they issue the tied decision and the lower ruling stands... However, they did say that they can choose to table the case and wait for a full court... hence, no decision issued and the lower court ruling is in limbo... at least that is what they seemed to be saying...

That is the difference between whether the SC decides to hear a case, or once heard, what the ruling is. In the former, they (the 8 Justices) can decide to delay the hearing. In the latter, once heard, the 8 justices cannot delay ruling until the 9th Justice is appointed. At least that is my thought.

Quote:

but that there is no precedence in the ruling...

Precedence has been set albeit not exactly in this situation. Justices have in the past recused themselves from hearing a particular case. In that situation, there are 8 justices left to vote. The last time there was a 4-4 split was in 2010 over a copyright-infringement case involving Costco and a Swatch Group unit. At least that is what Google told me.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem Clearly it was later and not the former. Apple's encryption changes don't protect metadata.

Not sure why you've conflated metadata into the current Apple issue, misses the original point entirely.

[eytonxav]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack Not sure why you've conflated metadata into the current Apple issue, misses the original point entirely.

Actually he was responding to my post where I was questioning a comment you made which seemed to confuse the two issues. At least your comment confused me.

[pb4uski]

I can see a face-saving way out of this one situation. As I understand it the phone is owned by the terrorist's employer. If that is the case, then the employer could request that Apple unlock its phone. Apple, as a consumer responsive company, could accede to the customer's request and unlock the phone and the employer could then had the phone over to the FBI. Apple could then claim that it is being true to its principles of protecting the consumer and could stand its ground on situations where the owner of the phone is the suspect and live to fight another day.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette Device encryption was enhanced and the user interface changed to encourage users to lock down their phones to combat a spike in phone thefts, and the abuse of technology such as the CelleBrite 'forensic data extraction device' by criminals and others. Some background on the device: The gadgets police use to snarf cell phone data | Ars Technica Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

Exactly! Much of this was to reduce iPhone theft, and protect the user when a phone is stolen.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski I can see a face-saving way out of this one situation. As I understand it the phone is owned by the terrorist's employer. If that is the case, then the employer could request that Apple unlock its phone. Apple, as a consumer responsive company, could accede to the customer's request and unlock the phone and the employer could then had the phone over to the FBI. Apple could then claim that it is being true to its principles of protecting the consumer and could stand its ground on situations where the owner of the phone is the suspect and live to fight another day.

Huh? If that were possible it would have already happened.

There is an extra piece that has to be created, and that is what Apple is fighting, as creating that extra piece nullifies the security of all iPhones.

[pb4uski]

But if that extra piece allows the customer to get into their phone wouldn't that be responsive to customers?

As a spin-off let's say my spouse or child or parent dies and I inherit their i-phone and want to open it but don't know the code.... wouldn't it be consumer responsive for Apple to open the i-phone for me? Ditto if they become incapacitated and I am the POA.

I'm thinking it would be sort of like the formula for Coca-Cola.... highly secured, taken out of the vault for use when needed and then put back in the vault. And they could make access to the unlock software like the i-phone and have it self destruct if an unauthorized person gained access (like in if the government decided to raid the vault).

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRLLS That is the difference between whether the SC decides to hear a case, or once heard, what the ruling is. In the former, they (the 8 Justices) can decide to delay the hearing. In the latter, once heard, the 8 justices cannot delay ruling until the 9th Justice is appointed. At least that is my thought.

I read an article last night that said exactly the opposite of what you say... it was in the middle of an article talking about the Texas case on abortion... that if it comes out 4-4 they can issue the ruling or wait until next year and then bring it back up... IOW, they do not have to issue a ruling just because they heard the case...

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRLLS Precedence has been set albeit not exactly in this situation. Justices have in the past recused themselves from hearing a particular case. In that situation, there are 8 justices left to vote. The last time there was a 4-4 split was in 2010 over a copyright-infringement case involving Costco and a Swatch Group unit. At least that is what Google told me.

I was talking about a precedence on a ruling by the SC... IOW, a 4-4 decision keeps the lower court ruling in place, but another district can ignore that decision since the SC has not really 'ruled'.... Now, why would they not issue a ruling?... it keeps in place what was in place... again, the abortion article I read... since the SC issued a stay on the lower court decision, that stay is what stays in place, not the lower court decision. If they do issue an opinion then that stay goes away and the lower court ruling takes affect....




EDIT TO ADD: BTW, just wanted to put down that the article I read this morning said that they think it will take 3 years to get to the SC, so as of now the 4-4 possibility is not an issue...