Apple v FBI

[photoguy]

What would China do if Apple said "No"?

That's a good question. I have no idea what Apple would do if China forced the issue on their own (provide the keys or get out). Maybe China doesn't either.

It's hard to imagine Apple giving up the chinese market and not capitulating. On the other hand, Google did just that and pulled out.

And many countries do not bother to go to this trouble to break into anyone's phone. They just say "How many fingernails and toenails you want to have left when you finally give me the passcode?". No court order is even necessary, like in this case in the US.

Well a backdoor would allow mass and covert surveillance.

 

[ERD50]

Your comment on having nothing the FBI might be interested in is just a specific of the old "I've got nothing to hide" argument. But that's been shown over and over to be nothing other than a lazy intellectual response to an individual case.

Here's a good comment I read in a paper about the topic.

By saying "I have nothing to hide," you are saying that it’s OK for the government to infringe on the rights of potentially millions of your fellow Americans, possibly ruining their lives in the process. To me, the "I have nothing to hide" argument basically equates to "I don’t care what happens, so long as it doesn’t happen to me."

...

I'm going to disagree that it is a lazy response. I think you are making too many assumptions to get there.

I'm with the "I've got nothing to hide" camp, because I want protection, and I want the authorities to have the tools they need to provide that protection.

But that does not mean that I don't care about privacy. The authorities need to use due process to get into my stuff, warrants and such. It shouldn't be on a whim. I will un-lazily fight that sort of abuse.

There were some notes of abuse of these protections. Yep, but rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, we need to fight those abuses. Heck, there are some crooked cops, and some firefighters who are arsonists - do we decide we don't want cops and firefighters?

I think we can find ways to fight the bad guys, and get into their privacy when needed, w/o needing to worry too much about it if we are law abiding people. Controls, transparency, checks and balances. No, it's not easy.


BTW, I do think it is possible that Apple cannot get into the phone. If they did not retain certain keys that were used to program the security initially, they could be as locked out as anyone. Yes, I could see where they would decide to do this, maybe to avoid any possibility of the "kidnapping my family" TV-drama scenario. But they should make that known to be effective, so maybe that's not the case (was that in one scene of "Dr Strangelove"?)?

-ERD50

 

[marko]

This is a losing battle for Apple. It is ordered by the Court to comply.

I agree. Politics and philosophies aside, this is a marketing nightmare more than anything else.

They must know that they will eventually have to cave in.

From a strictly strategic perspective, the longer this goes on the worse it will be. Get it over with and move on.

IMHO

 

[NW-Bound]

Well, if I had studied law as my father so deeply desired, I'd probably have a clue. No snoozing for me, I have to set the table for dinner.

It turns out that I could not snooze either, and still thought about this a bit.

Well a backdoor would allow mass and covert surveillance.

In this case, as I read in an earlier quoted article, the court order was not about Apple building a backdoor, but to assist the FBI in breaking into this particular phone and this phone only. It does not appear to be that easy to be done routinely on any Joe and Jane Blow whenever the FBI wants to.

Ah yes, court oders are good thing, can be appealed, once the supremes rule, then we must abide.

As MichaelB pointed out, the court order in this case demands assistance from Apple to do something the latter does not want to. And I recalled that it is only in the case of war that the government can demand a citizen to do things he does not want to, and they call it a draft.

But what I thought of while trying to snooze is that the government already mandates many things that a citizen does not want to do. And it has the Supreme Court's agreement. The most recent thing is about requiring an individual to have health insurance.

So, if this case goes before the SC, I think I know how to place my bet, regardless of what I think it should be.

OK, I have to go help my wife with dinner too. No snoozing either for me.

 

[ERD50]

I agree. Politics and philosophies aside, this is a marketing nightmare more than anything else.

They must know that they will eventually have to cave in.

From a strictly strategic perspective, the longer this goes on the worse it will be. Get it over with and move on.

IMHO

Yes, but there are people with strong feelings on each side of the debate. I think it is lose-lose for Apple in many people's minds. I don't think they can just "get it over with and move on".

Although, if my other possibility holds, and even Apple really has no way to break into this phone, that could leave them off the hook for this case. But then the Feds might insist that backdoor be added, and we are back to square one.

But if that backdoor requires specialized hardware and software, and soldering wires to the phone, the risk to the general public is very small. It's not like someone could snoop on your phone while you go to the bathroom.

This is reminding me of the reason why we hear of car-jackings these days. The security systems have gotten so good, the thieves end up confronting people directly to get the keys while the car is running. Except, you can see that shiny car is valuable, would a bad guy hold a gun to a random person's head and say "Give me access to your phone!"?

-ERD50

 

[photoguy]

In this case, as I read in an earlier quoted article, the court order was not about Apple building a backdoor, but to assist the FBI in breaking into this particular phone and this phone only. It does not appear to be that easy to be done routinely on any Joe and Jane Blow whenever the FBI wants to.

I have no training in law but my understanding is that everyone is concerned about the precedent this case may set. E.g.

“The law operates on precedent, so the fundamental question here isn’t whether the FBI gets access to this particular phone,” said Julian Sanchez, a surveillance law expert at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute in Washington. “It’s whether a catch-all law from 1789 can be used to effectively conscript technology companies into producing hacking tools and spyware for the government.”

from Inside the FBI's encryption battle with Apple | Technology | The Guardian

Perhaps this is a slippery slope fallacy and there's no real precedent issue. But I haven't seen any rebuttals of that assumption. If there is no precedent at stake here, I'd be interesting in learning why not.

 

[rodi]

I think this is all about picking the most "sympathetic" case to set a precedent and force tech companies to put in back doors.

.

Ding ding ding... we have a winner.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/a-yearlong-road-to-a-standoff-with-the-fbi.html?_r=0

The FBI has been asking Apple to provide a backdoor since the new security rolled out - over 100 phones prior to the San Bernadino shooter's phone.

It's about marketing. The government chose this phone to go public and to try and sway the American public to pressure Apple.

 

[marko]

Yes, but there are people with strong feelings on each side of the debate. I think it is lose-lose for Apple in many people's minds. I don't think they can just "get it over with and move on".

-ERD50

Yeah. What I mean is minimize your losses by just doing what you know you're eventually going to do anyway. Every day resisting just makes it worse.

 

[audreyh1]

Didn't I see the Apple CEO on tv yesterday claiming that Apple doesn't have the software or other ability to open the phone? If you believe him, does the FBI expect Apple to devote resources to develop the method?

Of course we need to do everything we can to combat terrorism. Except trample all over the Constitution to get it done.

Yes, the FBI expects Apple to devote resources to develop software/technology to open the phone. They've been on Apple's case to develop a backdoor for years.

 

[ERD50]

Yeah. What I mean is minimize your losses by just doing what you know you're eventually going to do anyway. Every day resisting just makes it worse.

OK, that is probably a good idea. If you are going to piss off some people, just get it over with. The delay just gets both sides seething at you in the interim.

-ERD50

 

[audreyh1]

Yeah. What I mean is minimize your losses by just doing what you know you're eventually going to do anyway. Every day resisting just makes it worse.

I'm glad Apple doesn't see it that way. If they are going to be forced by the US govt to move in a certain direction they think is wrong and against their customers interests, let the arguments be fully public.

 

[Midpack]

I'm glad Apple doesn't see it that way. If they are going to be forced by the US govt to move in a certain direction they think is wrong and against their customers interests, let the arguments be fully public.

+500.

 

[marko]

I'm glad Apple doesn't see it that way. If they are going to be forced by the US govt to move in a certain direction they think is wrong and against their customers interests, let the arguments be fully public.

This'll be a trial held in the court of public opinion, I suspect.

And as the gov't is historically quite inept at 'marketing' a position, I'll keep my heavy Apple holdings for the time being.

I may disagree with Apple's position but you can't eat philosophy.

 

[audreyh1]

This'll be a trial held in the court of public opinion, I suspect.

And as the gov't is historically quite inept at 'marketing' a position, I'll keep my heavy Apple holdings for the time being.

I may disagree with Apple's position but you can't eat philosophy.

As long as there are court cases fully documenting any precedent set in addition to any public opinion trial, that's OK. It's the former that will shape the future. The latter is ephemeral - public opinion has a very short memory.

 

[marko]

As long as there are court cases fully documenting any precedent set in addition to any public opinion trial, that's OK. It's the former that will shape the future. The latter is ephemeral - public opinion has a very short memory.

As long as they keep paying dividends and the price goes up I don't care much either way.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

 

[audreyh1]

As long as they keep paying dividends and the price goes up I don't care much either way.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

Sent from your Samsung, LOL!

 

[NW-Bound]

Yes, but there are people with strong feelings on each side of the debate...

Not me. I am quite individualistic, and do not want the government to tell me what to do when my actions or choices cause no harm to anybody else.

But the truth is that much of our life is dictated by the government already, that this privacy issue is not that big a deal to me, as long as Joe the neighbor policeman cannot eavesdrop into my phone conversation any time he feels like it.

I guess I give up this fight long ago. People want a "strong" government to guarantee them security, in financial and economic matters as well as healthcare, and now want to keep their personal phone info private, even when there's a court order and for just causes? Hah!

Talk about the slippery slope. I don't know how far we are from the bottom of that slope, but I know that we are way off the top.

 

[harley]

This all is covered, IMO, by the old Benjamin Franklin quote - They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's also the old Pastor Niemöller poem:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I support Apple's right to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court. And I hope they prevail.

 

[explanade]

Donald Trump called for a boycott of Apple until they comply.

Apple has turned over iCloud backups of the phone. The most recent of which was from 6 weeks before the crime.

Apparently after the crime, someone in the county which owned the iPhone changed the iCloud password, which prevented the locked iPhone from doing an iCloud backup.

 

[ls99]

....

Apparently after the crime, someone in the county which owned the iPhone changed the iCloud password, which prevented the locked iPhone from doing an iCloud backup.

The owner of the phone is the employer. The employer changed the cloud password.
As I noted earlier, Farook and his wife destroyed their personal phones. Thus emloying truly unbreakable encryption.

 

[NW-Bound]

I support Apple's right to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court. And I hope they prevail.

I am neutral, but like to see it go to the SC too. But I would bet Apple to fail, given recent trends.

 

[ERD50]

This all is covered, IMO, by the old Benjamin Franklin quote - They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ...

First (and maybe a minor point), that quote does not mean what people think it means (context is important):

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said

Ben Franklin's Famous 'Liberty, Safety' Quote Lost Its Context In 21st Century : NPR

... So far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it's a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation. ...

But I'll still argue it based on the oft-accepted meaning. To live in society means giving up all sorts of freedoms. I'm not free to drive 90 mph in a school zone, or play 120 dB accordion in front of your house at 3 AM. And I like to be protected against people who would do that to me. That doesn't make my life worse, it makes it better. But you do have to sacrifice a bit to gain a lot. True, my examples are not "essential" liberties, but I'm using them to make a point.

There's also the old Pastor Niemöller poem:

And I'm not advocating violating people's privacy based on race/religion/political-leaning or anything else. But only when they are suspected criminals, and warrants (or whatever official authorization is required) have been obtained through proper channels.

There are shades of gray here. It is not black/white, all or nothing, one-size-fits-all.

I support Apple's right to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court. And I hope they prevail.

That's a legitimate process, so we are in agreement there. I haven't heard the arguments, so I can't say whether I think they should prevail or not.

I don't have any issue at all with the govt violating the privacy of suspected criminals, if procedures and checks/balances are followed. Whether Apple should be required to break into a phone is a tougher question, and maybe they don't even have the capability, and maybe it risks their entire security model. It's complicated, I just don't know.

-ERD50

 

[M Paquette]

So, you say you have nothing to hide?

The old master rose gardener, "Chuckles" Beria agrees:

"If you have done nothing wrong, comrade, then you have nothing to fear."
- Lavrenti Pavlovich Beria (1899 - 1953), chief of the Soviet Secret Police (NKVD) under Stalin

Bear in mind that once collected, information is forever. The rules, not so much.

The rules may change. Once the surveillance and access is in place to enforce rules you may agree with, the ruleset being enforced can change in ways you do not agree with at all. Always consider how a system can be abused by a power worse than a relatively benevolent one.

It's not you who determines if you have something to fear. You may think you are clean, but if you happen to set off a red flag in an automated oversight system, you will be placed under a bureaucratic microscope. You might think you are squeaky clean, but when viewed by an outsider who expects to find something suspicious, some of your activity will be suspicious. Breakfast on Tuesday morning with some other old pharts at the coffee shop? Organized subversive conspiracy, especially after they review the tape with that political rant...

And that assumes that the surveillance and collection even has the correct data...

Laws must be broken for society to progress; that is, if a society actually enforces all its laws it will stop dead in its tracks. Or when driving through town, do you keep the car under seven miles an hour, and have a man waving a red lantern walking ahead of the vehicle? If a frog is killed in a frog-jumping competition, it may not be eaten (CA Fish & Game Code 6883). You didn't buy a cold ginger ale in that store, did you (Indiana Code 7.1-3-10-5)? And of course, nobody ever commits adultery in Michigan (Michigan Penal Code Act 328 of 1931 Sect. 750.30). You may be committing multiple crimes every day already.

Privacy is a basic human need. You really have nothing to hide? You won't mind if we install these cameras in your bedroom and bathroom, then. Don't worry, under the current rules only select agents will have access to the camera feeds. And we promise not to keep the recordings too long...

 

[Texas Proud]

I am neutral, but like to see it go to the SC too. But I would bet Apple to fail, given recent trends.

With Scalia dying, that is probably one less vote for privacy... if that is what you mean by recent trends...

 

[NW-Bound]

It's not about privacy, because the law never protects a criminal's privacy. There's no privacy in jail, right? It's about forcing Apple to do what it does not want to do. But let's put that aside for now.

Back on what the FBI wants Apple to do, BBC has a very good description. See: Apple v the FBI - a plain English guide - BBC News. This has an excerpt from the formal court document.

Basically, the FBI wants Apple to first disable the "auto erase" feature on the phone, which would activate after 10 failed attempts on the passcode. This would allow exhaustive search of all 10,000 combinations of the 4-digit code. Some software mod is needed to facilitate the trial of all these combinations.

One important thing to be noted is that the FBI allows this to be done at Apple's lab, and does not ask to have this special software itself. Thus, Apple retains control of this special software, and can destroy it afterwards. It does not have to give the FBI this code.

What Tim Cook said was this:

"The U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control."​

Apple will be controlling this special software and the government does not ask to have it. If Apple does not trust itself to not leak it to hackers, I wonder how users can trust Apple not to lose other users' data that is backed up on its cloud.