I haven't heard that the government wants Apple to reveal anything about its trade secrets, OS or anything about the tool used to get the data. They just want the data (and if it is encrypted, they will deal with that I guess).
samclem,
Hey, no question, I could be misreading this whole thing. I guess I landed here because Apple has only two responses to the government's request, aside from capitulating. "We can't do it" or "We won't do it". I thought, maybe by mistake, that Apple was saying they could not break into this phone without causing vulnerability to other phones with the same security features. That is one of the things that is different for me. If your bank reveals the contents of your bank account to the FBI, my account information is not in jeopardy. If the bank gives the FBI everyone's account information so they can cull though it to see if there is something incriminating in yours....I have a problem with that. More importantly, I do take issue with the larger argument of government compulsion "for the greater good" as if the greater good trumps Apple's right to maintain the secrets they created in securing their phone systems.
In these instances, I do side with government restraint. And I come from a background of someone who has written subpoenas and search warrant applications like the ones you are talking about.
Again--if Apple doesn't develop this capability and keep it in house, it's entirely possible the government will pay another company to try to do it.
You are right about this. No doubt about it. And Apple has every right to complain about it from a legal standpoint if the FBI breaks in to the phone(s) this way. But this action would compel Apple to do nothing. I guess the theme of my posts, poorly stated, is this. The government has a duty, a responsibility, to protect us from terrorists. But such responsibility does come with limitations. I don't want your rights violated for my safety because I really don't have any safety if that happens. And I'm no anarchist. We need government. But, if we say the government should be allowed to do something because a majority of people would be safer as a result, aren't we saying the government can do anything it wants? I would bet over 99% of the people working in government have no ill intent. But, like any endeavor, in local, state and national offices there are smart people, dumb people, people who follow their oaths and a few who don't. It's incumbent on us to monitor this and, every once in a while say, "No, you can't do that". It keeps them honest.
Good conversation. The only thing missing is the coffee.
Ron