quote:


Here's the setup.

San Bernardino killer Syed Rizwan Farook owned an iPhone 5c, which may have been used -- probably was used -- in planning and perhaps even executing the holiday party terror attack with his wife, Tashfeen Malik.

That iPhone 5c, just like any other up-to-do-date iOS or Android smartphone, has disc-level encryption baked into the OS for users who want that level of privacy, for good or for ill.

Yesterday,U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple to bypass the phone's security functions, and furthermore "to provide related technical assistance and to build special software that would essentially act as a skeleton key capable of unlocking the phone."

Here's what happened next:

Hours later, in a statement by its chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, Apple announced its refusal to comply. The move sets up a legal showdown between the company, which says it is eager to protect the privacy of its customers, and the law enforcement authorities, who assert that new encryption technologies hamper their ability to prevent and solve crime.

In his statement, Mr. Cook called the court order an “unprecedented step” by the federal government. “We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand,” he wrote.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond publicly to Apple’s resistance.

The F.B.I. said its experts had been unable to access data on the iPhone 5c and that only Apple could bypass its security features. F.B.I. experts have said they risk losing the data permanently after 10 failed attempts to enter the password because of the phone’s security features.

The Justice Department had secured a search warrant for the phone, owned by Mr. Farook’s former employer, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, which consented to the search.

Because Apple declined to voluntarily provide, in essence, the “keys” to its encryption technology, federal prosecutors said they saw little choice but to get a judge to compel Apple’s assistance.

Mr. Cook said the order amounted to creating a “back door” to bypass Apple’s strong encryption standards — “something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


If the request from the FBI had been a one time (or, if needed in the future; a case-by-case basis), I would be excoriating Apple.

However, the request was (essentially): "Apple, build us a back door so that we can get into ANY IPhone out there."

I, also, applaud Apple.



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I, for one, hope that apple gets stomped.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Uh, they actually have the code now, and have had since they made the phones, and pods.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

It amazes me that we spend so much on national security every year, yet our government's agencies can't even hack into an iPhone.

quote:


Y7AZXmXae5FxNu6IXmwyTbzDhplRezFO4iXqgJeVIXPta3vRS+redRbIKD83ybbksNuqfrTRVnJ2+IoreT+log==

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

I am torn on this.

On one hand, the whole issue of national security, dealing with known terrorists, etc...I can't help but want to give some latitude here.

I don't believe for a second that Apple doesn't know how to get into it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
Besides, my understanding is that the phone was a company phone issued to him as an employee. It was not his private property. The company he worked for should have the capability to get into it if they so desire. If the company gives the FBI permission to access the phone, that's their right. If the company can't access it themselves, the manufacturer should provide that service.
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
Depending on how Apple handles phone encryption they may not ever see the encryption keys.

quote:


Phones don't care if they're company issued or not and I don't know of any company that encrypts their employee's phones; usually it's up to the employee to encrypt the phone and pick a proper passphrase. Thus only the employee has the decryption key needed to access the phone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
Depending on how Apple handles phone encryption they may not ever see the encryption keys.

I will be the first to admit I know nothing about this kind of stuff. This is more of a somewhat irrational belief that I have that the government and big corporations like this can do shit that we wouldn't believe, so it is hard for me to imagine that they can't break into their own equipment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:


Phones don't care if they're company issued or not and I don't know of any company that encrypts their employee's phones; usually it's up to the employee to encrypt the phone and pick a proper passphrase. Thus only the employee has the decryption key needed to access the phone.

I understand that. I was looking at it more from the client angle, where in situations like this employers 'own' anything on that phone, and would either have the capability of accessing anything of theirs, or at a minimum have an agreement with the manufacturer to do so. A master key, a backdoor built in, something along those lines. Something I would expect were I to purchase such equipment for work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
...
There is a compromise.... All agree Apple has the capability to comply... So instead of giving up the decryption software.. Just allow Apple to decrypt the information on the phone and give it over to the Fbi... This could be done with FBI observers to keep the information integrity . What's the big deal?
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I don't believe in the compunction to labor either. However, for this one instance apple can be forced to testify about methods, algorythmns etc. And since apple has a password reset on every device I think they can be compelled to provide it.