Judge forces Apple to unlock iPhone

[Jaskalas]

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Refuse to Choose Between Apple and the FBI

Whichever Presidential candidate vows to protect American liberty on this matter has my vote. Those who don't can GTFO.

 

[LPCTech]

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Refuse to Choose Between Apple and the FBI

Whichever Presidential candidate vows to protect American liberty on this matter has my vote. Those who don't can GTFO.

indeed, there are enemies of freedom...among us.

 

[Artdeco]

There's nothing on that phone, it was employer provided, the bad guy literally burned the other phones they had.

This is political drama, law enforcement has been looking for a reason to demand the encryption be broken on modern phones, it paints Apple in the worst possible position, "Protecting Terrorists" and law enforcement as not over-reaching. Also curious is the security on the phone was modified 24 hours after law enforcement had possession of it.

Apple has been working with them on trying to get the data without defeating their security efforts. They have the data from the carrier, location info from the cell towers, etc...

 

[LPCTech]

There's nothing on that phone, it was employer provided, the bad guy literally burned the other phones they had.

This is political drama, law enforcement has been looking for a reason to demand the encryption be broken on modern phones, it paints Apple in the worst possible position, "Protecting Terrorists" and law enforcement as not over-reaching. Also curious is the security on the phone was modified 24 hours after law enforcement had possession of it.

Apple has been working with them on trying to get the data without defeating their security efforts. They have the data from the carrier, location info from the cell towers, etc...

Exactly, its ALL about the legal precedent. Thats what they want.

 

[Fern]

Exactly, its ALL about the legal precedent. Thats what they want.

And if they get it, it is Apple because is handing to them in effort for free marketing about how secure they are.

If Apple can't do it without creating new software Apple has nothing to worry about according to numerous lawyers. The FBI will lose in court.

If Apple can do it and is refusing, they've chosen the worst possible case to fight. The FBI will win. (Although it is unclear what, beyond the specific data, the FBI will win.)

Fern

 

[LPCTech]

^^^

um yeah, I agree...

:hmm:

That kinda ended this discussion lol.

 

[Kwatt]

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Refuse to Choose Between Apple and the FBI

Whichever Presidential candidate vows to protect American liberty on this matter has my vote. Those who don't can GTFO.

These two are not vowing to protect American liberty on this matter Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. They are fence sitting to protect themselves from both sides. Because they are to chicken shit too take a stand!

At least Trump took a stand. Even if it is on the wrong side..

"Do not fear your enemies. The worst they can do is kill you. Do not fear friends. At worst, they may betray you. Fear those who do not care; they neither kill nor betray, but betrayal and murder exist because of their silent consent."Bruno Jasienski

.

 

[waggy]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-bernar...passcode-changed-government/story?id=37066070

The Justice Department acknowledged in its court filing that the password of Syed Farook's iCloud account had been reset. The filing states, "the owner [San Bernardino County Department of Public Health], in an attempt to gain access to some information in the hours after the attack, was able to reset the password remotely, but that had the effect of eliminating the possibility of an auto-backup."

Apple could have recovered information from the iPhone had the iCloud password not been reset, the company said. If the phone was taken to a location where it recognized the Wi-Fi network, such as the San Bernardino shooters' home, it could have been backed up to the cloud, Apple suggested.



whaaat? this story is odd.

 

[DrDoug]

After reading this (and if this info really is the case), it sounds like Apple is only fighting this to protect their brand. What is different about this request that they would fight it and the seventy other requests that Apple has complied with in the past? Being that this is old tech that doesn't have the separate encryption module (thus not changing anything on their new phones), why the fuss? The government isn't even asking Apple to give them access to the data on the device, they will brute force the password themselves. In past cases Apple even pulled the data themselves, providing it directly to law enforcement and they don't even have to do that in this case. If this article is true then it seems strange that Apple chose this hill to die on.

In a way it's almost as if they are spoiling for this fight with the government.

 

[lopri]

I wouldn't be willing to throw the constitution out of the window or potentially allowing a tool that circumvents security on a huge portion of smartphones into the wild (or even just the .gov) in order to find his reasoning. Would I like to know, sure. Would I be want the .gov to gain the ability to break the encryption on every phone just so I could find out what was in that one phone, no.

And just what part of the Constitution do you think you would be throwing out? I assume you are talking about the 4th Amendment so I am quoting it in full. I do not see what is being violated or thrown out.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[Ichinisan]

After reading this (and if this info really is the case), it sounds like Apple is only fighting this to protect their brand. What is different about this request that they would fight it and the seventy other requests that Apple has complied with in the past? Being that this is old tech that doesn't have the separate encryption module (thus not changing anything on their new phones), why the fuss? The government isn't even asking Apple to give them access to the data on the device, they will brute force the password themselves. In past cases Apple even pulled the data themselves, providing it directly to law enforcement and they don't even have to do that in this case. If this article is true then it seems strange that Apple chose this hill to die on.

In a way it's almost as if they are spoiling for this fight with the government.

I believe those other cases were before new security measures were added to iOS. Apple does not want to invalidate all the security stuff they re-worked in iOS 8/9.

 

[1prophet]

These two are not vowing to protect American liberty on this matter Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. They are fence sitting to protect themselves from both sides. Because they are to chicken shit too take a stand!

At least Trump took a stand. Even if it is on the wrong side..

[/B]

.

If it was the Koch brothers or some other conservative leaning business I bet they wouldn't hesitate to jump off the fence.

 

[DrDoug]

I believe those other cases were before new security measures were added to iOS. Apple does not want to invalidate all the security stuff they re-worked in iOS 8/9.

From what I read this phone is an earlier device without Secure Enclave, like their newest models, so what Apple is being asked to do is nothing new as evidenced by the seventy times they have done it in the past for earlier models. This isn't about their newest model with SE, nor are they being asked to circumvent encryption.

They are just being asked to remove the 10 pass attempt limit.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I have no doubt this is mostly about protecting the AAPL brand.

I also have no doubt that if it was one of Tim Cook's loved ones killed in the attack he'd do it in a heart beat and not say a peep publicly about it.

 

[LPCTech]

Lots of people comment without knowing the situation or the ramifications.

Apple just discovered that the password was changed while in government custody.

This means, they already got in, then changed the password in order to pick this fight with apple so they can get that legal precedent they want. (possibly)

There is really no discussion to have after Fern's post a bit higher on the page...post 130, this is the long and short of it.

The fact that the password was changed while in government custody is a whole new ball of wax though.

I strongly suspect that either the FBI will lose in court or Apple will actually find a way in without compromising their security.

But the issue at hand is whether or not the government can force a company to create new software from scratch by court order.

If that legal precedent is set then the US gov and governments world wide like China Iran etc will have ability to FORCE a software company to make backdoors and changes to the software at will with a court order if they ever wanna sell their products.

Meaning that no software made by any large corporation will every be safe again, not just from spying by the US, but by other nations and private actors who gain the information of how to access the backdoors, which would become public rather shortly I imagine since there are leaks all the time.

Also, if you have nothing to hide and arent worried about people looking at what you do online and on your phone, then feel free to post all your email addresses and passwords to everything so we can look around. no?

 

[K1052]

From what I read this phone is an earlier device without Secure Enclave, like their newest models, so what Apple is being asked to do is nothing new as evidenced by the seventy times they have done it in the past for earlier models. This isn't about their newest model with SE, nor are they being asked to circumvent encryption.

They are just being asked to remove the 10 pass attempt limit.

Accessing unencrypted stuff off an older device running an older iOS and designing a custom version of iOS to circumvent security measures (auto deletion and passcode entry via USB) are two different things. This is why the government's argument that this is no different does't hold much water with me. Forcing Apple to build something they otherwise would not is an action without precedent as far as I know.

 

[K1052]

Apple just discovered that the password was changed while in government custody.


This means, they already got in, then changed the password in order to pick this fight with apple so they can get that legal precedent they want. (possibly)

It would seem that incompetence at the county was to blame for that not any malice on the part of the FBI.

 

[DrDoug]

Lots of people comment without knowing the situation or the ramifications.

Apple just discovered that the password was changed while in government custody.

This means, they already got in, then changed the password in order to pick this fight with apple so they can get that legal precedent they want. (possibly)

There is really no discussion to have after Fern's post a bit higher on the page...post 130, this is the long and short of it.

The fact that the password was changed while in government custody is a whole new ball of wax though.

I strongly suspect that either the FBI will lose in court or Apple will actually find a way in without compromising their security.

But the issue at hand is whether or not the government can force a company to create new software from scratch by court order.

If that legal precedent is set then the US gov and governments world wide like China Iran etc will have ability to FORCE a software company to make backdoors and changes to the software at will with a court order if they ever wanna sell their products.

Meaning that no software made by any large corporation will every be safe again, not just from spying by the US, but by other nations and private actors who gain the information of how to access the backdoors, which would become public rather shortly I imagine since there are leaks all the time.

Also, if you have nothing to hide and arent worried about people looking at what you do online and on your phone, then feel free to post all your email addresses and passwords to everything so we can look around. no?

The pass was reset by a county employee in the immediate hours after the attack in an unauthorized (by feds or county) attempt to secure the phone. The county employee did this on their own initiative. The problem is that when the Apple ID was reset, cloud backup for the old pass was cut off and automatic backup to the cloud was lost. According to records the last time the phone was synced was in October, leading feds to think that he shut it off to hide something. The problem is that they can't back it up prior to attempting to hack the phone and so they want the 10 password attempt/wipe function removed to secure it so they can brute force it.

The phone is owned by the county and they have given the feds permission to access it so I really can't see what Apple's problem is with this.

 

[DrDoug]

Accessing unencrypted stuff off an older device running an older iOS and designing a custom version of iOS to circumvent security measures (auto deletion and passcode entry via USB) are two different things. This is why the government's argument that this is no different does't hold much water with me. Forcing Apple to build something they otherwise would not is an action without precedent as far as I know.

Actually there is a (possibly, being litigated now) relevant law regarding manufacturers being forced by the courts to do something like this. I can't remember where I read it a few days ago but it just may be the case that they have to (if the courts agree). Regardless, the sticking point for me is that if Apple has cooperated seventy times in the past then they really don't seem to have a leg to stand on (IMO).

 

[LPCTech]

^^^

Repeats incorrect opinion lol.

Im pretty sure apples army of lawyers DO think they have a leg to stand on.

And apple cooperating in the past had different circumstances obviously.

Cites possible maybe litigation that maybe possibly exists.

Apple board of directors and CEO: "Hey guys I think it would be a really awesome marketing stunt if we supported terrorists and fought the FBI in a case we know we are going to lose anyway"

Apple lawyers: "We recommend you do this"

lol

Plus if they LOSE and are forced to do what the government says thats not gonna be good for PR. lol not gonna get them sales.

In order for this to work out in apples favor they NEED to WIN.

If they and their ARMY OF LAWYERS didnt think they would win they wouldnt do this.

And lets also forget about the ramifications of the FBI winning.

Also, I noticed you did not post all your accounts and login info here, Its like you dont want people up in your business or something?

 

[K1052]

Regardless, the sticking point for me is that if Apple has cooperated seventy times in the past then they really don't seem to have a leg to stand on (IMO).

It should be noted that the company only turns over data when presented with a court order so it's not like they were voluntarily doing this in the first place. This "cooperation" is substantially different from a legal, technical, and ethical perspective than what they've been ordered to do in the past.

 

[DrDoug]

It should be noted that the company only turns over data when presented with a court order so it's not like they were voluntarily doing this in the first place. This "cooperation" is substantially different from a legal, technical, and ethical perspective than what they've been ordered to do in the past.

No argument there at all, it's just odd to me that this case is supposed to be somehow different. To me it's almost like Apple wants to litigate the features of their now phone using an old model. In the end it's going to be whatever the courts decide (if technically feasible), not Apple or the feds.

I'm betting that Apple loses this case.

 

[DrDoug]

^^^

Repeats incorrect opinion lol.

Im pretty sure apples army of lawyers DO think they have a leg to stand on.

And apple cooperating in the past had different circumstances obviously.

Cites possible maybe litigation that maybe possibly exists.

Apple board of directors and CEO: "Hey guys I think it would be a really awesome marketing stunt if we supported terrorists and fought the FBI in a case we know we are going to lose anyway"

Apple lawyers: "We recommend you do this"

lol

Plus if they LOSE and are forced to do what the government says thats not gonna be good for PR. lol not gonna get them sales.

In order for this to work out in apples favor they NEED to WIN.

If they and their ARMY OF LAWYERS didnt think they would win they wouldnt do this.

And lets also forget about the ramifications of the FBI winning.

Also, I noticed you did not post all your accounts and login info here, Its like you dont want people up in your business or something?

Are you really this stupid or do you just pretend to be so people can laugh at you?

As far as the rest goes, blather on...lol!

 

[K1052]

No argument there at all, it's just odd to me that this case is supposed to be somehow different. To me it's almost like Apple wants to litigate the features of their now phone using an old model. In the end it's going to be whatever the courts decide (if technically feasible), not Apple or the feds.

I'm betting that Apple loses this case.

On the basis of considering code as protected first amendment speech and that the company cannot be compelled to speak I think an outcome in favor of the government is far from certain. I suspect this will be the core of their defense since they hired Olson.

 

[zinfamous]

It sets a very dangerous precedent. Ask yourself, would the government answer to the same demands? No. They would fight it with every ounce of power they have. In fact if someone hacked their equipment to find 'data' revolving around government wrongdoing, they'd be trying to try people for treason....oh wait...

And yes, the number of people who actually think Apple is in the wrong here is just stunning. I blame Facebook and the 'if you are doing no wrong then you have nothing to hide' crowd. So many people just don't see the big picture and seem to think the government and companies never do anything wrong or for themselves above all else.

100% this. The media has been ludicrous in their reporting what is at issue here, and what the FBI is actually demanding. It's always "The FBI wants acces to this one phone and Apple refuses!"

There have been a few commentators here and there, mostly from that internet privacy security alliance, whatever they are called, that have spelled this out very clearly, but are often shouted down by "former homeland security agent" participating in the discussion

It's quite insulting.