Judge forces Apple to unlock iPhone

[Subyman]

Apple position is 100% wrong. This was NOT a personal device, this was a government issued phone, and under California law all information on the phone is a public record. Apple is not being asked to hack into someone private information.

God man, we are this far into the story and you still don't understand the basic issue.

If Apple is forced to create a back door into their secure environment, then it stands to reason that nothing can be made in the US without the government having a way to access it. Nothing commercially available would ever be truly secure.

Then there is the other angle where the government is forcing Apple to work for the government against Apple's interests even though Apple has done no wrong and has broken no law.

It has nothing to do with the warrant allowing search of the device and it doesn't really matter who owns the device. No one has a problem with the government getting a warrant for information.

 

[Darwin333]

Apple position is 100% wrong. This was NOT a personal device, this was a government issued phone, and under California law all information on the phone is a public record. Apple is not being asked to hack into someone private information.

Then the government should have ensured that they purchased a device in which they had some sort of master password that they could use to access the data in cases like this. As is the device is working exactly as advertised when the government purchased it.

If the government purchases a safe that is advertised to be uncrackable and then loses the combination do you think they should be able to force the manufacturer to develop a way to crack the safe? They do own the safe and all of it's contents, the safe is working exactly as designed and advertised and them not being able to access the contents is no fault of the manufacturer. Keep in mind that the government had the ability to purchase a different safe that they could have kept a backup or master combination to, so isn't it their due diligence to insure that they have access to the contents once they take delivery of the safe assuming it works exactly as advertised?

This isn't a case of the data being on Apples servers and Apple is withholding the data from the government. The government currently has physical possession of the data but the data is encrypted on the phone which was exactly what the phone was advertised to do. I'm not sure what policies the local government had on encrypting data on their phones but that is between them and their employees not the company whose products they purchased and are working exactly as promised. As a matter of fact, from what I understand of Apple's advertising this is something that they have specifically said can't be done before the customer purchased the phone or upgraded the operating system.

I fail to see how anyone can say that Apple is responsible in ensuring that a companies employee not use their product in a way that the product was advertised to work.

 

[DCal430]

Let me ask you this, if someone invented a safe that is designed to destroy all of the contents in the safe, if it detects it is being tampered with. Should this be legal?

 

[DCal430]

What is kind of funny is the county has access to software that they can install on iphones which gives them access to the phone with or without the password, but they failed to install it on this phone.

 

[waggy]

Let me ask you this, if someone invented a safe that is designed to destroy all of the contents in the safe, if it detects it is being tampered with. Should this be legal?

yes.

 

[Subyman]

Let me ask you this, if someone invented a safe that is designed to destroy all of the contents in the safe, if it detects it is being tampered with. Should this be legal?

Yes. Why would that be illegal?

 

[LPCTech]

Let me ask you this, if someone invented a safe that is designed to destroy all of the contents in the safe, if it detects it is being tampered with. Should this be legal?

Yes, what about this would in any way be illegal?

It might be not all that smart if you mess up and accidentally destroy the contents of your safe, but illegal, no.

 

[brycejones]

What is kind of funny is the county has access to software that they can install on iphones which gives them access to the phone with or without the password, but they failed to install it on this phone.

So for some reason Apple should be accountable for making up for the counties shitty management of devices they own?

Sorry the responsibility for ensuring the content of the phone is available belongs to the county. The county is the entity legally obligated under open records laws to ensure the data on a device is actually available under the terms of those laws not the device manufacturer.

 

[brycejones]

Let me ask you this, if someone invented a safe that is designed to destroy all of the contents in the safe, if it detects it is being tampered with. Should this be legal?

Yes. Do you believe otherwise?

 

[bozack]

I still can't come up with a plausible reason Apple would develop this software which I can't conceive them needing at any point for their own purposes. In the absence of any proof their claim that they have not and would not write it in the normal corse of their business stands.

Just creating and signing the modified iOS presents a security risk from it's very existence. The fact that it would exist at all compromises product security.

To test the security of the device, for development work, heck just to say they can...who knows but I wouldn't be surprised to discover they already have it.

I understand perfectly. Having it at all means they could be compelled to use it on other user's phones. Understand now? It is not acceptable when it was designed specifically to not be this way. It's why Lavabit shut down entirely: their entire service was offering communications that could not be intercepted and read. When the government tried to force them to put in a back door, it undermined EVERYTHING the service was intended to provide. In Apple's case it does not undermine everything but it does undermine a lot of the work they have done on securing their platform. Who knows how many man-hours and R&D dollars were spent on their current security model only to have people toss it on a legal whim.

So they already admitted to having a modified version which disables the pass code in previous releases, or so I read elsewhere...

It will be interesting to see how this goes but I still stand by the fact that apple set a bad precedent for themselves when they cooperated in the past.

 

[bozack]

Then the government should have ensured that they purchased a device in which they had some sort of master password that they could use to access the data in cases like this. As is the device is working exactly as advertised when the government purchased it.

One could argue that Apple made the change by forcing encryption on their devices with the upgrade of iOS so essentially Apple changed the devices and how they behave and the government is just following the same procedure they did in the past the difference being Apple is now telling them to go f themselves.

 

[Darwin333]

So if I have 100,000 in bit coins stored on phone, and I forget my PW, should them mean I am SOL. No it shouldn't.

Actually yes it does and if the capability existed and someone used it to steal your 100,000 in bitcoins you would say that they were responsible to make you whole. You can't have it both ways, they provided you with a phone capable of safely encrypting your data. It is YOUR due diligence to ensure that you don't forget your password not their responsibility to develop tools that break one of their fundamental features because you or even one of your employees fucked up.

And just to reiterate, Apple does NOT possess any of the data in question. The government has the data but they can't access it and according to Apple neither can they. You act like Apple has this data stored on their servers and is refusing to give it to the government which couldn't be farther from reality.

 

[bozack]

Let me ask you this, if someone invented a safe that is designed to destroy all of the contents in the safe, if it detects it is being tampered with. Should this be legal?

well that is an interesting question, if that safe is subject to court ordered discovery then I would figure someone could get sued over that....just as Apple is being taken to court now....will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[Darwin333]

Let me ask you this, if someone invented a safe that is designed to destroy all of the contents in the safe, if it detects it is being tampered with. Should this be legal?

Of course it should be legal, why shouldn't it be?

Are you really arguing that encryption should be illegal unless the government has access to it? That peoples property and personal information should be inherently much less secure just in case the government might someday decide it wants to search through it? What about the consequences of bad guys having a much easier time of stealing your information, or bitcoins as was your previous example, solely because the government thinks that you might commit a crime one day? I guarantee that if you had 100,000 in bitcoins stolen because Apple intentionally made a less secure OS that you would be trying to hold them responsible for your loss.

 

[K1052]

To test the security of the device, for development work, heck just to say they can...who knows but I wouldn't be surprised to discover they already have it.

Blowing holes in your security scheme just because isn't much of a reason since only their signed software could be loaded in the first place and they already know where the vulnerability would be.

 

[Darwin333]

One could argue that Apple made the change by forcing encryption on their devices with the upgrade of iOS so essentially Apple changed the devices and how they behave and the government is just following the same procedure they did in the past the difference being Apple is now telling them to go f themselves.

I'm not all that familiar with Apple devices but does it force the user to encrypt the phone? If not it's the owners responsibility to ensure that their devices are being used in accordance to their standards. Do Iphones automatically update the OS or is it like my Android where I have to agree to download and install the update? If it doesn't automatically update the government was perfectly free to institute a policy that told their employees not to upgrade government owned Iphones. Again the burden is on the owner to ensure that they retain access to both the device and the data unless they entered into some sort of specific contract with Apple to do otherwise.

I guess one could argue that when the phone was originally purchased that tools to circumvent the security existed and therefore were expected but I would need to see some sort of evidence that the .gov expected this to remain the case as a condition of purchasing and using Iphones. From everything that I have read though the .gov is treating this like any other seized phone and not necessarily as their property. It would be kind of ironic to see the government argue that Apple sold them a device that was to secure against hackers.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Let me ask you this, if someone invented a safe that is designed to destroy all of the contents in the safe, if it detects it is being tampered with. Should this be legal?

Yes. Absolutely.

 

[DCal430]

Yes. Do you believe otherwise?

Their would need to be a way for government to access the safe when necessary. Safety >>> Privacy

 

[LPCTech]

Their would need to be a way for government to access the safe when necessary. Safety >>> Privacy

D:

Are you posting from a chinese government building? Or maybe you are Kim jong un himself? lol

Oh and "there"

 

[Subyman]

Safety >>> Privacy

How in the world can this come out of an American mouth? There is a balance, but in no way what-so-ever is safety universally more important than privacy. You really need to do some more research into the subject. I suggest at the very least reading "1984."

 

[Ichinisan]

Their would need to be a way for government to access the safe when necessary. Safety >>> Privacy

Please go to North Korea. Please please please.

 

[CZroe]

Their would need to be a way for government to access the safe when necessary. Safety >>> Privacy

If there is such a need then THEY PURCHASED THE WRONG PRODUCT/SERVICE when they chose Apple's system, fully aware of what it was designed to do. FFS, how can you not understand this?! SMH

If you don't want/need a safe that destroys the contents, BUY A DIFFERENT SAFE. Don't wait until you need it to be a different kind of safe.

 

[Subyman]

US Government should search your home once a week. Make sure there aren't any illegal guns, terrorist cells, or suspicious activity. We would be so safe.

 

[adamantine.me]

One thing is for sure: this is really great publicity for Apple. With privacy and encryption being increasingly relevant topics, Apple has the chance to attract some new customers.

 

[jackstar7]

Their would need to be a way for government to access the safe when necessary. Safety >>> Privacy

So you're literally wanting to trade freedom for safety.

Guess what: you're never safe!

Try to live with some acceptance of insecurity like a mature adult.