Judge forces Apple to unlock iPhone

[fskimospy]

Well the article says there's already been jurisprudence that says software can be speech. So if that's true then it makes sense for Apple to try that argument.

As for is a car speech? I don't know. It seems possible that any act of creation could be construed to be speech. Whether it's a car, art, music or speech.

If any of this holds up in court remains to be seen.

Oh I can certainly imagine situations in which software could be speech but firmware for a phone isn't one of them. I also agree that any act of creation COULD be interpreted as speech, but a definition that broad sounds like a recipe for some pretty horrible unintended consequences. (Regulations that require the inclusion of seat belts in the cars I build are compelling speech from me!)

 

[Paratus]

Oh I can certainly imagine situations in which software could be speech but firmware for a phone isn't one of them. I also agree that any act of creation COULD be interpreted as speech, but a definition that broad sounds like a recipe for some pretty horrible unintended consequences. (Regulations that require the inclusion of seat belts in the cars I build are compelling speech from me!)

Good point.

 

[lopri]

Apple filed a response brief.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/300522240/Motion-to-Vacate-Brief-and-Supporting-Declarations (PDF)

Apple accuses the FBI of purposefully dropping legislative routes, short-circuiting what Apple views as a proper way to solve the controversy. Apple then invokes the 1st (free speech) and 5th Amendments (privilege against self-incrimination).

It does make an argument that the burden imposed on it is undue and too intrusive. It also argues that it has interest in protecting a 3rd party's privacy. Here I found this interesting tidbit in the brief.

Although it is difficult to estimate, because it has never been done before, the design, creation, validation, and deployment of the software likely would necessitate six to ten Apple engineers and employees dedicating a very substantial portion of their time for a minimum of two weeks, and likely as many as four weeks.

No doubt these are carefully calibrated numbers with ample room for plausible deniability. It is the first time I learn what it takes to write such codes. It is also the first time I hear Apple acknowledging its capability.

A super lawyer Ted Olson is in charge. Apple is clearly ready for the court fight all the way. I find the 1st Amendment argument dubious - Apple alleges compelled speech as well as viewpoint discrimination for disagreeing with the government - but the 1st amendment these days is a cure-all of constitutional dispute. I will not take a guess either way.

The rest of the argument seems, not surprisingly, plausible enough. But I am not sure if the high court will want to rule on this contentious issue, especially when it is short-staffed. The lawmakers should really take the responsibility.

 

[Darwin333]

That's been the painfully obvious play by the govt all along. It's unfortunate that most of the general public is dumb and continues to fall for the "it's just this one case, why is apple helping terrorists?" ruse.

Personally I am absurdly surprised that the rest of the assholes jumped on the bandwagon so quickly. It would have been far easier if they had kept their mouths shut and waited until this case was settled. Now that they have come out and asked for more phones to have security measures removed it's kind of hard for anyone to say "its for this one phone, we promise!".

 

[Darwin333]

I'm not a tech guy, so IDK. But this sort of thing is the type of info/misinfo that needs to settle down. I keep hearing what sounds like conflicting info. And Apple seems to want to call every solution a "backdoor", as if that is a super scary word.

I thought as regards the law everyone was in agreement that the govt cannot force Apple to create something they don't yet have. I.e., the govt cannot Force Apple to create a (dreaded) "back door". So, I see no need at this point for all the anguish etc.

Fern

They sure as hell are giving it one hellofa shot and as of right now a judge has ordered them to do exactly that.

 

[Darwin333]

The lawmakers should really take the responsibility.

Hey we agree on something, how about that!

 

[Rakehellion]

Well the article says there's already been jurisprudence that says software can be speech. So if that's true then it makes sense for Apple to try that argument.

As for is a car speech? I don't know. It seems possible that any act of creation could be construed to be speech. Whether it's a car, art, music or speech.

If any of this holds up in court remains to be seen.

Anything you create is speech.

 

[Rakehellion]

Oh I can certainly imagine situations in which software could be speech but firmware for a phone isn't one of them. I also agree that any act of creation COULD be interpreted as speech, but a definition that broad sounds like a recipe for some pretty horrible unintended consequences. (Regulations that require the inclusion of seat belts in the cars I build are compelling speech from me!)

Companies are required to follow regulations with the products they create, companies are not required to create products.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm not a tech guy, so IDK. But this sort of thing is the type of info/misinfo that needs to settle down. I keep hearing what sounds like conflicting info. And Apple seems to want to call every solution a "backdoor", as if that is a super scary word.

This really isn't a case of hype, and I can't see any gray area here. Either a cryptographic system is secure, or it's not. If you build it in such a way that someone (the manufacturer, or anyone else for that matter) can compromise it -- call it a back door or whatever you wish -- then it's not a secure system, and parties other than those you intend to give access can use the same flaws.

If something is truly encrypted securely, then the manufacturer has no access to the data either.

If Apple creates a mechanism in it's OS to bypass the security features that protect against brute force attack, then their products will be susceptible to the same attack by some other party, and everyone will understand that the product (in this case, the iphone) is not secure.

That last part is why apple is digging in, they don't want to undermine their own business by demonstrating (proving) that their product is inherently insecure.

I thought as regards the law everyone was in agreement that the govt cannot force Apple to create something they don't yet have. I.e., the govt cannot Force Apple to create a (dreaded) "back door". So, I see no need at this point for all the anguish etc.

Actually, not everyone is in agreement. In fact, that's exactly what the magistrate is directing apple to do in this case.

Unfortunately, the anguish in this case is warranted and justified, and it goes way beyond this particular case. If the govt can compel you (or a company) to go out and build something that does not currently exist, to write code to do something you don't want, without any compensation and without you having any option in the matter, that's a pretty darn big deal IMO.

There have been many such requests previously, and apple has resisted them. It's no coincidence that the FBI and DoJ decided to pick this case as leverage to help them accomplish something they otherwise couldn't do. In this case they figure they can successfully use the "but...terrorists! why are you helping the terrorists! think of the children!" line.... and apparently they are right, the general public is buying the BS.

 

[PliotronX]

That last part is why apple is digging in, they don't want to undermine their own business by demonstrating (proving) that their product is inherently insecure.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place! I don't envy being Apple's PR team right now...

 

[PokerGuy]

Apple filed a response brief.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/300522240/Motion-to-Vacate-Brief-and-Supporting-Declarations (PDF)

Apple accuses the FBI of purposefully dropping legislative routes, short-circuiting what Apple views as a proper way to solve the controversy. Apple then invokes the 1st (free speech) and 5th Amendments (privilege against self-incrimination).

The 1st amendment angle is interesting. Writing code / software has in the past been viewed as "speech". If I remember correctly, someone successfully argued that the govt preventing them from releasing their encryption code/algorithm to everyone (including those overseas) went against their right to free speech. Writing code IMO is not all that much different than creating a song. Writing a song for purely commercial purposes (like creating a jingle for a tv commercial) is still considered speech. Compelling someone to write code for an OS to do something to me is no different than compelling them to write a song for some purpose.

Will be interesting to see the courts grapple with that one.

 

[fskimospy]

Companies are required to follow regulations with the products they create, companies are not required to create products.

Can you explain why the car as a whole is a product but the seatbelt is not? Even if that were the case, how is saying that Apple must create a back door to sell an iPhone any different than saying a car company must create a seatbelt in order to sell a car?

By the way I don't think Apple should be compelled to do this at all, I just think a first amendment argument is stupid and has a huge potential for unintended consequences.

 

[Paratus]

This really isn't a case of hype, and I can't see any gray area here. Either a cryptographic system is secure, or it's not. If you build it in such a way that someone (the manufacturer, or anyone else for that matter) can compromise it -- call it a back door or whatever you wish -- then it's not a secure system, and parties other than those you intend to give access can use the same flaws.

If something is truly encrypted securely, then the manufacturer has no access to the data either.

If Apple creates a mechanism in it's OS to bypass the security features that protect against brute force attack, then their products will be susceptible to the same attack by some other party, and everyone will understand that the product (in this case, the iphone) is not secure.

That last part is why apple is digging in, they don't want to undermine their own business by demonstrating (proving) that their product is inherently insecure.



Actually, not everyone is in agreement. In fact, that's exactly what the magistrate is directing apple to do in this case.

Unfortunately, the anguish in this case is warranted and justified, and it goes way beyond this particular case. If the govt can compel you (or a company) to go out and build something that does not currently exist, to write code to do something you don't want, without any compensation and without you having any option in the matter, that's a pretty darn big deal IMO.

There have been many such requests previously, and apple has resisted them. It's no coincidence that the FBI and DoJ decided to pick this case as leverage to help them accomplish something they otherwise couldn't do. In this case they figure they can successfully use the "but...terrorists! why are you helping the terrorists! think of the children!" line.... and apparently they are right, the general public is buying the BS.

The part I'm going to disagree with is that the phone is the inherently insecure part of the equation. In reality it's the user that's the weak link and Apple has implemented security to protect most people's shitty PINs. With an appropriately lengthy alpha-numeric passcode it would still take years to brute force crack. A 4 digit pin only a couple of hours without the security Apple put in place.

 

[Subyman]

Companies are required to follow regulations with the products they create, companies are not required to create products.

I don't believe that would be the basis for regulations in this new era of "speech in everything we create." I would think the line comes when you go to sell something. You are free to create anything you want, but if you want to sell it as a commercial product then it has to abide by these regs.

This may have been what you meant since you used the term "product."

 

[soundforbjt]

IIRC, all the republican candidates last night said Apple should do it.

 

[bshole]

Unfortunately, the anguish in this case is warranted and justified, and it goes way beyond this particular case. If the govt can compel you (or a company) to go out and build something that does not currently exist, to write code to do something you don't want, without any compensation and without you having any option in the matter, that's a pretty darn big deal IMO.

Agreed.... that is some scary sick shit right there. Disgusting move by our government.

 

[CZroe]

IIRC, all the republican candidates last night said Apple should do it.

I noticed that. I think no one wanted to take the "I don't know enough to have a position on the issue" option either because Marco acted like he knew so much and they didn't want to sound less knowledgeable.

Marco is DEAD WRONG to say that it's not a back door and DEAD WRONG to say that they only want it for this phone. Removing the limit on the number of attempts enables brute forcing the password, which means it opens a "door" for breaking the security. That's a door that wasn't there before and that allows them to end-around a standard security procedure. THAT is called a "back door." Durr.

I wish Carly was still in so we could get her impression/answer.

 

[soundforbjt]

I noticed that. I think no one wanted to take the "I don't know enough to have a position on the issue" option either because Marco acted like he knew so much and they didn't want to sound less knowledgeable.

Marco is DEAD WRONG to say that it's not a back door and DEAD WRONG to say that they only want it for this phone. Removing the limit on the number of attempts enables brute forcing the password, which means it opens a "door" for breaking the security. That's a door that wasn't there before and that allows them to end-around a standard security procedure. THAT is called a "back door." Durr.

I wish Carly was still in so we could get her impression/answer.

I think they all were taking the we're tough on terror and we'll do anything to keep you safe even if it means no privacy for you and making your info "available" to hackers. Because hey...we'd never misuse that power...

 

[Brian Stirling]

I noticed that. I think no one wanted to take the "I don't know enough to have a position on the issue" option either because Marco acted like he knew so much and they didn't want to sound less knowledgeable.

Marco is DEAD WRONG to say that it's not a back door and DEAD WRONG to say that they only want it for this phone. Removing the limit on the number of attempts enables brute forcing the password, which means it opens a "door" for breaking the security. That's a door that wasn't there before and that allows them to end-around a standard security procedure. THAT is called a "back door." Durr.

I wish Carly was still in so we could get her impression/answer.

If Paul were still in it he would have differed from the other bobbleheads...


Brian

 

[Rakehellion]

Can you explain why the car as a whole is a product but the seatbelt is not? Even if that were the case, how is saying that Apple must create a back door to sell an iPhone any different than saying a car company must create a seatbelt in order to sell a car?

By the way I don't think Apple should be compelled to do this at all, I just think a first amendment argument is stupid and has a huge potential for unintended consequences.

You are allowed free speech, but if your speech does not abide by the law, you are free to stop speaking. There is no law forcing any company to produce cars.

 

[Theb]

San Bernardino police chief says there's a 'reasonably good chance that there's nothing of any value' on shooter's iPhone

 

[Ichinisan]

IIRC, all the republican candidates last night said Apple should do it.

Marco is being fooled by bad info. He got it right...before he changed his mind.

 

[lopri]

Agreed.... that is some scary sick shit right there. Disgusting move by our government.

Well, that depends.

Imagine my home is ordered to be searched by a court order. Further imagine I set traps around my home before the police arrive. Am I being forced to involuntary servitude if the court orders me, upon being informed of the traps, to remove the traps so that the police can execute the warrant? Or was it me "forcing" the police to take difficult precautions? Whose fault is it if a rookie policeman gets killed in the course of entering my house?

 

[CZroe]

Well, that depends.



Imagine my home is ordered to be searched by a court order. Further imagine I set traps around my home before the police arrive. Am I being forced to involuntary servitude if the court orders me, upon being informed of the traps, to remove the traps so that the police can execute the warrant? Or was it me "forcing" the police to take difficult precautions? Whose fault is it if a rookie policeman gets killed in the course of entering my house?

Not even remotely accurate. They are asking the security company to create a tool that can disable the locks in a way that would compromise all people who use the same security. Theirs search warrant doesn't apply to every other customer.

 

[Ichinisan]

Why would the rest of the world buy this insecure American product if a truly secure alternative comes to market and Apple is forced to defeat their own security measures?

It is now illegal to make a secure product!

It's illegal to make a product that wipes the data after too many failed password attempts and ensure that the feature works for everyone as intended!

"Free" country? Nope. Let's give up freedom in the name of safety.