Apple Refuses FBI Demand to Build a "Backdoor" For iPhones

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

shinyelf:

I don't, no, but if it allows the police to investigate people who might be considering murdering or assaulting me? I'd say go ahead, make the law.

Because you need a law for everything until the book breaks a table.

Which part of the order includes incorporating a weakness in the software? Being able to turn off the auto-erase?

This one in particular. It prevents a built in safety measure of someone just forcing their way in.

Being able to enter the passcode without having to tap the screen?

Still falls into making a weakness when combined with the first or even standalone. Allows you to brute force the password.

Or is it perhaps ensuring that entering a code without tapping the screen doesn't mess up the phone?

Still goes into the previous though I imagine that wouldn't screw up the phone.

All of these are reasonable

You can try and make an argument for the last but in no way can you say the first two isn't intentionally making the phone actually possible to break into, which is what the software is designed to prevent.

and nowhere is it stated that Apple needs to surrender the code, or the means of access to the FBI.

So, this phone is going to be under watch by Apple and third parties the whole time and is never going to solely be in the possession of the FBI?

Sure, ideally Apple would figure a way to do a data dump of the phone, but as alternative this works okay.

Except they wouldn't be able to because they intentionally burned the encryption keys in order to make it impossible for the encryption to be broken by anyone, themselves included.

To me this seems more like a kneejerk reaction against "the man". The feds aren't asking for permission to poke around your phone at will, nor are they asking Apple to give them an electronic skeleton key.

They're asking Apple to make it possible to break into an iPhone after Apple made such a thing nigh-impossible. They're asking Apple to make it vulnerable to the FBI's usual skeleton key.

The judge is asking for Apple to, after basically selling the promise of no one being able to get to their data when encrypted because Apple torched all means to do so, to make a way to bypass safety measures and say "oh hey guys, your phone data is now vulnerable to brute force attacks because we made the means to do so after we said we wouldn't do that". Pretty sure that's a pretty good reason to tell the FBI to fuck off.

shinyelf:

Which part of the order includes incorporating a weakness in the software? Being able to turn off the auto-erase? Being able to enter the passcode without having to tap the screen? Or is it perhaps ensuring that entering a code without tapping the screen doesn't mess up the phone?
All of these are reasonable, and nowhere is it stated that Apple needs to surrender the code, or the means of access to the FBI. Sure, ideally Apple would figure a way to do a data dump of the phone, but as alternative this works okay.
To me this seems more like a kneejerk reaction against "the man". The feds aren't asking for permission to poke around your phone at will, nor are they asking Apple to give them an electronic skeleton key.

It is modifying the OS that can be loaded onto an existing device without compromising what is on the device and causing the device to not wipe or cause delays upon entering incorrect passcodes. This would allow someone, ANYONE, who gets the code to brute force any iOS device they get their hands on.

It is not a matter of if the software gets out, it is a matter of when. It will leak. By being forced to design the software, which does not exist yet, they will be creating a system that will compromise everyone's device to criminals.

Fuckin' FBI. Ever heard of this:

4th amendment:
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.

albino boo:
This article is more than a little disingenuous, to say the least, because it's not the FBI ordering Apple but a court of Law. A Federal Judge has issued a warrant ordering Apple to decrypt a phone of man that killed 14 people in an ISIS inspired attack. I strongly suggest the article be edited with the truth

http://www.cultofmac.com/412738/apple-must-unlock-the-iphone-5cs-encryption-or-else/
http://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/16/apple-ordered-unlock-san-bernardino-iphone/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html?_r=0
http://www.neowin.net/news/apple-wont-comply-with-federal-court-order-to-unlock-shooters-iphone-modify-ios

Hey, someone actually did some research! That is a very important thing to leave out of the article. For a specific case like this, I support decrypting the phone. The problem is that they can't, so the government wants them to add a backdoor to all future iPhones. It's a moral gray area, definitely not how it's portrayed in the article.

Adam Jensen:
Fuckin' FBI. Ever heard of this:

4th amendment:
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.

I think you overlooked the word "unreasonable" we're talking about a person who, undoubtedly, killed several people, nothing unreasonable about going through his stuff, and I have little to no doubt that they could get a warrant. Afterwards the feds can get a court order if they want to look through other devices

Hella respect for apple. I wouldn't imagine they'd actually stick to their philosophies once shit really hit the fan, but here it is!

shinyelf:

Adam Jensen:
Fuckin' FBI. Ever heard of this:

4th amendment:
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.

I think you overlooked the word "unreasonable" we're talking about a person who, undoubtedly, killed several people, nothing unreasonable about going through his stuff, and I have little to no doubt that they could get a warrant. Afterwards the feds can get a court order if they want to look through other devices

FBI wants a backdoor in ALL iPhones so that they could "liberate" you of your 4th amendment rights.

Adam Jensen:

FBI wants a backdoor in ALL iPhones so that they could "liberate" you of your 4th amendment rights.

Pretty much. As we go into the digital age, should law enforcement have the tools to break open individual digital devices that they have obtained a legal search warrant on? Absolutely.

Do I trust the current US government and its law enforcement/surveillance apparatus to *only* use those tools under the limits of a warrant? Absolutely not. Not after the Patriot Act and the crap we actually have proof that the NSA has been up to. Unless there are hard checks on how and when this can be used, and on the amount of access law enforcement gets to it (and more importantly, hard, unyielding consequences if it is abused), I can't support it.

Adam Jensen:
FBI wants a backdoor in ALL iPhones so that they could "liberate" you of your 4th amendment rights.

Where does it say that it has to be a universal exploit for every Iphone handed over to the FBI? Nowhere, that's where. Apple have been ordered to aid the FBI in circumventing the Auto-erase of this particular phone and to ensure that they can access it via a second machine. There is nothing about building in a backdoor on every single device.

shinyelf:

Where does it say that it has to be a universal exploit for every Iphone handed over to the FBI? Nowhere, that's where. Apple have been ordered to aid the FBI in circumventing the Auto-erase of this particular phone and to ensure that they can access it via a second machine. There is nothing about building in a backdoor on every single device.

The hammer that they would have to build would work on ALL nails, not just the one that the FBI wants hit right now.

kris40k:
The hammer that they would have to build would work on ALL nails, not just the one that the FBI wants hit right now.

Sure, but that doesn't mean they'd have to give the FBI the hammer, or leave it alone in a room with them for any extended period of time.

chocolate pickles:
Nice to see Apple cares more about 'customer privacy' than helping protect against terrorism. But hey, apparently most people can't quite grasp the fact the government doesn't give a shit about your info, provided you are not doing illegal.

Completely besides the point. This is about our civil liberties, and the government overreaching itself.

Who gives a fuck about terrorism? Do people not understand that more people die in gang related crimes in one day, then in a terrorist attack? But wave around the word terrorist, and everybody loses their shit. In the good old days terrorists were labeled for what they were. Criminal organizations. Terrorists can't destroy our country, or take away our freedoms. Government surveillance can. The FBI and NSA are more dangerous to American freedom then the terrorists are.

Anyone who thinks that the government won't abuse this power is naive. We already know that the NSA has used its surveillance for frivalice and immoral purposes that have nothing to do with national security.

Fox12:

Who gives a fuck about terrorism?

Wow. My jaw just hit the goddamn floor. How about all those people narrowly avoided being in the Paris shootings? Or the people who lost family and friends in those attacks? Or, to openly it up more broadly, anyone who was in New York when 9/11 struck.

This may be one of the most ludicrous things i have ever heard.

shinyelf:

Sure, but that doesn't mean they'd have to give the FBI the hammer, or leave it alone in a room with them for any extended period of time.

Yes, the judges order is to hand over to the FBI the firmware so they can do it themselves; they have been ordered to build and hand over the hammer.

Specifically, United States Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym mandated that Apple provide the FBI a custom firmware file, known as an IPSW file, that would likely enable investigators to brute force the passcode lockout currently on the phone, which is running iOS 9.

[1]

kris40k:
Yes, the judges order is to hand over to the FBI the firmware so they can do it themselves; they have been ordered to build and hand over the hammer.

Doesn't actually say that though, just says that they need to enable the FBI to do so, not that they need to be able to do so for good.

shinyelf:

Doesn't actually say that though, just says that they need to enable the FBI to do so, not that they need to be able to do so for good.

Yes, it does. I added source info in my post which I assume you replied to while I was still editing.

chocolate pickles:

Fox12:

Who gives a fuck about terrorism?

Wow. My jaw just hit the goddamn floor. How about all those people narrowly avoided being in the Paris shootings? Or the people who lost family and friends in those attacks? Or, to openly it up more broadly, anyone who was in New York when 9/11 struck.

This may be one of the most ludicrous things i have ever heard.

What merit does a protection have if it removes what you're trying to protect?

While I do think governments should do what they can to prevent tragedies, it's an utterly moot point if the only way they can do that is destroy everyone's rights and freedoms in the process.

The government does what it can to protect the people's rights and freedoms. But a government that removes those rights and freedoms are just as much of a problem as whatever the government tries to fight against. That's the point of this discussion.

chocolate pickles:

Fox12:

Who gives a fuck about terrorism?

Wow. My jaw just hit the goddamn floor. How about all those people narrowly avoided being in the Paris shootings? Or the people who lost family and friends in those attacks? Or, to openly it up more broadly, anyone who was in New York when 9/11 struck.

This may be one of the most ludicrous things i have ever heard.

It's a tragedy when anyone dies. But we need to stop treating terrorists like the boogey man. Pick your jaw off the floor and try putting these things in perspective.

It was a tragedy when 13 people were killed in Columbine, but I don't remember the government creating a program to spy on every citizen in the country without a warrant. It was a tragedy when 12 were killed in Aurora, but I don't remember Lindsey Graham implying that we should be able suspend the right to habeus corpus in order to prevent it. It was a tragedy when dozens of people, mostly children, were killed in Sandy Hook, but I don't remember the government defending torture, or front running politicians arguing for a national registry based on race and religion. The only thing that gets discussed is gun control. But three people die in the Boston Bombing, and the government can declare martial law over the city. Bring up terrorism, and the government can justify everything above, and more. This is very concerning. Do you really believe that this is about protecting you? It's about expanding government powers. What's the point of fighting terrorism if we sacrifice all of our ideals in the process? Here's a fun fact. The government can't protect you. They can't stop every possible eventuality, especially when it involves one gunman going out into a street and firing. We are sacrificing our freedoms, and gain nothing.

kris40k:
Yes, it does. I added source info in my post which I assume you replied to while I was still editing.

This entirely goes against what I saw before, so it seems I have no choice but to admit my mistake. If this is the demand I am slightly more concerned, but even now I don't think it is an entirely bad idea. A phone can tell you a lot about a person, and if you can get a warrant to search a home or a trunk, you should be able to get one to search a phone, whether or not a suspect or victim provides a passcode.
So if the FBI can get a warrant they should be able to unlock someones phone, heck, it seems reasonable that they should be able to remotely access a phone in case it is dumped anywhere. A reasonable stipulation would be that any intrusion leave a clear message, visible to anyone in possession of said phone.

And what the heck, here's a little comic to drive home my point on the liberty and safety issue
http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3005

chocolate pickles:

Fox12:

Who gives a fuck about terrorism?

Wow. My jaw just hit the goddamn floor. How about all those people narrowly avoided being in the Paris shootings? Or the people who lost family and friends in those attacks? Or, to openly it up more broadly, anyone who was in New York when 9/11 struck.

This may be one of the most ludicrous things i have ever heard.

See, that's part of the problem there. Yes, terrorism is bad. Yes, terrorism is scary. Yes, we should try to bring the people who perpetrate it to justice and do what we can to prevent future incidents.

However. Do you realize how many people in the US die from gun violence each year (over 33,000 people died from gun violence in 2013. 21 died from terrorism related incidents)? Reduce the number of gun violence deaths by 1% and you save something like 330 lives. Literally 15x more people than died in terrorist attack that same year.

Do you know how many thousands of Americans die each year from not having access to proper medical care?

A little over 50 people die from bee stings every year. Bees are objectively more dangerous to Americans than terrorists are, barring a rare, once in a generation sort of event. Hell, the flu killed over 3600 people in 2013.

Compared to things that are regularly killing US citizens, terrorism barely even makes the list. Yeah, it's a tragedy whenever someone gets killed in a terrorist attack, and between 12 and 70 people (about as far as the number shifts most years) is far too many. ...But maybe we can actually address the things killing tens of thousands of people too? Objectively, terrorism is little more than a statistical anomaly in the grand list of "Shit that Kills Americans in Droves.

Lightknight:
I mean, hypothetically forcing a back door is equivalent to forcing the individual to willingly incriminate themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I want them to be able to catch bad guys who are really doing something wrong, but ultimately we have a right to not self incriminate.

Well no, I don't quite think that's right. Wouldn't you agree that this is closer to wire tapping? The protection against self incrimination is quite specific in that you cannot be compelled to say anything that would incriminate you but in this case you aren't being compelled to say anything, you're saying what you want, sans coercion and they are merely tracking it. I view this like I would a locked file cabinet. I would support the FBI being given the key if they have a warrant and anything they find in the cabinet is fair game. It's not self incrimination if the FBI cracks your file cabinet and finds your money laundering books. I would oppose the FBI having a universal file cabinet key that it promises it will totally only use once it has a proper court order, totes we swear! But either way, not seeing how this equates to self incrimination in the way the 5th amendment is structured and what it's meant to do.

rcs619:

See, that's part of the problem there. Yes, terrorism is bad. Yes, terrorism is scary. Yes, we should try to bring the people who perpetrate it to justice and do what we can to prevent future incidents.

However. Do you realize how many people in the US die from gun violence each year (over 33,000 people died from gun violence in 2013. 21 died from terrorism related incidents)? Do you know how many thousands of Americans die each year from not having access to proper medical care?

A little over 50 people die from bee stings every year. Bees are objectively more harmful to Americans than terrorists are, barring a rare, once in a generation sort of event. Hell, the flu killed over 3600 people in 2013.

Compared to things that are regularly killing US citizens, terrorism barely even makes the list. Yeah, it's a tragedy whenever someone gets killed in a terrorist attack, and between 12 and 70 people (about as far as the number shifts most years) is far too many. ...But maybe we can actually address the things killing tens of thousands of people too? Objectively, terrorism is little more than a statistical anomaly in the grand list of "Shit that Kills Americans in Droves.

I think the problem with terrorism is the intent behind it, not only do the perpetrators intend to kill people, and usually a lot of people, but they also intend to sow fear and destabilize society. A regular shooting death means that someone wanted to kill another person, be it an act of passion or premeditated murder, doesn't really matter. Terrorism is an attempt to hurt not just a person or several, but to hurt society or a nation as a whole.

So yes, certain measures might be taken to fight terrorism though I believe the ones currently taken are out of bounds.

Qizx:
who's to say that some things I do/have done won't become illegal in the future?

To be fair, things you did prior to laws changing making said previous acts illegal cannot adversely affect you. They basically can't arrest you for doing something that wasn't illegal when you did it after they make it illegal. Its a fundamental of the way the legal system in the US works. If that aspect changes, guaranteed you won't be worried about privacy anymore, because it will have ceased to exist along with the entire concept of freedom in general as the system will be akin to a dictatorship/police state.

Abomination:
Having a back door to a electronic data storage device is a good thing.

Wrong. VERY VERY WRONG.

I took a cryptology course, alright? And one thing that kept coming up was the mathematical truth of: "If a backdoor exists for the government, the backdoor ALSO exists for the criminal hackers".

And even IF you managed to create a backdoor that literally only the FBI could access because you found a way to make the key a billion characters long and had no accidental security holes...What happens if there's a corrupt official or a double agent or someone else who either sells or copies that key for their own purposes, or just some idiot that uses their personal email to send it to a colleague instead of the secure FBI server email? BAM, suddenly, the entire Iphone network is open to people other than the FBI, most likely criminals.

That's like saying "We should give the cops a special key that unlocks all the doors in the city" and the key is duplicate-able. At that point if one of those cops goes rogue or what-have-you, then it's only a matter of time before the mafia are opening all the doors in the city to steal shit.

You CANNOT make a backdoor for the authorities without leaving it available to the criminal element.

Not to mention that after the bullshit that went down with the NSA where they deliberately bypassed all the checks and balances on them and lied about it, I do not trust the US feds with that kind of power.

chocolate pickles:
Do you have something to hide?

Hey, cucumbers. You can have something to hide that's not illegal, or at least innocuous.

For example, a friend of mine is a crossdresser. He has to hide that from his family or they will definitely disown him. Or what if you're an otherwise good politician who is into a weird but harmless fetish that if it gets out will be used to tarnish your reputation and you'll never get elected again? That's stuff that you have to hide because it getting out will ruin you, but none of it is actually illegal.

On another note, would you be fine with the government installing cameras in your shower? I mean, some terrorist types make bombs in their bathtubs, so we REALLY can't take that chance! I mean, you've got nothing to hide, do you? *camera turns to look at your wife/girlfriend/daughter as she showers, or maybe it just zooms in on your crank because this IS the 21st century, after all*

LegendaryGamer0:

shinyelf:

So we should abolish every law regarding murder and assault?

Do you need a law to tell you those things are wrong?

No, but some people definitely do. One guy at my old high school was busted for plagiarism and his dad defended him by going "What? EVERYONE fucking does it. The only problem is that he got caught".

There are a lot of sociopath-inclined people in the world who would indeed commit murder if they knew they could get away with it.

Fox12:
What's the point of fighting terrorism if we sacrifice all of our ideals in the process?

Pretty much. I don't think that I can emphasize this enough but...

We currently live in a world where Donald Trump is a viable presidential candidate.
Where presidential candidates can brag about how they would torture our enemies even if it doesn't provide any actual intelligence.
Where the idea of barring entry to the country and registering people based on their religion is a popular idea with a chunk of the electorate.
Where we're actually having a discussion about whether or not we should take in refugees trying to flee a war-torn hellscape with whatever family hasn't been murdered yet.
Where the president of the United States himself can order indiscriminate killings via flying death-robots inside the borders of countries we aren't actually at war with.
Where the US accounts for 60% of all military spending IN THE WORLD, but we're still helpless, and terrified and always allegedly on the cusp of being destroyed by a bunch of wanna-be warlords who couldn't even beat Iran in a proper, stand-up war.

It's crazy to see how far off the rails things have gone since 9/11. We're the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the history of humanity, but goddamned are we also an insecure and myopic one too.

shinyelf:

kris40k:
Yes, it does. I added source info in my post which I assume you replied to while I was still editing.

This entirely goes against what I saw before, so it seems I have no choice but to admit my mistake. If this is the demand I am slightly more concerned, but even now I don't think it is an entirely bad idea. A phone can tell you a lot about a person, and if you can get a warrant to search a home or a trunk, you should be able to get one to search a phone, whether or not a suspect or victim provides a passcode.
So if the FBI can get a warrant they should be able to unlock someones phone, heck, it seems reasonable that they should be able to remotely access a phone in case it is dumped anywhere. A reasonable stipulation would be that any intrusion leave a clear message, visible to anyone in possession of said phone.

And what the heck, here's a little comic to drive home my point on the liberty and safety issue
http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3005

Well there's two huge problems with what you're suggesting from where I'm sitting.

1) Giving the FBI the ability to remotely access any phone and hoping they get a warrant before they do it seems like a bad system. I would not at all trust the FBI to handle that kind of power responsibly because of a lack of transparency and trust issues with the power they already do have.

2) Having the phone tell the person the FBI just looked through it would be hell for the FBI itself! It'd be like having a rule that says the FBI can tap your home phone if they get a warrant but they have to tell the suspected drug lord what day and time the service guy will show up to install it. If the FBI does have a good reason and a warrant to get into someone's phone, I don't want the guy they are after to know.

shinyelf:

rcs619:
Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

This particular statement truly irks me, sacrificing liberty for safety is literally what society is about, we construct systems and rules to protect ourselves from whatever is out there. We would literally have to abolish every single law, and let the world descend into complete anarchy in order to regain the liberties we've "sacrificed". If you'd used a term like "essential liberty" or something to that effect I might agree, but as it stands it is nothing more than a poorly understood, indefensible slogan to yell at others.

In this case Apple might be in the right, but since neither I, nor anyone else in this thread, knows the exact demands of FBI or the court order we can't really know.

You say that as if it is inherently a bad thing. Any society, along with its norms and laws, is nothing more than a man-made construct; and, as such, are flawed systems that reflect our flawed existence. Such constructs are how we strive and thrive as a species, but we are not doing ourselves any favours if we willingly blind ourselves in the process, and become little more than a statistic to be watched after, and coddled.

aegix drakan:

I took a cryptology course, alright? And one thing that kept coming up was the mathematical truth of: "If a backdoor exists for the government, the backdoor ALSO exists for the criminal hackers".

Any exploit is a total exploit, not entirely wrong, but you can make it so that the exploit is hard enough to access that most won't bother.

And even IF you managed to create a backdoor that literally only the FBI could access because you found a way to make the key a billion characters long and had no accidental security holes...What happens if there's a corrupt official or a double agent or someone else who either sells or copies that key for their own purposes, or just some idiot that uses their personal email to send it to a colleague instead of the secure FBI server email? BAM, suddenly, the entire Iphone network is open to people other than the FBI, most likely criminals.

That's like saying "We should give the cops a special key that unlocks all the doors in the city" and the key is duplicate-able. At that point if one of those cops goes rogue or what-have-you, then it's only a matter of time before the mafia are opening all the doors in the city to steal shit.

The cops do have a key that opens every door, it's called a boot, or a battering ram if you're feeling medieval, but cops don't just smash every door, why? Simple, it is traceable, if you make the backdoor into the phone traceable and include a notification it becomes less of an espionage tool and more of an investigative tool. heck, you could keep it on a separate drive that needs to be locked up when not in use. Sure, it might go wrong at some point, but everything could. I think it would be an excellent tool for investigators, but it should require warrants and suspects should be informed.

I'd be supportive of government backdoors if our government hasn't proven time and time again that they are complete idiots who are completely out of touch with the software scene. Doesn't help that our population is also stupid enough to vote these people in to begin with, but that's another issue. I don't trust our government who has, for the last 50+ years, bent over backwards and taken it in the ass by massive corporations and completely screwed over the common people. Our government has proven time and time again that they no longer support the interests of the mass population, only those who line their pockets.

Gorrath:
Well there's two huge problems with what you're suggesting from where I'm sitting.

1) Giving the FBI the ability to remotely access any phone and hoping they get a warrant before they do it seems like a bad system. I would not at all trust the FBI to handle that kind of power responsibly because of a lack of transparency and trust issues with the power they already do have.

2) Having the phone tell the person the FBI just looked through it would be hell for the FBI itself! It'd be like having a rule that says the FBI can tap your home phone if they get a warrant but they have to tell the suspected drug lord what day and time the service guy will show up to install it. If the FBI does have a good reason and a warrant to get into someone's phone, I don't want the guy they are after to know.

Wait, what? Isn't your first point that if they have the tool they can do it with impunity and you don't trust them with the power, while your second point is that they would be unable to do it with impunity?

Gorrath:

Lightknight:
I mean, hypothetically forcing a back door is equivalent to forcing the individual to willingly incriminate themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I want them to be able to catch bad guys who are really doing something wrong, but ultimately we have a right to not self incriminate.

Well no, I don't quite think that's right. Wouldn't you agree that this is closer to wire tapping? The protection against self incrimination is quite specific in that you cannot be compelled to say anything that would incriminate you but in this case you aren't being compelled to say anything, you're saying what you want, sans coercion and they are merely tracking it. I view this like I would a locked file cabinet. I would support the FBI being given the key if they have a warrant and anything they find in the cabinet is fair game. It's not self incrimination if the FBI cracks your file cabinet and finds your money laundering books. I would oppose the FBI having a universal file cabinet key that it promises it will totally only use once it has a proper court order, totes we swear! But either way, not seeing how this equates to self incrimination in the way the 5th amendment is structured and what it's meant to do.

It's moreso that they demand you keep all your documentation or "incriminating evidence" in a readily accessible location.

If they track communication then they are catching you in the act. But if they demand that you leave all potential evidence out in the open and then provide that to them later then that does have potential 5th amendment qualms. Encrypting your HDD is basically pleading the 5th.

It is almost like them requiring you to wear a shirt cam and to store your daily activities in an unlocked box under your bed.

shinyelf:

They are asking for Apple to make the means to allow for the FBI to circumvent protective measures against precisely what they are doing. Not only is that intentionally making a vulnerability within their own software, it's making it available to the FBI at their beck and call. Not even mentioning what the altered OS existing in the hands of the FBI could do.
Considering this is the FBI, I'd say there is quite a bit of liberty to be lost here.

Which part of the order includes incorporating a weakness in the software? Being able to turn off the auto-erase? Being able to enter the passcode without having to tap the screen? Or is it perhaps ensuring that entering a code without tapping the screen doesn't mess up the phone?
All of these are reasonable,

Uhhhh, you do realize that is exactly the list of features you need to be able to bring a laptop to a Starbucks, crack every iPhone there, and eat all the data?

shinyelf:

Gorrath:
Well there's two huge problems with what you're suggesting from where I'm sitting.

1) Giving the FBI the ability to remotely access any phone and hoping they get a warrant before they do it seems like a bad system. I would not at all trust the FBI to handle that kind of power responsibly because of a lack of transparency and trust issues with the power they already do have.

2) Having the phone tell the person the FBI just looked through it would be hell for the FBI itself! It'd be like having a rule that says the FBI can tap your home phone if they get a warrant but they have to tell the suspected drug lord what day and time the service guy will show up to install it. If the FBI does have a good reason and a warrant to get into someone's phone, I don't want the guy they are after to know.

Wait, what? Isn't your first point that if they have the tool they can do it with impunity and you don't trust them with the power, while your second point is that they would be unable to do it with impunity?

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion based on what I'm saying. Point one is that I don't trust them with impunity because they have, on many occasions, given us reasons not to trust them with that kind of power. Point two is that your suggestion about having to inform the person they are gathering evidence from that they are gathering evidence from them would ruin the investigation. These are two non-competing ideas. The FBI could get a warrant to have a specific phone unlocked and collect evidence from that phone. I would be fine with that. The FBI should not have the ability to backdoor their way into any phone at any time with the understanding that they'll totally only do it when it's justified, they promise. Should they be granted a proper warrant to gather evidence, they shouldn't have to let the subject of the investigation know this via pop-ups on the phone they are monitoring.

That make more sense?

Nice to see Tim Cook has at least a little of the defiance that characterized Jobs, even if the company has reversed course on a lot of the things he set in motion (whatever happened to FaceTime being an open standard that lets you communicate with non-Apple devices, huh?) Still, it's hard not to see this as Apple wanting to keep it a secret just how much of your privacy their devices already violate by recording every single thing you do and keeping it on file. Remember when someone found out that iPhones keep track of everywhere you take them, even when they're turned off?

Xsjadoblayde:
This is all well and good on Apple's behalf, i commend this greatly. What is worrying though, is the silence from Microsoft, which leads me to believe they not only comply with the FBI, they lay down on their backs for tummy rubs and cuddles too. The xbone owners must be prized US free-range citizens.

Not sure what Microsoft has to do with this; do we know for a fact that one of the terrorists had a Windows phone? That would surprise me, mainly because I wasn't aware that anyone anywhere had a Windows phone.

Lightknight:

Gorrath:

Lightknight:
I mean, hypothetically forcing a back door is equivalent to forcing the individual to willingly incriminate themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I want them to be able to catch bad guys who are really doing something wrong, but ultimately we have a right to not self incriminate.

Well no, I don't quite think that's right. Wouldn't you agree that this is closer to wire tapping? The protection against self incrimination is quite specific in that you cannot be compelled to say anything that would incriminate you but in this case you aren't being compelled to say anything, you're saying what you want, sans coercion and they are merely tracking it. I view this like I would a locked file cabinet. I would support the FBI being given the key if they have a warrant and anything they find in the cabinet is fair game. It's not self incrimination if the FBI cracks your file cabinet and finds your money laundering books. I would oppose the FBI having a universal file cabinet key that it promises it will totally only use once it has a proper court order, totes we swear! But either way, not seeing how this equates to self incrimination in the way the 5th amendment is structured and what it's meant to do.

It's moreso that they demand you keep all your documentation or "incriminating evidence" in a readily accessible location.

If they track communication then they are catching you in the act. But if they demand that you leave all potential evidence out in the open and then provide that to them later then that does have potential 5th amendment qualms. Encrypting your HDD is basically pleading the 5th.

It is almost like them requiring you to wear a shirt cam and to store your daily activities in an unlocked box under your bed.

Encrypting your HDD isn't really pleading the 5th because they are welcome to try and crack that encryption where as you have no obligation to speak, including having no obligation to provide them with the passcode. Encrypting your HDD is more like locking your file cabinet except you don't have to give up the key. They are still welcome to cut the thing open with a blow torch and the cabinet maker's help.

I'm not sure how your second analogy works. NO one's requiring anyone to keep criminal activity stored on their cell phone, or on their person or even requiring anyone to carry a cell phone. If you shoot someone with your gun, you don't have to tell the FBI what your gun's serial number is, because that might incriminate you. But they can and should be able to find your gun and trace the serial number to figure out it's your gun that shot the guy.

Again, I don't agree with the whole unlimited backdoor to every phone idea. No way I would trust the FBI with that kind of tool. But I just don't see a compelling 5th amendment issue here. And to be precise, we're talking about this one specific line of the 5th amendment, yes? ";nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself;". Your phone or other personal effects are not yourself and are not self-incriminating.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here