FBI. If I had an iPhone and if the FBI broke into my phone, the only thing they would find would be texts about soccer or crushes or school or whatever. I don’t think a lot of people have information that the FBI would find useful in investigations, therefore, the main purpose of the FBI being able to hack into someone’s iPhone is to be able to pinpoint threatening characters and apprehend them before they cause damage to anyone. Besides, if you don’t want to buy an iPhone, you don’t have to.
An alternate idea would be to make it so that FBI can hack into someone’s phone, but with a warrant. Or the process could be so time consuming that they wouldn’t be able to break into anyone’s phone unless they suspect that that person is hiding something important to national security.
^That sounds like if you are innocent you’ve got nothing to woory. We all know that is not true.
FBI doesn’t need Apple after all.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fbi-mayve-found-iphone-hack-003330390.html
Sounds like they stole the code signing cert after all…
^^Or, maybe it is/was the NSA, as I suggested two weeks ago in post #62?
I think they just gave the problem to some random 8 yr. old to solve. LOL
@marie122:
That may be true, I am sure a lot of us on here if they read our text messages or contacts would cause the person looking at it to go to sleep…on the other hand, what some of us are talking about…but what if, for example you found a cause you wanted to advocate for, let’s say you decided you don’t like the way big money buys politicians and advocate for limits on spending on campaigns, or don’t think that they should be allowed to use GMO ingredients without telling you…or were protesting a war you felt was unjust, would you be happy if the FBI cracked into your phone? Would you be happy if big corporations bought FBI agents or NSA people to get data on a politician who opposed them, so they could find something to blackmail them with?
I am not talking hypotheticals, these kinds of things went on under Hoover, the CIA was known to go after politicians who opposed what they were doing overseas by finding things to blackmail them with…would you want it so China could routinely hack into phones remotely of anyone who had an iphone, spy in even your boring life? Yes, it is an extrapolation from what the FBI wanted, but this would set a precedent. China could insist that any smart phone company that wanted to sell phones in China would need a backdoor the government could access, and use the FBI case as the basis for them doing this “you do for fbi, you do for me” kind of thing.
Saying “they would only do this to get the bad guys” is assuming good intentions all around, and that has been shown time and again not to be true all the time. I am glad Apple is fighting this, at the very least, it means if the FBI wants to do something like this, it won’t be like the Patriot act which has turned into large scale data gathering without a warrant, which was what those opposed to it were worried about, that it was a law enforcement run around of the bill of rights.
@bluebayou what I was attempting to say is that a company or a person cannot simply disregard an order of a judge. I am not sure what the order in this case stated but if it was a valid order then unless it was vacated then they had to comply. For instance, many times hospitals will refuse to provide records after a valid subpoena is issued. Unless they filed a motion to quash the subpoena or responded in some other way, they must comply with the subpoena. I am not as familiar with federal law so I am unsure of what the nuances are.
I agree that a healthy dose of skepticism is necessary when considering the risks of government overreach but a healthy dose of skepticism should be applied to Apple’s motives as well. I just think the specific issue of a space being unsearchable because a device manufacturer made it so, is beyond what is normally deemed appropriate protection of privacy.
Weighing Apple’s interest in market share and smart phone customer’s interest in privacy on the one hand, against the public’s interest in security and law enforcement on the other hand…
This specific case may not be the best one to highlight the stakes but imagine a scenario where the govt has probable cause to believe there is an imminent threat to the public and the suspect is not cooperating but the critical info is likely on the suspect’s iPhone - should we just accept that we can’t access the phone? Should we just accept that Apple or any other corporation is the final arbiter of what is acceptable security risk to bear in the name of privacy?
Apple’s argument about the Chinese government and its possible overreach is an issue for Apple to hash out with the Chinese and other international markets. Apple is most concerned with its ability to protect its patents and trade secrets, nevertheless Apple and other multinationals want to operate in markets with less legal protections for individuals well as businesses. This is a risk that Apple and other multinational corps are willing to take on in order to do business on a global scale. It is questionable whether the US government should give much weight to Apple’s exposure to the laws or whims of the Chinese government.
We are well aware of government overreach and the possibility of govt fraud, waste, abuse. We seem to be less aware of how much power we cede to multinational corps. When we hear of corruption we think of governmental actors but we don’t assign much responsibility to powerful multinational corps. Do you read the fine print of all the social media sites you use? Do you knowingly give your private data to Apple, Facebook, Google, et al or are you just not aware that you’ve ceded power over your data to such sites with one click?
Public good will often conflict with corporate good. If Brussesls attack could have been prevented with better intelligence, is it really worth our collective security to tie the hands of government?
“Public good will often conflict with corporate good. If Brussesls attack could have been prevented with better intelligence, is it really worth our collective security to tie the hands of government?”
It depends on what you mean tying the hands of the government or law enforcement. Does that mean establishing legitimate ways for them to access data that might prevent a terrorist attack, with safeguards, or does it mean basically letting the government decide what they need and allow them carte blanche? The original version of the patriot act that was pushed basically gave government those kind of powers, people like Dick Cheney wanted it that if via a Patriot act warrantless wiretap if they found evidence of illegal activity that had nothing to do with terrorism, that the evidence be allowed in court even though it was obtained without a warrant (he argued that the FISA court was the same thing, which isn’t true). FISA itself is a bit of a joke, it basically is a rubber stamp, one article I read said that on review the FISA court basically lets everything go through, that their rate of rejection is very low (not surprising, the people on the FISA court are appointed by the chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is not exactly known as being an advocate of law enforcement restraint).
As someone else said, there is a balance, and while there is no doubt that state security like they had in the USSR would be more likely to catch suspected terrorist activity, you also know that state security of that magnitude is also often used to maintain and enhance political power of the government.
As far as multinationals versus the government, I think that ship has sailed, in the sense that multinationals already are government unto themselves, more and more where their headquarters are located, where they operate, doesn’t matter much, they have become governments unto themselves.
Uh-ok, but not sue why the point was made?
Apple is not disregarding the subpoena. Quite the contrary, they are appealing the judge’s decision. And, in fact, they had a another court date today, but the Feds requested an extension since they have ‘found’ another way, or at least believe they have. If so, then the judge will rescind her order.
There are restraints here that were circumvented under Patriot Act, namely, warrants. Apple is asking for the opposite extreme of the Patriot Act - a safeguard against any warrant.
I am just as leery of trusting Apple or other corporation with protecting anything other than their own profits. Multinational corporations are not very loyal to their countries of incorporation, headquarters, operation or distribution. Their pursuit of profit, deregulation, and tax avoidance are not the sort of motivations that will allow me to trust them with the final say on privacy and security.
OK. Let me try one more time because I do not think I expressed myself well. I have read a lot of statements and articles that seemed to suggest that the government (in the form of the FBI etc) was going after Apple’s information and it seemed as if many people did not realize that they obtained a warrant or an order to gain this information. Attorneys know this but I do not think the general public realizes that judges are the gatekeepers on whether a search warrant allows the FBI to obtain information. I know that Apple appealed this but most of the articles I saw acted as if the FBI was trying to get this information without going through proper channels. So, I was just pointing out that when there is an order, it must be complied with. It almost seemed in some of the news media that Apple was just saying No I will not comply. I guess I just wanted to make sure that if a valid order exists you cannot choose just to not comply. This is an interesting issue involving privacy concerns v. competing concerns of law enforcement and whether they have a compelling overriding interest in the information. I agree that this will probably go to the US Supreme Court. They already stated that law enforcement cannot search a cell phone without a warrant even though a defendant has the phone on them at the time of the arrest. I am interested in seeing what they will do in this case. (although it may be a moot point at this point)
I am not clear about the warrant. Was it a search warrant to search the phone? It doesn’t directly apply to Apple, does it? Apple comes in because of some ancient law which may or may not apply as I understand. They didn’t issue a search warrant to Apple, did they?
The question is how far citizens can be forced to help the government to fulfill the search warrant if the gov can’t on their own. To me, the gov should try as hard as possible before forcing others to help. In this case, if they found a way in less than a month, they didn’t try hard enough before going to the court to force Apple.
Feds find a way:
"The Justice Department is abandoning its bid to force Apple to help it unlock the iPhone used by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino terrorist attack because investigators have found a way in without the tech giant’s assistance, prosecutors wrote in a court filing Monday.
The government said that investigators had now “accessed the data stored on” the shooter’s iPhone and no longer needed Apple’s help. They asked a court to vacate an earlier ruling forcing Apple to provide assistance."
Haha! FBI for the win!
I mostly side with liberals and believe that the more individual liberties the better for us all. However, freedom from just application of the law is a bridge too far.
I believe it’s a way to save face. It would make sense as they will likely lose a court case and Apple can’t force them to show how they did it.
If I wasn’t clear above - I’m not convinced they cracked anything - just made a statement.