A Message to Our Customers - Apple

[enzo1]

[pitargue]

I think the horses have already left the stable. Someone already knows how to unlock current iPhones, both private and gov't. This is a red herring to make it palpable to the public.

Nothing is secure. Nothing.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

It is like giving the fed the ability to crack all safes

We are talking about 2 "its" here. What the FBI is asking is totally unacceptable.

Some others here and I are talking about how this could, and ought, to be done. The government sends Apple the phone and Apple sends back the data.

No. Giving government access to every phone it gets its hands on is totally unacceptable.

[enzo1]

This has never been done before, once it has hackers all over the world will not stop till they replicate it...

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

We are talking about 2 "its" here. What the FBI is asking is totally unacceptable.

Some others here and I are talking about how this could, and ought, to be done. The government sends Apple the phone and Apple sends back the data.

No. Giving government access to every phone it gets its hands on is totally unacceptable.

Here's a reasoned argument about why it should not be done, at all, no matter the manner.

https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-lieu-statement-apple-court-order

February 17, 2016 Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Los Angeles- Today, Congressman Ted Lieu (D-Los Angeles County) issued the following statement regarding the APPLE court order. Congressman Lieu is one of only four computer science majors in Congress. Congressman Lieu is also the author of the ENCRYPT ACT of 2016.

"The terrorist attack in San Bernardino was horrific and the tragic loss of innocent lives demands a strong response. I have several deep concerns, however, about the unprecedented court order that forces Apple to create software it does not have in order to provide a “back door” way to weaken its smartphone encryption system.

This FBI court order, by compelling a private sector company to write new software, is essentially making that company an arm of law-enforcement. Private sector companies are not—and should not be—an arm of government or law enforcement.

This court order also begs the question: Where does this kind of coercion stop? Can the government force Facebook to create software that provides analytic data on who is likely to be a criminal? Can the government force Google to provide the names of all people who searched for the term ISIL? Can the government force Amazon to write software that identifies who might be suspicious based on the books they ordered?

Forcing Apple to weaken its encryption system in this one case means the government can force Apple—or any other private sector company—to weaken encryption systems in all future cases. This precedent-setting action will both weaken the privacy of Americans and hurt American businesses. And how can the FBI ensure the software that it is forcing Apple to create won’t fall into the wrong hands? Given the number of cyberbreaches in the federal government—including at the Department of Justice—the FBI cannot guarantee this back door software will not end up in the hands of hackers or other criminals.

The San Bernardino massacre was tragic but weakening our cyber security is not the answer – terrorism succeeds when it gets us to give up our liberties and change our way of life. We can take common sense security measures without trampling on privacy rights."

[gprsh924]

Scott, thank you for continuing to bring the reasoned, educated point of view to this thread. Its amazing the people that can't see past "well why not unlock the terrorist's phone?"

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

We are talking about 2 "its" here. What the FBI is asking is totally unacceptable.

Some others here and I are talking about how this could, and ought, to be done. The government sends Apple the phone and Apple sends back the data.

No. Giving government access to every phone it gets its hands on is totally unacceptable.

Another part of the reason Apple is not doing this, beyond the privacy issue, is a business issue.

One - they have sold the phone with the concept 'even we can't break into it'. Sort of gets rid of a big selling point for Apple-their sales could suffer, will the government be on the hook for all those lost sales? Also, if Apple succeeds in breaking into the phone - tons of hackers will be trying as well. Again - will the government be on the hook for the damage caused by this? If countries like China the various ME countries know there is a way into the phones - they could demand that Apple give them the programs to get into the phones - this could again lead to lost sales, and code that could be in unreliable hands. Will the government compensate Apple for these loses? Plus - will Apple be able to charge the FBI reasonable fees - what if it takes $3m dollars or more?

The answer to all of these is 'no' - so, another reason the FBI needs to step down.

[foxpaws]

Wow - come to find out it looks like the passcode was reset remotely by some local government employee remotely while in possession of the government...

Another reason to not trust them - they can't even get their 'story' straight.

San Bernardino Shooter's Apple ID Passcode Changed While in Government Possession, Apple Says

The Apple ID passcode for the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone was changed less than 24 hours after authorities took possession of the device, a senior Apple executive said today.

And Apple could have recovered information from the phone had the Apple ID passcode not been changed, Apple 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.

The Justice Department acknowledged in its court filing that the passcode 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."

[jyl]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/apple-privacy-petition

Someone has started a petition to the White House about this.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by jyl

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/apple-privacy-petition

Someone has started a petition to the White House about this.

Signed it.

[cairns]

I don't understand all the fuss. Just give it to MacGyver.

[jyl]

San Berdoo did not reset the iCloud password on its own. The FBI instructed it to do so.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-asked-san-bernardino-to-reset-the-password-for-shooters-phone-backup/2016/02/20/21fe9684-d800-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html

Thereby foreclosing the possibility of getting the phone to do a fresh backup.

And, the FBI did not tell Apple it had done this, when it initially got Apple's help. (Apple does comply with court orders and warrants for iCloud and other data.)

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Apple is absolutely doing the right thing here. No way they should relent on this. No way.

That said, Apple is just as "big data" as Google, Verizon, AT&T or Comcast. I love the Apple products and I like them (mostly) as a company but I find it hypocritical for them to publicly pat themselves on the back saying "we're looking out for our customers and protecting their data" while they shamelessly collect it themselves and sell it to the highest bidder just like all the other scumbag data collection companies out there. Their consciences are not spotless by any means. They most definitely collect and build profiles based on your browsing, iTunes purchases, etc.

I absolutely do NOT support the creation of a "back door". I guarantee that if created, it'll be abused. No way Apple should relent on this - no way. I support their position and just wish they'd more strongly embrace its underlying core tenet (that customer data belongs to the individual and should be inviolable - protected from both government goons and corporate data miners - including Apple themselves!)

It's sad that such simple, fundamental and obvious personal privacy expectations are becoming a quaint and outdated notion.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Didn't they find the guy's hard drives in a lake in SB someplace? I swear I read that a few weeks ago.

[MBAtarga]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Didn't they find the guy's hard drives in a lake in SB someplace? I swear I read that a few weeks ago.

They went looking (diving) but found nothing related to the case.

[jyl]

This is a one time deal, justified by the extreme, national security, terrorism nature of the case.

And after Apple cracks this phone, there are nine more that the FBI have waiting in line.

And another 175 more after that.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/technology/justice-department-wants-apple-to-unlock-nine-more-iphones.html?_r=0&referer=https://news.google.com/

Have there been 185 terrorist attacks on the USA where iPhones were recovered?. Or is the FBI trying to use the San Berdoo attack to open the door to routinely cracking iPhones for just about any investigation they have going on?

And if the FBI can order Apple to crack hundreds of phones a year, why can't any law enforcement agency do it?. Local sheriff, etc? And why not any government, anywhere?

[sc_rufctr]

^^^ After reading that article I fear that Apple wont be able to fight this long term.

Thinking avalanche.

[enzo1]

Apple has tapped attorney and former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson

[jyl]

I'm sure Apple is closing this security vulnerability as we speak. It never used to matter, how secure a device was from being hacked by its own manufacturer. But now it does, so Apple's security folks will address it. By iOS 10, I would think Apple will not be able to break into a a locked iPhone in this manner. And since iPhone users upgrade to new versions of iOS quickly, in a year or so, the government will be trying to pass a law explicitly requiring companies to leave backdoors in devices. The legislative fight over that will be interesting.

[biosurfer1]

I am 110% sure even if they are forced to break into the phone, there will be absolutely nothing on it. It was a county assigned phone and he knew that, which is why he had other phones that he destroyed before going on the rampage.

Being able to remotely monitor activity is part of being issued a work phone (usually) which he knew. The fact that the county didnt install the software required in this case was not known, and certainly isn't Apple's fault nor should they be forced to solve a problem made bad, then worse by the idiots running the investigation.