Should Apple Open a Dead Terrorists Phone? Should they give the Gov't a back door?

[YellowSnow51]

Apple is trying to confuse all of us by conflating two separate issues.

The judge's decree is simply wanting them to unlock one specific phone so they can serve the rest of the warrant.

In a separate issue, the government is wanting Apple to create a backdoor to allow them to do it without Apple's help.

Apple knows they have good standing on the 2nd issue in not wanting to do it but will look like ass holes if they side with a dead terrorist and not help us learn about future attacks by looking into their current phone. So, they try to make the first look like the 2nd and hope we all buy it.

They don't need to create anything to open up a terrorists phone for a judge.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Apple already said they would open this guys phone with a warrant.

 

[YellowSnow51]

Apple already said they would open this guys phone with a warrant.

There's been a warrant for some time now and they haven't opened it, yet. They just had a judge tell them they had to and they are still fighting it.

 

[Funky Bunch]

How are these separate issues? I thought Apple said they don't have the technology to open the phone.

Apple has provided default encryption on its iPhones since 2014, allowing any device's contents to be accessed only by the user who knows the phone's passcode. Previously, the company could use an extraction tool that would physically plug into the phone and allow it to respond to search warrant requests from the government.

The ruling by Pym, a former federal prosecutor, requires Apple to supply highly specialized software the FBI can load onto the county-owned work iPhone to bypass a self-destruct feature, which erases the phone's data after too many unsuccessful attempts to unlock it. The FBI wants to be able to try different combinations in rapid sequence until it finds the right one.

 

[YellowSnow51]

How are these separate issues? I thought Apple said they don't have the technology to open the phone.

The judge is telling them to remove the 10 code try/ wipe from that phone so they can open it using millions of combinations. The FBI is asking them to put that function on all upcoming phones.

However, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym said in her order, Apple can write software that can bypass the feature. Federal prosecutors stated in a memo accompanying the order that the software would affect only the seized phone.

Seems like two different issues.

 

[Funky Bunch]

The FBI is asking them to put that function on all upcoming phones.

Where did you see that? I didn't read that anywhere.

 

[YellowSnow51]

Where did you see that? I didn't read that anywhere.

I've read about 10 articles on it today to try to make sure I'm up to snuff, so I honestly can't remember which one, but I read it tight before I posted that.

 

[Funky Bunch]

"The magistrate's order requires that the software Apple provides be programmed to work only on Farook's phone, and said Apple has five days to notify the court if it believes the ruling is unreasonably burdensome."

I think I might see what you're getting at. Apple is afraid that if the technology existed, it could get into the wrong hands. Its a matter of trust about whether it would only be applied to this phone.

 

[YellowSnow51]

Where did you see that? I didn't read that anywhere.

From the CEO's letter.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

I think he's really trying to conflate everything together to make it look like there's no turning back if they open just that one phone. Seems kind of silly to suggest that.

 

[hawkifann]

It's really the same issue. The judge wants Apple to put together a 1-off bit of code for this phone. The Feds want that to then be included in the default OS.

 

[ThorneStockton]

From the CEO's letter.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

I think he's really trying to conflate everything together to make it look like there's no turning back if they open just that one phone. Seems kind of silly to suggest that.

I'm not a tech/programmer guy, but that doesn't seem that silly to me depending on how it actually works (I don't know how they work).

 

[YellowSnow51]

It's really the same issue. The judge wants Apple to put together a 1-off bit of code for this phone. The Feds want that to then be included in the default OS.

Yup. But I see that as two. Help with the single phone then throw away the key. Don't give it to the FBI.

 

[hawkifann]

Yup. But I see that as two. Help with the single phone then throw away the key. Don't give it to the FBI.

The problem is that you may not necessarily be able to throw away the key....and even if you did, it could fall into the wrong hands.

The only secure system is one that's turned off, has no interface and stores no data.

 

[Funky Bunch]

It's really the same issue. The judge wants Apple to put together a 1-off bit of code for this phone. The Feds want that to then be included in the default OS.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation.

I think this is the part that is causing some confusion. I don't think anyone is asking this to be included on any future phones, just this one phone.

 

[hawkifann]

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation.

I think this is the part that is causing some confusion. I don't think anyone is asking this to be included on any future phones, just this one phone.

I'm still with Apple. Software that doesn't exist can't be misused.

Also, what's not included here is that most of the data the feds would want to recover likely exists in the digital world outside this phone....and/or if the suspect is being really good at being covert, there may very well be nothing of substance stored on the phone anyway. Frankly, I'd rather not open this door.

 

[starbrown]

The gov't should never have access to someone's back door. Unless they are into that sort of thing.