You didn’t bother reading the last paragraph then? 🙄

Maybe there is a slippery slope there somewhere, but it doesn’t seem very slippery – or indeed very slopey – to me.

And that’s where we’ll have to agree to differ.

You didn’t bother reading the last paragraph then?

I read it but it made no sense.

The search warrant analogy should really have been extended, because it is not just getting everything at your home or indeed any other place you are associated. Providing they pass the requisite safeguards, your mail can be intercepted, your phone tapped and phone records obtained, your banking transactions interrogated etc etc.

Considering the bad press Apple recently had with the error 53 issue they seem to have instantly found a way to turn a “bricked” phone back to 100% normal just by plugging it into a computer

That depends what the fix does. It may just reset the phone allowing it to be restored from an iCloud backup (i.e. data gets wiped).

No, it’s slippery slope combined with straw man.

Yeah I accept that, but that doesn’t make it invalid. We’re talking about something that will set a legal and ethical precedent so the consequences of going down that road/slope are exactly what we should consider.

The question remains, if they say yes then what do they say when other governments ask for the same thing?

…if you’re happy to make and sell your product in a country you should be happy to comply to that countries laws regardless of any ethical qualms..

As I understand it that is a legal point that is still very much up for ongoing debate.
e.g. if someone in say China or North Korea or (insert suitable dictatorship here) accesses your website then should you be bound by that countries laws? If your website has images/opinions that they disagree with then should you be subject to arrest? That would obviously be unworkable.

Likewise should Apple/Google/Facebook be forced to assist, say, the North Korean government break into the phone/account of a suspected South Korean “terrorist”?

Legal systems are generally limited territorially. There can be reciprocal arrangements for enforceablity of judgements, such as the EU conventions or bilateral arrangements, but they are often limited in what they cover. There is certainly no blanket ability so there is little to be concerned with.

e.g. if someone in say China or North Korea or (insert suitable dictatorship here) accesses your website then should you be bound by that countries laws? If your website has images/opinions that they disagree with then should you be subject to arrest? That would obviously be unworkable.

There are plenty of websites with content that is banned. Certain types of porn for instance. The website is either blocked by the respective government or you can be arrested for having the images.

If you choose to operate in a country you have to obey all local laws not just the ones from your headquarters location.

To take the US case you also have to work with state laws and there are some products that are not sold in certain states because they don’t conform..

Ah but Apple, Google and Facebook aren’t just hosting websites they’re selling ad-space and tech products if you have no commercial presence in a country then I’d agree you shouldn’t be bound by their laws in respect to their citizens.

If you don’t like what a government does then don’t provide goods and services in their country, paying tax and doing business there is propping them up.

If it was the case that IPhones were in China on black market only I’d agree but they’re not they have a massive market presence. I’m unaware if Apple does business in North Korea I suspect not in which case I wouldn’t expect them to comply with the request.

I’d use the same argument with regard to tax laws that large corporations do their best to work around if you want to be some where follow the laws. You can’t go round cherry picking just because you’re a global corporation if you’re above the law for something in one country why not all things for all countries?

It’s alright, John McAfee has said he’ll unlock it for free and it’ll only take him 3 weeks.

Plenty of people have put forward arguments as to why this is different from a search warrant for your house. It’s so unlike you to ignore this and just bluster on.

@dd not a single person has put forward a remotely compelling argument as to why its NOT like a search warrant. Also as I posted before Customs can totally dismantle your car looking for drugs or anything else they chose, they are not obliged to put it back together either.

@Graham if Apple want to sell phones in North Korea then yes.

There is a precident here with Blackberry. They use their own servers and thus where hard/impossible for countries to intercept BBM’s – after/during the Arab Spring Middle East countries threatened to ban/shutdown Blackberry (as BBM was used to co-ordinate unrest) unless they got access, guess what they got access.

EDIT: CBA.

Of course it is just take the piss out of him and wait for his humorous gems.

Customs can totally dismantle your car looking for drugs or anything else they chose, they are not obliged to put it back together either.

May I have a source that shows that the UK customs agency can destroy your property and then not reimburse you nor repair the vehicle to a usable condition[ assuming they find nothing obviously]
#JAMBYFACT

Graham if Apple want to sell phones in North Korea then yes.

Okay, so in fact we’re saying tech companies should be allowed to ignore warrants and court orders etc, provided they come from countries where they don’t actively sell their product/service?

@whatno what exactly got lost on page 1 ?

The argument, when you did your best Daily Mail impression and invoked pedophiles, terrorists and murderers in your 2nd post.

Aracer:

No, it’s slippery slope combined with straw man.

Translation: Actually I agree with you, but can’t bring myself to admit that I’m wrong. Also, I have no ability to extrapolate from previous behaviours

Jamby:

@dd not a single person has put forward a remotely compelling argument as to why its NOT like a search warrant.

I did. I’ll do so again, and elaborate a little for the hard of reading: Imagine they have a search warrant, but you’ve already hidden something they’re not sure exists somewhere they won’t find it. Or perhaps you’ve hidden it in an uncrackable safe.

In a non-electronic world, it would be akin to them demanding the safe manufacturer crack the safe, which should be fine as only they can crack the safe. Still, if the safe manufacturer’s business revolved around the security of their safes, I suspect they wouldn’t be too happy about it being known that the could crack their own safes, for fairly obvious reasons.

But clearly we’re not in a non-electronic world, and the analogy between a safe crack and an iPhone crack is weak, because whereas you need to be physically next to a safe to crack it, and safes are somewhat hard to move, it’s much easier to acquire an iPhone you want to get in to. And that crack is electronic, which means it can theoretically become much more easily available and copied than a crack to get into a physical safe. Ultimately, this weakens the security platform of everyone’s iPhone, not just the criminal’s safe.

Those are the main differences, but there are others.

Still, if the safe manufacturer’s business revolved around the security of their safes, I suspect they wouldn’t be too happy about it being known that the could crack their own safes, for fairly obvious reasons.

I worked with a safe manufacturer – long story- and all safes cab be cracked or broken

The security works on two principles

1. you would have to know internally how the safe was constructed to know where to drill/cut.crute force [ which is then usually behind concrete and steel etc]

2. Even if you knew 1 it would be so noisy and take so much time that it was not possible to do

His best safes would take him 3- 5 days to crack. People did loose their keys. He found it very lucrative work.

If you want to provide the infrastructure of peoples’ lives you have to accept the responsibilities that come with that and that includes complying with the rules of the state, if you can’t manage that, then you shouldn’t be in the business. Banks, telephone companies etc manage it, so if Apple wants to take over their function it will have to learn as well.

If you want to provide the infrastructure of peoples’ lives you have to accept the responsibilities that come with that and that includes complying with the rules of the state

But that again raises the question of “Which state?”

Should they do what ANY state asks of them if their technology is involved?

Banks, telephone companies etc manage it

Banks, telephone companies etc also legally challenge governments and states over such issues and rightly so.

I did. [/quote]

Nope. That’s not at all compelling. You did the one about somebody hiding something somewhere they won’t find it before – which is a rubbish argument, because the FBI know exactly where they want to look, but just can’t yet get in. It’s also utterly irrelevant to the comparison with a search warrant.

The safe one was I think somebody else’s argument which you didn’t do before, so it’s new for you. However as JY points out your analogy fails because safe manufacturers can get into their own safes, and it’s known that they have this capability. Or does your analogy fail there?

Actually no, it’s a great analogy, because we all know Apple can do what they’re being asked to do. It’s just the rest of your argument which is therefore rubbish. As I pointed out earlier, what they’re being asked to do is actually so simple for them that they’ve almost certainly already got code capable of doing it – looking at it from a software engineering perspective I’d be worried if it wasn’t anything other than trivial, because that would imply their code is badly written. As I also pointed out earlier, there is no greater issue with stuff leaking from Apple once they’ve done what they’re being asked to than there is currently – because the important thing is Apple’s signing keys, and if they leaked into the wild (as would be required for this to work on anybody else’s phone) then there are much bigger problems.

It’s all just smoke and mirrors from Apple – fundamentally they’re lying in that open letter.

Should they do what ANY state asks of them if their technology is involved?

As I said earlier, a court order in a third state is likely to be useless, but fundamentally if they operate in a state and have sufficient nexus that the state can attack their assets, that is their commercial decision – there is a reason why equity premiums are lower in the west.

Banks, telephone companies etc also legally challenge governments and states over such issues and rightly so.

They sometimes do but if the law is clearcut they don’t.

Graham what has happend to you today its like fallacy central 😉

But that again raises the question of “Which state?”

Should they do what ANY state asks of them if their technology is involved?Ok no one has said they should do what any state does and this example the Us govt is certainly not asking them to comply with any request from any state.

I would be surprised if you can find anyone who thinks they should* comply with nefarious requests form CHina to monitor say a Human rights activist but someone on here might.

Lets forget slippery slopes here and just deal with the actual question

is this one request a reasonable one.

FWIW we all agree some /many requests will not be.
* its the internet I am sure we can but you get my point.

looking at it from a software engineering perspective I’d be worried if it wasn’t anything other than trivial, because that would imply their code is badly written.

I disagree on that one. I’ve worked on plenty of systems where the code that we put in place for security prevents us from doing certain things ourselves. I’d say that was one sign that a system is properly secure, not a sign of poor engineering.

..fundamentally if they operate in a state and have sufficient nexus that the state can attack their assets, that is their commercial decision..

That sounds like you think that companies should make their decision on commercial grounds. Some would say Apple are doing that.

They sometimes do but if the law is clearcut they don’t.

And as I understand it the law isn’t clearcut here – hence the legal challenge.

That sounds like you think that companies should make their decision on commercial grounds.

No it means that if a company chooses to do business in a new country, such as China and North Korea which you were bleating about, they have accept the rule of law in that country to the extent that it applies to them. This is a case in their home country so that decision was made when they set up.

And as I understand it the law isn’t clearcut here – hence the legal challenge.

They are planning to fight it so this is fair and indeed they may be let off – the US is a pretty liberal country – but to extent this is about their open letter and pr, which I find pretty disingenuous.

Graham what has happend to you today

It’s half term – I’m at the in-laws and drinking to ease the pain. It probably shows in my debate.

Ok no one has said they should do what any state does and this example the Us govt is certainly not asking them to comply with any request from any state.

Not directly, but several people have said that companies should not be “above the law” of ANY countries or at the very least, not above the law of countries where their product is sold (which for a mobile device can be anywhere). And a couple of people have agreed that Apple should assist the Chinese government in the same way. Jamba also cited the Pestorious case as an example where he thought Apple should have helped the state.

What I’m trying to highlight is that if all tech companies just rolled over to every legal challenge, warrant, etc issued by any state then the world and the Internet would look very very different – and not in a good way.

As I said before “slippery slope” doesn’t invalidate the argument, especially when you are talking about setting a legal precedent.

Here a government agency wants the right to legally force a company to produce something that will defeat its own security.

Fundamentally I am uncomfortable with that and what it would ultimately mean for other companies.

What I’m trying to highlight is that if all tech companies just rolled over to every legal challenge, warrant, etc issued by any state then the world and the Internet would look very very different – and not in a good way.

I dont disagree but the question is should they “roll over ” ,though I prefer the term assist , when the request/order/warrant is reasonable.

I think we just have to discuss case on merit and everyone should be uncomfortable when a government exercises this sort of power.

I’m at the in-laws and drinking to ease the pain. It probably shows in my debate.

I laughed

Or, it could just be that the FBI screwed up and now expect Apple to fix it for them…

http://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/19/apple-government-changed-apple-id-password/

And aracer, try to read all my post before you reply with rubbish. The clue’s the bit where I highlight the difference between having access to a safe you want to break in to, and access to an iPhone.

One’s quite bulky and heavy, the other is light, portable, and already electronically connected. That’s why the safe analogy isn’t very good, as I highlighted.

It was your analogy – one you were using apparently as part of your compelling argument explaining why this isn’t like a search warrant.

Well it is safe to say there is no middle ground for most people on this topic so maybe it’s time to move on to something less contentious.
Anyone for “best wheel size for riding over an iPhone.”

It was your analogy

And you used bits of it out of context. If you read the whole post as written, you’ll see the rationale very clearly

It’s not my fault if you either can’t or are unwilling to read.

Well it is safe to say there is no middle ground for most people on this topic

Because there isn’t a middle ground on cracking encryption. Either it’s cracked, and can therefore be cracked again, or it isn’t

maybe it’s time to move on to something less contentious.

Allow me to introduce you to the “new post” button

Did I hear right?
Last night, on the way home from the Pub, on the radio was the Mcafee owner offering up his services to break into the iPhone?
I wonder if the FBI will just turn on their heels and go seek that option?

was the Mcafee owner offering up his services

It wasn’t the McAfee owner, it was John McAfee himself; an “interesting” character who no longer owns the eponymous DoS AV company and is now a presidential candidate. Ars has the details. Personally I’d like to see him eat his shoe but I suspect by then anything useful on the phone would have been trashed.

I would be surprised if you can find anyone who thinks they should* comply with nefarious requests form CHina to monitor say a Human rights activist but someone on here might.

I think that’s exactly what mefty is suggesting. In any case, who decides? Is Chelsea Manning fair game? Ai Weiwei? Shaker Aamer?

In other news the FBI have asked Boeing to produce a black box that will instantly vaporise any of their planes. They have promised to do their best to keep it in safe hands.

I think that’s exactly what mefty is suggesting. In any case, who decides? Is Chelsea Manning fair game? Ai Weiwei? Shaker Aamer?

Not at all, I was pointing out that if a request was made, which was capable of enforcement (quite unlikely), then Apple might have to make decision between complying with the request or continuing to trade in that country.

So, given that they do business in China, if the Chinese ask them to crack Ai Weiwei’s phone they should do so?

Not at all,

You are having some real comprehension fails on this thread.

You are having some real comprehension fails on this thread.

Ummm … what are you talking about? Any clue?

You are still having them then 😉