The big difference is that the Gitmo stuff hasn’t been authorised by a US court in the way that any future use of this will have to be. I’m certainly not an apologist for the worst excesses of the US government, and whilst I can’t speak for JY I doubt he is either. I actually find it strange placing such confidence in the US court system – but then it’s other parts of the US legal system I’m not impressed by, the control over issuing of warrants and court orders actually seems to work very well with good checks and balances.

well at least you are trying to just summarise my view 😉

Already said that it is wrong and agree with your post

How about this hypothetical scenario. A terrorist whose details are on the phone commits a major attack on US citizens on American soil. His handler then releases information that shows the information that Apple refused to help obtain could have prevented the attack.

The result would be the world’s most powerful government would be seriously at odds with the world’s largest company.

Are Apple playing a potentially disasterous game here?

Apple seem to think that they are above the law and maybe in some ways corporations of their size have outgrown conventional legal boundaries and legal reform is needed to control them.

I can see them buying a country (or constructing an artificial island) to effectively become a corporation free of country based constraints.

Am I getting too paranoid?

A terrorist whose details are on the phone commits a major attack on US citizens on American soil. His handler then releases information that shows the information that Apple refused to help obtain could have prevented the attack.

That sounds like an excellent argument for the state being allowed blanket access to absolutely everything just in case someone turns out to be a terrorist. 😯

In this particular case the gunmen (“gunpeople”?) have apparently scrubbed two other personal phones but left this one. On balance it seems pretty unlikely that they have been using their government-issued work phone to discuss planned terrorist attacks with fellow jihadists. Or that they have their details in their Contacts.

Apple seem to think that they are above the law

No they don’t – if they were they’d just say “Sod off you can’t touch us”.
Instead they have raised a legal challenge, with lawyers and stuff. That is working within the law, not above it.

I actually find it strange placing such confidence in the US court system – but then it’s other parts of the US legal system I’m not impressed by, the control over issuing of warrants and court orders actually seems to work very well with good checks and balances.

Well I’m impressed that you have gone into the subject in such detail. Or are you perhaps just making stuff up?

it seems pretty unlikely that they have been using their government-issued work phone to discuss planned terrorist attacks with fellow jihadists. Or that they have their details in their Contacts.

I think there’s an app for that.

I can see them buying a country (or constructing an artificial island) to effectively become a corporation free of country based constraints.

Google have done that. It’s called “Britain”.

NY Times has a nice article about all this including some good details on the history:

• back in 2010 “Apple was growing tired of requests from government officials worldwide asking the company to unlock smartphones.”

• there was “a decade-long Central Intelligence Agency program to compromise Apple’s products”

• “the agency was embedding spy tools in Apple’s hardware, and even modifying an Apple software update that allowed government analysts to record every keystroke.”

• that the director of the FBI publicly said Apple had gone “too far” with its encryption in iOS8.

• “Last October, a federal judge in New York said the government was overstepping its boundaries by using a centuries-old law, the All Writs Act, as the basis for its request that Apple open an iPhone for a drug investigation” which is the same 1789 act they are using here.

— http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html

Or are you perhaps just making stuff up?

Well if you cannot refute a post with facts do that as its very compelling

Anyway back to the question you wont answer

No funny pictures this time?

Anyway back to the question you wont answer

I’m lost after not looking at this one for a while…what was it?

I’m lost after not looking at this one for a while…what was it?

It was along the liines of “if aliens had a death ray focused on Earth and threatened to vaporise the planet unless Apple agreed to increase their Candy Crush score, would Apple be justified in refusing to crack their phone”

Oh, oh, oh…is it “You’ve got a guy strapped to a bed…there’s a towel wrapped round his head…you have a bucket of water…he KNOWS where and how to stop a bomb killing three million people in California…do you torture him or do you get Apple to break into his phone?” Come on, the clock is ticking…what’s it going to be?

Sorry to interrupt his straq man circle jerk

If there is anything they feel Apple should not too if requested to do so by a court in whatever country they happen to be.- DR P said this
MY answer
If mefty and I answer this again will you understand?
We are not trying to make a universal principle here – clearly some requests will be abuse of power and just snooping- we are just deciding on this request.

We can all make examples

A bomb is going off the iphone has the pass code to disable it should apple respect privacy and let folk die?

It really depends on why they are asked.

the full Dr P quote – itself a straw man

to ask those who say that Apple should blindly accede to the FBI if there is anything they feel Apple should not too if requested to do so by a court in whatever country they happen to be.

The fact remains that to always just side with the govt or to always side with privacy means that one ends up making poor choices in a carefully chosen scenario. Obviously yours are sensible and worthy of response and the counters are just silly.

their is a middle sensible way in the real world though clearly not on STW

Good Link Graham at least highlights the privacy concerns and extent of the prying. He may be making a principled stand after all. WHo would have thought a thread of this quality would lead to change of stance.

I hope that clarifies things dd 🙂

Perhaps – or maybe I have a strange interest in legal systems and have read some factual books about it. Who knows?

I’m guessing there was a full page Apple ad next to that 😈

Trump says boycott Apple (and something about the Chinese being thieves):

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe9ydy_zwe8[/video]

Appeal to lack of authority?

Have we done that Trump tweeted his call to boycott Apple on an iPhone?

It figures that someone so orange would hate Apple 🙂

Donald Trump is mind boggling. In that video, he’s asked about the economy which he uses as an excuse to start an ill -informed xenophobic rant about China before some knights move thought process brings him onto Apple and he says the first thing that comes into his head about a boycott. The man’s a maniac.

Or are you saying it was jamba who never claimed to be 100% correct ?

I was always very specific about which issues I claim my perfect score on. I generally find these threads more interestig if the other posters try and keep it about the topic than me. I can imagine the majority of STWers feel the same.

If Apple do hold out thee will be a new law, they won’t rely on the one from 1789. Its looking increasingly likely that law will be made by President Trump. Very dangerous game Cook is playing as the US would would love to send them a tax bill for $50bn pkus for thenprofits theyve stashed offshore.

do you torture him or do you get Apple to break into his phone?

In this case there’s no-one left alive to torture so they’ll have to take find another route.

As GrahamS pointed out Law Enforcers/Governments are always looking at ways to circumvent security which disadvantages them. This is just a case of trying a legal approach. Bear in mind all these security systems have not been put in place to frustrate the FBI but to protect YOUR data against “bad men” who want it. That’s a valid selling point and as far as companies are concerned (not just Apple) it’s worth protecting the security expected by their customers.

If Apple do hold out thee will be a new law

That may not be a bad thing, at least it would clarify things, though I imagine it would be very “with us or against us” Patriot Act style, especially if The Donald writes it 😯

Which will be completely unaffected by Apple complying – their claims otherwise are disingenuous.

Which will be completely unaffected by Apple complying – their claims otherwise are disingenuous.

I admire your somewhat misguided faith that those given power over us will do the right thing, experience would suggest otherwise.

You still don’t get it do you? Or are you imagining that the “bad men” will be able to get a court order to make Apple unlock your phone and get your bank details and dirty pics?

You still don’t get it do you? Or are you imagining that the “bad men” will be able to get a court order to make Apple unlock your phone and get your bank details and dirty pics?

I think Sandwich very much gets it and you really don’t. I mean, that’s my opinion and frankly nothing you could say would persuade me otherwise – I don’t really understand how any rational person without a vested interest in snooping could hold any other viewpoint. Surely you don’t believe that the state can be trusted to NEVER misuse a person’s data? State-sponsored surveillance / access to our data is one of the big challenges of the 21st century, and if we don’t make a stand at times like this, then Teresa May will be reading everyone’s emails before you can say “Isn’t modern life awfully Orwellian?” Once the cat (hack) is out of the bag, everyone’s phone will be accessible.

But clearly this is a very divisive topic and as this topic shows, people have a different opinion. Which is OK, I suppose. Sheeple 😆

don’t really understand how any rational person without a vested interest in snooping could hold any other viewpoint.

Sometimes “snooping”, lets call it investigating a terrorist attack for that is what it is , is indeed necessary. Should the authorities not snoop when crimes are committed and lives lost?

Again clearly privacy is very very important and we should not set it aside lightly or routinely. However it not so precious that it can ALWAYS trump the legitimate investigation of a crime [to protect the public] though sometimes it will.

Should the authorities not snoop when crimes are committed and lives lost?

Of course they should. I’m not against the FBI investigating this case and gathering evidence from wherever they legally can. Neither is Apple: they have given the FBI the data that they hold.

But I AM against the FBI/state overreaching existing legal limitations and creating a new legal precedent of being able to force a company to produce software that defeats its own security.

(and yes, I understand that in theory Apple will retain this software. But I think it is a matter of time before this creeps to the state getting hold of this software, either legally or by espionage)

And yes this is a terrorism case. But laws that erode privacy and civil liberties are always sold on the fear of terrorism, paedos or other bogeymen.
See RIPA or the Patriot Act for good examples.

Not aimed at you Graham as I accept that you can see both sides but just plump for the wrong other view in this case. You are still doing what i am and weighing up each case on its merits – well I assume you are.

I agree the state can abuse its powers

Worth a read: http://arstechnica.co.uk/apple/2016/02/encryption-isnt-at-stake-the-fbi-knows-apple-already-has-the-desired-key/

Perhaps they can create a software that only works for that one phone. By only signing code for that one device’s hardware key, it stops this hack being installed on any other iphones. Which is good.

If you’ve got nothing to hide you’ve got nothing to fear (DYSWIDT?)

I’m a rational person with a vested interest in the law authorities having access to every bit of data they can possibly get on the activities of terrorists if it’s likely to help prevent other attacks.

State-sponsored surveillance / access to our data is one of the big challenges of the 21st century, and if we don’t make a stand at times like this, then Teresa May will be reading everyone’s emails before you can say “Isn’t modern life awfully Orwellian?” Once the cat (hack) is out of the bag, everyone’s phone will be accessible.

How exactly will this help Teresa May to read your e-mails. Or even how will it make everyone’s phone accessible?

Why don’t we discuss the case currently before the courts, rather than some imaginary court order which hasn’t been asked for? My opinion might well change if the FBI were asking for some of the things you lot are suggesting – but they’re not, and this case doesn’t set any sort of precedent for them getting anything else. You can bet Apple would fight any future different court order all the way to the Supreme Court, and this case would make zero difference to the result of that.

If the former, then as above let’s fight discuss that legal battle as and when it happens. If the latter then I don’t know why we’re worrying about this piffling little case, because if they can obtain the means to do what they’re asking then they could just go in and get it now – along with Apple’s signing keys and the source code and do whatever they like. They don’t really need this court order.

Thanks for that – pretty much exactly what I’ve been arguing (well that along with trusting the US courts to control the use of this in other cases). Though it explains it a lot better than I have, and it may be a failure to understand what is outlined there which is causing much of the worry. Though the one thing I’m also convinced by is that Apple won’t actually have to write much if any new code, because the things being asked for are the sort of things which would help a lot with unit testing for Apple – and clearly they have a very good testing regime. I reckon the FBI also think that.

this case doesn’t set any sort of precedent for them getting anything else

I think it does. Let’s be clear that this is not an isolated case:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/feds-want-apples-help-to-defeat-encrypted-phones-new-legal-case-shows/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/judge-does-us-law-allow-feds-to-compel-apple-to-unlock-an-iphone/

And previously a judge has ruled that the feds were over-reaching with the All Writs Act and that ”Apple is not required to attempt to decrypt, or otherwise enable law enforcement’s attempts to access any encrypted data.”

If this one is pushed through then surely it would challenge that existing precedent?

The judge also ruled “Apple’s reasonable technical resistance may include, but is not limited to, bypassing the iOS device’s user’s passcode…”. Which is exactly what they’re asking for here, and they’re not asking for Apple to help them with any decryption, so I don’t see how this would challenge that in any way. If anything that ruling set the precedent for this one, and I don’t believe it is any coincidence what they’re asking for in this case.

I accept your point that there are and will be other similar cases – but the FBI will have to argue the similarity in the courts and Apple will be able to take any such argument all the way to the Supreme Court.

Though the point I was making regarding precedent was about this providing a precedent for them getting further reaching powers, which is a different argument. I’ve re-read what I wrote (too late to edit) and it’s clearly ambiguous, so my apologies for that.

but is not limited to, bypassing the iOS device’s user’s passcode…”. Which is exactly what they’re asking for here, and they’re not asking for Apple to help them with any decryption,

This is decryption any other argument is sophistry.

The FBI have now clarified their and the other investigating authorities incompetence over the iCloud password change.
I am not inclined to believe or trust such amateurs with sensitive information. As has been said above I very much get the risk to my privacy, rights to free association and all the rest that is impacted by the spat on the other side of the Atlantic. I say again I am willing to sacrifice some of my safety (and every one elses) to maintain my rights (and theirs/yours).

Don’t jump every time someone in politics dog-whistles terrorists/paedophiles/extremists to rush through repressive legislation. We don’t need controlling by politicians, they need to answer to us, dog wags the tail.

If anything that ruling set the precedent for this one, and I don’t believe it is any coincidence what they’re asking for in this case.

Agreed, this is clearly something that has been building for a while over several different cases. And if Bruce Schneier’s analysis is correct Apple may helped them by coming up with something they could technically do, so that it could be argued on the legal merits alone to get it sorted out.

..the FBI will have to argue the similarity in the courts and Apple will be able to take any such argument all the way to the Supreme Court.

Agreed again – but if successful the FBI will be able to cite this as a legal precedent.

Moreover I think it does open the door to similar moves. It’s certainly not hard to imagine that Google would be given the same order for an Android phone.

But what happens when they get into a phone and find they communicated using an encrypted messaging app (WhatsApp maybe?), or that they accessed an SSL-secured website, or just used readily-available encryption software.

If the law decides that investigators can force companies to break their own security for a warrant then I expect we’ll see more than just Apple being made to do so – and few companies will have a legal team the size of Apple’s to challenge it.

You should tell that to Judge Westmore – I’m sure she’d appreciate being told that her judgement is sophistry.

It is also a pretty important distinction – if they were breaking the encryption then your data might be a threat in the way you seem to think it is. Do you actually understand exactly what they’re being asked to do? Superficial’s link might help.

As has been said above I very much get imagine the risk to my privacy, rights to free association and all the rest that is impacted by the spat on the other side of the Atlantic.

I think Judge Westmore’s ruling would stand – I’m not seeing that being challenged – they can’t be forced to break the encryption (in Apple’s case it isn’t technically possible, and I’d hope that to also be the case for other cases you mention – otherwise such encryption is worthless). If there is a password which could get you in and they have a way of accessing that or helping access it I guess they could be told to do that.

We’re into a whole different argument regarding cracking encryption – one where I suspect I mostly agree with you.

As I understand it Apple have, in the past, used methods already at their disposal to help law enforcement in the US by unlocking phones on the say so of the US courts.

The big bru-ha-ha in this case is that the method that Apple would need to employ to help the FBI, while possibly technically feasible does not actually exist at this point. It might be trivial, although I seriously doubt this, but it will require a fair amount of effort by Apple to implement it properly and securely.

If the FBI and the US courts do get their way, Apple are then forced to build a system that allows them to disable the pass-code security checking on the iPhone 5c.

If in the future, another law enforcement body requires access to an iPhone 5c for whatever reason, they don’t need to go through all this hassle with the All Writs Act to do the same thing, it has already been done, they can just get a US court to request Apple disable the pass-code security as the methods and software for doing so already exist. As I believe it does for the previous iterations of the iPhone.

The only reason this is being discussed like this is because of the use of the All Writs Act, and using it to force a company to write some software/come up with a method to break their own security. If the methods/software already existed this fight would not be happening.

The fact that they are only asking for a single phone to be modified by this method using the Act is immaterial as changing the phone ID in the software would be trivial, whereas writing the initial software is not.

Essentially, once that method has been established to exist, it’s then fair game by the US law community on it’s use.