News Community Reacts to Apple vs FBI Story

[anorlunda]

That's certainly a possibility, as is the banning of the sale of such products in the USA.

Russ and Borg are certainly entitled to their opinions, but so am I. I think that it is highly unlikely that the US Congress would have the courage to pass a law that even hinted that hoards of liberal Democrats might be cut off from their beloved Apple products. Especially in an election year, Apple could bluff and the government would fold its hand, IMO. Do you think that Congress has been courageous in recent years? Even an executive order would need more courage than Obama has shown on anything so far.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ and Borg are certainly entitled to their opinions, but so am I. I think that it is highly unlikely that the US Congress would have the courage to pass a law that even hinted that hoards of liberal Democrats might be cut off from their beloved Apple products. Especially in an election year, Apple could bluff and the government would fold its hand, IMO. Do you think that Congress has been courageous in recent years? Even an executive order would need more courage than Obama has shown on anything so far.

Who said who to what, now? I don't know where any of that came from - it certainly has little or nothing to do with anything I or Borg said. I was responding to your absurd quip that the USA could become a country without cell phones and then you seemed to back up a step. The above isn't/hasn't been/never was on the table and certainly no one here suggested it until you mentioned it.

I think you need to slow down and catch your breath.

 

[anorlunda]

Breaking from the above spat; here's another view with some points not mentioned hereto.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinio...-is-a-big-farce-to-get-inside-your-phone.html

The author argues:

The government’s goal in this case has little to do with unlocking a single iPhone, and everything to do with establishing a legal precedent that guarantees them the ability to achieve this access on any device.

Here are some of the arguments he uses to make his case.

the FBI’s assertion that the phone contains valuable evidence is at odds with the known facts of the case. The court order notes that Farook destroyed several other phones to hide evidence prior to the attack. It’s extremely doubtful he’d neglect to destroy the remaining phone if it had any evidence on it. Another reason to be skeptical: The device was actually owned by Farook’s employer, the San Bernardino county health department. Given the lengths he went to destroy evidence, it’s highly unlikely Farook would plan attacks using a company device, since it would be reasonable to assume his employer might be monitoring it. The phone was discovered by agents with the “Find My iPhone” feature turned on — a very strange setting to have activated on a device being used to coordinate terrorist plots.
...
Even more suspicious is how the FBI reacted when finding the phone. According to court documents, they seized the device while it was still on, but allowed the battery to drain. This is baffling because it would have been far easier for investigators to try and access the phone’s contents if they had simply kept it powered and turned on. (The device is fully locked with encryption and tamper-prevention measures when turned off)

The government’s own descriptions of the information it seeks to obtain by forcing Apple to help unlock the phone are also highly questionable. This crucial information includes “who Farook and Malik may have communicated with to plan and carry out the [San Bernardino] shootings, where Farook and Malik may have traveled to and from before and after the incident, and other pertinent information that would provide more information about their and others’ involvement in the deadly shooting.”

All of this information could almost certainly be obtained through other, far more constitutionally sound means. “Who Farook and Malik may have communicated with” could be easily determined by issuing a subpoena to their cell phone, email and Internet service providers; those companies all retain customers’ calling records
...
The same point applies to location information, which is constantly gathered by phone companies as customers’ cellphones move about and connect to their towers. This too would be obtainable without a warrant.

 

[russ_watters]

...here's another view with some points not mentioned hereto.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinio...-is-a-big-farce-to-get-inside-your-phone.html

The author argues:

Here are some of the arguments he uses to make his case.

Let's assume for the time being that all of that speculation about the FBI's "real" motive is true (that the FBI lied in a legal motion and follow-up public discussion):
1. So what?
2. Can the current course of action achieve what it is claimed they want? (note we have already discussed that...)

 

[Psinter]

Legendary iPhone hacker weighs in on Apple’s war with the FBI
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/legendary-iphone-hacker-weighs-apple-war-fbi-181729112.html

Thank you very much for that link Astronuc. Finally someone who understands. It is a thuggish tactic, a trap like it says in the link and a very clever one.

The[/PLAIN] government also said the judge's ruling was restricted to a single iPhone, and rejected Cook's argument that the order requires Apple to create a "back door" to all its iPhones. "It does not provide 'hackers and criminals' access to iPhones," said the filing, "it does not require Apple to 'hack [its] own users' or to 'decrypt' its own phones; it does not give the government 'the power to reach into anyone's device' without a warrant or a court authorization; and it does not compromise the security of personal information."

Heh. Like clearly stated in the link Astronuc posted, in courts, when prosecutors or defenses want to do something, they base themselves on whether it was done in the past or not. If this is done, in the future other prosecutors will use this case as basis to justify that they can do it. Basic law. It is the first thing books about law have in them. Exercises for the students in the form of cases where other cases have been used as example to boost and/or justify prosecutors and/or defenses arguments/motions.

Plus, justified by law or not, it is compromising security on personal information. Here's the thing (an example): When they couldn't access it, it was secure. When they could access it by force, it was not secure. It was accessed by force, therefore compromised. What security of personal information will you have when warrants begin being issued left and right all over the place because they claim that since it was done once, why not do it again? Let me give you my answer: You won't have any.

 

[gleem]

Can John McAfee of Intel Security Group save http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/166513-John-McAfee-Says-He-Will-Hack-the-San-Bernardino-Phone-to-Save-America-From-Itself? He said He would eat his shoe an national TV if His team cannot break into Syed Farook"s iPhone in three weeks.

 

[Psinter]

I'm very interested to hear what the PF community thinks of this story

Sorry for double posting, but I'm curious, some have given their thinking, but what is OP opinion on the story?

 

[russ_watters]

Thank you very much for that link Astronuc. Finally someone who understands. It is a thuggish tactic, a trap like it says in the link and a very clever one.

Heh. Like clearly stated in the link Astronuc posted, in courts, when prosecutors or defenses want to do something, they base themselves on whether it was done in the past or not. If this is done, in the future other prosecutors will use this case as basis to justify that they can do it. Basic law. It is the first thing books about law have in them. Exercises for the students in the form of cases where other cases have been used as example to boost and/or justify prosecutors and/or defenses arguments/motions.

Since Apple has in the past complied with dozens of similar legal search orders and the [poorly implemented or not] capability of this phone is new, it is Apple who is trying to set the precedent, not the FBI: Apple is trying to set the precedent that it no longer has to comply with legal search orders.

What security of personal information will you have when warrants begin being issued left and right all over the place because they claim that since it was done once, why not do it again? Let me give you my answer: You won't have any.

Correction: you don't have any. Present tense. There is nothing you have that the FBI/police are not entitled to search if they get a warrant. Apple is trying to change that. I find that prospect ominous.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Correction: you don't have any. Present tense. There is nothing you have that the FBI/police are not entitled to search if they get a warrant. Apple is trying to change that. I find that prospect ominous.

Apple is not trying to change that. They are just saying that they don't want to be forced to help.

Refusing to help is not the same as hindering the process if law enforcement can figure out how to conduct the search independently.

The government wants to go beyond being entitled to search with a warrant. They want to be able to compel third parties to assist in such searches. Congress has refused to pass a law forcing tech companies to provide means for searches to be facilitated. Now the FBI wants to use court orders to accomplish the same end, even though Congress was asked to pass a law, and they did not.

Why not grant John McAfee the same presumption of innocence and good faith and let him crack the phone? Why force one party to crack the phone against their will when another party is offering to do it for free?

 

[Psinter]

@russ_watters - Thanks for the corrections. It is present tense. I got it wrong.

I find that prospect ominous.

What prospect? Do you mean Apple's prospect? If it's that, I don't find it ominous. What I find ominous is their reaction to Apple's decision to not concede them what they ask for. This was fine, but then the way they filed this motion... It leaves much to be desired from them. Their reaction and wordings are... I don't know how to say it, probably dictatorial is the word, but I'm not sure if it is the correct way to express it.

 

[russ_watters]

Apple is not trying to change that. They are just saying that they don't want to be forced to help.

Refusing to help is not the same as hindering the process if law enforcement can figure out how to conduct the search independently.

Right, those are two separate issues, both of which represent changes Apple is trying to initiate:
1. They are trying to create technology to help people avoid legal search warrants.
2. The technology they created for #1 has a loophole that the FBI wants help exploiting. They've helped in the past, but don't want to help anymore.

The government wants to go beyond being entitled to search with a warrant. They want to be able to compel third parties to assist in such searches.

Yes, 3rd parties are required to assist, as Apple has always done in the past (the FBI discusses this in their new request for an order to compel compliance, linked by Psinter). Apple wants to change that.

Congress has refused to pass a law forcing tech companies to provide means for searches to be facilitated. Now the FBI wants to use court orders to accomplish the same end, even though Congress was asked to pass a law, and they did not.

Fortunately, this phone still has such a means. You're reversing the cart and the horse here. Neither the FBI nor Apple would be able to crack the phone if Apple had done what it promised its customers it had done. That couldn't be changed with a court order, only a law. Because Apple didn't do it, they are still subject to compliance with the warrant.

Why not grant John McAfee the same presumption of innocence and good faith and let him crack the phone? Why force one party to crack the phone against their will when another party is offering to do it for free?

I've already answered that: John McAfee is a 3rd party business owner with financial interest that may be contrary to Apple's. And, presumption of innocence? You don't get presumption of innocence in a security check.

I find this suggestion by you really strange.

 

[russ_watters]

What prospect? Do you mean Apple's prospect?

I find the prospect of completely uncrackable phones ominous just like I find Bitcoin ominous. I find it to be an unnecessary enabler of crime/protection for criminals.

If it's that, I don't find it ominous. What I find ominous is their reaction to Apple's decision to not concede them what they ask for. This was fine, but then the way they filed this motion... It leaves much to be desired from them. Their reaction and wordings are... I don't know how to say it, probably dictatorial is the word, but I'm not sure if it is the correct way to express it.

I don't get it. The second is an additional motion requesting action against Apple for refusing the first, which was a court order. What else is the FBI supposed to do, just let Apple thumb their nose at them?

Yes, an "order" is by definition "dictatorial"!

From the request:

Apple has attempted to design and market its products to allow technology, rather than the law, to control access to data which has been found by this Court to be warranted for an important investigation. Despite its efforts, Apple nonetheless retains the technical ability to comply with the Order, and so should be required to obey it.

At face value, how is that in any way false or unreasonable? Continuing on, it paints a picture that says Apple lied repeatedly in their response letter (which I think we've borne out in this discussion).

Apple is going to need to come up with a better challenge this in court, otherwise I think the next action will include arrest warrants. It isn't entitled to challenge a court order with a PR war alone.

 

[russ_watters]

Then there's this:

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994, during the presidency of Bill Clinton (Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, codified at 47 USC 1001-1010).

CALEA's purpose is to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in surveillance capabilities, allowing federal agencies to wiretap any telephone traffic; it has since been extended to cover broadband Internet and VoIP traffic. Some government agencies argue that it covers monitoring communications rather than just tapping specific lines and that not all CALEA-based access requires a warrant.

The original reason for adopting CALEA was the Federal Bureau of Investigation's worry that increasing use of digital telephone exchange switches would make tapping phones at the phone company's central office harder and slower to execute, or in some cases impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act

That was linked from here, an 18 month article predicting the current conflict:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/18/6...d-signals-whether-police-can-access-your-data

 

[Psinter]

I find the prospect of completely uncrackable phones ominous just like I find Bitcoin ominous. I find it to be an unnecessary enabler of crime.

It is an opinion to which I do not agree and I don't have to be criminal to disagree. I hope you don't think I'm a criminal because I disagree with you.

I don't get it. The second is an additional motion requesting action against Apple for refusing the first, which was a court order. What else is the FBI supposed to do, just let Apple thumb their nose at them?

I could tell you my opinion, but this would definitely be more nice in a face to face conversation. Otherwise I would need to write a whole document explaining my opinion.

Yes, an "order" is by definition "dictatorial"!

Now this is good. I am thankful that you make that clear to me. I really am as I wasn't fully aware of it. It gives me a better understanding.

Curiously enough for me, despite the first one being called an order, it wasn't obliging Apple, however the motion is asking for the court to oblige Apple. Hmmmmmm. *thinking for myself*

 

[russ_watters]

It is an opinion to which I do not agree and I don't have to be criminal to disagree. I hope you don't think I'm a criminal because I disagree with you.

No, of course not. A lot of people disagree with me on privacy vs security. So many that my opinion may be in the minority, though online people tend to be of a certain mindset...

Curiously enough for me, despite the first one being called an order, it wasn't obliging Apple, however the motion is asking for the court to oblige Apple. Hmmmmmm.

That really isn't true. Apple is obliged to follow the order, but the order doesn't itself contain the mechanism for enforcement of itself -- people get the benefit of the doubt that they are going to comply with the order before stronger action is taken to force them to comply. The legal process is cumbersome.

 

[Psinter]

That really isn't true. Apple is obliged to follow the order, but the order doesn't itself contain the mechanism for enforcement of itself. The legal process is cumbersome.

Oh. I agree there then. It is cumbersome indeed.

 

[russ_watters]

More text from the motion to comply:

In New York Telephone Co., the Supreme Court held that courts have authority under the All Writs Act to issue supplemental orders to third parties to facilitate the execution of search warrants. The court held that "[t]he power conferred by the Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice, ...and encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice."... In particular, the Court upheld an order directing a phone company to assist in executing a pen register search warrant...

So this seems to me to be a pretty well settled matter of law: Apple is capable of helping, so they have to.
[edit]
More, much of which I've pointed out previously:

Apple designed and restricts access to the code for the auto-erase function... This feature effectively prevents the government from performing the search for evidence authorized by the warrant without Apple's assistance. The same software Apple is uniquely able to modify also controls the delays Apple implemented between failed passcode attempts - which makes the process take too long to enable the access ordered by the Court.

Especially but not only because iPhones will only run software cryptographically signed by Apple, and because Apple restricts access to the source code of the software that creates these obstacles, no other party has the ability to assist the government in preventing these features from obstructing the search ordered by the Court pursuant to the warrant.

Ahh, so the existing "back door" Apple has is also covered by heavy encryption. That makes sense: it presents a security risk. But it certainly means that it isn't any kind of "loophole" - it is a by-design "back door" into the inner workings of the phone (they can't claim to not know about something they've taken steps to lock!).

As I said before: Apple tied themselves in this knot.

edit2:
This one made me chuckle:

While the Order in this case requires Apple to provide or employ modified software, modifying an operating system - which is essentially writing software code in discrete and limited manner - is not an unreasonable burden for a company that writes software code as part of its regular business.

Edit 3:
And regarding its customers (all discussed previously):

To the extent that Apple claims that the Order is unreasonably burdensome because it undermines Apple's marketing strategies...The principle that "private citizens have a duty to provide assistance to law enforcement officials when it is required is by no means foreign to our traditions." Apple is not above the law in that regard, and it is perfectly capable of advising consumers that the compliance with a discrete and limited court order founded on probable cause is an obligation of a responsible member of the community.

True! If Apple hadn't promised their customers it would behave illegally, that wouldn't be a problem! Sympathy for Apple's promise to its customers: gone.

 

[russ_watters]

I have more to respond to this:

It is an opinion to which I do not agree and I don't have to be criminal to disagree. I hope you don't think I'm a criminal because I disagree with you.

No, I don't automatically assume a person is a criminal for wanting tighter encryption, but as pertains to this case, I do question the wisdom of fearing the FBI more than fearing criminals...while simultaneously placing the same trust in Apple they won't place in the FBI.

 

[Psinter]

I have more to respond to this:

No, I don't automatically assume a person is a criminal for wanting tighter encryption, but as pertains to this case, I do question the wisdom of fearing the FBI more than fearing criminals...while simultaneously placing the same trust in Apple they won't place in the FBI.

It's okay, I understand.

 

[zoobyshoe]

No, I don't automatically assume a person is a criminal for wanting tighter encryption, but as pertains to this case, I do question the wisdom of fearing the FBI more than fearing criminals...while simultaneously placing the same trust in Apple they won't place in the FBI.

I read the whole motion to comply and, what strikes me as confusing and questionable is the FBI's stated reason for wanting to get into the phone:

"The government has reason to believe that Farook used that iPhone to communicate with some of the very people whom he and Malik murdered. The phone may contain critical communications and data prior to and around the time of the shooting that, thus far: {1} has not been accessed; {2} may reside solely on the phone; and {3} cannot be accessed by any other means known to either the government or Apple."

There's no surprise he called his co-workers is there? Apparently communicating with them was a necessary and expected part of the job, such that the company provided them phones for that. I don't see a reason the FBI can't get access to information about calls(or messages) he made to co-workers from the co-worker's phones. Aren't the 22 injured willing to share with the FBI? I would be. Of those who died, wouldn't their spouses know their password in some cases as well?

All this time I have have erroneously assumed the FBI thought there were communications with other terrorists on the phone. In view of their stated reason it looks like all they really want to do is fish on the remote off chance there's something important on it.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

1. They are trying to create technology to help people avoid legal search warrants.

Can you prove that this is really Apple's intent?

It seems to me Apple has clearly articulated that this is not their intent, but merely a by product of technology good enough to keep out criminals is that it ends up making it more difficult for the government to execute legitimate warrants.

Are we to assume the motives of the FBI are always pure, but Apple's motives are not?

The fact that law enforcement has a search warrant means everyone needs to get out of their way and let them do their thing. It does not mean anyone has an affirmative duty to help them search. Such an affirmative duty could be created by Congress by passing a law. Congress decided not to pass that law.

 

[russ_watters]

Can you prove that this is really Apple's intent?

It seems to me Apple has clearly articulated that this is not their intent, but merely a by product of technology good enough to keep out criminals is that it ends up making it more difficult for the government to execute legitimate warrants.

Are we to assume the motives of the FBI are always pure, but Apple's motives are not?

You are misunderstanding: intent is not at issue, function/action is. Apple is currently actively evading a legal search warrant and has created software that assists (poorly) in that. It doesn't matter what their actual goal was in creating the software - it is doing what it is doing and they are doing what they are doing.

What concerns me, though, are the statements of intent by Apple supporters.

The fact that law enforcement has a search warrant means everyone needs to get out of their way and let them do their thing. It does not mean anyone has an affirmative duty to help them search. Such an affirmative duty could be created by Congress by passing a law. Congress decided not to pass that law.

That is false. The affirmative duty exists and is discussed in detail in the quotes from the request to compel, quoted above.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

You are misunderstanding: intent is not at issue, function/action is. Apple is currently actively evading a legal search warrant and has created software that assists (poorly) in that. It doesn't matter what their actual goal was in creating the software - it is doing what it is doing and they are doing what they are doing.

What concerns me, though, are the statements of intent by Apple supporters.

That is false. The affirmative duty exists and is discussed in detail in the quotes from the request to compel, quoted aboeliveve.

A court order does not create a duty, it can only enforce and apply a duty created by a law passed by the legislative branch.

Can a court order force law-abiding citizens to do anything against their will?

No. Only people ignorant of basic civics (or conveniently ignoring it) believe that. Separation of powers means a court is limited in its powers to things prescribed by the legislative branch. Congress chose not to give the courts power to force companies to provide back doors into cell phones. It may serve your purposes that the will of the people as expressed through Congress is ignored in this case, but we are a nation of laws, and court orders that are based only in the whims of the executive branch and the judiciary are not valid unless they are grounded in laws passed by Congress.

People are well within their rights to ignore illegal court orders, especially while appeals and further litigation are pending. You are making Apple out to be evil for acting within their rights.

Why is Apple objecting to the government’s order?
The government asked a court to order Apple to create a unique version of iOS that would bypass security protections on the iPhone Lock screen. It would also add a completely new capability so that passcode tries could be entered electronically.

This has two important and dangerous implications:

First, the government would have us write an entirely new operating system for their use. They are asking Apple to remove security features and add a new ability to the operating system to attack iPhone encryption, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.

We built strong security into the iPhone because people carry so much personal information on our phones today, and there are new data breaches every week affecting individuals, companies and governments. The passcode lock and requirement for manual entry of the passcode are at the heart of the safeguards we have built into iOS. It would be wrong to intentionally weaken our products with a government-ordered backdoor. If we lose control of our data, we put both our privacy and our safety at risk.

Second, the order would set a legal precedent that would expand the powers of the government and we simply don’t know where that would lead us. Should the government be allowed to order us to create other capabilities for surveillance purposes, such as recording conversations or location tracking? This would set a very dangerous precedent.

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

 

[russ_watters]

A court order...

Please read it and try again. I don't like having to respond to factually wrong thing after factually wrong thing. Please do your homework.

 

[mheslep]

Apple is currently actively evading a legal search warrant...

Per the documentation presented here, Apple was not issued a 4th amendment warrant for data on the phone, nor would they, any more than a warrant is issued to a home builder to search a residence. Apple received a court order to assist in the government's search of the phone.

 

[jackwhirl]

Separation of powers means a court is limited in its powers to things prescribed by the legislative branch.

That's not what the separation of powers means. The courts are not inferior to the legislature. Their authority, "judicial Power," was granted them by the constitution.
The separation of powers means that the power of the government, (legislative, executive, and judicial) has been divided between the bodies of government to prevent the concentration of power, prevent the conflict of powers, and to allow the bodies to check and balance each other.

It may serve your purposes that the will of the people as expressed through Congress is ignored in this case, but we are a nation of laws, and court orders that are based only in the whims of the executive branch and the judiciary are not valid unless they are grounded in laws passed by Congress.

Superior courts decide whether the orders of an inferior court are valid: not you, not me, and not Apple.

People are well within their rights to ignore illegal court orders, especially while appeals and further litigation are pending.

People are within their rights to request a stay, or appeal an order. Ignoring an order usually results in the issuance of another order, in the form of an arrest warrant. The FBI would probably comply with such an order.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

People are within their rights to request a stay, or appeal an order. Ignoring an order usually results in the issuance of another order, in the form of an arrest warrant. The FBI would probably comply with such an order.

They may well be foolish enough to do this, because nothing would be a stronger motivation for the people to strip them of their abusive power through Congressional action to clarify their legislative intent. Yeah, let's see how putting Apple execs in jail works out for the fools who try it.

 

[pyroartist]

No one here has been totally clear about what the government is asking for.
Is it just the data from this one phone? If so Apple should queitly take the phone into their labs and give the FBI the data.
If the Gov is asking for a password to all new phones made, that is a different story and they should say no.

 

[Astronuc]

No one here has been totally clear about what the government is asking for.
Is it just the data from this one phone?

The FBI is looking for messages or phone calls involving the victims, or communication with others that Farook indicated that he intended to shoot people.

 

[jackwhirl]

They may well be foolish enough to do this, because nothing would be a stronger motivation for the people to strip them of their abusive power through Congressional action to clarify their legislative intent. Yeah, let's see how putting Apple execs in jail works out for the fools who try it.

Let me clarify. I know I brought it up, but I really don't expect it to come to arrests. If Apple looses the appeal, I expect it will comply with the order. Then I expect it will try to engineer a phone that will not have the weaknesses of the current model.

To be fair, though, it isn't realistic to expect any device to withstand sustained attack while in the physical possession of the attacker.