News Community Reacts to Apple vs FBI Story

[Greg Bernhardt]

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

Here is the story
http://www.wired.com/2016/02/apples-fbi-battle-is-complicated-heres-whats-really-going-on/

Here is the letter Tim Cook sent out
http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

 

[jfizzix]

Given that we treat our phones as private, I'd say the FBI should have to go through the same steps to legally search our phones as they would to search our homes. I don't think most people object to the idea of FBI searches with valid warrants, but what the FBI is asking for now seems like it would allow law enforcement officials (and anyone else with the right info) to have a look around whenever they want without us or the proper channels ever knowing (which is as solid a violation of the Fourth Amendment as there is).

I'd say Tim Cook is in the right, but that's just my two cents.

 

[Hornbein]

"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." Scott McNealy, CEO Sun Microsystems

 

[DavidSnider]

"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." Scott McNealy, CEO Sun Microsystems

Apparently you have zero freedom as well, because the FBI is trying to force you to develop software to help them.

This isn't a story about privacy. The FBI has a warrant. They want Apple to compromise their own product.

 

[Hornbein]

Apparently you have zero freedom as well, because the FBI is trying to force you to develop software to help them.

This isn't a story about privacy. The FBI has a warrant. They want Apple to compromise their own product.

They want Apple to compromise the privacy promised (and possibly guaranteed) by Apple and implemented in the software of their product.

 

[DavidSnider]

They want Apple to compromise the privacy promised by Apple and implemented in the software of their product.

If Apple had the encryption keys to this guys phone they would hand them over when presented with a warrant. That's not what is being asked here. It's like asking a lock maker to purposely make malfunctioning locks because the FBI is having difficulty breaking them.

 

[Astronuc]

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

Sure folks are due privacy, security and personal liberty, but this is a case where the owner(s) of the phone(s) are deceased, so there is no more privacy issue.

I understand that there is a judicial order. I'm not sure about a warrant, but I think a court order carries the same weight.

Also, I'm not sure that one retains a right to privacy if one is committing a crime or has committed a crime. Concealing evidence is obstruction of justice. At some point, there has to be a give to protect the General Welfare (or the welfare of many) versus the privacy of an individual who has committed a crime.

In theory, Apple can unlock the contents at Apple without turning over the key to the FBI. That would seem reasonable if there is a court order.

 

[jw6661]

Saw an article earlier today, that apple has unlocked a phone for the government 43 previous times.
not sure if that article was valid.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I am concerned about the dangerous precedent of law enforcement being able force private parties into being able to helping them in their duties.

How is this not involuntary servitude?

If the government cannot figure out how to carry out their job, can they now force any private company or citizen into helping them?

 

[Hornbein]

If I understand the issue correctly, the FBI is asking Apple to give them the means to bypass all locks made by Apple. So the issue is the privacy of all Apple users, not the privacy of deceased mass murderers.

I presume that Apple would be willing to deliver the contents of the phone.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

If I understand the issue correctly, the FBI is asking Apple to give them the means to bypass all locks made by Apple. So the issue is the privacy of all Apple users, not the privacy of deceased mass murderers.

I presume that Apple would be willing to deliver the contents of the phone.

Right. But my feeling is that the FBI really wants the technical ability to do it whenever they please without going back to Apple every time.

Depending on how the information on the device needs to be used downstream, there may be chain of custody issues if the FBI gives Apple the phone and Apple simply returns hard disk or memory device with the unencrypted contents. It would be nice if the geeks could figure out how to give the FBI what they need in this specific case without giving them unbridled access to millions of devices.

But I really believe in capitalism more than government takings by force. Why not simply make the FBI pony up whatever the geeks demand to solve their problem? If the FBI geeks are too incompetent to figure it out themselves, the FBI should have to pay whatever the geeks who can solve the problem demand for their services.

 

[Hornbein]

Right. But my feeling is that the FBI really wants the technical ability to do it whenever they please without going back to Apple every time.

That seems to be the case. How do they think they can get away with that? It's weird. But not unbelievable. It is quite consistent with the W and O administrations actions on privacy. They succeeded in abolishing it. Apparently they enjoy the power of the all-seeing eye so greatly that they are acting to maintain this power. Unfortunately, I can easily imagine our ever-vigilant Supreme Court protecting our rights by ruling in favor of the FBI.

I'm not willing to sort through media articles trying to figure out what is really going on.

 

[Hornbein]

If the government cannot figure out how to carry out their job, can they now force any private company or citizen into helping them?

The idea is that the government is the custodian of the common good. Note that up until now all major corporations have been very helpful in aiding the government in secretly breaking its own laws in the interest of national security. But enough is enough. Such huge corporations have evidently lost faith that said government is acting for the common good. Apple at least is no longer cooperating and is appealing to the legal system for protection from the executive branch.

 

[jw6661]

Apparently, the fb i has yet to rule out a third shooter which is giving them more leverage with the public hopes to opening this phone.

 

[1oldman2]

It seems yesterday I read a news article saying the FBI had gained the right to use the fingerprint of a corpse to bypass security measures. I will try and find a link to this "news item", anyone else see anything on this development?.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

The idea is that the government is the custodian of the common good.

But the wisdom of the US Constitution is that it realizes that the common good is best served by strict limits on governmental power and strict recognition of the rights of citizens.

Shall citizens be reduced to involuntary servitude any time the government has a technical problem or security need it cannot solve?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernadino-phone-for-free/

McAfee offers to hack it for free. Now it really gets interesting.

 

[anorlunda]

The version I read says that they want Apple to disable the feature that disables the phone after 10 unsuccessful password attempts. That suggests that encryption is not the issue; they haven't even gotten into the phone to see whether or not it is encrypted. That further suggests that the government is not seeking a tool for sophisticated government hackers to crack the phones of sophisticated bad guys, rather they are demanding a tool so basic that any unsophisticated redneck deputy can use it to try crack any iPhone. (I feel justified in characterizing a special agent who wants to use brute force password guessing using the touch screen as a dufus.)

Apple says that if they create such a tool, then every law enforcement agency in the world will demand it. My guess is 20-50K agencies. And then of course, it will leak to all the bad guys too.

Substantial civil liberties issues aside, there is a pragmatic aspect to this private/government tug of war. A recent interview of Jason Healey from Columbia University talked about his study of the long-term impact of cyber (in)security. His worst case scenario was a totally insecure Internet, with wild-west like culture, that might cause ordinary users to stop using the Internet so much. He estimated that would cost the world economy $90 trillion by 2030. Interestingly, he estimates the effect of over-policing to be symmetrical; $90 trillion dollar impact also. Over-policing can be defined as government turning the Internet into a tool to spy on people to the extent that ordinary users lose faith in their ability to communicate confidentially by electronic means.

Government needs to be able do its job, but the public and business need secure communications and transactions too. If the private sector is asked to compromise on privacy and security all the time, then government also must be asked to give up some of the most appealing investigation tools.

 

[russ_watters]

Shall citizens be reduced to involuntary servitude any time the government has a technical problem or security need it cannot solve?

Yes, but my understanding is that that isn't the issue here. You can't easily alter software without the source code, so it would be difficult to impossible for the government to reverse engineer the iPhone operating system. Apple can do it easily.

Whether they should for privacy reasons is a different matter.

 

[russ_watters]

If Apple had the encryption keys to this guys phone they would hand them over when presented with a warrant.

I don't know if that is true or not, but apple did specifically attempt to design the phone so they couldn't, so they would never have to respond at all to such a warrant.

 

[Hornbein]

I don't know if that is true or not, but apple did specifically attempt to design the phone so they couldn't, so they would never have to respond at all to such a warrant.

It is truly sad that US citizens must go to such lengths in an attempt to defend their privacy against their own government.

I can imagine a scenario where the govt gets a court order, brings in the phone, Apple cracks the code, downloads all the data, and gives it to the gov't, all under agent supervision. I don't see why Apple wouldn't do that. I take it the gov't wants a tool it can use as it pleases.

 

[Hornbein]

Substantial civil liberties issues aside, there is a pragmatic aspect to this private/government tug of war. A recent interview of Jason Healey from Columbia University talked about his study of the long-term impact of cyber (in)security. His worst case scenario was a totally insecure Internet, with wild-west like culture, that might cause ordinary users to stop using the Internet so much. He estimated that would cost the world economy $90 trillion by 2030. Interestingly, he estimates the effect of over-policing to be symmetrical; $90 trillion dollar impact also. Over-policing can be defined as government turning the Internet into a tool to spy on people to the extent that ordinary users lose faith in their ability to communicate confidentially by electronic means.

I reject the idea that privacy has value only in terms of its economic impact. That is the least of my concerns.

 

[Hornbein]

McAfee offers to hack it for free. Now it really gets interesting.

If they do, Apple can update the OS to patch any vulnerability.

 

[Hornbein]

It seems yesterday I read a news article saying the FBI had gained the right to use the fingerprint of a corpse to bypass security measures.

Good Lord. That means if I utilized fingerprint protection, I would be giving the gov't a motive to want me dead. I feel that this law or ruling is not in the best interests of the public.

 

[russ_watters]

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

Here is the story
http://www.wired.com/2016/02/apples-fbi-battle-is-complicated-heres-whats-really-going-on/

Here is the letter Tim Cook sent out
http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

I respect a company that has and is willing to stand up for principles, especially when it comes to their customers' rights and promises they made to protect their interpretation of them. Though this may be as much about keeping the can of worms closed to spare their own pain.

That said, as people can probably tell, I'm not a general believer in (or am actively opposed to) privacy/anonymity. I believe it should be based mostly on utility/necessity, in particularly when it comes to criminal activity. As a matter of law/constitutionality, there are certain, specific things that are exempt from criminal investigation and phone and written communications between criminal conspirators are not among them. Just because it is POSSIBLE to lock out the police I don't see how that should automatically make it LEGAL.

So I see both sides of this and am not really strongly decided.

 

[russ_watters]

Good Lord. That means if I utilized fingerprint protection, I would be giving the gov't a motive to want me dead.

That doesn't follow logically at all. The situation is not logically reversible.

 

[DiracPool]

This isn't rocket science as far as I can see. If the FBI and Apple can't work out a guarantee that they can find a way to hack this phone and only this phone exclusively, then it is not worth the risk. Period. And I don't think the FBI has proven this standard. We're not talking about some imminent threat of some sort of dirty bomb or chemical/biological attack. We're talking about a speculative third San Bernadino ghost that probably doesn't exist. This is a case of the FBI trying to steal the limelight and justify their existence as more than just a bunch of administrative paper pushers (a large percentage of at least).

 

[russ_watters]

Here's a ridiculous Op-ed in USA Today, saying that computer privacy code is speech and is protected under the first Amendment:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...ardino-terrorism-free-speech-column/80569422/

Nope, nope. Privacy code is a locked door, not speech. And even if it were, freedom of speech covers speech only, not action. Just ask the county clerk who went to jail over her belief that compelled her to not sign marriage licenses.

USA Today's editorial board opinion is much more in line with my thinking:

So the matter of Syed Farook's modern device raises difficult age-old issues about the tension between privacy and security, issues that are far more complex than the partisans on both sides of the debate like to admit.

Reflecting that complexity, the USA TODAY Editorial Board failed to reach consensus after lengthy debate about Apple's defiance. No one had any interest in guarding the privacy of a mass murderer or giving haven to future ones. The stumbling block was whether Apple's compliance could unleash a genie that might make smartphone users in the U.S. and around the world easy prey, for reasons good or bad.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-fbi-syed-farook-editorials-debates/80572492/

 

[russ_watters]

It is truly sad that US citizens must go to such lengths in an attempt to defend their privacy against their own government.

Does such a right exist and is it at issue here? You can't get out of a search warrant by claiming a right to privacy except in rare/specific circumstances such as spousal priveledge that don't apply here (nor is there anyone who has standing to make such a claim in this case anyway!). I don't think we'd be having this discussion if Apple hadn't tied this logical knot. Tech companies generally comply with mundane search warrants.

Heck, the guy didn't even own the phone. His employer would have a solid case for joining the lawsuit with the FBI!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm not hugely informed on this topic, given the gushing/condemning news stories and comments flying around I'd skeptically bet few are. It does seem like the real issue is the FBI asking Apple to provide a universal iPhone breaking toolkit, the concern being they don't need such a thing and the danger of creating it outweighs the benefit.

 

[anorlunda]

I reject the idea that privacy has value only in terms of its economic impact. That is the least of my concerns.

I agree. That's why I started my sentence with "Substantial civil liberties issues aside," Privacy has economic impact but it is not only that.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Does such a right exist and is it at issue here? You can't get out of a search warrant by claiming a right to privacy except in rare/specific circumstances such as spousal priveledge that don't apply here (nor is there anyone who has standing to make such a claim in this case anyway!). I don't think we'd be having this discussion if Apple hadn't tied this logical knot. Tech companies generally comply with mundane search warrants.

Heck, the guy didn't even own the phone. His employer would have a solid case for joining the lawsuit with the FBI!

Does anyone agree that the FBI should be kept out of the shooter's phone? I don't think so.

The debate is whether Apple should deliver technology to the FBI under this pretext that will allow them (and anyone else who acquires the technology) to get into any iPhone.

This is not a matter of a search warrant. It is more akin to the FBI wanting the combination to every safe a company has made because they need to search one that may contain evidence related to a crime.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You all might want to read the court order.

Dr. Courtney's concern, which I shared, is presumably addressed by Point 5: "Apple shall advise the government of the reasonable cost of providing this service." (Although technically, I suppose, the FBI can say they won't pay.)

It not only says what the FBI wants to do, but how the FBI wants to do it. If Apple does what the FBI asked for some other way, the FBI has to agree to it. And what the FBI wants is a general unlocking procedure applied once to this particular phone. It would be very interesting to see what the FBI's reaction would be if Apple were to tell them, "Your in luck - there were only a thousand phones made with this particular chip combination, and this is one of them. That let's us get in without developing a universal key! Aren't you happy?"

 

[Hornbein]

Does such a right exist and is it at issue here?

See previous posts.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Dr. Courtney's concern, which I shared, is presumably addressed by Point 5: "Apple shall advise the government of the reasonable cost of providing this service." (Although technically, I suppose, the FBI can say they won't pay.)

I've seen too many cases where what the government will accept as "reasonable cost" is far below fair market value to be under illusions that whoever provides this service will be compensated well.

I think they should take McAfee up on his offer to do it for free: it saves the taxpayers money, preserves Apple's freedom, and gets the government out of the bad press of forcing Apple to do this. Assuming McAfee can deliver, everyone wins.

 

[Vanadium 50]

y, the FBI has to agree to it.

This was unclear. The FBI has veto power over what Apple does. Not that the FBI must agree to what Apple does.

 

[russ_watters]

Does anyone agree that the FBI should be kept out of the shooter's phone? I don't think so.

I don't think you should presume to speak for other people on that issue. But I do accept that it isn't your concern.

The debate is whether Apple should deliver technology to the FBI under this pretext that will allow them (and anyone else who acquires the technology) to get into any iPhone.

This is not a matter of a search warrant. It is more akin to the FBI wanting the combination to every safe a company has made because they need to search one that may contain evidence related to a crime.

Well then I submit that such people are debating a conspiracy theory, because it doesn't appear to me that that's on the table. The motion (it is linked in the Wired article) says, in big, bold letters, "the SUBJECT DEVICE only". The motion includes several possible ways of accomplishing this and makes it crystal clear that the FBI is willing to work with Apple to find a mutually agreeable solution. It sounds perfectly reasonable and not at all ominous to me -- except for the can of worms this creates for Apple.

From your post #11:

But my feeling is that the FBI really wants...

Could we please discuss what is actually being proposed instead of something you are just imagining?

 

[russ_watters]

See previous posts.

What previous posts? I've read all posts in this thread. As I said to Dr. Courtney, it appears to me this issue ruffled peoples' feathers and caused them to argue against their imaginations, not the reality of the issue.

 

[Astronuc]

The debate is whether Apple should deliver technology to the FBI under this pretext that will allow them (and anyone else who acquires the technology) to get into any iPhone.

As I understand the situation, the FBI is not asking for the technology, only that Apple unlock the phone and provide the FBI with access to the content. The FBI would compensate Apple. Of course, once the technology is developed, it is readily available the next time. That's why the FBI goes through the process of getting a court order and/or warrant, i.e., due process.

I don't think the government is giant monolith. It seem that the courts are interested in maintaining the privacy of law-abiding citizens.

 

[russ_watters]

Are you really unaware that the FBI has asked for broad backdoor access into citizen's cell phones on prior occasions?

I'm aware. And by the way, I support it in principle. But that isn't being asked for here. You are arguing against something that isn't at issue and even if you were right about what they "really want", it still wouldn't be relevant to/connected to the discussion.

What about the due process for all the citizens whose phones get hacked by the same technology without due process?

What people? Hacked by who? That's very vague.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I'm aware. And by the way, I support it in principle. But that isn't being asked for here. You are arguing against something that isn't at issue and even if you were right about what they "really want", it still wouldn't be relevant to/connected to the discussion.

Apple claims that the only way in is to create a back door that could be used much more broadly. Are they lying? How do you know?

 

[russ_watters]

Apple claims that the only way in is to create a back door that could be used much more broadly. Are they lying?

No, of course they are not lying. But again: "could be" is an entry point into imagination. The FBI isn't asking for it to be used broadly. You are speculating that they want to, despite what they have actually said to the contrary. You're in essence claiming the FBI lied on the motion they submitted to the court. And again, even if they had, what you suggest isn't on the table: if the FBI wins and Apple complies, they still don't get what you claim they want.

Apple isn't alleging a nefarious motive by the FBI, you are. If anything, Apple is expressing worry about their own ability to fulfill the request safely.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

No, of course they are not lying. But again: "could be" is an entry point into imagination. The FBI isn't asking for it to be used broadly. You are speculating that they want to, despite what they have actually said to the contrary. You're in essence claiming the FBI lied on the motion they submitted to the court. And again, even if they had, what you suggest isn't on the table: if the FBI wins and Apple complies, they still don't get what you claim they want.

Apple isn't alleging a nefarious motive by the FBI, you are. If anything, Apple is expressing worry about their own ability to fulfill the request safely.

Only a very small minority of FBI employees need to be careless or act with nefarious motive for the Apple's concerns to be realized.

The FBI has asked for the broad abilities to access all cell phones in the past, so it is not unreasonable they still want it now. How many times have government employees been imprisoned for carelessness or overreaches regarding citizen privacy? How many NSA employees were fired or put in jail?

How well placed is your trust in government that a reasonable need in the present is not extended to broad privacy intrusions in the future? How is the FBIs history on respecting the privacy of citizens?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/20/martin-luther-king-fbi_n_4631112.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ved_the_nsa_s_surveillance_program_topic.html

 

[russ_watters]

As I said, this is a complicated issue, but there are things about Apple's letter I don't like. Along the current line of discussion, but broader:

Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.

The first two sentences are true (though the first part is mostly in Apple's control). The conclusion/claim is nonsense (though I guess that makes me unreasonable to them ). The police/FBI don't need master keys "in the real world" because physical locks are breakable and they usually don't have to break them anyway because people just open the doors for them. Apple is like the superintendent of an apartment building claiming that it is a bad idea for them to have a master key to the rooms in their own building (not perfect, but it is their choice of analogy). That's nonsense.

In both the real world (apartment building: obvious) and the computer world, Apple's action is actually highly unusual and itself somewhat dangerous/risky:

Most computerized devices/accounts have back-doors, sometimes physical and sometimes electronic, because people are human and they often forget their passwords. By not creating a back-door, they remove the fall-back/protection people have to be able to recover lost information when needed. That's a substantial danger/risk/limitation.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Most computerized devices/accounts have back-doors, sometimes physical and sometimes electronic, because people are human and they often forget their passwords. By not creating a back-door, they remove the fall-back/protection people have to be able to recover lost information when needed. That's a substantial danger/risk/limitation.

I don't have a problem with it as long as the limitations are clear, and their customers are making an informed choice.

I've also had the combinations changed on my physical safes so that neither the locksmith or the safe company knows them. It is a risk I am willing to take for the enhanced security.

One may choose to buy an iPhone for the same reason. Unless Congress passes a law that mandates a back door for electronic devices or for high end safes, the FBI should not be demanding one.

Even the director of the FBI has stated:

I believe that Americans should be deeply skeptical of government power. You cannot trust people in power. The founders knew that. That's why they divided power among three branches, to set interest against interest.

I don't trust the FBI more than their director.

 

[russ_watters]

Only a very small minority of FBI employees need to be careless or act with nefarious motive for the Apple's concerns to be realized.

No. The motion explicitly states that the FBI is willing to work with Apple to come up with a mutually agreeable solution. It is within Apple's power to comply with this request in a way that utterly prevents the FBI from gaining the tool itself.

The FBI has asked for the broad abilities to access all cell phones in the past, so it is not unreasonable they still want it now.

Of course. But that has nothing to do with this case, because that isn't on the table. It isn't a possible outcome of this case.

How well placed is your trust in government that a reasonable need in the present is not extended to broad privacy intrusions in the future? How is the FBIs history on respecting the privacy of citizens?

Reasonable need? What Apple has done is totally unprecedented as far as I can tell* - at least I've never heard of a computer company not installing a back-door to their software. I consider the need to conduct reasonable searches and seizures to be a "reasonable need".

For the FBI, yeah it isn't perfect. There's really no way around that -- it is inherently impossible for any large organization including the FBI to be perfect, especially if we include past records in the calculus. The only way to fully ensure the FBI won't violate citizens privacy would be to disband it. Blocking reasonable search and seizure is not, in my opinion, a reasonable alternative.

It is also noteworthy that there is after-the-fact recourse here. If the police/FBI seize something they were not entitled to, the courts can still render it inadmissible. It isn't an uncorrectable wrong.

Anyway, as I've said before, I'm not a big believer in secrecy/anonymity. There is literally nothing I wouldn't be willing to tell/give the FBI access to, warrant-free. I did once even invite the FBI to tap my (land line) phone after receiving a number of strange voicemails.

*I said "most" in my previous post, but am amplifying here because the more I think about it, the more I think I've never seen/heard of such a thing.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't have a problem with it as long as the limitations are clear, and their customers are making an informed choice.

I've also had the combinations changed on my physical safes so that neither the locksmith or the safe company knows them. It is a risk I am willing to take for the enhanced security.

One may choose to buy an iPhone for the same reason. Unless Congress passes a law that mandates a back door for electronic devices or for high end safes, the FBI should not be demanding one.

There's no need that I can see to request a back door for high end safes: As far as I know, there is no such thing as an uncrackable safe. And I believe that uncrackable encryption is a bigger security risk than privacy benefit. So I would support such a law.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

There's no need that I can see to request a back door for high end safes: As far as I know, there is no such thing as an uncrackable safe. And I believe that uncrackable encryption is a bigger security risk than privacy benefit. So I would support such a law.

That's fine. Support the law. As soon as Congress passes such a law, I would support compliance by companies such as Apple.

But John McAfee thinks that the iPhone isn't really uncrackable. If the FBI can't crack a safe, should a court order the manufacturer to teach them how and give them the tools? Even if a third party locksmith offered to crack it for free?

 

[russ_watters]

How is the FBIs history on respecting the privacy of citizens?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/20/martin-luther-king-fbi_n_4631112.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ved_the_nsa_s_surveillance_program_topic.html

Both of those things happened before I was born - and I'm 40. To me, that's a spectacularly good history. Probably more to the point, everyone's opinions are based on what they know and have experienced and having never experienced things that haven't happened since before I was born, it is easy for me to set them aside as being no longer necessarily relevant/true to today.

 

[russ_watters]

But John McAfee thinks that the iPhone isn't really uncrackable. If the FBI can't crack a safe, should a court order the manufacturer to teach them how and give them the tools? Even if a third party locksmith offered to crack it for free?

Yes, in general. And for the specific case we're discussion, I don't trust John McAffee any more than I can throw him!