Apple Refusing Court Order to Unlock Killer's iPhone

jakeblu said:
Fair point, it wasn't meant as a fanboy post, but more of a humorous one. Clearly I missed the target :)
Click to expand...

Fair enough; but you make it sound like an iPhone has never been hacked, which is patently untrue.
 
Hugh Jarse said:
The personal data protection is the main issue. Once the technology crack genie is out of the bottle it will never be put back, as Neil G has pointed out in earlier posts.

Simply put, once the methodology to break Apple's security technology is achieved, if it can be, and, a court order sets a precedent to make it happen is granted the yet another aspect of security and privacy is gone.

The clear and present danger issue has always existed, all that has evolved is the availability of communications technology which is driving an ever increasing 'convergence' of differing technologies to a point that smart devices are getting more advanced that the blurring of comms/proximity purchase/broadcast/info share/cloud data storgage/bio recognition/visual recogntition/HD video /Megapixel stills/text/banking etc - all in one handheld unit will require ever more protection modelling. It is not just privacy per se but identity/financial protection too.

It may require bio-recognition additional protection processes too.

In the case of the IPhone in question, it's owner/user has 'received' justice, 9mm/.44 style. The understandable FBI requirement is to close other leads to those who may be about to murder others. I accept that may be the case but, for me, and others, the price of loss of privacy is a step too far.
Click to expand...
I can see you point of view and I'm not an advocate of having my personal details open to scrutiny either but nor am I comfortable knowing that because of this 'closed shop' attitude to authorities having access to personal data, the very strong possibility that lives could be lost is a reality, and that I personally think it's not up to a company to prevent access to information on a known and as you say convicted person's phone. I would have thought that there would be a way of dealing with each handset individually so only that unit is affected? Maybe my lack of technical knowledge prevents my knowing if this is possible or not but if it's a national security issue, it certainly needs to be.
As I say, it is my personal opinion, I don't expect or demand that everyone shares it, but from my point of view I just think that data protection should not be an issue in this instance.
 
wardy07 said:
I would have thought that there would be a way of dealing with each handset individually so only that unit is affected?
Click to expand...

There is, it's called integrity of evidence. Obtaining data from iPhones / androids isn't new. It is done on an individual phone by cloning it. It has been done lawfully for some time. There is a lot unnecessary paranoia on here.
 
Last edited:
7
wardy07 said:
I can see you point of view and I'm not an advocate of having my personal details open to scrutiny either but nor am I comfortable knowing that because of this 'closed shop' attitude to authorities having access to personal data, the very strong possibility that lives could be lost is a reality, and that I personally think it's not up to a company to prevent access to information on a known and as you say convicted person's phone. I would have thought that there would be a way of dealing with each handset individually so only that unit is affected? Maybe my lack of technical knowledge prevents my knowing if this is possible or not but if it's a national security issue, it certainly needs to be.
As I say, it is my personal opinion, I don't expect or demand that everyone shares it, but from my point of view I just think that data protection should not be an issue in this instance.
Click to expand...

I personally would fight for you to have whatever opinions/views you hold and want to state.

To paraphrase Voltaire "I may not agree with what you say or think, but I will fight to my dying breath your right to hold those opinions.

Maybe a "technical' solution to the security of data on phones/tablet etc would be a biometric/dna "key" which the authorities could get a court order for, thus "unlocking" just the sigle phone only.

Interesting time in the phone store.... Credit Card, proof of address, 50mmol blood, 25 hair strands.....

As long as the local authority don't want to add biometrics tags to wheelie bins! ☺
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
There is, it's called integrity of evidence. Obtaining data from iPhones / androids isn't new. It is done on an individual phone by cloning it. It has been done lawfully for some time. There is a lot unnecessary paranoia on here.
Click to expand...

I think it us the potential for the autborities getting a generic tool to crack any IPhone. Such a tool would be the kind of 'brute force' app to overcome the built in system that limits the attempts to input the passcode beyond 4 "incorrect" attempts. The FBI would have already accessed the phone in question if it was simple.

It is likely that Apple will ramp up security to higher levels if/when they are legally required to unlock the data self destruct process.
 
Seems to me that some of the arguments for coercing Apple to work for the FBI amount to arguing that the end justifies the means. I wonder what folk would think if the killers had survived and were being asked to reveal the passcode. Would you favour torturing them to reveal it on the grounds that it would be fighting terrorism and saving lives? Many Americans seem to be comfortable with that.
 
sphexx said:
if the killers had survived and were being asked to reveal the passcode. Would you favour torturing them to reveal it on the grounds that it would be fighting terrorism and saving lives?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
Sue me.
 
I'm pretty sure there's a few spotty oiks in Cardiff who could unlock an iPhone before lunch.
 
viv1969 said:
I'm pretty sure there's a few spotty oiks in Cardiff who could unlock an iPhone before lunch.
Click to expand...
Good to hear your opinion.
Are you aware that the iPhone is designed to be quite slow in acting upon an entered passcode. I think it takes 80 milliseconds (but don't shoot me if I've got the number wrong) and while it is negligible in normal use it means that if someone sets a maximum length passcode (ie not just to usual 4 figure one) then even an electronic method of entering the codes, such as the FBI are proposing, will take hundreds of years to be entered and an average of over 100 years to hit the right one (again quoting from memory, can't remember the exact figures, but they are huge in practical terms). Good luck to those long lived spotty oiks!
 
BTW in the present San Bernardino case I am not completely convinced they are Islamic terrorists. The massacre fits the usual pattern of USA shootings and massacres where a disaffected employee goes to the workplace and shoots fellow workers or school kids massacre fellow pupils etc etc. You only have to go back 3 years to find a larger massacre - Sandy Hook.
 
viv1969 said:
No.
Just for proven terrorists.
Click to expand...
You usually have very sensible opinions so I suspect you are just being provocative ... or drunk.
 
I'm not quite sure, reding through this thread, what actually Apple's stance is on this,
are they saying they can't or won't?

if they are saying can't You make something, surely you need to test it to destruction to be able to beat the hackers?
I can't believe that they have built a "security system" without being able to "break it" or have a developers back door, to amend, improve, or whatever for the future.

If they are saying they won't, tough call, but as the perpetrator is dead, then I don't see the issue, as someone else said, they can hack it, and 30 seconds later, make that hack void.
 
viv1969 said:
I'm pretty sure there's a few spotty oiks in Cardiff who could unlock an iPhone before lunch.
Click to expand...
I'd go a little bit east, a town also beginning with C ;)
 
Cobra said:
I'm not quite sure, reding through this thread, what actually Apple's stance is on this,
are they saying they can't or won't?

if they are saying can't You make something, surely you need to test it to destruction to be able to beat the hackers?
I can't believe that they have built a "security system" without being able to "break it" or have a developers back door, to amend, improve, or whatever for the future.

If they are saying they won't, tough call, but as the perpetrator is dead, then I don't see the issue, as someone else said, they can hack it, and 30 seconds later, make that hack void.
Click to expand...
1. Apple are being careful not to say they can't. Most commentators seem to think that because it is an older model they probably could do what is requested. It is important to understand that it is not a simple request to unlock.
2. They are doing their best to create a system that they cannot crack - that is a major selling point for them post-Snowden. The way the iPhone data is secured and encrypted is really complex and clever -- you will have to Google for the explanations, there are plenty out there.
3. There are other complexities, it's a very interesting situation. If Apple can and does comply with a US gov request then they will find it impossible to refuse a Russian or Chinese gov request. Many people seem to think we should not be worried about our personal information being revealed but the real problem is how to secure business/manufacturing/political etc information,

And so on and on ...
 
sphexx said:
you will have to Google for the explanations, there are plenty out there.
Click to expand...
Not really that bothered TBH, as I don't own one and probably never will., just curious.


Thanks for the explanation (y)
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
Not really that bothered TBH, as I don't own one and probably never will., just curious.


Thanks for the explanation (y)
Click to expand...
BUT it's not really about the iPhone or even other mobiles is it?.Although many people cite Geoge Orwell's 1984 in relation where society is heading I sometimes wonder if they have remembered that in the book nearly all people loved Big Brother and that in the end Winston Smith came to love him too!
 
sphexx said:
BUT it's not really about the iPhone or even other mobiles is it?.Although many people cite Geoge Orwell's 1984 in relation where society is heading I sometimes wonder if they have remembered that in the book nearly all people loved Big Brother and that in the end Winston Smith came to love him too!
Click to expand...
Although it was published late 40's ( IIRC? )
So a completely different set of rules would have applied then. Both in reality and in fiction,
TBH I've not read it in many many years, and that was only because I had to for English Lit, and I've have forgotten the "finer points" anyway.

edit, I much preferred Day of the triffids :D
 
Last edited:
Time for a thought experiment.

The FBI have applied for, and obtained, a court order requiring Apple to disable the passkey mechanism. Let's assume for the purposes of the experiment that Apple can technically do this, at least with this model of iPhone, which most commentators think is the case.

Apple have contested the court order, as is their legal right. So it will be reviewed by a higher court.

Here's the thought experiment.

Suppose Apple lose the review. They would then contest that ruling, as is their legal right, and it would then be reviewed by a still higher court.

Suppose it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, and Apple lose. What then? Should they comply, and if not why not?
 
StewartR said:
Time for a thought experiment.

The FBI have applied for, and obtained, a court order requiring Apple to disable the passkey mechanism. Let's assume for the purposes of the experiment that Apple can technically do this, at least with this model of iPhone, which most commentators think is the case.

Apple have contested the court order, as is their legal right. So it will be reviewed by a higher court.

Here's the thought experiment.

Suppose Apple lose the review. They would then contest that ruling, as is their legal right, and it would then be reviewed by a still higher court.

Suppose it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, and Apple lose. What then? Should they comply, and if not why not?
Click to expand...
Whether they should or shouldn't they would comply if only out of their duty to their shareholders - many of whom are Apple employees so that's another complexity.
 
postering tossers
said it a 100 posts ago
 
StewartR said:
Time for a thought experiment.

The FBI have applied for, and obtained, a court order requiring Apple to disable the passkey mechanism. Let's assume for the purposes of the experiment that Apple can technically do this, at least with this model of iPhone, which most commentators think is the case.

Apple have contested the court order, as is their legal right. So it will be reviewed by a higher court.

Here's the thought experiment.

Suppose Apple lose the review. They would then contest that ruling, as is their legal right, and it would then be reviewed by a still higher court.

Suppose it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, and Apple lose. What then? Should they comply, and if not why not?
Click to expand...
If they lose all legal steps then in my opinion they should comply with the court order with all consequences that are associated to it. I mean that is in a democratic country with a fair justice/legal system the appropriate way to handle things.

As an organisation they've got a choice, and a whole bunch of cash, to decide what they want to do there after. We must also not forget that a whole bunch of tech companies have come out in support for Apple. Naturally an easy thing to do when a cash rich giant is making this stand; Box, EFF, Google, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc ...

Sundar Pichai, for those who don't know the CEO of Google, worded it nicely in my opinion:
We know that law enforcement and intelligence agencies face significant challenges in protecting the public against crime and terrorism. We build secure products to keep your information safe and we give law enforcement access to data based on valid legal orders. But that's wholly different than requiring companies to enable hacking of customer devices & data. Could be a troubling precedent.
Click to expand...

Those who truly know me and my background may think this is weird coming from me; I think this is a very dangerous precedent. Over the last 15-20 years the surveillance capability in the UK has gone up to scary levels. Speaking to many of my European counterparts and colleagues they do not understand why we tolerate it here in the UK. Its slipped in under a governance from whom I'd expected more regarding civil liberties. There are many ways how gathering this kind of information can be done, forcing this kind of specific activity is definitely a step too far. And I think there should be a pull back in other areas as well but that is a whole different conversation.

So in a way I'm glad it happened to Apple, at least they can afford to put up a fight where many others just can't afford it and have to cave in or do it purely for their own political gain like John Macafee...
 
Last edited:
dod said:
Not if it's by asking the manufacturer of the safe for the master key, which they will have.

I use an iphone, can't be doing with android :)
Click to expand...
Well they say the master key doesn't exist, you're assuming they're lying.
 
I know the real answer to all these sorts of problems over security and privacy but I am not sure that people here and elsewhere will like it. The privacy genie is out of the bottle and there is no way to put it back, rather like dis-inventing nuclear weapons.
What is needed is to reform our democracy so that it is more genuinely representative of people's views and so that it is easier to vote the buggers out. Most of our MPs are just placemen in safe constituencies who have only to answer to the activists who nominate them and to the various special interest groups/industries etc who support them and give them jobs when they retire. However, when the People were offered a limited improvement in the voting system (STV referendum) they rejected it overwhelmingly.
I am a very old git so none of this will greatly affect me as I shall probably be off soon
 
Hugh Jarse said:
Good grief.... their application offerings do not fill md with confidence of their ability to unluck the IPhone in question.
Click to expand...

It is John McAfee the article is talking about not the company, which he gave up ownership of in the late 90's

It is now owned by Intel and is now called Intel Security

Although I do agree with your assessment of their previous offerings as a company.

Personally I wouldn't trust John McAfee as far as I could throw him
 
Hugh Jarse said:
Watching and waiting for this to pan out as it has implications for all of us.

I regard myself as both law abiding and a member of my community who values what we as a group can achieve by working together.

That said, I am also a private person. I am careful about sharing my life with strangers and am selective with friends too.

I have chosen to be law abiding but also use strong encryption for my personal data (eg PGP).

I am not interested in whether Apple can or cannot break their own routines/code to enable the FBI to 'release' data that 'may' be on a dead murderer's IPhone. I just do not want them to do it. Take away the emotion of the outrage that occurred and the 'mockrage' of the rhetoric of 'innocent people' have nothing to fear from the state intruding into their privacy, we are left with a simple fact - you have no 'real' right to privacy irrespective of legistation purporting to state otherwise.

So no point in sealing your own boundaries in your life. We have a contract to behave within legislation that has taken hundreds of years to arrive at this point in time, only for the 'terror' that has always existed for millennia, to be unpicked in an instant and for the 'sheeple' to nod it all away.

Sad as the moment may seem in terrorism terms, but more people die from the misuse of alcohol and tobacco daily, poor food choices and congenital health conditions daily than die in terrorist atrocities.

We give away our rights and entitlements at our own risk. The uber-rich will continue to wrap theiŕ lives in protective layers so will not be affected.

Life is not the 'reality' that the Daily Mail promote through fear, misinformation and lies.

Yes, I have seen 'terrorism' up close. I was close by the Old Bailey bomb, and I walked past a car bomb which was parked near Selfridges in London in the 1970s, which exploded less than 2 minutes after I walked past it. At no time did I feel that I wanted my privacy invaded or protection of my privacy removed. My part of the societal contract is not to break the rules, which I do not. The activities of a minority should not be used as an excuse to set aside our rights to privacy.
Click to expand...
You mention the ira bombings, yet exactly the same arguments you use were then used about the ring of cameras and numberplate detection systems put in around London as a response. Now these are normal and you think nothing about them.
 
Interesting, the people calling for restrictions probably don't realise how much personal information about themselves and their lives they give away everyday. Social media, websites and cookies, mobile phone data and location tracking, connecting to 'free' wifi, even Google collected personal data about us whilst recording street view images.
The data is already out there. This apple argument rather seems like arguing over the principle of a locked but previously emptied stable door.
 
Byker28i said:
Interesting, the people calling for restrictions probably don't realise how much personal information about themselves and their lives they give away everyday. Social media, websites and cookies, mobile phone data and location tracking, connecting to 'free' wifi, even Google collected personal data about us whilst recording street view images.
The data is already out there. This apple argument rather seems like arguing over the principle of a locked but previously emptied stable door.
Click to expand...
Sorry but that totally misses the point. Sure a percentage, possibly even a large one, does very little keep their own privacy, some get paid handsomely for that and if they choose to do so then good for them. They'll find out the cost of that one day.

In the mean time this is not about data that is already out there at all. Not even close.
 
sphexx said:
I am a very old git so none of this will greatly affect me as I shall probably be off soon
Click to expand...
I feel pretty much the same, although I'm an old git, I was hoping for a few more years. Still I can't help worry for my children and grandchildren.
 
Last edited:
In another layer of complexity:
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-polic...or-probe-but-someone-changed-icloud-password/
Apple cooperated with FBI privately and gave them older iCloud backups and advised them how to make a new backup so that more recent info was available. However that didn't work because after the FBI sized the phone someone changed the iCloud password and now it either won't backup or the backups or otherwise inaccessible. Ha bleeding ha!
I guess someone changed the password but forgot what they changed it to and then entered a series of incorrect guesses. I have experience of this with friend who was given an iPad and did exactly what I describe above. Because "find my iPad" is set and he did not give Apple an alternative email address or mobile number he is now locked out of any access to the App Store, updates and so on. The iPad still functions for his gmail and web browsing so it's OK for his purposes.
 
Since the IRA has been mentioned (is there a version of Goodwin's Law for that) us Brits can feel a certain sense of grim satisfaction at the problems facing the USA given that we remember US judges and politicians refused to extradite IRA terrorists on the grounds their crimes were "political".
 
Phil V said:
Well they say the master key doesn't exist, you're assuming they're lying.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. I wouldn't trust apple any further than the government and probably a good bit less. They're already using the data they collect on your "secure" phone for their own purposes so why not do some good in this instance.
 
Hugh Jarse said:
. The FBI would have already accessed the phone in question if it was simple.
Click to expand...

Or would they? Tin foil hats on.. Someone on another forum I frequent said that the guy who makes the jailbreak program said it really shouldn't be that hard to do. Unsure how true that is but opens up the theory that this isn't just about this single device, but all devices.

Byker28i said:
Interesting, the people calling for restrictions probably don't realise how much personal information about themselves and their lives they give away everyday. Social media, websites and cookies, mobile phone data and location tracking, connecting to 'free' wifi, even Google collected personal data about us whilst recording street view images.
The data is already out there. This apple argument rather seems like arguing over the principle of a locked but previously emptied stable door.
Click to expand...

Youd be making a lot of assumption.

dod said:
Pretty much. I wouldn't trust apple any further than the government and probably a good bit less. They're already using the data they collect on your "secure" phone for their own purposes so why not do some good in this instance.
Click to expand...

As a slight aside. I've been told that police hold no master keys and always have to rely on locksmiths.
 
dejongj said:
Sorry but that totally misses the point. Sure a percentage, possibly even a large one, does very little keep their own privacy, some get paid handsomely for that and if they choose to do so then good for them. They'll find out the cost of that one day.

In the mean time this is not about data that is already out there at all. Not even close.
Click to expand...
This discussion is about a small amount of data on a personal device(or started that way) but actually should be expanded into all data. For instance most people won't know where that data is stored and hence which countries rules apply. This isn't just about a single device, or apple
 
Byker28i said:
This discussion is about a small amount of data on a personal device(or started that way) but actually should be expanded into all data. For instance most people won't know where that data is stored and hence which countries rules apply. This isn't just about a single device, or apple
Click to expand...
Well we disagree, this is not about such generics at all, and that is not what Apple has made a stance against.

The point is as per Google's CEO quoted earlier and the reason many more companies and people are coming out in support of Apple's stance.

We know that law enforcement and intelligence agencies face significant challenges in protecting the public against crime and terrorism. We build secure products to keep your information safe and we give law enforcement access to data based on valid legal orders. But that's wholly different than requiring companies to enable hacking of customer devices & data. Could be a troubling precedent.
Click to expand...

People storing their stuff where ever is a valid discussions, but very different than what this context is about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top