Apple Refusing Court Order to Unlock Killer's iPhone

StewartR said:
Calm down. You're misinterpreting the position on so many different levels.

For starters nobody is being forced to do anything. The FBI have applied for a court order, which may or may not be granted. And I think we all agree that the courts *do* have the power to order people and companies to take, or refrain from taking, certain actions.

Secondly, if the court does so order, Apple has been asked to circumvent the security mechanism on this specific iPhone. The FBI has asked for assistance which would be effective on this specific phone only. To my mind it's analogous to asking a safe manufacturer to break open a specific safe.

Nobody apart from you is talking about Apple being required to change the products they offer for sale. But even if they were, that's a perfectly reasonable thing for courts to do. Want to make and sell a new range of Polonium-210 teabags? You might find "they" won't let you. No surprise there, to most of us.
Click to expand...
No need for that kind of language Stuart.

And no it's not just that one phone. It's nine phones now. This is exactly how those kind of things happen.

This is merely one example with a big enough organisation to make a stance. I'm privy to monthly industry updates and this is not the only area at all where this is happening.
 
StewartR said:
Calm down. You're misinterpreting the position on so many different levels.

For starters nobody is being forced to do anything. The FBI have applied for a court order, which may or may not be granted. And I think we all agree that the courts *do* have the power to order people and companies to take, or refrain from taking, certain actions.

Secondly, if the court does so order, Apple has been asked to circumvent the security mechanism on this specific iPhone. The FBI has asked for assistance which would be effective on this specific phone only. To my mind it's analogous to asking a safe manufacturer to break open a specific safe.

Nobody apart from you is talking about Apple being required to change the products they offer for sale. But even if they were, that's a perfectly reasonable thing for courts to do. Want to make and sell a new range of Polonium-210 teabags? You might find "they" won't let you. No surprise there, to most of us.
Click to expand...

No, it's more like being asked to make a key that will open any of their safes.
 
The word is that it is 12 phones now, and just one linked to terrorism. Naturally one can't conclude anything based on sketchy news stories, but it doesn't surprise me that the boundaries are changing.

My money is still on my original post in the thread, they've already got it, they just need to "legalise" it.
 
dejongj said:
My money is still on my original post in the thread, they've already got it, they just need to "legalise" it.
Click to expand...
I think you're probably right.
 
StewartR said:
To my mind it's analogous to asking a safe manufacturer to break open a specific safe.
Click to expand...
KitsuneAndy said:
No, it's more like being asked to make a key that will open any of their safes.
Click to expand...
I haven't yet seen the details of these other requests which have come out of the woodwork. But the request from the FBI regarding the phone used by the San Bernardino killer was very specific: they asked Apple to provide a means of circumventing the security which would work *for that phone only*. I remember that when I first read it, I thought the FBI were very deliberately restricting the scope of their request as much as possible, to avoid any wider security / privact ramifications to the greatest possible extent.

So to continue the analogy: Apple were asked to provide a means of breaking into one safe, with the specific proviso that that technique would not open any other safes. Now it seems they've been asked to provide means of breaking into eleven or twelve more safes. I don't see where it says anything about unlocking all the safes they've made.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
Calm down. You're misinterpreting the position on so many different levels.

For starters nobody is being forced to do anything. The FBI have applied for a court order, which may or may not be granted. And I think we all agree that the courts *do* have the power to order people and companies to take, or refrain from taking, certain actions.

Secondly, if the court does so order, Apple has been asked to circumvent the security mechanism on this specific iPhone. The FBI has asked for assistance which would be effective on this specific phone only. To my mind it's analogous to asking a safe manufacturer to break open a specific safe.

Nobody apart from you is talking about Apple being required to change the products they offer for sale. But even if they were, that's a perfectly reasonable thing for courts to do. Want to make and sell a new range of Polonium-210 teabags? You might find "they" won't let you. No surprise there, to most of us.
Click to expand...
Sorry but you are wrong. If you read US postings on this there is a lot of concern that Apple are being forced to do work contrary to the Constitution, eg 5th Amendment. Remember that slavery was a real and relatively recent thing in USA.
 
sphexx said:
Sorry but you are wrong. If you read US postings on this there is a lot of concern that Apple are being forced to do work contrary to the Constitution, eg 5th Amendment. Remember that slavery was a real and relatively recent thing in USA.
Click to expand...

Currently they're not being forced to do anything, and if they were it would have sod all to do with the fifth amendment.
 
viv1969 said:
Currently they're not being forced to do anything, and if they were it would have sod all to do with the fifth amendment.
Click to expand...
Sorry but you are wrong. You probably have been watching to many Mafia movies, the 5th covers more than self-incrimination.
 
sphexx said:
Sorry but you are wrong. You probably have been watching to many Mafia movies, the 5th covers more than self-incrimination.
Click to expand...
A bit of a harsh response. But alas, were you thinking of that a defendant can not be compelled to hand over the contents of their own mind. A clause specifically related to passwords and encryption. A clause where a defendant doesn't even have to acknowledge the existence of such password or encryption mechanism.

Interesting. I understand it hasn't been tested. I wonder whether it works for a legal entity.

I'm sure Apples lawyers will be on the case. Must be nice for them do work in this field opposed to patents.

It is an interesting angle, as merely revealing or acknowledging the possibility of such methods, even without revealing the method will provide a whole new angle to the hackers community. Then again; knowing that community they have been at this already and some of them will be selling it to governments as they do.
 
sphexx said:
Sorry but you are wrong. You probably have been watching to many Mafia movies, the 5th covers more than self-incrimination.
Click to expand...

OK...you go right ahead.
I don't base things on films, or Google, or Wikipedia etc......
:rolleyes:
 
StewartR said:
I haven't yet seen the details of these other requests which have come out of the woodwork. But the request from the FBI regarding the phone used by the San Bernardino killer was very specific: they asked Apple to provide a means of circumventing the security which would work *for that phone only*. I remember that when I first read it, I thought the FBI were very deliberately restricting the scope of their request as much as possible, to avoid any wider security / privact ramifications to the greatest possible extent.

So to continue the analogy: Apple were asked to provide a means of breaking into one safe, with the specific proviso that that technique would not open any other safes. Now it seems they've been asked to provide means of breaking into eleven or twelve more safes. I don't see where it says anything about unlocking all the safes they've made.
Click to expand...

Because they won't be able to make it just able to open one phone, yes, they could only put it on that phone, or they could have it check for the specific phone UID. But, both of those are just config issues, someone could just put it on another phone, or set the UID parameter to whatever they want.

They'd still have to create a way to unlock all phones, in order to unlock this phone.

I read an article online today that suggests that they're tweaking the OS for the next version to make it impossible to implement such a hack in the first place anyway
 
sphexx said:
Sorry but you are wrong. If you read US postings on this there is a lot of concern that Apple are being forced to do work contrary to the Constitution, eg 5th Amendment.
Click to expand...
For goodness sake, how many times does this have to be said? Nobody is being forced to do anything. Surely you understand that?

The FBI have applied for, and gained, a court order requiring Apple to unlock the phone. Apple are appealing against the court's decision, and it has been reported that amongst their numerous possible lines of defence is a claim that the court order violates the 5th Amendment. These are uncharted waters and they may or may not be correct in that assessment. That's all that's happened. Nothing to get excited about.

At the end of the day this is probably headed for the Supreme Court. If the FBI's request is indeed unconstitutional then the Supreme Court will throw it out. If the FBI's request is found to be unconstitutional in other respects, or if it fails any number of other legal hurdles which Apple's lawyers will put in its way, again it will be thrown out. And if the Supreme Court rules in favour of the FBI then Apple will have to comply.

Thats how the law works. Don't like it? Go find yourself another country with different laws.

sphexx said:
Remember that slavery was a real and relatively recent thing in USA.
Click to expand...
Slavery was abolished in the British Empire 173 years ago. Slavery was abolished in the USA 151 years ago. I'm really struggling to see your "point".
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
and so the slippery slope starts..
Click to expand...
It's only a slippery slope if the legal checks and balances are ignored. If each case is argued through the courts and decided on its merits in a consistent fashion, then it's not a slippery slope.
 
i wish i had your confidence in that. fact is that data security standards have been slowly degraded for a few years now and introducing a weakness into the iphone does nothing to help that.

maybe a little moot anyway, rumour is that apple are working on changes to make such future brute force attempts completely impossible.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/2...e-working-on-an-iphone-even-it-cant-hack.html
 
Obvious answer is to not do anything dodgy or sensitive on your phone or any other device.
 
neil_g said:
maybe a little moot anyway, rumour is that apple are working on changes to make such future brute force attempts completely impossible.
Click to expand...
When this story broke I said in another place that the inevitable consequence of the FBI being successful, or indeed even if they failed, would be the creation of a system that could not be bypassed by the manufacturer and possibly even an open source solution being developed, so there was no legal entity for the FBI to pursue to override it.

Governments are really, really scared of encryption as the genie is out of the bottle and unbreakable encryption is in the public domain.
 
Nod said:
Obvious answer is to not do anything dodgy or sensitive on your phone or any other device.
Click to expand...

Crumbs you are right..... no more drafting 'underworld' stories on my phone about the strange habits of Nikon users and how the 'Canon Knights' save the world and parteeee like it's 1999 with (insert choice).......
 
onomatopoeia said:
When this story broke I said in another place that the inevitable consequence of the FBI being successful, or indeed even if they failed, would be the creation of a system that could not be bypassed by the manufacturer and possibly even an open source solution being developed, so there was no legal entity for the FBI to pursue to override it.

Governments are really, really scared of encryption as the genie is out of the bottle and unbreakable encryption is in the public domain.
Click to expand...
I think the IPhones are practically uncrackable if you set the maximum 11 character password. It would take about 250 years to try all the combinations and you would be successful on average in 100 or so years. This applies to the FBI iPhone too except that the miscreant has only set a 4 digit password -- which one can tell because one is only presented with the keypad when password is requested.
 
Well and here we have it; Apple has filed their 'motion to vacate', and exactly as @sphexx said it focusses on the first and fifth amendment. It also points out that the FBI stupidly changed the iCloud password :facepalm: therefore effectively disabling access to automatic background backups etc. I wonder what else has gone on in the background that Apple can't put in the public domain. They are definitely fighting back and their powder seems dry....
 
sphexx said:
I think the IPhones are practically uncrackable if you set the maximum 11 character password. It would take about 250 years to try all the combinations and you would be successful on average in 100 or so years. This applies to the FBI iPhone too except that the miscreant has only set a 4 digit password -- which one can tell because one is only presented with the keypad when password is requested.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If you choose a numeric 11 digit password, you are then shown the keypad.
 
dejongj said:
Well and here we have it; Apple has filed their 'motion to vacate', and exactly as @sphexx said it focusses on the first and fifth amendment.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed. Though the first line of defence is arguing that the legal instrument used by the FBI to obtain its court order, the All Writs Act, is not valid in this context. The courts will look at that before they touch the Constitutional issues, because the Constitution is always the last, most fundamental, line of defence.

If Apple's First and Fifth Amendments do get to be tested, it will be interesting to see what happens. Most of the reporting I've seen reproduces Apple's argument without discussion. It's a well written argument in that it seamlessly blends together undisputed facts, interpretations, and opinions, and makes it sound as if it is entirely composed of undisputed facts. But there are certainly several possible lines of attack.

Apple point out that computer code is protected by the First Amendment in the same way that speech is, and therefore they can't be compelled to "say" something they don't want to "say". But saying that "code = speech" is simplistic and unhelpful. One needs to distinguish between functional speech and expressive speech, because it's only the latter which is protected. If Apple do produce a modified version of iOS, what exactly - if anything - would it be "saying"? That's not at all clear.

Apple also put significant weight on the claim that signing the iOS update digitally would amount to compelled speech, in violation of their First Amendment rights. Again, that hinges on what is being "said" when a chunk of code is signed digitally. My (admittedly simplistic) personal opinion is that it merely confirms that the code has indeed been produced by the company it claims to have been produced by, and if the courts agreed with me then it's not obvious that the First Amendment would apply. On the other hand Apple are arguing that the use of a digital certificate is overlaid with additional nuances such as trustworthiness, and that signing something implies that they "believe" in it - which could trigger First Amendment protection.

Interesting times ahead.
 
Last edited:
Incidentally, for those who are interested in discussion of the legal aspects of this case, there is very good coverage in the Lawfare blog.
https://www.lawfareblog.com

There's one particularly good article about Apple's strategy in the security/surveillance debate, which argues that the company doesn't seem to have a consistent approach. On the one hand it is broadly supportive of the UK Investigatory Powers Bill, and on the other hand it challenges the US All Writs Act which is doing essentially the same thing. On the one hand it claims that it would suffer extreme reputational damage by helping law enforcement agencies access a criminal's phone, and on the other hand it has apparently complied with about 70 such requests in the past. On the one hand it has a willingness to support law enforcement, subject to the usual constraints of normal legal process ("comes back when you've got a warrant") and on the other hand it seems to want to be as obstructive as possible. Interesting article.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/apples-going-dark-doublespeak
 
Rapscallion said:
Not necessarily. If you choose a numeric 11 digit password, you are then shown the keypad.
Click to expand...
Yes, I got that wrong. But they seem so sure that it is a 4 figure password that I assumed that was the reason they knew. On reflection perhaps it shows what has been claimed all along that this is a put up job and they know the password already!
 
Nod said:
Obvious answer is to not do anything dodgy or sensitive on your phone or any other device.
Click to expand...
thats not really the point.

the point is that the weakening of any system to make it hackable (as I said earlier in the thread, there are people in the world that would either leak the knowledge on how to, or have the know-how to develop their own hack program) puts legitimate use at risk (internet banking, corporate email etc etc etc).
 
StewartR said:
Slavery was abolished in the British Empire 173 years ago. Slavery was abolished in the USA 151 years ago. I'm really struggling to see your "point".
Click to expand...
True but slavery was replaced by segregation and Jim Crow laws which lasted until 1965 and are still a live issue, eg the "Black Lives Matter" campaign.
 
sphexx said:
True but slavery was replaced by segregation and Jim Crow laws which lasted until 1965 and are still a live issue, eg the "Black Lives Matter" campaign.
Click to expand...
I've got to admire the way you moved the goalposts there. But I'm afraid I still don't understand what you're trying to say, or what if anything it has to do with the Apple case. Could you try to exlain it more simply for me please?
 
StewartR said:
I've got to admire the way you moved the goalposts there. But I'm afraid I still don't understand what you're trying to say, or what if anything it has to do with the Apple case. Could you try to exlain it more simply for me please?
Click to expand...
One the problems forums is that, at least in my case, one goes off and reads other stuff relating to the thread and then comes back again. Forcing people to do work, as in the Apple case, is regarded by many on US sites as being slavery, hence my reference. I don't think it is terribly helpful in this argument, particularly since in UK no-one is taught the history of slavery except in a very narrow way.
 
I don't know if any here have watched the Tim Cook interview. He puts up a very smooth defence but I particularly admired the way he played the "why don't they think of the children" card usually played by politicians!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top