Posted on 02/17/2016 9:53:55 PM PST by TroutStalker
How can they be served a warrant for the contents of a container they do not own, do not control, and cannot open?
I have seen various descriptions of the court order, and the vagueness with which most describe what Apple is being ordered to do is getting disturbing.
The most egregious description I have seen is that Apple is ordered to turn over the software which removes several security provisions to the government - presumably including the 10 strike function which bricks the phone is the wrong password is used 10 times in a row.
If Apple has such a tool (which I cannot state for certain), I personally see it as reasonable that they should comply with an order to remove the software for the specific phones in question, but not provide the tool.
If Apple does NOT have such a tool available, they should not be compelled to attempt to create one for the government, no matter whether the tool is kept in Apple hands or delivered to fedgov (which is infinitely worse).
This is a very bad case of government using an urgent situation to eviscerate the fourth amendment, IMO.
Funny how you do not mention that this case is specific to the version of software on the phone - which is not the same as the other cases you mentioned. Apple enhanced the encryption capabilities and installed a function to wipe out the phone is too many incorrect passwords were entered. Fedgov is telling Apple to remove those features. Fedgov MAY be telling Apple to give Fedgov the tools to do it on their own - the stories I’ve read are inconsistent on that front.
Apple, with their current tools, cannot unlock the phone. Neither can the government. The strong encryption (which Apple would have to break by brute force, just like fedgov) coupled with the phone-erase function for too many incorrect passwords makes the phone unbreakable, in theory.
Fedgov is ordering Apple to create a tool that removes the phone-wipe protection. That tool does not exist currently, per statements from Apple.
I think your assessment is incorrect - Apple cannot break into the phone, although they could be forced to create a tool that allows brute force breaking of phones. As soon as the tool exists, I am sure that Fedgov would get their copy, meaning that no iPhone would ever be "secure", if Fedgov decides they want the data.
Apple deliberately constructed their security so they did not have back door access. Only the user, with knowledge of the password, has access. This hard case is being used to push for a back door to be created.
How does one search for “reasonable assistance”?
If that entails digging into the proprietary details of everything Apple has, then you are advocating the absolute end of intellectual property ownership.
Yes. It is designed that way, as I understand it.
In order to unlock the one phone, Apple has to create software that enables unlocking all of them.
“Apple, with their current tools, cannot unlock the phone.”
You don’t know that.
And yet you assert they can, which you also can’t “know”.
I have read enough about their encryption scheme to know they deliberately made it as hack-proof as possible, including severely limiting their own ability to break in. You assert that they already have tools such as the one being requested, whereas the company asserts they do not. They would know, not you.
The existence of such tools, especially any that allow both infinite attempts and remote (non-physical) access are invitations to abuse. Why are you so confident that the government would not succumb to the temptation?
Are you dense? The whole point of my statement, and of Apple’s argument, is that they CAN’T “cough it up”
Oh. OK. Let’s base our legal structure and rewrite the Constitution based on “I can’t do that.”
Good thinking.
Can't, not won't. Basically, you are asserting that companies (and people) can be compelled to perform impossible (or at least very difficult) tasks on court order, when they have specifically engineered an object to make the task impossible (or at least very difficult).
If ordered to walk on unfrozen water, would an individual have to drown before you would accept it is not possible?
What??? You are making absolutely no sense. The Constitution allows the government to demand access to your papers and possessions as long as they can persuade a judge that they have a legally sound reason. If the FBI believes that Apple currently possesses a tool to access the iPhone in question but is refusing to do so, they can request a warrant to search for such a tool.
The Constitution NEVER says anything about the government having the power to force a person or company to create something that doesn't exist and then force them to turn that over to the government...
“If ordered to walk on unfrozen water, would an individual have to drown before you would accept it is not possible?”
Bwahahahaha. good comparison. Physical vs ethereal.
“Open the freaking phone and let’s kill some terrorists.”
“Sorry, we can’t do that. We’ve created something that will sell billions of dollars worth of phones to cartels, terror organizations and every criminal on earth. Why would we say they can be opened?”
They say they can’t be opened, so it must be true.
Bwahahahahaha.
Hi Mortman, I was corrected previous to your post, and did not realize that the security in the operating system had evolved greatly since Apple’s previous cooperation with the government.
Why would you say they CAN be opened, without any knowledge?
Your argument is not quite perfectly circular. Your trust in the government is moving your loci toward singularity.
Thanks for the acknowledgment, but on further reading I discovered I was repeating other posters. Have a great day, FRiend.
“Why would you say they CAN be opened, without any knowledge?”
Why do you say they can’t...without knowing? Or do you have some super secret insight into the reality that no one else has? It’s not like they have no reason to say it can’t be done. I personally do not believe them. I think they have their eye on locking up a huge and very lucrative market. And all they have to say is we don’t have a way to crack this? Nice work if you can get it. The Jihadists are rooting for them.
Having worked in safety critical software for over two decades, and having explored available descriptions of their encryption scheme, I have drawn a conclusion. It differs from yours.
You present the emotional argument, favoring the illusion of security over freedom. I reject that position.
Have a good day, FRiend.
“Having worked in safety critical software for over two decades, and having explored available descriptions of their encryption scheme, I have drawn a conclusion. It differs from yours.”
The truth of their claim that they have no answer that allows them to comply has no more to do with your knowledge of computers than does your knowledge of Country Music. The issue is do they have a solution. That is not something your knowledge can vouchsafe. Your background gives you no knowledge whatsoever in what they have in their possession. As far as backgrounds, I know business and management well. I know there are some very dark tactics that have been employed by Apple. Your opinion and mine have the same base. We do not know whether they are being truthful or not. I suspect they are not, based on a different set of experience, but it does not make my conjecture less valid than yours. Given some of the dubious business practices they have employed, in fact, I would say yours is the emotional response. It’s only business as usual for a critical eye.
You missed the point of my opinion - that the descriptions of the encryption and protection schema used in the device appear to show that the device is not “hackable” (although I’m certain serious attempts will be made by the hackers in the wild).
For the record, I seriously dislike Apple and own none of their products. I am approaching this from the technical viewpoint, in which I find the Apple argument both plausible and persuasive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.