Swordmaker: “...To make a version of iOS with a back door in it would VIOLATE THOSE CONTRACTS, both literal and implied... “
As far as I know, Apple was NEVER ordered to provide a “back door” into their devices. Do you have proof of your claim?
Swordmaker: “ ...Apple’s purpose was to protect the privacy and security of over 800 million iOS device users . . . many of whom are corporations who rely on that security and privacy for company secrets and even more are GOVERNMENTS including ours who PRESSURED Apple into increasing its security so that our government agencies could rely on the security and invulnerability of iOS devices in their departments... “
I totally agree that Apple SHOULD have protected their devices data security for their clients, which is why I am REALLY POed that they refused to assist the FBI in a terrorist investigation. I think you missed my point that Apple should have voluntarily assisted the FBI, thereby maintaining control of access to their devices. If so, the FBI probably would not have wasted time and effort going to a third party. Now it appears that Apple’s stupid refusal has resulted in a possible total lose of control... The FBI may actually now be able to unlock any iPhone of the model the terrorist used, and maybe even other models and other Apple devices.
Swordmaker: “ ...You are an idiot... “
The TRUE sign of when someone can’t offer a winning argument is to descend into the gutter with personal attacks. Not welcomed and absolutely unnecessary, Swordmaker...
Absolutely. The court order required Apple to write software that provided such a Backdoor. That version of iOS, which was characterized as either "FBiOS" or GovtOS would be, by definition, a version that had a Backdoor around the protections built into the normal iOS. According to the specifics of the court order, once Apple has created this new version, Apple was directed to hand it to the FBI. The language is quite clear. Such a version would be installable on any iOS device. Apple pointed out that it was not possible to limit to just a single device; that it would be simple to modify any limit for other other device by changing the limiter.
You PO at Apple is misapplied. Apple was assisting the FBI within the law from almost the beginning and had been for months. It only stopped when the FBI started illegally demanding a violation of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) of 1994, overstepping their authority and power, demanding from Apple something that Apple deemed too dangerous to create: a Backdoor version of iOS to break into the iPhone. Something that Apple deemed to be better to never to create because once it is created, it cannot be kept contained.
Were it to be used to effectuate any arrests, which result in a criminal indictment, then under the law the means of getting into the iPhone must be made completely available to any defense team under discovery for their forensic IT people to tear apart, looking for ways it could have been used to plant evidence. Not once has such a secret means survived as a secret through such a discovery process, even under seal. Too many eyes see it, and too many copies are made.
To even be used in court, it has to be certified by an independent forensic IT lab for such use. More eyes, more copies. No, it could not and would not remain secure and would escape into the wild. The ONLY way to prevent such an eventuality in the encryption field, which is binary, either it is secure or it's not, is to NOT make the back door in the first place!
I accused you of being an idiot for repeating an old, long shot down ridiculous claim that doesn't hold up to even cursory examination even on your own logic, that Apple was "pulling a PR stunt", which is an idiotic idea in its own right. Apple did not instigate this, the FBI did. Apple has won a Federal case in court on this. One does not do that with a "PR stunt" and expend millions of dollars or tweak the nose of organizations that can seize your assets for a "PR Stunt" or haul your officers off to jail for a "PR Stunt!" So use your head, Synthesist for something more than a hat rack and look deeper into the issues, Learn a little more about it than the idiotic opinion you spouted that has no basis in fact or law. Then you might not earn that sobriquet. I did not call you that yet, I said "if" you continue to you are an idiot. . . So, look deeper beyond the idiotic superficial claim you repeated so many times.