Apple Files Final Response In San Bernardino iPhone Case (reuters.com) 250
An anonymous reader writes: In its final briefing before a court showdown next week, Apple said, "The court must consider the national debate surrounding the issue of mandating a backdoor or the dangers to the security and privacy of millions of citizens. According to Apple, the government also believes the courts can order private parties "to do virtually anything the Justice Department and FBI can dream up. The Founders would be appalled." In response to the government, Apple said, "the catastrophic security implications of that threat only highlight the government's fundamental misunderstanding or reckless disregard of the technology at issue and the security risks implicated by its suggestion." According to TechCrunch, Apple made an interesting change in its strategy in the court on Tuesday. From its article, "The tone of today's filing and subsequent call was much more cold and precise. Apple got some time to consider the best way to respond and went with dissecting the FBI's technical arguments in a series of precise testimonies by its experts. Where the FBI filing last week relied on invective, Apple's this week relies on poking holes in critical sections of the FBI's technical narrative." Edward Snowden also made a remark about the hearing. He tweeted, "Today I learned that "#Apple has way better lawyers than the DOJ."
We refer you... (Score:5, Funny)
"We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram."
Re: (Score:3)
Hahaha, it's funny because I know this obscure reference.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be rather awesome if Apple actually did that...
Re:We refer you... (Score:5, Informative)
Hilarious, for the full story, click here [lettersofnote.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, that's pretty much "Fuck off" right out in plain old English.
"Fuck off" in legalese sounds more like this [slashdot.org].
The sky will darken with Apple and Google lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
The FBI/DoJ will force the technology industry to move outside of the United States if their request is granted. Moreover, the US government will be on the hook when Apple says 'you owe us an eleven-figure settlement for the loss of our operating system'.
Re:The sky will darken with Apple and Google lawye (Score:5, Interesting)
In the meantime Apple is working on doubling down on their encryption by also encrypting the iCloud data based on the key on the device.
I've never owned an Apple product in my life, but I'm thinking about it now. It's good to see someone standing up to the growing police state, even if the only presidential candidate that even hinted at opposing it just dropped out.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Same here. I have never liked Apple or their products, but with the insane shit that Microsoft started pushing with the released of Spyware 10 and Apple vigorously defending privacy, I think my next computer and/or phone may just be one of theirs.
Re:The sky will darken with Apple and Google lawye (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never owned an Apple product in my life, but I'm thinking about it now. It's good to see someone standing up to the growing police state...
What if the FBI already easily broke into the iPhone...what if this whole court battle is a ruse?
Picture this: the FBI loses, but very, very publicly. It will be a huge win for privacy and the public. Apple will be our champion. People will switch to Apple products, thinking they will be safe from government intrusion, "terrorists" and those wishing to do us harm will use Apple products. All while the FBI knows how to break in, giving everybody a false sense of security. Apple wins, the FBI wins, privacy loses.
We're no strangers to security theater. Just look at Homeland Security for that: they accomplish nothing, but (try to) put on a good show.
Wouldn't it make more sense for the FBI to QUIETLY admit they cannot break into something? Perhaps they did start quietly, but then Apple made it public.
Why, then, would the FBI let it remain so loud and public? Wouldn't they want to sweep their failure under the rug? Say, "We already cracked it, but just want a simpler way."
I'm not a conspiracy theorist (although it can be argued that's what I'm doing here), but this whole thing doesn't make sense to me. The FBI has basically invited anyone who wants to hide anything from them to put in on Apple devices. That can't possibly be conducive to their goals.
Just food for thought.
Re:The sky will darken with Apple and Google lawye (Score:5, Funny)
Picture this: the FBI loses, but very, very publicly. It will be a huge win for privacy and the public. Apple will be our champion. People will switch to Apple products, thinking they will be safe from government intrusion, "terrorists" and those wishing to do us harm will use Apple products. All while the FBI knows how to break in, giving everybody a false sense of security. Apple wins, the FBI wins, privacy loses.
Dude, I don't know what you're smoking, but that's some good shit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The FBI isn't used to being told "no". At least not by anyone who isn't easily intimidated into changing their mind.
As I understand it they (quietly) asked Apple to unlock the phone and Apples said "that's impossible" so the FBI more loudly said "then make it possible, or else.", and Apple responded with "HELP HELP I"M BEING OPRESSED, COME SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERINT IN THE SYTEM".
It's more likely that we're seeing the governmental equivalent of when a parent says "I will turn this car around" and the unruly
Re:The sky will darken with Apple and Google lawye (Score:5, Insightful)
As I understand it they (quietly) asked Apple to unlock the phone and Apples said "that's impossible" so the FBI more loudly said "then make it possible, or else.", and Apple responded with "HELP HELP I"M BEING OPRESSED, COME SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERINT IN THE SYTEM".
The FBI/DoJ should never had made the request public. They expected to shame Apple into complying (because of terrorism) and the opposite happened.
The sad thing is that Apple has a better reputation of trust when it comes to trust the our government.
Re: (Score:2)
Similar to what the Israelis do in their prisons to record unguarded conversations and gather intel: plant an easily discoverable camera/microphone, which gets disabled; the prisoners think they're safe and talk freely, not seeing the expertly hidden cameras/mics that can then gather up all their juicy intel.
The question is: are the FBI that smart?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The sky will darken with Apple and Google lawye (Score:4, Interesting)
All while the FBI knows how to break in, giving everybody a false sense of security.
Judge: What was the source of this information?
FBI: Uhm... a hunch?
Yeah, you see, they'd have to admit the ability in open court for it to be useful. Otherwise, they have to explain to the court how they got information that only existed in one place: on the phone. And if they make up some bullshit, while the court may buy it in isolation, that bullshit does not live in isolation, it lives in a world where the defense attorney can point out that the data the FBI claims to have only exists on the device the FBI claims they can't access, so the data is inadmissible as evidence because either the FBI is lying about the content (e.g. they made the data up because they couldn't actually get at it) or lying about how they got it.
Our legal system has its flaws; this is not one of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Judge: What was the source of this information?
FBI: Uhm... a hunch?
Yeah, you see, they'd have to admit the ability in open court for it to be useful.
Because the FBI would never use parallel construction in order to have a pat answer that had nothing to do with the real source of information.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, Apple admitted in their briefs to the court that they can be hacked, especially older OSes.
But they've also said they're working toward encryption that even they cannot access. ie a warrant-proof phone.
http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/... [zdziarski.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You might have read that. But only ignorant trolls have actually said it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, per Apple's legal brief yesterday. submitted to a federal court, they explicitly said they have never done that.
Re:The sky will darken with Apple and Google lawye (Score:4, Informative)
Didn't Apple provide just exactly this to China (where China can flash whatever modified iOS version they so choose with public keys that work?) I hope I'm mistaken, but remember reading that.
No.
There has been iOS targeting in China, but the way it's implemented is by using an enterprise enrollment key to redirect the App purchases to a pirate version of the App store that supplies the enterprise enrollment certificate to the iPhone, and which then gives you access to pirate content, which is basically a bunch of Apps that were purchased, and then re-signed with the enterprise key for the iPhone enrollment.
Because these Apps are res-signed, the original signature doesn't matter, and so along with the pirate App itself, they tend to stuff malware into the App bundle.
There's another Slashdot story today that talks about "installing malware without jailbreaking", and it comes down to precisely this: You enterprise enroll the iPhone, and then get third party (read: pirated content with malware attached) for the Chinese "App Store", which is running the enterprise certificate.
Apple shuts down these certs (and bad actor developer signing keys) any time they find Malware. But it's hard, in a country of 1.5B people, to shut down everyone who happens to be buying the next cert so that these bad actors (and state actors) can stay in business.
NB: It's actually *worse* than alluded to by the other article, since they can include certificate authority certs as well, which allows the vendor -- or the Chinese government -- to MITM attack SSL connections, by re-signing the certs for the site with the signing cert for the authority cert, and then just monitor all the SSL using a transparent proxy that decrypts all the traffic for analysis. This is, by the way, the reason you do not want to use a BYOD iPhone, if the company forces you to participate in enterprise enrollment of the device.
Re: (Score:2)
Tim Cook as President, Congress, and Courts (Score:4)
that's what the government will owe Apple when they lose.
and they will lose.
time for a settlement... DOJ whimpers off to its cave, and if they wish, its employees will have the option to purchase at retail list price the iThingies of their choice.
Re: (Score:2)
A settlement of what? The US government is demanding Apple do something Apple refuses to do. If Apple settles, they've lost. If the US government settles, they've lost. There is no partial settlement from either side where the US government gets what it wants and Apple doesn't have to do what it doesn't want to do.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they're saying the government isn't above the law. As the constitution & bill of rights intended.
Re: (Score:2)
I've already asked about what happens to Apple if England passes its bill requiring a backdoor (currently under discussion?)
Will Apple stop selling hardware in England? or will they give the government the required backdoor? The government is really making it an either/or.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they'll make a UK version that's crippled. Of course people will try to import the US version so I guess they will have to have some sort of draconian penalties for possessing secure phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why would they make this massive fight against a backdoor in the US?
Re: (Score:3)
Then why would they make this massive fight against a backdoor in the US?
1) Because they are a US-based company.
2) Because that is an actual matter of law. What's being discussed in this little mini-thread is just supposition.
Re: (Score:2)
Not supposition.
Google "Investigatory Powers Bill" which is under discussion in England.
Here's one hit:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
one of the numerous (also draft) Codes of Practice attached to the complex bill – in this case, the one concerning 'equipment interference' – stipulates that CSPs (communication service providers) must "provide a technical capability to give effect to interception, equipment interference, bulk acquisition warrants or communications data acquisition authorisations."
Note the word MUST.
Re: (Score:2)
proper link.
http://www.techradar.com/news/... [techradar.com]
Re: (Score:2)
one of the numerous (also draft) Codes of Practice attached to the complex bill – in this case, the one concerning 'equipment interference' – stipulates that CSPs (communication service providers) must "provide a technical capability to give effect to interception, equipment interference, bulk acquisition warrants or communications data acquisition authorisations."
Note the word MUST.
Note that Apple is only a CSP under that definition when it comes to FaceTime and iMessage, and that Google is only a CSP as far as GMail and Google Hangouts and Google Voice.
The obvious thing to do is to withdraw those services from the UK market, and if people in the UK use them anyway, when the servers are not sited in the UK, then that's the UK's problem to deal with. Perhaps they can license draconian firewall technology from China.
Re: (Score:2)
But can they sell phones that have FaceTime/iMessage in the UK? Even if the services aren't available (via geoIP fencing or something like that).
Otherwise, it's still make a UKOS and a restOfWorldOS.
Or just don't sell in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know. I was arguing that point against Amiga3D.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They'll probably make a weakened UK version, and then anyone who knows the difference will hop some form of transport over the channel to buy the secure version somewhere else in the EU.
Re: (Score:3)
any company that CARES about preserving your privacy via their software should be considering a plugin-style architecture where the crypto code is fully decoupled from normal software development and is done entirely outside of US (and UK and oz and ...) control.
eventually, some day, the feds ARE going to do a raid of US companies and they will storm the place, take what they want (robber barons, anyone?) and any company that has NOT pushed its critical modules offshore will be in a sad and sorry situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IBM has not supported Apple directly but did so as part of the BSA. If they bring the Nazgul, the DOJ might have larger issues.
This is funny!
Not the least of which because, when I was working for IBM, we also called them "The Nazgul"...
Re:The sky will darken with Apple and Google lawye (Score:5, Insightful)
Better Lawyers (Score:5, Funny)
#Apple has way better lawyers than the DOJ.
People cost money.
Better people cost more money
Lawyers are people.
Apple has more money than the DOJ.
Therefore Apple has better Lawyers than the DOJ.
Can you find the flaw in this reasoning? Can you suggest an additional statement that would correct that flaw?
Correct! The flaw is in the third statement. Lawyers are not people. The correction is to add the following statement:
In the context of The Judicial System, a suit filled with human shaped excrement, counts as people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds me of when Caldera systems sued IBM, thinking that it could get an easy win. Ha! Guess who had $50 million to waste on lawyers. Not Caldera.
Indeed.
Apple can throw more money at this than the entire FBI budget. Heck, Apple can throw more money at this than the FBI will have budgeted to them for the next 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Can they? Sure. The FBI has a 2016 budget of $8.4B, which is inside the Department of Justice's budget of $28.4B.
Would they? I'm guessing that they wouldn't. That's half of their earnings in a year. Plus, even if you pack the entire courthouse with lawyers billing you hourly, you still couldn't spend that much on this... ... though it would be entertaining to shove that many lawyers into a courthouse like a rush hour train in Beijing...
Re: (Score:2)
Guess who had $50 million to waste on lawyers. Not Caldera.
Guess who had more than $50 million to waste on lawyers for Caldera . . . the answer lies in some secret bank accounts in the Cayman Islands.
Darl McBride doesn't go to bed hungry.
Re:Better Lawyers (Score:5, Informative)
Specifically, according to Wikipedia, the Department of Justice's yearly budget is $27.1 billion, of which the FBI gets $8.3 billion. Last year, Apple brought in $53.4 billion on profit... not revenue... profit.
Re: (Score:2)
I really wonder why Apple is not just buying FBI. Or are they not a stock company? I lost track what all is private in the US and what is government.
Oh, you did not mean that health company: Female Body Investigations?
Re: (Score:2)
Where Apple has fallen down shockingly here is that a mere $1 billion would make for a $10 million "contribution" to each and every US senator. Maybe 1 or two of them aren't corrupt. Maybe. The other 98 would be Apple's bitches, and the DOJ problem would go away. It's like they don't know how government works.
Re: (Score:2)
In legal terms, this is known as the "Money Talks, Bullshit Walks Defense". ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you find the flaw in this reasoning?
Yes, I think statement three, "Lawyers are people", cannot be taken as fact without additional evidence in support of the supposition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The flaw is that DOJ lawyers aren't in it for the money - they're in it for a future appointment to a federal bench somewhere. Or, to get paid later after they retire from the DOJ with a big fat pension.
Re: (Score:2)
They can get more money if there is Congressional will to give it. You might remember back to the DoJ lawsuit against Big Tobacco - the tobacco companies spent more on office supplies than the DoJ had for their entire case.
I'm not sure Apple understands how courts work... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure Apple understands how courts work then, or they're grasping at straws. (Ideally, courts work off of law, legal precedent, etc. and they don't just listen to the "mob on the street"; that's a key differentiator between a "nation of laws" and dictatorships.)
Re:I'm not sure Apple understands how courts work. (Score:5, Informative)
They say this because the All Writs Act is only supposed to be used to fill a gap that Congress has not addressed. If there is national debate about something, and Congress refuses to take up the issue, it can be said that Congress has addressed the issue and has rejected a law mandating backdoors, meaning the All Writs Act could not be used.
Apple is well versed in the court system, friend (Score:3)
and their briefs make cogent legal and technical arguments. besides which, the judges and prosecutors don't want random wackos and suspects reading their email and collecting their photos for dissemination later.
Re: (Score:2)
(Ideally, courts work off of law, legal precedent, etc. and they don't just listen to the "mob on the street"
So they work off the law until 'the mob on the street' is so loud that one judge does 'The Right Thing' and that becomes legal precedent ...
Stop trying to pretend that it isn't within the judge's realm to do the right thing and ignore the law, that is what they do ALL THE TIME, EVERY FREAKING DAY.
Right or wrong, its what they do, because the rest of our government is too fucking incompetent to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure Apple understands how courts work then, or they're grasping at straws. (Ideally, courts work off of law, legal precedent, etc. and they don't just listen to the "mob on the street"; that's a key differentiator between a "nation of laws" and dictatorships.)
I'm pretty sure Apple understands how courts work having won and lost multiple cases. The next few sentences say as much:
But to determine whether this is an issue capable of judicial resolution under the All Writs Act and the Constitution, the Court not only can consider this broader context, it must do so. Indeed, the Justice Department and FBI are asking this Court to adopt their position even though numerous current and former national security and intelligence officials flatly disagree with them.
Apple isn't asking the court to weigh the opinion of the "mob on the street" as that is a mis-characterization of their argument. It's almost a strawman argument. Apple is pointing out that former national security and intelligence officials disagree with the FBI's position. Apple didn't even mention the arguments of other tech giants on the matter (which supplied amicus briefs themsel
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure Apple understands how courts work then, or they're grasping at straws.
Yeah, it's difficult for a company with billions of dollars in the bank to pay for good lawyers who understand stuff like "how courts work".
Or, you're a moron.
Hmm, which is more likely?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because I'm sure they just have some guy named Chet in the basement who bangs out these court filings, and have absolutely no lawyers on the payroll or on retainer.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, Apple (and the FA) seem to think "The Founders would be appalled." is an incisive legal argument. Give them a break, here.
It's not like Apple uses the EULA to prevent you from doing what you want with the phone and software you bought, then turns around and claims in a court filing that they neither own nor control any of it. Why, that would be lying in court!
The USA has a strong tradition of lying in court being totally legal.
Look at plea bargaining. You know you are innocent, you agree to plead guilty to avoid a long and costly court case, thereby perjuring yourself. And its all legit.
Re: (Score:3)
Pleading 'not guilty' isn't a statement of 'I didn't do it,' it's a statement of 'I claim my rights, and you now have the burden of proving me guilty.'
Pleading 'guilty', on the other hand, *is* a statement of 'I did it.' Which is why pleading 'no contest' or 'nolo contendre' is sometimes a thing; "I'm going to be found guilty, so I'm not going to bother fighting it." If you plead guilty, however, that can be used against you civilly. If they accept NC, it isn't.
Some other countries also have a third det
Re: (Score:2)
Pleading 'not guilty' isn't a statement of 'I didn't do it,' it's a statement of 'I claim my rights, and you now have the burden of proving me guilty.'
Pleading 'guilty', on the other hand, *is* a statement of 'I did it.' Which is why pleading 'no contest' or 'nolo contendre' is sometimes a thing; "I'm going to be found guilty, so I'm not going to bother fighting it." If you plead guilty, however, that can be used against you civilly. If they accept NC, it isn't.
Some other countries also have a third determination beyond 'guilty' and 'not guilty' which is 'not proven.' I.e. 'We know you did it, but good for you, not enough evidence.' You can also get, in some cases, a declaration of factual innocence.
It's all very complicated.
Surely pleading guilty for a plea bargain, stating that you did something that you did not do, ie lying under oath, is perjury.
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, you're not under oath when you enter a plea. You're not testifying. If you were, nobody would ever enter a plea; they'd invoke the Fifth.
You're simply stating if you are invoking your right to a judicial proceeding (i.e. a trial) or if you want to accept guilt and move straight to sentencing.
No, the main problem I have with plea bargaining is from the prosecutorial side; if you charge, then bargain down to a lesser crime, you're either a) making a knowingly false charge, b) charging where there i
Maybe Apple just has the better position? (Score:3)
Even if the DOJ has the best lawyers on the planet - how would you ever measure it? - maybe the DOJ just has the weaker position.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW.
No - precedents can point in opposite directions (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maybe Apple just has the better position? (Score:5, Insightful)
Having been involved in a lawsuit with a city before I can say it's not "lying" about precedents but rather how you can spin precedents to suit your arguments.
The DOJ will pull every case they can and try to say it applies for X reason. Then Apple will try to argue it doesn't apply for X reason and potentially these other cases are more relevant for X reason. The DOJ will respond, then Apple will respond, then they go to court and the judge acts like an irate asshole to both sides as they present their arguments. Then the judge will deliberate over which precedents actually apply to the case and typically say who is right based on some random court case that happened 20 years ago and has little to do with the current situation.
The legal system is a bit of a joke in my opinion. You don't get penalized for bullshit. The system actually encourages you to throw as much shit at the wall just to see what sticks.
Technical arguments are PR/legal Spin (Score:2)
Having read significant chunks of Apple's response: Either Apple is lying to the court about legal precedents or DOJ is lying to the court about those precedents, and it should be a simple matter to determine which one is the liar. And lying to the court should be cause for disbarment and for further sanctions.
FWIW.
They seem to be engaging in a bit of legal/PR spin on the technical side too, trying to frame things in a way that approaches misrepresentation. Which is what one expects from lawyers. Consider:
That wildly overstates things to the point of misrepr
Re: (Score:2)
Now Apple is absolutely correct that this is not a one time event. There will surely be other court orders if this one succeeds.
And this is what Apple's problem is: the precedent. They don't want to hire a shitload of people and staff up a department just to work through the truckload of phones that will arrive with warrants attached from every half-assed prosecutor from Cupertino to Miami.
Make no mistake: the FBI couldn't give a rats ass what is on this phone. They want the legal crowbar to take to Apple / Samsung / Google / Microsoft / LG / Sony in the future. And so does every District Attorney in the country.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly this. My wife served on a jury once and she described the defense attorney as sounding completely incompetent. After the verdict was rendered (guilty), the judge made it a point to tell the jury that this attorney wasn't really bumbling - he just had no case whatsoever to rely on. Even the best attorneys can't fabricate cases out of thin air. They might be able to bluff better or worse than others, but eventually their bluff-case would fall apart.
Apple may or may not have better lawyers, but the
Re: (Score:3)
It's often done by drawing a line on the ground, then seeing which party can stand on the line and send a stream of urine farther.
Re: (Score:2)
...which is why women make such lousy lawyers.
(Sorry...couldn't resist. No, I don't think women make lousy lawyers.)
The economic consequences (Score:2)
govt brought piss to a shit fight (Score:5, Insightful)
In the previous govt brief [lawfareblog.com] (all of the briefs history on this site as well), it is outright embarrassing how the govt's legal team (or maybe summer intern) has sunk to having to accuse Apple of marketing tactics, unpatriotic behavior, and reductio ad absurdum examples to support its position. Honestly, if I were the judge, I'd be calling the govt into chambers to rebuke them for such shoddy arguments and telling them to put more skilled people on the task, given the importance.
For those who didn't read the previous Apple one or this one (which are both quite similar), in reply to the govt Apple cleanly and convincingly dissects each of the govt's arguments point by point, and an outsider reading this for the first time would be easily convinced about the merits.
-----------
By the way, I add a few points here for other commenters/readers so that some baseline facts are easily available. Just for your reference, the reason the encryption keys are so important / secret is that:
-- All recent Apple iPhones have built-in encryption-dedicated processing hardware
-- This hardware has firmware burned-in with Apple public encryption keys that validate that any code has come directly from Apple without modification, on startup
-- This key validation structure is designed to ensure that only code signed by Apple's private key can run on the phone
-- Every iPhone has the same public keys burned on it, because that's how public keys work.
So if Apple is forced to give its private keys to the FBI (assuming the remote likelihood they even knew what to do with it), the FBI would have the ability to encrypt and sign software for any of these iPhones. The idea (legal argument-wise or technically) that "this is about one phone" is laughable.
Forcing someone to disclose encryption keys would be a huge violation of the First Amendment. If there is anything that qualifies as speech and knowledge, it is an encryption key / industry trade secret. Then on top of this, there is the question of whether the people at Apple who are in charge of the encryption keys (yes, individuals) would even voluntarily turn it over if given such a blatantly unconstitutional order.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and then the software will be destroyed with no trace and not used in the other 187 pending cases where the government wants to unlock an iPhone [slashdot.org] or by any other nations or governments who demand the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Like the one where the govt brief says:
The problem with legal briefs (Score:3)
is that they're biased. They're written on both sides as if nothing the other side wants has any validity whatsoever. That's fundamentally dishonest, but the court's supposed to take two dishonest arguments and pick the one that is least untrue.
Let's look at this like engineers for a moment, as opposed to debating like lawyers. Let's look at the facts and implications in a balanced way.
The phone in question almost certainly contains no useful information. What the government is looking for is a precedent saying that vendors have to provide them with a way into their products that is convenient enough to be used speculatively. This is the reason for the overheated rhetoric from the FBI; they're reluctant to admit exactly what it is they're looking for, because it has obvious and enormous potential for abuse.
But while Apple is right to focus on these potential abuses, I think they've overstated their case in several respects. Mainly, I think they've overstated the technical difficulty of providing the FBI with what it wants. Does anyone really think it would take man-months to change the number of PIN tries or the timeout between them? And I think they've conflated the security of the device with the security of the user's information -- which they have no problems handing over to the FBI if it's on the user's iCloud and the FBI has a court order.
Now here's what this all suggests to my mind a reasonable compromise. Apple could furnish the FBI with the data from the device, but not the tool used to extract the data. They can maintain a secure facility on their campus where Apple personnel extract the data; they would ten furnish the data to the FBI, along with the PIN and the device, restored to the software it had when they received it. The FBI would pay all expenses incurred along with a reasonable overhead fee. Now it's true the government could steal this version of iOS. But by the same token they could steal the iOS source code and Apple's signing key. So short of a black bag job, this would provide the government with data it was legally entitled to, and only such data.
And here's what I think the FBI would make of that proposal: they wouldn't like it. Because it'd be a hell of a lot more convenient to be able to break into any phone they wanted without having to pay anything (as we all know government employee time is free).
Re:Corporations don't have rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is a corporation and shouldn't have rights.
The New York Times is a corporation and shouldn't have rights. Therefore the government should be able to compel them to print only pro-government articles and editorials.
Re:Corporations don't have rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is a corporation and shouldn't have rights.
The New York Times is a corporation and shouldn't have rights. Therefore the government should be able to compel them to print only pro-government articles and editorials.
I've made this same argument numerous times when arguing about the "Citizens United" decision. People opposed to the ideas that "corporations" can "have rights" are really throwing out the baby with the bath water. The corporation itself really does not have the rights--it's the people who form that corporation (stakeholders, employees/volunteers, what have you). Arguing "corporations shouldn't have rights" is to argue that people, when acting in concert, lose rights that they have individually.
I cannot support that notion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about corporations being a person? I sure didn't. You're completely ignoring the point that, in your world, "The New York Times" is not protected by the freedom of the press.
"zOMG! Teh corporations are bads!!!!1111one" may, in fact, be a reasonable position to hold. "So let's gut the bill of rights!" is not a reasonable course of action in light of that position.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course all news does not have to be produced by corporations. You've built a strawman there, though, and you've neatly dodged the point I replied to: in your world, "The New York Times" does not enjoy the rights afforded by the freedom of the press. I'd LOVE to hear your thoughts on how this passes constitutional muster (much less the smell test)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Corporations don't have rights (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is a corporation and shouldn't have rights.
Plus, Apple is defending the morally reprehensible position of not letting device owners install whatever software they want whenever they want.
On top of that, iOS isn't fully open sourced, and Intellectual Property is Imaginary Property Anwyay, so forcing Apple to give up iOS to the world doesn't matter since it's worth nothing.
Oh, wait, I'm sorry is this not the regular SJW thread but the special thread where all of those talking points are intentionally thrown out the window because Apple is doing something that is emotionally appealing to the mob?
1. You're correct about a lot of people misunderstanding what corporate rights are, so no criticism from me there.
2. I'd be happy if Apple let you unlock the bootloader and attain superuser access. But that's totally irrelevant to this case. If you unlock the bootloader of an Android phone, it wipes all the data. That's the only thing the FBI is (putatively) interested in.
3. I would also be happy if iOS went fully open source. Nobody cares about that part though. What the DOJ is trying to swindle is Apple's signing keys.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, Apple is defending the morally reprehensible position of not letting device owners install whatever software they want whenever they want.
IBM didn't allow you to install whatever OS you wanted on their mainframes. Technically you could but it would void the warranty and IBM would never help you again. (This was the same position as HP, Digital, just about every other mainframe and mini-computer maker).
On top of that, iOS isn't fully open sourced, and Intellectual Property is Imaginary Property Anwyay, so forcing Apple to give up iOS to the world doesn't matter since it's worth nothing.
This factually, a lie [apple.com]. Intellect Property being imaginary property worth nothing means that all artists have nothing of worth. Their work is worth nothing according to you. Authors, songwriters, screenwriters: their work is meaningless.
Oh, wait, I'm sorry is this not the regular SJW thread but the special thread where all of those talking points are intentionally thrown out the window because Apple is doing something that is emotionally appealing to the mob?
No, it
Re: (Score:3)
Apple allows you to install whatever you want for iOS nowadays - you just need a Mac to compile and b
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that were Republicans in charge of the executive branch, they would be using the same heavy handed tactics. That still doesn't excuse the current administration for their increasing brown-shirtedness. Everything the FBI and NSA do, they do with Obama's blessing. Obama would like us to believe Snowden and Apple are the problem, when they are actually the solution.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Obama vocally sticks his nose in the business of so many agencies and goings on in general, where no prior president really has is annoying.
By sticking his nose you mean someone asked him about it in a public forum and he responded to the question? And by "so many agencies", I believe the Department of Justice is a part of the Executive Branch. Something about it put into place in 1789, but I'm sure you're right that only Obama has had anything to do with the Department. I'm sure that no other president has issued Executive Orders to the Department of Justice. [ojp.gov]
His job is to delegate where he is legally able but largely remain silent unless his voice is needed, which should be rare.
That eerily sounds like a former President who unfortunately delegated everything to
Re:Why is this tagged democrats? (Score:4, Funny)
He's on Beta.
English has moved on (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whilst you are theoretically correct, actual nor, like whom, are largely extinct in the English spoken today.
FYI: So is "whilst".
Re: (Score:2)
The keyboard cache in iOS 9 does not contain a list of keystrokes typed by the user, or anything similar."
Shouldn't that be ", nor anything similar"?
Short story: no, it can go either way.
Long story: If it says "nor anything similar", then the "nor" is connected to "does not contain", i.e. there is no malware in iOS 9, of which included in that is a keylogger. If it says "or anything similar", then the "or" is connected to "keystrokes", i.e. there is nothing similar to a keylogger in iOS 9.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)