FBI Tells Local Law Enforcement It Will Help Unlock Phones

Salvador Hernandez, reporting for BuzzFeed: Just days after breaking into a terrorist's iPhone using a mysterious third-party technique, FBI officials on Friday told local law enforcement agencies it will assist them with unlocking phones and other electronic devices. The advisory, obtained by BuzzFeed News, was sent in response to law enforcement inquiries about its new method of unlocking devices. Though the dispatch does not explicitly state if the FBI will use the mysterious third-party method to unlock phones for local authorities, officials said the agency "will of course consider any tool that might be helpful to our partners."

Doesn't matter

[louden obscure]

The purpose of a lock is only to keep honest people honest.

Re:

[SJHillman]

Some people say guns are there to keep an honest government honest. Maybe mount little nerf cannons on the next iPhone.

Re:

[Opportunist]

The purpose of a lock is to keep my stuff mine. Yes, even and especially against governments.

Do I have something to hide? None of your business.

Re:

[Travelsonic]

Exactly. Privacy, irrespective of if used for good or bad, is hiding, and something everyone uses (not sharing SSID #s for example, keeping locks on your doors, making sure valuables left in cars, if that needs to happen, are kept out of view to throw off car thieves, etc).
People, when talking about the matter, need to stop focusing on the act of hiding itself, given the common uses for bad AND good that EVERYBODY uses it for, and focus on the WHY moreso, as that can be more pinpointed, if you get what I

Re:

[Opportunist]

Yes, but it's not my duty to make it easy for you to break down my door. You could have knocked and I would have opened. And with a search warrant, I even would have let you in.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Geoffrey.landis]

One of the two will happen because one of the two need to happen to continue to function in a lawful society.

No. False choice. The other option is that police departments must use other methods to prove crimes.

Re:

[tom229]

It's not a false choice. When key evidence is behind locked doors you need a way to access it. This is precisely why we have search warrants.

It's a trade off [Re:Doesn't matter]

[Geoffrey.landis]

It's not a false choice. When key evidence is behind locked doors you need a way to access it. This is precisely why we have search warrants.

Nope. That's a choice made by society, a trade-off between privacy and authority. Law enforcement may say that they "need" a way to access it, but the extent to which we allow law enforcement to access locked vaults is a decision that is made by society, and one of the possible decisions is "no, find a different way to gather evidence."

Re:

[tom229]

We've already made the choice to limit privacy rights of suspected criminals. Its a core component of the law. We could change that, fair enough. But short of taking drastic measures like that the simple choices boil down to what's stated above.

Re:It's a trade off [Re:Doesn't matter]

[Geoffrey.landis]

We've already made the choice to limit privacy rights of suspected criminals.

Yes, we have. We made a particular choice of limits, where some searches are allowed and some searches aren't.

In the hypothetical case of unbreakable locks you propose, this forces us to yet make another choice. There are not, as you state, only two choices. There are three choices. One of these is to tell law enforcement agencies that they must find evidence elsewhere.

You seem to be making arguments that this choice doesn't exist. That's incorrect.

Now, a harder question is whether this choice should be taken. That's a much harder question, but there are good arguments that it should be (which have been made in great detail elsewhere.) This is a trade-off. That means it has benefits, and costs. To quote Scalia, sometimes it is desirable to "insulate the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.”

Re:

[Type44Q]

We've already made the choice to limit privacy rights of suspected criminals.

Nice try but no, we haven't... and anyhow, what part of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty?" do you not understand??

Re:

[tom229]

That's up to the impartial authority issuing the warrant to decide. If your position is that the system is corrupt and judges simply do the bidding of the police agencies, then I think you need to start addressing what you believe to be the actual problem, instead of the imagined symptoms. Why would you think you can fix or prevent a fundamentally corrupt justice system through data encryption? Why would you want to? If the world is as bleak as you portray, I think we have bigger fish to fry.

Re:

[tom229]

I will submit to the notion that I missed a possible third option in my argument. What I wouldn't agree with, is that there is much room for debate on whether this third option should be considered.

If we're going to really try to undestand this argument we probably need to first be clear on what is happening here. The problem isn't specifically the lock. Any lock, digital or otherwise, can be brute forced. A more accurate analogy would be a lock with a self destruct mechanism that destroys the data insid

Re:Doesn't matter

[KGIII]

Or we can accept the loss and not set the precedent that the government always wins by use of force. Yes, sometimes it's essential that bad things happen to otherwise good people. In fact, the only way to prevent that from happening is to disallow all freedoms or, alternatively, disallow all humans.

I really tire of this trend toward cowardice and pipe dreams. You will not have a lawful society, ever. That doesn't mean don't outlaw anything. That means establish punishments and impose reasonable restrictions on the government - and on the people. If we can make a lock that the government can't get into, then fuck 'em. Yes, shit's gonna happen. Sorry but that's the price you pay to live in a free society.

By the way, this is the same reason it's true for firearms, driving, owning a sharp steak knife, being allowed to speak, being able to eat steak, go skydiving, swim, run, jump, skip rope, being allowed to worship, etc...

And some of those aren't even RIGHTS - they're privileges. Privacy, by means of the 4th *and* 5th is pretty much an important fucking concept. There's shit the government can not do. That MEANS bad shit is going to happen. Deal with it. Stop trying to take away my liberties because you're scared. Your fear is not a good reason to take away my liberties - even if I don't USE those liberties. I want them ALL. In fact, I want as many as I can get while still retaining a cohesive, tolerant, and functional society.

That means accepting that shit happens sometimes and doing what you can to clean up afterwards - as well as taking reasonable precautions. Giving the government carte blanc to open anything they damned well please, when they've already demonstrated they can't be trusted - especially with the fucking search warrants, is certainly not on the list of reasonable precautions. Hell no...

Why are you so eager to give up my liberties? They're YOUR liberties too, you know. They're not just mine. Hell, I'll be fine - thanks. I'm more worried about your liberties than you are. Sadly, that's not a joke. That's not funny at all. Me? I can get hell out of the country and be fine all over the globe if I absolutely had to. I have liquid assets stored in non-digital format as well as liquid assets in cash format - stored in a variety of places. Trust me, I'll be fine.

You, on the other hand, are stuck here. So aren't a whole lot of other people. They just might like to make use of some of those liberties you're happily giving away because you're a fucking coward.

Re:

[tom229]

Sorry, but your paranoia is unjustified. A search warrant is a simple device that is heavily used by law enforcement to solve a very wide assortment of crimes. It's one of their most important tools. As we move more and more towards a digital way of life, there will be a need for digital search warrants. Encrypting data and storing the password in your head is a surefire way to make sure nobody ever gets access to it (until they take a hammer to your knees). But, allowing a company like Apple to have their

Re:

[KGIII]

> Sorry, but your paranoia is unjustified.

Bullshit and you know it. Show me one time when the government has been unrestricted in its action and things have turned out well for the society or the government. If we can build a lock they can't get into then they can pound sand. That's what's great about liberty - you don't even have to personally use it in order to appreciate it. For example, my phone is not encrypted.

Re:

[WorBlux]

How the fuck is code supposed to distinguish between a valid court warrant, and the corrupt IT guy who sold the government's backdoor key to a North Korean intelligence agent? The Code doesn't care and can only follow instructions. The jurisdiction of U.S law is not global and any exception carved out for the US will be given at the very least to all of the EU nations and the G13, which includes Russia and China, potential economic and military adversaries of the U.S in the future.

Additionally Apple is

Re:

[tom229]

No one wants to make the government unrestricted. This case is about a centuries old tool of law enforcement: authorised search and seizure of private property. Authorised by an independent judge when presented with evidence of probable criminal activity. If you can build a lock people can't get into, great. We can already thank a plethora of encryption technologies for this. If you build a lock with a kill switch on it that destroys all the contents it's protecting and then refuse to help law enforcement

Re:

[KGIII]

It's not a warrant. Apple was never issued a warrant. If you don't even understand the basics, don't try to discuss it. Thanks.

Re:

[KGIII]

What the hell are you trying to say now?

I don't know, maybe you speak a different language than I do. However, when you prohibit the construction of a device that is impossible for government interception (even lawfully) that's unrestricted in my book.

At this point, I lack both time and energy to educate you on your rights and why they're important. Answer my question and then we'll continue.

Show me one time when the government has been unrestricted in its action and things have turned out well for the society or the government.

When the government outlaws the ability to create something they can't access that's pretty fucking unrestricted to m

Re:

[Darinbob]

This is not key evidence. They don't know what's on the phones, they only hope that there might be evidence.

Re:

[Zaelath]

That explains all the illegal shredders I see being sold out of the back of trucks in back alleys.

Re:

[exomondo]

When key evidence is behind locked doors you need a way to access it.

But that is not the case at all. Not only does it seem there was "no key evidence" found in this case but the authorities did not know what might be on the phone nor could they even come up with a reasonable explanation for what they thought might be on there that needed access to, in fact their best attempt was their ridiculous "dormant cyber pathogen" hypothesis.

Re:

[tom229]

Key evidence is always physical evidence. That's why search warrants are such an important thing. I could have evidence that your power bill tripled overnight, and show the court the increased heat signature of your house from an arial view during the same time period. However, reasonable doubt would still exist until I could present a pot plant physically pulled from your basement. Key evidence on a phone could be correspondance, pictures, and video.

Re:

[exomondo]

I could have evidence that your power bill tripled overnight, and show the court the increased heat signature of your house from an arial view during the same time period. However, reasonable doubt would still exist until I could present a pot plant physically pulled from your basement. Key evidence on a phone could be correspondance, pictures, and video.

Right so that's why search warrants exist, so that based on the presented power bill and heat signature you could obtain a warrant to retrieve that plant from the basement. Correspondance saying that said plant exists or pictures of a plant are themselves not very compelling until you produce the plant from the basement, if you turn up and there are no plants in the basement then the non-physical "evidence" on the phone isn't much use.

Re:

[redmid17]

Key evidence is always physical evidence. That's why search warrants are such an important thing. I could have evidence that your power bill tripled overnight, and show the court the increased heat signature of your house from an arial view during the same time period. However, reasonable doubt would still exist until I could present a pot plant physically pulled from your basement. Key evidence on a phone could be correspondance, pictures, and video.

That would require a search warrant for the cops per Kyllo_v._United_States [wikipedia.org]. The irony of that example in this particular debate is not lost upon me and I hope it's not lost on others.

Re:

[tom229]

Except pictures of you loading the gun used in the crime, or building the bomb, or scheduling the crime with a known accomplist would be critical evidence. To suggest that a mobile phone, owned by a suspect, wouldn't contain critical evidence in any criminal case takes an amount of naivety I'm not sure I'm ready to deal with.

Re:

[exomondo]

Except pictures of you loading the gun used in the crime, or building the bomb, or scheduling the crime with a known accomplist would be critical evidence.

But you wouldn't know if such circumstantial evidence even exists, in fact it probably doesn't. Like in the very instance we're referring to, whatever evidence may have existed was simply destroyed on burner phones.

To suggest that a mobile phone, owned by a suspect, wouldn't contain critical evidence in any criminal case takes an amount of naivety I'm not sure I'm ready to deal with.

Case in point: The san bernadino shooter's one didn't.

Re:

[gnasher719]

Let's assume you purchased an unbreakable lock from Acme Inc. There's reasonable suspicion you've comitted a crime and we need access to your locked items to prove it. Society needs to function in a way that we can identify and prosecute criminals so there are two options:

Let's assume some conspirators conspire without writing anything down about their plans. There is reasonable suspicion they have committed a crime and we need access to the thoughts locked in their brains to prove it. Society needs to function in a way that we can identify and prosecute cimrinals so there are two options...

Your argument is nonsense. There are plenty of criminals who are not identified, prosecuted, or convicted, and society functions just nice. The police _wants_ evidence (but only sometim

Re:

[ewibble]

First lets look at these options:

1) The government can petition Acme Inc with a warrant to break your lock when they have reasonable reason to do so,

Well actually by definition Acme has not made an unbreakable lock, since it can be broken by Acme.

2) The government can make Acme Inc locks illegal

If it is possible to make a truly unbreakable lock anyone who needs an unbreakable lock will simple go to another company, in another country, or make their own. So making it illegal will only damage local industry, because nobody will be buying Acme's intentionally inferior locks, apart from people who don't care about security in the first place.

As other people have mentioned

Re:

[WorBlux]

Apparently "`Unbreakable lock" is just a marketing gimmick so the government can also
3) Hire a really good locksmith.

Re:

[tom229]

Sounds like we should probably work with our government to make sure normal law abiding citizens still have the right to lawfully use Acme Unbreakable locks, while also ensuring we can easily deter the effectiveness of their use in criminal activity. If only we could do this responsibly somehow. I dont know, maybe through presenting special evidence to a third party legislator and getting them to write a special order. Maybe we could call that a warrant? Im just throwing out ideas here.

Re:

[Lumpy]

It's also illegal to fortify your home. Honest people have even fewer rights.

Re:

[TheReaperD]

Umm... Not quite. You can put all the steel doors, armored windows and redundant locking systems you want on your house. You can even live full time in a vault if your that paranoid. This is the same as putting strong encryption on your phone. Both are perfectly legal and should remain so. Where your home security slips into illegal territory is when you convert it into a weapon with things like spring-loaded traps with a shotgun, poison gas or any other equipment to maim and kill. This would be the

Re:

[KGIII]

Are you high? Or did Slashdot do that strange thing, again, and eat your citation?

Re: Doesn't matter

[valdezjuan]

I assume you mean suspected criminals have less rights since they need a warrant to bust down your door or exigenct circumstances. Neither one of those is a conviction. The problem is that they can get a warrant for damn near anything. =\

Re:

[tom229]

If the problem is the liberal distribution of warrants, as you suggest, then why not focus efforts on correcting the core problem instead of perpetually trying to manage it's symptoms, and uselessly arguing the ideological implications of such?

Re:

[Maritz]

Great analogy. Don't treat the symptoms, treat the disease. Of course in medicine they tend to do both, but that doesn't really support your argument so let's downplay that aspect shall we...?

What's with the snark?

[ScentCone]

What's with the summary's "TM" tacked on? As if the phone in the San Bernadino case wasn't one that was used by an actual, real, murdering person who embarked on a terrorist attack? That was the very definition of a terrorist attack, making him an actual terrorist. Joking it up with a trademark symbol is joking about a mass murderer's very real, planned terroristic mass murdering in the name of his religion and in support of ISIS. We can argue which flavor of terrorist he was by adding other adjectives ("r

Re:

[Stormwatch]

Encoding error. That was probably a curly apostrophe.

Because it's the wrong phone

[Geoffrey.landis]

As if the phone in the San Bernadino case wasn't one that was used by an actual, real, murdering person who embarked on a terrorist attack?

Correct: it wasn't the one used in planning the terrorist attack.

To remind you of the facts, this was the work phone of (one of) the persons who embarked on the terrorist attack... which they planned using burner phones that they took some pains to destroy (along with the hard disk from their computer) and succeeded in doing so in a way that the FBI could not recover information.
https://www.inverse.com/articl... [inverse.com]
http://www.washingtontimes.com... [washingtontimes.com]

So, the question is, would they make an effort to to destroy two phones, and not bother destroying the third phone, if the third phone actually had any information on it?

Re:

[ScentCone]

You're wondering how rational someone is about their choices about destroying evidence when they left a bomb factory in their house? Really?

No one knows what iPhone was used for ...

[perpenso]

Correct: it wasn't the one used in planning the terrorist attack.

We don't know that. No one knows what this iPhone was used for. That is why someone wanted to open it up and take a look, to determine *if* anything is there. As others have pointed out the murderers left plenty of evidence lying around at home, not all evidence was destroyed. Was this phone at home? Did they want to keep one working phone with them, so they used the less incriminating phone?

The only fact we know is that it was the County's phone and the County gave permission to open it and look. The ow

Re:

[Geoffrey.landis]

Don't be stupid. They went to great lengths to destroy their phones and computers. Thinking oh, but they left information on the phone they didn't think was worth taking the trouble to erase is rather wishful thinking. Sure, it can't hurt to look, but there's not going to be anything here.
They do have permission to search the phone. That's not the issue. The issue is, does the court have the power to force Apple to write software to the FBI's specifications, and sign it with their digital signature?

Jail full of people doing what you think unlikely

[perpenso]

Don't be stupid.

Please take your own advice. You don't think they wanted to have one device to monitor news, for calls, message, emails, etc. You think they wanted to be completely out of touch and blind?

... but they left information on the phone they didn't think was worth taking the trouble to erase is rather wishful thinking. Sure, it can't hurt to look ...

That's the point. But more importantly, criminals get caught or implicate others all the time because they make *** mistakes *** and *** forget *** things and occasionally get *** sloppy ***. Its not wishful thinking to examine a secondary phone, its prudent investigatory procedure. Prisons are full of people doing things

FBI will lose this propaganda war with Apple

[JoeyRox]

I have no doubt that the FBI's public proclamation of successfully unlocking the San Bernardino and now this intentionally leaked memo are part of a concerted effort to embarrass Apple by discrediting their encryption and privacy technology. I mean when was the last time you heard of the government bragging about having the ability to hack phones? You would expect the opposite since they wouldn't want such capabilities known. In the end Apple will win because this entire episode will motivate them to double down on their stated encryption/privacy policies and work even harder to lock down the phone to prying eyes.

Re:

[merky1]

Yeah, how dare the FBI look at your data. That's Facebook / Apple / google / MSFT's job.

Re:

[110010001000]

100% correct. It is funny how people forget it was Facebook/Apple/Google/etc that handed all your data to the NSA/etc.

Re:

[HalAtWork]

I see that the FBI is attempting to do public posturing, which seems completely out of line with their purpose and scope as an organization. The fact that this is an initiative at the FBI should prompt an inquiry and scrutiny in their direction and management.

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

[zenlessyank]

Why would the FBI publicly harass Apple about 'helping' break encryption when they already know how. Was it to show Apple were liars about their tech? Was it to save some cash from a 3rd party cracker? Or was it simply to gain some ground in the fear department with the American public? The articles and questions have been flowing, but the truth now is so muddied, I think we won't really know or understand until some new separate events unfold.

How does it show that Apple are liars?

[Brannon]

They never claimed it couldn't be broken--in fact they disputed the FBI's claim that they needed "Apple's help" to break into the iPhone.

Re:

[zenlessyank]

Except Apple claimed they would have to make a new version of iOS to give the feds access. Which means to me and my feeble mind is they thought, or at least portrayed, that it was uncrackable. Whether true or not.

prove it.

[swell]

"Just days after breaking into a terroristÃ(TM)s iPhone ..."

So does this mean that we believe they were successful? Are we going to take their word for it? You are free to agree with this government decree, but not me.

Spurring progress

[A10Mechanic]

It will be interesting to watch if phone manufacturers use this to spur better encryption and security in next generation phones. Or will public opinion and government meddling make it go the other way..

Watch...

[God of Lemmings]

This thing will probably escalate to Police confiscating phones now during pullovers, to see if you're even slightly crooked so they can take your money.

arrest them!

[samantha]

They are in violation of DMCA anti-circumevntion and other computer crime law. Turn the instruments they use against the people back upon them. They are also violating Rico.

Re:

[Idimmu Xul]

why do you think the fbi helping the police unlock iphones is a good thing?

Re:Why?

[Etherwalk]

99% of people in tech--EVERYBODY who does not work with law enforcement and understands the issues--was against the FBI.

Re:

[tom229]

Nice appeal to authority. I see you win the argument.

Appeal to Authority

[Etherwalk]

Nice appeal to authority. I see you win the argument.

The appeal to authority as a logical fallacy exists when you appeal to the authority of someone unqualified. This is identifying a consensus among qualified people who are unbiased.

While this can certainly be defeated logically, dismissing it out-of-hand as an appeal to authority is childish and fails to recognize that the world is complex and fields have experts. They can certainly be wrong--but simply saying "The FBI had a warrant" is not even close to a logical argument defeating the concerns of almost

Re:

[tom229]

99% of people in tech--EVERYBODY who does not work with law enforcement and understands the issues--was against the FBI.

This is an appeal to an authority that doesn't exist. 99% of "people in tech" were against the FBI? Really? When we're they polled? How we're "people in tech" and "understands the issues" defined? What you are saying simply isn't true. It is a blatent attempt to appeal to an authority that doesn't exist.

I provided a substantive argument why I believed Apple was wrong, with sources to other cases. You provided nothing but a logical fallacy. As a matter of law, the FBI is required to present their evidenc

Re:

[Type44Q]

It sounds like you're in law enforcement so you'll hopefully be able to appreciate this metaphor (particularly as it pertains to this one-sided debate you've chosen to engage in):

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Re:

[tom229]

I'm not. I'm in the energy sector and I'm not even from the United States. I have no dog in this fight. More accurately, I shouldn't bring objective reasoning to a highly emotional debate with people that already have their minds made up.

Re:

[perpenso]

The appeal to authority as a logical fallacy exists when you appeal to the authority of someone unqualified. This is identifying a consensus among qualified people who are unbiased.

This population is incredibly unqualified to comment on matters of law. And they are also a bit biased, one might say they tend to the fervent pro-encryption pro-privacy side. Nothing wrong with that, not a bad bias to have, but a bias none the less. And then lets bring up their bias towards believing whatever Apple says and disbelieving whatever the FBI says. One side lying does not mean the other side is telling the truth.

Re:

[alvinrod]

I think there's a very important difference between user freedom (FOSS software) and user privacy (what this is about) that you're missing. Apple puts on more of a show about caring than they actually do, but it's also obvious that they take more steps than just about any other company of their size towards protecting user privacy.

I think that their tendency in this direction arises as much from business goals as is does from any form of altruism. It doesn't take much in the way of mental adeptness to se

Apple sells hardware, Google sells advertising.

[Brannon]

It's that simple. I don't think either company is good or bad or altruistic, but fundamentally Apple has every incentive to protect user privacy because it's a differentiator for them and thus helps them to sell more hardware--which is where they make all their money. Apple sets up all of their user-facing services such that Apple themselves often don't have access to user-data. For example, Apple isn't in the loop for Apple Pay--they have no knowledge of what things you've bought with Apple Pay. Why? becau

Re:

[gnasher719]

That's a misrepresentation.

The FBI had a search warrant, plus permission by the owner of the phone. Apple quite rightfully said that the whole mess has nothing to do with them. They sold the phone a while ago, they gave the FBI all the information they had about the phone, and that's it. And they didn't mind giving the FBI information, what they did mind officially was being told to destroy the security of all their customers' phones, and inofficially hearing about a court case against them in the press

Re:

[tom229]

what they did mind officially was being told to destroy the security of all their customers' phones

This is such an important aspect of the argument, and it's so difficult to find any information on this. I hear this touted over and over again without any substance to back it up. Why would Apple's cooperation result in destroying the security of all their phones? From a technical standpoint, it seems extraordiary to claim that it's "all or none" when it comes to iPhone security and then offer no technical indication why this is the case. If you have any information on this I'd be happy to receive it.

Re:

[gnasher719]

From a technical standpoint, it seems extraordiary to claim that it's "all or none" when it comes to iPhone security and then offer no technical indication why this is the case.

A major security feature that prevents hackers from getting into an iPhone is the fact that an iPhone only accepts new firmware if it is signed by Apple. It's very hard to get firmware onto an iPhone. But it is easy to copy firmware including the signing key off an iPhone! And once the FBI has done that, they can install the same software, because it _is_ signed by Apple, on any other iPhone.

It's like your burglar proof home - it may be hard to break in, but you probably have nothing that prevents someon

Would be no universal tool if made by Apple ...

[perpenso]

... what they did mind officially was being told to destroy the security of all their customers' phones ...

That is complete BS. A public relations and legal maneuver that Apple used to frame the argument, the debate. If Apple had made the modification to firmware/iOS then they could have added code to lock fbiOS to one unique device. This locking to a device could not be tampered with, fbiOS being protected by Apple's digital signature. A new court order would have been needed for each new device, so at least there would be judicial oversight in the "near nightmare" scenario.

By forcing the FBI to go the inter

Wound self-inflicted

[TheReaperD]

All of this was irony and stupidity. The government agency that the gunman worked or had access to the phone as it belonged to the government agency and FBI stupidity lost them that access. Then they told Apple that they had to provide them the key to the phone. Apple correctly told them that no such thing exists as only the user (and in this case the employer, until they lost it) have the key. So then the FBI tried to make the case that they could force Apple to rewrite their software and then force u

Re:Wound self-inflicted

[sumdumass]

Can I get a court order for you to pick the cotton on my south fields? I might if you broke a law and it was part of the punishment. But outside that it seems preposterous don't it? Even if I can make some convincing argument.

The problem here is that the law allowing the warrant was created two years before the bill of rights was ratified let alone the amendment banning slavery except as a form of punishment. It is likely using it to force labor out of people would be in violation of these amendments. But using the law to take private property for public use could be constitutional if there is just compensation.

In essence the argument for forcing Apple was we satisfied some of the constitutional requirements but ignore the constitutional prohibitions. A lot of people don't see the problem but those same people will cry foul when some other constitutional prohibition is in violation. What Apple did made them look like asses to those people and heroes to others who couldn't financially afford the fight if pushed on them.

Re:

[tom229]

Well that is the argument entirely. Is the warrant lawful? Apple is trying to argue that the warrant infringes on their right to free speech. A notion almost as ridiculous as a warrant to force someone into slave labor. Not all warrants are lawful simply by being warrants, sure, but this one probably is/was. The FBI was asking Apple to help them get access to a device protected by their software kill switch. There is precedence for this. As a simple example: a warrant can be issued to a car company to activ

Re:

[cbiltcliffe]

There is precedence for this. As a simple example: a warrant can be issued to a car company to activate a kill switch in a car to stop a high speed pursuit. The fact of the matter lost on most people taking ideological exception with this case is that Apple is making a lot of noise over nothing. They could have helped the FBI gain access to this phone without compromising security for all their users. Instead they chose to cease the opportunity for a PR campaign. An unfortunate, and down right twisted, decision if you ask me.

This is not even remotely comparable. In the car analogy, the manufacturer already built the kill switch into the car. All the warrant is asking them to do is to flick said switch. (Incidentally, these high-speed chase cases usually aren't done with warrants. Warrants take too long to get. Instead, they use the reasoning of imminent danger to the public.)
In Apple's case, the "kill switch" didn't even exist. The FBI wants them to write it. Since the Supreme Court has already declared that code is speec

Re:

[tom229]

The kill switch in all Apple phones is mandated by the California government [cnet.com]. It seems Apple has a bit of a split personality when enforcing it's right to free speech. Either that or they're a bunch of scumbags playing politics with phone software. I'll let you decide.

Re:

[sumdumass]

The two scenarios are not even comparable. In one the government is saying products of a certain type must meet these conditions to be sold. In the other they are saying since you created and sold something and we want you to, you have to do something you don't want to do. The only thing that might be comparable is the willingness of a company to comply but that is even separated by constitutional prohibitions on the government.

While I do think Apple and the majority of their users are scumbags, I don't f

Re:

[tom229]

The two scenarios are not even comparable. In one the government is saying products of a certain type must meet these conditions to be sold. In the other they are saying since you created and sold something and we want you to, you have to do something you don't want to do.

So if the government "creates conditions" that require the Apple kill switch to have a backdoor you'll be OK with it? And apple should be too right? I happen to find greater objection with the notion that the government can "create conditions that must be met" in the design of software, over the idea of a government petitioning the maker of software to assist law enforcement in solving a crime. Defining what functionality your software must have is far more Orwellian than asking a company to assist law enfo

Apple had a really strong case.

[Brannon]

Real the legal blogs--the FBI was getting slapped around by Apple's lawyers.

The free speech argument seems silly--until you realize that prior precedent has ruled that "code" is "speech" and that the first amendment also protects you against "coerced speech"--and thus "coerced code". It seems a little silly to engineers, but that's the law.

There were a half-dozen other arguments that were all pretty strong.

Re:

[dryeo]

It's a search warrant. It gives the authorities permission to search something, a phone in this case.
It is not a slavery warrant, which is unconstitutional in most all western countries. You can not use a search warrant to force someone to do something (besides stand aside and not interfere).
The authorities are free to break a lock, they are free to ask a locksmith to help unlock a lock. They are not free to force a locksmith to break a lock.
If the authorities are incapable of breaking a lock, well tough lu

Re:

[cbiltcliffe]

Apple is arguing that writing software constitutes free speech. Therefore, forcing them to write software to help solve a crime would be infringing on their free speech. Except, the problem the FBI is encountering was created by Apple complying with a law that required them to write anti-theft software into their OS [cnet.com]. Ironic, to say the least.

Apple isn't arguing that writing software is speech. Apple is repeating the declaration by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that source code is speech. This may have also gone to the Supreme Court; I can't find a current reference to it, although not being American, I may not be looking in the right place.....
Your claim that Apple has already implemented code in response to California's legal requirements doesn't hold water, either. Yes, Apple implemented anti-theft code that was compatible with Cali

Re:

[tom229]

Apple could very well have thought that anti-theft code was a good idea, and implemented it anyway

Then we should have, at the very least, been flooded in the media with the same "slippery slope" hyperbole we're seeing now. If they cared as much as they are pretending to at least. Or is it OK to inhibit free speech when the cause is agreed upon? Stange ethics this generation has.

Re:

[JenovaSynthesis]

The thing is if it is used in a criminal trial, it can become subject to discovery. And they will only be able to hide behind the "national security" lie for so long before judges get tired of hearing it.

Re:

[tom229]

You are correct sir. I would say Mr. Cook and his marketing team made one fatal error however. They should have tried to keep this as quiet as possible and chose another case to make their stand. Standing firm on the side of a known mass murderer immediately weakens your case with the masses. I don't know a single non-technical person taking Apple's side in this argument. And the technical people that do, seem to do so more as a matter of ideological principle, than one that has actually carefully looked at

Re:Why? Because you misunderstand

[Bite The Pillow]

It is a response to a flood of the same questions from multiple sources. It basically reads as "we will help if we can, as we always have, so stop bothering us."

It is definitely not a declaration that they can and will break into any and all phones.

Go on and read it, verbatim in tfa. Especially who signed it at the bottom.

Apple didn't pick the PR fight, the FBI did.

[Brannon]

Apple asked the FBI to file their request to the judge secretly (as generally is done in these situations), the FBI filed it publicly and then started their own PR campaign to try to put public pressure on Apple.

The FBI then realized that Apple is also pretty good an marshaling public support, and that Apple can afford better lawyers; the FBI then took a tactical retreat.

So why is the FBI still talking so publicly about cracking phones? No idea, I don't see any tactical advantage in it. I think they've just

Re:

[tom229]

Precisely. I posted the following in another comment that I think anyone forming an opinion on this case should be aware of:

Let's assume you purchased an unbreakable lock from Acme Inc. There's reasonable suspicion you've comitted a crime and we need access to your locked items to prove it. Society needs to function in a way that we can identify and prosecute criminals so there are two options:

1) The government can petition Acme Inc with a warrant to break your lock when they have reasonable reason to do so,
2) The government can make Acme Inc locks illegal

One of the two will happen because one of the two need to happen to continue to function in a lawful society. Choose which one you prefer.

At the end of the day, law enforcement needs to be able to do it's job. Like it or hate it, if encryption can't learn to play nice with the law, the only logical outcome is that encryption will cease to exist.

Re:

[mrbester]

Using that argument, the US would still be a protectorate of Britain. You separatists didn't play nice with the law back then but now you're advocating it?

Re:

[tom229]

I'm Canadian. So I guess I would have been a nationalist :) The rest of your analogy I don't even think applies.

Re:

[tom229]

My premise is that when presented with the problem of an unbreakable lock, governments will either find a way to open those locks, or to prohibit the use of those locks, in the name of preventing crime and upholding justice. Can a power like this potentially be used against law abiding citizens? Of course. This is not a new problem, it just has a new medium. We need to ensure that law abiding citizens are protected, while criminals are not. Just like we always have. Do we try to work with law enforcement wi

Re:

[tom229]

And it does work this way. You don't get into an "unbreakable lock" without a warrant. A warrant from a third party legislator that reviews the evidence and determines if there's reasonable cause to believe the information behind the lock can be used to solve or prevent a crime. This is a good check that serves to uphold the constitutional requirement of freedom to privacy for law abiding citizens. One we have been using just fine for centuries.

Re:

[tom229]

It's my thread, I'll shit on it if I like. And "we" perhaps was used incorrectly, but I think you know Canada has similar laws and charters. Being Canadian doesn't make my opinion any less valid although, I agree it is a convenient scapegoat for you.

Re:

[KGIII]

> It's my thread, I'll shit on it if I like.

This is the only correct thing you've said so far. You'll note, I've read your entire argument now. And, suffice to say, you're not even close to right.

Apple was not, for starters, served a warrant. They were given an order, done via the All Writs Act. The two are not even remotely the same but they each carry different emphasis on legal protections.

You're not just wrong, you don't understand the issue at hand and are basing your whole argument on this premise.

Re:

[tom229]

The order from the judge was first [recode.net]. The All Writs act was second.

If you're going to understand what this argument is about it's important you understand what it is. Lines like this:
"making things the government can not access has been a long and healthy tradition and is a right for a reason"
prove you have an understanding gleaned from popular mechanics headlines, not one from actual critical thought given to the case specifics.

The facts:
Apple phones are encrypted by default. The encryption is not d

Re:

[KGIII]

And, again, that's an order, not a warrant. At this point, I can only assume you're trolling. Read your own link. Hell, just CTRL + F and search for warrant.

You've stated that we're not allowed to create things that the government can't access. That's actually the most retarded thing I've heard all day and I've already explained why.

You can pretend you don't understand if you want. The world's full of stupid people and you can pretend to be one of them. I have no idea what would prompt you to do so but it s

Re:

[tom229]

More importantly, search the article for "All Writs", as that was your claim. A judges order is a warrant. He writes the order on a peice of paper and thats what you call that thing. Call me a coward, pretend like the government is all over your lawn, do what you want. The facts speak louder than your hyperbole. That's why no one ever takes you seriously when you talk.

Re:

[tom229]

It's important to remember this argument isn't about encryption, but rather what a company and/or individuals rights are with regards to their encrypted data. Apple's horribly designed and implemented anti-theft system was actually enforced by California law [mercurynews.com]. This kill switch on the encrypted data is the problem. Again, this kill switch only exists because Apple apparently selectively decides when they will follow intrusive laws. The kill switch is what Apple was served a warrant to help the FBI navigate, n

Re:

[sexconker]

It's important to remember this argument isn't about encryption

How's the weather over in Quantico, you pig?

Re:

[tom229]

The only thing to stop you from breaking any law is the enforcement of it. So what they can do, is put you in jail for making such a lock. This is clearly something we don't want to encourage. Hence my desire to work with a balanced and checked law enforcement to restrict crime while protecting individual rights and freedoms.

Re:

[Joe_Dragon]

Computer Misue Act? What about when the small town sheriff uses that to try to put apple in to the local jail. Or the local judge puts them under contempt of court.
The judge from the My Cousin Vinny should work.

Re:

[tom229]

The entire problem is that these devices are already designed so that you have no privacy or control. Precisely why this is being debated is because Apple has so much control over what you can and can't do with your phone, and they operate as the central hub for everything. If they didn't, they'd be absolved of the obligation to help.

So you're right, if one institution can access all your data, then so can everyone else. However that process starts with the manufacturer of the hardware and software. As l