Apple rejects order to unlock gunman's phone

[TightEnd]

Apple will contest a court order to help FBI investigators access data on the phone belonging to San Bernardino gunman Syed Rizwan Farook.

The company had been ordered to help the FBI circumvent security software on Farook's iPhone, which the FBI said contained crucial information.

In a statement, Apple chief executive Tim Cook said: "The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers."

"We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35594245


thoughts on this? what are the implications far beyond the legal case at hand?

[DaveShoelace]

Tough one. Either way I respect Apple for not simply handing the info over.

Three or four months back I thought Edward Snowden was a hero. Immeditely after the Paris Attacks I changed my tune a bit and felt a bit safer knowing the government have these powers, its ridiculous the number of terrorist attacks that have been foiled since 9/11.

Right now I am totally on the fence. Im not sure there is a right answer to this.

[Nakor]

The should take it to Wisbech market, Dave on the phone stall can unlock any handset.

[Jon MW]

I'm not sure what's so controversial - the authorities want information to help investigate a crime and they got a court order to enable that.

If the suspect worked in an office and had a locked drawer should his employers refuse to hand over the key? Should the authorities not search your house if you commit a crime? How are they any different?

Seems like Apple made a big thing about their encryption and security and know that it would be a marketing blow if they later showed that actually it doesn't make any difference. If they don't help I'm sure the FBI could work it out eventually, Apple just don't want to take the hit to their image by seeming compliant.

[doubleup]

There is going to be a lot more debate on this general issue in the next year or so.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/investigatory-powers-bill-scathing-attack-on-snoopers-charter-launched-by-parliament-a6866836.html

As far as weakening encryption is concerned, vastly more harm will come from this than benefit as the knowledge that a backdoor exists will galvanize a generation of hackers to action.  The mass collection of data will lead to privacy intrusions of various kinds as the databases will be accessed either by hackers or for non-security purposes eg civil actions.

The whole concept is about control.  Even the god botherers believe that God gave man free will but Theresa May wants a society where there is no point in breaking "the rules" as everything you do is monitored.

[Mohican]

Official Apple response. http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

[DMorgan]

I'm not sure what's so controversial - the authorities want information to help investigate a crime and they got a court order to enable that.

If the suspect worked in an office and had a locked drawer should his employers refuse to hand over the key? Should the authorities not search your house if you commit a crime? How are they any different?

Seems like Apple made a big thing about their encryption and security and know that it would be a marketing blow if they later showed that actually it doesn't make any difference. If they don't help I'm sure the FBI could work it out eventually, Apple just don't want to take the hit to their image by seeming compliant.

The employers don't own the key to every locked office drawer in the world though

I think its completely reasonable for Apple to be wary in this instance. Before Snowden we thought that surveillance was targeted, required a court order etc but in reality the authorities built dragnet data collection systems. Its hardly surprising that Apple would be sceptical about the FBIs claim that this would just be a one time thing.

[BorntoBubble]

The should take it to Wisbech market, Dave on the phone stall can unlock any handset.

Made me lol

[TightEnd]

yes its Morgan but its an interesting read

If that iPhone holds info which could stop a terror attack, then @tim_cook may have blood on his hands.

My column: http://dailym.ai/1Qu6e1Q

[PokerBroker]

yes its Morgan but its an interesting read

If that iPhone holds info which could stop a terror attack, then @tim_cook may have blood on his hands.

My column: http://dailym.ai/1Qu6e1Q

Piers isn't getting it though is he?  It's not just about one phone, once you open that door there is know going back.  I'm pretty sure the FBI/DoJ in America are capable of breaking into one phone and finding everything that is on it.  But the issue is very clear, the US government want to be able to go in the back door to every single smart phone not just this one. 

It's easy to say that if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't be so concerned, but life doesn't work like that.  There are countless examples of people doing the right thing in the greater scheme only to have been shut down by security services. 

[Jon MW]

yes its Morgan but its an interesting read

If that iPhone holds info which could stop a terror attack, then @tim_cook may have blood on his hands.

My column: http://dailym.ai/1Qu6e1Q

Piers isn't getting it though is he?  It's not just about one phone, once you open that door there is know going back.  I'm pretty sure the FBI/DoJ in America are capable of breaking into one phone and finding everything that is on it.  But the issue is very clear, the US government want to be able to go in the back door to every single smart phone not just this one. 

It's easy to say that if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't be so concerned, but life doesn't work like that.  There are countless examples of people doing the right thing in the greater scheme only to have been shut down by security services. 

really, countless? Can you find any news articles as examples of people who have had a court order approved on them for a phone tap, mail intercept or similar - who were then prosecuted - and then were found to be innocent?

I'm sure there are some - but it's not necessarily that easy to get a court order, so I would doubt that there are all that many.

And the first point you make that other people will eventually be able to do what Apple is being asked to do - doesn't that make it a more compelling argument for Apple (and hence the authorities) to be able to do it first?

The only other point would be - even if this provides a back door into "every single" iphone (I assume you mean iphone when you say smart phone) - that means a backdoor into the phone; when it's in their possession. They still have to physically possess the phone to be able to use these programmes to open it - the implication of mass surveillance via personal phones is a bit fanciful.

[PokerBroker]

yes its Morgan but its an interesting read

If that iPhone holds info which could stop a terror attack, then @tim_cook may have blood on his hands.

My column: http://dailym.ai/1Qu6e1Q

Piers isn't getting it though is he?  It's not just about one phone, once you open that door there is know going back.  I'm pretty sure the FBI/DoJ in America are capable of breaking into one phone and finding everything that is on it.  But the issue is very clear, the US government want to be able to go in the back door to every single smart phone not just this one. 

It's easy to say that if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't be so concerned, but life doesn't work like that.  There are countless examples of people doing the right thing in the greater scheme only to have been shut down by security services. 

really, countless? Can you find any news articles as examples of people who have had a court order approved on them for a phone tap, mail intercept or similar - who were then prosecuted - and then were found to be innocent?

I'm sure there are some - but it's not necessarily that easy to get a court order, so I would doubt that there are all that many.

And the first point you make that other people will eventually be able to do what Apple is being asked to do - doesn't that make it a more compelling argument for Apple (and hence the authorities) to be able to do it first?

The only other point would be - even if this provides a back door into "every single" iphone (I assume you mean iphone when you say smart phone) - that means a backdoor into the phone; when it's in their possession. They still have to physically possess the phone to be able to use these programmes to open it - the implication of mass surveillance via personal phones is a bit fanciful.

Naive much?

[Jon MW]

yes its Morgan but its an interesting read

If that iPhone holds info which could stop a terror attack, then @tim_cook may have blood on his hands.

My column: http://dailym.ai/1Qu6e1Q

Piers isn't getting it though is he?  It's not just about one phone, once you open that door there is know going back.  I'm pretty sure the FBI/DoJ in America are capable of breaking into one phone and finding everything that is on it.  But the issue is very clear, the US government want to be able to go in the back door to every single smart phone not just this one. 

It's easy to say that if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't be so concerned, but life doesn't work like that.  There are countless examples of people doing the right thing in the greater scheme only to have been shut down by security services. 

really, countless? Can you find any news articles as examples of people who have had a court order approved on them for a phone tap, mail intercept or similar - who were then prosecuted - and then were found to be innocent?

I'm sure there are some - but it's not necessarily that easy to get a court order, so I would doubt that there are all that many.

And the first point you make that other people will eventually be able to do what Apple is being asked to do - doesn't that make it a more compelling argument for Apple (and hence the authorities) to be able to do it first?

The only other point would be - even if this provides a back door into "every single" iphone (I assume you mean iphone when you say smart phone) - that means a backdoor into the phone; when it's in their possession. They still have to physically possess the phone to be able to use these programmes to open it - the implication of mass surveillance via personal phones is a bit fanciful.

Naive much?

lol excellent point by repudiation, congratulations on your intellectual rigour.

To make it simpler - ignore all the other details - if the FBI were in a position to hack into your iphone; they would also be able to follow you, bug you, tap your phones, search your house and work and home computers and intercept your mail.

What exactly is on your mobile which makes it so much more personal, private or more important than any of the other areas of your life which they would already have access to?

[PokerBroker]

I don't want Government agencies of any state knowing what I may or may not be up to.  The law in it's current form shows that government agencies must be able to evidence or at least have just cause for surveillance/tapping etc.   By giving them a back door entry into your phone nothing is sacred. 

My iPhone probably holds more information about me than any other device/organisation.   I have done nothing wrong, but the thought of anyone being able to trawl through everything doesn't sit well. 

[Jon MW]

I don't want Government agencies of any state knowing what I may or may not be up to.  The law in it's current form shows that government agencies must be able to evidence or at least have just cause for surveillance/tapping etc.   By giving them a back door entry into your phone nothing is sacred. 

My iPhone probably holds more information about me than any other device/organisation.   I have done nothing wrong, but the thought of anyone being able to trawl through everything doesn't sit well. 

What do you think hacking into the iphone is, if it isn't surveillance? Which you have already said they would need some evidence to show they have just cause to do.

What Apple is being asked to do (by court order) doesn't have anything to do with the law, it's a technical workaround for somethings that they only added quite recently - if they made it technically possible that wouldn't change how legally possible it would be to do.