Apple opposes judge's order to hack San Bernardino shooter's iPhone
- Thread starter texas_ex2000
- Start date
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
My first thought on this is why would any company or government entity allow iPhones for work purposes? Clearly, this case shows that the data doesn't belong to them but the employee. They can remotely wipe the device but don't have access to anything on it? Why would any company essentially give up their own IP by allowing an employee to lock their data away from their employer.
As an aside, I think Apple's stance is near 100% marketing driven. Strategically, they've chosen "data privacy" as a market differentiator.
There is government overreach occurring though. I worked for one of the top 4 wireless telecoms. We received >250,000 requests a year for customer data/information from various government agencies. Everything from California Child Protective Services that would send us a list of some 50k deadbeat dads that they were trying to track down their last known address to exigent requests where locating the phone was considered a matter of life/death and needed to be responded too immediately. Still, 250k requests a year seemed very high to me.
To the consumer, just know that there is very little you do on your smartphone that isn't discoverable already.
As an aside, I think Apple's stance is near 100% marketing driven. Strategically, they've chosen "data privacy" as a market differentiator.
There is government overreach occurring though. I worked for one of the top 4 wireless telecoms. We received >250,000 requests a year for customer data/information from various government agencies. Everything from California Child Protective Services that would send us a list of some 50k deadbeat dads that they were trying to track down their last known address to exigent requests where locating the phone was considered a matter of life/death and needed to be responded too immediately. Still, 250k requests a year seemed very high to me.
To the consumer, just know that there is very little you do on your smartphone that isn't discoverable already.
An MDM (Mobile Device Management) solution, like most larger companies use, would have given the county (and the FBI) access to this iPhone. Apparently San Bernardino County owned MDM software but had not implemented it.
Macworld article on device management
Also, Apple’s own Profile Manager is a very low cost MDM solution. Bushel is another popular MDM for Apple devices, both iOS and OS X. There are quite a few MDM tools out there available to organizations large and small at different price points, so this case may encourage more people to get a device management strategy in place.
Macworld article on device management
Also, Apple’s own Profile Manager is a very low cost MDM solution. Bushel is another popular MDM for Apple devices, both iOS and OS X. There are quite a few MDM tools out there available to organizations large and small at different price points, so this case may encourage more people to get a device management strategy in place.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I have a lot of experience with MDMs and MAMs, specifically Mobile Iron and Afaria. The industry as a whole is still in a nascent stage. The problem for any corporate IT org is the variability in OS (iOS, Android, Windows Mobile, Blackberry) and the apps they use ability to work with the various services. MDM's are limited in features in that they are ignorant to data on the device. Most companies simply have a remote kill switch and maybe corporate authentication. That's it. This is why MAM's have sprung up to give companies more control over the data on the device or rather to keep the data off the device.
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
Sharp man. His arguments are solid. I just hope the courts agree. I don't know if our laws have caught up to the trchnology we have today.
1987 Opinion by Scalia Opposes Broad View of Police Power (New York Times)
''There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.''
''There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.''
Microsoft will file amicus brief in support of Apple (Bloomberg Business)
Interesting analysis from the New Yorker.
The Dangerous All Writs Act Precedent in the Apple Encryption Case
[Tim Cook said, regarding a "backdoor" into the iPhone] “the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create.”
The simple but strange question here is exactly the one that Cook formulates. What happens when the government goes to court to demand that you give it something that you do not have? No one has it, in fact, because it doesn’t exist. What if the government then proceeds to order you to construct, design, invent, or somehow conjure up the thing it wants? Must you?
The Dangerous All Writs Act Precedent in the Apple Encryption Case
[Tim Cook said, regarding a "backdoor" into the iPhone] “the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create.”
The simple but strange question here is exactly the one that Cook formulates. What happens when the government goes to court to demand that you give it something that you do not have? No one has it, in fact, because it doesn’t exist. What if the government then proceeds to order you to construct, design, invent, or somehow conjure up the thing it wants? Must you?
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
Very well said. This shouldn't even be related to technology outpacing laws. Has the government been granted the power to order someone to invent something that currently does not exist, in order to access something that said someone does not have access to? If not, then the government simply does not have that power.
Last edited:
Apple's Motion to Vacate FBI Order (PDF)
A couple of excerpts.
In the section of CALEA [Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act] entitled “Design of features and systems configurations,” 47 U.S.C. § 1002(b)(1), the statute says that it “does not authorize any law enforcement agency or officer—
The All Writs Act authorizes courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law,” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651(a), but as the Supreme Court has held, it “does not authorize [courts] to issue ad hoc writs whenever compliance with statutory procedures appears inconvenient or less appropriate[...]
And:
Finally, given the government’s boundless interpretation of the All Writs Act, it is hard to conceive of any limits on the orders the government could obtain in the future. For example, if Apple can be forced to write code in this case to bypass security features and create new accessibility, what is to stop the government from demanding that Apple write code to turn on the microphone in aid of government surveillance, activate the video camera, surreptitiously record conversations, or turn on location services to track the phone’s user? Nothing.
A couple of excerpts.
In the section of CALEA [Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act] entitled “Design of features and systems configurations,” 47 U.S.C. § 1002(b)(1), the statute says that it “does not authorize any law enforcement agency or officer—
- to require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features, or system configurations to be adopted by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services.
- to prohibit the adoption of any equipment, facility, service, or feature by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services.
The All Writs Act authorizes courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law,” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651(a), but as the Supreme Court has held, it “does not authorize [courts] to issue ad hoc writs whenever compliance with statutory procedures appears inconvenient or less appropriate[...]
And:
Finally, given the government’s boundless interpretation of the All Writs Act, it is hard to conceive of any limits on the orders the government could obtain in the future. For example, if Apple can be forced to write code in this case to bypass security features and create new accessibility, what is to stop the government from demanding that Apple write code to turn on the microphone in aid of government surveillance, activate the video camera, surreptitiously record conversations, or turn on location services to track the phone’s user? Nothing.
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
My mind is blown. Good question. Too bad lawyers spend all their time on boring contract stuff. Shooting the breeze about stuff like this is much more fun.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
That's hyperbole. Keep in mind, technology founders have a vested interest in protecting business models.
I don't agree with the government's stance but the sky is falling mantra from the tech community is equally hyperbolic. It's unreasonable for the government to win this case for the reason that they are simply fishing, hoping to find a clue on the phone. They don't know whether a clue actually exists. In turn, it doesn't make sense to potentially open up Pandora's box for what amounts to a fishing expedition.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Wait. Wut?
Hyperbole on a politics thread?
Are you trying to trick me by being hyperbolic?
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
But not necessarily protecting us, or limiting government abuse.
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
As long as one's logic is sound, "interest"is immaterial.
The video linked below is the 5.5 hour House Judiciary Committee hearing with FBI Director James Comey and others (including Apple General Counsel Bruce Sewell). I watched it over the course of two nights. It is very interesting, and forced me to question my own position a bit.
Apple has been accused of using “customer security” as a marketing or PR stunt. I don’t doubt that’s part of their strategy, but FBI Director Comey made an interesting comment about that. He said it should be a part of their plan because they are a publicly-traded company and it is their responsibility to maximize shareholder value. I can't disagree with that, and I don’t think it suggests anything cynical or dishonest about Apple’s position.
Comey was once a corporate General Counsel himself so he understands very well what Apple is up against. I found his testimony to be extremely thoughtful and instructive.
Apple has been accused of using “customer security” as a marketing or PR stunt. I don’t doubt that’s part of their strategy, but FBI Director Comey made an interesting comment about that. He said it should be a part of their plan because they are a publicly-traded company and it is their responsibility to maximize shareholder value. I can't disagree with that, and I don’t think it suggests anything cynical or dishonest about Apple’s position.
Comey was once a corporate General Counsel himself so he understands very well what Apple is up against. I found his testimony to be extremely thoughtful and instructive.
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
This ought to be irrelevant to the case. Their motivation doesn't change whether or not the government ought to have the power to order Entity A to create a brand new Product B to gather Information C - information that Entity A does not own or control.
You can subpoena me to turn over information I possess. You shouldn't be able to subpoena me to turn over information that Bob possesses, just because you think or know that I have the ability to take the information away from Bob.
FBI asks to delay Apple trial so it can try hacking the iPhone again
Article at The Verge
The FBI just filed a motion to delay Tuesday's hearing in the San Bernardino iPhone case, claiming that an "outside party" may be able to help it break into the phone without Apple's help.
As the FBI continued to conduct its own research, and as a result of the worldwide publicity and attention on this case, others outside the US government have continued to contact the US government offering avenues of possible research [...] If the method is viable, it should eliminate the need for assistance from Apple.
Translation: We're going to lose this one and look stupid, so we will look slightly less stupid by bailing out now.
Article at The Verge
The FBI just filed a motion to delay Tuesday's hearing in the San Bernardino iPhone case, claiming that an "outside party" may be able to help it break into the phone without Apple's help.
As the FBI continued to conduct its own research, and as a result of the worldwide publicity and attention on this case, others outside the US government have continued to contact the US government offering avenues of possible research [...] If the method is viable, it should eliminate the need for assistance from Apple.
Translation: We're going to lose this one and look stupid, so we will look slightly less stupid by bailing out now.
Here's my take. write the code which unlocks that iOS ... send a blaster which cannot be refused to all iOS users ... publish the next iOS variant, allow some reasonable period of time to receive the advisory and to update the iOS ... then send the "hack" to the Feds for THE iOS on the affected device.
Or ... maybe Apple does the internal hack and under court order releases all the information on that device to the FBI???
It's not like the iOS isn't hacked within hours of release anyway ... but I do appreciate the difference in the govt hacking and a private person hacking for the "jailbreak."
I don't think the threat is that a foreign government could compel Apple ... but they could close the market to Apple.
At this point of market distribution, I don't think that would go quietly from within. The iOS is prevalent everywhere I go. Might even have another student standing in front of a (Proverbial) tank in China if that actually happened.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
FBI paid more than $1.3M to hack terrorist’s iPhone
Got nothing
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/277164-fbi-paid-more-than-13m-to-hack-terrorists-iphone
Got nothing
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/277164-fbi-paid-more-than-13m-to-hack-terrorists-iphone
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Got nothing? They got the data, didn't they?
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
Well it's probably less of our money than the government would usually be wasting.... 
********.
********.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
In stark contrast to their position regarding the phone of the San Bernadino shooters, Apple willingly sent browsing data to Tencent, a Chinese tech firm that helps the CCP oppress minorities in Xinjiang concentration camps
As you may recall, the FBI paid $900,000 to some hacker to get into that iPhone. But I guess if you put millions of innocent Muslims into concentration camps and harvest their organs while they are still breathing, Apple will help you for free
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
As you may recall, the FBI paid $900,000 to some hacker to get into that iPhone. But I guess if you put millions of innocent Muslims into concentration camps and harvest their organs while they are still breathing, Apple will help you for free
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
