Apple refuses to help FBI Crack terrorist's iPhone citing right to privacy

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Sign up

Rafagon

Genius
Gold
Dec 7, 2011
7,566
1,252
113
44
Miami, Florida
#21
Google sides with Apple on the encryption debate. This is good because it's a slippery slope and a dangerous precedent to set.
Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Yahoo have done the same, albeit "very quietly," according to the linked article. No public letters of support backing Tim Cook, and no skywriters have been hired to write messages in the sky.

A cursory search on Google turned up no word from Blackberry on the current situation, but they've previously stated they don't agree with Apple's stance on privacy.

Update: Actually, Twitter hasn't been that quiet about its support of Apple:

Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 9.40.04 AM.png
 
Last edited:

iPutz

Zealot
Silver
Nov 20, 2012
941
184
43
71
US Midwest
#22
I couldn't agree more with Tim Cook's position on this issue. Apple offered to get the requested information off the device and turn it over to the FBI but the FBI seems to want carte blanche to look at any device they choose. Like most others, I have nothing to hide but I'm also not willing to allow my personal data to just be out there for anyone to go through as they wish either.
 

Kadelic

Genius
Gold
Jan 4, 2010
4,935
1,645
113
Dallas, TX
#27
I predict they won't be compelled.
What if they are and they refuse? Will they be found in contempt? If Apple really digs their heels in, what can the FBI and the DOJ do? Fine them? Find them in contempt? Just curious if they have any real authority here.

Edit: All rhetorical questions :)
 
Last edited:

Rafagon

Genius
Gold
Dec 7, 2011
7,566
1,252
113
44
Miami, Florida
#29
Hmmm, apparently the 5c in question "had its passcode changed within 24 hours of it coming into government possession."

Article here.
"Apple is saying that the iPhone in question, used by shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, had its passcode changed within 24 hours of it coming into government possession. If that hadn't happened, then Apple thinks it might have been possible to access the phone without creating custom software to bypass the phone's passcode requirement. This could've been done through a tactic that would've connected the phone to a known Wi-Fi network and caused the device to automatically back up its data to Apple servers…"​

And what would've happened if the device would've backed up its data to Apple servers? Apple and/or the FBI could've had access to the data there?

…So I'm interpreting this to mean that our data is only 100% secure as long as we don't back up to Apple servers?
 

Ledsteplin

Genius
Gold
Oct 29, 2013
4,791
979
113
65
Florence, AL
#30
"Apple is saying that the iPhone in question, used by shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, had its passcode changed within 24 hours of it coming into government possession. If that hadn't happened, then Apple thinks it might have been possible to access the phone without creating custom software to bypass the phone's passcode requirement. This could've been done through a tactic that would've connected the phone to a known Wi-Fi network and caused the device to automatically back up its data to Apple servers…"​

And what would've happened if the device would've backed up its data to Apple servers? Apple and/or the FBI could've had access to the data there?

…So I'm interpreting this to mean that our data is only 100% secure as long as we don't back up to Apple servers?
We don't use or have that "tactic". I doubt it's the same as backing up to iCloud or iTunes as we know it. Your stuff is safe, Raf!
 
Last edited:

MrMike6by9

Evangelist
Gold
Nov 16, 2008
1,482
120
63
69
Maryland, USA
#34
Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Yahoo have done the same, albeit "very quietly," according to the linked article. No public letters of support backing Tim Cook, and no skywriters have been hired to write messages in the sky.

A cursory search on Google turned up no word from Blackberry on the current situation, but they've previously stated they don't agree with Apple's stance on privacy.

Update: Actually, Twitter hasn't been that quiet about its support of Apple:

View attachment 43889
I don't, as a rule, do more than read Twitter. For this issue, I had to "heart" the original AND retweet it.
 

Europa

Moderator
Senior Moderator
Dec 12, 2008
28,365
5,505
113
Utah
#35
"Apple is saying that the iPhone in question, used by shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, had its passcode changed within 24 hours of it coming into government possession. If that hadn't happened, then Apple thinks it might have been possible to access the phone without creating custom software to bypass the phone's passcode requirement. This could've been done through a tactic that would've connected the phone to a known Wi-Fi network and caused the device to automatically back up its data to Apple servers…"​

And what would've happened if the device would've backed up its data to Apple servers? Apple and/or the FBI could've had access to the data there?

…So I'm interpreting this to mean that our data is only 100% secure as long as we don't back up to Apple servers?
Yes, had the password not been changed by the FBI, the device could have been backed up if it was brought within range of a known WiFi location. The FBI gained access to the last backup when they changed the password, but it was more than a month old and didn't have any relevant information they were looking for. The terrorist destroyed all other devices he had and likely stopped these backups intentionally to avoid leaving traces. There might not be anything there, but they needed to check. They can't change it back to the old password because Apple doesn't allow using an old password for a year. Had it not been changed, Apple could have created a new backup on a known WiFi location, decrypted the backup and given it to them...without creating a backdoor, which is what Apple is fighting against. They aren't opposed to handing over information of known terrorists; they just don't want to create this backdoor because of the precedent it sets. The government could then extend the breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept users' personal data, including financial and health records, track their locations and activate iPhone mics and cameras.

No. It's currently secure unless you commit a terrorist act or something of that sort. But the government is pushing for more and Apple is resisting. We'll have to wait and see how it plays out.
 

up10ad

Genius
Gold
Aug 1, 2007
3,606
468
83
Fruita , CO
up10ad.com
#36
I'm supporting Apple's position because of the privacy and backdoor issues, but mostly because of the precedent this would set to allow the government to force individuals and corporations to perform; to create software, to build products, etc.. If they can do this, what prevents them form requiring Google, MS or Apple to write surveillance software? Will AT&T be required to capture all phone data and turn it over? This could lead to a situation where the government actually forces individuals to do things like purchase health insurance simply because they are alive (oh, that's already happened). .