...get off your damn Constitutional high horses and help the FBI open devices owned by suspected or dead terrorists. These towel heads and towel head sympathizers aren't protected under those same Constitutional benefits. Trump won't put up with this BS when he sets up shop.

I think the consequences for fighting and losing this battle(I don't think they will win in the long run) are much greater than simply disabling the factory reset feature on this one specific phone. The court order does not require they unlock the phone(which is what everyone is crying about), just to make sure the phone doesn't erase all the data on the phone when the FBI unlocks the phone.

Let's not get to distracted over Apple refusing to unlock the code. Let ask this question first:
this was a county issued phone issued to a individual ( on the list) a suspected individual of terroist connection and our home land security failed to monitor the phone...... Why?
the government wants answers but don't give answers..

I stole this verbatim from a r/bestof post.

This type of device is like Pandora's Box. I loved their device when I used it. It was so easy to dump the contents of the phone (particularly messages, pictures and call records) to a secure server as evidence.Not all reasons for using it are nefarious, and legitimately most of the time, we used it on victim's phones, with their consent, to document communications. Some examples:

• Domestic violence or other harassment cases. If a victim comes in with 200 threatening messages from their ex-spouse, I could dump those messages to evidence in a matter of minutes. This saved time, preserved metadata, and ultimately taxpayer dollars (seriously - it takes a LOT LONGER to photograph 200 text messages than using a UFED)
• Pretext phone calls or messaging: If a victim claimed sexual assault from a known suspect, we could initiate a "pretext" voice or text conversation with the victim's phone to the suspect. Frequently, the suspect will admit to the assault or [typically] some reduced version of events.
• Your 13 year old daughter getting dick pics from a creeper? Boom - in evidence along with the oh-so-important metadata.

Unfortunately, none of the above scenarios definitively place the suspect phone in the suspects possession at the time of offense. Unless we can get a statement from the suspect they've had their phone in their possess the entire time, or some other type of proof of possession such as cell tower records, the evidence is less than optimal.
The fact is, at least in my experience, LEO rarely has the phone they actually want to examine with a UFED. And the rare opportunity the suspect phone is in LEO possession, it would likely be sent to state labs for data capture if alleged crime was a felony with violence.
But at the end of the day, it's a very dangerous tool. Investigators have the ability to place a person in a room, tell them how they should cooperate with LEO. A conversation would usually pressure (within the limits of the law) someone into allowing the UFED examination.
"Joe, she's claiming some serious shit Joe. She's telling me the sex wasn't consensual. That's rape Joe. That's not a joke. Now, I don't think you're a rapist. I think you're a smart guy who made a stupid fucking decision. A really badchoice. Good guys make bad decisions all the time, Joe. Are you ready to be a man and cooperate with us? Show the court... the Judge and the Jury, prove to me that you had nothing to hide? That you didn't rape her? Who is the Jury going to believe? A pretty young girl with a bruise on her face and evidence of sexual penetration, or ... you? "
Thats a scary fucking conversation for anyone, especially younger people. And they'll believe they might have a "friend" on their side. When the investigator sees they've made that progress in the relationship, they simply get a consent to search (assuming their not a moron) from the suspect and dump the phone in minutes.
Oh, and by the way.... we have to capture all data. We can't pick only messages from one phone number, or only some call logs. The entire phone is imaged. Including conversations that have absolutely nothing to do with any crime, with people who don't have anything do to with the incident. Sound familiar?

I just picked up on this case the other day. Interested to see how it pans out. And I can't stand the far right or the far left on this shit.

This is an interesting case. Apple claims that they don't currently have the capability of unlocking the phone, and they'd have to write code to enable it. Wouldn't this affect all iPhones, and eventually all smartphones going forward?

Belly35;1782244 wrote:Let's not get to distracted over Apple refusing to unlock the code. Let ask this question first:
this was a county issued phone issued to a individual ( on the list) a suspected individual of terroist connection and our home land security failed to monitor the phone...... Why?
the government wants answers but don't give answers..

AMEN!

Fab4Runner;1782226 wrote:

Lol

Glory Days;1782240 wrote:I think the consequences for fighting and losing this battle(I don't think they will win in the long run) are much greater than simply disabling the factory reset feature on this one specific phone. The court order does not require they unlock the phone(which is what everyone is crying about), just to make sure the phone doesn't erase all the data on the phone when the FBI unlocks the phone.

If the FBI doesn't have people who can accomplish this, it's a them problem.

No way in hell Apple should do this.

Glory Days;1782240 wrote:I think the consequences for fighting and losing this battle(I don't think they will win in the long run) are much greater than simply disabling the factory reset feature on this one specific phone. The court order does not require they unlock the phone(which is what everyone is crying about), just to make sure the phone doesn't erase all the data on the phone when the FBI unlocks the phone.

They are effectively asking to create a backdoor into their product's software. Sure, it sounds great for the FBI but it won't take very long for bad hat hackers to exploit the same backdoor.

Software security is already hard enough as it is so I don't expect Apple to ever bend to the will of the FBI.

Two things: first, let's actually try and keep these terrorists out of the country. Obviously that can only change after obama is, thankfully, finally out of office. Government officials (inlcuding the bureaucrats) should protect the homeland first and foremost, and if they don't they should be fired. Frankly, we could privatize that system and do a vastly better job and at a lower cost. Second, Apple can and should assist in this investigation. They may not need to turn over software that could ultimately be harmful in some other fashion, but they could surely take one phone, in one room, with just a couple of people from both sides and get into this phone, and then everybody walks away and the proceedings are tidied up to the extent no future harm can come of it. Now, could the FBI and Apple had done a 'one-off', privately, so that each side was satisfied --- maybe, and no doubt preferable, so having the FBI go the court route first may not have been the best move. We'll see.

queencitybuckeye;1782276 wrote:If the FBI doesn't have people who can accomplish this, it's a them problem.

Yea, I find it hard to believe that they don't have people who can't hack this thing open.

QuakerOats;1782283 wrote:Two things: first, let's actually try and keep these terrorists out of the country. Obviously that can only change after obama is, thankfully, finally out of office. Government officials (inlcuding the bureaucrats) should protect the homeland first and foremost, and if they don't they should be fired. Frankly, we could privatize that system and do a vastly better job and at a lower cost. Second, Apple can and should assist in this investigation. They may not need to turn over software that could ultimately be harmful in some other fashion, but they could surely take one phone, in one room, with just a couple of people from both sides and get into this phone, and then everybody walks away and the proceedings are tidied up to the extent no future harm can come of it. Now, could the FBI and Apple had done a 'one-off', privately, so that each side was satisfied --- maybe, and no doubt preferable, so having the FBI go the court route first may not have been the best move. We'll see.

Christ Almighty.

Apple and other cellphone manufacturers have given information to the FBI and Homeland Security before. They've done it without this "backdoor" coding that they're talking about now. The FBI should be able to find another way to get access to this phone without compromising the privacy of other (non-affiliated) cellphone users.

John McAfee has volunteered to use his company's resources to decrypt the phone's contents. This would be a interesting offer, other than the fact that he's batshit crazy.

The FBI can hack the phone; the issue is preventing the data from deleting itself. That's why they've asked Apple's help which given the talent level and the know-how there they can almost certainly design a backdoor into the data.

Apple needs to get over themselves, crack the phone and provide the results. If they are worried about the program or processed used from 'falling into the wrong hands'....then protect it!

wkfan;1782294 wrote:Apple needs to get over themselves, crack the phone and provide the results. If they are worried about the program or processed used from 'falling into the wrong hands'....then protect it!

smh

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/secret-memo-details-u-s-s-broader-strategy-to-crack-phones

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-19/apple-encryption-spurn-stirs-statehouse-push-for-backdoor-access

wkfan;1782294 wrote:Apple needs to get over themselves, crack the phone and provide the results. If they are worried about the program or processed used from 'falling into the wrong hands'....then protect it!

It's a lot more complicated than that. Apple isn't doing this for some moral high ground of privacy advocates but rather protecting their business. Creating loopholes, even through the blessing of a government agency, exposes them to big security leaks. Not to mention, iPhones can be used as payment processors now and that comes with a whole host of security compliance issues they have to follow; complying with the FBI's request would violate many of those and put a damper on their business potential.

I'm with Apple on this one.

sleeper;1782304 wrote:It's a lot more complicated than that. Apple isn't doing this for some moral high ground of privacy advocates but rather protecting their business. Creating loopholes, even through the blessing of a government agency, exposes them to big security leaks. Not to mention, iPhones can be used as payment processors now and that comes with a whole host of security compliance issues they have to follow; complying with the FBI's request would violate many of those and put a damper on their business potential.

I'm with Apple on this one.

Talking about moral high ground?

This is a matter of national security. Hack this one phone and be done with it.

Oh this is on the one hand, on the other hand case.
I get Apple's point, and a lot of people that fear Government intrusion should too. They do not want to establish a new tool for the Government to use to backdoor their way into a person's data whenever "national security" is stated. Who is to easily say that can be swung to be used for political purposes or on groups that do not agree with a national policy? Who is to also say if Apple creates this software, it does not find its way onto the blackmarket and create a worse problem?

On the other, the information may be crucial to the case, and in the future, the FBI or other agencies may need real time intelligence.
I'm not a techie, but this guy is, and states Apple can cooperate with the FBI:
http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-comply-with-the-fbi-court-order/?platform=hootsuite

I believe it is technically feasible for Apple to comply with all of the FBI’s requests in this case. On the iPhone 5C, the passcode delay and device erasure are implemented in software and Apple can add support for peripheral devices that facilitate PIN code entry. In order to limit the risk of abuse, Apple can lock the customized version of iOS to only work on the specific recovered iPhone and perform all recovery on their own, without sharing the firmware image with the FBI.

So, maybe everyone can figure out a very specific solution to this case.
I kinda hope though, this goes to the Supreme Court at some point because this problem is not going away and will only get bigger. The line between what the Government can see and get vs. what is protected in the tech age needs to be fleshed out.

There's nothing quite so entertaining as watching the "GO BIG BUSINESS, KEEP THE GUBMENT AWAY!!!!" people suddenly doing about-faces and demanding that a business bend over backwards to comply with government, even if doing so potentially puts them at risk security-wise.

Carry on.

wkfan;1782306 wrote:Talking about moral high ground?

This is a matter of national security. Hack this one phone and be done with it.

Again, not that simple.

#1) There is no current back door designed for Apple's products. Apple would have to dedicate their own staff and potentially millions of dollars to design the software needed to circumvent their security system.

#2) The only way to circumvent the security mechanism on the chip is to release a software update through Apple iOS update that would affect ALL phones. There is zero way to hack one phone and be done with it.

sleeper;1782312 wrote:Again, not that simple.

#1) There is no current back door designed for Apple's products. Apple would have to dedicate their own staff and potentially millions of dollars to design the software needed to circumvent their security system.

#2) The only way to circumvent the security mechanism on the chip is to release a software update through Apple iOS update that would affect ALL phones. There is zero way to hack one phone and be done with it.

I don't buy this at all. There is always a way and they probably already know how to do it.