Let's assume this is an 5S and above (with TouchID); how many tried before the hardware itself locks you out for good? Also, does the guy with the 5C have the "auto-wipe after 10 tries" enabled?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Ordered to Help FBI Recover Data From San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone 5c
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Those two issues are completely and totally unrelated. You are fooled into beliveing that in order to stop the problem the government created themselves to begin with they have to take away your freedom and liberty. It's a scam.
Interesting issue on privacy. Not sure where I personally stand. Not sure I can say that, if a search warrant is legit, that a warrant to unlock a phone is not, conceptually anyway. I'm sure his is why there are discussions of laws forcing Companies like Apple to create back doors to the OS.
Well this should be interesting to see the courts and government at war with Apple
**grabs popcorn and actual Apple to snack on and watch as **** hits the fan lol **
Although the judges ( and FBI's ) logic is flawed I'd assume their thought process is something like:
Apple created the phone
Apple created the design
Apple created the code
Apple created the encryption
Apple suppliers built parts of the phone
etc
Ergo whom is in a better position to find, or create a Blackdoor or at least find/create a way to disable or circumvent certain security functions
Not saying its entirely flawless reasoning or right either. In fact there are some moral and ethical problems at the very idea. Seems like if Apple were even willing to comply it seems unreasonable to expect them at any costs to potentially undermine what integrity they may have.
Would like to know what they the judge included define as "reasonable technical assistance"
Sadly it probably will and doesn't bode well for Apple. The government and law enforcement are far from always right and unfortunately in this case they don't seem willing or likely to drop it or let things go anytime soon.
I foresee a long asf drawn out legal battle with the maximum amount of appeals or refilling possible on up thru the highest courts and possibly trying to get the president and true highest powers involved if they're stubborn and hell bent enough
**grabs popcorn and actual Apple to snack on and watch as **** hits the fan lol **Although the judges ( and FBI's ) logic is flawed I'd assume their thought process is something like:
Apple created the phone
Apple created the design
Apple created the code
Apple created the encryption
Apple suppliers built parts of the phone
etc
Ergo whom is in a better position to find, or create a Blackdoor or at least find/create a way to disable or circumvent certain security functions
Not saying its entirely flawless reasoning or right either. In fact there are some moral and ethical problems at the very idea. Seems like if Apple were even willing to comply it seems unreasonable to expect them at any costs to potentially undermine what integrity they may have.
Would like to know what they the judge included define as "reasonable technical assistance"
Sadly it probably will and doesn't bode well for Apple. The government and law enforcement are far from always right and unfortunately in this case they don't seem willing or likely to drop it or let things go anytime soon.
I foresee a long asf drawn out legal battle with the maximum amount of appeals or refilling possible on up thru the highest courts and possibly trying to get the president and true highest powers involved if they're stubborn and hell bent enough
This is no doubt between the judge and the FBI. Most of the Judges dont particularly understand the digital nuances of the warrants they are authorizing or the orders they're being given. I have zero doubts that the feds walked in and said "APPLE is not allowing us to brute force the device, APPLE is forcing the device to self-destruct". They are, i mean, they're configurable options, but written in such a way to not allow any bypassing including by Apple themselves (probably glossed over). Any technically competent judge would knows that key escrow and backdoors have a risk of being leaked. This would be the same court to scream bloody murder if iOS devices with their SSN, PII were breached due to weak crypto controls.
But wait, according to the article:
So thats a complete fail on them. The MDM solution used by the dept should be able to change the pin in a jiffy, thats sort of why we have MDM. If they didn't do their part in managing their devices adequately, its not Apples fault.
But wait, according to the article:
So thats a complete fail on them. The MDM solution used by the dept should be able to change the pin in a jiffy, thats sort of why we have MDM. If they didn't do their part in managing their devices adequately, its not Apples fault.
Last edited:
This is 100% correct.
The problem is not who has access to our personal data, but bad guys having guns and good guys not having guns.
This is why terrorist attacks in SB, on US military bases, in England, France, and other countries has been successful. The bad guys kill without remorse and the population, having been disarmed, just die. In GB, you can't even defend yourself with a stick or you'll be sent to prison. Civilian disarmament is killing us all around the world.
Okay...okay....it appears that FBI and Federal Court wants to play Pokemon....THEY GOTTA CATCH THEM ALL.
I hate that uneducated people are making impossible demands.
Given the downward spiral of Apple's software quality, there's probably a bug that will allow access easily. The FBI should just turn to hackers, and not tell Apple when they find that bug...
/humor...
/humor...
Concealed carry permits can be obtained in California as well as SB cityand county. Firearms, when properly licensed and obtained are also legal. A quick search of gun shops shows half a dozen in SB proper. The population hasn't been disarmed there. There are stricter restrictions there though, than say Texas. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying?
It's not tough for me. I know a backdoor won't stop terrorists. Law enforcement also have other means at their disposal.
I always put user security over convenience when it comes to privacy, but In this case, the police have a warrant, and they're not asking Apple to put permanent backdoors into their software for easy access to law enforcement. They're just saying that Apple has to help them find a way to bypass the locks on the phone, which is far more palatable.
Apple encryption is so strong on iPhones that even the government can't get through means one thing to me. Apple needs to do digital security for all important government agencies. As we all know of the crazy amount of hacks been happening with these government agencies leading with lots of valuable data being stolen.
But wait why will government agencies want apple to strengthen their security if in turn they will ask them to break the encryption to find out what an employee was doing when they have a falling out. At one time everyone including the government praised blackberry for strong impenetrable encryption. Now they wanted the same thing with Apple but now Apple made the encryption too strong so they need a back door or help getting in.
This country government is a hot mess!
But wait why will government agencies want apple to strengthen their security if in turn they will ask them to break the encryption to find out what an employee was doing when they have a falling out. At one time everyone including the government praised blackberry for strong impenetrable encryption. Now they wanted the same thing with Apple but now Apple made the encryption too strong so they need a back door or help getting in.
This country government is a hot mess!
I've got to think that they can't change the setting by remote (and since they say it is impossible to access data).
Maybe this case will get these conversations about security to stop... (Not likely)
Gary
Here's hoping Apple stands fast. Then of course the government will just outlaw encryption.
Armchair software expert over here.
Based on what I have gleaned about this specific case, I don't suspect it would give law enforcement much, if any, information they don't already have. I'm assuming the thought process is that there may be information in future cases (to which this could be a legal precedent) where information is pulled about other terrorist organizations and connections.
I'm trying to stay neutral here, so I'm not saying I am for or against this. But I can say that we can't know what information terrorists (or anyone else engaging in felony activity or worse) have stored on their devices.
Largely I think these efforts are in vain though, similar to the ridiculous amounts of time and money poured into the TSA in the name of flight travel safety. I'm insure anyone with anything serious was ever caught by them damn machines and pat downs. Of they were, they certainly aren't telling us. And one would think a program that the general populous feels is a thorn in their sides would want to show evidence they're working. I've seen plenty of evidence how to fool these scams, however.
[doublepost=1455679424][/doublepost]
If it comes to it, more likely they'll require decryption to be possible by the manufacturer. Outlawing encryption itself would put everything on its head, including banking lol. Part of the problem is that people making the laws aren't necessarily "in the know" as to what it takes. It's not like making a copy of a key to a door. It's also not like busting a physical door down with a warrant in hand, but we are seemingly operating with the assumption it is, in fact, analogous.
Apple is between a rock and a hard place. The extreme media attention and political nature of this will only have brownie-point gunning politicians calling for legislation forcing Apple's hand.
Apple is not known for having strong ties to Washington or having an army of lobbyists, so this will be an instesting situation to see unfold.
Apple is not known for having strong ties to Washington or having an army of lobbyists, so this will be an instesting situation to see unfold.
Then Apple gets sued by the criminal for going against him and breaking into his phone. I'm sure this would be some sort of breach between company and client. It's like the FBI going to a hospital and saying I want to know what diseases this patient has. While this is much easier to do than hacking software and hardware it will be a violation of HIPAA agreement.
Yes, looked at it that way, the argument it's not totally unreasonable.
However, this is the end game. Same thing is going on in Europe. The whole process is part of creating a public perception that erasing freedom and liberty by outlawing encryption is a legitimate thing to do.
I do think there's a world of difference between "we have the phone of a specific suspect and a warrant from a judge" and "we have a way to remotely get into any phone we want, over the network, at any time."
My main point here is that it is frustrating that pretty much everyone talkng about this issue (on all sides) seem to be combining those two things together.
My main point here is that it is frustrating that pretty much everyone talkng about this issue (on all sides) seem to be combining those two things together.
Chances are this is a ploy by the government to make a case for un-encryption laws, more than it is solving a crime. They are going to use this San Bernadino case to frighten citizens and lawmakers into giving up their privacy, just like when they shoved the Patriot Act down our throats.
The guy whose team made off with the competition's database? You mean that guy?