Apple Reiterates Inability to Unlock iOS Devices Running iOS 8 or Higher in New Court Filing

[Bryan Bowler]

And I'm in total opposite. I prefer to catch criminals, even if it means a slightly higher risk of a judge looking in my iPhone...

Sure, no problem. I'll send the FBI and the NSA over to your house next week to install video cameras in every room of your house so they can have the ability to monitor you and anyone living with you 24 hours a day. Hey, it's no big deal since you're not doing anything wrong right?

You might say that this bill is different, but it is not.

 

[jweinraub]

Good job Apple. They courts should be forced to go to the accused, and then the accused should be able to invoke the 5th.

I think in the US they can force you to give up your finger to unlock it but not the passcode. Since four digits are easily guessed, I use an eight character password. I can easily reboot it so it won't accept my thumb if need be. However, I think in some aeas, the UK being one, if I recall correctly, can lock you up for not giving the password. In some cases the sentence from that can be less severe than what they might find if they extract the data

 

[nt5672]

If the authorities suspect you to be involved in some criminal activity, make you go to court and want to see your phone for potential evidence, they should be able to jail you...until you prove them wrong? . . . .

Absolutely NOT. The USA was founded with exactly the opposite principle. We are supposed to be innocent until the government proves us guilty. Now, the last few decades the politicians, political elite, communists, and socialists have worked really hard to change that. It appears they are succeeded. Why? Because the education system promises the young, dumb, and freeloaders that government will always protect them and they believe it, even though history has proven that wrong for 1000s of years.

 

[decafjava]

Has ANY independent group ever tried to test different smartphones, computers and OS to check if privacy is being violated and if so how much? I know the EFF did a ranking of companies but I'm talking something more substantial.

 

[sim667]

Yes that is true. MR posted an article about it awhile back. Police can force you to unlock iPhone with TouchID because of something to do with the fact that they have the right to take your fingerprints.

Hmmm.... I wonder if thats the same in britain

 

[nt5672]

If I've done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, why should I care whether the FBI/Police can access my phone?

. . . .

We aren't talking about the FBI wanting to look at your vacation/selfie photos for the hell of it. Why would they give a crap?
It is about the things that really matter to be able to maintain a complex, democratic, civil society.

There is nothing democratic about political power. Remember the FBI reports to the President. If the President decides that your beliefs/habits are not proper, no matter what they are, you are in trouble in a non free society. This is what every government bureaucrat strives for, no matter their political ideology.

Lets say the President decides that watching Family Guy is perverted and tells the FBI to get all of the Family Guy viewers. Then you will be really pissed, but it will be too late to do anything about it because they will know exactly who you are and have access to your information and devices. Remember history. Remember the witch hunts in the 50's for communists. They snared a bunch of innocent people. Remember law abiding Japanese US citizens being put in camps. All of this was 70+ years ago. We have much less freedom today than we had then. Freedom is hard to keep and easy to lose because you can lose it all the while thinking everything is ok. What you give up today, will be used against you or your kin in the future.

Political power once it gets a strong enough foothold is unstoppable without war and bloodshed. You can either fight for freedom now, while political power is still relatively weak and voting can reign it in, or let your children die for it later. The world has worked that way for 1000s of years. Please go read some history. The US was once the rare exception, but slowly the world is breaking down that exception to make us nothing exceptional, just like the rest of the world.

 

[peterh988]

Hmmm.... I wonder if thats the same in britain

You can be imprisoned for refusing to give your password, often the sentence for that is longer than the for the crime your suspected of.

 

[Fishticks]

Why would they need a password ???
They store everything on iCloud, plus the NSA listens to the whole Internet, plus Google already knows everything !!!

 

[Rafterman]

Gub'mint: All your passwords are belong to us!

Apple: Eat Me.

Every company needs to be like that.

 

[hkenneth]

You can be imprisoned for refusing to give your password, often the sentence for that is longer than the for the crime your suspected of.

What if you forget your password, ACCIDENTALLY?

 

[peterh988]

What if you forget your password, ACCIDENTALLY?

I guess that would be up to your legal team to argue that you'd genuinely forgotten, rather than deliberately withheld.

 

[jennyp]

This is all quite right. "We the people," etc. If it's all true. Back-doors known but kept secret? Actual compliance behind a facade of due process? Paranoid? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[kemal]

Should be no problem for law enforcement. As if the information sought does not exist.

 

[jdoll021]

I can not get over this quote.

Like mining and storing millions of communication records illegally collected from American citizens.

Like not requiring the use of a court system to subpoena information because it's inconvenient or will never been have accepted.

Like attempting to circumvent software designed for consumer protection by using malware to grant that access.

Like giving authority to government entities for full, free access to devices under a law that was never designed to be interpreted under today's technological conditions or by lying about the situation in which those conditions were not actually met.

Let's see..

Agreed! When I saw that, I couldn't help but think that what federal law enforcement is really saying is "we don't want people to place themselves above the law, that's our job! Eff the Bill of Rights!"

 

[macfoxpro]

Absolutely NOT. The USA was founded with exactly the opposite principle. We are supposed to be innocent until the government proves us guilty. Now, the last few decades the politicians, political elite, communists, and socialists have worked really hard to change that. It appears they are succeeded. Why? Because the education system promises the young, dumb, and freeloaders that government will always protect them and they believe it, even though history has proven that wrong for 1000s of years.

We are definitely on common ground, and I agree with every word you just posted.
Too bad others don't see things this way.

 

[macfoxpro]

You seem to forgotten, "Innocent until PROVEN Guilty". I don't need to prove them wrong.
I am under no obligation to do anything but sit in a chair or cell until they bring be to a "speedy" trial.
The 5th Amendment of our glorious constitution says I can remain silent.

You are Macfoxpro are part of the problem and why the government thinks they should be able to get away with this stuff.

You obviously did not see the question marks at the end of what I had said. Also, I was paraphrasing and asking a question as to what we should do to someone else comment.
Pay attention.

 

[maxsix]

Pretty stark difference between apple and microsoft when it comes to handing over users data.

There's less of a difference than you may realize.

If you care, do a search, preferably with ddg.gg and you will be enlightened.

 

[gnasher729]

This is all fine and dandy, until it's a child molester, or someone who stole something from you, or a mental patient with a bunch of guns.

Here's the problem: There are laws that are there to protect innocent citizens. Since you don't know ahead who is innocent and who is not, these laws unavoidably protect criminals as well. Since I, as an innocent citizen, want that protection of the law I must accept the cost. I must accept that someone who stole from me, or a child molester, is protected by the law. And while it is regretable that a child molester may be protected by the law, it is absolutely correct that possibly innocent suspects are protected.

Now our great politicians come and say that if you are suspected to be a terrorist, then you do not have that protection. Let's make this clear: It's not only terrorists who are supposed to lose protection by the law, it's also innocent citizens suspected to be terrorists. And we are told that we have to accept this. Which is completely against everything we know, but it's against the evil terrorists. But then since these laws are in effect, suddenly they are supposed to be used against child molesters. Or bank robbers. Or, as has happened in England, to spy on people who don't put the right rubbish into their rubbish bin. Seriously. Not joking.

 

[thekev]

Has ANY independent group ever tried to test different smartphones, computers and OS to check if privacy is being violated and if so how much? I know the EFF did a ranking of companies but I'm talking something more substantial.

That could be quite difficult to determine. Anything directly or indirectly observable provides some amount of information. If you want complete privacy, stop carrying a phone. Otherwise it's a matter of minimization and what is least likely to be usable to others.

 

[gnasher729]

I guess nothing on Person of Interest is true...

I do though think Apple holds the "key" to unlock these devices and I also think that if someone is suspected of a violent crime or act of terror they should have to relinquish their property, in a state that the information can be accessed. Opinions otherwise are skewed because they currently aren't the victim and until they are, those views will not change.

Here's the long story:

There _is_ software on your iPhone, created by Apple, that can unlock your phone. That's the software that runs when you enter your passcode. You enter 1234. The software tries to unlock the phone with the code 1234. Obviously that will only work if the code _is_ 1234. The unlocking has been cleverly designed so that it only works on that iPhone (you can't use some supercomputer to do it, you _need_ the locked iPhone), and it takes about 0.1 seconds. It can't be done faster. The unlocking software on your phone has some tricks: For example, it can be set up to erase your phone after ten failed attempts. That's why the police can't unlock your phone by just typing in 10,000 passcodes.

If that software can unlock an iPhone, why can't some other software do it? That's because it requires some hardware in the phone, and the hardware requires that the software is signed by Apple. You and I can't write software that unlocks an iPhone. Well, we could write it, but it won't work if it is not signed by Apple.

Apple has software for iOS7 that can unlock a phone without the limitations of the normal unlocking software. That software will just try one key after the other. A four digit passcode has 10,000 possibilities. Each attempt takes 0.1 seconds. That's 10,000 times 0.1 seconds or about 20 minutes. But if you have an 8 digit passcode, that would mean about four months. If you have 8 letters, it's uncrackable.

That software is rejected by iOS8 (intentionally) and Apple isn't creating a new version that runs on iOS8 or iOS9. So Apple doesn't have the software that could unlock your phone by trying all passcodes. Apple _could_ create such software but refuses to do so (for good reason), and nobody can force them to do it.

In the future, Apple could probably change their hardware so that any limitations (like destroying the data after ten wrong attempts) are enforced by the hardware, so that Apple _couldn't_ unlock your phone with brute force.

 

[gnasher729]

You forgot:
6. Stop committing felonies

Commonly overlooked.

That argument is nonsense. The laws protecting your privacy are not there to protect criminals, they are there to protect innocent citizens who are suspected of being criminals. So how does your advice help innocent citizens who are suspected of a crime?

 

[decafjava]

That could be quite difficult to determine. Anything directly or indirectly observable provides some amount of information. If you want complete privacy, stop carrying a phone. Otherwise it's a matter of minimization and what is least likely to be usable to others.

Well I'd like to know how truthful Tim Cook's statements are, and for example is it true all the fingerprint ID is only stored locally and can't be accessed by anyone. That sort of thing.

 

[thekev]

This is a simple issue:

No, Apple should not have to provide a mechanism to "crack" my phone.

Yes, the courts can and should be able to issue a warrant and compel the owner to unlock it, within the confines of the law, just as they can search your home, your car, etc. with a court order.

If this is unacceptable to the individiual, then he/she has several choices:

1. Ignore the law and be in contempt of court (and jailed for it)
2. Lobby and have the law changed
3. Leave the country
4. Suck it up
5. Destroy your phone before it is admitted into evidence

I forgot I was going to respond to this one too. Number 5 might be illegal under some circumstances. They may not be able to compel the owner to unlock the phone. This has come up before, but see this article. The author is a little biased in his analogy. Basically turning over a phone that is not analogous to admitting you have a bag which contains contraband. They might deny the existence of some things that are stored on their phone, but they don't deny ownership of the phone itself. He does however refer to a specific case and ruling.

 

[thekev]

Well I'd like to know how truthful Tim Cook's statements are, and for example is it true all the fingerprint ID is only stored locally and can't be accessed by anyone. That sort of thing.

I didn't mean that kind of thing, but I don't believe Apple gains anything by lying to you about what is stored where. If a problem shows up somewhere, it won't be as obvious as Apple backing up your fingerprint data. It would be a huge liability for them. They also don't gain anything from it. Basically if they store your fingerprint data, it costs them money to securely store that information. It costs them additional money to address PR concerns. I don't see a lot of gains for Apple there.

 

[carlsson]

Sure, no problem. I'll send the FBI and the NSA over to your house next week to install video cameras in every room of your house so they can have the ability to monitor you and anyone living with you 24 hours a day. Hey, it's no big deal since you're not doing anything wrong right?

You might say that this bill is different, but it is not.

Actually, I'm quite okey with that – If that would be the case for all living humans on the planet, and the recorded videos would only be used in case of crimes, etc.