5 ms·

They address this at the end of the letter. They say it's "an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority." They go

by imh 11y ago

They address this at the end of the letter. They say it's "an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority." They go on to talk about what that precedent would mean. It's at the very bottom.

mikeash 11y ago
I don't buy it. The FBI is not trying to dictate how Apple builds their devices. They want Apple to take measures to unlock one device. How do they get from that to "[the government] would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data"? Apple seems to be saying that if the FBI can ask Apple to install special software on one person's phone, then they can ask Apple to install special software on everyone's phone. But that's not how it works. The whole idea of requiring a court order is to only do this stuff on a limit scale when there's justification for it. It's like saying that the police shouldn't be able to have a warrant to search a suspect's house, because that means they could search everyone's house.
- orthecreedence 11y ago
  I disagree. This is all about setting precedents. Once one of the dominoes falls, it's much easier for the others to start falling as well. Apple is saying the FBI is using this law to expand their power to mandate a backdoor in all devices. If this is successful, then the FBI can mandate that all secure hardware/software companies backdoor their products. Do we roll over and let the FBI do this because "oh, this is just one case, it's fine" or do we set a boundary? If a child does something wrong, you scold them immediately. You don't wait for them to do it the 10th time. By then it's too late.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Apple says the FBI is using this law to mandate a backdoor. And that's exactly what I don't buy. The FBI's demand here is merely to use an existing security hole, which Apple created. I simply don't see the leap from "this device is insecure, pleas unlock it for us" to "all devices you make must be insecure."
- thirdsun 11y ago
  Your response feels very naive or short sighted. Or both. If this goes through, you better believe that there will be court orders left and right, which can't be authentically argued against since Apple has already done it before.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Court orders for what, exactly? If there are legitimate court orders for cracking the security on the phones of criminal suspects, I don't have a problem with that. The problem would be if: 1. A court orders Apple to crack the security on a phone they cannot actually crack (presumably any A7+ phone), and imposes some punishment for failing to do the impossible. 2. A court orders Apple to modify the design of their phones to make sure they are always crackable. Those would be huge problems. But I don't see how you get from here to there.

by imh 11y ago

mikeash 11y ago

I don't buy it. The FBI is not trying to dictate how Apple builds their devices. They want Apple to take measures to unlock one device. How do they get from that to "[the government] would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data"? Apple seems to be saying that if the FBI can ask Apple to install special software on one person's phone, then they can ask Apple to install special software on everyone's phone. But that's not how it works. The whole idea of requiring a court order is to only do this stuff on a limit scale when there's justification for it. It's like saying that the police shouldn't be able to have a warrant to search a suspect's house, because that means they could search everyone's house.

orthecreedence 11y ago
I disagree. This is all about setting precedents. Once one of the dominoes falls, it's much easier for the others to start falling as well. Apple is saying the FBI is using this law to expand their power to mandate a backdoor in all devices. If this is successful, then the FBI can mandate that all secure hardware/software companies backdoor their products. Do we roll over and let the FBI do this because "oh, this is just one case, it's fine" or do we set a boundary? If a child does something wrong, you scold them immediately. You don't wait for them to do it the 10th time. By then it's too late.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Apple says the FBI is using this law to mandate a backdoor. And that's exactly what I don't buy. The FBI's demand here is merely to use an existing security hole, which Apple created. I simply don't see the leap from "this device is insecure, pleas unlock it for us" to "all devices you make must be insecure."
thirdsun 11y ago
Your response feels very naive or short sighted. Or both. If this goes through, you better believe that there will be court orders left and right, which can't be authentically argued against since Apple has already done it before.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Court orders for what, exactly? If there are legitimate court orders for cracking the security on the phones of criminal suspects, I don't have a problem with that. The problem would be if: 1. A court orders Apple to crack the security on a phone they cannot actually crack (presumably any A7+ phone), and imposes some punishment for failing to do the impossible. 2. A court orders Apple to modify the design of their phones to make sure they are always crackable. Those would be huge problems. But I don't see how you get from here to there.