5 ms·

I think it's interesting to note that Apple has complied with requests from law enforcement in the past... Of the total number of requests, which Apple referen

I think it's interesting to note that Apple has complied with requests from law enforcement in the past... Of the total number of requests, which Apple references here: http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/ http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests... > 94% were Device Requests--law enforcement seeking a stolen device > 6% were Account Requests--law enforcement seeking personal information > 27% of U.S. account requests received between 7/1/14 and 6/30/15 resulted in disclosed content. > Less than 0.00673% of customers have been affected by government information requests Interesting stats...

0xffff2 11y ago
>I think it's interesting to note that Apple has complied with requests from law enforcement in the past... It's also very important to note that preview law enforcement requests are not in the same scope as the FBI's request published yesterday. All of the information disclosed above is data held by Apple. The new request is for Apple to commit development resources to produce brand new software, not just turn over data.
- Outdoorsman 11y ago
  Agreed...there is a difference...a whole new precedent may be set when all this is sorted...
  - mariodiana 11y ago
    Yes, the FBI is arguing that it's no hardship for Apple to write the software to do this, since writing software is the business they're in. Once that precedent is established, then no software the government asks Apple to write should be any "hardship." I'm betting the government has a well thought out wish list.
- MCRed 11y ago
  Brand new software that-- and this seems to be missed in the wider discussion-- may be impossible to produce. It may not be possibly for Apple to comply. For instance, you can't install firmware on a locked phone.
  - 05 11y ago
    You certainly can - you can try it out yourself by rebooting the phone while connected to USB with Home button pressed - it will reboot to the Recovery mode that (since iTunes 12 AFAIR) allows you to choose between update and restore. Should you choose 'update', it will keep your data and rewrite the system partition, all without asking for your PIN.
  - 5ilv3r 11y ago
    My interpretation was that it would affect future iphones, not current ones. This is less to do with what was said, and more to do with what is practical. It would be absolutely trivial to disable security features before selling to the customer. Afterward is more difficult.
gerardnll 11y ago
Yeah, that 94%, keep reading the phrase man: The vast majority of the requests Apple receives from law enforcement ->>> come from an agency working on behalf of a customer who has requested assistance locating a stolen device <<---. Read also the guidelines to see which information Apple does give its really interesting and i think they are one of the few companies to be strong regarding user rights.
- umanwizard 11y ago
  What makes you think he didn't understand what he wrote?
  - gerardnll 11y ago
    I don't say he didn't understand, I'm just throwing some more data to that simplified stats as they can be misunderstood
njharman 11y ago
If you read the letter, they already said they have, do and will aid law enforcement in any lawful way they are able. They question the lawfulness of this particular request.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Outdoorsman 11y ago
  I understand the technical issues, and understand the broader implications... But, one thing has been bugging me about this case and your comment that Apple questions the "lawfulness of this particular request" leads me to ask: Does 4th Amendment protection end at death...?...the terrorist is obviously dead... I've been looking and don't find answers that satisfy me...? Anyone?
  - npizzolato 11y ago
    Apple isn't questioning the legality of the request based on 4th amendment concerns. Most requests from law enforcement ask a company to give up information they already have. What makes this unique is that the request is for Apple to decrypt the device -- an ability they do not currently have. Further, there is no law requiring Apple to have the ability to decrypt the device. So this request is really a request for Apple to develop a way to break their own encryption, which brings up a lot of slippery slope concerns. If Apple can be forced by the government to develop a way to break into this version of their OS, what would stop them from being forced to develop cracks for other versions of their OS?

0xffff2 11y ago

>I think it's interesting to note that Apple has complied with requests from law enforcement in the past... It's also very important to note that preview law enforcement requests are not in the same scope as the FBI's request published yesterday. All of the information disclosed above is data held by Apple. The new request is for Apple to commit development resources to produce brand new software, not just turn over data.

Outdoorsman 11y ago
Agreed...there is a difference...a whole new precedent may be set when all this is sorted...
- mariodiana 11y ago
  Yes, the FBI is arguing that it's no hardship for Apple to write the software to do this, since writing software is the business they're in. Once that precedent is established, then no software the government asks Apple to write should be any "hardship." I'm betting the government has a well thought out wish list.
MCRed 11y ago
Brand new software that-- and this seems to be missed in the wider discussion-- may be impossible to produce. It may not be possibly for Apple to comply. For instance, you can't install firmware on a locked phone.
- 05 11y ago
  You certainly can - you can try it out yourself by rebooting the phone while connected to USB with Home button pressed - it will reboot to the Recovery mode that (since iTunes 12 AFAIR) allows you to choose between update and restore. Should you choose 'update', it will keep your data and rewrite the system partition, all without asking for your PIN.
- 5ilv3r 11y ago
  My interpretation was that it would affect future iphones, not current ones. This is less to do with what was said, and more to do with what is practical. It would be absolutely trivial to disable security features before selling to the customer. Afterward is more difficult.

gerardnll 11y ago

Yeah, that 94%, keep reading the phrase man: The vast majority of the requests Apple receives from law enforcement ->>> come from an agency working on behalf of a customer who has requested assistance locating a stolen device <<---. Read also the guidelines to see which information Apple does give its really interesting and i think they are one of the few companies to be strong regarding user rights.

umanwizard 11y ago
What makes you think he didn't understand what he wrote?
- gerardnll 11y ago
  I don't say he didn't understand, I'm just throwing some more data to that simplified stats as they can be misunderstood

njharman 11y ago

If you read the letter, they already said they have, do and will aid law enforcement in any lawful way they are able. They question the lawfulness of this particular request.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Outdoorsman 11y ago
I understand the technical issues, and understand the broader implications... But, one thing has been bugging me about this case and your comment that Apple questions the "lawfulness of this particular request" leads me to ask: Does 4th Amendment protection end at death...?...the terrorist is obviously dead... I've been looking and don't find answers that satisfy me...? Anyone?
- npizzolato 11y ago
  Apple isn't questioning the legality of the request based on 4th amendment concerns. Most requests from law enforcement ask a company to give up information they already have. What makes this unique is that the request is for Apple to decrypt the device -- an ability they do not currently have. Further, there is no law requiring Apple to have the ability to decrypt the device. So this request is really a request for Apple to develop a way to break their own encryption, which brings up a lot of slippery slope concerns. If Apple can be forced by the government to develop a way to break into this version of their OS, what would stop them from being forced to develop cracks for other versions of their OS?