12 ms·

From here (4th para from the end): http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2

by msravi 11y ago

From here (4th para from the end): http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be... "Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response, according to people privy to the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity." If this is true, it sort-of implies that Apple would have done it, but secretly, and they were forced to take their very public stance because of the FBI's posturing.

Arnt 11y ago
Are you suggesting that Apple would've done this particular hack provided it wouldn't set any precedent? If so that sounds quite sensible to my ears.
skywhopper 11y ago
I don't think so. Apple would prefer not to fight this particular battle over this particular case in the public sphere, but the FBI would. The general principle Apple is fighting for here is very important, but the FBI knows this is the weakest point in that principle: the locked phone of a dead terrorist who killed several people. Politically and possibly legally, this is a winner for the FBI. Technically it's a loser if you believe strong encryption is important at all. Apple wants to win the political argument, so it would not want this request to be made public. Anyway, why should it be, when next to no other such requests are made public? Anyway, in a legal battle, you contest every relevant point. The fact that they contested it doesn't mean they would have behaved differently after, except that they wouldn't have had to make a public statement under less than ideal circumstances.
- themartorana 11y ago
  Are you suggesting the court would take public opinion under consideration as being at all relevant to the law? That's very worrying to me, considering how important it's been in the past for the court to ignore public opinion in favor of justice.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Of course they do. They shouldn't, but the law doesn't work that way. In some cases the court may even decide to enshrine the public's opinion as a valid tool for determining legality (such as what speech counts as obscenity).
  - untog 11y ago
    There's also a longer term play - no matter what the court rules, if public reaction is strong enough then elected representatives will be under pressure to change the law.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    If judges were the type to rule solely on provable facts and rigid logic, they probably would have been better off pursuing a degree other than Juris Doctor. Judges absolutely factor in public opinion to their rulings, especially where they must periodically undergo public votes to retain or dismiss on election day.
    - gaadd33 11y ago
      Are any federal judges elected? I was under the impression they are all appointed and can't be removed without impeachment and conviction.
  - tamana 11y ago
    Public opinion is plainly part of the definition of justice. cultural norms are frequently cited in decisions.
    - scrollaway 11y ago
      Cultural norms are not the same thing as public opinion. Or do you want the FBI to run attack ads against Apple? Your tax dollars at work taking care of that pesky "public opinion".
  - skywhopper 11y ago
    I didn't mean the courts (although that's an interesting discussion). The political play I mean is that the FBI is trying to get Congress to change the laws surrounding this topic.
- jrs235 11y ago
  Out of curiosity, does anyone know how much Apple would be compensated for their time and effort to help the FBI? I assume they would be compensated somehow. But how much? I worry that this is going to be a way for the government to get free (or greatly cost reduced) resources to do its own work.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
And that's why transparency is important.
sharkweek 11y ago
I'm actually a little surprised that the FBI would go so public with the request? Anyone have any insights here? Did they think perhaps there would be public outcry the other direction meaning Apple would look like it was harboring terrorist information if they didn't comply to a public request?
- skywhopper 11y ago
  It's a political move. The FBI wants this capability for all iPhones. But this particular case is very difficult politically to argue with to the general public. The FBI realized they had a strong political force available to them, and they seized it. They are attempting to either force Apple's hand, make them give into public pressure, or--best of all for the FBI--to convince lawmakers to pass a law requiring companies to provide backdoors. The FBI will gladly keep sealed its requests that Apple unlock phones in more ambiguous cases, because it would be easy for Apple to publicly refute. But this case is just too good for the people at the FBI who want keys to everyone's data.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  They think they can win it and/or they think it will cost Apple a significant enough hit to the stock price to make it painful not to bend over.The FBI people who pushed it this far are arrogant assholes and I hope they end up being well-known assholes.
- mentalpiracy 11y ago
  They might have, it's certainly been a theme in some comments by supporters of the unlocking. He public move may be more about setting clear legal precedent - if Apple is forced to do this, the government certainly will rely on this decision again in the future. You cannot set clear legal precedent under seal (outside the FISA court anyway)
- stevetrewick 11y ago
  Establishing a Manichean media narrative framing Apple (and by extension all crypto providers) as enemies of America who hinder the righteous war on terror. Then if their legal case fails, public outrage, Something Must Be Done, legislative action rendering the AWA moot, achievement unlocked : all your phone are belong to US. Or is that too tinfoil hat ?
stevetrewick 11y ago
I took it to imply exactly that, but then I realised that I'm missing some important information about the US court system. Had the FBI 'issued its application under seal' would Apple have been able to appeal under the same reporting restrictions thus initiating the same chain of legal process but without the messy publicly? Either way it looks horribly like the feds just took away the neutral ground in crypto war 2.0
- comex 11y ago
  Yes, a document or entire case being under seal doesn't affect the legal process itself, only what the public gets to see.
- clort 11y ago
  Except that this still relates to an older version of the technology.. in the Dune series, Leto bred the Duncan Idaho ghola over many generations because although some persons were invisible from prescience, he could still see their footprints.. but the footprints of the ghola faded from sight. Apple has been working towards making it impossible to extract the keys, and I'm sure that in crypto war 3.1 they will work further towards this, since it appears that the Secure Enclave may still have some weaknesses (that a firmware update doesn't wipe the keys) Whether the regulatory mechanism allows them to create something proof against the regulators, now thats going to be an interesting battle. They are still a US company after all.
InTheArena 11y ago
The article states that this occurred after Apple turned over all information about the phone that resided in iCloud. Which means that the government already has access to whatever data it wanted in the phone that was iCloud synced, and is mis-representing it's case as Apple stonewalling. (while Apple is downplaying it's willingness to cooperate for PR reasons).
- avar 11y ago
  I don't think "downplaying it's [sic] willingness to cooperate" is at all a fair summary. They run iButt which is an entirely different matter as far as complying with subpoenas goes, especially when the subject of the subpoena is dead and the subject of an investigation. What are they going to do? Tell the FBI and a judge that they're refusing to grant them access to unencrypted photos taken by the dead subject of a mass shooting investigation? There's no way they can do that. It's quite another thing to be forced to develop exploits for hardware that's someone else's property just because you're the manufacturer of that hardware.
  - cududa 11y ago
    iButt? Seriously? Do you also still type M$?
    - eropple 11y ago
      I assumed that was a reference to (or maybe caused by? I don't know if the extension affects textareas) Cloud to Butt Plus. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus/apmlngnhgbnjpajelfkmabhkfapgnoai?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus...
    - aylons 11y ago
      He probably has the Cloud to Butt extension[1], and it changed its text before submitting: [1]https://github.com/panicsteve/cloud-to-butt https://github.com/panicsteve/cloud-to-butt
    - avar 11y ago

by msravi 11y ago

Arnt 11y ago

Are you suggesting that Apple would've done this particular hack provided it wouldn't set any precedent? If so that sounds quite sensible to my ears.

skywhopper 11y ago

I don't think so. Apple would prefer not to fight this particular battle over this particular case in the public sphere, but the FBI would. The general principle Apple is fighting for here is very important, but the FBI knows this is the weakest point in that principle: the locked phone of a dead terrorist who killed several people. Politically and possibly legally, this is a winner for the FBI. Technically it's a loser if you believe strong encryption is important at all. Apple wants to win the political argument, so it would not want this request to be made public. Anyway, why should it be, when next to no other such requests are made public? Anyway, in a legal battle, you contest every relevant point. The fact that they contested it doesn't mean they would have behaved differently after, except that they wouldn't have had to make a public statement under less than ideal circumstances.

themartorana 11y ago
Are you suggesting the court would take public opinion under consideration as being at all relevant to the law? That's very worrying to me, considering how important it's been in the past for the court to ignore public opinion in favor of justice.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Of course they do. They shouldn't, but the law doesn't work that way. In some cases the court may even decide to enshrine the public's opinion as a valid tool for determining legality (such as what speech counts as obscenity).
- untog 11y ago
  There's also a longer term play - no matter what the court rules, if public reaction is strong enough then elected representatives will be under pressure to change the law.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  If judges were the type to rule solely on provable facts and rigid logic, they probably would have been better off pursuing a degree other than Juris Doctor. Judges absolutely factor in public opinion to their rulings, especially where they must periodically undergo public votes to retain or dismiss on election day.
  - gaadd33 11y ago
    Are any federal judges elected? I was under the impression they are all appointed and can't be removed without impeachment and conviction.
- tamana 11y ago
  Public opinion is plainly part of the definition of justice. cultural norms are frequently cited in decisions.
  - scrollaway 11y ago
    Cultural norms are not the same thing as public opinion. Or do you want the FBI to run attack ads against Apple? Your tax dollars at work taking care of that pesky "public opinion".
- skywhopper 11y ago
  I didn't mean the courts (although that's an interesting discussion). The political play I mean is that the FBI is trying to get Congress to change the laws surrounding this topic.
jrs235 11y ago
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how much Apple would be compensated for their time and effort to help the FBI? I assume they would be compensated somehow. But how much? I worry that this is going to be a way for the government to get free (or greatly cost reduced) resources to do its own work.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

And that's why transparency is important.

sharkweek 11y ago

I'm actually a little surprised that the FBI would go so public with the request? Anyone have any insights here? Did they think perhaps there would be public outcry the other direction meaning Apple would look like it was harboring terrorist information if they didn't comply to a public request?

skywhopper 11y ago
It's a political move. The FBI wants this capability for all iPhones. But this particular case is very difficult politically to argue with to the general public. The FBI realized they had a strong political force available to them, and they seized it. They are attempting to either force Apple's hand, make them give into public pressure, or--best of all for the FBI--to convince lawmakers to pass a law requiring companies to provide backdoors. The FBI will gladly keep sealed its requests that Apple unlock phones in more ambiguous cases, because it would be easy for Apple to publicly refute. But this case is just too good for the people at the FBI who want keys to everyone's data.
Zigurd 11y ago
They think they can win it and/or they think it will cost Apple a significant enough hit to the stock price to make it painful not to bend over.The FBI people who pushed it this far are arrogant assholes and I hope they end up being well-known assholes.
mentalpiracy 11y ago
They might have, it's certainly been a theme in some comments by supporters of the unlocking. He public move may be more about setting clear legal precedent - if Apple is forced to do this, the government certainly will rely on this decision again in the future. You cannot set clear legal precedent under seal (outside the FISA court anyway)
stevetrewick 11y ago
Establishing a Manichean media narrative framing Apple (and by extension all crypto providers) as enemies of America who hinder the righteous war on terror. Then if their legal case fails, public outrage, Something Must Be Done, legislative action rendering the AWA moot, achievement unlocked : all your phone are belong to US. Or is that too tinfoil hat ?

stevetrewick 11y ago

I took it to imply exactly that, but then I realised that I'm missing some important information about the US court system. Had the FBI 'issued its application under seal' would Apple have been able to appeal under the same reporting restrictions thus initiating the same chain of legal process but without the messy publicly? Either way it looks horribly like the feds just took away the neutral ground in crypto war 2.0

comex 11y ago
Yes, a document or entire case being under seal doesn't affect the legal process itself, only what the public gets to see.
clort 11y ago
Except that this still relates to an older version of the technology.. in the Dune series, Leto bred the Duncan Idaho ghola over many generations because although some persons were invisible from prescience, he could still see their footprints.. but the footprints of the ghola faded from sight. Apple has been working towards making it impossible to extract the keys, and I'm sure that in crypto war 3.1 they will work further towards this, since it appears that the Secure Enclave may still have some weaknesses (that a firmware update doesn't wipe the keys) Whether the regulatory mechanism allows them to create something proof against the regulators, now thats going to be an interesting battle. They are still a US company after all.

InTheArena 11y ago

The article states that this occurred after Apple turned over all information about the phone that resided in iCloud. Which means that the government already has access to whatever data it wanted in the phone that was iCloud synced, and is mis-representing it's case as Apple stonewalling. (while Apple is downplaying it's willingness to cooperate for PR reasons).

avar 11y ago
I don't think "downplaying it's [sic] willingness to cooperate" is at all a fair summary. They run iButt which is an entirely different matter as far as complying with subpoenas goes, especially when the subject of the subpoena is dead and the subject of an investigation. What are they going to do? Tell the FBI and a judge that they're refusing to grant them access to unencrypted photos taken by the dead subject of a mass shooting investigation? There's no way they can do that. It's quite another thing to be forced to develop exploits for hardware that's someone else's property just because you're the manufacturer of that hardware.
- cududa 11y ago
  iButt? Seriously? Do you also still type M$?
  - eropple 11y ago
    I assumed that was a reference to (or maybe caused by? I don't know if the extension affects textareas) Cloud to Butt Plus. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus/apmlngnhgbnjpajelfkmabhkfapgnoai?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus...
  - aylons 11y ago
    He probably has the Cloud to Butt extension[1], and it changed its text before submitting: [1]https://github.com/panicsteve/cloud-to-butt https://github.com/panicsteve/cloud-to-butt
  - avar 11y ago