4 ms·

If Apple creates new software that removes a part of one iPhone's securty, that software can potentially be used on all iPhones. It's no different from what yo

If Apple creates new software that removes a part of one iPhone's securty, that software can potentially be used on all iPhones. It's no different from what you said: " I don't see how Apple can add this "feature" to iOS [or in this case, create a tool to use on the current version of iOS] and assure that only authorized legal authorities could activate it in the future."

ikeboy 11y ago
How is that different from "If I hand over this iCloud data, I'll need to create software to download iCloud data from a specific user, and that software can potentially be used on any iCloud account"? How is this not applicable to any warrant that requires technical ability to comply?
- sandiegodave 11y ago
  Apple doesn't make the same promises about encryption and privacy on their iCloud service that they do their iPhones, that's the only difference. If you store information in iCloud and the FBI comes asking for it, Apple will hand it over. By the very nature of iCloud, Apple has access to your data. Not so with your iPhone. Apple says your device is encrypted and they cannot access it without your consent, end of story. Forcing them to create tools that invalidate this promise on one iPhone means creating tools that can invalidate the promise on any iPhone.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    Saying you'll break the law before you do it does not make it legal. "We told our customers we won't do something" is not a legal defense. By the very nature of iPhone 5C, Apple can put whatever software they want on it with physical access. Also, note that the phone is owned by the government. They provided it to the terrorist, who worked for the government. So there's no promise broken to customers, because it's the customer themself who's asking for this.
    - 15155 11y ago
      > Also, note that the phone is owned by the government. There's the irony in this situation. The reason nation states actually purchase iPhones is BECAUSE of the security they provide.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        He wasn't working in a security role, so that would not have been a concern for whoever made that decision.
        15155 11y ago
        Other government agencies that do actually have people in security roles will be less inclined to issue iPhones. This case sets precedent, that's the whole point.
        ikeboy 11y ago
        But Apple is only able to do anything at all because it's an old phone without security features present in later models. Also, any other manufacturers' phones would be trivially hacked in the same case, because the firmware can be overwritten without needing to be signed. Apple is pretty much the only one that requires signing.
    - sandiegodave 11y ago
      I'm not saying anything about the (il)legality of Apple refusing the FBI's request, or whether their iPhone promises constitute a legal defense. At this point it's neither legal nor illegal, and the courts will take up this case soon (right now, Apple is arguing that precedent is on their side. From the NYT: "In a 1977 case involving the New York Telephone Company, the Supreme Court said the government could not compel a third party that is not involved in a crime to assist law enforcement if doing so would place “unreasonable burdens” on it."). I've only been responding to the claim that this is only about "one iPhone", as if there would be no impact on all iPhones as a result.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

ikeboy 11y ago

How is that different from "If I hand over this iCloud data, I'll need to create software to download iCloud data from a specific user, and that software can potentially be used on any iCloud account"? How is this not applicable to any warrant that requires technical ability to comply?

sandiegodave 11y ago
Apple doesn't make the same promises about encryption and privacy on their iCloud service that they do their iPhones, that's the only difference. If you store information in iCloud and the FBI comes asking for it, Apple will hand it over. By the very nature of iCloud, Apple has access to your data. Not so with your iPhone. Apple says your device is encrypted and they cannot access it without your consent, end of story. Forcing them to create tools that invalidate this promise on one iPhone means creating tools that can invalidate the promise on any iPhone.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  Saying you'll break the law before you do it does not make it legal. "We told our customers we won't do something" is not a legal defense. By the very nature of iPhone 5C, Apple can put whatever software they want on it with physical access. Also, note that the phone is owned by the government. They provided it to the terrorist, who worked for the government. So there's no promise broken to customers, because it's the customer themself who's asking for this.
  - 15155 11y ago
    > Also, note that the phone is owned by the government. There's the irony in this situation. The reason nation states actually purchase iPhones is BECAUSE of the security they provide.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      He wasn't working in a security role, so that would not have been a concern for whoever made that decision.
      - 15155 11y ago
        Other government agencies that do actually have people in security roles will be less inclined to issue iPhones. This case sets precedent, that's the whole point.
        ikeboy 11y ago
        But Apple is only able to do anything at all because it's an old phone without security features present in later models. Also, any other manufacturers' phones would be trivially hacked in the same case, because the firmware can be overwritten without needing to be signed. Apple is pretty much the only one that requires signing.
  - sandiegodave 11y ago
    I'm not saying anything about the (il)legality of Apple refusing the FBI's request, or whether their iPhone promises constitute a legal defense. At this point it's neither legal nor illegal, and the courts will take up this case soon (right now, Apple is arguing that precedent is on their side. From the NYT: "In a 1977 case involving the New York Telephone Company, the Supreme Court said the government could not compel a third party that is not involved in a crime to assist law enforcement if doing so would place “unreasonable burdens” on it."). I've only been responding to the claim that this is only about "one iPhone", as if there would be no impact on all iPhones as a result.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]