3 ms·

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

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.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    Apple lost in court. They may win on appeal, or not, but as of now they've lost. I think that "it may or may not be legal" is not correct. Re one iPhone: I responded that the same could be said about any warrent. The actual order requires them only to modify one iPhone. Whether that proves they can do it for others doesn't matter. If they need to do it in this case, they need to do it whenever the government has a warrent. That's not a slippery slope, and it doesn't affect any non warrented devices.
    - sandiegodave 11y ago
      The legality is still in question, then. If they can still win on appeal, it's not definitively illegal. As for the rest, I only pointed out the difference between this request and an iCloud request, which you asked about (rhetorically, I know). This iPhone request plausibly places an undue burden on Apple that the iCloud requests do not, so it's different (including from a legal standpoint). If they eventually lose and the Supreme Court says "No it's not an undue burden, now go hack the phone!" then fine, the highest court in the land will have declared your analogy sound. Right now, that's very much in dispute.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        1. This is quickly getting into the philosophy of law. Every case can be struck down by either appeal or a later case overturning precedent. I think such cases should be thought of as "it was illegal, but now it has been changed by the court". So once someone's lost, we call their actions illegal until they appeal and win. 2. You said that complying would open the door to doing it for other phones. In that regard, complying with an icloud request also opens the door to complying with future icloud requests. The fact that it creates the ability (for Apple) to do it later has no effect on legalities. There may be a difference on undue burdens, but that's a different point. Your point would still be invalid. " creating new software for FBiOS is an undue burden, but creating new software to download a user's icloud data isn't " is a different argument than "creating new software means we can use it again later". The latter is the argument you made, and it doesn't differentiate between icloud and FBiOS. If we're concerned the FBI will take the software and use it without a warrent, Apple was given the option to do everything on their own premises and just give the FBI the data/unlocked phone when done.

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.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  Apple lost in court. They may win on appeal, or not, but as of now they've lost. I think that "it may or may not be legal" is not correct. Re one iPhone: I responded that the same could be said about any warrent. The actual order requires them only to modify one iPhone. Whether that proves they can do it for others doesn't matter. If they need to do it in this case, they need to do it whenever the government has a warrent. That's not a slippery slope, and it doesn't affect any non warrented devices.
  - sandiegodave 11y ago
    The legality is still in question, then. If they can still win on appeal, it's not definitively illegal. As for the rest, I only pointed out the difference between this request and an iCloud request, which you asked about (rhetorically, I know). This iPhone request plausibly places an undue burden on Apple that the iCloud requests do not, so it's different (including from a legal standpoint). If they eventually lose and the Supreme Court says "No it's not an undue burden, now go hack the phone!" then fine, the highest court in the land will have declared your analogy sound. Right now, that's very much in dispute.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      1. This is quickly getting into the philosophy of law. Every case can be struck down by either appeal or a later case overturning precedent. I think such cases should be thought of as "it was illegal, but now it has been changed by the court". So once someone's lost, we call their actions illegal until they appeal and win. 2. You said that complying would open the door to doing it for other phones. In that regard, complying with an icloud request also opens the door to complying with future icloud requests. The fact that it creates the ability (for Apple) to do it later has no effect on legalities. There may be a difference on undue burdens, but that's a different point. Your point would still be invalid. " creating new software for FBiOS is an undue burden, but creating new software to download a user's icloud data isn't " is a different argument than "creating new software means we can use it again later". The latter is the argument you made, and it doesn't differentiate between icloud and FBiOS. If we're concerned the FBI will take the software and use it without a warrent, Apple was given the option to do everything on their own premises and just give the FBI the data/unlocked phone when done.