7 ms·

Even if there's less likelihood of useful evidence on the suspect's work phone, it's still worth checking. The FBI's request isn't too bad really. It's not lik

Even if there's less likelihood of useful evidence on the suspect's work phone, it's still worth checking. The FBI's request isn't too bad really. It's not like they are requesting Apple to build a new mass surveillance tool or anything similarly far-reaching. This is limited to the domain of digital forensics, and how best to extract data in a criminal investigation, against firmware that is hostile to cracking. Given that, by design, the phone has been locked down to only accept Apple-signed firmware, then Apple is really the most feasible choice to assist in bypassing this.

Consultant32452 11y ago
Unless we believe that individuals and corporations are at least somewhat autonomous. If this were Apple's device then sure, I think they should be compelled to make an effort to unlock it, but it's NOT Apple's device, and it hasn't been since it left the warehouse. Apple, in this case, is just an industry expert that happens to know quite a bit about the device. If you couldn't compel MSFT to hack the phone, you shouldn't be able to compel Apple to hack the phone. If you get a warrant to open my safe you can compel me to give you the combination, you can HIRE a locksmith, but you can't compel the locksmith. Compelling the locksmith is a completely foreign legal precedent.
- geographomics 11y ago
  I think you are rather downplaying Apple's capabilities here. Apple is the only entity who can reliably alter the firmware to remove the forensics-thwarting restrictions, due to updates requiring a chain of trust all the way up to Apple's root certificate. The physical device may not be owned by Apple, but the firmware installed upon it certainly is, both legally (due to copyright law) and cryptographically.
  - throwawayukcyb 11y ago
    > The physical device may not be owned by Apple, but the firmware installed upon it certainly is This is an interesting observation, actually. It suggests that there is a (legal) price to be paid for retaining tight control over firmware.
  - Consultant32452 11y ago
    I believe there is precedent for companies having to share/reveal their own encryption keys or in this case the certificate necessary to create a firmware update. The certificate is something Apple owns.

Consultant32452 11y ago

Unless we believe that individuals and corporations are at least somewhat autonomous. If this were Apple's device then sure, I think they should be compelled to make an effort to unlock it, but it's NOT Apple's device, and it hasn't been since it left the warehouse. Apple, in this case, is just an industry expert that happens to know quite a bit about the device. If you couldn't compel MSFT to hack the phone, you shouldn't be able to compel Apple to hack the phone. If you get a warrant to open my safe you can compel me to give you the combination, you can HIRE a locksmith, but you can't compel the locksmith. Compelling the locksmith is a completely foreign legal precedent.

geographomics 11y ago
I think you are rather downplaying Apple's capabilities here. Apple is the only entity who can reliably alter the firmware to remove the forensics-thwarting restrictions, due to updates requiring a chain of trust all the way up to Apple's root certificate. The physical device may not be owned by Apple, but the firmware installed upon it certainly is, both legally (due to copyright law) and cryptographically.
- throwawayukcyb 11y ago
  > The physical device may not be owned by Apple, but the firmware installed upon it certainly is This is an interesting observation, actually. It suggests that there is a (legal) price to be paid for retaining tight control over firmware.
- Consultant32452 11y ago
  I believe there is precedent for companies having to share/reveal their own encryption keys or in this case the certificate necessary to create a firmware update. The certificate is something Apple owns.