2 ms·

It seems that Apple got sick of servicing these requests, particularly as they started increasing in frequency. The NYTimes [0] reported earlier this week that

by plorg 11y ago

It seems that Apple got sick of servicing these requests, particularly as they started increasing in frequency. The NYTimes [0] reported earlier this week that Apple had been basically complying until last year, when they decided that they could no longer deal with the burden of evaluating the large amount of legal orders they were receiving and unlocking or retrieving data from phones. It seems unlikely, given their (new-ish) stance on privacy that they would comply with any request at this point. [0] 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... Edit: I'm not trying to suggest that Apple is suddenly being arbitrarily obstreperous in cases where they may have once been compliant. Apple made a decision to change course and it wouldn't make any sense for them to go back on it just because the FBI asked "Pretty please?".

ubernostrum 11y ago
As far as I can tell Apple has never complied with a request for what the FBI is asking for here. It has complied in cases where the phone was not encrypted, or where a backup in iCloud could be made available to law enforcement, but Apple has never actually produced, signed and installed a custom "this phone only, and only so law enforcement can brute-force it" version of iOS. And given that we're talking about a federal government that was perfectly happy with pictures of the TSA's master luggage key being published in newspapers, I don't fault Apple one bit for being scared of handing over what are basically the keys to the kingdom.
BWStearns 11y ago
This request is materially different. The actions requested in the SB case and the NY case involve engineering around the way that older devices implement the newer iOS's security (they don't have the physical secure enclave so with engineering it's possible for Apple to get through a device). In previous instances Apple was either handing over copies of data or helping the FBI use a piece of software that could read unencrypted sections of the hard drive even if the phone was still locked. I think Apple's got a strong position that this is a stretch of the AWA.

by plorg 11y ago

ubernostrum 11y ago

As far as I can tell Apple has never complied with a request for what the FBI is asking for here. It has complied in cases where the phone was not encrypted, or where a backup in iCloud could be made available to law enforcement, but Apple has never actually produced, signed and installed a custom "this phone only, and only so law enforcement can brute-force it" version of iOS. And given that we're talking about a federal government that was perfectly happy with pictures of the TSA's master luggage key being published in newspapers, I don't fault Apple one bit for being scared of handing over what are basically the keys to the kingdom.

BWStearns 11y ago

This request is materially different. The actions requested in the SB case and the NY case involve engineering around the way that older devices implement the newer iOS's security (they don't have the physical secure enclave so with engineering it's possible for Apple to get through a device). In previous instances Apple was either handing over copies of data or helping the FBI use a piece of software that could read unencrypted sections of the hard drive even if the phone was still locked. I think Apple's got a strong position that this is a stretch of the AWA.