5 ms·

It's possible that I missed any concern the judge may have had for precedent when I read the ruling. If you know of any (or any other document I may have misse

It's possible that I missed any concern the judge may have had for precedent when I read the ruling. If you know of any (or any other document I may have missed), I'd appreciate a pointer. I think you're applying some fairly strict high-mindedness to the US legal system while others (myself included) worry that creative extension of intent appears rampant in cases that touch on technology or terrorism and therefore fall into your second form. Many of us don't, as a general rule, trust the courts, law enforcement, or our government to do anything but what is politically expedient and beneficial to them at the moment. While the wording of this ruling is about one phone and a particular method the FBI has laid out, it appears to set precedent that law enforcement can compel a product company create a non-existent product (no matter how trivial) in order to exploit a known security vulnerability in one of their products. This is what concerns me and many others, because it brings us very short steps away from "make us a version that works against the Secure Enclave" to "make it work as an OTA update over WiFi" to then "make it work as an OTA update over cellular" and subsequently "make a version we can incorporate into a StingRay" and forward. None of these would be illogical steps to take in abject pursuit of stamping out terrorism and might even applauded by parts of society, but taken as what some perceive as an inevitable whole they paint a dim picture for personal privacy. It's an improbable coincidence that the FBI has elected this particular charged case in which to stake their flag. Given their pleas with technology companies for cooperation over bypassing cryptography in recent months, this appears to be a logical continuation of that campaign. In conclusion, we likely disagree, specifically due to my cynicism and your seeming lack thereof.

ikeboy 11y ago
>I think you're applying some fairly strict high-mindedness to the US legal system while others (myself included) worry that creative extension of intent appears rampant in cases that touch on technology or terrorism and therefore fall into your second form. My main point related to this was above: >The only concern would seem to be if the future court fails to analyse a case properly. But they can fail regardless of what precedent is or is not set. To argue against that, you'd need to claim that precedent makes it easier for the later court to fail. Do you have examples, where it should have been clear that precedent didn't apply, yet the court reached the conclusion that it did, incorrectly? (Preferably in important cases.) >While the wording of this ruling is about one phone and a particular method the FBI has laid out, it appears to set precedent that law enforcement can compel a product company create a non-existent product (no matter how trivial) in order to exploit a known security vulnerability in one of their products. I've said elsewhere that this argument seems to be useless. If Apple says it's "unreasonable" to expect them to do this, then they might be forced to hand over the source code, and the FBI will create it themself. The problem is 1. iOS is closed source and 2. iPhone requires a signature from Apple If Apple doesn't help them, they could conceivably be forced to simply hand the keys and code over. It's a benefit to Apple to be able to create it themselves and maintain control over the keys. >This is what concerns me and many others, because it brings us very short steps away from "make us a version that works against the Secure Enclave" to "make it work as an OTA update over WiFi" to then "make it work as an OTA update over cellular" All of these seem fine, assuming that Apple is not modifying the phones to make it easier to hack. In other words, I agree that they follow as direct precedent from this case. (Although they can decide to only update a phone after a proper warrant.) >make a version we can incorporate into a StingRay This is the part that doesn't follow from precedent. Giving over control of the tool to the FBI who could use it without a warrant is novel, and would require a judge to justify it. >In conclusion, we likely disagree, specifically due to my cynicism and your seeming lack thereof. Maybe I'm just more cynical than you. You worry about a future court doing the wrong thing because they're misled by precedent here, I'm worried about a future court doing the wrong thing just because. I don't think the risk goes up significantly based on this precedent, because I think it could happen anyway. >It's an improbable coincidence that the FBI has elected this particular charged case in which to stake their flag. Given their pleas with technology companies for cooperation over bypassing cryptography in recent months, this appears to be a logical continuation of that campaign. Pure tinfoil material here. Do you know of any cases where the FBI had a phone but didn't try to unlock it, that could be said to be as urgent as this? This isn't the only court case with Apple going on, it's merely the one that got a lot of attention, and certainly much of that attention is Apple's fault (not all, but a lot).
- schismsubv 11y ago
  > To argue against that, you'd need to claim that precedent makes it easier for the later court to fail. No, I'm arguing that incrementalism means the court doesn't have to fail (as a court) - the follow-on steps that I outlined and you found perfectly acceptable will not stop wherever you personally think they will, nor have I outlined (or even imagined) all the incrementally creative applications of this case that will likely follow. I'm also arguing (which you didn't counter) that this case lays the groundwork for the FBI to request _new_ products from companies. > This is the part that doesn't follow from precedent. Giving over control of the tool to the FBI who could use it without a warrant is novel, and would require a judge to justify it. I was being brief to illustrate, not to set a literal expectation of progression; I'm not here to present an argument for court. Giving the FBI control over the tool could be argued at any point in the very long lifetime of this decision, be it tomorrow or years from now. Perhaps after the courts have decided to allow for multiple devices or when suspect X is holed up for weeks in their cabin eating pizza and playing candy crush and the FBI cannot reach them by normal investigative means. > Pure tinfoil material here. Perhaps. Consider the probable value of the data on the phone beyond what's already available externally. Consider that the FBI could have simply requested Apple provide the data on the phone instead of specifying the mechanism and thereby creating precedent that they can compel a company to create something new. Consider that, in spite of generally dim views of the FBI's technical capabilities, the FBI usually provides sound, conservative advice with regard to electronic evidence (as a forensic analyst I've been party to a lot). Consider that over the past year+ the FBI has been protesting with little effect in congressional hearings that $todays_crime_buzzword are "going dark", that technology companies need to cooperate with them, that "securely insecure" (my words) systems are possible if created "at the design level" (not my words). They were nearly shouted down in those hearings. Consider the subsequent public visit the FBI and others made to Silicon Valley, extending an olive branch and returning effectively empty-handed. Then consider that this case, involving an older and still-vulnerable version of a technology the FBI has been warning about, suddenly falls into the FBI's lap. It's politically and emotionally charged, it involves terrorists - they can ask for the world and society will rubberstamp it "because terrorists." So the FBI asks for something small but very specific, and in doing so "happens" to set a precedent that they can compel companies to create a new product to bypass the very security measures they've been arguing vehemently against. Do you really think that's accidental?

ikeboy 11y ago

>I think you're applying some fairly strict high-mindedness to the US legal system while others (myself included) worry that creative extension of intent appears rampant in cases that touch on technology or terrorism and therefore fall into your second form. My main point related to this was above: >The only concern would seem to be if the future court fails to analyse a case properly. But they can fail regardless of what precedent is or is not set. To argue against that, you'd need to claim that precedent makes it easier for the later court to fail. Do you have examples, where it should have been clear that precedent didn't apply, yet the court reached the conclusion that it did, incorrectly? (Preferably in important cases.) >While the wording of this ruling is about one phone and a particular method the FBI has laid out, it appears to set precedent that law enforcement can compel a product company create a non-existent product (no matter how trivial) in order to exploit a known security vulnerability in one of their products. I've said elsewhere that this argument seems to be useless. If Apple says it's "unreasonable" to expect them to do this, then they might be forced to hand over the source code, and the FBI will create it themself. The problem is 1. iOS is closed source and 2. iPhone requires a signature from Apple If Apple doesn't help them, they could conceivably be forced to simply hand the keys and code over. It's a benefit to Apple to be able to create it themselves and maintain control over the keys. >This is what concerns me and many others, because it brings us very short steps away from "make us a version that works against the Secure Enclave" to "make it work as an OTA update over WiFi" to then "make it work as an OTA update over cellular" All of these seem fine, assuming that Apple is not modifying the phones to make it easier to hack. In other words, I agree that they follow as direct precedent from this case. (Although they can decide to only update a phone after a proper warrant.) >make a version we can incorporate into a StingRay This is the part that doesn't follow from precedent. Giving over control of the tool to the FBI who could use it without a warrant is novel, and would require a judge to justify it. >In conclusion, we likely disagree, specifically due to my cynicism and your seeming lack thereof. Maybe I'm just more cynical than you. You worry about a future court doing the wrong thing because they're misled by precedent here, I'm worried about a future court doing the wrong thing just because. I don't think the risk goes up significantly based on this precedent, because I think it could happen anyway. >It's an improbable coincidence that the FBI has elected this particular charged case in which to stake their flag. Given their pleas with technology companies for cooperation over bypassing cryptography in recent months, this appears to be a logical continuation of that campaign. Pure tinfoil material here. Do you know of any cases where the FBI had a phone but didn't try to unlock it, that could be said to be as urgent as this? This isn't the only court case with Apple going on, it's merely the one that got a lot of attention, and certainly much of that attention is Apple's fault (not all, but a lot).

schismsubv 11y ago
> To argue against that, you'd need to claim that precedent makes it easier for the later court to fail. No, I'm arguing that incrementalism means the court doesn't have to fail (as a court) - the follow-on steps that I outlined and you found perfectly acceptable will not stop wherever you personally think they will, nor have I outlined (or even imagined) all the incrementally creative applications of this case that will likely follow. I'm also arguing (which you didn't counter) that this case lays the groundwork for the FBI to request _new_ products from companies. > This is the part that doesn't follow from precedent. Giving over control of the tool to the FBI who could use it without a warrant is novel, and would require a judge to justify it. I was being brief to illustrate, not to set a literal expectation of progression; I'm not here to present an argument for court. Giving the FBI control over the tool could be argued at any point in the very long lifetime of this decision, be it tomorrow or years from now. Perhaps after the courts have decided to allow for multiple devices or when suspect X is holed up for weeks in their cabin eating pizza and playing candy crush and the FBI cannot reach them by normal investigative means. > Pure tinfoil material here. Perhaps. Consider the probable value of the data on the phone beyond what's already available externally. Consider that the FBI could have simply requested Apple provide the data on the phone instead of specifying the mechanism and thereby creating precedent that they can compel a company to create something new. Consider that, in spite of generally dim views of the FBI's technical capabilities, the FBI usually provides sound, conservative advice with regard to electronic evidence (as a forensic analyst I've been party to a lot). Consider that over the past year+ the FBI has been protesting with little effect in congressional hearings that $todays_crime_buzzword are "going dark", that technology companies need to cooperate with them, that "securely insecure" (my words) systems are possible if created "at the design level" (not my words). They were nearly shouted down in those hearings. Consider the subsequent public visit the FBI and others made to Silicon Valley, extending an olive branch and returning effectively empty-handed. Then consider that this case, involving an older and still-vulnerable version of a technology the FBI has been warning about, suddenly falls into the FBI's lap. It's politically and emotionally charged, it involves terrorists - they can ask for the world and society will rubberstamp it "because terrorists." So the FBI asks for something small but very specific, and in doing so "happens" to set a precedent that they can compel companies to create a new product to bypass the very security measures they've been arguing vehemently against. Do you really think that's accidental?