4 ms·

The question at hand is whether or not the DOJ can use the AWA to compel a company to weaken its product. It's unclear as yet whether the court will consider t

The question at hand is whether or not the DOJ can use the AWA to compel a company to weaken its product. It's unclear as yet whether the court will consider this too burdensome for Apple, or too expensive for the FBI to be able to reimburse Apple for any costs. Apple's argument is that this will set a precedent, and the FBI will ask to unlock many phones in the future, possibly even to the point of preventing Apple from creating a phone that is not unlockable. Further, that the creation of the proposed hack will by its very nature put the whole iPhone ecosystem at risk if and when it gets out into the wild. The more requests that the FBI makes, the more people Apple will need to train to service such requests, and the more risk that there is a leak. The analogy here, although dramatic, would be the atom bomb. Hillary even alluded to the need for a Manhattan-like project to circumvent encryption, although I don't think she thought that would be received as a bad thing. The FBI's argument is that they're only asking Apple to unlock a single iPhone. The DOJ is unwilling to comment on how many iPhones law enforcement across the country would like to use this on, and defers to local officials to answer that question. They are pretending to focus on this one phone while knowing full well the value of what they're after. They wouldn't call up the AWA for a single phone. Obama is unwilling to draw up legislation with congress about this issue given the nature of the public's attitude about mass surveillance, particularly during an election year. They're probably terrified this issue would fracture the public vote and then there's no telling who we will elect as the next President. So, they directed the FBI to use the AWA.

exodust 11y ago
I'm aware of all that, your summary wasn't needed, and is lacking your personal opinion! "I think" is not a bad thing to say once in a while. I'll take a guess that your position is identical to Apple's recent letter on the matter. I think Apple should help unlock these phones, with the condition that such help may be impossible in future versions of the OS. Who wouldn't want future versions of iOS to prevent these requests from being possible even with Apple's intervention? How that can be achieved I don't know. Perhaps some fancy new hardware chip that kills the phone at any sign of tampering. I'd vote for that, most people would, but the FBI would hate it. The crucial point is getting as much of the public on side as possible. Most people would support increased security and privacy measures for their phones. They would feel threatened by legislation denying Apple or others the right to improve security for customers, meaning such legislation would unlikely pass. By fighting this current situation, Apple are putting themselves in an awkward situation of "not helping criminal investigation" which is not easy to get everyone on side if you're not being helpful. It's a bit like chess, and Apple might have done better to make their move at a later time, first helping with these iPhones, then shutting the door on that option in later OS releases. "Sorry, it's encrypted inside and out, no way in, that's how good the security is, because that's what our customers wanted" would be impressive, and hard to defeat with new legislation. So Apple should comply now, and make a better chess move later. I could be wrong, but that's what I think for now :)
- studentrob 11y ago
  > I'm aware of all that Was your original question rhetorical? In case it wasn't clear by my summary, no, we should not be satisfied with a longer passphrase. We should be concerned about the precedent-setting nature of this case. > your summary wasn't needed This is an open discussion. Nobody's forcing you to read my summary. > "I think" is not a bad thing to say once in a while. I think that is implied by the fact that I wrote all that. Anything that I haven't cited is my personal take on the issues. > I think Apple should help unlock these phones, with the condition that such help may be impossible in future versions of the OS Nobody believes the FBI will adhere to this condition. They can always change their minds down the road. > It's a bit like chess It is like chess, you're right. The move has been made and the hand removed from the piece. Time to act, carpe diem. The best thing to do now is educate people about encryption and potentially make this an election issue at some point in the future. Right now the public has nothing to do with this case. It's going to be decided in a court among experts, lawyers and judges. > Apple should comply now, and make a better chess move later That's fine, it's your opinion. I disagree, and would add that now is the right time to take a stand while this is in the public spotlight. It will take time to educate the public about encryption and we might as well start now. Compelling Apple to circumvent its own security will make us less safe. There is a black market where exploits are bought by intelligence communities, and if Apple creates this exploit, there's a chance it will fall into the wrong hands.

exodust 11y ago

I'm aware of all that, your summary wasn't needed, and is lacking your personal opinion! "I think" is not a bad thing to say once in a while. I'll take a guess that your position is identical to Apple's recent letter on the matter. I think Apple should help unlock these phones, with the condition that such help may be impossible in future versions of the OS. Who wouldn't want future versions of iOS to prevent these requests from being possible even with Apple's intervention? How that can be achieved I don't know. Perhaps some fancy new hardware chip that kills the phone at any sign of tampering. I'd vote for that, most people would, but the FBI would hate it. The crucial point is getting as much of the public on side as possible. Most people would support increased security and privacy measures for their phones. They would feel threatened by legislation denying Apple or others the right to improve security for customers, meaning such legislation would unlikely pass. By fighting this current situation, Apple are putting themselves in an awkward situation of "not helping criminal investigation" which is not easy to get everyone on side if you're not being helpful. It's a bit like chess, and Apple might have done better to make their move at a later time, first helping with these iPhones, then shutting the door on that option in later OS releases. "Sorry, it's encrypted inside and out, no way in, that's how good the security is, because that's what our customers wanted" would be impressive, and hard to defeat with new legislation. So Apple should comply now, and make a better chess move later. I could be wrong, but that's what I think for now :)

studentrob 11y ago
> I'm aware of all that Was your original question rhetorical? In case it wasn't clear by my summary, no, we should not be satisfied with a longer passphrase. We should be concerned about the precedent-setting nature of this case. > your summary wasn't needed This is an open discussion. Nobody's forcing you to read my summary. > "I think" is not a bad thing to say once in a while. I think that is implied by the fact that I wrote all that. Anything that I haven't cited is my personal take on the issues. > I think Apple should help unlock these phones, with the condition that such help may be impossible in future versions of the OS Nobody believes the FBI will adhere to this condition. They can always change their minds down the road. > It's a bit like chess It is like chess, you're right. The move has been made and the hand removed from the piece. Time to act, carpe diem. The best thing to do now is educate people about encryption and potentially make this an election issue at some point in the future. Right now the public has nothing to do with this case. It's going to be decided in a court among experts, lawyers and judges. > Apple should comply now, and make a better chess move later That's fine, it's your opinion. I disagree, and would add that now is the right time to take a stand while this is in the public spotlight. It will take time to educate the public about encryption and we might as well start now. Compelling Apple to circumvent its own security will make us less safe. There is a black market where exploits are bought by intelligence communities, and if Apple creates this exploit, there's a chance it will fall into the wrong hands.