5 ms·
Would it be a reasonable compromise for the FBI to turn the phone over to Apple, allow Apple to access the data using whatever method it deems necessary, transf
by jasonlaramburu 11y ago
Would it be a reasonable compromise for the FBI to turn the phone over to Apple, allow Apple to access the data using whatever method it deems necessary, transfer whatever data is recovered to the FBI and then destroy the phone along with any custom FW Apple had to develop in the process?
- CocaKoala 11y agoHow can the FBI verify that the data they get from Apple is the same data that was on the phone?
- jasonlaramburu 11y agoThey would have to trust that Apple is acting in good faith. I can't see any incentive or reason for Apple to falsify the data. They already provided the most recent iCloud backup in good faith.
- CocaKoala 11y agoLet's say they try to convict somebody based on data from the phone. "Your honor, it's a known fact that my client has had a long-standing adversarial relationship with Jack Smith, an employee at Apple. Jack Smith's motive and opportunity to frame my client by falsifying data in this case provides clear reasonable doubt of my client's guilt." Additionally, let's say they destroy the phone. How can you establish that the evidence hasn't been tampered with after the fact? It's not like you can go pull the files again, the phone has been destroyed. So now you're not only trusting that a) Apple provided the right data, you're trusting that b) the FBI hasn't tampered with the data to frame somebody.
- jasonlaramburu 11y agoThe suspects in this case are dead.
- CocaKoala 11y agoI was addressing the hypothetical case of the FBI attempting to prosecute somebody based on the data recovered from the phone.
- carbocation 11y agoOne of the strengths of Apple's arguments is that they do not have software that the government is trying to compel them to provide. The government compelling the creative act of making this software is not something that has occurred under the All Writs Act previously, as far as I am aware, so this would set precedent. Once the software is already created, it is, at worst, just a question of getting the timing right for the next request in order to make such an order (to provide software to assist in the unlocking of phones) merely ordinary. Aside from some arcana, what you are proposing is equivalent to the FBI's position, which I think many here disagree with.
- jasonlaramburu 11y agoNot exactly. My understanding is that the FBI wishes for the phone in question to remain within FBI custody at all times, which makes it more likely that any custom FW Apple develops could be leaked or replicated. What I propose (obviously a compromise) is for everything (FW creation, brute force attack, download of data) to occur within Apple's custody, network, and for Apple to then destroy the phone. Apple would not even need to disclose publicly how they accessed the data on the phone.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- harryh 11y agoThat's actually what the FBI is asking for in this case (except for the destroying the phone part). They aren't after control of the modified software themselves they just want the data from this one particular phone.
- jasonlaramburu 11y agoMy understanding is that they still want the actual brute force attack of the phone to occur within FBI custody. Apple could easily do that in-house, inside their own network and then share the data with the FBI.