18 ms·

Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

888 points by sbuk 11y ago

wheaties 11y ago
Wow, so brilliant to have Bill Gates so he's pro-government intrusion and then the company back Apple. Update: This was not meant to troll. I fell for the mis-attributed quotes to Bill and thought he actually backed the FBI. I stand corrected.
- mtgx 11y ago
  I think they're only backing it now because of the backlash against Gates. They sure took their sweet time, either way.
  - fluxquanta 11y ago
    >They sure took their sweet time, either way. Did they? Do we need to know every company's opinion on every controversial issue related to their business immediately?
    - snuxoll 11y ago
      Large enterprises are also not startups, they don't get to have the CEO publish a blog post within an hour of news like this. PR departments are careful to craft messages and narratives, shareholder value needs to be protected, and legal bases need to be covered.
- runjake 11y ago
  It looks like you're probably just trying to troll, but to head off additional discussion: Gates has some stuff mis-attributed to him and the very next day after initial reports, Gates disputed reports that he backs the FBI in the Apple dispute: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-02-23/gates-disputes-report-that-he-backs-fbi-in-apple-dispute http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-02-23/gates-disput... A better troll might've pointed out the disparity between Microsoft supporting Apple's stances and the circumstantial evidence that seems to indicate that Microsoft actively worked with the NSA to backdoor its services (Outlook.com, Skype, etc)
  - themartorana 11y ago
    Maybe Microsoft would like the precedent set in favor of Apple so they can use it against overly intrusive requests for back doors in their products in the future. They may have acquiesced but that doesn't mean they liked it.
  - codys 11y ago
    Gates disputed those reports, but he never states he doesn't support the FBI in this case. I think the key take away from that video is: > Gates: With the right safe guards in place there are cases where the government, on our behalf [...] He also dodges the direct question about his position entirely. He's not trying to make his position very clear, but he is certainly angling to support the FBI's position. Lots of references to terrorism in that interview. Edit: from a PR perspective, this does make a lot of sense for MS: use a board member/someone closely associated with them to probe the public's position, then give the public some assurance to ensure they don't all leave for Apple, while at the same time allowing the state to see that MS's support of Apple in this case isn't concrete.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  Also Gates consults with Microsoft occasionally and is a large stakeholder but that does not mean Gates speaks for Microsoft, or that Microsoft speaks for Gates. In fact, they disagree pretty regularly.
  - quux 11y ago
    He's on the board of directors, which is a bit more involvement than "consulting occasionally." I remember reading that he spends 1-2 days a week working on Microsoft business. That was around the time when Ballmer was leaving and Satya Nadella was taking his place so it may have been a particularly busy time.
    - FussyZeus 11y ago
      I think that was more for the CEO transition stage than a permanent thing but I could be wrong.
  - tdicola 11y ago
    He's a member of their board of directors and for a time was even the head of it. The board has more control than even the CEO so it's safe to say Gates is speaking for the company.
    - nikanj 11y ago
      More power, less control
    - chirau 11y ago
      Was Marc Andreesen speaking on behalf of Facebook when he made those remarks about India the other day? No. Neither was Bill Gates speaking for Microsoft.
    - oldmanjay 11y ago
      While it's your freedom to hold an opinion that is contrary to factual reality, I'm not sure how useful it is. What does it help you to misapprehend that Bill Gates is a spokesman for Microsoft?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ComputerGuru 11y ago
Notice how the headline makes sure to specify "over terrorist's phone" and not "over user privacy" or "against federal conscription by the FBI." Take a second and re-read the headline. What does it say? To me, it spells out Microsoft joins Apple to back terrorist's privacy against the FBI. The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor. And the media isn't helping. Edit: In case it wasn't clear, I think it's actually disingenuous to mention the word "terrorist" in the headline at all. Nothing about why Apple is resisting (which is the crux of this news cycle) has to do with the fact that they are, bizarrely, fighting for this (dead) user (who is undeniably a madman murderer and potentially a terrorist)'s right to privacy. Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and everyone here in the comments isn't defending this person's right to privacy. It's 100% about the principle and the precedent and it's a million times about the future users and nothing to do with this horrible person. For that reason, it's unfair (in fact, you could call it purposeful misrepresentation) to say that they are against the FBI unlocking "terrorist's phone" or defending the "terrorist's privacy" in any way. What they are doing, if one excludes self-interest, is protecting the principle for everyone else out there.
- matthewmcg 11y ago
  Also that this is an order under the All Writs Act and not a search warrant. If I had a nickel for every time this is described in the press as Apple resisting a "warrant" or a "subpoena" I'd be able to make a seven figure donation to the EFF!
  - rayiner 11y ago
    The order was issued to effectuate a search warrant for the phone: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-O....
    - matthewmcg 11y ago
      Right, but Apple's not challenging the warrant, they're challenging the related order.
M1ntos123 11y ago
I totally agree.
mythz 11y ago
From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about: "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Industry vs FBI", not what the US Govt is trying to set the narrative to: "Apple protecting Terrorism". With this announcement this brings us to: - Apple - Twitter - Yahoo - Facebook / WhatsApp - Microsoft - Google (Sundar lukewarm) Big technology companies with large user bases that's notably missing: - Amazon - Linked In
- bobwaycott 11y ago
  > "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." That's far too long and complicated for average citizens to parse and grasp implications immediately and intuitively. The second half of your question veers heavily into leading a person toward the conclusion you want them to have. Not ideal. Moreover, I think an average poll responder would get confused by the second half of the question as you've phrased it. Perhaps try to phrase it like a simple headline or poll question that gets to the heart of the matter: "Should government be able to force companies to change or disable your passwords?" Here, I think, you have a much greater chance of grabbing the attention of the casual onlooker. Admittedly, it's a mostly true statement of the core issue here, while leveraging the need to hook a reader at a glance. An article/reporter/anchor can dive deep into the case particulars or not, cover and present its view of what's at stake in asking the question, include discussion of a "right to security" that may or may not be enjoyed by companies and individuals. But you want citizens to immediately grok what you're asking, and be able to, on their own, extrapolate possible implications that matter to them. This is going to be far more powerful in getting people to invest themselves in the issue--they must be able to imagine, see, understand that what's at stake could affect them. The first half of the battle is this: You've got to get people to fucking care. And you can't get them there if you confuse or lose them at the start.
  - scrollaway 11y ago
Theodores 11y ago
The tech industry seems to be a bit like Hollywood in how it supports the military industrial complex - the pendulum swings between 'pro-totalitarianism' (where everyone signs up the the Patriot Act of the day without hesitation) and something more 'pro-democratic' (when a Snowden type situation comes along and freedom stuff gains traction). In a way we are lucky that money talks in the U.S.A., it allows for this dynamic. If too much 'totalitarianism' hurts the bottom line then things get pushed back a bit and the noose loosens a bit. All the government needs is another big polarizing incident and I am sure Microsoft will be back doing as much of the government's dirty work as possible.
- intrasight 11y ago
  I don't think it as much "money" as it is "power". "money" unfortunately seems to have no opinion on this case. If it did, we see more wealthy people chiming in. However, Apple is a very powerful player - not only in the tech community but in the global cultural context. They rarely wield this power in that larger context. I am glad they are doing so in this case. Microsoft is a bit too late the user security game. Since they don't make their own CPUs, they can't play in the same league.
- studentrob 11y ago
  > In a way we are lucky that money talks in the U.S.A. Money talks, but votes are king. When we collectively vote a politician out of office, his or her money dries up. In a way, votes are made more powerful by money. Check out This American Life's episode on "Take the Money and Run for Office" [1] Dick Durbin: I think most Americans would be shocked-- not surprised, but shocked-- if they knew how much time a United States senator spends raising money. And how much time we spend talking about raising money, and thinking about raising money, and planning to raise money. And, you know, going off on little retreats and conjuring up new ideas on how to raise money. [2] ... Barney Frank: If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district. [2] [1] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t... [2] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/transcript http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...
Aoyagi 11y ago
This reminds me of China condemning Russia's annexation of Crimea. I wonder why is that.
Zigurd 11y ago
It's still a muddle, and the tendentious Bloomberg headline does not help. Microsoft's position is extremely cautious, but they had to side with Apple because opening the "all writs" can of worms to compel software creation and signing binaries is going to jack up law enforcement compliance costs to unlimited levels. Gates, in the quote in the article, is also, still, trying to have it both ways: “The extreme view that government always gets everything, nobody supports that. Having the government be blind, people don’t support that.” Evidently he thinks conditional privacy is sufficient and that the issue can be separated from encryption bans and an "all writs" model that compels new things to be created at the whim of FBI agents.
tintor 11y ago
Trump will now have to boycott Apple, Google, FB and Microsoft.
- dcvuob 11y ago
  If only Twitter joined them.
  - mythz 11y ago
    They were the first to show strong support: https://twitter.com/jack/status/700457149227360256 https://twitter.com/jack/status/700457149227360256
- potatolicious 11y ago
  Is it even possible to tweet without touching products from any of the above companies? I guess Trump will have to buy one of the discontinued BB10 devices...
  - danieldk 11y ago
    Hey, our prime minister (Mark Rutte) still uses a Nokia from the pre-smartphone age.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Finally! Somebody rooting for Free Software!
- pjmorris 11y ago
  Trump/RMS 2016!
betimsl 11y ago
Isn't Microsoft who built PRISM?
bobmoretti 11y ago
One thing that I can't help thinking about in all of this... would Apple have contested this case had the Snowden leaks never occurred?
- glhaynes 11y ago
  No quote from Apple itself, of course, but: Former CIA Agent Says Edward Snowden Revelations Emboldened Apple to Push Back Against FBI: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/25/former_cia_agent_says_edward_snowden http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/25/former_cia_agent_says_...
- studentrob 11y ago
  Yes. But it wouldn't have been in the public sphere. It would have happened behind closed doors like what happened to Yahoo in 2008 (which we didn't find out about until 2014). And in the secret court, my guess is Apple loses. Law enforcement would get what it wants because privacy advocates only seem to exist in the public. Although many are saying this will be decided in court, the public opinion matters a lot here. We sway action in government through our votes. Thankfully this time we have a say in the matter.
tashkent 11y ago
Hmm I'm confused, so is FBI asking to unlock just this terrorist's phone or setup a backdoor to all iPhones? If they are asking to unlock only this terrorists phone I don't see why Apple should be fighting a case over this.
- ThrustVectoring 11y ago
  The FBI is asking Apple to build a tool to backdoor this particular iPhone. Once the tool is built, it gets much easier for them to ask Apple to use it on other phones. "We'll only ask for it this one time, honest" isn't a believable promise - Apple winds up with a much less defensible position later, since they already have the tools necessary.
  - corysama 11y ago
    "The FBI has asked Apple to crack at least 17 devices since October" http://mashable.com/2016/02/23/fbi-apple-requests/ http://mashable.com/2016/02/23/fbi-apple-requests/
- bobbles 11y ago
  Think of it more like going to a company that builds safes. Not asking them to blow the door open, but invent some magical safe breaking tool (that has never existed) and would then allow them to open whatever safe they want. Nevermind the fact that the point the safe company success relied on trust that you cannot break into their safes in any way.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
widforss 11y ago
How far could the FBI use this case as a precedent if it goes through? Could they demand to get stuff signed and put on Canonicals repos? Could they demand to get a MS-signed EFI? Or could this case just be used as a precedent in cases that clearly only involved one (1) specific device?
- studentrob 11y ago
  Nobody knows. That would be for the unelected judge to decide, which is what makes this all so scary.
w8rbt 11y ago
I predict that Apple will win big and that their victory will be very public and greatly celebrated. The purpose of this public display is to convince criminals to buy iPhones. They think they are safe. That's the whole point.
dcw303 11y ago
This just makes the Gates story even stranger. Did the FT misquote him because they're incompetent, or do they have an ulterior motive at play?
- sah2ed 11y ago
  It was stated at the end of the Bloomberg article that Bill Gates' position on the issue was misreported: Earlier this week, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates told Bloomberg Television he was “disappointed” by reports that he supports the U.S. government in this dispute, saying it doesn’t accurately reflect his opinion. “That doesn’t state my view on this,” he said in an interview on “Bloomberg Go.” “The extreme view that government always gets everything, nobody supports that. Having the government be blind, people don’t support that.”
  - imron 11y ago
    Note that the article doesn't actually go on to clarify or accurately state what his opinion is.
    - devhead 11y ago
      http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3559f46e-d9c5-11e5-98fd-06d75973fe09.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3559f46e-d9c5-11e5-98fd-06d75973fe...
      - imron 11y ago
        Sure, but then he's saying he was misrepresented by that? So do the quoted questions and answers written on that page accurately represent what Gates said, because if they do, then although he might not be 'siding with the government', it seems he sees nothing problematic with the government making this sort of request, either in compelling Apple to produce a version of iOS that will allow for brute-forcing, or in this case setting any sort of precedent for what the government can ask companies to do via the All Writs Act. Actually, if the quotes in that article are accurate, it seems that Gates doesn't understand the issue at all, specifically: > Apple has access to the information. They’re just refusing to provide the access and the courts will tell them whether to provide the access or not Which is not the case here. Apple doesn't have access to the information and they will need to build a customised and security-compromised version of iOS in order to allow the FBI to attempt to retrieve that information.
teambob 11y ago
I thought it was an alleged terrorist's phone? Or has innocent until proven guilty gone out the window?
- dcvuob 11y ago
  Terrorists cannot be innocent. /s
- tajen 11y ago
  Good point. "terrorist" is almost always misused anyway, since no-one fears to be blown up tomorrow in the US. The only thing to fear is the power of the government, its officers and the low-level education of their thugs. The thugs with the law on their side are the ones who currently reign with terror, not like terrorists, but like Nazi law enforcement officers in 1936. Wow. I might have escalated quickly, but I'll leave it here to see what you people think.
- roywiggins 11y ago
  "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a criminal trial. The man in question died in a shootout with police; he will never be proven guilty, because you can't put a dead man on trial. You can't libel or defame a dead man, from the point of view of the law. There has to be a point where media can call someone a terrorist short of conviction in a court of law. You can argue that that point hasn't been reached in this case, but there has to be a point, since otherwise we'd have to call Bin Laden an "alleged terrorist."
  - switch007 11y ago
    As a very general comment as I do not know anything about the San Bernardino case, I think we need to apply extreme caution when using the word "terrorist" because of extreme, far-reaching legislation based on the broad definition of terrorism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Acts#List_of_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Acts#List_of_legisla...
Zenst 11y ago
If you ask yourself if the contents of the phone could reasonably aid in saving other lives and bring about justice for those lost, then many would without a doubt say yes, make it public. Equally if it was some politicians emails then would they equally be happy for Apple to deny access being another question you could ask with many comming up different perspective of reply if you just ask the question about privacy. Privacy is important but as with any rule, there has too be exceptions and I would say clear lives at stake would be one case. But equaly the way things work and setting precidence, I can totally understand Apples and those supporting it's stance as the way things work in law is once the door is open, its a lot harder to close it. If better prevision without blanket abuse and a case by case basis could be approved and not set some blanket level of privacy abuse then again many would be happier. Alas it is the way the government has approached this in that they would be in effect given a way that could be used with this but any other such devices at no need to even speak with Apple that is the real crux I feel. We agree terroisim and indeed impacting others life spans is not the types of crimes we want hiding behind encryption or law, be that individuals or goverments themselves. But in a World in which such terroisim definitions and associated laws have and are being used on a scale and definition that trancends what a terroist is, then the element of suspicion and mistrust on the use of the term to jsutify any law or action comes more and more under public scrutiny and concerns of how it will be abused more than it should. So an area that is very much dammed if you do and potential dammed if you do no equally. But for now Apple as others equally say are making the right moves, albeit II hope a fair and acceptable compromise is established and no blanket precedence that does more harm than good goes thru.
SEJeff 11y ago
Much to the FBI's chagrin, the Whitehouse agrees with Apple, which is a great sign that someone in this country is sane: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/obama-wont-seek-access-to-encrypted-user-data.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/obama-wont-see...
- studentrob 11y ago
  I don't think that's accurate to say. The White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in his briefing a day or two ago that the administration backs Comey's efforts. US attorney general Loretta Lynch said she backs Comey too. Obama is the only one who hasn't made a public statement about this issue. Chain of command, by the way, is Obama > Lynch > Comey. They're certainly in communication and agreement about this issue. You might think Obama would feel differently given his rebuke of China last year for attempting to set the same kind of precedent. But no, he fails to see the similarity. It's scary. The highest ranking official who understands this issue is Ted Lieu.
  - Laaw 11y ago
    > The highest ranking official who understands this issue is Ted Lieu. You mean the highest ranking official who agrees with us. It's easy to see how, if you trust the US judicial system, you'd be okay with this. If you think warrants are only given in valid and justified situations, this wouldn't bother you, because this'd only be used for "good". We know better, but that's probably not the position the head of one of the branches of government (and a scholar of the highest law of the judicial branch, even) finds himself in. Obama probably very much trusts the US justice system.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      > You mean the highest ranking official who agrees with us Yup that's what I meant. > Obama probably very much trusts the US justice system Hmm, Obama certainly wants Apple to comply here. However, he has no power to sway the justices. Obama didn't want to go to congress for a new law surrounding this issue, and seems to have directed Comey to use the AWA. Obama hasn't said why he didn't go to congress. It seems like he wants to set precedent while acting like it's only for this one phone. Pretty sneaky if that's the case. Personally I trust our right to express our views both in speech and through our votes. I trust that elected officials can represent those of us who voted and wish to be represented. The problem is we have not yet elected enough people who understand computers. And, that's not entirely our fault. It's a new field and there are not many people with exposure to it who can represent our views.
godgod 11y ago
Microsoft = NSA so this is no suprise.
karmacondon 11y ago
I have a question for the lawyers on HN. Why doesn't the judge in the case hold Apple in contempt of court until they modify the OS, in the same way they would hold a reporter in contempt until they revealed a source? In both cases, you have a third party who is being compelled to assist an investigation against their will. My only guess is that there is a precedent set for reporters, but not for computer programmers.
- jat850 11y ago
  I think at best, the judge could hold corporate officers in contempt, not any individual computer programmer or developer. However, given Apple's stance, they would likely respond to the contempt order in a similar way they are now: accrue the fines, don't pay them, appeal as high as it takes to have this ruling overturned. I'm not a lawyer, at all. But my guess would be that if Apple reached a point in court where the original ruling was overturned, the contempt penalties would be invalidated.
- icebraining 11y ago
  IANAL, that said, at the end of the order, it says "To the extent that Apple believes that compliance with this Order would be unreasonably burdensome, it may make application to this Court for relief within five business days of receipt of the Order." Since Apple has presented such an application, they are now supposed to return to court next month to argue their position.
  - jat850 11y ago
    I think that doesn't speak to the expansiveness of Apple's response. It's my understanding that the burden to undertake this effort being excessive is only one of their grounds for argument. They are additionally arguing that it violates free speech principles, and also that the request goes beyond their initial compliance efforts to aid in the investigation to fringing on violating Fifth Amendment principles by asking them to go above and beyond the simple compliance. To my untrained eyes, they're basically saying that instead of having a key and being asked to turn over the key, and doing so - they're being asked to devote efforts to create an entirely new key that would unlock many or all doors. Which could then be used in many other unrelated "need to open the door" situations.
obrero 11y ago
Harry Shearer did an excellent mini-series three years ago called "Nixon's the One". It's just a verbatim reenactment of conversations from Nixon's tapes ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9HtoWea72A&list=RDf9HtoWea72A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9HtoWea72A&list=RDf9HtoWea7... ). There is more than one scene where Nixon talks about how he wants to get rid of J. Edgar Hoover but can't. In another the Attorney General calls FBI agents "the Gestapo". It reminded me of another tape - a phone conversation LBJ recorded of him talking to another Attorney General - Robert Kennedy. Kennedy talks about how his subordinate, Hoover, was not only not taking orders from him, but was having agents monitoring, writing reports and spreading disinformation about him ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVHnkIPGC6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVHnkIPGC6M ). Forget the FBI monitoring non-violent political figures like Martin Luther King Jr., or Vietnam peace groups - presidents and their attorney generals began to fear their power. The Church committee was supposed to fix this, but it was stonewalled in many ways, and by the 1980s we saw the FBI revive these political witchhunts again against groups like CISPES, and even groups run by Catholic nuns concerned about the rapes and killings of Catholic nuns in Central America.
forgotmypassw 11y ago
Nothing but a PR stunt.
- logn 11y ago
  At least we've come full circle on PR. Capitalism does often respond to consumer wishes. I tend to think the money I spend is the biggest 'vote' I have in this country. Besides, Apple was notably missing in the PRISM program during Jobs' reign. I'm not as negative on Apple as some other companies.
d0m 11y ago
Couldn't Apple give the data of the terrorist's phone without creating a backdoor? I.e. making it an exceptional case rather than something that could easily be done again and again? To be clear, I'm against the backdoor, but as an engineer I know that Apple could give the data back if they wanted. I guess it's bad PR from them to say so though. I'm also very surprised at how transparent the FBI is about their incapacity at cracking the phone. Or maybe this is also just for PR reasons and the phone is already cracked?
- mythz 11y ago
  > To be clear, I'm against the backdoor, but as an engineer I know that Apple could give the data back if they wanted. What do you know? How are you suggesting they can extract encrypted data that requires a passcode to decrypt when no existing version of iOS allows electronic brute forcing? Tim's already attested that they don't know any other way to access the data: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-cook-iphone-cracking-software/story?id=37173343 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-coo...
  - d0m 11y ago
    What does it even mean "Cancer software"? Seems like PR bullshit to me. I've got a hard time believing that Apple can't crack their own phone. To be clear, do they mean that THIS phone is impossible to crack? I guess the part I don't understand is how creating a backdoor for THIS phone makes it so that ALL users would get a backdoor..? Couldn't they push the software just to that phone for exceptional reasons? If the FBI wants to get other phones opened, they'd have to get a court order by the law and that would be handled on a case by case basis. Similarly to how the FBI could get a court order to come in my house if they suspect criminal activities? (Edited for clarity)
    - mythz 11y ago
      > What does that even mean "Cancer software"? Seems like PR bullshit to me. Tim's addressing the wider public (i.e. not tech professionals) and explains what he means in context, i.e. its bad software, something they would never write or should ever be forced to write. > I've got a hard time believing that apple can't crack their own phone. You've said you know they can and are now saying you don't believe that they can't. So how exactly should they decrypt encrypted data without the pass code it was encrypted with? > do they mean that THIS phone is impossible to crack, but that would let other phones be crackable in the future? No, it's been stated a number of times including being written in the Court Order that they can create a new version of iOS without software protections that allows the FBI to brute force the pass code electronically. This is the whole premise of the legal precedent, whether or not the FBI can compel Apple to write software that doesn't yet exist to create a new version of iOS with a backdoor that the FBI can exploit. But they wont be able to do this with future iPhone's that are hardware protected by the secure enclave.
ljk 11y ago
Aren't Microsoft working with NSA? is this just a publicity stunt?
- SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago
  Are you implying that Apple, Facebook, and Google aren't?
  - ljk 11y ago
    The skeptic in my wants to say they all are, but everyone is praising Apple for some reason
Johnny555 11y ago
Google has been awfully silent about the whole thing, how secure are Android phones (Nexus phones in particular) against a similar attack? I'm wondering if they are so easy to crack that this hasn't been a problem for Google. Either that, or their phones are just as secure as iPhones, and they caved to FBI demands immediately.
- mythz 11y ago
  Definitely tepid, only visible response from Sundar's tweets: https://twitter.com/sundarpichai/status/700104298600886272 https://twitter.com/sundarpichai/status/700104298600886272
- danieldk 11y ago
  I found this surprising as well. There is some information in this article: https://itsecuritything.com/google-nexus-6p-security-teardown/ https://itsecuritything.com/google-nexus-6p-security-teardow... To be honest, I think for non-Nexus phones, the situation is pretty bad. Even if a device vendor would not cooperate, security updates are so glacial (if they happen at all) that a state actor probably won't have much trouble finding attack vectors. (I am pretty frustrated by the lack of updates for my Moto X. Motorola used to be pretty good at is. Now I have Marshmallow, but they didn't roll out any security updates beyond November. It seems that they just want to tick off the Marshmallow box and that's it.)
multinglets 11y ago
So there's an encrypted blob. The way you input a password has nothing to do with that blob or the encryption that was used to create it. The argument that this would be some kind of cryptographic back door seems a little specious to me, and I'm usually the biggest edgelord imaginable when it comes to decrying government surveillance. If we were talking about a safe somewhere, and the government asked the safe manufacturer to create a physical device that makes it easier to open existing safes, that would not seem reasonable to me, but it also would be ludicrous to claim that represents a "back door." If that's a back door, then the back door already existed. So in Apple's case, the government says "we need the data out of this device" and that's apparently a solvable problem. Can someone please remind me why it's so cut and dry for Apple to just say "no" and that's supposed to be OK?
- studentrob 11y ago
  > If we were talking about a safe somewhere This has been discussed. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11178475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11178475
- dapearce 11y ago
  1) It's a backdoor because it's software, not a physical device like your example. They are not asking them to make a robot finger to push the buttons. It's not only more trivial to unlock the device, it's significantly more likely the software is copied and leaked into malicious hands. 2) The outrage, in my opinion, is much more about your exact example -- that Apple is being compelled to develop this software themselves. That they are being legally required to weaken the value of their own product.
  - multinglets 11y ago
    > 1) It's a backdoor because it's software, not a physical device like your example. They are not asking them to make a robot finger to push the buttons. It's not only more trivial to unlock the device, it's significantly more likely the software is copied and leaked into malicious hands. If I wanted to get into my neighbors house, and I had some way to compel a construction crew to come install a new door in that house so I can walk through it, that would not mean houses now have back doors. That would be a very disingenuous way of putting it. "But what if the software is copied" is the only argument that holds any weight, and I don't find it very convincing. If the "copyability" of sensitive software/data is such a huge concern, then we should probably start asking how we intend to survive as a species. > 2) The outrage, in my opinion, is much more about your exact example -- that Apple is being compelled to develop this software themselves. That they are being legally required to weaken the value of their own product. Perhaps, but that's not what Tim Cook is saying.
chishaku 11y ago
What's the worst that could happen for any of these companies or their senior executives if they refuse to cooperate? Most corporate criminal penalties we hear about these days have become minor costs of doing business. And it's not like the olden days where senior execs often ended up in jail for corporate wrongdoing.[0] The largest monetary criminal penalty I could find after a quick search was the 2013 settlement between JP Morgan and the Justice Department for $13 billion.[1] That's about 25% of Apple's net income last year, hardly a death sentence. EDIT: I am not a lawyer so I'd appreciate any insight on this question. [0]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/business/in-corporate-crimes-individual-accountability-is-elusive.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/business/in-corporate-crim... [1]: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/06/23/a-list-of-the-biggest-bank-settlements/ http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/06/23/a-list-of-the-bigg...
- callmeed 11y ago
  Why do you assume the penalty would only be monetary?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - odbol_ 11y ago
    Who would they throw in jail? Tim Cook? Continuing on down the line until Apple has 0 employees?
    - regecks 11y ago
      At some point Apple will act to protect their own employees...
      - danieldk 11y ago
        I am not sure how realistic this is, but couldn't they move relevant parts of their business overseas? E.g., hardware and software development still happens in the US, but updates are vetted and signed by a separate entity in a privacy-friendly country? The US could block iPhone sales, though I think the probability of that happening is extremely low, since it would have a major economic impact.
kungfooman 11y ago
Plot twist: US companies and the US gov play a game whose only goal is to reestablish lost trust since Snowden to make more $$$ again and sell more hardware with US backdoors again.
huuu 11y ago
This is all great but one thing bothers me: they still apply to some government requests to give some data [1]. I know that adding a backdoor is different, but why not also protect for example emails on a server? http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/ http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests...
Aoyagi 11y ago
Let's see, what's worse... Giving access to data in supposedly limited cases to an authority that's supposed to do it for the protection of the people, or; sell the data to numerous third parties, who further make money of the data, while there's absolutely no assurance the data isn't bought by the aforementioned authority anyway?
ck2 11y ago
Hey look, they took the fear-mongering word "terrorist" out of the headline. There's hope after all.
GnarfGnarf 11y ago
The whole Apple/FBI fracas is about promoting smartphones as the centre of our universe: the confluence of medical, financial, and all other personal information. If Apple can convince us that smartphones are secure, there are lucrative opportunities for smartphone technology to become ubiquitous and pervasive in our lives. Unfortunately, it will always be necessary for law enforcement to have access to bad guys' stuff. The Fourth Amendment guarantees your privacy, but police can break down your door and seize your financial and medical records if they have reasonable grounds to suspect you. Why should your smartphone be different? The smartphone is not an inalienable right. We are confusing convenience with fundamental rights; technology with entitlement. If you don't trust your smartphone to be impregnable, then guess what? Don't put your medical & financial info on your smartphone. There was an epoch when we actually did banking & medicine without smartphones. Apple, unlock the terrorist's iPhone, and resign yourself to a reduction in sales.
- dmix 11y ago
  > The Fourth Amendment guarantees your privacy, but police can break down your door and seize your financial and medical records if they have reasonable grounds to suspect you. Why should your smartphone be different? This is a false dichotomy. Simply because technology creates a situation where governments can't access a users data without the user consent. Apple's technology hadn't reached this point in this case (aka end-to-end encryption), which is why we're even having this conversation but we've arguably passed that point as an industry where that will be the future legal environment. It's entirely plausible Apple could create an iPhone that they can't unlock, or iMessages they can't read. So then it's no longer about coercing middlemen but the US gov vs user consent. Outside of self-incrimination this changes the legal question to be about unlocking every persons medical/financial records, not about unlocking a single persons. The only path the government has is to coerce Apple into making backdoors or purposefully weakening their encryption for all devices which affects every Americans fourth amendment rights - as well as public saftey. Therefore this is not just about one person in a criminal trial - since a backdoor can never be made only for a single court case, it will by nature unlock the phones to any party who can create or get access to the backdoor. So the only legal path for the government is to either coerce suspects into self-incrimination by forcing them to unlock their phones or prevent Apple/Google/etc customers from being able to meaningfully lock their phones in the first place. The problem with the latter is that criminals/terrorists won't be forced to use the backdoored Apple/Google/etc technology but can use open-source versions with encryption to side-step law enforcement's efforts - making it ultimately ineffective as a legal strategy.
chrisdotcode 11y ago
I (, in a non facetious manner) honestly don't get this. Aren't all of the above listed giants the ones that are going out of their way to track, spam and use our personal lives as objects of advertisement in the first place? How or why are they petitioning for the government to not be able to do what they're already doing? Isn't that completely ironic? Is this a case of "it's okay if /WE/ steal your data, but we don't want to government too (so that only we have total access to it)"? Someone more enlightened than me, please help me out.
- adventured 11y ago
  It's quite simple. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, et al. do not have the power to arrest you, and never will. They can't find out you said or did something in the past and put you in a gulag for it 10 or 20 years from now when you're considered a political enemy of the state. It's the critical difference between economic and political power. Google has no guns, much less the all-powerful legal authority - and then some - possessed by the government. Microsoft can sell you software. Amazon can sell you a blender or ebook. Apple wants to sell you a phone. The US Government can kill you, destroy your life, put you on a no-fly list, proclaim you a terrorist to be constantly surveilled to the highest degree, punish you for speaking out, sic the IRS on you, blackmail you by tracking every single thing you do digitally without any consequences to themselves and then use it against you at their convenience or for their benefit (Google execs would go to prison for that), and dozens of other things using their countless agencies (and if you happen to be a leaker or journalist, the context is that much more amplified). And that's just what they can do to you today, the fascism in America is blatantly going to keep getting worse, they keep reaching for more and more power. Tomorrow, the things you do today, will be held against you. There isn't an example of a fascist system in which that hasn't been the case. Google et al. are the absolute least of your worries. The free market profit motive is predictable and functions at its most efficient under systems of high degrees of freedom (thus free market). Increasing political power of the sort going on in the US however is always violent and always trends toward an ultimate restriction of liberty. One need understand only the very basics of history to grasp that. A quick look at what governments have done over just the last 200 years, versus what corporations have done, tells you everything you need to know. It isn't a close comparison. Show me one modern big corporation like Google that has done the kind of evil things that eg Mugabe in Zimbabwe has done for example - there's one simple example, and hardly the worst I could reference (how about Pol Pot?), and it demonstrates how clearly absurd it is to be frightened by the 'big bad corporations.' The notion we need to be afraid of corporations is almost entirely a myth, typically pushed by people that then turn an intentional blind eye to the endless murder, war and abuse by governments. It's power-seeking governments you should be absolutely terrified of.
leemalone1967 11y ago
Apple has to protect customer privacy. I oppose Apple to give any information to the FBI.
simonebrunozzi 11y ago
TL;DR here: https://github.com/simonebrunozzi/MNMN/blob/master/Weekly-Summaries/2016-10.md#2-microsoft-google-facebook-back-apple-in-blocked-phone-case https://github.com/simonebrunozzi/MNMN/blob/master/Weekly-Su...

888 points by sbuk 11y ago

Wow, so brilliant to have Bill Gates so he's pro-government intrusion and then the company back Apple. Update: This was not meant to troll. I fell for the mis-attributed quotes to Bill and thought he actually backed the FBI. I stand corrected.

mtgx 11y ago
I think they're only backing it now because of the backlash against Gates. They sure took their sweet time, either way.
- fluxquanta 11y ago
  >They sure took their sweet time, either way. Did they? Do we need to know every company's opinion on every controversial issue related to their business immediately?
  - snuxoll 11y ago
    Large enterprises are also not startups, they don't get to have the CEO publish a blog post within an hour of news like this. PR departments are careful to craft messages and narratives, shareholder value needs to be protected, and legal bases need to be covered.
runjake 11y ago
It looks like you're probably just trying to troll, but to head off additional discussion: Gates has some stuff mis-attributed to him and the very next day after initial reports, Gates disputed reports that he backs the FBI in the Apple dispute: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-02-23/gates-disputes-report-that-he-backs-fbi-in-apple-dispute http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-02-23/gates-disput... A better troll might've pointed out the disparity between Microsoft supporting Apple's stances and the circumstantial evidence that seems to indicate that Microsoft actively worked with the NSA to backdoor its services (Outlook.com, Skype, etc)
- themartorana 11y ago
  Maybe Microsoft would like the precedent set in favor of Apple so they can use it against overly intrusive requests for back doors in their products in the future. They may have acquiesced but that doesn't mean they liked it.
- codys 11y ago
  Gates disputed those reports, but he never states he doesn't support the FBI in this case. I think the key take away from that video is: > Gates: With the right safe guards in place there are cases where the government, on our behalf [...] He also dodges the direct question about his position entirely. He's not trying to make his position very clear, but he is certainly angling to support the FBI's position. Lots of references to terrorism in that interview. Edit: from a PR perspective, this does make a lot of sense for MS: use a board member/someone closely associated with them to probe the public's position, then give the public some assurance to ensure they don't all leave for Apple, while at the same time allowing the state to see that MS's support of Apple in this case isn't concrete.
FussyZeus 11y ago
Also Gates consults with Microsoft occasionally and is a large stakeholder but that does not mean Gates speaks for Microsoft, or that Microsoft speaks for Gates. In fact, they disagree pretty regularly.
- quux 11y ago
  He's on the board of directors, which is a bit more involvement than "consulting occasionally." I remember reading that he spends 1-2 days a week working on Microsoft business. That was around the time when Ballmer was leaving and Satya Nadella was taking his place so it may have been a particularly busy time.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    I think that was more for the CEO transition stage than a permanent thing but I could be wrong.
- tdicola 11y ago
  He's a member of their board of directors and for a time was even the head of it. The board has more control than even the CEO so it's safe to say Gates is speaking for the company.
  - nikanj 11y ago
    More power, less control
  - chirau 11y ago
    Was Marc Andreesen speaking on behalf of Facebook when he made those remarks about India the other day? No. Neither was Bill Gates speaking for Microsoft.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    While it's your freedom to hold an opinion that is contrary to factual reality, I'm not sure how useful it is. What does it help you to misapprehend that Bill Gates is a spokesman for Microsoft?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ComputerGuru 11y ago

Notice how the headline makes sure to specify "over terrorist's phone" and not "over user privacy" or "against federal conscription by the FBI." Take a second and re-read the headline. What does it say? To me, it spells out Microsoft joins Apple to back terrorist's privacy against the FBI. The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor. And the media isn't helping. Edit: In case it wasn't clear, I think it's actually disingenuous to mention the word "terrorist" in the headline at all. Nothing about why Apple is resisting (which is the crux of this news cycle) has to do with the fact that they are, bizarrely, fighting for this (dead) user (who is undeniably a madman murderer and potentially a terrorist)'s right to privacy. Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and everyone here in the comments isn't defending this person's right to privacy. It's 100% about the principle and the precedent and it's a million times about the future users and nothing to do with this horrible person. For that reason, it's unfair (in fact, you could call it purposeful misrepresentation) to say that they are against the FBI unlocking "terrorist's phone" or defending the "terrorist's privacy" in any way. What they are doing, if one excludes self-interest, is protecting the principle for everyone else out there.

matthewmcg 11y ago
Also that this is an order under the All Writs Act and not a search warrant. If I had a nickel for every time this is described in the press as Apple resisting a "warrant" or a "subpoena" I'd be able to make a seven figure donation to the EFF!
- rayiner 11y ago
  The order was issued to effectuate a search warrant for the phone: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-O....
  - matthewmcg 11y ago
    Right, but Apple's not challenging the warrant, they're challenging the related order.

M1ntos123 11y ago

I totally agree.

mythz 11y ago

From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about: "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Industry vs FBI", not what the US Govt is trying to set the narrative to: "Apple protecting Terrorism". With this announcement this brings us to: - Apple - Twitter - Yahoo - Facebook / WhatsApp - Microsoft - Google (Sundar lukewarm) Big technology companies with large user bases that's notably missing: - Amazon - Linked In

bobwaycott 11y ago
> "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." That's far too long and complicated for average citizens to parse and grasp implications immediately and intuitively. The second half of your question veers heavily into leading a person toward the conclusion you want them to have. Not ideal. Moreover, I think an average poll responder would get confused by the second half of the question as you've phrased it. Perhaps try to phrase it like a simple headline or poll question that gets to the heart of the matter: "Should government be able to force companies to change or disable your passwords?" Here, I think, you have a much greater chance of grabbing the attention of the casual onlooker. Admittedly, it's a mostly true statement of the core issue here, while leveraging the need to hook a reader at a glance. An article/reporter/anchor can dive deep into the case particulars or not, cover and present its view of what's at stake in asking the question, include discussion of a "right to security" that may or may not be enjoyed by companies and individuals. But you want citizens to immediately grok what you're asking, and be able to, on their own, extrapolate possible implications that matter to them. This is going to be far more powerful in getting people to invest themselves in the issue--they must be able to imagine, see, understand that what's at stake could affect them. The first half of the battle is this: You've got to get people to fucking care. And you can't get them there if you confuse or lose them at the start.
- scrollaway 11y ago

Theodores 11y ago

The tech industry seems to be a bit like Hollywood in how it supports the military industrial complex - the pendulum swings between 'pro-totalitarianism' (where everyone signs up the the Patriot Act of the day without hesitation) and something more 'pro-democratic' (when a Snowden type situation comes along and freedom stuff gains traction). In a way we are lucky that money talks in the U.S.A., it allows for this dynamic. If too much 'totalitarianism' hurts the bottom line then things get pushed back a bit and the noose loosens a bit. All the government needs is another big polarizing incident and I am sure Microsoft will be back doing as much of the government's dirty work as possible.

intrasight 11y ago
I don't think it as much "money" as it is "power". "money" unfortunately seems to have no opinion on this case. If it did, we see more wealthy people chiming in. However, Apple is a very powerful player - not only in the tech community but in the global cultural context. They rarely wield this power in that larger context. I am glad they are doing so in this case. Microsoft is a bit too late the user security game. Since they don't make their own CPUs, they can't play in the same league.
studentrob 11y ago
> In a way we are lucky that money talks in the U.S.A. Money talks, but votes are king. When we collectively vote a politician out of office, his or her money dries up. In a way, votes are made more powerful by money. Check out This American Life's episode on "Take the Money and Run for Office" [1] Dick Durbin: I think most Americans would be shocked-- not surprised, but shocked-- if they knew how much time a United States senator spends raising money. And how much time we spend talking about raising money, and thinking about raising money, and planning to raise money. And, you know, going off on little retreats and conjuring up new ideas on how to raise money. [2] ... Barney Frank: If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district. [2] [1] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t... [2] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/transcript http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...

Aoyagi 11y ago

This reminds me of China condemning Russia's annexation of Crimea. I wonder why is that.

Zigurd 11y ago

It's still a muddle, and the tendentious Bloomberg headline does not help. Microsoft's position is extremely cautious, but they had to side with Apple because opening the "all writs" can of worms to compel software creation and signing binaries is going to jack up law enforcement compliance costs to unlimited levels. Gates, in the quote in the article, is also, still, trying to have it both ways: “The extreme view that government always gets everything, nobody supports that. Having the government be blind, people don’t support that.” Evidently he thinks conditional privacy is sufficient and that the issue can be separated from encryption bans and an "all writs" model that compels new things to be created at the whim of FBI agents.

tintor 11y ago

Trump will now have to boycott Apple, Google, FB and Microsoft.

dcvuob 11y ago
If only Twitter joined them.
- mythz 11y ago
  They were the first to show strong support: https://twitter.com/jack/status/700457149227360256 https://twitter.com/jack/status/700457149227360256
potatolicious 11y ago
Is it even possible to tweet without touching products from any of the above companies? I guess Trump will have to buy one of the discontinued BB10 devices...
- danieldk 11y ago
  Hey, our prime minister (Mark Rutte) still uses a Nokia from the pre-smartphone age.
marcosdumay 11y ago
Finally! Somebody rooting for Free Software!
pjmorris 11y ago
Trump/RMS 2016!

betimsl 11y ago

Isn't Microsoft who built PRISM?

bobmoretti 11y ago

One thing that I can't help thinking about in all of this... would Apple have contested this case had the Snowden leaks never occurred?

glhaynes 11y ago
No quote from Apple itself, of course, but: Former CIA Agent Says Edward Snowden Revelations Emboldened Apple to Push Back Against FBI: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/25/former_cia_agent_says_edward_snowden http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/25/former_cia_agent_says_...
studentrob 11y ago
Yes. But it wouldn't have been in the public sphere. It would have happened behind closed doors like what happened to Yahoo in 2008 (which we didn't find out about until 2014). And in the secret court, my guess is Apple loses. Law enforcement would get what it wants because privacy advocates only seem to exist in the public. Although many are saying this will be decided in court, the public opinion matters a lot here. We sway action in government through our votes. Thankfully this time we have a say in the matter.

tashkent 11y ago

Hmm I'm confused, so is FBI asking to unlock just this terrorist's phone or setup a backdoor to all iPhones? If they are asking to unlock only this terrorists phone I don't see why Apple should be fighting a case over this.

ThrustVectoring 11y ago
The FBI is asking Apple to build a tool to backdoor this particular iPhone. Once the tool is built, it gets much easier for them to ask Apple to use it on other phones. "We'll only ask for it this one time, honest" isn't a believable promise - Apple winds up with a much less defensible position later, since they already have the tools necessary.
- corysama 11y ago
  "The FBI has asked Apple to crack at least 17 devices since October" http://mashable.com/2016/02/23/fbi-apple-requests/ http://mashable.com/2016/02/23/fbi-apple-requests/
bobbles 11y ago
Think of it more like going to a company that builds safes. Not asking them to blow the door open, but invent some magical safe breaking tool (that has never existed) and would then allow them to open whatever safe they want. Nevermind the fact that the point the safe company success relied on trust that you cannot break into their safes in any way.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

widforss 11y ago

How far could the FBI use this case as a precedent if it goes through? Could they demand to get stuff signed and put on Canonicals repos? Could they demand to get a MS-signed EFI? Or could this case just be used as a precedent in cases that clearly only involved one (1) specific device?

studentrob 11y ago
Nobody knows. That would be for the unelected judge to decide, which is what makes this all so scary.

w8rbt 11y ago

I predict that Apple will win big and that their victory will be very public and greatly celebrated. The purpose of this public display is to convince criminals to buy iPhones. They think they are safe. That's the whole point.

dcw303 11y ago

This just makes the Gates story even stranger. Did the FT misquote him because they're incompetent, or do they have an ulterior motive at play?

sah2ed 11y ago
It was stated at the end of the Bloomberg article that Bill Gates' position on the issue was misreported: Earlier this week, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates told Bloomberg Television he was “disappointed” by reports that he supports the U.S. government in this dispute, saying it doesn’t accurately reflect his opinion. “That doesn’t state my view on this,” he said in an interview on “Bloomberg Go.” “The extreme view that government always gets everything, nobody supports that. Having the government be blind, people don’t support that.”
- imron 11y ago
  Note that the article doesn't actually go on to clarify or accurately state what his opinion is.
  - devhead 11y ago
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3559f46e-d9c5-11e5-98fd-06d75973fe09.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3559f46e-d9c5-11e5-98fd-06d75973fe...
    - imron 11y ago
      Sure, but then he's saying he was misrepresented by that? So do the quoted questions and answers written on that page accurately represent what Gates said, because if they do, then although he might not be 'siding with the government', it seems he sees nothing problematic with the government making this sort of request, either in compelling Apple to produce a version of iOS that will allow for brute-forcing, or in this case setting any sort of precedent for what the government can ask companies to do via the All Writs Act. Actually, if the quotes in that article are accurate, it seems that Gates doesn't understand the issue at all, specifically: > Apple has access to the information. They’re just refusing to provide the access and the courts will tell them whether to provide the access or not Which is not the case here. Apple doesn't have access to the information and they will need to build a customised and security-compromised version of iOS in order to allow the FBI to attempt to retrieve that information.

teambob 11y ago

I thought it was an alleged terrorist's phone? Or has innocent until proven guilty gone out the window?

dcvuob 11y ago
Terrorists cannot be innocent. /s
tajen 11y ago
Good point. "terrorist" is almost always misused anyway, since no-one fears to be blown up tomorrow in the US. The only thing to fear is the power of the government, its officers and the low-level education of their thugs. The thugs with the law on their side are the ones who currently reign with terror, not like terrorists, but like Nazi law enforcement officers in 1936. Wow. I might have escalated quickly, but I'll leave it here to see what you people think.
roywiggins 11y ago
"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a criminal trial. The man in question died in a shootout with police; he will never be proven guilty, because you can't put a dead man on trial. You can't libel or defame a dead man, from the point of view of the law. There has to be a point where media can call someone a terrorist short of conviction in a court of law. You can argue that that point hasn't been reached in this case, but there has to be a point, since otherwise we'd have to call Bin Laden an "alleged terrorist."
- switch007 11y ago
  As a very general comment as I do not know anything about the San Bernardino case, I think we need to apply extreme caution when using the word "terrorist" because of extreme, far-reaching legislation based on the broad definition of terrorism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Acts#List_of_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Acts#List_of_legisla...

Zenst 11y ago

If you ask yourself if the contents of the phone could reasonably aid in saving other lives and bring about justice for those lost, then many would without a doubt say yes, make it public. Equally if it was some politicians emails then would they equally be happy for Apple to deny access being another question you could ask with many comming up different perspective of reply if you just ask the question about privacy. Privacy is important but as with any rule, there has too be exceptions and I would say clear lives at stake would be one case. But equaly the way things work and setting precidence, I can totally understand Apples and those supporting it's stance as the way things work in law is once the door is open, its a lot harder to close it. If better prevision without blanket abuse and a case by case basis could be approved and not set some blanket level of privacy abuse then again many would be happier. Alas it is the way the government has approached this in that they would be in effect given a way that could be used with this but any other such devices at no need to even speak with Apple that is the real crux I feel. We agree terroisim and indeed impacting others life spans is not the types of crimes we want hiding behind encryption or law, be that individuals or goverments themselves. But in a World in which such terroisim definitions and associated laws have and are being used on a scale and definition that trancends what a terroist is, then the element of suspicion and mistrust on the use of the term to jsutify any law or action comes more and more under public scrutiny and concerns of how it will be abused more than it should. So an area that is very much dammed if you do and potential dammed if you do no equally. But for now Apple as others equally say are making the right moves, albeit II hope a fair and acceptable compromise is established and no blanket precedence that does more harm than good goes thru.

SEJeff 11y ago

Much to the FBI's chagrin, the Whitehouse agrees with Apple, which is a great sign that someone in this country is sane: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/obama-wont-seek-access-to-encrypted-user-data.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/obama-wont-see...

studentrob 11y ago
I don't think that's accurate to say. The White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in his briefing a day or two ago that the administration backs Comey's efforts. US attorney general Loretta Lynch said she backs Comey too. Obama is the only one who hasn't made a public statement about this issue. Chain of command, by the way, is Obama > Lynch > Comey. They're certainly in communication and agreement about this issue. You might think Obama would feel differently given his rebuke of China last year for attempting to set the same kind of precedent. But no, he fails to see the similarity. It's scary. The highest ranking official who understands this issue is Ted Lieu.
- Laaw 11y ago
  > The highest ranking official who understands this issue is Ted Lieu. You mean the highest ranking official who agrees with us. It's easy to see how, if you trust the US judicial system, you'd be okay with this. If you think warrants are only given in valid and justified situations, this wouldn't bother you, because this'd only be used for "good". We know better, but that's probably not the position the head of one of the branches of government (and a scholar of the highest law of the judicial branch, even) finds himself in. Obama probably very much trusts the US justice system.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    > You mean the highest ranking official who agrees with us Yup that's what I meant. > Obama probably very much trusts the US justice system Hmm, Obama certainly wants Apple to comply here. However, he has no power to sway the justices. Obama didn't want to go to congress for a new law surrounding this issue, and seems to have directed Comey to use the AWA. Obama hasn't said why he didn't go to congress. It seems like he wants to set precedent while acting like it's only for this one phone. Pretty sneaky if that's the case. Personally I trust our right to express our views both in speech and through our votes. I trust that elected officials can represent those of us who voted and wish to be represented. The problem is we have not yet elected enough people who understand computers. And, that's not entirely our fault. It's a new field and there are not many people with exposure to it who can represent our views.

godgod 11y ago

Microsoft = NSA so this is no suprise.

karmacondon 11y ago

I have a question for the lawyers on HN. Why doesn't the judge in the case hold Apple in contempt of court until they modify the OS, in the same way they would hold a reporter in contempt until they revealed a source? In both cases, you have a third party who is being compelled to assist an investigation against their will. My only guess is that there is a precedent set for reporters, but not for computer programmers.

jat850 11y ago
I think at best, the judge could hold corporate officers in contempt, not any individual computer programmer or developer. However, given Apple's stance, they would likely respond to the contempt order in a similar way they are now: accrue the fines, don't pay them, appeal as high as it takes to have this ruling overturned. I'm not a lawyer, at all. But my guess would be that if Apple reached a point in court where the original ruling was overturned, the contempt penalties would be invalidated.
icebraining 11y ago
IANAL, that said, at the end of the order, it says "To the extent that Apple believes that compliance with this Order would be unreasonably burdensome, it may make application to this Court for relief within five business days of receipt of the Order." Since Apple has presented such an application, they are now supposed to return to court next month to argue their position.
- jat850 11y ago
  I think that doesn't speak to the expansiveness of Apple's response. It's my understanding that the burden to undertake this effort being excessive is only one of their grounds for argument. They are additionally arguing that it violates free speech principles, and also that the request goes beyond their initial compliance efforts to aid in the investigation to fringing on violating Fifth Amendment principles by asking them to go above and beyond the simple compliance. To my untrained eyes, they're basically saying that instead of having a key and being asked to turn over the key, and doing so - they're being asked to devote efforts to create an entirely new key that would unlock many or all doors. Which could then be used in many other unrelated "need to open the door" situations.

obrero 11y ago

Harry Shearer did an excellent mini-series three years ago called "Nixon's the One". It's just a verbatim reenactment of conversations from Nixon's tapes ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9HtoWea72A&list=RDf9HtoWea72A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9HtoWea72A&list=RDf9HtoWea7... ). There is more than one scene where Nixon talks about how he wants to get rid of J. Edgar Hoover but can't. In another the Attorney General calls FBI agents "the Gestapo". It reminded me of another tape - a phone conversation LBJ recorded of him talking to another Attorney General - Robert Kennedy. Kennedy talks about how his subordinate, Hoover, was not only not taking orders from him, but was having agents monitoring, writing reports and spreading disinformation about him ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVHnkIPGC6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVHnkIPGC6M ). Forget the FBI monitoring non-violent political figures like Martin Luther King Jr., or Vietnam peace groups - presidents and their attorney generals began to fear their power. The Church committee was supposed to fix this, but it was stonewalled in many ways, and by the 1980s we saw the FBI revive these political witchhunts again against groups like CISPES, and even groups run by Catholic nuns concerned about the rapes and killings of Catholic nuns in Central America.

forgotmypassw 11y ago

Nothing but a PR stunt.

logn 11y ago
At least we've come full circle on PR. Capitalism does often respond to consumer wishes. I tend to think the money I spend is the biggest 'vote' I have in this country. Besides, Apple was notably missing in the PRISM program during Jobs' reign. I'm not as negative on Apple as some other companies.

d0m 11y ago

Couldn't Apple give the data of the terrorist's phone without creating a backdoor? I.e. making it an exceptional case rather than something that could easily be done again and again? To be clear, I'm against the backdoor, but as an engineer I know that Apple could give the data back if they wanted. I guess it's bad PR from them to say so though. I'm also very surprised at how transparent the FBI is about their incapacity at cracking the phone. Or maybe this is also just for PR reasons and the phone is already cracked?

mythz 11y ago
> To be clear, I'm against the backdoor, but as an engineer I know that Apple could give the data back if they wanted. What do you know? How are you suggesting they can extract encrypted data that requires a passcode to decrypt when no existing version of iOS allows electronic brute forcing? Tim's already attested that they don't know any other way to access the data: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-cook-iphone-cracking-software/story?id=37173343 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-coo...
- d0m 11y ago
  What does it even mean "Cancer software"? Seems like PR bullshit to me. I've got a hard time believing that Apple can't crack their own phone. To be clear, do they mean that THIS phone is impossible to crack? I guess the part I don't understand is how creating a backdoor for THIS phone makes it so that ALL users would get a backdoor..? Couldn't they push the software just to that phone for exceptional reasons? If the FBI wants to get other phones opened, they'd have to get a court order by the law and that would be handled on a case by case basis. Similarly to how the FBI could get a court order to come in my house if they suspect criminal activities? (Edited for clarity)
  - mythz 11y ago
    > What does that even mean "Cancer software"? Seems like PR bullshit to me. Tim's addressing the wider public (i.e. not tech professionals) and explains what he means in context, i.e. its bad software, something they would never write or should ever be forced to write. > I've got a hard time believing that apple can't crack their own phone. You've said you know they can and are now saying you don't believe that they can't. So how exactly should they decrypt encrypted data without the pass code it was encrypted with? > do they mean that THIS phone is impossible to crack, but that would let other phones be crackable in the future? No, it's been stated a number of times including being written in the Court Order that they can create a new version of iOS without software protections that allows the FBI to brute force the pass code electronically. This is the whole premise of the legal precedent, whether or not the FBI can compel Apple to write software that doesn't yet exist to create a new version of iOS with a backdoor that the FBI can exploit. But they wont be able to do this with future iPhone's that are hardware protected by the secure enclave.

ljk 11y ago

Aren't Microsoft working with NSA? is this just a publicity stunt?

SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago
Are you implying that Apple, Facebook, and Google aren't?
- ljk 11y ago
  The skeptic in my wants to say they all are, but everyone is praising Apple for some reason

Johnny555 11y ago

Google has been awfully silent about the whole thing, how secure are Android phones (Nexus phones in particular) against a similar attack? I'm wondering if they are so easy to crack that this hasn't been a problem for Google. Either that, or their phones are just as secure as iPhones, and they caved to FBI demands immediately.

mythz 11y ago
Definitely tepid, only visible response from Sundar's tweets: https://twitter.com/sundarpichai/status/700104298600886272 https://twitter.com/sundarpichai/status/700104298600886272
danieldk 11y ago
I found this surprising as well. There is some information in this article: https://itsecuritything.com/google-nexus-6p-security-teardown/ https://itsecuritything.com/google-nexus-6p-security-teardow... To be honest, I think for non-Nexus phones, the situation is pretty bad. Even if a device vendor would not cooperate, security updates are so glacial (if they happen at all) that a state actor probably won't have much trouble finding attack vectors. (I am pretty frustrated by the lack of updates for my Moto X. Motorola used to be pretty good at is. Now I have Marshmallow, but they didn't roll out any security updates beyond November. It seems that they just want to tick off the Marshmallow box and that's it.)

multinglets 11y ago

So there's an encrypted blob. The way you input a password has nothing to do with that blob or the encryption that was used to create it. The argument that this would be some kind of cryptographic back door seems a little specious to me, and I'm usually the biggest edgelord imaginable when it comes to decrying government surveillance. If we were talking about a safe somewhere, and the government asked the safe manufacturer to create a physical device that makes it easier to open existing safes, that would not seem reasonable to me, but it also would be ludicrous to claim that represents a "back door." If that's a back door, then the back door already existed. So in Apple's case, the government says "we need the data out of this device" and that's apparently a solvable problem. Can someone please remind me why it's so cut and dry for Apple to just say "no" and that's supposed to be OK?

studentrob 11y ago
> If we were talking about a safe somewhere This has been discussed. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11178475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11178475
dapearce 11y ago
1) It's a backdoor because it's software, not a physical device like your example. They are not asking them to make a robot finger to push the buttons. It's not only more trivial to unlock the device, it's significantly more likely the software is copied and leaked into malicious hands. 2) The outrage, in my opinion, is much more about your exact example -- that Apple is being compelled to develop this software themselves. That they are being legally required to weaken the value of their own product.
- multinglets 11y ago
  > 1) It's a backdoor because it's software, not a physical device like your example. They are not asking them to make a robot finger to push the buttons. It's not only more trivial to unlock the device, it's significantly more likely the software is copied and leaked into malicious hands. If I wanted to get into my neighbors house, and I had some way to compel a construction crew to come install a new door in that house so I can walk through it, that would not mean houses now have back doors. That would be a very disingenuous way of putting it. "But what if the software is copied" is the only argument that holds any weight, and I don't find it very convincing. If the "copyability" of sensitive software/data is such a huge concern, then we should probably start asking how we intend to survive as a species. > 2) The outrage, in my opinion, is much more about your exact example -- that Apple is being compelled to develop this software themselves. That they are being legally required to weaken the value of their own product. Perhaps, but that's not what Tim Cook is saying.

chishaku 11y ago

What's the worst that could happen for any of these companies or their senior executives if they refuse to cooperate? Most corporate criminal penalties we hear about these days have become minor costs of doing business. And it's not like the olden days where senior execs often ended up in jail for corporate wrongdoing.[0] The largest monetary criminal penalty I could find after a quick search was the 2013 settlement between JP Morgan and the Justice Department for $13 billion.[1] That's about 25% of Apple's net income last year, hardly a death sentence. EDIT: I am not a lawyer so I'd appreciate any insight on this question. [0]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/business/in-corporate-crimes-individual-accountability-is-elusive.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/business/in-corporate-crim... [1]: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/06/23/a-list-of-the-biggest-bank-settlements/ http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/06/23/a-list-of-the-bigg...

callmeed 11y ago
Why do you assume the penalty would only be monetary?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- odbol_ 11y ago
  Who would they throw in jail? Tim Cook? Continuing on down the line until Apple has 0 employees?
  - regecks 11y ago
    At some point Apple will act to protect their own employees...
    - danieldk 11y ago
      I am not sure how realistic this is, but couldn't they move relevant parts of their business overseas? E.g., hardware and software development still happens in the US, but updates are vetted and signed by a separate entity in a privacy-friendly country? The US could block iPhone sales, though I think the probability of that happening is extremely low, since it would have a major economic impact.

kungfooman 11y ago

Plot twist: US companies and the US gov play a game whose only goal is to reestablish lost trust since Snowden to make more $$$ again and sell more hardware with US backdoors again.

huuu 11y ago

This is all great but one thing bothers me: they still apply to some government requests to give some data [1]. I know that adding a backdoor is different, but why not also protect for example emails on a server? http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/ http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests...

Aoyagi 11y ago

Let's see, what's worse... Giving access to data in supposedly limited cases to an authority that's supposed to do it for the protection of the people, or; sell the data to numerous third parties, who further make money of the data, while there's absolutely no assurance the data isn't bought by the aforementioned authority anyway?

ck2 11y ago

Hey look, they took the fear-mongering word "terrorist" out of the headline. There's hope after all.

GnarfGnarf 11y ago

The whole Apple/FBI fracas is about promoting smartphones as the centre of our universe: the confluence of medical, financial, and all other personal information. If Apple can convince us that smartphones are secure, there are lucrative opportunities for smartphone technology to become ubiquitous and pervasive in our lives. Unfortunately, it will always be necessary for law enforcement to have access to bad guys' stuff. The Fourth Amendment guarantees your privacy, but police can break down your door and seize your financial and medical records if they have reasonable grounds to suspect you. Why should your smartphone be different? The smartphone is not an inalienable right. We are confusing convenience with fundamental rights; technology with entitlement. If you don't trust your smartphone to be impregnable, then guess what? Don't put your medical & financial info on your smartphone. There was an epoch when we actually did banking & medicine without smartphones. Apple, unlock the terrorist's iPhone, and resign yourself to a reduction in sales.

dmix 11y ago
> The Fourth Amendment guarantees your privacy, but police can break down your door and seize your financial and medical records if they have reasonable grounds to suspect you. Why should your smartphone be different? This is a false dichotomy. Simply because technology creates a situation where governments can't access a users data without the user consent. Apple's technology hadn't reached this point in this case (aka end-to-end encryption), which is why we're even having this conversation but we've arguably passed that point as an industry where that will be the future legal environment. It's entirely plausible Apple could create an iPhone that they can't unlock, or iMessages they can't read. So then it's no longer about coercing middlemen but the US gov vs user consent. Outside of self-incrimination this changes the legal question to be about unlocking every persons medical/financial records, not about unlocking a single persons. The only path the government has is to coerce Apple into making backdoors or purposefully weakening their encryption for all devices which affects every Americans fourth amendment rights - as well as public saftey. Therefore this is not just about one person in a criminal trial - since a backdoor can never be made only for a single court case, it will by nature unlock the phones to any party who can create or get access to the backdoor. So the only legal path for the government is to either coerce suspects into self-incrimination by forcing them to unlock their phones or prevent Apple/Google/etc customers from being able to meaningfully lock their phones in the first place. The problem with the latter is that criminals/terrorists won't be forced to use the backdoored Apple/Google/etc technology but can use open-source versions with encryption to side-step law enforcement's efforts - making it ultimately ineffective as a legal strategy.

chrisdotcode 11y ago

I (, in a non facetious manner) honestly don't get this. Aren't all of the above listed giants the ones that are going out of their way to track, spam and use our personal lives as objects of advertisement in the first place? How or why are they petitioning for the government to not be able to do what they're already doing? Isn't that completely ironic? Is this a case of "it's okay if /WE/ steal your data, but we don't want to government too (so that only we have total access to it)"? Someone more enlightened than me, please help me out.

adventured 11y ago
It's quite simple. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, et al. do not have the power to arrest you, and never will. They can't find out you said or did something in the past and put you in a gulag for it 10 or 20 years from now when you're considered a political enemy of the state. It's the critical difference between economic and political power. Google has no guns, much less the all-powerful legal authority - and then some - possessed by the government. Microsoft can sell you software. Amazon can sell you a blender or ebook. Apple wants to sell you a phone. The US Government can kill you, destroy your life, put you on a no-fly list, proclaim you a terrorist to be constantly surveilled to the highest degree, punish you for speaking out, sic the IRS on you, blackmail you by tracking every single thing you do digitally without any consequences to themselves and then use it against you at their convenience or for their benefit (Google execs would go to prison for that), and dozens of other things using their countless agencies (and if you happen to be a leaker or journalist, the context is that much more amplified). And that's just what they can do to you today, the fascism in America is blatantly going to keep getting worse, they keep reaching for more and more power. Tomorrow, the things you do today, will be held against you. There isn't an example of a fascist system in which that hasn't been the case. Google et al. are the absolute least of your worries. The free market profit motive is predictable and functions at its most efficient under systems of high degrees of freedom (thus free market). Increasing political power of the sort going on in the US however is always violent and always trends toward an ultimate restriction of liberty. One need understand only the very basics of history to grasp that. A quick look at what governments have done over just the last 200 years, versus what corporations have done, tells you everything you need to know. It isn't a close comparison. Show me one modern big corporation like Google that has done the kind of evil things that eg Mugabe in Zimbabwe has done for example - there's one simple example, and hardly the worst I could reference (how about Pol Pot?), and it demonstrates how clearly absurd it is to be frightened by the 'big bad corporations.' The notion we need to be afraid of corporations is almost entirely a myth, typically pushed by people that then turn an intentional blind eye to the endless murder, war and abuse by governments. It's power-seeking governments you should be absolutely terrified of.

leemalone1967 11y ago

Apple has to protect customer privacy. I oppose Apple to give any information to the FBI.

simonebrunozzi 11y ago

TL;DR here: https://github.com/simonebrunozzi/MNMN/blob/master/Weekly-Summaries/2016-10.md#2-microsoft-google-facebook-back-apple-in-blocked-phone-case https://github.com/simonebrunozzi/MNMN/blob/master/Weekly-Su...