5 ms·

Nobody is stopping the FBI from doing whatever they want with the phone. They have it in their possession and have a warrant to search it. Nobody is questioni

Nobody is stopping the FBI from doing whatever they want with the phone. They have it in their possession and have a warrant to search it. Nobody is questioning that. What is being questioned is whether a software manufacturer can be forced to build a way for the FBI to compromise the phone. This is much like the question of whether a firearms manufacturer can be forced to build a way for the FBI to compromise that type of device.

ars 11y ago
No those questions are not at all similar, one is about a device the FBI has, the other is about everyone's device. The actual question is can the FBI force Apple to open the phone for them. That's it. Can the FBI force a bank to open a safe for them? It's not any different. Just because there is technology involved does not change the fundamental nature of the question. If you want a gun analogy can the FBI force a manufacturer to tell them the proper disassembly instructions for the gun. (For example if it needs some special tool, can the FBI force them to sell them that tool.)
- ta_donk_gt 11y ago
  Somewhat fair points, with a couple of key pieces of data left out: > one is about a device the FBI has, the other is about everyone's device Except that one Apple claim is making, whether realistic or not, is that once the "device the FBI has" is unlocked, it potentially exposes "everyone's device" to the same exploit > If you want a gun analogy can the FBI force a manufacturer to tell them the proper disassembly instructions for the gun Except that in the case of the gun, this is information the manufacturer already has. In Apple's case, they are claiming they do not currently have this information, and would need to do work to create the information being requested.
  - ars 11y ago
    > Except that one Apple claim is making, whether true or not, is that once the "device the FBI has" is unlocked, it potentially exposes "everyone's device" to the same exploit The court will not care about that. The FBI is expected to open devices only with a warrant and that's it. Just because they have a tool doesn't authorize them to use it. Just because the FBI bought lockpicks, doesn't mean they can go around opening locks. > this is information the manufacturer already has. In Apple's case, they are claiming they do not currently have this information, and would need to do work to create the information being requested. Also irrelevant. At best Apple can request to get paid (and that would probably be approved). It's completely ordinary for companies to be ordered to go collect and collate information relevant to a warrant. They can charge a reasonable fee to do so, but they can't refuse to unless it would severely impact them (and the definition of severely is up to the judge). In Apple's case the Judge is unlikely to believe them that doing this would be a big problem for them - they are a huge company.
    - Johnny555 11y ago
      > Just because the FBI bought lockpicks, doesn't mean they can go around opening locks Similarly, just because Schlage makes high security unbreakable locks, doesn't mean they have to create lockpicks for the FBI that will work on those locks. They spent a lot of money developing those high security locks and if they create lockpicks that can break through them with ease, they lose much of the value of those locks. The unbreakable lock is no longer unbreakable. So the loss of value for the company is not just the employee time to create the lockpicks, but also the loss in value of the product line when they can no longer say that there's no lockpick that can break in. The FBI is free to study and try to break into the locks themselves, but if it is a truly unbreakable lock, then hooray, the world is arguably safer on the whole, even if a few criminals use the locks to hide their secrets.
    - nemothekid 11y ago
      >They can charge a reasonable fee to do so, but they can't refuse to unless it would severely impact them (and the definition of severely is up to the judge). What is a reasonable fee? Tim Cook reportedly spent months trying to convince Chinese officials to sell the iPhone in China. If China were to then ban iPhones on the premise that they don't the FBI to seize the data on iPhones belonging to Chinese nationals (remember, warrants only really apply to US citizens), could Apple then charge for the loss of the Chinese market (~$13B/quarter?). Should tax payer money be used to secure the investments of Apple's shareholders who banked on the fact that proper encryption would give Apple an appropriate foothold in China?
    - peteretep 11y ago
      It's a disaster, and an absolute stain on HN, that your sensible comments are getting downvoted. I am a huge advocate for privacy, and I understand the technical details, but like you, I can't see what magically protects iPhones from search warrants. I _love_ that Apple have made it so hard for unauthorized access to my device, but I cannot understand on what basis they're making the current stand, given that the FBI are asking specifically for a modification that will let them attempt to brute-force the device, rather than anything more magical.
      - 11y ago
- voxic11 11y ago
  Don't we have freedom of speech in this country? What other situations could the government compel Apple to say or write something for the FBI? Or do you think that computer code is not a form of protected speech?
- Johnny555 11y ago
  Can the FBI force a bank to open a safe if they have no key? Can they force the bank to hire a locksmith to forcibly open the safe even if such forcible opening causes extensive damage to the building? Or if the bank is unable to comply with the warrant is it up to FBI to find a way to break into the safe?
- samstave 11y ago
  I think this whole dialogue is fucked: One kills people (gun), one connects people (phone). One shutdown pre-emptively (gun) prevents deaths (ostensibly) -- the other reveals the plans of the killers. I do not have a more appropriate analogy, but I feel that the government has NO FUCKING RIGHT to ask apple to do what they are doing in a supposed free-market capitalist state. These are the acts of tyrannical/dictatorial states. So fuck the government in this case. no WAY should apple comply.

ars 11y ago

No those questions are not at all similar, one is about a device the FBI has, the other is about everyone's device. The actual question is can the FBI force Apple to open the phone for them. That's it. Can the FBI force a bank to open a safe for them? It's not any different. Just because there is technology involved does not change the fundamental nature of the question. If you want a gun analogy can the FBI force a manufacturer to tell them the proper disassembly instructions for the gun. (For example if it needs some special tool, can the FBI force them to sell them that tool.)

ta_donk_gt 11y ago
Somewhat fair points, with a couple of key pieces of data left out: > one is about a device the FBI has, the other is about everyone's device Except that one Apple claim is making, whether realistic or not, is that once the "device the FBI has" is unlocked, it potentially exposes "everyone's device" to the same exploit > If you want a gun analogy can the FBI force a manufacturer to tell them the proper disassembly instructions for the gun Except that in the case of the gun, this is information the manufacturer already has. In Apple's case, they are claiming they do not currently have this information, and would need to do work to create the information being requested.
- ars 11y ago
  > Except that one Apple claim is making, whether true or not, is that once the "device the FBI has" is unlocked, it potentially exposes "everyone's device" to the same exploit The court will not care about that. The FBI is expected to open devices only with a warrant and that's it. Just because they have a tool doesn't authorize them to use it. Just because the FBI bought lockpicks, doesn't mean they can go around opening locks. > this is information the manufacturer already has. In Apple's case, they are claiming they do not currently have this information, and would need to do work to create the information being requested. Also irrelevant. At best Apple can request to get paid (and that would probably be approved). It's completely ordinary for companies to be ordered to go collect and collate information relevant to a warrant. They can charge a reasonable fee to do so, but they can't refuse to unless it would severely impact them (and the definition of severely is up to the judge). In Apple's case the Judge is unlikely to believe them that doing this would be a big problem for them - they are a huge company.
  - Johnny555 11y ago
    > Just because the FBI bought lockpicks, doesn't mean they can go around opening locks Similarly, just because Schlage makes high security unbreakable locks, doesn't mean they have to create lockpicks for the FBI that will work on those locks. They spent a lot of money developing those high security locks and if they create lockpicks that can break through them with ease, they lose much of the value of those locks. The unbreakable lock is no longer unbreakable. So the loss of value for the company is not just the employee time to create the lockpicks, but also the loss in value of the product line when they can no longer say that there's no lockpick that can break in. The FBI is free to study and try to break into the locks themselves, but if it is a truly unbreakable lock, then hooray, the world is arguably safer on the whole, even if a few criminals use the locks to hide their secrets.
  - nemothekid 11y ago
    >They can charge a reasonable fee to do so, but they can't refuse to unless it would severely impact them (and the definition of severely is up to the judge). What is a reasonable fee? Tim Cook reportedly spent months trying to convince Chinese officials to sell the iPhone in China. If China were to then ban iPhones on the premise that they don't the FBI to seize the data on iPhones belonging to Chinese nationals (remember, warrants only really apply to US citizens), could Apple then charge for the loss of the Chinese market (~$13B/quarter?). Should tax payer money be used to secure the investments of Apple's shareholders who banked on the fact that proper encryption would give Apple an appropriate foothold in China?
  - peteretep 11y ago
    It's a disaster, and an absolute stain on HN, that your sensible comments are getting downvoted. I am a huge advocate for privacy, and I understand the technical details, but like you, I can't see what magically protects iPhones from search warrants. I _love_ that Apple have made it so hard for unauthorized access to my device, but I cannot understand on what basis they're making the current stand, given that the FBI are asking specifically for a modification that will let them attempt to brute-force the device, rather than anything more magical.
    - 11y ago
voxic11 11y ago
Don't we have freedom of speech in this country? What other situations could the government compel Apple to say or write something for the FBI? Or do you think that computer code is not a form of protected speech?
Johnny555 11y ago
Can the FBI force a bank to open a safe if they have no key? Can they force the bank to hire a locksmith to forcibly open the safe even if such forcible opening causes extensive damage to the building? Or if the bank is unable to comply with the warrant is it up to FBI to find a way to break into the safe?
samstave 11y ago
I think this whole dialogue is fucked: One kills people (gun), one connects people (phone). One shutdown pre-emptively (gun) prevents deaths (ostensibly) -- the other reveals the plans of the killers. I do not have a more appropriate analogy, but I feel that the government has NO FUCKING RIGHT to ask apple to do what they are doing in a supposed free-market capitalist state. These are the acts of tyrannical/dictatorial states. So fuck the government in this case. no WAY should apple comply.