18 ms·

Apple files final response in San Bernardino iPhone case

258 points by rbcgerard 11y ago

runesoerensen 11y ago
Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11294164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11294164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293778 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293778 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293514 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293514
matheweis 11y ago
Not well versed in the legal process here... I assume that the hearing is just a formality at this point, and the case is all but certain to be appealed, right?
- droithomme 11y ago
  This is their final response in their own federal district court. The district court will issue its decision. Afterwards the next appeal would be to the US Supreme Court. That level of appeal can take years if accepted, or more commonly, is ignored. In the meantime there can be orders for them to comply in the meantime or face consequences.
  - Mandatum 11y ago
    What can we expect to see from Apple? Would they comply, if not what consequences would we see them face? Fines or jail-time for those making the decision to not comply?
  - techsupporter 11y ago
    I think you missed a step. This is currently in District Court, the next appeal would be to the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, yes?
    - droithomme 11y ago
      Sorry, right, you are correct. Thanks.
    - dbcurtis 11y ago
      I thought we were at the step where the case is now fully briefed? Isn't the next step oral arguments at the district court level? Then a District court ruling. Then appeal to 9CA, and so forth. Although if someone files for an Emergency TRO, I'm not sure if that goes to 9CA or to the SCOTUS Justice that oversees 9CA (Kennedy).
      - schoen 11y ago
        The hearing at the district court level will be before a magistrate judge (because of the way that the issue arose in connection with a search warrant). Magistrate judges' orders can also be appealed to the district judge assigned to the case, which happens before an appeal to the court of appeals. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_59 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_59
Gustomaximus 11y ago
In the same way Apple shifts global tax to Ireland, could they shift the encryption ownership (sorry - there's surely a better technical term I could use) to an overseas holding company where this is likely to be quickly dismissed? Essentially make it like suing Apple in an attempt to control Google search results type thing... its simply a different entity.
- zekevermillion 11y ago
  Huh... That may be possible! It would require Apple not being able to control that entity, however. They would effectively have to outsource security (seems like a dangerous plan). Also, the gov't could then simply outlaw the outsourcing of security functions for device manufacturers.
  - nathancahill 11y ago
    > the gov't could then simply outlaw.. If this was about the gov't simply making new laws we wouldn't be having this discussion right? Fortunately we live in a country where the gov't can't simply outlaw things.
    - zekevermillion 11y ago
      Actually they can. I see nothing unconstitutional about restricting companies from circumventing a court ruling on existing law. Even if unconstitutional (which it's not) that does not necessarily prevent a bill from becoming a law.
      - ascagnel_ 11y ago
        The entire discussion here is not about Apple circumventing a court ruling. They are appealing the ruling, and until the appeal is complete they don't have to perform any action. Right now, it would be very unconstitutional (a denial of due process) to prevent Apple from appealing the ruling.
    - rhizome 11y ago
deathanatos 11y ago
Does anyone have a link to the response that Apple filed with the court? (The article didn't seem to link to it anywhere, unfortunately.) Edit: I seem to have found it: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-16-Cm-00010-Dckt-000177-000-Filed-2016.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-1... (Found via this article: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160315/15505433916/apples-response-to-doj-your-filing-is-full-blatantly-misleading-claims-outright-falsehoods.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160315/15505433916/apple...)
- floatingatoll 11y ago
  http://www.scribd.com/doc/304897946/Reply-Brief-in-Support-of-Apple-s-Motion-to-Vacate-1 http://www.scribd.com/doc/304897946/Reply-Brief-in-Support-o...
- freck 11y ago
  See also the supplement where Apple picks apart many technical inaccuracies of the DOJ's claims. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762149/Supp-Neuenschwander-Decl-Executed.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762149/Supp-Neue...
doener 11y ago
Snowden's comment: https://mobile.twitter.com/Snowden/status/709874783689826304 https://mobile.twitter.com/Snowden/status/709874783689826304
- cptskippy 11y ago
  I realize that Snowden has done a lot of good by releasing the information he has, but I really don't care what he personally has to say and his controlled release of the information demonstrates to me that what he's do is as much for attention and his ego as it is anything else.
  - swampthinker 11y ago
    I mean, it cuts both ways. By drawing it out, Snowden got the story get a lot more attention from the media and general public.
  - jdonaldson 11y ago
    If Snowden released it all at once, he would've lost leverage. He's playing for much higher stakes than "attention and ego". If he slips up, it's over for him.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - cptskippy 11y ago
      What leverage does he have? I'm pretty sure if the NSA wanted it, he'd be dead already.
  - colordrops 11y ago
    It's pretty evident that there were several reasons for drawing it out: keep the story alive until it got mass attention, allow each release to be scrutinized and understood by the public, and to vet the information first to make sure no one is put at risk.
pekk 11y ago
I'm glad that we have international megacorporations to tell us what the authors of the US Constitution would think about things.
- fleitz 11y ago
  Yeah the founders of the us were just regular old folk, none of them did international business.
  - pekk 11y ago
    Were they themselves corporations? Did they avoid taxes using a double Irish strategy? Do tell, this alternate history is becoming more interesting every second.
    - fleitz 11y ago
      They had a fucking revolution over EVADING taxes by buying tea from places other than England. They weren't avoiding taxes, they were putting guns in peoples faces covering them in tar and then feathers, throwing all the taxed tea in the ocean and then proceeding to conduct their business however they saw fit, government be damned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act So yeah, in this alternate history the Founders are a lot more fucking bad ass than Apple, going so far as to commit treason to avoid taxes. (Thankfully they won so the whole treason thing was moot) Then they teamed up with the French to cause all sorts of problems for the English King, they probably would have gotten Ireland to fuck with the English too if they weren't already doing all they could to fuck up England. They would have called it a double irish spit roast. And now getting back to writs, you might want to see that they created the 4th fucking amendment to give a big middle finger to England being able to issue a writ for whatever the fuck they wanted. So we don't really have to ask what the founders would have thought because they told us directly. They were so gung ho on fucking with government that they even said if this revolution doesn't work out, have another one, because why the fuck not, and created the second amendment so that if anyone wanted to put guns in people faces again to evade taxes they could. If they were alive today they'd probably be helping Apple smuggle untaxed iPhones from China free from any sort of government restriction.
cjslep 11y ago
I am disheartened that it takes the money, fame, and power of a megacorporation just to meet the balance between individuals and government.
- tn13 11y ago
  And at the same time we should be thankful to live in a country where such mega-corporations can exist and thrive.
- bane 11y ago
  this is why the cyberpunk future we've read about is coming
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mangeletti 11y ago
  I agree, but this megacorporation is a direct result of the wants and needs of individuals, so think of Apple as our collective bargaining leverage.
  - jonah 11y ago
    > "...the wants and needs of individuals" Isn't that what the government is supposed to represent. Sigh...
    - dclowd9901 11y ago
      The invisible hand is all powerful.
    - panic 11y ago
      To be fair, Congress seems to be on Apple's side here. It's just our ever-more-overreaching executive branch that's the issue.
      - mtgx 11y ago
mochamadrochim 11y ago
www.faceboo.com/mochamad.rochim.46
corndoge 11y ago
The whole request is absurd. If DOJ really believes Apple will ever give up its firmware signing key, they've got another thing coming.
- lallysingh 11y ago
  I don't think DOJ knows what they're doing here at all. At worst, they'll force Apple and the rest to have subsidiaries off-shore with the signing key.
  - joering2 11y ago
    We been there before and unfortunately Apple will lose. One word: CALEA [1] USA telecommunications providers must install new hardware or software, as well as modify old equipment, so that it doesn't interfere with the ability of a law enforcement agency (LEA) to perform real-time surveillance of any telephone or Internet traffic. Change to: USA cellphone producers must alter their hardware or software, as well as modify remote equipment, so that it doesn't interfere with the ability of a law enforcement agency (LEA) to perform real-time surveillance of any telephone or data traffic. Carriers are responsible for CALEA development and implementation costs. AFAIK nobody opposed CALEA and its been years since 2007 when it was implemented. So unfortunately Apple will lose and their standing that corp cannot be forced to write a code or alter it because of their free will or cost possibly incurred, will not stand the chance :( [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_...
    - millstone 11y ago
      CALEA says: A telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government's ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication. Apple seems protected under this clause, since they do not possess the information necessary to decrypt. This is also why the feds can't wiretap iMessage. CALEA text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/1002 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/1002
tosseraccount 11y ago
Thomas Jefferson just expressed his ovtrage on his twitter accovnt.
danielschonfeld 11y ago
Do some people actually think Apple is in the wrong here?
- ekianjo 11y ago
  Apparently yes if you believe the polls in the US.
  - jonesb6 11y ago
    All Apple, Google, and Facebook, need to do to get public favor is add a loading spinner for 3-5 seconds on every refresh/page load and make it clear the government surveillance is the cause. I for one look forward to the 2nd American Revolution.
    - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
      Or, every time you go to enter your password, present a click-through disclaimer that the FBI may have access to whatever information you are about to provide. Press "OK" to acknowledge that we cannot protect your privacy, or "Cancel" to go back to safety.
  - grandalf 11y ago
    As usual, however, the US Government's side is accompanied by a disinformation campaign to fool the public into supporting the excesses. Even Obama made remarks which included the word "fetishizing", etc.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  I think Apple is legally in the wrong. What the law should be is a different issue, though I also side with the government in this particular case. I don't think the government should be able to force Apple to ship backdoored phones to customers. But I think that the government should be able to require Apple to use its capabilities to hack particular devices with a court order. In other words, Apple should be free to make phones they themselves cannot hack, but not to refuse to help hack a phone that the government has a warrant for.
studentrob 11y ago
This case should really be open and shut at this point. The real question is, what happens next in Obama's office, the DOJ and among the American public? Obama has already tried to get Congress to give him legislation that would force tech companies to be able to give user data to the government [1]. It's slow going. I don't think we'll see that bill this month. Presumably, after that bill was delayed last year, he then directed the DOJ to go to court over these issues with Apple. I predict that fails. The President has already alluded to the future in his remarks at SXSW. In his view, after the next terrorist attack, Congress will rush through legislation and it will be ugly. At that point, we will be depending largely on the public's understanding of computer technology and encryption so that we can respond with an even hand. If people support encryption and let their representatives know, then we are good. But if they remain uninformed, there is a possibility that they will feel passing an anti-encryption bill would make them safer from terrorism. Let's examine a possible future where the case is won by Apple and in the future there is a terrorist attack that used encryption to accomplish its goals. What will happen? Will law enforcement point the finger at technologists? Will they claim we enabled the attack by blocking legislation that, in their view, would have solved the "going dark" problem they claim they face? Further, how will the public respond? There is still currently 42% of the population who believes the government should be able to compel Apple to write software, which they do not want to write, that aids the FBI [2]. The clock is ticking. We don't know how much time we have to educate the public about encryption until the next terrorist attack. In my view, we need to, 1. seek out public figures and media who can share our message 2. come up with more concise messaging that is understandable by a non-techie 3. back it up with facts and primary sources John Oliver is not enough. All the tech companies is not enough. This is as big as or bigger than SOPA. When we fought SOPA, we didn't have the possibility that people could blame us in the future for terrorist attacks if that bill did not pass. If and when we fight an anti-encryption bill, we will be fighting that alarmist view. We will make it much easier on ourselves if we seek to educate the public about the issues and let them make up their own minds. [1] http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-cybersecurity/2016/02/march-is-encryption-bill-month-hackers-going-after-japans-infrastructure-a-mixed-final-2015-tally-212865 http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-cybersecurity/2016... [2] http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-iphone-doj-fbi-wall-street-journal-poll/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-iphone-doj-fbi-wall-s...
brandonmenc 11y ago
The Founders probably couldn't comprehend mobile phones and the internet, let alone modern corporations being granted personhood. So, who knows.
- dave5104 11y ago
  In these sort of comparisons, I always kind of assume that the people in question are suggested as being immortal and have aged through time to today.
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  They certainly would have understood corporate legal status, and done so much better than nearly everyone who comments on it today. And honestly I don't think it would take most of them very long to grasp the implications of mobile phones, the internet, and encryption. The Founders whose names immediately come to mind were some very intelligent and mentally agile people. While our technology may be incomprehensible to them, the social frameworks into which it fits is not.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- matt_wulfeck 11y ago
  The constitution also doesn't mention newspapers and the printing press. You don't need to anticipate the future if you're concerned with very simple ideas of liberty and democracy. They enumerating rights to individuals against the tyranny of an oppressive government and they were very cautious about keeping the government on a short leash and putting that leash in the hands of citizens -- though they seem to think its supposed to be there other way around.
- studyhistory 11y ago
  The Founders probably couldn't comprehend mobile phones and the internet, let alone modern corporations being granted personhood. Keep in mind that the founders were some of the smartest, most educated and most powerful people on the fucking planet at the time - Franklin even contributed to our understanding of electricity - so I think that view is not only mistaken but beside the point. They had no need to debate the particular sophistry of our circumstances. The corrupting nature of power was clear to them and we should be thankful that for that.
rekwah 11y ago
If they were to lose and lose all future appeals and Apple still didn't wish to comply, what would it take to get around such a request? Would Apple have to re-incorporate outside of the U.S.A?
- erictheactor 11y ago
  That's the beauty of the new spaceship campus - it can just land in another country if need be.
- joering2 11y ago
  My take as I pointed earlier, would be that they would start selling online only (go to store to look at it only) and shipping devices from Mexico for example. Or if Gov continues their witch hunt, they could clearly mark phones with backdoor from those without, hoping that black market will be able to deliver encrypted phones to those who still want to have Apple device.
chadrs 11y ago
I never like the appeal to founding fathers argument as if it carries any weight. (1) They could barely agree on anything, so it's not like they would magically agree today (2) They would also be appalled by women's rights / civil rights, so I don't think this is a good test
- qq66 11y ago
  Agreed... The Founding Fathers were clearly the most intelligent and capable leadership the country has ever had, but in 2016, I wouldn't ask for the opinion of a person who had signed their name on the three fifths compromise.
- clarkmoody 11y ago
  Many of the founders detested slavery. Also, most of them would be appalled at the size, scope, and influence of the federal government/bureaucracy and the Supreme Court. Of course a better appeal would be to the principles of liberty outlined in the founding documents of the United States -- principles most of us take for granted.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  I think Thomas Paine and probably John & Abigail Adams would be for 2)
- afarrell 11y ago
  Not many people fully appreciate the degree to which #1 is true. Folks should read Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton.
einarvollset 11y ago
I'm curious what you guys think the government should do differently here. There's a valid court order, there's a clear reason for this order to be executed, and the request is restricted. They do not, for example ask for the private signing keys for iOS. That would be less work for Apple, and actually well within the rights of the govt. An unpopular argument I realize, particularly in the post-Snowden era, but I would be curious to hear some considered reflections on how the govt should go about this differently. Assume for example that this is not Apple, but instead Enron protecting the laptop of their CTO
- bfaviero 11y ago
  Enron can hand over the laptop. This would be like asking Enron to break into their CEO's house.
  - tosseraccount 11y ago
    The phone was owned by the state.
    - smileysteve 11y ago
      And if the state (or any employer) were appropriately managing their devices they'd have access to the data, known which apps were on it, and have remote wiped it.
  - einarvollset 11y ago
    Not really. If Enron put encryption with their master keys on the data, how is this different? Seems very similar to me?
- studentrob 11y ago
  If Loretta Lynch were informed about how encryption works, she would not be pursuing this case. As it is, she does not understand that she is wasting the time of American government and people. She does not understand that even if the FBI can get into every Apple phone, criminals can simply choose another form of encryption software to accomplish means of hiding their communications. Assuming the FBI can force Apple to install a key logger to grant them access into encrypted apps, will the FBI then go after Samsung and HTC which are made outside the US? The whole thing is absurd and a waste of our time. The way in which the FBI is going about this is not going to get them what they want. I don't know how to get them what they want. That's their job to figure it out. But they should know better about encryption technology. Or someone should tell them. This has gone on too long.
staunch 11y ago
Tim Cook has done a lot at Apple, but this ethical stand will likely be the most important thing he does in his life. It's a big fucking deal.
- wonderlust 11y ago
  The story is that the last piece of advice jobs gave tim was to do what he thought was right. I don't think he's trying to be a martyr or anything, but I bet he's trying to do what's right in the situation. Knowing they'll fight this sort of battle really had me considering apple products again honestly, and I gave up that train long ago.
  - doktrin 11y ago
    I feel the same way. I don't delude myself into thinking that my individual actions have any measurable impact, but I enjoy exercising the very limited power that lies in giving money to institutions I support, and withdrawing it from those I don't. Apple's definitely on my radar again.
  - progressive_dad 11y ago
    I'd love to see john hodgman and justin long revive the old ad campaign with "Hi I'm a mac" "and I'm the police"
  - tajen 11y ago
    However, I still see no mention of protecting other nationalities. E.g. I'm French, since the 2015 attacks we have a law saying companies should snitch, the iPhone could very well save my fingerprint/pw outside the secure enclave if it ever needs to unlock it. I want to believe Apple is the one company that respects my privacy. Please, Apple, say your device fits my expectations.
    - samastur 11y ago
      They already did. Last time is in this latest brief where they say there is only one version of OS for all devices in all countries. Same is true for their other services (also mentioned in brief).
awinter-py 11y ago
Ok but in the eyes of the law at the time, george washington was a terrorist (in addition to being 6 feet tall and made of radiation). Of course a guy like Paul Revere would have been pro-privacy. He needed privacy to deliver intelligence on british troop movements. Some legal scholars view the declaration of independence as part of the constitution (and the primary part). But clearly any 'right to rebel' wasn't recognized during the civil war. So we can conclude that the climate has changed. Notice that tim cook isn't out there fighting against apple's ability to push code or fighting for me to install debian on my ipad. He's fighting for his own institution's right to resist the orders of a larger institution. This is like the magna carta -- it was about the rights of the british aristocracy, not the lower gentry or the feudal labor force. Now that they've crossed the IRS and DOJ off the list of federal agencies they give a crap about, next on the list might be the DMV. Apple car anyone?
- drdeca 11y ago
  Ok but the Magna Carta in the long run had benefits for those not in the aristocracy, did it not?
  - awinter-py 11y ago
    If yes (and it's a big if) that's just one data point. You can just as easily argue that the industrial revolution changed the labor landscape and personal rights would have entered british common law either way. Another law that defended the rights of feudal landowners was the fugitive slave act so if there's a pattern here I'm not seeing it.
    - drdeca 11y ago
      Well, of course not all things that benefit one group benefit everyone overall, and not everything which benefits Apple benefits us. That doesn't mean that our interests don't somewhat align with those of Apple in this case. Iirc, the Magna Carta was one of the first to establish the limitation of the powers of kings, though the direct benefeciaries were not the common persons. Analogously, I think this conflict , if it ends in Apple's favor, helps reinforce limits on the powers of the government. Is that not true? An individual, or a group of a few common people could not win against the government in a situation like this, just as the common people could not have gotten something like the Magna Carta. It seems analogous?
hoodoof 11y ago
It takes the biggest, richest, most loved and most powerful companies to stand up to the insane overreach of government authority. Even then everyone sucks in their breath "Are they really daring to defy the power of the government?" Everyone else, every other organisation is little people. Sad that it came to be that governments rule the people instead of the government serving the people.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  Yeah. Though, I would suggest that governments (in conjunction with or as tools of unelected aristocrats, feudal overlords, warlords, strongmen, etc.) have always ruled, and it's only in the past 200-300 years that the people have started to take the power unto themselves. Democracy's a very new and quite brilliant invention, really, when you look at it in the perspective of tens of thousands of years of human social and political development.
studentrob 11y ago
There's another thread about this on the front page right now [1] I suggest that we as technologists get together and inform the public about this issue. I don't know if the EFF is contacting congressmen or not, but we should be informing them and making ourselves available for their questions should they have any about computer technology. I propose that we, 1. seek out public figures and media who can share our message 2. come up with more concise messaging that is understandable by a non-techie 3. back it up with facts and primary sources John Oliver is not enough. All the tech companies is not enough. This is as big as or bigger than SOPA. When we fought SOPA, we didn't have the possibility that people could blame us in the future for terrorist attacks if that bill did not pass. If and when we fight an anti-encryption bill, we will be fighting that alarmist view. We will make it much easier on ourselves if we seek to educate the public about the issues and let them make up their own minds. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293949
- bhaumik 11y ago
  Bernie Sanders would have the most leverage. His stance on privacy: http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-privacy-and-digital-rights/ http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-privacy-and-digital.... If contacting the campaign team directly doesn't work, you can make a thread on /r/sandersforpresident or join the Coders for Sanders slack group to influence that group. The devs behind berniesanders.com are active on there too.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    It's a great idea in theory. Can you reach him or someone on his team? I've tried to reach Bernie but have no contacts. Supposedly we're 6 degrees apart but I don't know the path. I tried contacting Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's, who is one of his supporters and an activist himself, but didn't hear back. People are reluctant to address the issue on his subreddit. I've tried posting extensive information on the subject twice already [1] [2] His supporters are not even informed enough themselves. It's up to us and the EFF to get the message out there. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/474b28/sanders_would_look_great_if_he_sided_with_apple/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/474b28... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu/the_mass_surveillance_debate_kicked_off_by/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu... EDIT: I'm trying via the coders for sanders slack group now
slicktux 11y ago
The fact of the matter is that U.S. founders would be appalled by DOJ IPhone request, but the common people are not; that is a problem. It is a problem because the U.S. founders made the U.S. Constitution to tell the Federal Government that the people are free, not the other way around; The U.S. Constitution has a purpose and not a meaning e.g. Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution; The fact that a federal government entity, such as the DOJ, wants access to a private 'citizens'' (yes, legally corporations are people) intellectual property is unconstitutional. This, sadly, illustrates the mindset of the Federal Government and the status-quo. What happened to the people being jurisprudence? The Federal Government is unbound and reckless and it needs to be bound; bound by the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution that was philosophically created to serve a purpose, and that is Limited Federal Government. . .everyone seems to start in the middle of a problem, but never the beginning. Beginning here being The Federal Government and the problems it has propagated. Maybe then people will realize that its solutions are just problems, solutions that solve problems they created. Now, apropos to the topic. . .yes the founders would be appalled and so should the people. The appeal to the founders argument is an appeal to look back to history and identify with true political values that made this country so great. Else you can just "sit back and listen and they will tell you when you'r wrong. . ."
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- studentrob 11y ago
  > U.S. founders would be appalled by DOJ IPhone request, but the common people are not That's not accurate. The latest poll has more Americans supporting Apple than the DOJ [1] And that's an improvement over the first poll which had 51% supporting the FBI [2] Progress has been made and more can be done. Let's continue educating each other about encryption and inform our representatives how we feel. All is not lost and we can still share facts to support a reasonable course going forward. [1] http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-iphone-doj-fbi-wall-street-journal-poll/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-iphone-doj-fbi-wall-s... [2] http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/more-support-for-justice-department-than-for-apple-in-dispute-over-unlocking-iphone/ http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/more-support-for-just...
robbrown451 11y ago
They'd certainly side with Apple, but mostly in hopes that they could have their own iPhone.
diskcat 11y ago
muh founding fathers US founders would be appalled by the fact that you can't own slaves anymore too. nobody can farm 20 acres of land by himself.
dcosson 11y ago
On a technical level I really don't understand something about this situation. All the discussion I see presupposes that the only option for Apple to comply with the FBI is to build & sign this new version of iOS, and then give it to the government, who will distribute it internally to unlock hundreds of phones held as evidence in local court cases across the country, at which point it may or may not (but probably will) be stolen. It seems like there's another possibility, where Apple takes the phone, signs the compromised version of iOS on an air-gapped computer deep in Cupertino somewhere, decrypts the phone, sends the decrypted hard drive image to the FBI, and then erases the signed version of the software. Why would this process have any higher risk of being compromised than Apple's normal release process for signing new iOS versions? I get the reason this case matters at a more fundamental level, the precedent it sets and whether or not the government can force Apple to spy on its customers. But there's been so much focus on the technical feasibility of it, and it seems like Apple is exaggerating the argument that it's absolutely impossible to build this new iOS version without it being hacked.
- niels_olson 11y ago
  > and then erases the signed version of the software. And the entire development tree? The local repos on the computer of every engineer that touches it? You realize that even nuclear secrets get stolen, right? Even the NSA's dirty laundry got aired in public. No serious product remains in the dark forever.
  - XorNot 11y ago
    All of which are useless if you don't have Apple's signing key. The code to ignore the lockout is quite possibly a 1 line fix. This case wouldn't be needed were that not the case, since otherwise it would be almost trivial to dump an iPhone's firmware image and hex edit the relevant code out.
- einarvollset 11y ago
  This is the smartest, most well consider comment on this whole topic, and I'm sorry to say you're likely to be down voted into oblivion :)
intrasight 11y ago
The sooner they take down Apple the better. Security through obscurity is a failed strategy.
ridgeguy 11y ago
This seems like an instance in which a small number of people could strongly affect an outcome - in which civil disobedience could matter. For Apple to comply with the court's order would require some of its employees to act. If whoever at Apple is told to comply with the court's order declines to do so, then what? If every Apple employee asked to supply information to the FBI refuses, then what? If every coder Apple tries to hire to comply with the court order declines to come aboard...how will the FBI get what it wants? Of course, those critical people would have to be willing to lose their jobs or not accept employment. Long ago, Rosa Parks declined to give up her seat on the bus in favor of a white passenger. She was arrested for it, and we have a better country for her pains. This is an opportunity for Parks v.2016 - if you're asked by Apple to do anything to comply with the court order, don't do it.
- generj 11y ago
  I guarantee job offers and a gofundme legal defense would be offered to any dissenting employees insanely quickly on this issue. If Tim Cook was really upset he could start a new company called "Screw the FBI LLC" which coincidentally hired employees after they got fired from Apple...
  - XorNot 11y ago
    You do realize Tim Cook is the CEO aka the one who is ultimately doing the firing in this scenario right? The US Government are not majority stakeholders in Apple.
    - swombat 11y ago
      In the UK there is this concept of a "shadow director", which is someone who, while not officially a director of the company, actually has executive power indirectly in some way. The legal concept exists to point out that a shadow director can be held legally accountable in the same way a director can. Perhaps a similar concept applies here. If the FBI can compel action from Apple it is basically a shadow CEO of Apple.
- ghshephard 11y ago
jonesb6 11y ago
If you want to make a critical argument for people to make such a large sacrifice, stop using so much rhetoric. The story of Rosa Parks has been heavily editorialized and she was in fact not the first person to stand up to bus segregation. The first person was Claudette Colvin who refused to give up her seat on the bus March 2nd, 1955, a full 9 months before Rosa Parks [1]. The problem with Claudette Colvin was that she was a pregnant teenager, and the father was a married man. I am by no means demeaning Rosa Parks. What she did was incredibly brave. I am however pointing out that you are willing to tell other people to sacrifice their jobs by editorializing. That strikes me as immoral, and I believe those at Apple will need to make such a decision honestly and without subterfuge if such a tremendous action is to occur. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudette_Colvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudette_Colvin Edit: I have 820 karma remaining and will happily throw the rest of it away for this comment, even if not a single one of you post a counter-argument to what I am saying.
- xacaxulu 11y ago
  This is a fairly balanced, cogent and thoughtful response to the overall thread. I too would welcome dissenting arguments presented instead of the knee-jerk downvote.
  - mattmanser 11y ago
    I don't see what relevance it has apart from being pedantic. It didn't add to the discussion at hand. The people back then running the campaign knew good PR, so what.
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      So, we should know good PR in this time and date, as well? But understand what is PR and what is too much idealism.
- dclowd9901 11y ago
  You're not wrong about Rosa Parks, but I'm not sure how it applies any differently. Whether her example (though not the premier example) inspires someone to take up civil disobedience or not is entirely up to how she had inspired that person. The fact remains that she did engage in civil disobedience so why does it matter that she wasn't the first?
gonvaled 11y ago
The whole thing is a charade. Since the Snowden revelations we know that: - the NSA has access to any information it wants, with (coerced or not) collaboration from US companies - the affected companies can not talk about it. In fact, they are forced to deny any kind of interference, backdoor or collanoration. The outcome of this trial does not matter. If Apple loses, it will give the impression that it fights for users rights, if it wins it will give the false impression that we have secure comunications. Caveat emptor: doing business with any US corporation is putting your data at risk.
- akerro 11y ago
  >Caveat emptor: doing business with any US corporation is putting your data at risk. UK is even worse. What about Russia, China, France?
  - gonvaled 11y ago
    None of those countries continuosly bombard me about how free and good they are.
- drewpc 11y ago
  The whole thing is not a charade, but you're missing the point of it all. The FBI is trying to set legal precedent. If the FBI were trying to simply get data off the phone, they would've given it to the NSA. "doing business with any US corporation is putting your data at risk." Governments create laws that all organizations in that country must follow. You'd be better off saying that doing business with any corporation in any country is putting your data at risk.
  - gonvaled 11y ago
    The US has secret laws, secret trials, secret institutions, ... Basically, your country has long been run by secret powers, and you keep believing the show. The "FBI is trying to set legal precedent" is part of the show: if they get it, they'll use it; if not, they'll access any information they want by other means. What matters is: is your data secure, like 100% secure, on Apple devices? The answer, no matter the outcome of this charade, is "no, not even close"
girkyturkey 11y ago
I find it hard to believe that the All Writs Act can still be used/relevant in today's society. The All Writs Act was created in the 18th century when the technology was nearly nothing. How can we reference this act when technology has changed exponentially? If the FBI can force Apple to build a key, you can be sure authoritarian regimes like China and Russia will turn around and force Apple to hand it over to them .... And who knows what happens next, they could use that key to oppress their own people.
- matthewmcg 11y ago
  The Act itself is relevant as a gap filler as long as courts issue warrants, subpoenas, etc. Apple's reply brief gives the example of a court having authority under the AWA to make provision for overnight housing for a prisoner whose testimony takes more than one day. Apple's main statutory argument is that the government is stretching the AWA to do something that it was never intended to do when there is more recent legislation from the 90s (CALEA) where Congress ultimately rejected giving law enforcement this power.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- TylerH 11y ago
  I mean, to play devil's advocate, the Constitution was created in the 18th century, too, but we still follow that and uphold and strike down laws based on that.

258 points by rbcgerard 11y ago

Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11294164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11294164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293778 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293778 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293514 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293514

matheweis 11y ago

Not well versed in the legal process here... I assume that the hearing is just a formality at this point, and the case is all but certain to be appealed, right?

droithomme 11y ago
This is their final response in their own federal district court. The district court will issue its decision. Afterwards the next appeal would be to the US Supreme Court. That level of appeal can take years if accepted, or more commonly, is ignored. In the meantime there can be orders for them to comply in the meantime or face consequences.
- Mandatum 11y ago
  What can we expect to see from Apple? Would they comply, if not what consequences would we see them face? Fines or jail-time for those making the decision to not comply?
- techsupporter 11y ago
  I think you missed a step. This is currently in District Court, the next appeal would be to the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, yes?
  - droithomme 11y ago
    Sorry, right, you are correct. Thanks.
  - dbcurtis 11y ago
    I thought we were at the step where the case is now fully briefed? Isn't the next step oral arguments at the district court level? Then a District court ruling. Then appeal to 9CA, and so forth. Although if someone files for an Emergency TRO, I'm not sure if that goes to 9CA or to the SCOTUS Justice that oversees 9CA (Kennedy).
    - schoen 11y ago
      The hearing at the district court level will be before a magistrate judge (because of the way that the issue arose in connection with a search warrant). Magistrate judges' orders can also be appealed to the district judge assigned to the case, which happens before an appeal to the court of appeals. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_59 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_59

Gustomaximus 11y ago

In the same way Apple shifts global tax to Ireland, could they shift the encryption ownership (sorry - there's surely a better technical term I could use) to an overseas holding company where this is likely to be quickly dismissed? Essentially make it like suing Apple in an attempt to control Google search results type thing... its simply a different entity.

zekevermillion 11y ago
Huh... That may be possible! It would require Apple not being able to control that entity, however. They would effectively have to outsource security (seems like a dangerous plan). Also, the gov't could then simply outlaw the outsourcing of security functions for device manufacturers.
- nathancahill 11y ago
  > the gov't could then simply outlaw.. If this was about the gov't simply making new laws we wouldn't be having this discussion right? Fortunately we live in a country where the gov't can't simply outlaw things.
  - zekevermillion 11y ago
    Actually they can. I see nothing unconstitutional about restricting companies from circumventing a court ruling on existing law. Even if unconstitutional (which it's not) that does not necessarily prevent a bill from becoming a law.
    - ascagnel_ 11y ago
      The entire discussion here is not about Apple circumventing a court ruling. They are appealing the ruling, and until the appeal is complete they don't have to perform any action. Right now, it would be very unconstitutional (a denial of due process) to prevent Apple from appealing the ruling.
  - rhizome 11y ago

deathanatos 11y ago

Does anyone have a link to the response that Apple filed with the court? (The article didn't seem to link to it anywhere, unfortunately.) Edit: I seem to have found it: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-16-Cm-00010-Dckt-000177-000-Filed-2016.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-1... (Found via this article: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160315/15505433916/apples-response-to-doj-your-filing-is-full-blatantly-misleading-claims-outright-falsehoods.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160315/15505433916/apple...)

floatingatoll 11y ago
http://www.scribd.com/doc/304897946/Reply-Brief-in-Support-of-Apple-s-Motion-to-Vacate-1 http://www.scribd.com/doc/304897946/Reply-Brief-in-Support-o...
freck 11y ago
See also the supplement where Apple picks apart many technical inaccuracies of the DOJ's claims. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762149/Supp-Neuenschwander-Decl-Executed.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762149/Supp-Neue...

doener 11y ago

Snowden's comment: https://mobile.twitter.com/Snowden/status/709874783689826304 https://mobile.twitter.com/Snowden/status/709874783689826304

cptskippy 11y ago
I realize that Snowden has done a lot of good by releasing the information he has, but I really don't care what he personally has to say and his controlled release of the information demonstrates to me that what he's do is as much for attention and his ego as it is anything else.
- swampthinker 11y ago
  I mean, it cuts both ways. By drawing it out, Snowden got the story get a lot more attention from the media and general public.
- jdonaldson 11y ago
  If Snowden released it all at once, he would've lost leverage. He's playing for much higher stakes than "attention and ego". If he slips up, it's over for him.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - cptskippy 11y ago
    What leverage does he have? I'm pretty sure if the NSA wanted it, he'd be dead already.
- colordrops 11y ago
  It's pretty evident that there were several reasons for drawing it out: keep the story alive until it got mass attention, allow each release to be scrutinized and understood by the public, and to vet the information first to make sure no one is put at risk.

pekk 11y ago

I'm glad that we have international megacorporations to tell us what the authors of the US Constitution would think about things.

fleitz 11y ago
Yeah the founders of the us were just regular old folk, none of them did international business.
- pekk 11y ago
  Were they themselves corporations? Did they avoid taxes using a double Irish strategy? Do tell, this alternate history is becoming more interesting every second.
  - fleitz 11y ago
    They had a fucking revolution over EVADING taxes by buying tea from places other than England. They weren't avoiding taxes, they were putting guns in peoples faces covering them in tar and then feathers, throwing all the taxed tea in the ocean and then proceeding to conduct their business however they saw fit, government be damned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act So yeah, in this alternate history the Founders are a lot more fucking bad ass than Apple, going so far as to commit treason to avoid taxes. (Thankfully they won so the whole treason thing was moot) Then they teamed up with the French to cause all sorts of problems for the English King, they probably would have gotten Ireland to fuck with the English too if they weren't already doing all they could to fuck up England. They would have called it a double irish spit roast. And now getting back to writs, you might want to see that they created the 4th fucking amendment to give a big middle finger to England being able to issue a writ for whatever the fuck they wanted. So we don't really have to ask what the founders would have thought because they told us directly. They were so gung ho on fucking with government that they even said if this revolution doesn't work out, have another one, because why the fuck not, and created the second amendment so that if anyone wanted to put guns in people faces again to evade taxes they could. If they were alive today they'd probably be helping Apple smuggle untaxed iPhones from China free from any sort of government restriction.

cjslep 11y ago

I am disheartened that it takes the money, fame, and power of a megacorporation just to meet the balance between individuals and government.

tn13 11y ago
And at the same time we should be thankful to live in a country where such mega-corporations can exist and thrive.
bane 11y ago
this is why the cyberpunk future we've read about is coming
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mangeletti 11y ago
I agree, but this megacorporation is a direct result of the wants and needs of individuals, so think of Apple as our collective bargaining leverage.
- jonah 11y ago
  > "...the wants and needs of individuals" Isn't that what the government is supposed to represent. Sigh...
  - dclowd9901 11y ago
    The invisible hand is all powerful.
  - panic 11y ago
    To be fair, Congress seems to be on Apple's side here. It's just our ever-more-overreaching executive branch that's the issue.
    - mtgx 11y ago

mochamadrochim 11y ago

www.faceboo.com/mochamad.rochim.46

corndoge 11y ago

The whole request is absurd. If DOJ really believes Apple will ever give up its firmware signing key, they've got another thing coming.

lallysingh 11y ago
I don't think DOJ knows what they're doing here at all. At worst, they'll force Apple and the rest to have subsidiaries off-shore with the signing key.
- joering2 11y ago
  We been there before and unfortunately Apple will lose. One word: CALEA [1] USA telecommunications providers must install new hardware or software, as well as modify old equipment, so that it doesn't interfere with the ability of a law enforcement agency (LEA) to perform real-time surveillance of any telephone or Internet traffic. Change to: USA cellphone producers must alter their hardware or software, as well as modify remote equipment, so that it doesn't interfere with the ability of a law enforcement agency (LEA) to perform real-time surveillance of any telephone or data traffic. Carriers are responsible for CALEA development and implementation costs. AFAIK nobody opposed CALEA and its been years since 2007 when it was implemented. So unfortunately Apple will lose and their standing that corp cannot be forced to write a code or alter it because of their free will or cost possibly incurred, will not stand the chance :( [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_...
  - millstone 11y ago
    CALEA says: A telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government's ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication. Apple seems protected under this clause, since they do not possess the information necessary to decrypt. This is also why the feds can't wiretap iMessage. CALEA text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/1002 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/1002

tosseraccount 11y ago

Thomas Jefferson just expressed his ovtrage on his twitter accovnt.

danielschonfeld 11y ago

Do some people actually think Apple is in the wrong here?

ekianjo 11y ago
Apparently yes if you believe the polls in the US.
- jonesb6 11y ago
  All Apple, Google, and Facebook, need to do to get public favor is add a loading spinner for 3-5 seconds on every refresh/page load and make it clear the government surveillance is the cause. I for one look forward to the 2nd American Revolution.
  - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
    Or, every time you go to enter your password, present a click-through disclaimer that the FBI may have access to whatever information you are about to provide. Press "OK" to acknowledge that we cannot protect your privacy, or "Cancel" to go back to safety.
- grandalf 11y ago
  As usual, however, the US Government's side is accompanied by a disinformation campaign to fool the public into supporting the excesses. Even Obama made remarks which included the word "fetishizing", etc.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
marcoperaza 11y ago
I think Apple is legally in the wrong. What the law should be is a different issue, though I also side with the government in this particular case. I don't think the government should be able to force Apple to ship backdoored phones to customers. But I think that the government should be able to require Apple to use its capabilities to hack particular devices with a court order. In other words, Apple should be free to make phones they themselves cannot hack, but not to refuse to help hack a phone that the government has a warrant for.

studentrob 11y ago

This case should really be open and shut at this point. The real question is, what happens next in Obama's office, the DOJ and among the American public? Obama has already tried to get Congress to give him legislation that would force tech companies to be able to give user data to the government [1]. It's slow going. I don't think we'll see that bill this month. Presumably, after that bill was delayed last year, he then directed the DOJ to go to court over these issues with Apple. I predict that fails. The President has already alluded to the future in his remarks at SXSW. In his view, after the next terrorist attack, Congress will rush through legislation and it will be ugly. At that point, we will be depending largely on the public's understanding of computer technology and encryption so that we can respond with an even hand. If people support encryption and let their representatives know, then we are good. But if they remain uninformed, there is a possibility that they will feel passing an anti-encryption bill would make them safer from terrorism. Let's examine a possible future where the case is won by Apple and in the future there is a terrorist attack that used encryption to accomplish its goals. What will happen? Will law enforcement point the finger at technologists? Will they claim we enabled the attack by blocking legislation that, in their view, would have solved the "going dark" problem they claim they face? Further, how will the public respond? There is still currently 42% of the population who believes the government should be able to compel Apple to write software, which they do not want to write, that aids the FBI [2]. The clock is ticking. We don't know how much time we have to educate the public about encryption until the next terrorist attack. In my view, we need to, 1. seek out public figures and media who can share our message 2. come up with more concise messaging that is understandable by a non-techie 3. back it up with facts and primary sources John Oliver is not enough. All the tech companies is not enough. This is as big as or bigger than SOPA. When we fought SOPA, we didn't have the possibility that people could blame us in the future for terrorist attacks if that bill did not pass. If and when we fight an anti-encryption bill, we will be fighting that alarmist view. We will make it much easier on ourselves if we seek to educate the public about the issues and let them make up their own minds. [1] http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-cybersecurity/2016/02/march-is-encryption-bill-month-hackers-going-after-japans-infrastructure-a-mixed-final-2015-tally-212865 http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-cybersecurity/2016... [2] http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-iphone-doj-fbi-wall-street-journal-poll/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-iphone-doj-fbi-wall-s...

brandonmenc 11y ago

The Founders probably couldn't comprehend mobile phones and the internet, let alone modern corporations being granted personhood. So, who knows.

dave5104 11y ago
In these sort of comparisons, I always kind of assume that the people in question are suggested as being immortal and have aged through time to today.
waterlesscloud 11y ago
They certainly would have understood corporate legal status, and done so much better than nearly everyone who comments on it today. And honestly I don't think it would take most of them very long to grasp the implications of mobile phones, the internet, and encryption. The Founders whose names immediately come to mind were some very intelligent and mentally agile people. While our technology may be incomprehensible to them, the social frameworks into which it fits is not.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
matt_wulfeck 11y ago
The constitution also doesn't mention newspapers and the printing press. You don't need to anticipate the future if you're concerned with very simple ideas of liberty and democracy. They enumerating rights to individuals against the tyranny of an oppressive government and they were very cautious about keeping the government on a short leash and putting that leash in the hands of citizens -- though they seem to think its supposed to be there other way around.
studyhistory 11y ago
The Founders probably couldn't comprehend mobile phones and the internet, let alone modern corporations being granted personhood. Keep in mind that the founders were some of the smartest, most educated and most powerful people on the fucking planet at the time - Franklin even contributed to our understanding of electricity - so I think that view is not only mistaken but beside the point. They had no need to debate the particular sophistry of our circumstances. The corrupting nature of power was clear to them and we should be thankful that for that.

rekwah 11y ago

If they were to lose and lose all future appeals and Apple still didn't wish to comply, what would it take to get around such a request? Would Apple have to re-incorporate outside of the U.S.A?

erictheactor 11y ago
That's the beauty of the new spaceship campus - it can just land in another country if need be.
joering2 11y ago
My take as I pointed earlier, would be that they would start selling online only (go to store to look at it only) and shipping devices from Mexico for example. Or if Gov continues their witch hunt, they could clearly mark phones with backdoor from those without, hoping that black market will be able to deliver encrypted phones to those who still want to have Apple device.

chadrs 11y ago

I never like the appeal to founding fathers argument as if it carries any weight. (1) They could barely agree on anything, so it's not like they would magically agree today (2) They would also be appalled by women's rights / civil rights, so I don't think this is a good test

qq66 11y ago
Agreed... The Founding Fathers were clearly the most intelligent and capable leadership the country has ever had, but in 2016, I wouldn't ask for the opinion of a person who had signed their name on the three fifths compromise.
clarkmoody 11y ago
Many of the founders detested slavery. Also, most of them would be appalled at the size, scope, and influence of the federal government/bureaucracy and the Supreme Court. Of course a better appeal would be to the principles of liberty outlined in the founding documents of the United States -- principles most of us take for granted.
SixSigma 11y ago
I think Thomas Paine and probably John & Abigail Adams would be for 2)
afarrell 11y ago
Not many people fully appreciate the degree to which #1 is true. Folks should read Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton.

einarvollset 11y ago

I'm curious what you guys think the government should do differently here. There's a valid court order, there's a clear reason for this order to be executed, and the request is restricted. They do not, for example ask for the private signing keys for iOS. That would be less work for Apple, and actually well within the rights of the govt. An unpopular argument I realize, particularly in the post-Snowden era, but I would be curious to hear some considered reflections on how the govt should go about this differently. Assume for example that this is not Apple, but instead Enron protecting the laptop of their CTO

bfaviero 11y ago
Enron can hand over the laptop. This would be like asking Enron to break into their CEO's house.
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  The phone was owned by the state.
  - smileysteve 11y ago
    And if the state (or any employer) were appropriately managing their devices they'd have access to the data, known which apps were on it, and have remote wiped it.
- einarvollset 11y ago
  Not really. If Enron put encryption with their master keys on the data, how is this different? Seems very similar to me?
studentrob 11y ago
If Loretta Lynch were informed about how encryption works, she would not be pursuing this case. As it is, she does not understand that she is wasting the time of American government and people. She does not understand that even if the FBI can get into every Apple phone, criminals can simply choose another form of encryption software to accomplish means of hiding their communications. Assuming the FBI can force Apple to install a key logger to grant them access into encrypted apps, will the FBI then go after Samsung and HTC which are made outside the US? The whole thing is absurd and a waste of our time. The way in which the FBI is going about this is not going to get them what they want. I don't know how to get them what they want. That's their job to figure it out. But they should know better about encryption technology. Or someone should tell them. This has gone on too long.

staunch 11y ago

Tim Cook has done a lot at Apple, but this ethical stand will likely be the most important thing he does in his life. It's a big fucking deal.

wonderlust 11y ago
The story is that the last piece of advice jobs gave tim was to do what he thought was right. I don't think he's trying to be a martyr or anything, but I bet he's trying to do what's right in the situation. Knowing they'll fight this sort of battle really had me considering apple products again honestly, and I gave up that train long ago.
- doktrin 11y ago
  I feel the same way. I don't delude myself into thinking that my individual actions have any measurable impact, but I enjoy exercising the very limited power that lies in giving money to institutions I support, and withdrawing it from those I don't. Apple's definitely on my radar again.
- progressive_dad 11y ago
  I'd love to see john hodgman and justin long revive the old ad campaign with "Hi I'm a mac" "and I'm the police"
- tajen 11y ago
  However, I still see no mention of protecting other nationalities. E.g. I'm French, since the 2015 attacks we have a law saying companies should snitch, the iPhone could very well save my fingerprint/pw outside the secure enclave if it ever needs to unlock it. I want to believe Apple is the one company that respects my privacy. Please, Apple, say your device fits my expectations.
  - samastur 11y ago
    They already did. Last time is in this latest brief where they say there is only one version of OS for all devices in all countries. Same is true for their other services (also mentioned in brief).

awinter-py 11y ago

Ok but in the eyes of the law at the time, george washington was a terrorist (in addition to being 6 feet tall and made of radiation). Of course a guy like Paul Revere would have been pro-privacy. He needed privacy to deliver intelligence on british troop movements. Some legal scholars view the declaration of independence as part of the constitution (and the primary part). But clearly any 'right to rebel' wasn't recognized during the civil war. So we can conclude that the climate has changed. Notice that tim cook isn't out there fighting against apple's ability to push code or fighting for me to install debian on my ipad. He's fighting for his own institution's right to resist the orders of a larger institution. This is like the magna carta -- it was about the rights of the british aristocracy, not the lower gentry or the feudal labor force. Now that they've crossed the IRS and DOJ off the list of federal agencies they give a crap about, next on the list might be the DMV. Apple car anyone?

drdeca 11y ago
Ok but the Magna Carta in the long run had benefits for those not in the aristocracy, did it not?
- awinter-py 11y ago
  If yes (and it's a big if) that's just one data point. You can just as easily argue that the industrial revolution changed the labor landscape and personal rights would have entered british common law either way. Another law that defended the rights of feudal landowners was the fugitive slave act so if there's a pattern here I'm not seeing it.
  - drdeca 11y ago
    Well, of course not all things that benefit one group benefit everyone overall, and not everything which benefits Apple benefits us. That doesn't mean that our interests don't somewhat align with those of Apple in this case. Iirc, the Magna Carta was one of the first to establish the limitation of the powers of kings, though the direct benefeciaries were not the common persons. Analogously, I think this conflict , if it ends in Apple's favor, helps reinforce limits on the powers of the government. Is that not true? An individual, or a group of a few common people could not win against the government in a situation like this, just as the common people could not have gotten something like the Magna Carta. It seems analogous?

hoodoof 11y ago

It takes the biggest, richest, most loved and most powerful companies to stand up to the insane overreach of government authority. Even then everyone sucks in their breath "Are they really daring to defy the power of the government?" Everyone else, every other organisation is little people. Sad that it came to be that governments rule the people instead of the government serving the people.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
Yeah. Though, I would suggest that governments (in conjunction with or as tools of unelected aristocrats, feudal overlords, warlords, strongmen, etc.) have always ruled, and it's only in the past 200-300 years that the people have started to take the power unto themselves. Democracy's a very new and quite brilliant invention, really, when you look at it in the perspective of tens of thousands of years of human social and political development.

studentrob 11y ago

There's another thread about this on the front page right now [1] I suggest that we as technologists get together and inform the public about this issue. I don't know if the EFF is contacting congressmen or not, but we should be informing them and making ourselves available for their questions should they have any about computer technology. I propose that we, 1. seek out public figures and media who can share our message 2. come up with more concise messaging that is understandable by a non-techie 3. back it up with facts and primary sources John Oliver is not enough. All the tech companies is not enough. This is as big as or bigger than SOPA. When we fought SOPA, we didn't have the possibility that people could blame us in the future for terrorist attacks if that bill did not pass. If and when we fight an anti-encryption bill, we will be fighting that alarmist view. We will make it much easier on ourselves if we seek to educate the public about the issues and let them make up their own minds. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293949

bhaumik 11y ago
Bernie Sanders would have the most leverage. His stance on privacy: http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-privacy-and-digital-rights/ http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-privacy-and-digital.... If contacting the campaign team directly doesn't work, you can make a thread on /r/sandersforpresident or join the Coders for Sanders slack group to influence that group. The devs behind berniesanders.com are active on there too.
- studentrob 11y ago
  It's a great idea in theory. Can you reach him or someone on his team? I've tried to reach Bernie but have no contacts. Supposedly we're 6 degrees apart but I don't know the path. I tried contacting Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's, who is one of his supporters and an activist himself, but didn't hear back. People are reluctant to address the issue on his subreddit. I've tried posting extensive information on the subject twice already [1] [2] His supporters are not even informed enough themselves. It's up to us and the EFF to get the message out there. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/474b28/sanders_would_look_great_if_he_sided_with_apple/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/474b28... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu/the_mass_surveillance_debate_kicked_off_by/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu... EDIT: I'm trying via the coders for sanders slack group now

slicktux 11y ago

The fact of the matter is that U.S. founders would be appalled by DOJ IPhone request, but the common people are not; that is a problem. It is a problem because the U.S. founders made the U.S. Constitution to tell the Federal Government that the people are free, not the other way around; The U.S. Constitution has a purpose and not a meaning e.g. Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution; The fact that a federal government entity, such as the DOJ, wants access to a private 'citizens'' (yes, legally corporations are people) intellectual property is unconstitutional. This, sadly, illustrates the mindset of the Federal Government and the status-quo. What happened to the people being jurisprudence? The Federal Government is unbound and reckless and it needs to be bound; bound by the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution that was philosophically created to serve a purpose, and that is Limited Federal Government. . .everyone seems to start in the middle of a problem, but never the beginning. Beginning here being The Federal Government and the problems it has propagated. Maybe then people will realize that its solutions are just problems, solutions that solve problems they created. Now, apropos to the topic. . .yes the founders would be appalled and so should the people. The appeal to the founders argument is an appeal to look back to history and identify with true political values that made this country so great. Else you can just "sit back and listen and they will tell you when you'r wrong. . ."

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
studentrob 11y ago
> U.S. founders would be appalled by DOJ IPhone request, but the common people are not That's not accurate. The latest poll has more Americans supporting Apple than the DOJ [1] And that's an improvement over the first poll which had 51% supporting the FBI [2] Progress has been made and more can be done. Let's continue educating each other about encryption and inform our representatives how we feel. All is not lost and we can still share facts to support a reasonable course going forward. [1] http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-iphone-doj-fbi-wall-street-journal-poll/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-iphone-doj-fbi-wall-s... [2] http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/more-support-for-justice-department-than-for-apple-in-dispute-over-unlocking-iphone/ http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/more-support-for-just...

robbrown451 11y ago

They'd certainly side with Apple, but mostly in hopes that they could have their own iPhone.

diskcat 11y ago

muh founding fathers US founders would be appalled by the fact that you can't own slaves anymore too. nobody can farm 20 acres of land by himself.

dcosson 11y ago

On a technical level I really don't understand something about this situation. All the discussion I see presupposes that the only option for Apple to comply with the FBI is to build & sign this new version of iOS, and then give it to the government, who will distribute it internally to unlock hundreds of phones held as evidence in local court cases across the country, at which point it may or may not (but probably will) be stolen. It seems like there's another possibility, where Apple takes the phone, signs the compromised version of iOS on an air-gapped computer deep in Cupertino somewhere, decrypts the phone, sends the decrypted hard drive image to the FBI, and then erases the signed version of the software. Why would this process have any higher risk of being compromised than Apple's normal release process for signing new iOS versions? I get the reason this case matters at a more fundamental level, the precedent it sets and whether or not the government can force Apple to spy on its customers. But there's been so much focus on the technical feasibility of it, and it seems like Apple is exaggerating the argument that it's absolutely impossible to build this new iOS version without it being hacked.

niels_olson 11y ago
> and then erases the signed version of the software. And the entire development tree? The local repos on the computer of every engineer that touches it? You realize that even nuclear secrets get stolen, right? Even the NSA's dirty laundry got aired in public. No serious product remains in the dark forever.
- XorNot 11y ago
  All of which are useless if you don't have Apple's signing key. The code to ignore the lockout is quite possibly a 1 line fix. This case wouldn't be needed were that not the case, since otherwise it would be almost trivial to dump an iPhone's firmware image and hex edit the relevant code out.
einarvollset 11y ago
This is the smartest, most well consider comment on this whole topic, and I'm sorry to say you're likely to be down voted into oblivion :)

intrasight 11y ago

The sooner they take down Apple the better. Security through obscurity is a failed strategy.

ridgeguy 11y ago

This seems like an instance in which a small number of people could strongly affect an outcome - in which civil disobedience could matter. For Apple to comply with the court's order would require some of its employees to act. If whoever at Apple is told to comply with the court's order declines to do so, then what? If every Apple employee asked to supply information to the FBI refuses, then what? If every coder Apple tries to hire to comply with the court order declines to come aboard...how will the FBI get what it wants? Of course, those critical people would have to be willing to lose their jobs or not accept employment. Long ago, Rosa Parks declined to give up her seat on the bus in favor of a white passenger. She was arrested for it, and we have a better country for her pains. This is an opportunity for Parks v.2016 - if you're asked by Apple to do anything to comply with the court order, don't do it.

generj 11y ago
I guarantee job offers and a gofundme legal defense would be offered to any dissenting employees insanely quickly on this issue. If Tim Cook was really upset he could start a new company called "Screw the FBI LLC" which coincidentally hired employees after they got fired from Apple...
- XorNot 11y ago
  You do realize Tim Cook is the CEO aka the one who is ultimately doing the firing in this scenario right? The US Government are not majority stakeholders in Apple.
  - swombat 11y ago
    In the UK there is this concept of a "shadow director", which is someone who, while not officially a director of the company, actually has executive power indirectly in some way. The legal concept exists to point out that a shadow director can be held legally accountable in the same way a director can. Perhaps a similar concept applies here. If the FBI can compel action from Apple it is basically a shadow CEO of Apple.
ghshephard 11y ago

jonesb6 11y ago

If you want to make a critical argument for people to make such a large sacrifice, stop using so much rhetoric. The story of Rosa Parks has been heavily editorialized and she was in fact not the first person to stand up to bus segregation. The first person was Claudette Colvin who refused to give up her seat on the bus March 2nd, 1955, a full 9 months before Rosa Parks [1]. The problem with Claudette Colvin was that she was a pregnant teenager, and the father was a married man. I am by no means demeaning Rosa Parks. What she did was incredibly brave. I am however pointing out that you are willing to tell other people to sacrifice their jobs by editorializing. That strikes me as immoral, and I believe those at Apple will need to make such a decision honestly and without subterfuge if such a tremendous action is to occur. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudette_Colvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudette_Colvin Edit: I have 820 karma remaining and will happily throw the rest of it away for this comment, even if not a single one of you post a counter-argument to what I am saying.

xacaxulu 11y ago
This is a fairly balanced, cogent and thoughtful response to the overall thread. I too would welcome dissenting arguments presented instead of the knee-jerk downvote.
- mattmanser 11y ago
  I don't see what relevance it has apart from being pedantic. It didn't add to the discussion at hand. The people back then running the campaign knew good PR, so what.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    So, we should know good PR in this time and date, as well? But understand what is PR and what is too much idealism.
dclowd9901 11y ago
You're not wrong about Rosa Parks, but I'm not sure how it applies any differently. Whether her example (though not the premier example) inspires someone to take up civil disobedience or not is entirely up to how she had inspired that person. The fact remains that she did engage in civil disobedience so why does it matter that she wasn't the first?

gonvaled 11y ago

The whole thing is a charade. Since the Snowden revelations we know that: - the NSA has access to any information it wants, with (coerced or not) collaboration from US companies - the affected companies can not talk about it. In fact, they are forced to deny any kind of interference, backdoor or collanoration. The outcome of this trial does not matter. If Apple loses, it will give the impression that it fights for users rights, if it wins it will give the false impression that we have secure comunications. Caveat emptor: doing business with any US corporation is putting your data at risk.

akerro 11y ago
>Caveat emptor: doing business with any US corporation is putting your data at risk. UK is even worse. What about Russia, China, France?
- gonvaled 11y ago
  None of those countries continuosly bombard me about how free and good they are.
drewpc 11y ago
The whole thing is not a charade, but you're missing the point of it all. The FBI is trying to set legal precedent. If the FBI were trying to simply get data off the phone, they would've given it to the NSA. "doing business with any US corporation is putting your data at risk." Governments create laws that all organizations in that country must follow. You'd be better off saying that doing business with any corporation in any country is putting your data at risk.
- gonvaled 11y ago
  The US has secret laws, secret trials, secret institutions, ... Basically, your country has long been run by secret powers, and you keep believing the show. The "FBI is trying to set legal precedent" is part of the show: if they get it, they'll use it; if not, they'll access any information they want by other means. What matters is: is your data secure, like 100% secure, on Apple devices? The answer, no matter the outcome of this charade, is "no, not even close"

girkyturkey 11y ago

I find it hard to believe that the All Writs Act can still be used/relevant in today's society. The All Writs Act was created in the 18th century when the technology was nearly nothing. How can we reference this act when technology has changed exponentially? If the FBI can force Apple to build a key, you can be sure authoritarian regimes like China and Russia will turn around and force Apple to hand it over to them .... And who knows what happens next, they could use that key to oppress their own people.

matthewmcg 11y ago
The Act itself is relevant as a gap filler as long as courts issue warrants, subpoenas, etc. Apple's reply brief gives the example of a court having authority under the AWA to make provision for overnight housing for a prisoner whose testimony takes more than one day. Apple's main statutory argument is that the government is stretching the AWA to do something that it was never intended to do when there is more recent legislation from the 90s (CALEA) where Congress ultimately rejected giving law enforcement this power.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
TylerH 11y ago
I mean, to play devil's advocate, the Constitution was created in the 18th century, too, but we still follow that and uphold and strike down laws based on that.