26 ms·
Apple Encryption Engineers, If Ordered to Unlock iPhone, Might Resist
- moioci 11y agoInteresting parallel with Lavabit pointed out at the end of the article. Would the DOJ be willing to risk shutting down the biggest and most profitable corporation on earth over this?
- orik 11y agoI believe when the government twisted Yahoo's hand and they put up a fight, Yahoo was given a fine that increased exponentially every day they didn't comply. Yahoo would have owed the US gov. a sum equivalent to the GDP by the end of a month.
- giancarlostoro 11y agoIf the engineers got fired or quit their jobs what could be done then I wonder?
- kabdib 11y agoApple HR to security engineer: "You're fired! The color of your hair is all wrong!" (Yes, you can do this in California) Security engineer: "Meep?" HR: "That's right. Oh, and here, since you were such a great employee (up until we noticed your hair, anyway), have this extremely generous dollar amount severance package. Maybe if your hair is a different color someday we'll hire you back." : Apple to FBI: "We have no one with the expertise to work on this. Golly, sorry about that." Is the FBI then going to make a grab for source code, signing keys, and conscript people to do the work?
- plorkyeran 11y ago> Is the FBI then going to make a grab for source code, signing keys, and conscript people to do the work? I think it's become clear that they'd at least try.
- hkmurakami 11y agoInteresting. A draft targeting software engineers to forcibly enlist them in the government's "war on encryption". What kind of dystopia are we living in again?
- ridgeguy 11y agoI don't think this could happen without enabling legislation. The U.S. military draft required passage of the Selective Service Act [1] Something similar would be required before Apple's coders could be forced to carry out court orders directed at Apple, the corporation. Even in these times (so far!) I think this wouldn't happen. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_Act_of_1917
- frandroid 11y agoNot a draft. As we've seen in Snowden, there are tons of engineers who support the security state and will volunteer to serve.
- deegles 11y agoUnfortunately I'm sure there are at least a few engineers with the expertise necessary who would happily agree to work with the FBI (for whatever reason.)
- giancarlostoro 11y agoMaybe engineers with military history.
- smitherfield 11y agoAt-will employment does not extend to firing people in order to not comply with a court order.
- kabdib 11y agoHR to security engineer: "You're quitting? That's a shame. Um . . . Tim Cook has a beach house he wouldn't mind you using for a while. Can you walk his dog?" My point is, the individuals won't suffer.
- pchristensen 11y ago"You're quitting? And leaving a hard technical division of the most financially successful and popular tech product of its generation? And your only recourse is the Silicon Valley job market? ... ... We'll miss you but I'm sure you'll land on your feet."
- smitherfield 11y agoWhen you get a lawful court order, you comply with it. To do otherwise would result in massive fines and quite possibly executives being criminally charged. If the Apple security engineers want to quit on principle, then it truly would be on principle; there is absolutely no way Apple's legal department would allow them to ever be rehired or offered any compensation/gifts beyond a standard severance package. If engineers did quit, Apple would be forced to (at great expense) temporarily hire other people with comparable expertise in order to comply with the order. That said, Apple security engineers probably would land on their feet.
- kabdib 11y agoBut "great expense" enters into the all-writs test. That would have to be re-examined.
- ridgeguy 11y agoI'm not sure Apple could be fined if its relevant employees took individual decisions that resulted in Apple's inability to comply with the court's order. Apple doesn't have the ability to compel an individual's conduct. The court's order applies to Apple, not to named individuals. Given that, I don't see a legal basis for fines, executive criminal charges, etc. I think there's a lot of power in the hands of a few employees (and potential replacements) here. It'll be interesting to see what they decide to do.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 11y agoIf they have the source, documentation, and signing keys, they don't have to conscript anyone. They can have one of their people do it, or hire a non-Apple engineer with low morals who is willing to do it.
- dagw 11y agoIs the FBI then going to make a grab for source code, signing keys, and conscript people to do the work? No, they're going to grab for source code, signing keys, and _pay_ people to do the work. There are lots of competent engineers out there, and not all of them share your politics (and some that do might be willing to reconsider it for a sufficiently large dollar amount). Hell there are probably engineers working at the NSA right now who would easily do it as part of their day to day job if you just handed them the keys and source code.
- dogecoinbase 11y agoImpossible to know without the actual employment documents, but also curious if the DoJ could be considered a tortfeasor for disrupting an employment contract in that case.
- ridgeguy 11y agoMy guess would be that some stretch of sovereign immunity [1] would shield DoJ. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity
- differentView 11y agoAfter those engineers quit, Apple should hire a bunch of terrible engineers with impressive resumes (bonus if they used to work for the FBI) and put them to work on this.
- phire 11y agoI'm not sure this approach will work now that the Government has pushed the fight public.
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoCould you provide a reference to this? I don't recall what you're referring to.
- studentrob 11y agohttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsuit-documents-fine-user-data-refusal http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsu...
- studentrob 11y agoYes, $250,000 per day [1]. And that was in 2008 in FISA court. We only just learned about it in 2014. Who knows if the FBI's request carries as much as the NSA's. Probably not. Former NSA Director Michael Hayden confirms it was easier for him to get things done than the FBI [2] [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsuit-documents-fine-user-data-refusal http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsu... [2] https://youtu.be/_ESGBPmf0mc?t=45m9s https://youtu.be/_ESGBPmf0mc?t=45m9s
- zippergz 11y agoMy guess: yes.
- tonydiv 11y agoYeah, they believe they can get whatever they want. They won't care about the implications of their demands.
- jfoutz 11y agoThe DOJ couldn't shut down apple. Apple has $200,000,000,000 in cash and marketable securities. DOJ's budget is only 27 billion. That's a lot of lawyer time. It's a huge waste of money, but there it is. Way less likely, but Apple could move HQ to another country. And take their secret source code and keys with them.
- LAMike 11y agoThe US government would respond by banning all iOS devices
- koenigdavidmj 11y agoAnd most of the US government's phones suddenly turn into expensive bricks. I'm not sure whether a company should be 'too big to govern', but it is on occasion hilarious.
- ohyeshedid 11y agoIt's not that it's too big to govern, it's that they're too big to fail. Publicly traded, employment footprint, market penetration; too big to fail. The impact of any action that would kill Apple here would also destroy the economy. Never happen.
- thirdsun 11y agoWhich is probably a very good way to cause at least minor riots.
- rawnlq 11y agoI wonder if there's any advantage for Apple to form their own sovereign nation to operate out of. They are already richer than many existing countries. Can't they just buy out a Singapore-sized island somewhere?
- kevin_thibedeau 11y agoThey could invade Sealand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
- maxerickson 11y agoI don't think Apple shareholders will go along with shuttering the company, nor will they lose all that many customers over the outcome where they produce a bypass. (If Apple can't resist the government request, neither can anyone else, only the crankiest of people will punish them for being the test case.)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ohyeshedid 11y agoNo, because it's a publicly traded company. Apple's size, value, and market penetration are a few of the reasons why the feds didn't go the NSL route. This is one ugly fight, but if they went the NSL route Apple could finally disprove their constitutional validity; DOJ would neeeeeever want to put that on the table.
- marricks 11y agoI wonder if Apple would finance their legal fees if they resisted, or would that be considered some sort of encouragement? It might very well help public appeal if there was a person resisting the government compared to a large corporation. Then again, if they get to the point of ordering Apple to break their security seems like they already lost the case at that point.
- TillE 11y agoWhat legal fees? It's Apple Inc which bears responsibility in this case, not individual employees. As the article suggests: > if the engineers refused to write the code, rather than outright quit, “then I think that the court would be much more likely to find Apple in contempt,”
- zippergz 11y ago> It might very well help public appeal if there was a person resisting the government compared to a large corporation. I was thinking that too, but then I reflected on the anti-Apple opinions I've seen in this case (mostly from a small subset of my Facebook friends). My fear is that it would actually do the opposite - it would give a face to the "spoiled" and "liberal nutjob" Silicon Valley nerds who "want to help terrorists." I hope I'm wrong...
- jonesb6 11y agoFor example if the engineer in question was an unattractive male, perhaps also a minority, someone with weird hobbies etc.
- yarou 11y agoThis is very much a case of civil disobedience. Non-violent struggle is a surprisingly effective tactic. As Gandhi states: >You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.
- stcredzero 11y ago>You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind. He said that in the 20th century. Imprisoning the mind is the province of the 21st century. Both governments and pseudo-"activists" now seek to do this by leveraging the Internet.
- pdkl95 11y agoAll it will take to "imprison the mind" is convincing enough people to use a system that gives positive reinforcement when your friends act "correctly". Normal social behavior will do the rest. China (with Tencent) is already trying this, and Facebook has at least explored this area[2]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI [2] https://consumerist.com/2015/08/05/facebook-patent-would-allow-lenders-to-determine-creditworthiness-by-looking-at-your-friends/ https://consumerist.com/2015/08/05/facebook-patent-would-all...
- yarou 11y agoThat's what memes are, aren't they? A prison for your mind. I'm sure corporations and governments are already researching how to exploit the viral nature of memes. It's inception, except we're awake (arguably). Social consciousness is gone, replaced by tiny "nano"-ideas that spread faster than an Asian woman's legs for a white dude.[0] [0] http://oktrends.okcupid.com http://oktrends.okcupid.com (Adding the source so dang doesn't accuse me of incivility when my speech reflects reality. I know HN is a no fun allowed zone, but I couldn't resist.)
- ww520 11y agoThey can fine you to poverty.
- iamleppert 11y agoI bet none of these engineers have spent a single night in jail. All it would take would be for a judge to send a single one to jail for the weekend, and they'd be happy to quickly bang out whatever the government wanted as soon as possible on Monday morning. The sentiment is nice, but I doubt the government is worried in the slightest. The government is all powerful and can be whatever it wants, lest we forget.
- jnevelson 11y agoAnd this threat right here is exactly why encryption is so important.
- jacquesm 11y agoHow could they be ordered to do anything if they are no longer employed by Apple? Resigning is a pretty powerful statement, being compelled to work for an employer you no longer want to work for is orders of magnitude worse than anything else suggested in this whole sordid saga to date. Compelling a company to produce a product is bad enough, let's not add treating people like chattel on top of it.
- tacos 11y agoA Judge can issue an Order saying whatever they hell he or she wants. A Judge can order you to leave work and sit on a Federal Grand Jury for 36 months. A Judge can order an innocent bystander to testify or sit in jail until he agrees to do so. Employment status has nothing to do with anything. Just because you quit the police department doesn't mean you don't have to cooperate with a federal investigation or anything that a Judge orders you to do during that trial, from the grand jury phase up to and through sentencing. I so often agree with the general sentiment of HN posters but the lack of understanding around basic civics is disheartening.
- redthrowaway 11y agoI mean, you can always resign. The government can't force you to work for a company. The court order is against Apple, not individual engineers. I'm sure there'd be a GoFundMe up within minutes that would collect enough money to cover the salaries of a few engineers while the court battle plays out. Afterward, go back to work for Apple.
- kstenerud 11y agoTaking this further down the rabbit hole: Suppose that only about 5 people can do what the FBI wants done. Suppose all 5 refuse, to the point of quitting Apple. Does the FBI now compel them to return to Apple and write the software or go to jail? And what if one of those engineers says that he doesn't actually know how to do it; Apple only thought he could, but he actually can't. Now we get into territory of proving competency and capability.
- jacquesm 11y agoYou're in the territory of outright slavery. That would be a new low on all fronts.
- peteretep 11y agoThere seem to be a whole bunch of people waving around odd ideas. The idea that this would be a new low is ridiculous if one takes the time to consider conscription. If you don't like that the government can coerce you (conscription, work in jail, contempt of court, eminent domain, etc) then rally against those laws, rather than the court using established powers
- jacquesm 11y ago> There seem to be a whole bunch of people waving around odd ideas. No, it's not an 'odd idea'. The fact that the government can coerce you has lots of limits placed on it. Conscription and the draft have been abolished in most places in the developed world, contempt of court may get you jailed but will not - and can not - be used to force you to create something and eminent domain can only be used to take something away from you. So yes, this would be a new low, it would mean that ordinary citizens that have broken no laws can be forced to create something that does not currently exist against their express desire (and maybe even against their capability, how do you even begin to check if someone should be able to do something). It would definitely be a new low. All the things you pulled into it have nothing to do with the matter at hand, those are other things that you may or may not agree with but they are not the same as being ordered by a judge to perform a job that you have no desire to if you yourself are not guilty of breaking any laws. It would be an abuse of power that to me is unprecedented in any modern society.
- awinter-py 11y agothe EPIC quote comparing backdoorization for a security dev to euthanasia for a doctor is weirdly confusing; it flips the script on personal freedoms.
- 21 11y agoIt compares it to forcing a doctor to do an euthanasia. If you want to kill yourself, don't force me to do it, find someone who will willingly do it.
- bicknergseng 11y agoI actually just asked this question in another thread 2 days ago. Really interested in how it would play out from a legal standpoint.
- freewizard 11y agoDear FBI, why bother Apple? Just hire Chinese or Korean engineers[1] to crack it! They know more backdoors than Apple does. [1] http://blog.trendmicro.com/pwn2own-day-1-recap/ http://blog.trendmicro.com/pwn2own-day-1-recap/
- harryh 11y agoSon, go to your room! But I don't want to go to my room! Son, go to your room! Mommy, what would happen if on the way to my room I ran into a pack of wild dogs in the hallway blocking my path? Would I still have to go to my room?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- na85 11y agoI bet you're fun at parties.
- vidanay 11y agoI'm guessing you don't have children? My seven year old asks EXACTLY this type of hypothetical question.
- harryh 11y agoAnd is it a useful discussion when they ask this type of question? Or is it a transparent and poor attempt to get out of going to their room? (Incidentally, I have an 8 month old son. So, yes, I've got a few years before I get to have conversations like this.)
- naaaaak 11y agoNo matter what happens in this case, to the individual engineers or to Apple, the problem runs much deeper: - Government power and rights > individual power and rights. - Mass surveillance of their own people. - Constitution consistently ignored. - Civil liberties viewed as an annoyance. - Militarized police force. - Secret court systems that "OKs" any government action. - Mainstream media little more than an arm of government propaganda. - Whistleblowers treated like criminals. - Indefinite detention laws ready to be used for any reason. - Can justify any action in the name of "national security". - Political class rules all. We have a word for this type of government but but no one is talking about it yet. Whatever the outcome to Apple, a government like this will try again and find other ways to do what they want.
- citizensixteen 11y ago>We have a word for this type of government but but no one is talking about it yet. What is the word to describe what we now have in the US?
- studentrob 11y agoI honestly feel that engineers need not fall on their swords over this. The decision is up to them, of course. But ultimately, shareholders would expect someone to comply with the court order should the DOJ win. Note that Yahoo was threatened with daily fines of $250,000 for failing to comply in a FISA court case in 2008, and we only just learned this in 2014 [1]. I don't think we would live in a forced back door world for too long. After another 2, 4, or 8 years, we will eventually realize that giving the government a back door to the iPhone did not give it a back door to the myriad of other encrypted communications tools out there. Terrorists will find other ways to hide their communications. I really don't want to see Apple lose this case, or any sort of anti-encryption bill. I also wouldn't want to see someone throw away working at Apple over it. Apple can maintain its integrity by complying with the law as it has publicly stated. Engineers can remain true to an employer they respect knowing said employer did everything they could to resist the government. There aren't many great employers out there like this. Don't take it for granted. That's just my 2c. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsuit-documents-fine-user-data-refusal http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsu...
- lugg 11y agoYea, we can all blame someone else. I like this, "not my job to uphold the constitution", "its the courts fault for letting it get here", "its the politicians fault for going a long with this", "its the peoples fault for voting for them". The fact is, if nobody stands up for this, do you really think anyone is going to stand up and try to take away the back door to the iphone and get away with it? Do you really believe they will stop there?
- studentrob 11y agoI hear you. The point is we can stand up for it here and now. This case isn't over. There are a lot of good things about the US. I believe our commitment to freedom of speech is stronger than elsewhere. This case is strongly testing that belief. And, according to the ACLU, it will be at least two years before this court reaches the supreme court [1]. There is a lot of time to educate the public on the facts about the case and how the technology in their pockets works. There are multiple examples of public figures changing their minds when presented with evidence. Lindsey Graham and Sam Harris are two. I and a few other developers are forming a grassroots campaign around this. If you'd like to get involved, whether you're a developer or not, shoot me an email at stillastudent on google's email service [1] http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/apple-and-the-fbi-what-happens-next http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/apple-and-the...
- throwaway7798 11y agoWhat exactly does Apple need to crack the iPhone? A bunch of signing keys?
- throwaway7798 11y agoWhat exactly does Apple need to crack the iPhone? A bunch of signing keys?
- nxzero 11y agoIt would be funny if a bug was introduced that became known that instead of being an exploit was a patch to the backdoor.
- spectrum1234 11y agoApple's poor org structure is a blessing in this case: Apple said in court filings last month that it would take from six to 10 engineers up to a month to meet the government’s demands. However, because Apple is so compartmentalized, the challenge of building what the company described as “GovtOS” would be substantially complicated if key employees refused to do the work.
- tacos 11y ago"Apple Encryption Engineers, If Ordered to Unlock iPhone, Might Resist" Um... no. Perhaps until they get a whiff of a professional, um, "motivator" in the guise of an FBI agent or carefully-chosen warden. Some of you guys crack under the pressure of solving a C++ warning. The guy who upvotes every "Ten things about being an Introvert" post at HN will last precisely ten seconds when presented with that reality. I admire a good hunger strike every now and then but this case has been mismanaged by both sides. Slippery slopes and domino theories but really -- you're gonna rot in jail versus coughing up a pin code to protect the privacy of a dead terrorist? This could have been narrowed, should have been narrowed, and an anonymous post card with four digits on it could end the standoff. And that's the way it's always been done. Apple seems ignorant of this reality and they are going to pay a dear price for their position -- even before they incur the cost of forcing employees into an ethical rat trap.
- tacos 11y agoDownvotes aside, looks like the anonymous postcard showed up right on cue: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/technology/apple-fbi-hearing-unlock-iphone.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/technology/apple-fbi-heari... Apple shouldn't have been surprised by this. They will however pay a dear price for the posturing. And they will have wasted valuable public sentiment when the government tries again, which it will.
- superuser2 11y agoIf Apple continues to resist, the FBI will simply take the source code and signing keys and hand them over to some contractor to do the work. Is that better? Apple's source code and signing keys in the FBI's hands?
- adventured 11y agoIt would be better to push the FBI into that position, yes. Make them steal that property at gun point, literally. Force them to show up at Apple HQ, with SWAT teams, threatening to murder innocent, unarmed engineers in the streets. Make sure every news source available is there to witness and broadcast it live. Why force it? To drop all pretext of what this really is, and reveal the US Government's actions as being that of the fascist monster it has become. After all, we've got the US military directly, intentionally spying on everything Americans do electronically. We're probably two or three steps or 'events' away from our first Caesar attempting to take permanent executive power. It's going to get a lot worse yet, just look how far they've come in a mere 15 years in their power grab. It's better to just stop pretending, here and now, regarding what's really happening. It would be the Tiananmen Square for privacy in America.
- jnbiche 11y ago> We're probably two or three steps or 'events' away from our first Caesar attempting to take permanent executive power. Or a single election. Hitler gained initial power democratically, after all.
- joshka 11y agoEven putting the engineers in the position to have to make a choice to resist means that you damage their career prospects whichever way they choose. To be known as 'that guy' who {supported a corrupt government/supported terrorism} polarizes future job choices. There's no real upside. As someone asked to do this, I'd be asking for all future earnings up front from the FBI, so the economic worth of this is really 8 or 9 figures.
- hoipaloi 11y agoIf you are one of the very few encryption engineers at apple that can do this, you are already one of their highest paid employees, and also one of the most sought after in the entire realm of tech. Quitting over this is likely to drive your value up even higher. The FBI when it compels people to do things, pays nothing to have them do it. That's the power of the law.
- dagw 11y agoThe FBI when it compels people to do things, pays nothing to have them do it. I'm pretty sure the FBI/Government has stated they will compensate Apple/any external consultants for their time at their usual rate.
- muddi900 11y agoWhat sort of decryption task would even be needed if ? Suppose Apple can update the phone signed backdoored update, the DOJ order never asked for decryption, only a way to bruteforce the phone.
- cpt1138 11y agoBack in the days of the PalmV I was aghast at the terrible "technique" they used to store the user password to unlock the device. I was young and very stupid, but I pushed through proper, for that time, handling of the password. With a court order, LE asked to unlock a device, and I was able to do it, did it and they sent me a letter of thanks which I still might have somewhere. I remember being happy to help, it was a drug case, drugs are bad mmmmkay. In thinking about it I'm embarrassed at my younger self, but also cognizant that anyone familiar with the art could break it. It was a terrible, reversible scheme. After I pushed through the change to store the password I was confident that it could not be reversed and that it was "safe" and that I could no longer break it. If they had suggested removing the other safeguards e.g. allowing any number of tries, etc. That would be this Apple situation and I really hope my younger self would have had the sense to plead "ignorance," refuse or whatever because my principles have not changed that much, and I am 100% on Apple's side on this issue.
- staunch 11y agoIt may be time for that hippocratic oath for engineers idea to become a reality. I'd take it and live by it.
- evan_ 11y agoThe ACM has a code of ethics that I like a lot: http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics/ http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics/ Nothing is stopping you from just affirming yourself to live by them without paying the dues, if you want.
- pjscott 11y agoAlternately you can affirm the "never compromise cryptography" code of ethics, which I just made up and which is exactly what the name says.
- ordbajsare 11y ago>This principle concerning the quality of life of all people affirms an obligation to protect fundamental human rights and to respect the diversity of all cultures Sorry did not make it one sentence in before encountering SJW speak.
- hysan 11y agoQuestion, does Apple employ any engineers that are not US citizens? Or are telecommute workers living in other countries? If so and they were one of the key engineers, what would happen if they refused? What type of international laws would come into play here?
- dangero 11y agoThe answer is yes on all counts. Apple has engineers in many different countries. To take your question in a completely different way, China could compel their Apple manufacturing staff to install a back-doored chip into Apple devices on the production line. Seems reasonable if the US government is asking for a software back door into all phones.
- hysan 11y ago> China could compel their Apple manufacturing staff to install a back-doored chip into Apple devices on the production line. Seems reasonable if the US government is asking for a software back door into all phones. Wouldn't that be opening a whole different can of international worms? In this hypothetical, - Is China doing this with or without Apple's knowledge? - If not, then it's a very very different situation than the US. I wouldn't equate them at all in such a case. - If so, then Apple presumably would openly fight this and could even move all of their production outside of China as an extreme last resort. Against the US government, they don't have such a last resort situation since the company is based in the US. And unless every essential employee is a non-US citizen, then Apple has no such last resort. Hence why I am asking my original question of what international laws come into play here?
- Sacho 11y ago> - Is China doing this with or without Apple's knowledge? In this hypothetical, sure. The Chinese govt orders Apple to install a backdoor chip on the production line. > - If so, then Apple presumably would openly fight this and could even move all of their production outside of China as an extreme last resort. Moving their production doesn't seem to be more or less difficult than moving their corporate HQ.
- ekianjo 11y ago> “It’s an independent culture and a rebellious one,” said Jean-Louis Gassée, a venture capitalist who was once an engineering manager at Apple. “If the government tries to compel testimony or action from these engineers, good luck with that.” Funny to see Jean-Louis's name out of the blue again. He was the creator of BeOS back in the days.
- brianpan 11y agoHe still blogs about Apple at http://www.mondaynote.com/ http://www.mondaynote.com/
- intrasight 11y agoYou all understand, right, that Apple is going to lose this fight. I'm sure the smart players, including Apple, are already planning for the eventuality. There is no right to have close source software.
- mrmondo 11y agoand I for one would stand by them for doing so.
- simonh 11y agoSurely the moral responsibility of a manager ordering such work done is just as great as that of an Engineer carrying it out. So why is the debate entirely about the Engineers refusing to do the work, and nobody is talking about managers refusing to give the order? I'm not saying that anyone should refuse, I think that's a foolish idea and as has been pointed out the Government has many tools and sanctions available it can use to compel compliance. I just find the current debate somewhat blinkered.
- hollander 11y agoThe manager can easily be replaced by hundreds of others working at Apple. The engineers not.
- bunkydoo 11y agoI'm amazed to think that in only a short number of years the work that has been done at Apple R&D in the US might have to go off shore because of our own government...
- fin-serv-arch 11y agoI love what Apple is doing here, and I hope they're successful. But seeing this, and how Brazil is arresting tech executives over encryption, and how France, California and New York are all pushing for laws against encryption... part of me would love to see Apple release CrippleOS, "Specifically designed to meet the specific requirements of government officials", and establish a policy that every Apple Store employee can only sell CrippleOS to any government official. Let the rest of us living in the free world get strong encryption, and let them take their own medicine... --- http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/4/11160044/france-apple-encryption-terrorism-law http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/4/11160044/france-apple-encry... https://news.yahoo.com/york-state-proposes-anti-encryption-160005379.html https://news.yahoo.com/york-state-proposes-anti-encryption-1... https://news.yahoo.com/california-anti-encryption-bill-proposal-190602948.html https://news.yahoo.com/california-anti-encryption-bill-propo...
- hollander 11y agoGuess what happens if the FBI wins this, and Apple is forced to comply, and actually does decrypt this one phone, and probably later on hundreds or thousands of other iPhone 5 phones. Guess what: Apple will make the system so secure that this can never happen again. This whole discussion has led me to reconsider the much too expensive iPhones, and my next phone might very well be an iPhone 6 or newer.
- DanBC 11y agoIf your adversary is a well funded government agency you need to do a lot more than buy an iPhone. If you're still alive when "they" want information they'll just extraordinarily rendition you and torture you. Or they'll implement laws like UK RIPA which require you to make available the unencrypted version when asked by a court. Or they'll install covert surveillance equipment.
- schwarze_pest 11y agoIndependent of the outcome of this case, maybe it is time for Apple to leave their current jurisdiction. I heard Island is lovely this time of the year.
- rbobby 11y agoMeh. The FBI has already suggested that it might request the code signing certificate and the full source tree. With those in hand, I'd expect the NSA programmers could get this done in a few months.
- Zigurd 11y ago> With those in hand, I'd expect the NSA programmers could get this done in a few months. The NSA increasingly is not a room full of mathematicians, but an IT outsourcing customer. But in neither case would they be very competent at creating a variant of iOS that doesn't touch flash memory and enables brute-forcing the PIN.
- spinlock 11y agoId love to see the people behind healthcare.gov tell Apple employees that they were moving too slow.
- neugier 11y agoHow do we know this isn't all fake? That the FBI doesn't already have access to iPhones, and just wants people to feel safe (from them)?
- chernevik 11y agoThis case is bad ground for arguments against backdoors. The government doesn't want a backdoor. They want Apple to remove barriers slowing and limiting the number of guesses at the key. If the key were longer, those barriers wouldn't be needed. So this isn't about strong encryption, without backdoors. It's about some sort of right to short, memorizable keys, and technical barriers protecting them. Now maybe we have such rights. (I don't think so, I do think we have a right to strong encryption and strong keys.) But that's a very different argument than "backdoors are bad". If Apple's case is "no backdoors", they make that argument look not like a technical argument but a preference to not comply with a warrant. Non-technical people could easily get the idea that technical people say "no backdoors" when they just don't agree with the government's ability to execute warrants, and that all the technical arguments about real security are mumbo jumbo to avoid obeying laws they don't care for. Using strong encryption with phones is a usability issue. If the phone were somehow protected by a strong key, Apple could easily comply with this order and the government still could't read the phone. But they haven't figured out how a user can deploy a strong key in some usable fashion. Well, that's obviously a challenge to phone data privacy. I expect it is solvable. And it is much less an issue in contexts like desktops and laptops. But we have a right to encryption. We don't have a right to usability. Claiming the two are the same weakens the case to the right we do have.