6 ms·

Remember that the FBI said that if Apple provided a solution, it would not be used in other cases and that they were [Edit: not] going to use it as a precedent

Remember that the FBI said that if Apple provided a solution, it would not be used in other cases and that they were [Edit: not] going to use it as a precedent (IIRC the details).

marcoperaza 11y ago
>Remember that the FBI said that if Apple provided a solution, it would not be used in other cases and that they were going to use it as a precedent (IIRC the details). That's not what they said. What they said is that each particular case is about unlocking each particular phone. And mind you, these are phones that the government has every right to access if they can find a way, either because they have search warrants or are the legal owners (or have the permission of the legal owners) of the phone. There is nothing controversial about this. The government has used vulnerabilities to extract info from devices gathered during legal searches for a long time. If they seize a safe from your home, they don't need special permission to crack it open. The government still needs a search warrant or legal ownership of a device in order to perform a search. You're perfectly entitled to make your stuff harder to search, and they're entitled to all the hacking they need to extract the data.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > What they said is that each particular case is about unlocking each particular phone. The FBI may have said that, but it doesn't really address the issues substantively and I think they said much more: Remember Apple argued that a solution they provided for one phone would be used for others, and a court decision could be precedent for other cases. The FBI disagreed; I don't remember the details of what they said, however. > these are phones that the government has every right to access if they can find a way I agree, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the FBI's apparent attempt to deceive the public and the courts.
  - teacup50 11y ago
    You're seriously distorting the truth here, not the FBI. The FBI said Apple could maintain control over any tools they made. Apple said "oh noes, we can't ever make a master key [but don't look behind the curtain, where you'll find that we have a master key or three, which is why we can make one in the first place]" Then the FBI found an alternative solution that doesn't require Apple's assistance, making the whole damn conversation moot -- including whether they'd use Apple's hypothetical "master key" on other phones.
    - ergothus 11y ago
      I feel the matter isn't "moot". Not because of whether Apple did or didn't help the FBI, and not because of whether or not a precedent was created. Apple did not make their product weaker (We don't know what hole the FBI found, but it might require physical possession of the device, and Apple could fix it tomorrow. Either way, regardless of what flaws exist now, that number wasn't increased). In addition, there was a national conversation (albeit ignored by most) about whether Apple should make their product less secure. A conversation that actually hit some details. John Oliver did a bit on it, I know several other outlets tried to convey something beyond "Terrorists Bad!/Govt Bad!". That's something I am glad that happened, and something that wouldn't have happened without the discussion you consider "moot". The answer may no longer be important, but the debate was.
matheweis 11y ago
> and that they were going to use it as a precedent Directory Comey very explicitly said that "The San Bernardino litigation isn't about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message" https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-if-we-did-not-follow-lead https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-...
- SturgeonsLaw 11y ago
  He also said the phone was uncrackable without Apple's help
  - duaneb 11y ago
    Uncrackable, or uncrackable to the FBI? It's not exactly known for its strong technical chops.
- TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
  Yes, and? Should we believe him? He's the director of the FBI, he's almost certainly lying. It will come out in some leak or declassified document, or someones memoirs, or some such, in 30 years that the guy was lying through he teeth. We can't seriously be expected to believe that over the next six decades it will come out that all these politicians and law enforcement folk were just, upright, moral citizens, acting in everyones best interests.
  - mtanski 11y ago
    I have an inkling that they believe they are moral, normal and doing the right thing by saving us from ourselves. "The ends justify the means" is a pretty common though in american law enforcement.
    - alanwatts 11y ago
      If they're busy saving us from ourselves, who will save them from themselves?
wbillingsley 11y ago
> Remember that the FBI said that if Apple provided a solution, it would not be used in other cases Given Apple didn't provide a solution, that seems rather moot...
- nxzero 11y ago
  How do you know Apple didn't directly, or indirectly via for example China, provide access to the FBI?
  - jimbokun 11y ago
    How do you know they didn't crack it with alien technology from Area 51?
    - nxzero 11y ago
      I don't, but I do know Apple exists, Apple is in the position to provide a crack, looks better if they they refuse to compile then patch the backdoor when it becomes known, etc... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterintelligence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterintelligence
  - Laaw 11y ago
    The same way we know Apple isn't really a unicorn farm; specifically, there is no compelling evidence to suggest such a thing.
    - nxzero 11y ago
      Given Apple's declined to say what happened with China's "security" requests, but China's allowed them to continue doing business, the FBI's head met with them in China to talk about Apple, etc. -- I believe their enough known to merit Apple and the FBI going on the record regarding what, if anything, happened, and their position on the topic.
      - Laaw 11y ago
Shivetya 11y ago
I do not recall any such statements regarding solutions developed in house or learned from organizations other than Apple. If anything the implied threat should have been, either help us or we will find a way and tell all other branches.
zodPod 11y ago
It really doesn't seem like we should be blaming Apple here. Apple did what we wanted it to do, stand up for privacy. The FBI is showing off and acting ridiculous. I think they are the ones who are at fault here and we should stop making it sound like Apple did something wrong and that this abuse of power is their fault. Obviously, they're an easier target so that's why people are attacking them but, honestly, what did they do other than stand for their (AND OUR) values?
- MicroBerto 11y ago
  > Apple did what we wanted it to do By not building a backdoor, or by not helping at all? If the latter, I'm not sure I fully agree. At the end of the day, I personally like our prosecutors having criminals' data, given that there is a court-ordered warrant for it. I'm definitely not for building backdoors, but I'm all for the FBI picking the lock or breaking down the doors if the courts deem it necessary.

Remember that the FBI said that if Apple provided a solution, it would not be used in other cases and that they were [Edit: not] going to use it as a precedent (IIRC the details).

marcoperaza 11y ago

>Remember that the FBI said that if Apple provided a solution, it would not be used in other cases and that they were going to use it as a precedent (IIRC the details). That's not what they said. What they said is that each particular case is about unlocking each particular phone. And mind you, these are phones that the government has every right to access if they can find a way, either because they have search warrants or are the legal owners (or have the permission of the legal owners) of the phone. There is nothing controversial about this. The government has used vulnerabilities to extract info from devices gathered during legal searches for a long time. If they seize a safe from your home, they don't need special permission to crack it open. The government still needs a search warrant or legal ownership of a device in order to perform a search. You're perfectly entitled to make your stuff harder to search, and they're entitled to all the hacking they need to extract the data.

hackuser 11y ago
> What they said is that each particular case is about unlocking each particular phone. The FBI may have said that, but it doesn't really address the issues substantively and I think they said much more: Remember Apple argued that a solution they provided for one phone would be used for others, and a court decision could be precedent for other cases. The FBI disagreed; I don't remember the details of what they said, however. > these are phones that the government has every right to access if they can find a way I agree, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the FBI's apparent attempt to deceive the public and the courts.
- teacup50 11y ago
  You're seriously distorting the truth here, not the FBI. The FBI said Apple could maintain control over any tools they made. Apple said "oh noes, we can't ever make a master key [but don't look behind the curtain, where you'll find that we have a master key or three, which is why we can make one in the first place]" Then the FBI found an alternative solution that doesn't require Apple's assistance, making the whole damn conversation moot -- including whether they'd use Apple's hypothetical "master key" on other phones.
  - ergothus 11y ago
    I feel the matter isn't "moot". Not because of whether Apple did or didn't help the FBI, and not because of whether or not a precedent was created. Apple did not make their product weaker (We don't know what hole the FBI found, but it might require physical possession of the device, and Apple could fix it tomorrow. Either way, regardless of what flaws exist now, that number wasn't increased). In addition, there was a national conversation (albeit ignored by most) about whether Apple should make their product less secure. A conversation that actually hit some details. John Oliver did a bit on it, I know several other outlets tried to convey something beyond "Terrorists Bad!/Govt Bad!". That's something I am glad that happened, and something that wouldn't have happened without the discussion you consider "moot". The answer may no longer be important, but the debate was.

matheweis 11y ago

> and that they were going to use it as a precedent Directory Comey very explicitly said that "The San Bernardino litigation isn't about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message" https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-if-we-did-not-follow-lead https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-...

SturgeonsLaw 11y ago
He also said the phone was uncrackable without Apple's help
- duaneb 11y ago
  Uncrackable, or uncrackable to the FBI? It's not exactly known for its strong technical chops.
TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
Yes, and? Should we believe him? He's the director of the FBI, he's almost certainly lying. It will come out in some leak or declassified document, or someones memoirs, or some such, in 30 years that the guy was lying through he teeth. We can't seriously be expected to believe that over the next six decades it will come out that all these politicians and law enforcement folk were just, upright, moral citizens, acting in everyones best interests.
- mtanski 11y ago
  I have an inkling that they believe they are moral, normal and doing the right thing by saving us from ourselves. "The ends justify the means" is a pretty common though in american law enforcement.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    If they're busy saving us from ourselves, who will save them from themselves?

wbillingsley 11y ago

> Remember that the FBI said that if Apple provided a solution, it would not be used in other cases Given Apple didn't provide a solution, that seems rather moot...

nxzero 11y ago
How do you know Apple didn't directly, or indirectly via for example China, provide access to the FBI?
- jimbokun 11y ago
  How do you know they didn't crack it with alien technology from Area 51?
  - nxzero 11y ago
    I don't, but I do know Apple exists, Apple is in the position to provide a crack, looks better if they they refuse to compile then patch the backdoor when it becomes known, etc... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterintelligence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterintelligence
- Laaw 11y ago
  The same way we know Apple isn't really a unicorn farm; specifically, there is no compelling evidence to suggest such a thing.
  - nxzero 11y ago
    Given Apple's declined to say what happened with China's "security" requests, but China's allowed them to continue doing business, the FBI's head met with them in China to talk about Apple, etc. -- I believe their enough known to merit Apple and the FBI going on the record regarding what, if anything, happened, and their position on the topic.
    - Laaw 11y ago

Shivetya 11y ago

I do not recall any such statements regarding solutions developed in house or learned from organizations other than Apple. If anything the implied threat should have been, either help us or we will find a way and tell all other branches.

zodPod 11y ago

It really doesn't seem like we should be blaming Apple here. Apple did what we wanted it to do, stand up for privacy. The FBI is showing off and acting ridiculous. I think they are the ones who are at fault here and we should stop making it sound like Apple did something wrong and that this abuse of power is their fault. Obviously, they're an easier target so that's why people are attacking them but, honestly, what did they do other than stand for their (AND OUR) values?

MicroBerto 11y ago
> Apple did what we wanted it to do By not building a backdoor, or by not helping at all? If the latter, I'm not sure I fully agree. At the end of the day, I personally like our prosecutors having criminals' data, given that there is a court-ordered warrant for it. I'm definitely not for building backdoors, but I'm all for the FBI picking the lock or breaking down the doors if the courts deem it necessary.