7 ms·

This could be a silly question but how does this: >> In the second half of 2017 alone Apple received 2,601 requests for access to devices from Australian law e

This could be a silly question but how does this: >> In the second half of 2017 alone Apple received 2,601 requests for access to devices from Australian law enforcement agencies and granted them in 87% of cases. …align with the famed Apple refusal to comply with the request to unlock an iPhone in the US a while back. Is the jurisdictional context different (re: the 4th amendment) or is this something different to unlocking a device?

jlangenauer 8y ago
There are no constitutional protections of rights in Australia (particularly related to excesses of the police and legal system), so there was probably very little legal basis for Apple to refuse.
- jacques_chester 8y ago
  Australia's Constitution does have some explicit rights and protections: right to jury trial (s80), religious freedom (s116), right to trade freely between states (s92), acquisition only made on "just terms" (s51(xxxi)) and protection from discrimination by the laws of a state other than their own (s117). Probably more notable is the implied rights built up by the High Court. The most important of these are a right to vote and freedom of political communication. But nothing as sweeping as the US Bill of Rights.
  - nailer 8y ago
    Probably worth chasing a constitutional amendment for the right to privacy
    - jacques_chester 8y ago
      Constitutional amendments are very difficult to get up, the majority of attempts have failed. If either major political party opposes an amendment, it's essentially dead in the water. On current form the Coalition would drumbeat against it and Labor would do the bigger-badder-tougher-meanie-poo dance to try and neutralise the wedge. Consider the fact that we are in the middle of an ongoing constitutional crisis, for which the political class knows an amendment is the only effective solution, but nobody in either major party wants to even try.
      - nailer 8y ago
        I'm Australian but left in 2008 (for what should be obvious reasons as we're discussing this on HN). What's the constitutional crisis?
        chottocharaii 8y ago
        I believe your parent is referring to the 'citizenship saga'. This isn't a constitutional crisis in the 'dismissal' sense. It's just the operation of s44 of the constitution causing a headache for parliament. Its been found that many of the parliamentarians are dual citizens, which is forbidden, and their seats in parliament have been nullified by the high court.
    - shakna 8y ago
      Australia's Constitution is very different from the American. It likely isn't the right place for such laws. (It requires a national referendum to make changes, it may predate independence, depending on how you date that). However, there are other laws with constitutional significance. The Statute of Westminster, and the Australia Act. But, most rights are guaranteed by Common Law, that is, any precedent or judicial opinion in any Commonwealth nation can be used for grounds that a right should be preserved when a decision is being examined by the High Court.
  - zinckiwi 8y ago
    It's the constitution, it's Mabo, it's justice, it's law, it's the vibe and... no that's it, it's the vibe.
    - jacques_chester 8y ago
      I have called on this scene several times since moving to the US.
  - jussij 8y ago
    > The most important of these are a right to vote As an Australian, I would love the Government to take this one step further and also give us the right to not vote.
    - retrogradeorbit 8y ago
      It is my understanding you actually do have that right. But it's a bit of rigmarole. It is only compulsory to vote if you are on the electoral roll and you can actually disenroll.
dannyw 8y ago
I think the article mis-stated the numbers. It's 2,601 requests for access to data (i.e. iCloud data), not devices.
hiisukun 8y ago
This is mostly requests to Apple as a service provider. "What IP registered, and logged into suspect@icloud.com on 1/1/2018? And what are the registered users details?" They don't have your iphone passcode on file so they can't provide it to law enforcement.
- mikejb 8y ago
  This is what I thought, too, but they explicitly state "access to devices", not "access to data". Could also very well be that the author didn't distinct between the two sufficiently.
  - DINKDINK 8y ago
    Or that older devices (that have outdated hardware security) are more prevalent in Australia for which Apple can decrypt.
    - thisacctforreal 8y ago
      Would be surprising; even the iPhone 5s from Fall 2013 is equipped with the Secure Enclave and is getting iOS 12. Including the feature to disable USB communication pins after 1 hour without the user's passcode. A feature aimed squarely at disabling Cellebrite from uploading their brute-force firmware.
mimimihaha 8y ago
That letter actually applied to Apple creating an OS with a backdoor for government agencies, which would soften the security for all iPhones. https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/answers/ https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/answers/

jlangenauer 8y ago

There are no constitutional protections of rights in Australia (particularly related to excesses of the police and legal system), so there was probably very little legal basis for Apple to refuse.

jacques_chester 8y ago
Australia's Constitution does have some explicit rights and protections: right to jury trial (s80), religious freedom (s116), right to trade freely between states (s92), acquisition only made on "just terms" (s51(xxxi)) and protection from discrimination by the laws of a state other than their own (s117). Probably more notable is the implied rights built up by the High Court. The most important of these are a right to vote and freedom of political communication. But nothing as sweeping as the US Bill of Rights.
- nailer 8y ago
  Probably worth chasing a constitutional amendment for the right to privacy
  - jacques_chester 8y ago
    Constitutional amendments are very difficult to get up, the majority of attempts have failed. If either major political party opposes an amendment, it's essentially dead in the water. On current form the Coalition would drumbeat against it and Labor would do the bigger-badder-tougher-meanie-poo dance to try and neutralise the wedge. Consider the fact that we are in the middle of an ongoing constitutional crisis, for which the political class knows an amendment is the only effective solution, but nobody in either major party wants to even try.
    - nailer 8y ago
      I'm Australian but left in 2008 (for what should be obvious reasons as we're discussing this on HN). What's the constitutional crisis?
      - chottocharaii 8y ago
        I believe your parent is referring to the 'citizenship saga'. This isn't a constitutional crisis in the 'dismissal' sense. It's just the operation of s44 of the constitution causing a headache for parliament. Its been found that many of the parliamentarians are dual citizens, which is forbidden, and their seats in parliament have been nullified by the high court.
  - shakna 8y ago
    Australia's Constitution is very different from the American. It likely isn't the right place for such laws. (It requires a national referendum to make changes, it may predate independence, depending on how you date that). However, there are other laws with constitutional significance. The Statute of Westminster, and the Australia Act. But, most rights are guaranteed by Common Law, that is, any precedent or judicial opinion in any Commonwealth nation can be used for grounds that a right should be preserved when a decision is being examined by the High Court.
- zinckiwi 8y ago
  It's the constitution, it's Mabo, it's justice, it's law, it's the vibe and... no that's it, it's the vibe.
  - jacques_chester 8y ago
    I have called on this scene several times since moving to the US.
- jussij 8y ago
  > The most important of these are a right to vote As an Australian, I would love the Government to take this one step further and also give us the right to not vote.
  - retrogradeorbit 8y ago
    It is my understanding you actually do have that right. But it's a bit of rigmarole. It is only compulsory to vote if you are on the electoral roll and you can actually disenroll.

dannyw 8y ago

I think the article mis-stated the numbers. It's 2,601 requests for access to data (i.e. iCloud data), not devices.

hiisukun 8y ago

This is mostly requests to Apple as a service provider. "What IP registered, and logged into suspect@icloud.com on 1/1/2018? And what are the registered users details?" They don't have your iphone passcode on file so they can't provide it to law enforcement.

mikejb 8y ago
This is what I thought, too, but they explicitly state "access to devices", not "access to data". Could also very well be that the author didn't distinct between the two sufficiently.
- DINKDINK 8y ago
  Or that older devices (that have outdated hardware security) are more prevalent in Australia for which Apple can decrypt.
  - thisacctforreal 8y ago
    Would be surprising; even the iPhone 5s from Fall 2013 is equipped with the Secure Enclave and is getting iOS 12. Including the feature to disable USB communication pins after 1 hour without the user's passcode. A feature aimed squarely at disabling Cellebrite from uploading their brute-force firmware.

mimimihaha 8y ago

That letter actually applied to Apple creating an OS with a backdoor for government agencies, which would soften the security for all iPhones. https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/answers/ https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/answers/