10 ms·

You should better educate yourself, the article is about seizure with a warrant, with which Apple and Google will no longer be able to help them.

TheRealDunkirk 12y ago
Don't worry, though, Microsoft and their NSAKEY will be there for them.
mikeash 12y ago
Why should Apple even be involved in a warrant served against my phone? When you serve a warrant against a house, do you expect that the builder of the house will be able to give you access to the interior even after they no longer own it?
- krapp 12y ago
  You're implying that Apple doesn't own the content people store on their devices? I thought the entire point of their walled garden OS was that they did, and were quite willing to add, delete or modify it as they please. Going to the actual owners of the content makes perfect sense.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    What? Of course Apple doesn't own the content on my iPhone. Why would you think they did? I paid for the thing. It is now mine.
    - krapp 12y ago
      I'm pretty sure millions of people didn't decide for themselves to put a U2 album in their playlist. Apple made that decision for them. It's pretty clear that unless it's entirely your decision what goes on that device, what goes off and who has access to it, you didn't pay to own it, you paid for the right to access their content on their device under their terms. It doesn't matter if you paid money for it - they own it in every way that's relevant.
      - mikeash 12y ago
        I don't own the content on my iPhone because Apple put a U2 album on there for me if I checked the box that says "automatically download new purchases". That's the worst argument I've seen in quite a while.
        krapp 12y ago
        Judging by the amount of karma i'm shedding, the consensus would seem to agree with you....
        mikeash 12y ago
        Just to clarify, I strongly dislike Apple's controlling policies on iOS. I think it's ridiculous that they won't allow sideloading apps or downgrading your OS, let alone installing custom OS builds. However, going from "they can tell your phone to download a U2 album if you ticked the box" to "thus they own your vacation photos" is still a complete non-sequitur.
        krapp 12y ago
        Ignoring the actual legalities involved, if some three-letter agency went to Apple and said "we want all the data on the Apple devices belonging to to so-and-so," Could Apple theoretically access it, and hand it over? If not, then I'll concede I was massively too paranoid, which wouldn't be the first time when it comes to Apple (and Google.. definitely and Google cars, and Adobe as soon as they pulled that BS with Creative Cloud) But if so then (even if I was wrong about the U2 thing) I don't believe i'm speculating too wildly. Apple owns the content to the degree that they can limit your access to it more than you can limit theirs - "ownership" in this case is not so much a legal as a practical matter. You can't really own something you don't control. I'll extend this to any app-based OS as far as it applies.
        mikeash 12y ago
        That's the whole root of the discussion here. The answer used to be, yes, Apple could help extract user data from an iPhone and hand it over to authorities (although I think the authorities still needed to take physical possession of the device first). Now they're building it so that Apple can't access your data regardless, because it's encrypted with keys they don't have. This naturally annoys law enforcement.
Zigurd 12y ago
Has a warrant ever been a guarantee that a search will produce results?
Arjuna 12y ago
"You should better educate yourself, the article is about seizure with a warrant, with which Apple and Google will no longer be able to help them." To add to the other great comments: I understand that it is via warrant. In fact, the article states that Apple said, "It's not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants [...]". My concern is perhaps more nuanced. Put aside the warrant issue for a moment. That is to say, where do we draw the line and say, "This type of sweeping, 'open everything up and stop encrypting' request is a violation of, 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects?'" In summary, my contention is that forcing companies to open up in this manner violates the explicit right of the people to be secure.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  The cops can complain about Apple's policy but they can't do anything about it unless the law is changed.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  > Put aside the warrant issue for a moment I don't think we can put aside the warrant issue when talking about your right to be secure. Your right to be secure is only against unreasonable search. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" You could argue that we should have the unqualified right to be secure, but the constitution disagrees. I think a better argument is that warrants are issued without probably cause or not explicitly describing what is to be searched.

TheRealDunkirk 12y ago

Don't worry, though, Microsoft and their NSAKEY will be there for them.

mikeash 12y ago

Why should Apple even be involved in a warrant served against my phone? When you serve a warrant against a house, do you expect that the builder of the house will be able to give you access to the interior even after they no longer own it?

krapp 12y ago
You're implying that Apple doesn't own the content people store on their devices? I thought the entire point of their walled garden OS was that they did, and were quite willing to add, delete or modify it as they please. Going to the actual owners of the content makes perfect sense.
- mikeash 12y ago
  What? Of course Apple doesn't own the content on my iPhone. Why would you think they did? I paid for the thing. It is now mine.
  - krapp 12y ago
    I'm pretty sure millions of people didn't decide for themselves to put a U2 album in their playlist. Apple made that decision for them. It's pretty clear that unless it's entirely your decision what goes on that device, what goes off and who has access to it, you didn't pay to own it, you paid for the right to access their content on their device under their terms. It doesn't matter if you paid money for it - they own it in every way that's relevant.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      I don't own the content on my iPhone because Apple put a U2 album on there for me if I checked the box that says "automatically download new purchases". That's the worst argument I've seen in quite a while.
      - krapp 12y ago
        Judging by the amount of karma i'm shedding, the consensus would seem to agree with you....
        mikeash 12y ago
        Just to clarify, I strongly dislike Apple's controlling policies on iOS. I think it's ridiculous that they won't allow sideloading apps or downgrading your OS, let alone installing custom OS builds. However, going from "they can tell your phone to download a U2 album if you ticked the box" to "thus they own your vacation photos" is still a complete non-sequitur.
        krapp 12y ago
        Ignoring the actual legalities involved, if some three-letter agency went to Apple and said "we want all the data on the Apple devices belonging to to so-and-so," Could Apple theoretically access it, and hand it over? If not, then I'll concede I was massively too paranoid, which wouldn't be the first time when it comes to Apple (and Google.. definitely and Google cars, and Adobe as soon as they pulled that BS with Creative Cloud) But if so then (even if I was wrong about the U2 thing) I don't believe i'm speculating too wildly. Apple owns the content to the degree that they can limit your access to it more than you can limit theirs - "ownership" in this case is not so much a legal as a practical matter. You can't really own something you don't control. I'll extend this to any app-based OS as far as it applies.
        mikeash 12y ago
        That's the whole root of the discussion here. The answer used to be, yes, Apple could help extract user data from an iPhone and hand it over to authorities (although I think the authorities still needed to take physical possession of the device first). Now they're building it so that Apple can't access your data regardless, because it's encrypted with keys they don't have. This naturally annoys law enforcement.

Zigurd 12y ago

Has a warrant ever been a guarantee that a search will produce results?

Arjuna 12y ago

"You should better educate yourself, the article is about seizure with a warrant, with which Apple and Google will no longer be able to help them." To add to the other great comments: I understand that it is via warrant. In fact, the article states that Apple said, "It's not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants [...]". My concern is perhaps more nuanced. Put aside the warrant issue for a moment. That is to say, where do we draw the line and say, "This type of sweeping, 'open everything up and stop encrypting' request is a violation of, 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects?'" In summary, my contention is that forcing companies to open up in this manner violates the explicit right of the people to be secure.

happyscrappy 12y ago
The cops can complain about Apple's policy but they can't do anything about it unless the law is changed.
seanflyon 12y ago
> Put aside the warrant issue for a moment I don't think we can put aside the warrant issue when talking about your right to be secure. Your right to be secure is only against unreasonable search. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" You could argue that we should have the unqualified right to be secure, but the constitution disagrees. I think a better argument is that warrants are issued without probably cause or not explicitly describing what is to be searched.