Slashdot Mirror
Congressman: Court Order To Decrypt iPhone Has Far-Reaching Implications (dailydot.com)
Patrick O'Neill writes: Hours after Apple was ordered to help the FBI access the San Bernardino Shooters' iPhone, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a Stanford University computer-science graduate, wondered where the use of the All Writs Act—on which the magistrate judge based her ruling—might lead. "Can courts compel Facebook to provide analytics of who might be a criminal?" Lieu said in an email to the Daily Dot. "Or Google to give a list of names of people who searched for the term ISIS? At what point does this stop?"
Apple, so far, has vowed to fight the order that it decrypt the phone of San Bernadino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, in no uncertain terms.
Apple, so far, has vowed to fight the order that it decrypt the phone of San Bernadino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, in no uncertain terms.
the correct action would be to cooperate fully right now, and patch the back door. That way current case proceeds, and future similar situations are not feasible because the backdoor doesn't exist.
they'll have to open up a very public case "forcing" Apple to put in a back door, where apple would have a lot firmer leg to stand on as opposed to not cooperating with this investigation.
The problem is, the owner of The iPhone is dead by the governments own hand. Therefore the government put itself in this position, assuming the iPhone had a touch sensor. It's already been determined that you can be forced to unlock your own phone using the fingerprint sensor, so if the government hadn't been so trigger-happy, they would already have a means to access the data in the phone. But they were too busy being vigilantes to think of that.
No, they claimed that they cannot decrypt their current phones (i.e. ones with TouchID + Secure Enclave running iOS 8 or 9). This model is an iPhone 5c (i.e. three generations old) that lacks the protections of their current phones and thus is susceptible to the sort of attack being proposed by the FBI. Apple has pointed out that complying with this order would jeopardize their business by making it seem as if they're lying about the security of their current phones, since the public won't understand the distinction. Your comment is evidence in support of their concern.