Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Are Apple's Competitors Staying Silent On the iPhone Unlocking Fight?

Posted by timothy on from the second-mover-disadvantage dept.

erier2003 writes: A court order forcing Apple to help the FBI access a terrorism suspect's iPhone has drawn responses from leading tech companies, newspaper editorial boards, and security experts. But one major faction is staying largely silent: the computer and smartphone manufacturers who compete with Apple for business and could be subject to similar orders in the future if the company loses its high-profile case. Silicon Valley software firms have universally backed Apple in its fight against the Justice Department, which won a ruling Tuesday from a California magistrate judge compelling Apple to design custom software to bypass security features on an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters. But Apple's hardware competitors are staying on the sidelines.

20 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. Finally the debate is here by NotInHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Finally we have a debate on whether or whether not the state should have access to people's personal data. This is what snowden wanted, his goal is reached.

    1. Re:Finally the debate is here by MacTO · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure what Snowden wants in cases like this, because it is about evidence collected after a crime was committed. It isn't terribly different from a court demanding paper documentation.

      The big concern, and the concern which ties into Snowden's revelations, is that US government agencies have proven untrustworthy. If Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. fulfill this presumably legitimate request, they may find themselves fulfilling requests for surveillance purposes or disclosing information that these agencies can use to engineer their own solutions for surveillance purposes.

    2. Re:Finally the debate is here by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure what Snowden wants in cases like this, because it is about evidence collected after a crime was committed. It isn't terribly different from a court demanding paper documentation.

      It's completely different. It's not about demanding paper documentation, it's about demanding that a company crack a code. The gov't can make me open my door, but they can't make me invent a new way of opening doors.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Finally the debate is here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While it's a US only debate, it will still have long term repercussions. Apple won't be able to sell their phones abroad to governments or serious bizmen. Only as a toy phone, playing the latest and greatest Angry birds or Clash of clans.
      American hw and sw is already a hard sell outside of US.

    4. Re:Finally the debate is here by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Finally we have a debate on whether or whether not the state should have access to people's personal data. This is what snowden wanted, his goal is reached.

      No, that's not what this is about at all. The government has a search warrant for this data. They have the right to get the data. Apple even handed over an iCloud backup based on a legal warrant. Apple has absolutely no problem with handing over data when the police comes with a valid search warrant.

      What Apple refuses to do is to break the security of their phones that they sell to millions of honest, hardworking citizens, honest but lazy citizens, dishonest citizens, politicians, lawyers, army personnel and so on and so on and so on, by creating software that they don't have right now, to access data that they cannot access right now.

      This is not about preventing the government from executing search warrants, it is about keeping customer data safe. Apple declares that your iCloud data is safe from hackers and criminals, even though Apple can access it, because all that data is under Apple's control and they don't let hackers and criminals near it. Apple also declars that your phone data is only safe if _nobody_, including Apple, can access that data, because your phone can get under total control of the hacker.

      As a side effect, Apple can deliver data stored on iCloud if they get a search warrant, but they can't deliver data stored on your phone. If Apple could deliver the data on the phone without creating a risk to the security of everyone, they would.

  2. Ask the software guys. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    asked phone manufacturers LG, Samsung, and Sony and computer manufacturers Acer, Asus, Dell, HP, and Lenovo (which also owns phone manufacturer Motorola) whether they agreed with the government or Apple in the unfolding legal battle.

    None of them also make the OS, they're just the hardware guys. The FBI is asking for a software backdoor.

    Google (those guys behind Android) has stood by Apple

    1. Re:Ask the software guys. by jonwil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google may make the core OS for Android devices but I can assure you that Samsung and HTC and LG and the other OEMs releasing Android devices do a lot of software work themselves. More to the point, it would be HTC or LG or Samsung or whoever that would need to produce a customized software stack with a backdoor in it if the FBI needed it, not Google (especially if the device the FBI wanted cracked would only run signed firmware)

    2. Re:Ask the software guys. by jonbryce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It would be Samsung, not Google, that would have to bake a custom ROM in similar circumstances.

    3. Re:Ask the software guys. by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Informative

      None of them also make the OS, they're just the hardware guys.

      False. The other guys make enough OS customisations that they are well and truly in control of features to this level. Take a look at features like Samsung Knox to see what kind of security bolt-ons these vendors put on top of the features already in existence on Android. Many of these vendors also attempt to lock down the boot loader to prevent unauthorised code from running in ways that isn't part of the standard Android feature set so they most definitely do make major security changes to the OS before loading them on devices.

  3. Why should they? by Sneftel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What good would it do them? Since Google has taken point on designing, evangelizing, and (recently) mandating strong, backdoor-less crypto -- actions they, along with most of the technologentsia, are firmly in favor of -- they can ride the wave of inevitability, rather than stick their neck out with broad anti-government pronouncements. Sometimes the best PR is no PR.

    --
    The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
  4. Really? by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This is a win-win situation for competitor corporations who might find themselves ideologically aligned with Apple's stance, yet lack the political will to stand against the governors ubiquitous snooping.

    If Apple wins, everyone of them win. If Apple loses, and they could, they lose alone.

    Listen to the proffered positions of the pretenders to the Presidential nomination. To many non-tech people, Apple's stance is bordering on treason.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Really? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To many non-tech people, Apple's stance is bordering on treason.

      That is only because most people like to have opinions on things they know nothing about.

      I cannot begin to tell you how many non-pilots have strong opinions about aviation, helicopters, and all things flying, while having no idea whatsoever what they are talking about (I'm a professional pilot with commercial and instrument ratings in both airplanes and helicopters, a certified flight instructor in both airplanes and helicopters, with thousands of hours of flight time and over 2,000 hours of dual instruction given). Yet whenever major aviation stuff is in the news, they all like to talk like somehow they have a clue.

    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hence the tweet:

      "Simple security rule of thumb: don't build encryption for how the world is today, but how it could be if Donald Trump were President." from Aaron Levie, CEO of Box

  5. They have made official statements backing Apple by lseltzer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Newsweek: Google and Microsoft Back Apple on Encryption Battle With FBI

  6. Re: Looks kind of bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a backdoor if the device is capable of installing new firmware without unlocking (or destroying the encryption keys) first.

  7. The Early Bird May Get the Worm... by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...but it's the second mouse that gets the cheese.

    They are watching Apple to see if they get hammered by the DOJ or win business due to not selling out their customer's privacy.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

  8. Re:Looks kind of bad by pauljlucas · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you bothered to read any of the news articles, Apple currently doesn't have that capability. What the FBI is asking for is to update iOS on the phone with a custom version that removes the time delay between unsuccessful passcode attempts, the 10-try limit before wiping the phone, and a way to enter passcodes via the lightning connector rather than the keypad --- all of this so the FBI can brute-force unlock the phone.

    --
    If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
  9. Because a backdoor damages Apple by Mr.+Jackson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of the big reasons to spend $600 on an iphone instead of $100 on an Android is privacy and security. I need a smartphone about $100 worth, but I was just about to bite the bullet and get an iphone because of the phone's built-in encryption and Apple's pro-privacy policy. Now I'm going to wait and see. A backdoor into iphone makes me less likely to fork over the extra money, to the good of Apple's competitors.

  10. Let's look at a few great reasons to stay quiet... by Dzimas · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's look at a few good reasons to stay silent if you're an Apple competitor.

    1. Apple's competitors are based in South Korea and China. They're going to have a much harder time arguing privacy with the US government.
    2. Apple has lots of money and excellent legal counsel. They'll put up a better fight than their competitors possibly could.
    3. Staying silent won't piss off any American lobby groups, and it probably won't piss off the American general public.
    4. This could be a PR nightmare if someone mis-words something. You don't want to accidentally paint yourself as pro-terrorist.
    5. There's no obvious win here. If the corporations win and privacy remains paramount, eventually someone is going to do something awful that involves encrypted communication. At that point, the corporations look bad. If the government wins, things could devolve into 1984 if the wrong people ascend to power.

  11. This is simple by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is WinZip responsible for cracking passwords that their customers' set on their zip files? No! That's their product and that's what their product does. It's a security and privacy product so naturally the company doesn't "hold the keys" or put in a backdoor. All cellphone makers should leave encryption in the hands of the customer and tell the FBI to fuck off.