More Than Half of Americans Think Apple Should Comply With FBI, Finds Pew Survey (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Apple may not have the public's support in its legal fight with the FBI, according to a recently published Pew report. In a survey that reached 1,000 respondents by phone over the weekend, Pew researchers found 51 percent of respondents believed Apple should comply with FBI demands to weaken security measures on an iPhone used in the San Bernardino attacks, in order to further the ongoing investigation. Only 38 percent of respondents agreed with the company's position.

Limiting the sample to respondents who own a smartphone only improved the numbers somewhat, changing them to a 50-41 split in the FBI's favor. Among those who own an iPhone, the numbers are even closer, but still in the FBI's favor 47 to 43 percent.

Comments

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

More than half of Americans are wrong.

Re:Wrong

[Adriax]

Most of them have no clue about anything but "FBI wants terrorist iphone unlocked."

Case in point, listening to NPR this morning they had an "expert" on that said that apple shouldn't be forced to create a backdoor to add to a phone, but they should be required to unlock any existing phones. And to most of the audience that sounds reasonable, but when you actually take a second to think about it you see blatant political doublespeak.
Yeah, apple shouldn't be forced to unlock unbuilt phones because the bloody things don't exist yet. You can't unlock something that currently exists as sand, hydrocarbons, and rare earths. And "any existing phone" will include those yet to be assembled because at the point the feds want to unlock it, it will exist.

Hate polls like this. They're about as relevant as one including my predictions on the next superbowl winner, and I know fuck all about football.

Re:Wrong

[msauve]

"It is sad when the liberal socialists are for more freedoms, than so called don't tread on me conservatives."

It's just a matter of which freedoms. In general, the Rs want to control your moral freedoms, and the Ds want to control your economic ones.

Re:Wrong

[Dutch Gun]

Keep in mind that most people don't understand the nuances of the technology at all. They don't understand that any chink in the encryption armor means their own security is also at risk. As for the social aspects, try to explain to people how this is any different than a warrant allowing the government to unlock a safe. I've listed to some conversations about this on the radio, and those two aspects seem to be the foundation of most of the "Apple should unlock phone" arguments.

One issue I've not heard addressed so much is what the implications of a backdoor would mean for the larger world, and honestly, I wonder if this is part of the reason Apple is fighting so hard against this - they don't want be in a position of having to collaborate. That is, if the US demands the ability to unlock an iPhone, China is sure as hell going to demand the same ability, and I'm going to bet they'll be a lot less discerning about the legalities before asking to do so (not that our government is some shining beacon at this point either, I guess). There are actually some larger human rights issues involved. One could make an argument that it's worth incurring a very tiny risk that we can't unlock a terrorist's phone in order to safeguard the many people who rely on encryption to keep much more oppressive governments from spying on their own citizens.

And don't worry... the liberal socialists are quite ready to give all the power in the world to that very same government that's currently spying on us and regulating us to death - all for our own good, of course. I've never understood that disconnect. The conservatives are just as bad in reverse, claiming to hate big government, but kowtowing to any agency or department involved in law enforcement or defense.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind that most people don't understand the nuances of the technology at all. They don't understand that any chink in the encryption armor means their own security is also at risk. As for the social aspects, try to explain to people how this is any different than a warrant allowing the government to unlock a safe. I've listed to some conversations about this on the radio, and those two aspects seem to be the foundation of most of the "Apple should unlock phone" arguments.

One issue I've not heard addressed so much is what the implications of a backdoor would mean for the larger world, and honestly, I wonder if this is part of the reason Apple is fighting so hard against this - they don't want be in a position of having to collaborate. That is, if the US demands the ability to unlock an iPhone, China is sure as hell going to demand the same ability, and I'm going to bet they'll be a lot less discerning about the legalities before asking to do so (not that our government is some shining beacon at this point either, I guess). There are actually some larger human rights issues involved. One could make an argument that it's worth incurring a very tiny risk that we can't unlock a terrorist's phone in order to safeguard the many people who rely on encryption to keep much more oppressive governments from spying on their own citizens.

And don't worry... the liberal socialists are quite ready to give all the power in the world to that very same government that's currently spying on us and regulating us to death - all for our own good, of course. I've never understood that disconnect. The conservatives are just as bad in reverse, claiming to hate big government, but kowtowing to any agency or department involved in law enforcement or defense.

The elephant in the room that no one addresses in this argument is, after the killers have killed and been killed, why does the FBI need access to this one iPhone so bad? Are they convinced this guy was texting ISIS cells in the US, on a company phone? What is it that is on this phone that is worth setting a precedent of the government having unfettered access to everyone's phone as a matter of principle or legal precedent or some future backdoor mechanism?

I hate to point out that 9-11 was over a decade ago, but yet the Conservatives point to it like we should all be subject to daily naked body cavity searches because "Murica!" and it is more of a logical disconnect now than it was back in 2001. Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither.

So I ask again, what possible intel on this phone is so important that it is worth throwing our 4th amendment rights into the toilet and flushing until it overflows?

You can tell when someone has a nefarious agenda or is just a dumb ass, they never ever even attempt to answer that question, they just make circular speeches about patriotism. I call shenanigans!

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

More than half of Americans are wrong.

You misspelled fucktarded.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[tlambert]

My wife is in healthcare, her eyes gloss over when I start discussing this stuff, or how important it is.

Most people in healthcare are like this.

Which is why HIPAA violations are so common.

It's OK to be in the minority

[thoth_amon]

In fact, in my experience, the majority is wrong quite a lot.

Fortunately, this is not a popularity contest. The question is whether the government can compel a company to rewrite its products to make it easy for the government to snoop on its customers. If they can, it's only a small jump to forcing companies to include a backdoor in their products in the first place.

FEAR

[jellomizer]

We keep on getting fed media of fear. Rational discourse of events and ideas showing the actual scale of things, just doesn't make money.

Re:FEAR

[ShaunC]

The Democrats are the one who try to capitalize on the emotional response.

The Democrats aren't the ones telling me that Mexicans are rapists, Muslims are going to blow me up, and gay marriage is a slippery slope to bestiality.

Re:FEAR

[amiga3D]

They keep getting people like you to play their game. Dem vs Rep, divide and conquer. We fight each other while they rape the country. Look beyond the labels. Hillary is in the pocket of some of the most corrupt and evil people in the country and yet the supposedly "liberal" media just gushes over her while they figuratively pat poor Bernie on the head and tell everyone he doesn't have a chance because he's "unrealistic." Meanwhile on the other side Trump is running like a runaway train because, despite the fact he's either crazy or is just plain screwing with the establishment (or both), a lot of the party faithful have given up on the corrupt bullshit that runs the party behind the scenes. They fucked us with Romney last time and then they were going to try to ram Jeb! down our throats this time around. Fuck 'em. I know Trump isn't a real conservative but then neither are any of the establishment bitches that they're pushing at us. If you want to know who the whores are it's simple. Like Bernie says, follow the money! I'm a conservative but I gotta tell you, I admire Bernie Sanders. I think he's wrong on a lot of things but he's a stand up guy. My hats off to him.

They're asking the wrong question

[Snotnose]

The right way to ask it is "Do you think Apple should help the FBI, even though it helps Russian hackers get into your phone?"

That might change a few people's minds.

Re:They're asking the wrong question

[tranquilidad]

What the government is asking is that Apple divert its private resources away from Apple's priorities in order to develop a product for the government.

In United States v. New York Telephone, which may be the closest Supreme Court precedent related to this case, the Supreme Court ruled that New York Telephone needed to install a pen register for the government because it wasn't a burden on New York Telephone. It wasn't a burden because New York Telephone owned the equipment and already installed pen registers for their own, internal use.

In this case Apple does not own or control the equipment and does not already create software to perform this type of unlock. It seems to me that this is a burden.

The FBI has been asking for encryption backdoors for some time and Congress, rightly or wrongly depending on your perspective, has not created legislation to do that. The FBI then gets a sympathetic case and decides to go through the courts to force a company to build a product in order to "unlock" a phone. If the government succeeds in creating this precedent then what's to prevent them from forcing any company to "unlock" a phone; whether it's via building a new OS version or creating a method to "backdoor" the encryption?

This becomes even more complex given the other discoveries that the county government changed the passcode after taking possession of the phone but are now unable to use the new passcode to unlock the phone. Also, don't forget, the county could have purchased a service that would have given them centralized control of their iPhones but chose not to, presumably because of cost.

If the government succeeds and can force Apple to build an OS they don't want to build and there's a bug in the code that causes erasure of the data then will Apple be held in contempt of court? What will help Apple recover whatever reputation they would lose as a result?

If the government succeeds in their effort to deputize/reprioritize/commander private resources to "create an OS version" of their liking against the will of the creators then you've created a real mess with liberty.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[flopsquad]

Absolutely this. Plus, how was the question worded? Because when I hear or read popular accounts of this situation, Apple is being asked to "unlock the phone"... like they've had this magic key the whole time and all they have to do is stop being terrorist-protecting jerks and let the FBI in.

They might get slightly different numbers if they asked instead, "Is it right for Apple to be compelled by the government to create a new, insecure version of its operating system?"

Followed by, "Would your answer change, knowing that the government had a chance to obtain this data on the day of the shooting, but instead changed the password that could've been used to access the data?"

Re:What are the questions used?

[vux984]

" In a survey that reached 1,000 respondents by phone over the weekend"

That pretty much ended it for me too.

I figure they reached 1000 grandmothers who think a company should do what a court ordered.

Law is not a 'popularity contest'

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing the Constitution & the law aren't a 'popularity contest'...I don't CARE what 'the public thinks'...the question is one of 'legal rights'...society can't be beholden to the '50% below the curve'..

Re:Compromise

[arth1]

The request is for one firmware, for one device, which Apple can sign (you know, using encryption) so that it can't be used on any other device.
Take off the tinfoil hats, the very technology everyone is defending here can be used to ensure it is used only once (as per court order).

Make that "... it is used only once (per court order)".

And soon enough, not even a court order, but a rubber-stamping court like for other surveillance.

Once Apple has shown they can do it, they will be expected to do it. This is not even speculation - several police offices have straight out stated that that is what they will do if Apple loses.

This is why I have no problem with it.

This is why I do.

George Carlin is right again

[TiggertheMad]

Half of Americans are by definition, below average intelligence. Coincidence?

Re:Reflexive Apologists win again, sigh

[TheRaven64]

Actually, Mexicans in the US are 3 times as likely to be rapists compared to their white counter part. Easily found in this document from the Department of Justice

That document neither talks about who commits the crimes, nor does it mention Mexicans. It does say that hispanic women are twice as likely to be victims of rape than white women, so perhaps you were confused. If we assume that every rape victim is raped by someone of the same ethnicity (dubious, but let's run with it), and that rape victims and rapists make up the same proportion of the population (also quite dubious: it's more likely that a rapist rapes multiple people) then that means that 99.88% of hispanics are not rapists, whereas 99.94% of whites are not rapists. Which makes the original claim fear-mongering nonsense.

Do I really need to go there? Fish in a barrel are envious about easy this one is. I mean, you brought this up. But, since you asked, in the last 3 days, 157 attacks in 22 countries killing 1747 people

In the same period, around 3,400 people died in road traffic accidents worldwide, around 128 of them in the USA. Oh, and around 14 murders are committed every 3 days by white men in the USA. If you think that your chance of being blown up by a muslim is statistically significant, then you're an idiot.