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

[Anonymous Coward]

Republican 56 to 32 in favor of unlocking
Democrat 55 to 37 in favor of unlocking
Independent 45 to 42 in favor of unlocking

Re:Wrong

[squiggleslash]

Well, that cheered me up no end, knowing now that most Americans watch news of the same level of quality as NPR... ;-)

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because it's changed from "don't tread on me" to the right wing wanting to be powerful by keeping the majority of the people down. I've never thought the Republican party wanted more freedoms for PEOPLE. For business sure, they want to pollute the environment, do away with minimum wage and reintroduce slave labor. They are for corporations and not for the people. Dems on the other hand want to actually help people and the planet, well most do.

I don't understand why anyone making less than $300k/yr is a republican to begin with. Oh, wait, yes I do because of one dumbass issue. They are told, because they can't think for themselves, by their pastor that abortion is bad so they are a republican.

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

[ShanghaiBill]

Half of Americans vote Republican too.

Nope. Not even close. More than half of Americans don't vote at all in most elections. Of those that do vote, the majority often vote Democratic, but Republicans win anyway because their votes count more. Sparsely populated rural states are overrepresented, and tend to be Republican. Both Democrats and Republicans do gerrymandering whenever they can get away with it, but the process works better for Republicans because they are less concentrated: Even the reddest of red districts (say a rural county in Utah) have only about 70% Republicans, but it is easy to find urban districts that are 95% Democrat. Also, Democrats are less likely to show up and vote, and more Democrats are excluded from voting because of criminal records.

Re:Wrong

[ShanghaiBill]

In general, the Rs want to control your moral freedoms, and the Ds want to control your economic ones.

The rationale differs as well. Rs want to take away your freedoms so you feel more secure, while Ds want to take away your freedoms so you don't offend anyone.

Re:Wrong

[Lumpy]

That expert was a freaking Ex FBI guy. ANYTHING out of his mouth is suspect.

Re:Wrong

[lgw]

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.

I would have agreed with that years ago, before the Ds got into banning violent video games, throwing a guy in jail for making a film critical of Mohammed, and similar shenanigans. Meanwhile, the Rs have grown distant from conservatism, and don't seem particularly protective of economic freedoms these days. It's all the Big Money Donor Party now.

Re:Wrong

[fizzup]

I suspect that it's personal for Tim Cook as well. As a homosexual, you would not have to go back very far into the history of the USA and every other western nation to find government agents who would have used messages that are on his phone right now to implicate him in crimes. There are still many, many nations in the world who, if they had access to Tim Cook's current personal messages today, could convict him of serious crimes that would carry serious sentences that would deprive him of liberty and security of his person.

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

[laing]

In case you missed it, Rush Limbaugh discussed this on his program today. Perhaps you should read what he said and maybe revise your position?

Re:Wrong

[MrKrillls]

"Well, most smart people in the US vote Republican, so if you don't, you are probably too young. The college-educated voted for Obama because of the opposition to history of racism and Bush fatigue. But other than that, Republicans win the votes of the smart people."

Nahhh. The folks you listen to and approve of *sound* smart to you. Same as the folks who I approve of sound smart to me. We tend to observe and evaluate from our own biased positions.

Smart people vote on both sides. So do idiots.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

More than half of Americans are wrong.

You misspelled fucktarded.

Re:Wrong

[fustakrakich]

This is a democrat administration leaning on Apple right now.... just thought you should know. And about 20 years ago, it was a democrat administration that was trying to restrict use and export of 'strong' crypto... Clipper chip? democrats... Where ya gonna run, eh?

Re:Wrong

[Lakitu]

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

I hope this detail was just lost in your paraphrasing, but Apple has been ordered to create a backdoor to add to an existing phone, which basically makes this statement nonsense.

Or, rather, Apple has been ordered to implement a potential backdoor which does not exist yet.

Re:Wrong

[Jack Griffin]

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.

What security?
At some point security is about trust. If you know maths and cryptography, you trust it. But some who doesn't, can't be expected to.
A lot of people do actually trust the government. They trust that conceptually, the govt is there to provide security via the Police, courts and if really necessary the military (and it does actually do this. The only reason you are alive right now is that the government prevents the psychos and gangsters from enslaving and murdering everyone).
Also, for Joe Average, your choice is between the courts asking for access to the murderers phone, or a multi-national with a history of avoiding tax now also not helping solve a terrorism case.
Not all problems are mathematical, and I think the people are entitled to choose who they trust the most (or least).


Also bear in mind that most people happily share the entire contents of their phones on Facebook, so you idea of security is a lot different from theirs.

Re:Wrong

[Jack Griffin]

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?

This has been addressed. You might have been asleep when it was discussed numerous times.

Re:Wrong

[pixelpusher220]

than so called don't tread on me conservatives.

I'm sorry, when were they ever remotely that? not in the last 50 years at least.

Currently they're showing themselves to be the fascists they pretty much have been

Re:Wrong

[superwiz]

No, it's just a statistic. The college-educated always voted for Republicans by more than 50% until the Obama election. Sorry, should I sprinkle some feel-good dust to make you think that numbers decide elections rather than which TV channel you hate?

Re:Wrong

[quenda]

Ignore the troll. Smart people with no college education is a very small demographic, even in the US, since WW2.
Good Will Hunting was just a movie.

Re:Wrong

[Dutch Gun]

this phone is so important that it is worth throwing our 4th amendment rights into the toilet and flushing until it overflows?

As many people have previously stated, I believe it has nothing to do with the data on the phone. It has everything to do with the FBI setting a legal precedent.

Just to play devil's advocate, how is unlocking a phone any different than our existing warrant-based searches? Warrant-based searches are explicitly supported in the fourth amendment you site. We've lived with court-ordered warrants since the country was founded, which strikes a reasonable balance between the needs of law enforcement to obtain evidence against the sanctity and privacy of our homes and personal property. At this moment, if a judge ordered it, law enforcement could come into your home and demand access to absolutely everything you own. What is it, in your opinion, that makes a phone different than anything else that we consider personal or private?

I ask this because, quite honestly, even though I support Apple here, I can't really make a case that the FBI shouldn't be allowed to unlock someone's phone. However, I think it's another matter entirely as to whether or not the government should be able to compel an individual or a corporation to purposefully design a system that guarantees the ability of the government to gain access on demand.

The government regulates all sorts of things in our lives, especially in nearly all aspects of business and commerce... unfortunately, that ship has long since sailed. And now we're going to demand that the government is unconstitutionally disallowed to regulate this particular aspect? That's mighty convenient, wrapping the Constitution around us when we want its protection, and ignoring it (or simply re-interpreting it in a more convenient way) the rest of the time. When you cede so much regulatory power to the government, you take the bad with the good, and this is some of the bad.

While I understand people are passionate about this, I don't believe it to be a simple black and white issue. To do so is to completely miss many of the nuances involved and simply marginalizes those who feel differently than you while convincing no one.

Re:Wrong

[Howitzer86]

When NPR gets it wrong, they get it really wrong. Then weird stuff happens, like this:

Better information from a local right-wing talk radio pundit, as this is a topic they are split on, and the guy I listened to just so happened to ask better questions and have knowledgeable people calling in.

Re: Wrong

[vpness]

The optics on /. are insightful. If I'd had mod points, I'd have modded up parent as funny.

Re:Wrong

[LostMyBeaver]

Consider that 40% of humans on earth probably doesn't even understand the question. For that fact, probably most people lack the ability to understand cause and effect beyond what is clearly spelled out to them at the given time in the given context. As such, their decision making process is limited to "Terrorism bad. Terrorism scary. Stop terrorism."

It's the world's dilemma. How do you give people freedom and give them the rights of humanity to be part of the process of choosing representation? Consider what you end up with as leaders using fair rules. You get Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama. With those kind of choices, we know it's obvious that the current system is failing. The Romans tried an alternative which was to provide weights for voters based on social class. This of course was a less than optimal system because a higher class didn't necessarily mean a smarter person... in fact, it really only meant a wealthier person. So, do we try a system which provides weights to votes based on IQ tests?

Consider this... I've asked this question in rooms full of technical people. I asked how many of them were likely to spend the time on the phone answering questions. The result was an overwhelming "not me". Does this mean that the technical people are giving up their right to be represented because some idiot at Pew report couldn't get anyone but rednecks that can't comprehend the repercussions of such a decision?

Notice, it clearly said telephone calls. What kind of people even talk to these people anymore? What's worse is... do we have an alternative that is better? How would you sample "The American Public"? How would you choose 1000 people throughout America that would represent a sample set? Would you include a physicist from MIT? Would you find a black woman in a trailer home in Alabama? Would you find a 18 year old Jew studying talmud in Omaha? Would you find a 67 year old Imam in a Mosque in Mississippi (is there such a thing?). After you ask them the obvious question, would you explain to them why it's even worth asking the about? Would you explain that this would set a legal precedent that could give the government the power they need to snoop more and more into their own information? Would you ask the again after that? Would you note how their opinions changed when you gave them a new "This is bad... don't do this" feeling? Would you be gaining their opinions or would you be dictating your opinion to them? Would that change whether this represented the Americans as now you've "educated them" and changed their perspective?

The system is completely flawed, but there's no alternative. mass stupidity represents the wide scale human species.We have no way to limit the vast scope of stupid and we can't cure it and we can't leave stupid unrepresented because they do in fact represent the majority.

The problem is... we also can't use the results of some telephone survey to make decisions because it leaves too many other groups unrepresented. Why not ask Pew how many phone calls they had to make to get 1000 responses? That should be enough to disprove the validity of such a report.

Re:Wrong

[pixelpusher220]

before the Ds got into banning violent video games

You do realize the GOP is doing this as well right?

Re:Wrong

[pixelpusher220]

worth throwing our 4th amendment rights into the toilet

You haven't been paying attention. You'd need to dig up the street sewer pipe to find your 4th amendment rights at this point. They've been gone for over a decade (but we didn't want to realize it at the time).

Re:Wrong

[rahvin112]

The only senator to ever vote against the patriot act in all 3 of it's approvals is Bernie Sanders.

Re:Wrong

[amiga3D]

It only reinforces my belief that Americans don't really want to be free. They just want to be kept safe and have plenty of toys and games. A nation of children unworthy of the sacrifice of so many of those who have gone before us to build this great country that we've begun to destroy.

Re:Wrong

[penix1]

Just to play devil's advocate, how is unlocking a phone any different than our existing warrant-based searches? Warrant-based searches are explicitly supported in the fourth amendment you site. We've lived with court-ordered warrants since the country was founded, which strikes a reasonable balance between the needs of law enforcement to obtain evidence against the sanctity and privacy of our homes and personal property. At this moment, if a judge ordered it, law enforcement could come into your home and demand access to absolutely everything you own. What is it, in your opinion, that makes a phone different than anything else that we consider personal or private?

The police (FBI in this case) are not allowed to use the system for fishing expeditions. The 4th explicitly states:

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.

The FBI has established probable cause but they have not, to my satisfaction, demonstrated particularity. Exactly what do they expect to find on the phone? To put it simply, they are fishing for anything they can get out of it.

It can also be argued there is a 1st Amendment reason to protect the phone data since it is copyrighted material thanks to the Copyright nuts getting copyright the moment a document is created. This would kick in a higher standard for probable cause. See:

http://constitution.findlaw.co...

Re:Wrong

[Dutch Gun]

The police (FBI in this case) are not allowed to use the system for fishing expeditions.

By any reasonable definition, you can't really call this a "fishing expedition". The question of the attacker's crimes really aren't even in doubt - probable cause has certainly been established. "Fishing expedition" only applies if you don't even know if a crime has been committed. It's not applied when you're searching for evidence in a follow-up investigation. That's what every police investigation ever does. Think that argument through logically - if it's a "fishing expedition" before you know what evidence you'll find, you could never do any investigating... ever. Or, to put it another way, do you believe law enforcement had enough probable cause to search the attacker's residence? It's the same thing.

Don't be mislead - this has nothing to do with the phone and what data is or isn't on it. They're trying to establish a legal precedent here. Arguing that the FBI doesn't have the right you search your phone is entirely the wrong argument to make - it's right there in the Constitution. If they get a legal court order (meaning they can demonstrate probable cause), they can search anything you own. Instead, we need to make sure that the government doesn't ban unbreakable encryption, which is what they're trying to do in a roundabout way.

Re:Wrong

[argumentsockpuppet]

... how is unlocking a phone any different than our existing warrant-based searches?

There is no difference, which is why Apple has already offered to provide evidence, provide experts and information. However, that's not what the DoJ is requiring.

Compulsion of speech. The DoJ is requiring that Apple create software, which they do not have, in order to facilitate a cracking attempt by the DoJ. Creating code is speech, and compulsion of speech is something that has both been upheld and defeated in the courts.

I don't believe it to be a simple black and white issue. To do so is to completely miss many of the nuances involved.

The nuance in this case is that the government itself (DoJ vs NSA) is divided into two factions: One believes that more government control (the DoJ supporting forced creation of software to weaken encryption) can result in a better life for citizens of the US and the other that believes that more government interference in free commerce (the NSA opposing forced weakened security) hurts the citizens of the US in the long run.

This case with Apple pits the group supporting curtailing the freedom of capitalism for the sake of security against the group who believes the strengths of American capitalism outweigh its weaknesses. Apple is just a pawn in the game, and one with deep enough pockets to make the game a fair playing field.

Personally, I feel that freedom is more valuable than security, an opinion I share with the founders of the country I'm proud to call my home. However, that opinion is not prevalent, but I believe it is only because the public is not inclined toward introspection and research. A representative democracy is designed to solve that problem; the representatives are obligated to do the research and deep thinking that the public doesn't. Unfortunately that often is translated into vote seeking for the sake of power, so it's often not a reliable system.

This case was chosen, first by the DoJ but also accepted by the NSA, to test which side represents the US that we live in today. The importance of this case is difficult, if not impossible, to overrstate.

Re:Wrong

[KGIII]

You've got a slight (maybe large) problem with your understanding - at least as far as I know. This is not a warrant. It's a writ, a judge's orders - I think this is based on a motion for discovery. What confuses me is that how are they able to do this if nobody has been formally charged? At any rate, it's an order - not a warrant. Court orders and warrants are different.

One could make a well reasoned argument that this is a legitimate overreach. Then again, there are a lot of good arguments to be made against this. I'm mostly curious about the procedure - I'm not sure where the judge got this authority in the first place? Nobody has been charged.

There's been no arraignment (they can do this posthumously) and there's been no jury indictment. Where's the judge getting the authority to do this? If he does have the authority then it's not the 4th Amendment that will apply so much, this isn't a warrant. In fact, they're not even asking them to search anything. If they were, it's not Apple's data they'd be searching - thus Apple might not have any standing at all under the 4th. I say 'might' because you can argue most anything. I'm not actually sure what the precedent will be (if any!) and what laws will be cited. I'm not even sure how the hell the judge has the power to order this, especially without anyone having been formally charged.

Re:Wrong

[KGIII]

This isn't a warrant. Warrants can require you to produce physical items only and items only that you own or have in your possession. Warrants can't make you (historically) produce something you don't have. Either way, it's not a warrant. It's a writ. It's a court order. They're entirely separate things. As nobody has even been charged, I'm not even sure where they get the authority to hand down that order.

Re:Wrong

[KGIII]

Oddly, this is true. I listen to NPR most of the time. However, I put on some Fox News Radio, it's a long story and I blame Slashdot. At any rate, the guy(s) that were on Fox weren't too bad and seemed to know a bit about the subject now. They didn't at first, a few days ago. But, they had some fairly diverse views in callers and commentators throughout the afternoon again today. They've been kind of split on it since the start but as information filters down it's like they're actually at least discussing it a bit more accurately.

NPR had a bunch of people who really couldn't articulate what they wanted to say. Even the ones who argued in support of Apple didn't seem to understand the subject. Fox had a few people call in, one was a CS grad (claimed to be) and did a decent job explaining it - I was reading a Slashdot article on it at the same time. A little while later, they had a few others call in and chime in. That one show had an annoying host who liked to talk over everyone and he was dead set on them being allowed to do this and seemed to have changed his view, at least a little, by the end of the show.

Meh, stranger things have happened.

Re:Wrong

[Hognoxious]

R's want to take away your freedoms because a man in the sky told them to.

Re:Wrong

[marcansoft]

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.

But it actually is reasonable!

The reason why Apple can be forced to unlock the iPhone in question is because current iPhone security still depends wholly on trusting Apple's firmware. They are not being asked to create a backdoor - they are being asked to exercise a backdoor that they already have. They already have the keys to the kingdom.

Now, what would be unreasonable is for the FBI to require that Apple don't actually fix this in newer iPhone iterations, thereby making it technologically impossible to comply. Which I hope they do (fix it, that is - there are technical ways of plugging this hole). But, in the meantime, this is no different from previous iOS versions where Apple willingly performed data extraction for law enforcement. The technicalities have changed, but only somewhat - Apple can still, in practice, extract all of this iPhone's data, given their master firmware signing keys. So, the only thing that has actually changed is that Apple has changed their policy to start refusing these requests.

Now, whether you believe that technology companies should be able to be compelled to help law enforcement is another matter. But, many arguments being used by the pro-Apple side (such as the "this would create a backdoor" argument) are nonsense from a technical standpoint. In practice, literally the only change of substance is that Apple is now resisting this kind of request, where they didn't in the past - and none of this has anything to do with technical security measures in iOS at all, even though Apple is trying hard to make people believe that it does (and, in some cases, actively lying about technical details).

Re:Wrong

[stephanruby]

Considering that in 2012, only 9% of people were willing to answer the phone and cooperate with Pew Research-sponsored telephone surveys. Before that, it was 15% in 2009, and before that in 2006, it was 21%. Now, please forgive me, I am just a layman and I don't know statistics, but I would assume that in 2016, assuming the same downward trend, that number could easily have reached 3% to 5%.

So is this what we're talking about? We're talking about 3% to 5% of American households, careless enough to answer questions from a complete random stranger on the telephone, more than half of which are also careless about their own privacy when it comes to the government. Why is this even news!?!?!

Of course, people who don't care about their privacy with a perfect stranger, do not care about their privacy when it comes to their government. It's self-selection. It's perfectly normal. In fact, the only surprising fact here is that it's only 51% of that self-selected 3% to 5% that hold that view. Personally, considering the way the question was worded and considering the very biased self-selection happening there, I am actually quite surprised that the percentage wasn't closer to 90% of that same 3% to 5%.

If anything, the results of this survey gives me hope about the American people. If 49% of the 3% to 5% of our most trusting people are also getting paranoid about our own government, then it means that even they have been paying attention lately.

Re:Wrong

[superwiz]

It's silly to accuse Republican of gerrymandering under the guise that Democrats do it too "sometimes"... if they are really desperate or something. Redistricting is done every 10 years after the census. Whichever party happens to have majority at that time is the one which gets to do more gerrymandering. But there is plenty of cases of life-long Democrats keeping their gerrymandered districts, too. It's also used to eliminate congressmen who are too cooky (Dennis Kucinich - D) or don't tow the party line (Thaddeus McCotter - R). My point is that there is no reason to fight gerrymandering. It's accidental (rather than intentional) side effect is that it introduces elements of a parliamentary system into a winner-take-all system.

Re:Wrong

[physicsphairy]

Both Democrats and Republicans do gerrymandering whenever they can get away with it, but the process works better for Republicans because they are less concentrated: Even the reddest of red districts (say a rural county in Utah) have only about 70% Republicans, but it is easy to find urban districts that are 95% Democrat.

What defines "gerrymandering"? A square grid of districts would have no human bias but by your observation would greatly favor Republicans. You have to think carefully about where the lines go if you want to make sure those high-density Democrat areas have influence spread across multiple districts. Doesn't that mean that gerrymandering works better for Democrats?

Re:Wrong

[Dutch Gun]

You've got a slight (maybe large) problem with your understanding - at least as far as I know. This is not a warrant. It's a writ, a judge's orders - I think this is based on a motion for discovery. What confuses me is that how are they able to do this if nobody has been formally charged?

My bad for not being more clear on this point. I wasn't trying to imply that a warrant was issued in this particular case, just that warrants are generally needed in order to search private property. Naturally, this case is largely about the precedent of requiring Apple to assist in that unlocking rather than the fact of unlocking, of course, so a warrant doesn't apply. In discussing this issue, many people seem to be acting as though law enforcement has no right search an individual's phone, which is not only a ridiculous argument, but it's not even what this whole thing is really about. Make sense?

Re:Wrong

[Dutch Gun]

There is no difference, which is why Apple has already offered to provide evidence, provide experts and information. However, that's not what the DoJ is requiring.

Compulsion of speech. The DoJ is requiring that Apple create software, which they do not have, in order to facilitate a cracking attempt by the DoJ. Creating code is speech, and compulsion of speech is something that has both been upheld and defeated in the courts.

Well stated. I think that sums up the core argument against this action better than I did. In case it's not clear, I actually agree with you. Like I said, I was simply playing devil's advocate a bit, and demonstrating that there are counter-arguments to be made, albeit ones I tend to disagree with.

In fairness to the masses, this is a complicated issue for non-technical people to grasp, and the FBI, while they have their issues, is generally seen as being on the side of good, not evil. Many people, I think, want to trust that our law enforcement agencies have their best interest at heart, so when issues like this come up, will tend to side with said agencies in lieu of more compelling information. Siding with them by default is probably a bit easier than siding with a giant international mega-corporation, unless you *really* love Apple for some reason.

Re:Wrong

[ooloorie]

Half of Americans vote Republican too. It is sad when the liberal socialists are for more freedoms, than so called don't tread on me conservatives.

In what way are "the liberal socialists for more freedoms"? The FBI requested the court order in the first place, and the FBI is part of the executive branch, under the Democratic president.

In addition, under the Pew poll, the percentage of people who say "should unlock" is pretty much the same under Republicans and Democrats (56% vs. 55%); both parties stand for big, intrusive government. A pox on both your houses.

Re:Wrong

[master_p]

The system is completely flawed, but there's no alternative.

Yes, there is. The alternative is to give people the freedom to choose.

When the make a choice and fuck things up, the next free choice is going to be carefully considered.

Hand holding humanity will never solve the problem and never let humanity grow up.

Re:Wrong

[buck-yar]

You're ignorant of the libertarian wing of the Republican party.

Re:Wrong

[buck-yar]

With NSA's PRISM and metadata program, why do they need that phone?

Re:Wrong

[houghi]

Obvious that the system is flawed. Perople will not pick up their phone. People will not have a phone. People will not answer correctly. People will not have been called. People will change their mind. So obviously it is flawed. That is why they always give you the percentage of error.

And no, you should not use them to make decisions. Even if 99% says they should, it does not mean that is correct.

The fact that many people do not know how to use surveys does not mean they are wrong. The fact that they probably needed to do 10x the number of calls is irrelevant. They also did not call several other millions of people.

If you want more about sample size : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

A sampler of 1000 is pretty good. I would not conclude that with 51% more people want one or the other, as the 1% is about the error margin. So clearly the person did not know how to interpret a survey and used it as a conclusion.

Re:Wrong

[WerewolfOfVulcan]

More than half of 1000 people are wrong. The header is misleading as hell.

Re:Wrong

[qwijibo]

There are people who believe the FBI needs Apple to help so they can catch the terrorists. Nevermind that they know who it was and he's been dead this whole time.

It is somewhat reassuring that the result wasn't more heavily skewed towards "FBI should investigate terrorists", suggesting more than a knee-jerk reaction to the whole issue.

Re:Wrong

[Jason Levine]

As many people have previously stated, I believe it has nothing to do with the data on the phone. It has everything to do with the FBI setting a legal precedent.

Exactly this. The FBI (and other law enforcement organizations) don't like the "encrypt everything" directions many companies are headed in. Sure, it protects our privacy, but the FBI and company would prefer to be able to look into any phone at any time. (They're REALLY like to do it without a warrant, but that's mostly another fight.) They needed a precedent setting case that would make Apple "look bad" for opposing decryption*. The obvious play was a case involving terrorism. After all, so many other reductions in freedom happened to "make us more secure from terrorism." Who would possibly be FOR more terrorism? So they push Apple to do it just this one time, because terrorism, and expected Apple to roll over. Of course, if Apple does give in, the "just this one time" will happen again and again and will expand from terrorism to "think of the children" crimes and other major legal infractions. Pretty soon, the county sheriff would be able to decrypt a phone because someone was suspected of jaywalking.

Of course, it also wouldn't stop with the US. Other law enforcement agencies in other countries would demand Apple give THEM the power to decrypt phones as well. Also, the code used would eventually leak to hacker groups who would use it to further compromise the security of Apple devices.

Apple sees the slippery slope very clearly and is thankfully pushing hard to avoid going down it.

* The FBI is actually asking for the ability to guess the PIN more than 10 times without the phone being erased and for these guesses to be automated to speed it up, but this is essentially amounts to a "decrypt this phone for us" request.

Re:Wrong

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I suspect that your theory has played a part in Tim Cooks reasoning. This is how people should be framing the debate around this and if you pick the right argument you could probably get both the Ds and Rs to agree. For the Rs just mention that the IRS would likely be able to get access to this and mention Lois Lerner, for the Ds just say J. Edgar Hoover. Also mention that the worst president in their eyes, Obama or Bush, would also have this ability. Of people I have asked about this it seems that those who are very knowledgeable in technology or math are against the FBI. Those who have or currently serve in the military or have a law enforcement background tend to be more in favor FBI (75% to 25% split). Most of the rest seem to fall into a similar spread mentioned in the article. Interestingly I happen to know a number of people who were highly persecuted, Hungarian Jews during WWII who later fought the communists in Hungary after WWII, and they are the ones most against the FBI which is why I think your theory has some traction.

Re:Wrong

[Jason Levine]

Just to play devil's advocate, how is unlocking a phone any different than our existing warrant-based searches? Warrant-based searches are explicitly supported in the fourth amendment you site. We've lived with court-ordered warrants since the country was founded, which strikes a reasonable balance between the needs of law enforcement to obtain evidence against the sanctity and privacy of our homes and personal property. At this moment, if a judge ordered it, law enforcement could come into your home and demand access to absolutely everything you own. What is it, in your opinion, that makes a phone different than anything else that we consider personal or private?

Because they're not saying "Hey Apple, we know you have a key to this door so open it for us." Apple DOESN'T have the ability to decrypt the phone. What the government is asking Apple to do is write software to 1) remotely disable the "10 PIN tries and the phone is wiped" security feature and 2) allow PIN attempts to be automated from outside the phone. The FBI would use this to break into the phone rapidly (as opposed to trying 10 times and then having the phone's contents erased).

There are two big problems here. The first is that the government is telling Apple to write an entirely new tool - one that doesn't exist and one that will majorly compromise ALL Apple devices. They aren't going to pay Apple's engineers for this or compensate Apple for lost business due to being seen as less secure. Instead, they're just demanding that Apple drop everything and compromise their own security.

The second problem is that it won't be "just for this one phone." The FBI wants Apple to give them this ability but promises to only use it this one time. Does anyone really think the FBI will use this code once and then delete it entirely? Or will they keep it around to decrypt the next phone and the one after that? Does anything think the FBI would limit the use of this for terrorism related purposes or would they expand the use to murders, child abduction, etc? Of course, they'll use it multiple times for many different crimes. And as the use expands, it'll be easier and easier to for them to justify using it for less severe crimes. Eventually, they'll be able to decrypt your phone because they think you might have downloaded a copyrighted song.

The FBI isn't asking for a "one and done" decryption. They are asking for sweeping new powers in their fight against privacy and encryption - not in any fight against crime.

Re:Wrong

[jittles]

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.

But it actually is reasonable!

The reason why Apple can be forced to unlock the iPhone in question is because current iPhone security still depends wholly on trusting Apple's firmware. They are not being asked to create a backdoor - they are being asked to exercise a backdoor that they already have. They already have the keys to the kingdom.

Now, what would be unreasonable is for the FBI to require that Apple don't actually fix this in newer iPhone iterations, thereby making it technologically impossible to comply. Which I hope they do (fix it, that is - there are technical ways of plugging this hole). But, in the meantime, this is no different from previous iOS versions where Apple willingly performed data extraction for law enforcement. The technicalities have changed, but only somewhat - Apple can still, in practice, extract all of this iPhone's data, given their master firmware signing keys. So, the only thing that has actually changed is that Apple has changed their policy to start refusing these requests.

Now, whether you believe that technology companies should be able to be compelled to help law enforcement is another matter. But, many arguments being used by the pro-Apple side (such as the "this would create a backdoor" argument) are nonsense from a technical standpoint. In practice, literally the only change of substance is that Apple is now resisting this kind of request, where they didn't in the past - and none of this has anything to do with technical security measures in iOS at all, even though Apple is trying hard to make people believe that it does (and, in some cases, actively lying about technical details).

It is not reasonable. It's like asking the phone company to put a tap on a phone line and requiring them to decrypt all the data that travels down that line. Can the phone company do it? Maybe. That depends on the circumstances. But the laws do not require that the phone company turn the data it captures into evidence. It only requires that the phone company provide the data when presented with a lawful court order. Anything more is unreasonable. ANd futhermore, what does the FBI hope to uncover? Pictures? iMessages? All the meta data they want has already been scooped up by the NSA - we already know that. So they already know who these people were communicating with and how they were doing it. We may not know the content of that communication but the NSA has all those super computers for a reason. If they can't decrypt the data - too bad, too sad. You don't always get the breaks you want in life.

Re:Wrong

[Jason Levine]

Unfortunately, it's a wing that's being pushed aside by the GOP in favor of the religious right, anti-science zealots, and folks who see "terrorism" as the key to expanding their powers (while slicing and dicing our liberty). Here's hoping those people split off from the GOP and leave it to the libertarians. I might be likely to vote for a libertarian, but I'd never vote for someone like Cruz.

Re:Wrong

[qwijibo]

The FBI doesn't need specific data from the phone to convict the dead guy. They don't expect the phone to contain a video of the guy committing mass murder, to nicely tie up the investigation and prosecute the dead guy in court.

They want whatever information is on it so they can find other potential terrorists. That is rather non-specific. They already have backups and other information provided by Apple and others. The request for help in retrieving whatever else may be on the phone sounds exactly like a fishing expedition. There's a lot of non-mass-murder-related-data that would exist on a phone.

The argument here is whether or not the government can compel a company to produce a new tool and precedent that is potentially harmful to that company. There's no danger of this suspect rising from the dead to commit mass murder while Apple and the FBI take this through the courts. Both sides have reasonable and unreasonable aspects to their positions. This is why the courts exist, to resolve how we, as a society, will address these conflicts.

Re:Wrong

[yithar7153]

Yep. What most Americans don't understand is that what the government wants is for Apple to build a backdoor.

And that would lead to more problems than it would solve, because it would give hackers a vector to attack phones.

Re:Wrong

[MitchDev]

I call bullshit, it's you typical, "here's the results we want, how to frame the question?" and "Contact those we know will support the answer we want" garbage....

Re:Wrong

[currently_awake]

Ancient Rome found that giving the people bread and circuses, along with having a strong military, was sufficient to keep them from revolting. They managed to drive the Roman empire into the ground without the public objecting. Of course the "Right" people got very rich along the way, as they guided the collapse.

Re:Wrong

[MrKrillls]

Ahhh, now you change the terms. You started with "smart people". Now you change that to: "college-educated". Not equal terms. Way back when, "college-educated" also equaled the rich, advantaged segment, they solidly but not unanimously voted republican. Some were smart. Not all. Some were lucky. Some inherited...

Regardless, "Republicans win the votes of the smart people." has always been an incorrect statement. More accurately, republicans won the votes of some smart people in the past and a slightly smaller percentage now. Shades of gray, you know...

Re:Wrong

[currently_awake]

The FBI isn't asking Apple to unlock the phone, they are asking for Apple to make a universal key that will unlock any Apple Cellphone, and give it to the FBI.

Re:Wrong

[Theaetetus]

The reason why Apple can be forced to unlock the iPhone in question is because current iPhone security still depends wholly on trusting Apple's firmware. They are not being asked to create a backdoor - they are being asked to exercise a backdoor that they already have. They already have the keys to the kingdom.

Only partly. You're right that Apple has the cert and can send updates, but as far as I know (from two iPads and two iPhones), the user must unlock the device and accept the software update/firmware install. I don't know of any way to do the install without unlocking the phone, and I can't imagine Apple built that technology in, because that's the biggest, most obvious security hole ever (plus, their legal department would insist on an opportunity to make the user periodically hit 'agree' on a ToS screen). Do you have a source that says otherwise - i.e. that Apple can do firmware installs on locked devices?

Re:Wrong

[TheCarp]

Actually, more than half are smart enough to realize that their vote is totally gamed and worthless anyway.
This is one of the cases where the majority is correct too. Before you even figure in gerrymandering First past the post already guarantees a gamed system with permanent minority rule.

Re:Wrong

[marcansoft]

You can simply boot into DFU mode and upload arbitrary (signed) firmware via USB that way. This is how forensics-without-Apple's-help works with iPhones that had vulnerable boot ROMs (and thus you could bypass the signature requirement). It's not that Apple has built this technology in, instead, they haven't built technology to stop this use case. The iPhone design from the very beginning included the ability to boot off of USB into a ramdisk, as this is how iTunes restores work, and by extension, that can be used to extract data and/or generally replace any behavior of the standard OS if you have Apple's keys. Regular restores using the official mechanism may or may not in practice require the PIN to work, but the underlying DFU technology allows for that kind of bypass because it doesn't have any mechanism to ensure otherwise.

This is something that I've mentioned in the past, before this debacle: that large parts of the iOS security system are just policy decisions made by their software, and that they are therefore trivially vulnerable to replacing said software - which Apple can do, as they have the keys. This allows the system to be more flexible, as it's a lot easier to write code to implement a policy than to design a cryptographic system that guarantees it.

I hope that in future iPhone versions Apple uses cryptography to secure user data in the face of unexpected updates (i.e. the requirement for a PIN is actually enforced cryptographically, and if you attempt a cold restore without the PIN you inevitably lose access to user data storage keys), but right now, that is not the case.

Android, comparatively, tends to have a weaker security system, but, on the other hand, uses "hard" crypto-based security in places where Apple doesn't. For example, iPhones use full disk encryption but it is not based on the user PIN - so, again, that's a policy system, not cryptographically guaranteed - which means that some/most data is encrypted with your PIN in newer iOS versions (at another layer), but the metadata isn't (filenames, and perhaps data that is accidentally stored without adequate file-level encryption config), and anything that isn't based on the PIN can be extracted by Apple. Android full disk encryption is cryptographically based on your PIN/passphrase (which you enter on boot), and therefore guarantees that every last bit of data and metadata is safe without depending on OS policy.

Re:Wrong

[Nixoloco]

Apple isn't being asked to unlock the iPhone as in previous iOS versions. They are being asked to write a new version of the OS/firmware that removes security features protecting the hardware key from brute force attacks. They are also being asked to implement a completely new capability for electronically attempting to brute force the pass code to decrypt the hardware key. They aren't the ones that will be doing the brute forcing, the FBI is.

Re:Wrong

[tuxgeek]

More than half of all Americans are uneducated inbred morons. Then there's the ignorant asshole factor to contend with.

Re:Wrong

[orgelspieler]

Just to play devil's advocate, how is unlocking a phone any different than our existing warrant-based searches?

There are a lot of differences between what the FBI is doing and just executing a search warrant. When the FBI wants to search a home, they don't call the door maker asking them to come unlock the door for them, and then insist that home builders from now on install extra doors in all future homes, and then tell the public, "it's OK because only the good guys will have keys to these extra doors." They might pay a safecracker to get into a safe inside the home. But they can't force one to do it against his will.

I guess they could through the All Writs Act. Hell, I guess they could use the AWA to force the extra door thing. Luckily that's just not how things are done.

It's possible that the SCOTUS will say that I am wrong (if the case ever makes it that far). They could argue that this is like US v. NY Telephone. But I think that's a stretch, since there's no urgent investigation that Apple is slowing down. Also, Apple is not a public utility.

Re:Wrong

[KGIII]

That does make more sense. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you're engaged in an effort of futility. There's probably no amount of logic, reason, or evidence that you can present that will change their minds. Though, 'tis noble that you try - I do similarly futile things.

I've been just going around trying to make sure that they know it's not a warrant. Like your effort, it appears to be mostly futile but it does seem to have been worth it for two people. Unfortunately, I "know" two of them and one of them in the real world and one by multiple off-site emails. So, yeah, it's mostly futile.

I still haven't found out HOW the judge managed to acquire this authority. It's not a warrant. It's an order based on a motion for discovery. Except there's nobody charged. There has been no arraignment, there has been no indictment, there has been no one specific individual charged. NPR has an "expert" who's calling it a warrant and saying that Apple needs to service the warrant. It's *not* a warrant.

It's a bit frustrating... I really need to get off my ass and stop being this lazy.

Re:Wrong

[marcansoft]

How do you think they "unlocked" previous iOS versions? By... uploading a new version of the OS/firmware restore bundle that allows them to do that. Which is implementing a completely new capability for electronically dumping the filesystem after it has been decrypted by the FDE key.

See how it really isn't that different? Sure, in this case the FBI wants to do the bruteforcing themselves, but that is a minor detail. Either way, Apple's writing (a small amount of) code to implement a security policy bypass for law enforcement.

Re:Wrong

[Nixoloco]

First, sorry about all the italics before, I was in a hurry and didn't close a tag.

I just disagree. Yes, the basic mechanism of applying an OS/firmware update is the same, but the details are different enough. Apple previously designed the passcode/encryption in a way specifically to allow them to comply with police warrants and requests. It wasn't something new they designed but already had for the purpose of complying with warrants. They changed that in iOS8 such that Apple no longer had access to the decrypted hardware key. They implemented security restrictions on brute forcing in the firmware and later in the Secure Enclave hardware. This request is to implement a backdoor/weakness in their security implementation that did not previously exist. The fact that is would be relatively easy for them to do so is irrelevant.

Although not definitively established yet, there is evidence that the Secure Enclave is firmware updateable without enter the PIN. I expect Apple will udpate this such that future firmware updates cannot be loaded without the PIN unless the hardware key is wiped. That should eliminate the feasibility of these requests.

Re:Wrong

[lgw]

You do realize the GOP is doing this as well right?

Sure they're still doing this a bit, though not as much these days. But that's the old expectation: the right are the stern moral scolds, the left picks your pocket. Now the left has become the stern moral scolds (for a different set of morals, of course), and the right is more and more likely to pick your pocket.

The baselines are moving, and both annoying behaviors are common on both sides right now. The voters have noticed, of course: the current US primaries are all about the disconnect between the establishment and the base - on both sides.
 

Re:Wrong

[marcansoft]

Apple previously designed the passcode/encryption in a way specifically to allow them to comply with police warrants and requests.

Citation needed here. I see no evidence whatsoever that the encryption was in any way designed to comply with police warrants. Earlier iPhones (since 3GS) only had full-disk-encryption, with a hardware-bound key that is not related to the passcode. Later, file-layer encryption was added based on the passcode, and in more recent iOS versions, that has simply been made the default so that the vast majority of user data is doubly encrypted with a key derived from the user's passcode as well as the underlying FDE. At no point do police warrants enter this design picture, it's simply an evolution of security from Apple. There was no big flip from "we have the key" to "we don't" (older iOS versions already used this mechanism before iOS 8, just not to as full an extent) - in fact both mechanisms are completely tangential, and Apple can still use their old extraction mechanism to extract all the files from the filesystem just as before, including all the metadata (filenames) and some data that wouldn't have the file-based encryption applied yet. It's just that now most files have an additional layer of encryption which requires a PIN bruteforce to break.

Since passcodes are usually short, both classes of security end up boiling down to OS policy - without the policy requiring a delay between PIN attempts, the security is laughable. Therefore, in both cases, security depends on the trustworthiness of Apple's firmware, and they have the keys to bypass it (possibly on others' behalf).

It wasn't something new they designed but already had for the purpose of complying with warrants.

They had to write a restore image that dumps the filesystem instead of doing a normal OS install (the first time they got a request). That's something new they designed to comply with warrants.

They implemented security restrictions on brute forcing in the firmware and later in the Secure Enclave hardware.

Nope. Secure Enclave is just a CPU. They implemented security restrictions on brute forcing in the Secure Enclave firmware. Which is just another firmware component signed by Apple and therefore, even on newer iPhones with a Secure Enclave, Apple can bypass the bruteforcing restrictions just as well.

The Secure Enclave is designed to protect security-sensitive operations, like file encryption and fingerprint matching, from a compromised applications processor (e.g. a jailbroken phone, or anything that similarly uses an OS-level exploit). It is not designed to protect anything against rogue firmware updates. In fact, the Secure Enclave firmware is loaded into memory on every boot and is loaded from USB during restore, just like everything else on the phone, and Apple can freely replace it to do whatever it wants. Even if the FBI had to deal with a phone with a Secure Enclave, it would make no difference to the feasibility of this request.

Although not definitively established yet, there is evidence that the Secure Enclave is firmware updateable without enter the PIN. I expect Apple will udpate this such that future firmware updates cannot be loaded without the PIN unless the hardware key is wiped. That should eliminate the feasibility of these requests.

You're thinking in the wrong terms. Everyone mistakenly seems to think the Secure Enclave is some kind of secure, independent, tamper-resistant, little HSM inside the iPhone or something. Something with its own separately updatable firmware. It's not. It's really just another CPU, designed to remain secure in the face of compromise of the main application processor. Its firmware is really just part of the main firmware on the phone, and also part of the USB DFU restore process just like everything else. It doesn't have its own flash memory or its own firmware update proc

Re:Wrong

[hucker75]

Agreed, although I'd not call 51% in a data set of 1000 "more than half". Why can journalists not understand basic statistics?

Re:Wrong

[ProzacPatient]

So now you know why the US is a Republic with the Electorial College and a House of Representatives instead of a true democracy.

I shutter to think what the reality TV show generation would have done to this country otherwise and fortunately the founding fathers had the foresight that the average voter is too dumb to vote.

Re:Wrong

[Nixoloco]

On citation for original design intent, thought I read that in a news article back when they announced iOS8, but can't locate it now, so maybe I'm wrong. Your description of the encryption mechanisms is a bit off regarding Secure Enclave.

Apple’s implementation of security with A7+ processors and the Secure Enclave also uses ARM TrustZone architecture with rather complicated composition of encryption keys. But there is a hardware key specific to the Secure Enclave chip and cannot be accessed or queried outside of it (I’m ignoring expensive physical xray or FIB methods etc) and is unique to each device. A piece of this is generated whenever iOS is reset or reinstalled. The Secure Enclave is a separate chip built into the SoC running its own microkernel. This is different the standard TrustZone architecture. It does indeed have its own firmware and isn’t even based on iOS. It is updated separate from the rest of iOS. However, it does require similar update process and must be appropriately signed. You are right that this is a current weakness, but there is reason to believe Apple could alter the update process such that the Secure Enclave firmware could behave distinctly and require the PIN to be entered correctly or it wipes part of the key.

Re:Wrong

[rtb61]

A pew survey, hmm, http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/ab... and straight from there We work hand-in-hand with donors as we conceive and execute projects and these people control Phew surveys. You have no idea what half of Americans want and even less after reading a Phew http://www.merriam-webster.com... Survey (double value meaning, phew I am glad the survey I worked hand in hand with produced the results I wanted or phew this survey stinks, if fact both at the same time).

I'll bet anything you like more than half of the American population have no idea what so ever of what is going on at all and would not care and would emphatically try to ignore you if you tried to explain it to them, not that they would understand, no matter how hard you tried.

Gates obviously 100% supports the hack because I don't know, his major investment operating system is 100% dedicated to opening a back door into all of us, all of the time, Bill's message fuck you and your privacy more money, more power now and into the future, a future where every possible politician is subject to extortion over secret misbehaviours in their childhood and teen years. Total power and total control for the keepers of your secrets and it won't be you, you'll just become a victim of your secrets both real and digitally created, but created well because they can accurately slot into your real life and you can not disprove, they know you can not disprove them.

As a free person, my secrets are mine and no one else's and fuck anyone who thinks different.

Re:Wrong

[Jack Griffin]

With NSA's PRISM and metadata program, why do they need that phone?

1. If the transmitted data is encrypted with a cipher that hasn't been cracked, then it is useless
2. There might be data on the device that hasn't been transmitted, therefore not captured anywhere else.

Re:Wrong

[marcansoft]

Apple’s implementation of security with A7+ processors and the Secure Enclave also uses ARM TrustZone architecture with rather complicated composition of encryption keys.

Correct, though it's very different from standard TrustZone. But it does use some TrustZone technology.

But there is a hardware key specific to the Secure Enclave chip and cannot be accessed or queried outside of it (I’m ignoring expensive physical xray or FIB methods etc) and is unique to each device.

True, though this mechanism is not new to the Secure Enclave. Every iPhone ever has had a fused UID key that can be used to generate derived keys and is not itself readable or accessible by software, and is unique to each device. The Secure Enclave now has its own instance of this, but the idea has been along since the original iPhone.

A piece of this is generated whenever iOS is reset or reinstalled.

That doesn't make sense. It's a fused hardware key. It never changes. You can renegerate derived keys (by storing a salt/IV that is entangled with it in use) but you can't regenerate the UID key itself. Software policy can dictate that some such derived key is regenerated during the update process, but this isn't some kind of intrinsic hardware requirement. You can always DFU boot a phone and run arbitrary signed software on the AP and the Secure Enclave without wiping anything, and perform arbitrary actions.

The Secure Enclave is a separate chip built into the SoC running its own microkernel.

A separate CPU, not a separate chip. If it's built into the SoC, it's on the same chip.

It is updated separate from the rest of iOS.

Not really, it's just another firmware component of regular iOS updates. My point is that the Secure Enclave has little control over what firmware runs on it, other than that it is appropriately signed.

but there is reason to believe Apple could alter the update process such that the Secure Enclave firmware could behave distinctly and require the PIN to be entered correctly or it wipes part of the key.

Again, you're thinking of this from the wrong perspective. What you're trying to do is reactive security: "if stuff goes wrong, wipe the key". That only works if you have an HSM. The Secure Enclave is not an HSM and has no control over its own updates. Instead, what you want is proactive security: "if the firmware that happens to be running was not authorized by the user, encryption keys are not available".

Re:Wrong

[MercTech]

Interesting that you don't think the party that brought an end to slavery and civil rights legislation is equated with not being for the people while you expect the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the KKK is interested in supporting the common people.

Yes, the Democratic party changed. The Democratic party bought some really good spin doctors to change their image (circa 1968) while the same old money families still run the party machine.

Re:Wrong

[superwiz]

Sorry, but I am going to trust my memory on that one rather than try fact checking an AC. Yes, it can be easily googled. But if you can't put a minimum of your reputation on the line by posting under an established pseudonym, why should I spend the time on fact checking someone who wants no skin in the game of winning this argument? Oh, and if you don't get my point about parliamentary system, sorry. It's a fairly new idea. Not everyone gets things fast enough and on the 1st explanation. Such is life.

Re:Wrong

[movdqa]

I like your points though I'm surprised at the level of political commentary in other posts. I'm a bit torn over the issue because you have the issue of security versus privacy. If you allow a backdoor, someone else will find it and use it or sell it and it's someone that you might not want with access. It seems like we should be able to do things with policy and legislation to decrease the likelihood of crime and terrorism. The problem with giving LE access to your stuff is potential misuse. We've all heard of the examples of Google SysAdmins showing customer data to friends or police officers looking up people on their LE databases for potential dates or credit processing company employees looking up information on celebrities. What's to prevent looking through financial information to steal or figuring out when you're on vacation or leaving your home for a trip to allow someone the opportunity to rob your place when you're away? The FBI has said that this stuff would only be done with warrants but don't all LE organizations and individuals come under some temptation to cheat? And there are clearly well-known cases where they do so. So the balance is difficult. I think that anyone with a CS degree could design their own encryption system for sensitive files that couldn't be broken, even by Apple or Google. You might not be able to use something like this on a phone without an App and it would likely be cumbersome to do even with an App that you write yourself. But it could be done.

I must know the other half ...

[BitZtream]

I find it odd. I don't know anyone who thinks Apple should help the government. I realize this is the definition of anecdote ... but still, this seems odd.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[Darinbob]

I'm in Silicon Valley, and almost no one here thinkgs Apple should cave in. But then there are lots more engineers here who think about devices and security.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[sdinfoserv]

Reading this site, you likely work in tech.. Few people outside of the tech industry understand the ramifications of this or the National Security Agencies desire to eliminate encryption completely. My wife is in healthcare, her eyes gloss over when I start discussing this stuff, or how important it is.
Like most freedoms, people won't care till they're gone.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[bloodhawk]

The majority of people are sheep or stupid. You only have to look at the amount of people that believe in conspiracy theories or the amount of support Trump has. I don't know anyone personally that fits into either of those categories either but their appears to be a shit ton of them.

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.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[sdinfoserv]

Same engineers who are busy throwing together the IoT without a second thought on security?

Re:I must know the other half ...

[gnasher719]

I find it odd. I don't know anyone who thinks Apple should help the government. I realize this is the definition of anecdote ... but still, this seems odd.

I think Apple should absolutely help the government. But in the old Apple tradition: Don't give people what they ask for, give them what they really need.

Someone who knows more about security (and about breaking it) than anyone on Slashdot is Michael Hayden, former chief of the NSA and CIA, and he has publicly stated that end-to-end encryption (and safe phones) are an overall benefit to US national security. So while the FBI wants that phone unlocked, the government, as far as they are actually well-informed, doesn't really want this.

And look at how the question is posed: There are two very different sides to the question, and one side is a bit harder to understand than the other. But only one side of the question is asked about. They might have asked "Do you think Apple should unlock this phone, if this endangers the safety of millions of iPhones in the USA and the world? ", and the result would have been different. Or they might have asked "Do you want to give hackers and criminals a way to steal your most intimate private information from your iPhone"?

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:I must know the other half ...

[Darinbob]

No, we're thinking about security. Some of us anyway.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[TechyImmigrant]

Reading this site, you likely work in tech.. Few people outside of the tech industry understand the ramifications of this or the National Security Agencies desire to eliminate encryption completely. My wife is in healthcare, her eyes gloss over when I start discussing this stuff, or how important it is.
  Like most freedoms, people won't care till they're gone.

I've personally explained the technical details and issues to several people unconnected to tech and changed their minds. It's not really very complicated and the consequences are easy to describe in literal terms that apply the to the phones in their pocket.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[shawn2772]

Same engineers who are busy throwing together the IoT without a second thought on security?

I can tell you the Google Brillo (Google's Android-derived IoT OS) team is definitely focused on security. Most of them came from the ChromeOS team, which is extraordinarily secure, and they brought that focus with them (plus Google in general is pretty good about taking security seriously).

Re:I must know the other half ...

[Solandri]

Maybe the half who've actually read the news reports about this case, instead of what others have been blogging about the case, and thus know that this isn't the shooter's phone . The phone belongs to the San Bernardino government. It was assigned to the shooter as a work phone.

All the government is asking is for Apple to help assist it bypass the encryption on its own phone. In other words, this isn't a privacy issue like it's being made out to be. This is a company refusing to help an owner bypass a lost password on their own device, even though the circumstances are extraordinary.

If this were the shooter's personal phone, then I would 100% be supporting Apple. In fact I did support them up until I learned it wasn't the shooter's phone. Refusing to help the phone's owner under extraordinary circumstances is just asinine. What next? You lend your car to a friend who then goes missing, and OnStar refuses to help you or the police track down the car's whereabouts because it would violate your friend's privacy? Owner's right's have to trump privacy rights in situations involving items they own.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[rmdingler]

I know there are studies on the order of redundant that suggest the way or manner in which a question is asked can effect the response immensely.

It's really not that tricky.

I wonder how limiting my freedom(s) without challenge is somehow ameliorated by phrasing the question that leads to it as:

"Wouldn't you rather be safe, than sorry, with these nose-picking, mother-beating terrorists?"

Re:I must know the other half ...

[indi0144]

Maybe they want you to think the population is divided?

Re:I must know the other half ...

[Lakitu]

All the government is asking is for Apple to help assist it bypass the encryption on its own phone. In other words, this isn't a privacy issue like it's being made out to be. This is a company refusing to help an owner bypass a lost password on their own device, even though the circumstances are extraordinary.

I just posted this somewhere else, but what is the difference?

A permission slip from the owners (San Bernardino County) is as good as permission slip from the government (signed search warrant).

It might even be less important knowing that its the owners are requesting it. Why should the owners of a phone be required to be given a newly special-crafted firmware so that they can brute-force their way into their own device? It's their own goddamn device, they already have had all the access to it that anybody could hope for.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[Jack Griffin]

I find it odd. I don't know anyone who thinks Apple should help the government. I realize this is the definition of anecdote ... but still, this seems odd.

Well here I am, so feel free to ask questions.
From what I've read, I have no problem with Apple complying with the government's actual request. But what you'll find on this topic is 99.9% strawmen and hyperbole about things the FBI hasn't asked for, and who cares about logic and reason, when hating on the FBI and proposing imaginary end-of-world scenarios feels better right?

Re:I must know the other half ...

[Jack Griffin]

I'm in Silicon Valley, and almost no one here thinkgs Apple should cave in. But then there are lots more engineers here who think about devices and security.

And nothing about geopolitical security or how to actually run a functioning democracy...

Re:I must know the other half ...

[gstoddart]

I find it odd. I don't know anyone who thinks Apple should help the government. I realize this is the definition of anecdote ... but still, this seems odd.

It's a self selected sample of 1000 people who didn't tell a pollster to fuck off when they got a random call ... do you know how useless this poll is? This kind of poll sounds good, but it is otherwise just noise.

Having said that, there seems to be a trend to a lot of society not giving a rats ass about such things, and as long as the government claims to be keeping them safe they don't give a crap about how it's done or what the implications are.

I think it's safe to say the average American neither knows, nor cares, about why this is a terrible idea.

And the rest of the Western world isn't far behind them ... they live in fear, so the last thing they think of is their rights.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[WaffleMonster]

I'm in Silicon Valley, and almost no one here thinkgs Apple should cave in. But then there are lots more engineers here who think about devices and security.

This is the part I don't understand.

Wouldn't we rather have devices that are actually secure instead of secure on the precondition Apple will not push out a firmware image that tweaks a few hard coded variables after the fact?

Certainly it must be feasible to create hardware based key stretching schemes which cannot be nerf'd by software changes in the field.

Rooting for Apple in this matter means less pressure for actual security deficiencies to get addressed.

In my view this really isn't about government efforts to nerf technology. It is much closer to media campaign to hide or mask security deficiencies in existing systems which fail on their own merit to stand up to scrutiny.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[Wovel]

You realize almost no one cares about the privacy issue surrounding this one phone. While slippery slopes seldom are, legal precedent and dramatically increasing the scope of the all writs act is something we should all be concerned of. Why should Apple be compelled to right special software for the government? Ignore everything else around this case and all the noise and try to answer just that one question. Forget about terrorism and encryption. Just ask yourself, should the government be allowed to compel a private company to write programs for them.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[mrchaotica]

Oh really? So y'all have re-engineered Nest not to connect to Google's "cloud" anymore, then? 'Cause for IoT stuff, "security" means nothing less than the owner hosting his own server!

Re:I must know the other half ...

[Darinbob]

We do think about privacy though. You can have a functioning democracy without being able to force companies to crack open devices for the government. It's highly unlikely that there's anything on that phone related to geopolitical security. The government is essentially asking for half-assed security that does not limit the criminals or hostile foreign entities that will use the best encryption they can get.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[shawn2772]

Oh really? So y'all have re-engineered Nest not to connect to Google's "cloud" anymore, then? 'Cause for IoT stuff, "security" means nothing less than the owner hosting his own server!

That may be your definition but it's hardly the only one, and it's not one that's at all interesting to the vast majority of people, who have no interest at all in hosting their own server and like what the cloud provides.

Also, Nest does not use Brillo. Maybe it will in the future, dunno.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[kybred]

Maybe the half who've actually read the news reports about this case, instead of what others have been blogging about the case, and thus know that this isn't the shooter's phone . The phone belongs to the San Bernardino government. It was assigned to the shooter as a work phone.

It is about privacy. But not the shooter's. It's the privacy of other iPhone users. Yes, the gov't says that they only want the altered OS to work on a specific phone. But as soon as it is developed, they'll be another court order (or NSL) to force Apple to do it for another phone. And China will do the same. And France. And Russia. So you see where this could lead.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[kybred]

Gaddammit:

... they'll be another court order ...

should be:

... there will be another court order ...

Re:I must know the other half ...

[Maow]

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?"

Wait, does anyone know this?

I thought the owner (through their IT department) changed the password as part of a standard "he's not employed here anymore" procedure that changes all ex-employee passwords, like any company does.

How would the government change the password without being able to unlock it in the first place?

Re:I must know the other half ...

[physicsphairy]

This is important because the other side of the coin is large groups of people who don't know anyone who is siding with Apple. Fyi to all of us, we really don't have much ground to gripe about the world having technically illiterate opinions if we never expose them to literate opinions. And that means making friends with people who know nothing about technology and entering their social circles. We can of course have discussions amongst ourselves on Slashdot, but unless your grandpa reads Slashdot, you haven't accomplished anything in the way of influencing the general public.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[thegarbz]

Same engineers who are busy throwing together the IoT without a second thought on security?

I don't do banking on my lightbulb.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[q4Fry]

No one in the public knows if any of the people involved are lying, but both the SB County twitter account and someone in their IT department willing to be named in the press have asserted that they reset the password at the behest of the FBI.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[david_thornley]

Too bad not enough of your managers are.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[Jack Griffin]

It's highly unlikely that there's anything on that phone related to geopolitical security.

Yeah you'll excuse if my standards are higher than "some guy on the internet said so".

The government is essentially asking for half-assed security that does not limit the criminals or hostile foreign entities that will use the best encryption they can get.

No it isn't, go back and read the court order again. They are asking for firmware for one device, explicitly limited to only one device, on a model no longer sold by Apple, to allow them to try and brute force the encryption. The firmware is signed by Apple so can't be used on any other device.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[Darinbob]

And has the DOJ pinky promised to never ask again in the history of the universe? No. It is not a one time only request. It's one time only until the next time. Plus as soon as Apple gives in there are plenty of non-DOJ players in the wings wanting help in their fishing expeditions. The NY DA who has over a hundred phones in a vault wants them cracked even though there's not necessarily any evidence on those phones. Once the precedent is set it becomes very difficult to rein back in police powers to a reasonable level again.

At the very least we need this to get to the highest court. Right now we have a relatively low level judge making this decision. Apple has every right to fight back and make use of appeals.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[Bob_Who]

I find it odd. I don't know anyone who thinks Apple should help the government. I realize this is the definition of anecdote ... but still, this seems odd.

I agree. I don't believe a word of it. Its horse shit. Merde du jour.

Re:I must know the other half ...

[Jack Griffin]

And has the DOJ pinky promised to never ask again in the history of the universe? No. It is not a one time only request. It's one time only until the next time.

Yes it is, and it even says so in the court order. Oh but wait you're applying your tin foil hat logic here...

Plus as soon as Apple gives in there are plenty of non-DOJ players in the wings wanting help in their fishing expeditions.

Which wouldn't work since newer Apple phones aren't vulnerable to this method.

The NY DA who has over a hundred phones in a vault wants them cracked even though there's not necessarily any evidence on those phones. Once the precedent is set it becomes very difficult to rein back in police powers to a reasonable level again.

There is no precedent, if you understand the legality and technology of this specific request.
The specific thing requested here wouldn't work again. If the police tried to use it again it would fail. If they tried to go to court for carte blanche access, they would fail.
There is no way this scenario can happen with this request.

At the very least we need this to get to the highest court. Right now we have a relatively low level judge making this decision. Apple has every right to fight back and make use of appeals.

Of course they do, that is how a court works.

Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

Just shows how ignorant most of our American population is with technology.

Re:Ignorance

[TWX]

You mean, not everyone in the country understands the technical aspects of encryption, how that encryption is used, how backdoors cause exploits that are not limited to 'authorized' users, and how their right to privacy and security in their papers and effects are affected by those kinds of backdoors?

What are they teaching in these civics classes?

Re:Ignorance

[Mitreya]

Just shows how ignorant most of our American population is with technology.

This debate doesn't have so much to do with technology, though. Concept is simple enough [insert car--encryption analogy]

It's like all those senators doing bad things under the guise of "they are old people who just don't understand technology". They may not know the low-level technical details, but they certainly understand the relevant concepts in the crafted law, they just don't care about our opinion.

Re:Ignorance

[kheldan]

We do need to 'get along' with each other, but not at the expense of any one group or even one individual for that matter, and no, 'diversity' won't fix a damn thing, but 'mutual understanding' will. You can't just take cats and dogs and put them in the same room and expect it all to get sorted out -- you'll end up with a bunch of dead cats and dogs. But if you can get the cats and the dogs to talk to each other and come to a mutual understanding? Then you've got something.

Re:Ignorance

[Lumpy]

This is 2016, if you did not get basic education in highschool about it, then you are horribly under educated. But then most americans don't know how many states we have, Have the delusion that they will be a 1%er if they work hard, Think that College Education is going to get them a good paying job, etc.... Most can't fix their car or even tell you how an internal combustion engine works.

This really underlines how bad the american education system is...... A majority of our population is dumb as a box of rocks...

Re:Ignorance

[Jack Griffin]

But if you can get the cats and the dogs to talk to each other and come to a mutual understanding? Then you've got something.

But what if they can't talk because everything they say is encrypted?

Re:Ignorance

[WaffleMonster]

You mean, not everyone in the country understands the technical aspects of encryption, how that encryption is used, how backdoors cause exploits that are not limited to 'authorized' users, and how their right to privacy and security in their papers and effects are affected by those kinds of backdoors?

I get all that. What I don't understand is why any of it should apply in this case as the government is not asking publically for changes in anyone's devices. They are asking for help breaking an already BROKEN system incapable of standing on its own.

It would be one thing if FBI was asking for a backdoor to be installed on all iPhones or ask for vendor code signing keys, or weaken crypto or force Apple to break out an STM... I have yet to hear a coherent explanation of why what is being asked puts anyone at any more or less risk than anyone else. I hope I'm wrong and someone can explain it to me because I don't understand the technical merits of Apples argument.

Public explanation by Apple is the mere existence of a tool to tweak hard coded parameters puts everyone's system at risk. I fail to understand why that would be considering A. Any firmware image must pass signature validation and B. It can be accomplished by anyone who would take the time to modify object code embedded in existing software update packages (see A)

Currently all that makes sense to me are the political calculations. I would very much like to understand a technical argument that adds up for why I should change my mind.

Re:Ignorance

[KGIII]

As it was alluded to, I'll make it a bit more clear.

We don't teach civics any more. They take "social studies." No, I shit you not. They don't have "Civics." They have "Social Studies."

I couldn't make that up if I wanted to. No, don't read into it more than I said. But, let it sink in... We stopped teaching Civics in favor of Social Studies.

Re:Ignorance

[kheldan]

Stop being obtuse. What's your point?

Re:Ignorance

[some old guy]

+1 Informative if I had mod points.

It's hard for me to oppose the abuses of the H1B system when the pool of available young talent available to me is dumber than owl poop.

Re:Ignorance

[some old guy]

Brought to you by the Department of Available Redundancy Department...sheesh.

Re:Ignorance

[KGIII]

As near as I know - none of them teach civics. Civics should be a whole subject - all by itself. Unless, of course, you don't think people should be aware of their rights and responsibilities? Even in what you listed, they teach it mixed with other stuff. I dare say that you can look around and conclude that they're not actually getting enough information about their rights and responsibilities. Or not...

Err, I'm not sure why you'd think I'm pushing in any certain direction - such as some sort of standardized test. If I had meant that, I'd have said that. Long, winding, rather complete posts are what I do. If I didn't say it, probably several times, you probably don't need to assign those sorts of beliefs to me. I'm careful and say what I mean - almost every time. It is no different this time.

Re:Ignorance

[KGIII]

Yes, a whole subject by itself - and all by itself. I'd suggest we consider State specific and Federal level civics course. And yes, just civics - not rolled up with "social studies." Just civics. Just your rights, obligations, and how they came to be and why they're important.

As for scholastics, yes - i do have some involvements, up to and including observing and reading the curriculum for a local district and a private school. I've not just done so in that one particular area - but in every area that I've lived for any length of time. None of them teach civics. Including it as a watered down version with a quick couple of tests is not civics. That's like saying that learning Newtonian Physics is learning Physics. It is not. At least not in any meaningful way.

If I had to make a suggestion, and I do not, then I'd suggest that they consider a couple of classes. One might be a fairly rough outline in their early years and the latter might be much more in-depth and done in such a way as to tie into US History but as an entirely separate course. It should not be rolled into one. The evidence for this is in this very survey, the comments at the news sites, the callers on talk radio, and the comments on this very board.

Civics. All by itself. I'd submit that it's a definite core subject and should have appropriate resources devoted to it. No, that's not social studies. Civics. Just Civics. They could probably go a little faster if they tied it in so they were learning the history around it at the same time in a separate class.

The suggestions comment was cute. I don't have any suggestions on how to eliminate cancer but I sure as hell can accurately point out that cancer's leading to a whole lot of dead people. The absurd part is you point to it being (albeit wrapped up with other subjects) taught as if that's a meaningful statistic. It's not being taught. It might be on the curriculum (albeit wrapped up with other subjects) but it sure as hell isn't being taught. If you need evidence for that, I point to this Pew survey.

Re:Ignorance

[KGIII]

The survey would be *this* survey - it's the subject of the thread. (It's even in your title bar. If you have it enabled.)

And no, a watered down sub-set is not teaching civics. No, social studies is not teaching civics. More importantly, no - rote memory is not teaching civics either. It's unfortunate if you do not see the difference or importance. I'll try to articulate it one more time and I'll try to make sure it's clear.

It is imperative that you not only know your rights but why you have them, based on what actions, and what they mean in the future. You should know your obligations and duties associated with them - and see why they're important to carry out. This is a rhetorical question, do you understand why it is essential that courts are public (or should be, with few reasonable limits)? If you do not take the time to observe the courts, you have not been taught civics.

Its a Pew survey..

[Anonymous Coward]

I would tend to believe that the question is invalid.

Re:Its a Pew survey..

[Shortguy881]

I was thinking the same thing. Here is the question:

As you may know, RANDOMIZE: [the FBI has said that accessing the iPhone is an important part of their ongoing investigation into the San Bernardino attacks] while [Apple has said that unlocking the iPhone could compromise the security of other users’ information] do you think Apple [READ; RANDOMIZE]

Should unlock the iPhone
Should NOT unlock the iPhone
Don’t know/Refused

Re:Its a Pew survey..

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, its a Pew survey and the question is of course trash meant to make it seem like the public supports the FBI.

Apple CANNOT unlock the phone, and Apple has NOT BEEN ASKED to unlock it either. That makes the question utterly invalid in the current situation. literally nothing to see here but paid shills doing what they are paid to do, tricking the citizens into agreeing with something completely different and spreading it then as proof of support for the actual issue.

You know you've got it right when people hate you

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing the right thing is a hard, thankless job that often earns scorn from the people you're helping the most. If you're in to activism for fame, glory, and a feel good fun time you're in for a sour surprise.

Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Reasons $AAPL and Cook won't help investigate a mass murder sound like Calhoun ranting about States Rights c. 1860. Rights to do what?

Re:Rights

[Darinbob]

No, it is not about investigating a mass murder. We already know who the culprits were. Instead it's moved into an anti-terrorism search for possible clues. In the fifties this would have been about J. Edgar Hoover moving the investigation into finding links to a global communist conspiracy.

What are the questions used?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to TFA:

"In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls."

I can't find any link to the actual question(s) used and I suspect those first and above ANYTHING else for causing the responses that were given.

Re:What are the questions used?

[smooth wombat]

I can't find any link to the actual question(s) used

Really? The Pew Research Center publishes their findings for all to see. Here is the report. Page 7 of the report lists the actual questions used.

Re:What are the questions used?

[NT Convert]

I can't find any link to the actual question(s) used and I suspect those first and above ANYTHING else for causing the responses that were given.

http://www.people-press.org/fi...

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.

Re:What are the questions used?

[Sir Holo]

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

That pretty much ended it for me too.

Ended earlier than that for me. I'll emphasize the important double-speak below:

"In a survey that reached 1,000 respondents by phone..."

900 of those people just hung up the phone. Or, perhaps they responded with, "Put me on your do not call list!", and then hung up.

Either way, all of them 'responded' when they answered the phone...

Re:What are the questions used?

[Areyoukiddingme]

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

Who else will answer a call from a number they don't recognize, or that has a blocked caller ID?

Pew Research has no idea how to reach anybody under the age of 45.

Compromise

[Xenolith]

Isn't there a compromise? Can't Apple unlock this individual phone without providing the government a universal backdoor? From what I understand, the county has given them permission to unlock the phone, so we aren't treading on the 4th amendment.

Re:Compromise

[DidgetMaster]

If Apple CAN unlock this particular iPhone, then Apple can unlock ANY iPhone. If it is already technically possible to comply with the judge's order (i.e. get the data off an existing phone that was running previously released software), then Apple doesn't want anyone to know that.

Re:Compromise

[imgod2u]

The FBI is asking for a universal backdoor so that they can hack the iPhone's pin password using brute force. There isn't a way to specifically hack just one phone the way the encryption and decryption method is built.

Re:Compromise

[arbiter1]

Its possible Apple could push an update to that 1 phone that allows it but they refuse to do it. Since its a court order its not some behind the scene's FBI demanding something be unlocked with no over sight, its a request from a court of law.

Re:Compromise

[xfade551]

The backdoor doesn't directly unlock the iPhone. The backdoor allows Apple to alter the firmware without unlocking the phone itself. The authentication mechanism is baked into the ROM, but the "10 strikes and auto-wipe" is not. The FBI wants Apple to disable the 10 strikes so they can guess as many times as they want, as fast as they want (through a cable interface). However, once that altered firmware gets on that particular iPhone, the FBI has that firmware permanently and can re-use it at a later date on some other iPhone. (At least that's the gist I get from the various articles I've read.)

Re:Compromise

[mrun4982]

Then what do you do the next time the government asks for this, and the time after that, and the time after that ... You do this once and you're setting the precedence that it's ok to unlock a phone anytime the government wants you to.

Re:Compromise

[scrib]

Apple may not be able to unlock this phone, but as was said in another article on /., Apple CAN update iOS on the device without user interaction.

The back door is ALREADY THERE.

The FBI is just calling Apple out on that fact and asking for a change in the code from "if attempts > 10 then wipe" to "if attempts != attempts then wipe". the FBI will do the unlocking from there.

Re:Compromise

[whoever57]

Isn't there a compromise? Can't Apple unlock this individual phone without providing the government a universal backdoor?

You haven't been following what is going on. Farook (the guy who perpetrated the multiple shooting deaths) destroyed his personal phone. This is his work phone. Since he had the awareness to destroy his personal phone, how much useful data do you think is on this phone?

Furthermore, they have the metadata for this phone, so why not get the data off the phones that this one communicated with? Do you really think he was calling people in the middle east with his work phone?

Going on, the FBI screwed up one possible way to access the phone: allowing it to sync with the iCloud.

What you are left with is the conclusion that the primary reason that the FBI is expending time and money on this is to establish a precedent. The FBI thinks that "because terrorists", people will be more sympathetic to unlocking this phone, and, once it has been done once, it can be done a thousand time, or ten thousand times.

Re:Compromise

[Ichijo]

Why can't the FBI reverse engineer the OS binary, disable the 10 strikes, and install the new OS image on the phone? If the image needs a digital signature, they could brute-force that, install the OS, then brute force the passcode. As long as the FBI is willing to brute-force the one, they ought to be able to brute-force the other, right?

Re:Compromise

[guruevi]

No, the other article was pure speculation. Apple, AFAIK cannot update a device without user interaction. From what I understand on how the security chip works, it is technically impossible to read anything (except what's currently in RAM) because the storage is encrypted while the screen is locked.

Re:Compromise

[Tjp($)pjT]

Apple has the ability to upload the operating system, is an assumption that may or may not be valid, while preserving the encryption. Essentially you force the phone into a state where a firmware update can be loaded. This is a given (DFU mode used for jailbreaking). What the government wants may or may not be feasible. Apple doesn't need a zero day exploit. They just sign the payload like any other update. But what the government wants makes assumptions that are not absolutely founded in reality. They assume Apple can make a new version of the OS that allows password attempts from a computer, and that they can disable the ability of the phone to wipe itself without having logged in previously. It is not clear those assumptions are accurate. The presumed protection to the general public is Apple can limit the custom OS version to one particular phone. This is the weak point in the governments court order. Given that modification of the custom iOS image would break the signature check and disallow it from being loaded on a different phone, it on glance seems secure enough, however, the ability of the hacking community to continually find jailbreak points of entry release after release pretty much signifies that the custom iOS payload could be modified for another iPhone, resigned or have the signature removed, and then loaded with the normal jailbreak means. So the reality is that Apple can attempt to restrict it to a single phone, but between the hacking community and government resources you'll see a new tool for breaking into iPhone in the governments catalog. And it will open Apple to liability suits, and further it will cost quite a lot to create the custom software version.

One possible deterrent is for apple to license the tool, and in the license prohibit modifications. Get the court order modified to bless that, and then also charge something like 250,000 dollars or more for doing the development. Each time it is requested. It is not unprecedented as cell carriers charge quite a bit in some cases just for records that exist on their systems. Phrase the cost / expense for the court order as requiring the FBI to pay $10 per line of code in all effected parts of the operating system, and $10 per line of code for testing. Not lines written. Each line, in the whole os. Which has to be tested. And each line in any apps or frameworks on the phone used to access the data. It could run into millions per phone. And all for a fishing expedition as they are unsure there is any useful information on the phone.

Re:Compromise

[wvmarle]

Directly brute-forcing the encryption of the data found on the phone is probably about as easy as brute-forcing Apple's signature. So that is, assuming Apple is using a proper cryptographic signature, practically impossible.

Re:Compromise

[Jack Griffin]

Apple may not be able to unlock this phone, but as was said in another article on /., Apple CAN update iOS on the device without user interaction.

The back door is ALREADY THERE.

The FBI is just calling Apple out on that fact and asking for a change in the code from "if attempts > 10 then wipe" to "if attempts != attempts then wipe". the FBI will do the unlocking from there.

Firstly capitalising your test is equivalent to screaming a the top of your voice and screaming at people is not polite so stop screaming

1999 called, they want their meme back...

Re:Compromise

[Jack Griffin]

However, once that altered firmware gets on that particular iPhone, the FBI has that firmware permanently and can re-use it at a later date on some other iPhone.

Wrong.
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).
This is why I have no problem with it.

Re:Compromise

[scrib]

The user's data is encrypted, but the OS is not. I do not have personal knowledge, but this is Schneier's article on the issue:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/...

Sure, Schneier could be mistaken, but barring other evidence I'm willing to accept his analysis. My opinion, FWIW, of what Apple should do in regards to this court order hinges on whether or not the devices can be updated without being unlocked. To be clear, I'm not talking about a remote exploit and user interaction is not an issue, the device user now is the FBI. The question is if the OS can be updated without unlocking the phone and the answer to that seems to be "yes."

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.

Re:Compromise

[rahvin112]

They want to brute force the password/PIN not the encryption. There is a very significant difference between the two things. If the terrorist is like most other people on the planet the FBI can run one of the hacker password lists over the thing and they'll be into it in a day or two. Very few people use unique passwords.

Re:Compromise

[Sir Holo]

Why can't the FBI reverse engineer the OS binary, disable the 10 strikes, and install the new OS image on the phone? If the image needs a digital signature, they could brute-force that, install the OS, then brute force the passcode. As long as the FBI is willing to brute-force the one, they ought to be able to brute-force the other, right?

The PRIMARY CORE issue is that the FBI wants Apple to do their work for them, by court order, and without compensation.

The SECONDARY CORE issue is that an acquiescence by Apple to this illegal order would set a precedent. That is, individual privacy would die. In other words, it would gut the 4th Amendment Right of US Citizens (because a known backdoor could potentially be used extra-judicially).

Re:Compromise

[WaffleMonster]

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.

I would assume this would be the case.

If Apple doesn't want to deal with helping unlocking devices for law enforcement maybe they should design them in a way which precludes Apple from possessing the capability to unlock them in the first place.

Yea it sucks people purchased something they thought was secure against this type of attack and it isn't... that sucks... This isn't however the governments fault it is Apples and Apples alone.

Re:Compromise

[wvmarle]

I know, but that's not what we're talking about here.

The person I replied to suggested the FBI to brute-force crack Apple's signature, then apply it to a new iOS version and install that on the phone to be able to crack the password.

That's why I said cracking the encryption directly is probably easier than trying to go the signature route.

Re:Compromise

[aaarrrgggh]

1) Not true on iPhone in question.
2) If Apple didn't think the secure enclave could be abused in a similar way if they were complicit in an attempt, this issue would not be a big deal.
3) Apple was willing to cooperate on a sealed compliance basis; the FBI wants to set legal precedent by using this "easy" case to force Apple into service, and therefore every future company whenever it is needed.

Re:Compromise

[scrib]

LoL! Thanks. I suppose I should have added emphasis with italics or bold or maybe even _faux underline_. Sometimes, I just like SHOUTING! *shrug*

It didn't seem worth replying to the AC directly. This isn't a technical nuance, this is a large security hole in iOS. I'm glad the FBI is calling Apple out on it so Apple might be forced (by consumer demand) to actually close their lousy backdoor!

Re:Compromise

[SeaFox]

They could do it this time, and then release an iOS update later that disables the ability for Apple to apply firmware updates in this fashion.

Re:Compromise

[jader3rd]

Can't Apple unlock this individual phone without providing the government a universal backdoor?

Yes. They've already done it multiple times.

Re:Compromise

[jader3rd]

the FBI has that firmware permanently and can re-use it at a later date on some other iPhone.

Unless the firmware will only install if the device has a specific hardware ID.

Re:Compromise

[thegarbz]

so that it can't be used on any other device.

Assuming that it does go through and happen on this device, what precisely prevents it from happening on another device?
There's this ugly little thing called legal precedence, which is even uglier when combined with national security letters.

Re:Compromise

[david_thornley]

Tell you what. You try designing a device that's forgiving and easy to use that will resist all attacks by well-funded organizations that know every detail of how the device works. I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Compromise

[Jack Griffin]

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

Which is what the courts are for, or are you suggesting the entire justice system now be swept aside to pander to your paranoia?

And soon enough, not even a court order,

Strawman

but a rubber-stamping court like for other surveillance.

Strawman

Once Apple has shown they can do it, they will be expected to do it.

Strawman

This is not even speculation -

yes it is.

several police offices have straight out stated that that is what they will do if Apple loses.

That because most cops are stupid and don't read what is actually being presented to the court.
Based on the actual request presented to the court (you know instead of making up stuff that you'd like it to say), the cops still won't have that ability

This is why I do.

Because you make wild assumptions, and speculation? Cool.

Re:Compromise

[Jack Griffin]

Assuming that it does go through and happen on this device, what precisely prevents it from happening on another device?

It's called signed applications. Look it up.

There's this ugly little thing called legal precedence, which is even uglier when combined with national security letters.

Yeah precedence doesn't work like that. I know you'd like to think it works like that, but it doesn't.

Re:Compromise

[thegarbz]

Yeah precedence doesn't work like that. I know you'd like to think it works like that, but it doesn't.

Errrr. Riiight.

Re: Compromise

[Sir Holo]

Wrong and wrong. There is no evidence that Apple would not be compensated. And the FBI cannot do this themselves without Apples signing key. Of course, you are an armchair nerd on /. so we are supposed to pretend that you are not tech illiterate and lack basic reading comprehension

See all subsequent articles, including today's statement from the head Attorney at Apple.

A Court Order means you have to do something. There is no negotiation, or thought of, compensation.

It would set a dangerous precedent, as we've already seen with the 12 (and more) demands from FBI to decrypt iPhones. DEMANDS, not requests with negotiations for compensation.

Last, you used double-reverse logic. "There is no evidence that Apple would not be compensated." Well, there is also NO EVIDENCE that the universe was not created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's impossible to prove a negative assertion.

Oh, my armchair is quite comfortable. So is having a PhD, tons of publications, tons of Patents, two businesses, and a position at a top-10 University. Where is your mother's basement located?

The polls are probably skewed towards elderly

[dgatwood]

One big problem with Pew studies is how they are conducted. They're often done using random telephone calling, and the people who are most educated on technology issues are also the ones least likely to pick up the phone.

Response rates are only something like 10%, and they're likely to be skewed towards the elderly. Take a look at the Snowden studies, where people over about 40 were highly skewed towards believing the government, whereas people under 40 were highly skewed towards believing Snowden, and you now understand why this poll should be taken with a grain of salt.

Re:The polls are probably skewed towards elderly

[Anonymous Coward]

Surveys can also be heavily gamed with simple framing:

"Should apple be required to support freedom, america, and apple pie by helping the troops root out and fight terrorism?"

Re:The polls are probably skewed towards elderly

[sehlat]

Surveys can also be heavily gamed with simple framing:

"Should apple be required to support freedom, america, and apple pie by helping the troops root out and fight terrorism?"

If they can be, they have been. Every political poll I've ever talked to on the phone has had the questions loaded to get simple yes or no responses, with either answer given showing support for the sought-after result.

Re:The polls are probably skewed towards elderly

[dslauson]

It would be interesting to see a survey that also asked a few questions to determine how informed the survey taker is about this story and encryption in general. I bet if you could look at responses from people who met some moderate threshold of prior knowledge, you'd see huge support of Apple's stance. Maybe this is what they were trying to get at by looking at responses from people who owned a smartphone, but these days owning a smartphone doesn't really indicate any technical savvy.

Re:The polls are probably skewed towards elderly

[dgatwood]

If it had been in favor of Apple, I'd probably suggest that the real numbers are even more in favor of Apple than the poll results implied.

The Pew study is 51-41 with a margin of error of 3% (1000 people sampled). If you add up the margin of error and the whopping 8% of people who apparently said "none of the above" or declined to answer, these numbers are virtually indistinguishable from a coin flip. This at least suggests that the public doesn't understand the issue and doesn't care about it, and are voting based on a gut reaction, which you'd expect to be about 50-50.

Contrast this with web-based polls on tech journalism sites, which seem to consistently show an overwhelming majority siding with Apple. Those polls aren't done by random sampling, which means that they are heavily biased towards people who A. actually have read enough to understand the topic, and B. read about technology on the Internet. What this tells us is that if and when the public ever becomes informed on the subject, you're likely to see only single-digit people siding with the FBI's position.

Either way, the fact that the people who refuse to answer telemarketer calls are automatically excluded from these sorts of polls is going to skew the numbers no matter how you try to scale the results afterwards. There's no getting around that. In most cases, it probably doesn't matter. On technology issues, it almost certainly does.

Re:In other news...

[Darinbob]

It's a good thing we put all the smart turnips in congress!

They likely did not ask the obvious followup

[tlambert]

I would tend to believe that the question is invalid.

They likely did not ask the obvious followup: "Would your answer change if you knew the NSA already had this information, and the FBI just hasn't asked for it?"

Re:In other news...

[Opportunist]

Yeah, it's always a sight in Spring when they bloom.

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.

Re:It's OK to be in the minority

[radarskiy]

It also means that you can never trust digital signatures again, since part of the methodology is to compel Apple to sign code written by the Feds.

Re:It's OK to be in the minority

[dissy]

Indeed!

In fact if you want to go by mob rule using a survey, didn't something like 80% of Americans support lifting the laws preventing torture right after 9/11?

Guess we can knock torture laws off the books now.

Also survey results of rapists in prison show that 90% of people questioned feel their forced sexual advances were not their fault, but the woman was somehow wanting it.

Guess we can knock rape laws off the books now.

My own survey to 3 mass murders also resulted in 100% of people questioned believing murder should be accepted when it is for a greater good.

Guess we can knock murder laws off the books too.

Fortunately however we are supposed to live in a country under rule of law.
All this survey proves is 50% of Americans are in favor of committing crimes in full violation of the law, and they could care less about their actions. Obviously the very definition of a dangerous criminal that should be removed from civilized society to prevent the harm resulting in their lack of capability of having empathy.

How nice they so kindly provided a listing of their names for the authorities...

Re:Half of Americans think Picard better than Shat

[Opportunist]

Well, maybe that they prefer people who can act to people whose main acting accomplishment was their ability to suck in their beer belly for over 200 episodes.

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

[93 Escort Wagon]

As opposed to the people supporting Donald Trump - a paragon of reasonable, informed debate.

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

[superwiz]

Mixing it up only gets Trump 30% of the Republican vote. Not exactly a winning number. He is going to have to become more somber to actually win the nomination. You still can't deny the premise that the Democrats are the ones who try to register homeless to vote and who try run on the platform of "helping the poor". Regardless of who you believe actually helps the poor, the Democrats are the ones who want their votes.

Re:FEAR

[Jack Griffin]

But it's the Democrats who target the irrational crowd.

Rubbish. Rationality means facts based on reason. The Republicans are by far the worst at "because I said so".

They are the ones who try to get all the "desperate" vote (poor, traditionally disadvantaged, etc.) The Democrats are the one who try to capitalize on the emotional response.

I didn't realise that being poor or disadvantaged was irrational...

Re:FEAR

[Jack Griffin]

Mixing it up only gets Trump 30% of the Republican vote. Not exactly a winning number.

Only 25% of the eligible voters voted for Bush. That seems to winning enough.

Re:FEAR

[Runaway1956]

You seem to have a disconnect on how the election process works. Well, how it's SUPPOSED to work, anyway.

The party puts forward a half dozen or more candidates. There is no threshold - the person who gets the most votes wins in each state. Since Trump walked away with ~30% of the vote, and no one else even came close, he wins.

And, if you think about it, if the vote can be split 4, 5, or 6 ways, or more, then 30% is a pretty compelling majority.

Now, the OTHER party doesn't give a damn who wins the popular vote. Bernie won in N.H, but Hillary got the lion's share of the delegates. You're gonna tell us that isn't corrupt?

Of the two parties, it's hard to say which is more corrupt, but you know damned well that the DNC is corrupt when it won't honor it's constituent's votes.

Re:FEAR

[superwiz]

I didn't say eligible voters. 30% of the VOTING voters in the Republican primaries voted for Trump. That's not enough.

Re:FEAR

[superwiz]

No, because the 30% number hasn't risen despite some candidate dropping out. Rubio went from 8% in NH to 22% in SC. Rubio+Cruz combined now have more votes than Trump. As more people drop out, Trump's number has to get higher or someone will pass him.

Re:FEAR

[Anonymous Coward]

>The Democrats aren't the ones telling me that Mexicans are rapists,
No, they're just trying to tell you that all straight college white men are and need to take classes to teach them not to rape. Because, uh, "rape culture". However, Six women murdered each day as femicide in Mexico nears a pandemic.

The word "feminicidio" first entered the vernacular in the 1990s, with explosive rates of disappearances and murders of women in the border town of Ciudad Juárez. In fact, more women have been killed in the state of Mexico, which surrounds the capital city of the same name. The number doubled from 2005 to 2011, when the current national president, Enrique Peña Nieto, was governor of the state. Today he has pledged to combat drug violence overall but has not spoken out against femicides.

Impunity is the main motor of the gender crime, Güezmes says, as well as social norms that allow the violence to be ignored or accepted as a normal part of life. She describes femicides as the extreme end of a society where 63 percent of women have suffered abuse by male hands. She estimates that maybe a third or half of the cases involved sexual partners. The balance — abductions, rapes and discarding the bodies like garbage — are probably linked to the generalized drug violence that is tearing Mexico apart.

Someone is raping and killing those women and dumping their bodies near the border. I doubt you can chalk it all up to frat guys.

Re:FEAR

[Runaway1956]

Let us just wait and see how this plays out. There's no one in the field that I really like. On merits, I'd have to say that Rubio or Cruz kinda sorta "deserve" the nomination. That doesn't mean I "like" either of them though.

What we're seeing here is, people are fed up with the same-old same-old. That is why Trump may just win this election. When it comes down to the vote, I'll vote for anyone whose name is not Clinton. It appears that a lot of other people feel the same way, including women younger than my generation. Women of my generation are still hung up on the idea of putting a woman in the White House, so they'll just vote for any vagina that comes along. Younger women resent that, so a lot of independents, and even some liberals, are going to vote against Clinton.

Right now, it looks like Trump may be Hillary's opponent.

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.

Re:FEAR

[amiga3D]

I don't think Mexicans are rapists. Too busy running drugs for that.

Re:FEAR

[amiga3D]

Being hungry could be an understandable reason for irrationality.

Re:FEAR

[KGIII]

This isn't really new, or anything. At one point, more than half the country thought owning slaves was just fine and dandy. With varied levels in between, we've been knee-jerking and behaving like irrational monkey just recently crawled down from the trees. I don't think it's going to be any different tomorrow.

Re:FEAR

[superwiz]

I think when the dust settles, everyone will do what they've been doing over and over their whole lives: Trump will build things, Bernie will complain and Hillary will fail.

Re:FEAR

[KGIII]

I've noticed that Rubio isn't a complete lunatic. He's actually not terrible. I'm sure as shit not voting for him, I'd rather vote for a drunken, half-eaten, pickle than vote for him. However, I'd sooner have him than I'd have Hillary. I'm a Sander's kinda guy, except I'm pretty sure I've mentioned that a dozen times this week.

However.. A big however... Rubio isn't all that bad. He's got some reasonable views, he's not a zealot - compared to some. He's seemingly likable and the reality is that that's important. I suspect it will be Hillary and Cruise and I'm hoping we get an Independent third party with Sanders in it. At one point, I was joking about Sanders/Trump as a ticket but that's because I'm selfish and like a good spectacle. I figure Sanders can keep him in check, distract everyone with Trump, while he gets useful stuff in the background.

No, I like you better than that. That's a royal you, though I'm sure you're fine too. I have to admit, it would be potentially hilarious to see Trump as the VP. I don't think it'd be constructive but he might mature a little. He'd not have any real power so long as Bernie stayed alive and who's gonna shoot Bernie and leave us with Trump? Nobody, that's who! We might even save money in Secret Service bills.

I could live with Rubio. I don't think he'd be that harmful. He might even do some good. They're talking about him more often on NPR. I even was over on Fox New Radio (long story) and heard him and he didn't sound insane. So, there's that.

Re:FEAR

[sumdumass]

Well - he wins so far. The problem is when that other 70% split between 5 or 6 others gets consolidated because 4 or 5 of them drop out. Granted some of that will go to trump but with 30% right now, it means 70% would like someone different right now.

Re:FEAR

[connect4]

Evidently he was just proving that you're that your a partisan hypocrite, and possibly a little sensitive for the internet.

Re:FEAR

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Cruz is a threat to anyone not an rich Evangelical Christian. If he wins, say goodbye to Roe vs. Wade. Say goodbye to same-sex marriage. Say hello to anything the FBI / NSA want to look at without any public debate (even worse than it is now). Say hello to Creationism in public schools. Say hello to voucher systems for private fundamentalist Christian schools. Say goodbye to clean air, clean water, banking regulations, etc. Say hello to a VAT tax system that slashes corporate taxes and will cost $8 billion+. His dad runs a religious group called "Purifying Fire International" who want to bring about the "end times" in a nuclear conflagration and has been telling Ted that he is the "anointed one" since he was four. They want to start a "wealth transfer" to "God's bankers". If Cruz is elected, it may not just be bad for the US, but might just be the end of our civilization.

Go read up on David Lane, Dominionism, and Christian Reconstructionism. Their brand of Christianity is not the "love thy neighbor", "feed the poor" but the type that brought about the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. They want Levitical law to be the law of the US.

Re:FEAR

[shilly]

Thanks for sharing your reasoning. It's super exciting to try to follow along. A combination of a roller coaster and Alice Through the Looking Glass.

Re:FEAR

[buck-yar]

Money figures out scares resources. I suggest you take macro/micro economics.

Re:FEAR

[Jason Levine]

I agree with you about Rubio (and Sanders). I don't like Trump's ego would let him take the VP slot, though. He has to be #1 and if he's not then he was cheated and needs to attack/sue/blame someone else. When it comes down to it, I'm not sure who frightens me more: The egotist, loose cannon Trump because you never know what he'll attack next or the intelligently calculating, religious zealot Cruz because you DO know what he'll attack (science, religious freedoms for anyone who isn't Christian).

Re:FEAR

[wardrich86]

We need people to flood the papers and TV with stories about fear of lack of privacy and thought police. Otherwise, the US is gonna be just as bad as Saudi Arabia.

Re:FEAR

[internerdj]

I've come to think of it as a position/velocity problem. Democrats see poverty as a position of wealth problem. I'm poor if I don't have enough wealth to make it day-in, day-out. Republicans see poverty as a velocity of wealth problem. I'm poor if I can't leverage my wealth to accumulate enough over time to change economic classes. There are problems with both because they are far too ideological. It would certainly be easy for either party to use their "moral" position to oppress the poor.

Re:FEAR

[currently_awake]

If he can win enough before that line is crossed he'll win the lot.

Re:FEAR

[TheCarp]

The ones? Bullshit. Its not really even accurate to talk about them like two separate parties. They are big tent parties....99% the same, then they take the 1% of wedge issues and break them up so they can both pretend to be relevant.

What do you think the "War on Terror" is? Nothing but emotional bullshit. Be afraid!

What do you think it is when they talk about the Valor and Honor of soldiers? Emotional BS. Its just a sports team they want you to support.

Have you heard them on abortion? You would think not a single one of them had ever taken a biology course. Nothing but bleeding heart emotion. Same thing when they try to get you riled up about "welfare queens"....all emotional BS designed to make you ignore the realities.

Two sides....ONE COIN (and its a wooden nickel)

Democrats and Republicans are a colony organism, they are not in competition at all.

Re:FEAR

[KGIII]

Cruz is not a realistic option for me. I will be really disappointed if he wins. I am neither a coward nor a quitter so I'm unlikely to just move but I'm going to be displeased. The same with Trump. I gotta be honest, he's a barrel of laughs and I think he's *mostly* harmless. I find Hillary to be unacceptable, entirely. She's taken to quoting some of Sanders statements, almost verbatim, as of this last weekend. I have no reason to believe she's sincere.

Bernie might not be mean enough to win. He's not naive. He knows what he has to do and I've heard a few of the names of his crew kicking around before - so he's got experienced people around him. He's just too damned tolerant and nice. It also doesn't help that there's so much dishonesty in the media. It's full of dishonesty - and it's from both sides.

For instance, and this is trivial-seeming, I'm listening to NPR right this minute. There's a guy on there saying that we spend most of our oil money in countries that hate us and how we need to get off oil. Now, the getting off oil thing isn't really all that realistic - we'll be using it for a long time. Using it in our cars isn't really bright. But, more importantly, no... We don't really buy much in the way of foreign oil. I can dig out the citations if you don't believe me. That not only went unchallenged, it was applauded.

And yes, I know factually that we get our oil from mostly us and other nations that are *not* our enemies. Mexico, Canada, and not even Venezuela hate us. We don't hate us. We mostly get our own oil and get it from those few other countries. Yet, that's what's being fed to people who have neither time, energy, interest, or intellect to go find the truth. Earlier they were talking about computers... I'll let you make your own guesses about how accurate that was.

There's a lot of dishonesty in the media. It's not helping. For example, Trump doesn't sound like Hitler. I know, I've spent a LOT of time watching and learning about Hitler and the rise of the Third Reich. You might even say I'm a bit of a student of history in those regards. No, he doesn't. Disturbingly, some of his fans seem much the same BUT I can go back and play Obama's campaign and you will be able to draw the same conclusions - especially with his first campaign.

Oh, this is only tangentially related but this is already long... Kids... The young kids... They don't seem all that motivated, yet. I hate to say it but that's a bad thing. They need to get out there and speak and act. Someone has to counterbalance us old people just like we need to temper their enthusiasm with experience.

Re:FEAR

[superwiz]

It's almost impossible that there is more than 3 candidates on super tuesday. So we'll see in a week.

Re: FEAR

[superwiz]

ha? I didn't say anything about race. I have to defend points I haven't made? Thanks for letting me know I suck at statistics. I'll work better to impress you next time, I guess. Just to be sure, I follow along, you are disagreeing with me, right? Otherwise, that was really gratuitous. And if you *are* disagreeing with me, on what exactly?

Re:FEAR

[superwiz]

I'd invite you to talk to book publishers and media companies and see what they think of the whole internet and google thing.

Re:FEAR

[superwiz]

Yey! You can do sarcasm. You must be right on all the points. See what I did there? Cause you are super smart and I am just a dumb Republican.

Re:FEAR

[superwiz]

Republicans are the ones who like buying shiny weapons. So that when we do go to war, very few of our soldiers die. Do you really think that without all the military spending we'd have less than 2% casualty rate in the war zones?

Re:FEAR

[david_thornley]

Is it your opinion that the homeless shouldn't have the vote? That actually wanting poor people to vote for you is a heinous sin? I'm trying to figure out some coherent way to read your post.

Re:FEAR

[david_thornley]

They want Levitical law to be the law of the US.

Can I start the prosecutions? To start with, I'd like to go over their list of animal sacrifices, their clothes labels, and what they've ordered in restaurants. I'm sure I can pin some serious stuff on them.

Re:FEAR

[shilly]

Nope. Not sarcasm. Genuinely super exciting to try to follow along. Genuinely a combination of a roller coaster and Alice Through the Looking Glass. It's an insight into someone else's weird thought processes. I was implying you were odd and irrational, but I wasn't being sarcastic. But that's OK, I wouldn't expect you to be able to distinguish sarcasm from other forms of snidery. You are, as you say, "just a dumb Republican".

(You're right about one thing, though -- I am super smart. Glad you noticed!)

Re:FEAR

[Jack Griffin]

It is if the next most popular candidate only gets 29% or less...

Re:FEAR

[Jack Griffin]

The whole idea that Republicans are the party of fear breaks down when you try to explain why most military service members vote for Republicans. These are people who volunteered to fight. Did they do so out of fear? Out of being rich? Out of being "stupid"?

I come from a military family so feel qualified to answer that (father, father in law, grand fathers, all of which served armed conflicts). They all vote conservative because the conservatives spend more money on defence, so guarantee them better working conditions. that's all there is too it.
The military is the ultimate special interest group.

Re:FEAR

[superwiz]

You're right about one thing, though -- I am super smart. Glad you noticed!

Oh, no. That was sarcasm on my part. Sorry, us dumb Republicans have a hard time expressing ourselves. So what's your PhD in, super smart guy?

Re:FEAR

[shilly]

Did you really think I hadn't noticed you were being sarcastic? You're dumber than you give yourself credit for!

(A PhD is not what I have that shows I'm super-smart)

Re:FEAR

[superwiz]

Did you really think I hadn't noticed you were being sarcastic? You're dumber than you give yourself credit for!

Did you fail to see that I was mocking your uncalled-for smugness? I am beginning to question your super-smart-guy credentials. What a disappointment.

A PhD is not what I have that shows I'm super-smart

A patent? A non-self-published book, a peer-reviewed paper? A precedent-establishing legal argument? Anything which shows any original contribution to the collective knowledge of the civilization?

Re:FEAR

[superwiz]

Well, "better working conditions" also means less likely to be killed in a conflict when it comes to service members, so I'd say that personal interest is a pretty good barometer for this special interest group. But they are not the ultimate.... not by a long shot. Environmentalists are. They are the 3rd largest murdering philosophy in the history of the world (after Communism and Fascism) if you go purely by body count. And they derive less personal benefit from their destruction than even the drug dealers do. I only mention drug dealers because they are probably the 2nd smallest in the persona-gain-relative-to-damage-done ratio.

Re:FEAR

[shilly]

Did you fail to see that I was mocking your uncalled-for smugness? I am beginning to question your super-smart-guy credentials. What a disappointment.

Your mockery attempt is separate from the fact that your prior statement demonstrates you did not think I'd noticed you were being sarcastic. Your post hoc rationalisation is fairly undignified. But then, indignity is almost a defining trope for a modern Republican.

A patent? A non-self-published book, a peer-reviewed paper? A precedent-establishing legal argument? Anything which shows any original contribution to the collective knowledge of the civilization?

Patent -- yup
Non-self published book -- yup
Peer-revised paper -- yup

Re:FEAR

[Jack Griffin]

Well, "better working conditions" also means less likely to be killed in a conflict when it comes to service members,

I should've said 'perception' of better working conditions. Since the actual working conditions are much worse (eg being signed up for a war that shouldn't have been started in the first place)

But they are not the ultimate.... not by a long shot. Environmentalists are. They are the 3rd largest murdering philosophy in the history of the world (after Communism and Fascism) if you go purely by body count.

Oh jesus here we go. I've got to hear this, so go on explain it...

Re:FEAR

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Only if your a documented member of the Levite tribe LOL

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

[TrekkieGod]

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?"

Except that's not true. This battle has been phrased as the encryption backdoor battle, but they're not at all the same. After all, adding an encryption back door now, wouldn't help the FBI with a phone encrypted before the backdoor was added.

What the court order has asked Apple to do is to create an OS version, to be installed on this one phone to which they have a warrant to, that will remove the feature to automatically delete the contents if the phone if more than ten incorrect password attempts are made, and to allow software to brute force it. Since by default only a 4 digit PIN serves as the key to the encryption, 10,000 combinations shouldn't be a problem.

The government isn't asking Apple to weaken its encryption. In fact, their current software allows you to disable "simple passcode", and you could have a long, complex password. If you do, Apple can provide everything the government is requesting, and they're still not going to get your data, because they're not going to be able to brute force it. It's up to you to decide whether you want your phone to be encrypted strongly enough to sustain such an attack, or you want the convenience of a short password with content erase policy which will be good enough protection against the average phone thief. For this court order, the government isn't trying to take that right away from you. If they were, I'd side with Apple. As it stands, I think they absolutely have the right to what they are asking.

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:They're asking the wrong question

[Bomazi]

Since the FBI has a warrant, I think it is well within its right to contract any company to create this tool, but that they can't force Apple to accept this contract just because they originally built the phone. The question is whether Apple can be compelled to provide source code or other expertise to help whoever has agreed to do it.

Re:They're asking the wrong question

[tranquilidad]

That's certainly an interesting question and raises others:

- Can the FBI, with a warrant for one case, use it as justification to take property (the O/S) from someone unconnected to the case (Apple)?

If the answer is yes, then let's extend it to a hypothetical. Let's say that there are only two left of a highly-prized collector's car. One is used in a crime and you own the other. If the FBI has a warrant in the case to determine how the crime-related car was used, could they use that warrant to seize your car in order to perform experimentation? Could the FBI use its warrant to compel you to explain how your car works or to assist them in determining how the car was used, given your expertise? Even if assisting the FBI would cause damage to your reputation, or interfere with your plans for your life or you just didn't want to participate?

- Assuming that the FBI is able to get some legal order compelling Apple to deliver its software so another company is able to examine it and build what the FBI wants, is that a taking under the U.S. Constitution requiring that Apple be reimbursed?

This is the slippery slope that, I believe, creates many, many problems. As Apple's CEO wrestles with finding a compromise so as to avoid a legal precedent, I think it's in the government's best interest to find a compromise as well. It's unfortunate that one of the reasons we're in this mess is because the government screwed up handling the iPhone once it gained possession.

Re:They're asking the wrong question

[Jack Griffin]

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

Just like if you were a witness to a crime you'd have to turn up at court to give a testimony? Or if you get selected for Jury service you have to take time off work?
Oh boohoo, justice comes at a cost, and sometimes we have to give a little once in a while to get something back.
This is the stupidest argument I heard so far...

Re:They're asking the wrong question

[Xylantiel]

I think Apple should have to "help" unlock it so that the hardware makers learn their lesson and make sure the handsets are actually secure. I don't think claiming that making a new firmware is an undue burden is going to hold up on appeal. As far as I have heard Apple has not claimed this is "hard", only that it undermines the security of their devices. But that horse is gone. If this device's security depended on Apple's non-cooperation with the government, it was never secure to begin with. To say it another way, if you don't want to be served with writs of assistance DON'T MAKE A DEVICE THAT YOU CAN UNLOCK, even theoretically. Just admit this device was, unfortunately, broken and move on. If, by some chance, in the future this precedent leads to the government being able to prohibit vendors from making secure devices, all the fits that Apple can throw were never going to stop that anyway.

Re:They're asking the wrong question

[WaffleMonster]

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?

What stops them is physical inability for the vendor to comply. In much the same way ISPs are not on the hook for encrypted traffic they don't have the keys for under CAELA. The "backdoor" already exists whether apple chooses to exploit it or not.

I don't see the equivalence or slippery slope between compelling a company to assist via court order where they are easily able to so and compelling a company to backdoor everyone's systems. The courts reach begins and ends with the case before them. Legally compelling vendors to create backdoors requires new legislative action (Qwest CEOs notwithstanding) ... or of course various nuclear options involving government contracts and export classifications.

What the headline should read:

[kheldan]

More Than 500 Cherrypicked Americans Completely Clueless About How Encryption Works, Finds Pew Survey

Re:What the headline should read:

[geekmux]

More Than 500 Cherrypicked Americans Completely Clueless About How Encryption Works, Finds Pew Survey

This is hilarious to me because you're assuming they had to cherry pick, as if they skipped over the first 5,000 respondents because they all turned out to be crypto experts...

Re:What the headline should read:

[Jack Griffin]

Rather than 500 group-think Slashdot users who all wear tin foil hats?

So called expert

[Lead Butthead]

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.

Considering the so-called expert was a government spook, was that "opinion" a surprise?

Apple should comply with FBI says FBI Survey

[tetraverse]

PROTHERO: Do you believe this crap, Dascombe?

Re:The phone should be cracked.

[tlambert]

This isn't exaggeration or hyperbole, especially since the FBI said they only want a firmware update on this single phone under Apple's auspices.

Fuck them.

They can have the data they want tomorrow two ways:

(1) Have a FISA court order the NSA to give them the data, since it's just traffic analysis and MMS/SMS data the FBI wants, and NSAs PRISM collects that.

(2) Let Apple do a hardware hack on the phone, desolder the flash, socket it, and reset it on every 4th attempt until it's cracked.

Quit fucking asking for a tool to get the data that can be applied to every phone. There is no such tool, if such a tool were possible to create (and I was discussing this today at lunch with the guy who *designed* the security architecture in question: it's doubtful), it would take *man decades* to create it.

Android & home brewers beware

[seoras]

You guys who like "total control" over your hardware and software are, at some point down this horrific line, in greater danger than the Apple fans you so love to sneer at.
You'll soon find yourself carrying an "illegal comms device", if Apple loses.
We all thought soviet communism was bad but we are on a crash course for something much worse in the "free west".

How many Americans side with the NRA -v- Government one wonders?
Is it just me or has logic reasoning been deported from the USA in advance of all the illegal immigrants that "King Joffery" Trump is gunning for?

"The heresy of heresies was common sense... " - 1984

This is why only the qualified should decide.

[jpiratefish]

I don't know anyone that supports the US Government on this - at least - I don't know anyone who supports them and knows anything about PKI encryption and what it means - if you really want to support the folks arguing for the US Gov in this case, ask if they'll hand all their passwords and PIN's to the FBI. See what their reaction is then.

Re:Half of Americans think Picard better than Shat

[mark-t]

Have you personally met either, or especially both of them? If you had, you might be changing your mind.

Rephrase the problem

[sgrover]

John Oliver famously coined the "dick-pic" angle of looking at the surveillance programs Snowden helped reveal. The resulting understanding in the masses when you boiled down the question to "can the government see my dic pics" showed a massive reversal of general opinion (IMO).

Something similar is needed here. Perhaps the question should be reworded to "Should the FBI be able to force Apple to rewrite their systems so that an Apple phone will unzip your pants to see if you have a penis or not?" Because at this point there is no evidence (that I've heard) that there is anything pertinent on the phone. Only the possibility that there *might* be. Much the same as there is a 50/50 chance that any particular person may have male genitalia under their pants. Hmm.. Schrodinger's Dick Pic???

Re:Rephrase the problem

[Jack Griffin]

Perhaps the question should be reworded to "Should the FBI be able to force Apple to rewrite their systems so that an Apple phone will unzip your pants to see if you have a penis or not?" Because at this point there is no evidence (that I've heard) that there is anything pertinent on the phone.

Stupid analogy.
1. The NSA actions were warrant-less, the FBI have gone to the court for a warrant.
2. There's no evidence on the phone because at this point they can't fucking read it! That is precisely what we're trying to figure out (and Metadata backs up that there is likely to be useful info there)

I like John Oliver, but it pains me to see how many clueless idiots regurgitate his stuff without really understanding the context of his jibes.

Laugh

[koan]

More the half voted for Dubya...

Re:Laugh

[fnj]

Actually a majority voted for Gore (50,999,897), not Bush (50,456,002), ... but more than half the Supremes voted for Bush

More to the point, Bush won the electoral college, which is the only tally that counts.

All the Supremes did was scotch an attempted coup d'etat in which Gore forces engineered a carefully crafted selected recount of only localities in Florida where he thought it would help him, and in particular tried to count ballots of highly questionable legality.

This just in

[ouachiski]

People with a telephone line to their home are less likely to understand technology.

Re:This just in

[meglon]

I have a phone line to my house, and i understand my abacus perfectly fine, thankyou very much!

Skewed

[Anonymous Coward]

1,000 people who over the weekend answer an unknown phone number and complete a robo-survey. I'm guessing that it is the bottom of the barrel scrapings when it comes to technical knowledge and near that of common sense. Then again of the small sample of humanity I encounter everyday most have very little knowledge that I would consider to be common and some I question how they made it as long as they have.

confusing republicans

[orgelspieler]

I have a friend who is very right-wing nut job. In most cases he's staunchly "anti-big-gub'mint." Yet in this case, he thinks that Apple is being downright traitorous. I guess the only thing he hates more than Uncle Sam's grubby paws on his cell phone, is terr'ists. So strange. I even pointed out that this is forcing a company to do something on behalf of the government. When "Obamacare made Hobby Lobby provide abortions," he got all upset about that. But it's OK if it's Apple working for the FBI. WTF?!

Re:confusing republicans

[meglon]

The more conservative people are, the more they're prone to being scared little shits.

https://www.psychologytoday.co...

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/1...

Re:confusing republicans

[Jack Griffin]

So strange. I even pointed out that this is forcing a company to do something on behalf of the government.

And the govt represents the people. So in essence, the Justice system is to determine if a private company should be forced to help The People determine justice in a high profile murder case.
I see no problem here, once you take the tin foil hat speak out of the equation.

Re:confusing republicans

[rahvin112]

Here's a secret for you. Republicans aren't opposed to "big government". They are opposed to certain kinds of "big government" but love other kinds. The idea that Republicans want small government is a misnomer perpetrated by the party. Hell, the republicans were the ones that couldn't hold to the sequester spending cuts. They were begging to violate the agreement in last years budget to the point that they gave Obama almost everything he wanted so they could give Defense a bit more money.

Re:confusing republicans

[Tokolosh]

Ask him if he'll be happy when President Clinton wants to check his phone for evidence of gun and ammo purchases.

The question is if Apple CAN unlock the phone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on government, Apple can unlock it, but won't help!
Based on Apple, Apple CANNOT unlock the phone!! (assuming the device will self destruct after 10 wrong tries)

This reminds me of a talk by Rick Roderick's (on movie Magus) on the inability to do something even if you want/have to.

So the question is, can Apple unlock the phone?

You realize that half...

[Sooner Boomer]

...of the people are of below average intelligence, too, don't you?

Re:You realize that half...

[wvmarle]

Wrong.

Half are below median; not necessarily half are below average. It may be that more than half is below (or above) average, depending on the distribution.

Paying attention to STUPID people

[fnj]

More than half of Americans are mind-numbingly stupid motherfucking bastards. Tell us something we DON'T know.

This is year 7 of the Obama train wreck and month 14 of an utterly incompetent and do-nothing Repugnican control of both houses of Congress.

Re:Paying attention to STUPID people

[superwiz]

Tell us something we DON'T know.

This information is already accounted-for by the poll. The question is clearly biased and its meant to produce a biased response.

Re:Paying attention to STUPID people

[quenda]

This is year 7 of the Obama train wreck

A couple of years form now, you may be looking back on the train wreck with fond memories.

Re:Paying attention to STUPID people

[Jack Griffin]

This is year 7 of the Obama train wreck

Interesting comment. I'm not American so take this with a grain of salt. But what stick do you use to measure train wreckedness?
This little graphic seem to indicate it hasn't been as wrecky as you believe?
https://rationalopinionsblog.f...

You have to admit, the last guy was a lot worse.

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:Law is not a 'popularity contest'

[Jack Griffin]

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'..

Correct, which is why we must support whatever judgement that the court makes (are you willing to commit to that - or do the rules change again when it doesn't go your way?)

Stupid, vague and misleading survey question

[gnaarly]

The survey goes far in implying that the question is whether Apple should help to unlock THAT SPECIFIC IPHONE. The one used by the terrorists: "As the standoff between the Department of Justice and Apple Inc. continues over an iPhone used by one of the suspects in the San Bernardino terrorist attacks, 51% say Apple should unlock the iPhone to assist the ongoing FBI investigation."

Ironically, it's not even fully clear about this, the question is "In response to court order tied to ongoing FBI investigation of San Bernadino attacks, Apple... should unlock iPhone / Should not unlock iPhone".

But holy shit, if we were talking about the specific iPhone carried by these guys, then it's crazy to argue that Apple shouldn't help to unlock it. If Apple CAN unlock it - as in, if they have a key that makes it possible to unlock it - are you arguing that they should withhold that key from the FBI? Like if someone literally held the key to a lockbox belonging to a mass murdering member of a terrorist organisation, they should not be compelled to give that up or penalized if they don't?

This debate is NOT whether the Apple should assist the FBI in unlocking one specific iPhone. The situation is that Apple has apparently made lockboxes they don't have the keys for, and whether they should be forced to design all future lockboxes with spare keys. I suspect far more would answer yes to the former question than the latter.

Wrong question

[penguinoid]

What's the response rate to:
"Should Apple give the FBI a key to unlock all iPhones?"

If context is needed, try:
"... to help the FBI investigate the work phone of a terrorist who is already dead and already destroyed his personal phone?"

Re:Wrong question

[superwiz]

Why? That's not what the FBI is demanding. They are demanding that Apple write a program allowing them to effectively erase the key. A program which, for this model of the phone, does not currently exist.

Re:Wrong question

[Jack Griffin]

What's the response rate to: "Should Apple give the FBI a key to unlock all iPhones?"

That isn't what the FBI have asked for.
Add yourself to group below the line.

It depends.

[edibobb]

It all depends on how you ask the question. You can get more than half of poll respondees to answer either way. Incidentally, they assume (or, rather, they want us to assume) that the small number of people they asked were representative of the entire nation.

well, if that's how you ask the question, sure

[superwiz]

Why didn't they go for the gold and just make stuff up with something like "should Apple stop breaking the law?" They'd get more yes responses then. Try asking "should Apple write software if FBI demands that they do?" And see how many positives you get then.

This poll has been conducted before

[Applehu Akbar]

The results of this poll on Applegate are remarkably similar to a polls on the US Constitution presented as if it were some radical new proposal:

http://www.constitution.org/co...

This survey has been conducted before

[Applehu Akbar]

That time, the question was "should this radical proposed document be adopted?" accompanied by the actual US Constitution. And the results were roughly the same:
http://www.constitution.org/co...

But did they also include ...

[Tjp($)pjT]

Did the pollsters add the information that the court limits it to this phone, and apple would have to create and test a new version of the iOS operating system code at the expense of potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars and likely a possibility of having to specifically hire additional people to make up for the diversion of resources internally in Apple to comply, as well as potentially delay the release of new versions of the iOS software in the normal flow, as well as potentially ripple the delay to delaying new products?

People seem to think this requires no effort or expense on Apple's part to comply with the request, where the reality is it affects the iOS family devices as a whole, and carries a considerable expense.

Additionally it is to cover for the sloppy government handling of the iCloud account associated with the phone in the first place.

And the open liability issue if their one of a kind OS version, tied to a single device and no other, fails catastrophically. Testing alone would be a nightmare as you'd have to duplicate the essential elements of the target phone on a test device, and then test against it ...

Tim Cook is correct in denying compliance. It opens a huge can of worms (read liability) on Apple. And Tim's job is not to give the government free services and incur liability that can be avoided. It is to protect the fiduciary rights of the stockholders.

I think if the pollsters included a scale of what amount of money Apple should spend on compliance, as well as what amount of delay is acceptable for Apple's product shipment dates given as multiple choice questions, the results would be very different. You could be talking about delaying the next releases over a significant time period where apple not only losses expenses related to the compliance directly, but losses due to product delays and loss of market share as unencumbered companies have a DOJ wedge edge created.

Re:But did they also include ...

[Jack Griffin]

Did the pollsters add the information that the court limits it to this phone, and apple would have to create and test a new version of the iOS operating system code at the expense of potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars

Woah! Hundreds of thousands of dollars? For a company worth half a trillion?
To make an analogy, would the average person be willing to contribute $50 in the name of justice? (oh wait they already do via paying tax, something Apple avoids so fuck them). Justice costs money, and if the 1%ers aren't willing to contribute 1 millionth of their value they can fuck off.

People seem to think this requires no effort or expense on Apple's part to comply with the request, where the reality is it affects the iOS family devices as a whole, and carries a considerable expense.

I can't speak for all people, but for me the effort argument is a no-brainer. Just like being subpoena'd or called for jury service, we all bear the cost of participating in a civilised society. And Apple will happily pay more in legal fees defending this than the likely engineering bill. So the cost argument holds no water.

Re:But did they also include ...

[Anubis IV]

Apple already complied with requests to help and has provided all of the data they have. They already did their civic duty long ago. Now, they're being compelled to provide something they don't have and to do so at their own expense. This isn't about doing your civic duty. This isn't about whether they can afford it. If the government is too cheap, lazy, or incompetent to do their work themselves (at least the third of which is apparently the case here, given the iCloud account revelations), and they're demanding that someone else do it for them without compensation, that's slavery, plain and simple.

What next? Demand that the general contractor who built a home rebuild it for the government at their own expense because the FBI accidentally bulldozed the home after a fire fight and wants to recreate the crime scene? Demand that Ford add the ability to eavesdrop on any car they sell since planting bugs takes too much effort? Demand that you feed and quarter soldiers at your home since it's no different than paying taxes to do it on a base?

Again, this isn't about whether they can afford it. It's about whether the government has any right to make that demand in the first place. And the answer is simple: they don't.

Re:But did they also include ...

[david_thornley]

I'm not actually happy with the argument that "they're rich, so this isn't an imposition", particularly when we're talking about court orders. It has some relevance when talking about tax rates and the like, but I'm not keen on using it for forced labor.

Moreover, we're talking about software that Apple absolutely does not want to exist. Read through the comments on this and related articles, and you'll see people claiming they wouldn't buy an iPhone because it could be hacked like this. Complying with the order would damage Apple's reputation, and likely sales, and all because the FBI screwed things up at the beginning of the investigation.

Speaking as one who served his jury duty last year, and is summoned to report to court next month, this is different. I've never been asked by a government to do free software development for them.

Re:But did they also include ...

[Jack Griffin]

Apple already complied with requests to help and has provided all of the data they have. They already did their civic duty long ago.

Yeah nah, the Justice system doesn't work like that. If you don't like you could always run for office, or go live in Mogadishu and see how the alternative is working out.

Re:But did they also include ...

[Jack Griffin]

I'm not actually happy with the argument that "they're rich, so this isn't an imposition", particularly when we're talking about court orders. It has some relevance when talking about tax rates and the like, but I'm not keen on using it for forced labor.

No, but effort has to be a function of capability. If the relative effort is 0.01% of your capability then it is hard to argue undue hardship.

Moreover, we're talking about software that Apple absolutely does not want to exist.

I don't want to do jury service, but tough titty, justice trumps your personal wants.

Read through the comments on this and related articles, and you'll see people claiming they wouldn't buy an iPhone because it could be hacked like this. Complying with the order would damage Apple's reputation, and likely sales, and all because the FBI screwed things up at the beginning of the investigation.

So justice should stop because it affects a private company's marketing strategy? Is this a world you want to live in?

Speaking as one who served his jury duty last year, and is summoned to report to court next month, this is different. I've never been asked by a government to do free software development for them.

If the FBI came to me and said we need your professional assistance to help with a mass murder case I would donate at least 0.01% of my time without question. Whether that be digging a hole, writing short stories, or some other shit I hate doing I'd chip in because justice requires we all contribute. Wouldn't you?

Re:But did they also include ...

[david_thornley]

You seem to be of the opinion that everyone should drop what they're doing and do whatever they're told by the FBI.

This is not a mass murder case. This is the tail end of the follow-up investigation from a mass-murder case, and the only reason the FBI has any trouble is that they screwed up earlier. There's no particular reason to think that cracking this iPhone will do much of anything. Justice has been served as much as it's going to be, since the murderers are dead. This is not the pursuit of justice, but maybe a little extra security. Breathe a little.

Do you think that companies should be required to harm their own businesses for such investigations?

Re:But did they also include ...

[Jack Griffin]

You seem to be of the opinion that everyone should drop what they're doing and do whatever they're told by the FBI.

Nope, never said that. Strawman

This is not a mass murder case.

Yes it is.

This is the tail end of the follow-up investigation from a mass-murder case, and the only reason the FBI has any trouble is that they screwed up earlier.

Twist it however you like, it's still part of the case.

There's no particular reason to think that cracking this iPhone will do much of anything.

Apart from possible conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism you mean?

Justice has been served as much as it's going to be, since the murderers are dead. This is not the pursuit of justice, but maybe a little extra security. Breathe a little.

Oh so you are the judge of that? I thought we had people who are paid to perform this role, you know we call them judges, which is why this case has been presented to them, rather than 'some guy on the internet'.

Do you think that companies should be required to harm their own businesses for such investigations?

By 'harm' you mean 'contribute', then yes absolutely. Or do you expect to live in a civilised society without contributing to it in any way?

Phrasing

[wonkey_monkey]

What, exactly, was the wording of the question?

Chances are that could have had quite a lot to do with the respondents' answers, in either direction.

Re:Phrasing

[mothlos]

I am not finding their question sheet after two minutes of scanning, but the pictures offer what seems to be a slightly abbreviated version.

"In response to court order tied to ongoing FBI investigation of San Bernadino attacks, Apple..."

• "Should not unlock iPhone."
• "Should unlock iPhone."
• "DK"

This question is entirely biased toward the FBI's position and should have been rejected by whomever was managing the survey.

Re:The phone should be cracked.

[93 Escort Wagon]

And if you get nine women together, you can get a baby in one month!

Well, you'd need a guy too.

I'm willing to volunteer, in the name of Science.

half of americans are stupid as hell

[UVB-76]

cant we just split into two countries already

Do Apple's customers like the FBI?

[shanen]

When I heard the Donald calling for a boycott against Apple, my first thought was "Are any of Trump's supporters smart enough to use an iPhone?"

From that perspective, it might be a hollow threat. It seems certain that Apple wants to claim to be innovative, not authoritarian. If the people who like the Donald already hate Apple and love the FBI, then Apple should not care less about the threat.

Then again I see the use of Apple products as mostly being a fashion statement, and if Trumpism represents some sort of fashion statement, then it also confirms my low opinion of fashion.

My main conclusion is that this is political opportunism--by the FBI. They see this as a wedge they can use to outlaw encryption and destroy the last shreds of our privacy, and to heck with the Bill of Rights and anything else that interferes with their authoritarian mindset.

Present company excluded, of course. I proclaim that my own Mac is purely for research purposes not fashion. Mostly interested in voice dictation, not privacy. I'm just playing with the Tor networks, and of course I would never have anything to hide, such as sensitive medical information about myself or my family.

Remember, when encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption--and having the encryption will by definition make them outlaws no matter what else is going on.

Re:Do Apple's customers like the FBI?

[shanen]

Are there problems at slashdot under the new management, or should I get all paranoid again?

My above reply post originally appeared, but without its signature, then it disappeared, and then it reappeared, but with the signature...

Surely the FBI wouldn't be so clumsy, but what else is going on here? Or maybe they would be?

Idea for the next poll

[Shompol]

Ask Americans if Iphones should be banned from sale to terrorists. Wait for "more than half" to say yes, pass it as a law and try to enforce it...

Re:The phone should be cracked.

[guruevi]

1) Even though it is true the NSA/CIA collects information on US-ians, this activity is highly illegal and unconstitutional. There is also the problem (which the NSA has admitted) of searching through the information. Yes, there are large collections of data but in general, beyond immediate interception, they're incapable of using their tech.

2) Although it is technically possible, you would need some very good reverse engineers to wipe away layer by layer of the security chip and read both the pin and the public keys out of memory with an electron microscope to then unlock the data from the chip. This is well beyond the capabilities of Apple and requires a government agency with access to a private forensics lab with the equipment and knowledge. The largest nations in this world may have 1 or 2 labs each but this is to spy on other nations' leaders, not to pursue some simple criminal suit.

3) The point of this exercise is for the US government to expand it's power. If they get what they want, they will be able to legally spy on everyone's phone with minimal amount of 'expense'. Right now, each iteration of iOS or Android requires them to do research in order to be able to crack them and the criminal entities are way better at it than they are. This way, they wouldn't need any labs or researchers, they could just force US manufacturers to build in backdoors in everything.

Re:The phone should be cracked.

[tlambert]

it would take *man decades* to create it

In other words some hundreds of people could create it in a month. Color me unimpressed by the level of difficulty. IF, that is (and it's big IF) your premise is accurate.

Hundreds of people as qualified as the creator of the architecture.

Let's say Fred Brooks was wrong, and all engineers are equivalent cogs that can be replaced by any other cog. It's just a lot of typing, right?

So let's also say "hundreds" is "300".

So 300 x 1 month = 100 x 3 months = 25 x 12 months ... OK, that's ballpark for "man decades" if that "s" translates to 2.5.

What do 25 engineers of that calibre cost for a year? Well, minimally, you are looking at 2 x their salary -- that's the "flooring cost" for an engineer, and equipment, and rent, and computers, and ... that you have to pay them.

What do you think this guy got in stock options and base pay for one year of work? So basically... you are looking at a minimum of about $100M, with no guarantee that they outcome is possible.

Can Apple pay this out of petty cash? Probably. Will they? No. Should they? Hell no! This is (effectively) contract work for the FBI: they get to pay any costs, and the outcome is uncertain.

But wait! If Apple has 300 engineers of this calibre working on the thing for a month ... what about their opportunity costs? That $100M is just to cover expenses related to keeping these people working and the lights on. During that month: they can't work on any Apple products, because they are too damn busy working on cracking the iPhone in software for the FBI!

Apple loses whatever work product those engineers would have produced in that month, plus whatever value in time to market that that one month lead would have gained them on any competitors, and they lose that lead *in perpetuity*. And you know that if Apple is paying an engineer *that* much, they are going to be making at least *twice* that much off their labors. Or they wouldn't be willing to pay them.

So now we are in the 1/5th to 1/4 billion dollar ballpark for the work.

OR.

The FBI could just pay some ordinary engineer $30,000 to pull the flash chip, and reset it every 4 tries, up to 250 times.

Tell me again why Apple should do it the FBI's way instead of the *easy* way?

Of course they'd say that

[code_monkey_steve]

In a survey that reached 1,000 respondents by phone ...

"Hello? ... Yes, of course I trust the FBI with, um, my privacy, and, uh, the NSA too, yeah, they're great guys, all of them, and they wouldn't be listening to this call, right now, because I'm not in any way a terrorist, and therefore have nothing to hide, bye!"

Yeah whatever

[aepervius]

Nearly half of American disbelieve evolution and think the world was created 6000+ years ago. So, when you have so many people even disbelieving the most successful predictive theory in biology, I don't expect that many either to udenrstand complex themes like encryption, walled garden, and civil right to privacy.

Re:Yeah whatever

[Jack Griffin]

and civil right to privacy.

There is no civil rights issue here that is the strawman being thrown around by the tin foil hats.
The owner of the device has given permission for the FBI to access to the information on the device they own. The FBI are merely seeking technical assistance from Apple who are refusing because it might affect their marketing strategy.

Re:no surpise given past election results

[meglon]

I can't tell if you're laying on the sarcasm a bit think, or just a complete fucking idiot trying to projecting your pathetic fucked up fantasy onto reality.

Re:The phone should be cracked.

[wvmarle]

That may be true if and only if you can find hundreds of people that 1) are willing to work on this project, 2) are very well versed in (breaking) encryption, and 3) know the source tree of iOS in and out. There may be a couple hundred that fulfil the last criteria, the overlap with the first two will be very small. There is the chance that some of the people that could do it are principled enough to resign from Apple and start to work for one of the competitors (if you have such skills that shouldn't be too hard to do).

If I were to have such skills and if I were to be (in part) responsible for the design and implementation of what is arguably one of the most secure consumer devices in the world, I would take great pride in my work. Being asked to undo such an accomplishment, is a really, really big thing. This is an issue that is often enough ignored: the actual people doing the work. Apple may be a company, but a company is made up of people, and if there are no people that are willing and able to perform a certain task, it won't happen, valid court order or not.

Re:The phone should be cracked.

[wvmarle]

And if you get nine women together, you can get a baby in one month!

Yes, you can - after a 9-month start-up time.

More Than Half of Americans

[e065c8515d206cb0e190]

are likely to vote for Trump in November... what does that tell you

1234

[jetkust]

What if 1234 unlocks the phone? That would be hilarious.

Re:The phone should be cracked.

[tlambert]

There is the chance that some of the people that could do it are principled enough to resign from Apple and start to work for one of the competitors (if you have such skills that shouldn't be too hard to do).

If I were to have such skills and if I were to be (in part) responsible for the design and implementation of what is arguably one of the most secure consumer devices in the world, I would take great pride in my work. Being asked to undo such an accomplishment, is a really, really big thing. This is an issue that is often enough ignored: the actual people doing the work. Apple may be a company, but a company is made up of people, and if there are no people that are willing and able to perform a certain task, it won't happen, valid court order or not.

Job interview:

Q: "What did you do at your last job that makes you feel you are qualified to work on cryptographic systems?"
A: "Wrote cryptography hard enough to break that the FBI invoked the All Writs Act of 1789 to try and force my company to break it"
Q: "Reason for leaving last job?"
A: "They asked me to comply with the request, so I quit."

Hired!

Must be Android users

[RogueWarrior65]

You know, the ones who are envious of the fact that Apple's devices haven't been compromised.

Re:Must be Android users

[oh_my_080980980]

iPhone users were still in favor: 47 to 43 percent.http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/22/11094124/apple-fbi-survey-public-opinion-pew

How Many Would Agree

[Greyfox]

How many would agree if we were talking about their smartphone, specifically? Because whether they know it or not, we very much are.

News Flash!

[Sir Holo]

This just in...

Half of people have an intelligence that is below average!

What about a compromise?

[ShooterNeo]

Apple hacks this specific phone. They then shore up whatever vulnerabilities that were in iOS/their hardware design that made such a hack impossible.

Their design should have made it flat out impossible. An encryption processor has the key to the phone's data in memory. If more than 10 passcode attempts are made, it deletes the key. Boom, data is gone. No takebacks. Firmware on that processor should have been locked and fused.

If this were actually how they implemented it, there would BE a controversy. They'd respond that it's totally impossible, and invite the FBI's tech experts to view the design under NDA to confirm for themselves. They'd explain that they would comply if they could, but it isn't possible.

Good thing this isn't a democracy

[blindseer]

A funny thing about a republic is that no one can vote away another person's rights.

Let's say we do live in a true democracy. I get enough people to agree with me on something, like perhaps that people that take welfare should not get to vote. If you don't pay a net income to the government then you cannot have a say on how that money is spent. Then next year I get a smaller group of people to agree with me, only landowners get to vote. Why not? If you don't actually own the land then why should you get to vote?

Now that I've narrowed the field quite a bit I might have to be a bit more careful on picking my allies. I might be able to find a majority of men that think that women should not be able to vote. Perhaps I make this a religious cause. Those that do not pray to the great pasta in the sky should not be allowed to vote. Then I keep redefining who gets to vote year after year until it's just me and my inner circle of friends. We used democracy to become what is effectively a monarchy.

But it doesn't have to be a vote on who gets to vote. It could be a vote on who gets the guns. No guns for you and yours, we'll just leave you to fight off the armed thugs with your fists, feet, and teeth. Perhaps I vote away your healthcare, let you die off from a lack of shots against tetanus, flu, and meningitis.

Or here's an idea, I vote away your right against unwarranted search and seizure. I'm trying to protect you from the evil terrorists in the world. So I go about listening to phone calls, poke around your backyard. If I find a wild marijuana plant then I can assume you're growing the stuff in your basement, then I take your house. Your kid thought it would be "cute" to fashion a bong in art class, obviously you are selling drugs so I take your house. I think you bought too much cold medicine, so I lock you up for five years. I think you bought too much diesel fuel, ammonia, and fertilizer, I don't care if you have 600 acres of farmland, you are obviously making bombs and meth. I take your farm and lock you up.

Oh, wait, maybe we don't live in a republic any more.

A republic means that an individual has rights, in spite of what removal of those rights might mean to the benefit of the whole. If we can vote away the rights of any one person, even if we think that person is evil incarnate, then no one's rights are safe. The FBI lost the ability to snoop on us as it wished through a series of gains in technology and civil rights cases. They want that back. If we believe we live in a democracy, and lose the basis of a republic in our laws, then we'll have the government prop up one bogeyman after another to convince us to vote our rights away.

Those that choose security over liberty will get neither. I think a wise man warned us about this many years ago.

Re:Good thing this isn't a democracy

[ooloorie]

A funny thing about a republic is that no one can vote away another person's rights. Let's say we do live in a true democracy. I get enough people to agree with me on something, like perhaps that people that take welfare should not get to vote.

I agree with the principle you are expressing, namely that in a free society, majorities shouldn't be able to deprive minorities of their rights. But much as some people like to use a distinction between the terms "republic" and "democracy" to capture the distinction between majority rule and a free society, those terms are just no good for expressing that distinction: there are plenty of "republics" in the world that not only let this happen in practice, they even enshrine such principles in their constitutions. Both "republic" and "democracy" really just mean that political power is wielded by the people in some way, and it can refer to anything from oppressive majoritarianism to a minarchy.

The name for what you are trying to express used to be "liberal" and "enlightened", namely the idea that the job of government is to guarantee negative rights and nothing more. But the term "liberal" has gotten corrupted and now is synonymous with "social liberalism" or "ordoliberalism" (which really aren't "liberalism" at all). True liberalism requires that people are willing to live with the consequences of their choices if necessary, and that's something many voters can't stomach. Nowadays, the political view of government that you're taking is called "classically liberal" or (in the US) "libertarian". Social liberalism and ordoliberalism relate to classical liberalism like "real imitated wood" relates to "real wood".

Re:Good thing this isn't a democracy

[ToddInSF]

"A funny thing about a republic is that no one can vote away another person's rights."

ROFL, LOLOLOLOL

Obviously you're not someone who has experienced reality in The Republic !

Let me guess, heterosexual, white, middle-class "Christian" ?

Re:Good thing this isn't a democracy

[RPI Geek]

A republic means that an individual has rights, in spite of what removal of those rights might mean to the benefit of the whole.

A republic is simply a country with elected representatives in its government. There is no guarantee of individual rights in a given country simply because it is a "republic".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Re:The phone should be cracked.

[WaffleMonster]

Q: "What did you do at your last job that makes you feel you are qualified to work on cryptographic systems?"

A: "Wrote cryptography hard enough to break that the FBI invoked the All Writs Act of 1789 to try and force my company to break it"

See this is where I fundamentally disagree. When I design a system the threat tree is NOT a secret and I possess no backdoors or specialized knowledge or ability to attack it beyond what is explicitly published.

Q: "Reason for leaving last job?"
A: "They asked me to comply with the request, so I quit."

The correct answer should always be you are unable to comply with any request from any actor evil or noble ... quitting out of principal means you have already failed.

Re:The phone should be cracked.

[tlambert]

Q: "Reason for leaving last job?"
A: "They asked me to comply with the request, so I quit."

The correct answer should always be you are unable to comply with any request from any actor evil or noble ... quitting out of principal means you have already failed.

On the contrary. It (1) Shields the company from the actions of the court, and (2) shields you personally from the court, since the court order was issued against the company, rather than you as a person. When you are acting on behalf of the company in a position to which a court order is applicable, it's possible for the court to hold you, personally in contempt.

We already saw this with the Elcomsoft case, and Dmitry Sklyarov.

While I agree that that should be the answer, that *being* the answer, and a court *accepting* that answer and backing off the engineer in question, are two different things.

NB: Ironically, the FBI is asking Apple to violate the DMCA by creating a circumvention device, in the same way Elcomsoft created a circumvention device. Nothing, in principle, prevents the DMCA provisions being applied to Apple by a federal prosecutor, or to a former employee by a federal procesutor, should they be involved, even if it's Apple's code. For example, if the author of the DVD CSS were to publish an exploit for it, how many media companies would go after his or her ass with torches and a pitchfork?

The uninformed don't count!

[mm4902]

First off where is the clear argument that you can't just push a firmware backdoor (software backdoor is a bad implementation of a worse idea) onto a locked Iphone. Can you? My point is unless a backdoor is already there you can't do anything with the current phone. To my point, If I think that computer code comes from the book of Revelations and seeps into my phone through osmosis you can't expect me to understand the complications around unlocking the phone let alone the consequences. Pew needs to explain the basics and THEN ask the questions. This is like polling 10 year olds on math and expecting the results to be representative of the Grade School

George Carlin is right again

[TiggertheMad]

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

Re: George Carlin is right again

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligence is normally distributed.

Re:George Carlin is right again

[phorm]

Uninformed doesn't necessarily mean unintelligent, and in this case the powers-that-be are pumping out misinformation (or half-truths) at full force.

More than half of Americans...

[hyades1]

...believe in the paranormal.

Maybe it's time to quit basing real-world decisions on the ridiculous assumption that everybody's opinion is of equal value.

More than half of Americans...

[kybred]

More than half of Americans think they are above average.

(yes, I'm American :-)

Reflexive Apologists win again, sigh

[Texmaize]

Funny how being reflexively liberal gains vast positive moderation---even when it is not backed up and unfounded. Ok kids, lets play. Let's dissect this awful, thoughtless post using 3 minutes of internet searching or less

Comment 1: Mexicans are rapists:

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. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...

Comment 2: Muslims are going to blow me up....

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. Number of, I don't know, choosing a country at random, Germans bombing others in same period.....0. Just saying'
http://www.thereligionofpeace....

I honestly won't touch the last once, since I really don't want to see the bestiality. sites, but but between you and me, I would not take that bet if I were you.

So, in a nut shell. This gets a 5 mod for being incorrect and supporting nothing. Nice job slashdot. Nice job.

Re:Reflexive Apologists win again, sigh

[connect4]

Save your pathetic whinging for the smouldering post-election remains of the GOP buddy.

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.

Re: Reflexive Apologists win again, sigh

[superwiz]

Umm? What? I don't know any Republican politician who wants being gay to be illegal. What's marriage got to do with sex, exactly? It's a property contract. Sure, people associate it with sex, but being married doesn't give a husband the right to have sex with his wife.... You can still be charged with rape if you are married, so... the only thing that a marriage contract actually controls is property rights. How do you extrapolate opposition to gay sex from opposition to gay marriage?

Re:The phone should be cracked.

[WaffleMonster]

While I agree that that should be the answer, that *being* the answer, and a court *accepting* that answer and backing off the engineer in question, are two different things.

Where does this theory end? How is it falsified? Should everyone unplug from the Internet for fear that their computers might be hacked and used to facilitate organized crime and they might be blamed for it?

I have a hard time believing such a transparent and obvious stunt would have any effect other than royally pissing off the judge. Quitting after being asked is way too late and having them just asking someone else in the company or your replacement does not shield the company from anything. After they are sufficiently jerked around I wouldn't bet on escape.

NB: Ironically, the FBI is asking Apple to violate the DMCA by creating a circumvention device, in the same way Elcomsoft created a circumvention device. Nothing, in principle, prevents the DMCA provisions being applied to
Apple by a federal prosecutor, or to a former employee by a federal procesutor, should they be involved, even if it's Apple's code. For example, if the author of

Lawyers deserve _some_ credit.

"This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term âoeinformation securityâ means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network."

How was the question asked?

[PinkyGigglebrain]

I only scanned the article but I couldn't find the actual question that was asked for the poll. In my experience the result of a poll can be skewed one way or another by how the question is phrased.

I have to wonder if the question Pew asked was along the lines of "Do you think Apple should help the FBI catch terrorists?" rather than "Do you think Apple should protect peoples privacy from unwarranted government surveillance". You could ask the same group of people and get one poll showing support for Apply and another supporting FBI depending on what you ask

Re:The phone should be cracked.

[tlambert]

Lawyers deserve _some_ credit.

"This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term âoeinformation securityâ means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network."

Meaning they'd still have to pay Apple to do it so that it's a contract.

Ask the right questions - get the 'right' answer

[Bruce66423]

Observe from Yes Prime Minister https://www.youtube.com/watch?... You will never trust an opinion poll again

Important point

[Bruce66423]

Observe from Yes Prime Minister https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] You will never trust an opinion poll again

Apple should go the other way

[jonwil]

They should change the next version of iOS (for any hardware that it runs on including older models) and the next iPhone revision so that its not even possible to install new software on the phone if the phone is locked.

battle not worth fighting

[ooloorie]

Apple is fighting a battle not worth fighting here, because what they are fighting over is FBI access to a badly designed device. That is, Apple is refusing to help even though technically it is possible, and it is technically possible because the iPhone 5c already effectively has a backdoor. What Apple should have done is quietly complied with the FBI request (they have done it before anyway based on other ways of accessing phone content), while at the same time making future phones actually secure against this kind of hacking, which is not hard to do.

Why would that be a better thing to do? Because the house was just considering a bill banning state-mandated back doors into phones. By having this debate now, over a device with badly designed security that was used in a horrific crime, Apple is risking the failure of such bans and the possibility that state-level bans on encryption are simply allowed to stand.

skimmed the article

[f00zbll]

No where do they list the actual questions they used, so the only thing you can "take away" from it is surveys can't be trusted without full disclosure of the questions used.

The evidence does suggest more than half of US citizens don't know dick about security or encryption, which also suggests the education system is totally fucked. It's not that hard to understand "the basics" of security and encryption. Being an expert, which I am not, takes decades. You don't need to be an expert to understand what the FBI is asking is a backdoor. With respect, I say fuck any government that demands a backdoor on smart phones.

Good for Apple!!!

[wkwilley2]

We've already proven that the American public at large are idiots and can't be trusted with decision-making power.

I've never bought into the Apple ecosystem, but I'm glad Mr. Cook is taking the high road on these issues and standing their ground in order to protect the privacy of their users.

Ignorance is dangerous

[Kaitiff]

and this is why our founding fathers thought education was so important. For a democracy (even a representative one) it's even MORE so. "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" Benjamin Franklin said that, and it's as true today as it ever was. For any government to say it's in our best interest to NOT have the ability or right to privacy in order to 'protect' us is completely full of shit.

What if you restrict the sample

[sabbede]

to only people who have a grasp on how encryption in general and device encryption in particular actually work?

"More than Half of 1000 random people surveyed"

[Zaphoddd]

When are are going to star calling BS on 1000 people surveys? I will spare you the math, but 1000 out 321,442,019? Really?

more than half?

[l3v1]

"More Than Half of Americans Think Apple Should Comply With FBI, Finds Pew Survey"

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

Yeah. Right. WTF.

Huh?

[tacokill]

I'm a conservative but I gotta tell you, I admire Bernie Sanders Anyone even mildly conservative should be appalled at what the Berns positions. He's an avowed socialist for cryin' out loud! This is not even a close call.

Re:Huh?

[amiga3D]

You don't believe it's possible to disagree with someone's political position but still admire them? I admire his honesty and he's not wrong about everything. He's certainly dead on about the big banks. Strangely I don't hear anyone else running for president attacking them.

Re:Huh?

[amicusNYCL]

Did you just ignore the rest of that line? Here:

I think he's wrong on a lot of things but he's a stand up guy.

He disagrees with Bernie's positions but he likes him as a person. Which is understandable, because Bernie is honest and consistent, you can look through his history and see the same themes over and over for the past 5 decades. That's what a politician should be like, not someone whose opinion changes with every poll or donor check. Our political races would have a whole lot more substance and meaning if the people participating in them had anywhere near the same level of integrity that Bernie Sanders has. Note that nothing that I just said has anything to do with his actual policy positions, just the fact that they have remained stable. Everyone else changes their policy positions based on who is giving them money and what the polls say, and Bernie doesn't do that.

That's a major reason why he has the level of success that he does against Clinton. The media has portrayed him as unelectable since day 1, but Clinton is not out there winning landslides against him, if she wins at all it's a small margin. People don't trust Clinton, and they do trust Sanders. It's that simple.

Re:Huh?

[amiga3D]

What kills me is even the people voting for her say they don't trust her. It's nuts.

Re:Huh?

[amicusNYCL]

I saw a quote from a woman in her 70s maybe a month ago who said that she believes in what Bernie Sanders is saying, but she's going to vote for Hillary because it's her last chance to see a woman president.

The Gov't has the Best Ideas

[shadow22]

After partnership with Apple to defeat world-wide encryption tactics, they have announced that they will be installing a webcam on Schrödinger's cat, for security purposes "in an emergency". Pew study shows that more than half of Americans think we should be able to know whether Schrödinger's cat is alive.

What half of Americans think

[Grand Facade]

is irrelevant.
And if you think the government cant hack an Iphone, you're as stupid as the loosers who think they are safe using one.
This is all a smoke screen to get all the extremists to use an Iphone.....

A technically literate discussion of the issue.

[voxelman]

An insightful forensics article on several more important reasons why Apple should not be forced to comply.

        http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/...

half of Americans are more stupid than average

[jsepeta]

It's a fact!

I'm guessing this was a push poll

[Rastl]

The devil is in the details. How were the main questions worded? "Should Apple comply with the court writ to assist the government with obtaining data from a terrorist's iPhone?" is a lot different than "Should Apple be forced to create software that will break the encryption on all iPhones?"

And 1,000 people is a terrible sample size to draw any conclusions other than they asked 1,000 people questions.

1000 people decides for over 300,000,000?

[kallen3]

So 0.0003% of the population of the United States reflects the views of the other 99.9%? I understand the concept of statistical analysis, but with that small of a sampling it seems to be more of sensationalism than anything else.

Statistics can lie

[evolutionary]

The first thing I was taught in my statistics class is how they can lie. And in a wide variety of ways. The first thing I would ask is who is asking the questions, and who wrote the questions in the first place. In addition, most of the public is so "high strung" with news designed to scare the into accepting anything with the word "security" or "anti-terrorism" they many are now psychologically programmed to say yes to anything with these key phrases in them. The fix is in folks. I just wonder if the bus for "1984" was early, or late...

So you're saying that half of Americans are idiots

[kwelch007]

Shocking.

More than half of American's..

[nanospook]

spent 5 seconds thinking about it..

Why don't they just do it themselves

[RichardHeller]

It seems that one with the resources of the fbi should be able to reverse engineer their own version of iOS and push it out onto devices via a local network spoofing the apple update servers. They would likely need some of apples private keys in order to trick the device that it was a legit apple server/update. But getting those seem a lot easier to get, and could draw alot less attention.

Surveys are a crock...

[pedz]

Why would anyone ever really tell the truth for a survey? I mean really?

Wrong

[ritzmax72]

More than 80% of American are useful idiots who know nothing about encryption.

Sky fairy tales

[presidenteloco]

Wait. Don't more than half of Americans think that an invisible sky fairy with a long beard and disapproving frown is running things (when he's not delicately burying fake dinosaur bones with a smirk on his face?)

Or believe in UFOs?

Or think that there is a titanic battle between our protective father sky fairy and an armada of UFOs,

or something along those lines.

"More than half of Americans think X" doesn't tell me anything about the quality or veracity of X. It tells me quite a bit about a particular half of Americans.

What percent of Apple customers agree with this

[micahraleigh]

If most Apple users don't agree, Apple should oppose gov snooping.

That's simply business.

Ask a different question

[The Raven]

Should Apple allow the FBI to see your dick pics?

Opinion polls don't matter in court

[Bugler412]

It's what's legal and constitutional that matters, not the latest poll likely based on a sample of 1002 people, which is artificially selected based on who has still has landline phone AND decided to participate in the poll, which artificially biases any result towards more conservative and older voters

More than half...

[MoarSauce123]

....think Trump will be a great president. So what's the point? That Americans are dumb and care not a bit about their freedoms and their future?