Apple Lawyer Ted Olson: Creating Unlock Tool Would Lead To 'Orwellian' Society (9to5mac.com)

Apple's lawyer, Ted Olson, explained in an interview with CNN that what the government is asking Apple to do is "limitless." Olson explained that if the tool that the government wants is created, any judge anywhere could essentially order to list to any customer's conversation, track location, and much more. The lawyer likened it to an Orwellian "big brother" type society. When pressed about how Apple could potentially help fight terrorism by creating a tool to access locked devices, Olson explained that while Apple will help the government defeat terrorism in every way that it can, it can't be done by breaking the Constitution.

Comments

pretending that back doors dont exist

[Rockoon]

Pretending that back doors don't exist is what will create an Orwellian society.

The back door is already there. Thats the problem. The problem isn't that the government wants Apple to use it, and certainly not that the government wants Apple to create one (remember the original narrative?)

Re:pretending that back doors dont exist

[Rumagent]

Spot on!

Apple i perfectly capable of cracking your device. They are not fighting for privacy. They are fightning for the appearance of privacy because it is good for business.

It seems to me that either they follow the legal requests (which they are) or they get their shit together and create a phone that is actually secure.

Re:pretending that back doors dont exist

[alvinrod]

I believe they already have made one that's more secure. Apparently this particular attack vector only works on older iPhones, which the shooter had in this case. I wouldn't be surprised if the next phone is completely impossible (so much as anything can be at least) for even they themselves to hack. Apple makes all of their money from selling expensive hardware, not customer data, so they don't have much financial motive for needing an access to that data and their inability to do so only makes the hardware more attractive.

Re:pretending that back doors dont exist

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe they already have made one that's more secure. Apparently this particular attack vector only works on older iPhones, which the shooter had in this case. I wouldn't be surprised if the next phone is completely impossible (so much as anything can be at least) for even they themselves to hack. Apple makes all of their money from selling expensive hardware, not customer data, so they don't have much financial motive for needing an access to that data and their inability to do so only makes the hardware more attractive.

What if the governements orders Apple to create iphones that are breakable ? Thought about that ?
People are fucking stupid and don't understand that technology is never the answer to a societal problem.
Politics is. Apple is doing the right thing. If the government wants to break the iphone they have at their disposal billions of dollars, talent and infrastructure beyond even what is available to Apple. So why don't they do it ? Because once the precedent of making a company do your bidding is made private companies are fucked for life. The government is playing the big game here. If they break Apple we'll never ever again have a computer industry that protects the consumer. We don't live (at least for the time being) in a dictatorship and the constitution is still valid. You can't just through it away because of crime or "insert any other bogey man of the week".

Re: pretending that back doors dont exist

[ColdWetDog]

Just where in the Constitution is this guarantee of privacy?

Re:Apple speaking out 2 sides of their mouth

[kenwd0elq]

The "unreasonable" part. It's "reasonable" for Apple, on receipt of a court order, to turn over to the FBI all data in its possession concerning the terrorists, which Apple has done.

Demanding that Apple force its programmers to write custom software THAT DOES NOT NOW EXIST to allow the FBI to break into one particular iPhone is "unreasonable", and I think Cook, and Apple, are correct here.

Further, concerning the 1789 "All Writs Act", signed by George Washington back before there was much Federal law at all; if the All Writs Act can be perverted so far as to demand that Apple write software that does not exist, then what government demand does it NOT permit? Because if there aren't any limits to THIS PARTICULAR LAW, then the Constitution died in 1789, barely two years after its ratification.

Re:Goodbye, Thirteenth Amendment?

[currently_awake]

If they can be forced to help unlock a phone after the terror attack, then why can't they be forced to install spy programs on a known terrorist phone before the attack?