Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Shows How the Apple-FBI Fight Was About Much More Than One Phone (theverge.com)
Russell Brandom reports for The Verge: Apple's San Bernardino fight may be over, but the government is still seeking both Apple and Google's help in unlocking phones. New research from the American Civil Liberties Union shows 63 different cases in which the government compelled help from Apple or Google in unlocking a handset. It's unclear how many of the orders were filled, although companies often complied with such orders where possible before last year. The bulk of the cases target Apple, but nine of the orders also look to compel Google's help, typically to reset the password on a given device. The devices include phones from Alcatel, Kyocera, and Samsung, many of which shipped without the default device encryption that blocked the use of traditional forensic tools in the San Bernardino case.
Can we please stop reposting the Apple vs FBI saga multiple times per day? I'm sure there are other things going on in the tech world.
Let's get some "experts" in here to give us the state of the union on digital porn
So Apple complied with the requests in drug cases but started a big fight over a terrorist? Did they change their policy or is there a technical difference between the cases?
The "San Bernardino" case was different because the FBI was trying to compel Apple to write new software to assist them in breaking their own phone. Apple had been cooperating with the FBI up until that point, including providing them with a copy of the phone's backed up data from several weeks prior. I don't believe the government should be able to compel someone to write code against their will.
Generally speaking, I have no problems with law enforcing requesting assistance in accessing encrypted data, but keep in mind this whole push for encryption on consumer devices and on the web in general partly came about because the government was caught spying on its citizens. As such, I take a pretty dim view of this same government and their rumblings about wanting to require a back door (and they just *hate* that term) in all encrypted products, because they've demonstrated they can't be trusted with that sort of responsibility. Not only have they demonstrated an absolute willingness to snoop on absolutely everyone, they also have a pretty poor track record in keeping secret data secure. How many breaches shall I cite? How long before foreign governments *cough China* has access to those universal keys as well?
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
It is, in my opinion, acceptable for law enforcement to demand cooperation from third parties when that cooperation is limited to turning over data which the third parties have in their possession. So, for example, if Joe Smith backed up his criminal plans to Apple's servers, and Apple has access to those backups, then it would be reasonable for Apple to turn them over to law enforcement when law enforcement presents a court-issued warrant for the backups.
The San Bernardino case was different because Apple didn't actually have the data in its possession. What the FBI wanted was not the data, but instead they wanted Apple to crack the security on the phone. One reason that is different is because it harms Apple to even admit that the cracking is possible. Apple was not a conspirator. The government should not have the ability to harm a private company to solve a case that the company is not involved in.
Put another way, if someone used a motel room to plan a terrorist attack, it would be reasonable for law enforcement to demand, again through a warrant, that the motel manager unlock the room. However, it would not be reasonable for them to go to the company who made the locks the motel uses and insist that they provide a master key. Even if the FBI accidentally dropped the only key to the room down a sewer grate, it would still be unreasonable to have the lock manufacturer reduce the security of their product.
Of course, all of that is just my opinion (which is what you asked for).
The first amendment guarentees everyone the freedom to practice their religion. It does not guarantee that you will not witness other's practicing of their religion.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
I guess the example I was thinking about doesn't involve the ACLU...however, I have seen previous examples where the ACLU sought to prevent other's from exercising their religion because they didn't like it, not because somehow the state was involved.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Yes, when the party in question has the key to the encryption, it is acceptable for the FBI to subpoena the party in question to provide the key. As part of due process the party in question can then attempt to quash the subpoena if it has grounds to do so.
This is different than "write a new operating system and install it on this phone so that we can access the data without having the key" (or, if you consider the lavabit case: "rewrite your application to collect the user's key so that we can subpoena it from you" or from the traditional safe perspective "invent a new drill that can drill into your drill-proof safe"). What I want to know is whether the FBI was even planning on paying Apple for their work in developing a new operating system or were they just expecting Apple to slave away for them for free?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Could you elaborate, why this makes a difference?
I do not think, this is what happened... More like the FBI asked the lock-maker to pick a particular lock...
Unless the FBI wanted to keep the lock pick afterwards (which they did not, AFAIK), I fail to see, how the security of the rest of us is threatened — it would've remained at Apple's discretion.
Appreciated.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"If they are presented with a court-ordered warrant, they should cooperate to any extent possible."
GODDAMNIT NO! Not ANY extent. There are limits to what a court can ask. The court cannot ask for things that violate the Constitution. Warrants are not unlimited in scope in power, in fact they are supposed to very limited to enumerated specifics.
Good-bye