Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Slashdot Asks: Should FBI Reveal to Apple How to Unlock Terrorist's iPhone? (latimes.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the new-ethical-dilemma dept.

After reports that the FBI managed to unlock an iPhone 5c belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters without the help of Apple, Apple is now the one that needs the FBI's assistance. "The responsible thing for the government to do is privately disclose the vulnerability to Apple so they can continue hardening security on their devices," said Justin Olsson, product counsel at security software maker AVG Technologies. However, many experts in the field believe that the government isn't legally obligated to provide the information to Apple. As mentioned in Los Angeles Times, this creates a new ethical dilemma: Should tech companies be made aware of flaws in their products, or should law enforcement be able to deploy those bugs as crime-fighting tools?

9 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. Didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They didn't hack the phone - they're just trying to save face by saying they don't need Apple's help anymore.

    1. Re:Didn't by taustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And convince terrorists worldwide to use other - less secure - phones. It's not the best outcome for them, but it's better than getting handed their ass in the PR battle, like they were.

    2. Re:Didn't by VernonNemitz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, Apple is approaching the wrong party. That company in Israel found the flaw, and the FBI paid them to use it. Apple has so far been unwilling to encourage folks to expose bugs, by paying them, so....
      Logically, especially since it is well known that Apple has plenty of cash on-hand to buy things, Apple should buy the vulnerabililty, instead of expecting to get it for free from the Feds. How greedy do you think ordinary folks are willing to let Apple be, in such circumstances?

  2. DMCA? by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Shouldn't Apple be chasing after them for circumventing the encryption and digital rights management system on the phone? Its what they do to people coming up with jailbreaks... why would this be diffrent?

    --
    Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
  3. We Should Just Bend Over And Take It. by zenlessyank · · Score: 4, Insightful

    O wait....we have already bent over. It is too late folks. No one cares what you think anymore. The system is established. Only blood will wash it away. Enjoy.

  4. The ethical choice by Macdude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The choice is between helping Apple secure the phones of millions of Americans against phone-thieves, identity-thieves, virus, mal-ware and ransom-ware writers or continuing to leave their citizens vulnerable to the above so that the government can spy on it's own people.

    I know what choice I think they should make.

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
    1. Re:The ethical choice by Eloking · · Score: 1, Insightful

      so that the government can spy on it's own people.

      ....aren't you going a little too far?

      --
      Elok
  5. Re:Better idea: by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From an external view point the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the only real US police force. County mounties, the law en-FORCE-rs are all too often out of control, trigger happy, lard arse morons. Seriously, all local law enforcement should be disbanded in favour of state based policing overseen by Federal investigators to ensure more uniform policing across a state and equal access to investigatory powers and police oversight across the state. Sure the FBI fucks up on occasion and most of that is caused by ill-informed political appointees seeking to politicise the offices of the FBI, really dangerous and crazy stuff that should be exposed and prosecuted.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  6. No different by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In all of your exemple, it's mostly about adult willingly deciding to take those risk.

    No different here. I'm well aware I could be killed by a drunk driver tomorrow (FAR more likely than a terrorist incidentally) and yet I think it would be inappropriate of us to ban alchohol. In fact we tried that and it didn't go well...

    In this exemple, we're talking about potentially stopping terrorist attack

    I'm an adult willing to take the risk of a terrorist attack in order to protect my civil rights. I value my civil rights more than I fear any terrorist or terrorist group. If that makes the FBI have to work harder to convict a criminal then so be it.