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?
but given how common and workable "holds up for the planet's lifetime" is, it doesn't seem unreasonable to use that as a baseline
Assuming that government agencies only use the same technology as you average desktop user.
Who can say, but based on known top secret research (ie from 50+ years ago that has since been released), it is likely that there exists stuff we don't know about. And if we know there are unknowns, who's to say what the limitations of those unknowns are?
I'm not saying it's a fair comparison, but most ciphers released up to about 10 years are now crackable. When they were released they had 'crackable' times of decades and centuries. So I don't think it's as boolean as you claim.
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.
You'll ignore it apart from when you don't? Gold.
Listen up everyone, I am ignoring this! No wait I said I'm ignoring it! Can you hear me, I am ignoring this! Look at how I am ignoring this by replying to it!
You might want to go look up what that word means pea brain...
The flaw in it is that if the government CAN access it, then so can FOREIGN governments, and likely bad actors as well, so the country STILL isn't secure.
You're not secure in either case, you only think you are.
My personal privacy and liberty is more important than the government keeping the boarders secure in any case.
Er you will have no liberty or privacy if the borders aren't secure, so you lose in both scenarios.
You seem to think the choice here is win or lose, when it is really lose a little or lose a lot.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I found many Taxi drivers getting shot in the US but none actually doing any shootings. The taxi industry knows who they are, so it is far less likely someone who is on the edge will engage in an industry that takes their fingerprints before they can participate.
Cool story. Now try googling "Taxi Driver Rape" and let us know how your faith in Taxi Driver screening standards is affected.
This is the company who bragged about how their revenue spiked during the Sydney shooting - all the people calling Uber because they are desperate to get the hell out of the crossfire...
There was no crossfire, and being there didn't see much desperation other than "sweet, I got half a day off work!"
Also worth noting that most of the deaths in that incident were at the hands of the Police, not the loser with the gun.
Your info is either secure or it isn't. If the government can access it, then it isn't secure.
One could make the argument that if the government can't access it, then the country isn't secure, therefore any information you have also isn't secure
So the issue isn't that simple.
Not being able to replace the battery just seems like planned obsolescence. They want to force you down a path where your only good option is to just buy another phone.
Well the way Mobile OS's are going that is the only good option.
Older OS's stop being supported by App developers, and are too costly to maintain patches for, so become a liability. The best option from a performance/security/supportability point of view is to buy a device outright near the start of an OS release, keep it for 2+ years, then replace.
It's better than it used to be but I'd rather have 128 gigs (or, at the very least, 64 gigs) of internal storage and not mess with that.
Why are Android devices so far behind on storage?
You answered your own question. *You* being one person, the remaining Samsung market share (like me) don't care and would rather not pay for it.
If you want more storage, buy an SD card.
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
Quantum computing?
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?
but given how common and workable "holds up for the planet's lifetime" is, it doesn't seem unreasonable to use that as a baseline
Assuming that government agencies only use the same technology as you average desktop user.
Who can say, but based on known top secret research (ie from 50+ years ago that has since been released), it is likely that there exists stuff we don't know about. And if we know there are unknowns, who's to say what the limitations of those unknowns are?
I'm not saying it's a fair comparison, but most ciphers released up to about 10 years are now crackable. When they were released they had 'crackable' times of decades and centuries. So I don't think it's as boolean as you claim.
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.
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.
You'll ignore it apart from when you don't? Gold.
Listen up everyone, I am ignoring this! No wait I said I'm ignoring it! Can you hear me, I am ignoring this! Look at how I am ignoring this by replying to it!
You might want to go look up what that word means pea brain...
The flaw in it is that if the government CAN access it, then so can FOREIGN governments, and likely bad actors as well, so the country STILL isn't secure.
You're not secure in either case, you only think you are.
My personal privacy and liberty is more important than the government keeping the boarders secure in any case.
Er you will have no liberty or privacy if the borders aren't secure, so you lose in both scenarios.
You seem to think the choice here is win or lose, when it is really lose a little or lose a lot.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is if the next most popular candidate only gets 29% or less...
I found many Taxi drivers getting shot in the US but none actually doing any shootings. The taxi industry knows who they are, so it is far less likely someone who is on the edge will engage in an industry that takes their fingerprints before they can participate.
Cool story. Now try googling "Taxi Driver Rape" and let us know how your faith in Taxi Driver screening standards is affected.
Ok they keep mentioning the Uber thing as if it is somehow relevant.
But more importantly was he an Android or iPhone user?
So you invent some numbers then challenge us to do the research for you?
I challenge you to learn how 'Burden of Proof' works.
This is the company who bragged about how their revenue spiked during the Sydney shooting - all the people calling Uber because they are desperate to get the hell out of the crossfire...
There was no crossfire, and being there didn't see much desperation other than "sweet, I got half a day off work!"
Also worth noting that most of the deaths in that incident were at the hands of the Police, not the loser with the gun.
If he had been a regular cab driver, he might have done the same
I think there is a movie about that.
I especially like this quote:
"...we strongly believe the only way to guarantee that such a powerful tool isn't abused and doesn't fall into the wrong hands is to never create it."
Great, so the other guy creates it and uses it to enslave your people. See Colonialism or any RTS game for examples of how that logic doesn't work.
Encryption, by it's very nature, is a binary issue; it either 'works' or it 'doesn't work', there is nothing in between.
Only if you don't include time and processing power in your equation.
Your info is either secure or it isn't. If the government can access it, then it isn't secure.
One could make the argument that if the government can't access it, then the country isn't secure, therefore any information you have also isn't secure
So the issue isn't that simple.
Not being able to replace the battery just seems like planned obsolescence. They want to force you down a path where your only good option is to just buy another phone.
Well the way Mobile OS's are going that is the only good option.
Older OS's stop being supported by App developers, and are too costly to maintain patches for, so become a liability. The best option from a performance/security/supportability point of view is to buy a device outright near the start of an OS release, keep it for 2+ years, then replace.
Or if you prefer longevity, get a dumbphone.
It's better than it used to be but I'd rather have 128 gigs (or, at the very least, 64 gigs) of internal storage and not mess with that.
Why are Android devices so far behind on storage?
You answered your own question. *You* being one person, the remaining Samsung market share (like me) don't care and would rather not pay for it. If you want more storage, buy an SD card.
I'm looking for your personal opinion if you had any reason for choosing one phone over the other
I prefer a tactile home button so I'm stuck with Samsung .
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.
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.