Apple says "No" - the Threat to Data Security

This is a badly thought out argument.

The example you provide is not analogous to this situation. The Bureau isn't asking Apple for a Skeleton Key to unlock the door - that doesn't exist. What they're asking them for is to flash the phone with a fundamentally broken version of the operating system that doesn't currently exist and would need to be specially developed from source for this purpose.

And to what end? What if Apple do capitulate or get forced to do it? What kind of tinpot terrorist organisation is going to "stick to the plan" when a person that apparently knows, in great detail, the entire plan has been arrested by a government agency with an alleged history of complicity in methods of torture and unlawful interrogation? Anyone with a bit of common sense would have to assume that the entire operation is compromised and that any element of the plan - people, method, location etc. was likely to be now known in detail by the enemy. So what's the first thing you're going to do? Abort, go underground, burn everything and start again. This is counter-intelligence 101 - it's not rocket science. Even if the Bureau got hold of this data, its likely intelligence value at that point would be practically nil.

To think that this request is a "one off" is frankly naïve - you don't get a capability like this once and say "never again"; you wheel it out repeatedly - "you did it for this terrorist, now you should do it for this terrorist and this bad guy, and while you're at it, all of these criminals' phones..."

And as for the notion of holding the executives of Apple Inc to account if there is a terrorist attack, how can you prove that their "non-compliance" was the root cause of that intelligence failure? Good luck prosecuting that. Without the contents of the phone available, it's not possible to make that claim.

And besides, the Supreme Court forces big tech companies to unlock their devices on demand, what are the bad guys going to do? Change their tactics. Everyone else suffers while the bad guys keep doing their thing, just in a different (and uncompromised) way.

This is a cat and mouse game that traditional law-making cannot outmanoeuvre and any attempt to do so has a high price for the liberty of law-abiding citizens while delivering practically no benefit to our security. It's a fallacy to think that curtailing people's rights and endlessly making things illegal are going to stop people that are willing to take the most extreme illegal courses of action to achieve their objectives.

I won't be buying an more Apple products.

New development. The FBI is looking very fishy now.

How? On what legal basis does it set a precedent?

It's not on a legal basis, it simply signals that it is cool to force a company to help you get around their own security system to get data on individuals.

That "development" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. In fact, it doesn't really mean anything

So you agree it sets no legal precedent. So what's the problem?

Is there any chance Apple back down on their stance?

Is there any chance Apple back down on their stance?

You've probably heard in the news that Apple has opposed a US order to unlock an iPhone of one of the suspects involved in the San Bernardino attack. This would involve Apple making "a new version of the iPhone operating system... and install[ing] it on an iPhone that was recovered during the investigation."

One of our computing lecturers has written a blog post about this.

He asks: "should Governments be able to wield and exercise power that forces the hand of technology companies?"

What do you think? Are Apple right in refusing? Are you concerned about your data security...?

They are correct to not allow them to access, but this does cause issues as terrorist could just buy the iPhone thats blockable to the governments and cause terrorist attacks that government are unable to find it. They should monitor who buy theses, if they have a crimial record, not like stealing an apple but something dangerous then they shouldn't be allowed to buy, or have an alternative.

Unless they're legally forced to and have no further means of appeal, not likely.

Do you remember the old Psions? that company seemed happy to recover data from seized criminal hardware and it led to a few convictions. I don't remember anyone thinking it was the wrong thing to do at the time tbh.


https://purpleport.com/group/general-chat/76175/-criminal-clients-who-d-have-them-/
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.psion.misc/N5jw0L9pFNQ

What's the difference? the psions iirc weren't being sold as encrypted devices but the users naively thought that deleting a file permanently destroyed its contents.

This is ridiculous. You ban terrorists from buying iPhones, what's the impact of that? They'll buy android phones. There are loads of security features and apps available on Android to support strong encryption. Ban terrorists from buying smartphones, they'll use tablets. Ban them from tablets, they'll use open source encryption software on a laptop. Ban them from using PCs and laptops, they'll use game consoles. Right, ban them from using computers altogether, they'll use payphones. Ban them from using technology! They'll meet in person and use good old fashioned pre-internet tradecraft like dead drops and one time pad encryption schemes with a pen and paper.

This is a badly thought out argument.

The example you provide is not analogous to this situation. The Bureau isn't asking Apple for a Skeleton Key to unlock the door - that doesn't exist. What they're asking them for is to flash the phone with a fundamentally broken version of the operating system that doesn't currently exist and would need to be specially developed from source for this purpose.

And to what end? What if Apple do capitulate or get forced to do it? What kind of tinpot terrorist organisation is going to "stick to the plan" when a person that apparently knows, in great detail, the entire plan has been arrested by a government agency with an alleged history of complicity in methods of torture and unlawful interrogation? Anyone with a bit of common sense would have to assume that the entire operation is compromised and that any element of the plan - people, method, location etc. was likely to be now known in detail by the enemy. So what's the first thing you're going to do? Abort, go underground, burn everything and start again. This is counter-intelligence 101 - it's not rocket science. Even if the Bureau got hold of this data, its likely intelligence value at that point would be practically nil.

To think that this request is a "one off" is frankly naïve - you don't get a capability like this once and say "never again"; you wheel it out repeatedly - "you did it for this terrorist, now you should do it for this terrorist and this bad guy, and while you're at it, all of these criminals' phones..."

And as for the notion of holding the executives of Apple Inc to account if there is a terrorist attack, how can you prove that their "non-compliance" was the root cause of that intelligence failure? Good luck prosecuting that. Without the contents of the phone available, it's not possible to make that claim.

And besides, the Supreme Court forces big tech companies to unlock their devices on demand, what are the bad guys going to do? Change their tactics. Everyone else suffers while the bad guys keep doing their thing, just in a different (and uncompromised) way.

This is a cat and mouse game that traditional law-making cannot outmanoeuvre and any attempt to do so has a high price for the liberty of law-abiding citizens while delivering practically no benefit to our security. It's a fallacy to think that curtailing people's rights and endlessly making things illegal are going to stop people that are willing to take the most extreme illegal courses of action to achieve their objectives.