Bloomberg Business: Former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a partner with the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, said on ABC’s “This Week” program that the order would open a “Pandora’s box” of privacy issues.
“This is not just one magistrate in San Bernardino,” said Olson, 75, whose wife died in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. “There are hundreds of magistrates, there are hundreds of other courts.”
In rejecting the magistrate’s decree, Apple has ignited a long-simmering battle between the tech industry and the government pitting concerns over civil liberties against the need for surveillance to fight terrorism. Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump waded into the battle last week by urging people to boycott Apple products until it complied.
“This case is entirely overstated,” John Miller, the New York Police Department’s deputy commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism, said on “This Week” after Olson’s appearance. “The giant parade of terribles,” as he described Apple’s worries over government breaches of civil liberties, “is absurd.”
On Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple to lend “reasonable technical assistance” to the FBI in recovering information from the phone used by Syed Rizwan Farook, who teamed up with his wife in December to kill 14 people in San Bernardino, California.
15 comments:
It is, or it isn't? Very few people know for sure if this is a potential disaster or not, but somebody does. Can Apple do this without creating a master key methodology that others can use to steal everyone's info or not? Someone who knows what they are talking about without any ulterior motives needs to weigh in.
Wait, Trump said open the damned thing? That's all we need to know.
Besides, It's a terrorist phone!
Besides, It's a terrorist phone!
Technically... I realise "technically: might not be right word for what I'm trying to say... it's just so overused, by me primarily ;)
Technically... the phone was issued by the County to the terrorist Syed Farook, who worked as a health inspector.
Where the question is asked, how come the county does not have access to the phones it issues to it's workers?
Technically.
Isn't the phone like a computer in certain respects?
Either way the terrorist/county employee should not have a leg to stand on.... he is also totally dead, which is technically deader than mostly dead.
Apple has to resurrect him to have a case in my armchair legal opinion.
I think it's high time we have the word reasonable defined. What does it mean, when can it be applied, and who gets to use it.
President Trump can order Apple to put a non-removable home screen on every iPhone which will slideshow Mohammed cartoons.
I agree, it's a county phone, but that does not stop the danger of compromising all iPhone users' ultimate security, personal and financial.
How about we order Apple to redesign the TSA code that has a 96% failure rate at stopping weapons and explosives from getting on planes. Or maybe a private company could do the surveillance for Homeland Security that let these people plan this attack undetected for years. The problem is isn't Apple or privacy. The problem is depending on the government alone to do anything important.
"Apple has informed the government that it would be possible to access the data on the phone by allowing it to automatically join a network, such as the one at Farook’s home. However, without any guidance from the Feds, a county employee (remember this was a county owned phone) changed the password on the phone in an attempt to gain access to it in the hours after the attack. With the password changed, the phone can no longer join the cloud automatically."
See what I mean.
It is my understanding that the Goverment is trying to force Apple to create an entirely new software program that will allow them to get into ANY phone or product that Apple has its existing operating software on. Not just this ONE phone but any device.
If such software were to get out of the FBI control.....and it will, no doubt, then no device will be secured. In addition the temptation by the Government that is spying on us will be too much and you know, in your heart of hearts, that the program coerced out of Apple will be used indiscriminately.
Apple could have possibly retrieved the data, or could have before the doofuses in the police at the bidding of the doofuses in the FBI, farked it all up
Instead of getting Apple to unlock this ONE phone and retrieve the info....the FBI and the government is demanding unrestricted access to ALL phones and in essence trying to force Apple to make and deliver the Keys to the Kingdom.
People who don't know the difference between a private server in someone's bathroom or anything really about technology have no business demanding something they do not understand.
Apple is correct to resist. If they do deliver the keys to the kingdom to the omnipresent government spies.....expect Apple products to be dumped and the stock to tank.
Maybe they can get Apple to help retrieve the rest of Hillary's emails. I bet the info there is a lot more valuable to national security.
Excerpt from another article that explains why Apple is fighting thins. Bolded some parts.
that usually courts ask you produce documents in your possession.
That's not the case here. The "document" the FBI wants Apple to produce does not currently exist* -- a signed and certified bit of coding that can be installed into the phone. Apple says they have no such thing, and the court is therefore ordering Apple to write the document. (Here, the document is computer code.)
According to this article, the "document" sought is a custom version of Apple's OS with the various brute-force-password-hack defenses deactivated. I guess the idea is that the hard drive of the phone would be run from this new, easily-hacked-by-brute-force-guessing OS, rather than the one that actually exists, which will permanently blow up all data after ten consecutive failed guesses at the password.
That does seem unprecedented, because courts usually don't order people to become, essentially, unpaid deputies of the United States government's law enforcement squads. Essentially the court is commandeering Apple and its employees for the effort.
This guy went on to say that if there were a law passed granting courts this authority, or demanding that tech companies create and keep a skeleton key file for their records, then the court could issue this order. But absent such a new power granted by the legislature (which would itself be very controversial), a court simply cannot order people to basically join the FBI's counter-terrorism/cryptography division.
Send the phone to Apple. They decrypt and send same to interested parties. Only they still know how.
I don't know, this seems a lot of BS on both sides.
I'll go out and water my plants now.
Post a Comment