Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Apple vs. the FBI

Mar 16, 2016 12:31PM PDT

I've been following this issue with some interest and I'm wondering whether
any of you could shed a bit more light on it for me.

I understand the arguments that both Apple and the FBI are making. My
personal confusion comes when I try to differentiate this case from a normal
search warrant that police use to enter a premises to search for evidence
that may indicate criminal activity. In order to get this warrant, police
must present an argument to a judge outlining the probable cause they have
which suggests that the evidence actually could exist. IOW, they can't just
say that they think that there might be something there, they have to be
able to demonstrate probability.

Now, if the police appear on your doorstep with a warrant and you refuse to
allow them to enter your premises, you will likely be charged with
obstruction of justice or some such thing. Further, if you booby-trapped
your premises so as to cause injury to the police, I'm sure that other
offences would ensue. Or, if you do essentially what Apple is doing and hire
a private security firm to refuse police access to your premises, that too
would be illegal.

Clearly Apple has the capacity to software their way into an iPhone but have
refused to do so on the grounds that this interferes with an owner's
privacy. Further, they claim that creating this software would provide
illegal hackers with a backdoor into the operating system which would make
these devises less secure. Surely, if Apple could build a way into these
devises, bad guys could too so that argument is moot, IMO. It's up to Apple
to build in enough safeguards and upgrade them as needed to remove
vulnerabilities.

Finally, why is it that these devises deserve a higher level of security
than our homes? It seems that most people who have any level of cyber
awareness ought to be aware that anything in the digital universe cannot be
totally, absolutely guaranteed to be devoid of any risk whatsoever of being
intercepted by legal or illegal measures. Our homes can be illegally entered
even though it's against the law but even in that case, we're not allowed to
deliberately booby-trap our home to enhance our protection.

I kind of hate to be on the side of the FBI but for me, Apple hasn't come
anywhere close to justifying their position. I'd love to be proven wrong on
this.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Obviously there's a difference....
Mar 16, 2016 12:42PM PDT

Between setting a harmful booby trap that can injure anyone and protecting privacy under the 4th Amendment. A fence and locks are passive forms of upholding the 4th Amendment regarding one's property, even intelligently directed deadly action is protected. To compare booby traps, land mines, electrical shock traps, and other forms of harmful devices which can harm anyone to intelligent decided action and passive protected information such as by encryption is an unequal and unfair comparison.

- Collapse -
the big difference is
Mar 18, 2016 9:13AM PDT

FBI is wanting Apple to spend time and money to write code in order to create a back door. It is like having four walls without a door. Nobody should be able to force you to spend your time and money to build a door into the wall so they can see what is inside.

IMO, FBI, CIA, NSA or one of the other governmental most likely already has the ability to get into that phone. They are just wanting to set a precedent.

- Collapse -
Here is my opinion on what is really happening this week
Mar 22, 2016 12:33PM PDT

With all the bad press that the govt. is getting over this and the possibility that the courts could decide in Apple's favor, thereby setting a legal precedent, I suspect that somebody in the govt. wants to find a way to avoid that situation, yet save face. As a result, they come up with the story that "someone" has a potential solution to their problem. This allows them to call off the pending court proceedings without appearing to have backed off their position. Whether or not this supposed "new approach" is successful or not is irrelevant. All they have to do is tell the court that it WAS successful and they no longer need Apple's assistance. Works out to a win all around - the govt can back away from the whole security issue without losing face, not to mention a potential legal precedent that might not go in their favor and Apple can retain their position of not building a "back door" or assisting the authorities in compromising customer's security.

- Collapse -
fbi backing off
Mar 22, 2016 12:37PM PDT

this proves it was all about setting a legal precedent and not about actually needing a way to decrypt the phone. I guess it became a budget buster and they had to back off.

- Collapse -
(NT) I think you guys are right.
Mar 23, 2016 9:31AM PDT
- Collapse -
Made me think of this scent in THX 1138.
Mar 23, 2016 9:53AM PDT
- Collapse -
Data storage is more like your mind than your home.
Mar 18, 2016 6:11PM PDT

Let me just start by saying that I think Renegade is on the right track, suggesting that governments have some ability to penetrate encryption and other privacy protections, and I would suggest they do this through meta data that is usually unencrypted. I also disagree with your assumption that "Clearly Apple has the capacity to software their way into an iPhone but have refused to do so." There are some known procedures, of course, and the FBI actually ordered the simple solution to be cancelled out when they had the password reset. Please note that if Apple really had software developed, the secret would have already leaked. In my opinion, the problem is that privacy is under attack from many fronts, and even our homes can be subject to undetected surveillance via our windows (glass vibrating allows sounds to be detected with a laser beam), cell phones, computers, and good old "bugs". But, imagine the government forcing cement companies to make a substance that would instantly make hardened cement crumble "so they could control hostage situations better". That is what Apple is being asked to do with the iPhone, and we already know how safe information can be when law enforcement uses it in cases. There is a reason why some "Witness Protection Programs" don't document anything.

To conclude, we need private places for our physical documents as well as for our digital content. And, yes, we need the ability to bury information where even we can't find it if we lose the key to the lock. Otherwise, freedom can be easily compromised by those who would misuse the power of knowing our secrets.

Mind you, I've lived in countries where "privacy" was not really possible. And I don't want the US to lose its focus on freedom, justice, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness.

- Collapse -
Need versus Want
Mar 19, 2016 8:11AM PDT

While I'm not a great Apple fan (too expensive) on this occasion, I think that Tim Cook is right and he should continue to resist the current FBI request. In some respect, it's similar to when I was with a computer manufacturer, customers would call and describe what they wanted to buy, not what problem they were trying to solve. That's bad because they can only frame their request in terms of what they know - there may be a better solution to their problem just around the corner.

That said, if the FBI have an indication, with some justification that obviously can only be circumstantial, that there is data on the iPhone in question that is material to their investigation into this atrocity, then it is perfectly reasonable that they should go to whatever level of judge necessary to request a warrant for that data. If the judge agrees, then he can issue a warrant to Apple to extract all the data from the iPhone in question, decrypt any encrypted material and deliver it to the FBI. Thus, the FBI obtain the information they NEED. This is exactly analagous to a warrant for say a business ledger in a fraud case. The need is for the information, not the physical media.

I doubt many people would object to supplying the DATA if it prevented just one future atrocity of the same nature.

What is NOT reasonable is for the FBI to request Apple to modify the iPhone software to provide a back door to allow them to access the data via the device. This would not only provide them with unfettered access to this particular iPhone but every other iPhone on the planet. It would also violate the legislation in many countries designed to ensure data privacy. This request would be for what the FBI WANT, not what they NEED.

Using the alternative approach I suggested above, Tim Cook's principles would not be compromised, Apple's primciples would not be compromised, the world's iPhones would not be compromised, the FBI would get the information they need and iPhone data privacy would be protected by judge's warrant at the device level. What's not to like?

As always, your mileage may vary.

Disclaimer, I am not an American citizen so my understanding of your legal system is limited.

Zouch.