
Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone - dnetesn
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/technology/mark-zuckerberg-backs-apple-in-its-refusal-to-unlock-iphone.html?ref=technology
======
haberman
I'm really trying to figure out what this case is really about, vs. what the
players are saying it is about.

The government says it just wants to unlock this one iPhone. But is it really
just looking for a legal precedent in a case that the public is likely to
support the unlocking?

Apple says is it afraid of creating a "master key" that could fall into the
wrong hands. But doesn't it already have such a key, in the form of a signing
key controlling what payloads the iPhone will agree to load? Is Apple
primarily concerned with both precedent and perception of security on its
phones?

I personally feel that any mechanism by which iPhones could be unlocked with a
warrant -- but _only_ with a warrant (ie. the gov't physically lacks the
capability to do it themselves) -- is a good compromise. It's in Apple's
interest to push back on such requests, so you have two powerful and well-
funded entities adversarially fighting to define the line of what can get
unlocked and what can't.

Now NSL's, those are a whole different kettle of fish.

~~~
altitudinous
It is about the precedent. Consider that the current fully secure Apple device
situation is point A, and the fully exploited your private data is easily
extracted by criminals easily cracked Apple device situation is point Z.

The FBI is currently arguing for point B - just this device. The argument is -
it is so close to point A, there is no issue!

If the FBI wins point B, then they will argue for point C. - it is so close to
point B, there is no issue!

If the FBI wins point C, then they will argue for point D. - it is so close to
point C, there is no issue!

Repeat over and over.

At about point M or sooner an exploit or the extraction processes to the
gradually less secure device would probably become available to governments
through means legal or otherwise and we would probably hit point Z straight
away.

Apple are trying to stop the inevitable by not starting, the FBI are arguing
for point B.

~~~
XorNot
This is step by step slippery slope fallacy.

You are not addressing the issue at hand. You are instead arguing that if we
somehow don't take your side here, then there will never be another point at
which we can argue the pros and cons of possible subsequent escalations or
refusals.

Which is why it's a fallacy.

~~~
Angostura
Alternatively, it may be an example of an actual slippery slope - and
therefore not a fallacy.

------
acqq
Don't forget, one of the issues is: on which legal basis is Apple requested to
help:

The question is, is this act (the whole text follows):

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act)

"(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue
all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions
and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.

(b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a
court which has jurisdiction."

a reasonable legal ground in this case to demand from a company to _change
their products,_ in this case make a special version of the operating system?
Is this act good to mean "we can order anything to anybody"? Especially when
there is "the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1992"
(CALEA).

"All Writs" appears to be too dangerous to be used for precedents like this
one, "change your products to help us." What is the next requested change
going to be? Give us the change you've made ("obviously not an "unnecessary
burden" anymore"). Make more changes, permanently. ("you've agreed already
before!").

~~~
sieveoferos
I agree there's a legitimate question about the legal basis for the FBI's
request. But assume rational behavior on the part of the FBI here: if they had
a more solid legal basis for the request, why wouldn't they use it? The fact
they didn't provide one implies the key issue in the debate is the extent to
which private companies should legally have to provide help for investigations
(bear in mind the FBI is fairly budget-constrained). I actually find it
difficult to see a lot of malice in the FBI's actions. They've forced a
"public" debate (really just within the tech industry, but I think that's the
useful definition of "public" for this issue). I think it's disingenuous to
complain about national security letters, then turn around and whip the FBI
for bringing an issue _more_ into the public consciousness. (I think they've
taken advantage of the San Bernardino shootings to force the debate, but
that's exactly how you force a debate.) Finally - I see the FBI's behavior as
a sign of progress. This isn't the bad old days of Skipjack and NSA backdoors
in Official Windows - times have changed, the tech has changed (and improved),
but I see the government's behavior on the whole trending toward being _more_
democratic, not less.

~~~
acqq
> They've forced a "public" debate

Didn't Tim Cook force it this time?

------
noelsusman
Can somebody explain to me why Apple couldn't create this exploited OS and
restrict it to only run on the specific device in question?

If that's the case, then they could post the source code on Github and it
wouldn't make any difference. Modifying the code to remove the device
restrictions would invalidate the signature and any iPhone would refuse to run
it. Isn't that the whole point of code signing?

I'm finding it hard to see how Apple's stance is anything other than
meaningless grandstanding. Since the vulnerability already exists, the
security of similar iPhones is currently reliant on the security of Apple's
private signing key. After releasing this exploited OS, the security of
similar iPhones would still rely on the security of Apple's private signing
key. Nothing at all would change, it's Apple's fault for allowing this
vulnerability to be there in the first place.

Where am I wrong on this? I've been hoping Apple would answer this question
for me but instead I've just gotten more hyperbole.

~~~
Pyxl101
They probably could build a version of the OS that worked only for single
devices. In the latest court case about San Bernadino, that's what the FBI is
asking for. There's a unique device id, as I understand it, that the OS could
detect. I believe that Apple is opposing it on principle, and out of concern
of the precedent that it would set. Once it's been done once, the fact that
it's been done will significantly lower the bar for it to be done in other
circumstances.

~~~
vectorjohn
Yes, it's clearly on principle, or more likely for PR. But the problem is,
there is no principle here. What, that a company should be able to refuse
legal requests for evidence? I would HOPE the barrier to entry would be
lowered after this. The FBI shouldn't get a rubber stamp to search information
like this, but if they DO have probable cause, of course they should have
access. Apple has zero legs to stand on here.

~~~
spencefu
It's not a request for evidence. If it were, there would indeed be no leg to
stand on. It's a request to do work. It is a legal compulsion to build
something against their will.

~~~
vectorjohn
What request for evidence can you imagine that doesn't involve some work? It
always involves some, maybe even a lot. They're not trying to get Apple to
write a whole new OS despite how Apple is trying to spin it.

------
neom
Given what I saw when I was at DO, everyone should back apple in their refusal
to unlock the iPhone.

~~~
exodust
No. Everyone should _not_ back Apple. Let's crack that phone open.

We then want Apple to improve their security so that no such request by
governments would be possible in future. Tighten the security so that not even
a special custom version of iOS would make a difference to the self destruct
measures in place. Then we wouldn't need to waste any time arguing about it.

~~~
marcoperaza
I've been trying to stir conversation on this point, to little success
unfortunately. The whole affair is pretty damning for the tech industry. The
people who should know better are parroting Apple's deceptive claims, and many
more are just hopping on the anti-surveillance anti-FBI/NSA bandwagon because
it fits their political narrative.

Just to be clear, I'm against mandated backdoors in products. I should be
allowed to make my product as secure as I want to, even against myself. Yes,
that might hinder government search and seizure, but that's the government's
problem, not mine. I agree with Apple and most other tech companies on this.

But Apple isn't being asked to _create_ a backdoor. The door already exists,
and was voluntarily created by Apple. Apple has all of the tools and knowledge
in its possession to walk through it. Whether that's the PIN itself (it's
not), or the code-signing key and source code needed to disable attack
mitigations (without which a 4-digit PIN is worthless), doesn't make a
difference. As you observe, they could design the phone such that this attack
is not possible. They did not, even though they've been claiming otherwise for
years now.

All of the arguments in favor of Apple boil down to a general opposition to
government search and seizure, worries about damage to Apple's reputation, a
claim that code-signing occupies a privileged legal position (akin to
attorney-client privilege), or a slippery-slope argument that the government
will ask for mandated backdoors on all iPhones next. None of these has a
chance in court. I'm more and more convinced that Apple is well aware of how
legally wrong it is, and is just doing this to save face over erroneously
advertising that their phones were secure even against Apple itself (and
therefore any government coercion of Apple).

If someone is going to challenge me on this, please answer this two-part
question: If Apple had the phone's PIN stored in their database, do you think
the government should be able to compel them to hand it over? And why is that
any different?

~~~
intrasight
I disagree, and here's why it is different. If Apple had a "thing" and a
warrant said "give us this thing", then Apple would be compelled to turn over
the thing. But Apple doesn't have this thing (the software to hack their own
security). The government is saying "make us this thing", ie asking Apple to
execute the warrant - which is unprecedented - it's the governments job to
execute the warrant not a private company's.

~~~
marcoperaza
So if instead, the government asked for Apple's source code, build system,
code-signing key, and flashing hardware, would that be okay to you?

It's not completely unprecedented to require active assistance from a third-
party. There's a Supreme Court case about this very issue, _United States vs
New York Telephone Co_. The FBI wanted New York Telephone to install
monitoring hardware on their premises and assist the government in its
operation. The district court issued an order to that effect. The company
offered to instead give the FBI only information, which the FBI could then use
to install and maintain the system themselves. The Supreme Court ultimately
ruled in favor of the FBI.

The main criteria that people have read out of that case is "unreasonable
burden". I don't think that the FBI's request to Apple is an "unreasonable
burden", especially since the government will pay for any costs. The biggest
burden will be on Apple's reputation, but that is self-inflicted from making
claims (honestly or not) that ultimately weren't true. I can't imagine the
court allowing Apple to keep its technical assistance from the government.

~~~
intrasight
Yeah, actually that would be ok with me. Because those are "things". But if
there is a legal precedent for demanding services, then I guess my point is
mute. I guess Apple could charge one billion dollars per person/hour. That
MIGHT be enough to cover their costs.

------
tbabb
What kind of a democracy do we live in where we rely on corporations to
protect the people from an overreaching government?

~~~
altitudinous
Apple believes they are serving the people by protecting their privacy. The
FBI believes they are serving the people by hunting down terrorists.

Just two different beliefs in what serving the people means.

~~~
pcurve
That's what apple wants us to believe, but they also have powerful financial
interest in the matter. No one has called them out on it yet because it would
be rather unpopular to do so.

~~~
Johnny555
I don't think they do have much financial interest in this -- if they cave and
give the FBI what they want, Google will cave too (if they haven't already).
Regardless of what Apple does in this case, they are going to sell billions of
dollars of iPhones.

There may be a few hardcore privacy advocates that buy an iPhone because of
this, but it's not going to make any significant change in sales.

And as for criminals, well most of them don't know or care about encryption
and aren't thinking far enough ahead about what would happen if the cops
seized their phones. The organized "professional" criminals aren't going to
rely on device encryption to protect their secrets.

And of course, the cynic in me thinks that Apple (et al) has already given the
FBI what they want and this whole case is just public posturing to make the
world think that iPhones are immune to government snooping.

------
yyyuuu
I really wonder sometimes about the great gap there lies between the problems
that we face in third world v/s the problems that are faced by people in first
world countries.

Here in Delhi, and even more so in rural parts of India, connectivity to
services like internet,banking,healthcare etc. is still a luxury for the
majority. Most people here wouldn't even understand this hot issue of iPhone
unlocking request by FBI.

When I see folks on HN, indulge passionately in discussing the most minute
detail of this Apple issue, I really wonder how long would it take for my
country (or for that matter, the majority of the world population that still
lives in poverty and distress) to come to a stage where we can start thinking
about the next basic right that comes once you have achieved the food, water,
shelter part of life, that being privacy.

~~~
touristtam
I am with you on that, despite the fact that I am part of the rich 20% world
population [1]. But you will probably find this issue to be drown soon enough
under the flow of other first world news our media love to swamp us with.

That being said, I believe part of the issue is the balance of power has
changed into corporate hands with marketing taking a front role into leading
us (the mass of consumers). The morale values that were one of the corner
stones of previous institutions like the Church or the State to motivate
nations are now just another commodity traded openly by economical actors that
have but one goal: the bottom line.

Should we find a way to coerce those ruling private entities that are
corporation into performing actions that would benefit the rest of the
society, we might actually be able to spread the wealth a bit better. Until
then, you and me are bound to fight over the left overs of those new
overlords.

Sorry for the long rant, which is partly ironic.

[1]: [http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/13/half-world-
weal...](http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/13/half-world-wealth-in-
hands-population-inequality-report)

------
rconti
>“I don’t think building back doors is the way to go, so we’re pretty
sympathetic to Tim and Apple,” said Mr. Zuckerberg

Shortened the article for ya.

~~~
exodust
Nice one.

And not only that, but "backdoor" isn't accurate. It's not what has been
requested. "Backdoor" sounds more provocative though, and helps build numbers
for the Apple side of the debate.

If Apple can crack the phone open, let's see it happen. And then after that,
they should improve iOS security so not even Apple can crack it.

I'm not impressed that Apple can if they wanted to, build in a system to
weaken my phone's security. They should patch that opportunity in the next
release.

~~~
whybroke
Backdoor is not what is not mentioned today but it is what will be sought when
Apple does make an unbreakable phone.

If a loudly media backed ruling to force Apple to comply with the FBI is then
followed by Apple making a phone which makes it impossible to comply with such
requests in the future, it will much easier to get legislation or rulings
requiring the all phones have an inbuilt backdoor.

This is why the FBI is forcing Apple specifically to do what they or another
organization (eg McAfee) might do. Especially since the phone in question,
while spectacular from a media perspective, probably has very little
interesting on it.

~~~
vectorjohn
What Apple should have done is quietly comply and NOT set a precedent. Then
quietly make it impossible to comply on later phones. Instead they're making a
scene about an issue they probably will and should lose.

~~~
aljones
The order came from a public court. According to an article in the nytimes
Apple asked the FBI to keep it secret.

------
dredmorbius
I don't often find reason to praise Facebook, but this would be one.

When news of the FBI's demands to Apple first appeared, I hoped to hear from
Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon, as online service providers. Mozilla
and Wikimedia as related infrastructure. Also Samsung, LG, Lenovo, and Dell,
as hardware providers, and T-Mobile as a mobile services provider (AT&T and
Verizon are assumed to be in the tank with the FBI/NSA/CIA).

This puts the list of supporters at Twitter, Google, and Facebook. Good work.

Waiting on Microsoft and Amazon.

[https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/PyMCaHdE...](https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/PyMCaHdEUen)

~~~
vinay427
Why is Mozilla not on your list of supporters?

[http://www.npr.org/2016/02/19/467318811/mozilla-
foundation-b...](http://www.npr.org/2016/02/19/467318811/mozilla-foundation-
backs-apple-in-encryption-case-with-federal-government)

~~~
dredmorbius
I wasn't aware they'd put out a statement. I was rather hoping they had. Thank
you.

------
PascalsMugger
The nightmare scenario is as follows.

Sure, unlocking this one phone sounds pretty reasonable. Apple will maintain
control of the unlock mechanism, the FBI gets it warrant obliged, end of
story. This is what the government side is spinning (see the nytimes op-ed
today from William Bratton, NYC police commissioner).

The reality is that is _not_ the end of the story. New York City has already
said they have 200 phones waiting to be unlocked. Given an FBI win in the
case, and Apple building the unlock mechanism, there's no reasonable defense
against these unlocks. And this is _just one city_.

I wonder how many full time Apple employees would be required to service the
steady flow of requests from law enforcement across the world to unlock
phones. Hundreds? Thousands? I'm sure they already have law enforcement
liaisons, but we're talking a whole other level of commitment in order to
essentially create a worldwide law enforcement IT help desk.

Somewhere during the process of industrializing the unlocking of phones, a lot
of people are going to start saying it would make sense if Apple would just
provide the ability to unlock directly to law enforcement agencies. That would
solve the problem of law enforcement heavily burdening Apple with all these
requests.

Assuming Apple capitulated to that (presumably forced to capitulate because I
doubt Tim Cook would do it willingly), we finally reach the nightmare scenario
where access to the unlocker is no longer strictly enforceable and it's only a
matter of time to where criminals have it. This is a true Pandora's Box,
because there's no patch that will plug this hole.

This is a true slippery slope, in that its progression is all but assured. The
only thing capable of stopping it is to have hardware that is incapable of
having an unlocker created for it. Hopefully that's where we're at with newer
phones, although that seems to not be fully confirmed. It's one thing for law
enforcement to make Apple open a lock it has the capability to open. It's
another to require that Apple make their product less secure than they
otherwise would make it. I don't see that happening through the courts. At the
very least, it would require an act of congress, probably followed with a
lengthy court battle over the constitionality of such a requirement.

------
pcurve
This is an interesting tug of war. Considering 50% of Americans are taking the
opposite stance, the SV elites are in the minority. (35%) Yet no pro-
government business executive has emerged. I guess it's a risky position to
take.

I have a feeling the government will eventually figure out a way to get its
way without our realizing.

~~~
uptown
I consider the "50% of Americans" stat to be useless. This is a complicated
topic for technologists to grasp. To expect the general public to understand
the implications of what they're being asked in order to provide an informed
answer is a stretch.

~~~
pcurve
It is a complicated topic but we can't just ignore general public that takes
on position without realizing its implications. For decades, general public
had opposed marijuana, even when half of them have used them before.

~~~
karmelapple
Correct. The court of public opinion may not sway technologists, but it will
determine what law makers feel the need to propose, based on their
constituents demands.

We have to make it very easy for the general public to understand what's going
on at an incredibly simple, "oh I get it" gut level.

Simple words communicated simply will go a long ways to showing the importance
of keeping good security practices in place in our tech.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
> but it will determine what law makers feel the need to propose, based on
> their constituents demands.

Where can I sign up for _that_ Congress? Is that opt-in? Because that sounds
great.

~~~
prewett
Probably wouldn't have the effect you are looking for. Corporations are
constituents, too, being legally a person. Even if not, the owners are
certainly constituents, and most large public companies have a large number of
shareholders. 55% of Americans own stock (down from 62% in 2008) [1] So if
that 55% constituency demands laws that you don't want, the result is that you
are outvoted.

[1] [http://www.gallup.com/poll/182816/little-change-
percentage-a...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/182816/little-change-percentage-
americans-invested-market.aspx)

------
droopybuns
Good for Mark. Not an easy position to justify to shareholders. I can think of
one ceo who is outrageously cowardly in contrast.

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/att-ceo-wont-
join...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/att-ceo-wont-join-tim-
cook-in-fight-against-encryption-backdoors/)

~~~
studentrob
That's unsurprising. Didn't Snowden say AT&T was always willing to help the
NSA?

Plus their CEO studied accounting. When you see a tech company led by someone
without an engineering degree or somewhat similar experience, its days are
numbered.

~~~
tlrobinson
Mark Klein did first:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A)

------
alttab
This article does nothing to explain anything that Zuckerberg said that might
illuminate his position.

All he said, according to this article, was:

"I don’t think building back doors is the way to go, so we’re pretty
sympathetic to Tim and Apple.”

“It’s disappointing to the mission that we’re trying to do.”

We're talking about a company that gives away your information to FBI, CIA,
and publicly via an API. Of course they are going about it the wrong way - you
just simply give them the data to begin with, as a business model.

------
Iv
Ok, a few question for someone who has been a bit too depressed to follow the
latest evolutions since the Snowden revelations:

\- If the NSA approached Apple to ask for the same, would it be legal for
Apple to talk about it? To refuse it?

\- Hasn't the NSA already done that?

\- Would the Chinese government allow a non-backdoored iPhone on their market?

I am sorry but I really do not see any reason to believe that Apple's devices
are not already rooted to the core. This one FBI issue seems to be a perfect
PR occasion.

~~~
romanovcode
It's really is a win-win situation for both parties:

Apple gets to be shown as a customer-knight in shining armor defending their
customers to the bone.

Government gets to convince public that they don't already have the data.

------
Falkon1313
What I'm not seeing people talk about is whether the FBI should be allowed to
force someone to do something unethical, immoral, and/or criminal. Generally
speaking, breaking into a system that you aren't authorized to access, or
creating and distributing tools that allow other people to do so, is
considered 'bad'. Shouldn't Apple have every right to say no, that's wrong,
I'm not going to do that?

Governments have ordered people to do bad things before. How do you view those
who justified their evil actions with excuses like "I was just following
orders" or "just doing my job"? Is it right for our government to put people
into that situation -- not just government employees or their
targets/adversaries, but neutral 3rd parties?

If a policeman ordered you to do something repulsively bad that would harm
your family, friends, and neighbors, would you not want to be able to say no?

That view doesn't require any great technical knowledge of cryptography or
hardware/software/etc. Pretty much anyone could understand it. Yet no one
seems to be mentioning it.

~~~
Mikho
Actually FBI has device owner permission to access the information. There is
nothing immoral here. Immoral here is Apple reaction and time wasting while
there could be information to stop next terrorist attack.

The situation is like owner of a device forgetting his code and ask a phone
maker to help unlock the device the user owns to get info. FBI does not ask
for some backdoor or unique access key. FBI does not ask to get access to
unauthorized private information.

FBI ask for Apple to not brick the phone and not erase all information while
FBI tries different device locking codes—FBI does not want to crack the
encryption. It is not about cracking encryption at all.

In this particular case Apple is doing wrong and it looks like a PR show. It
is not about encryption, it is not about backdoor, it is not about universal
key to access private information, it is not about surveillance, it is not
about privacy, and it is not about unauthorized access. It's about getting to
potentially life saving information that FBI has official permission to get
from the device owner.

------
ryan-allen
Facebook don't encrypt our private chats to my knowledge and I have read
articles of immigration agents having access to private Facebook chats [1].

So given this seems to be the case, isn't Zuck a huge hypocrite and this is
just a PR stunt?

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5864427](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5864427)

------
bunkydoo
Zuckerberg seems to be a bit of a fair weathered fan for privacy. Facebook has
traditionally been very if not entirely compliant with providing government
agencies with data. Due to a couple occurances with my personal use of
Facebook, I have found that it is quite likely that they even do
extracurricular surveillance as well. Just my opinion

------
veeranimous
I might be conspirator here. but I heard Apple did worked with govt several
incidents. This whole thing appears like a setup to trust these corporations
who's bread and butter is selling our data for profit.(where does ethics come
here?). a company which bought WhatsApp for billions of dollars and providing
service for free is not doing a charity. especially it's stock holders won't
be happy about it. it appears like a setup to gain trust on these corporations
which govt, corporations continue to use. I don't have a problem personally,
if it helps to catch a terrorist. but I dont trust profit based corporations
talking about ethics. it's just a PR stunt.

------
nickik
Apple should just build their sysyem so that it can not be backdoored. Make
the TrustedZone non upgradable or give the signingkey to the use (Smartcard in
the package of the phone). User can either keep or destroy the key, as they
see fit.

More security for everybody. No backdoors. The FBI can as for speciak version
all they want.

To be sure, they could still ask apple for a prober backdoor, but at least
they can anker it to a individuel case.

------
melted
Prediction: within 2 years Apple will have iPhone 7s, on which no one can
bypass the encryption no matter what. All they'd have to do is put secure
enclave software into ROM burned at the factory, and make it self-destruct if
it's tampered with. "Sorry officer, not even we can bypass exponential back-
off on this CPU."

------
giancarlostoro
If we want to keep fighting issues like these we need all tech companies /
CEO's to voice the issues with these problems and all future tech related
problems, these lawmakers really shouldn't be allowed to make laws without the
backing of all / most / reasonable number of the tech giants, just because
"GoDaddy" supports it isn't good enough, if "enemies" are on the same page
with a bill then you might be in the right direction.

------
JumpCrisscross
Please call your representative and senators about this. Not email, not mail -
call. Even if it means holding for half an hour. It makes a difference, and
they need to hear us.

------
gaelian
_" While these companies have said they would comply, when legally obliged to,
with handing over information on their users, they say they believe that
creating technological back doors to their digital systems can lead to
potential abuse by governments worldwide."_

This article is overlooking that it's not only governments that people would
have to worry about if intentional backdoors are implemented.

------
keitmo
I'm not much for conspiracy theories, so I decided to make my own.

<tinfoil> What if the FBI's request is just a ruse to obscure the fact that
the NSA has already unlocked & decrypted the phone and found evidence needed
in the criminal charges? </tinfoil>

------
Mikho
One of the interesting issues here is that national security depends on the
corporation decision and the actually corporation can access the information
on the device, but does not want to help the government to protect people from
potential terrorist attack. FBI does not ask for backdoor codes and does not
ask for breaking encryption and does not ask access to unauthorized info—the
phone owner granted the permission. The only thing FBI ask is to not brick the
phone and not erase the info while it tries different device locking code
combination. There is nothing here that would break privacy or encryption.

------
robbiet480
Anyone have video of this yet?

------
DeepYogurt
Good.

------
pbreit
I feel like my positioned has changed a bit now that it is clearer the iPhone
is owned by the same party that wants to recover the data?

~~~
Etheryte
This comment doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever, care to expand on what
you meant?

~~~
pbreit
I was originally wholly on the side of Apple since I place an exceedingly high
value on privacy and against government intrusion. But now that I understand
that the phone is the county's, it seems more like a case of a phone owner
just wanting to recover their own data. Thanks for the downvote, though!

~~~
spinlock
I think your being downvoted because the techies on hn are concerned with
security, not ownership. Apple complying with the government makes everyone
less secure. We aren't as worried about judicial over reach as we are with
creating tools that will be used to commit crimes.

Good security will keep out anyone that does not know the secret. That
includes "owners." The concept of ownership is irrelevant to the design of a
secure system.

~~~
thrownear
>I think your being downvoted because the techies on hn are concerned with
security, not ownership.

I made this post last day [1]. It received 3 votes.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11149716](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11149716)

~~~
spinlock
Please don't get discouraged. People might have misunderstood what you meant.
There's also the problem with asking other people to spend their time and
money on your request. If you want this to happen, you should provide a proof
of concept and get people excited about buying it. If you develop a market,
others will implement your solution.

