
Apple files final response in San Bernardino iPhone case - rbcgerard
http://www.sbsun.com/government-and-politics/20160315/apple-files-final-response-in-san-bernardino-iphone-case
======
ridgeguy
This seems like an instance in which a small number of people could strongly
affect an outcome - in which civil disobedience could matter.

For Apple to comply with the court's order would require some of its employees
to act. If whoever at Apple is told to comply with the court's order declines
to do so, then what? If every Apple employee asked to supply information to
the FBI refuses, then what? If every coder Apple tries to hire to comply with
the court order declines to come aboard...how will the FBI get what it wants?

Of course, those critical people would have to be willing to lose their jobs
or not accept employment.

Long ago, Rosa Parks declined to give up her seat on the bus in favor of a
white passenger. She was arrested for it, and we have a better country for her
pains.

This is an opportunity for Parks v.2016 - if you're asked by Apple to do
anything to comply with the court order, don't do it.

~~~
einarvollset
Do you honestly think Rosa Parks risking her life and limb to protest racial
injustice is even remotely equivalent to an engineer at Apple refusing to
comply with a court order to look at the information on the iPhone's of the
two nut jobs that killed:

Shannon Johnson Bennetta Bet-Badal Aurora Godoy Isaac Amanios Larry Kaufman
Harry Bowman Yvette Velasco Sierra Clayborn Robert Adams Nicholas Thalasinos
Tin Nguyen Juan Espinoza Damian Meins Michael Wetzel

?

Listen, I understand you feel passionate about securing your privacy, but it
would likely help your case to keep things a little more in perspective

~~~
zephyz
Your behaviour exactly illustrates the equivalent between the two: arbitrary
social pressure against what is, I would argue, better for humanity.

Thankfully, we have strong smart influencal people taking a stand for
us,humans. And we should appreciate that.

And I don't think I'm risking too much by saying that dodging an authoritarian
surveillance regime is better for humanity.

Finally, I understand that people dying is scary, but let me put things in
perspective for you: Should the death of a finite number of people put at risk
7 billions lives and the lives of their children for centuries?

Edit: few -> finite

~~~
einarvollset
Here's the frustrating bit for me though: the FBI going to the courts, getting
a court order, and asking for that court order to be executed, is very
different from "an authoritarian surveillance regime". It is _exact_ opposite.
If the FBI didn't do it this way, what exactly should they do? Whenever they
come up against anything that was signed with an AES key, just go "oh well,
can't get it"? Today your phone content has that kind of key, what's to stop
that being used elsewhere?

~~~
the_ancient
>Here's the frustrating bit for me though: the FBI going to the courts,
getting a court order, and asking for that court order to be executed, is very
different from "an authoritarian surveillance regime".

The frustrating bit for me is that many people believe that a courts power is
unlimited and that simply by virtu of the FBI obtaining a rubber stamp from a
court it makes their demand A OK... makes their demand ethical, moral, or
constitutional.

The frustrating bit for me is that many people on the side of the FBI believe
because people died in a terrorist act that justifies any loss of privacy and
liberty for anyone now and in the future.

>and asking for that court order to be executed, is very different from "an
authoritarian surveillance regime". It is exact opposite

Actually it is not. Almost all Authoritarian Surveillance Regime are perfectly
legal, and have the full blessing of the Law and Courts in their
jurisdictions. In fact by having a courts approval, and the authorization
under law that makes it a surveillance __STATE __the key requirement of a
surveillance state is said surveillance happens legally.

>Whenever they come up against anything that was signed with an AES key, just
go "oh well, can't get it"?

Yes. There seems to be an idea that the FBI is entitled to, has a right to all
information at all times provided it ordered by a court somewhere. This flies
in the face of historical fact. Never in human history has law enforcement had
more information about its citizen, the needle is HEAVILY pointed in favor of
the government, Encryption gives the citizens some limited authority to take
that back. This idea that the government is entitled to know everything about
you under court order is naive and not based in reality or history.

~~~
pdabbadabba
There is an extremely significant fact that this line of argument ignores: the
FBI only seeks the ability to unlock a phone if it either has a warrant or (in
this case) has the consent of the phone's owner. This is a capability that it
already has for virtually every other type of phone--the only difference here
is the amount of technical effort required to make it happen. I have a very
hard time seeing how the FBI's ability to unlock a phone under these limited
circumstances means they are an "Authoritarian Surveillance Regime."

They are not asking for the ability to unlock any phone at any time for any
reason.

~~~
givinguflac
"They are not asking for the ability to unlock any phone at any time for any
reason."

When he was asked by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, “Does the NSA collect any type
of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

Director of National Intelligence and Admiral James Clapper: “No, sir.”

Wyden: “It does not?”

Clapper: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently
perhaps collect, but not wittingly.”

^These are the people you're saying "aren't asking" for the ability. They are
asking for a universal lock picking kit and the legal authority to strong-arm
any manufacturer into allowing access to the keys for their devices as well.
If you honestly believe that they wouldn't use these tools for other cases
beyond this one phone, I've got this amazing bridge you may be interested in.

~~~
pdabbadabba
That's the beginning of a perfectly good argument that the activities _of the
NSA_ make the U.S. a surveillance state. (Though I don't, ultimately, agree
with it.) But it has nothing to do at all with the topic under discussion
which is whether the capability that the FBI seeks to unlock iPhones would
turn the U.S. into a surveillance state.

And I never said anything about a single phone. I fully expect that the FBI
would use this capability to unlock lots of other phones either with the
owner's permission, or with a warrant. (Just as they do today, with every
other type of phone.)

------
staunch
Tim Cook has done a lot at Apple, but this ethical stand will likely be the
most important thing he does in his life. It's a big fucking deal.

~~~
wonderlust
The story is that the last piece of advice jobs gave tim was to do what he
thought was right. I don't think he's trying to be a martyr or anything, but I
bet he's trying to do what's right in the situation. Knowing they'll fight
this sort of battle really had me considering apple products again honestly,
and I gave up that train long ago.

~~~
tajen
However, I still see no mention of protecting other nationalities. E.g. I'm
French, since the 2015 attacks we have a law saying companies should snitch,
the iPhone could very well save my fingerprint/pw outside the secure enclave
if it ever needs to unlock it. I want to believe Apple is the one company that
respects my privacy. Please, Apple, say your device fits my expectations.

~~~
samastur
They already did. Last time is in this latest brief where they say there is
only one version of OS for all devices in all countries. Same is true for
their other services (also mentioned in brief).

------
slicktux
The fact of the matter is that U.S. founders would be appalled by DOJ IPhone
request, but the common people are not; that is a problem. It is a problem
because the U.S. founders made the U.S. Constitution to tell the Federal
Government that the people are free, not the other way around; The U.S.
Constitution has a purpose and not a meaning e.g. Article 1 Section 8 of the
constitution; The fact that a federal government entity, such as the DOJ,
wants access to a private 'citizens'' (yes, legally corporations are people)
intellectual property is unconstitutional. This, sadly, illustrates the
mindset of the Federal Government and the status-quo. What happened to the
people being jurisprudence? The Federal Government is unbound and reckless and
it needs to be bound; bound by the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution
that was philosophically created to serve a purpose, and that is Limited
Federal Government. . .everyone seems to start in the middle of a problem, but
never the beginning. Beginning here being The Federal Government and the
problems it has propagated. Maybe then people will realize that its solutions
are just problems, solutions that solve problems they created. Now, apropos to
the topic. . .yes the founders would be appalled and so should the people. The
appeal to the founders argument is an appeal to look back to history and
identify with true political values that made this country so great. Else you
can just "sit back and listen and they will tell you when you'r wrong. . ."

~~~
gamblor956
The Founder Fathers would most certainly not be appalled by the DOJ iPhone
request. After all, a Congress consisting of many of the _actual_ Founding
Fathers passed the Sedition Act (of 1798), which suppressed the right to
criticize the government, and the Alien Friends Act, which allowed for the
deportation of non-citizens without any due process.

Having lived through a weak government (the Articles of Confederation), the
Founding Fathers viewed the Constitution as _empowering_ the Federal
Government, not restricting it.

~~~
slicktux
Maybe you should read the Sedition act a little more carefully. . .it is
applicable to any attempt of sedition when one criticizes the government while
abiding by the constitution __ __" to intimidate or prevent any person holding
a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from
undertaking, performing, or executing his trust or duty: and if any person or
persons. . .by the powers invested to they/them [entity] by the U.S.
Constitution. . ."

~~~
Amezarak
Look at the people arrested under the Sedition Act and the purpose with which
it was passed. It was passed, and used, by the Federalists to suppress the
more outspoken Democratic-Republicans, some of whom were arrested for doing
nothing more than criticizing the government.

~~~
slicktux
It's interesting that you point that out; Since the Sedition Act was passed by
a Federalist dominated party it only further supports my premise of the U.S.
Constitution having a purpose not a meaning for interpretation, which is what
the Federalists were doing. . .they wanted to expand the Federal Government
(Nationalize), Central Banking System and relationships with the British
Monarchy (empire) for which was the complete antithesis of the purpose for the
constitution. We are getting into the follies of going against the
constitution __*past and present (as Thomas Jefferson always argued); we are
digging deep; and that is good. Now, why is the U.S.A a Democratic Republic
and not a Democracy? Why is the power to coin money a job exclusive to the
Federal Government? (article 1 section 8) (as opposed to the FIAT system of
today? I ask you

------
studentrob
There's another thread about this on the front page right now [1]

I suggest that we as technologists get together and inform the public about
this issue. I don't know if the EFF is contacting congressmen or not, but we
should be informing them and making ourselves available for their questions
should they have any about computer technology.

I propose that we,

1\. seek out public figures and media who can share our message

2\. come up with more concise messaging that is understandable by a non-techie

3\. back it up with facts and primary sources

John Oliver is not enough. All the tech companies is not enough. This is as
big as or bigger than SOPA. When we fought SOPA, we didn't have the
possibility that people could blame us in the future for terrorist attacks if
that bill did not pass. If and when we fight an anti-encryption bill, we will
be fighting that alarmist view. We will make it much easier on ourselves if we
seek to educate the public about the issues and let them make up their own
minds.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293949](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293949)

~~~
bhaumik
Bernie Sanders would have the most leverage. His stance on privacy:
[http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-privacy-and-
digital...](http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-privacy-and-digital-
rights/).

If contacting the campaign team directly doesn't work, you can make a thread
on /r/sandersforpresident or join the Coders for Sanders slack group to
influence that group. The devs behind berniesanders.com are active on there
too.

~~~
studentrob
It's a great idea in theory. Can you reach him or someone on his team?

I've tried to reach Bernie but have no contacts. Supposedly we're 6 degrees
apart but I don't know the path. I tried contacting Ben Cohen of Ben &
Jerry's, who is one of his supporters and an activist himself, but didn't hear
back.

People are reluctant to address the issue on his subreddit. I've tried posting
extensive information on the subject twice already [1] [2]

His supporters are not even informed enough themselves.

It's up to us and the EFF to get the message out there.

[1]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/474b28...](https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/474b28/sanders_would_look_great_if_he_sided_with_apple/)

[2]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu...](https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu/the_mass_surveillance_debate_kicked_off_by/)

EDIT: I'm trying via the coders for sanders slack group now

~~~
bhaumik
I don't have any personal connections but you can try reaching out to someone
on the campaign team [1] over Twitter. It's still a shot in the dark but
you're more likely to get their attention there than over email.

[1]
[http://www.p2016.org/sanders/sandersorg.html](http://www.p2016.org/sanders/sandersorg.html)

~~~
studentrob
I've tweeted at a few groups and people recently [1]. Nobody replies or
communicates on that service. They just retweet and parrot their own
viewpoints.

I'll give it a shot though, thanks. I'm not really a twitter kind of person so
I admit I could be doing it wrong.

[1]
[https://twitter.com/studentrob/with_replies](https://twitter.com/studentrob/with_replies)

------
cjslep
I am disheartened that it takes the money, fame, and power of a
megacorporation just to meet the balance between individuals and government.

~~~
mangeletti
I agree, but this megacorporation is a direct result of the wants and needs of
individuals, so think of Apple as our collective bargaining leverage.

~~~
jonah
> "...the wants and needs of individuals"

Isn't that what the government is supposed to represent. Sigh...

~~~
panic
To be fair, Congress seems to be on Apple's side here. It's just our ever-
more-overreaching executive branch that's the issue.

~~~
mtgx
But they don't seem to be doing much to help Apple, though. They're just
letting this play through, just like they let the executive gain more and more
power and they didn't say anything or even encouraged it.

------
hoodoof
It takes the biggest, richest, most loved and most powerful companies to stand
up to the insane overreach of government authority. Even then everyone sucks
in their breath "Are they really daring to defy the power of the government?"

Everyone else, every other organisation is little people.

Sad that it came to be that governments rule the people instead of the
government serving the people.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
Yeah. Though, I would suggest that governments (in conjunction with or as
tools of unelected aristocrats, feudal overlords, warlords, strongmen, etc.)
have always ruled, and it's only in the past 200-300 years that the people
have started to take the power unto themselves.

Democracy's a very new and quite brilliant invention, really, when you look at
it in the perspective of tens of thousands of years of human social and
political development.

------
awinter-py
Ok but in the eyes of the law at the time, george washington was a terrorist
(in addition to being 6 feet tall and made of radiation). Of course a guy like
Paul Revere would have been pro-privacy. He needed privacy to deliver
intelligence on british troop movements.

Some legal scholars view the declaration of independence as part of the
constitution (and the primary part). But clearly any 'right to rebel' wasn't
recognized during the civil war. So we can conclude that the climate has
changed.

Notice that tim cook isn't out there fighting against apple's ability to push
code or fighting for me to install debian on my ipad. He's fighting for his
own institution's right to resist the orders of a larger institution. This is
like the magna carta -- it was about the rights of the british aristocracy,
not the lower gentry or the feudal labor force.

Now that they've crossed the IRS and DOJ off the list of federal agencies they
give a crap about, next on the list might be the DMV. Apple car anyone?

~~~
ams6110
There's never a right to rebel, that's sort of the definition of the word.
It's a reaction that comes about when all the legal avenues have been
exhausted or hit brick walls.

~~~
jMyles
You've missed GP's point.

If the DoI is a reflection of understood common law, and it asserts a right to
rebel (which, of course, it does), then there _is_ a right to rebel.

~~~
ams6110
Well, it asserts it as a right "when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute Despotism"

Which is not that different than "all legal avenues exhausted" but you're
correct, it does claim it as a literal right. Thanks for inspiring me to re-
read it.

------
deathanatos
Does anyone have a link to the response that Apple filed with the court? (The
article didn't seem to link to it anywhere, unfortunately.)

Edit: I seem to have found it:
[https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-
Cal-1...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-
Cal-16-Cm-00010-Dckt-000177-000-Filed-2016.pdf)

(Found via this article:
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160315/15505433916/apple...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160315/15505433916/apples-
response-to-doj-your-filing-is-full-blatantly-misleading-claims-outright-
falsehoods.shtml))

~~~
freck
See also the supplement where Apple picks apart many technical inaccuracies of
the DOJ's claims.

[https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762149/Supp-
Neue...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762149/Supp-
Neuenschwander-Decl-Executed.pdf)

------
chadrs
I never like the appeal to founding fathers argument as if it carries any
weight.

(1) They could barely agree on anything, so it's not like they would magically
agree today

(2) They would also be appalled by women's rights / civil rights, so I don't
think this is a good test

~~~
clarkmoody
Many of the founders detested slavery.

Also, most of them would be appalled at the size, scope, and influence of the
federal government/bureaucracy and the Supreme Court.

Of course a better appeal would be to the principles of liberty outlined in
the founding documents of the United States -- principles most of us take for
granted.

------
Gustomaximus
In the same way Apple shifts global tax to Ireland, could they shift the
encryption ownership (sorry - there's surely a better technical term I could
use) to an overseas holding company where this is likely to be quickly
dismissed? Essentially make it like suing Apple in an attempt to control
Google search results type thing... its simply a different entity.

~~~
zekevermillion
Huh... That may be possible! It would require Apple not being able to control
that entity, however. They would effectively have to outsource security (seems
like a dangerous plan). Also, the gov't could then simply outlaw the
outsourcing of security functions for device manufacturers.

~~~
alextgordon
They could use multiple signing keys. One in America, one in Hong Kong, one in
Germany, etc. If a firmware update is not signed in all (or N of M)
jurisdictions, the secure enclave simply rejects it.

~~~
btbuilder
This sounds like a good case for a threshold signature scheme[1] where no one
member has all of a complete key and can partially sign without revealing
their piece of the key to anyone.

[1]
[http://www.iacr.org/archive/eurocrypt2000/1807/18070209-new....](http://www.iacr.org/archive/eurocrypt2000/1807/18070209-new.pdf)

~~~
TillE
You don't actually need any new clever algorithms at all. At least on Windows,
you can simply sign code with multiple certificates.

~~~
btbuilder
Aren't all algorithms "clever" at some level? I assume you are implying non-
mainstream - that always carries risks, but there are some advantages:

1\. The software that verifies the certificate doesn't need to be changed -
which is quite an advantage if it has already been shipped, or if you need to
change the signing rules at a later date.

2\. The verification logic is exactly the same as if checking a regular,
single signature certificate. Nice and simple, no bugs related to whether all
criteria have been met by multiple certificates.

------
gonvaled
The whole thing is a charade. Since the Snowden revelations we know that:

\- the NSA has access to any information it wants, with (coerced or not)
collaboration from US companies

\- the affected companies can not talk about it. In fact, they are forced to
deny any kind of interference, backdoor or collanoration.

The outcome of this trial does not matter. If Apple loses, it will give the
impression that it fights for users rights, if it wins it will give the false
impression that we have secure comunications.

Caveat emptor: doing business with any US corporation is putting your data at
risk.

~~~
drewpc
The whole thing is not a charade, but you're missing the point of it all. The
FBI is trying to set legal precedent. If the FBI were trying to simply get
data off the phone, they would've given it to the NSA.

"doing business with any US corporation is putting your data at risk."
Governments create laws that all organizations in that country must follow.
You'd be better off saying that doing business with any corporation in any
country is putting your data at risk.

~~~
gonvaled
The US has secret laws, secret trials, secret institutions, ... Basically,
your country has long been run by secret powers, and you keep believing the
show. The "FBI is trying to set legal precedent" is part of the show: if they
get it, they'll use it; if not, they'll access any information they want by
other means.

What matters is: is your data secure, like 100% secure, on Apple devices? The
answer, no matter the outcome of this charade, is "no, not even close"

~~~
drewpc
Societies are fallible because they are representative of man. We agree on the
statement that data is not 100% secure on Apple devices. Only a fool believes
that any data is truly secure.

~~~
gonvaled
Criptographicaly secure would be good enough for me. If the only means of
craking the data us brute force, and it takes 1000 years with current
technology to do so, then I'm happy.

Iphones security can be circunvented by 6 engineers in 3 weeks (or was it the
other way around?) This is mot brute force, mind you. The work done for one
iphone allowd you ro crack (instantaneously!) the rest of iphones.

Has this been developed? I dont care: the fact that ut can be done
disqualifies the iphone as a secure device.

------
danielschonfeld
Do some people actually think Apple is in the wrong here?

~~~
marcoperaza
I think Apple is legally in the wrong. What the law _should be_ is a different
issue, though I also side with the government in this particular case. I don't
think the government should be able to force Apple to ship backdoored phones
to customers. But I think that the government should be able to require Apple
to use its capabilities to hack particular devices with a court order. In
other words, Apple should be free to make phones they themselves cannot hack,
but not to refuse to help hack a phone that the government has a warrant for.

~~~
caf
_But I think that the government should be able to require Apple to use its
capabilities to hack particular devices with a court order._

That's not the question, though: the question is whether the All Writs Act
_already_ grants that power, or whether a new piece of legislation is
required.

I think that Apple is right that it is more conservative for the courts to
construe the existing legislation narrowly, since the Government always has
the option to put specific legislation before Congress to remove all doubt.

~~~
marcoperaza
Legislation shouldn't be construed broadly or narrowly. It should mean what it
says. Sometimes that's called 'narrowly', but that's probably in contrast to
approaches where the law means whatever you want it to mean. The All Writs Act
is a broad law. It grants the courts the broad authority to issue whatever
orders are "necessary and appropriate" in order to enforce their judgments, so
long as its "agreeable to the usages and principles of law." Congress is free
to pass revisions to the All Writs Act if it pleases.

~~~
caf
It's all very well to say _" It should mean what it says."_, but this is just
begging the question - frequently what it says is imprecise, so the meaning is
open to interpretation. In the case of the _All Writs Act_ , for example, the
Supreme Court found a three-pronged test in _New York Telephone_.

It's precisely because it is a very broad law that it should be construed
narrowly - in this case, that it is intended to be able to compel the co-
operation of parties with some real involvement in a case, not to authorise
open-ended civil conscription in service of the judicial branch.

------
corndoge
The whole request is absurd. If DOJ really believes Apple will ever give up
its firmware signing key, they've got another thing coming.

~~~
lallysingh
I don't think DOJ knows what they're doing here at all. At worst, they'll
force Apple and the rest to have subsidiaries off-shore with the signing key.

~~~
joering2
We been there before and unfortunately Apple will lose. One word: CALEA [1]

 _USA telecommunications providers must install new hardware or software, as
well as modify old equipment, so that it doesn 't interfere with the ability
of a law enforcement agency (LEA) to perform real-time surveillance of any
telephone or Internet traffic._

Change to: USA cellphone producers must alter their hardware or software, as
well as modify remote equipment, so that it doesn't interfere with the ability
of a law enforcement agency (LEA) to perform real-time surveillance of any
telephone or data traffic.

 _Carriers are responsible for CALEA development and implementation costs._

AFAIK nobody opposed CALEA and its been years since 2007 when it was
implemented.

So unfortunately Apple will lose and their standing that corp cannot be forced
to write a code or alter it because of their free will or cost possibly
incurred, will not stand the chance :(

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act)

~~~
millstone
CALEA says:

 _A telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or
ensuring the government 's ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by
a subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier
and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the
communication._

Apple seems protected under this clause, since they do not possess the
information necessary to decrypt. This is also why the feds can't wiretap
iMessage.

CALEA text:
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/1002](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/1002)

------
dcosson
On a technical level I really don't understand something about this situation.
All the discussion I see presupposes that the only option for Apple to comply
with the FBI is to build & sign this new version of iOS, and then give it to
the government, who will distribute it internally to unlock hundreds of phones
held as evidence in local court cases across the country, at which point it
may or may not (but probably will) be stolen.

It seems like there's another possibility, where Apple takes the phone, signs
the compromised version of iOS on an air-gapped computer deep in Cupertino
somewhere, decrypts the phone, sends the decrypted hard drive image to the
FBI, and then erases the signed version of the software. Why would this
process have any higher risk of being compromised than Apple's normal release
process for signing new iOS versions?

I get the reason this case matters at a more fundamental level, the precedent
it sets and whether or not the government can force Apple to spy on its
customers. But there's been so much focus on the technical feasibility of it,
and it seems like Apple is exaggerating the argument that it's absolutely
impossible to build this new iOS version without it being hacked.

~~~
einarvollset
This is the smartest, most well consider comment on this whole topic, and I'm
sorry to say you're likely to be down voted into oblivion :)

~~~
nindalf
Not really. Consider this - right now a key part of the discussion is whether
compelling Apple to write this software is an undue burden. Most reasonable
people would agree that it would take quite some effort. However, if Apple did
it once for the terrorist's phone (which no one objects to) then every
subsequent request would have minimal burden attached to it. Thus they would
have to comply to any subsequent request to unlock, even if the phone didn't
belong to a terrorist. What if it only belonged to a whistleblower or humans
rights activist? Too bad, minimal burden.

If it becomes common enough, Congress wouldn't face much opposition if they
passed a law saying that the status quo (on demand unlocking) be maintained by
smartphone manufacturers.

I suggest you actually read up on the filings from both sides before talking
so much.

~~~
einarvollset
(Trying hard not to take the bait at the end)

But, by fighting this case on the all writs, they're basically staking their
whole position on: "the govt can't compel a private firm to work on their
behalf". If that wins, then what's to stop the govt requesting master keys for
iOS? Much less work, bypasses all writs.

My point is: the FBI did this by the book (court order). You and most everyone
else here makes the assumption that granting this means the FBI can do
whatever the hell they like from there on in. That's not true. They would
still need court orders.

~~~
matwood
It is about the future of encryption. If the FBI wins and gets Apple to unlock
the phone, will Apple be held in contempt later when they make a phone that
they makes them unable to comply with a court order?

~~~
einarvollset
Clearly not. It does raise the issue of whether you think this would be a good
thing for Apple to do. I have not made up my mind on that topic.

------
matheweis
Not well versed in the legal process here... I assume that the hearing is just
a formality at this point, and the case is all but certain to be appealed,
right?

~~~
droithomme
This is their final response in their own federal district court. The district
court will issue its decision. Afterwards the next appeal would be to the US
Supreme Court. That level of appeal can take years if accepted, or more
commonly, is ignored. In the meantime there can be orders for them to comply
in the meantime or face consequences.

~~~
techsupporter
I think you missed a step. This is currently in District Court, the next
appeal would be to the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, yes?

~~~
dbcurtis
I thought we were at the step where the case is now fully briefed? Isn't the
next step oral arguments at the district court level? Then a District court
ruling. Then appeal to 9CA, and so forth. Although if someone files for an
Emergency TRO, I'm not sure if that goes to 9CA or to the SCOTUS Justice that
oversees 9CA (Kennedy).

~~~
schoen
The hearing at the district court level will be before a magistrate judge
(because of the way that the issue arose in connection with a search warrant).
Magistrate judges' orders can also be appealed to the district judge assigned
to the case, which happens before an appeal to the court of appeals.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_59](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_59)

------
girkyturkey
I find it hard to believe that the All Writs Act can still be used/relevant in
today's society. The All Writs Act was created in the 18th century when the
technology was nearly nothing. How can we reference this act when technology
has changed exponentially? If the FBI can force Apple to build a key, you can
be sure authoritarian regimes like China and Russia will turn around and force
Apple to hand it over to them .... And who knows what happens next, they could
use that key to oppress their own people.

~~~
matthewmcg
The Act itself is relevant as a gap filler as long as courts issue warrants,
subpoenas, etc. Apple's reply brief gives the example of a court having
authority under the AWA to make provision for overnight housing for a prisoner
whose testimony takes more than one day.

Apple's main statutory argument is that the government is stretching the AWA
to do something that it was never intended to do when there is more recent
legislation from the 90s (CALEA) where Congress ultimately rejected giving law
enforcement this power.

------
rekwah
If they were to lose and lose all future appeals and Apple still didn't wish
to comply, what would it take to get around such a request?

Would Apple have to re-incorporate outside of the U.S.A?

~~~
erictheactor
That's the beauty of the new spaceship campus - it can just land in another
country if need be.

------
studentrob
This case should really be open and shut at this point.

The real question is, _what happens next_ in Obama's office, the DOJ and among
the American public?

Obama has already tried to get Congress to give him legislation that would
force tech companies to be able to give user data to the government [1]. It's
slow going. I don't think we'll see that bill this month. Presumably, after
that bill was delayed last year, he then directed the DOJ to go to court over
these issues with Apple. I predict that fails.

The President has already alluded to the future in his remarks at SXSW. In his
view, after the next terrorist attack, Congress will rush through legislation
and it will be ugly.

At that point, we will be depending largely on the public's understanding of
computer technology and encryption so that we can respond with an even hand.
If people support encryption and let their representatives know, then we are
good. But if they remain uninformed, there is a possibility that they will
feel passing an anti-encryption bill would make them safer from terrorism.

Let's examine a possible future where the case is won by Apple and in the
future there is a terrorist attack that used encryption to accomplish its
goals.

What will happen? Will law enforcement point the finger at technologists? Will
they claim we enabled the attack by blocking legislation that, in their view,
would have solved the "going dark" problem they claim they face?

Further, how will the public respond? There is _still_ currently 42% of the
population who believes the government should be able to compel Apple to write
software, which they do not want to write, that aids the FBI [2].

The clock is ticking. We don't know how much time we have to educate the
public about encryption until the next terrorist attack. In my view, we need
to,

1\. seek out public figures and media who can share our message 2\. come up
with more concise messaging that is understandable by a non-techie 3\. back it
up with facts and primary sources

John Oliver is not enough. All the tech companies is not enough. This is as
big as or bigger than SOPA. When we fought SOPA, we didn't have the
possibility that people could blame us in the future for terrorist attacks if
that bill did not pass. If and when we fight an anti-encryption bill, we will
be fighting that alarmist view. We will make it much easier on ourselves if we
seek to educate the public about the issues and let them make up their own
minds.

[1] [http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-
cybersecurity/2016...](http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-
cybersecurity/2016/02/march-is-encryption-bill-month-hackers-going-after-
japans-infrastructure-a-mixed-final-2015-tally-212865)

[2] [http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-iphone-doj-fbi-
wall-s...](http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-iphone-doj-fbi-wall-street-
journal-poll/)

~~~
nitrogen
_If and when we fight an anti-encryption bill, we will be fighting that
alarmist view._

Somehow technologists have to reframe the discussion. Up to now the government
decides the emotional context, sells it to the people, and forces tech
companies to react within that context. The government portrays itself as the
good guys, or the protectors of society, or the moderate ones, or the fair-
minded ones. To the extent that they are not protecting, moderate, or fair-
minded, that's what needs to change. The government's disinformation campaign
needs to stop. I don't know how to do it, but the technology world needs to
set the stage, make its case, and invite the government to meet on
technology's terms, not the other way around.

~~~
studentrob
We should argue this issue in terms of security and the economy. Those are the
terms politicians and people understand.

See [1] [2] [3] about security

About the economy, Obama himself provides the best argument there. Last year
he told President Xi that anti-encryption laws would hurt his economy [4]

I'm interested in starting a grassroots campaign around this issue. Shoot me
an email at stillastudent using Google's email service if you're interested in
helping.

[1]
[https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h35m52s](https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h35m52s)

[2]
[https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h11m46s](https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h11m46s)

[3]
[https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h19m39s](https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h19m39s)

[4] [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obama-china-
idUSKBN0LY...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obama-china-
idUSKBN0LY2H520150302)

------
brandonmenc
The Founders probably couldn't comprehend mobile phones and the internet, let
alone modern corporations being granted personhood.

So, who knows.

~~~
waterlesscloud
They certainly would have understood corporate legal status, and done so much
better than nearly everyone who comments on it today.

And honestly I don't think it would take most of them very long to grasp the
implications of mobile phones, the internet, and encryption. The Founders
whose names immediately come to mind were some very intelligent and mentally
agile people. While our technology may be incomprehensible to them, the social
frameworks into which it fits is not.

------
robbrown451
They'd certainly side with Apple, but mostly in hopes that they could have
their own iPhone.

------
jonesb6
If you want to make a critical argument for people to make such a large
sacrifice, stop using so much rhetoric. The story of Rosa Parks has been
heavily editorialized and she was in fact not the first person to stand up to
bus segregation. The first person was Claudette Colvin who refused to give up
her seat on the bus March 2nd, 1955, a full 9 months before Rosa Parks [1].
The problem with Claudette Colvin was that she was a pregnant teenager, and
the father was a married man.

I am by no means demeaning Rosa Parks. What she did was incredibly brave. I am
however pointing out that you are willing to tell other people to sacrifice
their jobs by editorializing. That strikes me as immoral, and I believe those
at Apple will need to make such a decision honestly and without subterfuge if
such a tremendous action is to occur.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudette_Colvin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudette_Colvin)

Edit: I have 820 karma remaining and will happily throw the rest of it away
for this comment, even if not a single one of you post a counter-argument to
what I am saying.

~~~
dclowd9901
You're not wrong about Rosa Parks, but I'm not sure how it applies any
differently. Whether her example (though not the premier example) inspires
someone to take up civil disobedience or not is entirely up to how she had
inspired that person. The fact remains that she did engage in civil
disobedience so why does it matter that she wasn't the first?

~~~
jonesb6
It had nothing to do with Rosa Parks specifically. I was pointing out to the
OP that we can't sit here in our ivory desk chairs and tell other people to
make a large sacrifice based on some superficial ethos argument. If you want
to truly inspire people you do so with honesty and good intentions. You don't
grasp at straws and tell people they can be Rosa Parks if they do what you
say.

I will concede that explicit is better then implicit, but I seized the
opportunity to clear up a historical inaccuracy in the process.

~~~
dclowd9901
Sorry but you spent a good deal of your argument undermining Rosa Parks'
contribution to civil disobedience so it's hard to swallow that it had nothing
to do with her in particular.

And believe me: I'm all about not invoking easy references to drum up BS
patriotism, but if that's your point, then say it like I just did.

I might also add that you yourself would probably benefit by putting something
on the line before you make a career out of siezing on opportunities to clear
up historical inaccuracies. Unless I somehow stumbled upon talking to Malala
Yousafzi.

~~~
ptaipale
I don't see that as "undermining". It's more that Rosa Parks is very symbolic,
but in many ways she was "standing on the shoulders of giants", and we see
her, the symbol, but not the giants.

------
doener
Snowden's comment:
[https://mobile.twitter.com/Snowden/status/709874783689826304](https://mobile.twitter.com/Snowden/status/709874783689826304)

~~~
cptskippy
I realize that Snowden has done a lot of good by releasing the information he
has, but I really don't care what he personally has to say and his controlled
release of the information demonstrates to me that what he's do is as much for
attention and his ego as it is anything else.

~~~
jdonaldson
If Snowden released it all at once, he would've lost leverage. He's playing
for much higher stakes than "attention and ego". If he slips up, it's over for
him.

~~~
cptskippy
What leverage does he have? I'm pretty sure if the NSA wanted it, he'd be dead
already.

------
diskcat
muh founding fathers

US founders would be appalled by the fact that you can't own slaves anymore
too. nobody can farm 20 acres of land by himself.

------
tosseraccount
Thomas Jefferson just expressed his ovtrage on his twitter accovnt.

------
intrasight
The sooner they take down Apple the better. Security through obscurity is a
failed strategy.

------
einarvollset
I'm curious what you guys think the government should do differently here.
There's a valid court order, there's a clear reason for this order to be
executed, and the request is restricted. They do not, for example ask for the
private signing keys for iOS. That would be less work for Apple, and actually
well within the rights of the govt. An unpopular argument I realize,
particularly in the post-Snowden era, but I would be curious to hear some
considered reflections on how the govt should go about this differently.
Assume for example that this is not Apple, but instead Enron protecting the
laptop of their CTO

~~~
tlrobinson
> and actually well within the rights of the govt

[citation needed]

It's also entirely possible Apple _can 't_ easily give them the key, since
from what I've heard the key only exists in HSMs. Presumably they have more
than one HSM, but I imagine the fact that they'd need to physically give the
FBI hardware that's normally used in the course of their business would
complicate matters.

~~~
einarvollset
Regarding [citation needed] specifically related to how the govt has a right
to seize the keys:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_Unit...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

------
runesoerensen
Also:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11294164](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11294164)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293982](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293982)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293795](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293795)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293778](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293778)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293514](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11293514)

------
pekk
I'm glad that we have international megacorporations to tell us what the
authors of the US Constitution would think about things.

~~~
fleitz
Yeah the founders of the us were just regular old folk, none of them did
international business.

~~~
pekk
Were they themselves corporations? Did they avoid taxes using a double Irish
strategy? Do tell, this alternate history is becoming more interesting every
second.

~~~
fleitz
They had a fucking revolution over EVADING taxes by buying tea from places
other than England. They weren't avoiding taxes, they were putting guns in
peoples faces covering them in tar and then feathers, throwing all the taxed
tea in the ocean and then proceeding to conduct their business however they
saw fit, government be damned.

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

So yeah, in this alternate history the Founders are a lot more fucking bad ass
than Apple, going so far as to commit treason to avoid taxes. (Thankfully they
won so the whole treason thing was moot)

Then they teamed up with the French to cause all sorts of problems for the
English King, they probably would have gotten Ireland to fuck with the English
too if they weren't already doing all they could to fuck up England. They
would have called it a double irish spit roast.

And now getting back to writs, you might want to see that they created the 4th
fucking amendment to give a big middle finger to England being able to issue a
writ for whatever the fuck they wanted.

So we don't really have to ask what the founders would have thought because
they told us directly. They were so gung ho on fucking with government that
they even said if this revolution doesn't work out, have another one, because
why the fuck not, and created the second amendment so that if anyone wanted to
put guns in people faces again to evade taxes they could.

If they were alive today they'd probably be helping Apple smuggle untaxed
iPhones from China free from any sort of government restriction.

