
Justice Department Calls Apple’s Refusal to Unlock iPhone a ‘Marketing Strategy’ - tysone
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/business/justice-department-calls-apples-refusal-to-unlock-iphone-a-marketing-strategy.html
======
exw
Regardless of the merit of the FBI's request and Apple's refusal, this is
rather hypocritical response from the FBI, since their insistence to make the
request public is what triggered Apple's public response in the first place:

<<Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal.
But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode
to draft a response, according to people privy to the discussions, who spoke
on condition of anonymity.>>

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-
be...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-
bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html?_r=0)

In this case, the Justice department is clearly the one with the bigger
'marketing strategy' agenda here by trying to market the merit of their
request to the American public and congress.

(As a side note, most of the non-tech folks I talk to seem to be siding with
the FBI's request, so at least at some level, the government seems to be
winning the marketing battle.)

~~~
gdghdfgsd
Consider the possibility that the government is using this all as a means to
convince the public phones can be secure, and that apple's cooperation
actually matters.

------
ysv2
It seems the Justice Department admits that Apple's reputation for privacy and
security is of great value to the company. I wonder how it intends to argue,
then, that forcing Apple to create a corrupted build of iOS which harms that
security and that hard-won reputation does not place an "undue burden" on the
company.

~~~
hodgesrm
Clearly Apple's security has market value but that needs to be balanced
against the benefits to society as a whole. Just restricting this to US law it
seems Apple is not defending an existing right to privacy of the "man's home
is his castle" sort. Those have been limited from the beginning by warrants
and other acknowledged mechanisms of government to poke its nose into people's
private affairs in the interest of the general welfare. The "right" that Apple
is defending seems new and much more absolute--that you may possess devices
may not be opened under any circumstances whatsoever.

The question of whether such rights exist is separate from the question of
whether breaking into one device threatens security of all others. If true
that seems to call into question the assumptions on which data protection
algorithms are based. In other words, assuming you can create truly
unbreakable encryption and it only works if there are no backdoors, is that
really a data protection strategy that meets the needs of society as a whole?
You could argue it's flawed even if the mathematics work perfectly.

~~~
jasonjei
What of Yahoo when they allowed Chinese authorities to access an email
account? While we might believe in the integrity of the US government, my
faith in a backdoor being made available to the Chinese government used
responsibly is low.

~~~
ApplaudPumice
> While we might believe in the integrity of the US government

It seems here that nobody here is concerned about non USA citizens.

~~~
LeoNatan25
Even USA citizens should not believe in the integrity of the US government,
considering the surveillance antics it has taken on its own citizens.

------
definiv
I really don't see how Apple taking a stand on this publicly is of any benefit
to them from a marketing perspective. I'm sure there are many of Apple's
customers who think they should comply with the FBI on this issue and see
their refusal as "supporting terrorists". Apple could have decided to just do
what was being asked without making it public and the rest of us would go on
knowing nothing about it, but for them to publicly make a statement that they
were asked to do this and believe it's wrong, I think, shows a genuine belief
on their part that it is an overreach and sets a dangerous precedent for the
future. I'm no Apple apologist, but I don't think this has anything to do with
marketing for them.

~~~
jerf
It is positive marketing for them. The fears that oversea customers have about
US corporations are real, and drive real spending decisions. There will be
economic ramifications to Apple and the entire security industry if the FBI
wins this fight. For that matter, if the government gets intrusive enough, the
fears of _not_ overseas customers are going to start driving buying decisions
too.

And let's be honest... this is marketing by the FBI too, picking a convenient
fight on ground of their choosing to obtain this new power. The Justice
Department is right, but the Federal Goverment is not in a position to throw
stones from their glass house here.

~~~
ferentchak
Exactly. This entire tragedy was exactly what they needed to make sure that
Americans had the proper amount of fear to begin giving up more rights. They
made sure that the request was public so they could use this event as an
anchor against Apple when they refuse to create backdoors.

"Apple wouldn't even use their technology to get the information off of the
phone that the terrorists used" will make a powerful headline when the FBI and
NSA are asking for the rest of the backdoors they want.

[http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-
cook...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-
a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html)

------
knorby
I really wish any journalist would call out the DoJ marketing this strategy
with ISIS. They tried this exact same strategy about 3 months ago with a meth
dealer, but people don't respond the same to the DoJ trying to get evidence
with a drug case:
[https://ia801501.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.nyed.3...](https://ia801501.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.nyed.376325/gov.uscourts.nyed.376325.15.0.pdf)

~~~
joezydeco
Here was EFF's take back then, same as it is today:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/apples-eula-gives-
it-l...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/apples-eula-gives-it-license-
invade-your-privacy-government-claims)

------
rayiner
Apple can lose this and still win. The check on courts' power to compel third
parties to cooperate in discovering evidence is "unreasonable burden." Here,
you have a device that seems like it can be broken without too much fuss. But
by fighting this battle, Apple puts itself in a much stronger position to
argue that the burden upon them is unreasonable when the government comes
around looking to unlock a phone featuring a security enclave. Even if they
lose this, they're drawing a line and saying "this is the border between
reasonable and unreasonable."

The government's approach is a double-edged sword. On one hand, they can pick
an "easy case"\--as they have here--and hope to establish a toe-hold. On the
other hand, the precedent created by an "easy case" can have an anchoring
effect that limits its reach. When a principle is applied to overwhelmingly
favorable facts it can leave courts looking for the mirror-image scenario: if
the burden is reasonable here, when is it _unreasonable?_

------
ACow_Adonis
Now, if one were really cynical, and by cynical I mean "possess the power of
accurate observation", one might conclude that attempts by justice departments
around the world to use tragedies to push political policies and legal
decisions, as well as the publicity surrounding such, is also a marketing
strategy...

~~~
jobebob
Never let a good tragedy go to waste. As they say.

------
hackuser
I expect these are red herrings:

1) As Bruce Schneier poits out, if Apple can write the code to break the
security, so can others (especially if they steal Apple's signing key). (He
also says the vulnerability is not just in the 5c but in current iPhones too.)
[1]

2) Considering #1, and that every system ever designed has many
vulnerabilities, I find it hard to believe that the US government hasn't
developed exploits. Perhaps they just don't want to reveal that in such a high
profile case.

\----

[1]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/18/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/18/why-
you-should-side-with-apple-not-the-fbi-in-the-san-bernardino-iphone-case/)

~~~
afarrell
The FBI may not have access to those exploits even if the NSA does

------
gtrubetskoy
The key issue here is that this is a 5c, which doesn't have the secure
enclave. If Apple complies, then this means that there is now a precedent of
any IOS device without the enclave to be potentially "cracked" by the
authorities with Apple's help.

What I don't quite understand is - how does this affect newer devices, will
Apple be legally obligated to build a backdoor to circumvent the enclave from
here on (if Apple complies, that is)?

(But even the idea of older generation devices being "fair game" for the
government ( _any_ government - if it was done for US, it's now possible in
any country Apple operates in) is creepy).

Also - what can possibly be on that phone that isn't available elsewhere?
Phone records exist at phone companies, social network stuff can be obtained
from the facebooks and googles, if they were using watsap - well that's not
something Apple could decrypt anyhow...

I'm leaning towards the opinion that Tim Cook was right to make such a big
deal out of it, even if it's a 5c.

~~~
IBM
Apple has told reporters off the record that the FBI could make the same
demands for Secure Enclave equipped iPhones, probably because the Secure
Enclave can be updated.

That's why they're making their stand in this case.

In the future Apple may make it so that the iPhone must be unlocked before an
update could be applied, but that isn't the case now.

------
karlshea
If it's an effective marketing strategy then what might that indicate about
people's opinions regarding the intentions of the US Justice Department?

------
mindslight
And it most definitely is! From the privacy perspective, Apple was foolish to
contest the order since this phone _is vulnerable_ to Apple - a storage unit
owner unlocks the unit for the police, what legal basis does Apple actually
have to resist? _Our_ values are driven by visions of ideal systems that can
only be unlocked by their owner, but that is not what Apple has created!

Unfortunately, Apple is peeing in the pool for all of us that actually care
about digital freedom. This case will set a terrible precedent, and prime
government to preemptively address hypothetical devices that _are_ secure.

~~~
skolos
Storage unit owner has keys with which s/he can unlock the unit. Police does
not ask storage unit owner to demolish his building at his own expense to get
access to the unit if owner does not have keys.

Apple already "unlocked storage unit" to police where they had keys by
providing police iCloud backups. Now police is asking Apple to "demolish the
building".

~~~
mindslight
Yes, police don't _ask_ the storage unit owner to break open the door - they
just do it. In this case they're even asking first and willing to reimburse
Apple, which is nice for a change.

If you think anything more than one phone's security is being "demolished",
then you've been mislead by Apple into thinking their devices have security
properties that they don't actually have. If their reputation takes it a hit,
it will be due to their negligent design and marketing, not from the
inevitably resulting correction. Security does not suffer politics.

~~~
zepto
If the FBI could break into the phone without asking, they would have.

------
haroldp
If Apple doesn't really care about privacy for its own sake, and this public
support for customer privacy is just a cynical ploy to get my dollars... Fine.

Let's hope more "greedy corporations" seek out my business by supporting human
rights. I'll buy that.

------
duaneb
This whole ploy is a blatant marketing ploy. As if there's anything of
national security on that phone? Bullshit. They have the metadata already.
They're trying to solidify court precedence. It's especially scary that this
surrounds scalia's death—I don't think it was planned, but man, the court is a
hoppin' place in the news right now.

------
beat
Did it ever occur to them that Apple's executives actually think this is _the
right thing to do_?

It's not just about this case, where any data on the phone will be of at best
little value. It's about future cases, and the possibility of widespread abuse
of the back door not just for "terrorism", but far less important things like
minor drug cases - or worse, wholesale data mining, like the NSA has already
done with phone data.

------
grandalf
In capitalism, market share is determined by company decisions that create
different amounts of value for consumers.

Thus, any decision that a company makes is in effect "marketing" if the goal
is to grow/preserve market share.

It's unfortunate if the underlying mental model of employees of the Justice
Department is that we should all sacrifice our privacy (and that of our
customers) for some notion of the greater good.

It's scary when anyone thinks that his/her own job interests represent the
greater good for everyone else... even worse when that job is a position of
governmental authority.

Sorry, blind allegiance to the government is not a religion I want any part
of. It's also odd to use the anti-capitalist smear technique of labeling
something "marketing" to undermine it.

~~~
cmurf
Well the DOJ doesn't get to unilaterally decide what is the greater good, let
alone how to get there. There's multiple civil processes to go through to
hopefully interweave the legal, political, judicial, ethical, and technical
issues. It should be a battle. A vigorous debate exposes the weak arguments
and we ought to end up with the best ones, assuming the predominate state of
society is stable. My complaint about DOJ is trying to inject emotional
catchphrases, and classic propaganda techniques, to distort a rational
process. It makes their position look weak out of the gate.

~~~
grandalf
Very true

------
kstrauser
Glass houses, Justice. I'm calling this unprecedented request as part of a
high-visibility case exactly the same thing. This is DoJ's opportunity to
market their desire to spy on _everyone_ as "national security" and "keeping
us all safe!".

~~~
cmurf
Clipper chip redux.

------
leecarraher
i'm inclined to agree with the justice department here. we need a compromise
before govt just takes over and we have a technologically ill-advised
government body legally mandating a bad solution (ie crypto of a certain
strength becomes illegal for U.S. companies). I think similar to what mike
rogers proposed, a two key system, is an acceptable compromise. However,
instead of the govt having the other key (and reasonably every other
government that might want it, which is the primary problem with this system),
the manufacturer instead is required to maintain the key. Then only under
legal coercion of servicing a warrant would they decrypt a message. The
manufacture has a fiscal responsibility of maintaining their key, as customers
would otherwise not buy their products. While the manufacturer is not given
the undo burden of recording every message (it is presumed law enforcement has
this, but needs to decrypt it). This system gives people access to simple
security, while allowing legal action to proceed as it otherwise has prior to
widely available encryption. In addition other countries can seek similar
legal action, keeping with the laws of their respective countries. It's going
to happen, so lets not fumble like we usually do with progressive shit, and
leave it up to the idiots in congress to stumble through an unworkable
solution to. Which means, instead of companies playing hardball and just
denying requests (basically for PR purposes), they instead proactively design
some kind of a compromise system.

------
mhurron
Well, ya, of course it is. It will work if that is what consumers want.

------
LifeQuestioner
In a years time we'll forget about it and the result of what will happen. And
Apple may do it anyway in the quiet so they win customers by publicity and win
the government.

If the government want something done, surely it will have to be eventually?
What do apple have to win by going up against them? Gov could make their life
pretty difficult?

~~~
MCRed
Transplant yourself to any other police state. Anywhere with a very strong
government hell bent on controlling its citizens. Eastern Germany, Or the
USSR, or Germany under the Nazis.

How did the government get such power? Immediately via overthrow, or
incrementally?

At what point do you draw the line? Has there ever been a government that got
some power and then stopped trying to get more? Look at the history of the USA
for the past 200 years.

Apple is trying to draw a line in the sand. We can debate about where the line
should be, but there has to be a line.

~~~
LifeQuestioner
This doesnt explain why they're not after marketing, or prove they are trying
to draw a line without any other ulterior motive :)

No-ones going to ever know really, bar apple and the gov

------
afinlayson
Will the FBI insure my Apple stock when it goes down? Cause if they cooperate
their stock / sales could go down by a large percentage. And that's not market
forces moving it, it's the government. (I know I sound like a conservative,
but I'm actually a socialist liberal)

~~~
ende
You make a good point but how do you figure that sounds conservative? Also,
liberalism and socialism are opposing ideologies.

------
ccvannorman
That's like calling a car manufacturer's decision to not allow remote
disabling of airbags by FBI a "marketing strategy"

------
bewatson
I wouldn't say it's their main priority with the refusal, just a potential
added benefit.

------
tahoeskibum
Sounds like a classic ad hominem attack as per Graham's hierarchy.

------
tdy721
Hell yeah it is! Country of origin USA, rights include: freedom.

~~~
tdy721
This is not about marketing. Think about it... Really think about it. They
could have always capitulated in silence.

------
newman314
Wow, just wow.

Either they are tone-deaf or being deliberately ingenious about things.
Neither is a good thing.

------
Sleaker
I agree that it's a marketing strategy, just 2 or so weeks ago Apple was
getting huge amounts of bad press for their poor software development
practices. So much so that it had been consuming large publications. I don't
take it as a coincidence that Apple released the statement to re-gain some of
that lost face. However, I don't think it's a zero-sum game, and I think Apple
is definitely doing the right thing by challenging this in the courts. Apple
even stated in their press release that they had previously complied with
close to 80 FBI requests to unlock devices in varying degrees, but they never
disclosed the breadth of what they had done in those past requests. So why
choose now? Timing is everything.

I think both sides of the case are engaging in a lot of PR. The original FBI
request for unlock looks pretty tame, unlock ONLY that device, disable ONLY a
software protection that would delete files on failed attempts. I think the
best way to compare it to is physical objects so we can get the software
pieces out of the way and reason with it a bit better. Would it be within the
FBI's power to ask a Safe-maker to disable a mechanical security measure on a
safe that destroyed the contents of the safe when the combination was entered
incorrectly after a specific number of attempts, and the FBI had no other way
to obtain entry to it?

I'm not sure how far that analogy gets you or what the laws actually are, but
the only way to actually get them changed is to challenge them.

